Shodan, quit playing games in GD (a necessary exercise in futility)

The BBQ Pit
1

Why do you even bother? What’s your freakin’ point??

Seriously, what do you hope to gain by this sort of shit?

Reviewing the bidding, to save everyone else’s time:

I said some stuff in post #56 in the “Obama’s campaign attacks McCain’s military service” thread(Link to p.2 of the thread), demonstrating the lack of a connection between the character McCain had demonstrated during his captivity and his character now.

Shodan, at post 86, clearly thought I was making a largely unrelated point - that I “could never support a military man [for President] who dumped his first wife when she was having health problems for a rich heiress.”

At 102 (link to p.3), I pointed out that that wasn’t what I was saying at all, and after Shodan’s snarky response at 121, at 124 I asked him to quote my words that allegedly said that.

After more bullShodan at 129, I repeated my request at 141. His response at 150: “Geez, RT, if you don’t know what you are talking about, I think it is a bit much to ask me to explain it to you.”

Shodan, it’s really simple: I know what I said, and you don’t. We both know it.

What you’re gaining by playing this runaround game, I have no idea. If my words really backed up your claim, you could of course hold my own words up to me, and have done with it. Since they don’t, there’s no harm in admitting you’d misunderstood, and we can go on from there.

But whatever sort of point you intend to make in the thread, you’re not making by playing this silly-ass game. Sure, you never have to say, “I misinterpreted your post,” but that’s surely not that big a deal, right? I mean, we all misread someone every now and then.

I just don’t get it. What’s the thrill for you here, Shodan? Is it in being able to pretend you’re actually participating in a debate, when you’re actually just shitting all over the thread with garbage like this? Is it the joy of a kid getting in the way of the grownups’ discussion that he doesn’t understand, and can’t really participate in as a result?

I’m thinking maybe it’s something along those lines, because what else emotionally justifies the dishonesty of refusing to be responsible for your own words, let alone grapple with the actual debate at hand?

Plenty of kids over at Freeperville. Maybe you should join them - you’d fit right in.

2

What, again?

If you are going to Pit me every time you lose an argument and I refuse to play along with a semantic hijack, you are going to be awfully busy.

Regards,
Shodan

3

So, just what is your motivation? I really don’t get it.

The only person you can possibly be fooling is yourself, and I hardly believe you’re being successful even in that.

4

Wait… you won that argument? :confused:

5

Hasn’t lost one yet!

6

Part of the problem is, you did say, critically, about McCain:

The thing is, that’s at least superficially similar to John Kerry’s actions, and you supported John Kerry back in 2004. Now, sure, it’s really not a great comparison…there’s no evidence that Kerry ever cheated on his first wife, and he started his relationship with Theresa Heinz after they were divorced, but I think all this could have been avoided if you had pointed that out in that thread instead of taking it to the Pit.

And, you know, to be fair, people do tend to be more forgiving of the actions of their political friends than their political opponents.

7

Never underestimate shodans stupidity…comes right after never get bogged down in a land war in Asia

8

And never match wits with a Cecilian when Death is on the line!

“Hello?..Yeah, Death!.. Hi!.. listen, can I get back to you?..”

9

I hope you’re very attractive, because you’re not going to get far on brains. :smiley:

10

Well, see, RT, here’s the problem. I didn’t misinterpret your post. That’s just your special way of trying to change the subject away from your saying something stupid to ‘prove that I said what I said’.

Now, it is certainly true that you will be able to get a lot of support from trolls and thread-shitters like Shayna and the rest of the morons. But that doesn’t prove you’re right - they do that no matter what. Question the perfection of the Blessed One or any liberal and the sheep will bleat. But in order to last on a board like this, you can’t rely on the approval of idiots. All the persistent knee-jerks are liberals.

So I have developed other ways of determining when I am right. If some of the Usual Suspects tries to change what I say to something else, that shows they can’t refute what I said - a mark of victory. Shayna claiming she’s done and then returning to re-post her lies a couple more times - yet another mark. And you getting caught with your pants down and attempting a semantic hijack - another mark.

You’re just going to have to get used to it. Or not - depending on how much free time I’ve got, I might waste some of it making fun of your nonsense.

Regards,
Shodan

11

While I’m not him, I’d assume it’s frustration. It’s hard to be a McCain supporter or critical of Obama on this message board. This just isn’t a very receptive place for either rpro-McCain or anti-Obama messages.

Also, btw, about the Keating 5 thing, if you look at the investigation, it did say that McCain, while he showed bad judgement, didn’t do anything unethical.

12

Shall we just call him a troll? I think the term applies. He’s not meaningfully participating in the debate; he’s just seeing how long he can pretend to be part of it, seeing how long he can get folks like me to keep playing with him.

Similarly, in the same thread, Shodan made the claim that John Kerry was

despite Kerry’s having not dumped his first wife for the rich heiress who he didn’t meet until years after his divorce was final.

And Shodan has been playing exactly the same game there: dancing around the existence of the ‘for’ despite being challenged on the point by multiple posters, playing them along to keep them going.

That’s trollish behavior, and Shodan’s been guilty of it in multiple strands of one thread.

13

I think the problem is (and I hope you don’t think I’m just one of the “Usual Suspects”, as you put it), that you drew a parallel between McCain’s and Kerry’s divorce when they weren’t really parallel. You can certainly make distinctions between the two cases.

14

I have a minor nitpick. Teresa Heinz has never been divorced. She started dating John Kerry in 1993, after her husband was killed in a plane crash in 1991.

15

Sure I did.

And if Kerry had done the things I pointed out McCain has done, I would have concluded that it was invalid to be arguing that the character demonstrated by Kerry’s Vietnam service evidenced his worthiness to be President.

There were a few zillion other reasons to choose Kerry over Bush, so BFD.

16

By “they”, I meant John Kerry and his first wife.

17

“Troll” is not quite fair, at least by my definition, it implies a lack of sincerity, being a shit-disturber just for the sheer hell of it. No, the crap that comes out is genuine crap, sincere crap. A small distinction, but important.

The boy’s got a bad case of the bunker mentality. Some time back, when his views were more popular, before we more or less wised up, he got lots of back slaps and kudos for his snide and snark. I’ve forgotten their names, and they’ve all pretty much wandered off. I used to call them the Usual Suspects, but I no longer use the term because, well,…you know…

He’s just pining for the fnords.

18

In that case, please accept my apologies for the nitpick.

19

They’re parallel to the degree that I said they were. McCain and Kerry both dumped their first wives, while those wives were having health problems, and subsequently married rich heiresses. McCain’s divorce (allegedly) involved adultery - iow, he did dump his wife because he had someone on the side. Kerry did not, which I have pointed out repeatedly.

The trouble is that no one on the other side can reasonably argue (as RT did) that the fact that “McCain dumped his first wife while she was having health issues and married a rich heiress” means that he is not a good candidate for President without admitting that it also means that Kerry was not a good candidate as well - and the contradiction of supporting the one but not the other is uncomfortable.

So, if you are RT, you attempt a semantic hijack and, when that doesn’t work, a Pit thread.

Not the first time, won’t be the last.
Maybe I will have to go back to GD and post cookie recipes in a few Obama threads to get the moderators to rule against thread-shitting.

Regards,
Shodan

20

I think the real issue here is why on earth anyone thinks Kerry or McCain’s marriages and/or divorces have anything to do with their qualifications as candidates…?

I mean, really. If Bill Gates got a divorce tomorrow would Microsoft stock suddenly be worthless?