What happened to this forum?

[Joe Republic]

Everything ebbs and flows with the passage of time.  Much like this board. 

Sure, I have negative things to say about the way things are from time to time, but that passes, and well, you can spot the hacks a mile away and toy with them at your will.

The one advantage to this board over many, many others is that in general the hacks don't run the forum and certainly don't moderate the forum for the most part (as much as they want to).

Are you kidding? Trolls run the forum because no one stands up to them and they're allowed to bully people unchecked.

... and whenever we try to actually do anything about it, people (such as yourself) scream "FASCIST CENSORSHIP".  You can't have it both ways, Bono.

[Joe Republic]

So, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah aren't "real" states?

Gustaf, you have really gone left wing!

Oh, and are Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kansas and Louisiana also not "real" states in the Gustaf gazetteer?

The bolded sentence makes no sense in this context.

[Joe Republic]

(sigh) This place has just gone to crap since dazzleman left.

Welcome back.

Yeah, I miss Dazzleman as well.

The 'progressives' have really run wild the past couple of years here.

So, Carl, are we to expect an apology to Gustaf any time soon for your previous post in this thread?

[Joe Republic]

(sigh) This place has just gone to crap since dazzleman left.

Welcome back.

Yeah, I miss Dazzleman as well.

The 'progressives' have really run wild the past couple of years here.

So, Carl, are we to expect an apology to Gustaf any time soon for your previous post in this thread?

Because Gustaf doesn't believe a state is real unless it votes for McCain?

Not hardly!

Gustav has gone far left wing.

Your misinterpretation of Gustaf's post has been pointed out twice now.  So, are you going to apologize to him?

(I'll admit that the actual 'insult' you used is a bizarre choice, but its intent was clear.)

[Joe Republic]

Let me repeat, there is no basis for an apology.

Gustaf is trying to tell Americans which states are "real," based it seems on whether they supported the stooge of the New York Times.

Perhaps you too wish to read states out of the union?

No apologies are do, and none will be offered!

Third time lucky:

GUSTAF POSTED THAT COMMENT ON JANUARY 22, 2008, WHEN ONLY SIX STATES HAD VOTED IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.  MITT ROMNEY HAD ONLY WON TWO OF THEM, AND GUSTAF WAS ARGUING THAT ONLY ONE OF THOSE COULD BE CONSIDERED A "REAL" VICTORY.

I strongly suggest you actually re-read the thread from that post onwards, and then apologize to him for repeatedly attacking his integrity after a mis-apprehension of your own.

[Joe Republic]

So you're not going to even acknowledge your mistake here?:

So, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Utah aren't "real" states?

Gustaf, you have really gone left wing!

Oh, and are Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kansas and Louisiana also not "real" states in the Gustaf gazetteer?

I am truly shocked that I'm having to re-iterate the same point again, but few people consider Wyoming to have been a serious contest, given that none of the major candidates even visited it, and Mitt Romney himself even ignored the result.  Nobody is claiming that Wyoming isn't a real state - do not insult our intelligence on top of everything else you've done - but that a victory in the caucus could not really have been as significant for whoever had won it.

You've made at least two mis-apprehensions here, and have doled out insults to people based on those mis-apprehensions.  You're digging yourself even deeper into a hole.

[Joe Republic]

Gustaf, and you, to the contrary, Wyoming is a real state.

I'm not suprised you are unable to understand this fact.

Nobody is claiming that Wyoming isn't a real state - do not insult our intelligence on top of everything else you've done - but that a victory in the caucus could not really have been as significant for whoever had won it.

^ That is very clearly what Gustaf was (and I am) asserting.

You misinterpreted a fairly simple point in two ways; semantics and chronology.  You are quite arrogantly refusing to even acknowledge either of your mistakes, let alone apologize for insulting people after misunderstanding them.

[Joe Republic]

Joe, I provided the exact quote from Gustaf.

He DID say that Wyoming was not a "real" state,

Stop trying to spin this.

The point he was making was obvious to anybody with a clear understanding of flexible semantics.  I understood his point quite easily, and I know full well that Wyoming is a real state, so why can't you?

You also haven't yet acknowledged that your original response to Gustaf was based on an assumption that he had posted after Super Tuesday.  I'll remind you of this again if you forget to do so.

[Joe Republic]

I prefer to note what he actually said, not what you, with your "flexible semantics" interpret him to have meant.

Thus, you completely misunderstood his point.  As I already said, the point would have been clear to virtually anybody.  It was clear to me, so why have you spent all this time illustrating that you misinterpreted it?

If somebody says to you that "it's raining cats and dogs outside", would you reply by saying that since you can't see any cats and dogs falling from the sky that they are "far left wing"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clarification was certainly long overdue.  I only had to ask for it, what, four times?  Thank you.

[Joe Republic]

You assumed (I guess its all that "flexible semantics') that I was asserting that the states I listed had voted before Gustaf posted his statement.

Note, I asked if he considered those states to also be not "real," as opposed to assuming that was what he meant.

I understood your last post.  No further clarification is necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Never assume that people realize when their posts from nearly a month ago are being picked over.  I certainly don't check every single thread I've posted in in the last month.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know full well that he is more than capable of defending himself, but given that thus far he hasn't, I've taken the liberty of helping you understand his original point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Without the quotations, the answer is an obvious 'yes'.  But if we continue with the premise that a '"real" state' is one in which its primary/caucus result is seen as 'important' in the scheme of things, then that of course is the subject of the debate.  Gustaf was arguing that Wyoming was unimportant to the Republican race in general (I'm somewhat inclined to agree).  I expect you're aware of the arguments that various other states are similarly inconsequential, e.g. Michigan on the Democratic side, etc.

[Joe Republic]

Isn't this argument merely based on semantics here?  I don't see the point of debating how someone said something that someone else didn't understand and needed clarification.  This all seems silly to me.

This, unfortunately, is the case in 90% of debates between CARLHAYDEN and anybody.  It's his favorite fall-back defense.