Shut up, dude. You’re going to fuck things up for the rest of us.
In Bricker’s defense, he did retract that argument in his next post. We haven’t hear from W-a-M yet, so we don’t know if he will do the same.
Too bad. BRICKER doesn’t like what a poster says and feel the need to go to a forum that allows him to insult and call him names. Win the argument if you can, but name calling and insults are childish. You should be above that.
My God, but you are dense.
I don’t know what it takes to be a board liberal, but I’m way out on the left. I’ll happily confirm that if Whack-a-Mole’s argument was a commercial, it would be for the Olive Garden.
Yeah, he did. But he’s done similar stuff so often, and been taken to task for it, that i begin to wonder whether the retractions mitigate the offense. If you say sorry every time you act like an asshole, but continue to act like an asshole, after a while the apologies become meaningless.
I’ve said plenty of times before that i think Bricker adds a lot to this message board, and that his legal acumen and expertise are particularly useful in a whole range of discussions. But he does sometimes suffer from an excessive focus on the legal, to the exclusion of all other facets of a discussion. Sometimes this isn’t a big deal, but at other times it descends into a misrepresentation of other people’s arguments, which i think is a bad thing, and which is exactly what he’s complaining about in this thread.
Hell, that’s not the worst of it, the worst is when he wheels in an argument on a gurney, on life support with the shock paddles right at hand, an argument founded on conjecture and buttressed by innuendo and suggestion, and insists that we treat that argument on an equal basis with a real one.
Like we’re supposed to say “Well, those are very good arguments, we must adjudge the matter to be unresolved, as it is barely possible that the earth is flat.”
Yes. Guilty. When you have a hammer (no Tom DeLay pun intended) you see a lot of things start to look like nails. I do this a lot.
And I’m trying to be mindful of it.
But in my defense, if you call me on it, I’ll take a second look and acknowledge the point, as I did immediately after the post you mention.
And I’ll do so again here. Yeah, I do that, and yeah, it’s not a good argument.
I’m not asking that everyone’s argument be good. But if you’re called on a shitty argument, man up and admit it. I offer up a shitty argument, I’ll admit it.
This is where you belong too.
Yes, you do. I’ll give you that. In fact, i don’t think i’ve seen anyone else on this board admit to their mistakes more than you. Your willingness to do it is rather impressive.
But i still wonder how it is that someone as intelligent as you can so often mischaracterize people’s positions and offer legal rebuttals to non-legal arguments, especially when this tendency has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions. Knowing that you’re intelligent, and that you understand these issues, i sometimes get the impression that you do it precisely in order to derail or misdirect the debate.
Thank you.
In my view, it’s more often the case that an issue has both a legal aspect and a non-legal policy aspect. And in those cases, I tend to focus on the legal - obviously.
Not wrong, but perhaps myopic.
But the other side of the coin is that recourse to the law gives finality of an answer. We may bicker about what the policy SHOULD be; we can much more often point definitively to what the law IS. So I gravitate in that direction because it’s a debate ender. You’ll never convince me that abortion is not a grave moral wrong. I’ll never convince you it’s not a matter of a woman’s right to choose.
But we both must acknowledge that it’s a right of constitutional dimension.
That is correct. He truly can’t see that.
I used to think that 'luci stuck to the triple-entendre double-ironic too-cool-for-school style of posting just because it amused him and he’s relatively good at it. But then I read his longer posts where he actually tries to make an argument, and I realized that he’s got the IQ of a box of pubic hair. Lindsay Lohan’s pubic hair.
As for the OP, of course WaM’s post was just as stupid as all hell.
Same thread.
Now comes The Second Stone who says that DeLay must be gulty because I’m defending him, and as I admitted in another thread, I never had a client I thought was completely innocent.
I point out that the two situations are completely different: I was talking about my time as a public defender. The Second Stone’s response? The message board is a public forum, and you are defending DeLay, so that’s being a public defender.
ETA: “Views” should be “vies.”
Que?
Bricker, what the hell are you doing here?
I don’t mean on the SDMB, I mean with this thread. I’m well to the right of most posters on this board, and frequently I agree with your posts, but why the fuck are you getting your panties in a wad over this one?
Drama queens are pussies. Don’t be that.
They make incredibly stupid commercials.
Bricker is simply pointing out that a fellow poster is being a dumbass. He’s “pitting” said poster, in the parlance of our times. Why do you think Bricker is doing anything different from what countless other posters have done?
I was in a thread in GD. A poster there said something utterly stupid. Rather than skirt the edge of the law in GD, I removed this commentary on that post to the Pit. In GD, this would be an adhiminem, an attack on the poster and not the idea. So I attacked the idea in GD and the poster here.
In short, I Pitted the excreable idea by suggesting that posting an idea so stupid was a stupid act.
In shorter, I Pitted someone.
Don’t see why this is drama-queeny.
You don’t see why this is drama queen worthy?
Really?
Look buddy, there are plenty of ways to tell someone to go fuck themselves in GQ without violating the rules. But you didn’t do that. No, you brought it here and pitted the guy for being argumentative and stupid. In doing so you made it about you. ALL posts in GQ are argumentative and stupid. If every stupid post in GQ got it’s own pit thread, we would have to create a whole 'nother damn board just to hold them all.
This one is stupid, granted, but you are taking it way too seriously.
Being a drama queen requires multiple bits of evidence, not just one time getting upset. And, generally it is not applied to people who are mad at someone–it’s applied to people who constantly tell everyone their life story and make it sound worse than it is.
Pitting a single poster for being stupid doesn’t fit these requirements at all.