# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/61 "2010-02-09T06:14:39Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Perhaps _you_ would like to take a crack at putting together an answer to the issues I have listed, using evidence instead of “truthiness”, instead of tossing out bon mots from on high? I would, but not a single one of the issues you listed is remotely relevant to the thread **Giraffe** started. So, really, what would be the point? ---
**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, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/62 "2010-02-09T06:16:49Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > @ **not\_alice** > You don’t seem to get that the fact that it was germane to the topic is irrelevant. It fit the pattern of behavior that was being established. So the pattern was what? That the guy talks offensively about CP everywhere he can, right? Maybe the first x threads Giraffe mentioned did establish that point. I am not debating that. But the last one was qualitatively different. He was discussing free speech, and current events in Australia, which were about child porn. It was a long discussion, he was not the only one. Are the rest of us who participated now branded with the “discussed CP” wit Cesario brush? Or were we discussing Free Speech, while he was discussing CP? Because I think we were all discussing the same thing, which was it? If it was CP, then we will have to agree to disagree, and you are an idiot. If it was Free Speech, then how is that part of Giraffe’s case? Was his case that “He discussed CP all these other times, and this one time he discusses Free Speech, what an evil man!” If that was Giraffe’s point, then if he says so, I will apologize for my pitting him for the reason I did, and maybe consider re-pitting him as a fool of the 1st degree. > [@](#): > > Your failure to understand seems to be that you don’t understand that, if you’ve talked about something illegitimately for a while, it gets to the point where people don’t want to hear you, even if you have a legitimate point. I didn’t see thousands of people in that thread - heck, I was driving most of it myself for a long time. Everyone who hates Cesario managed to stay out of it. The only reason it became an issue is because Giraffe has his neck stuck out, no pun intended, over a search he did that contained terms he was looking for, but they were not used the way he needed them to be used for his argument, and now he won’t acknowledge his mistake. If he had not done that search without reading the thread, we would not be having this one. He fucked up pure and simple. > [@](#): > > You also seem to be missing that someone who is shoehorning examples of a topic into various threads would jump at a chance to do so legitimately. Didn’t happen in that thread. Can’t speak to other threads, and I haven’t tried to. Were you in the thread, did you even read it? It was fine, no one objected in context. > [@](#): > > But the worst thing seems to be that you are projecting your motives onto **Cesario**. You had proper motives when you discussed the topic. But, due to **Cesario** ’s past and future actions, we suspect he did not. You don’t know my motives in that thread. And I don’t know anyone else’s, beyond the assumption that we are all here to have our ignorance fought. For one thing, I appreciate you find my motives proper in that thread, but a certain moderator most certainly did not and we had a long back-channel discussion about it which resulted in me dropping the thread rather then be dropped. So while I am satisfied with my motives, and so are your, not everyone is. And so I am in no position to judge Cesario’s motives, only his words, and his words are fine. > [@](#): > > The evidence in that one thread may be weaker, but it still establishes the pattern of wanting to talk about it. I disagree. Others talked about it as well, no one complained. As I said earlier, if I hadn’t dropped the thread, _I_ would have brought it up - it was in the news, and IIRC I was headed there before the moderator got me. I know I had done some research on the topic, but did not get to present or explore it fully. So what does that make me? > [@](#): > > Finally, to address your irrelevant tangent: You don’t seem to get that we aren’t saying “No pedophiles.” We are saying “No Cesario talking about being a pedophile.” Who is “we”? Are you TPTB? Or TM like me? I saw other admitted pedophiles stand up and get hammered down in the recent threads, I think that is wrong. > [@](#): > > Our ire is not directed at the lower caste in society. It’s directed at one individual who was being a jerk by constantly bringing it up in irrelevant places where he knew it caused distress to people, to the point where people didn’t even want to see him talk about it legitimately. Puh-leeze. Give me a break That is a steaming pile of horseshit. So some guy finally gets the message to consolidate his randomly placed posts, and now you don’t want to see it anyway? What if some other person starts a “Ask the Pedophile” thread? None of this would have happened? ---
**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, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/63 "2010-02-09T06:17:54Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I would, but not a single one of the issues you listed is remotely relevant to the thread **Giraffe** started. So, really, what would be the point? Then you sir/maam ought to stay in games threads where the rhetoric is not so complicated. You will look less the fool that way. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/64 "2010-02-09T06:30:12Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Then you sir/maam ought to stay in games threads where the rhetoric is not so complicated. You will look less the fool that way. That’d be “sir.” And sooner or later, you’re going to have to face certain essential facts. Principally, you’re going to have to face the fact that you’re a fucking moron. You’ve somehow developed a certain limited facility at aping the speech of someone intelligent. But the more you talk, the less we see of the intelligence, and the more we see of the ape. ---
**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, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/65 "2010-02-09T07:14:56Z")
> [@Sidney Evgeni Jordan](#): > > How on earth can you say “the pedophiles here have been sufficiently chilled,” when you have participated in the other CURRENT Pit thread that has been started by a self-identified pedophile? As you are aware, that thread has been a civil discussion. You mean the one where one guy got temporarily suspended for what he said about himself, and the one where the other guy drew out a pity party as people congratulated him on not reminding them too much Cesario? All the while the moderators met to make up new rules on the spot, even drawing in Ed Zotti, who prounced that Cesario shall not discuss it and others shall not provoke him? Are those the ones you mean? > [@](#): > > I think you underestimate the number of people who would be willing to participate in a GQ thread discussing research regarding pedophilia. Did you read what **Argent Towers** and **Jimmy Chitwood** posted in the ATMB threads? How about the other Pit thread? I’m checking out for the night, but I hope you reconsider your decision about the GQ thread. Yes I did. That is 2 and I make 3. And we would have that thread, with the pedophiles, subject to the same outrage as before. Look, here’s my point of view on that: Because of professional ethics concerns, I only get a very watered down discussion of specifics on actual cases, if that. Of course I can never meet the actual clients. I would have loved to address some issues that have come up over the years on such a thread. While I am sure Agent Towers and Jimmy Chitwood and maybe even some others would make for an interesting discussion, it is not the same as hearing it from the horse’s mouth so to speak. And now I suppose we will never have that chance. ---
**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, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/66 "2010-02-09T07:17:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’d be “sir.” And sooner or later, you’re going to have to face certain essential facts. Principally, you’re going to have to face the fact that you’re a fucking moron. You’ve somehow developed a certain limited facility at aping the speech of someone intelligent. But the more you talk, the less we see of the intelligence, and the more we see of the ape. Ha ha ha. Did you find that script on 4chan or something? Let us know when you are done practicing in the mirror, and we will bring you on for your big performance. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/67 "2010-02-09T07:31:03Z")
**not\_alice** , I’m not sure you realize it, but even though Cesario’s thread on Australia may not have said the words “child porn” until several pages in, that is what he was slyly referring to all along. ---
**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, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/68 "2010-02-09T07:42:48Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > **not\_alice** , I’m not sure you realize it, but even though Cesario’s thread on Australia may not have said the words “child porn” until several pages in, that is what he was slyly referring to all along. You do realize he was not really participating much if at all “until several pages in” and that no one objected in context in the thread - hell, they objected to me plenty so I should know. So why does it matter to people who weren’t even in the thread now if it didn’t matter to either those participating, or even those lurking? ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/69 "2010-02-09T07:59:45Z")
First you’re complaining that **Giraffe** linked to your thread _erroneously_ as an example of Cesario’s wont to mention his sexual proclivities. When it’s pointed out to you that that is exactly what happened, and that **Giraffe** was correct in using that thread, you’re now complaining that paedophiles (and others) should have a venue in which to discuss their issues so that the rest of us can become enlightened or something. So tell me, what exactly is this pit thread about again? Apart from you needing a goodly dose of limelight of course. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/70 "2010-02-09T08:51:35Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > You do realize he was not really participating much if at all “until several pages in” and that no one objected in context in the thread - hell, they objected to me plenty so I should know. > > So why does it matter to people who weren’t even in the thread now if it didn’t matter to either those participating, or even those lurking? The objection was to **Cesario** ’s pattern of discussing subjects related to pedophilia all the time. Not to the content of the thread itself. I think everyone is in general in favor of the idea that threads will sometimes veer into discussions of child pornography and pedophilia and similar matters, and that being willing and able to discuss such matters dispassionately and intelligently is a good thing about this board. But that doesn’t mean we appreciate doing so every time **Cesario** shows up in a thread, and the discussion goes there. Is a thread on Australian free speech issues that discusses child pornography in that context objectionable? No. **And no one is saying that it is.** But to have a member who invariably turns other discussions into discussions of the original subject and how it relates to pedophilia, and who only starts discussions relating to pedophilia is a different matter. Entirely. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/71 "2010-02-09T12:55:16Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > And he was not discussing “child porn”, he was discussing “the news in Australia as it relates to Free Speech”, which you might expect in a thread called “Free Speech in Australia”. Interesting. **Cesario** posted seventeen times in that thread. How many of those, in your estimation, were _not_ about child porn? > [@not\_alice](#): > > There is a very current proposal regarding a country-wide internet firewall a la China for Australia. It has been tested, and the list of sites and topics that are tested and planned to be banned are not legal to publish. It can be assumed those are meant to include child porn, but without knowing the list, no one can know what is on it. > > This is not 2 years old, this is current. > > google is your friend. I can understand you getting confused by _other_ people’s posts, but it’s a little off-putting when you’re confused by _your own_ posts. Are you doing this on purpose? “Some sort of news _specifically_ regarding legal vs. illegal porn in Australia” is now “a very current proposal regarding a country-wide internet firewall a la China for Australia”? And what’s with the “Google is your friend” schtick? Google is supposed to help me detrmine that when you say one thing you’re really talking about something else? > [@](#): > > You’re going to have to make up your mind. Did this thread “at no time… even dance near issues regarding pedophilia, or even pretend to allude to it,” or was “the issue of sexual content and what is allowed and what isn’t allowed… in the thread all along”? > [@not\_alice](#): > > Both. Can you not see the difference between discussing country-wide censorship and tooting “Ask the Pedophile?”? Yes I can, but that has nothing to do with whether pedophilia was “in the thread all along” or no one “even pretend[ed] to allude to it.” I thought this was obvious, but look: something is either _there_, or it’s _not_. You can’t say that it’s both there and not there. Either the thread, as originally conceived, contained the topic of child porn, or it was introduced later. > [@not\_alice](#): > > So the pattern was what? That the guy talks offensively about CP everywhere he can, right? > > Maybe the first x threads Giraffe mentioned did establish that point. I am not debating that. > > But the last one was qualitatively different. He was discussing free speech, and current events in Australia, which were about child porn. It was a long discussion, he was not the only one. What you seem to be missing is that the Free Speech thread is only a _part_ of **Cesario** ’s overall pattern, which is that he likes discussing child porn and related material. That thread, in and of itself, demonstrates nothing at all about **Cesario** or anyone else. However, it _is_ part of an overall pattern. As an analogy, I don’t blink when I see a strange car drive past my house. But if I see the same car drive by twenty times, then I’m going to start wondering, because it’s part of a pattern. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/72 "2010-02-09T13:12:10Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Puh-leeze. Give me a break That is a steaming pile of horseshit. Well, if anyone would be familiar with steaming piles of horsehit in dope posts, it’d be you. You’re gone off the rails in this thread and you’re too wrapped up in your own horseshit to realize it. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/73 "2010-02-09T16:25:56Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > You mean the one where one guy got temporarily suspended for what he said about himself, and the one where the other guy drew out a pity party as people congratulated him on not reminding them too much Cesario? > > All the while the moderators met to make up new rules on the spot, even drawing in Ed Zotti, who prounced that Cesario shall not discuss it and others shall not provoke him? > > Are those the ones you mean? \ **not\_alice** , Did you see this? > [@I am not a monster, dammit!!!!!!!!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-a-monster-dammit/528115/146): > > I have literally been shaking all day. I’ll go ahead and say it, I’m terrified. I’ve let the cat out of the bag. I’ve told on myself. I’ve let out my deep, dark, terrible secret. Part of me wants to run away. To leave the SDMB and never show my face around here again. Then there is part of me that wants to go through this entire thread and address each posters concerns and questions one by one, even the posts that were either threatening or insulting. > > When I got home from work this afternoon, I saw that this thread was already up to 3 pages. That was at about 4:30. I have just now worked up the courage to open this thread up and read what people had to say. I was certain that I was going to be tarred and feathered, then ridden out of doperville on a rail. > > I’ll have to say that I am pleasantly surprised. Actually, the word surprised doesn’t quite say it. I am amazed beyond belief. Amazed that the majority of replies were supportive. Amazed that people actually took the time too look up helpful links. Amazed that there are people in this world that can look past the fact that I have an attraction towards underage girls, and see that there is a tortured soul underneath that hates what he has been inflicted with. I am not one to get misty eyed over every little thing, but I am actually crying as I type this. > > The words, “thank you” don’t even begin to express my gratitude. > [@](#): > > While I am sure Agent Towers and Jimmy Chitwood and maybe even some others would make for an interesting discussion, it is not the same as hearing it from the horse’s mouth so to speak. And now I suppose we will never have that chance. I can see that you’re very vested in this idea, which is fine. But if you are really interested in what **Cesario** has to say, please read his previous posts via his profile. Many of them are advocacy, as I mentioned, and to the extent that anyone reacts negatively to him in those older threads, it rolls off his back. So, if you think it would just be meaningless name calling back and forth, that’s not the case. I still think you should open a thread in GQ. I would participate (and not in a negative way) if you did. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/74 "2010-02-09T16:43:09Z")
> [@kambuckta](#): > > First you’re complaining that **Giraffe** linked to your thread _erroneously_ as an example of Cesario’s wont to mention his sexual proclivities. > > When it’s pointed out to you that that is exactly what happened, and that **Giraffe** was correct in using that thread, you’re now complaining that paedophiles (and others) should have a venue in which to discuss their issues so that the rest of us can become enlightened or something. > > So tell me, what exactly is this pit thread about again? Apart from you needing a goodly dose of limelight of course. > > 😛 It is partly about exposing idiots like yourself who can’t comprehend a simple argument. It is not “my thread”, for one. for another, no one has shown me that he discussed CP or pedophilia in the same way as the other threads, which was Giraffe’s point. People have asserted it, sure, but when asked to show the actual words used, in the actual post(s), they fall silent. And that you and others believe that an assertion is fact, even if it only relates to a distateful topic, has turned out to be the “point” of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/75 "2010-02-09T16:44:57Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > You don’t know my motives in that thread. And I don’t know anyone else’s, beyond the assumption that we are all here to have **our ignorance fought**. This is the fifth time\* you have said this in this thread. Something tells me that you don’t know what this phrase means. \*so far. I haven’t yet read the entire thread. ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/76 "2010-02-09T16:45:25Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > Is a thread on Australian free speech issues that discusses child pornography in that context objectionable? No. **And no one is saying that it is.** But to have a member who invariably turns other discussions into discussions of the original subject and how it relates to pedophilia, and who only starts discussions relating to pedophilia is a different matter. Entirely. So is Cesario someone that only starts objectionable threads, or not? You seem to be saying not, and if that is the case, then why are we even discussing him? Or are you saying that because he has started objectionable threads in the past, now he can not start or participate in Free Speech threads either? ---
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/77 "2010-02-09T16:48:54Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > It is partly about exposing idiots like yourself who can’t comprehend a simple argument. It is not “my thread”, for one. for another, no one has shown me that he discussed CP or pedophilia in the same way as the other threads, which was Giraffe’s point. Really? It was? That’s weird, because I thought it was closer to this: [QUOTE=Giraffe] The point I was trying to make was that I did a search of **Cesario** ’s recent posts and found that nearly all of the posts that appeared in the first two pages of results were either directly or tangentially related to sex, children, or sexual offenses. I was not asserting that every post he makes was an over-the-top celebration of child pornography, but that the pattern as a whole showed someone whose board life revolves around little else. [/QUOTE] (emphasis changed from italic to underline) You might recognize it – it’s post #24 from this thread. ---
**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, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/78 "2010-02-09T16:54:48Z")
> [@zut](#): > > Interesting. **Cesario** posted seventeen times in that thread. How many of those, in your estimation, were _not_ about child porn? All of them up until where I read yesterday. They were about the borders of Free Speech between the US and Australia. They were no more about child porn then my posts were. > [@](#): > > I can understand you getting confused by _other_ people’s posts, but it’s a little off-putting when you’re confused by _your own_ posts. Are you doing this on purpose? “Some sort of news _specifically_ regarding legal vs. illegal porn in Australia” is now “a very current proposal regarding a country-wide internet firewall a la China for Australia”? And what’s with the “Google is your friend” schtick? Google is supposed to help me detrmine that when you say one thing you’re really talking about something else? No, you are the one insisting that thread is about child porn. google will help you determine that there is in fact a current legal issue in Australia, I am suggesting you don’t have to take my word for it, it is objectively true. Yes I can, but that has nothing to do with whether pedophilia was “in the thread all along” or no one “even pretend[ed] to allude to it.” I thought this was obvious, but look: something is either _there_, or it’s _not_. You can’t say that it’s both there and not there. Either the thread, as originally conceived, contained the topic of child porn, or it was introduced later. > [@](#): > > What you seem to be missing is that the Free Speech thread is only a _part_ of **Cesario** ’s overall pattern, which is that he likes discussing child porn and related material. So fucking what? I like discussing open source software. We all like discussing something. Are you suggesting that Free Speech is a verboten topic? Are you suggesting that other topics ought be verboten? If so, then provide us with your best list of suggestions, otherwise go away. You would not be bothered by his posts in that thread if they had someone else’s name on them - and you didn’t even know about the thread until Giraffe falsely used it to raise your ire. How does it feel to be used like that for Giraffe’s own purposes? Don’t we often knock fundies here for exhibiting the same types of false persuasion and effective calls to action that you and others have fallen for here? Sad, really. Just sad to see. That thread, in and of itself, demonstrates nothing at all about **Cesario** or anyone else. However, it _is_ part of an overall pattern. > [@](#): > > As an analogy, I don’t blink when I see a strange car drive past my house. But if I see the same car drive by twenty times, then I’m going to start wondering, because it’s part of a pattern. And so what, you work to ban that driver from your street? How has that gone for you exactly? If you want to use an analogy, then at least carry it through to the logical conclusion. Or if you are just telling us you are an overly suspicious fuck, then say it in plain language. ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/79 "2010-02-09T16:58:31Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > Well, if anyone would be familiar with steaming piles of horsehit in dope posts, it’d be you. > > You’re gone off the rails in this thread and you’re too wrapped up in your own horseshit to realize it. I think it is your fortune-cookie level horse-shit we are all wrapped in. If you think otherwise, then why don’t you provide us a list of what topics you think are not acceptable on this board and why. If you think it is not possible to discuss pedophilia dispassionately and in a learning way, then please share. Also offer us your explanation of the academic literature on the topic, the legal literature on the topic, and entire professions and professional specialties devoted to researching, diagnosing, treating, managing, etc. just that? If other people can do it than why can’t we? ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/80 "2010-02-09T17:02:47Z")
I quite like the new tactic of intermixing the defending of your incomprehensible argument with the championing of all free speech everywhere: **not\_alice** : “ **Giraffe** said **Cesario** molested children in my thread and he didn’t!” :mad: (posters): “Um, no one said that.” **not\_alice** : “FINE I GUESS YOU’D ALL RATHER LIVE IN SOVIET RUSSIA WHERE NO ONE CAN TALK ABOUT ANYTHING!!!” :mad::mad::mad: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=5)