Bet you never knew Neuroscience 101 classes were so exciting. Bet you also never knew that a parody of Christian fundamentalism can get you arrested for terrorism.
Here's the summary: a professor in a Intro to Neuro class bluntly stated that the Bible is not a science text book. Being confronted with fact offended one Christian student so much that he felt compelled to walk out of class and then send a bitter email to the professor and his fellow students. Another student, upon reading this email from the Dark Ages, felt compelled to compose a line-by-line parody of his peer's self-centered and pathetic whining. It was okay, as parodies go, though the original email sure gave him plenty to work with.
The next day, the parody writer was arrested as a terrorist.
My favorite quote from the arresting police officers: "It doesn’t matter that it was a joke. What matters is that your joke could be read a certain way that indicates a terroristic threat." Yeah, kid, it doesn't matter what you actually said, just that some tender Christian feelings got hurt. Baby Jeebus doesn't understand irony, satire, or parody, and thus you made him cry. Off to Guantanamo with you!
35 Comments:
I thought everyone knew that if someone writes something, they are subject to anyone in the world reading the words and trying to intentionally apply an unintended context, then holding them accountable for the intentionally misapplied context. Anyone who has ever typed in the comments section of a blog with an unpopular opinion would not have been surprised by that arrest. People can and will interpret your words any way they choose in order to advance their position. This arrest is no surprise to me.
CF
Your post completely misses the point, CF, and you miss it with such lack of concern that I am honestly worried.
Yes, it is only natural to expect that one's words, written or spoken or sang, may be misunderstood or misinterpretted by some. Yes, one must accept this risk during any complex human communication. But, in this country at least, one should NEVER have to assume that another individual's misunderstanding warrants ARREST BY THE POLICE.
To even try to compare being misunderstood in blog comments to being picked up by the cops and charged with terrorism...wow. I mean...just wow.
I don't think I missed the point at all. In the story, the kid gets arrested because someone was able to find a way to interpret the words as a threat, not because someone felt his words were threatening. The cop admitted that. I can say quite easily that this is a completely ridiculous reality, but it is still a reality. Ask Aleks how many people were arrested or removed at Bush rallies who simply wore shirts or carried signs that implied disagreement. Were those people a threat? No. The organizers of those events were trying to silence them. In such a world, I see no reason to be surprised at this. The stupidity of the arrest does not make it more of a surprise. I don't want you to think I'm equating an arrest for intentional misinterpretation with insults for intentional misinterpretation (as in the blog case). That's not my intent. I only intended to draw a comparison between the two to show why I'm not surprised this method of surpressing opinions as a means to advance your viewpoint could occur. Frankly, it surprises me that you would be surprised by this arrest. This is par for the course now-a-days. Advance your point of view by making sure noone hears the opposing side. If someone calls it freedom of speech, trump that by calling it terrorism (or hate speech, that's another fun one). It's always easier to win an argument when there's no opposition.
CF
I agree with Citizen F's later statement. Much of politics, and it's immitation in conversation by partisans, comes down to the old lawyer's tactic "If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If neither is on your side, bang on the table." So if the facts are consistently against someone, and even more impressively they are consistently *unaware of basic, common, undisputed facts*, they're likely to accuse their opponents of agreeing with a candidate on "every single issue", of coming from a family of child molesters, of wanting the President of the United States to die, of insulting the military, etc. etc. What better smoke screen for the fact that one is so entirely ignorant, stupid, and factually wrong, than to bury those hateful facts in a stream of extreme accusations? Here's another axiom that applies to our politics, and that the Bushies have brought to a new level of accomplishment: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." And then of course such a one would go around claiming over and over to be "intelligent" . . . because how would anyone know if he didn't tell us?
Thanks for agreeing with me, Aleks. I appreciate that. Since you were speaking in generalities, I can't accuse you of taking me out of context. After all, you only implied I said those things and didn't accuse me of saying them. I will grant you this: those things you list do not belong in a discussion on political issues. I don't believe I brought them into such a discussion and you believe otherwise, but let's not discuss that now. To bring such words into a discussion on politics, whether by quoting them or using them yourself, would be equivalent to trying to bury the facts with rhetoric, which you say you agree is wrong. I trust this is your way of saying you won't bring them those quotes up in the future since it would be trying to further your point by surpressing dissenting facts, rather than overcoming them. I appreciate that. There's no reason for words like those here. I understand why you wouldn't want them here and will respect that, but you brought them to this discussion and I hope, from what you say, that you mean you won't need them in the future. I hope you're saying that you can overcome anything I say with facts and won't need to accuse me or anyone else of agreeing with a candidate or a party on every single issue, having family members who are liars or child molestors, or of insulting the military. I think that is what you are saying and I appreciate it. Those words do not belong in any discussion on politics and I know I can keep them out of my posts. I hope I understand correctly that you are saying you will keep them out of yours as well. Thanks again for your agreement.
CF
Author,
I think the school acted correctly (insanely, but as they had to). He made statements promoting violence, and and that cannot be tolerated, even though those statements were obviously sarcastic. What's the school going to do if there is an attack (yes, I realize Columbines are extraordinarily rare despite media hype) and there was a warning but they did not act because they were debating whether it was serious? Do you forgive the Bush administration for ignoring warnings that al-Qaeda was planning attacks in the US just because they didn't take them seriously?
I like this: "I trust this is your way of saying you won't bring them those quotes up in the future since it would be trying to further your point by surpressing dissenting facts, rather than overcoming them." What "fact" have you ever given that I have tried to suppress?
I like this even better: "I hope you're saying that you can overcome anything I say with facts and won't need to accuse me or anyone else of agreeing with a candidate or a party on every single issue, having family members who are liars or child molestors, or of insulting the military". You keep trying to draw comparisons between us, but I have never accused anyone of agreeing with a candidate on "every single issue", of being molested by his uncle, wanting the President of the United States to die, nor insulting the military. That's you, and since you're obviously proud of your behavior and consider yourself vastly superior, it's amazing that you're trying to attribute your claims to me. Obviously honesty or intellect could never restrain your claims, but doesn't that phenomenal and so far entirely unwarrented ego?
But naturally I'll be eager to hear about what "facts" you've ever offered that I could not "overcome". I'll make some popcorn, this should be spectacular.
How did I miss this: "Those words do not belong in any discussion on politics and I know I can keep them out of my posts."
Little poodle, they're your words! You "know" you can keep them out of your posts? I guess even this shouldn't suprise me, as we have a year of experience with how much it means when you "know" something. They're from your posts! Do you fool anyone besides yourself when you tell such stupid lies?
Aleks: To make the obvious point, you would have Swift arrested for advocating the consumption of babies? To arrest this kid for obvious parody sets a dangerous precedent, and exposes the ignorance inherent in seeing any situation in black-and-white.
The "warning signs" that preceded Columbine, for instance, were manifold and obvious: plans for attacking the school posted online, evidence of stockpiling arms, death threats made in all seriousness rather than blatant parody. Unfortunately, asking law enforcement to consider context seems to be asking too much. I call that paranoia. You just can't put al-Qaeda's threats and clever parody advocating a thousand-year-old punishment for heretics in the same context.
My bad, Aleks. I thought you were agreeing that we should only debate the issues at hand and not bring into the discussion out of context quotes that do not apply to the current discussion. I was wrong. You were actually saying that I should not do that, but you definitely should. I thought you were saying we should debate issues rather than distracting from the facts by bringing up issues unrelated to those facts. You were actually saying I should do that, but you should distract from the facts with any accusation you can dream up in order to suppress my point of view. I apologize for assuming you were trying to productively redirect the discussion here. I often overestimate people and that is a character flaw I need to work on. I hope you accept my apology.
CF
Bistromath,
Did Swift advocate eating specific people's babies? Who specifically should judge the context, on a case by case basis, of calls for violence before the police act? I'm not saying this isn't an extreme overreaction to, in this case, an obvious nonthreat. And maybe I'd side more with the kid if, given such ripe material, his satire had been a little better. I also acknowledge that this is a terrible slippery slope to start down.
I don't remember, did the article say what happened to the kid after? Obviously if they sent him to Guantanamo or disappeared him, or even punished him severely, I would object to that. But having some cops scare him out of advocating, even as a joke, mob violence against someone who is a plausible target of violence seems ok to me.
"You were actually saying that I should not do that, but you definitely should."
Naturally after such a long history of you making up absurd positions and claiming that I'd explicitly taken them, then refusing to quote the alleged statement (if you don't agree, deny that this has happened, and I'll provide a list), the logical assumption would be that you're just lying again. But I'll give you yet another chance to demonstrate that I've said anything that could possibly be taken by an honest OR intelligent person to mean what you claim.
"I thought you were saying we should debate issues rather than distracting from the facts by bringing up issues unrelated to those facts. You were actually saying I should do that, but you should distract from the facts with any accusation you can dream up in order to suppress my point of view."
Same as above, plus it would be nice to finally get an explanation for how by accusing me of insulting the military, saying that Author probably wants the President of the United States to die, claiming that I agreed with Kerry on "every single issue" or suggesting that I was molested by my uncle, you simply meant to focus on "issues" and "facts". It's particularly funny, although not at all suprising, that you consider yourself "classy", "intelligent", the incarnation of "valor", etc for making these claims without a shred of evidence (or have you just been holding out on it all these months?), but I'm trying to "distract from the facts" and "issues" by refuting them. Really, the combination of vicious fight-picking and whining about being a victim who meant no harm is so DeLayicious I hardly notice it in you anymore - do you ever win through facts, or is it always by inducing exhaustion and disgust? Not at all suprising from someone who sees debate as the art of managing to "overcome" facts.
You're right about overestimating people, at least regarding yourself. It's called hubris and arrogance, or in Catholic terms "Pride", although the secular meaning of the word connotes too much dignity for you. You certainly demonstrate the accuracy of the common Christian doctrine that it's the root of all other sins.
You also refused to point out any "facts" you have ever presented that I have tried to "repress", for the obvious reason. An obvious counter example would be Author's post on the Katrina disaster and your response, which did not include a single fact but only a stream of discredited White House talking points and your typical vile slander about her wanting the President to be dead, and blaming the hurricane on him.
You're right, Aleks, that his parody wasn't especially well-constructed, but I still believe that it's repressive to get hauled in for something so loony. It only serves to discourage similar humor from others, and God/FSM knows we need all the humor we can get these days, however poorly-written.
It IS repressive. So is arresting people for tresspassing or jay walking, God made that lawn and that street not the government, so who the hell are they . . . But a cleverer parody could have avoided even a phony incitement to violence, referencing on religion's Inquisiting and witch burning history was an unfair cheapshot anyway. Unless I missed something, the original letter was calling for mass demonstrations of extreme stupidity, but civil stupidity.
Err umm the geographical location occupied by both the road and the jaywalker. I think everyone heard me say that.
Ok, Aleks, I'll bite one more time. You said, "What better smoke screen for the fact that one is so entirely ignorant, stupid, and factually wrong, than to bury those hateful facts in a stream of extreme accusations?" You then proceeded to make a stream of extreme accusations toward me. Whether those accusations are true is both debateable and irrelovent, since the majority of extreme accusations are believed true by the accuser. From this, I can only determine that you want this standard to apply to me, and not to you. Here is a list of some of the "extreme accusations" I attribute to you:
From earlier posts: "...I have never accused anyone of agreeing with a candidate on "every single issue", of being molested by his uncle, wanting the President of the United States to die, nor insulting the military. That's you, and since you're obviously proud of your behavior and consider yourself vastly superior, it's amazing that you're trying to attribute your claims to me. Obviously honesty or intellect could never restrain your claims..."
Those are extreme accusations. When you make those accusations, you try to do exactly what you are condeming. That's why I said that you want me to not make extreme accusations, but you want to be able to keep doing it. Again, I reiterate, the legitamacy of an extreme accusation DOES NOT determine whether or not the accusation is extreme since nearly every time someone makes an extreme accusation, they believe it is legitimate. By that standard, anyone who makes an extreme accusation could say it was not extreme because it was true.
CF
So your moral compass sees no difference in extremity between pointing out that someone is consistently (and conveniently for the spinners of his cause) wrong about the basic facts of the subjects he lectures about while having a year long record of evidence that proves it, versus accusing someone of insulting the military, and suggesting that they were molested by their uncle? I love your claims of superiority, but I'm actually quite offended when you say we're equal. As for calling you stupid, a liar, a sheep, etc., you've said all of that about me, so your whiny martyr act does not impress me. You claim to have read the New Testiment, so you should have some idea of what Jesus said about hypocrites. Or try Dante?
Aleks, you have to read what I say. I said that I wanted to apply the standard you suggested, which requires debaters to use facts in their argument rather than extreme accusations, in the future. I said that we probably disagree about who said what first, but that that isn't the point. I said you were right that extreme accusations have no place in debate and that I would keep them out of my posts(using future tense, as in "from now on"). If you believe what you say and are not a hypocrit, you understand that you cannot make extreme accusations about me, such as calling me a liar, a sheep, etc., while claiming that making such accusation is wrong when I do it. Especially when I tell you I won't make those accusations in the future until you do it again. If you truly have that moral high ground, you have the perfect opportunity to prove it. Wait for me to make such an accusation before you do it again.
CF
We disagree about who started with accusations of being a "sheep"? We disagree about who accused who of insulting the military "first"? We disagree about who made insinuations of child molestation "first"? I need to "prove" I have the moral high ground compared to you?
In order, perhaps, yes, no, yes. You can easily prove that moral high ground by not making more extreme accusations before I do. If I do it as often as you say, you shouldn't have to wait long. Where's the down side to that? (that's not a rhetorical question)
CF
Woah, you claim that I accused you of insulting the military first, and "perhaps" called you a "sheep" first? If there was any doubt that I hold the moral highground to someone whose idea of debate is to insinuate that his opponent was molested by his uncle, you just proved that I do. You were right for once, I didn't "have to wait long".
"I couldn't live like you. I'm not a sheep. I'm a wolf."
Citizen F | 10.11.04 - 1:27 pm
"4(cont.)You have just been caught in a lie. You cannot be metrosexual and gay, so the joke was NOT the Kerry was gay. Quite the opposite.
5. Obviously, you cannot point out 5 points where you agree with Bush and not Kerry. That's because you're a sheep.
6. I am all for self-improvement. Point out one time I've been proven wrong and not corrected myself.
7. I understand your ilk and their bemusement at insulting our military. I, however, will not participate in such a discussion.
8. If I understand you, Saddam had the power to kill thousands of people in Southern Iraq, but not the power to ask one guy to leave. Why would you believe that? The guy spent time in Bagdad! Saddam certainly had full control of Bagdad! I can't figure out if you're stupid, crazy or a lemming. Perhaps to be one you must be all three. Either way, you're rediculous."
Citizen F | 11.12.04 - 10:24 am
Aleks, I have not made an extreme accusation since I made that statement. Are you saying I have? Could you show me when? The accusations you are referring to happened before I made that statement, so they certainly don't qualify. As for that post you just presented, it does not account for who did what first. It shows an example of me saying some things, but doesn't say whether you said them first. Either way, I don't care about the past because I am saying that I won't make extreme accusations, whether they're true or not, about you in this forum again. I have absolutely done so in the past, as have you, but I will not do it anymore.
Not even in retaliation.
I will reserve the right to make fun of you, though, and I'm sure you will make fun of me when I do something that warrants it. But I will not make extreme accusations about you in the future, as I've said.
CF
" Aleks, I have not made an extreme accusation since I made that statement. Are you saying I have? Could you show me when?"
I would consider accusing me of using fake quotes and of going around accusing people of insulting the military rather "extreme" accusations, were I the kind to whine about that sort of thing rather than demand that evidence be produced. But we clearly have very different moral compasses, for which I would weep with gratitude if I thought it were a near miss.
"As for that post you just presented, it does not account for who did what first. It shows an example of me saying some things, but doesn't say whether you said them first."
Those quotations take place very early to the beginning of your presence on this blog, so you're claiming that I accused you of insulting the military, and very early on, certainly a very extreme accusation to someone like me who does not fight that way and loathes people who do. As for "perhaps" having called you a "sheep" first, you seem to convince yourself of everything you say but you must know that's not true. I waited over half a year until I had a good long chain of evidence proving the case before it even occured to me to throw that word back at you. I still think it's a silly term to use, although since you introduced it and seemed to enjoy using it and I thought it applied rather well to you, I don't apologize for using it. But calling someone you'd just met a "sheep" as well as a "lemming" is demonstrably and undeniably your behavior, it is not mine.
"But I will not make extreme accusations about you in the future, as I've said."
You're currently in the process of accusing me of being the kind of person who goes around denouncing people for allegedly insulting the military, a very extreme accusation and not true of me. So hopefully you can understand why I don't find that statement as impressive as you probably do.
"You're currently in the process of accusing me of being the kind of person who goes around denouncing people for allegedly insulting the military, a very extreme accusation and not true of me."
You are the one that keeps bringing up the past. I have said things that were extreme accusations in the past and you have, and continue to, make extreme accusations against me. I am telling you I won't do it anymore. Please don't insult me for doing things that you are currently doing, either. You just accused me of making an "extreme accusation" because I was "accusing [you] of being the kind of person who goes around denouncing people for allegedly insulting the military" but you accused me of being the type of person who goes around denouncing people for allegedly insulting the military two posts earlier. That is unproductive. I am not trying to accuse you of anything now. I am not concerned with the past. I made extreme accusations I regret. I am not going to do it anymore.
As for the "fake quotes" thing, we are discussing that in a different thread and I will only say here I apologize for using the term and withdraw the accusation.
CF
But you are currently claiming that I am the kind of person who accuses people of insulting the military, and while you're doing that it's pretty hard to credit your claim to no longer be making "extreme accusations". So far I have failed to explain to you why I consider this such a terrible accusation, but even you should be able to figure out that you can't claim I've done such a thing, which I have not, while claiming to take the high road and avoid "extreme accusations". At least give it a try.
As for pointing out that you in fact are the kind of person who accuses his fellow Americans of insulting the military, is that really an "extreme accusation" to you? It is a proven fact that you are such a person, do you deny that? So if you consider an undisputable fact about yourself an "extreme accusation", you should really consider what that says about you.
"But you are currently claiming that I am the kind of person who accuses people of insulting the military, and while you're doing that it's pretty hard to credit your claim to no longer be making "extreme accusations"."
Aren't you claiming I'm the kind of person that accuses people of insulting the military?
CF
Well, I did mention that you are, although it's a little wierd that you consider it an accusation or a claim and not a morally neutral statement of obvious and proven fact. The first word I used in this paragraph is "Well", and although I suppose that might be inelegant writing I hardly think it'd be much of a claim to say that I did so. I used the word "Well" to start this paragraph, and you're the kind of person that accuses people of insulting the military. Neither is a judgement call or open to subjectivity, just statements of simple fact for which conclusive proof is simple and easily available.
Aleks, I don't believe I'm the type of person who accuses people of insulting the millitary. I believe that it is an extreme accusation to say that I have said that you insulted the military more than you said so about me. You don't feel it's an extreme accusation to say that about me because you feel its true. It would be an extreme accusation to say that you intentionally misrepresent my positions by making generalizations that say my position is the same as an individual when I've told you my position is to the contrary. In other words, to say my position is "A" when you know it's "B". It would be an extreme accusation for me to say that, but I believe 100% that it is true. That doesn't change the fact that its an extreme accusation. To say that Kerry had child-like naivity when it came to his ideas on foreign policy would be completely honest, because I completely believe it. If I said it to him it would still be an extreme accusation. Whether or not it's true has zero effect on whether it's an extreme accusation because by that standard, no accusations would be extreme, since the vast majority of those making the accusations believe them not to be "open to subjectivity", but instead to be "statements of simple fact". If you think about this, I believe you are intelligent enough to understand I'm right.
CF
"I understand your ilk and their bemusement at insulting our military. I, however, will not participate in such a discussion."
Citizen F | 11.12.04 - 10:24 am
"Aleks, I don't believe I'm the type of person who accuses people of insulting the millitary." CF 8:32 AM (unlisted date, this thread).
Yeah, knowing you were right would definitely be a clear sign of intelligence.
You've announced that you like "facts" and "issues" after all, so feel free, if you care to, to explain how either you or Bush are mature and realistic in your views of foreign policy. Feel free to use examples if you can. I suggest Iraq, Iran, N. Korea in particular.
It's a proven, undeniable fact that you're the kind of person who accuses opponents of insulting the military; that you can read your own claims that I do so and yet claim not to be one is either an act of desperate and pathetic dishonesty or severe mental illness. I'm glad that you consider it an "extreme accusation" (although at the same time you are falsely hurling it at me), perhaps your conscience isn't completely dead yet, although disassociating yourself from your actions is probably not much better than trying to justify them. But why don't you see how fucked up you are when extreme accusations about you just so happen to be facts?
I could say that you said I "hate the troops" on multiple occasions. That would prove you accused me of insulting the military. Proving it true does not make it less extreme of an accusation. If I said, "John Kerry wants it to be legal to kill babies", I would be making an extreme accusation that I fully believe. Why is that so hard to see? As for your claim that I'm "the kind of person who accuses opponents of insulting the military" I disagree. You draw the conclusion that I accused you of insulting the military and thus am the type of person that accuses opponents of insulting the military. I accused your ilk of insulting the military. They were not my opponent. You were my opponent. You draw no distinction, but I see an enormous one. The "kind of person who accuses opponents of insulting the military" is the kind of person who accuses such opponents directly and who does it with the intent of making a point or winning an argument. People like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Maukin. I didn't accuse my opponent directly and I didn't use the accusation to try to win an argument. Don't you see that? It doesn't matter anyway. Even if you have proved it true in your mind, I don't believe it's true for the reasons I've stated. Others would read all the arguments and believe me, others still would read all the arguments and believe you. It's a matter of opinion. It cannot be proven or disproven. It cannot be considered fact. It is an accusation. Saying you accused me of insulting the military is an accusation, no matter how blatently obviously true it is in my eyes. Even if someone believes beyond any fathomable doubt that something is true, an accusation is still an accusation. THEY WOULD NOT MAKE THEM IF THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THEM.
CF
==I could say that you said I "hate the troops" on multiple occasions. That would prove you accused me of insulting the military.==
What a ridiculous idea of proof you have, not that I have any right to be surprised after all this time. That you keep claiming this proves only that you are a liar, or so hopelessly delusional that you simply believe whatever would be convenient for you (I admit you're starting to convince me of the second, reluctant as I am to believe that anyone is such a mental cripple as to be utterly beyond responsibility for their words and actions). Not that I am accusing you of lying about what proof means, I know you fully believe that for you to claim something is to prove it true.
==As for your claim that I'm "the kind of person who accuses opponents of insulting the military" I disagree. You draw the conclusion that I accused you of insulting the military and thus am the type of person that accuses opponents of insulting the military. I accused your ilk of insulting the military.==
Think that one over, and then keep telling yourself that you are honest and intelligent.
==People like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Maukin.==
Yes Wolf, that would be "your ilk". People, for example, who throw around insinuations of child molestation and such. People like you.
==It's a matter of opinion. It cannot be proven or disproven. It cannot be considered fact.== In the sense that the earth revolving around the sun is an opinion, albeit one supported by rather conclusive evidence. "I understand your ilk and their bemusement at insulting our military." Citizen F | 11.12.04 - 10:24 am
==Saying you accused me of insulting the military is an accusation, no matter how blatently obviously true it is in my eyes.=
You keep claiming we have these things in common. Stop it, it's dishonest and disgusting.
Are you going to pretend you never said to me, "Love the war, hate the troops." in response to something I said? Are you going to act as if that isn't accusing me of insulting the military? Fair enough. Enjoy your fantasy world. You believe I accused you of insulting the troops and prove it because you have a quote that doesn't accuse you of insulting the troops. Fine. You believe it. I believe Tom Daschle is an immoral adulterer. I have ample proof. He left his wife for a Washington lobbyist. So, if I went on TV and accused him of that would it be an extreme accusation? What if I went on TV and accused Harry Reid of playing politics with the war? You know as well as I do both parties have. If I went on TV and said that would it be an extreme accusation?
Here is the problem: You can't see anyone's position except yours. You can't even fathom how someone could see things differently. That's why you think I'm lying all the time. You think, "How could two people see the same thing and draw such different conclusions? It's impossible, so he must be lying." I have a different method of speaking then you. It's much less literal. I have a different means of debate than you. I prefer to ask questions and gain an understanding of the other person's position before I decide whether I disagree and how to form my argument. Because this is different from your speech and debate methods, I must be lying, right? It's pretty amusing when you think about it. Want examples? Ask for them. I have plenty.
You're lying, doubtless first to yourself, because you say you don't accuse people of insulting the military and yet you accused me of insulting the military. If you want to continue your Delayish whining about how mistreated you are without ever confronting the evidence, well, you've got over a year of precedent to uphold. "You believe I accused you of insulting the troops and prove it because you have a quote that doesn't accuse you of insulting the troops." I wish I could say it would be interesting to see you spin that as truthful. "I understand your ilk and their bemusement at insulting our military." So you were simply pointing out that my "ilk" insult the military, but did not mean to include me along with that "ilk" of mine? Really, McCain may be right about Bush twisting the truth like Bill Clinton, but you'd have to gain about 50 IQ points before your stupid attempts at word games and technicalities would be up to even Clinton's level.
As for "fantasy world", just what issue have you had an intelligent and coherent position on that bore any resemblence to facts? What issue have I not?
As for "You can't see anyone's position except yours. You can't even fathom how someone could see things differently", who's the wolf who declares that opponents he just met are "sheep", agree with their "man" on "every single issue" and asks if, while they tell themselves they vote on principles, "talking points" determine their vote and yet you can't name a single issue on which I agree with those mysterious "talking points" of yours and can't argue intelligently for on my own? In any case, I disgree with Author and JF on many if not most things and because they do not lie I have never even considered accusing them of lying. I believe your obviously rather extreme mental illness prevents you from seeing that your claim is obviously untrue, so I won't consider it a lie as it obviously would be from someone mentally competent.
== Are you going to pretend you never said to me, "Love the war, hate the troops." in response to something I said?==
I'm not pretending anything, much as you like to make accusations in the form of questions and lie about not doing so. Are you so blatantly a hypcrite as to not give context? Just asking.
"So you were simply pointing out that my "ilk" insult the military, but did not mean to include me along with that "ilk" of mine?"
In that case, yes. We discussed this at length at the time, I think. This was my position immediately, if I recall.
"...but you'd have to gain about 50 IQ points before..."
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
"In any case, I disgree with Author and JF on many if not most things and because they do not lie I have never even considered accusing them of lying."
You disagree with me and, thus, accuse me of lying. Show me one time when you've accused me of lying when it hasn't been because you disagreed with me.
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home