# 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:** 7
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/121 "2010-02-09T20:12:17Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I am giving you plenty to show I am wrong, you haven’t even really started to address the top of the list. Wait, is this supposed to be some sort of test? ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/122 "2010-02-09T20:15:55Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Maybe you should simply look up “to garnish” in the dictionary. It is not just parsley, you know. In fact, I did before I posted. Here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary says: 1. to embellish; adorn 2. to decorate (food or drink) with small items such as parsley or lemon slices 3. **LAW**. to garnishee ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/123 "2010-02-09T20:21:17Z")
> [@srzss05](#): > > Wait, is this supposed to be some sort of test? yes, but first you have demonstrate to learn what “to garnish” means in the context I used it before you are eligible for the test. Once you are ready, you can start with finding the posts that are qualitatively the same (big word, I know, but you have your dictionary handy already, right?) in the Free Speech thread, from all of the other threads Giraffe said it was the same as. Use the actual words from Cesario in each of the 6 threads if you want credit for making the case. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/124 "2010-02-09T20:22:14Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Maybe you should simply look up “to garnish” in the dictionary. It is not just parsley, you know. Quoted for more comedy. [sub]Note to not\_alice: the word you’re looking for is “garner”. Not “garnish”.[/sub] ---
**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, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/125 "2010-02-09T20:23:32Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I am stunned, simply stunned Why yes, you are. ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/126 "2010-02-09T20:24:16Z")
> [@srzss05](#): > > In fact, I did before I posted. Here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary says: > > 1. to embellish; adorn > 2. to decorate (food or drink) with small items such as parsley or lemon slices > 3. **LAW**. to garnishee That is a pretty brief set of definitions, but yeah, that covers it. If that is not clear, perhaps you can find other, more advanced dictionaries, with more usage examples until something clicks. If it still doesn’t click, you could then google for similar usages to mine. Otherwise you will have to either take my word for it, or accept that you are missing a vocabulary word you should probably know. Run it by a High School English teacher or something. ---
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/127 "2010-02-09T20:27:22Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Quoted for more comedy. > > [sub]Note to not\_alice: the word you’re looking for is “garner”. Not “garnish”.[/sub] No, that would fit too, but in this case, I mean “garnish” to imply that you are a) taking and b) adorning But we already know even straightforward rhetoric is past you right now, and yet this pitting is about you, and all you have in response is a crowd of “garnish” following you with ad hominem attacks, never addressing the actual substance. ---
**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, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/128 "2010-02-09T20:29:43Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > But we already know even straightforward rhetoric is past you right now, and yet this pitting is about you, and all you have in response is a crowd of “garnish” following you with ad hominem attacks, never addressing the actual substance. I know. I’m deeply ashamed of how I’ve come across in this Pitting – to any impartial third party, it’s obvious you’ve schooled me quite handily. ☹ ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/129 "2010-02-09T20:31:01Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > No, that would fit too, but in this case, I mean “garnish” to imply that you are a) taking and b) adorning Stop. Just stop. Or continue. People making posts like you “back in the day” on usenet would have wound up in auk long ago. ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/130 "2010-02-09T20:33:33Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I know. I’m deeply ashamed of how I’ve come across in this Pitting – to any impartial third party, it’s obvious you’ve schooled me quite handily. ☹ Whatever turns you on. ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/131 "2010-02-09T20:34:28Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > But we already know even straightforward rhetoric is past you right now, and yet this pitting is about you, and all you have in response is a crowd of “garnish” following you with ad hominem attacks, never addressing the actual substance. :rolleyes: Sorry, but no. This isn’t about people from Giraffe’s board coming here to defend him. It’s ok, though. I know you need to save face and salvage what little is left of your dignity. ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/132 "2010-02-09T20:35:52Z")
> [@srzss05](#): > > Stop. Just stop. Or continue. People making posts like you “back in the day” on usenet would have wound up in auk long ago. Which is precisely what you should have done with the original proposed AT Pedophile thread - use the tools that are available to you to not see it or not participate, while allowing others to choose to do as they wish. That is the point I have been trying to make - it seems it is only now just outside your grasp, and getting much closer at that! You are almost there! ---
**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, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/133 "2010-02-09T20:38:01Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > Sorry, but no. This isn’t about people from Giraffe’s board coming here to defend him. How else can you explain the fact that no one agrees with **not\_alice** when his posts have been so factually indisputable? Some sort of voodoo curse? That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/134 "2010-02-09T20:39:29Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > See, this is the level of ignorance that we have here. > > You haven’t understood a single word I or anyone else has said on the topic, and you can’t even get my name right. > > If you are not interested in the topic, you don’t really need to be here. Oh I understand perfectly Alice. Lets see. You were in a thread once. Then a horse referenced that thread without listing you in the bibliography, which caused your thing to rise. Smiting mightily, you called out the horse so that you could smote him. Mightily. The horse responded, by pointing out that you are a numpty. Hearing the bad news, you starting smashing at keys in furious indignation, until your argument moved from an unfounded accusation of misrepresenting kiddyfuckers, to an unfounded accusation of suppressing free speech and (soon) the rape of the natural world. Everybody else laughed at you and made witty jokes at your expense (even Taco gave it a go, god loves a tryer) As we moved into page 16 of the thread, Alice moved deeper and deeper into an internet panic attack, her wild eyes and gooey drool represented by ever more incoherent ramblings about google and parsley and pain and the void. The horse laughed. We all laughed. Cecil cried, it wasn’t meant to be like this. ---
**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, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/135 "2010-02-09T20:40:03Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Which is precisely what you should have done with the original proposed AT Pedophile thread - use the tools that are available to you to not see it or not participate, while allowing others to choose to do as they wish. auk-alt.usenet.kooks ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/136 "2010-02-09T20:44:20Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Sorry, but no. This isn’t about people from Giraffe’s board coming here to defend him. > > It’s ok, though. I know you need to save face and salvage what little is left of your dignity. You don’t know shit except to sit on a perch and toss shit over. Don;'t worry about my dignity, worry about yours. You don’t understand the pleas of a(n apparently) mentally ill man, and you don’t understand the constructs of Free Speech in the US. If you are not in the US, then OK about the last one, but either way, you and the others are letting your outrage turn to power over the most powerless people in society, and are proud of it. You seem to do it simply because you can, and you seem to relish (not “garnish” 🙂 ) that you can simply because you can. That doesn’t bode well for society I am afraid, that you would toss the weak and ill overboard so that you can all thump your chests like cavemen. Sick, sick, sick. Maybe you should start a AT thread: “AT someone who would rather beat up the unpopular ones in order to stay in good with the popular crowd” Anyone here want to take a swag at it? What other unpopular groups, people, or ideas would you rage against rather than allow a discussion? Give us your Top 5. ---
**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, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/137 "2010-02-09T20:45:05Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Quite the opposite, it drew tons of little-before-seen brain-dead Giraffe supporters out of the woodwork. Irrelevant, and it does not meant you weren’t wrong with your OP. > [@](#): > > I think you will find many of us don’t believe in God or any such decrees. So we agree that it is not a decree from God. > > It sets the tone of the board btw. Maybe search on “ignorance fought” or even just “ignorance” to see that. Setting the tone for truth doesn’t mean it is required that we track down every subject and put it under the microscope. I get that you are intentionally being slippery, but again it still doesn’t make you right. And I’m sure you know I don’t believe in God. > [@](#): > > So we are in agreement? That Cesario wants to discuss something, then those that also want to discuss it can, and the rest simply move along? > > Or do you mean that “Members here are capable of deciding what _other members_ may or may not discuss”? Members here are capable of deciding what other members may or may not discuss by expressing those wishes known to the Reader, the Reader can then in turn choose what to do with that information (they have a long history of doing just that). Also, the owners of this board are under no obligations to bow to what you believe are Free Speech requirements. Basing your argument on this is ridiculous and wrong - see below: > [@](#): > > Because you are not used to what it looks like when people defend Free Speech, particularly unpopular speech. I am sure you can find such things all over the internet, and all over American History if you look. And now we’re down the rabbit hole. I couldn’t care less about a person talking about any particular subject in public or on their own message board. Nor does your carrying on about it bother me in the slightest. But this thread isn’t about any of that is it? From the OP: > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, they did. ---
**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, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/138 "2010-02-09T20:45:11Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Funny. > Care to share with us how many new members your board has garnished in the last week or so? > [@not\_alice](#): > > No, that would fit too, but in this case, I mean “garnish” to imply that you are a) taking and b) adorning Actually, it doesn’t fit _at all_. Garnish is a transitive verb, thereby requiring a direct object in order to make sense. Your construction is doubly idiotic, because: 1. Without a direct object, the phrase “your board has garnished” makes no sense. 2. As inferred from your follow-up, your intended subject was (an implied) “you”, not “your board”. Besides being the author of one of the most worthless, tempest-in-a-teapot Pit OPs I’ve seen in quite some while, you suck as a pedant, as well. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/139 "2010-02-09T20:46:56Z")
> [@srzss05](#): > > auk-alt.usenet.kooks Which would have accomplished what precisely? Allowed you a small measure of satisfaction, while allowing the original discussion to go on, right? ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/140 "2010-02-09T20:49:55Z")
Giraffe, you need to just stop. You have no idea what kind of garnishing some of the posters get up to in the DTP threads because you’re too much of a coward to come around and see for yourself. > [@not\_alice](#): > > But we already know even straightforward rhetoric is past you right now, and yet this pitting is about you, and all you have in response is a crowd of “garnish” following you with ad hominem attacks, never addressing the actual substance. Okay. Actual substance: It was never about your thread. I may be wrong, but it seems you’re invested in the idea that it was about your thread and your thread specifically. It wasn’t. It was about several posts made by someone _who also posted to your thread._ Your thread and its subject were tangential at the most. While freedom of speech may have a very broad appeal, it was not that poster’s main concern. His post from your thread was used _as an example_. That’s it. Even in context, it was relevant to the OP of Giraffe’s Pit thread. It is completely understood that you disagree with the decision about opening a thread discussing the pathology of paedophilia by the poster who has requested permission to do so. Giraffe has no sway over that decision, nor do the posters here, really. It is entirely at the discretion of the administration. The reason people continue to remind you that this is a private board is because it seems to have slipped your memory that the first amendment’s guarantee of free speech only applies to government entities. The SDMB/Chicago Reader/CL/Whoever owns this place this week is not a government entity and is in no way obligated to allow content it finds unsuitable. There are several options for those who disagree with their decisions. I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was intended. I think you may have taken offense where none was directed toward you or your thread topic. It was not about your thread. - Wenz [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=8)