Dennis Miller on Politics

OUCH

Fuh shizzle my nizzle!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rodney would have the right question here:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Counsler Coffee

I would appreciate it if you or anybody else could show me the insult.

Period.

Everyone here apparently sees it but is unable to document it.

I've answered you, I've answered Thorne, and nobody has demonstrated to me the insult.

Just to be clear here, let's take a look at that accusation:

I dare you, or anybody else, to demonstrate that this accusation is true.

Counsler, I will not stand for this kind of harassment. Period. So you don't get to say, "Everyone here sees it," because not everyone does. Quite obviously, I don't. And since nobody is capable of showing the insult, I'm rather quite offended.

I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of this kind of crap, but given the amount of words people are willing to spend refusing to substantiate the accusation, I'm getting a bit sick of it. You've all spent a lot of words where a few would do.

Check that ... a few words would do if the substantial case existed. It does not, else someone would have properly documented it by now.

Answer the question, Counsler: What mean the words, "in a like manner"?

Why do you refuse to answer the question, Counsler? Are you unable, or unwilling?

If the latter, why?

Seriously ... if it's so easy to see, why can nobody explain it?

I'm still waiting for an explanation or an apology from 15ofthe19. Either one will do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You ought to try having a case, 15

15ofthe19

Why would I?

Let's examine your accusation, 15ofthe19:

Now ... does everyone realize this is actually the accusation at the heart of it?

15ofthe19, you have never offered an iota of evidence to support your accusation, and those who have endeavored to do so on your behalf have failed to present a convincing case.

Until you substantiate your accusation, how can I admit I'm wrong? You've given me no detail to go on except a statement that does not jibe with reality.

You wrote, "... purposely antagonized him about his reference to his father by suggesting that because his father is conservative he must also be doing cocaine."

Given your childish tantrum which followed, 15ofthe19, I must still demand that you substantiate that accusation that I intentionally antagonized Gregoftheweb by suggesting that because his father is conservative he must also be doing cocaine.

So, since you seemed to want to get all shirtless and step outside or whatever, I'm hoping you have a reason why, because the fantasy accusation you posted doesn't cut it.

"In a like manner ...." What's your take on those words, 15ofthe19? I haven't heard your two cents on that yet. You'll notice people seem rather quite frightened to undertake that question. Take a shot at it.

What do you have to lose? Time? Why'd you waste it in the first place with your falsehoods and belligerence?

You think too much of yourself.

You're not the most hateful by far.

If your habit in life is like your actions in this topic, to walk up behind a guy you don't know in a tavern and try to pop him in the jaw for no reason, I'll pass. People who start barfights are a hazard to my health when I'm out drinking.

 

Re: Counsler Coffee

I just showed you the insult. And the only person who doesn't see the insult is you.

That's a joke, right? A few words? Tiassa, some of your past posts in this very thread contain at least 500 words.

This Tiassa, is getting to be retarded. You're disputing four words to defend your own position. You know what "in a like manner" means? It means that your defense on this matter is faulty at best.

You owe him an apology. Not the other way around.

 

Counsler Coffee

No, you didn't.

What you have related is the equivalent of overhearing a part of a conversation and choosing to be offended while failing to consider the rest of the conversation.

The cocaine questions are relevant and pertinent to GregoftheWeb's assertion.

There's an argument on behalf of my mental health. (Thorne, Wes, are you paying attention?)

It's a curiosity to me, too, but since there is a very simple accusation afoot, the most economical route to demonstrating the validity of the accusation would be to demonstrate it. Do you think that if you tell me that "everyone else sees it" or "I'm the only one who doesn't" enough times I'll believe it?

In the end, I have a stake. I'm wrongly accused. Is your recommendation that I defend myself by shutting up and allowing this falsehood to stand?

You're right, Counsler, it is retarded.

Those four words set the context for the cocaine questions, which seem to be at the heart of the accusation.

If I disparage his father "in a like manner"? Well, I disparaged Miller in the context of cocaine use. How can I disparage his father for cocaine use unless that use is evident?

Hence the questions, which, answered, address the issue of whether or not it is even possible to disparage his father's political outlook in such a manner.

I really wish you or anyone else was capable of showing me why that is.

 

In his first post, in this thread, GregoftheWeb said:

"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)."

You then ask him if his conservative heros do coke. Meaning that you basically asked Greg this questions:

"Is your father a coked out whore?"

You, Tiassa, have insulted a new poster who had nothing offensive to say to you until you called his Dad a coked out conservative hero.

Care to call my Mom a socialist slut?

 

Your mom is a slut. Er I mean a socialist. No... I mean uhm.. hot. No wait I don't know your mom. Nevermind.

 

For Wes

Whatever.

The fact that you are editorializing about a situation while refusing to consider the actual facts of the matter you're examining.

Why waste the effort on me when that effort disregards the facts of reality?

And that's too bad, Wes, but we can go rounds about your presumption of the worst in people until the cows come home, and until you admit to it, there's not much progress to be had.

Well, with you I'm referring to this topic, your continued lamenting of our past disagreement, and the lack of any substantial support to back your harsh language.

How much energy should I devote to the question of why you would say such things with no factual provocation? It seems easier to ask you why you choose to focus on me, and I do think it's sad that you'll say such things with no respect for the facts.

Which makes even stranger to me the fact that you would step out and say such ludicrous things with no regard for the facts while lamenting our past disagreement. Combining that lamentation with your chosen timing and the utter lack of factual support to legitimize your apparent disgust leaves the very blatant suggestion that you saw your opportunity to numb the wounds you choose to carry with you by coming after me.

Personally, I'm just puzzled by your unwillingness to consider the facts.

This is also a flip-side I was aware of (I'd read this post) when responding to the other portion of our discussion of these matters. I'm aware of how much attention I can draw with the simplest of my words. I mean, if we look back to the question you asked me elsewhere, about having a normal conversation, all I can say is that normal conversation gets me in just as much trouble as demanding an apology. I recall one time I said I'd be over in the corner smoking and some two-bit punk jumped down my throat to the point that moderators had clear their throats.

So much for "normal conversation," eh?

In relation to that other portion of our discussion, as well, I'd ask you to consider this alongside the part where you discussed the paranoia of a certain position of mine about posters who argue with me. You called that--a sentiment that I'd dismissed--suggested my paranoia, and yet here you appeal to the weight my words can carry. If I could ask one favor, put those ideas side by side and let me know if anything doesn't sync up. There's a bit of a discord I hear there.

I don't know what to tell you, man.

Honestly, some days I cringe at other people's arguments, but it seems to me, based on your emotional arguments, that we're talking about different sensations.

I'm always of the opinion that there's fewer of these performances when provocateurs like 15ofthe19 don't insert themselves so angrily upon false pretenses.

Your justification did not reconcile with the factual record.

If that's what you expect, why do you directly ask for something else? Yeah, it's a problem if they give you a Fishwich at McDonald's, unless of course you actually ordered the thing.

It's not so much that directly, but rather a discord between what you expect and what you give. Or, in this case, what you fail to give.

You can do better than that, Wes. What, just because I don't stick my nose into every one of your fights, I apparently don't see any of them?

That's right. Facade.

(1) You'll note that Xev starts shit; I respond to it.
(2) Why would I want the excuse of youth when I have the merit of the facts on my side?
(3) What has my mod status to do with anything? You've made reference to Xev. Counsler Coffee is advocating falsehoods while failing to demonstrate the accusation and apparently telling me to do his thinking for him. If you think I've insulted a poster--and compared to some I've passed in the past, I'm wondering whence comes the thin skin--then it would seem I've got company.

You know, Wes, stuff that attitude of yours. What's your problem, Wes? You can give me your embittered opinion of me, but you can't stand to hear my opinion of you?

Well, you seem to. Enough to set to cussing and being all insulting and childish.

Wow, you mean I'm so powerful that people have no choice?

Damn it, bring me twenty virgin girls. Now!

Really, am I that powerful? People really have no choice in life but to lie about me or advocate dishonesty? Or, to be more respectful to an indecent proposal, people have no choice in life but to get upset at me?

I would ask that people either put up or shut up, but it doesn't seem I'm going to get that wish any time soon.

Take a number, sir. And while you're at it, think about escalation. Why did you escalate the situation by putting your two cents in? Oh, right, I'm so powerful that you had no choice.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We've discussed this elsewhere. How can I be a friend if I sacrifice integrity as you have elsewhere demanded? How can I be a friend if being a friend obliges me to lie to you at certain times that might be important to your health and general wellbeing?

There's a difference between negative criticism and falsehood. But you're a smart guy, so I'm quite sure you know that already.

Nobody has yet explained how this is.

And legitimize a false accusation? Give credibility to a lie?

My power? You mean because I left them no choice but to sit down at their computers and type their advocations of falsehoods?

I admit, it's hard to make heads or tails when you're all over the emotional map and writing with a forked pen. It's also hard to respect a lie insofar as the original accusation made by 15ofthe19 has not been demonstrated and I don't think it can be. So as I read you telling me I owe someone an apology for slapping me in the face with a lie, it really is tough to give a shit.

 

You forgot your reading glasses, didn't you? Or did you just not read my last post?

 

Thank you for trying

Thank you.

Now, I start with a simple question: "And if you were to disparage their opinions in a like manner it would make me angry."

In a like manner to what?

In his first post in this thread, Gregoftheweb wrote those words you cited in response to the following:

• 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.

Do you want me to quote all of his original post so you can see it laid out on the page, or is it well enough to just look back through the topic?

Because a part of my reply that you have omitted, Counsler Coffee, explains very clearly:

• 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.

If Gregoftheweb's father doesn't do cocaine, of course I can understand why such a disparagement of his father's political opinions would upset him. But I don't know for sure that his father does coke, so doesn't it seem wise to ask? I mean, he's the one worried that I would disparage his father's opinions (in theory) for cocaine use. But as I noted of that old SNL crew, the cocaine use was evident.

Is it evident in Gregoftheweb's conservative heroes? Then it might be an issue.

Did the car and the HDTV disappear last month for no good reason while Dad's wandering around sniffing every five seconds and sporting a nifty reddened nose, well, there might be a drug problem afoot. And if one's expression of one's opinions declines over the years, that drug use might be a contributing factor.

In the terms of Gregoftheweb's post, the only way I could disparage his father for using cocaine would be if the man has a coke problem.

Why worry about disparaging his father's opinions for a drug habit if there is no known drug habit?

Seriously, tell me what I'm missing. It seems perfectly clear to me.

The implication is not that his father does cocaine, but that I cannot disparage a man's opinions for his use of cocaine if the man does not use cocaine.

So let's think of a rational conversation:

T: This is a brain on drugs ....
G: I would be offended if someone disparaged my father's political opinions in a like manner. (e.g drugs)
T: How expensive is his cocaine (e.g. drug) habit?
G: He doesn't have one. He doesn't do coke.
T: Then why worry that his opinion will be disparaged for cocaine use?

Coulda been, or was that a Tiffany song? But seriously, it doesn't seem that hard to follow, unless of course someone is looking for a fight. Which is why I really wanted 15ofthe19 to either explain or apologize. How he got an insult out of it is entirely up to him to explain. And then that tantrum of his ... well, it's falsely founded.

And that's why the phrase, "in a like manner," is important. It establishes that the manner of disparagement has to do in this case with drugs. Before I can even consider whether or not the idea of his Gregoftheweb's father's cocaine use might affect his political sensibilities negatively, I do need to know how much cocaine the man does.

So ... what gives? Technically I would have a harder time defending the first half of the objectionable post, though not much harder; I've already responded to PM Thorne on that issue, including the major flaw of that half of the post. That people chose to get to chest-beating machismo over the cocaine issue is absolutely stunning. This whole thing reeks like a failed Three Stooges ripoff.

Seriously, I refuse to be held responsible for the poor reading comprehension or attitude problems of others. Whatever 15ofthe19's mixup might be, it is hard to be sympathetic to his error in light of the offensive portions that followed. People really ought to be much more certain of themselves--at least be prepared to support themselves--if they're going to undertake such accusing endeavors.

I mean, I've seen a couple of rational posters leap right over the edge in this. After all, didn't you just attempt to refuse to address a couple of very simple points?

I do thank you for spelling it out for me. It was exactly what I suspected, and frankly I don't know what to tell y'all. Go the fuck to school. Learn to read. Give two seconds' thought to the nature of what you're reading. Whatever it takes, I suppose, but the errors leading to the allegation of an insult are so seriously ridiculous that I have finally gained something from Sciforums that I'd stopped seeking a while ago.

Some who have been around for a while know that, when pressed (not very hard, merely prompted), I will claim that part of the reason I continue at Sciforums is that I learn something about how people read and learn and communicate. And for a while it was true. And then it was no longer true, as it puzzled me what I could possibly learn from this kind of semi-literate chaos.

And now I have my answer.

I will in the future withhold my casual reading-comprehension slams; those that worked into this topic are generally a legitimate sentiment of mine, but I've been known in the past to use the phrase quite liberally.

But I see now that it's kind of a truth, a bit vague and not something I would ever want to paint the world with. This whole travesty, though, leaves me aghast at the serious challenges facing literacy at Sciforums. Whether it is a failure of the educational system or the politics of pride, I must admit that I'm impressed at the lengths some people will go to in order to foster controversy.

15ofthe19's original accusation is demonstrably false. I wish he had at least had the courage and courtesy to detail the complaint so that I might have corrected the error, but unfortunately others had to guess and piecemeal the thing together.

And whether it's sheeple or mere literacy-challenged people, I'm rather befuddled that it would take so long and so many neutral problems to finally spell it out.

And all you've really done for spelling it out is tell me what you perceive. I noticed a lack of any discussion of how you arrived at that conclusion.

So if anything isn't clear to you yet, Counsler, let me know and I'll try to fill in the gaps.

Three points in response:

(1) Only if she is and you give me a reason
(2) Remember that I live and experience among a demographic in which being called a socialist slut would not necessarily be an insult
(3) Why do you ask?

Edit:

Missed it because I was busy with other things. At the time I wrote that text, I was only aware of your post in which you refused me the simple courtesy that you would go on to give, and to which I have endeavored to respond in this post.

 

*Cough*

 

Re: *Cough*

Hmmmm. LOL.

Is this bizarro world or something?

 

T I think I figured out my problem:

You simply overcomplicate that which is inherently simple.

I'd hope your propensity to do so would lead you to see the point, but I'm not sure you can because it might simply be too simple.

 

Hey look, not very many words!

NOTE: I would have apologized for calling you a child if well.. hehe. Yeah.

 

I think I figured out YOUR problem too T. IT's really pretty simple.

You remember the couple of times where you said "you can't dispute the facts" or whatever? Yeah, you see your interpretation of other peoples words in a manner that isn't as they were intended... that's not a fact. It's your interpretation, which of course you're entitled to, but you prolly owe the author at least a chance to explain himself. You are a child because you don't allow this because you have already decided how you see it, even though it has nothing to do with how it was intended.

Some examples for you:

I think you fail to realize what I think you probably already know. I thought it was put best by BigBlueHead here (in the "shape of language" thread, which I couldn't figure out how to link to the specific post so I cut and paste the relevant part):

What IS irrational and childish is to make it everyone's problem but yours. Don't you think?

 

Wes, you're trying too hard to save your sinking ship

Wes

You make an interesting case, but in your quest for petty revenge you've overlooked something.

Fact: I have been accused of an insult by 15ofthe19
Fact: Neither the accuser nor the alleged offended have supported that accusation
Fact: I have answered those who have attempted to document the problem successfully
Fact: The cocaine questions were pertinent and relevant

Aside from that, Wes, among the problems is your fixation on revenge.

Maybe next time you'll wait until you have the facts on your side.

You're right. So starting now, I'm offering free reading and writing lessons to Sciforums users.

I find it odd that people would use things I've said for a long time against me. Like your citation from BBH's post. I've said for a long time that communication problems lie with the broadcaster. Unfortunately, that issue was proven somewhat wrong in this topic. The broadcaster can do nothing to help if the receivers refuse the signal.

It's an interesting concept that shapes communication. I'm not sure I can escape conflict if someone, like you or 115ofthe19, is determined to seek it.

Get off your high horse, Wes. Get off your quest for revenge. Stop waving your battered flag and read some Huxley in the context of Kosovo and Ireland.

Yeah, Wes, keep telling me to fuck off. Keep calling me an asshole. Keep telling me I'm not your fucking father and calling me dickweed.

You think you figured out my problem, Wes? Given your record in this topic, I sincerely doubt your capability or integrity on that count. Stop trying so hard, and you'll find life is much more pleasant.

 

Is it really that hard to accept that you’re wrong?

I will tell you something though, Tiassa, I really will. You have power over most people on this board. Your high post count, you’re the top poster; it can be intimidating. And to be proven wrong by anyone, even your own Mother, you would go as far as Istanbul to prove her wrong and prove yourself right.

But it’s not that easy. I’ve reread this thread more times then anything. I’ve reread “in a like manor” about fifty times. And I still do not see the argument that you’re making.

You could have ended this earlier; you could have said a number of things:

-Geez, sorry. It was a misunderstanding.
-Sorry, I took that out of context.
-Whoops, I guess I did kinda poke fun at your dad… My bad.

Out of all of these scenarios you picked the one that you shouldn’t have:

-I’m not wrong. I’m right.

This coulda ended a long time ago, but you decided otherwise.

 

Is it really so hard to accept that you haven't made the case, Counsler?

It is when I'm not wrong.

Should I tell you to fuck off? Should I call you a dickweed?

My mother is more rational than you, Counsler, which surprises me in a certain way. She is much more capable of actually spelling out the problem.

So you don't think that asking about the cocaine use of somebody is relevant when someone tells you that they would be offended if you disparaged somebody for their cocaine use?

Why would I do so? Oh, right, to make a liar (15ofthe19 who flatly refused to support his accusation) and a bunch of bloodthirsty dogs with questionable sensibilities happy?

Nah.

At any point, you can cop to your own reading error. Inasmuch as I've gotten the explanation, I new expect an apology.

And look at you, Counsler. When you detailed the problem, you started at an arbitrary point. When I suggested that you consider additional information, you refused until I made it clear why you should.

You're wrong. You have failed to make the case. You have insulted me.

Think very carefully, Counsler, since you're a mod. Are you going to simply accept every stupid accusation going on here and write your logic of acceptance after the fact?

This could have ended a long time ago, but 15ofthe19 and Gregoftheweb chose to rely on others to make their case for them. And y'all fell for it.

Your problem, not mine.

Really, if relevant and pertinent issues to a discussion are now so offensive that they cannot be raised, then I'd say Sciforums has officially hit the shit.

Sorry, Counsler, but your position is quite ridiculous. I refuse to accept the suggestion that relevant issues should not be discussed in a topic.

I would have thought you capable of figuring it out.

 

On the road

As I head out the door for Oregon, I wanted to leave you all with a simple image.

Imagine me, standing in a roomful of Christians. I'm the only person who doesn't believe that God exists as told in the Bible and that Jesus Christ is the path to salvation. In fact, I'm the only person in the room who doesn't see that God exists so apparently that I can see Him wherever I look.

According to the standard of what I'm being told by a number of people in this topic, those Christians are correct, and God exists, and Jesus Christ is the path to salvation as told in the Bible.

I remind y'all that just because y'all think you see something doesn't make it true.

Seriously, y'all have to do better than what some call mass delusion when it's seen in religious folk.

Catch y'all from the other place.