# Searches and incorrect conclusions **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 8, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165 "2010-02-08T18:08:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/181 "2010-02-09T22:12:56Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > I’ve read three of the (currently) four pages of this thread. All posts. > > I think that’s enough for me to go by to ask you again about that “Ask the Whiny Pedantic Martyr” thread you’ve been itching to share with us. Make with the goods. Maybe you saw the posts where I chided people for their ad hominem attacks instead of adding anything substantive to the discussion? Consider yourself among them. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/182 "2010-02-09T22:16:11Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Maybe you saw the posts where I chided people for their ad hominem attacks instead of adding anything substantive to the discussion? > > Consider yourself among them. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/183 "2010-02-09T22:16:44Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Really? Here’s [a link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=551058) to the Pit thread – how about you show me where I say the posts in the GD thread were “qualitatively the same” as the ones I quoted. It should be easy, since it’s EXACTLY what the OP says. I discussed that in post #84. Perhaps you would like to respond to it now? ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/184 "2010-02-09T22:24:57Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Feel free to jump in with your actual insight and wisdom, or just go stand over there in the corner trying to work up some more mob courage with all the other “one-liners”. Oh that was my actual insight and wisdom, you stupid git. “Mob courage” - I do believe you actually do think you’re being clever. That in itself is amusing, although your incoherent pages of ‘argument’ run a good second on amusement value. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/185 "2010-02-09T22:26:55Z")
Hmmm . . . this mob rule business might have some potential. If we all shuffle to the right, we might be able to tip over not\_alice’s computer. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/186 "2010-02-09T22:27:44Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Oh that was my actual insight and wisdom, you stupid git. > > “Mob courage” - I do believe you actually do think you’re being clever. That in itself is amusing, although your incoherent pages of ‘argument’ run a good second on amusement value. Go stand over there with Fuji. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/187 "2010-02-09T22:27:53Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I discussed that in post #84. Perhaps you would like to respond to it now? Post #84 is a page long dissection, I was thinking you could simply quote where I said what you keep alleging I said. One comment you seem to have gotten really excited about in post #84 was my sentence: [QUOTE=Giraffe] He knows he is a pedophile, but rather than steering clear of topics which might trigger these thoughts and feelings, he can be counted on to drop a gross remark in any thread remotely bordering on sex and children. [/QUOTE] Is this the silver bullet you think proves I said all his posts in the Australia free speech thread were graphic descriptions of child pornography? Because if you read the sentence _right after that one_, you’ll see where I actually describe the results of my search. [QUOTE=Giraffe] The first two pages of a search of his posts returned almost nothing but threads about sex, children, sex offenders, or threads which could be tangentially related to those topics: [/QUOTE] See the colon? That means I’m talking about what is about to follow. I then give a list of links and quotes which summarize his most recent posts, and which I believe support a pattern of posting almost exclusively about sex, children, sex offenders or threads which could be tangentially related to those topics. Including…(wait for it)…the Australia free speech thread. Which, as I have now explained multiple times, was both initiated by and itself contains examples of **Cesario** ’s favorite topic, and is thus part of the pattern I describe. Now here’s the part where you say that my wording was unclear and how your interpretation was perfectly reasonable, but it’s obvious I need to save face so you’ll be the bigger man and step away. We can all pretend to believe you. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/188 "2010-02-09T22:28:46Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Hmmm . . . this mob rule business might have some potential. If we all shuffle to the right, we might be able to tip over not\_alice’s computer. LOL is it possible for this mob to move any further to the right? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/189 "2010-02-09T22:30:39Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > That is 100% true. > > Except for the actual words he used in the post - all of them pretty plain English BTW. > > And Giraffe, who notes that as early as Post 24 here, he was not so sure about the way he worded it. > > Then get the fuck out of my pit thread - that is what it is about! If you don’t want to talk about it, go somewhere else, dammit! 🙂 > > Eh - it was the Aussies in that thread that were defending their lack of free speech. Still trying to wrap my had around that 3 weeks or so later. Honestly thought the thread was closed when I was modded out of it. Until Giraffe’s post let me know otherwise. > > I had no clue about Cesario other than my participation in that thread, and I have had the thread on my mind for 3 weeks I think, and I had no idea from that thread about what you are all upset about. > > That is why that thread is wrong to hang him by. Giraffe should not have mentioned it. > > He is NOT a one trick pony, and that I and others participated in that thread for weeks with him without generating the instant outrage I now see some of his posts engendered is proof positive of that. > > Which might in fact negate Giraffe’s entire argument by a single counterpoint, but that is his fault for making an argument subject to such simple rebuttal. I will save that for another time though maybe. > > It is under discussion because I made it under discussion, and ample people have come here to discuss it. If you could herd them out, now that you are all done, I would appreciate it 🙂 > > I know you are trying, but you are late to the party, just like I was. I get pounded for being late and need to get up to speed, so should you 🙂 > Let me try it from a different angle. Nothing in your OP explains why you think Giraffe drew an incorrect conclusion about the poster he pitted. Could you please draw me a map? Why do you feel Cesario’s post (about child pornography) in the Australia free speech thread is in any way different in intent from the other posts listed in the Pit thread? > > No. See, that’s why I use phrases such as ‘it seems’ and ‘I think.’ Asserting is stating as fact. ‘I think’ and ‘it seems’ hopefully convey (along with ‘I may be wrong, but…’) that one is open to correction. You should try it sometime. > No. See above for why. Really, your suggestion about reading for comprehension is beyond ironic. > > I know this is futile, even as I type it, but has it ever occurred to you that if you’re in a thread and _not one single person agrees with you…_ it might just be YOU that’s wrong, and not everyone else? Mommy, Mommy! Make it stop! ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/190 "2010-02-09T22:31:41Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > what would make the OP wrong would be someone to show that the quotes in the first 5 posts of Giraffe’s OP are qualitatively the same as the 6th thread he referrred to. > > He pretty much already said that is not the case. > > But if you want to post the actual offensive quote from the Aussie Free Speech thread, something that is equivalent to not stopping if he woke up getting blown by a 6 year old, which he said in some thread or other, by all means show us that one 🙂 > > Show me something along those lines, and I will be glad to discuss if I was wrong. > > Go now! OK, I’ll play your game. I’ll get you quotes. But I’ll do it objectively. What would make the OP wrong is showing it to be factually inaccurate. Let’s begin! The thrust of this OP and this thread: > [@not\_alice](#): > > The point here is not about **Cesario** so much as that **Giraffe** , in his Pitting Outrage, purported to do research on our behalf, even providing “cites”, but not all of the cites said what he thought they said. So **Giraffe** was mistaken, that’s your claim? As I read his OP, **Giraffe** ’s point seems to be that **Cesario** is a shitty person because he is one of _“those pedophiles who wants to play with fire by broadcasting their fantasies onto a public forum **or** whine about not being understood or accepted.”_ OK, clear enough. Did **Giraffe** make this case? > [@Giraffe](#): > > Cesario is one such shitty human being. He knows he is a pedophile, but rather than steering clear of topics which might trigger these thoughts and feelings, he can be counted on to drop a gross remark in any thread remotely bordering on sex and children. He then provides links and examples of **Cesario** doing just that. Fantasies broadcasted, conditions met. Then **Giraffe** says: > [@](#): > > **As well as** the GD thread he started titled Australian Free Speech Issues to discuss Australian child pornography laws, and of course, his ATMB request to start an “Ask the Pedophile” thread. In which **Giraffe** provides additional proof of **Cesario** ’s “whining about not being understood or accepted.” So **Giraffe** ’s OP contains exactly what he claims it does. Which would make your assertion wrong, as well as your OP. Why in the name of Zeuss’ butthole you find that so hard to comprehend is beyond me but you must be one real piece of samsonite. All of your free speech bullshit is just so much smoke and mirrors. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/191 "2010-02-09T22:36:09Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Go stand over there with Fuji. Blither, blither, hither, thither. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/192 "2010-02-09T22:39:54Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > See the colon? Pervert reapist. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/193 "2010-02-09T22:43:02Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Blither, blither, hither, thither. Just be happy we’re in the same room as **not\_alice**. This is an epic nutter that we get to be a part of. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/194 "2010-02-09T22:49:31Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Post #84 is a page long dissection, I was thinking you could simply quote where I said what you keep alleging I said. I didn’t realize your reading level was below 5th grade. You had me fooled all this time I have been on the board. Now I get why you have been ignoring it for 2 pages or so. One comment you seem to have gotten really excited about in post #84 was my sentence: > [@](#): > > Is this the silver bullet you think proves I said all his posts in the Australia free speech thread were graphic descriptions of child pornography? Because if you read the sentence _right after that one_, you’ll see where I actually describe the results of my search. > See the colon? That means I’m talking about what is about to follow. I then give a list of links and quotes which summarize his most recent posts, and which I believe support a pattern of posting almost exclusively about sex, children, sex offenders or threads which could be tangentially related to those topics. Including…(wait for it)…the Australia free speech thread. Back to rhetoric class for you. Free Speech is not about sex, children or sex offenders. Not only that, I am sure if you search, Cesario is not on anywhere near all Free Speech threads. Nor is he on anywhere near all threads about children, I would wager. Which is pretty much what you claimed we would find if we searched. You were pitted for an over the top presentation of what might have been a sound case had you kept it more narrow and focused. I still maintain that is true. > [@](#): > > Which, as I have now explained multiple times, was both initiated by and itself contains examples of **Cesario** ’s favorite topic, and is thus part of the pattern I describe. I was initiated by him because IIRC , _I_ was leading the DUI thread towards free speech, someone, maybe a mod, suggested the thread should be split, and then magically it was. Are you suggesting he saw an opportunity only weeks away to discuss CP in a free speech context if only he split the thread and let me say my piece until I got modded out? That seems like a lot of trouble for a guy who, as you can say, jumps into virtually every thread about children, doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > Now here’s the part where you say that my wording was unclear and how your interpretation was perfectly reasonable Your wording WAS unclear according to what you wanted to say. That was my original pitting of you. My interpretation of what you actually said as opposed to what you may have meant to say, was and remains, spot on. If you didn’t really mean Cesario is in practically every thread about children etc., and that you don’t truly believe that Free Speech is about children, etc., then we might be getting somewhere. > [@](#): > > but it’s obvious I need to save face so you’ll be the bigger man and step away. We can all pretend to believe you. What? You want to make it more complicated for you to save face by taking on the task of demonstrating persuasively that others are pretending to believe me, and will act as though they do believe me when called on it? Don’t be so hard on yourself man. Just back out the over-excited claims in your pit OP, edit a bit and it will be fine. Or, make the case that Cesario sticks his head into even the preponderance of threads about children, as you claimed, let alone the other topics, and I will be quick to apologize for the whole kerfuffle. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/195 "2010-02-09T22:49:51Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > That is why that thread is wrong to hang him by. Giraffe should not have mentioned it. Ahhh, I see. He wasn’t hung. He wasn’t banned. He was Pitted. He was not even pitted by that one thread or his post in it, but by several posts _including the OP in that thread._ > [@](#): > > He is NOT a one trick pony, and that I and others participated in that thread for weeks with him without generating the instant outrage I now see some of his posts engendered is proof positive of that. Okay. Y’know what? Fine. I’m about to go for the day, and I’m ready to put this shit to bed. The [Australia Free Speech Thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=548218), as submitted and posted to by Cesario: I’m going to leave the OP out of it, as the reference to child pornography is right there for all to see. 1. [Post 70](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12042891&postcount=70): > [@](#): > > > [@sisu](#): > > > > I don’t mind that I can’t watch kiddie pron or incite hatred towards to ethnic groups, it makes us a safer and much more civilised country. > > Precisely how are you protected by arresting people carrying around a forbidden fictional text? Why do you beleive that silencing unpopular opinions makes you more civilized? 1. [Post 83](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12059760&postcount=83) > [@Cesario](#): > > [Quote=Cicero] > I must be living in a different world. Not once have I heard anyone in Australia comment on this proposed censorship, nor obviously be concerned about it. > > I would have no problem with censorship on kiddy porn or such. Then you will love australia, since their stance on kiddy porn is that it’s illegal to even describe what kiddy porn would contain. [/quote] 1. [Post 87](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12060941&postcount=87) > [@Cesario](#): > > > [@Guin](#): > > > > Do you have any proof to offer for this? > > Here you are: > [http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news](http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news)…-1111116447156 1. [Post 89](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12061137&postcount=89). > [@Cesario](#): > > > [@Princhester](#): > > > > A story in a major daily describing what some kiddy porn contained is proof that it is illegal to describe what kiddy porn would contain? Was the journalist arrested? I’m clearly missing something here. > > A person arrested for posessing a textual description of child sex acts is the focus of the story. The person who posessed these stories was arested, convicted, and subject to criminal punishment dispite not having any video, photo, or even drawing of child sex acts. Just a text description. 1. [Post 97](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12061555&postcount=97), which is way too long for me to copypasta here, read it yourself. 2. [Post #100](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12061639&postcount=100), same same. 3. [Post #102](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12061661&postcount=102): > [@Cesario](#): > > > [@Princhester](#): > > > > Exactly. So you’re wrong. > > So let’s see if I understand this. Your purpose isn’t so much to demonstrate that descriptions of child porn are legal, which they aren’t (due to any of them a judge decides might be arousing being illegal), but to make me say I worded a previous sentence poorly? Congradulations, you win. I worded a previous sentence poorly. > > Doesn’t change the fact that it is Australian law that describing child porn in sufficient detail (the level of said detail being undefined and soely subject to judicial discression) is illegal, but you can have your empty victory. Is seven enough for you, not\_alice? Because there are at least four more along the same lines. So either you haven’t read the thread that you’re claiming other people haven’t read, or you completely glossed over massive chunks of it and hoped we would, too. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![brownie55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@brownie55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brownie55)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/196 "2010-02-09T23:01:10Z")
> [@Syntropy](#): > > Ahhh, I see. > > He wasn’t hung. He wasn’t banned. He was Pitted. He was not even pitted by that one thread or his post in it, but by several posts _including the OP in that thread._ This is the thread that Not\_Alice’s OP stated “never alluded” to child pornography. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/197 "2010-02-09T23:04:55Z")
Seeing as there is presently a very un-pitworthy civil discussion going on with a pedo who started his thread in the Pit out of the mistaken assumption that he would be flamed, how about, just for shits and giggles and mob rule and all, we move his thread to IMHO as an “Ask the pedophile” thread, given that it is so much more difficult to flame people in the Pit than in IMHO? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/198 "2010-02-09T23:14:01Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Back to rhetoric class for you. Free Speech is not about sex, children or sex offenders. > > Not only that, I am sure if you search, Cesario is not on anywhere near all Free Speech threads. > > Nor is he on anywhere near all threads about children, I would wager. > > Which is pretty much what you claimed we would find if we searched. I’m really starting to think you might actually be retarded. How do you read “his posts in this free speech thread are consistent with a pattern of posting on topic X” as “free speech is about topic X”? How do you read “nearly all of his recent posts are on topic X” and rewrite it as “he posts in every thread that is started on topic X”? I’m honestly curious. How on earth do you point a sanctimonious finger at someone else’s OP for how they summarized a set of posts while writing flat out lies like that? Doesn’t it make your head hurt? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/199 "2010-02-09T23:22:08Z")
> [@Syntropy](#): > > Ahhh, I see. > > He wasn’t hung. He wasn’t banned. He was Pitted. He was not even pitted by that one thread or his post in it, but by several posts _including the OP in that thread._ It is a figure of speech, this “hanging” thing, and you realize it refers to Cesario, not Giraffe, right? Just checking… > [@](#): > > Is seven enough for you, not\_alice? Because there are at least four more along the same lines. So either you haven’t read the thread that you’re claiming other people haven’t read, or you completely glossed over massive chunks of it and hoped we would, too. Which is it? Yeah, those posts were really offensive and similar to the other ones. Look, I know we are four pages into this, but it is still not too late to understand the OP before posting material that makes my point for me. You are arguing as me for me, and neither of us has time for that 🙂 Look at post 84 for a clarification of the OP if that helps. Bottom line: No one raises an eyebrow with the posts you list, they are innocuous, in context, and generally correct in their assessment of the relevant law and news as I understand it (which is certainly open to debate). You are trying to hang Cesario with every post he ever makes, and that is overstepping it. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/200 "2010-02-09T23:32:20Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I’m really starting to think you might actually be retarded. How do you read “his posts in this free speech thread are consistent with a pattern of posting on topic X” as “free speech is about topic X”? How do you read “nearly all of his recent posts are on topic X” and rewrite it as “he posts in every thread that is started on topic X”? I’m honestly curious. How on earth do you point a sanctimonious finger at someone else’s OP for how they summarized a set of posts while writing flat out lies like that? Doesn’t it make your head hurt? [/QUOTE] What makes my head hurt are your ad hominem attacks on me in defense of the indefensible - that the Australian Free Speech thread was an attempt to get off on his pedophilia and to work that thread until he could talk about CP. You know there are probably attorneys that work on nothing by CP cases, right? You know it is possible to discuss the topic rationally, right? You no longer seem to allege that those posts were salacious in any fashion, so tell us, why do they make the point that the poster should “shut the fuck up, you gross fucking asshole” (quoting you) when they could have been posted by any literate defender of Free Speech? Look, the rest of your case, I am fine with if you want to make it. I don’t have to agree he is so evil as you do, but if you feel so, go ahead and say. But the issue here is that you were blinded by outrage towards a person, and missed that some posts you accused of being less than innocuous were nothing but. No one likes to hear that, but it is true. Sure, all of us would re-edit nearly every post we make, you, me, cesario, pretty much everyone, it is the nature of discussion boards, but it is your over the top outrage that affects Free Speechers (to coin a phrase) when it was not needed to make your anti-Cesario case that cause me to pit you. Does that help? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=11)