Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
Timestamps, just read them in order.
Also, you project what you think the Vet thinks, like your last paragraph. You think that helps?
You been here long enough to know what the results would be.
I'll freely admit that I don't know what The Vet's point was with bob. Maybe there was a misunderstanding on his part with regard to bob's post to CobraMan or maybe I totally misunderstood what The Vet's beef with bob was.
All I have to work with are posts. I put forth an argument above to explain why I think The Vet was wrong to criticize bob - regardless of who bob is or how much of a jerk bob might be.
I wasn't aware that there was a rule around here that said long time members can't disagree with each other.
I've had disagreements with folks here in the past.
None have over reacted to me like The Vet did. And none of them of continued to bad mouth me after I told them I was done with the conversation.
And you can check the timestamps to verify that.
Where's your criticism of The Vet for doing that?
I have, as does the Vet I think, a lot of respect for you and the knowledge you bring to NB's. I am not very good at suggesting what others should do. But recognizing your part in this, I think you will find, will go a long way. If the Vet is wrong, or obtuse, he will acknowledge it to the offending parties.
BTW length of membership doesn't mean much to me.
I edited this post
Having read the whole exchange, it seems to be a very simple misunderstanding. CobraMan said that the objects orbiting Mars are captured asteroids, bob said they were moons, and The Vet copied a piece of text from bob's link saying that Mars' moons may be captured asteroids. The Vet's point seemed to be that bob's own link supported CM's contention that the satellites were captured asteroids. Then you commented in a way that indicated you thought that The Vet was flat out calling bob wrong. It went to hell from there.
Since this is how the whole thing began, I'm just going to address this part of your forum..
Now, in a lame attempt to save face, The Vet contends that he never actually said that Mars has no moons. And I concede this. He never technically did. But why then did The Vet call bob an idiot? What was the point of contention here for The Vet?
At the risk of sounding Marc Antony-ish, The Vet is an honorable man. If you think he would tell an untruth to save face I can tell you that you are mistaken in him. I've gotten to know him pretty well over the past two years, and I'd stake my life on his Word.
With all due respect, where did bob mention asteroids in his initial comment to CobraMan?
Now maybe I was missing something that came before when I commented or maybe I was missing some subtle point, but I don't see the word "asteroid" anywhere in bob's comment.
Looks to me like bob was specifically commenting on CobraMan's contention that "Mars doesn't have any moons".
The Vet's tangent about asteroids suggests to me that, unless someone can show me how I'm wrong, he missed bob's point.
The asteroids comment was in Cobra's post (obviously). I don't see how it can be separated from what he said about moons, as he clearly was not saying that there is nothing in orbit around Mars.
Here's my main point.
Unless bob stopped reading halfway through the post before he replied, he was refuting CM's claim that they were captured asteroids, not moons.
See what I mean?
On a side note, I really, really cannot believe I'm even talking about this. It's like all of a sudden a two week liberal troll is an Untouchable Who Shall Be Defended To The Death If His Post Is Even Slightly Misconstrued. (Which I don't think it was but that seems to be the main point of contention)
Alright y'all, I hope this makes it clear, because I've had about enough of this inanity. See ya around the threads.
It's never easy with The Vet. He might start out being just snarky, but soon afterwards, usually when cornered, he starts lying:
All I ever said was this - THE TROLLS OWN LINK CONTRADICTED HIM AND PARTIALLY SUPPORTED COBRAMAN'S STATEMENT.
Fact is: Bob Loblaw's link didn't contradict him. I don't know whether he wanted to save face, but he didn't tell the truth.
your latest attempt, while laughable, to thwart The Vet's raining hellfire upon your thick skull, by calling him a liar and emulating his posting style, is pathetic for one reason and one reason only:
YOU lie; The Vet does not.
You are a fool, an ass, and a sorry example of even a "pseudo" intellectual.
Your first mistake is in assuming that no one on these threads sees you for the prevaricator that you are, and your second mistake is in thinking that because someone other than yourself argues with The Vet, that they are agreeing with you.
Ain't necessarily so.
that you feel the need to defend someone, who clearly doesn't play in your league.
He does lie. Period. Exhibit A is above.
The Vet needs nothing in the way of defense from me.
He DOES NOT LIE.
Whether the current brouhaha between two conservative members is resolved or not; whether it gets worked out mutually or dies from a lack of long distance legs, or not, there is a far greater likelihood that this tempest is nothing more than a misinterpretation or possible misreading of nuances in a teapot.
While it would be truly unfortunate if that were to turn out to be the case, or even if this whole mess were based on one-sided or even mutual dislike ---
Regardless, the parameters defining the give and take currently in place between The Vet and someone else has absolutely no comparable equivalent in the back and forth between The Vet and a troll such as yourself.
It is indeed a measure of your desperation in dealing with The Vet that you have to seize on the possibility that you can take a possible misunderstanding and turn it into a lie.
Even if The Vet told an outright lie on a thread, it would be the first time as far as I know, and I read the threads thoroughly.
You, on the other hand, are not quite so trustworthy.
It has been so demonstrated.
He DOES LIE.
but "fake it til you make it" cuts no ice.
It is immaterial how many times you type it out; it does not alter the fact that YOU lie, and The Vet does not.
You lose on the evidence, the facts, and the majority vote.
In his forum about me and here. So instead of repeating this exchange ad nauseam, please argue your point after viewing my evidence. He hasn't done that. His lapcat WB hasn't done it. Perhaps you are up to it?
That you and others have to say again and again that he doesn't lie, is not evidence, but a strong indicator, that you have to make yourself believe it.
You lose, again, when stating you speak the truth, but The Vet lies, because your mind is in a rut.
A rut is defined as a grave with both ends knocked out.
I was simply stawed.
I'm getting the worst out of everybody, lately.
How good you are in phrasing my thoughts about you. If you tire, go to sleep.
compete wit yo brilliant re-par-tee, trogmonstah; you uns bein' so smaht an all. Truth be told, you are probably amazed every morning when you wake up that you lasted through the night because your own hands didn't throttle you in your sleep as a result of the fact that they are highly embarrassed to be involved with the tripe you type.
You have always been able to post a much more intelligently worded paraphrasing of "NO YOU ARE" than I'll ever be.
So you will stop editing this.
It's not desperation. I'VE LEARNED IT FROM HIM. He taught me to view misunderstandings as lies.
As for you trying to downplay the dispute between HydrodynDM and The Vet let me quote the latter from their "debate" (not only because his verbiage is far more impressive):
THIS IS SICK AND TWISTED THE WAY YOU ARE ATTACKING ME WHEN YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.
And little braintrust man that has a bad day and takes it out on someone you thinks is too mean to the poor trollies
I told you to GET OFF MY BACK. Now I am calling you a liar. I did not tell you how you should or shouldn't act. Snit.
You may be smart, and you may be a professor, but whatever it is you is a perfessor of, it ain't logic, it ain't English, and it ain't interpersonal relations. Snit.
I think it is safe to say that this relationship, if there ever was one, is beyond repair and that there is more to this than just a misreading.
You've got no space to call anyone a liar.
Look, everyone. CM called them moons before he responded to bob's post saying they weren't moons, so I do think he was jerking the troll around. This is an awfully trivial matter to commit cannabalism over.
it is the woodshed.
This is an awfully trivial matter to commit cannabalism over.
But it can't be trivial enough when it comes to people you or the vet don't agree with.
What conservative do you see me dining on?
But I think you didn't "get" what I wrote.
obviously didn't "get" what I wrote.
And as a consequence Ulysses never escaped the cave.
Didn't you see George Clooney in that movie?
Whats that really worth?
The Vet's legions are marching.
You don't trust the messenger? So tell me what you think: Was he lying when he said that Bob Loblaw's source contradicted him?
The Vet has legions. You dont!
to answer a question in a straightforward manner.
as hell contradicted bob's statement that CM's comment about asteroids was "ridiculous".
is being distilled to semantic technicalities, bob's "ridiculous" reference in his response was expressly related and limited to the statement in CM's post that "Mars doesn't have any moons".
You mean to tell me that you have personal knowledge that bob didn't read as far as the captured asteroids part? He thought CM was saying that nothing orbits Mars?
No, I don't have personal knowledge of how much bob may have read or all of what he may have been thinking. I can only go by the plain meaning of the words in his post.
I assume he did read the captured asteroids part. But it is very clear which statement of CM was being addressed.
Please see my post below to hydro, the bolded sentence in particular.
Obviously I agree - that was the entire basis for my initial criticism of The Vet's response to bob.
You are as able as the vet to omit context.
Really, Mars doesn't have any moons, anything you want to provide to support that ridiculous statement.
Nothing there about asteroids.
I linked to the comment, yes? How is that omitting context? I provided a link to the entire context.
Do you really think that bob is so stupid that he thought Cobra was saying that nothing orbits Mars? Because that's what you're implying by saying that his comment had nothing to do with asteroids.
This is absurd, Cobra's statement about moons is not a denial that there's anything there at all, it's a precursor to calling them captured asteroids. If you totally separate the statements like you're trying to do, then Cobra is saying that Mars has absolutely no satellites whatsoever. This is clearly not what he was saying, he was disputing what they are technically classified as, apparently because they have a degrading orbit.
Bru, I've been following the debate with trog. Yep, you're wasting your time. I can't make heads or tails of anything he's been saying for a couple of days. No matter what proof you or the Vet provide, he ignores it.
and context, phrasing and intonation (were that possible) matter. It is too funny.
Media Research Center
L. Brent Bozell III, President
Editor at Large
P. J. Gladnick
Julia A. Seymour
Copyright © 2005-2014 NewsBusters.