How the hell does that truncation change the basic meaning, let alone create a strawman, of Guin’s definition of “one-trick pony”?
It does so because the truncated quote isn’t Guin’s defintion of ‘one trick pony’ - it’s part of the definition. If you replace the snippet with the whole of Guin’s paragraph, it makes nonsense of PRR’s post - it reads as though he missed the point entirely.
No, the first sentence was her definition.:
The non bolded part is clearly, to me, just another reason she doesn’t like badchad. Constantly attacking and nitpicking have nothing to do with being a one-trick-pony, AFAIK. I guess you thought that was some generic “He” to continue the definition? I didn’t.
I’m not reading it as a dictionary-style definition, that’s why. My reading of the meaning of Guin post is “Look, he’s a one trick pony because he only posts on the same subject, agreesively and obsessively”. Maybe I did misunderstand it, in which case I will be happy to retract everything I have said. (Care to clarify, Guin?)
That’s how I read it, too. His “trick” is “being a dick to anyone who isn’t a strict atheist.”
I wouldn’t have any problem with the idea that Darwin’s Finch is also a one-trick pony, but he’s not a dick about it, and he provides information and insight that not many people have. badchad hasn’t told us anything you couldn’t learn from any random clove-smoking teenager in a black trenchcoat. He’s not an expert, he’s not original, and he’s not posting here in good faith. He’s a troll and an asshole, and has no business being a member of this board.
Here is Guinistasia’s original quote:
And here is how pseudotriton ruber ruber quoted it:
To my ear, the omitted clause changes the meaning slightly. pseudotriton ruber ruber, given your profession I’m sure you know that an ellipsis would have been the appropriate choice here. Since the original was still visible on the same page, I doubt you did this with malice aforethought, but arguing that a period is acceptable just makes you look stubborn.
I know, I’m just kidding.
Basically, to expand, a one trick pony is always singing the same tune-you know right away what he’s going to say when he shows up, you can pretty much predict his response, and he has nothing new to add.
It’s always the same thing with badchad-anyone who isn’t an atheist is automatically a hypocrite. He starts out with the same agenda every time, has no interest in being civil and conducting honest debate. He’s only there to gloat and keeping harping on the same thing, over and over. If he can’t win a debate without being a jackass to the people he disagrees with, then perhaps his argument isn’t as strong as he makes out to be.
He’s old hat, he’s boring, and he’s a dick.
Does that clear it up?
Anyway, to the topic. Are people still seriously claiming that badchad is held to be the villain for any other genuine reason than his attitude and behaviour? In what way, other than his attitude and behaviour is he unique?
Stong atheism?
Tenacity?
Singlemindedness?
I don’t think so. We’ve got those attributes abundantly in other members. Seriously, the ‘you’re just hating him because he’s dangerous to your beliefs’ argument simply doesn’t hold water. If that was the problem, the theists would be trembling at the very mention of some of the other tenacious strong atheists we have here, and there simply wouldn’t be so much concern from the other atheists themselves over badchad’s behaviour and attitude. It’s not an excuse - it’s the reason.
And what the hell is up with my coding today?
(on preview) Thanks for the clarification Guin
The key difference between a one trick pony and, say, Darwin’s Finch, is that the latter tends to be responsive. That is, someone else asks a question or commences a debate and DF responds. One trick ponies tend to start debates, ask questions, hijack, pit and flame all so they can get onto their pet topic.
Badchad is nothing if not directly responsive. You might not like the vigor or the vocabulary with which he responds, but to call him unresponsive is to betray a highly selective use of the term “responsive.” I think many of his interlocutors have been blatantly unresponsive to his direct questions, but no one seems very excited about that.
A period is acceptable.
Making a to do over a bit of neutral punctuation that, at worst, arguably changes the meaning in an insignificant way, however, is fairly close to an admission that you’ve got nothing to do here other than to nitpick my posts.
I mean, John Corrado makes a perfect asshole out himself trying to use a ten-dollar word to suggest that members of my profession are uniformly unmanly, I bust him on it, and no one again mentions his foolishness, while you guys devote a half-dozen posts to give me grief over a highly arguable excessive period (the horror!!)–you don’t think that’s putting your biases on public display? I do.
If you may jump on John Mace for misspelling a word, others may jump on you for not following normal editorial conventions. You dish it out, and you take it. You take it, and you dish it out. Such is life.
Fuck it. Not like I give a shit about “popularity” on the SDMB --or the 'net or RL for that matter – so I might as well say it.
I think badchad kicks Christian ass every which way including Sundays.
Is he rude? Sure. Especially if you’re the one who’s ass is being kicked.
Boring? Hell no. Anything but.
A dick? None of my business.
Troll? Please. Just because he knows more about the religion those of you who choose to confront him hardly makes a troll.
Change the topic being debated and think about it. And if you can’t, just thin of the way some fundies/creationists have been treated around here. By that measure, badchad’s a wimp or a gent.
Ultimately, I can surely understand the ill-will he raises amongsts the faithful. OTOH, while it is not usually my style – besides the fact that I lack (and hardly care to adquire it) his knowledge of the Bible – I see nothing wrong with having a “fundamentalist atheist” or two on board. Lord knows we’ve seen enough of the other kind…
Shit, I don’t need to be on the 'net to run into whacko all jacked up on Jesus. They actually knock on my fucking door to tell me about it!
Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?
Can you understand the ill-will he raises among the non-faithful?
But, RedFury, the other kind tends to be handed their hat as well.
I am aware that standards and styles in writing change over time, but for decades there has been no source on grammar more highly respected in the United States than Harbrace. The most recent edition is unavailable to me, but the Eleventh Edition states the following on page 175:
On page 176:
OMISSION AT THE END OF A QUOTED SENTENCE
If an omission at the end of the quoted sentence coincides with the end of your sentence, use a period in addition to the three ellipsis points, leaving no space immediately after the last letter in your sentence.
[/quote]
So not there either.
Before I was a teacher, I was an editorial assistant for a huge publishing house. Editing a sentence without the ellipsis points was strictly forbidden because it could so easily change the meaning.
For example:
Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber wrote this sentence:
I feel reasonably certain that he would have a legitimate protest if someone quoted him as saying that Badchad was nothing.
Thou hath said.
Anyone who insists that the Bible, or any other holy book for that matter, has only one interpretation doesn’t know dick about the religion.
Well RedFury, I agreee with you most of the time, but in this case you are confusing assholiness with holiness, you are ignoring that our “fundamentalist atheist” **badchad ** follows a scorched earth policy when dealing with believers, not all atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc follow that path.