Bubby, the fuck is your problem? Do you have a big crush on me, that you keep following me around making inaccurate potshots?
I didn’t bail out of the topic at all, and I didn’t make a liberal or conservative punch at duffer. I explained to him how to cite things correctly, and when he did an execrable job of citing something, I showed him how it was execrable. I’ve never seen such a shitty job of citing before (well, other than Scylla’s similar, and similarly crappy, cites in another thread about Democrats and charges of Nazism).
As I said, the proper use of cites is to back up factual claims. People ask for these cites a lot. The closest duffer came to making a factual cite was claiming that “Clinton is bad.” That’s not a factual claim, mind you, so his cites are from the start uninteresting. But then when you look at the cites that he claims “are just as reputable as MoveOn,” you find out they’re nothing of the sort.
He challenged me to “explain them away, or…fuck off.” I chose to do the former.
In other words, I directly refuted his OP, and then I directly complied with his request.
Then, of course, like a twelve-year-old girl with self-esteem issues, you came into the thread to makesnotty little comments about me. Does your wife know you’re doing this?
What you, in your dribbling idiocy, apparently fail to appreciate is that, while it is indeed possible to find a website to back up just about any loony opinion or theory, here at this Board you are generally expected not only to provide a link to said website, but to summarize the site’s argument and explain how and why it supports the position that you are taking.
Once you have done this, people will, as LHoD pointed out, make their own determination about whether or not you have done justice to the website’s position, and will argue their own points accordingly. Perhaps this will involve finding another source and explaining why it demonstrates your source’s inadequacy; or perhaps it will involve simply pointing out the logical flaws or factual misapprehensions that underpin your own position.
When i’m explaining to undergraduate history students how to write a paper, i tell them not to let their quotations do the arguing for them. The purpose of a footnoted quotation is to provide support for the argument that the person writing the paper is making. A whole bunch of citations strung together with no contextualizing argument proves very little, and does not constitute an acceptable paper. I tend to think that similar de facto rules apply to debate on the SDMB. **
Well, to the extent that you had a point at all, you never made any coherent argument in support of it.
Your problem is that you are conflating two separate issues here–not much of a surprise considering your form so far. One issue is the political divide between left and right, and the other is the use of citations in support of an argument. There is no necessary connection between the two. I’ve seen people of all political persuasions argue coherently and use citations properly, and i’ve seen peoople of all political persuasions argue coherently and use citations poorly.
I don’t care that your OP wasn’t neutral. You have every right to be a conservative Catholic. Your not the only one of either on this Board. My problem, in this thread at least, is not with your politics, but with the blithering idiocy of your position, and with your failure to recognize that one’s own ability to make a coherent and logical argument are just as important as, or more important than, one’s ability to provide hyperlinks to websites.
Dipshit Dork
Oh puleeze. You’re trying to tell me that you didn’t stray off the topic?! I actually didn’t care that you did it just happend. My comments supported the OP’s point about over-citing. I could give a flying rat’s ass about his or your political views.
And I post all over the pit. I post in a lot of threads that you don’t.
If I happen to be in the same thread as you, well, I can’t help it that you’re such an easy fucking target for simple logic.
You have my permission to get over yourself or go fuck yourself.
Either way’s fine with me.
Bubba
Why am I argueing with some guy who likes to be called a dipshit?
Well, if that’s what you got from my post, then there’s not much i can do to help you, i’m afraid. It’s apparent that your reading comprehension skills will need considerable work before you can make an intelligent contribution to the debates on this message board.
For those interested in seeing our friend duffer making an ass of himself in another thread, check out his response here
Bubbadog, I have never met such a trifling middle-aged man. You lie about what you said; you lie about what I said; you cream your pants over calling people silly names. You sure you’re not a teenage girl?
Danny
Just because you lack the ability to understand me or the objectivity to agree with me doesn’t make me a liar.
It’s too bad your parents didn’t teach you what you needed to know to function well. Maybe you sat them down and liberated yourself a bit too early.
Bubba
Hey waddaya know. Now he’s got me going off-topic
As a barely interested observer, I have to say you are acting like a complete nimrod. And The Left Hand of Dorkness is not.
And duffer has not made his point at all.
People here make arguments. Yes, these people use cites to support their arguments. And those cites are often challenged as being partisan or flawed, or as in duffer’s case, irrelevant to the point they’re trying to make.* Left-leaning posters are not getting a free ride here*, which is what I think he’s implying. Just look at any of Reeder’s threads if you want to see some cites challenged.
So, duffer’s right in the fact that merely having a link to cite doesn’t mean you win. But NOT having that link pretty much does mean that you lose.
Am I the only one who found the whole :::coughcoughShoehornButterhorsecoughcough::: OP to be completely unintelligible?
Additionally, BubbaDog’s behavior is typical.
[Complete hijack cuz this damn train’s so far off the tracks already]
Spooje Well, while I was nimrodding through the threads, I attempted to answer world eater’s question about this thread going off topic.
Duffer and LHofD were straying off topic while actually argueing the topic via political examples. Yep, I caught it - on-topic by using another topic as example- Were they on-topic, off topic? World eater’s question suggested that the converstaion was going sideways. My comment about my interpretation of the conversation agreed with him.
LHofD went ballistic after my comment because
1 - He was already worked up over his argument with Duffer
2 - He doesn’t like me because we had some emotional discussions on previous threads. While normally sane, sometimes Dork says something so stupid I can’t help myself but reply to him.
3 - I called him a dipshit. Why? A few posts before my reply he said that he liked to be called dipshit {see item 2 above}
So what’s the outcome? LHofD is just a little too wired and serious about himself for me to enjoy engaging him in his emotional arguments. I don’t plan to avoid him but I will try to refrain from lighting his fuse next time I see him post something idiotic. I grow weary of his emotional outbursts.
Ilsa - Please! You’ve been suspended and the mods have reprimanded you all over the pit. And you’re making a comment about my behavior?
[/Complet hijack cuz this damn train’s so far off the tracks already]