Red Flayer's Journal: More dishonesty from Pudge -- proven

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.

Pudge-o-liscious Pudge-o-rama

[damn_registrars]

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]

(off-topic)

[Bill Dog]

--
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:

[damn_registrars]

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

Re:

[Bill Dog]

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

Re:

[damn_registrars]

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:

[Red Flayer]

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:

[Bill Dog]

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:

[Red Flayer]

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:

[Bill Dog]

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:

[Red Flayer]

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

Re:

[Bill Dog]

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, pre

Re:

[Red Flayer]

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 cater

Re:

[damn_registrars]

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

Re:

[Bill Dog]

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' he

Re:

[Red Flayer]

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, exa

Re:

[damn_registrars]

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

Re:

[Bill Dog]

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.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

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 conservat

Re:

[Bill Dog]

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

Re:

[damn_registrars]

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

Re:

[Bill Dog]

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

Re:

[damn_registrars]

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

Re:

[damn_registrars]

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:

[Red Flayer]

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...