PDA

View Full Version : Don Zeko & Whatfur


Don Zeko
08-23-2010, 12:04 AM
based on an opinion that was hardly unique at the time.

We're not suggesting that you have no credibility on this issue because you thought Iraq had WMD's in 2002. Lots of people, including myself, did, although we should have at least had more doubts about the issue. The problem is that, 8 years after the fact, you persist in that belief despite evidence to the contrary that's about as conclusive as anything can possibly be in political debate. In 2010, if you go around saying that Saddam really did have WMD's, you're lying, irrational, stupid, or perhaps some unholy combination of the three.

Don Zeko
08-25-2010, 02:27 PM
We're not suggesting that you have no credibility on this issue because you thought Iraq had WMD's in 2002. Lots of people, including myself, did, although we should have at least had more doubts about the issue. The problem is that, 8 years after the fact, you persist in that belief despite evidence to the contrary that's about as conclusive as anything can possibly be in political debate. In 2010, if you go around saying that Saddam really did have WMD's, you're lying, irrational, stupid, or perhaps some unholy combination of the three.

Really, Brenda? I've been more sanguine than most about the new comments policy, but I find it hard to support a standard that the above post violates. It's pretty clear that I was addressing the specific claim that Whatfur was making, and I was doing so in a far more substantive way than Whatfur addresses, well, anything. If we're really going to have a set of forum rules in which you aren't allowed to draw any conclusions about specific commenters at all, that's a serious limit on debate that far outweighs the modest increase in front-page civility it might create.

Brenda
08-25-2010, 02:46 PM
In 2010, if you go around saying that Saddam really did have WMD's, you're lying, irrational, stupid, or perhaps some unholy combination of the three.

In this case, I'd say "stupid" is the flamey word. And then Whatfur comes back with "intellectually limited." That's how the spiral starts, often ending up in the toilet. (It's impossible to predict which exchanges will get out of control, which is why we've been trying to nip them early.)

handle
08-25-2010, 03:35 PM
We're not suggesting that you have no credibility on this issue because you thought Iraq had WMD's in 2002. Lots of people, including myself, did, although we should have at least had more doubts about the issue. The problem is that, 8 years after the fact, you persist in that belief despite evidence to the contrary that's about as conclusive as anything can possibly be in political debate. In 2010, if you go around saying that Saddam really did have WMD's, you're lying, irrational, stupid, or perhaps some unholy combination of the three.

I vote for option four. really good post, sorry it got moved. It's very hard to respond to whutzizname without crossing into some disputed border zone with uncivilistan, as his narcissistic attitude, and rigid zealotry are, IMHO, uncivil in themselves.
Perhaps at some point in the future, the admins will take into account the accuracy of the statements in question. I think it must be a very difficult position to be in and while I would not profess to be any wiser, were it my site, posters like him, and me, and a few others would have been cast out into cyberspace a long time ago.

popcorn_karate
08-25-2010, 05:19 PM
In this case, I'd say "stupid" is the flamey word. And then Whatfur comes back with "intellectually limited." That's how the spiral starts, often ending up in the toilet. (It's impossible to predict which exchanges will get out of control, which is why we've been trying to nip them early.)

i concur with Zeko. This is the first nannying you've done that i've thought was inappropriate. Your new standard is that nothing anybody does can possibly be described as "stupid"? I did support arbitrary and firm enforcement as a good disincentive for pushing the limits, but I think this is less a useful disincentive and moving into the territory of just weird.

I'm sure making all those judgment calls you can't help but make questionable decisions on occasion, and you generally do a fine job. just consider whether this may not have been an instance of being a touch heavy handed and proceed accordingly.

Brenda
08-25-2010, 05:39 PM
I'm sure making all those judgment calls you can't help but make questionable decisions on occasion

Indubitably.

just consider whether this may not have been an instance of being a touch heavy handed and proceed accordingly

Thanks for disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Lyle
08-25-2010, 10:44 PM
Yes, the Brenda Doctrine is no different from the Bush Doctrine. She uses preemptive force just like Bush did. Talking about nipping stuff in the bud... shit, that's neo-conservative talk. Know hope bh.tv commentariat, know hope.

:)

popcorn_karate
08-26-2010, 01:46 PM
Yes, the Brenda Doctrine is no different from the Bush Doctrine.

well...except that nobody gets killed under the Brenda Doctrine. Oh, and she waits for the comment to be posted BEFORE taking action. um so yeah - you got nothing, lyle.

Brenda
08-26-2010, 01:59 PM
nobody gets killed under the Brenda Doctrine

Yet.

Don Zeko
08-26-2010, 02:03 PM
Yet.

I see you and Bob are considering some, ah, alternative enforcement mechanisms?

TwinSwords
08-26-2010, 02:11 PM
Yet.

http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif

Whatfur
08-26-2010, 02:58 PM
Yep...cannot get much funnier than that.
http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://www.thecentralword.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif