# To all the december-bashers...

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [June 11, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147 "2003-06-11T16:51:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/41 "2003-06-11T21:22:37Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by wring \*  
> \*\*oh really - you’re a mind reader?? oh, how interesting, do start up a 'Ask me for I know you better than you know yourself" thread.
> 
> There’s any number of conservative posters here that I count as friends. **Fenris** is a very close bud; **Scylla, Anthracite** to name a couple more. Why, I even had (not in the biblical sense) **UncleBeer** in my car, and visited **Xploder** ’s house.
> 
> and I’ve not joined in on **any** flamefests on any of them.
> 
> …Yep, you’re fucking wrong. \*\*

Aw **wring** , you can’t lump your friends into the same political category as\*\* December\*\* . True they all label themselves as conservatives but I suspect they would be aghast at your implication that they share the same political views as **December**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/42 "2003-06-11T21:44:51Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by g8rguy \*  
> I realize that he has an awful habit of using biased sources, and of using op-ed pieces as evidence.

An awful habit? His isn’t an awful habit, it’s his livelihood. If he were unable to cite Op-Ed pieces or use known partisanheads as “proof” of his asinine points, he’d have 100 posts, and they’d all be limericks.

> [@](#):
>
> But can we at least let the man make an argument before dragging out the tar and feathers?

I interpret this in two ways, either and/or both of which may be wholly incorrect. So lemme ask you:

1. Do you believe **december** makes arguments, or does he simply already have his mind made up and simply find some article somewhere that sometimes agrees with him, but also sometimes only agrees with him if you down a bottle or ten of wine, squint in the dark and hold it upside down?

2. Do you believe that he posts “what do you think about this?” and waits for reaction before posting an argument? I can’t think of a recent (or even not-so-recent) thread/post where he did this.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m noticing recently, at least in the only two **december** threads that I’ve actually opened, that he can’t seem to even start before people leap in with comments to the effect that **december** is a troll who can’t cite properly, or some such.

That would be because he engages in trollish activities, is seemingly incapable of disgesting information not in accord with his particular worldview, and seems to think that Op-Ed conservative-to-a-fault piece=unbiased scholarly news article.

But of course, I could be wrong.

> [@](#):
>
> It’s true that his citations leave something to be desired, but if it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the OP, what in the fuck does it contribute to the thread?

Huh? You mean:

1. If the cite is irrelevant to the OP, why talk about it, or;

2. His method of citing is irrelevant to the OP, or;

3. His overall posting style is irrelevant to the OP?

I would posit that 1 and 2, regardless of the OP or poster, are relevant if the subject matter is consistent with previously-observed behavior (viz. his _ad nauseam_ citing of Op-Ed pieces as though they were fact-in-stone). Third is, but less so.

> [@](#):
>
> Consider [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190037), where two of the first comments made were “DNFTT,” and “I note you use an opinion piece as your ‘evidence.’”

The first is against board rules. The second is completely legitimate. If one is going to have a sound debate (well, one had better not let **december** know, but that’s another matter entirely), using an Op-Ed piece or a column is about as useful as bringing a child’s picture book in on a discussion about modern art. There may be something worth gleaning from it, but in the end it isn’t really going to hold much value beyond “just one person’s opinion”.

Personally, my biggest issue with **december** ’s posts (apart from his refusal to admit that he is ever incorrect even when it is obvious to everyone, and his citation issues, and … well, a lot of other stuff) is that his threads, when they are started in GD, seem little more than glorified IMHO threads (though, in truth, this could be said for many of the threads I see in GD. IMO, etc:)).

> [@](#):
>
> Certainly, he wanted a debate on the merits of the opinion piece, but where’s the claim that the opinion piece is accurate?

He is citing the Op-Ed piece as evidence that there is need for a debate, for one. It would be like having a roundtable discussion based on the Weekly World News, for one. It’s an opinion, not news.

> [@](#):
>
> Given his unfortunate proclivity for using them as citations, it could have been, perhaps, interesting and relevant.

Doubtful. Given his previously-mentioned shortcomings (not one of which I have ever seen him admit to having or trying to rectify), it could have gone much worse.

> [@](#):
>
> that we refrain from injecting random **december** bashing in a thread in which **december** bashing isn’t relevant?

Any thread wherein **december** posts, unless some great cataclysmic event changes fate (and, possibly, **december** ’s posting style), continue as they have been is going to both warrant and result in **december** bashing. And in this instance I can count _on one hand_ the number I have seen that did not merit it. Again, IMHO etc:)

Lastly: not using profanity !=being polite. Blatantly ignoring factual evidence, worthy citations and logic !=being polite. Unless we’re in some new bizarro world, **december** is only polite inasmuch as he doesn’t post _more_ than he does now.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/43 "2003-06-11T21:48:27Z")

</div>

**elf6c** , groovy RE: the first part. And whoa, I didn’t even notice that “no rest for the wicked” could be taken to be a reference to everyone else, rather than to me. :eek: I need more caffeine!

Recognizing the distinction you’re drawing, my view is that one should judge each poster on his or her body of work, and judge each post on its own merit. Critique each post based on its shortcomings, not based on the shortcomings of the person who made said post. I can’t see how anything else makes any sense; it’s certainly a logical fallacy to do otherwise. If you feel you _must_ criticize the poster rather than the post, there’s an appropriate venue to do so, and in the middle of the debate is not it.

That’s really my beef, more than anything else. I really couldn’t care less if people want to criticize **december** ; he’s a grown man, and he brings it on himself. _ **But if you do it in a debate thread, and before he’s made any mis-steps in this debate thread, the criticism is merely pointless personal sniping which detracts from the debate!!** _

I’m not saying that **december** has to be taken seriously. I’m not saying that he doesn’t bring the criticism upon himself. I’m saying it’s in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, and it’s bloody irritating. It’s not limited to **december** , I hasten to point out, but he sure as hell seems to be a lightning rod for that kind of thing.

Now, **Debaser** and **grieny** , with all due respect, **wring** is absolutely right. I don’t think **december** does it maliciously, which is surely to his credit, but he’s no more a paragon of politeness than I am.

Lastly, **Scylla** , it’s fine to flame **elucidator** for using Krugman columns as arguments; in fact, it’s fine to flame **elucidator** for pretty much anything. By the same token, it’s fine to flame **december** for pretty much anything (except that it’s not fine to flame anyone for anything in the middle of the debate, as I mentioned above). And if **elucidator** wants to swipe an argument from Krugman, that’s fine. If, however, he wants a debate on Krugman’s column, I think he ought to begin by presenting his own position.

(And note: 8r, not r8.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/44 "2003-06-11T21:58:18Z")

</div>

Personally, I regard two members of this board as far more worthy of mass pittings than december:

1. Razorsharp (kook, uses opinions only), and

2. Elucidator (for reasons I’ve already mentioned)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/45 "2003-06-11T22:08:50Z")

</div>

Well, I was going to reply to **emarkp,** but since **Coldfire** has already replied, I guess it’s not necessary.

And as others have noted, there are conservative folks who do not draw the ire that **december** does. I might not agree with them, but I never (okay, seldom 😉 ) have to do a :rolleyes: whenever I read a post from **Scylla, Sam Stone, Megadave,** etc.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/46 "2003-06-11T22:45:30Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \*  
> \*\*December is an SDMB fixture. We’d miss him if he was gone. \*\*

I agree. The SDMB without the d-man would be like a movie without the comical bad guy. Sort of like “The Fifth Element” without the Gary Oldham character. There’s probably better examples.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/47 "2003-06-11T22:45:43Z")

</div>

Oh dear. You people are too prolific, and I feel this obligation to stay on the ball here. By the time I finish this post, no doubt I’ll have more to reply to. (In preview, an hour(!) later: I’m wrong! Yes!) It’s really embarrassing that this is probably my most successful thread to date.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by iampunha \*  
> **An awful habit? His isn’t an awful habit, it’s his livelihood. If he were unable to cite Op-Ed pieces or use known partisanheads as “proof” of his asinine points, he’d have 100 posts, and they’d all be limericks.**

Okay, so I use “awful habit,” you prefer “livelihood.” I think we know what we mean, though, right?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I interpret this in two ways, either and/or both of which may be wholly incorrect. So lemme ask you:
> 
> 1. Do you believe **december** makes arguments, or does he simply already have his mind made up and simply find some article somewhere that sometimes agrees with him, but also sometimes only agrees with him if you down a bottle or ten of wine, squint in the dark and hold it upside down?
> 
> 2. Do you believe that he posts “what do you think about this?” and waits for reaction before posting an argument? I can’t think of a recent (or even not-so-recent) thread/post where he did this.\*\*

I believe that he has his mind already made up, then posts about it in GD, often by way of citing a column. I believe that he will, at some point, advance a hopelessly bad argument. I believe that when he does, we are well within our rights to point out how bad it is. I also believe that _until_ he does, we are not.

I further believe, not that you asked, that most people who post to GD already have their minds made up. Most of them will say something monumentally stupid. And when they do, we should be quite pleased to point this out. We should _not_ feel free to say “well, I know you’re going to say something monumentally stupid, so let me point out now that you’re going to say something monumentally stupid later.”

> [@](#):
>
> **That would be because he engages in trollish activities, is seemingly incapable of disgesting information not in accord with his particular worldview, and seems to think that Op-Ed conservative-to-a-fault piece=unbiased scholarly news article.**

All of which possesses a grain of truth, but none of which is relevant to whether he’s _right_. If you think **december** is a troll who can’t cite to save his soul, Pit him, or point out his improper citations as they occur, rather than just saying “ **december** is a troll who can’t cite to save his soul” in the middle of the debate, before he has even _tried_ to cite something.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Huh? You mean:
> 
> 1. If the cite is irrelevant to the OP, why talk about it, or;
> 
> 2. His method of citing is irrelevant to the OP, or;
> 
> 3. His overall posting style is irrelevant to the OP?\*\*

Oops. I suppose that could be misconstrued, couldn’t it? Sorry! What I mean is that if the _criticism_ isn’t relevant to the thread, don’t post the bloody criticism in the thread.

> [@](#):
>
> **The first is against board rules. The second is completely legitimate. If one is going to have a sound debate (well, one had better not let december know, but that’s another matter entirely), using an Op-Ed piece or a column is about as useful as bringing a child’s picture book in on a discussion about modern art.**

_sigh_ **iampunha** , I realize that the second is completely legitimate, when on target.

My beef is that, in this case, it was manifestly off target and made its way into the thread anyway, as criticisms of **december** are wont to do. It was pretty clear to me that he was using the Op-Ed piece as the starting point for a debate rather than as a proof that his viewpoint was correct.

> [@](#):
>
> **He is citing the Op-Ed piece as evidence that there is need for a debate, for one. It would be like having a roundtable discussion based on the Weekly World News, for one. It’s an opinion, not news.**

I guess I’m not seeing your point here. If I wanted to have a roundtable discussion on Weekly World News, I’d be well within my rights to try to start one. If no one else was intererested, it would sink like a stone, of course, but I can still start one for any reason I want, surely? I don’t see that it matters _why_ he wants to discuss something.

> [@](#):
>
> **Doubtful. Given his previously-mentioned shortcomings (not one of which I have ever seen him admit to having or trying to rectify), it could have gone much worse.**

I looked on it as an opportunity to inform and enlighten, and also as a fascinating chance to get a glimpse into our hero’s psyche. Maybe, if we know what he thinks about opinion pieces and why he does so, we’ll have learned something!

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Any thread wherein **december** posts, unless some great cataclysmic event changes fate (and, possibly, **december** ’s posting style), continue as they have been is going to both warrant and result in **december** bashing. \*\*

Fine and dandy; bash when appropriate. But before there’s even a thing to bash, save it for later, eh? That’s all.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Lastly: not using profanity !=being polite. Blatantly ignoring factual evidence, worthy citations and logic !=being polite. Unless we’re in some new bizarro world, december is only polite inasmuch as he doesn’t post _more_ than he does now. \*\*

Well, in that and in that he doesn’t go off on screaming little hissy fits of vitriolic rage. Certainly we can credit him for that, can we not?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/48 "2003-06-11T22:49:32Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Coldfire_  
> Now, unless you actually reported those two linked posts using that exact feature, I’m going to have to kindly ask you to shut the fuck up, and leave the judgement calls to those whose job it is to make them.

So, since I **did** use that exact feature, can I expect an apology? Seriously, I made no claims about the perfection of moderators. I’ve done my own share of moderation (on usenet) and thankless, burdensome volunteer work. My comments weren’t terribly critical of the board moderators. I’m surprised that you bit my head off. On re-read I see that my first post can be read harsher than I meant it, so please accept **my** apologies (and other mods if any other read that). Additionally, I realized between first post and now that it might have been addressed behind the scenes, and of course I wouldn’t be privy to that.

Can I assume that the post I linked to has been officially reported, or should I attempt to report it again?

**rjung** , there are two issues I raised. The first is moderation, which Coldfire has addressed and I’ve responded to. The other is your behavior. I don’t have to be a moderator to point out the poor form of your on calling **december** a troll.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/49 "2003-06-11T23:04:12Z")

</div>

Personally, the one thing about the **december** -bashers that really pisses me off is that every now and then he really does cross a line with his inappropriate thread titles and horribly biased OPs disguised as impartial, and he gets called on it. All that’s fine, but I’ve repeatedly seen him try to do better in that regard immediately following those episodes, and the usual suspects still drag his threads back into the muck. Part of the reason **December** continues with the same behaivor is because the response to his posts never changes even when his approach does.

BTW- great post **Diogenes**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/50 "2003-06-11T23:16:36Z")

</div>

With all the endorsements of \*\*Diogenes’\*\*post , I went back to reread it. It was entirely worthy of the praise.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/51 "2003-06-11T23:49:59Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by emarkp \*  
> **So, since I did use that exact feature, can I expect an apology?**

No, since I already included that disclaimer: “unless you actually reported those two linked posts using that exact feature”.

> [@](#):
>
> **Can I assume that the post I linked to has been officially reported, or should I attempt to report it again?**

You can assume the report was reviewed, and rejected.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*rjung], there are two issues I raised. The first is moderation, which Coldfire has addressed and I’ve responded to. The other is your behavior. I don’t have to be a moderator to point out the poor form of your on calling december a troll. \*\*

Wrong. You skate on thin ice when you assume you’re in a position of interpreting our rules. True, a lot of people do it at times, and every now and then, someone gets called on it. This is such a case.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/52 "2003-06-11T23:50:06Z")

</div>

Thanks for all the compliments everybody.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/53 "2003-06-12T00:21:26Z")

</div>

[aside]

Hey **Coldie** , can I ask a question?

When is it, and when is it not, appropriate to criticize another poster for doing something which one considers poor form? I would have thought that it’s perfectly okay to say “you know, that’s really poor form, and probably against the rules,” and I’m a little surprised to hear that it isn’t. What can and can I not do on such a topic, as a rule of thumb? Is it just that we should omit the entire “the mods frown on that sort of thing” shtick?

This isn’t an attempt to score points in this thread at all, by the way; I’m genuinely curious.

[/aside]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/54 "2003-06-12T00:23:55Z")

</div>

**Coldfire** , what is there to interpret regarding the rule against accusing posters of being trolls.

> [@](#):
>
> - SDMB guidelines for posting, by Arnold Winkelreid\*  
> DNFTT  
> Q: What does DNFTT mean?  
> A: Do not feed the troll.
> 
> Q: What is a troll?  
> A: “Troll,” in the context of message boards and the like, describes somebody who is posting just to be confrontational or to raise hackles.  
> See Staff Report: What is a troll? (14-Apr-2000)
> 
> Q: What should I do when I see a user “trolling” at the SDMB?  
> A: Do not publicly accuse someone of trolling at the SDMB. Use the “Report this post to a moderator” facility below the “trolling” post. Do not reply to the troll in any way in the thread, that will only encourage the troublemaker.
> 
> Q: What if I’m not sure if the person is a troll?  
> A: Treat the person as a user in good standing. Respond to the post if you have something useful to add, otherwise say nothing.

Seems fairly clear to me. Could you please explain why **emarkp’s** report (in accordance with the guidelines it appears) was rejected?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/55 "2003-06-12T00:28:13Z")

</div>

Eh. It’s not set in stone. When the daily spammer registers and posts his pyramid scheme across all fora, there’s always those standard responses. “Bye bye!”, “5… 4… 3… 2… 1…”, you know the ones. The threads get moved away from the public eye, there’s no point in bitch-slapping those who commented on the OP’s.

I guess it’s one of those “junior mod” things. Sometimes, it’s just really frustrating when someone seems to be appointing themselves as the arbiter of all things SDMB. That’s when I usually comment. Other cases, I couldn’t care less about.

The best rule of thumb in this case? Use the “report this post to a moderator”-feature, and don’t be a smartass on the boards. Although you may get away with it, it’s never productive.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/56 "2003-06-12T00:51:32Z")

</div>

I agree with **Diogenes.**

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. The purpose of the Straight Dope, the mission statement, the _raison d’etre_, whatever you want to call it, is “fighting ignorance.”

Most of the time, we have to go get ignorance and bring it in to be fought. Look at any GD thread about creationism (or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it). With a handful of perenially amusing exceptions, people espousing that sort of position generally don’t come here, or when they do, they don’t stay, because they realize quite quickly that their closely-cherished bullshit doesn’t stand up to rational examination. More commonly, we see ignorance of that variety retrieved by one of our field agents and put on display to receive its ceremonial debunking.

Occasionally, with some far-out dopey beliefs (e.g. tax protestor nonsense about Ohio, or whatever), we can get somebody to come out of the woodwork and take a contrary position, and a legitimate discussion results. Arguments are levied, citations are wielded, and ignorance is fought. Go us.

But **december** is a reliable source. With rare (and always illuminating) exceptions, his citations are flawed, his statistics are porous, and his positions are easily rebutted, and yet he continues stubbornly marching along, as if nothing anyone has said has made any impression on him. On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, _he brings the ignorance to us._ He is not himself a font of wisdom, but he drills the hole from which wisdom can flow. This service should be cherished, not attacked.

Yes, occasionally, he crosses the line into outright offensiveness. The notable example that comes to mind is his offhand comment about how the Pope supported a regime that killed Jews, or some such. And **wring** is correct that **december** ’s writing style, while not overtly laden with invective, definitely carries with it the whiff of venomous condescension. Certainly the fact that he hasn’t changed his opinions or his tone one bit in the years he’s been here (in an odd coincidence of timing, just six days fewer than I have) is a strong indication of his smug sense of personal superiority. It’s easy to understand why so many people react so strongly to him.

But I, personally, elect to disregard that. In fact, I make the conscious choice to read him as a devil’s advocate. If I tried to believe that an actual rational human thinks as he apparently does, my head would probably go all Scanners-y. So, instead, I choose to see him as, well, like a freeperbot, or as somebody who goes out into the ether and comes back as a representative of a segment of society we all know exists but that doesn’t otherwise get much play on these boards. Seriously, how the hell do you think Dubya gets that 60-plus approval rating? And no, this is not the same thing as calling him a conservative, because, yes, we have plenty of them, and none of them attracts anywhere near the volume of attacks that **december** does. (Well, maybe **Brutus** , but then he’s just stupid.) And consider that even some of our resident conservatives are starting to jump ship, or at least sidle to a convenient position closer to the rail, regarding the incipient Iraqgate. And yet, there **december** stands, tirelessly defending the administration even as it paints itself further and further into its ideological corner.

That’s what I tell myself whenever I see another of his obviously loaded OPs. Someone is choosing to represent, _and unflaggingly stand by_, an indefensible position. He is the devil’s advocate _par excellence_, bringing the spin and spinola straight from George Debbil-you Bush to the intellectual autoclave on the Straight Dope, where it can be subjected to the deservedly rigorous dissection it does not receive in the mainstream (“liberal,” ha ha) press.

For this, we should be grateful. As **Diogenes** said, he’s a Straight Dope institution, and we would be poorer for his absence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/57 "2003-06-12T02:29:25Z")

</div>

Very eloquent **Cervaise**. I especially like your point about “On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, he brings the ignorance to us.”

Complaining about **december** on this board is like becoming a doctor and complaining about all the sick people bugging you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/58 "2003-06-12T03:40:05Z")

</div>

I love December. It is right after Thanksgiving, Christmas is right in there and of course, my birthday is December 1st…

What’s that?  
Ooops. Sorry. Never mind.

🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/59 "2003-06-12T05:04:07Z")

</div>

Just FTR, **g8rguy** , I mean you no ill will with any of this, in case it later seems otherwise.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by g8rguy \*  
> Okay, so I use “awful habit,” you prefer “livelihood.” I think we know what we mean, though, right?

My point was that it is more than “just a habit” with **december**. From my experiences both posting in threads in which he is present (one can hardly call it debating sometimes…) to just reading old threads he was in, it is his normal posting style.

> [@](#):
>
> I believe that he has his mind already made up, then posts about it in GD, often by way of citing a column. I believe that he will, at some point, advance a hopelessly bad argument. I believe that when he does, we are well within our rights to point out how bad it is. I also believe that _until_ he does, we are not.

I think that the two examples in your OP, at best, are not the most obvious examples of him making his mind up beforehand. However, realize too that a lot of the people who respond to his threads have gotten bloody well tired of his shit and have little patience for whatever he posts next. He might actually be better served by taking a break from the board altogether.

> [@](#):
>
> I further believe, not that you asked, that most people who post to GD already have their minds made up.

I agree somewhat with this statement. When I post to GD I usually have my mind made up. However (and a key here), I am also usually open to learning/changing my POV (as has happened more than once). **december** does not strike me as someone of whom this is the case, though I will wholeheartedly admit he is not the only one on either side of the political fence, so to speak:)

> [@](#):
>
> Most of them will say something monumentally stupid. And when they do, we should be quite pleased to point this out. We should _not_ feel free to say “well, I know you’re going to say something monumentally stupid, so let me point out now that you’re going to say something monumentally stupid later.”

Forgive me if I err here, but in both threads you cited I got the impression that **december** ’s usual _modus operandis_ was in place and that he had already done so. Well, okay. While they weren’t _monumentally_ stupid, it rarely takes more than two or three **december** posts in a thread for him to go from “claims I made in the OP” to what I will charitably refer to as **Gary Kumquat’s 5** , a list of **december** ’s predictable methods of response when it is clear that he is going into a battle of wits, logic and facts armed only with a bag of smoke.

> [@](#):
>
> All of which possesses a grain of truth, but none of which is relevant to whether he’s _right_. If you think **december** is a troll who can’t cite to save his soul, Pit him, or point out his improper citations as they occur, rather than just saying “ **december** is a troll who can’t cite to save his soul”

If he were posting an IMHO thread, for example, the title of which were “what size shoe do you wear?”, calling him a troll or talking about his citation tendencies would be completely uncalled-for. However, if he used an Op-Ed piece as unbiased, factual documentation of some claim, then I do not see the problem with saying … well, what I said earlier:)

> [@](#):
>
> Oops. I suppose that could be misconstrued, couldn’t it? Sorry! What I mean is that if the _criticism_ isn’t relevant to the thread, don’t post the bloody criticism in the thread.

I guess we disagree, then, on the matter of whether the criticism was warranted. I personally have seen few times when it has not been appropriate (and I say few only because I do not remember every single time it has happened;)).

> [@](#):
>
> My beef is that, in this case, it was manifestly off target and made its way into the thread anyway, as criticisms of **december** are wont to do. It was pretty clear to me that he was using the Op-Ed piece as the starting point for a debate rather than as a proof that his viewpoint was correct.

And it seems equally certain to me that he was using an Op-Ed piece as a citation for his thoughts, so to speak. True, it is not the most egregious disconnect between reality and **decemberality** that has been in an OP, but … there was nothing in particular that separated it from a usual **december** OP with the possible exception of:

1. It was not immediately inflammatory;
2. It did not immediately bash The Left;
3. It wasn’t founded on utterly ignorant opinion masquerading as proper newsreporting (ie a blog).

> [@](#):
>
> I guess I’m not seeing your point here. If I wanted to have a roundtable discussion on Weekly World News, I’d be well within my rights to try to start one. If no one else was intererested, it would sink like a stone, of course, but I can still start one for any reason I want, surely? I don’t see that it matters _why_ he wants to discuss something.

Sure you’d be well within your rights. But if you were to present the notion that your roundtable discussion stemming from a tabloid’s newsreporting had any basis in useful or relevant fact, you would be extremely hard-pressed to make a case for that. Similarly, if your entire OP was based on the misinformation, lies and partisan bullshit present in your WWN sources, and you presented them as unbiased, unignorable fact, you would quite appropriately get roasted.

> [@](#):
>
> I looked on it as an opportunity to inform and enlighten, and also as a fascinating chance to get a glimpse into our hero’s psyche. Maybe, if we know what he thinks about opinion pieces and why he does so, we’ll have learned something!

I actually had wondered for quite some time how he had come to his present worldview. To be frank, I found it completely and utterly baffling that someone could arrive where he is, especially given his long posting history on this MB, and still be utterly unmoved by factual evidence to the contrary of his POVs. Regretably I have no cite, but ISTR him saying something to the effect of “I got burned by the democratic party, so I am now unreservedly republican”. I have no earthly idea how to search for that thread, or even where it is, so I suppose I must present it as my recollection (and therefore subject to all manner of misremembering, though I think I am fairly close to what he said:)).

> [@](#):
>
> Fine and dandy; bash when appropriate. But before there’s even a thing to bash, save it for later, eh? That’s all.

I think we merely (;)) disagree on when it is appropriate to commence.

> [@](#):
>
> Well, in that and in that he doesn’t go off on screaming little hissy fits of vitriolic rage. Certainly we can credit him for that, can we not?

He does not flame in the manner that many of us do, but his behavior on this MB should not be construed as polite merely because of that. His assholery merely stems from other aspects of his writing and viewpoint.

**Revtim** , I think your analogy is slightly flawed. **december** isn’t so much the sick person who bothers the doctor as he is the person who goes to the doctor complaining that he is sick, ignores the doctor’s advice and asks a friend (with no medical training, but an opinion nonetheless) “Hey, does this skin look infected to you?” Then he brings in that friend’s opinion as fact and trusts that friend more than the doctor. Etc etc. He steadfastly ignores medical texts, the opinions of other doctors and refuses to take medicine or apply topical cream or whatnot. he just keeps on coming in and annoying the doctor.

Now, I’m no **QtM** or **DoctorJ** , but it seems to me that this is not exactly the reason someone would cite for becoming a doctor:)

Lastly, **Cervaise**. I have but one beef with your post, and that is the fact that **december** , for all the ignorance fought in posting to him (or, more accurately, at him;)), does not seem to learn one bit. It is almost as if someone is operating a **decemberbot** , one which posts blogs and opinions in GD and then waits for the cavalry to get there and sort everything out. It would be one thing if he acknowledged his error and at least _said_ he would try harder next time, but there seems to be little evidence that he is actually absorbing any of the information he is shown to contradict his many positions. True, it is a valuable thing to a casual onlooker who might agree with **december** initially, but once that person sees the error in their position they are righted. However, the inherent exasperation for some in seeing the word “ **december** ” next to “thread posted last to by” (or whatever that phrase is:)) sometimes seems hardly worth it. To me, anyway. YMMV, IMHO, etc.

[sub]If I keep on posting stuff this long I’ll _never_ get to 10K…[/sub]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/60 "2003-06-12T06:43:18Z")

</div>

More of this circus?

Well on a point:

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Libertarian \*  
> Liberals use biased sources, too. They just think that BBC, NPR, CNN, et al, are unbiased nonpolitical sources. Washington Post -\> unbiased. Washington Times -\> biased. It’s like that.

For people capable of rational analysis – that would exclude you Lib – there are sources of greater and lesser reliability. No such thing as ‘unbiased’ in the strictest sense but certainly there are sources that a rational person can regard as operationally non-biased relative to the real world (not platonic ideals or ridiculous utopias).

I would place institutions such as BBC, the Washington Post in that basket. I also would place the Economist, the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal (ex their loopy oped page) in that basket. You will note the last three, which rank among my favorite news sources, are conservative. BBC is quite moderate, as in my opinion is the WP despite your stupid use of liberal as a scare word.

The Washington Times is objectively a piece of shit. It’s ostentatious conservativeness does not excuse its shitty reporting, along the lines of Fox.

Your whinging notwithstanding.

I’ll ignore the whiney SOP bullshit. Whinging git.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147.md?page=4)