Journal the_mad_poster's Journal: Mowing the Lawn 73
What follows is a long-winded response provided by On Lawn to a planted comment in his journal. If you are unaware of [unnecessary personal attack removed], I hope this will enlighten you. His comments are in fixed-width font, my response in plain slashfont. His quotes from my original comment are in italics.
------------------------
Never failing to dissapoint
How ironic that you would bring this up a time when a number of powerful congressional figures are threatening to exercise the "nuclear option"
By "ironic" I think you intend to appeal to intrigue here. It is no more "ironic" than getting to the root of the problem. There is no nuclear option as long as the justices hold such nulcear power. Those are maneuvers to fix the problem of the judiciary by stuffing it with like minded folk, which is no fix at all.
Note how On Lawn brings in the "what you really meant was" card right off the bat. Rather than responding to the text as it's presented, it's not uncommon at all for Mr. Lawn (name withheld to protect the ignorant) to "redefine" terms from the original text before responding. This has the interesting effect of allowing Mr. Lawn to redefine any text he cannot actually respond to any number of other definitions that allow him to present an "argument". Of course, at this point he is no longer arguing the original point, but, as you note further on in the statement, this is not something which concerns him.
How ironic that you, someone who has unwillingly made it quite clear that you're little more than another mouthpiece for a particular ideology
If "intelligent and informed opinions" represent to you a political ideology then so be it. That indeed seems to be in opposition to the hate filled ranting you try to pass off as political discussion.
Here I can only assume he's referring to the "intelligence" and "information" provided by his citations: Powerline blog (an extremist right-wing blog), other slashdotters, and something from National Review Online, a right-wing rag that is, basically, the "conservative" equivalent of The Village Voice.
The veracity of the information he claims makes him informed here is left to the reader's discretion.
Legislators have their feet on the brake of the police force. In a matter of a half an hour, they could bring the entire police force of a city to a standstill by unequivically revoking funding.
Theoretical and half overly simplified, I probably would have used it if I were talking to elementary school students to describe basic seperation of powers, but its impracticle for any real political science debate. But you have problems seeing things like that, so let me help you out. I probably didn't include that because that isn't the type of control I was talking about. It is more a restraint than a ability to manipulate. It is also a scenario that would likely be ruled in contempt of the courts as it means their orders are not enforced. But that is speculative too, but no other way to discuss your far off arguments.
A vague insult, alluding to the idea that the argument, as presented, is worthy of grade schoolers. Truly a monumental intellect we face here today, brothers and sisters.
He then goes on, of course, to suggest that the problem with the legislature is that it's not the executive branch: "It is more a restraint than a ability to manipulate.". I'm not entirely sure why he would want the legislature to direct enforcement activities when it's quite clear that this is not their job. The only thing I can figure is that On Lawn things that the entire basis of the United States structure of government is fundamentally flawed and is arguing that it should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch (apparently sans a judicial arm, making the people who make and enforce the laws the people who also rule on the constitutionality of the laws, but whatever... this is On Lawn).
If you have a case to make against these particular judges, I would like to hear you make it.
You have me laughing again, pardon my giggles. The point was made and sufficient to draw to the next argument. If you find otherwise please state how
Note how he responds but doesn't address the point he's responding to at all. If anyone finds exactly what it is that the judges he's complaining about did outlined in his journal, kindly let me know, as I'd be most interested in hearing.
present the laws anmd prior judgements that the judges are not properly applying to this case.
Hmm, did I say they were ignoring prior judgement and laws? No. How many times do I have to tell you, you can't "raise the bar" if it was not put there in the first place.
In other words, he cannot cite any example, so he declares that every ruling in the entire history of the United States that is in any way relevant to the Schiavo case was wrong.
While this is a perfectly valid opinion, since nobody ever said opinions had to be smart or well-informed, I think it's going to be a bit of an uphill battle for him to convince anyone else other than the terrorist right that's yelling make-believe conspiracy theories about "activist judges".
But, alas you haven't learned and still rely on the ignorance of others to make a point with (in this case that readers may give you the benefit of the doubt on what I said).
In other words, because I cite source such as my next piece of quoted text rather than completely internalizing all decisions, I'm wrong. I'm not entirely sure how, exactly, Mr. Lawn got through college without citing any sort of relevant authorities while writing his papers, but maybe he sucked it up and just did such an "elitist liberal" thing as research in order to get through school.
Mad Palooka, these tactics never work for you, so why do you keep trying them? As I said before, a popular definition of insanity comes to mind...
Personal attack, check. Sweeping declaration of inherent mistaken views without backing for such a delcaration, check. Another personal attack, check.
the extreme majority of the judges in the 21 decisions have issued the same opinion
Actually, they saw no reason to contest or overturn it. The difference being that they might not agree but they don't feel the ruling was out of line. That is how appeals work, btw. Cases are usually not heard over and over again as they run up the ladder of appeals. It is my understanding that this is how this case in particular has operated.
Dear god. An accurate, valid point, highlight of mistaken use of (important) terminology in my post, AND he even presented it in a reasonable, rational way! SOMEONE STOP THE PRESSES!
WHAT law is it that these judges are not properly interpreting or applying that is leading to your conclusions?
Please be specific. Which conclusions are you referring to?
Are you suggesting that a state court's ruling on a case is an infraction of a person's personal life?
Note how he comes to this conclusion even though no such statement has ever been made. Despite the fact, actually, that I've explicitly stated numerous times that althought I think the parents are completely nuts, the only three groups that have fallen under the category Mr. Lawn is alluding to are Congress, the FL legislature, and two of the Bush family children. This is probably a good example of what happens when you take the kind of course Mr. Lawn does and snub the idea that one should research issues MOre thoroughly than blog entries.
"Infraction" is your word and not mine. But I wonder how you would argue that a life altering event such as removing a feeding tube neccesary for life does not infringe on personal life.
Further, I have already made this clear all over this site (it's not an infraction because it's her right to refuse treatment and it's Michael Schiavo's right as guardian to exercise her rights).
What judicial backlash? The two federal courts
You have a habit of answering your own questions. And that you don't see it is entertaining. I'll let that bake your noodle for a bit, and if you need me to explain it to you I will.
Note how he claims that the quoted text contains some sort of fundamental error but refuses to explain it. In On Lawn's world this is sufficient refutation of a point.
congress passed an invasive law that directly legislated one person's life?
A few problems, congress directly legislates our lives all the time. I find it funny that you call it "invasive" of their lives. It didn't tell anyone what to do with Terry at all, just that the Federals should look at it. It didn't even re-insert her feeding tube. The only applecart it upset was the state justice's. That you are saying it was invasive in their private lives is one of your typical red-herrings.
This is, of course, patently false. Unless Mr. Lawn has laws specifically mentioning him by name which directly impact the way in which his daily life is handled. Whether or not this is a misunderstanding on On Lawn's part of my point or an intentional attempt to ignore it is unknown, however, because although Lawn is frequently given to the latter, the point is not explicitly laid out in this journal, so it's possible it's an honest misunderstanding between the two posts.
I like how it's not that the branches are keeping one another in check, like they're supposed to, it's that there's "judicial tyranny".
So the branches of government are not keeping each other in check like they are supposed to, there is judicial tyranny, and you like that.
Well folks you heard it here, I was right yet again.
Note the reiteration of the argument I was complaining about, still without any proof to back it up, and the sweeping declaration of victory on the point that follows.
It's not that they're upholding a person's right to decide their own medical treatment
Again correct. They are upholding the right for the husband to decide on their wifes medical treatment.
Same thing, different words. It's still her right (one does not forfeit their rights just because they become unconscious), it's just that it's being executed by-proxy by Michael Schiavo. Both statements are legitimate.
it's that they're liberal activist judges
Hmmm, liberal is your word here not mine. There are liberal activist judges and conservative activist judges. The problem is that they weild powers not granted them by the constitution, and that makes them a threat to our liberty.
Not my word, it was taken from talking heads in the conservative arena, originally in reference to the striking of anti-marriage laws for gay people. Note how he makes another claim about judges wielding "unconstitutional" powers but refuses to provide any backup. No citations of law, decisions, names, nothing. Just the claim the assumption that because he said it, that's good enough.
Here's your entire journal summed up in a few words
Hmm, cute strawman
As a side note, not necessarily specific to On Lawn, I find it amusing how somebody at some point on Slashdot in the past pointed out a fallacy in a post, and now everyone is running around saying "STRAWMAN! AD HOMINEM! LOFFERS! YUO FAIL!" It may be true, but it's still tired and beat to death.
I laugh every time you feel the need to oversimplify something to understand it, and *then* start complaining about it.
Hmm, cut ad hominem
Guess who's side I'm going to take?
Actually that was already guessed. You are one of the tyranical sorts, hateful and arrogant. The judicial tyranny option suits your desires to control others, and how they think the best. That was in part 1.
Three personal attacks made by a guy on the other side of the country who's never said a word to me in person. Cute. Further note how he still has not presented a case or action by any judge (other than "all of them in all of history") which supports his conclusion of "judicial tyranny".
------------------------
The Original JE
My Post
On Lawn's Response
------------------------
And this, my friends, is the status of the On Lawn. Create personal attacks (but they're not personal attacks if you put a
I would encourage everyone to ignore Mr. Lawn going forward. I considered foe'ing him until this JE archives so he couldn't respond just to aggravate him, but the point isn't to aggravate him, it's to highlight the severe lack of anything but his own personal opinions in his posts.
Take this into due consideration when reading one of them.
(I think next I'll do HBI. There's nothing quite as alluring as the chance to slap around a guy who went into a JE announcing a person's suicide and effectively mocked the writer for attempting to prevent it)
Huh... (Score:2)
I guess I was wrong about him being a fool and a coward!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good for you. (Score:1)
Ad hominem!
I have to agree that all of the "ad hominem!" "strawman!" calling out has gotten a bit old. It's close to whatever adage that is, the first one to invoke "Nazi" or "Hitler" loses the argument.
Ummm... Strawman? STRAWMAN!!! Straw-man! Neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener.... STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN! *KAPOW!*
Like Mister Serious Pants.
Ad hominem!
That was fun! =P I wanna play again with more logical fallacies
You want to move to your Journal, that is fine.... (Score:2)
Oh, lets see how well you do this. I have always been cordial in that instead of dismissing your arguments after years of watching you make a fool of yourself, I keep thinking "wait, maybe this time he has a point". So maybe you have a point here. I mean, you haven't in the past, you've humiliated yourself over and over again trying to pass off your hate filled ridicule as argument. But now you feel the need to try agai
I'm spreading these out (Score:2)
And there is no reason to assume that. However there is every reason to assume I was talking about my commentary.
Then Mad Palooka tries to turn the discussion away from those intelligent points, remember he can't see them, and tries to make the issue the political leanings of some articles.
Now you want to know what the funny thing about this is? I mean, Mad Palooka does some stupid things sometimes, an
Re:I'm spreading these out (Score:1)
The whole point here is to have a place I can link back to each time you insist on butting into conversations where you're not wanted because, frankly, I'm tired of the running battle with
you. It's not interesting, it's not enlightening, it's not even entertaining, and I'm consistently left with the feeling that you
Re:I'm spreading these out (Score:2)
Re:I'm spreading these out (Score:2)
Trying to teach Mad Palooka the lessons of his folley is a waste of time?
No really, you tell me.
Becuase I think it is, honestly. Not a waste of his time but it is a waste of mine. Well not exactly. Many years ago when I first started writing JE's the mighty Mad Palooka saw my growing fan base and decided to start attacking me. Some six or seven JE's in a row. Now you tell me who's wasting who's time?
Though Mad Palooka tended to take a beating w
Re:I'm spreading these out (Score:2)
Wow, that sounds familiar [slashdot.org].
Now you tell me who's wasting who's time?
You're wasting my time.
Re:I'm spreading these out (Score:2)
A shame really, or is it just a sham?
It is funny, you weren't attacked. Your position on abortion wasn't attacked. Your position that discussion should be closed was used as a springboard to discuss how people who felt the same way were a detriment to discussion.
Apparently you chose to demonstrate how correct that assessment was, even turning off comments in your JE's.
Re:I'm spreading these out (Score:2)
a) rant machines like Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Mike Royko, Jim Goad and Dave Eggers are what makes America great.
b) what's the line between hate-filled and righteously angry? It wouldn't happen to be the same line as between agreement and disagreement, surely?
"gladiator style battles."
don't flatter yourself, chum...P.
Re:I'm spreading these out (Score:2)
Good rants make America great.
what's the line between hate-filled and righteously angry?
Hate is an emotion that causes other feelings. Anger is an emotion that is caused by other emotions. Hate can cause anger, but so can indignation, hurt, etc...
Thats a difference, others might see yet other differences.
don't flatter yourself, chum...P.
You are trying, very very hard aren't you
Re:I'm spreading these out (Score:2)
you.
It never winds up well for you does it.
You've tried to do this very thing before also. Yet nothing attests to just how much you embarass yourself in that you have never referenced old debates.
So that we can see where you run... (Score:2)
Too vague for you then? I'll make it specific then. It is a fairy tale worthy of bed-time stories. What did you argue again? Congress controls police because they can cut funding! Truely the fantastic speculations worthy of Mad Palooka, the fairy-tale writer.
But what is worse is that he went around some of the most basic ways that Congress can control police. I mean, if he was going to argue how congress ca
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
Bear in mind, however, that I will not be offering a further rebuttal.
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:2)
You always run. But the fact that you run away quicker and quicker each time means you do learn.
Meanwhile that you abandon your points in this discussion so soon is disheartening, for those that assumed you had points worth arguing at least.
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
What's disheartening is how much we have in common - an interest in cars, martial arts, etc. - but because all we ever do is battle endlessly over stupid political issues that - like Cyrano says - are created so that we, the people, have something to hate each other over, we can'
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
How hollow this rings! In a journal entry titled "Mowing the Lawn," and rife with statements like "There's nothing quite as alluring as the chance to slap around a guy...," "Truly a monumental intellect we face here today, brothers and sisters," and "name withheld to protect the ignorant," the one thing that is clear is whatever you are tired of, it is not of giving the punches.
Mad, before you can change an outcome, you need to understand its r
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
While I disagree with your premise regarding the authority appeal, I am increasingly concerned that your conclusion regarding the allure of ego stroking may be accurate.
Please see the latest JE.
It seems to me that to some extent or another, a wedge is being driven between people, and I've fallen victim to it... maybe it's less that my disagreement with On Lawn (and others) is so serious an
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority being cited is not really an authority. For example, because the claimed authority is not an expert in their field or because they are biased.
Therefore:
1. Someone appealing to the authority of the Catholic Churh on what constitutes human life is fallacious because:
a) The "expert" is (generally) not a medical expert.
b) The "expert" is clearly biased in favor of the earliest possible definition of life.
2. Someone appea
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
The appeal to authority is fallacial, period. A fallacy is any line of reasoning that can start from correct premises and result in a false conclusion.
History is replete with "expert" opinions that contradict later or even contemporary expert opinions.
Everyone has their biases, even experts.
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
That would be ridiculous, and is not in any manner the way in which human discuss
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
Actually, scientific progress is based on observable, repeatable results, not "experts."
Which means it is not fallacial? Again, you are wasting our time proving the point I already made about your lack of critical thinking.
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
2. Selected quotes are out of context and only include half the statement that was made? Check.
3. Provided "proof" doesn't actually explain how your point is supported by that proof? Check.
4. Poorly concealed personal attacks? Check.
Conclusion: you're probably Farnbach.
Or, to translate, in case you AREN'T Farnbach: unless you want to talk about some non-contentious topic of interest, go away. Based on your last two posts (which constitute 2/3 of e
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
The original point was about your "'style' of 'arguing'" and how it impeded your stated goal of debating civilly. Do not engage in a discussion about debate style and then 6 levels later express dismay that that is what the topic is.
Quotes are, by definition, selective. Readers have access to your complete text without my having to do anything.
Re:So that we can see where you run... (Score:1)
A shame really, you complain about driving moderate viewpoints and intelligent discussion away while you get angry at people calmly talking. It seems the unpardonable offence is trying to help you.
-You are your own worst enemy-
Unfortunately there nothing to see in your journal worth enduring t
RUN THIS, PLEASE (Score:1)
Re:RUN THIS, PLEASE (Score:1)
Just so you know, whoever gave you the code was using the pipe from `yes` as a kludge or a bad attempt at PERL poetry. Without it, any string you type the computer will respond "I do not care". That is the origionally intended joke. Which is, honestly, much funnier in interaction than a cheap kludgy screen flood.
And that is the problem with skript-kiddies, they have no idea what they are regurgitat
Re:RUN THIS, PLEASE (Score:1)
They're too easy to troll.
Although I'd like to congratulate you on your ability to use manpages. I guess that makes you at least half a step ahead of most of the other morons here.
Re:RUN THIS, PLEASE (Score:2)
Whenever he does something really embarassing he claims he was trolling. That is why we have called him the self-humiliating troll.
In fact, he might just be some right-wing person purposefully trying to make the left look stupid. If that is true, he is a genious at it.
I mean its pure genious (in a self-humiliating way) that few days ago claiming "I will not be a sheep" essentially and then turns around and plays like a dumb sheep of the left again. Thats classic. Perhaps he really i
Re:RUN THIS, PLEASE (Score:1)
Sockpuppets are welcome there.
Re:RUN THIS, PLEASE (Score:2)
Wherever you can find friends, Chris.
You have a friend in me, actually. But I have a habit of trying to get you to produce ration and reason. I suppose it is easier for you to find friends who would rather sulk in their lack of success together rather than be successful.
Its all about the debate (Score:2)
Actually, on this point you are wrong. You see you have a horrible tendancy to ignore what is written (as demonstrated I think in the past few posts also) and work off of vain accusation.
I am letting the point stand on its own merits. As far as you are concerned, like mindedness isn't an issue as like-mindedness isn't a crime or even enough to have a case overturned.
It isn't even a problem in democracy.
But, it is an exploitabl
Mad Palooka's amazing Hoops (Score:2)
In other words, Mad Palooka is so incompetant that you can't even tell what the point is before demanding "evidence".
This is yet another hoop Mad Palooka has drawn from nowhere, at least not from my discussion. While "I didn't say it, I don't have to support it" is valid reason to not jump through a hoop, Mad Palooka once again o
Re:Mad Palooka's amazing Hoops (Score:2)
TMP has not "drawn from nowhere" in this demand. This is a basic requirement for a logical discussion. And it is a requirement that you regularly disregard, especially when asked to present ANY evidence for the claims you make.
Re:Mad Palooka's amazing Hoops (Score:2)
This was already discussed. That you try to re-oversimplify "claims" to mean anything you have an opinion on is just falling into the same trap.
The trap I already mentioned and rebutted.
TMP has not "drawn from nowhere" in this demand.
If you mean "precident" whe you say he has not drawn from nowhere, you are correct. There is precident for demanding evidence.
However, even more basic if he demands evidence for a
Re:Mad Palooka's amazing Hoops (Score:2)
Well, enlighten me instead of dismissing my statement. A simple link will do just fine. Otherwise, you're just using your "I said so" reasoning again and completely proving my point.
That you try to re-oversimplify "claims" to mean anything you have an opinion on is just falling into the same trap.
I am not oversimplifying anything. If you say something is true and I doubt you, then you need to show me the evidence that sho
Re:Mad Palooka's amazing Hoops (Score:2)
The englightenment is there, you are asking for me to repeat myself. I'm happy to do so, but so far your confusion seems to be a lack of comprehension. Why there is a disconnect I'm not sure.
Why do you feel that one cannot have an opinion unless someone else stated it before?
When I asked you for evidence for Intelligent Design you pulled out this argument saying you hadn't "claimed" anything at all.
Incorrect, and I don't appreciate your dishonesty
Re:Mad Palooka's amazing Hoops (Score:2)
ALL YOU SAID WAS "THIS WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED". YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE SAID "BECAUSE I SAID SO".
Why do you feel that one cannot have an opinion unless someone else stated it before?
You are presenting your opinions as fact. Facts require evidence. This is not rocket science.
Incorrect, and I don't appreciate your dishonesty.
You're getting foe'd for that one. I do not
Re:Mad Palooka's amazing Hoops (Score:2)
Fix your capslock AOLpher.
This was already discussed means you need to catch up. I don't mind you attacking a point, but attacking it by re-treading topics it discusses as if the discussion never happened is ludicrous.
You are presenting your opinions as fact.
Now you are just making stuff up.
I do not lie
You won't be the first who fiegned offence to cover up malignant behaviour.
The discussion was over a
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman & Ad hominem (Score:2)
Hey, here's an idea. IF you want to use these terms, then why don't you point out EXACTLY what in my argument you're talking about and EXACTLY WHY it's a Strawman or Ad hominem.
Just saying "cute strawman" doesn't tell me shit and isn't really a rebuttal.
Re:Strawman & Ad hominem (Score:2)
Funny you should ask. It was where I was next in my rebuttal.
"When the courts rule in a manner I do not personally like, I call it 'judicial tyranny' and claim that they are overstepping their boundaries."
The JE he referenced was less about not liking decisions as it is how the judiciaries are increasingly showing contempt for congress and even the direct people they represent. Well, maybe it isn't increasing maybe it is.
What I don't like about it is not that I disagree with the outcome. I can't say th
Re:Strawman & Ad hominem (Score:2)
It's the job of the judiciary to interpret laws. Don't like it? Tough. I don't like it when cops write me speeding tickets but I understand they're just doing their job. If enough people don't like the courts' decisions they can write their Congressmen and ask them to pass a new law, or, in many cases, they can choose to not vot
Re:Strawman & Ad hominem (Score:2)
Another tyrannist, how suprising [rolls eyes].
If enough people don't like the courts' decisions they can write their Congressmen and ask them to pass a new law
Recognizing congress's power is important to stemming judicial tyranny. This, of course, is something Mad Palooka overlooked in finding a way to demonstrate congresional power, so you are at least smarter then him.
they can choose to not vote for the judge in question.
Funny
Re:Strawman & Ad hominem (Score:2)
No, the tyrannists are the ones trying to keep the judiciary from following its Constitutional duty tio interpret law, and the ones trying to dismantle checks and balances.
"Funny how reigning in the judges to *only* interpret law is not in your list of options."
Interpreting law is what they're doing, you just don't like the interpretations they're making, so you try to redefine any interpretations you don't like as "legislating from the bench". Judges don't write bills, they don't vot
Re:Strawman & Ad hominem (Score:2)
This point you have not developed. Who is doing this and how are they keeping them from interpreting the law?
My instinct still is that your definition of interpret is much more broad and purposefully immaterial than the definition accepted as a part of the english language, and as such support their judicial tyranny.
Interpreting law is what they're doing, you just don't like the interpretati
Re:Strawman & Ad hominem (Score:2)
the uber-reich - oops, I mean right - is doing this by attempting to conflate decisions they don't like with legislating from the bench. Legislation is the creation of new law. Every court case heard by any court up to and including SCOTUS is a case regarding law that already existed. Roe v Wade was a case regarding law that already existed. That had already been legislated. Unless a judge wr
Re:Strawman & Ad hominem (Score:2)
And was over-ruled by a law that did not exist, one that was made up by the justices. In fact, you seem to agree as you point to the ninth ammendment as the place to find a right to abortion which is often used by the amatuer as a catch-all clause. However the ninth ammendment says...
I keep doing this to him throughout the movie (Score:2)
Hmmm, this seems to be a common way for Mad Palooka to start paragraphs. He seems compelled to rephrase. Hmmm, in the coffers of my mind I seem to remember him saying something about this... Oh yeah it was at the beginning of this JE...
Stonewalling doesn't get anyone anywhere (Score:2)
And this demand to cite relevant authorities seems off. Let me see if I can put my finger on it.
If you make a claim, scientific or otherwise verifiable it is good to cite authority. I mean, if I say "the sky is blue" then having an authority to reference is good.
But Mad Palooka seems to be trying to demand authority as a way to quelch opinion. He was asked to cite whic
Re:Stonewalling doesn't get anyone anywhere (Score:2)
Re:Stonewalling doesn't get anyone anywhere (Score:2)
Is that so? To quote from the JE, the conclusion of the JE...
It was presented as an opinion, and backed up with reason and logic.
As mentioned previously (and seen by apparently everyone but yourself) you came
Getting Personal (Score:2)
Are you, Mr Mad Palooka saying something about personal attacks? What is your opinion of personal attacks?
A case of mistaken identity (Score:2)
I assume you are intending the italicized words to be yours, but then the "Are you suggesting..." sentance should be italicized also.
So when you say, "Note how he comes to this conclusion" it appears you have inadvertently attacked yo
Missing the point like man with a haystack (Score:2)
You are assuming other's don't see it. I am confident they do.
You argued where I saw a judicial backlash, and you then pointed out how the federal judges ruled with the state judges. If you don't see the "we won't turn against our own" message to congress in that, then maybe you are as dumb as I thought.
Add to that the judges ignored speci
Grandstanding (Score:2)
Of course the fallacy of this rebuttal is that one needn't mention someone by name to write legislation that directly impacts the way we lead our daily lives. Yet Mad Palooka stands up, stomps his feet and requires it.
Personal Rights (Score:2)
Well, I could demand evidence that she is deciding her own medical treatment. But that would be stonewalling. It is sufficient to note that is one of the things we will never know, what Terry wants to happen to her. It is the core disagreement between her husband and parents. It is not likely that if a living will were presented that the parents would be so active in keeping her alive.
The courts and the Doctors a
The Mad Palooka Test (Score:2)
Hmm, from the same person who had just in the paragraphs before stated...
We have in Mad Palooka someone who...
Who is afraid? (Score:2)
And how ironic that it wound up backfiring.
You have foed me, I believe three times already.
But the truth of the matter is that you always run away. Whenever the hot spotlight of logic and reason is shown on your post, the vari
Re:Who is afraid? (Score:2)
Re:Who is afraid? (Score:2)
Well, no one except for these folks.
Is that how you read a foes list? Everyone there must be afraid of you? Possible, but presumtuous (with foes like "Profanity Blacklist" and all). Actually a good number of slashdotters foe to filter out profanity. Who on that list do you think is afraid of Chris?
Not want for entertainment, this also brings a giggle as I realize you are hanging your neck out that far in order to shill for Mad Palooka.
Re:Who is afraid? (Score:2)
Most of them. If they weren't afraid of him they wouldn't filter him out, they'd be able to deal honestly and rationally with his arguments.
Instead, it's "run away, run away"... Funny that most of these people are the ones frothing at the mouth at the thought of "the media as a filter", yet are more than happy to have the media filter out what *they* don't want to hear.
"Not want for entertainment, this also brings a
Re:Who is afraid? (Score:2)
Funny, Mad Palooka doesn't seem to follow that standard. Any honest and rational discussion with him devolves into something much less than that. It isn't hard to believe that anyone interested in real discussion isn't interested in the "terrifying" internet persona, created by pasty-skinny self proclaimed troll Chris Shatto.
So I'll ask again, who do you think is afraid of Mad Palooka? We'll go and ask them if they are... And why is it so
Re:Who is afraid? (Score:2)
I would submit that you haven't been paying enough attention to his conversations.
"created by pasty-skinny self proclaimed troll Chris Shatto."
AD HOMINEM!
"So I'll ask again, who do you think is afraid of Mad Palooka?"
Why would you ask me again when I already told you? Oh yeah, cuz you're trying to waste my time. [slashdot.org]
"We'll go and ask them if they are"
Yeah, take the word of people who are self-declared foes of TMP t
Re:Who is afraid? (Score:2)
The subject of who Chris is trying to be was your topic when you posted in this thread. It appears it is you who haven't been paying attention. And I for one won't fall to being held responsible for your choice of topic. Perhaps you didn't read in this JE on Mad Palooka's opinion of this tactic you just chose to employ...
Link needs fixing (Score:2)
See - proof that some people actually follow links :-)
Like... (Score:1)
Since you already hate me... (Score:2)
Wahhh I argued with a guy on
What's the saying:
Arguing on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded.
Re:Since you already hate me... (Score:1)
Amen brotha!
And I don't hate you! I love you like a brother or a Jesus!
Re:Since you already hate me... (Score:2)
Being a special assistant to the President. [OT] (Score:1)
Special Assistant to the President for mumble-mumble Policy. I heard him explain his title to an interviewer, who promoted him to full-fledged
Assistant to the President for mumble-mumble Policy. He explained that not long after he arrived in Washington he realized that the difference between being an assistant, and a special assistant was like the difference between competing in the Olympics and competing i