Thanks for the “trip down memory lane”, that was a case of me trying to be reasonable, have a pleasant discussion exchange ideas (and gawd forbid maybe learn something myself), and while my “point” may have been (and is) debatable, I doubt most people would find it very objectionable or horrifying.
Am I wrong? Sometimes. Am I right? Sometimes. Shit happens.
But what is this thread? One loony starts by pretend pitting another loony, and then jumps into a diatribe against all the bad nasty evil people who won’t kiss the sumbitch’s ass.
Fuck that. Any moron can have an opinion. He can be batshit crazy, his opinion can be the purest distillation of horse shit. Fine. But I sure as fuck ain’t going to fawn all over him, kiss his ass and tell him what a clever bastard he is. Fuck that.
If you’ve never pulled out a fact you couldn’t easily cite on the internet and then realized that you’re not sure you can prove that cite so you retract it then you are a far better man than I. I’ve done it many times, thought I knew something and then realizing I have no way to confirm it, at least not within the short attention span format of an online debate. I’m saying this as someone who has been accused of exactly what you are accusing him of. Maybe he honestly thought it was something he knew, maybe he still does, but as he cannot prove it, he did the appropriate thing, the honest thing and retracted it.
As for his quotes on anthropologists, maybe he’s read a subset of anthropologists who agree with his opinion, and that has made up the bulk of his particular reading on the topic. shrugs
I can read the same things that you’re reading and not see intentional dishonesty there. He might just be straight up wrong, but that’s not the same as lying.
FinnAgain You are a poster who I am likely to pay a lot of attention on many subjects from Eve Online to Israel Palestine, and you are generally pretty knowledgeable about those topics. I like reading what you write and I like discussing things with you, but I have believed for quite a long time that you’re an arrogant prick.
But don’t worry, some of my best friends are arrogant pricks. waves to Maeglin
*I’ve been known to be an arrogant prick myself on occasion.
Just how stupid are you, Smashy? Of course I bear you no good will. You’re a fucking obnoxious, idiot, preening and pretentious arrogant asshole. What took you so long to figure out that I don’t harbor good will for you? Are you honestly that fucking stupid?
Speaking of you being a liar by the way, how many more posts are you going to make talking about how you won’t engage me (because I’m eeeeeevil :rolleyes:) while turning around and posting at me, yet again?
And nope, you were shown to be lying, you changed to another lie, and now you conveniently will not cite your claim. A claim that is absurd and would require a statistical study instead of a case study anyways. But you’re too stupid to realize that.
You’ve also evidently dropped any pretense of your obfuscatory babbling about how Nutra Sweet produces metabolites that are in any way dangerous to human beings (in context, moron).
Much like you refuse to defend or provide any cites for your lies about “most” “some” or “any but a tiny few incompent” anthropologists. Because you’re a liar and you simply made it up. Were it true, it’d be a trivial matter to prove. You can’t, because you’re a liar and you’re an arrogant idiot who just puffs up his cheeks and hops about when his lies are unmasked, since the great unwashed cannot dare to contradict such a revolutionary genius as you.
And good lord but the other thing worse than reading your pretentious idiocy is your idiotic politics. Arguing that liberal philosophy[sub]2009[/sub] should be defined by liberalism[sub]in the 1800’s[/sub] is fucking retarded.
So, you’re going away soon?
Or just going to stay here in order to try to cause problems for people who actually enjoy this community?
You can start leaving any time soon. I’m sure that the Wobbly cause can use your keen intellect to forge their path on to greater irrelevancy.
I think, SmashTheState that your basic problem with this messageboard is “we done the passion fruit”. Nothing of what you post is particularly new or shocking. I heard the stuff about “schizophrenics are just misunderstood” back in college, and that was more years ago than I like to think about.
We have heard all this before, from the "Workers of the world - unite!’ thru “aspartame causes you to develop rabies and a third eye in your back” and especially ‘the Man is keeping me down!’ Maybe that stuff goes over big at the homeless shelter with the winos and runaways peddling blowjobs for pills but it doesn’t fly so well here. Most of us have a certain amount of life experience somewhere other than the bottom of the Western economic food chain.
And you tend to post once with some bullshit or other, and then get irritated when we shoot holes in it instead of falling on our faces and worshipping.
For crying out loud, if a left-wing extremist can’t get any traction on the SDMB, there is something seriously off in his thinking or his delivery.
Like I said before, get used to no longer being the smartest person in the room. It’s isn’t going to happen here very much. And if your life philosophy collapses at a touch, maybe that ain’t our fault.
What you’re missing is that, inherent in that definition is the fact that in order to be overbearing or presumptuous that one has to be writing checks they can’t cash, so to speak. It’s not about whether or not they believe it’s merited, it’s about whether or not it is.
In order to be presumptuous, one must presume something that isn’t true or born out by the facts. Being ‘overbearing’ only fits the denotation of haughty, disdainful behavior if it’s not a simple statement of fact.
It is not, for instance, an arrogant action for Obama to state that he has more political power than, say, little Timmy in fifth grade. It is not arrogant for Federer to say that he’s a better tennis player than little Timmy, either.
To the extent that people use the word “arrogance” to describe someone correctly stating that they happen to be better at something than someone else, they’re using the word as a simple smear and demanding false modesty.
If little Timmy said that he could pilot an F-16 and shoot down combat veterans and an actual pilot said that it wouldn’t happen because he wouldn’t be able to compare to their skill, would you really suggest that the word arrogance, in both its connotation and denotation, was at all appropriate to describe his behavior?
I’ve never heard that arrogance needs to be beyond one’s ability.
Yes, you have presumptuous correctly. Like you were presumptuous to assume that SmashtheState was lying rather than simply wrong.
It would be arrogant if Federer was rubbing it in to Timmy that he was a better tennis player regardless of the factual nature of the statement.
To the extent that people use the word “arrogance” to describe someone correctly stating that they happen to be better at something than someone else, they’re using the word as a simple smear and demanding false modesty.
Nope, it’s all in how the actual pilot presented it.
If he said, “Oh Timmy you are such a little jackass, of course you couldn’t compare to a real pilot you fucking moron.”, he’d be arrogant regardless of the truth of his statement.
No, Haley fits with Élan, especially since they all got back together again (YAAAAY! :)). Therkla wanted to fit with Élan, but he was being faithful to Haley, and she died from being poisoned by the treacherous (late) Lord Kubota (BOOOO! :mad:)
The short answer is that leverage isn’t requisite for a union and that the ‘U’ in OPU is confusing because it differs somewhat from the colloquial use of the term.
I guess it should have been obvious to me that any coalition of like-minded people can form a union in the interests of collective bargaining for some common purpose. That I (and perhaps you) tend to assume that collective bargaining begins from a position of relative strength is likely symptomatic of the fact that most union-related news regards powerful groups like the UAW.
This article by Proshanto Smith, “an Ottawa panhandler” who wrote it “in collaboration with the Panhandlers’ Union of Ottawa”, tries to answer the question. To paraphrase, the OPU:[ul]
[li]asserts that the homeless of Ottawa are unjustly persecuted by the local government[/li][li]asserts that attempts to regulate/restrict the actions of panhandlers constitutes an attack on their freedom/survival[/li][li]attempts, through public demonstration, to heighten public awareness of the plight of the homeless[/li][li]attempts to negotiate for more favorable ordinances/regulations where “street vending” is concerned[/li][/ul]
…so they’re basically an advocacy group for homeless people in Ottawa and they don’t strike so much as they picket.
Well I guess my problem is this. If they have the wherewithall to form an advocacy group, why can’t they get a job?
I mean there are homeless advocacies groups everywhere, and I think there should be the rights of the homeless are as valuable as those of anyone else.
At least it’s not like my friend’s ‘United Starving Artist League’ made up mostly of upper-middle class trust fund babies or yuppies with pretty good day jobs.
Shhhhh. I don’t want to talk about the 1950’s today. We’ve already got a loon here who wants to conflate the 21st century with the 19th so his pretense about political knowledge can stand a bit longer.
By the way, you going to criticize Smahy at any point for his idiocy about Nutra Sweet or apologize to Jack for your disgusting behavior in response to him trying to educate someone?
Just, ya know, in case you were feeling like acting with integrity for a bit.
And along a similar line, are you going to start emailing/AIM’ing the people here you like and simply go away already? Or are you and other idiot malcontents simply gong to keep posting here about how little you like posting here?
“Sign zee papers!”
" I can’t sign the papers!"
“Sign zee papers! Why can’t you sign zee papers?”
“I cannot sign the papers…because you have broken both of my arms!”
