# To all the december-bashers... **URL:** \ **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:** 4
**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, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/61 "2003-06-12T06:50:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > **Just FTR, g8rguy, I mean you no ill will with any of this, in case it later seems otherwise.** Oh, no problems whatsoever. Except when my reading comprehension skills totally fail me, it’s usually pretty clear when someone is irked with me, and y’all have been quite reasonable about that. I disagree, mind you, with most everything you’re _saying_, but I don’t see any ill will. 🙂 > [@](#): > > **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.** True enough, and it’s hardly worth arguing about in any event. > [@](#): > > **I think that the two examples in your OP, at best, are not the most obvious examples of him making his mind up beforehand.** Well, I just grabbed them because those were the **december** threads I’ve actually read into a bit recently. They’re surprisingly… well, not immediately vapid, aren’t they? > [@](#): > > \*\* 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.\*\* Surely true, and utterly within their rights, but I rather think beside the point. I mean, if they’re _that_ tired of him, they can: 1. Pit him. 2. Ignore him. 3. Call him on things whenever he does something which merits being called on. 4. Waltz on in on one of his threads and bash him rather than, or in addition to, responding to the OP. I don’t see why the last is an appropriate response, and I’m genuinely puzzled that so many other people disagree with me! > [@](#): > > **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:)** No, he doesn’t strike me as someone who’s likely to admit he’s wrong either. But, as you say, he’s hardly unique in this regard. My impression is that he’s in the overwhelming majority, in fact. > [@](#): > > \*\*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. \*\* I may have read them rather more… charitably than some. It seemed to me that in one thread, he was basically presenting a column as something he was thinking about, and asking people to discuss it. Things like “is this a problem? If so, why? What can we do about it?” That sort of thing. His _thoughts_ may have been monumentally stupid, but I read it as him tossing out some ideas for debate, which as I said seems a perfectly valid tactic. He hadn’t even posted again before he got the negative and, IMO baseless, personal feedback. In the other thread, I saw it as him saying “here’s what I think the standards for truthfulness and accuracy in columns should be. What do you think?” There was a bit of discussion which basically concluded that he was more or less right (ha! It happens!), and then a random “too bad you can’t do that in your posts” post. Well, it is entirely true that it’s too bad **december** doesn’t live up to the standards he was presenting as necessary for Op-Ed pieces, but on the other hand… what does this have to do with what the standards for Op-Ed pieces should be? Especially given that, while they’re Op-Ed pieces in disguise, his posts aren’t intended to be published as Op-Ed pieces to begin with. See what I’m trying to get at here? At least in my view, he was being criticized for doing monumentally stupid things he hadn’t done, in a forum intended for debate rather than criticizing **december** for monumentally stupid things. We already _have_ a place for that, and that’s where these kinds of criticisms should go, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > **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:)** Sure! But if hasn’t used an Op-Ed piece as an unbiased factual documentation of claim X, don’t criticize him on the grounds that he _will_, in the future, use an Op-Ed as an unbiased factual documentation of claim X. Or if you wish to criticize this tactic, criticize this tactic in the Pit rather than muddying the debate thread with your personal criticism which is about something that hasn’t even happened yet. > [@](#): > > **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;)).** Eh, in part it’s a disagreement on whether the criticism is warranted, but to me the more important thing is that I think it’s in the wrong place, and quite possibly for the wrong reasons. I have nothing against criticizing him, as I’ve said, I just think it should be done in the appropriate venue. If you want to criticize **december** , pit him. If you want to criticize his posts, criticize his _posts_ rather than criticizing _him_. > [@](#): > > **And it seems equally certain to me that he was using an Op-Ed piece as a citation for his thoughts, so to speak.** _shrugs_ Obviously, we read it differently, and short of asking him, I’m not sure there’s anything more to say on this one then, is there? Of course, the fact that we _can_ read it differently is in and of itself unfortunate, but not, I think, relevant. > [@](#): > > \*\*I actually had wondered for quite some time how he had come to his present worldview. \ 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 recall the same thing, so either we’re both similarly delusional, or that’s pretty much the case. Wow, we agree on something! 🙂 > [@](#): > > **I think we merely (;)) disagree on when it is appropriate to commence.** When and perhaps where as well. Let me be clear that this isn’t about **december** _per se_. This is something that irritates me no matter who it’s about or what the topic is. When I’m reading a thread which I think has the potential to be interesting, I’d rather not have to read through a bunch of crap which has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, in part because it’s a nuisance, in part because it lowers the tone of the thread, and in part because it risks a needless hijack. I think there’s a time and a place for personal criticisms, and when they’re not relevant to the subject at hand, they should be placed elsewhere. I chose to illustrate my point using **december** in part because he’s a lightning rod for the kind of thing I find so irritating, and in part because I really don’t think he was being given an entirely fair shot to present his OP/subsequently hang himself. I was rather hoping to kill two birds with one stone, but as it is, my more fundamental complaint has been somewhat lost in the process. ---
**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, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/62 "2003-06-12T06:56:31Z")
Well, shit. I didn’t mean to post that yet. But I am _not_ going to wade through that mess to see what was in need of corrections and what wasn’t. Sorry. And… **Coll** … whinging git: me or **Lib**? It’s very very late, I’m very very tired (and likely to be very very absent tomorrow, incidentally, **'punha** ), and it’s not 100% clear to me that you meant him. ---
**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, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/63 "2003-06-12T07:06:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > \*\*Well, shit. I didn’t mean to post that yet. But I am _not_ going to wade through that mess to see what was in need of corrections and what wasn’t. Sorry. > And… **Coll** … whinging git: me or **Lib**? It’s very very late, I’m very very tired (and likely to be very very absent tomorrow, incidentally, **'punha** ), and it’s not 100% clear to me that you meant him. \*\* Lib with his standard whinging. Bloody whiner. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/64 "2003-06-12T07:40:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > \*\* So where can we find \*\*December’s “ah shucks, for that would make you a bigoy’ kind of shit” post? \*\* For an example, look at [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=174789&highlight=December+French) , with such particular gems as (aimed at wring and ToF) “I assume the two of you were equally unsympathic when Rosa Parks broke the law by not sitting in the back of the bus”. A quick search on his posts and you’ll find lots of other examples of such accusations. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*So is it ok to flame Elucidator for all of the Krugman columns he used to post as arguments? > > Should we be flaming all of the “Where are the WMDS/Bush was lying” threads for the kneejerk partisan stupidity? > > December is ok. If he’s the most extreme conservative on the board that certainly compares well with what I’m sad to say are more than a few hateful lying rude shits on the other end of the sprectrum.\*\* yes to the first, yes to the second, and a request for examples to the third. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > I will charitably refer to as **Gary Kumquat’s 5** What? Where? When? A l’il help here please. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/65 "2003-06-12T07:49:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > **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. You’re right, it’s poor form; it’s my fault for posting when under the influence of insufficient levels of sleep and/or caffeine. 😉 I’ll try to keep a better rein on it in the future, mmkay? ---
**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, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/66 "2003-06-12T07:56:15Z")
Missed this > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > So is it ok to flame Elucidator for all of the Krugman columns he used to post as arguments? If they’re Krugman columns when he’s off his reservation and not speaking to economics and trade, pls feel free. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/67 "2003-06-12T13:19:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. Excuse me while I replace the batteries on my sarcasm detector. > [@](#): > > 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. Because you have conservative friends that means its impossible for you to be biased against a conservative? This is kind of like the old, “I have a black friend so I can’t be a racist.” > [@](#): > > how on earth do we reconcile the above facts with your claim here? It’s convenient how you completely ignore half of my point. All the posters you mention put together don’t start as many threads as **december** does. He puts himself out there more, and as a result draws much more attention to himself. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/68 "2003-06-12T13:35:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Ludovic and Gr8guy: > > So is it ok to flame Elucidator for all of the Krugman columns he used to post as arguments? > > Should we be flaming all of the “Where are the WMDS/Bush was lying” threads for the kneejerk partisan stupidity? > > December is ok. If he’s the most extreme conservative on the board that certainly compares well with what I’m sad to say are more than a few hateful lying rude shits on the other end of the sprectrum. > And, on preview what grienspace said probably has some truth to it. \*\* 1. Yes. If someone Cites to an Op-ed piece as their sole support for a factual assertion they should be called on it. If they do it repeatedly, they should be roundly mocked as dishonest. Regardless of position- even one **you** support. 2. Kneejerk partisan stupidity? Excuse me? If you have a beef how about making in the threads themselves? Seeing there is now 5 of them, I guess most of the board feels differently then you- or maybe all those posters are just “stupid partisans”. Really, I expected more out of you. BTW, insulting others for being “stupid partisens” from the man who started the **When will Hillary apologize** thread? Please review the case of Pot vs Kettle. BTW, have those apology’s to Clinton been issued yet for all those “wag the dog” insults he got for bombing Al Queda and Iraq? I gave you **plenty** of Cites. 3. Massive leftist conspiracy? Heh heh heh, come on- in the light of day you have to admit how silly that sounds. * * * If **december** was a rabid Cite abusing left-leaning poster would you be working so hard to excuse his many misdeeds? Given your posts in this thread, I doubt it. I imagine we would just see his name swapped for that of **Elucidator** in your posts. FWIW, every time someone starts ranting about how something is the fault of those evil “liberals” I think of that horrible Mallard Fillmore comic- is that how you want to sound? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/69 "2003-06-12T13:41:00Z")
Re: Op-Ed Pieces I think we all agree that the fact that a writer of an Op-Ed piece agrees with a certain idea is not proof that it is true. But ISTM that many here are trying to extend this too far, and disqualify any reference to an Op-Ed piece by pretending that all cases involve this type of reasoning. I think there are three examples - all commonly used by december - in which referencing an Op-Ed piece has some validity. 1. Referencing facts (as opposed to opinion) that are contained therein. We’ve been through this before, with specific reference to december. Some care needs to be taken here, both with regards to the reliability of the Op-Ed writer (a condition that also prevails with other cites) and the nature of the cite in terms of fact vs. opinion. (Many times facts can be described in subjective terms - the facts may be true but the description may be debatable). 2. Introducing others’ arguments as a subject for debate. Perfectly legitimate. Others have brought this up in this thread but it does not seem to be universally accepted - I can’t fathom why. What difference is there between saying “here’s an opinion that I hold - what do you think?” and “here’s an opinion that Columnist X holds - what do you think?”. From the standpoint of the debate it’s the exact same thing. Frankly, my observation here would be that there is in general not a whole lot of original thought on the SDMB. Particularly on “hot-button” topics, the vast majority of posters’ arguments and positions are ones that are widely circulated in the media, in articles, editorials, talk shows etc. etc. The fact that someone is crediting a source for an idea does not disqualify it. 1. This last one is on a bit shakier ground. But ISTM that many times what happens in these debates is that december’s idea are completely rejected and ridiculed and derided as knee-jerk partisan junk. This kind of lowers the bar on what can be brought as counter-evidence. Because at that point, by showing that presumably intelligent people - particularly if they are ideological opponents - share the same view, it tends to undercut the notion that the idea is as ridiculous or as partisan as the bashers would have you believe. So while of course the cite cannot be used to show that the idea is correct, it does have some validity in showing that it is not as ridiculous as people would have you believe. (It is somewhat analogous to a debate over some scientific theory. If Poster A merely said that the theory is wrong for Reason X, you could not merely refer to a scientist that holds to it. But if Poster A said that the theory is absolute weirdo junk science, than it would be legitimate to point to mainstream respectable scientists who hold to that view). ISTM that most or all of december’s references to Op-Ed pieces fall into one of these three categories. I’m curious if someone can show me an example that does not. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > I get particularly tired of this. > > failure to use profanity/name calling does **not** = “polite”. > > he doesn’t swear. he doesn’t call specific posters names. he doesn’t use insults. > > however, he is most decidedly not polite. > > Suggesting ‘gently’ that your position can be seen as bigoted is another way of saying ‘you hold bigoted thoughts/you are a bigot’ for example. You’ve made this argument many times. I don’t agree with it. What you are saying is that there are offensive things that a person can do even while being polite. That is not the same thing as being as being impolite. This is more than a semantic debate. Because there is some types of offense that are par for the course in GD. Someone who is too thin skinned would be wise to stay out of debating. Politeness is something that anyone can do, and for this reason the standards are higher in this regard. The things you complain about are substantive - you cannot ask someone to modify his opinions or avoid arguments in support of them because his opponent will be offended. Anyone can avoid calling his opponent a name without losing the ability to keep up his end of the argument. But if your very position is that your opponent’s position is bigoted, you cannot lose the ability to point this out without losing the ability to argue for your side. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > This is brought up in EVERY SINGLE **december** Pit thread. > > And each time, it’s been knocked down. It’s absolute bullshit. There are plenty of other conservative posters around here who do not draw the ire that **december** has. Why is that? This is delusional. It has not been “knocked down” each time. What you really mean is that you’ve disagreed with it each time. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Coldfire \* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. What is or is not poor form is not necessarily dependent on SDMB rules or their interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/70 "2003-06-12T13:41:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*Excuse me while I replace the batteries on my sarcasm detector. \*\* [Comic Book Guy] Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that’s a _real_\* useful invention. [/CBG] ---
**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, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/71 "2003-06-12T13:52:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > For an example, look at [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=174789&highlight=December+French) , with such particular gems as (aimed at wring and ToF) “I assume the two of you were equally unsympathic when Rosa Parks broke the law by not sitting in the back of the bus”. That is probably an excellent example of why I don’t see eye to eye with you and many others regarding December’s culpability in showing a lack of respect for fellow dopers. My take on this is **wring and ToF** opening the responses in the thread by gratuitously dismissing December’s post and glibly playing “they broke the law” card. I felt that those two were insulting, and I have no doubt that those two felt justified by history in putting **December** down. December responded to the two replies in a fashion that I might have as well. It was a direct and appropriate counter to the pertinence of “breaking the law” in evaluating the justification for **December’s** concern about anti-semitism in France. And I failed to see one ounce of malicious insult on **December’s** part. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/72 "2003-06-12T14:06:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*Lib with his standard whinging. Bloody whiner. \*\* Look guys, he’s using that word again. Let’s hold him down and beat him. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/73 "2003-06-12T14:20:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Look guys, he’s using that word again. Let’s hold him down and beat him. \*\* “standard” is a perfectly cromlument word. I don’t see what your issue is. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/74 "2003-06-12T14:23:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Ludovic and Gr8guy: > > So is it ok to flame Elucidator for all of the Krugman columns he used to post as arguments? > \*\* cite? (if its anything like December’s tactics, of course it it) > [@](#): > > \*\* > Should we be flaming all of the “Where are the WMDS/Bush was lying” threads for the kneejerk partisan stupidity? > \*\* If all they do is cite an article and NOT EVEN ELUCIDATE A POINT OF VIEW, and leave it to the reader to start an argument, and then proceed to pick and whine that you have been “misunderstood” and pick and choose the parts of the other arguments to respond to, then, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/75 "2003-06-12T14:28:35Z")
ludovic: Search for “Krugman” in the titles, and you’ll find two threads by 'Luce like this. There’s also maybe another one or two without “krugman” on the title. I’d link 'em but this is the computer that can’t keep more than a single window open. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/76 "2003-06-12T15:53:44Z")
color me both unsurprised and unimpressed **grieny** that you don’t see/understand why **december’s** posts in that thread (thanx **Gary** that’s the one I was thinking of) were so offensive. Suffice it to say that I was offended, deeply so. And others saw the offense (on both sides of the political equation), **december** acknowledged that he didn’t intend the offense, the fact that you don’t agree doesn’t make it all go away. there’s still some folks that tell **Esprix** that he ‘shouldn’t be offended/bent out of shape’ for folks using the word ‘gay’ to mean ‘lame’ etc. So, you’ll continue to defend **december** , not seeing that he’s **as offensive** to some of us as **Col** is to you. I don’t take offense easily (or at least I don’t think I do). I generally (notice the word **generally** ) don’t attack personally, or at least I don’t **often** get people yelling at me for my nasty tactics, words etc. Folks disagree w/me all the time, but I’m not normally one that gets repeated chastisments from other posters, staff etc. I suggest that if that sort of thing happens a lot, perhaps, theres’ some level of justification in the complaint, even if you personally do not see the insult/problem. Mere hand waving of “I don’t see the offense” or “you just disagree w/him politically” really doesn’t cover it. I don’t care that you don’t see the offense. I did. and felt it, too. there’s any number of folks I disagree w/that I don’t take the trouble to join in on pit threads about. I do w/him. So, it ain’t his politics, it’s his tactics and actions. **Scylla** you didn’t ask _me_ if it was ok to pit **lucy** for similar things, I’d say pit away. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/77 "2003-06-12T16:07:42Z")
**grieny** “you can’t use your friends blah blah blah” I dont’ expect that all those folks listed hold the same specific positions that **december** does. Hell I dont’ know anyone on earth who does, all the way down the line. (he has decidedly non conservative views on a few subjects) I was accused of not liking/pitting **december** because I didn’t agree w/his poltical views, vs. my stated complaints about **his actions** here. I pointed out a long list (not complete) of people who hold generally more conservative views than I on a wide variety of subjects whom I don’t dislike/pit whatever. Some are folks I’d proudly call friends, others are merely folks I know off the top of my head. I would suggest that since I demonstrated that there’s any number of people (some friends, some not) who I do **not** complain about on a regular basis who hold divergent views to mine, **and** that there are people who’s views I share but I’ve slapped at verbally around here that I’ve demonstrated that for me, the accusation of “It’s his views, not his posts that gets you” is wrong and should be retracted. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/78 "2003-06-12T16:27:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*Excuse me while I replace the batteries on my sarcasm detector. no need, when you claim to know ‘why’ I do something, after I’ve explained that it isn’t what you claim, I don’t know what else to call it. > [@](#): > > Because you have conservative friends that means its impossible for you to be biased against a conservative? This is kind of like the old, “I have a black friend so I can’t be a racist.” > > It’s convenient how you completely ignore half of my point. All the posters you mention put together don’t start as many threads as **december** does. He puts himself out there more, and as a result draws much more attention to himself. Bull fucking shit, and nice racist type aside as well. You accused me of complaining of him because of his **political views** , not because of how often he does OP’s. Since I do not routinely pit/complain about **other folks** who share similar (and in some cases the same) political views, your claim that it’s his views is categorically wrong, especially since my specific complaints are **in fact** about **how he posts, how he argues, his specific insults** not about his views, per se. RE: the fact he posts OP’s - if you’d done a search of my writings on the subject of this man, you’d have noticed that I’ve personally suggested that he gets more pit threads _partially_ 'cause of the fact that he posts OP’s more than most. BUt, it ] **wasn’t** what you accused me of in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/79 "2003-06-12T17:00:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*More of this circus? > > Well on a point: > 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. \*\* “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.” — Coldfire ---
**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, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147/80 "2003-06-12T17:10:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > Oh, no problems whatsoever. Except when my reading comprehension skills totally fail me, it’s usually pretty clear when someone is irked with me, and y’all have been quite reasonable about that. I disagree, mind you, with most everything you’re _saying_, but I don’t see any ill will. 🙂 Simple reason for that, really. You’re wrong;)😃 > [@](#): > > Well, I just grabbed them because those were the **december** threads I’ve actually read into a bit recently. They’re surprisingly… well, not immediately vapid, aren’t they? They are not nearly as bad as other threads **december** has started/participated in. However, again I think the emphasis needs to be “as bad”, because resorting to saying “oh, it’s not as bad” tends to ignore the fact that it’s not all that stellar either. Consider: 1. A million people die from some random thing 2. 750 thousand people die from same thing. Now, clearly the second is not as bad. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that you’ve still got 3/4 of a million people dead from one thing:) > [@](#): > > Surely true, and utterly within their rights, but I rather think beside the point. I mean, if they’re _that_ tired of him, they can: > > 1. Pit him. > 2. Ignore him. > 3. Call him on things whenever he does something which merits being called on. > 4. Waltz on in on one of his threads and bash him rather than, or in addition to, responding to the OP. 1. Done _ad nauseam_, and since **december** has a habit of simply not showing up or only responding to people who support him instead of addressing valid points, it can seem rather pointless. Part of (to me, anyway) the point of a pitting is that the person shows up and responds to you in that thread. If they simply stop paying any attention or responding, you’re in essence talking to a brick wall. 2. Even more useless. Ignore him and the newbies think there may be some validity to his posts. Not everyone knows how to spot the, ah, inaccuracies in a **december** post, after all. 3. Done quite often, and so far (seemingly … again, to me at least) rather uneffective. 4. Done as well. Is the needless bashing done more than deserved? Possibly. But I don’t think it’s markedly more than he deserves by any stretch, and he isn’t complaining (at least, not here). > [@](#): > > I don’t see why the last is an appropriate response, and I’m genuinely puzzled that so many other people disagree with me! Because so many people here are tired of putting up with him and see that he has posted and immediately get angry because the odds of him showing some sort of reform are slim to none? When I first started reading his posts I thought to myself “Okay, this one won’t be as bad … he’ll have learned from the information other people have given him.” Nope. And so more than 3 years and several thousand posts later, it’s not as easy to say “Okay, let’s wait and read the whole thing and see if he’s learned.” Odds are very heavily in favor of the opposite. > [@](#): > > In the other thread, I saw it as him saying “here’s what I think the standards for truthfulness and accuracy in columns should be. What do you think?” There was a bit of discussion which basically concluded that he was more or less right (ha! It happens!), and then a random “too bad you can’t do that in your posts” post. Quite frankly, the notion that **december** was able to come up with a standard for truthfulness and accuracy (and that more than 3 people agreed to) is astounding to me. His usual definitions of truthfulness and accuracy essentially boil down to “whatever agrees with my point of view”, whether it’s about the caloric content of moondust or the price of shit in Bangladesh. One would hope, for example( hypothetically speaking), that if he were told repeatedly and with indisputable citations that moondust has more calories than deep-fried lard and that Balgladesh shit is sold at not less than 3 cents and not more than 5 cents per metric ton, he would not insist that moondust is the ideal food for those hoping to lose weight and that Bangladesh shit is more expensive per ton than apples. > [@](#): > > Well, it is entirely true that it’s too bad **december** doesn’t live up to the standards he was presenting as necessary for Op-Ed pieces, but on the other hand… what does this have to do with what the standards for Op-Ed pieces should be? Especially given that, while they’re Op-Ed pieces in disguise, his posts aren’t intended to be published as Op-Ed pieces to begin with. Getting a touch off-topic here (I _so_ have a right to bring that up;)), but to me the notion that **december** is trying to set a standard for Op-Ed pieces is rather like President Bush whining about how overly religious someone is. His posts are intended by him to be (IMO, anyway) factual, logically consistent arguments when they aren’t him simply asking for opinions. That his arguments are, and are based in, Op-Ed pieces does not speak well to the notion that they are meant otherwise, unfortunately. > [@](#): > > See what I’m trying to get at here? At least in my view, he was being criticized for doing monumentally stupid things he hadn’t done, in a forum intended for debate rather than criticizing **december** for monumentally stupid things. We already _have_ a place for that, and that’s where these kinds of criticisms should go, don’t you think? Quite honestly, if it can be resolved in GD in the proper thread I think it’s a lot more fruitful than bringing the Pit in. There is plenty of room for criticism in GD so long as personal attacks are not used (and even those get missed or allowed on occasion whether due to mods simply not having the time to read every post or because of various exceptions). > [@](#): > > Sure! But if hasn’t used an Op-Ed piece as an unbiased factual documentation of claim X, don’t criticize him on the grounds that he _will_, in the future, use an Op-Ed as an unbiased factual documentation of claim X. Or if you wish to criticize this tactic, criticize this tactic in the Pit rather than muddying the debate thread with your personal criticism which is about something that hasn’t even happened yet. Eh…given that his SOP is fairly predictable, I don’t think it’s unfair to warn people who are new to his game of what he’s going to do. Reminds me: [Gary Kumquat’s 5.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189290&highlight=december) 'bout 2/3 down the page. **Gary** , if it was your impression that I used the phrase offensively, I apologize. I was merely referring to it as a list of five that you wrote:) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-all-the-december-bashers/181147.md?page=5)