Shodan, please lay out your case here.

[Richard_Parker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I remember as a kid realizing that folks tend to see in other folks what they’ve got int themselves. It was many years later that I learned the word “projection.” I don’t know whether everyone does it, but certainly some do it more than others. Shodan is Lord High Emperor of Projection. If Projection were an Olympic sport, there’d be constant calls for him to undergo steroids tests.

Near as I can tell, he views the world in an extraordinarily partisan fashion, and therefore believes that his political opponents must do the same thing. He debates dishonestly, and so he believes that his oiltical opponents must do the same thing. He commits the very sin that he condemns others for, and so he believes that others must do the same thing. He takes projection to a meta level.

Daniel

I generally abhor pop psychological theories to explain behavior, but I think you’ve nailed it with this one.

[Jackmannii]

There’s been a challenge - so let’s go to replay.

@ElvisL1ves

So that would be zero posters agreeing with Shodan.

@Captain Amazing

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.

Elvis gets a time out, but the revised score has Shodan with only one supporter and the clock running down.

Football metaphors aside, I am not rooting for either side in this affair of the dueling paraphrases. I posted in mild mockery of something I’ve never liked on this board - which occurs when a poster (in this case LHoD) is not content with an argument which has gone substantially his way because the target is still firing back, and so turns to the crowd for a declaration that nobody supports his opposition, who is therefore completely forsaken scum.

When it’s obvious that you’ve carried popular opinion, that should be sufficient. I don’t get the “grind 'em into dust” urge.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Jackmannii

Football metaphors aside, I am not rooting for either side in this affair of the dueling paraphrases. I posted in mild mockery of something I’ve never liked on this board - which occurs when a poster (in this case LHoD) is not content with an argument which has gone substantially his way because the target is still firing back, and so turns to the crowd for a declaration that nobody supports his opposition, who is therefore completely forsaken scum.

When it’s obvious that you’ve carried popular opinion, that should be sufficient. I don’t get the “grind 'em into dust” urge.

The urge is to get Shodan to realize that, even though he’s really convinced himself that I’m a fucking liar, he can’t find anyone to agree with him on this subject. The hope is that, on realizing that, he’ll question whether he’s reached an accurate conclusion. The impossible dream is that he’ll shut the fuck up about the matter in the future.

I don’t want him to go away mad.

Daniel

[Shodan]

@Jackmannii

When it’s obvious that you’ve carried popular opinion, that should be sufficient. I don’t get the “grind 'em into dust” urge.

Well, a couple of things that might bear remembering are:[ol][li]This is argument ad populum. One might equally well conclude that every word Bush ever said is proven true, because he won the election.[*]Popular opinion on a board like this one is not necessarily based on a reasonable standard. There’s always going to be a chorus of the Usual Idiots chiming in on any pile-on of any but the lefties. There is no equivalent chorus of knee-jerk rightists. We’ve seen that here, with those who instantly condemned me without having read what was posted. [/ol]There are several Dopers whose opinion matters to me. Even Left Hand is, more often than not, one ofc them. But on this one, he is wrong. He is misrepresenting what the Contract with America said. He may not think he is, but he is. And the fact that he is getting a whole bunch of agreement from a whole bunch of people who hate me anyway doesn’t affect that. Because whether I was right or wrong, they would post exactly the same anyway. So you, or at least I, can’t tell anything from their reactions.[/li][quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
I don’t want him to go away mad.
[/quote]
I’m not particularly mad, at least not any more. And I’m not going anywhere. You’re just wrong here. It happens.

Regards,
Shodan

[Brainiac4]

@Shodan

And the fact that he is getting a whole bunch of agreement from a whole bunch of people who hate me anyway doesn’t affect that. Because whether I was right or wrong, they would post exactly the same anyway. So you, or at least I, can’t tell anything from their reactions.

Assuming that you can count out the people who hate you, are you also counting out John Mace, who (last I checked) was on your side of the political fence and does not hate you?

Is it, in other words, even possible for you to be wrong about this?

[Polycarp]

@Shodan

Popular opinion on a board like this one is not necessarily based on a reasonable standard. There’s always going to be a chorus of the Usual Idiots chiming in on any pile-on of any but the lefties. There is no equivalent chorus of knee-jerk rightists. We’ve seen that here, with those who instantly condemned me without having read what was posted.

Persecution complex getting to you? I think this is a blatant insult of a lot of decent people, myself, as well as a misrepresentation. I can guarantee you that the next anti-Bush thread started, Bricker will be there with a calm, reasoned analysis of why it isn’t really as bad as the OP claims. And there will be about a half-dozen Bush defenders chiming in with “me too” posts. And about 80% of the time I’ll think Bricker’s full of shit, and 20% of the time I’ll agree with him. You’ll find that most of the “Usual Idiots” you reference here have similar views, percentage varying. Just because you have been vouchsafed a clearcut view of What’s Wrong With America and How to Make It Right doesn’t mean that everyone else is going to see things exactly as you do. So get off the cross and act like a mensch.

[Dead_Badger]

@Shodan

He is misrepresenting what the Contract with America said. He may not think he is, but he is.

Well, that’s your opinion, and LHoD has shown no unwillingness to debate his interpretation. What he has taken issue with is your outright refusal to debate it, in favour of cheap, sniping accusations of dishonesty. And he’s certainly got a point. I don’t think I definitively agree with his paraphrasing, although I think the insinuation is there in the CWA. But at no point did he ever deceive me that his interpretation was gospel. Unlike you, who apparently feel free to bung quite considerable manipulations in quotes and call it fact. And then pretend you never did it. How about you address your own distortions, hmm?

And the fact that he is getting a whole bunch of agreement from a whole bunch of people who hate me anyway doesn’t affect that. Because whether I was right or wrong, they would post exactly the same anyway.

Jesus Christ, man, the persecution complex! What on earth is going on in your mind? Are you positively determined to avoid discussing anything here, other than your perception of a world united against you? Are you going to bother addressing your own misrepresentations, or are you going to continue to pretend that your shit don’t stink? Does John Mace hate you now, or does he deserve a decent reply to his reasonably stated points? And are those points any the more valid coming from him, or does my apparent hatred for you disqualify me from asking?

[Mtgman]

@Shodan

I’m not particularly mad, at least not any more. And I’m not going anywhere. You’re just wrong here. It happens.

“wrong” is different from “hypocrite” or “fucking liar”. Or so I’ve been led to believe in various threads about pre-war intelligence. Are you backing down from your claims that LHoD is a hypocrite or a fucking liar?

Enjoy,
Steven

[Cervaise]

@Shodan

I’ve been rather busy at work, so I have not had the chance to post as much as I would like.

Work harder.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

You’re just wrong here. It happens.

As I said, it was an impossible dream. You don’t even seem to understand why you’re being pitted here. As I said before, I’ll cop to my paraphrase’s being simplistic, and as I’m proven, I’m happy to discuss why I believe it to be accurate; but nobody seems interested in debating why I believe that to be the case, so the only argument I have that it’s inaccurate (beyond John Mace’s, which I’ve already explained why I consider to be insufficient) consists of variations of “fucking liar.”

Bricker once quoted a proverb, something like, “When twenty men tell you you’re drunk, go lie down.” You can’t just leave the last word off the proverb, Shodan: when you leave bits out of a quote, it changes the meaning. You need to lie down.

Daniel

[Zoe]

Shodan and John Mace, I want to make it very clear that I understand that the CWA does not mention Christianity and has no provisions geared toward abortion, prayer in school or SSM. I know it’s not in the text.

At the same time, I live in Nashville which is the heart of the Bible Belt and religious publishing. I worked in religious publishing at one time. I live five miles from the Southern Baptist Convention. I know the cadence and the rhythm of Southern sermons and church life. * And I know what the buzz words are for conservative fundamental Christian political thinking.* And I know that Republicans who are savvy about Southern voters known the buzz words.

Maybe in other areas of the country, “family values” has other connotations – and that would be a very healthy response! After all, who can be against a family?

John Mace: It’s actually a lot simpler than that. Republicans like to market themselves as pro-family and they like to market Democrats as anti-family.

I’m suspicious already…

For example: Republicans (supposedly) will give you a tax break so Mom can stay home with the kids if she wants.

Democrats (supposedly) would like to see gender discrimination irradicated and parents able to choose whether to stay home or work – whichever is best for the family.

But before we hijack too far, I don’t think that LHoD had an unreasonable paraphrase based on the full content on his post.

I also don’t think that Shodan is usually quite the ogre that he is being painted to be. His political inclinations are a little peculiar, but he isn’t cold at his heart or totally unthinking.

[Shodan]

@Mtgman

“wrong” is different from “hypocrite” or “fucking liar”. Or so I’ve been led to believe in various threads about pre-war intelligence. Are you backing down from your claims that LHoD is a hypocrite or a fucking liar?

Well, if it helps, I can back off from the “fucking liar” part. He is still a hypocrite for his pious twaddle about not misrepresenting the positions of your opponents, posted shortly after, well, misrepresenting the position of his opponents.

@Brainiac4

Assuming that you can count out the people who hate you, are you also counting out John Mace, who (last I checked) was on your side of the political fence and does not hate you?

No, I wasn’t counting him out.

@John Mace

If I was looking for nuance, I’d say that it reflects a typical leftist, knee jerk [over]reaction to the use of a phrase that might have a hint of religiousity about it.

@John Mace

There’s only one minor problem with your thesis. The CWA has absolutely no provisions geared toward Christianity, abortion (or anti-abortion), prayer in school, or SSM. You can imagine it if you like, but it’s not in the text.

Of course, to be fair, he also said this:

The other issue, which is what started this whole thing, was the proper way to paraphrase so that it’s not interpreted as a quote.

But that was AQA, not me. I never interpreted LHoD as representing his “paraphrase” as a direct quote, and I never said that he did. But misrepresenting a position and calling it a “paraphrase” is still misrepresenting a position - just what he was warning us all against.

@LeftHandofDorkness

You don’t even seem to understand why you’re being pitted here.

Sure I do. You misrepresented the CwA. And you are upset because I called you on it, in a thread where you were piously warning us against misrepresenting.

As I said before, I’ll cop to my paraphrase’s being simplistic…

,
Well, there is a bit more to it than that. Because you claim:

when you leave bits out of a quote, it changes the meaning

Wouldn’t you agree that if you put in words that aren’t there, it also changes the meaning? So if you are talking about “families” and I change it to say “Christianity”, then it is not quite a paraphrase. Don’t you agree?

But how come you get to play this game about secret code words and what things really mean, and none of the rest of us do?

@Zoe

I also don’t think that Shodan is usually quite the ogre that he is being painted to be. His political inclinations are a little peculiar, but he isn’t cold at his heart or totally unthinking.

How DARE you!
I’ve been outed!

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Sure I do. You misrepresented the CwA. And you are upset because I called you on it, in a thread where you were piously warning us against misrepresenting.,

You neither understand why nor are you interested in understanding why. You’re an idiot.

Daniel

[Brainiac4]

Crap, Shodan, you’re better than this.

@Shodan

@Brainiac4

Assuming that you can count out the people who hate you, are you also counting out John Mace, who (last I checked) was on your side of the political fence and does not hate you?

No, I wasn’t counting him out.
[Two legitimate supporting quotes snipped]
Of course, to be fair, he also said this:

@John Mace

The other issue, which is what started this whole thing, was the proper way to paraphrase so that it’s not interpreted as a quote.

But that was AQA, not me. I never interpreted LHoD as representing his “paraphrase” as a direct quote, and I never said that he did. But misrepresenting a position and calling it a “paraphrase” is still misrepresenting a position - just what he was warning us all against.

What John Mace actually said, if you reproduce all of it, instead of part, is:

@John Mace

There are two points of contention here. Whether or not LHoD accurately paraphrased the CWA is debateable. Reasonable people can hold different opinions about that. He put enough caveats on his paraphrase that I have no problem just seeing it as his opinion. Besides, that was just one line of the CWA, not the whole thing. **And, frankly, your representation of his paraphrase was sloppy at best, dishonest at worst. You not only took it out of context, but deleted the crtical part of the CWA which he was referring to. **So, no, I’m not picking up any slack here.

The other issue, which is what started this whole thing, was the proper way to paraphrase so that it’s not interpreted as a quote.** LHoD did that exactly as one should-- he explicitly called it a paraphrase, didn’t put it in quotes, and said it was a lefty’s opinion to boot. **The other paraphrase, from AQA was sloppy and he has come here to admit it. His paraphrase did look like a misquote. I haven’t debtate with AQA that much, but my recollection is that he’s been an honest debater, so I take him at his word when he says it was unintentional.

I’ve bolded the key portions. I’m guessing you really want to see support for your position in there, but it’s just not there.

If you’re going to play the selective-quoting-to-bolster-your-position game, try to at least reach further than page 1 of the same damn thread.