Scott Plaid, Stand Up or Shut Up

[Miller]

@Scott Plaid

At first, reading your posts, I had no respect for what you were saying. After all, I view many of you as seeing things through a “bush is always right, no matter what”, viewpoint, or a “Christianity is the best way”, viewpoint, and I cannot respect that. It smacks of starting from a doctrine, and only noticing points which agree with that P.O.V., and forgetting those that don’t. Just plain stupid.

Which posters would those be, precisely? Binarydrone? Left Hand of Dorkness? EddyTeddyFreddy? Myself? If you think you’re getting attacked by the conservatives on this board, well, I got some bad news for you, sunshine. The conservatives aren’t the ones who are sick of you. It’s the liberals who wish you would shut the hell up.

[FinnAgain]

Scott: The Dope has enough squabbling and problems without you giving people grief simply for being on another ‘side’ than you. If you feel someone is being dense, Pit them. But for fuck’s sake, you make everybody on your ‘side’ look bad whenever you launch into your ZeroRespect bullshit.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Miller

It’s the liberals who wish you would shut the hell up.

I get it. Did you not see the part where I said I would rethink my view point? Be happy for what you got.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Contrapuntal

I’m pretty sure Scott would have to pack a lunch.

I hate having to ask for a joke to be explained, so I’m going to think about this all night until I understand, dammit. If I am defeated, tomorrow I’ll slink back and beg explanation.

[sub]bag lunch? antimatter? duffer-beer? plaid bag? walk farther to meet?[/sub]

Daniel

[furt]

@Scott Plaid

That is to say, the fact that a certain issue gets argued to death, then, months later, someone tries to re-debate the issue, while pretending that all the points they brought up were not proved wrong on the previous thread.

Little in GD is factual. You job is to persuade people; the phenomenon you refer to generally just indicates that you failed to persuade them.

After all, I view many of you as seeing things through a “bush is always right, no matter what”, viewpoint, or a “Christianity is the best way”, viewpoint, and I cannot respect that.

Please list any of the people criticizing you in this thread who you think that is true of.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I hate having to ask for a joke to be explained,

It means it would take a long time to discuss, so there would have to be a break for lunch.

[Scott_Plaid]

@furt

Please list any of the people criticizing you in this thread who you think that is true of.

manana, manana . Tommorow, like I said.

[Contrapuntal]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I hate having to ask for a joke to be explained, so I’m going to think about this all night until I understand, dammit. If I am defeated, tomorrow I’ll slink back and beg explanation.

[sub]bag lunch? antimatter? duffer-beer? plaid bag? walk farther to meet?[/sub]

Daniel

The fault is mine. Im my mind I converted your matter/antimatter scenario into a standard physical confrontation without clueing you in. 'Round these parts when one fella challenges another a standard smacktalk reply is “You’d better pack a lunch, 'cuz it’s gonna be a full day’s work.”

I was just sort of saying that Duffer’s gung fu is strong; Scott’s, not so much.

[Contrapuntal]

@Scott Plaid

manana, manana . Tommorow, like I said.

Nice link. This kid is a motherlode of comedy gold. Have you ever proofread anything?

[Scott_Plaid]

@Contrapuntal

Nice link. This kid is a motherlode of comedy gold. Have you ever proofread anything?

What? It may not lead to wiki, but it leads to the defintion of a word I was using, the meaning of which some way not understand. What is the problem?

[Contrapuntal]

@Scott Plaid

What? It may not lead to wiki, but it leads to the defintion of a word I was using, the meaning of which some way not understand. What is the problem?

Not a problem really. Just the assumption that we would not know what manana means. That and the second definition–

2. At an unspecified future time

Not a bad sig for you, BTW.

[Excalibre]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Gah! Tell you what: ignore everyone criticizing you who voted Republican, if you must, and only give credence to your fellow pinkos. It’s driving us nuts!

I bet this is why Scott Plaid throws a tantrum every time we post in the same thread. It’s probably related to the fact that I’m known as a constant Bush apologist and hardcore republican. He’s sure got me pegged. After all, the only reason one would disagree with him is because one is so radically right wing that they can’t possibly admit the value in any post that doesn’t actively advocate the conservative agenda.

Meanwhile, I must go back to rearranging my Ann Coulter posters and writing love letters to Tom DeLay.

@LHoD

FWIW, I don’t think that you’ve won a single debate I’ve seen you in; on the contrary, your blithe conclusion that you’ve won these debates suggests to me a profound disconnect with how discussions work, and worse, a blithe disregard for what other folks are saying. If dialectic solipsism is your bag, there’s nothing any of us can do about it; but your opinion that you’ve been winning debates is an opinion unique to you.

This is one of the reasons Scott is so annoying - it’s not just that he’s got a limited regard for the facts, he compounds it by declaring himself the “winner” any time he realizes he has no comeback. I’ll try to remember that he simply may have so little self-insight that he can’t tell when he’s making no sense, or getting the rhetorical shit kicked out of him.

[Eureka]

@boofuu

That sounds like a threat; I am sure it is meant in the general sense, though. I think I willleave the Pit for awhile; I don’t think I have the balls for it. (Always wanted a pair, actually. They seem so much niftier than ovaries, y’know?) Catch ya on the flip side. I will be looking at Cafe Society if anyone needs me. <insert appropriate smiley>

Not meant as a threat. Just a general warning based on behavior I’ve seen over the past several years.

(I know, you said you were leaving. But most people seem to find it irrisitible to sneak back and read responses and reply at least one more time before they truly leave. So, I thought I’d clarify just in case.)

[John_Mace]

This is just to painful to watch.

[John_Mace]

BTW, Scott: You know the few lefty posters that you like to hang you with and pat each other on the back? Most of the lefties getting after you in this thread get after them, too. Getting support from your little band of brothers just make you look even worse.

[Excalibre]

@John Mace

BTW, Scott: You know the few lefty posters that you like to hang you with and pat each other on the back? Most of the lefties getting after you in this thread get after them, too. Getting support from your little band of brothers just make you look even worse.

stop wershiping George Bush lololol!!1!!!11 ur a stupid bush-defender an every1 who doesnt h8 bush is stupid liek u!!!11!!! rofl

[Frank]

@Scott Plaid

::About the thread that inspired this::
Before I begin, I want to point out something. I am upset about a certain behavior. That is to say, the fact that a certain issue gets argued to death, then, months later, someone tries to re-debate the issue, while pretending that all the points they brought up were not proved wrong on the previous thread. I saw an example of this in the threads I talked about, and I wanted to know what to do about it. I suppose I could have asked for advice on how to solve this without even the least mention of what the latest example was, but I suspect the thread would have been called a pitting anyway? I was upset about the posters too , but I did not feel upset enough to pit them. Anyone else want to tell me why they enable this behavior, by responding to the the re-debater, rather then ignoring them, as Larry Borgia advised me to do in the same thread.

When that happens, it means you have failed to convince them. That, somehow, your devastating logic and scintillating turn of words have failed to make your opponent believe that what you say is true. What’s to solve? You either debate them again, or you forget about it.

It wouldn’t hurt to turn that around, either. The conservative posters on this board must also feel that we liberals keep debating points that have been proved wrong. That’s not dishonest on anyone’s part, nor is anyone enabling anything. It’s just the way it is.

It upset you enough to complain about it in ATMB and in MPSIMS. Those are inappropriate places to do so. Either bring it to the pit, or forget about it.

[Jackmannii]

@John Mace

BTW, Scott: You know the few lefty posters that you like to hang you with…?

hah, Freudian slip.

[Larry_Borgia]

I like Scott OK, but I wish he’d stick to CS or MPSIMS. Everytime he posts in GD, I start to channel Walter Sobchack:

“You’re out of your element, Donny…”

[tomndebb]

@John Mace

This is just to painful to watch.

What are you complaining about? No one is going to force you to read or participate. OTOH, I can almost guarantee that someone will get their feelings hurt in that mess and click the report button, compelling me to go see how bad it is.