Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
Excuse me....Cobra probably expressed what he was trying to say poorly....
A long time NB poster, by your assessment and tardy conclusion, makes a poorly worded post and you take that information and other posters exchange, from miniscule to blow it up bigger than Saturn and hash it out for 11 days!!! For what? Was it to make fun of Cobra or heckle The Vet? Because this forum obviously has nothing to do with Cobra's post.
If you are so knowledgeable and articulate, share all that wonderfulness on other threads. Rome is burning (DC) while you twiddle your ego on this damn forum!
My issue was never with CobraMan. It was with The Vet jumping all over bob for taking what CobraMan wrote at face value and with The Vet's reasons for doing it.
I explained why I wrote this post when I created it. In that other discussion, at some point, I told The Vet I was done with it.
But he kept posting after that - accusing me of lies - baiting me to respond to him - after I told him I was done. Go ahead and look for yourself.
I suppose I could have been the bigger man and just ignored it.
But I didn't. And yes, my ego had a big part to do with that.
If the situation had been reversed - do you think The Vet would have dropped it? Do you think The Vet's continuation of this thing has anything to do with his ego - is it just mine at play here?
It's odd how I've been criticized for doing things here which The Vet is doing as well. Why is that?
But you are right - since I don't post on NB that often (or as often as many of the regulars), this argument has distracted me from other more interesting things.
If The Vet wants to call an end to this, I'll agree. But not if it's at the end of a post filled with insults and accusation of my being a liar. And given what he posted to Blonde about how I can end this - by basically bowing to him, tucking my tail between my legs and agreeing never to so much as look in his direction - I don't see that happening.
Mars doesn't have any moons. Those are trapped asteroids.
What do you think the word THOSE was referring to? Could it be the two, those being plural, natural satellites?
those: plural of that
that: 1a : the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation <that is my father>
...mentioned, or understood from the situation...
You have done nothing but bait and taunt and needle since day one. Pack sand. And now you pretend you can't understand English as written on the page.
You want to shit all over your reputation. Do it without mentioning my name. Ever again. You lying frell.
I think the "those" was referring to the things CobraMan had just written were not moons.
Problem, of course, is that they are moons.
If by "baiting" and "taunting" you mean me responding to your accusations of me being an idiot, a retard and a liar then yes, I've been "baiting" and "taunting" you.
And unlike you, I really couldn't care less what this argument has or hasn't done to my reputation.
hydrobear: I get that CobraMan probably expressed what he was trying to say poorly...
hydrobear: I think the "those" was referring to the things CobraMan had just written were not moons.
the THINGS ORBITING MARS.
LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE
He claimed over and over again that CobraMan DENIED there was anything at all orbiting Mars. Maybe they were not LABELED moons but THEY WERE THERE and HE NOW ADMITS IT COBRAMAN SAID THEY WERE THERE.
He now admits CobraMan said there were things orbiting Mars and were not classified as moons.
hydrobear: You’ll notice that his post was in response to CobraMan’s assertion that Mars doesn’t have moons.
hydrobear: CobraMan said Mars has no moons.
hydrobear: The Vet was agreeing with CobraMan that Mars has no moons.
hydrobear: ...CobraMan's contention that "Mars doesn't have any moons".
OH RAT TURD LIAR. bob loblaw disagrees WITH YOU RAT TURD LIAR --
bobloblaw: Really, Mars doesn't have any things CobraMan had just written were moons, anything you want to provide to support that ridiculous statement.
"He claimed over and over again that CobraMan DENIED there was anything at all orbiting Mars."
Um, where did I do that - over and over again?
Because those quotes of mine sure don't support your claim.
Denying that Mars has moons (which is what I have asserted that CobraMan wrote because - you know - that's what he wrote) and denying that Mars has anything orbiting it (which I have never said CobraMan wrote) are not the same thing.
But I'm sure if you write "LIE" a couple more times, it will magically make your assertion about what I did or didn't say true.
hydrodynDM: You’ll notice that his post was in response to CobraMan’s assertion that Mars doesn’t have moons.
hydrodynDm: CobraMan said Mars has no moons.
hydrodynDM: The Vet was agreeing with CobraMan that Mars has no moons.
hydrodynDM: ...CobraMan's contention that "Mars doesn't have any moons".
What is wrong with you? No one said that CobraMan thought there were no satellites of any kind orbiting Mars. Quotes saying "CobraMan said Mars has no moons," mean exactly that. He said Mars doesn't have moons, it has something else. The very next sentence, "those are trapped asteroids," referenced the something else, and throughout both that conversation and this one, everyone addressed that second contention as well. (I'm answering here, by the way, because I figure if you are going to conflate Hydro and myself, I can respond to whichever post I want to!)
Here, in fact, is that very first thing I said on the subject:
"Saying "Mars has no moons" is clearly incorrect. Saying "Mars' moons are actually captured asteroids and thus different from our moon. One day they will crash into Mars." is correct. So Cobraman's statement was half incorrect."
That clearly shows that I know full well that CobraMan thinks something is around Mars. The problem is with the first stement "Mars has no moons," which was wrong.
Here is a quote from the second comment I made on that thread:
"They are moons, now. They were asteroids, before. Some people think they should be reclassified, but until they are, bob loblaw's statement was correct."
Clearly, I know there is something around Mars, and that the issue of classification is exactly what was under contention from the very beginning of the conversation. Hydro has addressed the exact same issue throughout both conversations as well.
There is no possible way that either of us could have been unaware that he thought there were things around Mars that didn't count as moons, and there are no statements anywhere that I can find, or apparently that you can find, that contradict that. Your accusation that I am lying about this is completely baseless and patently ridiculous. I would love it if you would apologize.
You are now deliberately lying.
What exactly is a lie in that last post of mine?
Is accusing others of lying just your default response when you have nothing else to say?
I'm curious, when you discover that your shoelace is untied, do you start screaming "LIAR! LIAR!" at it?
Here, let me help, as it seems Hydro is just screaming for more egg on his face:
Mars doesn't have any moons. ***Those*** are trapped asteroids.
Mars doesn't have any moons. ***Those*** are trapped asteroids.
I have my Command-C & Command-V right here, at the ready, so let me know if you need more. :)
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
OK, let me ask you two simple questions.
1) Does Mars have moons?
2) Does your answer to 1) contradict the statement "Mars doesn't have any moons."?
Still twisting yourself into pretzels in order to keep sqeezing into the entire basis for your arguing with me.
Then the conjunction of what CobraMan said and what the NASA links says is (~A&B)&(A&B)...
Except CobraMand did not say that did he? (~A&B) Did he? Uh, oh, here comes the part where you are either obtuse or act obtuse. I have explained this over and over.
The Vet repeating himself again: CobraMan was only speaking as the the CLASSIFICATION of the natural satellites not the EXISTENCE.
You keep jumping through those hoops and twisting yourself into a pretzel in order to square everything you have said with a troll that MISUNDERSTOOD what CobrMan was sayiing.
And you keep acting like we are all so stupid as to believe you are not deliberately lying now in order to keep your ass covered.
Here is your truth table, failuredyn ---
C: Mars' moons should not be classified as moons but suntin' else.
CobraMans was saying it and Denny Crane explained that logic to you in another post.
Say failuredyn the pretzelman, can you see up your own butt now?
Back to the classification thing, huh?
Then what did you mean when you said: And it was fun because the link he provided actually disagreed with him.
Or when you said: All I ever said was this - THE TROLLS OWN LINK CONTRADICTED HIM AND PARTIALLY SUPPORTED COBRAMAN'S STATEMENT.
That doesn't sound like you saying that bob misunderstood CobraMan's point about the classification of the moons of Mars. Sound like you are saying that bob's own link contradicts what bob said - that Mars has moons and the NASA link disagrees (as in contradicts) Cobraman's post. But I think I demonstrated above that the link does disagree (as in contradicts) what CobraMan wrote.
Keep back peddling.
Oh, and you are Vetfail and you like to make sand castles and mud pies and like pretzels with sand on them and a bunch of other stuff.
(Yes, that was me being both flippant and sarcastic - or flipastic).
I don't care. The idiot troll failed to understand what CobraMan said. We are not talking about the idiot troll here are we. We are talking about YOUR FAILURE to understand what I was saying because you were looking for the tiniest of errors to attack me on.
No braintrust ---
Sound like you are saying that bob's own link contradicts what bob said - that Mars has moons.
Sounds like it to YOU. The first sentence of the idiot troll was a non sequitur.
non sequitur : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
Since the idiot troll could not fully understand the conversation, and he rarely said anything that was related to what was posted before him, since he did not understand, I am now free to RIP APART EVERYTHING HE SAYS much like I am doing with you.
"Sounds like"? You can't even own your stupidity?
...you are saying ...the NASA link disagrees (as in contradicts) Cobraman's post.
But I have been saying the complete opposite for a week now haven't I? I said the NASA link disagreed with this statement from the idiot troll right before his link >>>> ...NASA disagrees with you...
You are aware that this is not a private conversation and your deliberate obtuseness can be viewed by everyone on the planet?
Back to the classification thing, huh? --- You are aware the post you are responding to is under a post where I explained it AGAIN. You with your deliberate obtuseness are trying to move it away in order to cover your ass. There is nothing to go back to. It is YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IN ATTACKING ME.
Or at least it should be.
I think The Vets work here is done.
I apparently denigrated him for doing so in the discussion with bob. The problem is, I never did.
A LIE. He insulted me HERE.
You’re kidding right? You are honestly going to debate the difference between “joshing”, “screwing around” and “smacking around”.
The needling lying snit misses the point. You either play semantics or you outright GET IT WRONG. Time after time, you get it wrong. But you expect us to believe every single thing you say.
Pack sand needling lying snit.
hydrodynDM: I’m not sure that The Vet knows what hyperbole is...
I posted the definition HERE on this page you lying little snit...
More semantics -
You never claimed I called you a liar? What’s this?
As usual, we have to click on the link to know what was said. Just like every ass ever. Here is what I said - You only insunuated I was either an idiot or a liar - misspelled insinuate. And I only wrote that because he was NEEDLING about me having excuses.
insinuate: 1 a : to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way <insinuate doubts into a trusting mind> b : to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way : imply <I resent what you're insinuating>
2: to introduce (as oneself) by stealthy, smooth, or artful means
See the pattern here? He needles. Then covertly or overtly mischaracterizes what was said while claiming victimhood.
And I don't just point to things out of the blue. HE LIED ABOUT ME. And I was still for the love of God I don't know why, but I was still trying give him some kind of chance. But when you keep saying the same things over and over while needling and taunting, at some point IT IS A LIE.
First I’ll say that despite The Vet claiming I called him a liar, I never once did in any of my posts.
No. He INSINUATED I was lying constantly in that thread. In this thread, he has gone into OPEN LYING about me just to cover his ass.
Pack sand you little lying snit.
I asked The Vet why he called him an idiot and here was The Vet’s response: “THE TROLLS OWN LINK CONTRADICTS HIM…”
But as I’ve pointed out, it doesn’t. Here, take a look.
CobraMan: Mars doesn't have any moons. Those are trapped asteroids which, by the way, will eventually crash into Mars.
bob loblaw: Really, Mars doesn't have any moons, anything you want to provide to support that ridiculous statement. Because NASA disagrees with you (link provided by bob)
How many times do I have to say it? CONTRA-FRELLING-DICT.
NASA disagrees with you
KEYWORD FOR THE ASS THAT HATES ME: you --- YOU YOU YOU YOU
...disagrees with you.
In other words, NASA DOES NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
What did CobraMan say? ...trapped asteroids...
What did NASA say? ...captured asteroids...
NASA AGREES with CobraMan.
hydrodynDM the liar: But as I’ve pointed out, it doesn’t.
Frell you lying snit.
If it is not outright changing what I said, it is changing the meaning of what was said. It is a form of lying.
OK, the next thing The Vet brings up is something about whether The Vet knows or doesn’t know me and if we did or didn’t have any previous conversations or interactions. Let me sum this one up:
Hey Vet – How many siblings do I have? Where did I grow up? What’s my favorite movie or musical group? Where did I go to school? How about we stick to political topics – what’s my view on abortion or DADT or gay marriage?
know 2b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
This is the simplest thing in the world, understanding a word has multiple definitions. This is a deliberate LIE and another attempted smear.
is lobbying to have this topic moved to "The Forum About Nothing". Not enough traffic, Shawn? :-)
Well hey almost 9000 views I guess it was kind of a crash and burn :-P Seriously though the reason even though back when we had the capability I deleted Morality Police 1 because it consisted of only flames and insults even though it went up to 300 posts quite quickly.
Even though it was gaining interest and posts I asked Trog to stop posting about Down Syndrome on my Forum about nothing thread because it wastes bandwidth and I only have 80 posts to go before I stop looking at it or create a new one. I would rather have 0 people post on one of my threads instead of it being a flamefest.
Teh Vet is my buddy and I stand with him, I just think this argument has gotten way too personal. Then again this is the woodshed.
He started out lying about what I said and did. Came here with a Forum with even more lies. Now he comes in with yet more lies. Once again giving himself all the allowances in the world and according me none.
I called it correctly in the LAT... blog. He attacked me because he does not like my style. There was no misunderstanding. He did it deliberately.
hydrodyn: we exchanged PM’s. Here is what was said:
It means PRIVATE. Since someone thinks he can cherrypick something out of a PRIVATE message, that means it is no longer private. Let's see exactly what was said where I am such an ass in the PM.
Note from hydrodyn
12/17/2010 - 5:02am I'll forget tonight if you will.
12/17/2010 - 5:31am there is nothing to forget. Like I said, I had a woodshed for troglodyt, you and I were very respectful trying to get him convinced. I think NL207 was in there too. I saw you had a good command at the science behind AGW. I responded to you a few times since. But no answer. None was really needed. We did interact there when that guy was banned. the one sentry_99 found. It is that simple. And I did look at my buddy list, I thought you were on it.
I just got a little hurt with the Particularly dig. It was out of the blue. There is nothing to forgive or forget. I don't frag my own. Even if you don't remember talking to me.
12/17/2010 - 6:56am Let me ask you this. You are aware I am changing my moniker? It is The Vet FORMERLY KNOWN AS (FKA) JWF. You do know I am JWF. I am changing it over because people were confusing me with Jammie Wearing Fool, a well known blogger.
Did you remember interacting with JWF?
12/18/2010 - 5:23pm Yes, I do remember JWF and no I didn't put it together that that was you - OK, that explains that. Now I feel like more of a dope than before.
Sorry again for being such a prick a couple nights ago - I was just in a bad mood, I guess.
If I don't run into you in the mean time, have a good Christmas and New Years.
12/18/2010 - 5:34pm nope. I am the one changing my name over. My fault. I said all was forgiven, I meant it. And I do have a buttload of respect for you. You can dig into the science when it comes to arguing AGW. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
As everyone can see, we walked away amicably. So I am dumbfounded as to why he will start this whole mindmuck of his AFTER I explained to him in the most friendly way in the LAT... blog. This post before he started the whole Veet was wrong why Veet call trollie idiot smear on me.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:21pm.
We all agree. CobraMan just threw out a little troll bait to snag a troll. An incredibly stupid troll that fancies himself smarter than Mr. O'Reilly. See the troll made a post to insult Mr. O'Reilly. We were just smacking him around a little. And it was fun because the link he provided actually disagreed with him. See Denny Crane's link above as to why it is so much fun pounding on this troll.
Well, this has turned into something interesting.
I suppose I’m obligated to respond to The Vet’s “Lessons” and so here goes…
I honestly couldn’t have started with a better example of The Vet’s style. Apparently, The Vet feels I wasn’t being truthful when I wrote “So The Vet and I had a bit of a dust up recently” because I didn’t mention that this was, in fact, our second argument – the other being a couple of months ago.
I’ll place this in the same category as his dig at me here about noting that I edited my post or his complaint here about people not filling in the subject line of their posts. The fact is, other folks indicate when they’ve edited their posts (Boudin did it in a post here) and other folks don’t fill in the subject line (radical1979 did that here too) but you don’t see The Vet criticizing them. Why?
Because when The Vet decides to go at someone, he’ll disingenuously criticize any inconsequential thing he thinks will help him make the other person look bad. If he honestly had a problem with me mentioning an edit or mamabear not filling in the subject line, why not criticize Boudin and radical1979 for doing the exact same thing? I suppose if I were The Vet I would devote a whole link filled post to this and how much of a hypocrite he is.
You can’t answer any of these. So no… you don’t know me.
As for previous interactions, The Vet left something out of that conversation from a couple of months ago. After our back and forth, we exchanged PM’s. Here is what was said:
That sure does clarify things, doesn’t it? I wonder why The Vet would leave that part out. I’ll leave it up to those who seem to admire him so much to figure that one out.
As for me popping a rivet – this coming from the guy who wrote this. Yea, I’ve really gone off the deep end, what with my swearing and the capitalized and bolded words and statements all over my posts. I really do need to step back or I'll give myself a heart attack.
Well, this appears to be The Vet’s justification for calling bob an “idiot”.
Never said he had no right or even no reason for calling him an idiot. As I pointed out in my original post here, I asked The Vet why he called him an idiot and here was The Vet’s response: “THE TROLLS OWN LINK CONTRADICTS HIM…”
A look at the link bob provided clearly shows that it supports his assertion (and only assertion – nothing about asteroids) that Mars has moons.
Maybe The Vet can explain where the contradiction is, because I sure don’t see it.
Funny, I don’t recall stating or even suggesting that The Vet can’t or doesn’t use rhetoric devices. But I suppose that's as good a disingenuous dig at me as his “edit” criticism.
I guess the point of this lesson is to show that The Vet was using hyperbole and being grandiloquent in his responses to bob. Well, I’m not sure that The Vet knows what hyperbole is, but I don’t deny the bombast.
And either way, it still doesn’t explain what contradiction The Vet saw between what bob posted to CobraMan and the link bob provided.
Vet? Care to chime in on that one?
This whole thing hinges on the word “unjustly”. See, no matter who I name all that would happen is we would get into a debate about what justifies a troll – and, of course, we wouldn’t agree.
The real irony here is that when I wrote this post I ended it the way I did to see if he would go after me the way he does with trolls – multiple posts filled with links. Well Vet, you didn’t disappoint.
You’re kidding right? You are honestly going to debate the difference between “joshing”, “screwing around” and “smacking around”. What, did you have to pull up some old tapes of the Three Stooges to get the subtle distinctions between those three?
I’ll catalogue this in there with the “edit” criticism and assume you weren’t really on your game when you wrote this lesson ‘cause maybe you had just eaten lunch and were a little sleepy.
OK, this one made me laugh. I said that I would probably ignore you. What exactly was I lying about? Well, apparently, The Vet is so in tune with those he is arguing with that he can actually look into their futures and make accusations about lies that haven’t actually occurred yet.
Does that make you an X-Man of some sort, Vet?
And any way you want to try to argue it, I put the word “probably” in there.
As for my statements from our previous run in from a couple of months ago – you know – I’m almost willing to give The Vet that one. I suggested that we stay out of each other’s way and I went against that. Maybe not technically a lie - I meant it when I said it - but I changed my mind some time later. So I'll half give him that one.
Now, I suppose I could be like The Vet and try to create some tortured argument about how, since he commented on a science topic and he knows I comment on those, it was The Vet who actually got in my way and so went back on our agreement. But that would just sound stupid and unlike The Vet, I’m not disingenuous.
OK, now I’m a hypocrite. Now, in order to support this, The Vet had to drag in comments I made in a completely unrelated conversation but hey – that’s his thing so let’s see what his angle is.
Let’s see - rather than actually presenting a coherent argument, he just provides links with pithy little insults in between. That pretty much makes it impossible to pinpoint exactly what The Vet’s argument is. But I’ll try anyways, knowing full well that he’ll argue that I didn’t get his point and that I’m an idiot because of it.
Well, it appears that The Vet thinks I’m a hypocrite (or two-faced, not sure which in this case) since I admit to using insults but I apparently denigrated him for doing so in the discussion with bob. The problem is, I never did. I wanted to know why he called bob an idiot because I assumed he disagreed with bob and I wanted to know what the disagreement was. And as I’ve already mentioned, The Vet’s response was that he thought bob’s link contradicted bob’s post. No hypocrisy there.
Then something about me admitting I mess around with people I feel I can’t actually have an argument with and The Vet basically saying that that’s what he was doing with bob. Not sure how that’s me being a hypocrite.
OK – the last bit does make some sense – it would appear that my calling The Vet dense is an example of me being a hypocrite because I said in another conversation that doing this sort of thing doesn’t really help my arguments.
The part he seems to have missed in that conversation is when I said that I’ll resort to insults when I’ve decided that the person I’m debating is either stupid or full of crap. I’ll let The Vet try to piece together how that bit gets me off the hook for being a hypocrite here.
I already addressed this in Lesson Two.
Holly crap. The Vet actually gets around to finally addressing out main point of contention – what exactly was it about bob’s link that disagreed with or contradicted what bob posted.
Um, OK. Even if bob misinterpreted what CobraMan meant, how does the NASA link contradict or disagree with what bob said? I mean, you did say “disagree” and “contradict” right?
But it now appears that you are saying that your issue with bob was that he didn’t get what CobraMan was really trying to say.
Well, which is it?
I suppose at this point I can start typing liar over and over again in big bold capital letters and start calling you a twit or snit or tell you to pack putty and do something with a diaper or something.
I won’t. I’ll just let your back peddling speak for itself.
Lesson Eleven and Lesson Twelve
Yea, none of that addresses the issue of the contradiction you claimed was the reason you went after bob.
I’m guessing that The Vet will post many (many) link filled, bold and capitalized word filled, insult filled posts to this response. And if and when I have some time, I plan to respond.
But I will say this. The Vet’s form of response is pathetic. If you strip away the bad formatting, the very old and tired insults, the statements of opinion as if they were fact and reduce the links to something more manageable (see above, Vet), there isn’t much there.
Let's see if The Vet can do a little better.
1) Did you or did you not make a post on 2/5/2011 at 9:28pm that as of this post was #7 in the thread?
2) Did Cobraman reply to your post at 2/5/2011 at 10:00pm that as of this post was #8 in the thread?
3) Did you read that post? If not, how did you miss it? It was in reply to you and you must have read post #9 from upcountrywater because you replied to it.
4) I must assume you did read post #8. Did the post contain the phrase "Also, the lunar tides are so weak that they can't stop the two small MOONS from being...."?
5) Do you believe that Cobraman honestly thinks Mars has NO moons? Did you think that when you started replying to the discussion with Bob at 2/7/2011 at 11:23pm in post #44? Did you forget he had previously called them MOONS in response to your post #7?
I don't want to answer any of the above for you Hydro. SO...IN MY OPINION, it should be obvious to anyone that followed that thread from the beginning until the "dust up" that Cobraman was "joshing", "poking", "messing" , whatever with Bob. Cobraman DEMONSTRATED he had prior knowledge that Mars has two MOONS. What seemed to be his contention is what the moons actually are. Bob turned the discussion in to a "NO moons" discussion by ignoring the very second sentence of Cobramans post #8 which was "Those are trapped asteroids....". What could THOSE be? THOSE can not be nothing so how does Bob construe that to "Really, Mars doesn't have any moons..."? Because Bob is a troll Hydro.
Now, I think you are a very smart guy Hydro. I think you are much smarter than I am. I figured all that out from reading the thread. I will not insult your intelligence and believe that you did not know all that. So, you knew what Cobraman said, you knew why he said it and what was going on because I know you are smart. My last question then is WHY? You call Cobraman and The Vet out and start this massive shit storm for what?
PS...this whole thing can apply to you too MAMABEAR. However, I don't respect your intelligence or your motives nearly as much as Hydros.
I had my say and walked away. And the irony of it all, and you know this Sir, once he drops it here and walks away, he will never get another peep from me. Unless he picks it up somewhere else by attacking me or drops a passive/agressive slam in a blog when I am not around..
You have heard me say it. I told him in the PM. I don't frag my own.
The Vet has 100-1 words above, none of witch you seem interested in?
Come on, we have got to be better then this. Tit for tat? Since when?
Maybe you should take one? Your opinion of what others think may have some sway, who knows?
Let's see. You tell someone they are wrong PUBLICLY 6 times. And then admit they are right somewhere else.
hydrodynDM: "The Vet never said they weren't moons." Then what was The Vet arguing in this post?
hydrodynDM: The Vet contends that he never actually said that Mars has no moons. And I concede this.
hydrodynDM: CobraMan and The Vet were wrong.
hydrodynDM: ...me thinking that you were wrong.
hydrodynDM: You and Cobra were wrong. End of story.
hydrodynDM: ...I thought you were wrong.
hydrodynDM: ...you have to admit they stepped in it.
Next time you attack someone, just don't, think it over and don't. Because you don't do it well at all.
failurebear the failed teacher: ...a mistake on your part even if you never said anything about moons.
failurebear the failed teacher: Vet: Saying "Mars has no moons" is clearly incorrect
failurebear the failed teacher: The statement you made that I felt the need to correct was not about moons
failurebear the failed teacher: But I never said the Vet claimed they weren't moons.
failurebear the failed teacher: The statement you made that I felt the need to correct was not about moons.
failurebear the failed teacher: But I never said the Vet claimed they weren't moons
failurebear the failed teacher: ...without saying anything about the moons themselves, you managed to be wrong...
bob loblaw: Really, Mars doesn't have any moons, anything you want to provide to support that...
failurebear the failed teacher: ...CobraMan's statement that Mars has no moons.
CobraMan: Mars doesn't have any moons. Those are trapped asteroids...
CobraMan was only speaking as the the CLASSIFICATION of the natural satellites not the EXISTENCE. Of course for a non-idiot, the word THOSE might be a clue.
failurebear the failed teacher: You weren't wrong, CobraMan was.
Thank you for compiling all of the quotes that show me saying exactly what I claim I was saying. You can try to leave out the explanations that came in between those statements to make them look silly, but I still think it is pretty clear what I was trying to say.
Let's see if we can get this straight boys and girls.
hydrodynDM: Then what exactly was The Vet calling him an "idiot" about?
hydrodynDM: Why exactly where you calling the poster an idiot?
hydrodynDM: The Vet decided to jump in and call him an idiot. Why? ... Why else call him an idiot? ... But why then did The Vet call bob an idiot?
Next time you attack somebody.................. Wow. Just wow.
Please, we beg you, get something right. Anything. Anything at all. Just a little crumb so we can give you the tiniest credit.
hydrodynDM: The Vet’s counter...that bob’s link did in fact disagree with what bob was trying to assert.
CobraMan: Mars doesn't have any moons. Those are trapped asteroids...
After the stupidity of saying Mr. O'Reilly said there were no moons around Mars. The IDIOT troll now tries to claim CobraMan said there were no moons around Mars. CobraMan was only speaking as the the CLASSIFICATION of the natural satellites not the EXISTENCE.
bob loblaw: Really, Mars doesn't have any moons,anything you want to provide to support that ridiculous statement. Because NASA disagrees...
Well now. His first sentence is a complete misreading of what CobraMan said. So his second sentence does not follow. NASA cannot really disagree or agree with something CobraMan did not state now can it? So what to make of this sentence? Because NASA disagrees... If the first idiotic statement is tossed, NASA does not entirely disagree with Mr. CobraMan, they say they may indeed be captured asteroids.
Now, NASA does disagree with CobraMan as to the classification of the natural satellites as moons. But then I never agreed with CobraMan on that point. In fact I told hydrodyn I AGREED WITH HIM, they were moons - We all agree.
bob loblaw was an idiot that got CobraMan wrong from the get-go.
So the non-stop questioning of why I called him and idiot. And the non-stop statement that I was wrong over and over and over was itself a complete misreading of what was said.
Next time you attack someone, make sure you are coming to the defense of a non-idiot.
Let's all get on the same page boys and girls. If I am such an evil little ass, why is hyrdrodynDM completely incapable of getting anything I said correct?
From his opening salvo -
to his conceding I indeed never said they weren't moons -
From his constant questioning why I called the troll an idiot -
hydrodynDM 02/08/2011 - 12:08am: Then what exactly was The Vet calling him an "idiot" about?
hydrodynDM 02/08/2011 - 12:45am: Why exactly where you calling the poster an idiot?
To his overlooking that I DID explain it long before he asked the question over and over in the LAT... blog and here -
The Vet 02/07/2011 - 12:21pm: An incredibly stupid troll that fancies himself smarter than Mr. O'Reilly. See the troll made a post to insult Mr. O'Reilly.
Next time you attack someone. Try to at least get something right. Anything. Make some kind of an effort before you make a lifelong enemy.
You see 2 guys on the other side of the aisle having a disagreement. They have a forum, woodshed, a place to carry out a heated debate with someone. Ignore that silly singular word. Inject yourself!
Both sides have pretty much had their say. The entire thing looks to die a natural death? Looks like they may just walk away and agree to disagree and stay out of each others way? NO. STOP IT. KEEP IT GOING. THAT IS WHAT TROLLS ARE FOR!
Make it about you! This woodshed should be about you! Demand it be about you! The world revolves around you!
egobear: I also know...I'm not here to...No, I only....I'll refrain from...I asked if....like I did...I'm breaking my...I'm not being...I'm not being...I don't think..not what I think...I could be...I can't know...I can do...I am only...my mistake...I don't like...I couldn't possibly....I am not...I didn't...I even said I was...tell me if my guess...I never said, nor do I think...I wouldn't...I wouldn't even...I may think...Nor am I...I have...if I thought...because I think...My inclination...I'm kind of...I don't want...I may not...I still feel...but I'm not...how I feel...I think I've been...I don't...I don't think...I think...I've had some...I've had way too...I did not...blaring at me...I'm happy to...I respect...trust me, I don't...I feel ...I'm hoping...
Demand that every statement from every idiot must be challenged by people not getting paid to challenge idiots.
hippiebear: You didn't attack Bob Loblaw for any of these statements...
No. Seriously. Make it ALL about you.
me.me.me.bear: So I'm happy to keep talking about why I suck...
Make statements that have no sense.
buttinskibear: The argument between you and Hydro started when Bob contested CobraMan's statement... --- Huh? An argument between 2 people usually, no always involves some kind of back and forth BETWEEN THOSE 2 PEOPLE. Idiot.
Really, why is this woodshed not about you?
suckbear: ...how insane and stupid we are...
Show off your wicked intense ESP powers!
Stupidbear: Hydro very naturally assumed...
Bring up inconsequential quotes that are not remotely related to what is going on.
commiebear: Why did you leave out this part of that conversation? --- Yes. A quote that shows I was willing to concede the point in a he said/she said argument rather than spam up the joint like certain trolls do. Proof I am more than reasonable to people the first time they pull something. Shall I list all the charities I give to? All the nice deeds I do day in and out for others? Idiot.
Grab the New Testament Troll Bible! Start reading it aloud.
5. Create imaginary crowds that side with you. Dead Zippers: And we're all laughing at you. ... We're all over it. Everyone but you ... Multiple people have called you out... scummybear: ...when everyone knows he...Everyone here makes guesses...
Just make poo up!
pifflebear: I'm guessing that...if my guess about...My best guess...
Dammit. It NEEDS to be about YOU.
mirror.on.the.wall.bear: I like talking...
There oughta be a law! It SHOULD be about YOU and YOU only.
apt.descriptive.bear: ...the complaints of us trolls!
This is complete Bullpoo. IT SHOULD BE ABOUT YOU.
Injectobear: The subject of this thread is the Vet and hydro...I haven't read...I'm happy...I address a complete tangent on a thread where it has absolutely no bearing....I think once...'ll happily...I have...I think...I'm not...I understand...mistakes are a-okay in my book...You've ...I've never...I'm not...My point...I think...My hope...
At least you admit it.
diaperbear: ...you aren't idiots...
Both sides have pretty much had their say. The entire thing looks to die a natural death?
Oh, I see. I can understand why you would rather I left it alone after you had posted six long compilations of ridiculous attacks against your opponent and he hadn't yet responded. That was the natural point for the conversation to end, was it? I'm sure that would have been nice for you. Maybe you think that because so many people give up in the face of all that bold text!
The reason I use lots of "I"s in my posts is because the people I am arguing with use lots of "you"s. Anytime the conversation moves from issues to attacking me personally, as seems to be inevitable for any debate that lasts longer than an evening, then it is "You are so X," you just want Y," You liberals are all so damn Z." So I explain myself, as I am doing now, and that involves using the word "I". And before you think to tell me to stop whining, I can go home if I don't like it, let me be clear-- I don't mind at all. You just have to realize that the tradeoff for getting to say, for instance "You are a stupid b!itch," is having to listen to me say "No I'm not."
And something both of you deny me OVER and OVER.
...why you would rather I left it alone... ...That was the natural point for the conversation to end, was it?
Notice the entire post was of an instructional style to a troll. It is called over the top mocking, flippant, rhetoric, and hyperbole. Again. I am not allowed that by the troll and her new psychic war trench buddy.
So, as long as someone is mocking you, the right thing to do is let it go? Do you intend to take your own advice any time soon, or is that proscription only for people you attack and then actually have to deal with?
People let your crap go all the time. If I wrote like you I'd have been banned a year ago. You get away with anything you want to on this site. Someone is slogging through the mud to go toe to toe with you, and you start whining about how unfair it all is.
Suck it up. If you can't take it, think about dishing out a little less.
This how you teach our children? By misrepresenting what was said. KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE LIES HYDRODYNDM.
...is mocking you, the right thing to do is let it go?
DID I SAY THAT? HUH? Just because you put it in the form of a question HYDRODYNDM, your lies is now OK?Let's break it down because YOU are RETARDED.
I made a post that was mocking of failurebear.
failurebear took what I was saying LITERALLY.
I tell the retard failurebear that the post was mocking. Something hydrodynDM only allows for himself and failurebear. NOT ME.
failurebear/hydro now claims I told it to stop posting. A LIE. Or is completely ignoring what I said and is repeating itself. People can scroll up and see for themsevles exactly what I said.
Whatever failuredyn, I can't believe the children you teach learn anything. You are too stupid to teach. LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE. Or will you admit that you lie now?
Once again, I tire of your grand scale stupidity that posts and posts and posts and ignores everything everyone says while managaing to tel Lie after Lie. So I am gonna say it again. Do not talk to me ever again.
Pack sand you stupid lying little twit.
What you said was It is called over the top mocking, flippant, rhetoric, and hyperbole. Again. I am not allowed that by the troll and her new psychic war trench buddy.
Not allowed? Clearly no one is stopping you from posting anything. You are using those rhetorical devices that you claim we "won't let you" use. So I can only assume that what you mean is that we are bothering you about it and we shouldn't. So yeah, you didn't tell me to stop posting, but you clearly did complain about the fact that I was posting. I'm suggesting that that is hypocritical of you. Otherwise what on earth are you complaining about that is restricting your ability to phrase things the way you want to?
Go graduate some more students that you failed to instill the tiniest bit of knowledge all year. I am not playing your semantic words games.
Pack sand. Pack it tight. Pack it hard. Make it smooth.
By the way, the whole "classification" bit you are trying down below is a complete strawman. No one is now or has ever at any point argued that CobraMan thought there was nothing around Mars. He said the things that are around Mars aren't moons, which is incorrect.
You are just making up new arguments you think you can win!
failurebear: No one is now or has ever at any point argued that CobraMan thought there was nothing around Mars.
failurebear did not even read the write-up that kicked off this whole forum.
hydrobear: CobraMan said Mars has no moons.
hydrobear: ...agreeing with CobraMan that Mars has no moons.
Or the comments here.
hydrobear: Looks to me like bob was specifically commenting on CobraMan's contention that "Mars doesn't have any moons".
failurebear: ..when Bob contested CobraMan's statement that Mars has no moons.
failurebear: ...the statement "Mars has no moons" was incorrect..
failurebear:: ......the statement "Mars doesn't have any moons" was incorrect
hydrobear: A = Mars has moons ..."~" being logical "not". ...CobraMan...says is (~A&B)
hydrobear: To quote CobraMan: "Mars doesn't have any moons."
Or the original blog
bob loblaw: It is amazing how more than one person could say that Mars doesn't have any moons
bob loblaw: ...only a idiot would continue to claim that Mars doesn't have moons.
failurebear: Saying "Mars has no moons" is clearly incorrect. ... So Cobraman's statement was half incorrect.
Jesus. CobraMan did say that Mars has no moons. CobraMan did not say that Mars has nothing around it. He very clearly said that it has trapped asteroids, which he contended weren't moons. That's where he was wrong.
Classification is what we've been talking about this whole time, and you can quote me saying "CobraMan said Mars has no moons" as many times as you want, you aren't in any way proving that I somehow meant "CobraMan thinks there is nothing orbiting Mars." If you can find me saying that, bring it on. But you won't, because I never did.
Media Research Center
L. Brent Bozell III, President
Editor at Large
P. J. Gladnick
Julia A. Seymour
Copyright © 2005-2014 NewsBusters.