Too many DeLay threads

[Homebrew]

@Harborwolf

But he wasn’t attacking anything. He may have been a bit snide, but he was correcting the op about his search usage. That’s it.

Nope. The exact ratio of DeLay:Frist threads is irrelevant and was obviously an attempt at humor. Even bringing up the “incorrect” numbers is pedantic at best and seems, given the repeated instances of diversion, a blatant attempt to divert attention from the content of the OP to the style and thereby shield the real object of scorn from criticism.

[Harborwolf]

@manhattan

Um. Did you, uh, screen out those threads which contained the not-uncommon English word “delay,” which when experienced might cause someone to be in a Pitiful mood?

I’ve never leapt to defend either person. That said, the search term “Tom DeLay” turns up 76 threads. Among people inclined to flame either or both of DeLay and Frist I can easily see that Rep. DeLay might be roughly 25% more annoying than Sen. Frist.

How is this a distraction? How is this attempting to shield anybody from anything? It’s a friggin’ correction.

This is coming off less as a point of debate and more like knee jerk hatred of Manhattan.

[Homebrew]

Are you discussing the ratio, manhattan’s tactics or what Frist said?

[manhattan]

And just to back that up, I think you’ve actually got a reasonable Pit thread somewhere. Certainly you won’t get me, an atheist, to defend a politician’s pandering to religion with anything more than a resigned and annoyed “S/he isn’t alone in doing this.” But J, seriously, man, you messed this one up in the construction. That’s all I’m sayin’ here.

[Harborwolf]

I’m referring to Manhattan’s posts. I’m not going to refer to them as “his tactics” because that would be stupid. He posted a correction of the ratio.

The only thing it looks like he is guilty of is taking a bad bit of exagerration seriously. If you want to read it as some sort of nefarious tactic, that’s your mania.

[John_Mace]

**Jack **has done the Pit equivalent of screwing up the punchline of a joke. If you have to explain things too much, your Pitting gets lost in the noise. Better off to start a Frist Pit thread, as that is what he seems to really be after. Too latefor this thread though, as it’s now all about his attempt at being clever which instead backfired.

[Jackmannii]

@Homebrew

Nope. The exact ratio of DeLay:Frist threads is irrelevant and was obviously an attempt at humor. Even bringing up the “incorrect” numbers is pedantic at best and seems, given the repeated instances of diversion, a blatant attempt to divert attention from the content of the OP to the style and thereby shield the real object of scorn from criticism.

Exactly right.
Sniggering about search tactics (especially when you can’t get them right yourself) highlights reluctance to engage on content.

@John Mace

Better off to start a Frist Pit thread, as that is what he seems to really be after. Too latefor this thread though…

Your spacing error invalidates your entire position.

[Zoe]

Jackmanni: My disgust with Frist has only partly to do with his kissing up to people who think you are anti-God if you are firm in opposition to a handful of Bush’s more far-out judicial nominess - but let’s focus on that for now.

I live in Nashville where the Frist family resides. They are well-known in the city, but I just realized that I don’t know what Bill Frist’s church affiliation is. Any clues?

In the beginning I was hopeful that he might amount to something. He has a good mind and had at one point show some measure of compassion in volunteering twice a year to fly to the Sudan to give medical aid.

The last of my respect has been long gone. His plans to exploit those members of the relgious right for his own political purposes infuriates me. It is divisive, deceptive, manipulative and shabby.

I don’t doubt his conservative views on political issues, but I am a little skeptical of his personal concerns for fundamentalist Christian teachings. Of course, only he knows for certain.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Presbyterian, apparently.

http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.Biography

Hell, I think Frist is a dink, too (though he’s done some decent things in his time), for pandering to the religious right for his own advancement.

But DeLay is the one currently on deathwatch (and I’m not kidding on that. It’s 50-50 he survives this one). Wouldn’t you expect there’d be a ton more threads about him?

Wait for Frist to get implicated in supplying prescriptions to Michael Jackson or something and THEN count up the thread starts about him.

But for now? Nyeh. DeLay is the story for the moment.

[Jackmannii]

@Zoe

The last of my respect has been long gone.

What did it for me was his involvement in the Schiavo affair, notably the diagnosis-by-videotape.

Whatever standing he had in the medical community surely has been severely damaged, judging from remarks by colleagues.

Presidential ambitions have led others to compromise principles. Bob Dole, who originally was sour on Oliver North’s Senate campaign in Virginia, retracted his views, sent North money and announced willingness to campaign for North, all after being made aware of the consequences to his Presidential campaign if he didn’t get with the program. Joe Lieberman suddenly found out that he could live without “school choice” on being named the Democratic Veep candidate. And more recently Hillary Clinton’s lurches away from her supporters’ views on abortion and violence in popular entertainment are evidence of willingness to compromise on (or at least invent) principles in order to gain power.

Frist is just the newest and among the most nauseating of practitioners of this art.

[Harborwolf]

Just think of Frist as the Vice DeLay. If DeLay does in fact go down, Billy Frist will be right there to take over. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

[elucidator]

I expect our nation’s cats will react forcefully to Sen Frist’s elevation. Expect hunger strikes lasting as long as an hour, followed by protest naps.

[UncleBeer]

@Zoe

The last of my respect has been long gone. His plans to exploit those members of the relgious right for his own political purposes infuriates me. It is divisive, deceptive, manipulative and shabby.

I don’t doubt his conservative views on political issues, but I am a little skeptical of his personal concerns for fundamentalist Christian teachings. Of course, only he knows for certain.

I wouldn’t worry too much about Bill’s exploitation of the religious right; they’ve certainly got their own plans to make use of him, too. It’s the unholy union and the implications for the separation of church and gov’t that’s most concerning to me.

[Shodan]

@Jackmannii

As noted earlier, he pulled the same sort of crap in this thread. “I don’t have any relevant defense of this turkey to offer, so I’ll raise hell about the OP’s imprecision of language, and hope that his original point gets lost in the uproar.”

I thought putting a paraphrase of someone you dislike into quotes was a violation of board rules.

And this is quite a bit less accurate a paraphrase than Left Hand of Dorkness’ was.

Regards,
Shodan

[Jackmannii]

@Shodan

I thought putting a paraphrase of someone you dislike into quotes was a violation of board rules.

And this is quite a bit less accurate a paraphrase than Left Hand of Dorkness’ was.

Regards,
Shodan

And quite obviously intended as a comment on “debating” style and something that could not be interpreted by even the dumbest poster as an actual quote.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Y’know, I hope the mods don’t take that rule too far. I can understand a hard rule against not using quote-tags for paraphrases, in order to avoid the possibility of confusion–but I think nobody, nobody, would interpret a snarky comment like JackManii’s to be an actual quote. That format (“Oh, look at me, I’m so tough, waaah!”) is a time-honored form of mockery, easily recognizeable as mockery. Unless it’s outlawed in a very particular sense, outlawing the quote marks will probably just lead to folks using italics or something to conduct the same sort of mockery.

One could forbid mockery altogether, of course, but then where would the Pit be?

Daniel

[Shodan]

@Jackmannii

And quite obviously intended as a comment on “debating” style and something that could not be interpreted by even the dumbest poster as an actual quote.

Just as LHoD’s was quite obviously intended as a summation of DeLay’s statements, and was quite accurate to boot.

Yet still drew him a warning.

A fair and accurate paraphrase in quotes is not OK. An unfair and inaccurate paraphrase in quotes is OK.

:shrugs:

I thought it was a stupid rule in Daniel’s case. So it is stupid here as well, and I won’t bother to report it.

Regards,
Shodan

[vetbridge]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Unless it’s outlawed in a very particular sense, outlawing the quote marks will probably just lead to folks using italics or something to conduct the same sort of mockery.

One could forbid mockery altogether, of course, but then where would the Pit be?

Daniel

When mockery is outlawed, only outlaws will mock.

“You look familiar; ever done time?”

“Did a hard 2 at Attica for mockery.”

“In '96? I was there for insolence!!”.

[Jackmannii]

At least the Right is following a consistent pattern in this thread - trying to deflect the subject away from the pandering Senate Majority Leader. “Mustn’t let this be about Frist!”

You can report that paraphrase too.

John McCain has shown he has the backbone and intelligence not to sign on to this spiel about how blocking a few judicial appointments is an Assault On Christians. From a N.Y. Times article:

*"On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change (the “nuclear option” against the filibuster).

“By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees,” Mr. McCain said."*

Hard to spot anyone else among the Republican leadership with enough integrity to be considered for President in '08.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

According to CNN, Frist is distancing himself from DeLay:

A potential candidate for the White House in 2008, the Tennessee Republican made no overt mention of religion in a brief address taped for a rally Sunday evening in Louisville, Kentucky, according to a text of his remarks released before the event.

Instead, Frist seemed intent on steering clear of the views expressed by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and other conservatives in and out of Congress who have urged investigations and even possible impeachment of judges they describe as activists.

“Our judiciary must be independent, impartial and fair,” Frist said in his taped remarks.

“When we think judicial decisions are outside mainstream American values, we will say so. But we must also be clear that the balance of power among all three branches requires respect – not retaliation. I won’t go along with that,” Frist said.

The event, organized by the conservative Family Research Council, was being held in a church and was to be broadcast around the country. Fliers for “Justice Sunday – Stopping The Filibuster Against People of Faith” said the filibuster, a tactic used by the minority party to stall debate and sometimes scuttle votes on presidential nominees, is “being used against people of faith.”

Looks like his pollsters have told him that DeLay dog won’t hunt if he wants to be President.