Snerk. No, of course you aren’t, dear. Carry on.
So why are you posting just to be confrontational, or to raise hackles, anyway?
No, I suppose you’re right. That doesn’t really make sense. I actually don’t know how the inconsistency could be explained at all except for one explanation that wouldn’t be allowed and that I don’t really think is the case.
First off, being a troll usually requires that one always or almost always posts in a confrontational mode. This hardly fits EddyTeddyFreddy. She can post some really sappy shit. Search on her username if you don’t believe me.
Second off, this is the Pit. To a large extent, the gloves are off here. Though I stated it quite sarcastically, my earlier post about using different forums for less insult laden discussion was on target.
To sum up, EddyTeddyFreddy’s post would have been completely and absolutely out of line in any other forum on the SDMB. In the BBQ Pit it is acceptable. Does this help to clear up your confusion?
I guess it does, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. Thanks for your help.
“Sappy shit”? "Sappy shit"??? You wound me, sirrah!
:: sulks, plotting limerickification of TYM ::
The rule against trolling does not mean that no one can ever post anything meant to upset anyone else. It if did, we wouldn’t have the Pit at all, as it is often a place where people say rude things to each other which can be reasonably expected to raise hackles. Rather, as This Year’s Model said, it applies to someone who posts nothing but confrontational or abusive posts, which is clearly not the case with EddyTeddyFreddy. She sometimes posts limericks as well.
Simply amazing how you adressed almost all my points, except the most important one (political opportunism).
Are you kidding? I cut the legs out from under every one of your premises, I figured I didn’t need to specifically debunk your conclusion if it was based on incorrect statements.
You said
I pointed out that there was, indeed, a logical reason other than that.
Let me put it into something more systematic, then:
- Spies who do not break the law deserve our protection.
- Spies who break the law, in general, do not deserve our protection.
- Thus, there are rational guidelines which would apply regardless of the politics involved.
- The Democrats said we should protect a spy who did not break the law, and restrict the actions of spies who do break the law.
- Therefore, the null hypothesis and the most parsimonious answer is that the Democrats acted in accord with the rational guidelines.
- Since you have not disproven the null hypothesis, let alone given enough proof for your other hypothesis, the null hypothesis stands.
QED.
Dear Pustule:
Actually this thread revolves around the rather self-evident proposition that you, dear Pus, are one of the two stupidest poster on the SDMB. Try re-reading the OP and – aw, never mind. You’re too fucking stupid to understand it. Anyway, bringing in evidence of your stupidity from other threads is, indeed, entirely relevant. It demonstrates, among other things, that your stupidity is a constant; two years here haven’t helped you in the least.
Actually, it hadn’t occurred to me. Please link to the apology you posted so that I can see it for myself. You might also want to apologize as well to all the people you offended in that thread with your ”unhealthy desire” (as you so euphemistically phrase it.)
The photos from Abu Ghraib showed Iraqi prisoners forced to perform degrading acts or subjected to torture by American military personnel. You had some kind of wet dream fantasy that maybe one of those being torture was Saddam Hussein. But your desire to get your rocks off by clamping electrodes to Saddam’s privates is totally unrelated to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Let’s just be clear: when you saw those photos, your first response was ”Yeah! Finally those bastards are getting what they deserve!” You were disturbed when you surfed into that thread and discovered no one else shared your point of view. Trying to defend that view afterwards as an ”unhealthy desire seeing some dictator with droopy mustaches really suffer” is pathetic and moronic. The only person who buys that defence is you.
I am, however, genuinely glad to read that despise me so much. I wear the spite of people such as you like a badge of honor – people who support torture as governmental policy hate me!
Know however that the feeling isn’t mutual. I don’t despise you, I just pity you.
And think you’re the biggest moron on the SDMB, hands down, of course.
See? There you go again.
-
To be honest, I may not have noticed it because the lights are so dreadfully bright in here. I’m starting to feel slightly unwell.
-
I simply didn’t notice it. It happens.
-
I called you on it because you are being an ass in multiple threads and FinnAgain isn’t.
4)WAAAAAAAAAAALT!
- I was seeing if I could get past Gauderes law.
You can pick any combination of answers you want. By the way, covering for your typo by blaming it on someone else? :rolleyes: Even if it is true :rolleyes: . What’s even more lame is that that seems to be the best you can do. You can’t address the issues that earned you a pit thread. Your zingers seem to be lacking in zing.
You make me sad…in my heart. 
Yes. Every time Updike says something stupid, the baby Jesus cries. He’s pretty much doing some full-time wailing right about now…poor baby.
Sam
Svintus, you always had reindeer turd for brains. The only difference it used to be tepid and now it has frozen over.
And every time New Iskander posts, the baby Jesus kills a kitten.
Incidentally, what is that law some refer to? Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980, or something else?
See, this is one of the things I Pitted you for; you not doing research before you hold forth on topics. If you run a google search, you should be able to answer that question in about 10 seconds. You should also, then, have a bit of a basis for entering into debates on the subject.
Every time you open your mouth, the baby Cthulhu pukes.
Kindly take that bullshit back and eat it.
This Year Model spoke about “the Law”, you spoke about “the Law”. Neither of you specified which “Law” you were talking about. Therefore, my question is perfectly fair.
For dessert, tell me in simple terms, is your treatment of “affair Plame” marred with political opportunism or not. Please don’t lie this time.
Oh what the heck. Here’s the law. Don’t say I never gave ya nuttin’.
Again, no.
And, again, that’s what you were Pitted for.
- If you’d done a single minute of research before you spouted forth on this topic, you’d know what the law in question was.
- If you weren’t dense, you’d know that someone can, in general, talk about someone breaking ‘the law’ without citing the entire penal code.
Fuck you.
I’ve told you twice now, at least.
Just because you’re stupid, doesn’t mean I’m lying.