Oops
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6764970#post6764970
blinks
What a bizzare statement. Firstly, when has FinnAgain showed himself to be unreasonable on those issue? Cite? Secondly, what do they have to do with the particular matters he pitted you for? He addressed the ones that were at least tangentially related. Thirdly as noted, why don’t you deal with what has been brought up rather than whining about what hasn’t been? If you think you have a point at all.
Rather like the other thread where as I said you took a nasty unjustified swipe at Guin rather than admit you’d be whooshed as no one has been whooshed before.
Hey, asshole.
Why don’t we run an experiment?
You Pit me on the subject of Bush and the Iraq war and let’s see if the gathered Doper community, many of whom I’ve argued with in the past, believe I’ve done so with a high degree of intellectual honesty.
If you want to add a wager we can make it even more exciting.
You can make a thread asking which of us is more intellectually honest, and ‘count’ input only from the mods. If more mods view me as being more intellectually honest than you, you will leave this message board forever. And if they view you as more intellectually honest than me, I’ll leave this message board forever.
Now, I don’t know if any mods would agree to be part of such a wager, but I’m definitely game. The only worry I’d have is that they’d view you as too stupid to be able to be intellectually honest, so you couldn’t technically be intellectually dishonest.
Oh, and, by the way? Your quote up there is a perfect example of a Tu Quoque fallacy. Which is, by the way, intellectually dishonest.
Winning the race and still campaigning. Bravo sir.
Honestly, I don’t give a shit who you vote for or what your stance on certain issues is. What astounds me is how badly you missed the point in the other thread and how badly you continue to miss the point in this one.
Maybe your monitor is too bright.
Someone needs to…
You mean the one we got into under false premises?
Then don’t have one.
No argument here.
No, the “wrong” and dishonest part is ignoring cites and posting bullshit.
Stick a quite in there… Quite a few instances is more accurate.
Accepted.
So is willful ignorance.
And a wildly exaggerated sense of self-worth.
If so, you really ought to dim that. People have been known to die from excessive light.
FinnAgain, I like you and I’m all for you, but this ain’t quite Dodge City. Not yet. There are lots of popularity contests any of us would hate to lose, but it proves nothing, and nobody’s going to let you start this one, much less drag it screaming and struggling to any sort of conclusion. For crying out loud, you’re a member of a pseudonymous message board that’s open to pretty much anybody who can find it. And lots and lots of 'em have already, and there’s plenty of room for more. With no axe to grind except for a small one angled for you, I can advise you to reduce the temperature by a few degrees.
For what it’s worth, I find New Iskander to be incomprehensible, volcanically excitable, prone to viewing the world through a factual kaleidescope, and mostly harmless, because the sting of his/her’s accusations is muffled by the comically incomprehensible delivery. Updike, by contrast, demands to be taken seriously because – well, s/he just demands to be taken seriously, that’s all. Her/his emissions aren’t serious in themselves because they’re pretty much divorced from facts and reason, but the tone is abusive rather than incoherent, and it’s often personally directed at other members rather than simply unfocused. His/her perception of the world around her/him is no more acute than any other victim of hallucinogens, cranial injury or talk radio, but s/he retains a higher annoyance factor because s/he wishes to. That’s all.
Anyhow, go ahead with the pitting, and best wishes, but steer clear of the “This board ain’t big enough for the both of us” histrionics. It’s appropriate to certain other posters, but not for a passionate but thoughtful poster like yourself. Best regards and wishes.
I’m going to have to demand a cite for that. 
Hey it’s too late to get yourself on the Ballot now.
I guess if you try really hard you could go for the write-in vote.
{or is that the Far Right Vote}
Jim
I’d need a stupidity-discriminator the size and sensitivity of the Cern Particle Accelerator to distinguish between these two.
I can see how it would sound like that… for what it’s worth that isn’t what I meant. Not so much a question of popularity, more so a hastily thought out way or ‘proving’ that I’m not, in general, intellectually dishonest. But again I can see how it came off like some highschool bullshit. Thanks for pointing it out.
Thanks for that. The accusation of intellectual dishonesty rankled a good bit, and I probably responded with more force than strictly necessary… but I have to admit that the idea of a quick vote by the mods and then no more Uppy did sound neat.
THE FinnAgain, THE sodden swine.
Yet more idiocy from Isky, at post 175 we see some more grade A stupid in action.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6778547&postcount=175)
Just how ignorant can you get? Discipline Plame… for what??? Is there a magic eight ball o’ dumb that spits out these sentences?
No, you’re not stupid because you support President Bush, the war in Iraq, and oppose abortion. Other people here have these same positions and nobody accuses them of being stupid (wrong perhaps but not stupid).
The reason people are annoyed with you is because you seem incapable of following a line of reason. Have your opinions - but defend them on their own merits. Say you support Bush because you admire his decisiveness and think that’s an important quality in a leader - people may not agree with you but they won’t think you’re talking nonsense. But if you say you support Bush because you love freedom, then you’re trying to make the claim that there’s some connection between supporting Bush and loving freedom - this is nonsense (here’s a hint; everybody loves freedom and nobody has a special claim on it) and you’re going to be called on it.
So just stay on topic and stick with the facts. You’ll find people will start listening to you.
I hates me them damned endocrine gland exudates!
I asked that same question, in that thread. I still can’t make any sense out of the reply I got. Maybe he’s running some sort of “say stupid shit” phrase generator program, and the joke is on us.
Plame may be in the next issue of Victoria’s Secretions. 
Why, his response was totally clear… sorta. Kinda. Maybe.
Hrm, this seems like it was an admission that Isky hasn’t read anything and wasn’t aware that Plame wasn’t being disciplined for anything? But it does provide interesting avenues to explore. Discipline her for anything you want, anyway you want? I wonder if Isky hangs out in leather bars.
(not that there’s anything wrong with that)
Or maybe he’s just jealous that you have more than one neuron, and thus your brain can form synapses and his cannot? “I’m not sure what the facts are, but I’m prepared to be difficult!”
In soviet russia, two way street knows what you are!
The THE article is especially useful for improving verses about FinnAgain.
Consider this:
*- FinnAgain, sodden swine;
- FinnAgain, soiled snit;
- FinnAgain, stupid sot;
- FinnAgain, spiteful shit.*
Not quite perfected yet, woludn’t you say?
Now sprinkle with THE articles:
*- THE FinnAgain, THE sodden swine;
- THE FinnAgain, THE soiled snit;
- THE FinnAgain, THE stupid sot;
- THE FinnAgain, THE spiteful shit.*
Much better. More expansive. More spacious. The lines are practically marching, from sea to shining sea.
Also, doesn’t seem to work so well with any other moniker. To wit,
- THE EddyTeddyFreddy, THE swollen skunk.
Appropriate? Yes! But is it poetry?