I love this list. I’d add Broomstick and the lady who gives Valiums to the yard boy. I can’t remember her name at the moment.
Of course the dope is better off with all this crazy. It would be boring if everyone was level-headed and normal.
As others have said Guinistasia doesn’t belong on the list.
Regarding Bricker, I’ll take the controversial viewpoint that the board gains something from his presence. He does bring a knowledge of the law, and I’ve had fun at times countering some of his silly sophistry and wordplay. I will grant though that his arguments and refusal to budge get old. I abandoned the voter ID thread long ago as being pointless.
The 130 years old claim is unlikely to be true. I produced documentation to show that he was around in 1859. Did you miss that? There’s no shame in admitting you did.
Everyone? Try anyone.
Bricker reminds me of the late William F. Buckley. Highly intelligent, erudite, and you so wanted to punch his face in…
I can get along with most of the posters mentioned, even adaher (whom I tend to disagree with on almost everything) shows a certain flair and does bring a counterpoint to the board which I appreciate, but I do have to second D’Anconia and doorhinge, who cause me dental anguish due to my teeth grinding when reading them.
He’s a classic concern troll.
I like Bricker too. (Which must come as a great relief to him, to be sure). He’s smart, argues logically, and presents a minority point of view well. The clarity he brings on legal matters is pretty valuable. The few times I’ve argued with him he’s been courteous and honest. Outside of debates he’s funny and interesting.
Given that there are a group of posters who seem to revel in getting into bad-tempered and insulting spats with him, I’m surprised he keeps his temper as well as he does.
[Moderating]
Let’s lay off the discussions of inflicting physical violence on other posters, please. No warning issued this time.
[/Moderating]
And, as D’Anconia said and I repeat, that is not good enough to overcome skepticism of his claim. As well as the fact that if he lied about his age, he could well be lying about being a slave. What Jet said about they claimed to have seen is not very good evidence.
Do you believe it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt? Would you accept the same level of evidence for some other claim?
Regards,
Shodan
I guess we will never know.
Regards,
Shodan
A respected magazine (D’Anconia’s dismissal of it notwithstanding) said they saw historical documents–not ones Magee produced, but ones they found. The only claim on the table was that he was a slave, not that he was 130 years old. Dismissal of his other claim is immaterial.
Seems you read a different thread than I did.
- D’Anconia’s first post (quoted) denies monstro’s claim that:
- But in the Wikipedia article D’Anconia links too, we have the statement that
monstro did never claim anything about the age of Sylvester Magee. She didn’t even mention the name, for chrissakes.
So, from what I can see:
- D’Anconia attacks another poster’s comments by citing an article, which, explicitly, supports her comments
- He then proceeds to attack a claim she didn’t make
- You, for some reason, make the link between a possible lie and another claim
Why?
Not going to lie – I probably disagree with Drunky Smurf on any matter of real substance, but for whatever odd reason I find him terribly amusing. Can’t see him on a list of worst posters.
ElvisL1ves, on the other hand… Is there a nastier piece of work on these boards? He deserves to be up there with the right wingers already mentioned.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I read the same thread. If you have a link to the actual documents, and evidence that it is the same Magee, then you would have evidence.
And no, what Jet claims to have seen is not very good evidence.
I suppose you believed in the Hitler diaries, too.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not a huge fan of billfish678’s tendency to blow up at any minor rudeness, unless the rudeness is targetted at minorities, in which case college students are just too sensitive
Interesting argument there. I didn’t state my belief for anything in the Wikipedia article; I just stated that D’Arconia had used an article which actually supported the other person’s claim to attack that person’s claim.
I know that the veracity of anything in Wikipedia can be questioned and I don’t actually know if the document in Chancery Court in Covington County exists, or if it had ever been seen by anyone at Jet magazine.
However, I can see that citing something that supports the opponent claims as part of a counter-argument is … not good for your own argument.
And I wonder why you need to defend that kind of attitude.
Holy mackerel, is D’Anconia derailing threads remotely now?
Another vote for dumb as a doorhinge, the user who finally convinced me to use the ignore list. He’s either a troll or genuinely a massive idiot. Either way, I wish people would stop humoring him so maybe he would get bored and go away.
Bite me.
Apropos of nothing, Ambivalid, are you still taking nominations for your list?
I did notice a glaring omission of some sort. I wish I could put my finger on it. It’s someone with an irritating signature.