These aren’t very good points as they depend upon fabricating intent and motivation and attributing them to me.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
After seeing both threads, it is clear to me that **Scylla ** came thinking “wow! Rush is being a genius in this clever attack against scientific consensus” (I still wonder if Rush was even that clever) so he brought it in assuming many would fall in their faces attacking Rush for what “obviously” was really clever criticism. It failed with me, but as you show, it was naive for the OP to ignore that posting a GD thread like that would indeed whoosh many.
[quote]
In truth, I don’t think many were really “whooshed.” I still have a higher opinion of most people here than that, and I don’t really see how you can click the link and still think it’s a face-value proposition.
I think there’s more value in pretending not to get it, in order to play outraged or angry, or to make accusations and I think that’s what a predictable few chose to do.
I don’t think most people here are so stupid they couldn’t get it right away.
Kind of like what you’re doing. The whole realization of your effort here is to make this judgemental point about how “sad” my OP was.
Well, the alternative is to realize then that you were just naïve for thinking Rush was clever with his crossing of liberals, the problem was, Rush did double cross you (as he does with his audience constantly). His “clever” point against scientific consensus was in the end misleading.
May I ask if you clicked on the link I provided?
Yes. I suppose that is pretty easy to believe. Frankly, that’s one of the accusations he typically makes against his detractors. They choose what they want to beleive and just listen to outtakes and soundbites and third party criticisms, because it’s easy and what they want to beleive.
It’s a lot easier than doing the work of listening and judging yourself.
These two statements are mutually contradictory.
Or you just still don’t get it.
That’s good advice for anybody.
But if you predicted that, then it was trolling. It does not matter if few are the ones that get outraged, you are still posting to get a predicted reaction. In any case, I was not one of them, so I prefer the “sad” effort as a better explanation of the OP rather than trolling.
Ahhh, a semantic trap! You really seem hell bent on making an accusation, no matter what words you have to torture to do it.
I said “a predictable few,” meaning that it was predictable that they would be the culprits, not that they would predict they would do the crime.
Again, I think you’re smart enough to know this but just enjoy making an accusation to get a reaction.
Which means you are trolling.
(see I can do it, too.)
No. You keep telling me that’s what I’m doing. In fact, it is you who are doing it, as I’ve just demonstrated. Your accusations are simply projection.
You can have it. The great beauty of writing is that you are free to interpret it as you will.
Oh I do get it, when I talk of double crossing I do take into account that the ideology of Rush is the one talking, and when his solution is to rail against scientific consensus and pretend it is the same as other consencus you bet he is crossing not only liberals.
Connections by James Burke:
Yesterday, tomorrow and you
*Including this subject… and going to war in Iraq.
You’re really advertising that thread like it was last week’s tuna salad.
Indeed you captain obvious, 
if you had bothered to wait until seeing my last line you would have noticed that your silly jabs to my lines before my last one are worse than irrelevant.
Scientific consensus is the same as other consensus. I feel pretty sure of that.
I will however leave myself open to a very logical and quantitative explanation why it is not.
Several people already explained that in the GB thread, but your gut feeling is ruling the day. So why bother, I’m happy just to point out to everyone else that it remains a sad effort on your part, when you can not see that uneducated consensus is ignorance put in action.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Several people already explained that in the GB thread, but your gut feeling is ruling the day.
[quote]
I was looking for an argument from you that didn’t depend on mindreading or judgemental mischaracterization to support your statement.
It is on the last line of the post captain obvious, or should I say “Mr. selective quoter”?
I was at two very different high schools (one private, one public) and at neither of them did the guys have that much self-restraint. Maybe your high school years were different, with people being polite but distant to one another to defuse potential confrontations. But I’m having a hard time imagining it.
I’m sorry - I thought you said let’s take Gettysdope completely out of it.
I guess I must’ve misread.
(checks)
No, still says what it says.
Real life has its separate fora, from work to home to casual conversations to whatever, but most of us don’t have a Pit IRL. Like it or not, the rules of this place are just different.
Yeah, I know, I wouldn’t have expected you to come across second-best in a comparison with him. But there it is.
Who said it was? But having gotten in an argument with someone over the Internet in a forum that exists for the specific purpose of arguing and insulting, is no excuse for potentially ruining someone else’s party.
There are times when a grownup doesn’t have to act like a grownup, and there are times when one does.
Why? Why should I have a private conversation with you at Gettysdope? I’ll be there for a party. I will have no desire to satisfy some whim of yours.
What will happen is you will go your way at this party, and I will go mine. If we’re in the same place, we will be polite to one another. If you want to have a private chat with me, you will have to make other arrangements that do not involve Gettysdope.
There’s also the fact that Gettysdope is some months off. (September, IIRC.) If you think I’m still gonna care about this conversation three weeks from now, let alone five months down the road, you’ve got another think coming.
This is very important to you, for reasons that elude me. I think you’re just being a dickwad.
Yes. That’s what it says. In context it’s referring to the hypothetical.
I don’t think you can show me the rule in the user agreement that says I’m supposed to be pleasant to you in person if we meet socially, and must agree to ignore your behavior here, and may not address it. Can you show me that rule?
This idea of ruining somebody else’s party is entirely your fabrication.
You aren’t in control of what I do or say, there or anywhere else.
I think that being venomous and confrontational online is an expression of inadequacy and cowardice in real life. You do here in real life what you would be afraid to do in person, and get to have a safe outlet for your frustrations on proxies.
I think that if you knew that you were going to have to face the person and address your actions to somebody that was actually there than it would no longer be a proxy. It would be real.
I don’t think you would want to say it, or address it in real life. I think you’d be afraid. I don’t think you would go through with meeting me and only say you would because you guess (correctly) that I won’t bother.
You are probably right though in thinking that I won’t remember or bother with confronting you or think it’s worthwhile several months from now.
I will behave towards you there as you behave towards me here. Treat me here as you wish to be treated there.
Hmm. That didn’t work.
The bottom line is that I will tend to treat you in person as you treat me here.
in case anyone’s interested, I’m seeing more of “I’m rubber & you’re glue” type of shit in this one. fwiw, if anything there’s no high road left here.
Since the trolling issue seems to have wrapped itself up, I’ve started a new thread on Gettysdope-related issues so that those who might be interested in same can join in the discussion.