http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/secretservice000830.html
I found this in a 2 min. Google search, apparently there were questions regarding the Gore campaign that have not been released yet
“Attorney Ron Schmidt said black agents assigned to protect Gore complained about the racial atmosphere on the detail, but the agency would not divulge its report on the complaints.”
Yes.
I kinda have a soft spot for arrogant assholes. Hence my dissapointment when Collounsbury’s banning.
0
Yeah, I’m calling you arrogant, Scylla. It’s one of the reasons why I love you so much. Although “asshole” is kinda harsh
That’s what I thought. I love you, too.
I’m certainly guilty.
**
[/QUOTE]
See, I just don’t get that. 'Cause I look at what you said regarding the Sister Souljah thing, and I see statements that sound like you easily could have believed them, and like others could have easily believed them if they hadn’t known the actual facts. As you will recall, I called you on the following:
These are not “extravagant exaggerations” along the lines of rapelling out of a truck cab. The first statement is the sort of thing that actual right-wing bigots say about Jesse Jackson & Assocs. all the time (and keep in mind, I’m no big fan of the man or his work). The second one, for no reason that I can fathom, seeks to place Sister Souljah’s disgusting statements–which were quite real–in the context of the RC meeting, even though you knew she had actually stated it weeks earlier and in an entirely different context. What the heck, man?
Yep. You never apologized for the first time you lied, claiming it was merely for rhetorical effect and not to be taken seriously. So when you posted similar falsities five pages later, I jumped your ass again, particularly in light of the fact that you admitted you knew the truth was otherwise the first time around.
Would I do it again? Fuck no. If I’d seen the earlier Gore-photography cite, I wouldn’t have said anything about your “reportedly”-qualified description of it, except to point out that the report itself is full of shit. But there didn’t appear to be anything in support of that at the time, and there never was anything in support of your false accusation that the lawsuit alleged Gore had stayed quiet in the face of racist jokes. So we’ve got one incendiary accusation that was clearly unsupported, and another that didn’t appear to be supported at all (though it later turned out to have just been badly, badly supported). I called it as I saw it at the time, given the context and your previous statements in the thread. And I immediately took back the one I was wrong on.
Jeez, I can only think of one–the stupid “repeatedly”/“reportedly” mistake. And unlike you, I immediately took it back when the basis of your claim was made clear.
Yes, I deliberately asked you to assure me that you made both statements in good faith. That’s it. No groveling, nothing like that. Just tell me you weren’t intending to shade the truth again.
If you were posting in good faith, my apology would certainly be called for. If you were not–and I still consider it a possibility that you were not–then I have nothing to apologize for, at least not to anyone other than the GD mods.
I called you a liar at a time when I believed you were falsifying both statements. I no longer consider that to be terribly likely. I would like to confirm my present judgment. Simple as that.
Help me fix it Scylla. Tell me unambigously that I was wrong.
But if you do help me out, don’t feel offended if I miss it until the morning. I’m on my way out for the evening.
Minty:
Fine. Tit for tat, then.
You want my answer, I’ll give it you.
I posted my misstatement in good faith. It was an honest mistake. In support of that you can see that I referred to the link that proves I was in error while making my error. Had I been engaged in a deliberate lie, I would like to think I’d be cleverer than to provide the link proving me a liar.
So there you have it. I have no idea what good that does you, since if you think it’s possible I was lying then, it’s just as possible I’m lying now.
Now for the tit for tat part:
What good does that do you? How does that affect your evaluation as to whether or not your accusation has merit? How is it anything other than jumping through a hoop?
Do you think that’s it a little possible that you’re quick on the draw with you accusations, and can you understand my frustration?
Untrue. I took back mine as well as soon as I saw that I was in error.
The three mistakes were:
In your OP you posted the wrong quote from the one you were calling me a liar about in the other thread.
Repeatedly/reportedly
Reckless Spreading of another’s lie. As you can see from my response to Sterra I did no such thing. I printed my cite accurately as to its contents, and when Sterra said it was a good example of racism I said:
"Honestly, I don’t think it’s an example of anything. All I have is a link that says there is such a case.
But, the capacity to build a smear is there.
But, the capacity to build a smear is there. Clinton has links to two major Arkansas segregationists both of which he’s spoken glowingly of in recent years, and one he awarded a medal too. Al Gore’s dad is another segregationist.
We could do a Star Trek thing “Democratic racism: The Next Generation”
Look at his attack on Sistah Soldjah, and his backstabbing of JJ and the rainbow coalition. Combine that with Al Gore’s lawsuit (sure looks like pandering to racists to get votes, don’t it) talk a little bit about Byrds high ranking positions in the Senate, and you got a nice big juicy smear campaign suggesting that there’s a pattern of bigotry and pandering in the highest levels of the Democratic party.
Then, I could run with this bag of shit, pretending it proves something.
I just don’t beleive it, though. The fact is if you look hard enough for something you can generally construct it. All it proves is your agenda."
Seeing as I called it a bag of shit and said it proves nothing, you can hardly honestly consider the context I placed that site in to be recckless speading of lies.
But it worked. I’m certainly getting a lot of shit for that cite, and I’m certainly get a lot of shit from the impression you’ve created (and I failed to dispel in a tactically stupid move) that I posted that cite as if it meant something and it was Gospel truth.
Seeing as I’d thought we’d come to the agreement that the whole thing was a misunderstanding I didn’t realize an apology was required.
They’re lies because they deliberately create an impression that I do not hold, not beccause they’re indefensible. I explained how they could be defended if I believed them.
The hyperbole is that it should be obvious that I would not stretch and reach so much to hold them, but they were direct rebuttals to the ridiculousness of the stance that Bush speaking at BJU proves that the Republican party has a deliberate policy of pandering.
Seeing as it seems you actually seem to hold this latter stance (no offense,) I guess the hyperbole must have been lost to you, and certainly I wasn’t clear enough.
You may notice that I occasionally post ridiculous counterstances for rhetorical effect. Since they are purposefully ridiculous I am none too careful in their factual construction. Hence, my comment that of course I was lying.
I did the exact same thing in my reply to Sterra, except the last incident being fresh in my mind, I was very clear about what I was doing, and was sure to state that I didn’t believe it.
So there that is in detail. Aren’t you glad you asked.
If at this point you wish to chide me about being more careful in posting a facetious rebuttal position, I’ll agree you’re probably right. On the other hand if someone readily confesses that they were lying with facetious and hyperbolous intent, it’s probably a good idea to take them at their word, accept that it was a misunderstanding, and move on rather than harp on it.
Sarcasm and facetiousness do not always come across perfectly. If you had seen the sarcastic sneer on my face while I wrote the comment you accused me of lying about, we wouldn’t have an issue. The fact that I didn’t convey it well is my fault. The fact that you decided to go on and on about the evils of lying in preachy fashion in response to my admission of hyperbole/facetiousness may be your mistake.
Are you sorry you asked again? Is it now clear? Cause if you have any further questions, do not understand, or find my explanation unacceptable I guess now is the time to air it?
Do I need to apologize beyond not being clear (for which I do?)
Arguing with Scylla
Me: Look, Scylla, an elephant! Right here in the room, boy, you don’t see that every day…
S: That’s not an elephant.
Me: What do you mean its not an elephant! Of course it is!
S: Can’t prove it.
Me: Well, shit, man, look at it! What else could it be? Look, it just cut a gigantic fart! The room stinks of peanuts! Doesn’t that tell you something?
S: Could be Jimmy Carter.
Me: Jimmy CARTER???
S: He’s a peanut farmer. Eats a lot of peanuts.
Me: Jimmy Carter doesn’t weigh 4,000 goddam pounds!
S: Look here. Its a cite. Rush Limbaugh says Jimmy Carter is a big fat liar! See that word? F - A - T. Fat. So Jimmy Carter weighs a lot.
Me: Not two goddam tons, he don’t!
S: Well, you’d have to do a statistical analysis of peanut farmers.
Me: That’s ridiculous! Besides, look at his trunk.
S: That’s his nose.
Me: ITS A TRUNK! Look at it, its bigger and longer than my…its really big and long. Calling it a nose is just totally fucking bogus!
S: Now you have to apologize for calling me a liar. Typical of you, when you lose an argument, you start making wild accusations.
Me: Christ, I give up!
S: So, you admit that I’m right. Good.
Me: Are you fucking crazy!
S: Theres another one. That makes two apolo…OWWWW!
Me: Geez, what happened? Your toes are all smooshed! Damn, thats gotta hurt.
S: Jimmy Carter stepped on my foot!
Yeah right. Shows what you know. That elephant built me a free house.
mmmm hyyyyy
Holy shit, my cat Steinway typed out the above while I was out for the evening! I didn’t know he could read, let alone type! Good thing he doesn’t know how to use the mouse.
Did Steinway also put the cursor into the reply field?
Maybe he does know how to use the mouse.
Better check his breath.
Yeah, he did put the cursor in the reply field. Son of a gun!
So you all along did not really believe in those sources, and they only where wrought here to jerk democrats and liberals around.
Well, make yourself the resolution to never again be a jerk this year.
That’s not what I said. That’s not what I meant. Only an idiot would actually construe such a stance. Only a pussy beats on strawmen to feel self-righteous.
Happy New Year.
:wally
So are we to have a special class of non-cite, the Scylla cite? That is to say, a cite that we are given to understand is not really a cite, but a rhetorical device meant only to demonstrate how foolish the opposition’s arguments are?
Why in the world should we go to all that trouble? When you cite Rush Limbaugh to me, am I given to understand that its is not actually a cite, but a Scylla cite?
You’ve pulled this crapola before. Funny thing is, it only gets revealed in its true nature when you get challenged, and boy! do you get mad when you get challenged. When it is pointed out to you that your cite is bogus, suddenly its a rhetorical device, an object lesson in foolish argumentation.
Does anybody here buy that? Anybody?
And I should not have called you a liar. The mistake was mine when I failed to see your earlier source. Though it’s probably way too late for a retraction, I unreservedly apologize for my hot-headed description. I am sorry for both the original blow-up and everything that ensued.
If you still wish to see responses to the rest of your post, just let me know.
Yes. I do get pissed when I get challenged by idiots posting obvious falsehoods.
What I said to Sterra immediately after I posted that cite and she said it was a good example, was…
"Honestly, I don’t think it’s an example of anything. All I have is a link that says there is such a case.
But, the capacity to build a smear is there.
But, the capacity to build a smear is there. Clinton has links to two major Arkansas segregationists both of which he’s spoken glowingly of in recent years, and one he awarded a medal too. Al Gore’s dad is another segregationist.
We could do a Star Trek thing “Democratic racism: The Next Generation”
Look at his attack on Sistah Soldjah, and his backstabbing of JJ and the rainbow coalition. Combine that with Al Gore’s lawsuit (sure looks like pandering to racists to get votes, don’t it) talk a little bit about Byrds high ranking positions in the Senate, and you got a nice big juicy smear campaign suggesting that there’s a pattern of bigotry and pandering in the highest levels of the Democratic party.
Then, I could run with this bag of shit, pretending it proves something.
I just don’t beleive it, though. The fact is if you look hard enough for something you can generally construct it. All it proves is your agenda."
Now elucidator it seems to me that unless you’re a nitwit, it should be perfectly clear what kind of weight I’m giving that cite.
You didn’t get it then.
You didn’t get it when I posted it again a couple of posts ago.
So there it is again, special, just for you.
Do you understand why I’m getting a little pissed?
My dog requires less repetition than you.
It’s up to you. Thanks.
Minty:
Lest my brevity be misconstrued, I sincerely appreciate and accept your apology.
So Scylla’s only failing is that he cannot suffer fools gladly.
Bullshit. Total bullshit. You posted the crapola about Al Gore dissing his Secret Service agents like it was God’s Own Truth.
Followed by:
Theres not a grain of truth in this. Not the slightest. Were it true, I would have turned away from Al Gore instantly.
Then Minty, whose reserve and tolerance sets a new standard for Texans, called you on it and I quote:
And then you repeat the smear:
Then Minty checks out your story, as I did as well. Not a shred of truth to it. All you have is this space cadet blogger reposting crap he got from God Knows Where.
You’re either dishonest or stupid. I’m pretty sure it isn’t stupid.
As for your dog, there’s one major difference: you’re smarter than your dog. But you ain’t smarter than me, buckaroo.
And the worst of it is: theres a grain of a point. I do, in fact, believe that the Trent Debacle signals the end of the SoStrat. I am reminded that if the Dems depict the Pubbies as utilizing that strategy, absent actual evidence thereof, they should be called on it. As an honest man, I am compelled to accept that as worthy. So if that comes to pass, rest assured I’ll be right there with you. I’ve got my faults, hypocrisy isn’t on the list.
I’ve said before: you are a man of considerable intelligence and gifts. Its a pity you cannot refrain from squandering them so meanly.
Thank you, Scylla. I apologize again that it got dragged out this far, but I hope we’ve managed to end this on reasonably decent terms. As for the remaining areas of dispute, I think we’ve both made our feelings known, and I don’t think it would be terribly productive to go over them yet again. Unless you have anything to add, I’d just as soon put this puppy to sleep.
’luce, I think we’ve gone over all that already. There is fault on both sides, and I gladly accept my share of it. Can we let this drop, please?