True Crime Thread
- Thread starter magerette
- Start date
Aha, I am not qualified for that, but he is qualified to tell Thrasher that he should die?
And you are qualified to say that I make an ass of myself?
This is a slight case of double standards, I think.
And that you are talking about educated opinions is really a good joke.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,821
dteowner
Shoegazer
Once more, nice and slow. I said that people should expect and accept specific treatment. Nightstick kiss for being an ass to a cop. Expect it. Don't cry when you get it. "Deserve" has no place in the discussion, no matter how many times you try to put it in my mouth.
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Just to interject… Rith, I for one would be majorly bummed if you got banned (or just walked away in frustration).
That said, speaking as one who has been struggling with a nasty temper for 39 years today… let it go, if you can. Getting yourself banned from here won't harm Thrasher the least bit, but it would harm the cause of intellectual integrity.
Or, to quote a NetHack fortune cookie, "Kicking the terminal won't hurt the monsters."
That said, speaking as one who has been struggling with a nasty temper for 39 years today… let it go, if you can. Getting yourself banned from here won't harm Thrasher the least bit, but it would harm the cause of intellectual integrity.
Or, to quote a NetHack fortune cookie, "Kicking the terminal won't hurt the monsters."
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Good thing your post where you say it's 'legalese bullshit' and bashed the 1969 court for a 2010 case is still up, Thrasher. But then again, that's your modus operandi, isn't it? Say something utterly pathetic and stupid, then lie and pretend it never happened? Good thing I can quote you, then!
You heard it, folks. Thrasher bitches about 'giving corporations more rights than human beings', but then suggests we ignore standing case law that gives rights to human beings he dislikes so they can be thrown in prison for hurting his feelings. What a class act! Just like when he tried to say military items make up the majority of the budget!
I guess Thrasher's previous post is a biased source though. Obviously the GOP hacked into his computer and had it post that, because Thrasher never would be inconsistent in his political "views", such as they are.
You heard it, folks. Thrasher bitches about 'giving corporations more rights than human beings', but then suggests we ignore standing case law that gives rights to human beings he dislikes so they can be thrown in prison for hurting his feelings. What a class act! Just like when he tried to say military items make up the majority of the budget!
I guess Thrasher's previous post is a biased source though. Obviously the GOP hacked into his computer and had it post that, because Thrasher never would be inconsistent in his political "views", such as they are.
dteowner said:
Good, that you didn't use the word deserve in that context.
Edit: You get the weasel award for this brilliant piece.
Another edit: This closes the discussion for me.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,821
dteowner
Shoegazer
Well shit, guilty as charged.
Can I claim that was an emotional response to your emotional projection on a strictly non-emotional situation?
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Oh, I know it wouldn't really serve a point, but as I told Corwin quite a few times, I would not respect Thrasher (or treat him civilly) as long as he maintained his intellectual dishonesty. Really, referring to SCOTUS as 'legalese bullshit' was the last straw.
I'll freely admit I am being an ass, PJ, but to be completely honest I feel it is deserving on his part. Do I honestly wish him to die? No. But since any rational, reasoned argument falls on deaf ears - no matter how well sourced, no matter how well written, no matter how well thought out - why should I bother? He's like that 30% of Americans who absolutely refuse to admit that Bush was a disaster: nothing will change his mind.
Why should I put up with it? It's not just a mere disagreement over issues. You and I disagree all the time. And hell, guess what? You moved me over on Universal Health Care. You moved me over on various security and terrorism related issues. You even managed to make me more accepting of the UN as a valid and somewhat worthwhile organization.
Thrasher is not capable of reasoned thought, having his mind changed, or even understanding an opposing view point. He is quite literally just a mouth piece for Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. If I wanted to know what they thought, I'd go watch them being interviewed on CNN or Meet the Press. But with Thrasher? He doesn't like Sarah Palin, so by golly, she's trying to incite violence and should be thrown in prison! It doesn't matter what the definition of these terms are, or what is protected speech, not to mention the fact she didn't intend for it to happen, but she should be thrown in prison for it!
Why bother, PJ? Seriously, why bother? I honestly would rather get banned (and I imagine I will, when Corwin or Mike log on) for actually speaking my mind (albeit hyperbolically) than just pretend like Thrasher is actually an honest participant in any discussion.
dteowner
Shoegazer
Holy shit, the infection is worse than we thought. How did we miss this, doctors? Such promise, too.... Well, he's still young. Perhaps he can pull thru. Get him on a round of our best antibiotics stat. We'll get that insidious liberalism out of his system somehow.
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Nah, once it gets in the bloodstream, it moves straight to the bone marrow.
I'm staying out of this one, guys, but you all know that I'm the poster girl for losing my temper and embarrassing myself, so I think you know what I'd have to say here anyway. After the way I've talked to some people, I'm not going to venture into giving anyone any pot-kettle-blackian advice.
I'm staying out of this one, guys, but you all know that I'm the poster girl for losing my temper and embarrassing myself, so I think you know what I'd have to say here anyway. After the way I've talked to some people, I'm not going to venture into giving anyone any pot-kettle-blackian advice.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
@Rith: Why should you put up with it? You shouldn't. I would very much miss seeing you speak your mind and argue your case here, and I would by no means ask you to pretend that you think something about someone that you don't believe.
However, I also believe that giving free rein to your anger won't do anyone or anything any good. All it'll do is feed things that are better off not being fed, in Thrasher, on the board here in general, and not least in yourself. Righteous indignation is a heady drink, but gives you a mighty hangover.
And yeah, pot, kettle, yadda yadda yadda. Still, if I was a perfect saint, I wouldn't be speaking from experience, would I now?
However, I also believe that giving free rein to your anger won't do anyone or anything any good. All it'll do is feed things that are better off not being fed, in Thrasher, on the board here in general, and not least in yourself. Righteous indignation is a heady drink, but gives you a mighty hangover.
And yeah, pot, kettle, yadda yadda yadda. Still, if I was a perfect saint, I wouldn't be speaking from experience, would I now?
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
dteowner
Shoegazer
How does one deal with a person that has no intellectual integrity, though? It's not like this is a first time thing. Thrasher has been getting atomic wedgies over and over for a year or more, and somehow he soldiers on, blissfully oblivious. I'm all for serious discussion and I'm certainly not above the occasional bloody lip, but there's got to be a basic acceptance of fundamentals. A willingness to listen, and a willingness to admit when you've gotten spanked.
For example, although I stand by my original point, krueger-san has clearly bitchslapped me in extremis on a technicality a couple posts above. There's no point in denying it. It's right there for everyone to see. So I admit defeat and jump back in the trench, wiser for the experience, and ready for the next battle. Thrasher has had conflicting posts of his quoted back-to-back like that, more than once, and skips along like it never happened. He's had statements proved patently false by independent outside source, more than once, and skips along like it never happened. It's positively infuriating and it just fundmentally violates everything an intellectual debate is supposed to be.
I suppose there's always the "turn the other cheek" approach, but there's limits to that. We're all egotistical enough to think there's an audience impatiently waiting for our next post, even if the audience really is limited to the same old 5 of us that actually post. But with ego comes responsibility. If there's complete bullshit posted here, I have an obligation to my "legion of readers" to identify it as such, just as Mags has an obligation to slap me down if I said Obama wants to enslave white people (remember that sign?). Appeasement doesn't work in the long run, so you've got to bring the implements of destruction at some point. Letting lies go is shirking my responsibility.
I can't speak for Rith, but it's pretty obvious at least some of this applies to him as well. So what's the appropriate response?
For example, although I stand by my original point, krueger-san has clearly bitchslapped me in extremis on a technicality a couple posts above. There's no point in denying it. It's right there for everyone to see. So I admit defeat and jump back in the trench, wiser for the experience, and ready for the next battle. Thrasher has had conflicting posts of his quoted back-to-back like that, more than once, and skips along like it never happened. He's had statements proved patently false by independent outside source, more than once, and skips along like it never happened. It's positively infuriating and it just fundmentally violates everything an intellectual debate is supposed to be.
I suppose there's always the "turn the other cheek" approach, but there's limits to that. We're all egotistical enough to think there's an audience impatiently waiting for our next post, even if the audience really is limited to the same old 5 of us that actually post. But with ego comes responsibility. If there's complete bullshit posted here, I have an obligation to my "legion of readers" to identify it as such, just as Mags has an obligation to slap me down if I said Obama wants to enslave white people (remember that sign?). Appeasement doesn't work in the long run, so you've got to bring the implements of destruction at some point. Letting lies go is shirking my responsibility.
I can't speak for Rith, but it's pretty obvious at least some of this applies to him as well. So what's the appropriate response?
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
You would think the appropriate response would be what Rith and Prime J and the rest of us habitually try to do, refute things with sourced facts and in detail. But when that just doesn't work, you do what you do at home—start screaming. Or you can OD on negative smilies, I guess. 
There's a certain hamster that used to post here, naming no squeeks, that had the exact same effect on me as Thrasher has on Rith, and I tried laboriously for many moons to deal—going between sane and rational responses to out and out teeth gnashing to the ignore list option. But I have to say, actually telling the guy off was very liberating, and settled things perhaps for both of us. Of course, he hasn't come back to try my sanity, so I can't say how well that method holds up over time.
Edit: @dte: you'd better not delay those vital posts—you have a contract, bud.
There's a certain hamster that used to post here, naming no squeeks, that had the exact same effect on me as Thrasher has on Rith, and I tried laboriously for many moons to deal—going between sane and rational responses to out and out teeth gnashing to the ignore list option. But I have to say, actually telling the guy off was very liberating, and settled things perhaps for both of us. Of course, he hasn't come back to try my sanity, so I can't say how well that method holds up over time.
Edit: @dte: you'd better not delay those vital posts—you have a contract, bud.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
I don't know if there is *a* right way.
My primary objective with net.discussions these days is to protect my own sanity. I've stayed up way too many nights, felt rotten on way too many days about stuff that really, ultimately, matters very little.
My secondary objective is to get the word out, whatever the word is.
If I find that it's impossible to talk to somebody without having my blood pressure shoot past safety levels, for whatever reason, I walk away (or try to; lately with perhaps a bit more success than some years ago). If I don't do that, I know what'll happen -- I'll blow a gasket and start ranting incoherently, very probably say something I'll regret, and will only feel more rotten about it than otherwise.
Hell, dte, take your fine self. I honestly *like* your fascist redneck stubborn self, but much of the time you drive me completely bonkers. We've been there. I've felt rotten about it, and I suspect that some barb of that may have penetrated even the pitch-black capitalist running-dog lump of coal that you have for a heart. What good did *that* ever do to anyone? Not a damn thing, I think.
So, I walk away. And come back. And we argue some more. And somebody's listening, maybe, and one day they'll be thinking that hm, that PJ sure is full of himself today, good thing we have dte to take him down a peg, and another day they'll be thinking that boy, did that PJ trip dte up but good this time. And, perhaps, little by little, a bit of it trickles through, and we understand each other just an iota better, or perhaps somebody reading gets something out of it, and it won't completely go to waste.
Not that I'm comparing you to any of the other people involved in this thread, mind, in any other way.
Oh, and, what if someone just isn't worth the trouble? If he's so irredeemably dishonest, stubborn, invincibly ignorant, and generally no fun at all that he's really not worth talking to? Then DON'T TALK TO HIM. Instead, talk to the general public -- deconstruct his/her/its arguments for public scrutiny. Point at the leaps of logic, made up facts, fallacious reasoning, and what have you, and giggle. The crowd will giggle with you, even if it won't make the slightest chink in said invincible ignorant's armor.
Also, do as I say, not as I do.
My primary objective with net.discussions these days is to protect my own sanity. I've stayed up way too many nights, felt rotten on way too many days about stuff that really, ultimately, matters very little.
My secondary objective is to get the word out, whatever the word is.
If I find that it's impossible to talk to somebody without having my blood pressure shoot past safety levels, for whatever reason, I walk away (or try to; lately with perhaps a bit more success than some years ago). If I don't do that, I know what'll happen -- I'll blow a gasket and start ranting incoherently, very probably say something I'll regret, and will only feel more rotten about it than otherwise.
Hell, dte, take your fine self. I honestly *like* your fascist redneck stubborn self, but much of the time you drive me completely bonkers. We've been there. I've felt rotten about it, and I suspect that some barb of that may have penetrated even the pitch-black capitalist running-dog lump of coal that you have for a heart. What good did *that* ever do to anyone? Not a damn thing, I think.
So, I walk away. And come back. And we argue some more. And somebody's listening, maybe, and one day they'll be thinking that hm, that PJ sure is full of himself today, good thing we have dte to take him down a peg, and another day they'll be thinking that boy, did that PJ trip dte up but good this time. And, perhaps, little by little, a bit of it trickles through, and we understand each other just an iota better, or perhaps somebody reading gets something out of it, and it won't completely go to waste.
Not that I'm comparing you to any of the other people involved in this thread, mind, in any other way.
Oh, and, what if someone just isn't worth the trouble? If he's so irredeemably dishonest, stubborn, invincibly ignorant, and generally no fun at all that he's really not worth talking to? Then DON'T TALK TO HIM. Instead, talk to the general public -- deconstruct his/her/its arguments for public scrutiny. Point at the leaps of logic, made up facts, fallacious reasoning, and what have you, and giggle. The crowd will giggle with you, even if it won't make the slightest chink in said invincible ignorant's armor.
Also, do as I say, not as I do.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
As always, the rational and elegant solution. Well, more so than "start screaming" anyway.
But it's so hard NOT to talk to them! Even ignore doesn't work. You end up wanting to peek at whatever assclown saying is happening beneath the hidden folds of the interface. I put my money on walking away, mostly now, as you suggest, or sometimes I'll write a long diatribe, but delete nine-tenths of it before I post, thus relieving my feelings and not embarrassing myself simultaneously. I actually have a folder on my desktop that contains most of my longer, more violent and mostly unposted rants, as I get attached to them.
Sad, eh.
But it's so hard NOT to talk to them! Even ignore doesn't work. You end up wanting to peek at whatever assclown saying is happening beneath the hidden folds of the interface. I put my money on walking away, mostly now, as you suggest, or sometimes I'll write a long diatribe, but delete nine-tenths of it before I post, thus relieving my feelings and not embarrassing myself simultaneously. I actually have a folder on my desktop that contains most of my longer, more violent and mostly unposted rants, as I get attached to them.
Sad, eh.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Wrong again. I said she should be thrown in jail for threatening Congressmen. If you can't understand why, truly, then it's just a case of morals. Who cares if the SCOTUS rule otherwise? The law is the law. There is also right and wrong. Guess what, they are not always in sync.
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Thanks for the comments, dte, PJ, and mags.
I pretty much agree with everything you guys have said. I mean, discussing things and providing evidence has clearly failed every time I (and dte) have done it over the past year or so. Really, what is the point of engaging at this point? You guys are right - I should just ignore the guy because he's not worth any time or energy on my part.
Mags has seen/heard a lot of this, so it's not news to her, but in the things I do off this site, I've run into someone with the lovely handle of "Mystical Forest". He's a right-wing birther, tea party to the extreme, sarah palin lovin', bible-thumpin' creationist. No matter how many times people have consistently explained to him why the things he says are wrong, he just sticks to his same story, and says things like "You atheist liberals are a bunch of stupid rejects". He honestly believes he wins every single argument he ever engages in. He has another buddy, Mr. Crazy Dudeful, who engages in similar behavior. He claimed Gordon Brown was blind (in both eyes, and thus was incapable of watching the DVDs Obama gave him). I quoted around a dozen news articles, interviews with Brown talking about his eyesight, etc. His response? "Gordon Brown is blind because i know he is and reports say he is". Yet he couldn't back anything up with any source, argument, etc. He just obstinately refused to change his mind. Any thing you got out of them was ripped from Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin.
Those two people are the right-wing equivalents of Thrasher. Getting an honest answer is absolutely impossible, getting him to admit fault is impossible, getting him to change his mind or admit the other side may have a point is impossible. Hell, in his own mind the entire Republican party exists to just get rich off of other people and are directly responsible for drugs in the inner cities and the poor shooting each other (his words, not mine). There really is no point engaging with someone who is that much of a shill for an ideological viewpoint that he is incapable of realizing that his subjective, uneducated opinions are not objective facts or truth.
So you three are right - to the ignore box he goes.
I pretty much agree with everything you guys have said. I mean, discussing things and providing evidence has clearly failed every time I (and dte) have done it over the past year or so. Really, what is the point of engaging at this point? You guys are right - I should just ignore the guy because he's not worth any time or energy on my part.
Mags has seen/heard a lot of this, so it's not news to her, but in the things I do off this site, I've run into someone with the lovely handle of "Mystical Forest". He's a right-wing birther, tea party to the extreme, sarah palin lovin', bible-thumpin' creationist. No matter how many times people have consistently explained to him why the things he says are wrong, he just sticks to his same story, and says things like "You atheist liberals are a bunch of stupid rejects". He honestly believes he wins every single argument he ever engages in. He has another buddy, Mr. Crazy Dudeful, who engages in similar behavior. He claimed Gordon Brown was blind (in both eyes, and thus was incapable of watching the DVDs Obama gave him). I quoted around a dozen news articles, interviews with Brown talking about his eyesight, etc. His response? "Gordon Brown is blind because i know he is and reports say he is". Yet he couldn't back anything up with any source, argument, etc. He just obstinately refused to change his mind. Any thing you got out of them was ripped from Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin.
Those two people are the right-wing equivalents of Thrasher. Getting an honest answer is absolutely impossible, getting him to admit fault is impossible, getting him to change his mind or admit the other side may have a point is impossible. Hell, in his own mind the entire Republican party exists to just get rich off of other people and are directly responsible for drugs in the inner cities and the poor shooting each other (his words, not mine). There really is no point engaging with someone who is that much of a shill for an ideological viewpoint that he is incapable of realizing that his subjective, uneducated opinions are not objective facts or truth.
So you three are right - to the ignore box he goes.
People, let me explain this simply for the umpteenth time: I DON'T CARE what arguments, or idiocies any of you raise or support. What I DO CARE about is that there be NO PERSONAL INSULTS OR THREATS!!!!!!! I WILL delete any and ALL posts containing such based on MY judgement. If I delete a post I will issue an infraction. I can't permanently BAN people; only the admin can do that and specifically Jaz or Myrthos. They can also over-ride any decisions I or any other mod makes. OK, PLEASE avoid the personal stuff- it doesn't help your arguments and it does get you in trouble. Remember, maturity is knowing when to keep your mouth shut!!