Yeah, I guess it does. I didn’t mean it to sound like, “Even Scylla has more brains than Ass0Spades…”
I meant it more to sound like, “I find Scylla’s heartless, big business-subsidizing, poor-hating, oligopoly politics more attractive than Ass’ drooling idiocy…”
And since I am actually left handed, you have me much offended.
Actually, this was Friday, too:
I’m sorry you felt it neccessary to jump into the gutter. I’m sorry I can’t join you there; good luck on your anger management issues.
Just the first quote, that is.
I just wish he’d lay off the big words. He reads like a GRE practice test.
(all quotes from the Enron thread linked above)
Green Bean, aw, shucks. kicks rock
Damn misspent youth playing scrabble! 
Of all the people I’d think could ever “accuse” Sua Sponte of hand-waving, Ace … dude, you thinking you’ve beaten someone in GD != your actual victory. Based on what I know of both of y’all (and the time I’ve spent in GD, mainly as a lurker), unless you’re debating something that happened to you on the subway, Ace, I’m going with Sua even if he’s fucking asleep.
Proving once and for all that politics, indeed, makes for strange bedfellows.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Sua
Not so fast, Maeglin. You miss the context. Ace’s opinions are “contrary” and “maverick” for the SDMB. Ya see, on the Boards, it is mainstream to actually have thought about one’s opinions.
Ace is quite the rebel.
Sua
I’m becoming increasingly confused. Ace0Spades’ views seem to have little internal consistency. In the gay adoption thread ("Should Gay Couples be allowed to adopt") in GD, he expressed some of the most shockingly homophobic beliefs I’d ever seen. In other threads, he was almost gay-positive – he took another poster to task for homophobic language, was pretty good about gay marriage.
In the gay adoption thread, he described himself, IIRC, as a “libertarian atheist.” But he’s a libertarian who likes “price caps” and corporate regulation? The big shock of opening this thread was seeing several posters had described him as left-wing – I would never have used that label.
His style is inconsistent, too. Some days, he’s more erudite and verbose than a university professor, other days he posts like a drunk fourteen-year-old.
I almost wonder if her’s some sort of tag-team – a whole family or circle of friends posting under one name. Other days I suspect he’s a taggert – although whether he’s a lefty masquerading as a righty or vice versa is impossible to tell.
Now I’m coming to the conclusion that he just likes the process of debate and rhetoric more that anything – peu import the contents of the argument.
Looking at my post, I didn’t intend it to sound like I was agreeing with Acey. I think he is a goober. (Lord help me, I first typed ‘gobear’ there)
I was intending it to sound more lighthearted than it ended up. I don’t think you are really a crank. It just kinda flowed from your ‘call me a crank’ statement above. I apologize if I gave you any offense.
Are we thinking about the same Diplomacy game? The one I remember, you and I were in a beautiful relationship until iampunha’s coup. Any ‘lube’ action between us was some truly gooooood lovin’.
Ah, now we come to the meat of the matter, Hamish. It is a great irony on these boards that being both anti-PC nonsense and anti-Corporate nonsense is treated as inconsistent.
Don’t blame me if I don’t fit your stereotype of what person is offended by Anti-Corporate nonsense or what person is offended by Politically Correct nonsense. Nonsense is nonsense. And I think I take great pains to delineate all my reasoning, and am still tagged as “unreasoning” by debate opponents who don’t bother to do the same. Why is this?
I’ve never posted anything without laying down my rationale. This seems to mean I should take the conventional opinion, but it appears from my perspective that the conventional wisdom is frequently deliberately wrong, and it offends me.
Sometimes, if posters are deliberately posting nonsensical claptrap, as in the adoption thread, I’ll jump in, in the same vein. I’m not afraid to treat posters as they’d treat the truth, with aspersions and sarcasm. Similarly, if I feel posters are being honest, and there is an honest disagreement, I’ll elevate the tone of my posts, and hopefully the discourse.
In that Gay Adoption thread, I thought we made great progress from my entry point in which the tone of the debate was “Everyone knows it’s sexism that gays aren’t allowed to adopt, and there are tons of studies that show it.” Now we still await the Swedish Study, yes?
I think if you examine where ad hominem attacks occur, I’ll respond in kind. But if I’m given an honest disagreement without emotional sandbagging (Polycarp’s posts are always well-measured, even in hot-tempered debates, for instance.) I’ll elevate the tone to match. Although one of the reasons I like the pit, is that we don’t have to paper over our emotional reactions, though sometimes we need to return to the intellectual component when the emotional content becomes a distraction. I hope this explains the stylistic range with which I can express myself.
My opinions are not at all contradictory, and none of the opinions you’ve rightfully ascribed to me are contradictory in the least. Rather, you think that all people against gay adoption are bigots, and therefore are against all gay marriage. This is an unfair use of a stereotype.
Similarly, you think that because I’m a Libertarian, I must be hands-off when it comes to corporate rigging. Again, this does not follow, and you are unfairly using your stereotype to assume my opinion.
I think, in a highly ironic twist, the confusion comes from my views not being consistent with any given stereotype. This is not because I don’t post my rationale, which I do, but because my rationale is considered to clash with my ‘assumed’ rationale owing to whichever stereotype we happen to be trying to shoehorn me into.
Instead of assuming I’m a ‘crypto-fascist’ or a ‘racist-nazi,’ it would suffice to point out wherever my views are internally inconsistent with the reasons and cites I give, rather than inconsistent with the opinions that I am given.
Thoughtfully,
Ace
Actually, he’s dropped the “good about gay marriage” act. (He doesn’t join until page 2).
Seems anti-gay marriage to me.
My vote is for troll.
Not to hijack this, but was the (possible) point raised that kids are an investment in one’s future and as such breaks should be given same as they are for charitable contributions? In addition to which they’re a helluva lot of work and not cheap at all?
It seems to me more that Ace is trying to reason his way into that stance more than he actually believes his ideas to be viable/valid. Sort of a “I’m against this … now let me think of a good reason for it” sort of thing. Not that his position seems to hold much merit once you get past the … well, meat and potatoes seems to indicate it’s a solid argument. Maybe “whale shit”? It’s 95% liquid…
Society, for all it wants kids, sure has a funny way of showing it sometimes…
Oh. Homebrew, I dunno if you knew this, but publicly saying you think so-and-so is a troll, or outright saying “[poster], you’re a troll” or things of that nature are very much not encouraged by mods. Email one (moderator) if you think someone is being/behaving like a troll.