I think DITWD is confusing someone telling him he is wrong with a personal attack. He says he has cites and links to prove his point, but he doesn’t. If someone points out the fact that his link is broken or that the cite provided is not a good one (he linked to a chiropractor posting on a message board, for chrissake!), he seems to take it as a personal attack.
You have still to prove your point. Unless your point is how easily you are offended or that you are thin-skinned.
Biggirl, I’ll provide you with one of the links:
And I’ll readily admit that I “personally attacked” DITWD by calling him a liar, because he is a liar.
See, here’s his M.O. Someone else presents an initial premise – “Bush’s education plan defines clear goals and only applies to schools that fail to meet certain standards” or “Daniel is probably not a racist.”
DITWD responds (for reasons known only to him) by presenting a premise that is not only the polar opposite of the initial premise, but that completely defies reason – “Bush’s plan defines ‘failing’ as ‘not making progress’ but doesn’t define ‘progress’” or “He just called me a racist.”
When the presenter of the initial premise, or someone else, calls him on it, he goes into defensive mode. He argues for several pages based on his faulty information, misuses cites, quotes selectively from the cites he does use, and resorts to time-honored authorities on, say, genetics like the Oxford English Dictionary. :rolleyes:
Eventually, after he battles on like this for several posts, he says, “Waaaaah! You won’t accept my faulty argument! You’re an asshole! You resort to personal attacks! I won’t debate with you anymore!”
He is fundamentally dishonest in these debates, he relies on outdated information, he misuses cites, he makes demonstrably false claims about cites, he uses weasel words constantly, and he quotes selectively. He still persists in this disingenuous persecution complex regarding him in particular and Christians in specific at the SDMB. I think Satan got it absolutely right when he called him “Dickheadinthewolvesass.”
Well now…
Adventurious82 - I’ll admit to being a bit snide, though not I think overtly nasty, in my replies to your thread. I apologize if I came across as belittling you ( Not sure that I did, but just in case ). Whatever my intentions at the time I was probably a bit unfair since I really wasn’t clear on your intent. But the reason I responded the way I did ( aside from perhaps being a bit irritable lately ) was exactly because I was confused as to your intent. It was by no means clear to me that you weren’t trolling. It seems now, that perhaps you weren’t.
However I still stand by my contention that your thesis is fundamentally flawed ( and like Collounsbury and a good many others I’m tired of the race debate which may have added to an exasperated tone ) and completely unsupported by the available facts. I hope you don’t take that bald statement as a personal attack - It’s not intended as such.
Phil, in the thread that you linked to, DITWD makes an assertion about what Bush’s plan defines as “failing”. This assertion is quite strongly made, with no sources cited, although it requires one to believe that Bush’s plan defies logic. When asked where this rather incredible claim comes from, he refers to it being somewhere in that day’s SJMercury-News. He provides a quote that does seem to indicate that failure to improve would cause a school to be considered to be failing. Nothing indicates that this is the single exclusive criterion that is used, although, out of context it could be read that way.
You then provide a link to the article in question. Since the article really doesn’t seem to indicate that Danniel’s assertion is correct, although a strict reading wouldn’t actually rule out his interpretation. That is, the article does say that a school that fails to improve for three years is failing, and from the context, a rational person would assume that they are referring to the schools that fail to meet certain criteria outlined in the previous sentence.
You then call Daniel a liar bacause of this. I maintain that it is entirely possible that he’s just an idiot, and that he really didn’t see the need to link to the article to provide context. He may also firmly believe that the SDMB rules set the “fair use” limit for quotes at about 23 words, rather than about two paragraphs, which is what I seem to recall. Even after you linked to the text of the plan itself, then spelled out exactly how to interpret it logically, that does not mean that he necessarily was able to understand it.
So, using Daniel’s own three criteria for him to be considered a liar:
I’m sufficiently convinced that his interpretation of Bush’s plan is wrong.
I’m also convinced that while the SJMN article does not exactly rule out Daniel’s interpretation, it is at the very least ambiguous on the point, if you ignore the obvious assumptions.
However, I contend that it is impossible to know exactly what goes on in Daniel’s mind. He has claimed to have an IQ of 153, so I would be inclined to think that he can understand simple English and logic. But I really can’t say for sure.
So, overall, I see no reason that he is provably a liar. Full of shit is probably a more accurate description.
And before I have to suffer the ignominy of being ignored by Daniel, I would like to point out that I was not exactly engaging in ad hominem argument here. My point was that Daniel is full of shit. There really is no way to make that point without happening to insult him in the process. For it to have been ad hominem, I would have to have fulfilled the following four criteria…
Here is DITWD’s answer to me after I had asked, repeatedly, that he define race and where it was he found all this proof that the negroid race was a scientific classification.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**
Go ahead and check the links. And I still contend that I never attacked him personally. I disagreed with him, but did not attack him personally.
Seeing as how I was accused of it in that thread anyway. I guess I’ll use my chance now.
Daniel, you are hardheaded and obstinate. When faced with facts that disagree with your viewpoint, you get all defensive and say people are attacking you.
When your statements are proved false you turn around and say “I didn’t say that, exactly.” and start playing semantic games. I can’t believe that you could be so delusional as to think other people would not read the damned threads in question and see what a poor debater you are.
I was never “against” you. I disagreed with you. Poor, poor Danielinthewolvesden, nobody understands his genius.
I think this was the most insightful thing posted in this thread so far. I might add that he has the gall to call GD Moderator Gaudere rude on numerous occasions. I’ve not yet hit 100 posts, and even I can see that the patience that woman exhibits (particularly when dealing with Ditwad) is phenomenal.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t shed any tears when I’m lumped in the category of the others who don’t care for Ditwad because he’s ignorant (yet haughty) at best.
Water- i would not refuse to debate with you becuase you called me “full of shit”- or somewhat more nicely -“wrong”. I have been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again. The above post is why you seem to be not worth the time. Show me I am wrong, please- by example.
Biggirl- as I said before- several other folks were using the racist label- you just seemed to be getting WAY over-excited. Was it really nessesary to say “DEFINE RACE!!” whole bunches of times inside one post- before i even can? You have not engaged in “over-the-line” behavior. Others did. No-one was listening to anyone else. Note that i conceded several points- when somebody took the time to explain them without calling me a “racist” (which I am not), or engaging in personal attacks & ad hominem arguements. You can see the example here of several who would rather be an asshole than educate.
quix- please examine the title line of this thread. Thank you.
There’s the love I wanted. Coolness.
Quix
Now, I realize my post count is low and all, so maybe there’s things I ain’t learned yet about this Straight Dope board…
…but I’m thinkin’…
…if the point I wanted to make was that I wasn’t going to talk to people who I think are mean to me (sorry DITWD if I misunderstood but I believe this is the jist of your OP), I might think twice about starting up a Pit Thread announcing that fact. Kinda reminds me of when I was a youngun and my sister would sit there and repeat over and over again “I’m ignoring you, I’m ignoring you, I’m ignoring you, I’m ignoring you, I’m ignoring you, I’m ignoring you, I’m ignoring you, I’m ignoring you (etc.)”
But hey, that’s just me - whine on, wolfman.
I don’t know what half the people in this thread would do if they didn’t have you to bash. I enjoy reading your threads, though I rarely agree with them. I don’t ned to jump in and call you an asshole, because there’s already no shortage of people waiting for you to say anything in any thread. If it wasn’t for you, half the people here would have no posts.
I do think you bring a lot of it on yourself, but I also think a lot of people on here have nothing better in their little lives than to attack anyone they have a chance to.
I think I’ll pass on your ‘pledge’, and remain nuetral.
They’d also probably have a lot fewer gray hairs…
High Plains Drifter, I just want to point out that it was Danielinthewolvesden who started this thread and it was he who called those who disagree with him assholes.
Just setting the record straight.
Daniel, Adventurous, et al.
Part of the problem, I think, has to do with the nature of race threads. Here’s how it typically goes.
Original Poster: I think race X is Y.
Bunch of other posters: Race, as an objective concept, doesn’t exist.
OP:Sure it does…I know what somebody of race X looks like.
BoOP: <long, many page discussion of population genetics, utility of the term “race”, discussion of inheritable characteristics, some gratuitous name calling, cites from scientific journals, etc.>
<after 4 pages>
OP: Ok, I guess you guys are right. Race doesn’t exist.
The next week…
New Original Poster: I think race X is Y.
After this goes on for a while, the BoOP get frustrated, and I think that’s what’s happened.
Actually, i think a better term would be race “as a genetic” concept does not exist.
And actually i do understand that, having to repeat myself, here, over & over on certain subjects. So i made allowances. However, again, attacking folk will do just the opposite of what you want. If you DO want to convince folks that "race’ does not exist, you have to explain it to them in a way that they will want to go along with. Namecalling, personal attacks, and the use of too much profanity will only make those you are attacking decide you are an “asshole”, and they will NEVER agree with you, or your thesis.
Biggirl- folks often do disagree with me- it is to be expected- i enjoy it, at times. However, personal attacks are used by assholes, which is why i will simply link:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57835
Nor have i said that YOU used personal attacks- altho you did “yell” more than a bit. This thread was not aimed or directed at you, sorry. In any case, with your repeated insistance that I call anyone who simply disagrees with me an "asshole’, you are getting close to that mark yourself. Why are you so angry at me? Because i stopped posting in that thread?
I admit to “yelling”. And you did accuse me of personally attacking you on the recent pit race thread.
I’m glad you are not calling me an asshole, though.
Um, the thing is, lots of people called DITWD a racist. Wait, “you say/believe racist things.” Is there a difference? Calling someone a racist, or stating that their belief is racist is not helpful. If you think he’s wrong, say so and explain why. “Racist” is one of those words that cannot be used if you hope to continue a civil discussion. If you call someone a racist, you are basically giving someone one last flame before you write them off and give up trying to talk to them.
YES, there really are racists out there, YES, some people really do have racist ideas. But think about what your goals are. Are you trying to educate the poster, or flame them? If you are merely flaming, go ahead with the racist charge. If you are trying to educate then an accusation of racism isn’t going to help, even if you feel it is deserved.
I told Randy in the “Creationists: Ignorant or Brainwashed?” thread that I’d write a post here providing links to the other threads in which DITWD’s lies were laid bare. Without further ado:
This is the thread in which Gaudere painstakingly analyzes DITWD’s arguments and shows how unreliable (and, in the end, totally dishonest) he is:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=50675
Here is a later Pit thread which Fenris wrote in response to DITWD’s accusing him of comparing Creationists to Holocaust deniers. It’s also the thread where DITWD really goes off the deep end with his accusations and insults:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56215
Here’s the thread in which he falsely accused Collounsbury of calling him a “fucking racist”:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57167&pagenumber=1
I also found this amusing juxtaposition:
In the “Books for Fundies” thread, DITWD described his debate with Gaudere thusly:
**
Seems pretty complimentary, right? After all, he’s saying that he conceded the point, because she presented a better argument than he did.
Now, after people pointed to Gaudere’s Pit thread as proof of DITWD’s dishonesty, here’s how he characterized Gaudere’s debating style in Fenris’ thread, cited above:
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
**True, Gaudere is so very violently atheist, that anyone making any sort of arguement based on facts that is pro Bible makes her incoherant with rage.
[QUOTE]
**
Gee, DITWD, if by your own admission Gaudere presented better evidence than you did, but you later say that she was “incoherant (sic) with rage,” then what does that say about your argument? That it was worse than incoherent rage?
-Ben
Daniel, I took more than my share of blows in the ad-hominem game. Some of them came from, I won’t mention names, I’ll just say that some came from the writer of the OP to this thread. You should take the blows as well.
Cap- thanks bro- but I am running out of cheeks to turn. 
Hey, if I answer the above set of “Big Lies” with a link to this thread- does that make this a moebis thread? Consider it done. Gotta go back to just ignoring the pissants.
Big lies? Could you point out one small lie even in Ben’s post? Please? I’ve noticed your general response to anything Ben says about you is to refer to the “big lie technique”. I’d just like to see you once back up these accusations. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone agree with that analysis of ben’s posting, so that “big lie” seems to be pretty well accepted, whatever it is.
Incidentally, the discussion of whether or not collounsbury called daniel a “fucking racist” and whether or not daniel accused him of it is on page three of the linked thread.