I’m not going to go through and post a blow-by-blow, since that would mean mining through four different threads and would result in a post that nobody would read. Instead, I’ll link to the most recent snipe, and anyone who is curious may follow it back.
I’m getting pretty sick of you sniping at me about this, especially since you never come back to explain your charges against me or to respond to what I say. It’s stupid and dishonest of you.
There was a time when I ranked you as one of the more interesting conservatives on these boards to debate with, someone along the lines of John Mace, xtisme, and Bricker*. Am I misremembering a day when you had intellectual integrity and the ability to debate respectfully? Or has something happened to turn you into an asshole?
At any rate, if you want to make the case that I acted dishonestly in that thread, please make it here. I’ll link you to this thread for any snipes you want to make about the issue.
Daniel
I know that a couple of y’all don’t consider yourselves conservatives, and I hope you’ll forgive my grouping; I’m talking about how I see your politics, not how you see them yourself, and mean no disrespect.
I just wanted to jump in here and say (this isn’t a private party, is it?) that I’ve seen this behavior from him, too.
Politically I disagree with almost everything **Shodan ** says, yet most of the time he’d make an argument and I’d think “ohhhh, well he does have a point.” Now, it just seems like needless sniping more and more often.
Well now, to be fair, getting “They’re going to build a government that is based on Christian values.” out of "It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family. " is a pretty inaccurate and unfair paraphrase.
I believe it correctly characterizes their intent, albeit it’s not a generous interpretation of their words. What faith, after all, does the American family hold? Overwhelmingly, it’s Christian. If they’re emphasizing a Congress that shares this faith, they’re emphasizing a government body that shares the Christian religion. Why emphasize taht if you’re not going to have Congress acting in a manner that is based on these values?
I believe that the actions of the 1994 class demonstrated that my understanding of their words is accurate.
Nevertheless, I also understood that it was a controversial interpretation. That’s why I labelled it as biased. That’s why I linked people to the original words. That’s why I encouraged people to go read it for themselves.
Had Shodan taken issue with my reading of this line in that thread–had he cited the specific clause and laid out an argument for why my interpretation of it was unfair–that would have been cricket. But that’s not what he did. Instead, he pulled it out a couple weeks (?) later in a snarky insinuation that I was lying. Instead of backing it up then, he disappeared from THAT thread, and now he’s pulling it out again, falsely claiming that I’m behaving in a manner similar to the one I’m criticizing.
It’s cowardly, sneaky behavior, and it pisses me off.
You posted a dishonest paraphrase, and then a piece of pious bullshit about how dishonest paraphrasing poisons the well. Captain Amazing explained it perfectly well. There is no honest way to get from “Congress will respect the values of the American family” to “we are going to impose Christian values on the country”, and if you had any integrity you would recognize it.
You can spare me the hypocritical horseshit any time now.
My actual paraphrase was “They’re going to build a government that is based on Christian values.” I was paraphrasing the line, “It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.” (emphasis added)
You paraphrase me as “we are going to impose Christian values on the country.” That’s not what I said, is it? And you claim that the original line was “Congress will respect the values of the American family.” That’s not what the original line said, is it?
You’re cowardly, and a hypocrite. I would have thought that, in laying this charge at my feet, you’d take some care to be accurate with your own paraphrasing; but apparently that’s too much trouble for you.
So let me see if I understand. Shodan paraphrases your paraphrase, then intentionally changes the original to make your paraphrase seem even more inaccurate.
I’d say game-set-match. But I think you gave him too much credit in the OP as ever being interesting or in the same league as the others you mention.
Let’s see: Shodan debates dishonestly, and if he can’t find something to argue with he’ll put words in someone’s mouth and *then *argue with them.
Daniel, for your next thread, can you maybe start a discussion addressing where bears shit? I’d do it, but I’m busy with my research on the religious leanings of the Pope. Thanks!
You got caught doing exactly what you condemn in others, and instead of admitting it, you decided to try to bluster it out.
I’m sure you would love it if no one ever challenged the usual “It’s different if I do it” mentality, but I see no indication that you would allow it to pass unchallenged in others, and therefore no reason to allow it to you
Terrorists oppose the US involvement in Iraq, you oppose the US involvement in Iraq, therefore you support terrorism.
I’m sure you would characterize this as a legitimate “paraphrase” of your position. :rolleyes:
I guess you can count me in the camp that doesn’t understand what’s so terribly incorrect about LHoD’s paraphrase. I’m sure that makes me some variety of scum in Shodan’s eyes, which is a judgement I guess I’ll just have to live with. It would be nice if he’d actually explain why that paraphrase is so far off the mark, but I suppose that’s asking for too much.
Wow. Are you intentionally going for a world record in irony, or are you just hoping that no-one will notice that neither your paraphraseology of what LHoD paraphrased, nor your paraphraseology of his paraphraseology, are remotely fucking accurate? How in the hell can you come back after that shit and accuse him of being a liar? Are you saying his correction of your bullshit post is a lie? Because I can tell you right now I’ve read the original posts, and you’re absolutely full of shit. To remind you, since you apparently seem to think that your wilful paraphraseology (and not even noted as such, unlike LHoD’s) is okay:
I invite any disinterested observer to comment on whose paraphrasing is the least honest, taking into particular consideration the fact that Shodan’s was presented as being a direct quote, and that LHoD explicitly acknowledged the fact that his interpretation was his own. If you want my view, it is that LHoD’s interpretation is debatable yet understandable, given the co-option of the terms “faith” and “family” by the Christian right in the US, while Shodan’s is just outright full of shit, leaving out as it does key words in the former “quote”, and inserting as it does implications not made in the latter.
Hell, Shodan, I really did used to respect you. But this is just mindless on your part. Truly pathetic.
Good catch. Better narrow it down or the search will kill the hamsters. How about the thread that the initial paraphrase occured? Maybe LHODs thread about the dem contract with america?
Here is LHoD’s entire post. I bolded the relvant portions.
We can see that LHoD clearly identified his characterizations as biased and provided a link. Looking above at Dead Badger’s post, we can also see that Shodan misquoted both LHoD and the CWA.
I have always had tons of respect for Sam Stone, xtisme, John Mace, and Bricker until recently. But Shodan? When he is losing an argument, he often resorts to personal attacks and plain-out distortions of the truth. He is often a mean player. Not smart, not witty. Just mean.
Just because a Doper signs off with “regards” does not exclude him from being a scamp.
There’s an important difference here between what **AQA **did and what **LHoD **did.
**LHoD **specifically said he was paraphrasing, and he didn’t put his paraphrase in quotes. Now, I think his paraphrase sucks, but that’s a differnt issue. He did, afterall, say it was filtered thru his pinko glasses.
**AQA **didn’t say he was paraphrasing, and he put his paraphrase in quotes. It should have been obvious to everyone that he was paraphrasing, but still, you don’t put something in quotes unless you’re actually quoting the original. (The exception might be if you’re using quotes in a different way-- ie, to communicate that your using a term or phrase losely.)