Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

[pomeroo]

[=NotJesus;2303971]Oh dear.


I said in post 236 that you insinuated I was a liar. That statement clearly refers to posts 228 and 234. It can't possibly refer to post 239. Surely even you can follow this?

You're the one having trouble following. Until you posted an explanation, I felt that you were making a straightforward statement. After you clarified your intent, I said I'd take your word for it. Even people who support you in this rambling debate must be wondering where you're going here.

Post 239 begins with your disingenuous denial and then you belatedly agree to 'take my word for it.'

Are you using the word "disingenuous" because you want something pejorative or do you really not know its meaning? What denial?

I'd prefer an apology for your earlier offensive insinuations, but since you seem to be incapable of admitting you're wrong, even when the facts are against you, I guess I'll just have to let it drop.

You're asking for an apology because my interpretation was incorrect? Unlike many of my debate opponents, I am capable of committing errors; my judgment is not perfect. I'll apologize for guessing wrong if you'll apologize for writing unclearly.

 

[LostAngeles]

...

Wishful thinking on your part. Not much of what I've written has been disproved.

...

Fixed it for you.

Let the call for actual evidence in the form of links be made once more.

 

[Glenn]

Re Saudi Arabia: You're quite right, we pulled out nearly all our troops in '03; I should have said our presence in the region, which is what I meant.

When an interpretation of jihadist behavior has to invoke the devil-figure George Bush, it probably misses the mark.

"Devil-figure?" Your words, not mine. Not even my implication. This is just... weird.

"Has to?" Not at all. That was purely an aside.

Your bizarre tactics continue to surprise.


Thank you, Cleon! It's sad when someone who is clearly intelligent lacks self-awareness. So close... and yet so far. Don't worry NotJesus, it's clear to everyone else.

 

[pomeroo]

Re Saudi Arabia: You're quite right, we pulled out nearly all our troops in '03; I should have said our presence in the region, which is what I meant.

"Devil-figure?" Your words, not mine. Not even my implication. This is just... weird.

"Has to?" Not at all. That was purely an aside.

Your bizarre tactics continue to surprise.

We simply don't share the same mindset. To me, the notion that the threat of jihadism will fade away when Bush leaves office and is replaced by a gentler, more empathetic Democrat is pure moonshine. Robert Spencer chastised D'Souza for his superficial understanding of Sayyid Qutb. My impression is that, for the most part, people on the left have no interest whatever in the ideology that animates our enemies. For many of them, we are always our own worst enemies, and it is sufficient that we engage in endless introspection and walk on eggshells around Muslims. If only Bush were less of a... simpleton. If only he could feel their pain they way Bill could.

Al qaeda understands inflicting pain, not feeling it. The jihadists have been attacking us for a decade because they have determined, perhaps correctly, that we lack the stomach for a prolonged struggle.

Thank you, Cleon! It's sad when someone who is clearly intelligent lacks self-awareness. So close... and yet so far. Don't worry NotJesus, it's clear to everyone else.

When everything is so very clear to a group of like-minded thinkers, I begin to suspect that they harbor a host of unexamined prejudices. Self-awareness is difficult to achieve. I confess that I have not finished the process. Are you quite sure that all these people who are so certain about so many things that they really don't understand very well are qualified to put me on the path to enlightenment?

 

[Glenn]

We simply don't share the same mindset. To me, the notion that the threat of jihadism will fade away when Bush leaves office and is replaced by a gentler, more empathetic Democrat is pure moonshine.

There you go again, ascribing things to me that I never said or suggested. Like you've done to others here.

I'll keep this simple for you:

1) What made you insert the incendiary phrase "devil-figure" into your interpretation of what I said? Explain. Clear and simple. Do not evade the question again, do not put words into my mouth again.

2) Learn to listen. Discuss what was actually said, not what you imagine people are saying to you. Admit you put words in my mouth with your quote I pasted at the top about my "mindset"... if you have any integrity.

G

When everything is so very clear to a group of like-minded thinkers, I begin to suspect that they harbor a host of unexamined prejudices.

Pomeroo, back atcha.

 

[pomeroo]

[=Glenn;2304404]There you go again, ascribing things to me that I never said or suggested. Like you've done to others here.

There you go again, pretending that I'm ascribing things to you that you never said or suggested. If I may offer a tip, your best defense would be to refer readers to your original post where they can see for themselves that you didn't call Bush a devil-figure. To facilitate progress, let us agree that it was I who introduced the term.

During William Buckley's 1965 campaign for Mayor of New York City, he was asked by reporter Gabe Pressman if he was accusing his liberal Republican opponent John Lindsay of being soft on communism. "No," Buckley replied, "I am precisely not saying that: I am saying that he does not have any apparent appreciation of the problem of internal subversion,
which is different." Later, columnist Dick Schaap echoed most of the pundits when he wrote: "William F. Buckley is saying that John Lindsay is soft on communism...He has picked up the most tired and meaningless phrase of all..."

Nah, liberals wouldn't dream of putting words into a conservative's mouth.

In an exchange of letters, Roy Wilkins, then executive director of the NAACP, chided Buckley for his "exhortations against dat ole debbil Communism." Buckley did not huffily accuse Wilkins of putting words into his mouth for the simple reason that he would have looked very foolish: nobody actually thought that Buckley had used those exact words. Wilkins was gently mocking what he perceived to be the right's preoccupation with the subject. That, as should be obvious, is what I was doing--mocking the tendency of Bush's opponents to invariably assume the worst about him. He can never be right. His framing of an issue must always be superficial, simplistic, downright wrong-headed. I called Bush a devil-figure because that is how I think everyone on your side views him. How wrong am I?

Incidentally, putting words into another person's mouth, while usually a very unfair tactic, can sometimes be defensible. If someone states that absolutely everything Bush has done is bad for the country, I can say that this person thinks that the tax cuts are bad for the country. When I am attacked for ascribing to the person things he didn't say, I can respond that my critic is illogical and is arguing in bad faith.

I'll keep this simple for you:

How much deconstruction is this little jab worth? Should I feign indignation at your implication that I am simple-minded? I don't believe that you regard me as particularly obtuse. I think you were--how did I put in an earlier post?--debating robustly. I'll pass over this because I'm just not all that offended.

1) What made you insert the incendiary phrase "devil-figure" into your interpretation of what I said? Explain. Clear and simple. Do not evade the question again, do not put words into my mouth again.

2) Learn to listen. Discuss what was actually said, not what you imagine people are saying to you. Admit you put words in my mouth with your quote I pasted at the top about my "mindset"... if you have any integrity.

Yadda, yadda.

Pomeroo, back atcha.

What is this--tennis? You complained about my lack of self-awareness first. Soon we'll be double-dog-daring each other to do something or other.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

Here's an excellent analysis of pomeroonian thinking by Ed Brayton: D'Souza's Enemies List

This is right wing rhetoric gone completely off the deep end. Worse, he insults our intelligence by saying, "I am not accusing anyone of treason or even of anti-Americanism." The hell you're not. You can't claim in one breath that these people are "at least as dangerous" as Bin Laden's terrorist cells and in the next breath claim not to be accusing them of being anti-American. Own up to your argument, for crying out loud.

 

[NotJesus]

You're the one having trouble following. Until you posted an explanation, I felt that you were making a straightforward statement. After you clarified your intent, I said I'd take your word for it. Even people who support you in this rambling debate must be wondering where you're going here.

Anyone who cares (probably no one) can review the sequence of posts and see that you're simply wrong.

Are you using the word "disingenuous" because you want something pejorative or do you really not know its meaning? What denial?

I was giving you too much credit. Apparently you're even denser than I'd thought.

You're asking for an apology because my interpretation was incorrect? Unlike many of my debate opponents, I am capable of committing errors; my judgment is not perfect. I'll apologize for guessing wrong if you'll apologize for writing unclearly.

Your 'interpretation' remained incorrect long AFTER I'd said it was a joke. If you really can't follow this, I give up.

Unlike many of my debate opponents, I am capable of committing errors; my judgment is not perfect. I'll apologize for guessing wrong if you'll apologize for writing unclearly.

Um, no.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Anyone who cares (probably no one) can review the sequence of posts and see that you're simply wrong.

Pomeroo says in immediate response: I Missed It

If you weren't so hot under the collar you might have realized it was a joke.

He's more like Mussolini.

Pomeroo says: I stand corrected.

I don't know the poster and it is impossible for me to make that assessment from what was stated. For roughly five years, I've been tangling with bloggers and street protesters who scream that Bush is Hitler. Such types are not distinguished by subtle wit or a keen sense of irony.

The conversation beyond that on the tersely delivered joke has come off as NotJesus being modestly able to tell a joke on the internet, twice, and for NotJesus to have missed the meaning behind "I stand corrected" which is understandable, given the terse qualifire added to that opener. All since has been an excuse for two people on different sides of an argument to give each other the needle.

When someone doesn't laugh, it's the jokester's fault.

I got both of your jokes, the second of which was IMO better than the first, which failed due to lack of a smiley for some readers. (At least one.) The first joke, as you told it, would have worked perfectly in a bar, or a salon, with even minimal tone of voice or facial cues. I have had a number of posts that I thought were obviously funny not go over to some, but to go over with others. On this forum, where so many serious literalists post, smiley's are a massive aid in punchline delivery.

It is an error for anyone to presume we are all calibrated to the same sense of humor. Use of a smiley allows the joke and the punchline to reach the widest possible audience. One can attempt the "exclusive club joke" rule, and not include smileys, but then it is the responsibility of the jokester, not the audience, when the punch line fails.

Welcome, NotJesus, to the Land of Out of Work Comedians, population large.

DR

 

[pomeroo]

Self-Made Problems

[=NotJesus;2305647]Anyone who cares (probably no one) can review the sequence of posts and see that you're simply wrong.

Careful, you're making a falsifiable claim. Please show us the post LATER than post no. 239 in which I continue to argue that your intent was serious.

I was giving you too much credit. Apparently you're even denser than I'd thought.

Correction. You're embarrassed by your own mistake. Please show us the post LATER than post no. 239 in which I continue to argue that your intent was serious.

Your 'interpretation' remained incorrect long AFTER I'd said it was a joke. If you really can't follow this, I give up.

I contend now that you are deliberately distorting the record. Don't give up: Please show us the post LATER than post no. 239 in which I continue to argue that your intent was serious.

Um, no.

I never for a moment dreamed that you were capable of acknowledging that your effort was less than sterling.

 

[NotJesus]

Careful, you're making a falsifiable claim. Please show us the post LATER than post no. 239 in which I continue to argue that your intent was serious.

That you think it's posts after 239 rather than before it that are at issue shows how deeply confused you are. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you. It's clearly beyond my powers.

 

[LostAngeles]

Not to get all Claus, but pomeroo, let's see some evidence of your claims.

 

[pomeroo]

[=NotJesus;2306006]That you think it's posts after 239 rather than before it that are at issue shows how deeply confused you are. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you. It's clearly beyond my powers.

[/quote]

I was scratching my head in amazement over your dogged determination to break the First Rule of Holes. Could you possibly be as obtuse as you seem, or were you attempting a deception, and if so, how could you reasonably expect it to work? The answer didn't hit me until a moment ago.

The current thread has split off from "Hitchens Signature Behavior." The post I cite over and over, no. 239, is now post no. 217. Here is the relevant part:

Originally Posted by NotJesus
Not at all. My joke wasn't even all that witty. I don't mind if you don't find it funny. I mind very much that you persist in insinuating that I'm a liar.



See?

(I responded)
I am not insinuating that you are a liar. When I'm dealing with a conspiracy liar, I don't restrict myself to insinuating. The rationalists on this forum, including those with whom I have political differences, merit respect. If you claim that you weren't serious, I'll take your word for it. I acknowledged in an earlier post the possibility that you might have been joking. Although it was not obvious to me that your intent was ironic, it might have been if I knew you better.
*********************************


For anyone trying to follow this embarrassingly dumb argument, here is the sequence with the NEW post numbers (posts by Not Jesus will be designated, NJ; my posts, POM):

#208--NJ NJ comments on his original post, announcing that it was, in fact, meant as a joke.

#212--POM I respond that the prevalence of the BusHitler crap makes it impossible to assume that the intent was not serious.

#214--NJ NJ, pressing a nonexistent advantage, accuses me, for some reason, of insinuating that he is a liar.

#217--POM The key to my whole argument. I assure him that I claim nothing of the sort, that I'm willing to take his word for it. This was post no. 239 before the thread split.

#228--NJ Now, NJ starts getting weird, citing posts EARLIER than the one in which I said I'd accept his word, #217 (#239 old style), to continue a squabble which should have ended with my expressed willingness to accept his explanation.

#233--POM I ask him "what part of 'I'll take your word for it' is causing the problem."

#234--NJ NJ repeats demonstrably bogus claim.

#236--POM I ask that he review the chronology.

#239--NJ Bizarrely, he talks about a "disingenuous denial" in my post #217.

#241--POM I continue to ask him to review the sequence.

#248--NJ Incredibly, NJ demands that readers review the sequence.

To figure out what is being cited in the older entries, subtract 22 from the post number given. Again, the post I refer to as no. 239 has become, since the split of the thread, no. 217.

Yes, let us take NotJesus's advice and review the sequence.

 

[Cleon]

Not to get all Claus, but pomeroo, let's see some evidence of your claims.

Blood from a stone, m'dear. Blood from a stone.

 

[pomeroo]

Unconvincing Act

[=Cleon;2306114]Blood from a stone, m'dear. Blood from a stone.

Funny that someone who ignores every bit of evidence I provide should continue his absurd masquerade as a critical thinker.

 

[NotJesus]

#234--NJ NJ repeats demonstrably bogus claim.

This is the post where I pointed out exactly which comments of yours led me to make this demonstrably correct claim. If you can't understand the implications of your own words, which I quoted, you truly are beyond help.

 

[Cleon]

Funny that someone who ignores every bit of evidence I provide

Well, when you provide some, kindly let us know, k?

We have yet to see any substantiation of your claims about MoveOn, "the left," etc. Repetition of a claim is not evidence of the validity of said claim.

 

[LostAngeles]

Funny that someone who ignores every bit of evidence I provide should continue his absurd masquerade as a critical thinker.

It may seem rather tedious, but I have not observed any evidence being presented by you at all. Please show us in which of your posts you've presented this evidence. Use the link button underneath the posts to copy the links to the clipboard and then paste them into your response to this post, please.

I should hope that by this time tomorrow, you can manage to produce at least one post with your claimed evidence.

The alternative is... well, cute and fluffy to start with.

 

[pomeroo]

This is the post where I pointed out exactly which comments of yours led me to make this demonstrably correct claim. If you can't understand the implications of your own words, which I quoted, you truly are beyond help.

Let's take a look at post no. 234 (remember that the post no. 239 I'm referring to is now post no. 217):

(Post no. 234)
Originally Posted by pomeroo
In post no. 239, I wrote:
"If you claim that you weren't serious, I'll take your word for it. I acknowledged in an earlier post the possibility that you might have been joking. Although it was not obvious to me that your intent was ironic, it might have been if I knew you better."

Flatly untrue? Really? Evidently, something is unclear to you. What part of "I'll take your word for it" is causing the problem? You seem to be claiming, bizarrely, that I have continued to contend that you were serious after you assured us that you were joking. I never said that I was certain of your original intent, only that I saw no reason to think that you were joking. Considering that I don't know you, I can't begin to estimate the probability that you are lying. You are the only person who can be certain that you're telling the truth, but for me, common courtesy requires that I accept your word. We really can't push this any further.


Post 228 [this is old style--it is now post no. 206] (to Glenn)
Quote [pomeroo]:
I just think you're seeing what you want to see. It's probable that the poster was making a simple declaration.

[NotJesus]
NOTE: Not "It seemed probable." "It's probable."

And then in post 234 you refer again to my "alleged" joke.

Evidently, something is unclear to you. What part of YOUR OWN WORDS is causing the problem

*******************************


Okay, we have seen post no. 234. Read it a few more times if you think it will help.

First, NJ cites my post no. 206 (no. 228 old style), in which I state that it is probable that the poster (NJ) was making a simple declaration. Now, if there is a valid criticism of my statement, it is that I failed to quantify my belief. Indeed, I would not have been able to quantify it, as I knew nothing about the poster's views. Asked to explain why I thought it probable, i.e., more likely than not, that the poster was being serious, I would have replied that jokes, in theory, are characterized by wit. NJ's statement was devoid of wit. Ergo, there is no obvious reason for assuming that it's a joke.

Glenn argued that the humorous intent was obvious, and I continue to disagree. If I contend that lots and lots of people believe in the reality of werewolves, and someone writes, "I'm a person and I believe in werewolves," well, this is probably a joke because--this is important, now--my original contention is wrong: it is untrue that lots and lots of people believe in werewolves. Only a tiny handful of nuts actually hold this belief.

My contention that comparisons of Bush to Hitler resonate with many leftists is not untrue. Go back over this thread and pick out the leftists on this thread for whom the comparison makes sense, and bear in mind that members of this forum are self-professed rationalists. So, when someone unknown to me writes, as did NJ, that "I'm a Democrat and I think Bush is like Hitler," there is absolutely no reason for me to assume that he's joking and the statement, bald as it is, provides no discernible hints. Darth Rotor gives sound advice in his post.

Were I to rewrite my post no. 206 (228 old style), I would change the word "probable" to "plausible."

But none of this matters, as NJ did not clarify his intent until post no. 208 (230 old style). Keep in mind that it was at this juncture that I understood NJ to be stating for the record that he was not being serious.

Now, NJ talks about my reference to his "alleged" joke in post no. 212 (no. 234 old style). An allegation is something that is stated or affirmed without proof. When NJ stated that he was joking it was necessarily an allegation, as we have no way of entering his mind to determine definitively whether or not he is telling the truth. I go on to say in my post no. 217 that I am willing to take his word for it. There were two options available to me: I could accept his word, or call him a liar. If I wanted to contend that he was lying, that he had originally intended a straightforward declaration and was now changing course to embarrass an ideological opponent, I'd have been engaging in pure speculation. There is no evidence. Under the circumstances, the appropriate and courteous choice for me was simply to take him at his word. Let me repeat what I said earlier: what is the point of going further with this?

NJ continues to talk about his "demonstrably correct" claim that I insinuated that he is a liar. But it is demonstrable that I did no such thing. This is not a matter of opinion. I don't care how upset you are at my harsh remarks about the political left. Review the sequence of posts and only one conclusion is possible: I have not insinuated that NJ is lying. My willingness to accept his word that he was joking should have ended this nonsense

 

[pomeroo]

=LostAngeles;2306357]It may seem rather tedious, but I have not observed any evidence being presented by you at all. Please show us in which of your posts you've presented this evidence. Use the link button underneath the posts to copy the links to the clipboard and then paste them into your response to this post, please.

Yes, it has grown extremely tedious. I believe that you really haven't observed any evidence I've presented. That will remain your problem.

I should hope that by this time tomorrow, you can manage to produce at least one post with your claimed evidence.

I've made a number of specific points in a series of posts. You are welcome to dispute any of them with me.

The alternative is... well, cute and fluffy to start with.

[/quote]
This approach is disingenuous and boring.