OCCOM BILL wrote:While there has certainly been some Ad Hominem activity on this thread, Blatham is correct in his assessment of what he responded to. Lipstick on a pig is a term used as a descriptor of making a bad deal sound better. I'm not sure myself what Dlowan was applying it to... but it is definitely not a personal attack and was no part of trying to shift attention away from the debate. Sliming is a fair descriptor for someone who accuses another of being aligned with a despicable group like nambla without a shred of proof. Several of us thoroughly debunked the sloppy association strategy that was offered as proof.
I thought it would be transparently obvious to anyone who was reading my second to last post to dlowan, that my post extended many olive branches to him/her. I never connected dlowan to NAMBLA, but the Pelosi connection to NAMBLA, which is a connection by omission is still very much a fair charge to levy against Pelosi.
Additionally, the "lipstick on a pig comment", made about me but directed in an exchange between you and dlowan along with the "sliming" description was rank, crude, and an attack (following my attempts to debate the point in a civil fashion). That is, as far as I am concerned, unsportsmanlike conduct for a civil discourse. You're entitled to keep you opinion, as well I will keep mine.
Quote:Perhaps, but in this case the argument itself is what was proved invalid, repeatedly. As a newbie on this site; I too learned the hard way that the standard of evidence is considerably higher here than most venues. The reference I provided to fallacious arguments was provided to me, right here, a couple of years back. When a poster, new or old, chooses to ignore evidence that their argument is fallacious AND chooses to continue forwarding it on multiple threads it is inevitable they will be deemed a troll by the opposition. There are trolls on both sides of the political spectrum, old and new, though the site does an excellent job of weeding out the worst offenders. Aside from the obvious effects of effective moderation, the charge has little to do with member longevity.
First, who do you think YOU are to "proclaim" that the argument of the Pelosi/NAMBLA connection has been proven invalid?
Second, the standard of proof here is no different than many other boards, with a majority of posters starting ad hominem attacks when they disagree with another poster, the proof of which can be found in dlowan's post to you about me. The hijacking attempts of this thread by BiPolarBear and EhBeth are also typical of dissenting posters who want to close discussion, and it stinks.
OCCOM, just because BiPolarBear likes you doesn't make this a superior board. I think you may be experiencing some issues with delusions of grandeur.
Quote:While I'm sure us old timers are more likely to give each other the benefit of the doubt after years of civil discussion and a good deal of mutual respect earned, I don't think this is maliscious. Would it be different in a coffee shop, bar or sewing circle?
You misspelled "malicious". I believe my earlier comments to BiPolarBear covered the situation accurately. Yes, good friends can banter more comfortably and freely, but such does not excuse the older members from obeying the TOS of this board, anytime they please.
Quote:LittleBitty wrote: Every time words like "troll" are thrown out there, please consider that this same friendly banter cannot be returned in kind by a new poster. I was equally impressed to learn that a poster had moved MC's residence to the state of Texas, thus creating a rather difficult long distance marriage.
Not so. A new poster can argue as forcefully as anyone, but if they are going to challenge others with the kind of wanton bravado these two have exhibited, they'd better be able to back with solid intelligence and respectable critical thinking skill
(Examine "Finn dAbuzz"'s early debates for proof of this. A2K
is a bit Left-Heavy... but that's one of the points they are missing. Mysteryman, Timberlandko and myself all lean Right more often than not and all agree Pelosi's politics suck. Defending her is something I would never do, except in a case where someone is essentially telling bald face lies in an attempt to slime her. Blatham is generally found in lockstep with Dlowan politically and can usually be found on the opposite side of any argument I'm in.
Really nice dodge of LittleBitty's observation about long-term posters who are obviously getting it really wrong, as proven by one poster on this thread who stated I was from LoneStar's home state.
I think you must be getting kind of sore patting yourself on the back and stating how intelligent you are. It is funny in your claim that you are on the right, since I've joined I've not noticed you on any of the key conservative issue base threads, posting in favor of conservative values. I'm aware that these boards offer some form of comraderie for people and that loneliness can cause a poster with an initial set of values to swtich to the side that offers the most companionship. I can see that you're in solid with BiPolarBear. I have no such need to fit in with liberals. I can see how you respond in this thread and until you prove yourself otherwise, I will neatly categorize you where I believe you belong, with the rest of the liberals on this board.
You are also ignoring the 1994 news about Harry Hay refusing to March in the 1994 New York Gay Pride Parade and announcing that he would march in another parade. You ignore the parade lineup that was published in June 2001, following the parade, that listed Harry Hay within the lineup next to Nancy Pelosi. Even a television station will issue some sort of disclaimer about content that they air. Pelosi issues no such disclaimer because she can't, OCCOM Bill. She can't because if she does, she risks upsetting her entire gay base. Even some of the gay parade officials have condemned NAMBLA, but Pelosi hasn't. You think it's funny to expect her to clarify a point and that makes for a specious argument.
Two years from now, when Pelosi is knocked out of power, you can tell me again about how specious you thought this argument was.
Quote:LittleBitty wrote: At what point does the troll argument become a thing of the past, and how does the label of troll tie into the argument that a position has been addressed logically and carefully?
As described above. At the point where it has been addressed logically and carefully and ignored anyway. Or, in exceptional cases, at the point where they burst on the scene peddling bald face lies.
It was a BALD FACE LIE that all republicans that were "slimed" with the Foley scandal knew he was writing explicit emails to teenage male pages. If you're too thick to see the analogy and refuse to call it for what it is, state your opinion as an opinion and find something else to discuss.
Quote:LittleBitty wrote:I agree that LSM and MC are responsible for their own posts, but the same rules apply to everyone else without exception.
I couldn't agree more. Should LSM and MC choose to elevate the credibility of their attacks on Pelosi, they will likely find much agreement, camaraderie, and alliance with the sizeable conservative right membership here. Peddling slime will garner respect from no one... except slime peddlers of the same stripes.
I don't recognize you as the representative of the board, or representative of the conservatives on this board, just someone who has an unjustifiably overinflated opinion of themself, although I am sure that your buddy BiPolarBear and some of the other left on this board will rush to your defense.
Quote:LittleBitty wrote:
I found
this article on Pelosi in the LA Weekly.
From the article:
Quote:Her opponent was San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt, who'd been picked by the gay community as successor to the assassinated Harvey Milk. Pelosi buried Britt in money, and ran a nasty campaign that portrayed him as a "gay socialist." (Years later, her money-raising practices sometimes get her in trouble. Last month, she was forced to shut down one of ä her two political-action committees, which had been operating illegally as a double-dipping laundry, and candidates were asked to return its contributions.)
Quote:Most profiles of Pelosi note her advocacy of AIDS issues and gay civil rights, and her bucking the Clinton administration by opposing most-favored-nation trade status for China on human-rights grounds. But given the huge Chinese-American and gay populations in her district (and lingering resentment in the latter over her defeat of Britt), these positions were a nearly obligatory reflection of local politics
I have one criticism with respect to this article; it mixes fact with opinion.
See, that's what I'm talking about. Plenty to make a case against Pelosi in that article alone, without resorting to slimy lies.
[/QUOTE]
Too bad a democrat could find examples showing the lengths of corruption this representative has on her, but you can't.
Good luck with all of your liberal friends.
