I sense that the above “compliment” was intended to be ambiguous, and primarily offered to assert the “superiority” of your position .
Why the “unambiguous” qualification?
I would find that somewhat childish if it was meant to declare victory.
If Bricker’s ability to acknowledge a point to be conceded was limited to indisputable counters.
Was I correct ?
*There’s *the **Bricker **I know and love! Well, okay, giving grudging tolerance and respect to. 
No, you were not; the compliment, such as it is, was offered sincerely.
The “‘unambiguous’ qualification” was in acknowledgement of the fact that such concessions are hard-fought and hard-won (and rightly so).
Would that more Dopers would display the willingness to call touche when their opponent has scored a hit.
So, then WHY does everyone here let him derail thread after thread with his OCD Picking Of Nits?
After all these years, I think “The Denizens of the Pit must have learned not to feed the trolls by now…”. I’ve worked so hard at not replying to Bricker in this thread. (and I had the perfect rejoinders that would’ve straightened everything out in twenty-five words or less).
Why don’t we all just not reply to him and get on with the subject at hand? We could have had a lovely pitting of partisan harpies without dozens of posts picking on a word or two.
Oh, wait, I just remembered that we do have a reason – as someone here said “I don’t mind. I love the Bricker Show…” But aren’t we in essence giving him ammunition to feed his pedantry, and then laughing at him?
How is that different than riling up a learning disabled middle schooler just to watch him rant?
I do appreciate his conceding a major point… but after 11 pages of abrasive debate-shitting? That is not normal behavior. Look, I teach a number of students with mild autism, and they have the same inability to let go of a topic, with the same cluelessness about how they’re treating others. And it’s not a good idea to keep engaging them. It’d be better for him and for all of us to just Let It Go. Ignore the dead end tangent and stay on topic.
Why are we unable to do that? And why am I not staying out of this like I’d intended?
Maybe I’ll take my own advice and Let. It. Go.
[takes deep, cleansing breath, hits submit… and closes the window…]
It’s not OCD. He’s an attorney, and that’s what they do routinely, picking nits, and what he does for his own amusement, especially when he’s saddled with a bad case. Look at it as an opportunity to observe upclose and personal how a lawyer’s mind works, and be glad that you don’t live in a world where you have to argue cases in which no sane person actually beieves what’s he’s pretending to believe.
I’m not sure, exactly, but it seems to me that **Bricker **has often admitted abject error and humble contrition in losing an argument. Of course, he was arguing with me, so, well, there you go.
Oops. My bad.
Am I allowed to be peeved at him because I was the first to point out Hilary Clinton didn’t call up members of the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ asking for apologies, thus making her situation and Virginia Thomas’s non-euivalent, but was completely ignored?
Dammit, Bricker, I though we had something special!
(Runs off, slams door.)
Because, in the end, he’s generally an honest debater. If you keep at him long enough, either you’ll get the point he’s trying to make, or you’ll bring him around to your way of thinking. He’s just such a stubborn bastard* it can take 20 pages to get there.
*Yes, yes, takes one to know one.
This doesn’t mean we’re going to take showers together or anything.
But thanks.
Well, shit, there go *my *plans for the weekend.
I think we’re all complicating this event. It’s simple:
Tea Party enthusiasts are misinformed, uninformed, over-the-top extremists, high on hyperbole and inconsistent logic. Like any other over-ripe crop of crazies, it too attracts the mentally unstable and the closer we come to the Mid-Terms, the more hysterical and over-excited its harvest will become. Sadly, Ms. Thomas, complete with her funny hats, has positioned herself rather deeply in this crop and is now experiencing its toxic side-effects…
I’ve read sweet, sunny descriptions of her personality, but they do not preclude her mental derangement. She needs a good therapist – fast – before she embarrasses her husband and the Court again.
The only thing worse than taking showers together is taking showers alone!
I wish I hadn’t said that.
Lillain McEwen , Thomas’s old girfriend of several years, appeared on Larry King last night. She corroborated Hill . She was careful, spoke well and intelligently. She said he was a drinker and a porno lover during their years of dating. When he quit drinking, she thought he got a bit weird and mercurial. That interview is another nail in Thomas’s reputation. I am certain Thomas backers will attack her without having seen the show. They will of course explain why she would not tell the truth. The only one who benefits from lying is Thomas.
i read today on line, that other Thomas exworkers and friends are coming out to back Hill and McEwen.
gonzo, I post not out of any naive underestimate of the adamantine qualities of your skull, nor of the near-vacuum conditions within it, but primarily for my own amusement. So I won’t be disappointed if you miss the point completely.
Your allegations that Hill did not benefit monetarily and otherwise from her testimony is false, Did you realize that?
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
Your cite does not state, suggest, or even imply that the honors bestowed upon Ms Hill were a direct result of her testimony.
Oh but you did, luci, you did.
This is a disgusting new low, even for you. Maybe next you can explain how Elizabeth Smart was only accepted as a Mormon missionary because she was kidnapped and raped for nine months.
You mean, apart from being completely accurate?
Read the cite. Before the hearings - not much. In 1992, she received over $100,000 in speaking fees and awards. Plus a book deal and a tenured professorship.
Keep in mind that she was informed, kindly but clearly, that she should seek other employment at her first performance evaluation at her first job out of Yale (Wald, Harkrader, and Ross). John Burke, a partner at that firm during Anita Hill’s tenure, said so in a sworn affidavit.
Actually, never mind - anyone who would say something as stupid as this isn’t going to be capable of thinking rationally about the subject.
Regards,
Shodan
Huh. I had it on good authoritythat correlation does not imply causation:
Has that changed?
Yep, she’s mega-rich, all because she testified about Thomas. :rolleyes:
You might want to read her listing on Wikipedia for a more fair and balanced listing of her life since the hearings. I doubt that she’s rich.
This is just your usual hatchet job on someone who has put the stink on an ultra conservative, and you just can’t stand it.