May, 2011, Posts of the Month

Haha, those posts are the equivalents of tea party sensations translated to liberal lingo.-1 here.

The arguments contained in those posts await your rebuttal at your earliest convenience, if you're able.

Let see... where to begin...I'll respond to those posts in due time. Have you ever talked to creationists that are so convinced they are right? Have you ever talked to the ones whose beliefs are always slightly off enough for them to draw a completely different conclusion than conventional science? You of all people should know that rebutting their slightly off misconceptions written in sensationalist language is probably one of the most frustrating things people on the science side have to do. Personally, I don't really bother any more.Your view of police work is like that. Everything you say is slightly off that when combined show a completely different picture than what reality shows. When I read your posts, all I could do was a double face palm. And note that I am by no mean an expert cop. There are still a lot of things I need to learn. But I decided to give it all up and went back to my engineering science career.Anyway, I see that creationists are not the only ones who can write things in clever sensationalist language. The difference is I'm at a disadvantage in this case because most people here have never done anything close to police work, unlike science.Edit.Nevermind. After reading your latest post, I've changed my mind about responding to you. Sorry, but I'm having a hard time taking you seriously anymore. Tone down the tea party sensationalist language and may be we'll talk some more.

I've spoken to many people who were convinced they were right. Most people who hold a position do so because they're convinced it's the right one. Hard to argue something when you think it's wrong.But, yes, I have talked to people who'd set themselves up behind a nearly unassailable wall of confidence. For instance, recently I spoke to an ex-cop who, in the same breath, despised those who got away with law-breaking and then explained how he never got tickets because he only violates speeding laws by less than 10 MPH. That he'd proved himself a hypocrite in the space of two sentences seemed completely lost on him.Funny old world, isn't it!

I see... you got nominated for PotM by taking my words out of context and obfuscating what I actually said.And by the way, I have no unassailable wall of confidence. You probably missed all the times I said I was only a cop for a short while and in no way setting myself up as an expert in copery and know everything about coperfication. This is something that you completely made up and I demand an apology for lying right through your teeth about me.

Why would I apologize for what you did? The only accusation of being an "expert in copery" made by anyone in that thread is the one you made to me in Message 84. Or did you not say:

quote:

---

You really do need to try to get to know some of this stuff before you decide to further sound like an expert in copery.

---

Since you seem to think that's something that merits an apology, I'll await yours to me.

You seem to be forgetting everything from philosophy 101, especially the parts about logical fallacies.It is true that you did not accuse me of declaring myself an expert in copery in that thread, but you did do it here. Furthermore, your very strong language and accusations have done everything but outright say you are an expert in copery.That said, when I made this accusation about you, I actually have a point. All one has to do is read through that thread and see the kind of sensationalist language you've used. You've even created fans who nominated you for PotM for your "insight" in the police culture.I, on the other hand, have said many times that while I have some insight in the police culture I am far from being an expert in copery.Here is that paragraph you said in this thread again. Hopefully, this time it will stick, since it's your own words. Ever heard of tu quoque?Added by edit.Actually, now that I look at that paragraph again, I see 2 lies in there. The first is you accusing me of having an unassalable wall of confidence, something that I have specifically said many times I don't have. The other is obfuscating the matter to equate completely unrelated things.You are basically saying I am a criminal for going 7 over the speed limit. This is like saying people are organic, oranges are organic, therefore people are oranges. There are varying degrees of violations, loopholes, and discretion, just like there are various types of organic materials.The first lie is meant for me. The second lie is meant for everyone else who has no experience in law.Very good nomination for PotM, guys.

Really?Where did I do that, specifically? Yes, I wrote that. Could you specifically highlight where the phrase "expert in copery" appears in that material? Thanks.

There you go with the lies again. This time, you've resorted to playing with semantics. No, you did not specifically use the words "expert in copery". But here is your paragraph again. Again, you seriously can't tell the difference between driving 7 over the speed limit and arm robbery? I mean, really? Are you saying all offenses are the same?Edit.Anyway, this will be my last post, since chances are I'm about to be suspended for arguing with crashfrog in the PotM thread.To the PotM nominator, good job in nominating crashfrog's very insightful comments on copery.Edit again.Percy linked to the following site once. I just remembered it. Pretty funny stuff. Anyway, I just identified crashfrog among the different personalities.Forbidden!

Oh, I see. So you actually accused me of something you knew I hadn't done, because you were losing control of this situation.But you don't think cops accusing people of things they haven't done is something they do when they lose control of situations. You're sure - confident, perhaps? - that I'm completely wrong about that. Yes, I wrote those words. You've now admitted that you've falsely accused me of "accusing you of being an expert in copery". Well, ok. So where in that paragraph do I make any reference at all to your supposed expertise? Please be specific and boldface the relevant language. The language you have boldfaced is a reference to your confidence, not to your supposed expertise. You know, that's why it says "wall of confidence" not "wall of expertise." That's certainly not on topic in this thread. You should continue that argument in the other thread. You know, the one where you keep promising not to respond to me.