Displaying 1 - 10 of 128 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Apr 15, 2018 09:31 AM
    Last: 2yr
    1.2k

    then tell other people what YOU think is wrong,

    Of course I tell people what I think is wrong. I'm not going to express someone else's opinion, am I?

    you ARE a TROLL.

    No, I'm not. And please be aware that accusing people you disagree with of being a troll may be regarded as a form of trolling in its own right. People often make that accusation because it's a hell of a lot easier to smear and discredit your opponent with lazy epithets than it is to address their arguments, provide links and facts of your own, do your own research, and generally back up your own viewpoint.

    Let's not do that to one another.

    Frankly, I'd rather we de-escalated and had nice conversations. I've been exploring archived threads and have read many excellent posts by you. I could learn from you if you weren't too prickly to have a conversation with.

    Broadly speaking, we're on the same side of the political aisle. At worst, we are at least fellow citizens. If the nation were invaded tomorrow, we would be surely be brothers in arms, fighting shoulder to shoulder. So I am astonished that you see the need for hostility between us. For my part, even if we have disagreements, I know I can treat you with the respect that I am sure you deserve.

    I've had words with you before, namely, you tried putting words into my posts that were not written, therefore, I called you a liar, and, you still are a liar.

    Yeah I just looked that thread up to relive the happy memories.

    I had interpreted you as saying that you approved of people being jailed for lying. You denied that that was what you thought, called me a liar (which, phew!, you don't think is an imprisonable offense) and implied that I wasn't too bright. I showed screenshots of your original post, I guess maybe to rub your face in your own words, I don't remember, maybe you had pissed me off, but more to show I had grounds for my interpretation and I wasn't just being a dick.

    I went on to ask you to clarify: "Do you agree with the idea of Papadopoulos and Flynn being tried and potentially sent to prison for the crime of making false statements? You seemed to, earlier. Now you seem more equivocal."

    You never got back to me on that. But here is a link to the thread and page if you feel like picking it up again:

    democratichub.com/posts/15470/every-fri...

    Your other problem/s is that when a moderator tries to correct you, or if someone doesn't agree with you, you become belligerent and insist what you write is absolutely correct, and, it is not.

    Belligerent? I don't think so. Assertive? Okay sure. I'm not afraid to speak my mind and I won't be pushed around.

    As for insisting that what I wrote was correct, I plead "Guilty". I will always continue to insist that I am right until someone shows me otherwise. But that is the way it is supposed to be.

    However, I don't just rant and yell. I back up my claims with arguments, links and quotes. I ask questions of others, and I invite them to show me where I am going wrong. I am never abusive to people, and rarely critical unless they are hostile or critical with me first.

    So if, despite this, I count as a troll, well then I must be the nicest troll on the internet.

  • Apr 15, 2018 09:31 AM
    Last: 2yr
    1.2k
    Dockadams Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote:

    In any disagreement, there's a certain kind of person who will reflexively take the side of the powerful. On any school yard you'll see these sycophants joining in the pile-on as a way of toadying up to the bully. On "debate" forums too.

    It's simple, you derail threads,

    It's natural for threads to branch off in various directions when people say contentious things that are off-topic, and others jump in to challenge them. Sometimes I am the one who says something contentious and off-topic. Sometimes I am the one who jumps in. Guilty on both charges.

    But it's a fact that others do it too, including you. This discussion, for instance, started off with Trump's opinion polls. I suggested we not put too much weight on opinion polls, since they have been so unreliable lately. jared jumped in to contend that, on the contrary, they have been quite reliable. He provided arguments. I provided arguments. He provided links. I provided links. But he also went off on white people and Bernie or Bust voters and the real reason why Clinton lost. All of that was off topic.

    For my part, I objected to his angry tone and complained that it was particularly hard to have a serious conversation with an angry person when that person is also the "trigger happy" moderator. In doing so I too veered off topic, and I regret using the phrase "trigger happy", which was an immature and foolish escalation on my part, but I was feeling resentful at (it seemed to me) being yelled at. It was particularly stupid of me to escalate when, in truth, I was expressing my exasperation at not being able to have a calm conversation with jared, whose contributions are otherwise excellent and who is the kind of person I would like to exchange views with.

    Anyway, he naturally took umbrage to my words and defended himself, and went on to reiterate his belief that I take people's words out of context. This was also off topic. And I think it's completely wrong and unfair. So this time I was the one who couldn't help but defend himself, but that took us further off topic still.

    We were having a back and forth over that when you jumped in on his side, adding the allegation that I am a troll and a liar, which takes us further still from what we were talking about.

    So who, in the end, is derailing this thread?

    We all are.

  • Mar 29, 2018 12:25 PM
    Last: 3yr
    1.8k
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Part of Trump's "base"...Russian trolls. From Act TV.

    How Russian Trolls Operate

    Hilarious paranoia at 0:43 :

    "If you've ever gotten into a heated argument in the comments section of Facebook chances are you've come across a paid Russian troll."

    Lol. Somebody should explain to "Act.TV" that heated disagreements are part and parcel of living in a vibrant democracy.

    What's next? "If you've ever had a heated disagreement over Thanksgiving dinner, chances are your folks have been corrupted by Russian mind viruses!" "If there's a politician from the other side whose policies you cannot stand, he must be a covert Russian infiltrator!" "If you've ever been shit-talked and verbally abused while playing Call of Duty online, that's a post-Soviet psy-ops ploy to break down your mental resistance. STOP PLAYING AT ONCE!!"

    Putin didn't invent taunting, teasing and mischief, and he sure as hell didn't pioneer it online. Trolling is as old as the internet, and will be with us until they ban adolescents. That's why most forums like this have moderators, and have had them since the nineties when the internet came online.

    Heated disagreements, meanwhile, are as common as different opinions.

    wwjd Wrote:

    Ironic part: "Their bigger goal was to great chaos and distrust among American Society"

    I know, right? They warn us that this has "always" been Russia's goal, but then tell us not to trust anyone online with whom we are having a heated disagreement, no matter how American they sound. If Russia wants to sow chaos and distrust, this video is helping.

    Wait a minute... maybe this video was created by the Russians!!! SNEAKY SOVIET DOUBLE BLUFF!!!

  • Apr 15, 2018 09:31 AM
    Last: 2yr
    1.2k

    In any disagreement, there's a certain kind of person who will reflexively take the side of the powerful. On any school yard you'll see these sycophants joining in the pile-on as a way of toadying up to the bully. On "debate" forums too.

  • Apr 15, 2018 09:31 AM
    Last: 2yr
    1.2k
    Dockadams Wrote:

    Polls are unreliable. 2016 proved it with a thunderclap.

    Let's not keep making the same mistakes.

    He did it again.

    This thread is about poll results, not the dangers of traditional mass transit. Stop trying to derail it.

  • Apr 15, 2018 09:31 AM
    Last: 2yr
    1.2k
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote: (sigh) It's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who (a) often makes mistakes (b) is convinced he never does (c) gets mad at anyone who challenges him (d) accuses people of mischaracterizing him even when they quote him exactly and (e) insists instead that people quote his whole post, because anything else is "selective".

    Tougher still when the person is a moderator with an itchy trigger finger.

    Sigh... (a) I have never claimed I don't make mistakes (b) I've never claimed I don't

    Well, to get back on topic, I allege that you made a mistake above, re the margins of error.

    What say you?

    I'll say that I'm simply encouraging you to read what I wrote in response to you yesterday afternoon: "They also didn't get the (key) states "badly wrong." Donald "won" because a handful of pissed off white people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin showed up by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points more than Hillary voters. That is WELL within the margin of error that any poll could EVER have predicted."

    I am concerned that you are selectively quoting yourself to your own advantage. Could you please quote yourself in full, so that I don't have to scroll back?

    I'm kidding. But maybe you see the point I am making.

    Those are the final tallies of the popular vote. As I said yesterday - those tallies are WELL within the margin of error of every single major poll.

    It appears that you still don't understand.

    The numbers you provided are just Trump's victory margins. But you have to ADD the margin of victory for Trump TO the margin of victory that the poll predicted for Clinton. That's how you get the total error. Then you compare the total error to the margin of error.

    Until you either show me that you comprehend this, or show me that I don't, we can't make further progress.

    You responded by linking me to a Business Insider article about one polling agency in one state getting it wrong,

    It appears that you did not read the article. It is subtitled "How everyone blew it on Trump's huge upset" (my emphasis) and it interviews a number of professional pollsters who offer explanations for why they themselves, and many others, screwed up the state by state predictions.

    so I admit to being wrong when I said "any poll could EVER have predicted" because you were able to provide me proof that one random state poll was an outlier. Bravo!

    Well, you have gone from belligerently making an error to sarcastically diminishing its importance. I suppose we can call that a breakthrough.

    However, you are still terribly confused. Business Insider weren't fascinated by one "random" "outlier" poll in one state, and wondering how that lonely poll got it wrong. Not only did they discuss a number of polls, their article was explicitly about "How everyone blew it on Trump's huge upset". It's right there in the title, so there can be no misunderstanding.

    However, that doesn't negate the fact that the will of the American people was overruled by a handful of angry white people in three states.

    We are not talking about white people or why Clinton lost. We are talking about the accuracy of polling. Please don't change the topic.

    Ray Pooch Wrote: I haven't misquoted anyone. Ever. That's simply a lie.

    I consider selective quoting the same as misquoting.

    Then you consider wrong.

    Misquoting is representing a person to have said something completely different from what they actually said. Selective quoting is picking out something that they did in fact say, and choosing not to quote the rest. In a place like this forum, where anyone can simply scroll up to see the original context, it makes no sense to misrepresent people in either of these ways. When the person's actual words are right there, just a finger swipe away, one would only damage one's own credibility by trying to misrepresent them.

    So you can intelligently assume that when I quote part of a post, that's not what I am trying to do. And if I am quoting the wrong parts of a post, omitting relevant context, and generally damaging my own credibility by misunderstanding what others are trying to say, be assured I am making a fool of myself by accident.

    My aim in "selectively" responding is to avoid writing tedious posts where I address everything... like this one. Sometimes it is better just to let part of a post go, even if you disagree, in order to focus on the most important and relevant parts.

    Highlighting one sentence of a quote while ignoring the sentences before or after is no different than misquoting someone. Ever.

    If you really thought that those were the same, why did you explicitly accuse me of both?

    You're obliging me to address each and every point you make, or else be accused of selective quoting.

    Hmm. Maybe I shall. Just for a little while, just to show you how it results in long excruciating posts. After that, I will return to my previous practice of "selectively quoting" the important parts, and disregard your complaints. You can then use it as a pretext to ban me, or not. It depends on whether you're serious about welcoming rigorous debate.

    Ray Pooch Wrote: I don't really care. Just cut the provocative and belligerent language, stop accusing people of dishonesty and stick to the topic.

    Then why did you accuse me of being a moderator with an itchy trigger finger

    Let me clarify. When I said I didn't really care, I meant that I don't really care to continue this tedious discussion of your moderating abilities. If you were anyone else, I would just let this part of your post go, even if I disagreed, so that we could talk about something more interesting. If that meant you got the last word, I could live with it.

    However, if I let any part of your post go, you accuse me of selective quoting. Very well.

    even though you have zero proof to back that up? None, zero, nada of your posts have been removed since our private conversation,

    You can hardly blame me for being amused. I was banned within a few posts of my arrival and for a pretty tame post. One that, the moderator himself has since proved, was not worth the time to delete.

    After my shocking post, which I am sure left the members here so traumatized that they've all repressed their memories of it, I would have expected a fair moderator to reach out to me to give me an opportunity to explain myself. After that, if I persisted, a polite warning would put me on notice. However, I was banned from almost the moment I arrived, for a mild post, without prior warning or explanation. In fact, without any prior contact whatsoever. In my view, that’s an itchy trigger finger.

    Your response is that you have only silenced me once, and you haven’t done so since the last time you did so. True. But I have to wonder why a mod who has already banned me would falsely accuse me, over and over again, of misquoting folks, unless he were building to the moment when he gives me the chop.

    If that's what's going on here, you really needn't work so hard. There are three billion people on the internet, and always another forum down the way. If you want me to leave, you could just ask. I promise I won't weep myself into a coma.

    but you continue to bring up the one time I removed your thread for breaking our community rules.

    BTW, which thread did you remove? I don't remember you removing a thread. Far as I recall, the offending post is still on the forum, making people cry.

    I am happy to let this go. However, if you want to continue discussing your moderating, I have some other things to say. Just let me know if you are interested in receiving more of my feedback.

    Get over yourself, Ray. We welcome rigorous debate here.

    That is yet to be proved.

  • Apr 15, 2018 09:31 AM
    Last: 2yr
    1.2k
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote: (sigh) It's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who (a) often makes mistakes (b) is convinced he never does (c) gets mad at anyone who challenges him (d) accuses people of mischaracterizing him even when they quote him exactly and (e) insists instead that people quote his whole post, because anything else is "selective".

    Tougher still when the person is a moderator with an itchy trigger finger.

    Sigh... (a) I have never claimed I don't make mistakes (b) I've never claimed I don't

    Well, to get back on topic, I allege that you made a mistake above, re the margins of error.

    What say you?

    (c) I don't believe that challenging someone to back up their statements with statistical facts means that I'm "angry" (d) you have consistently misquoted and selectively quoted multiple people on this site in an attempt to "win" an argument

    I haven't misquoted anyone. Ever. That's simply a lie.

    (e) I simply ask that people don't misquote or selectively respond to posts in an attempt to "win" an argument.

    You may not like that I'm a moderator, but I believe that I’m fair and hopefully all members who’ve been on this site for awhile will agree with me. You have had zero threads removed after our initial private conversation and I can prove it.

    So you can call me a moderator with an “itchy trigger finger” all you want, but all I’m doing is my job.

    I don't really care. Just cut the provocative and belligerent language, stop accusing people of dishonesty and stick to the topic.

  • Apr 14, 2018 05:04 PM
    Last: 10mo
    2.1k
    TJ Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:

    I guess this was only done to boost Trumps ego; nothing else.

    It was done to relieve the political pressure to do it, pressure from military-industrial shills like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, pressure from the media and, let's be honest, pressure from many Democrats. Trump could either do as he was told or be depicted, again, as Putin's puppet. Rather than brave these political attacks, he launched some physical attacks on people in Syria, capitulating to the pressure like the weakling that he is.

    The fact that within 24/48 hours became a week where Vladimir probably orchestrated everything - proves he's a puppet on a string. Pitiful what you can accomplish when your minions video tape Russian prostitutes pissing all over a said to be powerful man.
    I don't understand what you wrote.
  • Apr 15, 2018 09:31 AM
    Last: 2yr
    1.2k
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote:

    You made a fallacious claim in which you confused the polls being "spot on" with the averages being "spot on".

    I'm not sure how to deal with your juvenile fury at having been corrected.

    And I'm not sure how to deal with your juvenile reading of the final results that proved the polls were well within the margin of error in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    (sigh) It's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who (a) often makes mistakes (b) is convinced he never does (c) gets mad at anyone who challenges him (d) accuses people of mischaracterizing him even when they quote him exactly and (e) insists instead that people quote his whole post, because anything else is "selective".

    Tougher still when the person is a moderator with an itchy trigger finger.

    Since you insist on me quoting everything, I will. I am bolding the part where you make a mistake:

    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Ray Pooch Wrote:

    Polls are unreliable. 2016 proved it with a thunderclap.

    Let's not keep making the same mistakes.

    Actually, the polls were spot on in 2016.

    No they weren't.

    Yes, they were.

    Ray Pooch Wrote:

    [jaredsxtn]: The national polling average had Clinton ahead by two-three percentage points and she won by exactly 2.1%.

    No. The national polling average was "spot on". Not the polls.

    By analogy, if someone had said in 2016 that Clinton was 40 years old but Trump was 100, the average (70) would have been "spot on". And yet that person would have been badly wrong about both.

    In the same way, the polls did well when you averaged over the states, but they got the (key) states themselves badly wrong. Which is why you had major outlets on election day giving Clinton a ridiculously high chance of winning, often in the ninety percents.

    Are you just trying to fuck with me now? Did you read what I wrote? You quoted me and then went on a rant about something entirely different.

    The national polling average had Clinton winning by 2-3 percentage points. They were accurate.

    They also didn't get the (key) states "badly wrong." Donald "won" because a handful of pissed off white people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin showed up by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points more than Hillary voters. That is WELL within the margin of error that any poll could EVER have predicted.

    Donald "won" the Presidency because 79,646 Bernie or busters and other assholes in three states decided to overrule the will of the American people.

    According to businessinsider, "Murray's final Pennsylvania poll showed Clinton with a 4-point lead with a 4.9 percentage point margin of error, which still was not big enough to capture the margin — 1.2 points — by which Trump would win the state."

    Do you see the mistake you're making? The 1.2 points by which he won might be smaller than any margin of error. However, in order to calculate how far wrong the poll was, that 1.2 has to be ADDED to the 4 points by which the poll predicted Clinton to win, to create a total error of 5.2 points, which is larger than the 4.9 points margin of error.

    Do you understand?

  • Apr 15, 2018 09:31 AM
    Last: 2yr
    1.2k

    You made a fallacious claim in which you confused the polls being "spot on" with the averages being "spot on".

    I'm not sure how to deal with your juvenile fury at having been corrected.