Scott Plaid, Stand Up or Shut Up

[John_Mace]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Scott would claim to be right, based on an article like this (note the domain, which is almost as good as giantrobot):

But the particular fossil nicknamed “Lucy” was discovered by Johanson’s team, not Leakey’s. **Scott **would be wrong.

[Monstre]

@Scott Plaid

For one thing, I can not think of a single time I used it that was not appropriate. Thus, there is no “overuse”

Not even this one?
You could always try putting this one to a vote, to see what the general consensus is.

By using it, I spread awareness of it. It is a tool like any other, and people should know about it.

Based on this wisdom, I am now off to spread the word about the <blink> </blink> tags to all users of Netscape.

[Hunter_Hawk]

Having followed this thread for a while now, I can only conclude that I would be so willing to pay good money to see a debate between Scott Plaid and Roland Deschain.

[Cervaise]

@Scott Plaid

You see, you refused to believe what the actual facts of the case was.

This has gone past amusing and is now into the territory of sad and depressing.

Scott, as of now, I’m no longer considering you an irritating distraction; instead, I’m lumping you in with seethruart and Sea Sorbust, except your pathetic obsession is not as prosaically schizophrenic as hordes of tiny space invaders or the possibility of asteroid-caused cataclysm; your obsession is with your own ego.

This means neither your dysfunction nor mockery of it is funny to me any more. I didn’t entertain myself in school by slapping the books out of the arms of the big-headed kid in the back of the bus, and I’m not going to do it now.

You’re not just a garden-variety idiot. I think there’s something legitimately wrong with you, and it makes me sad.

[Monstre]

@Tim Staab

Thanks to you all. I’m new here, and this has been a fun and informative experience. Through the posts here, and by following links, I’ve learned a lot about how the board works, what kinds of people are here, and how discussions work (and don’t work). …snip… I’ll probably wander away from this train wreck now (but morbid curiousity may draw me back). Thanks again to all.

Gosh… I just noticed that over 3/5 of your posts so far have been to this thread. Talk about jumping into the deep end…

Welcome to the SDMB! Now head over to Cafe Society and get some fresh air!

[BMalion]

@NoClueBoy

DAMN!

After reading this, I had to go pour myself a tasty beverage, sit back in front of the computer (my monitor seems to have finally retired back to his terrarium), fill my mouth with said beverage, reread your post, spew ungodly amounts of salivad and slightly warmed beverage all over my computer TV thingy (what? that’s also called a monitor? weird), and relate the news of this wonderful event to you all.

DAMN! (again)

I am grateful that you have allowed me to enter the hallowed halls of those rare few who cause the beverage-spew-on-the-computor response.

Thank you!

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Hunter Hawk

Having followed this thread for a while now, I can only conclude that I would be so willing to pay good money to see a debate between Scott Plaid and Roland Deschain.

I suspect the hamsters would beg to differ.

[BMalion]

I’d like to see a case-law debate between Scott Plaid and Beryl Mooncalf.

[Greathouse]

@BMalion

I’d like to see a case-law debate between Scott Plaid and Beryl Mooncalf.

That would be FUCKING AWESOME!

[CandidGamera]

I’d like to see a debate between Scott Plaid and a rabid chimpanzee.

We could take off the usernames and have fun guessing which was which.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@John Mace

But the particular fossil nicknamed “Lucy” was discovered by Johanson’s team, not Leakey’s. **Scott **would be wrong.

Absolutely. Admitting when I’m wrong, instead of digging up a cite that shows I’m wrong and claiming it says I’m right, is what separates me from Scott.

(I googled Lucy just to make sure I was wrong, as I always do when someone corrects me; once I had the cite, I figured I may as well use it as an example.)

Daniel

[Bricker]

@BMalion

I’d like to see a case-law debate between Scott Plaid and Beryl Mooncalf.

Oh, God.

I would pay serious money to watch that happen.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Bricker

@BMalion

I’d like to see a case-law debate between Scott Plaid and Beryl Mooncalf.

Oh, God.

I would pay serious money to watch that happen.

How about getting Fred Phelps to moderate?

[Malacandra]

@Scott Plaid

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of “Useful One”, he [ Claudius ] expelled them from Rome." Besides which, being expelled from roman hardly equals a crcifixion. Hah!

Here’s a clue: “them” that “he” expelled from Rome were the Jews, not “Useful One” – so the point that expulsion “hardly equals a crucifixion” is a thoroughly silly one. Is this really so hard?

(Shouldn’t “Useful One” be Paul’s chum Onesimus? That’s what the name means.)

[Sauron]

@Rufus Xavier

I think this might be a good time to display my sig. It appears to be quite apropos (3 cents to Sauron).

Attaboy! Baby needs a new pair of shoes!

[Fenris]

@Scott Plaid

The answer to your question is that there are no existing records that would allow a reasonable person (much less a jew) to believe in even least detail about jesus. Birthdate, what time he was alive, etc.

Ok…

Without “No True Scotsman”-ing me, respond to this: I’m a Jew, and I’ll bet that I can find, oh…say 5 people here to agree that I’m reasonable (which is more than you’ve had this entire thread). And yet, I’m willing to believe “the least detail” about Jesus (IE, while not believing that he was messiah, I think there’s enough historical evidence to make a strong case that he existed–which is certainly “the least” I could believe.)

And, Cecil agrees the idea that Jesus most likely existed.

Still, barring an actual conspiracy, 40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of (heh-heh) whole cloth. (See below.) Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one “Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody.

Cecil, the perfect master trumps Wikipedia. Or are you going to say that Cecil was wrong or isn’t ‘reasonable’?

:: waits for Scott to declare that this proves he won ::

Note: it’s “Jew” and “Jesus”…is your shift key broken?

[Monstre]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Admitting when I’m wrong, instead of digging up a cite that shows I’m wrong and claiming it says I’m right, is what separates me from Scott.

So, aside from that, the two of you would be indistinguishable? Is that what you’re saying?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Monstre

So, aside from that, the two of you would be indistinguishable? Is that what you’re saying?

Now, that’s just cruel.

[Duke_of_Rat]

@Fenris

Note: it’s “Jew” and “Jesus”…is your shift key broken?

That’s one of Scott’s signature moves, failing to capitalize anything he holds in contempt. These things are beneath his consideration so they are not worthy of capitalization.

[Fenris]

@Duke of Rat

That’s one of Scott’s signature moves, failing to capitalize anything he holds in contempt. These things are beneath his consideration so they are not worthy of capitalization.

You’re kiddin’, right? That’s such elementary school behavior…about on par with sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “LalalaIcan’thearyou!”