Sure, thinking is free, but that kind of action will cost you. Big time.
elucidator - you erred. Try not to say things like “You always…” with any of the following: a small child, an immature person, a politician, a stubborn adult.
because, you see, they’ll be able to step over the grand canyon of times you’re correct and point out the one (or two or couple) exceptions to a generallity and flounce off with “there, that was a lie”.
as for the case in the OP: I think it’s standard behavior in GD threads to call into question some one’s interpretation of a cite, to suggest that they’re being selective in their presenation, and not infrequently ‘disingenuous’ comes into play. If these types of statements constitute an accusation of being a ‘liar’, we’re gonna need a bigger pit.
No one likes to have some one suggest that their interpretation is selective, flawed etc. But dropping the “l” word out is different and much more inflamatory.
(and, frankly, Scylla, if the true answer to your/elucidator’s quibble is that 'yes, generally, I am the first person to use the word ‘liar’, then I would hope that at a quieter moment you take a look at that, and this exchange in particular. Yes, I’m sure that his actual statement is wrong as set out, for I’m certain that there’s at least one time that you weren’t the first. However, another way to respond to that would have been “yes, I’m often the first to use the word, but not absolutely every time, so that statement isn’t correct”. I understand that it’s a lot more to type than “Liar”, but in this case “liar” isn’t entirely accurate either. A more accurate term would be “Hyperbole”. )
I ain’t that subtle, Hawthorne, plus I got better shit to do than scheme up ways to hassle Scylla. But he pitted Xeno, in my opinion unjustly, and I’m perfectly happy to rag his ass for it. Nothing complicated.
Ring, ring, ring, wring. No more calls, we have a winner.
Just so. That was quite my take on it as well. Xeno tweaked him mildly, even appropriately, on the amount of spin control he was using. (I’m not claiming any virginity with regards to spin, I’m just as easy as the next slut.) No biggie, no hurt, no foul. But friend Scylla is way touchy about his dignity, and expects humble respect for his opinion, if not genuflection. I’d probbly take Xeno’s side in this even if I didn’t like him. But I do, so I’m damn sure gonna.
And, of course, you’re right, the term “always” was ill advised. Even Homer nods. Still betcha my 2 to 1 offer would net me tasty bit of boodle. Lead pipe cinch, that one.
And so what? He specifically says that Iraq’s attempts to buy significant quantities of uranium from an African country were mentioned at that hearing.
So he doesn’t friggin’ spell it out and say ‘yellow cake’ and ‘Niger’. BFD. The latter seems to be only because he was citing Blair’s revealing essentially the same info on the same day, only Blair wasn’t publicly stating which country. And ‘yellow cake’ is apparently shorthand for uranium oxide, and you’re right, Hersh just says uranium. Golly. Gee whillikers.
I have read all the posts and I have to agree, Scylla is wrong. Xenophon merely had the audacity not to agree with Scylla.
**
Can you quote me the line, cuz i don’t see it? **
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure it’s at least two to one, probably more.
I may indeed be wrong. I doubt it, but it’s a possibility, but I can promise you that is not “merely” because xenophon had the audacity not to agree with me.
Seeing as it’s my motivations that are in question, you really have no other choice but to accept my assertion that my ire is based on Xeno’s unwarranted charge of dishonesty.
I can prove it. You’ve disagreed with me. You’ve had that audacity and I haven’t pitted you. In fact probably several thousand other people have disagreed with me without resorting to jerkish accusations, and I have not pitted them.
Further, RTF has never to my memory actually agreed with me on anything, yet I have never pitted him. This is because he has not made false and unwarranted accusations.
Xeno on the other hand has decided that I was being deliberately disingenuous because he felt I did not use the plural where he thought I should.
Because of this, and more importantly because he did not acknowledge and apologize for his unwarranted accusation, he is a bag of shit.
Now some of Xeno’s liberal-minded debating buddies can pretend otherwise but we all know that it’s the behavior of an asshole to assume dishonesty without cause.
Xeno’s cause was no other than that he thought my analysis was wrong. Hence, he’s an asshole.
For those who think I am wrong, let me ask a question:
In this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3207030#post3207030
Jshore says:
Here’s his link:
http://miller.senate.gov/press/2002/03-07-02%20Zero%20Cap%20Gains.htm
Looking at it you will see that jshore has misrepresented this cite. Zell Miller is joined by 2 Republicans and a Democrat, not 3 Republicans as he states.
Should I have accused him of being dishonest, of posting knowingly false information? Would you all defend me if I did?
Scylla: *Now some of Xeno’s liberal-minded debating buddies […] *
Checking in! 
- […] we all know that it’s the behavior of an asshole to assume dishonesty without cause.
Xeno’s cause was no other than that he thought my analysis was wrong. Hence, he’s an asshole.*
Um, the way it looked to me was, he thought you were wrong and he thought you were deliberately spinning.
Even if he jumped to the conclusion that you were deliberately spinning when you weren’t, how does that make him a “liar” or “hypocrite” instead of just “wrong” (or perhaps “behaving like an asshole”)? Are you suggesting that his suggestion that you’re suggesting something you know to be false is something he knows to be false? (Ouch, my brain! :)) Wouldn’t that be “assuming dishonesty without cause” on your part? Wouldn’t that make you an “asshole” according to your own criterion?
*Looking at it you will see that jshore has misrepresented this cite. Zell Miller is joined by 2 Republicans and a Democrat, not 3 Republicans as he states.
Should I have accused him of being dishonest, of posting knowingly false information? Would you all defend me if I did?*
Well, any time a poster gets something wrong, somebody is apt to assume that they were being misleading instead of just mistaken. It’s always more charitable to assume the opposite, of course, but it’s a very common assumption. How other people react to that assumption is likely to depend on whether the misinformant has a rep for being misleading.
Frankly, I think that opening a Pit thread to toss around terms like “worthless liar”, “hypocrite”, “shithead”, “bag of shit” and “asshole” comes across as a lot nastier. Even if xeno wasn’t justified in his remarks, it wouldn’t necessarily make him a “liar”, “hypocrite”, “shithead”, “bag of shit”, or “asshole” rather than just “wrong”. Why not just tell him you think he was wrong, and leave it at that?
I mean, you’ve been wringing out this thread for three days now, and there hasn’t appeared even one poster who agrees with your savage denunciations of xeno’s behavior. That makes you either a lone defender of Truth and Justice against the forces of Malicious Dishonesty and Deplorable Apathy, or else, well…wrong, not to mention a teensy bit overwrought.
Boy, I bet ol’ Xeno never knew how popular he was until now. He is kind of an asshole, you know.
(Jealous? Of course not. Don’t be silly.)
Oh, all right. elucidator, you’re an asshole too.
Happy now?
You’re shitting me, right?
I bolded it.
You seemingly ignored it.
I asked why I bothered bolding it.
You said you saw it the first time you read the article.
Then we went back and forth about its meaning.
And now you say you don’t see it?
Damn. I give up. Bye.
ya know, I like you.
we’ve debated, you’ve admitted error (at least once ).
but here, you’re loosing me. by your criteria, you seem to be painting me with that same ‘pretending’ otherwise brush.
bullshit.
you’re over reacting in a major way (MHO).
Well, wring just highlighted something that’s been bothering me. I said I’d quietly stay out of this thread, but I’ve got all these people defending me and I feel bad that they seem to be getting splattered by the poop Scylla’s been lobbing my way. Perhaps I should come clean and admit to those who may be mystified at the severity of his reaction to me, that there is some cause for that severity, just not particularly the thread linked in the OP.
Prior to the thread which the OP is so indignant about, my last dealings with him were in this thread, in response to his charming and intelligent treatment of David Simmons. That thread, more so I think than the one linked in the OP here, is the prime reason for the present bile, as it involved a deconstruction of Scylla’s remarks in a more critical manner than he had bargained for. –I fully admit by the way that I was far less gentle in that thread than in the one which ostensibly generated this one. But far less abusive to Scylla than he was to David Simmons.
But the real progenitors of the current relationship between Scylla and me, are the thread in which he admitted he is sometimes intentionally dishonest in debates (warning; that’s a very long and convoluted thread, but quite informative), and the thread examining rhetoric which was a subsequent attempt -mostly on my part- at assessing the level of acceptance of such an approach. It was this pair of threads which clearly outlined the natural antipathy between us, one borne not only of contrasting styles but of a fundamental difference in moral outlook.
Scylla is not only a sometimes impressively skilled rhetoricist, he’s also a dedicated sophist. The point, for him, of any debate is to staunchly promote and vehemently defend a particular position, and by his own admission, when in his judgement an opponent is unworthy of his respect, he feels justified in employing any dirty trick he finds effective. He calls this “taking out the garbage.” Although Scylla is quite inventive, the tricks he favors lean heavily on the intentional misrepresentation of others’ viewpoints. Which is the point at which I now generally object, since IME the point of debate, outside of the classroom and particularly on this board, is to test ideas against fair challenges.
When I object, I do so by quoting each instance of misrepresentation and then refuting it. Sometimes, I’ve accompanied the refutation with expressions of mock surprise that such a perceptive poster would make such glaring errors of fact. Since effective spotlighting of his tricks seems to be something which Scylla finds particularly annoying, it sometimes prompts an impassioned defense of his own true blue nature and accusations that his opponent is a “liar” or “hypocrite.”
Which leads us to my Pitting here. I’ve been struggling over the past few days to avoid feeling gratified by this vitriol. I believe it’s a sign that I’ve been successfully countering the sophistry. Unfortunately, it’s also a measure that my tone has become overbearingly judgemental… (Although Scylla projects firm confidence in his utter righteousness, he doesn’t seem to bear judgement well.)
So I’ve promised at least one poster and a board administrator that I’ll try and stick to spotlighting the inaccuracies in Scylla’s misportrayals, and leave the character judgements to others. I apologize to the SDMB staff –and to Scylla- for my judgemental tone.
But I don’t and won’t apologize for approaching his arguments with the presumption he’s not being entirely straightforward; he’s already announced to me that he feels no compunction against self-serving artifice in his arguments. This, I feel, gives me cause to “assume dishonesty” on his part. But I’ve said as much before, in the last thread I linked to above:
I have trouble reconciling this:
With these:
[quote]
Scylla is not only a sometimes impressively skilled rhetoricist, he’s also a dedicated sophist. The point, for him, of any debate is to staunchly promote and vehemently defend a particular position…
[quote]
It appears it didn’t take you long to break your promise.
I object to your mischaracterizations, and in light of the fact that your apology is rife with further assaults upon me of exactly the type for which it appears you are apologizing I find it difficult to take it very seriously.
I’ll think on it and respond when time permits.
scylla
You jumped the gun on this one. Xeno’s comments did not merit this PITting.
xeno
You tar with far too broad a brush to read dishonesty into every pithy one-liner that scylla posts. There’s nothing wrong with humorour scorn as a debating tactic.
THe above are IMO, of course, apply whatever value you wish.
While you’re thinking, consider that I can support each of the opinions you’ve objected to above with cites from your own words. Consider also that were I to characterize you as, say for example
…a narcissistic lying prick so enamored of your own worldview that your inability to accept other viewpoints borders on sociopathy…
this would be in response to your unflattering comments aimed at me, in a Pit thread which you started for the express purpose of impugning my character.
Hardly the playground in which I promised Gaudere I’d keep my gloves on.
On preview: Spiritus, I do apply a high value to your opinion. Note that I do not read dishonesty into Scylla’s posts; I merely look for it.
Heh. More than once I’ve gotten in a tiff with something Scylla has posted, and he alone amongst everyone I’ve debated calls me a liar. It pissed me off at first, because I value my honesty* – but given the ease with which he throws the insult around, I guess I shouldn’t take it too seriously.
I think his attack on elucidator in this thread is a perfect example. Anyone who understands how to put a sentence together** understands such concepts as hyperbole, and understands that elucidator, in claiming that Scylla always starts the choruses of Liar Liar Pants of Fire, means that Scylla is almost always the first to sing the tune. When Scylla begins to lose an argument, however, he often seizes on a scrap of obvious hyperbole or a metaphor or a throwaway snarky comment, blows it way out of proportion by interpreting it literally or as the crux of his opponent’s argument, and derails the conversation into chestbutting Contests of Honor or similar nonsense.
He writes incredibly funny shit; I loved the blimp story. But when we stray from discussing intimidating-but-ultimately-harmless gasbags to discussing Scylla as a political animal, I’ve stopped paying him much mind.
Daniel
- In order to avoid a potential hijack, I’ll clarify: I value my honesty, but I value my not being in a position where I might have to shoot innocent people even more.
** In order to avoid the same thing happening to me, I’ll clarify: some people, e.g., people with Aspberger’s Syndrome, can put a sentence together but cannot understand hyperbole.