Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Extremist removed from office.

Nov 13, 2003 2:14AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Let's put it this way Dan ...
Nov 19, 2003 5:38AM PST

... I would have no need to request Dave not act like a patronizing boor if he didn't act that way. Reread my post, that's what I did. If the response violated the TOS then so too did the post that evoked it. I personally don't think there is a need by either party to have it pulled, but apparently there those who do. Like I said before, I see no reason for you and I to continue a discussion about something that doesn't involve you.

If Dave wants to argue the Constitution, fine. But he can do it without resorting to put downs such as "Like many conservatives, you misunderstand the basis of our Constitution." This from someone who claims with a straight face that our Constitution didn't include a right to free and unlimited medical care because back then medical care did more harm than good, but the Founders really did mean that by the general welfare clause although numerous quotations can be cited indicating they were keenly aware that this clause could be bastardized to usurp many of the restrictions on government. It would be nice if he actually addressed the issue for a change and left out the gratuitous political slams at conservatives and now supposedly greedy, stupid, uncaring, racist, homophobic, or whatever we supposedly are. But again, I waste my breath discussing such with a third party.

If you have a problem with me as I relate to you fine. I only mention your namecalling as a pot-kettle thing. So far in this forum none of your posts have insulted me directly so I have no place lining up on sides in your interactions with others. You should do the same. DK is a grown man and can surely speak for himself.

- Collapse -
The forum environment concerns us all.
Nov 19, 2003 5:52AM PST

In fact, you didn't request that Dave not act like a patronizing boor, you demanded that he not be a patronizing boor. The first, given the huge leeway that is allowed in the forum, is not an insult but a characterization of behavior. The second is most definately an insult. The distinction may be subtle, but upon such pinheads many angels dance.

In any case, I agree that we should let this go for now.

Thanks,

Dan

- Collapse -
Dave insults political beliefs, and people in the public domain.
Nov 19, 2003 10:33AM PST

Not once has he insulted you as a person.

I queried DK years ago, when he was still paid to be a mod, as to why he permitted attacks against him to stand. DK responded that as a mod, he felt it would be viewsed as abuse of his position to restrict or respond in kind to attacks against himself.

DK's response simply accords with his honest behaviour of over a decade now.

Your use of that to justify your abuse is pathetic.

Ian

- Collapse -
"that our basic rights are given to us not by man, or government or law -- but by our Creator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Complete and utter rubbish.
Nov 19, 2003 10:08AM PST

Our creator, seeing as you seem to now say that USA law is the emodiment of Christian belief, as azlways, YOUR Christian belief as discussed at BBQ's with DE, Glenda etc after church on Sunday:

"Our Creator"

Well, the Lord Your God banned people from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Nowhere did the Lord Your God set down a bunch of freedoms which are embodied in the USA Constitution.

Your post is complete and utter rubbish.

Ian

- Collapse -
See:
Nov 19, 2003 9:36PM PST
- Collapse -
More expertise?
Nov 15, 2003 8:26AM PST

'The Constitutional protections are not there for the majority (who don't need protecting), but for the minority.'

Really? Gee I always thought the Constitution was there to protect the people from overreaching by the government. The majority clearly DO need protection from a government run amuck. So do the minorities. That's why they revolted against King George and his government. That's why the first amendment, for example, protected the people's right to speak.

- Collapse -
Re:More expertise?
Nov 15, 2003 11:48AM PST

Hi, KP.

The government in a democracy IS the people. Have you ever read the "Federalist Papers?" They make clear the Founding Fathers' concern with preventing a majoritarian dictatorship. As for my expertise in this area, please see my response to Evie -- unless you're a lawyer, I dare say mine's a lot better than yours, though probably not learned from the same political perspective.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Did you hear about the attitude of American students.
Nov 15, 2003 4:06PM PST

A study was made concerning the attitude of American students who were being tested on academic subjects. It learned that the only thing which exceeded their arrogance was their incompetence.

'The government in a democracy IS the people'

We don't live in a democracy Dave. We live in a Republic. Our national government is composed of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Those are basically all those folks in Washington that pass all those laws, collect all those taxes, and make all those rules about how we should live.

- Collapse -
The Greatest Lie
Nov 19, 2003 10:41AM PST

I keep reading in SE is the "not a democracy" but "a Republic".

USA is a democratic republic. A triangle of elections and a pyramid of power allocation.

USA is not a pure replublic, where every issue is voted on by every subject. There has never been any such thing. And cannot until unborn children can use the Internet to vote as well. (Of course, your dead have been voting for centuries). (That's not an issue of democracy, its an issue of law and its breach).

The right wing posters here always bring up the Republic issue when they run out of anything meaningful to say.

Ian

- Collapse -
(NT)small point I think you meant pure democracy not pure republic?
Nov 19, 2003 11:25AM PST

.

- Collapse -
nt) Thx Roger. You're right.
Nov 19, 2003 11:28AM PST

,

- Collapse -
Exporting Republics...
Nov 19, 2003 4:24PM PST
The right wing posters here always bring up the Republic issue when they run out of anything meaningful to say. - IanC/OZ

This continues to surprise me Ian. The Conservative right always seem to do as you say. But now their god, GW is trying to spread our form of democracy around the world by invading and occupying other nations. So maybe some of GW's buddies should tell him that we should be exporting Republics to our enemies instead of Democracies...
- Collapse -
Objection
Nov 19, 2003 9:35PM PST

Since I very seldom attend any organized religious ceremony, this isn't really a religious objection.

Since I suspect you'd regard me as one of the evil right, you can call this a conservative kneejerk if you wish.

Your opinions about the current military action are valid perhaps, as an opinion and viewpoint, they have a right to be heard.

But your scarcastic reference to President Bush as "their god" is distasteful and a prime example of what I consider your total disregard for respect of anything or anyone.


roger

- Collapse -
Re:Exporting Republics...
Nov 20, 2003 9:53AM PST
The Conservative right always seem to do as you say.

That doesn't surprise me at all. It totally astonishes me.

WOW.

Ian
- Collapse -
Our form of government ...
Nov 19, 2003 10:15PM PST
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution.
- Collapse -
WOW!
Nov 16, 2003 3:58AM PST
As for my expertise in this area, please see my response to Evie -- unless you're a lawyer, I dare say mine's a lot better than yours, though probably not learned from the same political perspective.

Let's see, based on AP history, performance on HS History exams and a few college courses you have the audacity to claim that your expertise in this area is bound to exceed anyone who is not a lawyer?? Yeah right!

With your PhD in Molecular Biology you can probably lay claim to expertise over the SE membership in that field, but it would even be a bit bold to claim expertise over a large number of your peers.

Evie.
- Collapse -
"peers": WHY?
Nov 19, 2003 10:51AM PST

DK can prove he studied the subject. Others have denigrated that proof, without providing evidence that they actually know anything apart from what their parents told them, and their chosen comentators.

I too have a problem with DK and the reading of links. But, I have a problem with the choice of links by the "peers".

50,000 ignorant shites can enrol in the Hitler Youth Movement. 5,000 geniuses can join the NAZI party. Knowledge has got nothing to do with bias nor belief.

But "peers" means those of equality in some specific form. J. said that his not knowing his scores makes him better, you are reiterating the same mistake. Ignorance is not bliss, nor does it make you better.

If you wish to denigrate again what DK said, then provide evidence of your ability to do so.

BTW - being a democratic republic, DK gets the same vote as the right wing BBQ group each get. And the same right to whinge and complain.

DK doesn't say you have no right to your opinion. Whenever DK disagrees with right wing opinion, he gets attacked as being incompetent. Except now its for bragging.

You are proud you are a scientist. You bloody braggart. Do not ever misuse this forum and display pride in your achievements again.

Ian

- Collapse -
Incorrect, Ian...
Nov 19, 2003 12:59PM PST

Incorrect, Ian, I did not say that it made me better. I said that I had also studied history the high schools in the 60's and college in the 70's, and couldn't remember my exact grades without looking them up. I still don't see much importance in those old grades of decades ago, as, I still see that information as basically useless after all this time.
You said why peers, in your post slug. Why not, are not the other people responding to one of his posts his equal? Are those opinions lesser in value than his?
You said that you do not like some links that you have seen in past posts. Do you have the same problem with not links, but statements typed in a post relating to a historical subject under discussion? If such a statement disagrees with a presented supposedly historical fact, is it somehow lesser in validity because the poster is not the peer/equal of the author of the post to which he is responding.?
Something in last line in your post I found to be quite a statement, "You bloody braggart. Do not ever misuse this forum and display pride in your achievements again". My, and you use the word denigrate a few lines earlier.

- Collapse -
Re:Incorrect, Ian...
Nov 19, 2003 4:22PM PST

Hi J.

Evie has demonstrated her pride in her knowledge and achievements many times. With good reason, taking what she's said at face value. That's good.

But to turn DK's claim to knowledge proven by examination is irrelevant because its bragging. ... well, that goes both ways.

Ian

- Collapse -
More BS Ian
Nov 19, 2003 9:59PM PST

I don't think you will find any instance of me bragging about grades, education, or professional accomplishments.

I object to DK's attitude that he has now declared hiimself expert on the Constitution and somehow his "bona fides" make his opinion on any related issue somehow more important or correct than others.

Sorry, when it comes to the Constitution I don't think we have any Constitutional scholars here who can claim supreme expertise.

Your attack on me was duly noted. Calm the heck down with your venom.

- Collapse -
Not BS, Evie.
Nov 21, 2003 9:39AM PST

There's a weird system in the human mind: a listener or reader who takes a viewpoint on an issue or statement made by another person assumes that they are "right", regardless of subsequent statements by the person who issued the original comment.

I know why I said what I said. I reflected your post back upon you. I accept your explanation as to why you said what you said, BUT, you refuse to accept my explanation as to why I said what I said.

I think its a real worry for the survival of the human species. We would prefer to die than be wrong.

Ian

- Collapse -
Calm down and re-read this thread ...
Nov 19, 2003 9:52PM PST

... it was DAVE who put down the knowledge of others, not the other way around! It was DAVE who chose to say to ME "Like many conservatives, you misunderstand the basis of our Constitution." that attacked my knowledge of it. It was DAVE who claimed some sort of expertise on th subject and then went on to regail us with his grades from decades ago.

I am pointing out here that even given his litany of supposed qualifications as "expert" it is doubtful they could support a statement like he made to Kiddpeat that unless he/she is a lawyer DK knows more.

- Collapse -
Ian, please.
Nov 19, 2003 10:59PM PST

Ian,

Please try not to resort to name calling and insults. You make good points, but some aspects of your statements bring down the level of the entire forum. I appreciate the strenth of your feelings on these subjects, but try to direct your criticism to the ideas and not the person.

Thanks,

Dan

- Collapse -
Intriguing Dan, when I invert a statement made
Nov 21, 2003 9:34AM PST

by another party, and return it to them, and when questioned explain the basis of my post,

I get these accusations that I made that post because I didn't like someone or was emotional.

My response to Evie was quite clinical. I simply reflected her post.

Ian

- Collapse -
Re:WOW! Wow is right, all right!
Nov 19, 2003 12:06PM PST

Hi, Evie.

Y'all have a great little Catch-22 setup here -- if I give my opinion, you claim I don't know what I'm talking about, and if I try to establish my bona fides, then I'm bragging. Damned if I do, damned if I don't...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Effective Tool To Silence The Opposition...
Nov 19, 2003 4:18PM PST
Y'all have a great little Catch-22 setup here -- if I give my opinion, you claim I don't know what I'm talking about, and if I try to establish my bona fides, then I'm bragging. Damned if I do, damned if I don't... - Dave Konkel

Haven't you realized how it works yet Dave? It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong or how valid your links are. The plan is to wear you down until you simply give up and go away. It can be an effective tool used to silence the opposition...
- Collapse -
Dave ...
Nov 19, 2003 9:43PM PST

... your response to something I said was not to cite references to refute it. It was the putdown that I don't understand the Constitution. Then you cite all your education, fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean you know more than others because you have no idea what their educations and depth of knowledge are.

Now in another thread where I posted the Jefferson quotes that demonstrate my contention that Jefferson feared just the sort of Judicial tyranny that is evolving today, to that your reply was (paraphrasing) "well, Jefferson was wrong". You can't selectively pick and choose which Jefferson beliefs support yours and play *see* this is a Founder's opinion and I'm right right right, and then say I'm uninformed when I point out Jefferson's beliefs/quotes re: the judiciary.

I understand the Constitution just fine thankyouverymuch.

- Collapse -
Re:Dave ...
Nov 25, 2003 10:06PM PST

Hi, Evie.

>>You can't selectively pick and choose which Jefferson beliefs support yours <<
No one is right ALL the time -- not even a Founding Father. Or are you going to tell me Jefferson's life-long suppport for slavery was correct?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Expresses how I feel about it
Nov 25, 2003 5:47AM PST

I don't know if Cynthia Tucker is a liberal or conservative but her editorial says it all to me.

http://www.uexpress.com/asiseeit/

<i>But Moore's ouster merely keeps him from victimizing the rest of us. He is free to put his Ten Commandments monument in any museum that will have it, any private landscape that can accommodate it. He is free to pray in his home, his church, his car (and to pray silently anywhere at any time).

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "Letter to the Danbury Baptists," where he used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," he was quieting the concerns of a group of Baptists who feared the influence of a larger group of Congregationalists. Centuries later, the Congregationalists are still here -- I'm one of them -- and so are the Baptists.

Moore needs to understand that Jefferson's wall has helped preserve both of those great denominations.

- Collapse -
Thank you! nt
Nov 25, 2003 6:18AM PST

.