Skip to main content

View Diary: Open Letter to Sockpuppets And Trolls (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course not. (3+ / 0-)

    I am asking how many times can one disagree and not be a bore?  

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

    by dkmich on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:28:02 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  At least as many times as someone posits the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, fcvaguy, delphine

      same premise, and fails to make the case for it.

      Most, though I grant you not all, of the comments in these diaries are on point to the arguments made specifically in each of them. That they one and all seem to make no impact on the author does not mean that the points originally stated are valid.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:40:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In whose opinion? (0+ / 0-)

        They are arguing their opinions, not facts in evidence.   How many links are in comments contesting Ray's linked statements in the diary.  Later I will give you a current link that shows the hypocrisy of some of the complainers in his diaries. I'm on an iPhone this minute.

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

        by dkmich on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:39:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look, Ray is arguing his opinion, not a proven (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stellaluna, erratic, Cedwyn

          case. Part of the problem is that he brings up links which bear on something to do with the same subject he's trying to prove without actually making any causal link between his thesis and the material on the links.

          This is the reason that most of the time people argue logic, not links, in these diaries. I'm quite sure that the links are interesting, and viable. The fact is, though, they don't have much connection to the basic argument here; which seems to be "Trolls beware! The world is changing. You're doomed."  And once again it ends up defining a [bad name!] as anyone who comes into a Pensador diary and argues with him.

          Look, this diary started off with a bad misquote of an incredibly well known Shakespearian line. Okay, so Ray doesn't read Shakespeare. But if that quote isn't cited properly, or in context (and it wasn't), then what does that say about the rest of Ray's cites? He would say, and has said in previous diaries, that those types of questions are tangential to the diary, and not relevant to the main point, so he's not going to bother to answer.

          It's relevant, and it's crucial. It speaks to the integrity of the diarist. If he cannot, in an area which is common for his audience, be bothered to get his citations correct, or show their relevance correctly, what can we infer about those citations in areas which are not common knowledge?

          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

          by serendipityisabitch on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:22:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let's see. I can prove beyond reasonable doubt (0+ / 0-)

            that the premise of your post is faulty.  Notice the opening paragraph of the diary:

            Have you heard the saying "thou doth protest too much?"  Here's the actual urban dictionary definition: Overly insistent about something, to the point where the opposite is most likely true.
            Here's the link of he Urban Dictionary entry:
            http://www.urbandictionary.com/...

            Now, do you know why I specifically wrote that I was using the quote in the context in which the Urban Dictionary uses it?  Take a wild guess... Because I knew the Shakespeare reference and I wanted to make sure I was using a different context...

            Look at the context: Overly insistent about something, to the point where the opposite is most likely true.

            And do you know why that definition is in the Urban Dictionary?  It makes reference to the fact that sometimes a good sign to determine whether someone is a bad actor (i.e., acting in bad faith) is when that person "protests too much" when their actions are called into question.

            How are we doing with the logic?  Hopefully, we're keeping up...

            Now, notice something.  Here (once again), you first erroneously point out that I wasn't even aware of the meaning of the quote I used... You construct the attack one step at a time, carefully.  You first take a dig by writing that "Ray doesn't read Shakespeare." Right?

            Then you go on to assert that since I'm allegedly misusing and misunderstanding a famous Shakespeare's quote, the rest of my citations are questionable:

            But if that quote isn't cited properly, or in context (and it wasn't), then what does that say about the rest of Ray's cites?
            And then you go for (what you think is the) coup de grace:
            It's relevant, and it's crucial. It speaks to the integrity of the diarist. If he cannot, in an area which is common for his audience, be bothered to get his citations correct, or show their relevance correctly, what can we infer about those citations in areas which are not common knowledge?
            I've mentioned before (because of the multiple times you keep doing this in my diaries) that it seems to me that you are trying to malign my character.  In a recent diary you made allusions about me being paranoid.  In this one you question my integrity based on what you erroneously identify my failure to understand a quote.

            Finally, and again, after I've asked you this question dozens of times: Why do you keep clicking on to my diaries and posting several messages trying to malign my character?

            In this very diary you've posted several messages (way more than me--think about that).

            You've answered that you keep visiting my diaries and posting these types of messages because you are fascinated by me.

            And I've said that I find that fascination kind of creepy, given the fact that you have gone as far as to track down diaries I've unpublished and post links to them in unrelated diaries' threads.

            Again, why so much interest?  How many times have I visited a commented in your diaries.  I think once, right?

            It is up to you... If you have such bad opinion of my writing and my character, it seems to me that you would avoid clicking on to my diaries.  I think that what reasonable people do here, mostly.

            But if you continue visiting my diaries and posting these types of messages, then it is you who end up looking bad.

            •  Ah. I will remember: The Urban Dictionary (0+ / 0-)

              trumps Shakespeare.

              Score one for HumptyDumptyisms.

              “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

              ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

              ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

              Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

              At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

              by serendipityisabitch on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 12:15:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's kind of bizarre, don't you think? Is that (0+ / 0-)

                your answer?  Is that really your take from what I wrote: that I'm saying that the urban dictionary trumps Shakespeare, or is that just a way to avoid admitting you were wrong?  Weren't we talking about integrity?  You were questioning mine, weren't you?

                Let me try this... Do you still stand by what you wrote:

                But if that quote isn't cited properly, or in context (and it wasn't), then what does that say about the rest of Ray's cites?
                It's relevant, and it's crucial. It speaks to the integrity of the diarist. If he cannot, in an area which is common for his audience, be bothered to get his citations correct, or show their relevance correctly, what can we infer about those citations in areas which are not common knowledge?
                Or were you in error?  Could you answer that question directly?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site