Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Don't Piss Me Off (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Don't Piss Me Off
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, please check your email.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
MattP, no one has suggested that we pass a rule against the use of the word "misrepresent," even though Tom C does abuse it.
I realize that. I was just struck by the earlier comment that it appeared as if the ban were levied based on style rather than substance and that comment in your post was wrapped that up in a cute little box with a bow on it so I couldn't resist highlighting it.

The only conclusion I can reach here is that saying someone lied is apparently not OK, but saying that they intentionally decieved is OK.

So, if you are capable of the verbal gymnastics to say something nasty without SOUNDING like you're saying something nasty, you're cool. If you are not so gifted, you're banned.

Most "misrepresentations" are uninintentional, Matthew. Newspapers do it all the time. I've done it, and when someone's shown me that I misrepresented a statement or fact, I retract and/or apologize. It's not verbal gymnastics. It's less offensive, and less accusing.

Would anyone deny the fact that TC's intention was to persuade others to see me as dishonest?

If, in his efforts to paint me as a liar, TC misrepresents what I said, am I not allowed to point out that it's a misrepresentation, in order to defend my honor?

That's pretty twisted, Matthew.

You're trying to draw a moral analogy between me denying an accusation against me, and shrieking repeated uses of the word "lie."

That's quite a contortion.

[ September 11, 2006, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If it's a real lie, and if you can prove it, then you don't need to say the word "lie."
I would say the same thing about intentional misrepresentation. If you can't prove it, don't say it.
I agree, TomD.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can misrepresent something unintentionally, Matt. Newspapers do it all the time. I've done it, and when someone's shown me that I misrepresented a statement or fact, I retract and/or apologize. It's not verbal gymnastics. It's less offensive, and less accusing.
You said:
quote:
Tom is misrepresenting the conversation in order to paint me as dishonest.
"in order to" is a statement of purpose or intention. Therefore, you said that he purposely misrepresented / intentionally decieved / lied.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If, in his efforts to paint me as a liar, TC misrepresents what I said, am I not allowed to point out that it's a misrepresentation, in order to defend my honor?
Did I say that? All I said is this appeared to be another way of saying "lie" and some people seem to be suggesting that Ev was banned for stating his intention to use that word so I was trying to understand what, exactly, the bannable offense was. I think it's fine to call a lie a lie, but I'd also expect the person to be able to back up their claim.
quote:
That's pretty twisted, Matthew.
It's MattP or Matt. Only my mom and my wife call me Matthew. I wouldn't suppose to call you Peter without asking your permission. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Edited to add (because I couldn't resist): STRAWMAN! [Wink]

[ September 11, 2006, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete

I'll send you an email so we can settle whatever dispute we seem to have.

Otherwise drop the whole Clintonesque debate over calling a lie and liar by alternative means. It is tedious, it is pointless, and frankly its making at least one person here regret ever having stood up for you.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
It's MattP or Matt. Only my mom and my wife call me Matthew. I wouldn't suppose to call you Peter without asking your permission. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

It's a technique. For some reason Pete thought my name was Eric and tried using that on me.

[ September 11, 2006, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's a technique. For some reason Pete thought my name was Eric and tried using that on me.
I know, I saw that. He just did it on another thread too. Further evidence, to me at least, that Pete puts more importance in attempting to push people's buttons than discussing different points of view.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Matt, you could have simply asked. You didn't have to get so long-winded and paranoid about it. I only signed up as "Pete" because "Peter" was taken. You want to call me Peter or Pedro or Pedrito, that's all the same to me. People have slipped and called me "Peter" or misspelt "Pter" and I've never made a big screaming deal about it. It's the same name.

I'm sorry if I blundered into one of your red hot buttons.

quote:
That's pretty twisted, Matthew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's MattP or Matt. Only my mom and my wife call me Matthew. I wouldn't suppose to call you Peter without asking your permission. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

[ September 11, 2006, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 296 | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged |


canadian
Member
Member # 1809

posted September 11, 2006 04:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MattP:
It's MattP or Matt. Only my mom and my wife call me Matthew. I wouldn't suppose to call you Peter without asking your permission. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a technique. For some reason Pete thought my name was Eric and tried using that on me.

[ September 11, 2006, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4135 | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged |

MattP
Member
Member # 2763

posted September 11, 2006 04:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a technique. For some reason Pete thought my name was Eric and tried using that on me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know, I saw that. He just did it on another thread too. Further evidence, to me at least, that Pete puts more importance in attempting to push people's buttons than discussing different points of view.


And I was supposed to know that "Matthew" was one of your hot buttns because ... what, I'm in secret collusion with your mother?


quote:
[snip Red's tedious and pointless "Clintonesque" cheap shot] pointless, and frankly its making at least one person here regret ever having stood up for you.
I don't regret standing up for you, Redskull. I was standing up for a principle.

When Tom C called you the "moral equivalent of Adolf Hitler," you seemed to comprehend the difference between criticizing an argument and attacking the person. When you calm down perhaps you'll remember it, and apply the principle.

Didn't receive your email.

[ September 11, 2006, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't "presume". And I see your point. Was it malicious or endearing? [Wink]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
I wouldn't "presume". And I see your point. Was it malicious or endearing? [Wink]

KE

Como?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Pete had a history of being endearing, then that's the way I would be inclined to take it.

[Wink]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm going to start calling Pete 'Pepe'. [Big Grin]


KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And I was supposed to know that "Matthew" was one of your hot buttns because ... what, I'm in secret collusion with your mother?
Again Pete, jumping to conclusions. Where did I say anything about "hot buttons." You addressed me with a name that I've never used to refer to myself here without asking my permission. You chose to do this in the middle of a contentious discussion. You also originally addressed me as MattP then edited your post to change it to Matthew.

Because of your propensity to sculpt your language for purposes of ridicule and condescention, I'm afraid I tend to assume negative motives. Sue me.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know very well that I get under your skin some times in a good way, Canadian. [Razz] Don't play coy with me.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
eww
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
eww

Homophobe [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The occasions are much too few and far between, but they do exist in their sad, little isolated pockets of bonhomie.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
[LOL]

No fair! You're not allowed to suddenly develop a sense of humor and totally disable my witty attack. You're supposed to say "where did I say that I was a homophobe?"
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My "hot button" is the belief that you intentionally try to inflame, enrage, and generally bother your opponents rather than engage them purely on the arguments.

The name issue appeared to be another instance of such. I'm not all weird about people calling me Matthew, but the context in which you first decided to do so led me to believe that it was meant to condescending.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi, I'd like to butt in and say that Pete calling MattP Matthew did appear to be condescending, just like the Eric debacle a while back. I won't speak to Pete's motives but I'll agree that it at least sure *looks* like a technique.
Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I get it. The Ornery Rules state "speculation about the motives of people posting here are not allowed". To use the word "lie" means that you are speculating that the falsehood is intentional.

But after enough repetition of a falsehood, I think the speculative aspect of determining motives disappears. After a point, it is quite clear that they are intentionally misrepresenting, i.e. lying. To call it a lie, at that point, is not breaking the rules.

Pete, I do not mean to take sides between you and Ev. I haven't looked at the details.

My point is this; I reserve the right to call a statement a lie when the intention to mislead is unambiguous.

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

And it can go all the way around if nobody is allowed to call it a lie.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Five posts? Are you guys still ranting on about that? I assure you that I can be conscending to poor little Matt without calling him "Matthew," and you, Mormegil, could find more interesting things to be shrill about.


quote:
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

And it can go all the way around if nobody is allowed to call it a lie.

On the contrary, it can go all the way around if the word "lie" becomes an shrill little epithet that people hurl around without evidence. And I think that Mark Twain would agree that once you show the evidence, you don't need the shrill little word.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My "hot button" is the belief that you intentionally try to inflame, enrage, and generally bother your opponents rather than engage them purely on the arguments.

That's false. I'm calling you on it. I defy you to show me where I've intentionally tried to "inflame, enrage, and generally bother" my opponents when they were making actual arguments rather than personal attacks. I've only taken those tactics in response to personal attacks.

For example, you were making personal attacks on me in this thread, before I even noticed you. You've been crying about the word "Matthew" for half a page, while you've been making vicious and unsubstantiated personal attacks on me since you first entered this page. You're terribly hypersensitive for a well-poisoner.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete's getting ranty again...
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, you are absolutely right...IF people hurl it around without evidence.

As I have stated , if a poster repeats a falsehood after it has been proven wrong, the intent to mislead is clear, and it is a lie. Calling the statement a lie is correct, honest, and accurate, not a "shrill little epithet".

Any powerful word becomes dangerous if it is misused. Should we stop using powerful words?

If someone falsely impugns my integrity, and I am certain of the motive, I want to use the word that alerts people to the strength of my conviction. if I am wrong, kick me off. But if I am right, I should not be deprived of the proper word. Can I say "intentionally mislead"? Can I say "purposely mischaracterize"? Why not "lie"?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As I have stated , if a poster repeats a falsehood after it has been proven wrong,
Proof is in the eye of the beholder, V.

Let's say that I say, marriage is union of man and woman, period.

Some twit runs off and grabs a new dictionary, and says -- look here -- fourth definition down, the dictionary says union of two persons, e.g. a "same-sex marriage."

I say, I don't accept that definition.

Next time I assert that marriage as union of man and woman, by your rationale, he can say "I proved already that it can mean same-sex marriage, so you are a liar."

So IMO, your rationale sucks.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't think remotely that's what you meant by "proved." But that's how the lowbrow howlers among us would follow what you said.

[ September 11, 2006, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

I think Mark Twain would violently disagree. He was not afraid to call something what he thought it was. Making an impression is often much more powerful than presenting evidence.

McCarthy had no evidence about the Communist sympathizers. Lots of people pointed that out, but it took people standing up and calling him a liar to get him to shut up and sit down.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nonsense. Mark Twain showed things, to the point that he did not have to say them. Does he ever come out and editorialize at the end of Puddin'head Wilson, or Huckleberry Finn, that certain characters were bad racist bigots or whatever. Hell no, man. Twain *showed* it.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is yet another reason why it is bad to have anonymous moderators. I was cool with the idea until that fiasco with javelin ( http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008921;p=0&r=nfx#000000 ) showed me that the mods were perfectly willing to boldly favor or put down posters both on-board and in private emails with their vaunted power and from behind their veil.


I don't care for anyone who keeps saying "they don't get paid, it's a volunteer job and its tough, give them a break." Evidently the job was so popular that not just one but TWO people applied for and got it. If they don't like doing a gratuitous service well, then by all means, quit. But seriously, enough of this awful moderation job.

[ September 11, 2006, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And you would do a better job?

The reason there are two Mods is quite obvious: to counterbalance each other. Neither you nor I knows what their private correspondence looks like on this issue.

Another thing you don't seem to notice: you are completely free to criticize the Mods. Has this thread been removed? Has anyone been given a ban or warning for simply posting an opinion?

Of course not.

The moderating's fine and I well remember your chest beating rant on the issue.

[ September 11, 2006, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, I may have misattributed
quote:

A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
- This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, but it has never been verified as originating with Twain. This quote may have originated with Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-92) who attributed it to an old proverb in a sermon delivered on Sunday morning, April 1, 1855. Spurgeon was a celebrated English fundamentalist Baptist preacher. His words were: "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on."

In his stories, when he controls all aspects, MT can show whatever he wants. In the real world, evidence rarely gets people's attention. As MT DID say, "The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might."

Which supports my McCarthy comment, which you did not address.

Pete wrote
quote:
Don't get me wrong -- I don't think remotely that's what you meant by "proved." But that's how the lowbrow howlers among us would follow what you said.
So because "lowbrow howlers" may misuse the word, I am not allowed to use it?

(edited for punctuation)

[ September 11, 2006, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: velcro ]

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Which supports my McCarthy comment, which you did not address."

So? I don't know the history. I've done enough research to know that some of the folks that the left maintained as innocent martyrs, actually ended up on the KGB list of agents, like Alger Hiss, and yet leftie textbooks continued to come to the schools talking about how McCarthy lacked "all decency" in how he went after poor Alger Hiss. I don't know what happened, and I don't believe the Leftwash any more than I believe the Rightwash. No frigging comment. As best I can tell one group of spies got taken down by an ambitious and dishonest man who in turn got taken down by more ambitious and dishonest men, and the whole event got written up by lots of careless historians trying to please their political masters on either side. I'm not sure I can draw any moral lesson out of that morass. Twain probably could have, but he sure is not here, and I don't reckon that either of us would have him in our pocket. I think he'd probably make both of us feel pretty uncomfortable.

If you want to tell me that no one could have brought down Joe McCarthy if the Lefties hadn't been able to bleat the word "liar" over and over again, untl Joe McCarthy's nerves collapsed, then that would tend to support the Rightwash on the incident, more than it supports your argument. Tourette's syndrome is no substitute for facts.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
you, Mormegil, could find more interesting things to be shrill about.
Oh, Pete. Shrill? What possible definition of shrill could apply to my post?

I'd say being amused is sorta contradictory to being shrill.

Pete, you posted in such a way as to offend somebody. You denied the motivations attributed to you. I, as a disinterested third-party, thought I'd point out that, if your motivations weren't impure, they were coming across that way.

For an honest and humble man, one would imagine this would cause him to realize his communication was ineffective, apologize for the misunderstanding, and make some changes to his style to avoid both offending others and drawing attention away from his real point.

Sadly, that's not what happened here.

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shrill is, I believe, one of Pete's favorite words, judging by the frequency of his usage of it.

Not to be confused with the howling of lowbrows, which would probably attract modifiers such as 'bray' or 'croak'.

Myself, I find most uses of the word shrill entirely too ... shrill... for my ears.

Mods, like parents, have tolerance thresholds. When these thresholds are breached, they typically seek not justice but peace and quiet.

This is why, I believe, they are called Moderators and not Adjudicators. They try not so much to balance the beam but to slow the speed and shrink the range of its swings from one extreme to another.

In addition, they enjoy the enviable paradox of being a precise example of when moderation in all things is extremely immoderate... or at least moderately extreme [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which hunt is a witch hunt?

That hunt which proves the accused is a witch by destroying them.

Witches hunt too.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[shoo-ing the "disinterested third-party" vultures. Fight's over. No lunch for you!]

quote:
"Which supports my McCarthy comment, which you did not address."
I did not address it because I don't know what to say, Velcro; I don't know the history. I've done enough research to know that some of the folks that Left claimed were innocent martyrs, actually ended up on the KGB list of agents, like Alger Hiss. I know that one of my graduate level textbooks in 1993 ranted about how McCarthy went after poor Alger Hiss, and how some brave dude confronted McCarthy with the whole "have you no decency" line. In spite of the fact that the KGB had already released the fact that Alger Hiss was one of their agents.

I don't know what happened, and I don't believe the Leftwash any more than I believe the Rightwash. No frigging comment. As best I can tell, some spies got taken down by an ambitious and dishonest man who in turn got taken down by more ambitious and dishonest men, and the whole event got written up by lots of careless historians trying to please their political masters on either side. Did some honest folks get taken down too? Given the fact that the left was still defending Alger Hiss after the KGB report, I'm not willing to trust those claims.

I'm not sure I can draw any moral lesson out of that morass. Twain probably could have, but he sure is not here, and I don't reckon that either of us would have him in our pocket. I think he'd probably make both of us feel pretty uncomfortable.

If you want to tell me that no one could have brought down Joe McCarthy if the Lefties hadn't been able to bleat the word "liar" over and over again, untl Joe McCarthy's nerves collapsed, then that would tend to support the Rightwash on the incident, more than it supports your argument. Tourette's syndrome is no substitute for facts.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For some reason, the title of this thread reminds me of a doodle I saw in a "sketchbook" section of a Far Side book in which two (normal-sized) chickens are standing on top of a farmer who's apparently been knocked on his back and are talking to him. The caption is, "'Don't mess with our minds.'"
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberal

I can speak on your comment with authority. [Smile]

Two people did not apply for the job. One person was approached who was not sure that they could supply enough time. A second person was then brought up and approached with the job sharing option.

No one, not even I, has ever applied for the Mod's job. They have been approached by the owners or the previous Mod to take over the position.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1