That they even think it? Or that they do so out loud and in public…?*
****
update: Oopsie!
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
That they do so out loud and in public — and get away with it time and time again.
Were you expecting Goebbles to blow the whistle on Himmler, Mac?
OMGZORZ is bricolage!
perception is reality LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Agreed — that they get away with it time and again is worst. That they merely think of it is of no consequence.
By “they,” you mean… an anonymous poster on Democratic Underground, right?
Recall how fucking psycho they were when Larry Johnson was peddling his BS whitey tape, peeps?
Of course they went all Keyser Soze on the Johnson thing, how else do you respond when you see a page torn from your own playbook?
It’s hard to say which is worse, but I’ll add a third option — the inevitable response to this post which will castigate us for pointing it out.
Paging SEK, paging SEK. Your party is waiting…
Well, him/her (anonymity doesn’t make the poster any less real, I don’t think) and all those there who agreed with the poster, as well as all those who are proceeding with a more careful framing of the exact same strategic premise — at least one of whom works for the Atlantic Monthly. Then there are the thousands who turned the Kos post on this subject into a recommended post, not all of whom, I’m willing to bet, are barking mad, especially when mere cynical opportunism will do.
But somehow “they” seemed a bit less cumbersome here, as is often the case with plural pronouns.
Nihilism, it’s not just a spectator sport.
“Well, him/her (anonymity doesn’t make the poster any less real, I don’t think) and all those there who agreed with him her, and all those who are proceeding with a more careful framing of the exact same premise  at least one of whom works for the Atlantic Monthly, and the thousands who turned the Kos post on this subject into a recommended post, not all of whom, I’m willing to bet, are barking mad, especially when mere cynical opportunism will do.
But “they†seemed a bit less cumbersome, as is often the case with plural pronouns.”
I’m not sure which Daily Kos post or even topic you’re referring to, but I have a couple of questions:
1. If I were to find a comment by a conservative on a message board which was similarly odious, would everyone here ascribe to themselves the same level of responsibility for such a comment as you’re willing to ascribe to liberals or Democrats or whatever for this particular comment?
2. Actually, that’s my only question.
3. I’m hungry.
4. E-mail if you’re having problems with the NL post making thingie. I’m moving to a new apartment tomorrow, but I’d like to keep the momentum up if we can. Power vacuum, etc. You know.
It’s like clockwork, I’m telling you…
Depends on how many people were agreeing with it, or how mainstream it had become. In general though, the answer is no. “They” are responsible for what “they” said.
That having been said, seeing it at The Atlantic, or Daily Kos — where Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, etc., have posted — is a bit different than pulling it out of the comments of some small conservative site.
B Moe, I’m glad to be able to point this out to a nishiganger so as not to have to read the real thing. Here’s some reality to perceive:
McCain Gets $7 Million Bounce from Palin Pick
Money talks, bullshit walks, etc…
Rec’d to the front page at Dkos, subject of multiple posts by St. Andrew of Heart-Ache at The Atlantic, etc..
So, no.
don’t forget who else has posted at Kos. though to his credit he was the only Dem primary candidate that didn’t attend the yearly convention.
Redundancy is my strong suit!
Jeff,
I’m beginning to look at this election as a contest between the strategies and tactics of Saul Alinsky vs those of John Boyd. For most of the summer McCain’s been inside Obama’s OODA loop and forcing him to be reactive. As Obama loses altitude and airspeed his acolytes may resort to more drastic measures from Rules for Radicals.
Oh, okay. You’re referring to the rumors that Palin covered for her daughter’s pregnancy. I was confused, because the bulk of the post in question was some sort of super-villanious “ZOMG WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH WE ARE AT WAR,” so I was under the impression that you guys were ascribing that sort of mentality to everyone you disagree with, as usual.
So, yeah. Daily Kos prominently posts rumors and nonsense as fact, and fails to correct such nonsense even when it is revealed to be nonsense. So has this blog on several occasions in the month or so that I’ve been reading it regularly (please, ask me for citations!). Maybe – just maybe – everyone should stop pulling that shit instead of just pulling it every once and a while and then pointing fingers at another blog that does the same thing. BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY! Heh, heh. That’s that thing you guys say. It’s like a meme!
Hey look!
Iowahawk speaks!
We know you dislike us, Barret. We won’t be offended if you stay away.
No, I wasn’t ascribing it to everyone who doesn’t agree with me. That’s not my m.o. I use qualifiers whenever I can.
In this case, though, no qualifiers were necessary: “they” refers to them’s that’s following that line of thinking. Which, I suspect, is not an insignificant number.
So yes, I was referring to “some sort of super-villanious “ZOMG WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH WE ARE AT WAR” contingent; but that in no way needs to be taken as representative of everyone who doesn’t hold my political views.
Where would you get such an idea, Barrett? WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO PIGEONHOLE ME?
Barrett, why would you go to such lengths to smear Republicans?
According to the logic of the “Action Alert” you could just make the claim and run with it, no cites required.
What gives? You feel responsible or some such?
[And BB, despite the maybe-off /sarc tone, I don’t dislike your contributions here].
That is the problem I referred to earlier about Barrett. His cutesy, hyper-literalism regarding generalities I find incredibly sophomoric and tiresome. If you are too dense to figure out who they are by the context, go find a simpler blog to hang out on, we have enough thread hijacking attention whores at the moment.
please, ask me for citations!).
OK, I’ll bite. Citations please.
Only, they have to proved to be nonsense. You declaring them nonsense, then saying they have been revealed as nonsense isn’t going to cut it.
So, yeah. Daily Kos prominently posts rumors and nonsense as fact, and fails to correct such nonsense even when it is revealed to be nonsense. So has this blog on several occasions in the month or so that I’ve been reading it regularly…
The post was about people not giving a shit if it was true or rumor as long as it served their needs. Do I need to spell out who that last “their” referred to?
If you can cite someone here who was lying intentionally, please do.
“We know you dislike us, Barret. We won’t be offended if you stay away.”
I love you, Rob. But I’m confused. I feel that if I let someone get under my skin… look, I’m just getting over a divorce or something. Something dramatic.
“No, I wasn’t ascribing it to everyone who doesn’t agree with me. That’s not my m.o. I use qualifiers whenever I can.
In this case, though, no qualifiers were necessary: “they†refers to them’s that’s following that line of thinking. Which, I suspect, is not an insignificant number.”
Alright. Let me revise my question then. It is now: “If I find an odious quote on some conservative message board, do I get to ascribe it to a non-insignificant number of conservatives?”
“Barrett, why would you go to such lengths to smear Republicans?”
I wouldn’t.
“If you can cite someone here who was lying intentionally, please do.”
I can’t do that, because I wouldn’t be sure. But I can point out people who post things which are soon revealed to be untrue and who nonetheless do not correct them, which, I think, is a bad thing, and something that you fellows would and do rightfully criticize when it is done by your political opponents.
B Moe — pretty much all Barrett has to offer is sophomorism and a faux “I’m so above the fray” attitude. Which is why I find him tiresome, and why I’m not at all surprised to see he’s the one running interference on this thread.
Funny. I don’t recall Barrett showing up to retract his indictment of Palin as an enemy of science once the full context of her response was revealed.
But that’s probably because I was off in the laboratory developing new memes. Which I’ll bust out soon enough, thanks. SHIVER ME TIMBERS!
Kinda curious Barrett:
I’m pretty sure you’ve said you’re a Libertarian backing Barr?
Is there any philosophical [as opposed to party ID or experience etc] objections you have to Palin? I mean she seems to embody a fair amount of the Libertarian outlook from what I’ve read.
What I’m looking for is original thinking not rehashed Lib crap so philosophical is prob’ly the first gate to walk through.
I don’t know. Is it something a not-insignificant number of conservatives believe and / or are peddling?
Because that’s the missing variable that’s got you all confused, I think.
Well, this isn’t a newspaper, and I try to do my best to update… What specifically did you have in mind?
“Funny. I don’t recall Barrett showing up to retract his indictment of Palin as an enemy of science once the full context of her response was revealed.”
Actually, Jeff, I was still around, pointing out that the full context of her response actually backed up my assertion. Know anything about the Discovery Institute? Because the stuff she says is right out of their Wedge Document. We can discuss this further if you’d like, but I’d like to do so in a context in which I can debate just you or someone else who knows a bit of background on this. Let me know.
. But I can point out people who post things which are soon revealed to be untrue and who nonetheless do not correct them,
Oh, a minute ago it was:
Daily Kos prominently posts rumors and nonsense as fact, and fails to correct such nonsense even when it is revealed to be nonsense. So has this blog on several occasions in the month or so that I’ve been reading it regularly
Back tracking a smooch?
– The few times I’ve seen a moderate sane comment on Kos in very many years, the perps were immediately slaughtered like a 28 pound Tom-turkey at a bikers picnic.
I can’t do that, because I wouldn’t be sure.
But see, if we wrote something like this:
What many here don’t understand. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH.
The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet:
Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
If people start to think that there might be something fishy with Palin’s last kid (if hers), then that’s FINE. One more doubt (whether tied to reality or not) is another hesitation at the ballot box.
GET WITH THE PROGRAM PEOPLE. The “rising above it†bullshit has served us so well in the past, hasn’t it?
If you have problems with the story, then STFU and get out of the way of Dems who are engaged in MODERN POLITICAL WARFARE. Go tend your garden or some other pedestrian task, because the “concern trolls†are not helping shape the message.
Then you wouldn’t have any fucking doubt, would you? Because we would have just admitted that we don’t care if it is true or not. And if you substitute “they” for “we” you (Barrett Brown) would have Jeff’s original post.
“I don’t know. Is it something a not-insignificant number of conservatives believe and / or are peddling?
Because that’s the missing variable that’s got you all confused, I think.”
I’m aware of that variable. I suppose I could determine if it’s “something a not-insignificant number of conservatives believe and / or are peddling” if you can tell me how it is that you determined that our wacky super-villain friend is pushing something a not-insignificant number of liberals believe and / or are peddling. That would give me a yardstick with which to operate, eh?
“Back tracking a smooch?”
No. The things I’m talking about were prominently posted on this blog, as in they were posted as blog posts by Goldstein’s former co-bloggers. So, no. Now, me having said that, will you be willing to acknowledge that you were wrong to accuse me of backtracking? Pretty please?
I do. And that her response hewed closely to one that perhaps the Discovery Institute pimps in their Wedge doc only means that the Discovery Institute is just as careful in their wording as are politicians. What it doesn’t prove is that Palin, whose father was a science teacher, is an enemy of science — nor does it suggest she wants creationism taught as part of a science curriculum.
In fact, she noted the opposite.
I’m sure Jeff would do just fine, but you might also want to try Charles Johnson, as he’s very much up to speed on the debate.
BB if you wanna bust right wing balls you probably should point to the lack of condemnation of supposed ID politics. I doubt you should start by misportraying the host of this websites arguments. IMHO.
PS if you want to say anyone is playing ID politics though then you probably will end up having no reason to vote for O!.
Racist!!!111!!!! Sexist!!!11!!!
I thought I already did that. a) the post and commenters b) the mainstreaming of this conspiracy tale c) the fact that most people who follow politics are, I’d argue, more apt to be political opportunists than crank conspiracy theorists, especially the kinds who write for the Atlantic, or read Daily Kos regularly.
= not-insignificant numbers who are pressing this story, but who I suspect don’t really believe its veracity.
Are you going to provide those cites you were offering to provide, or shall we just take your word on it?
“In fact, she noted the opposite.”
– Facts are the Opium of the morally burdened Right.
“I do. And that her response hewed closely to one that perhaps the Discovery Institute pimps in their Wedge doc only means that the Discovery Institute is just as careful in their wording as are politicians. What it doesn’t prove is that Palin, whose father was a science teacher, is an enemy of science  nor does it suggest she wants creationism taught as part of a science curriculum.
In fact, she noted the opposite.”
Okay, again, I disagree with you about what she was saying, and I imagine that she’s going to be making her views clearer on this soon, and that those views are going to be pretty much what I already know them to be, as the McCain camp needs someone to pull those Evangelicals back in without having McCain himself look like an idiot to all the non-evangelicals.
If you agree to a debate, you choose the format. Here, Lampoon, e-mail to be posted elsewhere, etc. Let me know. I’ve got to run as I’m packing, but it’s been real, all.
To Barrett, or Nishi, or any of the other folks who spazz uncontrollably at the idea of ID in the classroom:
What percentage of high school science teachers do you believe doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution, or is so undecided they could be swayed by a school board decision on the matter? Because if the situation is as dire as you seem to think, and any mention of ID could hopelessly queer the education of our children, shouldn’t we be working on improving the education our science teachers are getting?
If I don’t answer any more this evening it’s not that I’m ignoring you, but rather because I’m doing family time. ‘Night, all!
– You continue ro assert she said something she didn’t say? On what basis do you propose to debate?
– Perhaps on what the meaning of “is” is?
I asked if you were backtracking, not accusing you of it. You know, question mark and all that.
Still waiting for citations…
But I can point out people who post things which are soon revealed to be untrue and who nonetheless do not correct them
I can too.
“Are you going to provide those cites you were offering to provide, or shall we just take your word on it?”
I asked you guys to ask me; no one did. Now you’d like them, so here they are. Enjoy your bedtime reading.
Here’s my favorite:
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13120
And here’s my other favorite:
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=12986
Obviously, you’re not going to read these and be like, “Oh, you’re right, even I, Pablo, noted that the second post was flawed in that very thread, and other PW conservatives said the same thing about the first Dan Collins post after you proved that it was untrue, so, you’re right, I actually agree with you that the way these posts were handled was wrong, and I’m totally going to acknowledge that!”, because, you know… BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
Okay, I’m really out this time. Team Fortress 2…
Not exactly my favorite, just the most recent one I can offer.
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13183#comment-524392
Yes, Barrett. Those are exactly the same as accusing Sarah Palin’s daughter of bearing her husband’s incest baby.
Oh, by the way… did you ever turn up that web page from Obama’s site detailing his Afghanistan policy? You know, the one where you “gave your word” that you’d apologize if it didn’t exist? The one where, when it did in fact prove not to exist, that you went off on a laughable spin frenzy?
“Your word”.
Hah.
– Pay no attention folks. Barrett is playing the same old game the Leftist use when they’ve made some asinine statement that ascends to far more importance than it deserves.
– Namely, if you can pour through the 12 paragraph post and find a single obscure inaccuracy, then you can make bold claims that the entire post is trashed. Thats the sum total of his “citations”, and he knows it so he exits, stage Left.
– In the mean time he still has zero basis for arguing the facts of the topic of this post, which he decided was a losing argument, so he switched to the moral equivalence dogma argument of “well you do it to”. Old news. Complete waste of bandwidth. Nothing there to debate, but he gets another thread highjack notch in his ideolog gunbelt. Meh.
Lee @ #25 did and B Moe @ 26 did. Retraction?
As for the first citation, while I agree that the list posted is of questionable veracity, it hasn’t be disproved, has it? I see your offer to dig in here, followed by Dan’s acceptance here, and that’s the last I’ve seen of it. Did you sway him? Did you try?
Moving on to the second cite, I’ll just offer this, and leave it at that. What else do you have?
Reminder: in this thread, Barret:
1) Claimed that McCain didn’t have a page on Afghanistan.
2) When presented with this page, entitled “John McCain’s Comprehensive Strategy for Victory in Afghanistanâ€Â, tried to weasel by claiming it was a “press release†and not a “policy page†(of course, it’s actually both  politicians issue policy statements as press releases all the time).
3) When challenged to produce a similar page detailing Obama’s policy on Afghanistan, deliberately misconstrued it as a request for “any Obama press release mentioning Afghanistan†rather than “any official Obama statement detailing his Afghanistan policyâ€Â.
4) Promised to admit that he was wrong if he failed to produce such a page (despite his original, false claim actually being that McCain had no Afghanistan page, which was demonstrably false, as shown by the link above).
5) Failed to produce the promised (goal-post shifted) link.
6) Failed to admit that he was wrong, as promised.
Link is broken, sorry.
First part links to the thread. “This page” links to the McCain site.
BB, where are the “rumors” Presented as “facts”.
You can quibble over semantics, but I don’t see an equivalence with what even you did in this very thread, making the declarative statement that Sarah P. is “an enemy of science”, then not retracting it after Jeff decisively showed you wrong.
Whats worse? That there are far too many handmaidens (Hi, BB you paragon of libertarianism!) willing to get out and cover for their effluent.
Okay, Tf2 is delayed because of my stupid friends, so I get to argue for a few more minutes:
“Not exactly my favorite, just the most recent one I can offer.”
Hey, wow! A link to somewhat asserting that I did something wrong! Maybe you can tell me what he’s talking about.
“You continue ro assert she said something she didn’t say? On what basis do you propose to debate?”
What did I say that she said which she didn’t? Also, I’ve got a question for you, biggie – have you had any papers published in a peer-reviewed journal, or are you not that sort of scientist?
“Oh, by the way… did you ever turn up that web page from Obama’s site detailing his Afghanistan policy? You know, the one where you “gave your word†that you’d apologize if it didn’t exist? The one where, when it did in fact prove not to exist, that you went off on a laughable spin frenzy?”
Yeah, I did. First, I told you that if you were to produce a similar document and I couldn’t find one of Obama’s, I would apologize. You turned up a newspaper article reprinted on McCain’s site. So I turned up a newspaper article on Obama’s site. My plan was to get you to go first so that you would establish what sort of item would be acceptable, then I would provide you with the same sort of item. The idea was that you would be too ashamed to try to say that your evidence was correct while my totally equivalent evidence was incorrect. This plan was, obviously, a complete failure.
“Lee @ #25 did and B Moe @ 26 did. Retraction?”
Sorry, didn’t catch those, and thus retract. Debating five people at once is more complicated that you might think.
“As for the first citation, while I agree that the list posted is of questionable veracity, it hasn’t be disproved, has it? I see your offer to dig in here, followed by Dan’s acceptance here, and that’s the last I’ve seen of it. Did you sway him? Did you try? ”
Um, yes. One part of the list said that it was a known fact that Obama didn’t publish a single article at HLR. I discovered that this was not a known fact at all, since student articles are anonymous. And it since turns out that he did, indeed, write at least one article. Another little item on that list said that he was not releasing his selective service number. As we determined in that very thread, that info is kept by the feds and may be obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request. Can’t remember the other items that were flawed, but it’s all in the thread. And, no, Collins didn’t correct it. He found it more convenient to add a postscript to the effect that some random troll called him a racist.
Your second site does not contradict anything Obama said he wouldn’t do. He promised he wouldn’t allow his daughters to be interviewed. He did not promise that his daughters would never ever again be captured on videotape. So, yeah.
And with regards to Dan and I calling both campaigns, that was an added bonus after he’d already lost the little debate on whether or not his flimsy little list was wrong. We have been discussing the terms of the conference call but have both been busy with our respective pursuits and were otherwise pre-empted by the damned VP announcement process. We hope to be able to do this later in September; he’ll keep you posted. Evening, dawgs.
Sorry, one more thing, in response to someone who asked a bit earlier – Palin’s background as hunter, daughter of scientist, pioneer girl, and all that is something I dig and is indeed very akin to what one finds in a female Heinlein character, but, again, I have a few bones to pick with her as well. Nonetheless, I’d rather her be VP than Romney. Again, I’m a bigger fan of Heinlein than I am of good governance. And I *love* good governance!
Yeah, I did. First, I told you that if you were to produce a similar document and I couldn’t find one of Obama’s, I would apologize. You turned up a newspaper article reprinted on McCain’s site. So I turned up a newspaper article on Obama’s site.
Spin away, Barrett.
The facts are as I listed them above.
Hint: lying on the web doesn’t work very well when your readers can go back and check the original source.
equivalent evidence
HAHAHAHAH! Again with the “equivalent”. You really don’t know what that word means, do you?
Have a great evening, Barrett. No one is buying your bullshit.
Fun facts about Team Fortress 2. The spy can disguise himself as a player for the other team in order to infiltrate behind enemy lines. This leads to alot of shooting your own teammates in an effort to kill that one asshole pretending to be on your side.
You gotta admit that “enemy of science” is a tad harsh for someone who, at most, advocates opening up the debate. Perhaps you might want to go with a term less reminiscent of an inquisition. Might lead some folks to think that you came to a conclusion then backed it up with logic.
I am a tad jealous as my wife put the foot down on picking up Orange Box. I have fond memories of the original Team Fortress Classic for the first Half-Life.
I was curious where nishi’s been, but then I saw this link over at IP. Pournelle on Palin:
I suspect if Steve Sailer comes out with anything nice to say about Palin, nishi will immediately turn to ash.
Jeff–Can you post proof that you have a degree from an accredited college or university? You list a number of graduate endeavors–did you receive any graduate degrees and can you prove it? Your writing is so convoluted, poorly organized, and lacking in any intellectual integrity that it is hard to believe you actually passed a high school English course let alone a college freshman logic class. You are doing conservatives little favor by posting this drivel.
Sure, Ron. Just send me $100 through PayPal and I’ll send you a photocopy of me holding a rolled-up piece of paper tied with a ribbon.
But fair warning: I didn’t wear the hat. And the Dean in the pic has lots of tats and is an avid biker and collector of hookers. Which explains why it looks like I’m in a bar, standing on a pool table, surrounded by shirtless cheerleaders with track marks dotting their arms.
Paypal link is on the left.
Ron I have a degree and I have more typos per sentence than your mother has STD’s.
I have no idea why I am addressing BB, but this caught my eye:
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Seriously. BTW, for me the answer is, “Yes.” Does that make me a certified genius now who should be listened to, and if I didn’t, then I should be ignored?
Just wondering.
You are doing conservatives little favor by posting this drivel.
Let me guess Ronny, you are a conservative mortified, MORTIFIED I say, that Jeff’s intellectual integritylessness is going to reflect badly on you.
If you aren’t of the same political bent as Jeff, aren’t you happy he is so deficient?
So what is it?
Are you a moby or a liar?
– Hey, I want to get in on that deal. I gots lots of letters and stuff to peddle. I’ll even let my thesis paper go for a steal price of only $250. Buy early, I only have a few embossed signed copies left.
I mean, it sounds like this is another evasion designed to dismiss someone who isn’t “up to snuff” or whatever. In any case, there is a lot of hair-splitting coming from you. But carry on anyway, there are plenty who will engage you, and you seem likeable enough, though having to qualify everything every time I engaged you myself would tire me out very early.
Sorry, BBH, that thesis wasn’t peer reviewed, so it isn’t worth anything academically? Better luck next time and all that.
Oh. And Rikki Ducornet once touched my tie. Doesn’t that count for anything?
– cranky, its all about “time usage”. BB, like the Left, have to keep throwing up non-sensical activities that use up all the debate time. Its another way of controlling the Narrative.
– Evasion….its whats for dinner!
– Oh. Well I did shake hands with Einstein on several occasions at Princeton. Maybe I could get some green for Xerox’s of my right palm, (discretely shaven pf course).
Doesn’t that count for anything?
It counts for NOTHING if she lost your number.
Barrett still doesn’t seem to grasp the focus of the original post on INTENTIONALLY and WILLFULLY spreading lies and rumors as opposed to inadvertently.
And for the Harvard Law Review discussion, when I was proved to be wrong I merely stopped arguing, please forgive me if I forgot to genuflect.
Re: Ronny boy.
When they protest that much, including adding the “not doing conservatives any favor,” you know you are doing something right. The more spittle-flecked their lips become, the closer to home you have hit.
Not news, I know, but hopefully worth repeating.
– Watching the great unwashed gobbling like a pack of wild turkeys in a lightning storm must mean she was the perfect pick.
– I think they’re scared for anything to bring attention to what they did to Hillery. I’m still waiting for their discussion about Biden’s vote for Iraq. I think it will be a long wait.
– But then hes a man you see, and also he gives Obama’s tissue thin Resume’ some boost, never mind that means that the ticket is upside down.
Degrees or not I’d give $10 for that pic.
First I gotta clean up my spilled drink though.
Excellent!
Now my friends have taken over my TF2, but are doing well so I don’t mind.
“What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Seriously. BTW, for me the answer is, “Yes.†Does that make me a certified genius now who should be listened to, and if I didn’t, then I should be ignored?”
Yesterday, your friend made a point of asserting that he was an “experienced scientist” and thus more qualified than I to argue about the theory of evolution. So, hilariously enough, your later statement:
“I mean, it sounds like this is another evasion designed to dismiss someone who isn’t “up to snuff†or whatever.”
… actually applies to your buddy here, not me, since he was the one who started bringing up qualifications. I mean, that’s funny, isn’t it? That you would accidentally attack one of your regular posters? Well, I think it’s funny. You, meanwhile, certainly have some very good reason all of a sudden why it is that is was actually a totally valid thing for him to do, since, after all, he did it, and he agrees with you about stuff. Hooray!
“Barrett still doesn’t seem to grasp the focus of the original post on INTENTIONALLY and WILLFULLY spreading lies and rumors as opposed to inadvertently.”
Yes, Barrett does. Barrett does not approve of such things. Barrett was taking issue with the implications that were put forth, and was trying to make the argument that any political movement could be easily tarred by a few members who engage in dishonesty. But Barrett probably didn’t convince anyone, as usual, no doubt due to the failings of Barrett. Damn him!
oh wow, do you birthday parties?
“In any case, there is a lot of hair-splitting coming from you.”
I’ve just addressed why it is that you were mistaken about your most recent thesis with regards to yours truly, but I should also add that, frankly, making sure that everyone is on the same page with regards to the terminology that comes up in an argument is pretty damned important, and I do it because I care about these arguments and want them to be of some high level of quality. “Hair-splitting” is another, more loaded way of saying “being careful about what words mean when words are important. I think that you will probably agree, no?
“But Barrett probably didn’t convince anyone, as usual, no doubt due to the failings of Barrett. Damn him!”
– Well maybe, but then again you shouldn’t be so tough on yourself BB. When grade school tactics don’t work you can always fall back on the “confusion” ploy. The rubes won’t notice, and 83 posts later you’re still evading.
– She didn’t say what you contend she did. Try to focus.
missed a “do” in there. blech.
“oh wow, do you birthday parties?”
Yeah. I show up and I’m all like, “Hey, guys, if one examines what someone says and how they say it, you can often discern what it is that they’re trying to say and what they believe about it, and that’s pretty much how language works!” and then people tend to start leaving, so I’m thinking about just going into real estate. On a totally unrelated subject, I seem to recall several people here explaining to me that they know for an absolute fact that Obama is a communist based on what he’s said and how he says it. So maybe they do parties, too!
LMFAO @Jeff – #68.
I’m stealing that one for sure!
Ha, realy fucking funny guy that Goldstein is.
no, BB, you need a bit more to back it up is all. one interview? really?
Hi again, BBH! You must not have caught my question a little while back, or perhaps I simply didn’t catch your answer. So here it goes again, yo!
You described yourself yesterday as an “experienced scientist.” Over the course of what you described as a 40 year career, have you had any papers published in a peer-reviewed journal?
That’s from wikipedia, which doesn’t really give any sense of her. I kind of get the idea it’s been kind of downhill for her since her first novel, which was about a dancing satanic bunny. Thank God I clicked cause for real that was gonna be my first novel. That would have been embarrassing.
– BB. Most of the Left gaggle are too young, and inexperienced, to be true Kossacks. They just mimic the Marx operating manual and hope for the best because orginality and imagination are not the strong suits of the of the Borg collective.
– Actually they’d be a hell of a lot more dangerous if they knew what they were doing.
I mean, can’t we even find a picture of her at a Discovery Institute party or something?
“no, BB, you need a bit more to back it up is all. one interview? really?”
Oh, boy. A single interview is more than enough to establish what someone’s views are on a subject. For instance:
Q. How do you feel about America?
A. I hate it, and I love Stalin!
I’m assuming that you wouldn’t be sniffing after nuance if that were someone running for congress, eh?
Again, you’re smarter than you seem to want to let on.
Actually, many of her later novels were fantastic — including one that included, as one of its main characters, Lewis Carroll (can’t recall the name offhand). She’s been compared often to Angela Carter. And yeah, she’s the Rikki of the Steely Dan song.
I used to teach some of her short stories, then have her visit the class to talk about them.
Wild lady. Makes great scones, too. She was going to be my dissertation advisor, but I’d already been in touch with Beth Nugent, who then got a job at the Chicago Art Institute. Both fantastic writers and wonderful women — though politically we are, I’m certain, miles apart.
I hadn’t realized she was no longer at DU, though.
Here she is, though.
yes, well, I make the big bucks being a goof.
if you’re going the “I know what she really meant” route, you need a bit more, um, context. but then I haven’t caught up on the other thread yet, so maybe I missed something, but from what Jeff quoted it seems we have different interpretations of her meaning.
also, nishi has really poisoned the Discovery Institute/WEDGE!!! well.
– Hmmm….have I published….published….hmmm….let me see…..thats one of those peer paper thingies, to paraphrase feets……lets see…..Ummmm…..WHY YES….I have!
– Do I get a lollipop?
– Now ask me what I’ve published so I will identify myself, and then I’ll read you the BBH rules of “go fuck yourself on a Popsicle stick por favor”.
– Now how about your comment concerning Palin, or did you decide to waste the rest of the evening evading?
Here’s the last of my fiction teachers.
“- Hmmm….have I published….published….hmmm….let me see…..thats one of those peer paper thingies, to paraphrase feets……lets see…..Ummmm…..WHY YES….I have!”
Great. What was the subject? Did these deal with “natural biology,” as you termed it yesterday?
“- Do I get a lollipop?”
Maybe. Be patient.
“- Now ask me what I’ve published so I will identify myself, and then I’ll read you the BBH rules of “go fuck yourself on a Popsicle stick por favorâ€Â.”
Oops, too late! Seriously, though, I can understand why you in particular wouldn’t want to identify yourself.
“- Now how about your comment concerning Palin…”
Quote the comment in question and I shall respond to any question you have.
“, or did you decide to waste the rest of the evening evading?”
Nah, I’m going to waste it drinking brandy and arguing with a pleasant old man.
– Oh, and its 47 years, not 40.
– Does that inaccuracy negate everything you’ll ever say on here for the next 15 years, because that would be rather unfortunate.
Say, Barrett: what’s Obama’s policy on Afghanistan?
oh. She’s very charming right off. I put her on my list. She seems out of time. She reminds me of Bobbie Gentry or some 60s someone anyway. The more I watch her eyes the more taken with her I am. But the guy who posted that video has an Impeach Bush avatar thingy. That’s kind of off-putting.
– I kind of like you too Barrett. You’re not the typical unbridled ideolog. At least your debating skills rise to at least high school level.
“Say, Barrett: what’s Obama’s policy on Afghanistan?”
It’s all there in that little newspaper article reprinted on his web site, just as McCain’s policy is all there in a little newspaper article reprinted on *his* website. Tee hee.
More specifically, he proposes increasing the size of the military (which is not going to happen any time soon and is almost assuredly something he knows is not going to happen) and sending more troops to Afghanistan in order to take back the remaining third or so of the country from the Taliban since Bush sort of lost interest in doing that when he was told to lose interest in it by his advisors.
McCain, meanwhile, seems to think that the approach we’ve taken in the last six years has worked fine even though, you know, the Joint Chiefs of Staff think otherwise. If you agree, vote McCain!
Barrett, you have a tendency to embellish and exaggerate.
Yesterday, your friend made a point of asserting that he was an “experienced scientist†and thus more qualified than I to argue about the theory of evolution. So, hilariously enough, your later statement:
Here is what BBH said in “Palin pick already yielding rhetorical dividends?”
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 8/29 @ 2:36 pm #
– You can pontificate, and bloviate, all you care to Barrett. In the end, both contentions are based on “faithâ€Â.
– I am telling you that as a scientist. Refute me with your dazzling credentials.
The credentials part is sarcasm because you posted exhaustive lists of your great works, not to say he was “more qualified”, but that you were using your credentials rather than fact to make your argument.
You know, the same point cranky was making.
And, BBH is correct. Many of us that believe in creation don’t exclude the possibility that evolution is a tool of creation, so the contention goes to first cause. And in that argument, science and religion must both confess faith.
Now go forth, and be a jackass no more.
I’m not sure I’m so smitten with Brian. But then I kind of hate that *kind* of interview generally. “Language speaks us as often as we speak it.” Ok. You want I have a pipe for that but I’m shit at rolling.
or, you know, he figured he’d rely on that INTERNATIONAL COALITION everyone was crying about “not having” in Iraq. oh, and they were/are crap compared to the U.S. military.
sorry, it’s just RTO (and Major John) spent a couple years there and I get tired of the “we left Afghanistan” crap.
It’s all there in that little newspaper article reprinted on his web site
Wrong. It’s spin without substance. Just like you.
McCain, meanwhile, seems to think that the approach we’ve taken in the last six years
Also wrong. McCain was a critic of Bush’s handling of the early stages of the war, although he approves of the more recent surge strategy.
Tee hee indeed.
“Oops, too late! Seriously, though, I can understand why you in particular wouldn’t want to identify yourself.”
– Well that comment takes you down a few decibles in believability Barrett. You know knowing. aside of the few things I’ve told you, so you definitely do not know “why” I choose to remain anonymous.
– Still the evasions.
– I believe you stated you agree Palin is a enemy of Science based on a few lines from an interview, taken interestingly enough, out of context to bolster that argument.
– The problem you have is you saw that on a blog somewhere and parroted it before you realized it was a mis-representation of the point she was making. Thats been established a few days ago already, and yet you persist.
– What next, “coy” or “confusion”?
I just went back and looked at the thread again. There is no “link” to a “little newspaper article reprinted on his web site”.
We’re waiting, Barrett.
Brian is a very deliberate guy. Very measured. I think his dad was an analytical philosopher or some such.
I used to enjoy drinking with him and shooting the shit.
<i<#
Comment by Barrett Brown on 8/31 @ 7:50 pm #
By “they,†you mean… an anonymous poster on Democratic Underground, right?
Seems your Pregnancy Truther friends didn’t get the Oopsie! Memo or if they did, don’t believe it they are living RUMOR IS TRUTH brother!
— here are tons’s of anonymous sisters and brothers loving and living the “Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.”
—->
Sarah Palin Pregnancy Decision Map
Attention! Read The Follow-Up too! BabyGate: Explosive New Details [Photos+Video] <—— this one is especially lovely, in that you get to inspect a teenagers tummy blown up 5000 times
wow..just love the family values… Palin lying about child
first comment? Ace called it —“it’s stuffed”
Here is why Sarah’s 5th pregnancy matters
—-
now can we all finally acknowledge that is the progressive party that races to pitch a tent in other people uterus’s and vagina’s?
“Barrett, you have a tendency to embellish and exaggerate.”
This should be good.
“Yesterday, your friend made a point of asserting that he was an “experienced scientist†and thus more qualified than I to argue about the theory of evolution. So, hilariously enough, your later statement:
Here is what BBH said in “Palin pick already yielding rhetorical dividends?â€Â
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 8/29 @ 2:36 pm #
– You can pontificate, and bloviate, all you care to Barrett. In the end, both contentions are based on “faithâ€Â.
– I am telling you that as a scientist. Refute me with your dazzling credentials.”
Don’t look now, but that’s not that’s not the post I was referring to. This is:
“- Well you would suspect wrong. I am a 45 year experienced Physicist with extensive education in molecular and natural biology. Two undergrad degrees, a Masters,and currently working on My PHD.”
So, no. I don’t have a tendency to exaggerate (although I did miquote him a bit – he said “experienced Physicist [sic],” not “experienced scientist.”
“The credentials part is sarcasm because you posted exhaustive lists of your great works, not to say he was “more qualifiedâ€Â, but that you were using your credentials rather than fact to make your argument.”
Uh, I posted those “exhaustive lists” *after* he pointed out that he was a scientist, and in response to a direct question about my credentials. So, seriously, you need to try again, but this time remember that time flows in a single direction for our purposes.
“And, BBH is correct. Many of us that believe in creation don’t exclude the possibility that evolution is a tool of creation, so the contention goes to first cause. And in that argument, science and religion must both confess faith.”
I’m aware of that system of thought, and strongly disagree with that last sentence. I hope that I and Goldstein can have that debate soon, but I extend the offer to anyone else who would like to have it. I have a blog I’m not currently using which would be a good format for it; anyone who wants to debate can have the admin access and all that and we can trade rhetorical blows from now to eternity. E-mail me at barrticus@gmail.com if you’d like to do this; same goes for anyone else.
“Now go forth, and be a jackass no more.”
Look, I’m a drinking man. I make no such promise.
BB, if BBH had indeed tried to use his scientific knowledge and experience to shut you up, then I would not support that either. But it has already been pointed out that that was not the case. In any case, that does not make me mistaken on my thesis. You are very a very slippery guy. Whatever works for you I guess.
“Also wrong. McCain was a critic of Bush’s handling of the early stages of the war, although he approves of the more recent surge strategy.
Tee hee indeed.”
We’re talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. I understand that the two are often confused by low-information voters.
and this is just peaches — faced with a very pregnant Palin photo and the poster asks “Pic from the Governor’s convention-can we end this now?” Beyond Georphy responds thusly
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-01-08 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
66. I agree…time to move on to the daughter
“I just went back and looked at the thread again. There is no “link†to a “little newspaper article reprinted on his web siteâ€Â.
We’re waiting, Barrett.”
If I provide you with that link right now, what will you do in return? Will you at least acknowledge that such a link exists? Because that would be swell!
BB is really just being a dick IMO. When you boil down his tedious repetitiveness, all you have is hypocritical posturing. Supposedly BB thinks it’s important to allow people to expound their thoughts and correct the record as needed, unless you are a female who just got nominated for the Veep spot on the Republican ticket, in which case he will dismiss any and all attempts to clarify first reports as just meaningless political double speak.
If he really believed in what he was selling, he would have let it go along time before now.
well, to be fair, he’s not very good at the linking.
Barrett, at this point I’m just laughing at your pathetic sophistry. What, you provide “a” link to some random “newspaper article” (say, about allergy medications or zebra mussel infestations) and then claim that you’ve fulfilled the promise you made? Knock yourself out, son. Won’t change the fact that Obama has no clearly-defined Afghanistan policy and McCain does.
You’re a first-rate bullshit artist, I’ll give you that.
An honest debate opponent, not so much.
Barrett Brown person wrote a book on the creationism thing. Yes? Yes, for real. Was that clear here? Y’all are kind of bickering so some of this I’ve been skimming.
But I have an off-topic thing to share cause no ne I say picked it up today.
I really want to see a fjord some day. This is very troubling.
no ne I say = no one I saw … some of the letters on this keyboard are squinched right up against other letters that aren’t the ones I necessarily want sometimes
In my opinion, which I readily admit could be completely incorrect, BB is much more a fan of form than substance. I think he gets a kick out of the argument itself. We could be arguing about anything.
Barrett —
Send me a copy of your book for review and then we can debate. And Harsanyi? I know you’re lurking. Send me a fucking copy of your book, too. Unless you forgot to include me in the acknowledgments. In which case, don’t. I know crazy martial arts.
“Barrett, at this point I’m just laughing at your pathetic sophistry. What, you provide “a†link to some random “newspaper article†(say, about allergy medications or zebra mussel infestations) and then claim that you’ve fulfilled the promise you made? Knock yourself out, son. Won’t change the fact that Obama has no clearly-defined Afghanistan policy and McCain does.
You’re a first-rate bullshit artist, I’ll give you that.
An honest debate opponent, not so much.”
Do you seriously not recall that you were the first of the two of us to link to a newspaper article on a candidate’s website, McCain in this case? And that I simply followed your lead? And that you are now attacking me for something that you did first and that I then emulated as a way to try to ensure that you wouldn’t be able to move the goalposts? Again, for the cheap seats:
1. You provide me with a news article reprinted on a candidate’s web site and claim that it is a position paper.
2. I provide you with a news article reprinted on a candidate’s web site and assert that, if X is a position paper, then X must also be a position paper.
3. You attack me for claiming that a news article reprinted on a candidate’s web site is a position paper.
I want you to do something for me; I want you to read 1-3 over and over and over again until you figure out why it is that I’m done wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you.
I went to the book link (thanks hf). It appears to be a “Ha, ha, look at those funny creationists,” tome, with Mr. Brown providing the humor aspect. Again, could be completely wrong. I’m not going to spend the $10 to find out. But, good on you BB. Getting published is not easy.
“Barrett –
Send me a copy of your book for review and then we can debate. And Harsanyi? I know you’re lurking. Send me a fucking copy of your book, too. Unless you forgot to include me in the acknowledgments. In which case, don’t. I know crazy martial arts.”
Done and done. E-mail me your shipping address. It might actually be easier for you to order a used copy off of Amazon though, or pick one up at B&N. Just don’t hurt me with your wacky catch wrestling/shaolin monk shit. You lit crits already fuck with us authors enough without breaking our limbs or making us tap out or whatever the fuck goes on.
Uh, I posted those “exhaustive lists†*after* he pointed out that he was a scientist, and in response to a direct question about my credentials. So, seriously, you need to try again
OK.
You will notice the post I showed was time stamped 8/29 @ 2:36 pm.
Here is your list:
Comment by Barrett Brown on 8/29 @ 1:14 pm #
“Barrett:
<i?I don’t care about experience, and I’m voting for neither. I will be voting for Bob Barr.
I find that very difficult to believe, at best. You are pretending to be a liberterian or somesuch, when all of your comments on this site are extremely left and extremely anti-GOP and pro-Obama.â€Â
Good for you. I write comments under my own name, and if you really care what my opinions are – and clearly you do, since you’re making assertions about them – then you can read my book, in which I take a swipe at free silver, of all things, in a book that has nothing to do about economics. Or you can Google me and read any number of my articles in which I attack government figures from a libertarian standpoint, or you can go find articles I’ve written for libertarian public policy journals. Then you can apologize for calling into question my integrity. You won’t, of course, but it is a possibility. At any rate, I’m used to being slandered here and expect no better behavior from many of you.
Your whole credentials thing was from a different topic entirely, and before your exchange with BBH. I suggest you read comment #52 in this thread, and try to figure out your screw up there as long as you’re trying figure out this one.
Now, explain how you have scientifically proved first cause. That ought to be good.
“And in that argument, science and religion must both confess faith.â€Â
I’m aware of that system of thought, and strongly disagree with that last sentence.”
– You can disagree with anything you like Barrett. People disagree with things they haven’t thought through every day.
– But if you expect the gravitas of “critical thinking” then you just shot yourself in the foot.
– Here’s why.
“Many of us that believe in creation don’t exclude the possibility that evolution is a tool of creation, so the contention goes to first cause.”
– If you read that sentence as a “critical thinker”, you see the real point that is made within it.
– If you have absolutely no substantive proof that something is not true, you have to leave that possibility open until such proof becomes available, and until such time, the only things you have left are “instincts”, possible even well educated instincts, and (oh horrors) Faith.
– Thus my statement that: “In the end, both contentions are based on “faithâ€Â.” remains the current “truth”.
– If you want to say you have faith that my statement is wrong, you are free to do so, but either way you have not a shred of credible evidence for that assertion, other than your “faith”, however you arrived at it.
– BTW. Your faith has every bit as much viability as mine, and I would never think of using my discipline to silence anyone. You should be spending time at Kos or FDL if you need that sort of contentiousness to argue against.
– On the other hand you can hardly expect me to accept a laymens contentions when I know otherwise.
– Thus the existential questions, ineffable in nature, remain in flux, and are discussed, in all cases, based on faith.
Wow, just… wow.
Yes, Virginia, they’re that fucked up.
Actually, I was a published fiction writer who learned lit crit so that I could call lit theorists out on their bullshit.
They hate that I got so good at it, but fuck — I had a better motive to learn it than they did.
1. You provide me with a news article reprinted on a candidate’s web site and claim that it is a position paper.
Which it was. As shown by it being entitled “John McCain’s Comprehensive Strategy for Victory in Afghanistan”, as well as by its content.
Done with you, Barrett. Have fun! Just don’t forget to sit down and stop spinning for a few minutes if you find yourself getting dizzy. I remember my little sister throwing up one time when she didn’t heed that warning sign.
I was gonna buy the used one off Amazon for $69 something, but I figure I’ll just bum one off you instead, Barrett.
When my book is done, you can has a copy!
“Your whole credentials thing was from a different topic entirely, and before your exchange with BBH. I suggest you read comment #52 in this thread, and try to figure out your screw up there as long as you’re trying figure out this one.
Now, explain how you have scientifically proved first cause. That ought to be good.”
I was referring to the exchange with BBH, not that one. The one you quote is me responding to the 20th person on this damned blog who has accused me of lying about my political beliefs and being a fascist/liberal/communist/Democrat/whatever. I pointed out that my political beliefs are a matter of public record; it should be very obvious from the actual context – in fact, it’s obvious even when one takes it out of context – that I was trying to prove that I am indeed a libertarian. When the discussion becomes about me and what I actually believe – and it often does, at the instigation of others who make bizarre accusations based on the fact that, *gasp*, I don’t dig the GOP – then I will bring up supporting evidence to prove my case in such a discussion. I’m sorry, but I’m not big on people making very false assertions about me, and since I am in the rare position of having easily-accessed evidence as to what the truth is, I will bring it up if someone is intent on saying otherwise.
And, again, to reiterate, this is separate from the discussion I had with BBH, in which, again, he decided to point out that he is a scientist and then asked me a direct question about qualifications. I know that you’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was just being cute and not at all bragging or doing whatever it is that you were accusing me of doing, but I think that you are wrong to do so. Incidentally, you should try giving the benefit of the doubt to someone with whom you disagree some time; it feels good.
Also you can have my dancing satanic raccoon book to look forward to too.
#19 Comment by Barrett Brown on 8/31 @ 8:16 pm
“so I was under the impression that you guys were ascribing that sort of mentality to everyone you disagree with, as usual.”
Barrett, could we agree that ascibing things (mental problems in this case) to everyone one diagrees with isn’t a wise worldview?
If so, you should stop doing so, especially in a sentence where you are seemingly condeming (or at least indirectly challenging the intelligence) “us guys” for doing so “as usual.”
Never use a couple of words when 50 will suffice.
Just sayin’…
hmmm, are you sure a possum wouldn’t be better? maybe a weasel. as Dave Barry (i think) says everything’s funnier with weasels.
“Barrett, could we agree that ascibing things (mental problems in this case) to everyone one diagrees with isn’t a wise worldview?”
Yes.
“If so, you should stop doing so, especially in a sentence where you are seemingly condeming (or at least indirectly challenging the intelligence) “us guys†for doing so “as usual.â€Â
By “you guys,” I did not mean everyone here, although I should have been clearer; I am referring to several individuals with whom I’ve been arguing for a couple of weeks. It would be clearer had I named names, but there are quite a few names. Nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that you are engaging me in a logical and respectful way.
*snort*
Stoats are even better. It even sounds funny. “Stoat.” Heh.
It seems to me that if you make up a fun name or steal one and just use that you don’t have to be so obsessey about your integritah. I could be wrong, but I’m right I think that it’s sort of against the grain of the way this medium works to keep that sort of score tallied up on and on.
I could say that better but I’m not trying to be rude and the gist is clear enough I think. It’s just an observation, not a pointed one.
Possums. Possums are scary. I was in my backyard in Texas in the middle of the day and I heard an ungodly hiss and I looked down and not six inches from my bare leg was a possum big as a big cat with its fangs bared. That’s not supposed to happen ever. Weasels though are already a lot satanic so maybe it would be hard to get the effect right I’m thinking.
hee hee, you’re right, Sean M. and i’m not just saying that. I LOL’d and now RTO is coming out of the bedroom to ask what’s so funny…
eh. then again, I quit feeding the dog outside because it attracted the possums. the fewer she mangles the better.
I thought Obama got all street over Michelle’s debut in the arena of criticism…. even though she give kind of bitter vibes.
Palin’s daughter Bristol hasn’t done or said anything political except pose for a photo or two, but out come the knives.
I mean hey, Obama brought up sex and his girls and no one on the right called for an investigation into an incest and abortion coverup
Thanks Barrett. I feel like arguement is essential to developing a clear mind, although it can get carried away of course.
Take this comment you made:
“We’re talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. I understand that the two are often confused by low-information voters.”
Perhaps the person who wrote the erroneous comment you refered your above comment to is not a “low-information” voter (or even able to vote at all, for all we know) but instead didn’t pay close enough attention to the statements he or she was commentating about.
This doesn’t excuse making the erroneous claim yet it does reflect poorly on you that you ascribe to him or her the label of “low-information” which I would consider an “at the man,” and therefore fallacious, attack.
And let’s not forget Will Rogers axiom: all people are ignorant, just about different things.
Wrong Barrett. BBH never asked you for your credentials, I already pointed out were you were mistaken in that. I know the reason you posted what you did, I was there at the time. My point was you said “Uh, I posted those “exhaustive lists†*after* he pointed out that he was a scientist”, and I was showing you were wrong.
After BBH said he was a scientist, you started questionig him about credentials, and casting dispersions on his claim to be a scientist:
Comment by Barrett Brown on 8/29 @ 3:11 pm #
“- You don’t know what nature is. Zoology, biology, flora and fauna, and you argue in the field of Evolution?â€Â
Weren’t you trying to pass yourself off as a stockbroker a few weeks back? Didn’t you say you worked in “the pit�
And
Comment by Barrett Brown on 8/29 @ 3:23 pm #
Uh-huh. About how old are you, sir?
Which is kinda funny given the defensiveness of your last post to me.
“Nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that you are engaging me in a logical and respectful way.”
– My #131 egages you in a concurent logical and respectful way. If you respond in kind, staying on subject I will return the favor. Otherwise I’ve contributed all I care to to this debate.
– You still have not addressed why you prefer to dissemble, rather than admit you jumped the shark on the Palin statement. Is a slight embarrassment really that tough to swallow?
“Perhaps the person who wrote the erroneous comment you refered your above comment to is not a “low-information†voter (or even able to vote at all, for all we know) but instead didn’t pay close enough attention to the statements he or she was commentating about.”
Of course you are right that people can make common mistakes due to minor confusion over something, and I would never have insulted someone for simply having done that. The gentleman that I was addressing in this case is someone whom I have determined from prior discussions to be a particularly ill-informed person who does not choose to educate himself on the issues that he discusses. And if that were all, I still would probably not have insulted him. But the gentleman in question has a tendency to be very insulting himself, and is in the bad habit of making very serious and baseless accusations against people. Again, though, you had no way of knowing this, so I do agree that if the situation were what it looked to be from your standpoint, that you would be absolutely correct, and, again, it is good to talk with someone such as yourself who has a penchant for propriety.
The thing is Barrett, you were upset about having your integrity questioned, and blamed it on BBH, when it wasn’t him that questioned it. (again see comment 52 in this thread)
I understand it’s hard to keep things straight when arguing different topics with different people at the same time, but since that’s what you seem to want to do here, the onus is on you to keep the players straight, or at least be careful about lashing out at the wrong person.
“Wrong Barrett. BBH never asked you for your credentials, I already pointed out were you were mistaken in that.”
Wow. Here is what he wrote:
“- You can pontificate, and bloviate, all you care to Barrett. In the end, both contentions are based on “faithâ€Â.
– I am telling you that as a scientist. Refute me with your dazzling credentials.”
So, again, you believe that BBH was making a cute reference to the terrible fact that I brought up my libertarian writings as a refutation to someone who accused me of being a leftist. That’s fine. I don’t believe that this is what he was doing at all, having dealt with the fellow quite a bit by this point. I believe that he was trying to establish himself as more qualified to discuss the issue than I; he had no idea that I had written a book on this exact topic.
Really looking forward to the debate between you and Jeff.
My suggestion would be atop The Burj Al Arab hotel, in Dubai.
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/photoshops/tennis22.jpg
“The thing is Barrett, you were upset about having your integrity questioned, and blamed it on BBH, when it wasn’t him that questioned it. (again see comment 52 in this thread)”
No, sir. BBH did question my integrity, as he has done every time I try to engage in discussion here. Try comment 54:
“- Pay no attention folks. Barrett is playing the same old game the Leftist use when they’ve made some asinine statement that ascends to far more importance than it deserves.
– Namely, if you can pour through the 12 paragraph post and find a single obscure inaccuracy, then you can make bold claims that the entire post is trashed. Thats the sum total of his “citationsâ€Â, and he knows it so he exits, stage Left.
– In the mean time he still has zero basis for arguing the facts of the topic of this post, which he decided was a losing argument, so he switched to the moral equivalence dogma argument of “well you do it toâ€Â. Old news. Complete waste of bandwidth. Nothing there to debate, but he gets another thread highjack notch in his ideolog gunbelt. Meh.”
You see that? With all due respect, Lee, I think I’ve got it pretty damned straight. Anyway, I’m out. Take it easy, all.
Well, whatever.
BBH, sorry if I have stepped out of line talking for you, I spent most of that day on my ass reading most of that thread real time, and think Barrett stepped on his dick more that once.
He is a slippery one.
Back when I was in high school, we had one get trapped in our garage overnight. It was not a happy camper. We weren’t real happy either, seeing as how it shat all over the place.
“he had no idea that I had written a book on this exact topic.”
– You are right when you say that. I had no need to be aware of that, since the debate should stand on its own merits, a debate you again evade.
– Unfortunately you are right about little else. Writing a book doesn’t somehow magically transform you to some higher level of provable knowledge. That idea is one that published people share among themselves in some cases, but is entirely specious.
– And that compadre, is why you want to be as sure as humanly possible that you do your homework BEFORE you publish. The worlds libraries are full of wonderful writings, and total garbage of the most rediculous bent.
– Simply publishing proves nothing, either pro or con. Its a critical review of your works by others that have some expertese in your discipline that tells the tale.
– It was you in fact that challenged me, not the other way around. I asked you not a single thing about your qualifications to write on said material.
– Weak Barrett. Surely you can do better than that if you expect to be taken seriously as a writer.
– Again evasion. You have managed to use up the entire evening with as yet not really resonding to direct questions.
– At this point I consider you neither a serious author, nor a serious student.
– No problem lee.
– I think Mr. Barrett would not want to debate Sarah. She’d eat his lunch. *chuckle*
– I also think feets is the one who has his finger on the pulse of creation. At least the part composed of bunnies and kittens, and maybe even opossums, but not weasels.
That link in Topsecretk9’s comment that Jeff links up in the post doesn’t work anymore.
Thanks, BBH. I’m more on the turtle tip though. maggie has the kitten franchise.
w007!
Possums are scary.
I thought they were called “Opossums”.
It’s because of Barack, isn’t it? Is there nothing he can’t change?
I tried to do my best to make that distinction when I came into contact with one, but I guess it didn’t take. Barrett will no doubt be rushing in to split hairs (furs?) any time now.
BECAUSE OF THE OMNISCIENCE!!!
Sod off, Barrett.
I’m thinking that McCain’s choosing Palin as a running mate was a brilliant maneuver. Sure, he won’t win over any single issue, pro-choice women, but he’s sure giving the “progressives” the opportunity to get in touch with their inner 8-year-old, and a nasty, vulgar, sexist little bastard it is.
Allowing your political opponents to loudly demonstrate their immaturity — Priceless.
– Turtles. Of course. How did I possibly forget the turtles.
“- Watching the great unwashed gobbling like a pack of wild turkeys”
Wow! I can’t think of anything that I would like better than to be gobbled by a pack of wild turkeys – as long as they had their cheerleader outfits on.
Senior class play, I was eaten by two cheerleaders. On stage. In front of an audience.
Of course, they were in a costume supposed to be a giant pile of evil mashed potatoes, but it still counts, doesn’t it?
Did Barrett beat you down until you’re mumbling “fuck you,” again. Hit the brakes, Barrett, Rob’s had all the trickle down he can take!
You can take your shit somewhere else, too, thor. Being sick of someone’s shit doesn’t make them the winner — it just makes them tedious bores.
Bristol Palin is pregnant and is going to marry the father.
Excuse me, Rob, but who exactly is the tedious bore here? Whilst I think that you intended to impugn the argumentative style of a published author with your sally, “tedious bores,” given your sentence structure it appears that you have actually referred to yourself as a tedious bore. I would explain at length the very importance of making sure that the noun/pronoun pairing is clearly defined when constructing a sentence of such import, but I am more concerned about what you have previously written about the shape of the table in question. I believe you referred to it as “ovoid” when it clearly is not. After careful measurement I have determined that either end of the table does not obey the proper mathematical definition of an oval. Indeed, there is a runout of at least a half-inch on either side after computing the proper centers at each end. I think the term “slightly-squashed ovoid,” rather than “ovoid,” is really the only way you can refer to the shape of the table.
As this part of your statement is in error, I really cannot be sure that they rest of what you have said is not in error as well, and therefore I must dismiss the entirety of what you have said.
Errata: I blush to admit I made at least one spelling error in my previous comment. Please replace the phrase “be sure that they rest of what you said” with “be sure that the rest of what you said.” I would not want to be misinterpreted. Thanks, & c.
I guess no one will see that. *sniff*
I did. Heh.
Barrett, my message to the email addy above got kicked back.
I saw it, cranky. And I am a tedious bore. I once had a “who can out-bore the other” contest with a librarian and won.
Possums are scary.
Nah. They really do play dead when cornerd. Scoop em up with a shovel and toss em over the fence.
yeah, we’ve had a couple that “mysteriously disappeared” from the compost heap. oh, and I saw one scamper across the alley tonight when I got home. ROXIE EATS INSIDE, YOU RAT!
Thank god it weren’t a skunk.
[…] The Big Lie strategy — which I picked up on earlier but which now can be found in greater numbers, expressed with an almost surrealistic candor by […]