Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Stupid pointless flame wars
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Stupid pointless flame wars Flame wars from diavlog threads are dumped here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)
All hope abandon, ye who enter in.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-28-2011, 12:57 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default from Althouse & Watson

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Here's the thing. Some anger is good for the political process. However, there are plenty of websites out there that cater to anger. Bloggingheads, AFAIK, has not made it its mission to make people angry. That's one of the reasons I spend so much time here. I come to understand things, not to be mad at people. Most of the "crazy" right wingers on here have been really polite. Even DenvilleSteve has been pretty damn nice and I can tell he's insane. Liberals, save for a few, have been total assholes.



There isn't much to figure out if a person makes an honest effort to understand the basics of right wing ideology. And I don't mean the bible. For me, the journey started here. I even remember posting about it on this board several years ago. And I even remember bjkeefe telling me that Jonathan Haidt was annoying.

If bjkeefe is/was the ring leader, then how fair and balanced do you think the liberals are on this board?
Not very. I mean Brendan is lovable, and a sympathetic tool, but there are limits (And, no, Brendan, I still did not buy that we are not friends the other day.)

Here's the thing about Haidt: I have been thinking that liberals have low emotional IQs. They're supposed to be sooo nice, yet treat us conservatives like we are the spawn of Satan.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:16 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Not very. I mean Brendan is lovable, and a sympathetic tool, but there are limits (And, no, Brendan, I still did not buy that we are not friends the other day.)

Here's the thing about Haidt: I have been thinking that liberals have low emotional IQs. They're supposed to be sooo nice, yet treat us conservatives like we are the spawn of Satan.
Let's be clear about what's what. Whatfur and kidneystones were ostracized because they were assholes, not because they were "conservatives." kidley was a KOS kid before he arrived here, if anyone remembers. kang doesn't get crap for being right-wing (he's obviously not.) He gets it in response to his incredible displays of risible self-righteousness and his amusing inability to deal with it with anything resembling grace. Look at how well rcocean deals, if you want to see an easy contrast. Ideological vendettas are far rarer than personal ones here, and a whole lot less interesting to boot.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 07-28-2011 at 01:30 AM.. Reason: phone typing issues
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:29 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
liberals ...treat us conservatives like we are the spawn of Satan.
No, not all. Although in your case duplicitous, deluded and pathetic are fitting.
Just a little honesty, friendo.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:42 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Let's be clear about what's what. Whatfur and kidneystones were ostracized because they were assholes, not because they were "conservatives." kidley was a KOS kid before he arrived here, if anyone remembers.
I am not talking about W and k. They stand or fall on their own merits.
Quote:
kang doesn't get crap for being right-wing (he's obviously not.) He gets it in response to his incredible displays of risible self-righteousness and his amusing inability to deal with it with anything resembling grace.
I like sk; he seems to be a straight shooter. What you think of him is between you and him.
Quote:
Look at how well rcocean deals, if you want to see an easy contrast.
I don't see the point in comparisons.
Quote:
Ideological vendettas are far rarer than personal ones here, and a whole lot less interesting to boot.
What?

The point of my post was that for too long it was way too personal here. Many espousing rightwing views were viewed as morally defective. Recently, things have taken a drastic turn and we are talking to each other in a much more civilized manner.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:44 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
No, not all. Although in your case duplicitous, deluded and pathetic are fitting.
Just a little honesty, friendo.
Bite me, renzo.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:45 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Bite me, renzo.
That's personal ... Not political.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-28-2011, 03:57 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
kang doesn't get crap for being right-wing (he's obviously not.)
Oh, okay. So, now it's my fault that you love donuts.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-28-2011, 04:20 AM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Look said:

Quote:
I have been thinking that liberals have low emotional IQs.
Perhaps this is because you have a low IQ tout court. But thanks for sharing.
__________________
ledocs
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-28-2011, 07:09 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Ideological vendettas are far rarer than personal ones here, and a whole lot less interesting to boot.
QFT.

I think this gets missed.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-28-2011, 10:33 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
Look said:



Perhaps this is because you have a low IQ tout court. But thanks for sharing.
Oh no you did not.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-28-2011, 11:02 AM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

No, no. Liberals have a low emotional IQ. Great insight. I'm going to ponder that one and change my behavior, but not just my behavior, my entire world-view, my personality, everything. After I finish reading "Cosmopolis" by Stephen Toulmin, I will turn to "What Is Your Emotional IQ?" I had noticed that people who write from the Right on this site tend to be more emotionally balanced and more empathetic than those on the Left, so that's a phenomenon the causes of which I will need to understand better. Your own posts, for example, betray a depth of empathy and psychological insight almost never seen anywhere, especially not among Liberals. And what can I say about all the people I have filtered, all highly sensitive souls, really great people? Hard to believe that so much intellect could be combined with so much emotional intelligence, and all in one convenient virtual location.
__________________
ledocs

Last edited by ledocs; 07-28-2011 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-28-2011, 11:14 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
No, no. Liberals have a low emotional IQ. Great insight. I'm going to ponder that one and change my behavior, but not just my behavior, my entire world-view, my personality, everything. After I finish reading "Cosmopolis" by Stephen Toulmin, I will turn to "What Is Your Emotional IQ?" I had noticed that people who write from the Right on this site tend to be more emotionally balanced and more empathetic than those on the Left, so that's a phenomenon the causes of which I will need to understand better. Your own posts, for example, betray a depth of empathy and psychological insight almost never seen anywhere, especially not among Liberals. And what can I say about all the people I have filtered, all highly sensitive souls, really great people? Hard to believe that so much intellect could be combined with so much emotional intelligence, and all in one convenient virtual location.
I see I was not clear in my meaning. I meant some of the liberals here, such as yourself, who often shortcut to disparagement and name-calling when you don't like arguments offered. An intellectual you may be, but you are a lazy one.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-28-2011, 11:40 AM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Right, so if you wish to provide citations of places where I shrank from joining a rational argument, please do so. I don't find this general charge very compelling or accurate.
__________________
ledocs

Last edited by ledocs; 07-28-2011 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:05 PM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Look, I cannot refrain from pointing out, upon reflection, that this charge of laziness on my part rings awfully hollow coming from you. I don't remember you ever saying anything of substance, frankly, or ever even attempting to make an extended argument about anything. You post one to three sentences at a time, usually hiding behind a persona of knowing cynicism and wit. It's a good act, but it gets old. I remember that you knew about Matt Taibbi and once liked him, then liked him less, that's about it.

I don't think there are too many posters here who put as much effort into their posts as I do. I also try to read people's links when I think it is important to an argument.
__________________
ledocs
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:22 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
Right, so if you wish to provide citations of places where I shrank from joining a rational argument, please do so. I don't find this general charge very compelling or accurate.
I asked you on multiple occasions to explain why libertarianism is an invalid political philosophy. You also had some unkind words regarding my original post meant for a debate between libertarians. I have no problem with your shit attitude, but I asked you to explain. You did not.

Any time you're ready, I'm ready.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-28-2011, 03:46 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
Look, I cannot refrain from pointing out, upon reflection, that this charge of laziness on my part rings awfully hollow coming from you. I don't remember you ever saying anything of substance, frankly, or ever even attempting to make an extended argument about anything. You post one to three sentences at a time, usually hiding behind a persona of knowing cynicism and wit. It's a good act, but it gets old. I remember that you knew about Matt Taibbi and once liked him, then liked him less, that's about it.

I don't think there are too many posters here who put as much effort into their posts as I do. I also try to read people's links when I think it is important to an argument.
That's it? Our analysis of Althouse is a shining moment in my board history. Color me crushed.

Yes, you invest a lot of time and thought in your posts, but your intellectual vanity is off-putting.

Now, I'd be quite interested in an old school debate between you and sk on the subject of Libertarianism.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-28-2011, 05:53 PM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

So the criticisms keep changing. First, I have a low emotional IQ, which doesn't mean what it would normally mean, it means that I shrink from rational argument and disparage people instead. I have disparaged people, I agree. Whether I have done so unjustifiably or without provocation is another question. Then, I'm lazy. Well, I'm not really lazy, I'm intellectually vain. It is up to others to decide when I have disparaged people in order to avoid joining a rational argument. I say virtually never.

I thought I had made myself clear with respect to sugarkang (SK), here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=218323&postcount=126

But in any event, I have already made some remarks which were not addressed to SK specifically but which provide an opening for making the kind of defense of economic libertarianism that I think would be necessary here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...&postcount=114

If SK wants to address the problem of insurance within the scheme of economic libertarianism, fine.

SK now claims that he asked me more than once to refute libertarianism. I don't remember him asking me to refute libertarianism even once, let alone several times. I have just searched on the keywords “libertarianism” and “libertarian” over the past two weeks, and there is no post by SK addressed to me that uses either word. I would be interested in seeing citations of these requests before I agree in principle to do anything, ever, involving SK. How can I refute something, when I don't know exactly what it is that I am supposed to be refuting, in any case?

I have been doing a lot of posting lately, way too much, really, and a lot of it, regrettably, has involved SK. I have many other obligations over the coming days, and I am really not at all sure that I should be asked to engage with SK or that I should agree to do so. I am intellectually vain, but he calls me a liar, he never apologizes, and now I'm supposed to debate him? And I have to define libertarianism in order to refute my own definition? It all seems a bit much, really. It might be preferable to be judged a coward by you fair-minded and much put-upon seekers after truth and justice.
__________________
ledocs
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-28-2011, 06:41 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
So the criticisms keep changing. First, I have a low emotional IQ, which doesn't mean what it would normally mean, it means that I shrink from rational argument and disparage people instead. I have disparaged people, I agree. Whether I have done so unjustifiably or without provocation is another question. Then, I'm lazy. Well, I'm not really lazy, I'm intellectually vain. It is up to others to decide when I have disparaged people in order to avoid joining a rational argument. I say virtually never.

I thought I had made myself clear with respect to sugarkang (SK), here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=218323&postcount=126

But in any event, I have already made some remarks which were not addressed to SK specifically but which provide an opening for making the kind of defense of economic libertarianism that I think would be necessary here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...&postcount=114

If SK wants to address the problem of insurance within the scheme of economic libertarianism, fine.

SK now claims that he asked me more than once to refute libertarianism. I don't remember him asking me to refute libertarianism even once, let alone several times. I have just searched on the keywords “libertarianism” and “libertarian” over the past two weeks, and there is no post by SK addressed to me that uses either word. I would be interested in seeing citations of these requests before I agree in principle to do anything, ever, involving SK. How can I refute something, when I don't know exactly what it is that I am supposed to be refuting, in any case?

I have been doing a lot of posting lately, way too much, really, and a lot of it, regrettably, has involved SK. I have many other obligations over the coming days, and I am really not at all sure that I should be asked to engage with SK or that I should agree to do so. I am intellectually vain, but he calls me a liar, he never apologizes, and now I'm supposed to debate him? And I have to define libertarianism in order to refute my own definition? It all seems a bit much, really. It might be preferable to be judged a coward by you fair-minded and much put-upon seekers after truth and justice.
When somebody on the internet claims they want to debate you, how far do you think that obliges you? Can you "shrink" from a debate into which you've never entered? In what sense has SK ever shown that he'd be a useful interlocutor in any such encounter?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-28-2011, 08:21 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post

I have been doing a lot of posting lately, way too much, really, and a lot of it, regrettably, has involved SK. I have many other obligations over the coming days, and I am really not at all sure that I should be asked to engage with SK or that I should agree to do so. I am intellectually vain, but he calls me a liar, he never apologizes, and now I'm supposed to debate him? And I have to define libertarianism in order to refute my own definition? It all seems a bit much, really. It might be preferable to be judged a coward by you fair-minded and much put-upon seekers after truth and justice.
Wow, you are a supreme dick. Have a look in this thread.

You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
No, my mistake. That was operative I quoted, but I thought it was sugarkang. So I owe sugarkang an apology.
I replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
No ill feelings on my end. Though, in the interest of civility, I ask that you give operative an open minded hearing. Libertarians work on different fundamental premises, so things may not actually be as they appear. But if afterward you still think he's an asshole, then tear him a new one!
ALL GOOD SO FAR! THEN OUT OF NOWHERE IN THE SAME THREAD...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
After a subsequent little interchange we had about Israel, I stopped reading operative. I've been hitting "View Post" a lot over the past few days. I have sugarkang filtered too, because he said he was going to filter me and I said, "Fine, no big loss to me." This was after he had written something unintelligible, and it happened to be the first time I had seen a post of his, I think.
Except, this is a big fat lie. FAT LIE. I asked you to provide proof. You said you couldn't find it. Well, ask bhtv mods, then. You know what we call this in America? It's called slander (or libel if you want to get technical) you amoral charlatan.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-28-2011, 08:34 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

There's a group of commenters here who are given to intrigue. There's a certain baseline paranoia, cult of victimhood, paired with provocation of others. They are eager to create drama and drag others into it.

They go around throwing empty accusations at people. They seem obsessed with what others do and say. They harass moderate commenters who are friendly into making judgments and taking sides. They crave constant validation even if their arguments are poorly constructed or when there's clear disagreement in basic principles. They don't seem to be able to keep to themselves and interact with others without the endless intrigue and drama.

Don't get pulled into it.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-29-2011, 08:44 AM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Sugarkang:

Quote:
Wow, you are a supreme dick. Have a look in this thread.
I looked in the thread. First, I asked you for citations in which you ask me to refute libertarianism. So I would like to be referred to specific post(s), not to a thread. But having looked in the thread, I think you are referring to this interchange, the one you quoted in part:

Originally Posted by ledocs
Quote:
No, my mistake. That was operative I quoted, but I thought it was sugarkang. So I owe sugarkang an apology.
Originally Posted by sugarkang
Quote:
No ill feelings on my end. Though, in the interest of civility, I ask that you give operative an open minded hearing. Libertarians work on different fundamental premises, so things may not actually be as they appear. But if afterward you still think he's an asshole, then tear him a new one!
Asking me to give operative a fair and open-minded hearing is not the same thing as asking me to refute libertarianism. I believe that even you should be able to see that, so I will refrain from going on at length about why this is so.

On that matter, though, I did react somewhat violently to operative's suggestion that if the welfare state were discontinued, unspecified anti-intellectual classes of people would dwindle away through attrition.

Operative had said:

Quote:
I don't want the government to be in the business of trying to change culture. But if we move to flat tax, privatize social security and move toward privatized medicare accounts, eliminate welfare, eliminate public housing, etc. then there will be some pretty positive results. For one thing, the reproduction rate of people with anti-intellectual cultures will drop.
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...9&postcount=40

So as a practical matter, there is strong reason to doubt that this is true. Declining birth rates are associated with higher levels of education, especially among women, and with higher per capita incomes and a rising standard of living among the poor, not with an unemployed or underemployed underclass which receives no state support. Alternatively, though, highly nonlibertarian means can be used to achieve the lower birthrates among the unspecified anti-intellectual populations, means such as China's one-child policy or forced sterilization. I do not think there is any good reason to believe that libertarian means would achieve the eugenic ends operative wants to achieve.

Sugarkang continues:

Quote:
ALL GOOD SO FAR! THEN OUT OF NOWHERE IN THE SAME THREAD...
Originally Posted by ledocs

Quote:
After a subsequent little interchange we had about Israel, I stopped reading operative. I've been hitting "View Post" a lot over the past few days. I have sugarkang filtered too, because he said he was going to filter me and I said, "Fine, no big loss to me." This was after he had written something unintelligible, and it happened to be the first time I had seen a post of his, I think.
Originally posted by sugarkang

Quote:
Except, this is a big fat lie. FAT LIE. I asked you to provide proof. You said you couldn't find it. Well, ask bhtv mods, then. You know what we call this in America? It's called slander (or libel if you want to get technical) you amoral charlatan.
Rather than apologizing for calling me a liar, you keep repeating this unprovable charge. In order for me to be lying, I would have to be aware that the facts are not as I assert them to be. But I don't know that, and I believe rather strongly that they are as I assert them to be. It's not my fault that the Search function in the software is not as robust as I would like or would need in order to find the interchange in question. I don't think bhtv staff have the time or inclination to look into the facts here. But what is worse, much worse, is that you would keep repeating this charge when you have read a lot of my posts, you can go to my blog and read more things there, including a published interview I did with a famous philosopher, you can Google my name and find out more about me, you could go to an academic library and read my published dissertation, or buy it on the Internet at an exorbitant price, you can listen to songs I have composed and performed, and so on. Meanwhile, you are hiding in anonymity, but yet you insist on calling me a liar, all because I assert that you threatened to filter me and that, in response, I did filter you. The facts here probably do not matter very much in any event, because I probably would have ended up filtering you anyway. But suppose that you are correct and that I am wrong about the underlying facts. Does this make me a liar? No, it does not. It makes me mistaken. I would have made a mistake. So why would I agree to enter into a debate with someone who shows me no goodwill whatever, who is just an anonymous bombthrower on the Internet, as aemjeff points out, and who shows no respect for precision in argument and is probably incapable of precision in argument in any case?

So va te faire foutre, espèce de connard. As I said before, I don't know you, and I don't want to know you.

And look, if you can't find better proxies than this one, you are in deep trouble. Ever see the movie "Hard Times," with Charles Bronson playing a streetfighter in New Orleans during the Depression? "Better find yourself another hitter."
__________________
ledocs

Last edited by ledocs; 07-29-2011 at 09:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-29-2011, 08:53 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
Rather than apologizing for calling me a liar, you keep repeating this unprovable charge. In order for me to be lying, I would have to be aware that the facts are not as I assert them to be.
No, you fucking cock. You publicly said I did something without the proof. And your twisted liberal logic has caused you to say this filth:

Quote:
But I don't know that, and I believe rather strongly that they are as I assert them to be. It's not my fault that the Search function in the software is not as robust as I would like or would need in order to find the interchange in question. I don't think bhtv staff have the time or inclination to look into the facts here.
No. And without proof you should not slander people in public you fucking ass. You can ask bhtv for the proof or you can shut the fuck up about it.

Quote:
But suppose that you are correct and that I am wrong about the underlying facts. Does this make me a liar? No, it does not. It makes me mistaken. I would have made a mistake.
Then, you could have said that you were mistaken. Evil does not occur when a bunch of men agree to do evil. Evil happens when good men do nothing. This is what makes you a piece of shit; merde, if you like.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-29-2011, 09:02 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
No, you fucking cock ... you fucking ass ... You can shut the fuck up about it ... This is what makes you a piece of shit; merde, if you like.
Shorter ledocs:

Quote:
KochKing, you suck and snort.
Look, stop latching on to losers.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-29-2011, 11:41 PM
jimM47 jimM47 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Default Re: from Althouse & Watson

Footage of me trying not to respond to this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-30-2011, 12:56 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: from Althouse & Watson

Excellent use of Youtube, Jim.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-30-2011, 01:26 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: from Althouse & Watson

Jim, how did you get the clip to be at that particular time? I've always wanted to be able to do that.
__________________
Uncle Ebeneezer Such a fine line between clever and stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-30-2011, 01:41 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: from Althouse & Watson

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
Jim, how did you get the clip to be at that particular time? I've always wanted to be able to do that.
Look at the end of the link. It reads =3m05s. That gives the beginning point.

I've never used that way but I discovered it by accident.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-30-2011, 03:38 PM
jimM47 jimM47 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Default Re: from Althouse & Watson

The problem is that you can't set an ending time. When are those fools at Google gonna discover ding-a-links!? Bob Wright needs to go on a mission to enlighten the masses.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.