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!

Bollocks Beyond Belief

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 9 months ago

User Journal 42

From our purported intellectual superior, who has made fun of a political figure, hammered me for "childish insults", defended his abuse of the Speaker of the House's name, and then claimed he's nothing to defend, emphasis mine:

"President Boner?" wait, had I not been assailed for "various types of childish insults" in your opening paragraph?

From our purported intellectual superior, who has made fun of a political figure, hammered me for "childish insults", defended his abuse of the Speaker of the House's name, and then claimed he's nothing to defend, emphasis mine:

"President Boner?" wait, had I not been assailed for "various types of childish insults" in your opening paragraph?

Boner is the closest word spell check knows to the speaker's last name. It is still far closer to his actual name than any of the long childish insults you constantly feel obliged to sling at the current presidential administration.

quite counter to the urgency of your calls for Obama to be thrown out over Benghazi (in spite of you having no evidence to support a case for such action against him for it)

There is in fact plenty of evidence for reasonable people who sanely view the facts with open eyes to conclude that grounds for impeachment exist.

That is something you take on faith, as you are clearly not of that group of people.

You put yourself in the position of defending

No. Once again, I am not defending anything.

Now, I figure that, as long as I'm paying a politician far, far too much money for him to do little more than sodomize my country's future, I should at least be allowed to call him things like "Occupy Resolute Desk", or "No-talent Rodeo Clown", or "Keystone Keynesian".
I don't even mind being chided for "various types of childish insults". This is an accurate reflection of the value of these lame little emotionally satisfying riffs.
However, what you're NOT going to see me do is defend them (why should I?), and then turn around and say I'm not defending anything. Especially when that object of the defense is a one trick pony whose sole trick is winning elections (and admittedly good trick).
This administration shall come to be viewed as almost the nadir of American History. The sad little throne sniffers wasting effort defending it are a truly sorry lot, indeed.

cancel ×

42 comments

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

Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45961065)

I like how you also employed clever editing here to pretend that I was saying something other than what I actually said [slashdot.org] . Smitty, that is worse editing than your friends at Fox News. When i said i was not defending anything it was overwhelmingly obvious that i was saying I was not defending anything on behalf of the administration. Even more specifically I was offering no defense against your conspiracy theories, as none was needed since you gave no facts whatsoever to back them up to be anywhere near the magnitude of importance that you keep pretending them to be.

I wish you would go back to when you wrote JEs with an argument - or at least, a purpose. This one has neither.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45963113)

The link in my JE takes you to directly before the response which I quoted, which I quoted with substantial context. To say here:

that is worse editing than your friends at Fox News

is erroneous. (a) I've no friends at Fox News, and (b) I really didn't interact with the quoted material beyond the "emphasis mine" which I noted in the JE.
You were defending idiocy then, and are doubling down now.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (1, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45963661)

You were defending idiocy then

Smitty that simply is not true, and anyone who reads the actual comment can see that. You are doing yourself no service to lie about it. I don't know why you have suddenly embraced creative editing as a way to get a "point" across, but it is below you.

and are doubling down now.

Doubling down on what exactly? You are accusing me of something that you cannot support.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45971937)

LOL. It's there for all to see, in blazing unicode. But I don't anticipate honest dealings from you on anything.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (1, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45972581)

LOL. It's there for all to see, in blazing unicode

Is it IN the unicode itself? It certainly isn't in the text. If you believe it to be IN the unicode, then it would seem you have a conspiracy theory involving me as well. If you are creating new conspiracy theories that quickly you might want to consider seeking psychiatric evaluation.

But I don't anticipate honest dealings from you on anything.

Well, certainly when you ignore the text I actually write and substitute in whatever you want, there is no reason for you to expect honesty. If you actually go back and read what I wrote (I won't say re-read this time as your utterly bogus interpretation indicates you have yet to successfully read it the first time) you will find how wrong your assumption is.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

RailGunner (554645) | about 9 months ago | (#45989393)

You're still at this?

Holy crap -- your OCD is even stronger then what red4man suggested.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (1, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45989751)

Wow, you've decided to start using that account again. I'm so very excited to see a fake conservative come back to spout nonsense. Maybe you'll have better luck fooling someone else...

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

pudge (3605) | about 9 months ago | (#46010601)

You're a liar.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46013165)

You're a liar.

You're a liar.

From my tiny window into the discussion (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#46013239)

Pudge's claim has more weight.

No. (1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46013633)

Pudge's claim has more weight.

In relation to the comment he replied to [slashdot.org] he cannot possibly prove there to be a lie in the statement. You can accuse me of lying in other parts if you want - even though you cannot possibly support such a claim - but in the comment he replied to there is no way to accuse my statement of being a lie.

Of course, we've seen before that he is willing to twist the meaning of "lie" in order to suit his aims, but by any reasonable person's understanding of what it means, he cannot possibly support that assertion.

Re:No. (2)

pudge (3605) | about 9 months ago | (#46013757)

In relation to the comment he replied to [slashdot.org] he cannot possibly prove there to be a lie in the statement.

Obviously, another lie. You wrote:

I'm so very excited to see a fake conservative come back to spout nonsense.

It's a lie that he's a fake conservative, and a very clear lie.

Of course, we've seen before that he is willing to twist the meaning of "lie" in order to suit his aims, but by any reasonable person's understanding of what it means, he cannot possibly support that assertion.

Unless by "his aims" you mean "demonstrating dishonesty," which is how I use it, you're lying. And the second part, I've already proven is a lie.

Re:No. (1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46014051)

I'm so very excited to see a fake conservative come back to spout nonsense.

It's a lie that he's a fake conservative, and a very clear lie.

I have made my claim for him being a fake conservative. You have offered no counter claim other than your own opinion. You can disagree with my statement - in spite of the evidence I have given to support it - all you want, but you cannot call it a lie.

Of course, we've seen before that he is willing to twist the meaning of "lie" in order to suit his aims, but by any reasonable person's understanding of what it means, he cannot possibly support that assertion.

Unless by "his aims" you mean "demonstrating dishonesty," which is how I use it, you're lying. And the second part, I've already proven is a lie.

That is the problem; you are not demonstrating dishonesty. You are asserting that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is being willfully dishonest simply because you believe that to be so. You have not demonstrated dishonesty in any way, shape, or form. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that person is being dishonest.

And once again, you have not proven a lie to have been said. You have alleged it, as you often do, but you have not - and can not - prove it to be so.

Re:No. (1)

pudge (3605) | about 9 months ago | (#46014351)

I'm so very excited to see a fake conservative come back to spout nonsense.

It's a lie that he's a fake conservative, and a very clear lie.

I have made my claim for him being a fake conservative.

Yes, you made your claim. It's a lie.

You have offered no counter claim other than your own opinion. You can disagree with my statement - in spite of the evidence I have given to support it

You're lying. There is not a single jot of evidence provided here to back up your lie.

That is the problem; you are not demonstrating dishonesty.

You're a liar. Whether or not you are being dishonest, I think you are, and it is my aim.

You are asserting that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is being willfully dishonest simply because you believe that to be so.

You're a liar. I have never, in my life, asserted anything remotely similar to that.

You have not demonstrated dishonesty in any way, shape, or form.

Shrug, I just did, by pointing out the fact that you lied when you said you provided evidence here backing up your claim.

Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that person is being dishonest.

You're lying by implying this claim contradicts anything I've ever said or expressed.

Re:No. (1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46014489)

I'm so very excited to see a fake conservative come back to spout nonsense.

It's a lie that he's a fake conservative, and a very clear lie.

I have made my claim for him being a fake conservative.

Yes, you made your claim. It's a lie.

It is my opinion, which I supported with facts. That does not in any reasonable way qualify as a "lie". Just because you happen to disagree with it does not change its position relating to reality.

You have offered no counter claim other than your own opinion. You can disagree with my statement - in spite of the evidence I have given to support it

You're lying. There is not a single jot of evidence provided here to back up your lie.

Pudge, you are lying. First, your assertion that I have not backed up my claim of the fake conservative is a lie, as I have backed that up previously. Second, your continued assertion of it being a lie it itself a lie, even by the definition of lying that you are trying to claim you are operating within here.

So really, stop lying.

That is the problem; you are not demonstrating dishonesty.

You're a liar. Whether or not you are being dishonest, I think you are, and it is my aim.

Hence you have utterly failed to meet your own strange definition of criteria for demonstrating a "lie". Or were you lying about that definition as well?

You are asserting that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is being willfully dishonest simply because you believe that to be so.

You're a liar. I have never, in my life, asserted anything remotely similar to that.

Considering your repeated lies in this discussion - and beyond - I see no reason to expect that statement to be in any way truthful. Being as you have a lengthy reputation for discarding anything you disagree with as a "lie", you are almost certainly lying here as well.

You have not demonstrated dishonesty in any way, shape, or form.

Shrug, I just did, by pointing out the fact that you lied when you said you provided evidence here backing up your claim.

That is another lie from you. I have provided evidence many times. Just because you don't care to read it does not mean it does not exist.

Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that person is being dishonest.

You're lying by implying this claim contradicts anything I've ever said or expressed.

Quite nearly every time I have ever seen you accuse someone of lying on slashdot it has been in complete absence of evidence from you to support such an act. You use the term "lie" as being an accurate label for anything that does not fit your worldview, regardless of whether it is backed up by facts or not.

In other words, you have yet again tried to label my statements as lies. Once again, you have failed to accurately accomplish your mission, and you made yourself look silly in the process. Try harder next time.

Re:No. (1)

pudge (3605) | about 9 months ago | (#46014673)

It is my opinion

I don't believe you. I believe you don't believe it, and are just saying you do. I think you're lying that it is your opinion.

... which I supported with facts.

You're lying. You provided no evidence of any kind, let alone factual evidence.

First, your assertion that I have not backed up my claim of the fake conservative is a lie, as I have backed that up previously.

I said quite explicitly that you did not provide that evidence "here." If it is not provided here or not linked to from here, it cannot be considered as evidence, obviously, since I have no idea what it is or where to find it. So no, you have not backed up this claim with evidence. You even admit you don't by saying you provided it "previously."

Hence you have utterly failed to meet your own strange definition of criteria for demonstrating a "lie".

You're a liar. I got you to admit you were lying when you said you provided evidence, and my definition is not remotely strange.

You are asserting that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is being willfully dishonest simply because you believe that to be so.

You're a liar. I have never, in my life, asserted anything remotely similar to that.

Considering your repeated lies in this discussion - and beyond - I see no reason to expect that statement to be in any way truthful.

So you, again, very clearly, admit you are lying. Rather than providing evidence backing up your claim that I asserted something I never did, you simply say you have no evidence I never did say it. You're lying, and you know it, and so does everyone else.

Being as you have a lengthy reputation for discarding anything you disagree with as a "lie"

Whatever my reputation may be, no one has ever given a single example of that ever happening. And worse, I've provided many examples that utterly disprove this claim. For example, I do think most people who believe in the standard "global warming" storyline are lying; I just disagree with them. Note for the record: I have proven that your claim about me here is false. There's no wiggle room here.

Shrug, I just did, by pointing out the fact that you lied when you said you provided evidence here backing up your claim.

That is another lie from you. I have provided evidence many times.

Whether you've provided it many times does not diminish the claim that you haven't provided it here. And you know that. Therefore, you're lying.

Just because you don't care to read it does not mean it does not exist.

But it does mean that the evidence cannot be considered here, and that therefore you didn't back up your claim here. Which is what I said, which you dishonestly said was a lie.

The sad thing is that I thought you'd get better at this with age. You're degenerating. You're far worse at argument than you used to be. All you're doing is telling obvious lies, making reference to evidence that isn't presented, equivocating when everyone including you knows you're doing it ... I mean, you're as much full of shit here as you've ever been.

Quite nearly every time I have ever seen you accuse someone of lying on slashdot it has been in complete absence of evidence from you to support such an act.

You're a liar. You cannot provide a single example of that ever happening.

You use the term "lie" as being an accurate label for anything that does not fit your worldview, regardless of whether it is backed up by facts or not.

You're a liar. You cannot provide a single example of that ever happening.

In other words, you have yet again tried to label my statements as lies.

You're a liar. Yes, I have called your statements lies, but -- and this is telling, and speaks to what I said about you really sucking at this -- I actually provided my reasons for saying you are lying, every single time I said you were lying (except for the first time). So while I am sitting here giving detailed explanations of how you are lying, you are trying to convince people that I am not doing that. It's really stupid and bizarre.

Re:No. (1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46015909)

It is my opinion

I don't believe you. I believe you don't believe it, and are just saying you do. I think you're lying that it is your opinion.

As usual, you have no reason whatsoever to support your opinion other than that it is your opinion. Being as you entered into yet another conversation with me under your own wild-assed assumption regarding the truthfulness of my statements, you came in 100% wrong and unwilling to consider any alternate possibilities.

You cannot make your assumptions become reality just by repeating them. I wrote what I believe, regardless of how much you wish that not to be true.

... which I supported with facts.

You're lying. You provided no evidence of any kind, let alone factual evidence.

You are lying, yet again. I have supported that notion with evidence in the past. You did not bother reading it before so there is no good reason to expect that you would read it now, even if I pointed you to it again. The fact remains that I believe him to be a fake conservative, here to make the conservative argument look foolish. Furthermore as it appears he has fooled you, he makes you look even more foolish than you make yourself look (which is quite a feat, considering how silly you look in this very discussion).

First, your assertion that I have not backed up my claim of the fake conservative is a lie, as I have backed that up previously.

I said quite explicitly that you did not provide that evidence "here."

Here, on slashdot, I have backed up my claim. You can't be bothered to read it, so there is no point extrapolating beyond there.

If it is not provided here or not linked to from here, it cannot be considered as evidence, obviously, since I have no idea what it is or where to find it.

It is on slashdot. It is available for anyone with a web browser to read. You couldn't be bothered to read it, and that is not my problem. It is there, and it is the basis for my belief that you are being fooled by a fake conservative.

You're lying, and you know it, and so does everyone else.

Except I am not lying, I know it, and nobody has voiced any support for your assertion that counters reality.

Hence you have utterly failed to meet your own strange definition of criteria for demonstrating a "lie".

You're a liar. I got you to admit you were lying when you said you provided evidence

You are lying when you mention any such admission. I don't know why you love to lie about lying so much. I have provided evidence, and you cannot change that simply by your own will.

and my definition is not remotely strange.

It is to anyone who uses a dictionary, or has an idea of what truth actually means in comparison to lies.

Being as you have a lengthy reputation for discarding anything you disagree with as a "lie"

Note for the record: I have proven that your claim about me here is false. There's no wiggle room here.

You have done no such thing. Just because you claim to have done so does not make it so. Your reputation is well known and you use "lie" synonymously with "does not fit my assumptions of the world" widely and are widely recognized for doing so. Now you are, as you often do, lying about lying.

Really, you should just give up at this point. As you continue to dig in you just make yourself look more ridiculous.

Quite nearly every time I have ever seen you accuse someone of lying on slashdot it has been in complete absence of evidence from you to support such an act.

You're a liar. You cannot provide a single example of that ever happening.

I have no doubt it has happened hundreds, if not thousands, of times here on slashdot. I don't know if you discard reality this way in other environments or not, but you do it often here. Hell, you entered into this discussion by doing it.

In other words, you have yet again tried to label my statements as lies.

You're a liar.

What? You just did exactly that. You have done it repeatedly, in this discussion as well as in others. You try to label things you disagree with as lies, even though you cannot possibly prove them to be untrue. I'm sorry that you have such a woeful lack of understanding of simple logic.

I have called your statements lies

That is what I just said. You called them lies. You can't show them to be lies, but you call them that anyways.

I actually provided my reasons for saying you are lying, every single time I said you were lying

No, you did not. You only said what you believed. You did not provide any evidence to back up your belief.

I am sitting here giving detailed explanations of how you are lying

Except you are not. Not here, not in any other slashdot discussion with me, ever. You are lying about your discussion about lying. I'll give you a little hint here - just because you are lying about lying does not equate to some sort of mystical double-negative automatic truth.

It's really stupid and bizarre.

That is a likely response to your entire "argument" from any thinking person.

Re:No. (1)

pudge (3605) | about 9 months ago | (#46017307)

As usual, you have no reason whatsoever to support your opinion other than that it is your opinion.

You're lying. The fact that your "opinion" is so easily refuted -- which I did -- is very strong evidence that it is not really your opinion, or anyone else's.

Being as you entered into yet another conversation with me under your own wild-assed assumption regarding the truthfulness of my statements

You're lying. They are observations, not assumptions.

you came in 100% wrong and unwilling to consider any alternate possibilities.

You're lying.

You cannot make your assumptions become reality just by repeating them.

You're lying by implying this represents anything I've ever expressed or implied.

You're lying. You provided no evidence of any kind, let alone factual evidence.

You are lying, yet again. I have supported that notion with evidence in the past.

You're lying. Evidence not presented or cited here is, by definition, not provided to support a claim made here.

If you actually had evidence, you'd just present it. I didn't say you have no evidence, or that you didn't present it in the past. I said you didn't provide it in support of the claim made here, which you admit is true.

You did not bother reading it before so there is no good reason to expect that you would read it now, even if I pointed you to it again.

You're lying. You never presented it to me before.

The fact remains that I believe him to be a fake conservative

You're lying.

Here, on slashdot, I have backed up my claim. You can't be bothered to read it, so there is no point extrapolating beyond there.

You're lying by claiming that "here" refers to "a web site with millions of comments" when it clearly refers to the discussion at hand, and you're lying by implying that whatever evidence you say you have presented is available to me, since you didn't provide a link or other citation.

It is on slashdot. It is available for anyone with a web browser to read. You couldn't be bothered to read it, and that is not my problem. It is there, and it is the basis for my belief that you are being fooled by a fake conservative.

You're lying by implying that it is easily available to anyone who wants to find it, just because it is on a particular web site.

I have provided evidence

The sad thing is that not only have you admitted you did not provide the evidence, but if you actually had it, you WOULD provide it, if you were in the least bit serious about your claim.

You have done no such thing. Just because you claim to have done so does not make it so.

So you're saying I believe that anyone who believes in the standard "global warming" storyline is lying? You base this fantasy on what?

Your reputation is well known and you use "lie" synonymously with "does not fit my assumptions of the world" widely and are widely recognized for doing so.

And you're incapable of providing a single example of me ever doing so, which is strong evidence that whatever "reputation" you're referring to is based on lies.

I have no doubt it has happened hundreds, if not thousands, of times here on slashdot. I don't know if you discard reality this way ...

And yet, you cannot provide a single example. That speaks volumes about who is discarding reality.

  in other environments or not, but you do it often here. Hell, you entered into this discussion by doing it.

You try to label things you disagree with as lies, even though you cannot possibly prove them to be untrue.

You're lying. Again: only once in this discussion had I not explained how what you said was a lie, and that was my first comment, and then I explained it in later comments. And while there are other cases where I cannot prove what you said is untrue, they fall into two categories. Both are perfectly reasonable.

The first is the one you like to complain about: where I call you a liar for saying something is your opinion, when I think it is not. I provided strong evidence you're lying, but yes, I cannot prove it. So? It is my opinion you're lying about those opinions. I don't need to be able to prove it, I just need to have good reason for saying it, and I provided that reason.

The second is where you repeatedly make claims without providing the evidence, and I say your claim is a lie. I cannot prove you don't have the evidence, but no sane person gives a shit: if you won't provide the evidence, then you have no justification for complaining that I'm calling it a lie.

You only said what you believed. You did not provide any evidence to back up your belief.

You're lying. You cannot provide a single example in this discussion of where that had happened (except the first one), despite your claim that I did it every time. I've called you a liar many times in this discussion: you should be able to find ONE example to prove me wrong here. But you can't. Because you're lying.

Except you are not. Not here, not in any other slashdot discussion with me, ever.

You're lying, and you can't back it up. Meanwhile, I can prove you wrong: in my comment prior to this one, I wrote, "I said quite explicitly that you did not provide that evidence "here." If it is not provided here or not linked to from here, it cannot be considered as evidence, obviously, since I have no idea what it is or where to find it. So no, you have not backed up this claim with evidence. You even admit you don't by saying you provided it "previously."

You might not agree with me, but that is evidence -- evidence you agreed is accurate, that you didn't back it up in this discussion -- and I provided that evidence. Yet you claim I've never provided evidence. Discard reality, much?

Re:No. (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46018683)

As usual, you have no reason whatsoever to support your opinion other than that it is your opinion.

You're lying. The fact that your "opinion" is so easily refuted -- which I did -- is very strong evidence that it is not really your opinion, or anyone else's.

That is nonsense. You have done nothing, whatsoever, to refute my opinion. All you have done is claim yours to be superior, with absolutely zero factual evidence to support your argument.

Being as you entered into yet another conversation with me under your own wild-assed assumption regarding the truthfulness of my statements

You're lying. They are observations, not assumptions.

No, they are assumptions. You assumed there to be an absence of truthfulness in my statements. You cannot observe such a thing based on those statements alone, and just because you claim otherwise does not make it so.

You cannot make your assumptions become reality just by repeating them.

You're lying by implying this represents anything I've ever expressed or implied.

Wrong. I am describing exactly what you have written. You came in to the discussion and made some baseless assumptions which you presented as God's Own Truth for no reason other than that you stated them as such. You then continue to repeat them under the apparently hope or belief that you can make them become true by repeating them as mantras. You have no facts whatsoever to support your assumptions about me.

I said you didn't provide it in support of the claim made here

I have presented the evidence before. Go back and read some of my earlier comments and journal entries. I can't force you to read what I write, and you have shown that there is little reason to expect that you would read it if I posted it again anyways.

which you admit is true.

And there you go with your crazy fact-free assumptions again... You can't make truth out of thin air, or repetition.

You did not bother reading it before so there is no good reason to expect that you would read it now, even if I pointed you to it again.

You're lying. You never presented it to me before.

That is not true. I have presented it before in discussions that you have been so generous as to insert yourself into. I have also presented it in discussions that all were welcomed to partake in. You not reading it is not my fault. And I will say again, that your continued arrogance, hostility, and outright repeated lying all tell me there is no good reason to expect you to read it if I give you a link to it.

It is on slashdot. It is available for anyone with a web browser to read. You couldn't be bothered to read it, and that is not my problem. It is there, and it is the basis for my belief that you are being fooled by a fake conservative.

You're lying by implying that it is easily available to anyone who wants to find it, just because it is on a particular web site.

You can read any one of my comments or JEs that you want. Hell you don't even need to be a subscriber to read my JEs and find the argument.

Your reputation is well known and you use "lie" synonymously with "does not fit my assumptions of the world" widely and are widely recognized for doing so.

And you're incapable of providing a single example of me ever doing so

This very discussion includes now easily several dozen examples of you doing exactly that.

I cannot prove you don't have the evidence

Although you will claim it endlessly regardless.

but no sane person gives a shit

Then what does that make you for writing these lengthy comments where you keep leveling baseless accusations against me?

if you won't provide the evidence

I have provided the evidence. The fact that you can't bother to read it is not my fault.

then you have no justification for complaining that I'm calling it a lie.

Except for when you accuse me of lying when I am not lying, which is every single time you have ever accused me of lying.

You might not agree with me, but that is evidence -- evidence you agreed is accurate

And there you go with another baseless assumption. You provided no evidence, and then upon further absence of evidence you arbitrarily made an assumption about the validity of your (complete absence of) "evidence".

Discard reality, much?

First of all, that is a grammatical error. The comma doesn't belong there as you are asking about the frequency. Second, your entire argument is based on discarding reality in favor of your favorite assumptions about me and any of an arbitrary number of other things. You will probably even try to lie about whether or not I "discard reality". And third, it should be "disregard reality", as discarding requires the acknowledgement thereof.

So in other words, your grammar sucks, your argument is inexistent, you are a pathological liar, and you are an arrogant prick to boot.

Have a nice day.

Re:No. (3, Informative)

RailGunner (554645) | about 9 months ago | (#46016425)

Logic, reason, clarity of rational thought -- all these are things that utterly escape damn_registrars.

Pudge, you'd have a better chance if you went to Niagara Falls and started yelling at the water to stop falling then you will ever have in getting through to this putz. It's utterly hopeless, and damn_registrars is too close-minded and quite frankly incapable of understanding any thought outside of his limited, spoon-fed liberal world view. He's like an even more dishonest, annoying version of Rachel Maddow with even fewer "facts". Probably less manly, than Ms. Maddow, too.

I won't claim to know how old he/she/whatever is, but there is ample evidence in the account's posting history to suggest that damn_registrars is essentially an emotionally and mentally stunted individual trapped in a never ending adolescence.

As such, any attempts at an intelligent, rational discussion with this fool are in vain.

As to the ludicrous charges of "fake conservatism"... he called me that because he can't believe that anyone would think the way I do. Apparently he has yet to discover Senator Ted Cruz. Should be entertaining when he does...

Re:No. (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46016647)

"fake conservatism"... he called me that because he can't believe that anyone would think the way I do

No. I call you that because you have, on many occasions, spouted off arguments that you "supported" with evidence that countered the same argument. I know full well that there are plenty of people that do believe in the "arguments" you post here but why would you post them - and then blatantly disprove them - on slashdot if not to make them look silly?

While Pudge is a bad copy of Rush Limbaugh, you are a cartoonish copy of Stephen Colbert.

That said, you do keep the laughs coming - and for that I thank you.

Re:No. (1)

pudge (3605) | about 9 months ago | (#46017011)

you have, on many occasions, spouted off arguments that you "supported" with evidence that countered the same argument

You're lying.

Re:No. (1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46017153)

you have, on many occasions, spouted off arguments that you "supported" with evidence that countered the same argument

You're lying.

I was referring to my friend the fake conservative there. That is one of the key differences between him and you; he makes a claim and then - at least on occasion - offers "evidence" for it. You, on the other hand, insist that what you say is God's Own Truth because it came from you. Now of course, the fake conservative likes to offer evidence that counters his own argument - which is why I call him the fake conservative - but he at least offers something beyond his own word.

I would not accuse you of offering contradictory evidence, because as far as I have ever seen in discussion with you, you have never offered any evidence at all.

Re:No. (1)

pudge (3605) | about 9 months ago | (#46017457)

you have, on many occasions, spouted off arguments that you "supported" with evidence that countered the same argument

You're lying.

I was referring to my friend the fake conservative there.

I know. And I say you're lying, that he has not, on many occasions, done what you said. My evidence is that despite me pointing out the fact that you have not provided the evidence here in this discussion, and despite people here denying that such evidence exists, you have chosen to not provide any such evidence. If it existed, I believe you would provide it. Therefore, I assert that you're lying that he has done this on many occasions.

That is one of the key differences between him and you; he makes a claim and then - at least on occasion - offers "evidence" for it.

This is the most bizarre accusation you make against me. If I have any reputation, it probably includes that I go into sometimes excruciating detail to back up my claims. I provide more evidence than almost all people, especially including everyone in this discussion, such as you and RailGunner and smitty. To say I never provide evidence is just completely stupid.

You, on the other hand, insist that what you say is God's Own Truth because it came from you.

I've never once said anything even remotely similar to this. Ever. It's like you are pretending I am someone else. It's really bizarre.

the fake conservative likes to offer evidence that counters his own argument

You're lying.

as far as I have ever seen in discussion with you, you have never offered any evidence at all.

You're lying. Just recently, I provided significant evidentiary support for my claims against your view on Benghazi. For example, you said there was not enough time, and I showed your timeline was wrong based on the published reports about when the attack began at the embassy, and when the final assault began at the CIA annex. When I have legal discussions, I regularly quote decisions to back up my claim. That's what I do, and everyone knows it. You're just making shit up for no actual reason.

By the way, others have asserted you are female. I have rejected that for two reasons. The first is that I generally have no reason to think you are female (a troll's assertion of your gender is not any reason at all), and therefore I make no assumption either way. The second is that the only reason I have to think one way or the other, makes me think you are more likely male: your intentionally obtuse combativeness for no actual purpose. I've seen women be obtuse and argumentative like that when there's some, to them, substantive reason for it. But your pointless obtuseness? If you're female, that'd be a first in my experience.

Re:No. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#46018831)

Concur. damn_registrars, while potentially a Bobby Brown [youtube.com] sort of figure, does not argue like a woman. In fact, his bull-headed idiocy can only be seen as testosterone-driven.
I think the academic exposure may give him occasional pseudo-estrogen flourishes; this may be the source of feminine speculation.

Re:No. (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46025209)

If it existed, I believe you would provide it.

The evidence does exist, I have provided it, and you have not read it. Those are the facts. I can't make you read it. Just because you choose not to read it doesn't negate its existence. Continuing to lie about its existence also will not make it go away.

If I have any reputation, it probably includes that I go into sometimes excruciating detail to back up my claim

Not in any discussion with me, you most certainly do not. You have essentially never in discussion provided meaningful evidence of any of your statements beyond repeating them as if repetition will somehow make them true.

I provide more evidence than almost all people, especially including everyone in this discussion, such as you and RailGunner and smitty.

Except that in this discussion - and in essentially every discussion you have ever invited yourself in to where I have been present - you have provided not one single shred of evidence for any of your accusations. You cannot possibly back up your statement here, it is nothing short of an outright lie.

To say I never provide evidence is just completely stupid.

So facts are stupid? I guess that explains your generally anti-fact worldview.

You, on the other hand, insist that what you say is God's Own Truth because it came from you.

I've never once said anything even remotely similar to this. Ever.

Except for every single time that you enter into a discussion, lob baseless allegations, and then insist that they are magically true because you said them to be so.

In other words, you do that almost every single time you hit the reply button after one of my comments.

the fake conservative likes to offer evidence that counters his own argument

You're lying.

Really? You're back to that baseless allegation again? Do you have a macro key configured on your keyboard that allows you to write that statement with a single keystroke? Or maybe an extension in your browser that automatically inserts in into your reply and leaves it there until you delete it?

Just recently, I provided significant evidentiary support for my claims against your view on Benghazi.

Except you didn't. You gave a link to dubious preliminary information that has been refuted by multiple independent reports.

For example, you said there was not enough time, and I showed your timeline was wrong based on the published reports about when the attack began at the embassy, and when the final assault began at the CIA annex.

Except that they didn't know for sure after the first one was over that there would be a second one, or where it would be if there was. You're monday morning quarterbacking the matter; if they had sent troops in and nothing had happened you would be bitching that it was a waste of resources.

I regularly quote decisions to back up my claim

Regularly quote decisions? As in the decisions that you make to call people who disagree with you liars? That doesn't really do anything to support your claim.

By the way, others have asserted you are female.

"others" can say what they want. Does it matter to you for some reason?

The first is that I generally have no reason to think you are female (a troll's assertion of your gender is not any reason at all), and therefore I make no assumption either way.

But yet you remember the troll saying it, so it apparently matters to you.

The second is that the only reason I have to think one way or the other, makes me think you are more likely male

You just said you make no assumption, and then you went and made an assumption. You're really not good at this.

your intentionally obtuse combativeness for no actual purpose

Is that what you told yourself in the mirror this morning? You once again replied to my comment and started calling me a liar without any justification or supporting information. Then when I pointed out that your allegations were illogical you dug in further with the same allegation repeated again.

there's some, to them, substantive reason for it

A reason such as pointing out that no matter how many times you claim the contrary I am indeed not lying when I state my opinion.

Re:No. (3, Informative)

RailGunner (554645) | about 9 months ago | (#46017239)

Pudge : Rush :: RG : Mark Levin.

Your inability to see that is what makes you a weapons-grade idiot.

Furthermore, your obviously incorrect assertion that I am not a conservative is completely ludicrous, and I think, despite your limited mental facilities, you know this. It's an ad hominem attack -- you've never once been able to beat me (or any other conservative here) in a debate, so you resort to Alinsky tactics. It's the only tool you have in your tool belt.

Well, outside of a belt sander, apparently.

You are nothing more than an obsessive, compulsive, possibly homosexual, definitely a stalker, and without a doubt a pathetic sniveling little Alinskyite troll. Your act is tired, and more worn out then the treads on a tire with 250K miles on it.

You're completely pathetic and predictable, and after this post, I'm not going to bother with you. Respond if you want -- it's still a slightly free country, even though Obama wipes his ass with the Constitution daily -- and the MSM acts like it's Manna from Heaven -- but I won't read it. The NSA might, well, they probably will read your drivel, but I'm not going to.

Actually...

Is that what frightens you the most? Is this all a little attention ploy? Did your daddy not love you enough and that's why you seek the company of older men?

Perhaps you should reflect on that. But as for me, you are completely irrelevant.

I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

Now post a response. You know you can't let someone other than yourself get the final word.

Re:No. (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 9 months ago | (#46054111)

Pudge : Rush :: RG : Mark Levin.

I really hate to necro a thread, but I just wanted a bookmark for this cute little bit of fanfiction.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45993553)

Truly a peach, this one.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45993543)

ignore the text I actually write and substitute in whatever you want

I defy you to point to where I substituted a single character in this JE. I noted, as one does when quoting, that I added emphasis.
But do keep going. Your childish whining is the height of amusing. If you want peace, I'd be happy with that, too. But if you want, I can continue mocking your buffoonery. You tell me. I'm here for you.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45994347)

ignore the text I actually write and substitute in whatever you want

I defy you to point to where I substituted a single character in this JE. I noted, as one does when quoting, that I added emphasis.

You substituted in what you wanted by changing the order of things, and pretending that what I wrote was in reply to what you wanted it to be in reply to, rather than what it actually was in direct reply to. You didn't have to substitute the characters themselves, as you opted instead to substitute the context that you wanted.

It's really quite simple. Go back to the comment I actually wrote [slashdot.org] where I plainly stated that I was not defending anything. Then come to the start of this silly JE that you just defecated out upon slashdot [slashdot.org] and see that you are pretending that I was defending something in spite of the fact that I plainly stated I was not.

It is really, really, sad to see you lowering yourself to creative editing. It doesn't aid your argument in any way, shape or form, and it just makes you look shallow and pitiful.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45995481)

I quoted about half of your reply, and linked to it (actually to my parent post, which was accidental but close enough). I did nothing whatsoever to reorder your words, and you're as false here as you are to accuse Phil Robertson of homophobia. You're making another false accusation. But repetition and slander seem superior to truth in your realm.
And now add another layer of defense upon your previous claim of non defense.

It is really, really, sad to see you lowering yourself to creative editing.

I'm striving to match your creativity, sir, but clearly I'm going to require a trip to Colorado for some chemical enhancement.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45998275)

I quoted about half of your reply

And by doing so you - either by accident or otherwise - dropped important context and substituted in your own.

I did nothing whatsoever to reorder your words

That is not true. In your JE you once again claimed that I was

defend them (why should I?), and then turn around and say I'm not defending anything.

If you had fairly read and quoted what I wrote you could not possibly come to that conclusion.

But repetition and slander seem superior to truth in your realm.

That is ridiculous. You are repeatedly lying about me, attempting to fabricate "truth" out of thin air because what I say does not match your assumptions about me.

And now add another layer of defense upon your previous claim of non defense.

It is not merely a claim, it is a fact. It is a fact that I am not defending the administration, regardless of how desperately you want to claim the contrary. Your creative editing doesn't make it happen, nor does anything else you attempt to do.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#46002549)

It is a fact that I am not defending the administration

It is equally a fact that I have never sought extra-legal removal of any public official in general, or #OccupyResoluteDesk in particular. It is equally a fact, I'll venture, that Phil Robertson fears very little (at age 67, and as a Christian, not fretting his inevitable demise), and thus calling any utterance of his "homophobic" is probably wrong.
Now, I don't care either way. We can continue this sophomoric back-and-forth. While I can respect your humanity, you opinions seem a flaming raft if illiberal crap, AFAICT. You're probably reciprocating for mine.
I've offered an olive branch in the past, and would like to offer another off-ramp here and now. If you want to just let it all go, that's OK with me.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46003257)

I just demonstrated clearly and precisely that you are making shit up about me out of thin air. Now you skirt the matter and you try to bring up Benghazi.

That's fine. If you want to try to defend yourself on your quest to end the presidency early, allow me to posit a question to you again.

If an independent investigator were to be called up by congress (I recognize their right to do this) in the very near future, the most likely outcome - based on what we know to date - is that said investigator would return to congress and refuse to call a grand jury as there is not enough evidence to even warrant that. The second most likely outcome is that a grand jury would be called and they would refuse to vote yes, which would result in the death of the impeachment motion. Any other outcome - based on what you, I, or anyone else who reads the news has access to - is not even close enough to being likely to even warrant discussion. Frankly there is a better chance of space aliens landing at 1600 Pennsylvania and abducting Obama.

So if either of those situations involving an investigator played out, would you then be willing to let go of your dream of seeing Benghazi lead to an early termination of this presidency?

If your answer is no then you cannot support your claim to opposing extralegal methods for removing the president.

I've offered an olive branch in the past

The closest you have offered so far to an olive branch is to just stop talking. That does not lead to an improved understanding of anything. In fact the lack of discussion is part of why our government is so utterly dysfunctional.

If you want to just let it all go, that's OK with me.

I can't force you to read the comments I write. I can't force you to reply to the comments I write. I can't force you to write JEs about me either. You can walk away at any time if you don't want to have a discussion.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#46004651)

I've offered an olive branch in the past

The closest you have offered so far to an olive branch is to just stop talking. That does not lead to an improved understanding of anything. In fact the lack of discussion is part of why our government is so utterly dysfunctional.

I realize that you're not terribly excited about facts there in Propagandareich, but I did literally offer an olive branch [slashdot.org] last month. You can twist it like corkscrew pasta; any less would be totally out of character for you, but there it is.

If you want to just let it all go, that's OK with me.

I can't force you to read the comments I write. I can't force you to reply to the comments I write. I can't force you to write JEs about me either. You can walk away at any time if you don't want to have a discussion.

If this finger-pointy business is what does it for you, then fine. I could enjoy something a little less poo-flingy, and a little more edifying. My chief point here is that, while I don't take you seriously, and don't think you're arguing in good faith the bulk of the time, there really is no animus on my end, and if you'd like to consider some points at less than 120dB, that's fine, too.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46006453)

I've offered an olive branch in the past

The closest you have offered so far to an olive branch is to just stop talking. That does not lead to an improved understanding of anything. In fact the lack of discussion is part of why our government is so utterly dysfunctional.

I realize that you're not terribly excited about facts there in Propagandareich, but I did literally offer an olive branch last month. You can twist it like corkscrew pasta; any less would be totally out of character for you, but there it is.

Your "olive branch" was both

  • Propaganda for a conservative website

And

  • Condescending towards anyone who does not agree with you

It was an offer of peace no more so than were the disease-infected blankets the US Army gave to the Native American tribes.

My chief point here is that, while I don't take you seriously, and don't think you're arguing in good faith the bulk of the time

Nobody is forcing you to read my comments to to reply to them. If you feel that is an accurate portrayal of what I write then why do you even bother replying to it? You have the freedom to ignore it.

there really is no animus on my end

This, like many things you have claimed for yourself recently, is not supported by your writings historically.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#46007339)

This, like many things you have claimed for yourself recently, is not supported by your writings historically.

Chiefly because you insist on rejecting the plain words I have said, preferring your own imaginations about those plain words.

Re:Wow that's a lot of JEs for little ol' me! (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46007987)

there really is no animus on my end

This, like many things you have claimed for yourself recently, is not supported by your writings historically.

Chiefly because you insist on rejecting the plain words I have said, preferring your own imaginations about those plain words.

When the words that you choose are directly chosen to insult or belittle me, you are not able to support your claim of showing no animus on your end. You have intentionally and directly insulted me and tried to portray me as a caricature of a liberal or "progressive", rather than actually reading the words I write. What I have written about you is directly supported by your own words, while what you write about me is contrary to what I write.

Shorter d_r: irony is lost on me (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#46009031)

there really is no animus on my end

This, like many things you have claimed for yourself recently, is not supported by your writings historically.

Chiefly because you insist on rejecting the plain words I have said, preferring your own imaginations about those plain words.

When the words that you choose are directly chosen to insult or belittle me, you are not able to support your claim of showing no animus on your end. You have intentionally and directly insulted me and tried to portray me as a caricature of a liberal or "progressive", rather than actually reading the words I write. What I have written about you is directly supported by your own words, while what you write about me is contrary to what I write.

No, really: if I was incapable of taking the forgiveness Christ has shown me, and transferring it to you, I wouldn't bother attempting a dialogue with you. You have, in this JE and thread, a tiny hint at what you've tried to do to me [slashdot.org] . Teasing you about the way you defended sophomoric behavior, and then claimed that you were not, is about as close as I can venture to the kind of dishonesty I've both experienced at your hand, and previously let go.
Was I being obtuse? Sure. Was this JE built on a bloody-minded, simplistic view of what you wrote? Guilty as charged. Do I think that my tease was well-supported by my direct quotation? Oh, it's all a bit tenuous. But really: here I am, picking on you for the high crime of "defending childish insults, then denying the defense". Whoop-dee-effing-do.
As we are at 15+ responses between each other in this thread, I wonder when the light will dawn on you that the whole thing has been aught but an extended troll, and your superior defense would've been to acquire a sense of humor (here is a first breadcrumb for you on Amazon [amazon.com] ) and then laugh at my JE in the first place.
Please, please, please: breath in, breath out, and rejoin humanity.

really? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#46013703)

the whole thing has been aught but an extended troll,

You really went to great lengths just to troll me? Well, I guess everyone needs a hobby. I might suggest a different one.

That said, the way you were flip-flopping even in your apparent admission of trolling me suggests you had more skin in the game than that, but the way you intentionally butchered my statements makes it hard to decide whether to believe anything you just said. I guess in a way that does support your claim of trolling.

Re:really? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#46014669)

Look at the whole JE, now that your whole "argument clinic" shenanigans with Pudge is back in full swing.

You really went to great lengths just to troll me?

Have we been doing anything else for months now?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?