Dennis Miller on Politics

I thought I responded somewhat resonably. I didn't think it deserved the vitriol and spite that came back in your post. You only reinforce my opinions of people on the far left with your behavior.

You make this statement in your reply to me:
"So tell me, Gregoftheweb, how expensive is your Daddy's coke habit?"

Then 15of19 points out how you insulted me and my father in your post.

And then you have the gall to say:
"I demand that you demonstrate that.

I will not stand for such scurrilous and unfounded lies.

Demonstrate it now, or else apologize!"

You need some maturity my friend.

If you read this far I will try and focus more clearly on my point. Actors and celebrities with left leaning views are often given lots of print to espouse their views on the world. (Bono, Sting, Janeane Garofalo, Barbra Striesand, the list is almost endless) And when one actor comes out and gets some print time for his right leaning views he's the one you single out.

Why should we listen to ANY of them. They're singers and actors and comedians, most of them with only high school education.

I don't. I make up my own mind about things. I decide what I believe in.

Dennis Miller isn't worth any more of my time. I think he is a hack that has never been very funny. His only good schtick was on the news on snl, and even in that seat others have done better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Got reality?

Gregoftheweb ... (and take notes, 15ofthe19)

Quite frankly, I cannot believe this requires further explanation.

And I still demand that demonstration.

I consider the complaint so off the mark that I question either 15ofthe19's literacy or intentions. Both, if I must. And the same of you, Gregoftheweb; please state the case more clearly.

It's not a matter of gall, Gregoftheweb. I feel I deserve an explanation for 15ofthe19's unfounded attack.

Go back and read the topic, and try to make that demonstration. You'll find the accusation has no merit in the historical record.

I consider that a very shallow reading of the topic.

When someone you respect suddenly espouses ideas so nearly opposite his prior demeanor, I notice.

I don't recall Sting, Garofalo, or Streisand having made a recent flip in their politics.

Three points invite exploration, at least:

• The change itself.
• The assertion that nobody's addressing, that conservative humor, for some reason, just isn't as funny.
• The assertion that, given a set-up opportunity to say what he wanted to say, Miller made a very anemic point of it; he easily could have said, "I'm not moving to the right; f@ck 'em."

On that last, I would accept that answer and shrug it off. It strikes me as odd that he even chose to address the question at all; this on the grounds that he addressed the question so poorly that he would have given a more respectable answer by simply ignoring or refusing the question.

They bear a strange amount of influence, 'tis true. But over the years, a number of comedians have actually been very good at putting information together that the public otherwise wasn't grasping; comedians also lend "human" faces to ideas. In the Seattle area, we put on a face that says we don't joke about certain things; yet when Miller or someone of his stature comes to town, we laugh at the jokes. He used to be really sharp. He's not these days. It's a curious thing. I'm not so convinced it's his politics per se. I tend to find the kind of humor conservatives enjoy rather lowbrow, but I'm aware that most people think liberals don't have a sense of humor to begin with.

Are you meaning to imply that you are somehow immune to cultural influences?

I think he was funny up until he got the football job. I actually thought he was hilarious on Monday Night, but if just wasn't football. He sort of "ruined the mood," so to speak.

And he hasn't recovered.

And you know, if you'd paid attention to my references to P.J. O'Rourke, you'd realize that this isn't solely about conservatism. O'Rourke was hilarious, for years. And he's always been at least Libertarian if not downright conservative, and his humor was always a very refined vulgarity. And then some years ago he put out a book in which he collected old essays and tried to create a picture of how the man he was came to be, and unless one chooses to decide that he never wrote a word worth paying attention to, one finds a startlingly narrow bitterness driving the man, an almost supreme anti-identification. And at such a degree, it's just not funny anymore and seems rather quite tragic.

So to me there is something about a rightward shift in artists. Please understand, there's a difference to me between the Screaming Trees' recordings of "Away in a Manger" and "There'll be Peace in the Valley for Me," and the idea of King Diamond recording a straight-man version of "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam." I don't wonder what's up with the Trees; the recordings tell me all I need to know about why they were made. I would seriously wonder about KD if he suddenly crooned out a legitimate take of "Sunbeam." I mean, I still laugh, and am laughing right now as I think of it, when I recall Kiss' recording of "God Made Rock and Roll For You." It's not necessarily a fundamental shift in politics that's required; it's the idea of respecting in a certain manner ideas that you formerly rejected, mocked, or otherwise did not identify with.

And we have to consider drugs at some point. It occurs to me that it's possible that you've just never watched someone decline under the burden of cocaine use. As I noted, though: ask any rock musician about cocaine. The decline in Dennis Miller's humor may just be related to his abuse of himself over the years.

Oh, and 15ofthe19, I knew you couldn't demonstrate your accusation. That's what for, 15.

I demand an apology for:

(A) Your unnecessary belligerence.
(B) The false pretext upon which you based it.

You have not yet illustrated your case, and I demand you do so or else apologize. You haven't the right to treat anyone at this forum that way, 15ofthe19.

Make your case, or else apologize. If it's so clear to you, it should be an easy demonstration of your case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More from Miller

Dennis Miller, undated interview:

I wanted to point out a few things here:

• certain about things you're guessing at - As the condition is apparently objectionable, how is the conservative alternative any better?
• kind of reticent to protect you from the bad guys - A softer phrasing, but still very, very general. The counterpoint equivalent would be to say that I won't set foot on the conservative reservation because all I get from conservatives is, "The Constitution means nothing, our international agreements mean nothing, and human beings mean nothing." Is that really fair to generalize like that for such a justification?
• liberals equating Giuliani with Hitler - So much for the U.S. Constitution? Yes, the Hitler bits were harsh, but so was Giuliani. 9/11 is the best thing that ever happened to his reputation, as sad as that is. I mean, no-knock search and seizure, charges of "crimes against quality of life," and no warrant? For marijuana? Telling stories to the press about being outrun by stoners? Great. Times Square looks better. While "Hitler" is a little over-the-top, I would hate to book a flight to New York and get off the plane in Singapore. See the prior point, the "counterpoint equivalent."

And, you know ... Miller was never given news-station time when he argued the more liberal line. We're all aware that he is, after all, a comedian. But Bill Maher gets canned for making a fairly obvious statement, and Dennis Miller gets time on a news station after saying we ought to lay random nuclear assault to the world as a demonstration of our power?

Dennis Miller, who uses the Tonight Show to announce, "We don't want to know," about events in Iraq. FOX News, I understand. CNBC? Who knows? It might still be a good show.

And you see ... that's part of what everybody rushing to defend Miller against the apparently oh-so-horrible liberals is forgetting: The story will continue. I'm looking forward to his new show. Perhaps he'll finally choose to speak himself clearly. Perhaps a ratings disaster will remind him that he needs to make the point if he expects to be taken seriously.

A comedian like Miller upset that someone called Giuliani a Nazi? I had actually thought him tougher than that. We learn something every day, if only we choose to look.

• "Live with TAE: Dennis Miller." See http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/985616/posts

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is useless T

Everyone can read this thread and see where the hate is coming from, and it aint from me.

Look, you went too far with "How much coke is your daddy doing.." crap and you know it. Just let it alone now. I didn't flame you, I just told you I was surprised at how you jumped all over a new poster who said nothing inflammatory about you.

You are going to die of a stroke before you hit 40 if you don't chill out T.

 

No, I don't know it. Show me how.

What's so hard about not asking me to think on your behalf? State yourself clearly, so there's no margin for error. At such a time that I need not presume any one facet of your accusation I will respond to it directly.

That's rather quite a misrepresentation:

• Wow. That's showing some real maturity. I note this comment of yours because, as I said, you are out of line. These words are among those that you will, more than likely, wind up lunching on when all is said and done.

• Why don't you just go ahead and take your shirt off T and ask him to step outside. I guess your one of those telephone-tough guy types. Anybody can be an uncivilized ass behind a keyboard, just ask nico. While I appreciate the moderation you tacked on in the next sentence, this part of your tantrum will be the most bitter part of having to eat your own words.

• Awaiting what I am sure will be a vicious response full of reasons why I am just an idiot and you should be at the right hand of Da Vinci. That seems to be trendy on this forum. Despite your smilies, I found this rather unnecessary.

Understand: I'm quite sure I know where you're coming from. I would prefer that you lay it out, though, so that there is no question about your position. Because I am also quite certain of what my response will be, and that I will demonstrate the error of your position.

You could have at least noticed the fact that I told the poster that I considered the position "narrow, spiteful, and downright bigoted." And then I went on to ask a number of questions reflecting a similar degree of generalization--e.g. "What is it about you alleged "rational" conservatives that communication is an impossibility with you? What is it about superstition and presumptuous bullshit that is so much more attractive to you than substance or reality?"

Because I was disappointed in the poster's disregard for posts in the topic. He chose to leap straight to the bigoted debate, and that was a bit offensive in light of everything else. The poster could easily have chosen to be so respectful as to not lower the discussion into such stupid generalizations as he did.

At which point we arrive at a very important crossroads in the conversation, and it's left to you to show me that you know how to read critically, and that you're not just some two-penny punk out looking for a row.

"Just let it alone"? Why are you so afraid to make a simple detail of what the problem is? You wish to write both ill and falsely of me and you haven't what it takes to stand up and demonstrate your case?

 

Tiassa:

You mentioned in one of yours posts that you had been a part of a rally in Washington state. I was wondering if you were referring to the destructive rally that was made so much of in the news.

If this is the rally to which you referred, it seemed that you took great delight in the havok caused during that time. So, tell me, as I have never protested in such a manner, "does such behavior get into one's blood" so to speak?

Are you so very unhappy with the status quo that you are driven to protest beyond reason, or...is it the "high" of being a part of such a scene, ....on the news and in the papers; something that you can talk about for weeks to come?

I tend to think, though I could be -ever-so-wrong! ...that the real reason you get into such outlandish opposition, even on this forum, is that you let your passion be your guide rather than wisdom. (This is from Spinoza, who suggests that though passion is a wonderful motivator, it is a very poor guide .

Let wisdom be your guide, he suggests.)

It is good to have a burning desire to be a part of something meaningful, to belong somewhere. I love this quality. It is a good quality, and if we follow it, one day it will become clear to us that we are placing too much importance on where we physically. You need not be in a mob or on a soap box to be important, and effective.

I seem to be trying to analyze you, and I apologize for that, if it offends you, but hatefulness attracts my attention, because to me it is not good. With your education and ability to write, it is of concern to me that you spend much of your time on this forum chewing people out, so to speak, when you could be funny, witty, informative, and challenging without the venom.

You have mentioned drugs several times and their destructive qualities. Being so excitable can be very hard on your health also. Doctors have said that being repeatedly exited to such an extent can affect your blood sugar.

When I read your comments, (prior to your last post), two phrases came to mind: low blood sugar, and high blood pressure. God knows I am not a medical professional, and I know I have no right to tell you what to do, but whatever you spew, whatever you do to others, you do yourself.

Hate me, if you will, I swear I was concerned, not so much for those you offend, but because you seem to have such a workable way of destroying yourself. (Your last post was more a bit more civil in tone.) Would you just think about what you are doing to yourself.

In addition--while I am working my way onto your s.... list--if you want people to hear, (though they won't always), and if you want people to respect you, do you think the hostile posture is going to heat them up, turn them off, or persuade them toward considering your words and their source? Once in awhile, it is good to be still and let your heart speak to you.

PMT

 

tiassa,

Precisely why I think less of you than you do.

 

Sorry T

You're off the map at this point. I can see that you would love to turn this around and make me the bad guy, but it's just not going to work in this instance. You have made your bed: sleeping in it may be unpleasant, but that's a choice made by you, not I.

I am with Thorne in that I have to believe that you are capable of much more than feeble flaming of new posters. What gives T?

 

Scrotum: Who's got balls enough to be honest?

15ofthe19

So, what gives, 15ofthe19 ... you want to ... how does it go, tap me on the shoulder and ask me to step outside? And then you don't even care to explain why?

What are you afraid of? Aside from the fact that you are blatantly incorrect and therefore out of line?

Then it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate, should it?

So ... three posters with a present combined total of 200 posts ... who wish to address issues without addressing them ... carry what authority when they are incapable of making such a simple point as they claim to have?

Something you'll learn once you're around for a bit longer, people: When you choose to make such accusations, you will be called upon to support them.

It's not that hard to figure out. Don't worry, though. You'll get the hang of it eventually.

You know, you're so right. I really shouldn't wonder or care at all that someone like you would care to tell lies about me and spit in my face.

Your continued harassment will not be tolerated, 15ofthe19. Your petty attempt to start a flame war is your own stupid choice.

Just apologize, 15ofthe19. Stop putting up this two-bit machismo. Just make your case clearly.

After all, if you're so correct as you seem to believe yourself to be, it's a really simple gig.

Mr. G

And yet you continue to waste words.

P.M. Thorne

Thank you for your analysis.

Which one? Do me a favor and point that out. I believe I can clear up your error quite easily.

I believe these questions are prompted by your error.

Not at all.

Do elaborate on the connection, please.

I point to your October, 2003 registration date and suggest to you that the situation you view exceeds such a history. People prefer the venom, quite obviously, else they wouldn't step out, as 15ofthe19 did, with hatefully-motivated accusations designed to sidetrack a topic with silly flaming.

All I want is an explanation for 15ofthe19's temper tantrum. I'm pretty sure I know where it comes from, but I'm also quite sure that if that's the case, 15 is so far wrong that I must demand an apology.

The situation could be easily cleared up if 15ofthe19 would like to explain that chest-beating machismo, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. It's up to 15.

And anyone who's been around this forum for a while knows very well that this is a common routine. How many times a year does someone get pissed off at me and refuse to make a detail? (In fact, I actually have one poster still to answer, as they finally did me the courtesy of making a list. Admittedly, the list makes me snort with derision, but hopefully I'll be able to manage an answer that doesn't involve too many chortles at some point in the near future.)

But the situation you're witnessing between 15ofthe19 and myself is quite common. I'm very used to people "asking me to step outside" and refusing to tell me why.

Unfortunately, any analysis of me would involve quite the history; if you ever get around to that analysis, let me know. In the meantime, don't oblige yourself on my behalf. In the meantime, though, please accept the following short recommendations with as broad a smile as I offer them:

• Hate me, if you will, I swear I was concerned, not so much for those you offend, but because you seem to have such a workable way of destroying yourself.

What further research and analysis will reveal to you, PM Thorne, is that "hate," as you seem to define it, arises because the people who are offended choose to be for no apparent reason. As with 15ofthe19, I wonder why they start such issues.

• In addition--while I am working my way onto your s.... list--if you want people to hear, (though they won't always), and if you want people to respect you, do you think the hostile posture is going to heat them up, turn them off, or persuade them toward considering your words and their source?

Your unfortunately narrow scope of analysis clouds the issue. Take 15ofthe19 and Gregoftheweb, for instance. Hostile posture? I must include you to present your analysis forthrightly here. Demonstrate the hostile posture and where you think it comes from.

It is quite clear that my "hostile posture" isn't the issue in this topic, Thorne. My "hostile posture" didn't come up until 15ofhte19 chose to step up and take a swing for no good reason.

Please note that neither the accuser--15ofthe19--nor the alleged offended--Gregoftheweb--are willing to explain the basis of how they are offended.

I mean, talk about hate, Thorne ... perhaps you might do me the favor of giving me your thoughts as to why I have to put up with such hateful conduct to begin with.

I could very easily reconcile this issue, if either of them would simply present the case.

But neither of them are willing.

As to the shit list ... let me advise you at least that provocative "analysis" and presumption such as your own (e.g. "Hate me, if you will," and "while I am working my way onto your s... list) are old hack around here. Again, the narrow scope of your analysis presents challenges; I don't think you're yet in an educated-enough position to make such provocative analyses.

Thank you for the reminder, but the values of the heart carry little weight around here. Therefore they are generally reserved for issues in which their values won't be wasted.

General note

So, would anyone like to step up and make 15ofthe19's case? I'm happy to respond to it if it's stated clearly, but unfortunately, nobody seems capable of doing so.

 

Your turn

Since you are determined to engage in mental gymnastics as opposed to just coming out and saying what you really mean, I will get down in the sandbox and play at your level.

Considering everything that you have said there is one COMPLETELY OBVIOUS point that you are completely missing. Care to take a guess? I'll make it easy for you. You have completely validated everything I have been suggesting with a few words included in one of your most recent rants. I've never been one to play games, but since you are determined to do the Obtuse Boogy, I will play along for your enjoyment.

Have a great holiday season T. My hope is that you will take this time to calm down and lower your BP for a time. I can only laugh at your ridiculous attempts to paint me as someone hostile and agressive. That couldn't be further from the truth. This forum is relaxing for me because I can just post my thoughts, mostly using "common sense" and I am sure to incite you or someone like you into some sort of fit of fury. It's quite entertaining.

Trust in the knowledge that while you might alledge a "tantrum" on my part, it's obvious to everyone where the juvenile temper tantrums are coming from. I've never raised my internet voice to you. You, unfortunately, cannot say the same.

In closing I offer the olive branch to you my friend because I fear that you need it much more than I. Let's hope that you can regain your composure and that we can resume a civil discourse on any future issues where our viewpoints might cross. Deal?

 

On cowardice: that's at least two apologies you owe, 15ofthe19

The ultimate act of cowardice; you wish to "make peace" instead of simply support your accusation?

Unfortunately, there is the little issue of your terribly low character and the libel you have made against me, 15ofthe19.

Why you are afraid to make what should be a simple explanation of your scurrilous accusation so that I might directly respond to it, I do not know.

But you are a coward, 15ofthe19, if you are afraid to make such a simple explanation.

Judging by your chosen address of me, that's a massive lie.

Your dishonesty has been noted, 15ofthe19; it will be remembered in the future.

Your childish, shirt-waving, chest-beating, hostility has set a precedent. I really wish you had been capable of at least informing me of what the hell the basis of your attitude problem is, 15ofthe19, but apparently you are not.

I think you owe Gregoftheweb an apology, as well, for attempting to deceive him with your dishonest representation of the discussion.

 

Tiassa:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~from your last post.
quote:

You mentioned in one of yours posts that you had been a part of a rally in Washington state.

YOU ANSWERED: “Which one? Do me a favor and point that out. I believe I can clear up your error quite easily.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RESPONSE: I was on another thread, and I was browsing a bit, and ran across some of your postings, among others. There was, and I cannot remember now which thread, but anyway, as I recall, you mentioned "showing the people of Seattle" (something to the effect) that not everything was funny to you. Somehow, this left me with the impression that you were in a protest rally, and I was wondering if it was the Word Trade dispute, where so much damage was done. Of course, you could have been referring to another rally. There is almost always damage with a crowd of protesters.

YOU WROTE: “I believe these questions are prompted by your error.” (referring to the alleged rally)

RESPONSE: Could be. There is a possibility that I was not on your post, but on someone else’s. [I did spend some time trying to find your exact wording, but I could not remember which thread I was on, because I had skimmed though two or three. Whoever said it, was just commenting on it, there was nothing that dramatic as I recall.]
::::::::::::::
YOU QUOTING ME: but hatefulness attracts my attention, because to me it is not good.

YOU WROTE: “Do elaborate on the connection, please.”
:::::::::::::

RESPONSE: Fair enough. How about we commence with the following quotes:

PROTEST/INSULT #1 “What is it about you alleged "rational" conservatives that communication is an impossibility with you? What is it about superstition and presumptuous bullshit that is so much more attractive to you than substance or reality?”

PROTEST/INSULT #2 “If you're going to make irresponsible posts like you have, Gregoftheweb, well, I would simply say, Don't, it makes you look absolutely frigging stupid.”

INSULT #3 “Tell me, Gregoftheweb, do your conservative heroes do cocaine? Lots of it?”

INSULT #4 “So tell me, Gregoftheweb, how expensive is your Daddy's coke habit?”

INSULT #5 “I mean, I couldn't actually "disparage his opinion" by talking about his cocaine use unless he's known to have done a lot of it over time.”

The above were all in—I presume—your first post to Gregoftheweb.

::::::::::::::::::::::::

YOU WROTE: “I point to your October, 2003 registration date and suggest to you that the situation you view exceeds such a history. People prefer the venom, quite obviously, else they wouldn't step out, as 15ofthe19 did, with hatefully-motivated accusations designed to sidetrack a topic with silly flaming.”

RESPONSE: You wrote, “People prefer the venom.” Perhaps, but this was a new poster, right? As for yours and 15 of the 19’s history, you are right, but it was not so much what went on between you two, but the unfounded nonsense about G. This made 15 of the 19’s first remarks, made after your insulting posting to him, seem totally justified.

I have nothing against you, and my point was not to bawl you out. Those guys are grown, they do not need me to assist them, but I was concerned for you. You seemed so angry and uptight. It worried me, okay?

You know what? I do not like anyone telling me what to do. Therefore, I am careful to show others respect for their ability to handle their own affairs, and usually to not offer advice, or whatever, unless my opinion is solicited. However, you seemed so quick and well read, and it was such a shame for you to show so little regard for the feelings of others. You mentioned that you thought Dennis Miller was tougher than to be offended by someone comparing the former mayor of N. Y. with Hitler. Got news for you! That offends me too.

To hell with being tough.

I realize you are most likely very young, and therefore reared in a time when free speech has been taken to the toilet, but I do not like it. It is not good, and it serves no purpose. And, I am no “whimp,” I guarantee you.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

YOU WROTE: “And anyone who's been around this forum for a while knows very well that this is a common routine. How many times a year does someone get pissed off at me and refuse to make a detail? (In fact, I actually have one poster still to answer, as they finally did me the courtesy of making a list. Admittedly, the list makes me snort with derision, but hopefully I'll be able to manage an answer that doesn't involve too many chortles at some point in the near future.)

“But the situation you're witnessing between 15ofthe19 and myself is quite common. I'm very used to people "asking me to step outside" and refusing to tell me why.

”Unfortunately, any analysis of me would involve quite the history; if you ever get around to that analysis, let me know. In the meantime, don't oblige yourself on my behalf.”
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
RESPONSE: I will respect what you say and will not bother you again, unless it is in response to a subject on the thread, that is to say, I will make it a point not to worry about your health.

I hope you do have times alone to reflect and to listen. I hope this for everyone, including myself. I can get a bit wound up sometimes. We all do, but you scared me a little, because I had read previous posts, and though you have much to say that is controversial, I did not realize that you were not really upset. You probably like to spar, and this forum can be educational in its own wacky way; otherwise, I would not be on here. I think, or at least hope, something good comes to all of us who share out thoughts here.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
YOURS: “In the meantime, though, please accept the following short recommendations with as broad a smile as I offer them:”

RESP: Okay, I am smiling as big as I can at 1:10 in the morning……..
::::::::::::::::::::::::
YOU WROTE: “What further research and analysis will reveal to you, PM Thorne, is that "hate," as you seem to define it, arises because the people who are offended choose to be for no apparent reason.”

RESPONSE: Listen, smarty-pants, just because I said I was not a medical professional gives you no cause to assume that I am unlearned. Moreover, that explanation you so superciliously gave me for hate, may simply be your way of rationalizing. To do so decieves you, however, because you cannot justify your attack maneuvers -by giving credit for "hate" or hatefulness to the person you are attacking. This, my friend, will not fly with P. M. Thorne.

YOU WROTE: “Your unfortunately narrow scope of analysis clouds the issue. Take 15ofthe19 and Gregoftheweb, for instance. Hostile posture? I must include you to present your analysis forthrightly here. Demonstrate the hostile posture and where you think it comes from.”

RESPONSE: Listen, Hon, this it is not class time and I am not your student. I gave my examples. Therefore, all you are going to get from me on this rather redundant question, is that I suggest you re-read your response to G’s first post, and in doing so, if you cannot see an indication of a hateful posture, nothing I can say will ever convince you. Amen.

YOU WROTE: “It is quite clear that my "hostile posture" isn't the issue in this topic, Thorne. My "hostile posture" didn't come up until 15ofhte19 chose to step up and take a swing for no good reason.”

RESPONSE: Well, see there! You knew it all the time, but what did G do or say to deserve your blast of bile.

YOU WROTE: “Please note that neither the accuser--15ofthe19--nor the alleged offended--Gregoftheweb--are willing to explain the basis of how they are offended.”

RESPONSE: I like this one. Therefore, because you were forthright and answered my rather audacious posting--with all that concern about your well being--I am going to share something with you. Here it is:

I had a boss once that turned all the nasty problems over to me to handle. He would come to my desk all red-faced, papers in hand, and tell me how awful somebody was being and what was being demanded of our area. Then he would hand me whatever was in his hand and say, “Good luck.” Then one day, when I was a bit in a dither, and had gone to him for consolation, to commiserate, or whatever, you know what he said to me? Well, he leans back in his chair and says, “Ahh! you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

I was ticked. Softly, I spoke, “Hey, look at me.” He looked at me and grinned, but I did not. I peered at him, and with the pride I deserved to have for all the problems I had solved, I said, “It is my mountain, Fred. He sat up, and said he was sorry. Then he said, “You know I never heard that one before,” and I said, “Me either.”

My point is, we are entitled to our feelings. My mountain is my mountain. If I am offended, then by golly I am offended. If your feelings are hurt, or you feel angry (or hostile), those feeling are okay. What is not okay is to use those feelings to belittle someone, so that you might bring yourself back up to par. Besides, I think you know what you do that offends. Do you not you think this is true?

YOU WROTE: “I mean, talk about hate, Thorne ... perhaps you might do me the favor of giving me your thoughts as to why I have to put up with such hateful conduct to begin with.”

Well, bless your heart. In most cases, a soft answer works, but insofar as telling you why you have to deal with hateful conduct, …you do not have to ... deal with it!

If you are asking why you should not retaliate. That is easy to answer. It is a waste of time and energy to try to get even….no matter how popular it is/was on campus to have sizzling repartee. I went to school for a day or three, and I know how it is. It can take some months (like maybe twenty-four or so), to get past that spitefulness. Just think how patient you will be in a couple of years, or so, and so wise.

YOU WROTE: “I could very easily reconcile this issue, if either of them would simply present the case. --- But neither of them are willing.”

RESPONSE: Then let it go. It is usually best not to let other people set your alarm. You can decide for yourself what is worth your energy. Saying, “I disagree,” works just fine, and usually gets the ball rolling. Then, you decide if you want to give reasons.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
YOU WROTE: “As to the shit list ... let me advise you at least that provocative "analysis" and presumption such as your own (e.g. "Hate me, if you will," and "while I am working my way onto your s... list) are old hack around here. Again, the narrow scope of your analysis presents challenges; I don't think you're yet in an educated-enough position to make such provocative analyses. “

RESPONSE: You are probably right.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
YOU WROTE: “Thank you for the reminder, but the values of the heart carry little weight around here. Therefore they are generally reserved for issues in which their values won't be wasted.”

RESPONSE: That suggestion was not to be for someone else’s benefit, but for yours.

You know what? I am going to bed, or I am going to be in real trouble.

Stay cool! PMT

 

Various considerations for PM Thorne

P.M. Thorne

Thank you for extending the basic courtesy that others find so repugnant. I believe these issues can be easily addressed.

Despite my endorsement of the peaceful protests, family and friends advised me against entering the fray once the police department had spun its lies. I sat at home and watched the battle on television. And while I might point to my posting history, I do admit that I'm not really expecting anyone to go back and read them all. No, I wasn't at the WTO 99 protests--I cleared out of the office and vacated the downtown in reasonable time. But it's been a while since I've described WTO 99 from that perspective, so I can't reasonably expect anyone to go pilfering through thousands of posts to find that factoid.

I won't claim the best phrasing, but it is essentially a generalization-for-generalization response to Gregoftheweb's broad disparaging of liberals that also happened to overlook much of the topic as if it didn't exist.

At a basic consideration, there are problems with the phrasing. I could have added something like, "Why not then just say ...," and launch into it from there.

But in terms of Gregoftheweb's note that he "thought (he) responded somewhat reasonably," I hold to the general but admittedly dubious propriety of my position: if these are the generalizations one wishes to deal in, I can invent them quite easily, as well.

And what, specifically, is problematic in this? It's true. If Gregoftheweb, or any other poster, chooses to adopt as a tactic general apathy toward what is written in a topic in order to invoke broadly-applied, narrowly-conceived misrepresentations, should we kneel down in awe of such stunning intellectual prowess?

And what is so insulting about telling someone their behavior makes them look stupid? Perhaps there is an issue of tone, but I said from the outset that I found Gregoftheweb's post narrow, spiteful, and downright bigoted.

Did you happen to read my discussion with 15ofthe19? I mean, all of it? Perhaps you would care to address the occasion on which I previously addressed these very points:

Given that I have addressed these points before, and that you have chosen to raise them at this time, perhaps I might ask that you could fill in the detail of what you find unsatisfactory about the prior address of these points?

I will address these three together because they seem to be at the heart of the issue.

I consider it unfortunate that neither 15ofthe19, who fostered the accusation, nor Gregoftheweb, who has apparently accepted it, are willing or able to support it. Because a simple review of the relevant portions of the topic will answer the issue. We might consider the following points and responses:

• Tiassa: "Yeah, this is a brain on drugs. It looks like the cocaine really has caught up with him, and that's sad. I mean, he's always had a Libertarian bent about him, but this is just getting sad."
• Gregoftheweb: "I'll tell you the people I respect in the world the most, my father and my father-in-law hold conservative viewpoints on the world. And if you were to disparage their opinions in a like manner it would make me angry. They are also about the smartest men I know (a nuclear engineer and a aeronautical engineer)."
• Tiassa: "Tell me, Gregoftheweb , do your conservative heroes do cocaine? Lots of it? . . . . If Miller's decline is tied to cocaine use, it would make more sense than the idea that he's just rolled over and given up . . . . So tell me, Gregoftheweb , how expensive is your Daddy's coke habit? . . . . I mean, I couldn't actually "disparage his opinion" by talking about his cocaine use unless he's known to have done a lot of it over time."

Now, take a look at that exchange. I made the charge that Mr. Miller's drug use may be responsible for the decline of his humorous quality; it's a fair consideration in the face of the possibility that it is his politics. After all, it may have nothing to do with his politics. And it may have nothing to do with his drug use. But it's a fair question.

Gregoftheweb responded that if someone disparaged his father, father-in-law, or other respected conservatives in a like manner, it would make him angry.

So I asked if his conservative heroes do cocaine. If the answer is no, then their cocaine use won't be an issue on such occasions as one might question those conservatives' perspectives. I even made this point.

And, removed by ellipsis, I discussed the old SNL crew of Miller, Carvey, Franken, and Brown. Cocaine use at SNL is evident; anyone remember Victoria Jackson? This paragraph was to establish that there is reason to wonder about Miller's cocaine use.

And then I asked Gregoftheweb how much his father's cocaine habit cost. There are a number of possible answers here:

• He doesn't do cocaine; there is no cost.
• He does cocaine, but it's not problematic or a tall monthly tab.
• He does cocaine, and both the car and the HDTV disappeared last month.

Just a few possible scenarios.

But the bottom line, as I wrote at the time, is that, "I couldn't actually "disparage his opinion" by talking about his cocaine use unless he's known to have done a lot of it over time."

The reason I need 15ofthe19 or Gregoftheweb to spell it out is because it's really quite hard for me to figure out where 15's back-alley, shirtless chest-beating comes from.

In the meantime, after an unfounded verbal assault like 15ofthe19 laid in response, I'm quite deserving of an apology.

In a larger issue, I'm willing to spend a short burst of excessive energy in response to such behavior. It's such an old routine that it's not worth the effort of being polite with folks like 15ofthe19 on such occasions.

Hell, I figured demanding an apology was a lot better course of action than some of my alternative responses.

But let me know what's unclear.

A new user ID, at least.

I generally don't worry about whether or not anyone's building multiple user ID's to carry out their fight. It's happened before, but the paranoia will destroy me if I try to actually figure it out. So I treat each user ID as an individual.

That said, there's a number of things I let go without judgment, and a number of things I judge to be so "newbie" that it's best to let it pass without response.

That GotW's generalization suggests the mundane is more "newsworthy" than the unusual is something to let pass without response; specifically--A world filled to the brim with left-leaning actors? Yeah, right. That's news. On the other hand, a well-respected political and social humorist changing his stripes so vocally ... you're right, that's ... well, I don't know how, by comparison, that would be the less-newsworthy (inasmuch as any of it is newsworthy at all) condition. That's not something to worry myself about; it's a nitpicking rhetorical subtlety if I want to be so elitist as to make "newbie" distinctions.

Did he just fail to read the topic and launch into his generalization because he felt like it? In such a case, I wouldn't be worried about a stiff response to someone who happened to be a new user. I'm very unsure, on the one hand, about treating newbies like special-ed students; I'm happy enough to give smilie or font advice, but whence comes the line where one can say one's newbie status affects their intellect? I mean, when we get right down to it, isn't that a little more offensive than suggesting that someone whose evident cocaine use might be affecting their perception?

Which brings me back to history, but just for a moment. If you would be so kind, picture a world in which you can rightly presume that people are as illiterate as Sciforums argumentation presents them to be? Just imagine that. If, for instance, 15ofthe19 is unable to make the distinctions I've described in explaining your five points regarding insults, I seriously wonder about his qualification to comment at all on the grounds that understanding Dennis Miller's humor--when he's not so effectively demonstrating the problems of conservatism--is actually more difficult than figuring out the bit about whether or not Gregoftheweb's father is subject to considerations of the effects of drug use in the first place.

So, if you run for just a moment with this nightmarish image of people who are utterly unable or unwilling to communicate ... isn't that a grim worldview? Should I prejudicially classify 15's outburst as the result of stupidity? (Metaphysically, this is possible no matter how I do it, but that's the problem with metaphysics.) Should I simply presume that Gregoftheweb isn't smart enough to know what he's talking about on the grounds that he's a Sciforums newbie?

G has a long history of pursuing me and not the topic. I can't remember the last time we had a discussion that had a point. He's one of a number of posters who, for some reason, will enter topics on regular occasions specifically to undertake a rather quite ridiculous issue with me. It's ... kind of creepy.

You should meet Brad Rules. He sticks his head in every now and then, but if you want bare-chested machismo, there was the man. He's allegedly gone through a personal transformation, but that's rather quite difficult to see whenever his handle pops up around here.

Which insulting posting was that? Surely you don't mean the one in which I demanded an apology for his falsely-founded tantrum?

Understand, please, most people who wish to take splinter issues with me put at least a little bit of effort into it. 15 did not. I have no obligation to tolerate that brand of petty harassment.

Thank you for your concern.

As a side note not necessarily applicable to you, PM Thorne, you have presented the odd opportunity to point out that people are very odd when reading tone. You, for instance, have no problem presuming that the anger shown in my posts bleeds through my life. Yet take a look around at how many people can't read each other's humor, and think about how much that contributes to the vitriol that goes on around here. Ever see that Simpsons episode (3F11) when Apu doesn't want to deal with a customer, so he says, "Sorry, no speak English," and the customer protests, "But you were just speaking English!" That's how it seems around here with people's reading comprehension.

And while a certain deal of anger does flow through my life, let me assure you that your worry is unnecessary. I be irie, mon.

A longstanding difficulty in my life is a repeating conflict of interests. For me, it actually started with "offensive" Christians and music and speech issues. But essentially it was the old idea that respecting freedom means giving it up, inasmuch as in order for one party to be "equal" socially, they needed to be superior, while at the same time, the intellectually and spiritually appropriate course of response involved allowing further transgression. I like, "Turn the other cheek," as well, but in an environment like Sciforums, I might as well staple my mouth shut and chop off my fingers if I'm going to do that.

With Gregoftheweb, they're his feelings to decide are hurt. Gross and insulting generalizations? I figured that was his preferred language. I mean, declaring oneself "a rational conservative voice," and then carrying on with that ... okay. Frankly, if I was conservative, I would be insulted on the grounds that he called himself "a rational conservative voice," and then proceeded to be offensively irrational by disregarding the topic and creating a false issue in order to cast opprobrious implications about liberal thinking. Seems a bit of a firebrand.

Now, feelings in this sense is a more delicate issue. What troubles me about "Hitler-talk" is that it degrades the potency of the Hitler mythos; as a counterpoint, I found it odd to call Hussein "Hitler" when "Stalin" would have been more appropriate ... I was upset at calling Hussein "Hitler" because it was inaccurate and only effective because of ignorance in the intended audience. Not good circumstances to base the comparison on.

With Giuliani, though, there's a couple of things to consider. Hitler? Too harsh, damaging to the idea of HItler insofar as it trivializes a legendary evil. However, when we add up warrantless searches, vague charges like Degrading the Quality of LIfe in New York, inventing stories of how he--Giuliani--and not his bodyguards or the police, tried to chase down stoners outside his office (they outran him), and his general disregard for the Constitution in giving New York a nicer, cleaner face, there are reasons why people are upset at him. And given the way people abuse the Hitler mythos in the modern day ... it just doesn't jibe with the Dennis Miller we've known over the years. That's the sort of thing that makes his shift toward the right so interesting. He could get all wired and say horrible things with much rhythm and style about a good many people over the years, but Giuliani, a man whose reputation was under fire until terrorists blew up the WTC, should somehow be immune to what has become, really, a passé insult in the public arena?

If we pause to think that those of us watching Miller's transition must remember to not give it too much thought--we don't actually know the man, after all--Miller's concern for other people saying things that he's said worse than really does seem rather quite ... odd.

Sure it disturbs you. But ... and I'll ask this very carefully, so nobody can misinterpret it and think I'm insulting you ... er ... anyway: How much have you been paid over the years for insulting public figures?

I don't expect an actual dollar figure, obviously, although mine is officially "Zero." My point being that he's been paid to say worse things about people who deserved it less. If you've done time in front of the brick wall (e.g., doing standup comedy), then you may be subject to the same consideration as Mr. Miller; it depends on your style. But otherwise, you haven't done much, have you, to disqualify the credibility of your disgust at the Hitler insults?

I'll wait for you to narrow that down.

I only raise this paragraph here because I've been arguing with all the rest. Part of what you're seeing is just the way it's gotten to be around here, and part of it is indeed the individuals, myself included.

One card that I'm playing close to the vest is that I know when I'm posting from a position that includes nicotine withdrawal. I've found over time that most people can't pick that out. That said, two notes should be attached. First, that it is, technically, possible to figure it out from certain stylistic and attitude cues. Secondly, it is also possible to map that according to post time and length and situation. However, anyone undertaking that second one, no matter how much it might stroke my ego, would necessarily be subject to considerations raised earlier about how much time we devote to any one thing.

I made a note earlier about multiple user ID's. Right there's the paranoia: I'm not going to let myself fall into the trap of thinking that any one person is that obsessed with me. Which raises another point, incidentally ... that's what I don't get about G, whom you've mentioned, and a couple of others that I have ugly rounds with from time to time. I won't imagine multiple user ID's coming at me from one person, but when it's one ID over time ... I suppose I should be honored. Maybe I should send them my ponytail and an inkwell.

Do you think that I care for a moment whether or not it will fly with PM Thorne?

While I thank you for spelling out the issues regarding the alleged insult of Gregoftheweb, please understand that it is merely a trust awarded to your willingness to discuss the point directly at all that restrains me from laughing at the fact that you did, in fact, pick out what I would have expected, save point 1. I'll bend on that insofar as I already have; I should have prefaced it with several more words.

But I do think that in the specialized history of Sciforums, you have not yet educated yourself enough to view the larger dynamic of these sorts of discussions that tend to flare up with seeming regularity.

You were doing so well ... too bad.

At any rate, Toots, my responses to your examples are included above.

And you know, I could have done the thinking for you and presumed which hate you were referring to. But I figured to leave it in the more subjective form would do better than to presume on your behalf.

Really, I ... don't know why you're upset. Something about your passions? I know, I know, we're all human, Princess.

I have decided to make it my habit to limit my responses to G's useless attacks to such posts.

Perhaps you might give me your analysis of G's first post in this topic. Here, I'll give you mine:

• "You'll notice that most people are to the right of you, tiassa. Being right of you should be no less damning than you being left of most everyone else." I've actually put up with these kinds of posts out of G for a couple months. At one time, I even tried addressing what passed for his points of argument. It's generally a useless enterprise, as G does not wish to discuss any issues, but rather has this odd obsession with me. I mean, in order to make that point of his relevant to the discussion, a few more sentences describing how he applies the idea would be helpful. Here it would not be healthy for me to think on his behalf and presume what those sentences would be.

• "And, as I recall, you're just a guy who stays at home all day and hangs out on message boards. At least he is a professional at something, and pays taxes to support you."

Now, PM Thorne, perhaps you could explain what that has to do with anything, or why it should "fly" with me?

Would that fly with PM Thorne?

Go ahead and write G's argument for him if you'd like. I won't hold him to it, but since you dislike my response to G, it would seem logical that you have some feelings about G's post that might actually shed some light on the situation.

See the above section.

I'm tempted to mock you at this point, but I'll settle for simply saying, no, Thorne, you have not demonstrated yourself in such a fashion that you get to address me like that. Especially not after your, "That will not fly with PM Thorne," bit.

And besides, you have to ask what G did to bother me. That specifically demonstrates a lack of qualification, Thorne. You may be well-intended, but you're blowing this one out your ass quite badly.

And all the king's horses, and all the king's men ....

The easiest thing to do would be to have all of the nonsensical posts like G's static fodder, all of the inappropriate posts like 15ofthe19's outburst, and all of the sidebars such as our own discussion here wiped out when they come up. But take a look around. Read through the site rules. Some of us are obviously capable of having discussions without this kind of crap going on, but the moderators aren't paid, and while I've got a relatively trouble-free forum to deal with, I don't think Cris or JamesR are prepared to delete or modify every offensive post that the Religion forum is subject to; I don't think Goofy would look forward to spending his weekends cleaning up WE&P.

And that's why people carry on: because it's not going away, anyway.

Realize, please, libel is a legal offense, but we don't worry about it here very much insofar as I would expect Goofyfish to laugh me into the ground if I asked or demanded that every little libel and nonsensical insensitivity were regulated. But just because we're not in any situation that matters so much as to make legal issues out of it does not mean that it is appropriate behavior and does not mean that it is not harassment. This is part of how the community around here regulates itself. Should your children call the police every time they want to argue about who found the nickel?

There is a line, and it has been crossed. It's not just the insult, it's not just the cheapness and lack of any real effort, it's not just the absurd introduction of useless flaming generalizations, but rather the combination of all three. The only reason I feel badly for Gregoftheweb is that he seems to have been taken in by 15ofthe19's urgent need to pick a fight.

I did notice, since I'm thinking of it at this moment, that your analysis lacked any real mention of the fact that in the case of both 15ofhte19 and Gregoftheweb, I at least took the time, in addition to the vitriolic argument, to include greater detail on the argument, such as where I discuss "three points" that "invite exploration" with GotW, or take a moment to discuss the influence of comedians according to his introduction of the idea, and a reminder of earlier mention I'd made of P.J. O'Rourke, all of which were to help [b}GotW[/b] with his mistaken generalizations. (See "Got Reality?") Or how about, in explaining my demand for an apology, when I presented 15ofthe19 with a review of what was already written--which I felt was not being accounted for in the argument--and further clarified the arguments, all in accord with his huffed-up chest-beating?

I did notice that you skipped that in your analysis and focused solely on the dispute, as if that dispute somehow existed in a complete vacuum.

Look, Thorne ... it is a bit frustrating. I mean . . .

. . . well, thank you, but how am I supposed to take that? I mean, really. I always hope to stay cool, but then again, cool is just an image ... actually, that's not the hair I'm splitting.

I just think that after the condescension, patronizing, and self-righteousness--all, admittedly, in relatively small doses--I'm inclined to question the sincerity of such a statement.

I'm trying to read your words as sympathetically as possible, but the whole "cocaine insult" thing is so transparent and horseshit to me that dealing with it makes me irritable. If the observation that what you seem to be referring to as "hate" might turn out to be something else just doesn't fly with P.M. Thorne, what credit do I owe "Listen, smarty-pants," your seeming lack of consideration when asking me about Mr. G, or the fact that you did, indeed, in points 3-5, pick on exactly what I sincerely hoped for the sake of 15ofthe19's credibility that he wasn't talking about?

At any rate, I'll cast you as a god so I can go with Celsus and thank you for even bothering to think of me in the first place.

 

Mudslinging...

The mudslinging started here:

Tiassa, I don't think they do owe you an apology. I think it's quite the opposite.

 

Re: Mudslinging...

I support this position wholly. As a matter of fact it draws me back to a situation not to long ago where.. well, you know.

You know what's jacked up is that I have a hard time even voicing my opinion about this, as I can see it as a springboard to Tiassa exploding again.

T, I think you are acting like a freakin little child in this thread. I used to think you had some class bro, but your accusational vehemence and unprovoked attacks on character are simply out of freakin control here.

You know what's sad is that I have no interest in shutting you up, or calling you dumb or blah blah whatever. I don't want to insult you, I want to communicate to you that you're acting like a serious asshole to these dudes and I wish you would stop, because it's a waste of time. They are not learning anythign except that you are a jerk. I know you CAN be as we all can, but I'd hope you could point out to me when I'm being a jerk, and I'd hope I can point out to you when you're being a jerk such that we can have external emotional "oh yeah"s.

Ack.

I suppose I'm a liar? Are you going to "firestorm my character" again? What is sad dude, is that if you knew me if you really read what I'd said, if you could feel what I'm saying right now you might see it as wrong, but you simply could NOT question my character. I do not lie T. I am however, frequently mistaken.

I hope you start feeling better.

*awaits firestorm*

 

Wes, you really need to consider your position

Look, whatever, man. Stop being so damned upset at me because I turned down your offer to have sex with your kids. You never should have made the proposition in the first place. It just ain't my style.

It's very sad to me, Wesmorris, that you have become so personally focused on me.

I mean, fuck, why would anyone really be so upset if I'm acting childishly? That's all anyone really wants or expects around here, your own juvenile leaps to aggression, such as our last major go-round, included.

In the meantime, I think of this or any other loud argument I've had around here and I still can't figure out what makes me so important that someone like you, who tries so hard to maintain his facade of decency and intellect, should bother to waste your two cents on an issue like this.

Wes, I'm very disappointed in you.

You're being a jerk right now.

 

Counsler: Four words

I would ask you to help clear up an issue for me, then.

I will repeat here what I explained to PM Thorne. If you so sincerely disagree with it that six hours' consideration wasn't enough for you to resolve the issue and explain it to me in the first place, Counsler, I'm happy to wait a little longer. I'd like to see this cleared up, because it is one of the first times I've ever been so shocked by what I consider the functional illiteracy of certain posters. I've seen some hairs split ridiculously, before, but this is beyond a joke.

(1) Tiassa: Yeah, this is a brain on drugs. It looks like the cocaine really has caught up with him, and that's sad. I mean, he's always had a Libertarian bent about him, but this is just getting sad.

(2) Gregoftheweb: I'll tell you the people I respect in the world the most, my father and my father-in-law hold conservative viewpoints on the world. And if you were to disparage their opinions in a like manner it would make me angry. They are also about the smartest men I know (a nuclear engineer and a aeronautical engineer).

(3) Tiassa: Tell me, Gregoftheweb, do your conservative heroes do cocaine? Lots of it? . . . .

(4) 15ofthe19: You just insulted a new poster by purposely antagonized him about his reference to his father by suggesting that because his father is conservative he must also be doing cocaine.

I included #4 above because this is the bone I'm picking. The accusation is off the mark, and if 15ofthe19 had a case to support, he easily could have posted what you did, Counsler, and then I could have explained quite easily what I am explaining to you now, and explained to PM Thorne already.

Point #1 is included because it is important to the development of the perceied insult.

Now:

#1) I took a swipe at Miller's drug use and the possibility that it is at least in part responsible for the decline of his humorous quality.

#2) Gregoftheweb isolated that swipe and stated that if anyone ever disparaged conservatives he respected "in a like manner," he would be offended.

I pause here to ask you a very important question, Counsler: In what manner?

Based on the statement Gregoftheweb chose to isolate, the like manner seems to equal disparagement based on drug use.

Hence, I think the question asked in point #3 above is not insulting but directly relevant. As I explained earlier, I advised Thorne the following in my response to his listing of the accusation:

So it seems to me that before I can possibly disparage Gregoftheweb's father for cocaine use, I need to know how much cocaine his father does. If none, there is no issue. If some, there might be an issue. If it has fueled his television career, well ... we might have a consideration.

So here we might consider why Gregoftheweb is concerned about whether someone might disparage his father for using cocaine. If you haven't seen Miller sped up, you haven't really seen Miller. Miller's cocaine use seems rather quite evident to me; whether or not Gregoftheweb's father uses cocaine is an issue that I never would have thought to raise had he not mentioned it.

So when we reach #4 above, 15ofhte19's entry, I'm inclined to ask the question that I hoped 15 or, subsequently, Gregoftheweb--upon his acceptance of the accusation--would answer with the simplest explanation of why anyone's upset:

• Counsler, how do you read the words, in a like manner?

What do those words refer to? Do they refer to something other than the snippet of text Gregoftheweb isolated in order to respond?

Ideally, we might look to Gregoftheweb and ask, What did you mean, sir, by "in a like manner"? Please notice that Gregoftheweb, while choosing to accept 15's machismo-laden accusation, also chose to not detail what specifically the question was.

Four important words: "in a like manner."

Anyone who can sufficiently resolve that issue stands the best chance of compelling me to apologize for the ... er ... "attack".

However, I don't particularly think that can be done.

And in light of these considerations, and the amount of hostility that has resulted from what seems to me such a mistaken position and reluctance to support that position (e.g. 15ofthe19's appeal to avoid explaining his complaint), I do feel I'm owed an apology by 15ofthe19 at least.

So, if you think I owe them an apology, Counsler, help me see why. Tell me, what do the words, "in a like manner," as discussed in this topic and this post, mean? I believe my cocaine-related inquiries, while perhaps lacking a certain stylistic grace, are in fact on-target and very appropriate to the issue raised by Gregoftheweb. I wished to explore how I might insult those folks in a like manner as Gregoftheweb had chosen to isolate and identify, e.g. cocaine use. Before I can do that, I need to know how much cocaine those folks do.

Seriously, I still just don't get the freaking problem, Counsler. That's why I included the two points of argument that you omitted from your consideration. I don't think the actual mudslinging started until later, and those two points I included around yours are the reason why.

" . . . if you were to disparage their opinions in a like manner it would make me angry."

In what manner? I need an answer to that question before any of these protests make sense to me.

Can we try it once with a rephrasing:

• "Yeah, this is a brain on drugs. It looks like the cocaine really has caught up with him, and that's sad. I mean, he's always had a Libertarian bent about him, but this is just getting sad.

• "I'll tell you the people I respect in the world the most, my father and my father-in-law hold conservative viewpoints on the world. And if you were to disparage their opinions because they used too much cocaine it would make me angry. They are also about the smartest men I know (a nuclear engineer and a aeronautical engineer)."

• "So tell me, Gregoftheweb, how expensive is your Daddy's coke habit?

I mean, I couldn't actually "disparage his opinion" by talking about his cocaine use unless he's known to have done a lot of it over time."

Now, I've replaced the words "in a like manner," with "because they used too much cocaine." Does the question I asked next make any more sense in that manner? I hope so, but I was obviously wrong when I thought it made sense the first time around. Because what else would would "in a like manner" indicate?

Seriously, help me out here. Because we must bear in mind the accusation to which I am largely responding: You just insulted a new poster by purposely antagonized him about his reference to his father by suggesting that because his father is conservative he must also be doing cocaine.

And you know, I just don't see it. That's why I want 15ofthe19 to spell it out, and why it's a mere flick of the wrist so far to answer the accusation. That's why I'm disappointed with Wesmorris and think he's out of line with his commentary. I find it rather quite unsettling that, while you're willing to look in at where 15's perception of the insult, you have not addressed the context of the questions; I would greatly appreciate your consideration of those four words, Counsler: "in a like manner."

People find the cocaine questions somehow offensive? Well, what else was the issue on that point, then? Fill me in. Four words. Hello?

If I cannot respond to someone by asking a relevant consideration, why is that someone in the discussion to begin with?

Seriously, I don't see the problem, and I won't be able to until the issue of those four words--"in a like manner"--is resolved.

 

Re: Wes, you really need to consider your position

/Look, whatever, man. Stop being so damned upset at me because I turned down your offer to have sex with your kids.

That is like the worst jerk I've ever heard.

/You never should have made the proposition in the first place. It just ain't my style.

LOL. Yeah okay.

/It's very sad to me, Wesmorris, that you have become so personally focused on me.

What would make you think I was? I had at one point considered you a friend and someone I respect. I still respect you, but you kind of dicked up that friend thing a while back by over-reacting in a huge way to a misunderstanding. However, I hadn't thought much about it until I saw something eerily similar in this thread. Why don't you demonstrate how I "have become so personally focused on you". Why don't you look back and see the date the last time I responded one of your posts. It was months ago. I don't know why your ego would convince you that I "have become so personally focused" on you. Maybe I've simply not considered something.

/I mean, fuck, why would anyone really be so upset if I'm acting childishly?

LOL. Because you have a lot of power. Your words are powerful, you are eloquent. That question is like childishly asking "i don't know what people get pissed off at me when I play around with this nuke". Honestly man, it slightly hurts to read you acting that way. It's not good.

/That's all anyone really wants or expects around here, your own juvenile leaps to aggression, such as our last major go-round, included.

Uh huh. I expect more from you. Either of us could have stopped that early, but YOU wouldn't let it happen. I tried to say "this is a misunderstanding because" blah and you just wouldn't have it. Yeah you kow what I expect you to act like an adult. I expect you to try not to act like a hypocrite and I expect you to try to be fair AND I expect you to admit it when you've done something stupid. Of course, I doubt you give a shit what I expect. You kow maybe I'm REALLY damned dumb for thinking this: but I am here to learn. Childish bullshit is inevitable and sometimes just in good fun but wouldn't you agree we should minmize the fighting like children? Meh. You gonna twist this into some character flaw so you can disrespect me and feel justified?

/In the meantime, I think of this or any other loud argument I've had around here and I still can't figure out what makes me so important that someone like you, who tries so hard to maintain his facade of decency and intellect, should bother to waste your two cents on an issue like this.

"facade"? FUCK YOU ASSHOLE. No facade there. I want decency and intellect and to have fun here, a little good-nature trash talking maybe. Your childish fucking tirates only detract from the potential. And to think you are a fucking mod. About as qualified as Xev's sorry ass. At least she has the excuse of youth. You?

/Wes, I'm very disappointed in you.

You are not my fucking father dickweed, and you are as of late (over the last few months), not my friend so tell me, should I give a shit about what a little bitch is disspointed by? Show me something worthy of respect and I'll care. Otherwise wallow in your misery cunt.

/You're being a jerk right now.

You leave people little choice when all you show of yourself is your asshole.

I would ask that you do not further elevate this. I would rather respect you man. I really want to be your friend. You have to learn to take a little negative criticism T. You seriously warranted it. If it wsan't a big deal you could have just said "hey, just fuckig around, not big deal" or any number of alternatives but you couldn't. I think you owe them an apology for abusing your power. But then again, I'm guessing at this point you don't give the slightest shit what I think.

 

I think you have hit on an important point Wes

If T was as big of a man as he wishes he was he would be capable of making a post that essentially said "Ok, I accept some blame. I made a really obtuse post, with a really snide remark, and it was taken out of context and pretty much everyone who was actually born on the planet earth took my comments in a vein that I didn't intend because I didn't word my post correctly, SO!!!!!!!!!!! with that being said, I didn't mean to attack Greg and let me rephrase my argument."


But unfortunately the great Tiassa is incapable of contrition or recognition of error so we are left with that ridiculous thread where he accuses everyone from me to J. Edgar Hoover of being against him and pretty much pulls a wicked witch of the west meltdown in internet style. It's sad to see someone as bright as T cut off their nose to spite their face, but he seems comfortable doing it, so who am I to criticize?

I have certainly learned my lesson.

And while I am at it, I want to invite all of the posters of Sciforums to pile on me with regards to the way I have viciously attacked T. I know that all of you are lining up to slam me for all of the nasty things that I have said about the man. It's obvious from his posts that I am the problem here and that I started this whole threadjack, so I am imploring you to bring it on. Let me have it. T needs affirmation that I am the most hateful member of this forum so please weigh in and help him bolster his claim.
When T goes off his meds and loads up the Gatling gun of paranoia it is best to just walk away and find some other issue to discuss because reason and logic are the first casualties of a T implosion.

In closing let me say that I think T is a fascinating guy and I would love to share a six-pack with him over a good discussion of foreign policy, but only on the condition that he was in good standing with his meds.

 

Tiassa, you cannot talk your way out of this with a 500 word post. You insulted a poster. Everyone here sees it, including me.

The only thing you're doing is acting like a jerk.