Has Liberal finally gone off the rails? (And other SDMB trainwrecks)

[Hunter Hawk]

I mean, he's always been...imaginative...in his posting habits, but his latest "Aesthetical Jesus" trilogy (!) is getting into "Wombats ate my trousers!" territory.

With a couple extra helpings of pompous pseudo-intellectualism, of course.





Any thoughts?

(Posted here because if I asked on the SDMB it might hurt his widdle feewings.)

[Roo]

Can we get a link?

Are you thinking that he won't hear about it and come back here to defend himself? Seems likely to me.

[Hunter Hawk]

Can we get a link?
Part 1 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=517779)
Part 2 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=518838)
Part 3 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=519789)

Are you thinking that he won't hear about it and come back here to defend himself?
Not really, but I can dream, can't I? (Besides, I wouldn't want to run afoul of the mods, of course, since for some reason they still haven't banned him. I swear, he must have photographs of Zotti fellating a moose or something.)

[HongKongFooey]

I couldn't even make it through the first page of that crap. I don't know sweet fuck all about Liberal but I know I can't read any more of that steaming pile of shit. That thread has everything I'm not looking for in a message board.

[Roo]

Part 1 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=517779)
Part 2 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=518838)
Part 3 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=519789)
Thanks for the links.

But yeah, I'm not reading past the OPs. They're clearly labeled religious witnessing threads. And he very clearly defines the narrow parameters in which he's willing to discuss. If anyone ventures into those threads, that certainly is their call. But beyond that, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Is there something specific you're pointing out?

[Uthrecht]

Well, I can't say I've looked into the finer points of aesthetics, and I didn't read too deep into the threads, but I don't see too much tinfoil in the OPs. He's got a narrow arena in which he'd like to have a philosophical discussion, and he'd like to keep out those that don't want to discuss it. Well, good on him, so long as he doesn't care if he hears crickets chirping. I've never had a problem with an OP that sets out a narrow and explicit request for discussion; that's their right. It may make for a very dull thread, but so be it.

[Roo]

It may make for a very dull thread, but so be it.
I took a little better skim through it, and it's not a bad thread. He's got Revenant Threshold responding to him, and I've generally found RT to be pretty even-handed.

As religious witnessing threads go, it's pretty interesting, actually.

Maybe the OP is seeing something we're not seeing? My skim is pretty cursory, so I'm not looking for logic errors or false assumptions or anything like that.

ETA: Let me correct that. The definitions are clear in those threads, so the false assumptions are put out as givens. I did see those, but wasn't looking past them.

[Hunter Hawk]

<sigh>

Eh, maybe I am overreacting. I guess I've gotten pretty Liberaled out over time, so this was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

[WednesdayAddams]

It....see, I can't really say it's trolling; it isn't. At the same time, the parameters set up a certain dynamic in which he's allowed to more or less assert anything he likes so long as he holds to his stance that it's philosophy. I'm studying the stuff. That ain't it.

[Roo]

so this was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Well, if you want to avoid him, you could post here. He doesn't post here at the moment.

At the same time, the parameters set up a certain dynamic in which he's allowed to more or less assert anything he likes so long as he holds to his stance that it's philosophy. I'm studying the stuff. That ain't it.
Except that he labeled it Religious Witnessing. Once you give anything that label, all bets are off. Religious discussion generally includes the supernatural by default and only excludes the supernatural if you stipulate it.

Just curious, are you thinking of any specific parts that aren't philosophy?

[Hunter Hawk]

He doesn't post here at the moment.
...okay, just whatever you do, don't stand before your monitor and chant "Liberal" three times...

[Roo]

...okay, just whatever you do, don't stand before your monitor and chant "Liberal" three times...
OK. Are we in Kansas yet?

[Who_me?]

...okay, just whatever you do, don't stand before your monitor and chant "Liberal" three times...

After this (http://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=949) debacle, I doubt we see Liberal here for some time.

[WednesdayAddams]

Just curious, are you thinking of any specific parts that aren't philosophy?

Roo, I just lost a HUGE post responding to you. Will try to cover the main points more succinctly, which is usually better anyway.

1. Definitions. In philosophy, agreeing upon definitions is important, and he clearly understands that. What he does not understand is that those definitions are mutually agreed upon, not just dictated. His definition of 'aesthetics' is not only wrong by definition of most philosophers both eastern and western (I am excluding Ayn Rand, the fact that his OP included her disappoints me some), it precluded any other definitions and refused to acknowledge valid, rational objections. NoJustice in particular made excellent points.

One of the tenets of philosophy is to attack an idea til you have revealed all its flaws, resolved them, and are left with the simple truth. His does not allow that.

2. Because of his false definitions, he then sets up a tautological debate and does not understand why others are frustrated by it. Because the main issue other posters have with his arguments are etymological and he has asserted as accepted his parameters (even though they aren't), dissenters are restrained from arguing the idea on (true) accepted terms and must adhere to his terms.

3. Because his argument is so nebulous, he creates a dynamic which essentially allows him to argue in broad generalities while striking down any argument which attempts to define a concept in more specific terms. Anyone can do this and call it philosophy. Post modernists do it all the time. That doesn't make it any more honest or any closer to being philosophy.

Those were the main problems I had with it.

[jayjay]

Remember, too, that Liberal is the one who somehow thinks the ontological proof of God is somehow true, instead of being a "proof" in which the initial conditions are manipulated to produce the outcome that the prover desires, an outcome which only even vaguely resembles the Christian God (which is apparently what he thinks it proves) if you completely redefine the Christian God to only have the attributes that the ontological proof produces.

I have never been impressed with the ontological argument for those reasons, and made the mistake once of stating that in one of Lib's infrequent ontological argument threads.

[Hunter Hawk]

1. Definitions. In philosophy, agreeing upon definitions is important, and he clearly understands that. What he does not understand is that those definitions are mutually agreed upon, not just dictated.
I think one of my bigger beefs with him is that he doesn't seem to value (heh) the scientific method, and I suspect that he has some sort of fundamental disconnect with that mindset--I keep thinking to myself, Wow, now here's a guy who really needs to learn what an operational definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition) is. He's demonstrated that he's willing to talk around issues endlessly, but I'm not sure he's ever actually introduced the notion that issues might be testable (not to resolve them, of course, but to learn more about them). It's one thing to unilaterally declaim that aesthetics is the evaluation of worth; it's another thing to design an experiment that would provide useful data (e.g., involving an fMRI machine and various types of stimuli).

He really needs to step away from his philosophy monomania and pick up a few books on cognitive psych and engineering design.

[WednesdayAddams]

Yes, but it isn't philosophy. It may well be personal philosophy, which everyone has even if they don't admit it, but it doesn't really ascribe itself well to any school of philosophy. I know he greatly admires Plato and Socrates, but what he's doing in those threads does not subscribe to either Platonic or Socratic method.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

Roo, I just lost a HUGE post responding to you. Will try to cover the main points more succinctly, which is usually better anyway.

1. Definitions. In philosophy, agreeing upon definitions is important, and he clearly understands that. What he does not understand is that those definitions are mutually agreed upon, not just dictated. His definition of 'aesthetics' is not only wrong by definition of most philosophers both eastern and western (I am excluding Ayn Rand, the fact that his OP included her disappoints me some), it precluded any other definitions and refused to acknowledge valid, rational objections. NoJustice in particular made excellent points.

[Snip]

All this stuff.

I can't imagine anyone over about fifteen being impressed by Liberal's intellect or his 'philosophy.' I see in his writing a reflection of the self-concious 'intellectualism' and pompous, awkward writing style I affected at around sixteen or seventeen. Many of my friends did likewise, and cringe to see the garbage they wrote (I'm glad so little of it is on the 'net). To see a middle-aged man [?] doing it... it's embarassing.

[Who_me?]

I just love that he sets the ground rules and eliminates anyone who disagrees with his premise.

[Fenris]

I just love that he sets the ground rules and eliminates anyone who disagrees with his premise.

He's an intellectual coward

He did that with his pseudo-libertarian threads too. I have a lot of sympathy for the libertarian ideas but every time I popped into one of his threads trying to explore a real world issue, he'd dismiss it as "implausible as giant space-squids showing up".

One example? He claimed that all roads would be privatized. I pointed out that I live in a development shaped like a capital-"Q"-there's only one road in and out and because of the geology, it'd be impossible to build another road without blowing up a mountain (which would detract from the really nice view that everyone else has) or by bulldozing at least 15 houses).

I pointed out that whoever bought the road could exclude minorities or only allow business trucks in and out--in other words, by buying a 50 foot long stretch of a 2-lane road, he could essentially own all the property inside the O part of the Q. Motive? He's a racist. Or he lives there and wants to own the whole area and by not letting people in and out, he can drop their property values to nil. Or he could be a dick.

Lib's response? Essentially "That would be unthinkable. Impossible. So-and-so showed that it's a bad idea for business"
here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1314705#post1314705)

This is not an intellectual heavyweight's position.

[jayjay]

Lib's response? Essentially "That would be unthinkable. Impossible. So-and-so showed that it's a bad idea for business"
here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1314705#post1314705)

This is not an intellectual heavyweight's position.

Full-on libertarianism requires the same thing that full-on Communism or full-on anarchy requires: a population that only acts rationally, given the starting principles of the "ism". As long as you have people who are going to act against the profit ideal (your proposed racist toll-keeper), you have no way to make the system work as it theoretically should.

[Fenris]

Well yeah, that was what I was getting at--and it was an easy real-world example. Hell, given that I just got new neighbors who think that letting the dogs bark at all hours is fun, I'd be tempted to buy that stretch of road, charge everyone else a reasonable rate and my new neighbors $.05c for a trip out as long as the dogs are in the car with them, but $5,000,000.00 for a trip in. ;) :evil:

[Uthrecht]

Well see, that's a self-defeating counter argument. If his response is that your argument would never happen because it's irrational, he's saying that you can engage in irrational behavior vis-a-vis your argument. If you can, that means that your example could happen when taken to a larger scale. Once he agrees that people can be irrational, it's just a matter of scale.

[Fenris]

The other question he'd never answer was this:

Libertaria requires private arbitration to settle differences between citizens. No state-run courts. Say A and B are having a dispute. If side "A" hires an arbitration company and side "B" hires a different arbitration company who decides which one is used? Are both run? Either? Coin-flip?

There was never a "Here's how the mechanics work" answer. I wanted nuts and bolts.

Say that you chop down a tree in my yard that has a bunch of branches that scrape the paint off my house and break my windows every time there's a windy day. You sue me, I sue you.

Step-by-step tell me how it works. Without resorting to handwaving silly answers like "Peaceful honest people will find a way to solve their differences."

[Fenris]

Well see, that's a self-defeating counter argument. If his response is that your argument would never happen because it's irrational, he's saying that you can engage in irrational behavior vis-a-vis your argument. If you can, that means that your example could happen when taken to a larger scale. Once he agrees that people can be irrational, it's just a matter of scale.

There's the problem there. He won't agree...every time something threatens his fundamental principles, he regurgitates stuff like "peaceful, honest people without coercion or fraud will settle their differences" (paraphrase)

[Uthrecht]

Which is true. And that's why both communism and libertarianism work, and work well, on the small scale. As long as every member of the group buys into the concept and executes it in good faith, it works. But it can't scale. Again, the counter-argument belies that: if you require peaceful, honest people, it can't scale.

[DogMom]

True enough - people, that is individual people may be truthful, upright, honest and peaceful.
However, people en masse are a bunch of lying, selfish assholes.

You can't expect the Kumbaya Premise to work on the large scale and be taken seriously. This is why I'm an "Idealistic Libertarian" but in reality I acknowledge that it can't work that way, and I just think that things should be handled on the smallest level of bureaucracy that is both possible and practical for that particular issue or item.

Your road example would be a good one - I think our roads are actually fairly well-distributed. Interstate roads are handled by, duh, the Federal Government. State roads by the State, and so on.

Courts, ditto - you have small municipal courts, that are administered by local municipal judges, county courts over those, state, all the way up to the USSC.

[Moon Dog]

Step-by-step tell me how it works. Without resorting to handwaving silly answers like "Peaceful honest people will find a way to solve their differences."


You can't expect the Kumbaya Premise to work on the large scale and be taken seriously.

I never knew Hippies and Libertarians had so much in common. ;)

[WednesdayAddams]

The other question he'd never answer was this:

Libertaria requires private arbitration to settle differences between citizens. No state-run courts. Say A and B are having a dispute. If side "A" hires an arbitration company and side "B" hires a different arbitration company who decides which one is used? Are both run? Either? Coin-flip?

There was never a "Here's how the mechanics work" answer. I wanted nuts and bolts.

Say that you chop down a tree in my yard that has a bunch of branches that scrape the paint off my house and break my windows every time there's a windy day. You sue me, I sue you.

Step-by-step tell me how it works. Without resorting to handwaving silly answers like "Peaceful honest people will find a way to solve their differences."

This is what drives me up a wall about Libertarianism as Philosophy. It is based on two inherently flawed premises.

1. People, while selfish, are basically good and
2. Because people are selfish (but still basically good!), (a) the people in charge of corporations will do what is in the best interest of their workers in the long term, because they know happy workers are productive workers, and (b) workers will refuse to work for unethical companies, thus the market polices itself. Oh, brave new world that has such people in it!

Horse shit. People are basically bastards. Bastard covered bastards with bastard filling. We have seen first hand several times in this century that corporations will do whatever it takes to pad their bottom lines, and if it hurts workers too bad. Workers will not refuse to work for corporations that treat them badly, especially not in this economy. "I'm sorry, my ethics will not allow me to help you produce widgits that slowly poison a three year old every time he plays with it while you deny me health care coverage" doesn't compare with an empty stomach and no roof. It's a lovely idea of humanity, but it is idealistic in the extreme. Ayn Rand has much to answer for.

Let us take your example. What if there were no regulation as Libertarians would have it, and the two corporations that party A and party B went to were actually two parts of one conglomerate? Because there's no regulation they wouldn't need to release that information, and what would likely end up happening is that the corporations would decide for whichever party furthers the best interest of their two companies. Business arbitrating civil law. It's like asking a shark to pick your teeth for you.

[WednesdayAddams]

ETA: Eurgh. With Part IV (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521231) of the continuing saga we have in fact jumped the rails and the sanctimony brigade has taken over.

[Pencil]

He's been off the rail for as long as I've been aware of him, which is about ten years now. The godbotherer has always managed to make every thread he participates in, somehow end up being about him. His debating tactics is confusing at best and dishonest most of the time. I don't think he's a troll per se, i.e. making shit up to get a reaction. I think he actually believes all the shit he vomits over the net, basically because I find it hard to believe that he can be that prolific and consistent in his special kind of dumbness and never break character, if it were a made up persona.

However, engaging in debate with him is mostly a futile excercise.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

I don't think he's a troll per se, i.e. making shit up to get a reaction. I think he actually believes all the shit he vomits over the net, basically because I find it hard to believe that he can be that prolific and consistent in his special kind of dumbness and never break character, if it were a made up persona.

Call it the 'Andy Kaufman rule:' If a troll would require an almost-Andy Kaufman level of dedication to maintain, it's almost certainly not a troll.

[Doyle]

Call it the 'Andy Kaufman rule:' If a troll would require an almost-Andy Kaufman level of dedication to maintain, it's almost certainly not a troll.

Did you come up with the Andy Kaufman rule?

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

I think so.

[Uthrecht]

Because he's secretly Andy Kaufman. It's his best gag yet.

[Doyle]

I think so.

Bravo. Excellent analogy.

[Stubby Boardman]

Because he's secretly Andy Kaufman. It's his best gag yet.

Certainly I find it as funny as anything Andy Kaufman ever did.

You may take that as you wish.

[Hunter Hawk]

ETA: Eurgh. With Part IV (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521231) of the continuing saga we have in fact jumped the rails and the sanctimony brigade has taken over.
Hey, in his favor he was able to cover "The Nature of Reality and Existence" in a page and a half. Efficient, no?

I sure wish I was that perspicacious.

[DataZak]

Wait, hang on a sec. Liberal's back at the Dope:confused: I remember reading a rather long post he wrote in ATMB about how he'll be moving to Domebo 'cause they invited him and they were all waaay cooler than the Dopers and how this will be his last post ever at the SDMB.

Bah!

[Darmund]

That's the thing about batshit crazy attention whores. Sometimes they can be a bit unreliable.

[ulfhjorr]

I can't say that I agree that he's "finally gone off the rails" as there is precious little evidence that he was ever even near to them, but this series of posts is almost unbelievable. I mean, hell, a fifth-grader could trash most of his "logic" posts.

I mean, let's just take his existence vs. essence argument from part 3. Defining existence as being is tautological, so we can't use that definition in the question of whether existence or essence comes first. Instead, let's define existence as the materialization of essence, then attack that question. Hmmm....sounds good, Lib!

[Pencil]

Wait, hang on a sec. Liberal's back at the Dope:confused: I remember reading a rather long post he wrote in ATMB about how he'll be moving to Domebo 'cause they invited him and they were all waaay cooler than the Dopers and how this will be his last post ever at the SDMB.

Bah!

Not only that - he made a brief cameo here when he was butthurt from domebo. Upon being called on his bullshit, he declared that blogging was to be his new way of expressing himself.

He only lasted here a couple of days. I think it's because the first rule of GB is that there are no rules. So when he realized that he couldn't hide behind the rules, he left. The spirit of the set of rules over at SD works in his favor: Discuss the content, not the poster. But since the godbotherer almost always provides no content, and all his posts are about him - he can roam freely over there. Here on the savannah, there are predators who don't care. So whatever he posted, his persona became the issue. he left.

[The Second Stone]

Here on the savannah, there are predators who don't care. So whatever he posted, his persona became the issue. he left.

This is a bit harsh. Even Fenris only pretends to be a strict carnivore.

[Ratel]

...Here on the savannah, there are predators who don't care. ...

Banner name!

[threnody]

Wombats DID eat my trousers!!

We call him Fatso. He was on a popular soap. About 20 years ago.

[Lucifer]

Just as long as he doesn't come back to Domebo, he can post any level of hysterics he wants.

[WednesdayAddams]

I must admit I'm surprised. He was positively thrilled about Domebo. It went from the best thing evar to horrible in a very short period of time.

[Fenris]

That's how he *always* is. He's either your bestest friend (with no concept of personal space or boundaries) or your worstest enemy and you're obviously plotting to "get" him. Remember, Tuba was his best friend and god help you if you criticized her. Then she was pure evil and he went around calling her Tubby-diver (or similar) and now he totally respects her again. Same with message boards. Sorry Winston, but he'll be back.

There was a fucking *BRILLIANT* post by...someone....on the SDMB (Jodi, perhaps?) where Lib does one of his "What can I do to make things right between us, 'cause I respect you so VERY much" routines and the poster (if not Jodi, Excaliber maybe?) eviscerates Lib-saying that s/he doesn't want Lib's friendship and dissects the pattern of behavior. If anyone can find/link that thread (it was in the Pit), I'd love to read it again.

[Lucifer]

<snip>
Sorry Winston, but he'll be back.
<snip>

If he comes back, I'll quit all the boards forever. I feel that strongly about it. That'll teach 'em.

[Fenris]

This is gonna sound like I'm criticizing you, but good lord. I couldn't figure out why you guys put up with all his (literally) insane demands-I mean, he posted like every 5 minutes about tweaks he wanted for the ProDark theme, changes in rules, etc.. You guys may be too nice for your own good. :p

[Uthrecht]

Is that the origin of the ProDark cracks by all the Roach trolls?

[Fenris]

Yes.

As far as I can tell, the Roaches were just copying and pasting actual quotes by Lib-I recognized a bunch of them. But the Roach(es) didn't post them nearly as frequently as Lib posted 'em.

If you want a chuckle (and a testament to the patience of the Domebo mods), do a search on Liberal and ProDark on Domebo. Be prepared for much :rolleyes:-ing

[Lucifer]

This is gonna sound like I'm criticizing you, but good lord. I couldn't figure out why you guys put up with all his (literally) insane demands-I mean, he posted like every 5 minutes about tweaks he wanted for the ProDark theme, changes in rules, etc.. You guys may be too nice for your own good. :p

I'm not nice. I just try not to get involved. I take more of a 'hands off' style of moderation, as anyone from Domebo will tell you. ;)

[Fenris]

Me too. I'm so shy that no-one knows I'm here.

[WednesdayAddams]

Who're you again?

[Fenris]

The plumber--I've come to fix your sink!

[WednesdayAddams]

Mind the parrot.

[Moon Dog]

You need the moustache, a bad accent and cheesy music.

"Ze plumb-er--I've come to fix ze sink!"

[Uthrecht]

Don't forget the handkerchief tied around his neck.

[Lucifer]

No, no, no. You need to come up a ladder and climb through the bedroom window and say "Just 'ere to read your meter, luv" in a cockney accent. A bowler hat and shaleighleigh would be appropriate accessories.

[SmartAleq]

That would be "shillelagh." Too many letrz!

[jayjay]

That would be "shillelagh." Too many letrz!

Eh. It's Irish. They ALWAYS have too many letters...

[SmartAleq]

Eh. It's Irish. They ALWAYS have too many letters...

True dat--subject to the most awful vowel movements, the Gaels...

[Uthrecht]

True dat--subject to the most awful vowel movements, the Gaels...

You gonna send them to gaol?

[Nzinga, Seated]

You need the moustache, a bad accent and cheesy music.

"Ze plumb-er--I've come to fix ze sink!"

Why is it that in my head, I remember it as:

"Ze landlord...I've come to collect ze rent"

"But I CAN'T pay the rent!"

Where ever did I get that?

One tiny thing in defense of Liberal, who I like a lot, so I want to be straight forward about that, but this is an honest question, still;

Why can't he set his own definitions for the thread? He wants to discuss further with only those that agree with his defs, right? Those that don't, won't work out in those particular threads. I have had this happen in threads of mine. I will say, "For those women that believe in abortion, and also, don't believe the fetus is a person; why do you object to multiple abortions?"

I know there are people that believe in a woman's right to abortion even though they believe that the fetus is actually a person. Those particular people weren't being called upon to participate in the thread (although they can if they want).

But, I had people that didn't like the fact that I was specifically asking about a certain kind of person; those that believe in abortion while believing the fetus is not a person.

With his threads, isn't it the same? Isn't he saying, "hey, if you don't agree with my defs, then this thread won't work for you?" And isn't that ok to say?

[WednesdayAddams]

One reason. Well, two:
1. He is asserting that his opinions are factual & axiomati.
2. He is asserting that they are also sound philosophical theories.

Neither is the case. Were he to state from the word go that they are opinion and nothing more, I would have no problem with it. But as someone who is working very hard at obtaining a PhD in Philosophy, I am insulted that he tries to pass off what he's doing as Philosophy. Granted, it's on the internet. Still.

[WednesdayAddams]

And yet I still cannot spell "axiomatic" correctly. :sciencefail:

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

1. He is asserting that his opinions are factual & axiomati.

Given his admiration for Rand, this is not surprising.

A few other people have complained that it's basically set up so the (stupid) definitions exclude any possibility of someone arguing against it. Frankly, I don't care enough to waste more time reading his psuedo-intellectual babble. Expecting an intelligent, insightful discussion from Liberal is like expecting a learned epic from Dan Brown.

[The Second Stone]

What is the point of engaging in a discussion with all the terms tortuously defined to lead to predetermined conclusion? No new information is learned that way. In fact the world is so complex and human language so varied that emotionally stilted people will not be comfortable at all with the fluid nature of conversation among adults.

[Uthrecht]

Well sure, but if he wants to, he wants to, and it's his right to generate an OP that basically allows people to only talk in a straight line. And it's everyone else's right to simply not post there. At the same time, if people want to start a different post talking about his posting, they can. And then he's within his rights to talk in that one. And so on and so forth.

[Katriona]

[QUOTE=Nzinga, Seated;99477]Why is it that in my head, I remember it as:

"Ze landlord...I've come to collect ze rent"

"But I CAN'T pay the rent!"

Where ever did I get that?

QUOTE]

I swear it was a bit on The Electric Company - But I can't pay the rent! But you must pay the rent! But I can't pay the rent...

[Uthrecht]

Did you know that they started a NEW Electric Company series?

[wring]

[QUOTE=Nzinga, Seated;99477]Why is it that in my head, I remember it as:

"Ze landlord...I've come to collect ze rent"

"But I CAN'T pay the rent!"

Where ever did I get that?

QUOTE]

I swear it was a bit on The Electric Company - But I can't pay the rent! But you must pay the rent! But I can't pay the rent...


Hell I remember that bit from my childhood and I'm waaaaay older than Electric Company would be. When I heard it, the person (and it was always just one person) would hold their finger over their upper lip to signify cheesy mustache when speaking as the evilllle landlord, and up on top of their head as a bow in the hair of the fair maiden. It would end up with the hero coming in "I'll pay the rent" fair maiden would say "My hero" and the evillle landlord "Curses, foiled again".

[Fenris]

Well sure, but if he wants to, he wants to, and it's his right to generate an OP that basically allows people to only talk in a straight line. And it's everyone else's right to simply not post there. At the same time, if people want to start a different post talking about his posting, they can. And then he's within his rights to talk in that one. And so on and so forth.
< mod hat off (just so there's no confusion) >

I agree with Second Stone on this. If he's limiting the terms so narrowly as to preclude dissent (and he is), he's not having a discussion, he's blogging with comments*. And...that's against the SDMB rules (inasmuch as the rules mean anything there). Look in IMHO & CS: they won't even allow fan-threads ("Hey, fans of Heinlein, let's talk about the stuff we like--Please take Heinlein criticism elsewhere")--it's only occasionally considered threadshitting to post "Heinlein suxxors! He's a fascist!" in the middle of that.**

Given that, why/how is Lib allowed to start a GD thread that amounts to "My definition of God is right. Let's talk about that. No dissent allowed"?

I would bet money that if, say, Shodan (to pick the first right-winger that came to mind) posted a thread saying "Let's define liberals as "communist, rat-bastard traitors who hate America", moderates as "wishy-washy pussies who are afraid to make up their minds" and conservatives as "Good, righteous people who altruistically have the best interests of everyone at heart and want only the best for the country." Given that, why isn't everyone a Republican? (No quibbling with my terms allowed!)"

I'd bet money that Tomndebb would (rightly!) either shut it down, allow the inevitable pile on of people who don't accept the definitions or move it to The Pit.

So why the special treatment for Lib's brand of intellectual cowardice?

(Not aimed at you, Uthrecht, but your post gave me a springboard for something I was thinking)



*Which he tried to do here.
**One thing I love about here (to toot our own horn) is that we WILL allow a fan-thread.

[Uthrecht]

No offense taken, Fenris, and in the context of rules about what kinds of OPs are allowed and what aren't, it makes sense. I was operating in a rules-free concept - I wouldn't confess to knowing all the ins and outs of the SDMB rules.

[Fenris]

< snark >
Including the powers that be at the SDMB
< /snark >

:p

[WednesdayAddams]

I would bet money that if, say, Shodan (to pick the first right-winger that came to mind) posted a thread saying "Let's define liberals as "communist, rat-bastard traitors who hate America", moderates as "wishy-washy pussies who are afraid to make up their minds" and conservatives as "Good, righteous people who altruistically have the best interests of everyone at heart and want only the best for the country." Given that, why isn't everyone a Republican? (No quibbling with my terms allowed!)"


That's accepting that Shodan would ever post anything that can't be summed up in one short sentence. ;)

[whirlingbladesofkick]

Regards!

[The Second Stone]

I would bet money that if, say, Shodan (to pick the first right-winger that came to mind) posted a thread saying "Let's define liberals as "communist, rat-bastard traitors who hate America", moderates as "wishy-washy pussies who are afraid to make up their minds" and conservatives as "Good, righteous people who altruistically have the best interests of everyone at heart and want only the best for the country." Given that, why isn't everyone a Republican? (No quibbling with my terms allowed!)"

I'd bet money that Tomndebb would (rightly!) either shut it down, allow the inevitable pile on of people who don't accept the definitions or move it to The Pit.

So why the special treatment for Lib's brand of intellectual cowardice?

(Not aimed at you, Uthrecht, but your post gave me a springboard for something I was thinking)



*Which he tried to do here.
**One thing I love about here (to toot our own horn) is that we WILL allow a fan-thread.

I think you are insinuating that Liberal is what is normally thought of as a liberal as that term is used in normal US political discussions. He most certainly is not a liberal. He seems to be a libertarian and possibly a Randist.

[Who_me?]

I think you are insinuating that Liberal is what is normally thought of as a liberal as that term is used in normal US political discussions. He most certainly is not a liberal. He seems to be a libertarian and possibly a Randist.

We all know he's a libertarian, that was his handle on the Dope before he changed it. He's supposedly a liberal in the classical sense (according to him), which is now called libertarian.

[Tamerlane]

I think you are insinuating that Liberal is what is normally thought of as a liberal as that term is used in normal US political discussions. He most certainly is not a liberal. He seems to be a libertarian and possibly a Randist.


No, Fenris knows better and pointed out as much above when he talked about debating him in "libertarian" threads.

Liberal's previous user name on the SDMB was Libertarian and I expect most old-timers still think of him by that handle ( I do, at least ). Lib insisted he was just reclaiming the term liberal in its classic meaning by making the name change. But at the time at least a few SDMB neo-liberals ( ;) ), who had long clashed with him and his particularly hardcore/purist version of libertarianism, took offense at his new handle, assuming he intended some sort of subtle mockery as well.

ETA: Hence the birth of the mocking nickname for him, Liberaltarian, which was eventually banned by the powers that be as a form of namecalling.

[Iris]

I joined the SDMB after his name change (I didn't know he had ever changed it). The first time I read one of his posts, I went "Oh, he's using the old definition of Liberal".

I honestly have no idea if there is an old definition of liberal, but it's a meme that's been around libertarian literature for a while.

[Roo]

Given that, why/how is Lib allowed to start a GD thread that amounts to "My definition of God is right. Let's talk about that. No dissent allowed"?
Because that's where religious witnessing is held. And he has named every one of his threads as religious witnessing.

He may use the guise of philosophy. But he hasn't called them philosophizing threads. He's called them religious witnessing threads. So if he wants to define God as a fire breathing dragon in the garage, he may do so. Is that a loophole? I don't know. I don't post there often.

I don't know the rules of religious witnessing there, but I'd think that they would have to be pretty loose since there are some pretty wild religious ideas out there. In the field of wild religious ideas, his are not that far out.

[Uthrecht]

Excellent. You there, sir. Got a minute? Lemme tell you about the Hand of Uthrecht.

[Roo]

Lemme tell you about the Hand of Uthrecht.
Go ahead. What do your followers do? Should we guess?

This isn't a cult, is it? :dubious:

And it's Ms. to you.

[Uthrecht]

Oh, no, no, no, no. Certainly not a cult. No, no. Not at all.


... yes.

Wanna join?

[whirlingbladesofkick]

You two!? Get. A. Room. ;)

[Uthrecht]

You two!? Get. A. Room. ;)

Wanna join?

[Roo]

Wanna join?
Well, maybe. What's the philosophy of aesthetics in your cult religion?

[Roo]

You two!? Get. A. Room. ;)
He keeps escaping! Got some duct tape?

[Uthrecht]

Well, maybe. What's the philosophy of aesthetics in your cult religion?

Oh, we're really big on athletics. It's important to get workouts on a regular basis.

[Fenris]

I think you are insinuating that Liberal is what is normally thought of as a liberal as that term is used in normal US political discussions. He most certainly is not a liberal. He seems to be a libertarian and possibly a Randist.

No--no insinuation of that sort at all. I agree he's nothing like a liberal in any modern sense of the word* I picked Shodan just 'cause he was the first poster that came to mind. There wasn't any sort of contrast meant. I could as easily have picked some folks on the left or SeeThruArt and his magic moon-photos or Jack Dean Tyler and how his ENTIRE LIFE WAS RUINED because he was circumcised. Any of them could create a "witnessing" thead

Regarding libertarians, I've known a lot of libertarians (and have some sympathy with their POV, up to a point) and have even had a few conversations with one of the Libertarian party's VP candidates and Liberaltarian's not really a libertarian by those standards either.

I don't think he fits any political party or philosophy. Most of what he expounds is total anarchy, but with a government that intervenes at times only Liberal can define. :foil:

*And his weird Obama fetish was just disturbing. This is not the "ANY pro-Obama comment is a sign of Obamamania" crap that Hannity lies about. I'm not confusing normal admiration for Obama with what Liberaltarian was doing which was very, VERY creepy.

Stuff like "Obama is the greatest human being who ever lived and we don't deserve to lick shit from his boots" (paraphrase from memory-I'll try to find a link). When people asked if he was kidding he swore up and down that he was 1000% serious. Many of the far-left contingent (not to mention the regular left and the pro-Obama moderate right) were all distancing themselves from his creepy cult-like quasi-sexual obsession. I'll try to find a link. IIRC, Carol Stream or Shodan and Elucidator were both telling Liberaltarian "Dude. Eew."

[Fenris]

Because that's where religious witnessing is held. And he has named every one of his threads as religious witnessing.

He may use the guise of philosophy. But he hasn't called them philosophizing threads. He's called them religious witnessing threads. So if he wants to define God as a fire breathing dragon in the garage, he may do so. Is that a loophole? I don't know. I don't post there often.

I don't know the rules of religious witnessing there, but I'd think that they would have to be pretty loose since there are some pretty wild religious ideas out there. In the field of wild religious ideas, his are not that far out.

But the difference is that in witnessing threads, normally people are allowed to shred the witnesser. Watch Czarcasm go after a young-earth creationist or a psychic who's witnessing. And most of them deal with it. The way Lib has set it up, he's got all his ducks in a row so he can scream THREADSHITTING! MODS!!

This isn't (as far as I can tell) against the rules, but it's a pretty gutless and intellectually dishonest way to "debate", IMO.

[Fenris]

Well, maybe. What's the philosophy of aesthetics in your cult religion?

Ok--this was laugh-out-loud funny. :p

[The Second Stone]

I noticed that the first thing he did when I joined SDMB was to say "people with opinions like your are idiots" which is apparently an allowed way to get around the no name calling rule, but pretty stupid in my opinion. I called him crazy and he called me a sock because I wasn't supposed to know he was crazy. The guy is a loon, anybody with slight observational powers could tell that within 5 minutes of engaging him. I try to avoid him because I don't think it is cool to tease crazy people.

[WednesdayAddams]

Because that's where religious witnessing is held. And he has named every one of his threads as religious witnessing.

Technically, no, he didn't. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=518838) Regardless, though, using that bold red type to call it religious witnessing is further hiding behind a sign saying "It's okay, because I called it religious witnessing, so that means I get to say whatever I want and you have to go along with it."

Other religious people on that board would never have the balls to do such a thing. Polycarp wouldn't even consider it. It's dishonest on the face of it.

He may use the guise of philosophy. But he hasn't called them philosophizing threads. He's called them religious witnessing threads. So if he wants to define God as a fire breathing dragon in the garage, he may do so. Is that a loophole? I don't know. I don't post there often.

I'm sorry. I hate arguing with you, Roo. :p I feel like I'm kicking out over something stupid. Maybe I am. But when he extrapolates his theories and then compares them to those of other Philosophers? That is at the very least implying philosophy. You can put up a sign saying "Fresh lemonade sold here!" If you fill glasses with orange juice, people are gonna know the difference. He does not get to call it one thing and then go on winkingly pointing at and applying precepts of something else.

I don't know the rules of religious witnessing there, but I'd think that they would have to be pretty loose since there are some pretty wild religious ideas out there. In the field of wild religious ideas, his are not that far out.

Right. And everyone else gets called on them. Do you remember the thread about ghosts? Whoever started it got ripped to shreds. I know, I read through the TLDR piece of shit.

I echo everyone else here who has asked: Why does he get to set the rules? No one else has ever been able to do that. Every single time someone has tried, other posters have said "sorry, pal, but you put it out there. If you didn't want it ripped up, you shouldn't have posted it." And the mods back them up. So why is it different for Lib? Calling it 'religious witnessing' does not give it a pass.

[Uthrecht]

Actually, could you guys give a few examples of people labeling threads religious witnessing and getting torn up, and people other than Liberal trying to narrowly frame the debate and having the mods stomp that concept? I'd be curious to see that and compare.

[Fenris]

1) When did God evolve Adam?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=229921

2) Any thread that involves LeCatt (which I'm not spelling right). He believes in...um...everything really. UFOs? Yup. Out of Body experiences? Yup. Dungeons and Dragons "Throw fireballs around" magic? Yup. The Hollow Earth? Probably. Elementals and fairies? Yup. When someone posts the correct spelling do a GD search on his name. Czarcasm shreds him regularly (and good)

3) BEING CIRCUMCISED WILL KILL US ALL! http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=43031

4) Everyone should lurv Engelbert Humperdinck as much as Deeward 'cause he's the greatest human who ever lived! http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=109062

[Fenris]

Lissner sez "Let's rethink this whole "Verhoeven sux" thing, k?" (in his typical charming way.) "No criticism allowed, no mentioning Heinlein with regards to the movie of STARSHIP TROOPERS, etc."

Narrowly framed "Fan-thread" (with, granted, a bad title for a fan-thread)

Coldfire slaps him down
lissener quit trying to direct (heh) the topic. A thread started on the SDMB isn't "yours": other are allowed to have differing opinions here. If someone is inclined to start a separate thread about the Heinlein/Verhoeven, that's fine. If someone wants to roast Verhoeven in the Pit, that's fine, too. But you can't expect people to talk about exactly what you think is allowed.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=222557

[Tamerlane]

1)

3) BEING CIRCUMCISED WILL KILL US ALL! http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=43031


Talk about weird timing :p.

http://www.giraffeboards.com/showpost.php?p=101069&postcount=102

[WednesdayAddams]

Actually, could you guys give a few examples of people labeling threads religious witnessing and getting torn up, and people other than Liberal trying to narrowly frame the debate and having the mods stomp that concept? I'd be curious to see that and compare.

Yes. That thread I just mentioned. It was in Great Debates and discussed spirits and spirituality, ghosts and the existence thereof. The OP made it clear it was witnessing and that they would appreciate any "non believers" please keep their opinions from poisoning the thread. Czarcasm went off on that moron. My head ached from reading it.


ETA: LEKATT!! Thank you, Fenris. That was the name of the OP. Holy shit what utter tripe.

[Uthrecht]

Great, thanks for the links all.

[The Second Stone]

How about those, like Giraffe and TVeblen, who had access to the mysterious mod boards and the thin-skinned mind of Zotti shedding some light on what the hell really goes on over there. Really, it must be simpler than "nobody messes with our friends." Or is that just it?

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

Fenris has pretty much nailed it down to my mind. The major issue with Liberal is not that he's an idiot (he is), but that his particular brand of idiocy seems to be coddled and encouraged.

'Threadshitting' is a very nebulous thing, in that not all posts expressing dislike to Pink Floyd in the Pink Floyd thread are necessarily threadshits. In Liberal's case, however, every post even slightly against his thesis (whatever it may be) is threadshitting and severely clamped down upon, a consideration not given to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, ufologists, believers in ghosts and the supernatural, Verhoeven fans (of which I consider myself one) or anti-circumcision advocates. I'm honestly surprised that he didn't get his wish that all Andrew 'Hater' Jackson threads would automatically go in the Pit.

[Fenris]

How about those, like Giraffe and TVeblen, who had access to the mysterious mod boards and the thin-skinned mind of Zotti shedding some light on what the hell really goes on over there. Really, it must be simpler than "nobody messes with our friends." Or is that just it?

For me, there was an early period of the dope...it ended roughly when Lynn made up the rule saying "No Joke Threads In The Pit-and jokes are whatever I feel like"...where crazy was encouraged as long as it wasn't disruptive. I don't know that the rule is to blame, but it's a pretty good dividing line for saying where the early "wild west" Dope ended. For instance, Jack Dean Tyler and his tragic lack of foreskin posted for months, only getting banned when he called a gay poster (Esprix?) a child molester.

It seems to me that any poster nowdays with....quirks....who registered before that rule is given a pass* but new monomaniacal posters are pretty much banned right away.

Remember the recent crazy restaurant lady? In the "wild west" days, there'd have been months of entertainment from her.

*I don't think it's intentional, hell Tomndebb once said that "They're just annoying background noise" (or words to that effect about why the rules of GD don't count towards LeKatt or Elucidator** or Der Trihs)

**I think. I know he mentioned the other two.

[Sarahfeena]

*And his weird Obama fetish was just disturbing. This is not the "ANY pro-Obama comment is a sign of Obamamania" crap that Hannity lies about. I'm not confusing normal admiration for Obama with what Liberaltarian was doing which was very, VERY creepy.

Stuff like "Obama is the greatest human being who ever lived and we don't deserve to lick shit from his boots" (paraphrase from memory-I'll try to find a link). When people asked if he was kidding he swore up and down that he was 1000% serious. Many of the far-left contingent (not to mention the regular left and the pro-Obama moderate right) were all distancing themselves from his creepy cult-like quasi-sexual obsession. I'll try to find a link. IIRC, Carol Stream or Shodan and Elucidator were both telling Liberaltarian "Dude. Eew." I don't know if this is the thread you are thinking of, but I directly asked Liberal if he was serious about his Obama love in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=501405) Pit thread. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide if he is sincere or not.

[Fenris]

That was one of 'em, and I think you linked to a few others--one where he said Obama was Christlike and another when asked to list any fault Obama might have he said something like "He's so perfect that he's too good for this world". :rolleyes:

[Roo]

First off, let me note that I'm not discussing all of Liberal's posts. The guy has over 37K posts and is one of the most prolific posters on the Dope. With that many posts, there's bound to be stuff he said that contradicts something else. And I don't read much of his stuff. This thread has become a grab bag of things that people don't like about Liberal's posting.

But I'm just focusing on this one set of threads that the OP linked.

But the difference is that in witnessing threads, normally people are allowed to shred the witnesser. Watch Czarcasm go after a young-earth creationist or a psychic who's witnessing. And most of them deal with it. The way Lib has set it up, he's got all his ducks in a row so he can scream THREADSHITTING! MODS!!
While he may be exploiting the system, as you say, he's not doing anything against the rules. So however he got it done, it's sort of clever that he was able to accomplish it. Every message board has its own culture that people have to play to. Liberal seems to have been able to master the culture there to post as he chooses. It's the same here. Some people can post more of what they choose for any number of reasons. All message boards are that way as are most communities in general.

This isn't (as far as I can tell) against the rules, but it's a pretty gutless and intellectually dishonest way to "debate", IMO.
Well, again you're calling it debate. Religious witnessing isn't always debate. The guy standing on the street corner yelling religious stuff isn't debating anyone. But he's doing religious witnessing.

Technically, no, he didn't. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=518838) Regardless, though, using that bold red type to call it religious witnessing is further hiding behind a sign saying "It's okay, because I called it religious witnessing, so that means I get to say whatever I want and you have to go along with it."
Well no, no one has to go along with it. They can ignore it or question it, same as any other message board post.

Other religious people on that board would never have the balls to do such a thing. Polycarp wouldn't even consider it. It's dishonest on the face of it.
Because it takes courage to be dishonest? The Dope is a largely atheist message board. Sometimes it's not worth it to discuss religious topics there. Not enough interest for the religious part and too much noise from the other side.

I'm sorry. I hate arguing with you, Roo. :p I feel like I'm kicking out over something stupid. Maybe I am. But when he extrapolates his theories and then compares them to those of other Philosophers? That is at the very least implying philosophy. You can put up a sign saying "Fresh lemonade sold here!" If you fill glasses with orange juice, people are gonna know the difference. He does not get to call it one thing and then go on winkingly pointing at and applying precepts of something else.
No, I get your point. You feel that if people talk about philosophy, they should do it in more academic terms. I don't know enough about how philosophy should go in academic terms to debate you on it, so I'm not doing that.

But here's my personal anecdote. I go to a Christian church (I'm not a Christian) where the pastor was a professor of philosophy at one time. He sometimes mixes philosophy with religion. It's an interesting mix. And I've also listened to lectures on the Philosophy of Religion on audio. My take on it is that when you mix philosophy with religion, the end result doesn't look a whole lot like either.

I echo everyone else here who has asked: Why does he get to set the rules? No one else has ever been able to do that. Every single time someone has tried, other posters have said "sorry, pal, but you put it out there. If you didn't want it ripped up, you shouldn't have posted it." And the mods back them up. So why is it different for Lib? Calling it 'religious witnessing' does not give it a pass.
But that has less to do with Liberal than how the culture, rules and mod structure is set up at the Dope.

[Moon Dog]

Trolls come and go. But Liberal is like the gift that keeps on giving. There is a certain kind of fascination, the one that makes us slow down for a better view at a car accident, in watching the many layers of insanity he brings. And as he slowly unwinds and we wait for the inevitable burnout he is back like Lazarus risen.
I'd be surprised no psychology students are using him as a case study in the mentally ill and internet addiction.
Of course they try to keep him. It's like a reptile park having a two headed lizard. Freaks of nature are a great tourist attraction.
Even though he isn't here he still has a 3 page thread about him.*

*( Has somebody told him ? He'd be in heaven. Well Heaven as he defines it in his own inarguable terms. )

[Roo]

Well said.

I don't know about the mentally ill part. I've argued before that it's harder to be a troll than people seem to imagine. Not that I would know firsthand, of course.

[Stubby Boardman]

Well said.

I don't know about the mentally ill part. I've argued before that it's harder to be a troll than people seem to imagine. Not that I would know firsthand, of course.

So you're saying that someone who's actually crazy couldn't do what Lib does?

[Hunter Hawk]

While he may be exploiting the system, as you say, he's not doing anything against the rules. So however he got it done, it's sort of clever that he was able to accomplish it.
Well, this is the issue of obeying the letter of the law vs. conforming to the spirit of the law. What he's doing is the message-board equivalent of holding your finger a millimeter away from your sister's arm and going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!!" Yeah, it's technically legal, but it's still being a dick.

[Roo]

So you're saying that someone who's actually crazy couldn't do what Lib does?
Nah, truly insane people can be amazing sometimes too.

But for a sane person, it would be pretty awesome.

And really, there's such a very fine line between the two. Especially on message boards. :D

[Stubby Boardman]

True. Is there any real difference between a troll pretending to be a maniac and a maniac pretending to be a troll?

[WednesdayAddams]

No, I get your point. You feel that if people talk about philosophy, they should do it in more academic terms. I don't know enough about how philosophy should go in academic terms to debate you on it, so I'm not doing that.

Yes and no. As I said, everyone has their own personal philosophy. I take that with a grain of salt. It is when someone sets up a thread and says "let us debate this via the Aristotelian/Platonic/Socratic/Sartre method" that I sit up and pay attention. Liberal named three different Philosophers* and then completely failed to use the method to which even the least of them subscribe.

As an afterthought, I will note he was completely wrong about Schopenhauer; his treatise on aesthetics is one of the most straightforward least bizarre explanations, if somewhat lyrical. It comes closer to Buddhism than any other Western Philosophy I've read and effectively bridges the gap between Eastern and Western Philosophies.

I'm also a bit mystified as to his implication that so many Philosophers ignore the subject; I can't think of a single one that has ignored it. Post Modernism is almost a slave to it, which may be why I have no patience for Post Modernism.

Okay, I'll stop now. Sorry.

But here's my personal anecdote. I go to a Christian church (I'm not a Christian) where the pastor was a professor of philosophy at one time. He sometimes mixes philosophy with religion. It's an interesting mix. And I've also listened to lectures on the Philosophy of Religion on audio. My take on it is that when you mix philosophy with religion, the end result doesn't look a whole lot like either.

I understand. When I was still attending church, I was doing so mainly because the pastor was able to use a philosophical approach to scripture and then apply them both to modern circumstances. What you normally ended up with was some decent advice and a little perspective. Was nice. I left the church when he transferred.

But that has less to do with Liberal than how the culture, rules and mod structure is set up at the Dope.

Right. That's one of the things I am protesting. Sorry if that didn't come across in my earlier posts. Why is he allowed to do it? Why is it hands off when he does? There's no good reason, unless he has some really damaging pictures or video.

*Or, if you protest categorizing Rand as a Philosopher as I do, two Philosophers and an opportunistic hack.

[Fenris]

Well, this is the issue of obeying the letter of the law vs. conforming to the spirit of the law. What he's doing is the message-board equivalent of holding your finger a millimeter away from your sister's arm and going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!!" Yeah, it's technically legal, but it's still being a dick.

And per my Coldfire quote above, it may not be legal--as a matter of fact, it's probably not legal, but there's enough ambiguity in the rules that it'll cause major grief for the mods there when someone busts in, doesn't follow Lib's "rules" and either rebukes the poster (which equals an angry thread based on the Coldfire (and many other mods--I know Czarcasm and Tomndebb have both posted "The thread doesn't belong to YOU" comments) rule) or doesn't (which will cause Lib drama--probably a shrieky cry to close the thread followed by drama. "Why won't the mods let peaceful, honest people have a private discussion?!")

[Fenris]

*Or, if you protest categorizing Rand as a Philosopher as I do, two Philosophers and an opportunistic hack.
I'd be interested in exploring this at some point. I think there's worthwhile stuff in Ayn Rand's philosophies, but other than one or two philosophy classes in college, I'm not very well read on philosophy.

I'm not a Rand cultist or anything, but she hits on what I see as a few basic truths, a few interesting insights and pounds and pounds of pretentious, self-serving twaddle.

But then, so did Aristotle..wasn't he (or Plato) the guy who classified things such that "Grass is a plant. Plants are green. Frogs are green. Thus, frogs are plants"?

If you're interested in discussing this with a total n00b, howsabout starting a PPR thread. ;) :D

[WednesdayAddams]

YAY! :) I'd like that. Will post something approaching thoughtful when I get home this evening.

[Hunter Hawk]

Yes and no. As I said, everyone has their own personal philosophy. I take that with a grain of salt. It is when someone sets up a thread and says "let us debate this via the Aristotelian/Platonic/Socratic/Sartre method" that I sit up and pay attention. Liberal named three different Philosophers* and then completely failed to use the method to which even the least of them subscribe.
He's a great example of being unskilled and unaware of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect). It's actually pretty interesting to watch for a while, but it gets real old real quick.

And per my Coldfire quote above, it may not be legal--as a matter of fact, it's probably not legal, but there's enough ambiguity in the rules that it'll cause major grief for the mods
Yeah, for another example there's one post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11185249&postcount=25) in one of his "aesthetical" threads where's he's blatantly engaging in pre-emptive junior modding, but he's weasel-wording it just enough to skirt the rules. I suppose I could report it, but really what's the point?

If I were a mod, I woulda banned the sonofabitch years ago for jerkishness and generally being a waste of bandwidth. But if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

[WednesdayAddams]

Alright, then (http://giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=3417)

[WednesdayAddams]

He's a great example of being unskilled and unaware of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect). It's actually pretty interesting to watch for a while, but it gets real old real quick.

I'm familiar with it. I think on some levels, most people are aware that they are incompetent, but overestimate their ability as a coping mechanism. Hence the refusal to acknowledge the competence of others.

[Roo]

Well, this is the issue of obeying the letter of the law vs. conforming to the spirit of the law. What he's doing is the message-board equivalent of holding your finger a millimeter away from your sister's arm and going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!!" Yeah, it's technically legal, but it's still being a dick.
You don't post here much, do you?

And that's all I'll say about that.

Right. That's one of the things I am protesting. Sorry if that didn't come across in my earlier posts. Why is he allowed to do it? Why is it hands off when he does? There's no good reason, unless he has some really damaging pictures or video.
I don't know if this is a rhetorical question, but I'll give my very limited opinion. I'm not a big follower of Liberal.

I think Liberal is exploiting a couple things on the Dope. First off, GD is modded by tomndebb who is a Catholic. I think religious stuff there gets more of a pass than if it was modded by an atheist. In addition, Liberal's meltdowns are pretty legendary, and it's probably easier to give him some room in GD than to have a slugfest in the Pit, where there has been a whole lot of drama in the past created by some of the Pits he's involved in.

I also think that he exploits the culture there that very maudlin negative real life claims get a pass there. On some message boards, that stuff gets much less of a pass.

He's also a very prolific poster and has a very large reputation. He writes well enough that he can yank chains and get his point across enough that people care about what he's saying.

I'm sure he knows all of that and uses it to his best advantage. While he might have gotten all of that from trial and error, my guess would be that he just made some observations about how the board there works.

For instance, in the set of posts we're discussing, he's defined everything enough to make opposition very difficult. I doubt that's an accident.

He's a great example of being unskilled and unaware of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect). It's actually pretty interesting to watch for a while, but it gets real old real quick.
And yet you continue to watch it. :dubious:

[Ben]

I don't generally go to the dope because te formatting literally hurts my eyes. But dear lord, that Aesthitcal series is a fascinating read in so much that one person can be so eloquent and thoughtful about something so fundamentally flawed.

I wouldn't say he's a crazy person but he definately has a non-linear, prismatic way of viewing things.

[Panacea]

Hell I remember that bit from my childhood and I'm waaaaay older than Electric Company would be. When I heard it, the person (and it was always just one person) would hold their finger over their upper lip to signify cheesy mustache when speaking as the evilllle landlord, and up on top of their head as a bow in the hair of the fair maiden. It would end up with the hero coming in "I'll pay the rent" fair maiden would say "My hero" and the evillle landlord "Curses, foiled again".


The bit about "You must pay the rent" is Snidely Whiplash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snidely_Whiplash) from the Dudley Doright cartoon.

The bit about the plumber fixing the sink is from the show The Electric Company. The plumber is knocking on the door and a parrot is inside answering him "Whooooo is it?". A video clip is the sixth one down on this page (http://theperchstore.net/pajoandvi.html).

[Hunter Hawk]

And yet you continue to watch it. :dubious:
I also read Chick tracts and some of the works of David Icke. It can be illuminating to keep tabs on the crank community.

[Uthrecht]

I also read Chick tracts and some of the works of David Icke. It can be illuminating to keep tabs on the crank community.

So you're saying you engage in acts of self-abuse. You can go blind doing that, you know.

[Hunter Hawk]

You can go blind doing that, you know.
Hey, I'm fine with that. I'll just make up my own definition of what "blind" means and everything'll be groovy.

[Roo]

I also read Chick tracts and some of the works of David Icke. It can be illuminating to keep tabs on the crank community.
Enjoy!

They are some things I don't mind being largely in the dark about once I've seen what they're about.

[jayjay]

The bit about "You must pay the rent" is Snidely Whiplash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snidely_Whiplash) from the Dudley Doright cartoon.

There was actually some sort of skit where one person played all the characters ("You must pay the rent!" "I can't pay the rent!"), using his finger as mustache for the villain and such. I remember a Dope thread about it.

Can't find the Dope thread, but I found a website with short Boy Scout-type one-acts that has it. Here (http://burtleburtle.net/bob/scout/rent.html).

[Fenris]

I also read Chick tracts and some of the works of David Icke. It can be illuminating to keep tabs on the crank community.

Seconded. Have you read:

High Weirdness By Mail (which is now outdated 'cause of the internet, but still fascinating)
Kooks by Dianne Kossy(?)
Fads & Fallacies In The Name Of Science by Martin Gardner


If you haven't, these are essential kook reading and Fads & Fallacies is probably the best single skeptic/kook book I've ever read. Gardner does something that Randi and the others don't. He has fun.

[wring]

Not only did I read High weirdness, I made it a point to get snookie on as many of the mailing lists I could when it first came out. good times, good times.

[Panacea]

There was actually some sort of skit where one person played all the characters ("You must pay the rent!" "I can't pay the rent!"), using his finger as mustache for the villain and such. I remember a Dope thread about it.

Can't find the Dope thread, but I found a website with short Boy Scout-type one-acts that has it. Here (http://burtleburtle.net/bob/scout/rent.html).


Hmm. Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall that skit.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

I don't generally go to the dope because te formatting literally hurts my eyes. But dear lord, that Aesthitcal series is a fascinating read in so much that one person can be so eloquent and thoughtful about something so fundamentally flawed.

I wouldn't say he's a crazy person but he definately has a non-linear, prismatic way of viewing things.

I don't consider him thoughtful, but I'll grant eloquent.

There's an exchange from Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco that I think sums him up completely:
A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn't know the ropes. The moron* proves his thesis; he has a logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn't concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idee fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars.

*Concidentally, he writes of morons:
"Ah. Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong. Like the fellow who says all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are pets, too, and therefore cats bark. Or that all Athenians are mortal, and all the citizens of Piraeus are mortal, so all the citizens of Piraeus are Athenians."
"Which they are."
"Yes, but only accidentally. Morons will occasionally say something that's right, but they say it for the wrong reason."

[Moon Dog]

Well said.

I don't know about the mentally ill part. I've argued before that it's harder to be a troll than people seem to imagine. Not that I would know firsthand, of course.

Crazy doesn't mean stupid. Often far from it. But take Liberal out of his mod protected plastic bubble and into a more anarchical situation, say like here on Giraffe boards, where he can't hide behind the letter of specific laws and expect the powers that be to protect him. Now let everyone loose on him on a true debate of his pseudo intellectual ranting and I would predict a major breakdown in a manner of days at most. He has issues. And It's only the coddling that the SDMB gives that allows him to survive in his own little bubble of narcissism. I think we saw a taste of that on DoMeBo and an extremely short attempt at wanting to blog on here.

P.S. Great quote Sgt Max Fightmaster.

[SmartAleq]

That Eco quote is priceless, Sgt Max, absolutely perfect. Personally, I'm just as likely to close any thread once I discover Liberal's been shitting in it because no matter how good the premise of the OP it's an ironclad guarantee that once he's been in there the whole thing's stunk up and full of multiply parsed replies brimming with sanctimonious, logic-free crapola. I have Free Republic if I wanna see that shit free-range. As for participating in one of his threads--pretty much just no. The way he stacks the deck so that everyone who participates has this perfectly marked track to run down makes me feel like an unwilling participant in some perv's fapfest fantasy--just no thanks, no way.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

The way he stacks the deck so that everyone who participates has this perfectly marked track to run down makes me feel like an unwilling participant in some perv's fapfest fantasy--just no thanks, no way.

Baby, you can be a participant in this perv's fapfest any day.

[SmartAleq]

Baby, you can be a participant in this perv's fapfest any day.

Hush yourself, young'un, you're nearly young enough to be my grandchild! :foil:<---shocked granny smiley.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

Actually, I'm MetallicSquink's boy-toy. Or on the shortlist. Or something.

I always thought :foil: was supposed to be a Sikh smiley. But then I realised that there are actually very few circumstances in which someone might need one of those. I suppose the foil-helmet is probably more useful.

[SmartAleq]

When it comes to smileys, I'm Humpty Motherfuckin' Dumpty--it means what the hell I say it means! :p

[Mirhanda]

Seconded. Have you read:
Fads & Fallacies In The Name Of Science by Martin Gardner


If you haven't, these are essential kook reading and Fads & Fallacies is probably the best single skeptic/kook book I've ever read. Gardner does something that Randi and the others don't. He has fun.

Not only have I read it, it was a textbook in an interesting class I took in college. Highly recommend it.

[SmartAleq]

Not only have I read it, it was a textbook in an interesting class I took in college. Highly recommend it.

What a coincidence, I believe I taught that class--the text was chosen by somebody else, of course. :rolleyes:

[Mirhanda]

So you are a very old man?

[SmartAleq]

So you are a very old man?

It's the intarwebz, I can be anyone or anything! Actually, I got caught up and forgot this isn't the "talk like a Doper" thread... :smack:

[Hunter Hawk]

Seconded. Have you read:

High Weirdness By Mail (which is now outdated 'cause of the internet, but still fascinating)
Kooks by Dianne Kossy(?)
Fads & Fallacies In The Name Of Science by Martin Gardner


I've paged through the first and third, but haven't read them in detail. I'm not familiar with the second. OTOH, I've read the Fortean Times for years, and I've had my picture taken with Bob Gimlin. (He was a nice guy, BTW.)

[Roo]

Crazy doesn't mean stupid. Often far from it.
Then I'm not understanding the point. If a brilliant but crazy person is making a point on a message board, I don't see an issue.

That's just a generality and not speaking to the specifics of this thread.

But take Liberal out of his mod protected plastic bubble and into a more anarchical situation, say like here on Giraffe boards, where he can't hide behind the letter of specific laws and expect the powers that be to protect him. Now let everyone loose on him on a true debate of his pseudo intellectual ranting and I would predict a major breakdown in a manner of days at most.
If it's a straight up debate of the type that Marissa describes where parties on either side are seeking the truth, the venue shouldn't matter. That said, it's much easier to derail a thread on a forum with few rules and make the OP of the thread frustrated and create so much "noise" with side issues that it renders the OP moot, for the most part.

That doesn't have any bearing on the truth/falsity of the claims on either side of the debate.


He has issues. And It's only the coddling that the SDMB gives that allows him to survive in his own little bubble of narcissism. I think we saw a taste of that on DoMeBo and an extremely short attempt at wanting to blog on here.
That again, has little to do with the kind of debate that some people have described in this thread.

[Moon Dog]

I think I'll just have to agree to disagree that the thread the OP linked to is actually a debate of any meaning seeking to find any actual truth.

[WednesdayAddams]

OTOH, it did spawn a couple.

[Moon Dog]

OTOH, it did spawn a couple.

As well as a brilliant parody on Talk like a SDMB regular without hardly having to change a word.

But truth I haven't been debating the OP at all in this thread about whether a certain SDMB member has gone off the rails but just voicing my opinion in general of said certain SDMB member.

Basically because I thought the answer was so bleeding obvious that the question must have been rhetorical. ;)

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

As well as a brilliant parody on Talk like a SDMB regular without hardly having to change a word.

If you're referring to me, I didn't change a word.

[Moon Dog]

If you're referring to me, I didn't change a word.

Sorry I had thought you added the gender neutral qualifications. My mistake :sciencefail:

[RedFury]

Seconded. Have you read:

High Weirdness By Mail (which is now outdated 'cause of the internet, but still fascinating)
Kooks by Dianne Kossy(?)
Fads & Fallacies In The Name Of Science by Martin Gardner


If you haven't, these are essential kook reading and Fads & Fallacies is probably the best single skeptic/kook book I've ever read. Gardner does something that Randi and the others don't. He has fun.

With all due, Fenris -- which is rather a lot in your case -- but I beg to differ on "the best book etc....." For some time now, I've been arguing IRL that The Demon-Haunted World (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World/Carl-Sagan/e/9780345409461) should become part of the curriculum of any self-respecting academic institution. I can think of no better way to introduce youngsters to the scientific method while giving them the tools to think for themselves -- which I think is the biggest flaw in the educational system as is. Talking basics here, as at the HS level.

I remember my son asking me about God when he was about 10 or 11, and being more or less the lone-wolf atheist in the family at the time (that was close to a decade ago..my pack has since grown considerably :evil: ) I simply gave him Sagan's book to read by way of a response. Now, I am not suggesting that that is the 'right' age for kids to read and/or grasp what Sagan teaches -- in my judgment my son was definably ready; then again he started reading at age one -- but simply that at some point during their development, almost all of them would certainly benefit from it. Does not mean they'd become atheist ipso-facto but rather that even if they stayed within their faiths, they'd be at least able to defend the basis of same with at least a semblance of coherence. Further, and if taken to the next logical step, they might also accept (as some very smart religious folks I've encountered IRL) the fact that religious faith falls outside the scope of rigorous debate. It is simply a non-starter.

Which brings me back full circle to the OP. Perhaps someone here can put it on Lib's X-mas list? I'd be more than happy to purchase it for him myself. :D

[Ratel]

...then again he started reading at age one ...

Body language or books? :)

[Fenris]

With all due, Fenris -- which is rather a lot in your case -- but I beg to differ on "the best book etc....." For some time now, I've been arguing IRL that The Demon-Haunted World (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World/Carl-Sagan/e/9780345409461) should become part of the curriculum of any self-respecting academic institution. I can think of no better way to introduce youngsters to the scientific method while giving them the tools to think for themselves -- which I think is the biggest flaw in the educational system as is. Talking basics here, as at the HS level.
I like Demon Haunted World but (and don't press me for specifics, 'cause I can't remember them ;) ) there were a couple of points where Sagan's hobby-horse biases interrupted the flow of the book for me and there were points where he got shrill--the curse of almost every skeptic book out there.

I think Demon Haunted is wonderful, and you're right, it's a masterpiece for "How to think critically", but I respectfully disagree on the rank of "best". Gardner's good humor and patient explanation of why each crackpot theory is wrong pushes it over the top for me.

I love discussing skeptic books and it seems like a few other people do too, so I'm going to split this thread off so we don't keep hijacking the latest Lib-Crazy reports (which I also like!)

If I do this right, all the posts about skeptic books will remain here, but be copied into an new...oh, let's put it in PPR--skepticism is a philosophy...PPR thread and there should be a link here to there.

If I don't do it right, there might be a gawdawful mess for 7 to clean up. ;)

[Fenris]

< Mod Hat On >

I'll go for "Gawdawful mess for $500, Alex".

Sorry folks. I made a copy of the thread, tried to edit/copy/merge/etc the copy and hosed this one too. :( My bad. I think that everything's back where it belongs.

< Mod Hat Off, head down in shame and disgrace >

[WednesdayAddams]

<drums fingers> Well? Where's the PPR thread?

[Fenris]

Workin' on it. :D

I'm trying to do it without destroying this thread.

I may just copy and paste.

[Fenris]

http://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?p=104558#post104558

....that was easy.

Ever made something waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complicated than it needed to be?

Me too. :D :p

[Giraffe]

And you wanted access to the Admin control panel? :dubious:

[brownie55]

Admin panel my furry ass. You should take away his keyboard.

[rhythmonly]

BOX FENRIS!!

[whirlingbladesofkick]

BOX! BOX! BOX!

[Khampelf]

Well, to be fair, Fenris was busy kicking a vampire's ass during all that.

[whirlingbladesofkick]

Actually, I think Liberal might just be crazy. Here's (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521387) his hyperapologia of the Dope, complete with fullthroated love for Jerry, Ed, and Tuba. He's kind of scary.

[LurkMeister]

This is the same Liberal who left the Dope some months ago with great fanfare and a "final" thread with a long, convoluted analogy comparing the Dope to a small town which is no longer the same place its residents used to love, right?

Has anyone checked his home for a large pod lately?

[WednesdayAddams]

I could give you the whole TLDR timeline of Domebo being teh bestest board EVAR to I will never go back to that sink of human depravity along with his stop off here, "the extension of Ed Zotti's agenda," and his less than quiet return to the Dope replete with "how could I have ever loved any other board but this one" post. Do you have a largish drink and a few hours to kill?

[whirlingbladesofkick]

I knew he slunk back, but I never thought I'd see such bizarro world posts like in my link. He loves Ed and Jerry and Jenny SO MUCH that it borders on pathological.

[WednesdayAddams]

While we're on the subject, I must say 7's pitting of him was a thing of beauty and a joy to behold. Brought a tear to my eye, it did. Mostly because I was laughing through the entire thing. We need to copyright the term "sociopathic douche cunt."

ETA: The smack down of this year's frank was a special added bonus.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

The thing that let 7's roasting down was the all manner of cunts cooing gently to Liberal and asking about his self-diagnosed autism.

I'm shocked that people still fall for his bullshit.

[Who_me?]

Eh... Liberal can only bother you if you let him. On the other hand, if he's coming here and reading this thread, it must be killing him not responding.

[Fenris]

Here we go...this is the good stuff folks. Liberaltarian pits Tomndebb (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=522403)


What I'm asking you is, why the double standard? Why do you allow Der Trihs to drop rants and rhetorical turds here, there, and everywhere while pouncing on the rest of us for meandering off-topic just a hair (if indeed we were off-topic at all.) Is there something you owe him? Has there ever been another one-note wonder who wasn't Mod Hatted or even banned?

People used to bitch because they said I turned every thread into an argument about libertarianism. Obviously, that is no longer the case. Why don't you take a big tug on your balls and call out Der Trihs for shit like this:

AND it has Liberaltarian paranoia, inappropriate/crazy levels of cussing, crazy lib-phrases ("Indian hater jackson'), it's drama-llama nirvana.

[ulfhjorr]

That was hilarious.

I especially liked the part where he pretended that his little threads have been philosophical. How precious he is in his little delusions.

[The Second Stone]

Der Trihs actually participates in good faith. He believes what he says and debates in an intellectually honest fashion without disrespect for other posters. What he craps on are the beliefs of others and the believing in nothing and crapping all over everything can be tiresome, but it isn't just trolling.

[Fenris]

Heh--someone on the snackpit pointed out that if you go back to the thread Lib shit all over, Tomndebb doesn't even actually warn Lib. He just says "Everyone get back on topic" or words to that effect.

[WednesdayAddams]

Luckily, he has shied away from my Jesus threads, but probably only because they have so far been completely philosophical in nature. But I'll bet a dime against a dollar that he jumps into the final debate thread: Part V.

I just had an MC moment. I typed, then deleted a bolded 25 point all caps screaming fest about the mangled abortion of philosophy that is those hideous threads.

[jayjay]

Heh--someone on the snackpit pointed out that if you go back to the thread Lib shit all over, Tomndebb doesn't even actually warn Lib. He just says "Everyone get back on topic" or words to that effect.

Actually, that's exactly what Lib was complaining about. He apparently feels that tomndebb should have written "Everybody except Lib get back on topic" because Lib doesn't feel like he was off-topic in the first place. In other words, Lib is complaining that tomndebb didn't call everyone BUT him out.

[Fenris]

:: blinks ::

You're right.

That's even scarier.

And as far as I can tell, everyone but Lib was on topic and that other guy (Tenebras*) didn't get off-topic until Lib threadshit.

*We have to get him to come here. Telling Lib (who'd just gotten Opalnoxious about people not liking his Nazi-based analogies) that
that Andrew Jackson had the best policy toward the Indians. The so-called "Trail of Tears" was for those lazy bastards' own good. If they wanted to be treated like citizens, they should act like citizens. Davy Crockett walked back and forth across this country dozens of times, and killed bears with his bear hands* while he was doing it! So don't tell me it was so hard to walk to Oklahoma or wherever the hell they were off to.

Snerk. Keep in mind that this was ONLY after Lib's overblown "ALL US PRESIDENTS ARE WORSE THAN NAZIS" rhetoric.

[WednesdayAddams]

I'm sorry but I think the idea of moving criticisms and discussions about mod actions from the Pit to ATMB was one of the worst of the new rules.

[whirlingbladesofkick]

Agreed. Assume it's because Ed got sick of people calling mods on their shit with "language" and "hurty words" and whatnot. Gah.

[The Second Stone]

Ya know, all of this would make sense if either Liberal was an Ed Zotti sock puppet or Liberal is the owner of Creative Loafing. Or both.

[Panacea]

No. No, it wouldn't.

Angels in the sky couldn't make Lib and his eleventeen reincarnations, in all their lugubrious splendor, make sense.

[Fenris]

He quit again. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521231)

He no longer wishes to continue.

What does that mean?!

Did someone criticize him? Dare to question him?

[ulfhjorr]

Worse than that...someone asked him to get to the point!

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

He really is a thoroughly pathetic human being.

[Moon Dog]

Can we adopt him ? Please ?

[Hunter Hawk]

Look at the first sentence of his prior post in that thread.

Not getting enough attention + being gently modded in another thread = going off to sulk.

[Who_me?]

Can we adopt him ? Please ?

Will you clean up after him, feed him, and take him for walks?

[Moon Dog]

Will you clean up after him, feed him, and take him for walks?

No. But I'll poke air holes in the garbage can so he can breathe. (And we can poke sticks through them )

[WednesdayAddams]

Someone's going to have to explain to me how PBear was out of line enough to bring the entire shootin match to a screeching halt. He asked what I was puzzling over in thread one and he did it in a much nicer way than I would have.

[Fenris]

I'm guessing he'll get warned for it too by those bastard mods. ;)


^Note Tomndebb style comment: post an insult, but put a winky-face after it so it's ok. Sorta. That big dumb jerk. ;)

[Moon Dog]

Premature ejection ends his latest masturbatory exercise again. You knew it was always going to end in an anti-climax.

[SmartAleq]

Liberal = WATB x 1000. :rolleyes:

What a fucktard...

[Guinastasia]

:: blinks ::

You're right.

That's even scarier.

And as far as I can tell, everyone but Lib was on topic and that other guy (Tenebras*) didn't get off-topic until Lib threadshit.

*We have to get him to come here. Telling Lib (who'd just gotten Opalnoxious about people not liking his Nazi-based analogies) that


Snerk. Keep in mind that this was ONLY after Lib's overblown "ALL US PRESIDENTS ARE WORSE THAN NAZIS" rhetoric.

I confess, I probably contributed to that thread. I probably egged him on. If only though because his obsession with Jackson taking over EVERYTHING SINGLE THREAD about Native American history gets on my nerves. I swear, it wasn't a "junior modding" though, more of a "please, just ignore him, or he'll never shut up."

I think he quit the "Aesthetical Jesus" series because, as he said in his Pitting of Tom, he thinks Der Trihs is going to come in and ruin it?

(Yes, I must confess, it did feel good, though. Yeah, I'm a bitch. )

[WednesdayAddams]

It may well be the excuse he uses, although in reality I think it's closer to the fact that there is no way he can do a logical summation based on the 'evidence' he has presented in those four threads and he knows it. Either that or he has read this thread and the mockery is getting to him. Whichever, it would be a disservice to blame it on Der Trihs. He hasn't touched Liberal's threads yet despite the high probability that he could easily tear them into pieces, why would he start now?

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

I'd love to see Der Trihs hitting that ridiculous thread. It'd be priceless.

[WednesdayAddams]

Thanks for trying, Giraffe (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=522485). I'm not surprised just disappointed.

[Moon Dog]

I'd love to see Der Trihs hitting that ridiculous thread. It'd be priceless.

I'd pay him to do it.

Didn't Liberal pay someone not to post once ?

[jayjay]

I'd pay him to do it.

Didn't Liberal pay someone not to post once ?

pseudotriton ruber ruber, for two years - It was in the context of a major atheist/theist blow-up (I think). The very next lucid period Lib had, he rescinded the requirement for prr to not post, IIRC. It was about six months later.

I'm not a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, but I've long suspected that Lib was manic-depressive...his cycles are pretty extreme. I kind of like him when he's lucid, but when he comes in for a landing, it tends to be a hard one and he's not really all that likeable in that state.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

In my experience, being a douche on the internet is pretty far from extreme manic-depressive behaviour. Think more along the lines of taking your car then leaving the state (note: that did happen, though it wasn't my car and I'm pretty sure they didn't make it out of the state).

[Hunter Hawk]

I'd love to see Der Trihs hitting that ridiculous thread. It'd be priceless.
Actually, I wouldn't love to see that. I'd prefer to see Liberal hoist by his own petard by painting himself into a corner and showing that the emperor has no clothes, without any assistance from folks like Der Trihs.





Why, yes, today is official "Overuse of Aphorisms" day. Didn't you know?

[Guinastasia]

I'd love to see Der Trihs hitting that ridiculous thread. It'd be priceless.

Eh, to be fair, I find Der Trihs to be a dick too. Not because of his beliefs, but because of his way of expressing those beliefs. He's fairly easy to ignore, though.

jayjay -- pretty much. He's a hell of a lot more than just OCD, that's for damned sure. It's a shame, because just when I was starting to get along with him -- BAM!!! (I guess it's the whole doembo thing that pissed me off. He completly lied about how the whole thing went down, when everyone pretty much went out of their way to accomodate him.)

[Moon Dog]

Actually, I wouldn't love to see that. I'd prefer to see Liberal hoist by his own petard by painting himself into a corner and showing that the emperor has no clothes

You forgot to add 'again'.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

Actually, I wouldn't love to see that. I'd prefer to see Liberal hoist by his own petard by painting himself into a corner and showing that the emperor has no clothes, without any assistance from folks like Der Trihs.

Except that it doesn't mean anything. Time and time again he's shown himself a whining, self-absorded, psuedo-intellectual, lying drama queen and every single time people have sucked up to him. Liberal doesn't deserve to be outwitted. He's constantly outwitted, to little or no impact on his ridiculous fanbase. He deserves ridicule and to be shit on with the force that only Der Trihs can muster.

Some situations I think it's most effective to be clever, to outwit the other, to 'hoist on their petard' and show the emperor to be naked, whereas other situations the approach is ineffectual: Like Rand herself, some things can only be dealt with only by being spat at and held up for public execration.

[Doyle]

Except that it doesn't mean anything. Time and time again he's shown himself a whining, self-absorded, psuedo-intellectual, lying drama queen and every single time people have sucked up to him. Liberal doesn't deserve to be outwitted. He's constantly outwitted, to little or no impact on his ridiculous fanbase. He deserves ridicule and to be shit on with the force that only Der Trihs can muster.

Some things I think pay to be outwitted, 'hoist on their petard' and shown to be naked, whereas other things cannot be done so: Like Rand herself, they can only be spat at and held up for public execration.

Sarge, this is starting to sound like a man crush.

[Guinastasia]

But that would only fuel his martyr complex, if it happened with someone like Der Trihs, or Diogenes. (Especially since he's expecting it)

I don't know of anyone who can be more subtle. Someone he considers an "allie" or one of his "dearest friends."

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

Who cares? The fact that no one here was going to buy his bullshit chased him off in a day or so. I don't expect anyone to bother calling him on it there, but it's pretty obvious that, for all he loves being the victim, he can't take real abuse or an audience that won't buy his bullshit.

At this point, amusement is all you can ask for. A game of 'point and laugh at the retard.' You know that any ally or 'dearest friend' would be his worst enemy for a few months and then he'd love them again.

[Moon Dog]

At this point, amusement is all you can ask for. A game of 'point and laugh at the retard.'

That's what I've been doing :)

You know that any ally or 'dearest friend' would be his worst enemy for a few months and then he'd love them again.

Months ? If he is Bi-Polar he is rapid cycling bigtime.

[Fenris]

Eh, to be fair, I find Der Trihs to be a dick too. Not because of his beliefs, but because of his way of expressing those beliefs. He's fairly easy to ignore, though.
It pisses me off that Tomn gives him a free pass for threadshitting though. The argument that he's easily ignorable and everyone knows what he's gonna say anyway doesn't cut the fact that he did (he's really cut back in the last year or so) threadshit every single religion thread.

If the question is "Could the biblical battle of Jericho be considered the first use of sonic weapons?", it's not a appropriate to pop into the thread and say "Religion is tEh suXXorz!" which was his MO for years. Tom giving him a pass kinda pisses me off.

And Lib clearly has up and down cycles--the problem is that the period between the cycles is so damned short. They seem to go

Paranoid/Angry->Stomps off->snivelly/apologetic->quasi-normal->Euphoric/Maniac->Maniac->Paranoid Maniac->Angry Maniac->Paranoid/angry.

...keeping in mind that he occasionally backslides (two forward, one back type thing

[Fenris]

Months ? If he is Bi-Polar he is rapid cycling bigtime.
The cycles used to be like 6-8 months apart. Now? More like...um...when was Seven's pitting? He was in the euphoric/maniac part of his phase. Note the whole "I'm on druuuuugs and nothing you can say can bother me!" stuff.

The bestest friend/worstest enemy thing doesn't quite fit the cycle. He makes enemies during one of the paranoid ("YOU PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET ME"--you can see it in the recent ATMBing of Tomndebb where he accuses Der Trihs of...kinda not stalking him. So he's clearly waiting...lurking...:foil:) parts of his cycle and makes bestest friends during the maniac parts, but the two don't have to overlap. You're his bestest friend as long as you don't cross him during a paranoid or angry phase and you're his worstest enemy unless he offers you troo luv during his apologetic phase.

[WednesdayAddams]

The cycles used to be like 6-8 months apart. Now? More like...um...when was Seven's pitting?

Cinco de Mayo.

[Uthrecht]

Have you set up a Facebook fan site yet, Fenris? ;)

[Roo]

The Sarge can be the first to link. :p

[Victor Frankenstein]

While we're on the subject, I must say 7's pitting of him was a thing of beauty and a joy to behold. Brought a tear to my eye, it did. Mostly because I was laughing through the entire thing. We need to copyright the term "sociopathic douche cunt."

ETA: The smack down of this year's frank was a special added bonus.

Thank you. *bows*

That thread was fun. He's been bugging me for years and I decided to have some fun with him.

You know what is also funny? I got a bunch of IMs at the dope cheering me on during that time - although I wish people had said in the thread what they said to me in IM. :)

To be honest, I don't hate the guy. I find him to be just one of the thousand trolls you find online - kind of like gnats in the woods. They bug you, you swat at them, but they don't ruin your day.

[Guinastasia]

It pisses me off that Tomn gives him a free pass for threadshitting though. The argument that he's easily ignorable and everyone knows what he's gonna say anyway doesn't cut the fact that he did (he's really cut back in the last year or so) threadshit every single religion thread.

If the question is "Could the biblical battle of Jericho be considered the first use of sonic weapons?", it's not a appropriate to pop into the thread and say "Religion is tEh suXXorz!" which was his MO for years. Tom giving him a pass kinda pisses me off.

Very, very true. But I try not to let it get to me, because it doesn't do any good. It's not like anything's going to change. He's just a fundy atheist, really.

(Although if he says "all US service men should die" one more fucking time, he's in the fucking Pit. I've got family over there, goddammit)

But I can tolerate him. There are plenty of dicks on the SD, he's just one of many. I HATE hijacks, though. Which is probably why Lib pisses me off so much, and why it seems like I've had such a hard-on for him lately. It's like, HOW many threads has he ruined, and taken with his own crap. The Native American thread was the most recent. I'm seriously surprised he hasn't come back to domebo yet.

7 -- was that the one when he first came back, after the whole, "Well, we're moving, don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!"?

[Victor Frankenstein]

There were two pit threads in a short period of time. I don't have the links at the moment.

It was after he left Domebo and went back to the dope a sock started a Liberal pit thread. It was shutdown. I restarted it.

Then, a week or so later, someone else started a pit thread for Liberal and I jumped in that one as well.

One of the two threads I said a few things that REALLY pissed a few people off. I think it was the second. I can't remember what I said though.

[Fenris]

You didn't believe his medical drama or family tragedies that crop up oh-so-coincidentially when he's being pitted.

(Flesh-eating bacteria was his second most recent. The grandkid with the helmet thing was the most recent one. You even pissed off Grien-Dutchman because you doubted that one.)

For me, I don't care if they're true or not. Trotting them out when you're being pitted and using them as a defense is pathetic.

[Roo]

Liberal, did they kick you out (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=517412) by Flying Dutchman

What Seven said with reaction by Flying Dutchman (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11146264&postcount=158)

Liberal, you dickwad hypocrite - Part 2 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=516566) by Seven

[WednesdayAddams]

Well, you called him a sociopathic douche cunt. That wasn't it. Lemme look. Wait. Guin, you're the one who got offended, no? Why were you so pissed at our uber geek?

[Victor Frankenstein]

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. It was when I started calling him a liar about everything that people jumped my shit.

That was pretty funny really.

[Fenris]

What's funny was the hysterical, overwrought reaction from Grienspace (AKA The Flying Dutchman). He's been up Lib's nose so often he knows Lib's boogers by name.

But you're DEAD TO HIM, 7 D-E-D Ded!!! for being so crool.

[Panacea]

He seemed so exasperated that anyone would expect him to keep his stories straight.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I'm too lazy and uninterested to go back and re-read those threads, but I recall something that cracked me up.

I pissed off one poster who said something like "you make me sick - I'm done with you."

But, then he kept replying to me.:smack:

[Guinastasia]

Well, you called him a sociopathic douche cunt. That wasn't it. Lemme look. Wait. Guin, you're the one who got offended, no? Why were you so pissed at our uber geek?

How dare you pick on me! Don't you care I'm an obsessive-compulsive epileptic with an allergy to penicillin?!?! And I'm having oral-surgery on Wednesday...which is my BIRTHDAY, goddammit!!!

Mostly because it sounded like he had some big secret to spill...and never paid off. So it only have Lib more martyr points. And to be fair, he DID post a picture of his grandson wearing his helmet.

But...dude shouldn't bring his medical ailments up EVERY time he's in a Pit thread.

I think he's got naked pictures of Ed Zotti or something.

[WednesdayAddams]

When did the epilepsy start? :p

That's right, now I remember. Those threads were moving so fast it was hard to keep up.

[Guinastasia]

Two, no -- almost three years ago. (Runs in the family)

But I've never used it in a thread to gain sympathy. Well, except to bitch that poor me -- I wish I could have caffeine. I miss it so damned much.

[WednesdayAddams]

Really? Holy fuck, Guin I thought you were joking. Sorry to hear that. Are you able to control it with meds?

[Uthrecht]

What? No! You can't just let her off because she's talking about her epilepsy! Keep at her! Grill her! C'mon! You....

(what? not her pitting?)


... oh. Carry on, then.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Liberal, you dickwad hypocrite - Part 2 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=516566) by Seven

Oh man. I remember that thread now. That's the one I got a warning for using the word cunt (which I honestly couldn't remember if it was still on the banned list).

I love how they don't want the word cunt used, but to issue a warning they quote the text.

My two posts contained a total of 4 cunts. To warn me Gfactor had to quote the posts which brought the count up to 8 cunts. When I replied back I quoted Gfactor quoting me - which brought the count up to 12 cunts total. :D

Stupid.

[Fenris]

I'm too lazy and uninterested to go back and re-read those threads, but I recall something that cracked me up.

I pissed off one poster who said something like "you make me sick - I'm done with you."

But, then he kept replying to me.:smack:

That was GrienDutchman--and was frankly more lucid than many of his posts.

[Fenris]

How dare you pick on me! Don't you care I'm an obsessive-compulsive epileptic with an allergy to penicillin?!?! And I'm having oral-surgery on Wednesday...which is my BIRTHDAY, goddammit!!!

Mostly because it sounded like he had some big secret to spill...and never paid off. So it only have Lib more martyr points. And to be fair, he DID post a picture of his grandson wearing his helmet.
Actually, to be technical, he posted a pic of a kid wearing a helmet.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (because he offered to have Poly or Trisk verify that this was really his grandkid, not because I have any faith in him), but we don't KNOW that it was his kid.

But...dude shouldn't bring his medical ailments up EVERY time he's in a Pit thread.
Quibble: it's not "every time he's in a Pit thread", it's "Every time he's losing an argument."

Lookit the "Dead brother, held down by pernicious under-achievers JUST LIKE ME RIGHT NOW!!!" thread.

[Victor Frankenstein]

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (because he offered to have Poly or Trisk verify that this was really his grandkid, not because I have any faith in him), but we don't KNOW that it was his kid.

He offered someone OTHER than me to verify the story.. to prove it to me.

I thought that was rich.

[Guinastasia]

Really? Holy fuck, Guin I thought you were joking. Sorry to hear that. Are you able to control it with meds?

For the most part, yeah. Like I said, caffeine is a trigger. (Before I was medicated, strong smells, like weird perfumes and such). It sucks, but oh well. It mostly means I can't drive.

(It's all true -- it's funny how it fits right in. Oh well, hopefully they'll give me some good drugs. That vicodin didn't do shit.)

Topic? IF that's not his kid, then that's pretty sick. I'd be pissed if someone was using a picture of my kid like that. WAAAAY pissed.

[hajario]

nitpick: It's supposed to be his grandkid.

[Guinastasia]

nitpick: It's supposed to be his grandkid.

Oh, yeah, I knew that. :smack:

[ulfhjorr]

Premature ejection ends his latest masturbatory exercise again. You knew it was always going to end in an anti-climax.

Well, looks like the refractory period is over and he's beating his meat, I mean a long-dead horse once again... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11295969&postcount=47)

Oh, and he brought Jackson and his hurt widdle feewings with him. Shocker, I know!

[SmartAleq]

Well, looks like the refractory period is over and he's beating his meat, I mean a long-dead horse once again... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11295969&postcount=47)

Oh, and he brought Jackson and his hurt widdle feewings with him. Shocker, I know!

...and the sound of relentless *fapping* was heard throughout the land...

:smack:

[WednesdayAddams]

Oh, and he brought Jackson and his hurt widdle feewings with him. Shocker, I know!

Help me here. What does Jackson have to do with epistemology and aesthetics and that series of threads in general? No really. WTF?

[SmartAleq]

Help me here. What does Jackson have to do with epistemology and aesthetics and that series of threads in general? No really. WTF?

I used to be married to a bipolar person. For a long time I'd try to reason with him and ask him questions like, "Now, you can see our baby son right here, yes? You can see he's a little baby, right? So can you see that it's not likely that he's actually 100 years old and talking to you inside your head right now, right? You can understand why that doesn't make sense, right?"

I never got anywhere with those types of questions and something tells me you're gonna get about the same level of satisfaction I got. :smack:

[Guinastasia]

Hurt feelings? Most important thing ever?

I think I would say he IS OCD as well -- the Jackson thing, the snarkers crap, he really IS obsessed with both.

Oh, and did anyone read his comments on Charter Membership:

BigT, I'm afraid it turns out that the technical difficulties of a Charter Member sponsoring a guest are insurmountable, at least for the foreseeable future.

Let me explain the nature of the problem to you. I actually DID go through all the motions of sponsoring you, and I did them correctly. My credit card (actually, my debit card) was charged for the transaction, which I verified by checking my account online. It was in "Transactions on Hold", meaning that the bank had already deducted it from my balance, but had not yet posted it on my account ledger.

Therefore, there was no question that an economic transaction occurred.

What did NOT occur, however, was the establishment of you as a member. Now, the reason that happened was because the drop-down box that lists the prices listed only the one price for a Charter Membership. You cannot qualify for a Charter Membership, and therefore your membership was not assigned.

Now, I've been assured that the money I paid will be credited, I won't be out any money in the long run (depending on how swiftly Straight Dope issues the credit.) But sadly, since there is no option for renewing regular membership in my User CP (the only option is for renewing Charter Membership), sponsoring you is, for me, a metaphysical impossibility.

BUT...

There is a thread in which you can request sponsorship (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=503682&page=3), and knowing this community, a regular member will be along lickety split to sponsor you.

You might ask why Charter Membership is so special, and what's the big deal about it. Even many Charter Members themselves ask this. And I can answer only for myself. There was a time when Straight Dope was in need of cash, and went pay to post. Not pay to read; pay to post. And so, you really had to care about being here if you intended actually to pay for the privilege of posting.

But the Dope had a need, and hundreds of us (maybe a thousand or more) responded. We were offered a special rate — about half the normal member rate — if we would suscribe within a specified period of time. Once that time had expired, there were to be no more Charter Members. Only regular members and the rate would double.

And so we, the Charter Members, were like Charter Members of any organization. We were the ones who helped launch it. We were the ones who stuck our necks out, because it was not even guaranteed that the board would continue at all. No one knew whether our money would be enough.

Because of the risk. Because of the being first. Because of believing in the community (despite my recent unfortunate attempt at moving away). Because of helping when help was needed, we earned our titles of Charter Member. And the agreement was that we would be Charter Members for life so long as we renewed before our membership expired.

Some of us who have the title Charter Member couldn't care less. But others of us are proud of it, because of what it represents that we did for the board. So that's the gist of it

Go to the thread I linked you to and just post up a request. You'll be sponsored quickly by someone. I do hope that someday soon, the glitch in the sotware will be corrected so that Charter Members can once again sponsor quests. Know that I would have (and in fact, thought I did.) Good luck, my friend.

[The Second Stone]

Maybe we should all stop baiting someone who is mentally ill. You think?

[timbicile]

Maybe we should all stop baiting someone who is mentally ill. You think?

So we will leave you alone. OK?

[Guinastasia]

I would agree, if that somebody hadn't baited the rest of us since he first signed up. That and being ill is no excuse for being a dick.

[Darmund]

Maybe we should all stop baiting someone who is mentally ill. You think?
No, but thank you for your input. You are hereby excused from participating.

[WednesdayAddams]

Maybe we should all stop baiting someone who is mentally ill. You think?

That would mean ceasing interaction with roughly 2/3 of teh intarwebs.

[Guinastasia]

Maybe we should all stop baiting someone who is mentally ill. You think?

And speaking of baiting someone... (http://giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=1117)

[The Second Stone]

I never thought Ruby was mentally ill. You, yes. I don't suppose epileptic counts, but your obsessive posting style does get me a bit worried.

[timbicile]

The first stone called and wants you to crawl back under it.

[Darmund]

I never thought Ruby was mentally ill. You, yes. I don't suppose epileptic counts, but your obsessive posting style does get me a bit worried.
Yes, your worry is palpable. Are you getting enough oxygen up on that high horse? Perhaps the rarefied air is making you dizzy. Maybe you and Roo could go start your own Concern Troll forum where you pat each other on the back about how much better you are than the rest of the meanies on the intarweb.

[Veb]

The first stone called and wants you to crawl back under it.
I snickered. Okay, I guffawed.

Well played, sir.

[The Second Stone]

I'm not on a high horse, I'm at ground level. It only looks that way because of your perspective.

[Darmund]

Right. You're taking potshots at Guin (as easy a target as ever existed), but it's not because you're a sanctimonious douchebag... you're worried about her. Sure.

And you think we shouldn't PALATR at crazy attention-whore Lib because you're worried about the delicate state of his mental health. You're not trying to score any holier-than-thou points or anything. Right...