Re: Today

Josh Hill wrote: 
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:52:07 +0800, Traveling Ray
<travel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:45:54 -0500, Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:45:35 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
<longhornster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So Josh Hill
<usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> said:


Read the context, Zen. I pointed out that Ray is the only one here who
would deny having said something in the thread a few hours previously.
There is simply no reason that a more normal human being would bother
doing that, even if he had a reason.

So you are posing the question: are you more normal than Ray?

That would be like asking if the sun is yellow. 

Silly boy. I don't lie. I admit to being very ambiguous, Josh, but
lying is not something I do.

I'll even admit here to the fact that you only rarely lie on purpose.
Most of the time you get a bad rap because you don't check facts
deeply enough before you post a snippet. When you make the association
between an incorrect factoid and you, as you do when you post, the
wrongness of the connection is on your head.



Seems to me I rarely do that considering the volume of posts I make
and that I'm not about to go off double-checking sources as I would
were writing a newspaper piece or a book.

Yet, you get pissed off and all whiny that no one simply accepts without question the citations you offer as support of your silly opinions. Your history of not fully checking your sources and now your admission that you don't bother to do so bites you on the ass.

That out of context Barbara
Bush quote was an example.

Exactly. It's a perfect example of you attempting to make a cite fit your preconception. Had you fully read it, even you might've wisely opted against using it. It's your own sloppiness combined with your desperate need to cram your poorly founded opinions down other people's throats that have resulted in your lack of credibility.

But others do the same thing all the time, 
unknowingly quote something that's out of context, an urban legend, a
political smear like Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet,
some nonsense they've picked up on left- or right-wing political web
sites, what have you. It's just that there's just no pack of
gangfuckers waiting to call them liars, merely Gekko's plaintive
mating cry "You're a liar, Billo."

"Waaaaaaaaaaaah! Everyone else does it, toooooo! Why are you all picking on meeeeeeeeeeee? Waaaaaaaaaaaah!" C'mon, Josh, you're half male. Grow a ball and act it.

No, IIRC this whole thing started when Fundoc erroneously and then
lyingly implied that I had lied about my ethnicity and the gangfuckers
picked that up.

No, you conveniently forget that the reason your were lumped up so badly for your claims of being half everything was your attempts to use those claims to give extra weight to your opinions regarding whatever subject about which you were waxing moronic at any particular moment. Your declarations wrt blacks trumped everyone else's opinions since you're half-black. Same with Hispanics, gays and you name it. Seemed that any time you couldn't win an argument you'd claim some dubious connection to the subject as though that connection gave you some special insight and superiority over the other person. It's your desperate need to appear right. You've earned every lump you've gotten, every guffaw that's been directed at you and every ounce of sneering contempt that's been ladled over you.

I was in short order accused of lying about any number 
of things, despite the fact that what I had said was verified every
time busybodies did manage to snoop into my personal affairs.

Who are the busybodies who managed to snoop into your personal affairs, and which of your claims did they verify? You've been accused of lying because you've lied. That's not arguable.

And this 
is the danger of a smear. It becomes on one hand a convenient mode of
attack, and on the other hand it becomes part of a feedback loop --
when people believe something about somebody, they start to interpret
the evidence in accordance with their beliefs.

That would seem an apt description of how you form your political beliefs. Your most recent screw up with the Barbara Bush quote demonstrates that quite well.

What they would call a 
minor oversight if somebody else had done it becomes evidence of
lying. That was the case with poor Al Gore, whose every minor
misrememberance was taken by the press and eventually the public as
evidence of dishonesty while Bush's frequent misstatements were
treated as slips or errors.


Compared to you, Al Gore is an absolute bastion of credibility.

--
Stan



.

Loading