Yes, Monty - you ARE a smartass.

The BBQ Pit
41

DrDeth, You have a bad habit of going around the threads, posting crap, and not returning to acknowledge your errors when other posters overwhelmingly prove you are wrong.

In this thread you were implying Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and your reasoning is that a mural was found in Iraq depicting an airplane crashing into a building. jjim correctly pointed out that there is no indication this was a government sponsored mural or whether it was painted before or after 9/11 and even the paintings on the airplane are Iraqi and not American and, in any case, it does not prove any link between the iraqi government and the terrorist attacks. As you often do, you have failed to reply to his post. Please tell me how does that mural prove any participation of the Iraqi government and the planning of the terrorist attack Or should I conclude that your position is that a mural you don’t like, even if painted by a private individual, is sufficient cause to invade a country.

42

You know, there is a psychological disorder wherein people feel mentally superior and everyone else is wrong and beneath them. They have an inability to be flexible in understanding a subject, everything is completely black and white. They focus in on one aspect of a discussion and run with it. I do not recall the disorder, but remarked to myself that certain aspects of this disorder could explain certain aspects of Monty’s behavior here on the boards. Gotta go to work now, can’t search for it.

43

This might be long, but I don’t care. Mainly because I’m not going to make another posting in this thread. If you don’t like it, too damn bad.

In order (kind of):

blowero: The postings you bitched about in the OP of this thread prove nothing. It is your opinion that they do. It is mine that they don’t. If you don’t like it, tough. Evidently, you have the idea that your opinion is fact. You seem to think that I have that idea about mine. To come to that conclusion about my opinion of my own opinions is to studiously ignore that which I have posted often enough on this site. In the thread about which you are bitching in this thread’s OP, you continued on about all Arabs. I made the valid point that the issue was Arab governments in that thread. DrDeth made the very apt comment about what’s better. You qualify for the not better type of ass. In my opinon, I’m neither a dumbass (as you are) nor a smartass (as you assert, invalidly IMO).

sailor: Get off your lazy tush and search for the posting of your own where you requested anyone who feels that you’re motivated by your hatred of America to make the posts you do. I’m not the only one who gets that impression from you–actually, others have made that charge more often and more directly than I have. Since you think that a pile-on is a valid proof, draw your own conclusion.

SimonX: Nothing against the poster.

fruitbat: Appears here to make insults whilst at the same time bitching about someone making insults. Oddly enough, it uses the expression “can’t tell you how many times” because, well, because it can’t. It’s a hypocrite. Worse, it’s a lazy and ignorant hypocrite. I was addressing the charge regarding a supposed admonishment. Encouragement is not admonishment. The person who made such a charge has clarified. Now, if fruitbat really isn’t lazy and really isn’t a hypocrite, then it shall retract it’s comment in this thread. I’m not counting on it.

Nanoda: You also need to get off your lazy ass and check the many threads where, as iampunha mentioned, what you assert happens doesn’t. What’s that? Why, yes, I did just call you a liar.

FranticMad: You are now asserting that which someone else incorrectly asserted. I don’t do “drive-bys.” I consider that to be lazy and trollish. Another thing I consider to be trollish is to assert that someone (such as I) who posts links to references to what I assert does not do such. Why, yes, you just did that, didn’t you?

Rico: Do yourself a favour and go back to that thread and read the amended post. I decided back during the Elizabeth Smart thread where you intentionally posted falsehoods about the LDS that I was done discussing that issue with you. You will notice that it was someone else who caught you out on that. You there proved to me that an honest discussion of the LDS is not what you want. So, I just flat out will not discuss that with you. AFAIC, that particular topic between you and me is off limits. Polycarp and I had a real fall out over LDS-related postings on this board. He’s someone I’m quite happy to consider a friend, and that’s because he doesn’t pull the stunt you did–he honestly appraised his actions after a couple of LDS posters made comments about them. Polycarp is the most honest person, bar one (sorry, Poly; nobody can match Grace Hopper for honesty and courtesy!), I’ve ever encountered in my life. After said LDS posters made said comments, he explained himself and showed that he really was trying to understand us. When called on the stunt you pulled, OTOH, you justified it with another falsehood–again, another poster, not I, called you on that. Another reason why I’m saying you need to get off your lazy rearend is that you posted above that I can’t realize that I’m wrong. Well, I have said that I’m wrong before and even apologized for it where warranted. As to my attitude towards my “precious religion”: Again, get off your lazy rear and do a search for: “I realize that I may be willfully deluding myself regarding the validity of my church’s teachings.” I’m not sure that’s the exact wording, but it’s close enough to get more than a few hits on the search.

Guin: Earlier on you posted a “bitch about Monty just to bitch about Monty” comment. You apologized for it. Right now, I couldn’t care less if you apologize or not. Maybe in a few days, I shall. At the moment, though, your opinion has exactly zero value to me. And you know what, I find that sad.

Teelo: Actually, I’m stunned you weren’t banned shortly after your arrival here. You knowing posted a lie about be. You then got bent out of shape when called on that. You then admitted that you knew it was false when you posted it. And yet you have not evidenced any sorrow, any remorse over that. Lots of places call that stunt trolling.

iampunha: I didn’t realize I had any groupies, let alone that you were one of them. Someone else mentioned that there’s a fee for belonging to that club. Why am I always the last to find out folks owe me cash?

DrDeth: You dared to say something to sailor about something and got pitted here by sailor. Isn’t that amazing since sailor’s bitching about me daring to say something to him?

UncleBill: Whilst you’re searching for whatever that was you think you need to find, be sure to spend a minute or two looking for that medical diploma.

If I missed anyone, tough.

I now return you to your scheduled pile-on.

44

In related news, after reports that Monty was seen in the thread in question, authorities are trying to determine whether (a) tha whole world is wrong and should commit suicide or (b) Monty is still a jerk. Most observers are betting on (b).

45

I’ll take the $2 trifecta with (b) for win, place and show.

46

I don’t feel bad for the “poor guy” at all.

Monty’s response was a GQ response to a question that appears in GQ. Had it appeared in IMHO, the “poor guy” would have been quite justified in posting his experiences with friends, neighbors, and what he saw on some talk show.

But since it appeared in GQ, it was incumbent upon responders to provide accurate, factual, and verifiable information in response to the question – in this case, to accurately report Mormon doctrine.

I realize that Monty is shoveling shit against the tide when he insists on GQ answers in GQ, when the trend is for any idiot with a half-baked opinion to share it.

In this case, fruitbat, your ire is misdirected.

  • Rick
47

Bricker, I believe the poster in question was providing what he believes to be correct and what Monty believes to be incorrect. Even in GQ there are differing opinions to what is or may be correct and Monty is not the last word.

48

Rick

I respectfully disagree. If you read the OP the poster is specifically asking about cultural standards among the LDS. He is not asking about official church doctrine. To make this even more clear he reposts saying he was interested in hearing from the rank and file.

Lukas, having been on a mission and having been raised in the church, answers from a cultural perspective. Granted, his post was not a marvel of deep insight, but he had some experience to draw on. Even Monty apologizes later in the thread saying he was off base.

Both posters were correct, but Lukas more directly answers the question asked than did Monty.

49

If I were even thinking of diagnosing Monty or stating he had a disorder, I would indeed be speaking WAY out of my league. In making observations that I see a certain behavior in someone, and I read about a similar behavior as a symptom of a disorder, I am quite comfortable with just my engineering degree.

I make typos. People with dyslexia make typos. See? No diagnosis, no medications were prescribed. Simple observations, for which I am quite qaulified.

50

Like DrDeth you assert things which are not true and tell others to search for confirming evidence. What you say is not true. Read the second post in this thread and explain to me what is antiAmerican about what I said

I am still waiting for DrDeth to provide proof for a couple of things but I am not holding my breath.

Funny how you think he is on your side here after he said

but I guess you have to grab what you can and there’s not much for you to grab in here.

Yeah, because there’s no chance that you might reflect the rest of us may have a point.

51

You’re quite correct that the OP asks for cultural standards as well as church doctrine – the problem is that the question defies a rigorous answer, unless it’s true that there is a single “Mormon” cultural standard for marriage expectations that is found consistently everywhere the LDS is. If there isn’t, then the question becomes one that essentially solicits opinions or experiences, not hard, quantifiable fact.

Faced with an IMHO question in GQ, Monty did what I consider the best thing: he responded with information that was hard, quantifiable, and rigorous: the Mormon doctrine.

  • Rick
52

I, personally, have no problem with Monty.

From memory, I’ve called Monty twice on things that he’d posted. These were major ideological things, not just trivia.

Both times, Monty’s responses were along the lines of “yeah, I was wrong”.

But, for Monty’s benefit, it may be worth recalling this:

And that’s the thing, Monty. You’re a smart guy, no poster has a smaller usernumber, you know your stuff.

Be nicer in the first instance, and there’d be no problem.

53

This is a complete fabrication and an out & out lie. I said nothing of the sort. I did say that since Saddam was reveling in our disaster, it is understandable why we are pissed at him. The mural (and nothing along those lines in Saddams Iraq was done without government approval, you idiot) showed his celebration of our sorrow. Since I have gone on record over a dozen times as saying we had no right to invade Iraq, and we were wrong for doing so- I don’t know how a mural could turn that around. But it, and many other actions, such as Saddam supporting terrorism (note, not Al Qaeda, nessesarily), made us pissed at him.

Sailor, you are simply a lying sack of shit. Having you PIT someone should be an honour.
Let me say it one more time:
SAILOR, YOU ARE A LYING SACK OF SHIT.

I now see the futility of debating with you, or posting in such Pit threads. Monty, you were wise to stay out as long as you did.

54

Thanks for replying DrDeth but please calm down. Don’t worry, the posters who are reading can make up their minds about who is lying and who is avoiding the issues. So you believe every single indoor mural done in Iraq was authorized by Saddam Hussein himself? That’s interesting because I would have expected him to have better things to do than supervise bad art. At any rate, you have not addressed the other questions: when was the mural painted? Before or after 9/11? How can you know it depicts the 9/11 events if the airplane carries Iraqi marks and the buildings only have a passing resemblance to the WTC? Why do you know it reflects someone’s joy at the attacks and not something else? Is every depiction of the event an expression of joy?

BTW, there are many depictions of airplanes crashing into the NY towers and they do not mean the author reveled in the thought. Here is a page of a comic book published in Spain in 1993 which depicts such event. As the author explains it was just a coincidence and he had no way of knowing it would actually happen.

And, speaking of lying bags of shit: I am also waiting for you to explain the communist ties of Amnesty International. You said

and I called you on that one. That post and that poster do not exist (care to explain why you lied?) so I am still waiting for you to explain your stated position that

55

Monty:

I disagree; they illuminate your character.

I don’t see where I said that.

I don’t think I said that either. This is about your decorum on the boards, not the rightness or wrongness of your opinion.

The rest of the people here disagree, Monty. Did it ever occur to you that if so many people are angry at you, that maybe, just maybe, YOU might be the problem?

But I’m sure you will go on thinking that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.:rolleyes:

56

You know, Monty, I used to consider you a friend around here, but lately you’ve just been a complete and utter asshole. I don’t care if you care or not. I just find it sad that you feel the need to constantly be on the defensive and lash out at anyone for the tiniest little slight-often imagined.

shrugs Whatever blows your whistle.

57

Monty, anyone here is stunned as why you are still here. Seriously. ITs amazing the ** Don’t be a jerk** rule just slides right off you.

Did anyone else notice this?? Anyone?? Mods?? Administraters??
Monty, go back a few months and read my post again. What you failed to notice (and me too) was that I never directly said you were “Slicky” And hell, I still don’t know. Thats right, I didn’t. I just said that you could be. And you over reacted. I was a newbie and never understood what “socking” was. Fuck, I would hate to be the guy who steps on your toe on the street.
Seriously, if thats the worst thing to say on the Straight Dope consider yourself lucky. Oh, nevermind. You’ve been pitted.
And cripes, Why the hell should I feel remorse for you? YOU, the ass (who unlike everyone else) came in, insulted my intelligence, my posting, my opinions and felt no remorse after kicking a newbie in the groin.
And you still have yet to agree when people call you an ass.
If your not an ass, what the hell are you? A saint?

58

No Desmo, it is worse than what you say. Let me start out by adding to the chorus that Monty knows stuff, and is smart. But like a lot of smart people in my experience, he shows the symptoms of someone who is not used to coping with people who are smarter or better informed than he is. He is not used to being challenged and when he is, he flies off the handle. I hasten to add that I am not suggesting for a moment that I am smarter or better informed than he is, but in his arguments with others, I see this occurring.

My upbringing involved a lot of contact with mensans (again I hasten to add I am not one, and probably wouldn’t qualify). Many many of them were exactly as Monty is. Smart, learned, and a pain in the ass, particularly when seriously challenged or when they came up against someone with a different view who was as smart as they were. Can’t cope, get angry, have hissy fit, get rude.

I had a major run in with him in a debate over the (lack of) credibility of the evidence for Joseph Smith and his golden plates etc. It was a line ball argument. I am quite happy to accept that my argument was not by any means beyond challenge. There were others in the debate who met me on logical grounds and we eventually agreed to disagree. Fine. But Monty’s “valuable” contribution was to chip in every page or so with a bitchy insulting comment, mostly a straight out accusation that my arguments were just an expression of bigotry.

He’s a jerk. A smart, learned jerk.

59

Wow.

Ya know, as a crucible for pack mentality, high school hazing ain’t got a step on the internet.

Christ, it’s like watching hyenas.

60

andros, That’s what happens when you’re a jerk: people tend to agree that you are, in fact, a jerk. Monty has earned it fair and square and he is still belligerent and unappologetic. In other words, he continues to be a jerk and promises to continue being a jerk. The fact that everybody is telling him he is being a jerk means nothing to him.