Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lest damn_registrars think I'm not calling it like it is

Comments Filter:
  • Why thank you.

    Of course, this still doesn't explain your completely unsubstantiated and unsourced argument about Benghazi. It appears you have no interest in actually looking into questions about your claim. I don't know if you are hoping to assemble your lynch mob here on slashdot or what your goal is, but your argument doesn't exactly hold water and your cowardice doesn't help your cause if you are trying to recruit more people to your side.

    You're free to your own opinions, but don't expect to win
    • completely unsubstantiated and unsourced argument about Benghazi

      You really shouldn't go conceding that much ground in your denials. Double down, man! Give it the full Winston Smith! You should refute:

      • The false character set I'm attempting to smuggle in as English.
      • The existence of Libya in general, and Benghazi in particular.
      • The citizenship of Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods, who were probably Commie plants that had it coming.
      • The motives of Nakoula, whose attempt at a religious remake of "Manos" The Ha [agonybooth.com]
      • Until I get a serious, point-by-point rejection like that

        Oh, I see. You were just making a joke this whole time, right? I'm sorry I accidentally thought you were expressing your actual thoughts and opinions. That whole sarcasm thing, it does not often pass well via plain text.

        • Think of it as a co-routine:
          1. I do think that there needs to be a full-blown impeachment trial over Benghazi, because the death toll and the erratic behavior of the administration need to be answered properly, and,
          2. I'm feeding your brand of nonsensical evasions and displacements back at you.

          Hopefully your superior liberal intellect can encompass all that.

          • I do think that there needs to be a full-blown impeachment trial over Benghazi, because the death toll and the erratic behavior of the administration need to be answered properly, and,

            How can you proceed with something like that when you cannot even state your goals? You claim "erratic behavior", but you are unwilling to define a situation where you would be willing to state the situation to be otherwise. Hence you are attempting to start up a full-blown lynch mob.

            And if you want to talk death toll, you're not even close to the right order of magnitude. The previous administration - who was that guy, that the conservatives don't like to mention by name - repeatedly sold us outri

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              How can you proceed with something like that when you cannot even state your goals? You claim "erratic behavior", but you are unwilling to define a situation where you would be willing to state the situation to be otherwise.

              Actually, you mentioned something about Benghazi (not smitty), but you cannot even state what he said that you find objectionable.

              And if you want to talk death toll ... The previous administration ...

              Dude. Obama already got reelected. You can stop saying everything is Bush's fault.

              I have posted many questions to you

              Not here, you haven't.

              • Haven't seen you around in a while, Pudge - what brings you back?

                How can you proceed with something like that when you cannot even state your goals? You claim "erratic behavior", but you are unwilling to define a situation where you would be willing to state the situation to be otherwise.

                Actually, you mentioned something about Benghazi (not smitty), but you cannot even state what he said that you find objectionable.

                This discussion is the continuation of Smitty bringing up Benghazi on Tuesday. I've been asking him to clarify his position and he keeps dodging the question. [slashdot.org]

                And if you want to talk death toll ... The previous administration ...

                Dude. Obama already got reelected. You can stop saying everything is Bush's fault.

                I'm quite sure the soldiers who died in Iraq before the 2008 election are not the fault of Obama. If you can provide an argument to the contrary, please do.

                I have posted many questions to you

                Not here, you haven't.

                I invite you to read earlier comments in this JE discussion, as well as comments in this JE [slashdot.org] as well as this JE [slashdot.org] and the earlies [slashdot.org]

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  This discussion is the continuation ...

                  I figured, but you still gace no context.

                  I'm quite sure the soldiers who died in Iraq before the 2008 election ...

                  ... are not relevant to the discussion. You're just trying to distract.

                  I invite you to read earlier comments in this JE discussion

                  I did. And you did not post *any* questions, except one: "You were just making a joke this whole time, right?"

                  ... as well as comments in [other JEs]

                  It is your obligation to point to them (which, now, you have done).

                  So I'm not sure how you reached your conclusion that I have not posted many questions.

                  I had no such conclusion. I said HERE you have not posted questions. Not ANY, in fact, except that one (plus two more similar non sequiturs, in the comment I initially replied to).

                  • This discussion is the continuation ...

                    I figured, but you still gace no context.

                    Then you could have done yourself a favor to read the earlier parts of the conversation before putting your foot in your mouth.

                    I'm quite sure the soldiers who died in Iraq before the 2008 election ...

                    ... are not relevant to the discussion. You're just trying to distract.

                    No. You can make that claim if you wish, but that will not give it merit. He commented on the death total in Benghazi and how he feels that is justification for the president to be violently impeached. I was pointing out that far more service people died as a result of a decision of the previous president. Just because you don't like facts does mean they are automatically "to

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      Then you could have done yourself a favor to read the earlier parts of the conversation before putting your foot in your mouth.

                      Um. What part of "you gave no context" did you not get? You gave no links, so there were no "earlier parts of the conversation" I could read.

                      He commented on the death total in Benghazi and how he feels that is justification for the president to be violently impeached.

                      So say you, but since you gave no context, it was not a part of this discussion.

                      I did. And you did not post *any* questions, except one: "You were just making a joke this whole time, right?"

                      Then you didn't do a very good job of reading.

                      I defy you to point them out. I know you won't, so let's not keep this charade up for much longer, as your defiance in the face of the facts is quickly getting old.

                      Which is a puzzling conclusion as I have posted several questions to Smitty in this JE discussion.

                      False. At the time you said "I have posted many questions to you and you have essentially not answered a single one", you h

                    • Then you could have done yourself a favor to read the earlier parts of the conversation before putting your foot in your mouth.

                      Um. What part of "you gave no context" did you not get? You gave no links, so there were no "earlier parts of the conversation" I could read.

                      I provided you links to the previous JE discussions where this started, all the way back to the start of this week where Smitty first brought up Benghazi for no apparent reason. Did you not see those links, or did you consciously opt not to follow them?

                      He commented on the death total in Benghazi and how he feels that is justification for the president to be violently impeached.

                      So say you, but since you gave no context, it was not a part of this discussion.

                      I'm sorry you're late to the party. Before you go around telling people who is right and who is wrong, I would suggest you follow the links I provided you earlier to see what has already been covered in this discussion.

                      I defy you to point them out.

                      I already did.

                      I know you won't

                      I thought after you

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      I already did.

                      You're a damned liar. Again: you has posted no questions in this discussion (except for a rhetorical one) when you said you had posted many, but had received no answer.

                      I don't know why you're lying about htis obvious fact. I thought you might have given up lying over the years. Guess not.

                      I will now pose a question for you - which I suspect you will not answer.

                      Until you either show what questions you had asked in this discussion, OR admit you had asked none, I won't even read your question.

                    • I already did.

                      You're a damned liar.

                      You like that word. I should learn what it means in your world.

                      Again: you has posted no questions in this discussion (except for a rhetorical one) when you said you had posted many, but had received no answer.

                      I don't know why you opt to try to portray yourself as being knowledgeable on a discussion that you entered late and have intentionally decided not to read the earlier parts of.

                      I would call you a liar, but you might take that as a complement as clearly your idea of liar is not the same as what is used in the world I live in.

                      I will now pose a question for you - which I suspect you will not answer.

                      Until you either show what questions you had asked in this discussion

                      I already did, but you did not read them. I provided you earlier with links to comments and JEs where I posed questi

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      I already did

                      Why do you keep saying that which is self-evidently false?

                      I provided you earlier with links to comments and JEs where I posed questions.

                      So what? I have repeatedly said that I am asking you to show where you asked questions in this discussion. That you are implying my question was about other discussions is a lie. You said you provided questions in this discussion. Where are they?

                      You have a long history of not answering questions I ask.

                      You ask a lot of stupid questions. I try my best to not answer stupid questions. I have no idea if this one was among those. Admit you were wrong -- that, despite your claim as written, you had asked N

                    • I already did

                      Why do you keep saying that which is self-evidently false?

                      Do you really expect that your outright lie will somehow become true if you just keep repeating it?

                      I provided you earlier with links to comments and JEs where I posed questions.

                      So what? I have repeatedly said that I am asking you to show where you asked questions in this discussion.

                      And it is not my problem that you intentionally do not read my comments or follow the links I provide. I could show you the questions yet again but you would just continue to deny their existence.

                      That you are implying my question was about other discussions is a lie.

                      This discussion is a continuation of one that started earlier this week. Even if you want to redefine "discussion" - which would not deviate from your standard M.O. of redefining every word you can think of - to

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      I provided you earlier with links to comments and JEs where I posed questions.

                      So what? I have repeatedly said that I am asking you to show where you asked questions in this discussion.

                      And it is not my problem that you intentionally do not read my comments or follow the links I provide.

                      OK. So what you are saying here is that when I asked you to show the questions you asked in this discussion, it is somehow reasonable for you to provide evidence of questions asked in a different discussion, and then claim that you did as I asked.

                      In other words, you're admitting to being dishonest and irrational.

                      Not that I needed you to admit it ... but that you admitted it so unapologetically means I won't read the rest of your comment.

                      If you would like to admit you were wrong, feel free. Otherwise, we'r

                    • OK. So what you are saying here is that when I asked you to show the questions you asked in this discussion, it is somehow reasonable for you to provide evidence of questions asked in a different discussion, and then claim that you did as I asked.

                      No, that is not what I did at all. Just because you claim that to be the case does not refute the facts.

                      In other words, you're admitting to being dishonest and irrational.

                      You can keep asking me to admit to things that are not true if you like, but that doesn't make them magically become true.

                      I won't read the rest of your comment.

                      You have not functionally read any of what I have written in this discussion so far, so it doesn't surprise me that you opt to continue doing the same.

                      If you would like to admit you were wrong

                      The only thing I was wrong about was my hope that you had learned how to read since losing your job at slashdot.

                      I will not participate in a discussion with someone acting so blatantly in such bad faith

                      Says the person w

                    • You're a damned liar.

                      Ahhhhh, so begins the 14th b'ak'tun

                • by gmhowell (26755)

                  Haven't seen you around in a while, Pudge - what brings you back?

                  It's a Festivus miracle!

                  • It's a Festivus miracle!

                    Funny you should mention it that way... [slashdot.org]

                    • Are you guys trying to build the suspicion that this is an army of sock puppets run by Ezra Klein?
                    • Are you guys trying to build the suspicion that this is an army of sock puppets run by Ezra Klein?

                      I have previously - and inaccurately - accused of having sock puppets, but this is to the best of my knowledge the first time I have been accused of being a sock puppet.

                      However you neglected to give any reason why someone would bother to have sock puppets on a site like this which is so poorly traversed any ways. It would be more useful to write graffiti in the subway in multiple languages.

                    • I mean, you're trying to imply there is some rational reason for being on Slashdot.
                      I'm mainly here for old time's sake, sentimental chap that I am.
              • Outrage at Caligula for opening the front. No word on Nero dialing off to "11".

            • How can you proceed with something like that when you cannot even state your goals?[1] You claim "erratic behavior", but you are unwilling to define a situation where you would be willing to state the situation to be otherwise.[2] Hence you are attempting to start up a full-blown lynch mob.[3] And if you want to talk death toll, you're not even close to the right order of magnitude. The previous administration[4] - who was that guy, that the conservatives don't like to mention by name - repeatedly sold us o

              • A full impeachment trial is, noted in GP, not a stated goal?

                This is the first time you mentioned impeachment trial. You have previously called for "removal" without being specific, and also made comparisons to Nixon (whose impeachment trial never happened).

                I cannot parse this sentence. On a limb, some of the promised clarity from this administration would help. Had BHO not just jetted off to Vegas to raise him some boodle while heroes died. . .

                Then I ask you again, what would be your criteria for clarity? Is there anything they could possibly do that would satisfy you? I suspect the answer to the second question is no. You repeatedly demonstrate great hatred towards anyone with a (D) after their name, which makes it hard to imagine that you would

                • First explicit mention of impeachment was here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3332733&cid=42363007 [slashdot.org] though, really, what other remedy is going to leave the Benghazi 4 in a better condition than Mary Jo Kopechne?

                  Is there anything they could possibly do that would satisfy you?

                  Within the realm of the possible, Obama could fulfill his billing as a transformative, cosmopolitan, erudite leader and guide the country along paths of political, economic, and moral righteousness.
                  However, let's not kid ourselv

            • I used the OL tag, but can't tell if the notes in the blockquote are just missing due to a browser setting.
    • All I know is Obama, like all pro-choicers, is a racist and culturalist bigot. Everything else he has done flows from that bigotry, from the death of the Libyan Ambassador, to the HHS Amendment, to trying to tell the Lutherans what their churches should look like, to random drone attacks on random people, he's very much as full of hate as the Connecticut gunman was (and far more successful at murder. 26 is nothing).

If you analyse anything, you destroy it. -- Arthur Miller

Working...