OCCOM BILL wrote:Actually, if you weren't so pretentious, you might realize that I treat you with infinitely more respect than you treat me. I don't accuse you or sending "ad-hominem filled hot-air balloons" until you start sending them... which you always do if your opponent doesn't allow you to move the goal posts.
This is an example of the prime reason why i lost respect for your a long time ago. Your self-righteousness. I came to this thread, read it, and then left. I came back later, and read more of the sickening right-wing pile on against the French. Then i commented. When i commented, i responded to the initial post, and called this thread as i saw it, another example of conservative France-bashing. I did not refer to your ridiculous contentions because they were meaningless in my thesis--which is that the point of this thread was to bash France. You have not only done nothing to disprove it, but so many of your posts before i made my comments are just exactly the same thing, witless France-bashing. I haven't "moved any goal posts," because i have never been obliged to respond to your ridiculous statements about double standards--you have failed to demonstrate any double standard operative in what i've written.
Quote:You even whine when someone redirects you back to the point, to avoid using your imaginary Setanta-points that are easier for Setanta to attack.
I have done no whining. Did god die and leave you in charge? I think not. I had a point to make and i made it. Nothing obliges me to refute your silly thesis, and as i have so many times done in this thread, i invite you to demonstrate that your silly "double standard" crap applies to me. You have never made the effort to demonstrate that. I object to condemning the entire French nation. Unless and until you provide proof, in the form of quotes of what i have written, that i indulge in condemning the entire American nation, you have no case. It is hilarious that you think you are entitled to determine what "the point" is in this thread. I came to object to bashing the French, i still object to it. All the response you have so far provided is in the nature of "Oh yeah, well look what this other guy said--double standard, double standard." You accuse me of childishness when your entire position is akin to that of a "nya-nya" argument on a playground.
Quote:You are the first one personal, . . .
You linked your comments about Gus' threads (with that saccherine crap about "most beloved poster") and then wrote of my "political bedfellows." Since i first appeared in this thread you have been trying to tar me with the brush you have been using on others, although there was not the least foundation for doing so. In fact, your "most beloved poster" was the one who began the sorry rant against the Iraq policy of the administration in a thread ostensibly regarding the tsunami disaster. When i had read that, i left that thread and did not return because it was all so ridiculous and disingenuous. You characterized my post as furious, without the slightest reason for doing so. So, in fact, you are the one who turned up the heat, and you jumped on something i posted in response to Tico, and which had absolutely no reference to what you were ranting about. Since then, you've been trying to involve me in your spurious argument, and you have never yet provided the least evidence that i condemn bashing France, but applaud bashing America. That will stay as it is, because you will be unable to provide any such evidence.
Thereafter, you proceeded to this:
Quote:No shortage of logic to my thesis, Set. I agree that one you conjured up doesn't work. Here's my point: If someone uses a bit of news about this horrific disaster to take a pot shot at France, that disgusts you... but if someone uses a bit of news about this horrific disaster to take a pot shot at the U.S., that doesn't. That is a double standard, Set.
This somehow assumes that i am obligated to rush into a thread, with some sort of mystical foreknowledge of your objections, to complain that someone is bashing the United States. As i've already commented time and time again, the current administration and the United States are not synonymous. Criticism of the current administration does not constitute criticism of America. Even had i that mystical foreknowledge of that to which you object, i would not respond as you seem to think i am obliged to respond, for the very reason that criticizing the administration is
not axiomatically an exercise in America-bashing.
Quote:. . . the first to whine about style and the first one to start calling names in every debate you ever had with me.
Given your lack of forensic skill, it would never have occurred to me to characterize the exchanges i've had with you as debate. You wrote:
Quote:I gather you missed this post then Set, because I don't see you raining down your furious resentment on your political bedfellows for using this disaster to do the exact same thing to the United States.
So, indeed with your characterization of my remarks as failing to "rain down [my] furious resentment on my political befellows," you set the tone for the exchanges, not i. You are the one who is constantly trying, without offering a shred of evidence, to suggest that i think exactly like those whom you condemn for criticizing the current administration. Given that you seem unable or unwilling to make a distinction between criticizing a particular political administration and slurring an entire nation, i can hardly be faulted for not considering this a debate. You have accused me of indulging in a double standard, you have done so through the use of inflamatory language, and you have provided no proof of your contention. That's not debate, that's just mud-slinging, and you introduced the sport here, i did not.
Quote:Since you've chosen to not leave well enough alone, after I gave you a pass, again, I'll redirect you back to before you started substituting Setanta-points for my own.
Gave me a pass? Don't do me any favors, Buddy. Nothing obliges me to accept
a priori your terms just because you insist upon it. You've been trying to foist your specious double standard argument off on me since i appeared here, and you have never yet provided direct quotes of what i've written which demonstrate that while deploring France-bashing, i indulge in, support or condone America-bashing. Like a dog bullyragging a chew toy, you've got a hold on your thesis, and just like a dog which sees itself as the center of the universe, you think your thesis is the central point which everyone
must discuss. Until you can quote me to prove that i condemn bashing France while remaining indifferent to bashing America, you have no case, you just continue to bullyrag your chew toy. Providing examples of people who are Bush-bashing
is not to provide examples of America-bashing. You haven't made your case, and you won't be able to do so.
Never give me a pass, Buddy, because i've never seen you present an argument in criticism of me which has the least basis in fact.
Quote:I politely point out that Ticos numbers were widely reported, and that yours are now as wrong too.
Widely reported, huh? Free Republic,
The Washington Times, Fox News? It does not surprise me in the least that the largely conservative-dominated media in the U.S. would be all over this like ugly on an ape--bashing France is what so many of them live for. By the way, the numbers to which i referred are not "mine"--they were a part of the link which Walter provided, and they were correct at the time Walter provided them. What exactly those numbers were or are matters less than that the number Tico was bandying about was (intentionally in my opinion) a distortion intended to make France look bad.
Quote:You falsely accuse Lash of snippyness, reiterate that Reuters had some facts wrong (which everyone knew before you showed up, btw) and then launch into your standard petty attack on the duly elected leader of our land.
I found the tone of Lash's reply to be sarcastic, which is why i characterized it as "snippy." She denied it, and i did not pursue the matter. I launched no attack on the Shrub, once again, you make an accusation without any proof. That i later, much later, spoke slightingly of him does not authorize your statement above that i "then launch your standard petty attack on the duly elected leader of our land." Tediously, i will repeat that criticizing the Shrub or the administration is not equivalent to bashing America, nor is equivalent to bashing an entire nation. The point of this thread from the outset was to bash France, and i objected on that basis. By the way, the Shrub is the duly elected magistrate of the United States--being a leader is a matter of character, something which he generally lacks. Because many people in this country are willing to see the PNAC agenda implemented, and therefore "follow" Bush does not make him a leader. The only proof you have offered that i "launched a standard petty attack" on Bush is this:
What disgusts me here is how quickly people are willing to pile on the French, and it all derives from the refusal of the French to sign onto the dirty little war by the Shrub and his Forty Theives. You can deny it to your heart's content, but even a casual perusal of the threads here for the last two years show an obsession on the part of Americans with proving just how vile the French are. To characterize the Iraq war as a "dirty little war," and to describe the administration as "Forty Thieves" is my right as an American who pays attention and votes. It does not constitute an attack on America, just the crooks and Reaganite war-mongers in this administration. I have held and stated this position since before the war began. I have repeatedly pointed out that the invasion of Iraq was a part of the PNAC agenda before Bush was elected. That makes it particularly disgusting given the way the administration capitalized on the September 11th horror to further an agenda already in place when that attack took place.
Subjects which encompass the deaths of thousands of people, whether in the World Trade Center, or in Iraq, are hardly to be considered petty.
Quote:Next, I bring to your attention the vivid example of a double standard that I'd cited earlier:
As i have pointed out, your repeated attempts to cast me in with a group of people who are doing something you don't like does not make it so. I am nor responsible for anyone else's criticism of the current administration, i am only responsible for my own. Criticizing this administration and criticizing America are two very different things. I enjoy doing the former, i do not indulge in the latter. In fact, when i am in Canada, i often find myself defending America, because there just the same proportion of idiots there who are willing to bash an entire nation for the faults of a few as there are here.
Quote:To which you respond
Setanta wrote:No O'Bill and Lash, the whole thing started with a thread entitled "Is France stingy?" The person slamming the United States to whom you object would have had no opportunity to do so if a thread slamming France had not first been started.
I did not understand at that time that you were ranting about another thread, and was responding within the context of this thread. Once again, it meaningless, since a criticism of this administration does not constitute a condemnation of an entire nation.
Quote:Just to be complete, I'll include this petty complaint:
Setanta wrote:By the way, O'Bill, you have no way of judging whether or not i am furious. All i have admitted to is being disgusted. That sort of histrionic trick which attempts to raise the temperature of debate is far less likely to work with me, Bubba, than with many of the wingnuts (right or left) in the political threads. When i am furious, you'll know, because i'll write something such as: "I am furious."
That was not a petty complaint at all. I was responding to your attempt to up the ante, to raise the heat in the kitchen. I can stand the heat in the kitchen, so i have no need to leave it. Although you would like to contend that i immediately jump into personal remarks and scorn in any exchange between us, this in fact just proves that you were first on the scene trying to ratchet up the tone of debate. It is much easier to paint me as a crazed hating man if you can stir up a little trouble first--but it didn't work.
Quote:By this point, it was clear that even having been pointed towards the parallell thread where the Tsunami was being used as a launching point to attack U.S. Policy, you were not uttering words like "makes me sick" and "disgusting", and hence were perpetuating the double standard that was vividly presented before your arrival.
No Bill, there is a difference which you won't address. The thread to which you refer entails criticism of the administration's policy and actions, and not a slur on an entire nation. I have criticized this thread for bashing an entire nation. Apples to oranges, Bill--i perpetuate no double standard because one is a case of condemning a political administration and the other is a case of condemning an entire nation. But you won't address that, because you are still trying to shove that double standard crap down my throat, and have no answer to the apples-to-oranges conundrum. If at any point you acknowledge that the one is a case of criticizing a government and the other of criticizing an entire nation, your argument collapses.
Quote:I merely pointed out it was that double standard that I objected to, not any poster... and retracted the portion of my previous post you'd needlessly bristled to.
I did not bristle, i only pointed out that you were using tendentious language in an attempt to raise the heat of the debate. I have been involved in no double standard, and you have failed to prove that i have. You haven't even tried to prove that i have. You've just been shouting "what about him, what about her, look what they wrote!"--which has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Quote:Now, ever since then, you've been trying to obligate me to prove more than this simple chain of events. Predictably, you've become increasingly insulting, indignant and LONGWINDED in your attempts to first establish I have some additional obligations, and then claim victory when I curtly refuse to recognize your imaginative requirements. The Double Standard I pointed out, remains vividly clearÂ… just as it was before I joined A2K and will likely be long after I'm gone. Instead of acknowledging an obvious point, you chose instead to rant on about Tico's intentions and Lash's snippiness and even attacked our beloved Gus and for what? Just to avoid acknowledging a simple, predictable truth. Your repeated slams on my character are both false and childish. I'm no liar nor slanderer, Setanta. At worst, I interpret your childish behavior differently. When you repeatedly mislabel the people around you, what do you think that says about you?
There are no
additional obligations. You made an accusation toward me, and until you can prove it, you have no basis to repeat it. But repeat it you do. As for my being "long-winded," that is your retreat from the attempt to prove your case. Since you criticize what i write, i respond. When you have no reponse to my response, you then make more accusations, such as your remarks about ad hominems and hot air. You made the decision to get nasty here, and now you're crying because i repaid you in like kind. Get over it. If you get nasty with me, you can expect me to get nasty in return. You have failed to demonstrate that i have indulged in a double-standard, and failing that, you make the tone of what i write the issue rather than the content. You have no case. When you accuse me of something, but fail or refuse to prove it, you make a liar of yourself. What does that say about you? Are you listening? I doubt that you are able to accurately assess your participation here, because of your self-righteous obsession with proving that your are somehow a dispassionate observer of the faults of others.
I have objected to bashing an entire nation. Until you can prove that i object in this case, but not in others, you are indulging in lies.
By the time we get to the 8th response, which begins: "To bush and his supporters and partners...these children aren't really human beings", it's a full out U.S. policy bashing free-for-all.
), you have concluded that my sole purpose in penning my initial post was to bash the entire French population, and you somehow think I believed this "France bashing" thread was justified based on the comments of that UN ninny's remark. Although I've explained the real reason of my post, you wish to believe I had another motive. I've also noticed your penchant for calling other people liars, so I assume this is just one of your character flaws. I've no continuing desire to correct your mistakes in this regard.
