Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More dishonesty from Pudge -- proven

Red Flayer (890720) writes | more than 4 years ago

User Journal 27

Pudge has apparently been cured of last-post-itis, at least temporarily.

I stated that Pudge claims someone is lying because he disagrees with them on a matter of opinion. He, of course, claimed I was lying, and that he does no such thing -- multiple times. I then trapped him in his lie by providing incontrovertible evidence that he does, in fact, do what I claim he did.Pudge has apparently been cured of last-post-itis, at least temporarily.

I stated that Pudge claims someone is lying because he disagrees with them on a matter of opinion. He, of course, claimed I was lying, and that he does no such thing -- multiple times. I then trapped him in his lie by providing incontrovertible evidence that he does, in fact, do what I claim he did.

Here's the post where it happened.

I'm waiting on a response from him (of course, he claimed he wouldn't respond to any more posts of mine because I was lying -- let's see if he changes his tune because I proved that I was telling the truth).

And Pudge, if you happen to read this journal entry, please go ahead and comment freely. Feel free to crapflood it if you like, since you have no forced waiting periods on posts. Unlike those who are afraid of having their lies and inconsistencies pointed out, I let my foes and freaks post in my journal. I'm curious to see how you might try to explain the fact that you indeed falsely accused me of lying, and lied yourself in the process.

cancel ×

27 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pudge-o-liscious Pudge-o-rama (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31795074)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Pudge. Pudge has (perhaps more so as of lately) made a habit of redefining words. Indeed, a while ago he left a comment [slashdot.org] that could be taken to be perhaps a general distaste for dictionaries. Perhaps the English language as currently used is itself too liberal for him?

That said, while Pudge loves to redefine words on the fly, he is seldom willing to actually share his new definitions with us. I was considering using his recent antics in my friends [slashdot.org] recent journal entry [slashdot.org] as a springboard towards writing a "Pudge-to-English dictionary". If we tallied it up, we would could easily find a half-dozen words he used in that long discussion that require special definitions in order to make sense to anyone other than Pudge himself.

All that said, I will at this point also point out that if you write about Pudge too often, people might start accusing you of being me.

(off-topic) (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31804130)

--
Slashdotters who favor murder [slashdot.org]

While you're at it, make a list of those who favor child porn. I've been sickened to see in discussions under articles involving pedophile cases that invariably a few will come out and assert there's nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately, having a site that caters to the godless Left, is naturally gonna attract some really sick fucks.

(And don't bother making a list of those who favor theft, as no one has that kind of time!)

Re:(off-topic) (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31804946)

a site that caters to the godless Left

What site would that be? Slashdot seems to be more conservative every week lately. Off the top of my head I cannot easily think of a single site of any significance that explicitly caters to the "godless left". I can think of some sites that cater to the "American left" - that is, people who would be considered moderately conservative in just about any other country - but none that explicitly aim for "godless left". There are plenty of people on "the left" in the USA who hold some specific theological belief in support of one or more deities.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31808886)

Do you Lefties really want to live your lives going around trying to con people all the time?

Re:(off-topic) (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31810244)

Do you Lefties really want to live your lives going around trying to con people all the time?

Please elaborate on that, I don't see where you get that notion from.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817192)

Unfortunately, having a site that caters to the godless Left, is naturally gonna attract some really sick fucks.

Slashdot caters to both the godless left and the fundie right. I'm not definite on which of those two categories is more likely to attract the pedos, but I've got a pretty strong hunch it's the far-right wingnuts who are more likely to have that stance.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31819728)

Slashdot caters to both the godless left and the fundie right

I'd be interested to know what in your mind makes Slashdot read like say a Focus on the Family newsletter. (Or if I shouldn't take you seriously either.)

Re:(off-topic) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31820870)

I'd be interested to know what in your mind makes Slashdot read like say a Focus on the Family newsletter.

Your posts..

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31821560)

My point is that you'll find a wide range of views on slashdot, all over the spectrum. From the whacko left to the whacko right. Since it's a tech site, probably the religious fundies are not represented strongly... but the conservative fundies surely are.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31822020)

Then I don't think "caters" means what you think it means. It sounds like we've had a simple English comprehension problem, as I certainly wasn't referring to anything like the range of views here.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31822908)

It appears I left out a step in my post, part of the logic that I thought obvious and unnecessary to state.

You did state that the sight caters to the godless left, correct?

I happen to disagree, and think the site caters to the right much more than it caters to the left. I do agree, however, that the site caters to the godless -- because so much of the content here is user-driven, and quite a few of us are godless heathens.

As evidence of my belief that slashdot caters to the right, I posit that you'll find hardcore righties here as well as the godless lefties you mention. And given that one of the editors here is a vocal hardcore rightie, without a vocal hardcore leftie to balance him out, I think the editorial slant of the site is hardcore rightie.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824514)

As evidence of my belief that slashdot caters to the right, I posit that you'll find hardcore righties here as well as the godless lefties you mention. And given that one of the editors here is a vocal hardcore rightie, without a vocal hardcore leftie to balance him out, I think the editorial slant of the site is hardcore rightie.

So to you the existence of some Righties on a web site means it caters to the Right?

And one editor of many, but who happens to be "vocal hardcore" Right, means the site's net, prevailing editorial slant is hardcore Right? (BTW, who would that editor be?)

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824976)

So to you the existence of some Righties on a web site means it caters to the Right?

No, not exactly... let's not mince words. Slashdot doesn't have "some" righties -- it has a large number of them. Just in the past couple weeks I've seen front-page articles coming from Breitbart. That alone is evidence that the Righties are being catered to (not to say that lefties aren't also catered to -- though I'd be hard-pressed to find examples outside of articles relating to evolution, which I don't think is catering to the left -- I think it's catering to the scientific).

And one editor of many, but who happens to be "vocal hardcore" Right, means the site's net, prevailing editorial slant is hardcore Right? (BTW, who would that editor be?)

One of few, not one of many. And if you don't know which editor that is... well... do you know which editor is the sitting chair of the Snohomish County WA Republican Party?

Re:(off-topic) (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824192)

I'd be interested to know what in your mind makes Slashdot read like say a Focus on the Family newsletter.

I haven't read Focus on the Family; however the regular barrage of conservative advertising on slashdot certainly adds a conservative sway to the site. I have seen many, many, conservative political ads here (including some in the past few weeks) but I have never seen a single liberal political ad.

Although if we want to talk content, there is rarely a week that goes by without at least one pro-conservative front-page article here. Just looking through my journal [slashdot.org] where I do have a few entries regarding the conservative sway, we can find:

Which is only to mention a few that have come up in the past month to pander to the conservatives, and I know I am missing some. Can you find any that have specifically pandered to the "left" recently?

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31825384)

The problem seems to be that Lefties think like Linux zealots, in that anything that's not strongly pro their side, is seen as strongly pro the other side. So we get hugely idiotic assertions like if you don't love Linux than you're a Microsoft shill, and if it's not sucking Obama's dick then it must be sucking Bush's.

Specifically, in order:
* It's not Right-wing slant when it's the Left that's bashing Obama for sometimes not being Left enough for you guys. It's Left-wing slant.
* Failing to pound peoples' heads with a Left-wing talking point when given an opportunity is not evidence of Right-wing slant. It's a missed opportunity for Left-wing slant.
* Having articles apprehensive of govt. use of our information under a Left-wing administration could only be considered a Right-wing slant if you pretended that you had forgotten that there were the similar under a Right-wing administration. Apparently to Lefties, fair and balanced is Right-wing slant (and I'm beginning to think that it is, in a sense), because only far-Left slant is acceptable, and exclusively.
* Only thru typical Leftist severely distorted lenses could this be seen as praising Bush. It listed the huge number of times that he blocked honoring this law. It only bashed Obama slightly for doing it even more. Which I will admit was pretty bold to put on the front page of Slashdot, as it would deeply anger the base (who doesn't want these kinds of things to get out).
* "Massive" simply fits. So does, for example, our involvement in Iraq warrant being called an "expensive" war. These are fairly objective evaluations. But if it's not blatantly pro Left-wing, then I guess it has to mean that it could only be a Right-wing slant.

The eternal problem I have with Lefties (in conversing on politics, that is -- we can talk about anything else) is that you guys are either severely mentally deficient or constantly dishonest, or both. Either that or you guys are perfectly sane and logical and clear thinking and honest and I'm so mentally defective that I'm constantly mistaking logic for illogic. What am I supposed to think? Either way, whichever of us needs the cure, I think it's incurable, so I'm done talking politics with Lefties. Think of it as teaching me to sing and I'm the pig.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31825974)

The eternal problem I have with Lefties (in conversing on politics, that is -- we can talk about anything else) is that you guys are either severely mentally deficient or constantly dishonest, or both.

And I'd say the same thing about most Righties. There tends to be some fundamental differences that are usually unspoken... and these difference, as premises for a discussion, invalidate the other side's logic. This is why I generally try to get to the meat and bones of the discussion, to figure out why, exactly, we disagree. Then we end up, if not enlightened, at least aware of where the other side is coming from.

But my experience of the far right on slashdot is "na-na-na-I'm-not-listening-to-you" and "liar-liar-pants-on-fire" without any kind of refuting evidence or logic. And when a logical argument, or evidence is given, any kind of discussion that calls into question the validity of the logic or evidence is seen as a personal attack, even when worded specifically to ward that off.

Of course, my experience is tainted with run-ins with a couple people, who are probably not representative of the Righties on slashdot as a whole... but damn it's infuriating when one of those people is an editor of the site, and when there are countless sock-puppets in use among several of the conservatives (though I'm sure the sock-puppet issue is not confined to them).

Now for some responses to your line-items...

* It's not Right-wing slant when it's the Left that's bashing Obama for sometimes not being Left enough for you guys. It's Left-wing slant.

That depends on the context within which it is posted, and the editorializing that comes along with it.

Failing to pound peoples' heads with a Left-wing talking point when given an opportunity is not evidence of Right-wing slant. It's a missed opportunity for Left-wing slant.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think it's common for Righties to assume that anything that is not a Rightie talking point is a Leftie talking point... sometimes there is a grey area in the middle, and I (and probably parent to your post) believe that slashdot tends to accentuate the Rightie side.

Having articles apprehensive of govt. use of our information under a Left-wing administration could only be considered a Right-wing slant if you pretended that you had forgotten that there were the similar under a Right-wing administration. Apparently to Lefties, fair and balanced is Right-wing slant (and I'm beginning to think that it is, in a sense), because only far-Left slant is acceptable, and exclusively.

Agree 100% here, there is sometimes a double-standard. However, I think it's safe to say that some people who were not vocally against intrusion of privacy under the previous administration have become so under this administration, and it's human to think that political alignment has something to do with that. I'd also like to pint at that what you see as "fair and balanced" may be no such thing... The type of "fair and balanced" I've seen posited by the Right sometimes seems to be balanced between the moderate right and the far right...

* Only thru typical Leftist severely distorted lenses could this be seen as praising Bush. It listed the huge number of times that he blocked honoring this law. It only bashed Obama slightly for doing it even more. Which I will admit was pretty bold to put on the front page of Slashdot, as it would deeply anger the base (who doesn't want these kinds of things to get out).

Not sure what article you're referring to... if it was the article re: FOIA requests, then my take is slightly different. The comparisons between Bush and Obama in that article were misleading, since the periods did not match up to terms, and the full data was not available. Conclusions were being drawn by the Righties that could not logically be drawn. That said, it wasn't pro-Bush... but it was anti-Obama.

* "Massive" simply fits. So does, for example, our involvement in Iraq warrant being called an "expensive" war. These are fairly objective evaluations. But if it's not blatantly pro Left-wing, then I guess it has to mean that it could only be a Right-wing slant.

"Massive" has negative connotations in the context it was used in. In my opinion, while the number of words and pages in the bill are indeed massive, the actual impact of the bill, not so much. "Massive" would be a single-payer system. Somewhat less massive, but still massive, would be a public option. Instead we got minor changes that leave the health-care system pretty much as it was, except for a surcharge for those who elect not to have insurance and some minor requirements passed onto insurers -- in exchange for which, they get 30,000,000 estimated new profit streams.

I hope to get some Rightie insight on these... thanks in advance for your response.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31827236)

sucking Obama's dick

Why are conservatives so obsessed with giving blowjobs to men? I do not recall seeing the phrase

sucking Bush's [genitalia]

Occurring during his presidency; yet the phrase with regards to that of Obama comes up extremely regularly in conversation under the current administration. Why is this even considered to be part of polite conversation? I don't believe we were discussing sex earlier in this discussion, and yet in your opening remark you start up with a comment on fellatio.

That said, your comments:

  • On the article on Obama "surprising" people by being similar to his predecessor:

It's not Right-wing slant when it's the Left that's bashing Obama for sometimes not being Left enough for you guys. It's Left-wing slant.

I think you missed the point here, so I will restate it. Reasonable people realized that Obama wasn't that much different than his predecessor prior to the election. Reasonable people realized that our country had become too conservative, however the democratic party was too cowardly to run a real liberal. Hence they ran a centrist candidate with slightly-less-conservative leanings. Naturally the republicans responded by trying to label him as some Muslim radical AntiChrist. Then he takes office and strangely enough we discover that not only is he not the AntiChrist, he is quite similar to his predecessor. The conservative sway here lies in this for some reason being a "surprise".

  • On the pro-gun / pro-bad-parent / anti-game-system nuttery

Failing to pound peoples' heads with a Left-wing talking point when given an opportunity is not evidence of Right-wing slant. It's a missed opportunity for Left-wing slant.

This had nothing to do with a talking point. It had everything to do with excessive conservative spin. A three-year-old was allowed to play with a loaded and unlocked handgun. Then the shit-for-brains parent managed to blame the death of the kid on the Nintendo Wii because the three year old may have played a Wii game with a controller that "looked like" the idiot's handgun.

It was a case of epically bad parenting that resulted in the death of a kid. But since there was a game system that could be blamed, that is where the blame went. The parents should lose their children and face charges in court immediately.

  • In the case of the census fear-mongering

Having articles apprehensive of govt. use of our information under a Left-wing administration could only be considered a Right-wing slant if you pretended that you had forgotten that there were the similar under a Right-wing administration.

The census in 2000 and 1990 did not stir up this kind of anti-government fervor - to say nothing of the nonsense of calling Obama "left-wing".

  • On the FoIA requests

praising Bush. It listed the huge number of times that he blocked honoring this law. It only bashed Obama slightly for doing it even more

Which ignores the context and goes out on a limb to bash Obama for the number of rejected FoIA requests.

Slashdot, as it would deeply anger the base (who doesn't want these kinds of things to get out)

Perhaps we generally read and write slashdot at different times of the day or week? Because my experience does not support any notion of a "left-wing base" on slashdot. If you don't agree with me, look at how many slashdot readers are vocal supporters of Ron Paul...

  • On the health care bailout bill

"Massive" simply fits

No, "massive" is simply a wordbite. It can describe the length of the written bill, but it does not describe what it does. The actual changes this bill will make to most peoples' lives would be better described as minimal.

The eternal problem I have with Lefties (in conversing on politics, that is -- we can talk about anything else)

I don't even agree with that statement, at least if you are trying to label me as a "Lefty". We have had reasonable conversations on political topics in the past. I don't know exactly when you hit your breaking point, but our comment history shows that you have not always been this angry.

is that you guys are either severely mentally deficient or constantly dishonest, or both. Either that or you guys are perfectly sane and logical and clear thinking and honest and I'm so mentally defective that I'm constantly mistaking logic for illogic.

There is clearly a difference in what each side here considers to be "honest". Although it seems that 21st century politics involves creating new definitions for practically every word in the language, so I guess a new definition of "honest" might be up soon, once new definitions are created for other words like "civil", "compromise", "responsibility", "massive", "left", "right", "conservative", and "liberal".

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829822)

It's interesting how people can develop so differently. The problem is that we reject each other's reality, as well as system of logic. It's like it's set up so that even if we could agree on at least a foundation of how things are, we'd still be at impasse, because we'd then still be utterly flabbergasted at the conclusions purported to be drawable from them.

I'm 43 years old and have been talking politics with Liberals for much longer than I've been here. Including with my sister who veered Left as a teen. (Altho the hint of evil was always there in her as a child -- I've come to learn being a sign of which way she'd go. But the acceptance of dishonesty as an integral, "normal" part of life and one's psyche I still think had to be learned, like a taste for beer.) It took me a long while to progress to this point, but I can't unlearn what it is I've slowly settled on.

So I'll leave you guys with a fundie crackpot theory of mine, for you to have a good laugh over: I'm currently thinking that the only way there could be such astonishing divergence in peoples' brain processes, that is, the extreme level of divergence that makes us basically an alien species to one another, is thru a supernatural force. That is, I currently can't believe that mere background or education or upbringing or breathing the air and drinking the water in some different part of the world could anywhere near explain the vastness of the schism that exists. To cut to the chase of the rest of the theory, which you can prolly guess, I believe in the Christian God and the Christian devil, and the attributes and goals that my religion ascribes to each of them, and that the major goal of the latter is to lead people astray and p0wn them, and that the former offers protection against such, to those who cling to Him, and much less to those who don't. And how best to be certain to keep someone if not by rendering them unreachable by others unlike them.

So go and tell your friends and laugh and ridicule me. You know I don't care, and in fact consider it part and parcel of my faith. Ciao.

Re:(off-topic) (0, Flamebait)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31832594)

Bill Dog

My current account (this one) goes back only about 2.5 years. I know that isn't a very long time around here, however I also know that at some point in that 2.5 year history you and I had a reasonable political discussion. We had a discussion where name-calling and insults were not employed, in spite of our philosophical differences. No references to sexual acts were made, either.

So at some point in the past 2.5 years, something changed for you. You were a level-headed and rational conservative in the past. Now you seem to have devolved into a conservative soundbite machine. I would like to be able to have a conversation on the matters with you, but you instead seem now to favor turning your back and slinging insults.

The Bill Dog that I added to my friends list [slashdot.org] was a rational and respectful person. Where did he go? What happened to him?

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31840120)

He grew. Starting with 9/11 and proceeding with the housing/banking bubble bursting right thru this president's election and how he's turned out, to say these have been eye-opening recent times is dramaticly an understatement. Lots of reevaluating of things that I took for granted. I've also been unemployed for one year and four and a half months, which has given me A LOT of time to read and think. And an active and inquisitive mind, that's interested in the nature of things, however they may turn out to be, will always be evolving, as previous conceptions lose or grow in weight of perceived probability and new conceptions arise. My journey of just these last few years at least has definitely found me going even further Right than I already was. It's just the happenstance of a convergence of events that essentially solidified some long-held, slowly-building theories. Had the illusion, that everything was alright and there were no new (existing) major dangers (that I was just previously unaware of), been able to have been maintained, I wouldn't be where I am today. But it looks like their revealing was inevitable, and once your eyes have been opened, you can't unopen them.

And if you think those were soundbites and insults, then you've only made my point why we have no basis for understanding one another, or political discourse beyond nibbling around the edges of things in small talk (which is the only kind of conversation I can find).

Re:(off-topic) (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31841606)

Starting with 9/11

Was there another 9/11 that occurred in the past 3 years? I specifically said that I have had this account for around 2.5 years; or did 9/11 somehow affect you again more recently?

the housing/banking bubble bursting

I'm not clear on how that event effected you - are you in that industry? Did you lose your job?

this president's election and how he's turned out

So then you are also disappointed at how similar he is to his predecessor, given the situation he walked into? Because the way that he has consistently favored big business in every important decision thus far makes him seem quite similar to the guy he replaced.

I've also been unemployed for one year and four and a half months

Ahh, I see. I know of quite a few people who have lost their jobs over the past few years. I myself have been unemployed a few times over the years, and I know how it can change your perspective on things.

This also hits the time frame that I asked about. This means that when I first saw you on slashdot, you were employed, and now you are not.

However in the times I was unemployed I never changed so dramatically my attitude towards others.

My journey of just these last few years at least has definitely found me going even further Right than I already was

That is exactly what I am trying to inquire about. That, and the dramatic shift in attitude.

And if you think those were soundbites and insults

What you just shared was at least somewhat insightful. Previously, however, you were opting more for soundbites and insults. For example:

my sister who veered Left as a teen. (Altho the hint of evil was always there in her as a child

That statement either needs more background information, or is a sweeping generalization showing that you feel that non-conservatives are "evil"

acceptance of dishonesty as an integral, "normal" part of life

This one is the same way; it could either be read as you stating that you believe everyone who does not share your political views to be "dishonest", or you were trying to just bring up her dishonesty as a side note to her development.

And earlier you went for the new "classic" conservative soundbite:

sucking Obama's dick

Which is way, way, beneath you. Or at least way, way, beneath the Bill Dog that I used to converse with here at slashdot in the not-too-distant past.

Furthermore in the same comment where you suggested presidential fellatio [slashdot.org] you repeatedly went for statements such as

typical Leftist severely distorted lenses

Which is classic soundbite tactic; throwing assertions on entire groups of people without actually examining to see if the assertion even fits the person you are addressing directly.

And your closing paragraph of the same comment opened with

you guys are either severely mentally deficient or constantly dishonest, or both

Which is an insult, and a poor way to try to catalyze conversation.

But most importantly, that is not how Bill Dog conversed less than three years ago. Bill Dog used to be interested in understanding the basis of differing viewpoints.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842072)

Sounds nothing like the Bill Dog that I know. I choose my words very carefully, to not overstate or understate what I truly think, so nothing I've said here was meant to be (mis-)interpreted as slinging mere soundbites or insults -- it's all been stuff I'm dead serious about and what I honestly believe to be accurate. For example, I wasn't born yesterday nor have I been studying Liberals only since yesterday, so that I think that I've detected some patterns that are "typical" of Liberals should not come as a shock. Why you can't understand these simplest of things is a major component of why I'm convinced we cannot meaningfully talk on politics. You know full well that to Conservatives the world is crashing down as of late, and you wonder why all the anger. Seriously. I assume you're intelligent enough in your job of whatever you do, but when it comes to politics your brain goes into some funky kind of alternate mode. Everything you've said here you've gotten wrong, either in observation or understanding or logic. And that's nothing anyone can do anything with.

Re:(off-topic) (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31843456)

So are you saying that you really have come to the conclusion that everyone of a different political persuasion of your own is an inherently evil person and a pathological liar? If so then indeed it would appear you have nothing left to say to anyone who holds a different political opinion from your own.

I think that I've detected some patterns that are "typical" of Liberals should not come as a shock. Why you can't understand these simplest of things

I would generally see those "typical" "patterns" that you talk about as wide sweeping assumptions. If you carry assumptions like that with you, and apply them before actually listening (or reading) to the person who is trying to present their viewpoint to you, then you will never learn what they have to say.

I do not enter into conversation assuming the other person to be "evil", regardless of how different their viewpoints are from my own. Ever. Less than three years ago, you didn't, either.

You know full well that to Conservatives the world is crashing down as of late

From my viewpoint the business failures are the fault of the businesses, not the government. Then under a conservative government we issued a massive no-strings-attached handout to those failing businesses.

Furthermore I haven't seen any significant action by the current president - with perhaps the exception of the recent START treaty signing with Russia - that I could not see the previous president doing.

So exactly why this is a case of "the world crashing down", I'm not sure. Taxes are staying pretty much the same. The markets are staying pretty much the same. Immigration hasn't changed. Education hasn't changed. Abortion hasn't changed. Welfare hasn't changed.

Everything you've said here you've gotten wrong

Could you please be kind enough to show what I've gotten wrong, and how? Bill Dog from less than three years ago would have been at least that cordial. I don't see the need for why the new Bill Dog feels the need to be so vague (and simultaneously condescending).

Re:(off-topic) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31831232)

It's called "cookies" you moron. You get ads from political sites because you go to political sites and you get served up ads here. I get a lot of Microsoft, game, and financial ads here. Rarely do I get political ads. You do know about tracking, right?

Re:(off-topic) (0, Flamebait)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31832474)

It's called "cookies" you moron

You mean the cookies that I deny?

You get ads from political sites because you go to political sites

Except I don't go to political sites with the system I use for slashdot. But nice try anyways...

You do know about tracking, right?

Yes I know about tracking. I also know that I don't allow it on my system. So nice try, but you'll need to go troll someone else.

Re:Pudge-o-liscious Pudge-o-rama (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31817142)

All that said, I will at this point also point out that if you write about Pudge too often, people might start accusing you of being me.

That's the second time you've mentioned something along these lines. I think maybe you're planting a seed that doesn't need to be planted...

Re:Pudge-o-liscious Pudge-o-rama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31820920)

Will the real Dick Shatto
Please stand up
Please stand up

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?