An Atheist Educator

In a one-off at the HelenaIR, James Daggett unloaded on dietz1963 who has been particularly annoying recently with his false accusation, etc.  This comment from Daggett, on this thread, pretty much lays out the problem we have always known about dietz1963.


 

James Daggett Jan 20, 2017 9:39am

In a “What does this have to do with the issue” moment, Michael Di said “…Not only are you the biggest hypocrite on here, but outside of James are the MASTER troll and definitely the king of misdirection, deception and projection.”

Michael, for you to accuse others of trolling IS hypocrisy. It is well-known that you don’t simply go and read the articles here but you go to the profiles of others users by clicking on their names (or you have them bookmarked) and step your way through their most recent comments.

How do we know this to be true? Because, AE inserted a commented in a long-dead thread, an article that was many months old, an article that did not appear on any of the current HelenaIR pages, and you inserted a snarky comment directed at AE on that old article. AE had set a trap as a test and you stepped right into it.

And, for you to label someone “the king of misdirection, deception and projection” is simply laughable. There is a blog out there that had documented and archived YOUR misdirections, deceptions, projections” and numerous other faux pas, documentation that clearly indicates that if anyone is royalty around here it’s you.

And, in case you haven’t seen my comment at the bottom of this page regarding veterans, I’ll reprint it here for your convenience:

“I remember when you told us you could identify who is a veteran on this site by the way they write because you can detect “how they roll.” That was about the time you accused me of dodging the draft.

Your continued unsupported claims about your own supposed military service coupled with attacks on others, who just might be vets and who are not interested in wearing their service on their sleeve, is offensive and unpatriotic. You should be ashamed but I doubt that you are capable of that.”

You see, I know your type. If you were in the service you were likely an NCO, and the type of NCO that gave weight to that acronym’s alternate meaning: No Chance Outside. These no-so-bright lifer-drones are tolerated with eye-rolls and sighs and are so lacking in intellectual skills, not to mention curiosity, the last thing one wants is to get stuck on duty with them for hours and hours. One would rather stand duty looking at a wall than to listen to their unsupported pontificating and low-brow spewage. The only time they ever gained something that appeared to be respect, was the required respect afforded the uniform. It’s not like anyone respected them for their ability to think creatively. This is why when they get out they are the classic bores who think that whatever they did in the service gives them more pull than anyone one else. It is a tough transition that many of them are never able to make, and those who do struggle with it exhibit anger toward others, especially others who they, often mistakenly, label an having not served. This description would fit YOU quite well you well. Don’t expect anyone here to salute you.

The HelenaIR covered the story where the city commission changed the city’s restrictions regarding “gender restrictions in public accommodations where people ‘ordinarily appear in the nude.'”

That, of course, brought lots of the fear-minded out of the woodwork in the comments.  They range from the “we have to protect the children” types to the “they are all perverts” type.

In an an example of “I’ve never seen it so it doesn’t happen,” we have dietz1963 making the proclamation that:

“I don’t know of any person who feels comfortable taking their cloths off before a person of the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with not being comfortable with it.”

James Daggett tried to provide him with some examples of people who don’t mind “taking their cloths off before a person of the opposite sex” but he was having none of it.  Here’s the dialog:

dietz1963 Jan 10, 2017 11:27am

I don’t know of any person who feels comfortable taking their cloths off before a person of the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with not being comfortable with it. That you apparently enjoy this doesn’t mean everyone does.

James Daggett Jan 10, 2017 12:37pm

dietz1963 said “I don’t know of any person who feels comfortable taking their cloths off before a person of the opposite sex.”

That only speaks to your own limited life experience. I have had many friends and acquaintances over the years who show no such inhibitions. Some model for artists, some like to skinny dip in a lake.

Do you realize that in most cities there are art groups that meet to do figure drawing from live, unclothed models of both genders? It even happens in Helena.

dietz1963 Jan 10, 2017 1:14pm

Hardly, I’ve traveled to 35 states and 14 countries. Still doesn’t change the fact that a vast majority of people don’t feel comfortable being changing in front of or being nude in the presence of a person from the opposite sex.
Dan Richardson Jan 10, 2017 2:13pm

James, keep n mind the people here that are against this, are not gay. So only a gay man would be ok with this ill intended action, weird……..

James Daggett Jan 10, 2017 3:04pm

dietz1963 said “Hardly, I’ve traveled to 35 states and 14 countries.”

That doesn’t mean much. It sounds like you only associate with PLUs.

You said “Still doesn’t change the fact that a vast majority of people don’t feel comfortable being changing in front of or being nude in the presence of a person from the opposite sex.”

Maybe, but your original comment inferred that no one feels comfortable doing so. The fact is, some people don’t mind, you just know know any.

Do you want to cover up art that depicts nudes?

James Daggett Jan 10, 2017 9:12pm

dietz1963 said “Now, care to name some folks you know that don’t mind much? You’ve not provided any proof these folks exist.”

I already did. For one, and that’s all I need to falsify, the models who pose unclothed for artists. They even do this at the Holter.

dietz1963 Jan 11, 2017 10:04am

James, no, you did not list the first and last name of anyone you “say” you know that has no problems changing/being nude in front of a person they don’t know of the opposite sex.

James Daggett Jan 11, 2017 10:49am

dietz1963 “…you did not list the first and last name of anyone you “say” you know that has no problems changing/being nude in front of a person they don’t know of the opposite sex.”

I am not going to list the names of the models. That they exist, and I cited where, right in Helena, is proof enough. What next, do you want to see my drawings?

That morphed into this dialog:

Jeff Driessen Jan 10, 2017 8:02am

Wow! I never thought I would see the day when my children’s right to privacy and safety was given away in a vote by anyone. Since the public schools are in the city, the health clubs are in the city and most businesses are in the city my children can no longer be safe when entering a locker room or rest room. Good job you fools. Good job to the fools who voted for these incompetent, uneducated idiots.

James Daggett Jan 10, 2017 8:29am

What is “unsafe” about seeing an unclothed human form of the opposite gender?

dietz1963 Jan 10, 2017 11:22am

So you enjoy unclothing in front of a strange person from the opposite sex?

dietz1963 Jan 10, 2017 11:34am

Or, you’re ok with having one of your grandkids change in the presence of a stranger of the opposite sex?

James Daggett Jan 10, 2017 1:05pm

dietz1963 said “So you enjoy unclothing in front of a strange person from the opposite sex?” and “Or, you’re ok with having one of your grandkids change in the presence of a stranger of the opposite sex?”

It’s not a matter of “enjoy,” I really do not care. My children were raised not to care either. Why put those kinds of hangups on a child?

dietz1963 Jan 10, 2017 1:18pm

James, why force people who feel uncomfortable changing or be nude in front of a person of the opposite sex? Or don’t those folks count?

dietz1963 Jan 10, 2017 1:24pm

To me this is going to open up a whole new can of worms called “sexual harassment”. You don’t think so, just wait. I predict at some point in the future a transgender in a womans area is going to check her out and, lawsuit time. In the guys area I think it will be the opposite case.

James Daggett Jan 10, 2017 3:08pm

dietz1963 said “ames, why force people who feel uncomfortable changing or be nude in front of a person of the opposite sex? Or don’t those folks count?”

They can cover with a towel, like when one changes at the beach. Duh!!!

James Daggett Jan 10, 2017 3:28pm

dietz1963 said “…why force people who feel uncomfortable…”

Since when can YOU use that as an argument. It sounds just like a liberal arguing for political correctness. I see very little difference. The more I point these things out, the more you sound like a liberal.

After all, if someone uses a word that makes someone else feel uncomfortable, political correctness says not to use that word. You have argue repeatedly against political correctness. I suggest that your concern for someone’s feeling “uncomfortable” is no different. Why should we kowtow to prudes?

dietz1963 Jan 10, 2017 3:43pm

Since this still qualifies as a free country and I can argue the point anyway I wish. Since when were there rules for commenting James? Care to show me them?

dietz1963 Jan 10, 2017 3:45pm

James says “prudes”. The flip side of that could be a pervert and if ya think there aren’t going to be some guys or gals abusing this, you’re dead wrong. Just how exactly can you prove if a transgender is who they say they are? Going to mind meld with them James? LOL

James Daggett Jan 10, 2017 9:08pm

dietz1963 said “Since this still qualifies as a free country and I can argue the point anyway I wish. Since when were there rules for commenting James? Care to show me them?”

You are right. There are no rules. You are free to be a hypocrite and be illogical and irrational. And I am not using “hypocrite” as a pejorative. It is accurate since on one hand you decry the basis for “political correctness” and then use the basis for your own argument.

You said “James says “prudes”. The flip side of that could be a pervert and if ya think there aren’t going to be some guys or gals abusing this, you’re dead wrong.”

The “flip side” of “prude” is not “pervert.” I would suggest an better antonym is “uninhibited.”

Why is it that some you automatically link the unclothed human form with crime and depravity?

You do know that says quite a bit about you. You’re probably the type that gets titillated at an art museum.

dietz1963 Jan 11, 2017 10:07am

James, you’re hilarious. Most definitely a hoot!
James Daggett Jan 11, 2017 10:51am

dietz1963 said “James, you’re hilarious. Most definitely a hoot!”

I guess a more thought out response was beyond you this morning.

———-

 

So, when dietz1963 said “I don’t know of any person who feels comfortable taking their cloths off before a person of the opposite sex,”  that provides another clue as to why his ex-wife divorced him.

 

 

In this edition, we see the idea of looking things up and verifying sources criticized as unfair to know-nothings:

 

 

dietz1963 Jan 12, 2017 10:58am

And I was in the war so I know what was said and the reasons….outside of what left leaning media reported on.

James Daggett Jan 12, 2017 11:28am

dietz1963 said “And I was in the war so I know what was said and the reasons….outside of what left leaning media reported on.”

Evidence of that? If you are going to offer yourself up an authority, we should have the opportunity to examine your credentials.

It’s like your claim that you are somehow expert of climate change because, you claim, you have a degree in “applied science.” Since “applied science” degrees are offered in anything from business management to fashion design to theater technology to a host of other areas, we would like to know which of these provides any expertise in climate change. So far, you have dodged answering that one.

dietz1963 Jan 12, 2017 11:48am

I’ll be giving that type of evidence James about the same time as you do so please, stop asking the question. Its been asked and answered numerous times. So unless you’re going to start posting your credentials for examination, you really need to stop insisting others do. Or using some of your words:

“…I didn’t know that was necessary in order to comment on any topic here…”

“…..I have no intention of providing proof of what I am about to write….”

James Daggett Jan 13, 2017 4:39am

dietz1963 said “I’ll be giving that type of evidence James about the same time as you do so please, stop asking the question.”

I will NOT stop asking it. As long as you make a claim and hold yourself up as the sole authority to support that claim, I will continue to ask for your credentials. You see, you are doing nothing more than telling us to take your word for it and without a way to verify that, your word counts for zero.

You said “So unless you’re going to start posting your credentials for examination, you really need to stop insisting others do.

If I hold myself as the sole authority or evidence to support a claim I make, I will do so, or you can bust me for not doing so, like I have so regularly done to you. But that is not going to happen because, when I make a claim in support of an argument under discussion, I will back it up with an external source that anyone can go verify.

I will, on very rare occasions, provide a personal anecdote to illustrate a point, not to prove it, and when I do so, I state that it is an anecdote and not proof. If you read some recent posts I made over the holidays, I even wrote about by own veteran status, but only as an aside, NOT to prove anything, just in a casual conversation with another commenter on a non-controversial topic. You won’t see me wearing that on my sleeve and bludgeoning others with it, as you do, since I have no intention, or need, to prove it as it will not be offered up as proof or as an authority. I can always find proof and authority elsewhere that others can verify. I suggest you do the same.

BTW, I’d still like to know what your degree is in. After all, you said you had one and you said it gave you authority in a discussion on climate change. Since you went so far as to tell us it is in “applied science,” why can’t you specify what the discipline was? And was it a 2-year or 4-year degree? And was it acquired through academic endeavor or was it, or a portion of it, granted for “work experience.” You don’t have to indicate the granting institution.

Marvin Marshawn Jan 13, 2017 1:01pm

Jimmy Daggett wrote “Evidence of that? If you are going to offer yourself up an authority, we should have the opportunity to examine your credentials.”

As I recall you have used yourself as an authority before. Can we now examine your credentials?

dietz1963 Jan 13, 2017 2:05pm

James writes “I will not stop asking it”. Well James, until you start living up to the standards you set for others commenting here, guess what? Oh sure, you can continually look foolish asking ridiculous rhetorical questions simply to mock others if you wish. I mean, you talk like you’re an expert on every subject so why are you even here asking others on things you come across as knowing everything about? To proof your superior knowledge? Lets get that straight right now, you don’t have superior knowledge, you’ve not shown us your credentials. What you have demonstrated is your superior web surfing skills. This is self evident when some things are asked of you and it takes some time, hours, even a day for response. Cause you’re out their web surfing for the answer.

As I see you are now going down that path you so readibly go down, ya are just going to have to find someone to continue to argue with you. Which you can’t on this website anymore. Neither skooter nor twangs is going to do it, you certainly won’t with them and the rest have jumped ship.

James Daggett Jan 13, 2017 2:46pm

Marvin Marshawn said “As I recall you have used yourself as an authority before. Can we now examine your credentials?”

Cite what I wrote where I made a claim in support of an argument where I offered my word as the sole piece of evidence, and then I will.

James Daggett Jan 13, 2017 3:06pm

dietz1963 said “Well James, until you start living up to the standards you set for others commenting here, guess what?”

Show me where I have violated a standard I hold you to. Show me where I have offered my word as the sole evidence to support a claim in an argument.

You said “Oh sure, you can continually look foolish asking ridiculous rhetorical questions simply to mock others if you wish.”

You may feel it is mockery but it is me trying to support the truth.

You said “I mean, you talk like you’re an expert on every subject so why are you even here asking others on things you come across as knowing everything about?”

That is simply your opinion. I have never made that claim. It does tell us more about you than me.

You said “To proof your superior knowledge? Lets get that straight right now, you don’t have superior knowledge, you’ve not shown us your credentials.”

A classic strawman, which is criticizing for a claim I never made. I have never claimed I have “superior knowledge.” And, again, since I haven’t offered my word as sole proof to support an argument, it is not necessary for me to provide any credentials. You see HAVE done that telling us in at least two situations that your expertise/personal experience trumps what other may claim:

– you are a veteran with Middle East experience
– you have an “applied science” degree that affords you expertise in climate change

Claims supported by those statement are false unless credentials are verified.

You said “What you have demonstrated is your superior web surfing skills.”

Since we are on the Web, I use web-based resources to support what I say. If I was to cite an academic study only available in the library, would you go there to read it?

Also, what does set me apart from some others here is that I VERIFY the sources I cite. I wouldn’t cite a study that disproves my point (as Marvin has done), or cite a web site that is fake news (as getaclue has done), or cite a web site that makes a false claim about history (as you have done.)

You said “This is self evident when some things are asked of you and it takes some time, hours, even a day for response. Cause you’re out their web surfing for the answer.”

Taking time to do research is a flaw? Heck, it sounds like you are labeling a well-researched piece of writing as a flaw.

You said “As I see you are now going down that path you so readibly go down, ya are just going to have to find someone to continue to argue with you.”

I simply point out factual errors when I see them. Let’s face it, you tend to make more of them than others.

You said “Which you can’t on this website anymore. Neither skooter nor twangs is going to do it, you certainly won’t with them and the rest have jumped ship.”

I don’t see skooter or twangs making factual errors that need to be corrected. As to the others no longer here, it is possible they have been banned.

dietz1963, I truly do not want to be argumentative, I just want you to think more carefully about what you want to say before you write it. The issue about the governor vetoing Republican-submitted bills was a prime example of what you frequently do, that is, write from a non-thinking, emotional position that states a factual error. Why should anyone here sit by and let a falsehood stand unchallenged, especially when one considers how many times you have called other, here and in politics, a liar?

In the latest installment, our Pharoah of Falsehoos, claims that WMDs were found in Iraq and that the news media didn’t cover that.

OK, so, we get to see him falsified, again, and, again, he tries to wiggle his way out of it.  This though, he demostrates he lack of cognitive skills by attacking the source that backs up his claims that WMDs WERE found.

It’s classic!

————-

James Daggett Jan 12, 2017 10:46am

dietz1963, Bush, well, actually, Cheney, cherry-picked the reports.

And your defense of Bush is to bring up Clinton? It’s like your defense of Trump by bringing up Hillary.

You said “So if you’re going to say Bush “lied” then you better say Clinton “lied”.”

OK, “Clinton lied.” With that then, Marty is telling the truth.

 

 

dietz1963 Jan 12, 2017 11:08am

My defense is both POTUS relied on intelligence reports and I’m sick and tired of hearing “Bush lied”. If ya all want to go down that path, then all need to say “the lie started with Clinton, the second gulf war in Iraq started with Clintons Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 and STOP putting all the blame on Bush if you all believe it was all based on a lie. But truth be told, in the years after Saddam was captured, WMD WERE found all over the place over the years but…not reported on by the media.

 

 

 

James Daggett Jan 12, 2017 11:36am

dietz1963 said “My defense is both POTUS relied on intelligence reports and I’m sick and tired of hearing “Bush lied”.”

Then you are going to continue to be “sick and tired” because it is unlikely to go away with anything you offer here. You see, partisans will use whatever they can from history to disparage the other side.

Example: you claiming that the Democrats are the party of slavery and racists, completely ignoring how parties have changed over time.

You claimed “WMD WERE found all over the place over the years but…not reported on by the media.”

OK, it’s time to falsify another one of your claims.

The New York Times covered it here.

 

 

 

dietz1963 Jan 12, 2017 1:45pm

LOL, James touting the left leaning New York Times as a credible source for reporting the news.

Yea, I’m sure you believe that as does the NY times. But for some of my friends that died as a result of exposure to these weapons, I’m fairly sure they’d disagree with you. I’d provide you with their names but, they’re dead so you can’t ask them if its the truth or not.

 

 

 

James Daggett Jan 13, 2017 4:08am

dietz1963, let’s get this settled right now.

You claimed “WMD WERE found all over the place over the years but…not reported on by the media.”

I falsified your claim that it was “not reported on by the media” by pointing to this article in the New York Times:

The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

Instead of admitting you were wrong, or just ignoring that I falsified your claim, you come back with this:

“LOL, James touting the left leaning New York Times as a credible source for reporting the news.”

Do you even have a clue as to how ridiculous your response is? You question the credibility of the source when the point was that they covered a story you said wasn’t covered!

Aside from your invoking the fallacy of Killing the Messenger, you are saying that the story isn’t credible, a story that supports your own claim that WMDs existed!!

It appears that with your response you have shot yourself in the foot, twice.

 

 

 

dietz1963 Jan 13, 2017 1:56pm

Ok, lets settle this for the umpteenth time. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing, period. And I get sick and tired of having this same old argument. You just keep digging stuff up on the internet as your proof and ignoring the FACT that not everything is ON the internet and sometimes, yea, ya gotta take a persons word for it.

Let me give you and example. Can you prove to me you got up this morning, got dressed, ate breakfast? Can you prove to me you have a spouse, a house, an investment? That your spouse or you have health insurance. …Can you show me ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET OR IN A BOOK where any of that happened? Of course not but, I’m fairly sure this is the case.

So on this entire section, right here is you invoking any number of fallacies. First off, you’re dismissal of NYTs as being left leaning and not credible. This would be “Appeal to the stone”. You have not proven why its a ridiculous claim, just stating that it is. You’re statement of my response having shot myself in the foot twice? That’s a red herring called “Ad hominem”. I personally have never heard of a “killing the messenger” fallacy, you do tend to kill this messenger. I say something didn’t happen the way it was reported so you “kill me” so to speak cause of course I don’t have the type of proof you’re looking for that could be posted here.

So just do us a favor, start arguing with someone else cause I’m just not going to continue to have these senseless arguments with you.

 

 

 

James Daggett Jan 13, 2017 2:43pm

dietz1963 said “You just want to argue for the sake of arguing, period.”

No, I want to point out inaccuracies where I see them.

You said “You just keep digging stuff up on the internet as your proof and ignoring the FACT that not everything is ON the internet and sometimes, yea, ya gotta take a persons word for it.”

Geeeezzzz!! You claimed that the media didn’t cover it. I showed that a prominent news source did. If you want to say that the NYT story was false, then your claim that WMDs existed collapses.

You said “Can you prove to me you got up this morning, got dressed, ate breakfast?”

What does any of that have to do with your claim that the media didn’t cover the story and the FACT that I showed that at least one did?

You said “So on this entire section, right here is you invoking any number of fallacies. First off, you’re dismissal of NYTs as being left leaning and not credible.”

You are guilty of the strawman fallacy. I never claimed nor denied nor commented on whether the NYT leans one way or another.

You said “This would be “Appeal to the stone”. You have not proven why its a ridiculous claim, just stating that it is.”

My, my, aren’t we off-base today. You see, I never made ANY claim. I only showed that your claim was false by provided one article about the story that YOU said the media didn’t cover.

You said “I personally have never heard of a “killing the messenger” fallacy, you do tend to kill this messenger.”

Am I supposed to be responsible for what you do not know? Or am I supposed to only limit myself to things you know? From Wikipedia:

“Shooting the messenger” is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of blaming the bearer of bad news.

In other words, the article from the NYT, by its very existence, proved your claim false. Instead of accepting that, you attack the credibility of the NYT, which was the bearer of the bad news, for you.

You said “I say something didn’t happen the way it was reported so you “kill me” so to speak cause of course I don’t have the type of proof you’re looking for that could be posted here.”

Huh?

You said “So just do us a favor, start arguing with someone else cause I’m just not going to continue to have these senseless arguments with you.”

I can see that you think it’s “senseless” because I, quite obviously, showed your claim to be false.

This is nearly identical to the situation where you claim that the governor vetoes bills submitted by Republicans. All I had to do to falsify that claim was to show a single instance where he signed a Republican submitted bill into law, which I did. In that situation you, again, made up some nonsense about me being digging stuff up in the Internet, as if that is a flaw and suggests that our state web site that tracks the status of bills is no credible.

If you want me to stop pointing out your in accuracies, then parse what you write, think about whether it is logically consistent, and don’t “shoot from the hip.”

 

 

 

dietz1963 Jan 13, 2017 4:42pm

Like I said, arguing for the sake of arguing. Am I suppose to be responsible for what you don’t know simply cause you’re tied to a computer and can’t believe anything not found on the internet? Prove I was never in the service, or wars, or know anything about WMD as it pertains to Iraq and, you can’t. All you got is some internet searches and articles written by journalists. you seem to be overly gullible or, overly trusting, when it comes to the internet.

Yes James THE MEDIA DIDN’T COVER IT! Just like they didn’t cover you going to the bathroom this morning but, I’m fairly sure it happened. When a military member does their job, they are not followed around by the media 24/7. And often times, some of the news is “staged”, in other words, folks that are going to be interviewed are told what questions they are going to get asked and, what answers they are going to give. Been there, done that so… GEEZ, stop being so dense. And if its not what they consider “big news” or “news that sells”, they don’t go out there. Particularly when it doesn’t fit their narrative and you are incredibly naïve if you think whats gone on in the middle east ether hasn’t been reported, or under reported, to protect the office of the POTUS. Probably why you would rarely hear (if at all) all the humanitarian missions dropping food, clothing or other supplies that happen DAILY by the military, or the roads, schools or other things that we build DAILY is rarely reported and no, its often NOT roads or schools we destroyed.

Like I said, you’re the expert in surfing the web and excel in arguing for the sake of arguing. But when it comes to credibility, if you are seeking to convince me you are….you operate under 4 other aliases that I am aware of but continually deny it each time. This in itself brings both your integrity and credibility into question. You have a nasty habit of getting into the most minute, miniscule, off the wall tinsey tiny detail and miss the elephant in the room every time. All that is would be nit picking.

But back to the WMD deal, honestly? I could care less what you or the media believe or what you think I should prove. I don’t have to prove squat. That’s not a prerequisite to commenting and again, since you’ve decided to go down this path, AGAIN, ya are just going to have to find someone else to argue with.

 

 

 

dietz1963 Jan 13, 2017 4:47pm

But you don’t have to believe me on this. Here’s what you do, go find yourself a service member that served from at least 1985 until 2011 and ask them. Make sure you ask them, specifically, areas of the AOR they were searching in. Particularly the area around the Ninewah providence of Iraq.

After that, then I want you to find another vet that is suffering from an “unexplained illness” that they “picked up” during their tour of duty searching out around in this area for months. I would give you a couple names, but as I said, they’re dead now.

 

 

 

dietz1963 Jan 13, 2017 5:09pm

You know who you remind me of James? An old teacher of mine. I wrote once, what I’ll call, an excellent essay. Teacher themselves said it was an excellent essay, they didn’t know much about the subject matter. As I had wrote it in a hurry over a few hours, naturally some things like commas, periods, semi colons ect…weren’t in the “exact” places they need to be. Every once and a while a “T” wasn’t crossed or that “I” wasn’t dotted. And that’s what was pointed out/concentrated on, not the message, but the nit noid stuff.

If you chose to continue to do that James, you’re not wanting to have a conversation, or gain knowledge, or anything else. You’re just looking for ways to discount information based on technicalities. I got no truck with that.

 

 

 

James Daggett Jan 13, 2017 6:27pm

dietz1963 said “Am I suppose to be responsible for what you don’t know simply cause you’re tied to a computer and can’t believe anything not found on the internet?”

Another strawman. Where did I say I only believe what is found on the Internet?

You said “Prove I was never in the service, or wars, or know anything about WMD as it pertains to Iraq and, you can’t.”

That is because it is illogical to prove a negative. Prove that I was not a General who commanded troops all over the world. You can’t, but that doesn’t validate the claim.

You said “All you got is some internet searches and articles written by journalists.”

That is WAY more than you have provided for us. If you want us to believe your supposed first-hand reports, then publish them under your real name with footnotes that can be checked.

You said “…you seem to be overly gullible or, overly trusting, when it comes to the internet.”

Hardly. I verify my sources, unlike you. Shall we revisit the Civil War? The age of the earth?

You said “Yes James THE MEDIA DIDN’T COVER IT!”

Of course they did. I provided just one example. The very existence of that article falsifies your claim. That YOU do not want to accept it because it falsifies your claim is, I know, bruising to your ego, especially when it is me doing it, but the FACT is that it WAS covered by the media.

You said “Just like they didn’t cover you going to the bathroom this morning but, I’m fairly sure it happened.”

The difference is that I never made a claim that I did.

You said “When a military member does their job, they are not followed around by the media 24/7. And often times…”

Whatever. It doesn’t change the FACT that the media DID cover the existence of WMDs. It’s right there for us to read!!!! The article EXISTS. It’s not like a UFO, or Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster, it actually exists.

You said “…you are incredibly naïve if you think whats gone on in the middle east ether hasn’t been reported, or under reported, to protect the office of the POTUS.”

I never claimed any of that? Why do you keep attempting to defend your false claim by building strawmen against me? It doesn’t erase the FACT that the article exists.

You said “Like I said, you’re the expert in surfing the web and excel in arguing for the sake of arguing.”

And being good at research is a bad thing? “Gullible” is left to those who do not check their sources.

You said “But when it comes to credibility, if you are seeking to convince me you are….you operate under 4 other aliases that I am aware of but continually deny it each time.”

I am an anonymous commenter. None of us here have ANY credibility. Why don’t you get that? Because we are anonymous we have to post verifiable evidence that others can check. That is how it’s worked online for over 30 years. That you want to make this place mirror the real world is simply wishful thinking on your part.

And, regarding aliases, you have a few of your own so what does that say about your credibility?

You said “You have a nasty habit of getting into the most minute, miniscule, off the wall tinsey tiny detail and miss the elephant in the room every time. All that is would be nit picking.”

The devil is in the details.

You said “But back to the WMD deal, honestly? I could care less what you or the media believe or what you think I should prove.”

All I did was show you ONE article that proved your claim was incorrect. Why can’t you just accept it and move on. It is YOU who are turning this into something bigger than it is, just like your false claim that the governor vetoes Republican-submitted bills.

You said “I don’t have to prove squat.”

That is true. But don’t get your panties in such a bunch when others call you on your errors and falsify them.

You said “But you don’t have to believe me on this. Here’s what you do, go find yourself a service member that served from at least 1985 until 2011 and ask them.”

So what? How does that NOT falsify your claim regarding media coverage?

You said “…some things like commas, periods, semi colons ect…weren’t in the “exact” places they need to be….that’s what was pointed out/concentrated on, not the message, but the nit noid stuff.”

That is pure nonsense. I did not challenge you on grammar, spelling, or punctuation. I absolutely DID challenge your “message” which I effectively falsified.

You said “If you chose to continue to do that James, you’re not wanting to have a conversation, or gain knowledge, or anything else. You’re just looking for ways to discount information based on technicalities.”

I simply challenge the FACTUAL INACCURACY of what you stated. What you said was WRONG and I provided the proof with an article. The very existence of that article is all that was necessary to falsify your claim that articles like that didn’t exist.

Again, you’ve had many claims falsified. Examples:

– that residency is the same for both voting and taxes
– that the inflation rate was 40% under Obama
– that scientist do not know the age of the earth
– that slaves joined the Confederate army by the “tens of thousands”
– that John Holdren wrote “The Population Bomb”
– that our governor vetoes the bills submitted by Republicans
– that a Darwin Award can be given to living person
– that I am a draft dodger

And the list goes on.

Oh, and let’s not forget what you said about people disrobing in front of the opposite gender. Since YOU don’t know anyone who is comfortable doing so, you generalize that to rest of the universe. I pointed out that there are people, in Helena, who don’t have a problem with doing (art models) and you did everything you could deflect that. All you should have done was say “Oh, I hadn’t thought about art models.” Why can’t you ever do that? Why do you double-down when you are so obviously wrong?

BTW, why are you ashamed of this “applied science” college degree you supposedly have? You’re the one who touted yourself with it. Why don’t tell us what it was in?

(I can pretty much guess why not. Most likely, the only “science” in it is in the word that comes after “applied.”)

When we last tuned in, the drama between the Beacon of Truth and dietz1963 and reached the point of a truce.  It ended with this:

James Daggett  Dec 16, 2016 1:38pm

I’ll tell you what. I will stop with the labels and the snarks if you do. Draw a line right now. And not just at each other, but the snark toward others as well. No more blanket, negative statements, using absolutes about entire groups or organizations either. If we make a claim, we back it up with researched evidence that has been verified. If we see someone, or each other, make an unsupported claim, we can critique that but with the intent to inform and educate, not tear down or belittle.

Here’s a line. Do you want to join me in stepping across it?

——————————————- 

dietz1963 Dec 16, 2016 2:15pm

Fair deal.

==================

 

Well, it lasted for a while but appears to be breaking down.  As one might have expected, dietz1963 just couldn’t maintain and, again, started making his blanket, negative statements, using absolutes.”

In a thread about attempting to approach bi-partisanship in the 2017 Montana legislative sessiondietz1963  broke the truce with his “blanket, negative comment”  aimed at Governor Bullock:

Ed Duelfer Jan 4, 2017 1:43pm

Don’t believe that the majority of the issues raised in their letter were supported by the voters. See rule 59-41 in the House and rule 32-18 in the Senate. Maybe if they expressed a willingness to compromise by voting in favor of Republican initiatives, compromise would truly be achieved.

Michael Di Jan 4, 2017 2:27pm

Yep and bills that do get through that are republican, Bullock vetoes.

The party of segregation. 

You see it?  He says that the governor vetoes the bills that republicans pass to him.  Daggett takes him on:

James Daggett Jan 5, 2017 8:25am

dietz1963 said “…bills that do get through that are republican, Bullock vetoes.”

The Republicans dominated our legislature for some time so any bill that gets to the governor’s desk was passed by Republicans, therefore can be called “Republican bills.”

Bullock did not veto every bill in the last session so your claim that

“bills that do get through that are republican, Bullock vetoes”

is falsified.

dietz1963 Jan 5, 2017 9:52am

James, I’m throwing a flag for writing my claim is falsified. Right here you’ve said “any” bill that gets to the governors desk passed by republicans can be called “republican bills”. No, a republican bill is one introduced by a republican. Doesn’t matter who votes on it as to who’s bill it is, its a matter of who authored and presented it. Also, when on another thread you stated Zinke told Montanans to bend over, you did not say some, you simply make a blanket statement.

Therefore, your statement on another thread must be falsified and its “bad form” to point out anything you yourself are guilty of.

James Daggett Jan 5, 2017 11:12am

dietz1963 said “James, I’m throwing a flag for writing my claim is falsified. Right here you’ve said “any” bill that gets to the governors desk passed by republicans can be called “republican bills”. No, a republican bill is one introduced by a republican.”

OK, I see your point. You didn’t make that clear when you said “Yep and bills that do get through that are republican, Bullock vetoes.”

I took your statement to define a “republican bill” as one PASSED by republicans, which is every bill that does get passed.

That said, shall we look at the LAST legislative session and see if we can find a bill, submitted by a republican, therefore, according to you, a “republican bill,” that was NOT vetoed by Bullock?

All we have to do is find ONE republican submitted bill that made it through without a veto and your statement is falsified. Shall I go look or do you want to?

James Daggett Jan 5, 2017 11:33am

dietz1963, OK, I’ve found one. Let’s review.

You said “Yep and bills that do get through that are republican, Bullock vetoes.”

You defined a “republican bill” as one submitted by a republican.

In the 2015 session, Ed Buttrey, a republican from Great Falls, submitted SB 405. Bullock signed it into law on April 29, 2015.

Since SB 405 was submitted by a republican (not to mention passed by a republican legislature), it is truly a “republican bill,” by both our definitions.

Since Bullock signed it into law and did not veto it as you claim in your statement

“…bills that do get through that are republican, Bullock vetoes”

your statement is falsified.

Other republican-submitted bills signed into law by Bullock in 2015 include SB 168, SB 163, SB 144, SB 110, Sb 94, SB 85, HB 506, SB 211, SB 396, SB 289, HB 488, and the list can go on and on and on and on and on……

Wow!  Not only skewered his weak excuse that he wasn’t referring to bills passed to the governor, but comes back an absolutely nails his ass to the floor showing that the governor passed numerous bills that were submitted by Republicans.  He does completely falsifies the claim.

dietz1963, while commenting on other threads since this took place, is avoiding admitting, or even commenting, on this documented failure of his even though Daggett has requested he do so on a couple other threads.

In another, though minor, failure, dietz1963, again, shows that he really doesn’t know what he is talking about.  In this article about the arrest of a low-life in Bozeman who beats a rape charge but then gets on social media and threatens to kill the prosecutor and anyone else who was against him, we get this comment:

dietz1963 Jan 5, 2017 10:34am

Darwin award winner right here.

 

Setting him right, again, we see this:

 

James Daggett Jan 5, 2017 11:00am

Michael Di said “Darwin award winner right here.”

Actually, no.

To be eligible for a Darwin Award the candidate must have done something stupid that resulted in them removing themselves from the gene pool or in sterilizing themselves. Since this guy is still among the living and nothing in the story indicates that he is incapable of procreation, he is not eligible for the award.

 

So, where is this all going to go.  Will dietz1963 admit that he was wrong in these two instances?  I am not going to put any money on it.

Finally, in giving props to James Daggett for one of the cleverest asides we have this.

In an article about Zinke voting to make it easier to pass federal lands to the states, (bold emphasis mine),

 

dietz1963 Jan 5, 2017 9:30am

Not sure why he’s “my guy” when a majority of Montanans voted for him. And you’re wrong in your all inclusive statement of “….told Montanans to bend over”. That statement would be correct if you’re discussing those Montana’s that think transferring federal lands to state is a bad thing. Not all Montanans do. Some believe the lands could be better controlled under the state and that the state has the states interests more at heart then the feds. I share that sediment, we only have 3 folks representing all of Montana, you honestly think the other 532 folks in Congress really care what Montanans think or don’t think about our land?….”

James Daggett Jan 5, 2017 9:51am

…..Oh, and I suppose when you say “I share that sediment…” am I right that you are making a pun since it’s a land issue?

 

Admit it, that was pretty clever.

 

 

 

dietz1963 Dec 16, 2016 11:18am

Its entirely up to you “James” where any further animosity goes from here. Keep targeting me on your blog like you do is not a positive step in that direction. However, I will address only address a few things on this last comment of yours, then I’m moving on to other areas.

We agree to disagree on the topic of interpretation of the law. Regarding claims, I am as free to make claims, within reason, on what you write. You do this often, so not sure what your problem is. Since neither one of us can conclusively proof what either is about when it comes to credentials, qualifications, life experiences ect….other then what either one of us writes about…goes without saying. In my case, there are things I’ll either agree or disagree (or admit/not admit to) about simple things, such as did I serve in the military, yes. Am I married, yes. Do I have kids, yes. Am I a man, yes. And let’s face it, albeit you have said you try to educate folks not to give up too much personal information, in a very slow but sure what that’s exactly what you do in the questions you ask. When folks don’t answer, then you badger them about it as either not being credible or any other number of things. If they do answer, then later on say they shouldn’t do it.

Let’s look at you on just a couple of things, you don’t confirm or deny your gender. Then it’s reasonable (or fair game) to refer to you as either a male or a female, unless you’re an android. I suppose calling you an “it” would work. You play ignorant on the anonymous names you use, at its obvious it’s you. On this thread you’re not confirming or denying the blog. Both these two things just makes you an bold faced liar. But then you come back about what I should admit to you when you don’t admit hardly a dang thing? Seriously?

Here’s what I will admit. First, the written conversations from months ago were based on articles I found on the internet. This was clearly explained to you. You took it upon yourself to research who maintains the websites, good for you. Now, if you want play the fool, or to be (and I’ll use your favorite words/phrases here) the “dim bulb of the IR” or Dolt of Helena, or just plain dolt, that’s entirely up to you. Information obtained from any source does not equate to the person being the same as the source. That’d be like saying, any information I from POTUS Obama, so I must be black. Does that make any sense? Of course not, its entirely stupid to assume or even state that. As such. through the websites I quickly grabbed info from, and was the only times I was on them, it was (and is) both stupid and ignorant to assume, claim or otherwise, I “frequent” them for information, or that makes me a segregationist, white supremacist, creationist nor the last incredibly stupid, ignorant and insulting thing you called me. I am none of those.

Couple last points, don’t make demands of me you when you yourself have no intention of complying with demands I make of you. As far as “running to mommy”, statements like that, doesn’t look to me as you’re sincere about burying the hatchet. Having said that, of course it wasn’t running to mommy. There can, and should be, consequences for going to far. What you wrote was completely out of line, i.e., you went to far. Had it been me, I would have deleted all your comments and you would no longer be allowed to comment. That’s how things are done when a person was asked, or told, time and time again to stop. They receive consequences. As I don’t have that power, yes, I reported you. And yes, I admit you call me those things again, you’ll be reported again.

James Daggett Dec 16, 2016 1:38pm

Michael Di said “targeting me on your blog”

Does it matter that your are featured on a blog that you said no one ever looks at?

You said “We agree to disagree on the topic of interpretation of the law.”

I am not sure that is the case. From the story, it appears that LE enforced it as written and defined. You may disagree with that outcome but that doesn’t invalidate the law and the definition of “unmarked crosswalk.” I am making no “interpretation,” just stating what it says.

You said “Then it’s reasonable (or fair game) to refer to you as either a male or a female, unless you’re an android.”

Not that anyone’s gender here even matters other than to make personal comments.

You said “You play ignorant on the anonymous names you use, at its obvious it’s you.”

Why does that even matter? Your bringing that into all the threads you do, whether about skooter or any other commenter, serves no purpose other than your attempt to categorize and prejudge what someone writes.

You said “On this thread you’re not confirming or denying the blog. Both these two things just makes you an bold faced liar.”

No it doesn’t. It is neither a lie or a statement of the truth. For example, if someone claims their 5th Amendment right, that cannot be used against them as an admission of guilt. The Founders included that because it follows the rules of logic and reason. That you are unsatisfied by my non-answers is obvious but to call me a liar as a result simply escalates the negativity here.

You said “But then you come back about what I should admit to you when you don’t admit hardly a dang thing? Seriously?”

My admitting what you ask for has nothing to do with a claim I have made. The admissions you are requesting are to back up your own claims. That is not how things work in the world of logic and reason. You have to do your own work to back up your claims and not say that others have to help you out, especially when the claims are against these others.

You said “…the written conversations from months ago were based on articles I found on the internet. This was clearly explained to you. You took it upon yourself to research who maintains the websites…..Information obtained from any source does not equate to the person being the same as the source.”

If you lay down with dogs, don’t complain about the fleas.

Let’s be honest about what happened. The original error was your support of the claim that slaves where supporters of the Confederacy and joined that army by the “tens of thousands.” I posted a link to a well-research paper by historical researchers at Harvard that clearly showed that claim was false. You continued to disagree and, instead of showing where the Harvard paper was in error, you submit a piece of work that was false.

When I source evidence, or examine evidence provided by others to support their arguments, I read that source AND I check on their supporting sources (footnotes) AND look into who they are. I did this with both your Edgerton stuff and the True Authority stuff. This is how we cut a path to the truth in our world. As someone with a pretty extensive background in academic research, I don’t take anything at face value and have been trained in how to determine whether a source is true or false. The fact that I have demonstrated this many times here should be sufficient evidence of that, not that I need that.

Another example of this was when MontanaMadeMan submitted a source to back up his claim that private schools do a better job than public schools. I went through his source and found that the study was flawed in its design AND, most importantly, the study itself admitted this in its conclusion telling us that it could not be used to support MMM’s position.

You see, in the current world of “fake news,” identifying baloney is nothing new for some of us. We know how to identify baloney. It takes time, work, effort, and experience, but the alternative is to be ignorant and easily conned.

I thought that through our Civil War and age of the earth discussions you would have picked up on that but you continue to make the same errors. I suppose I could ignore them but I feel that it is important in an attempt to raise the quality of the overall discussions to point out fallacies where they appear. I am not picking on you in particular, it’s just that you provide more opportunity to illustrate how to identify baloney than many others here.

The bottom line is, think before you type. Look at what you claim and examine how it can be challenged. In a debate class, students do not know what side of an argument they will have to defend until game time. This way they research all sides of an issue. I try to practice (and teach) that here.

You said “As such. through the websites I quickly grabbed info from, and was the only times I was on them, it was (and is) both stupid and ignorant to assume, claim or otherwise, I “frequent” them for information, or that makes me a segregationist, white supremacist, creationist nor the last incredibly stupid, ignorant and insulting thing you called me. I am none of those.”

Your error was two-fold. First, you “quickly grabbed info from” them without looking into the quality of their material. Second, you doubled-down, that is, dug in, and refused to admit that, due to the lack of credibility of your source, your argument was falsified. When you wouldn’t back down, I attempted to illustrate your error by labeling you as a supporter of those sites’ agendas. But still you stayed dug in.

You said “…don’t make demands of me you when you yourself have no intention of complying with demands I make of you.”

The demands I make on you have to do with you backing up YOUR claims. What you demand of me has nothing to do with any claim of mine. You are demanding that I provide back up for your claims. That is unreasonable, not to mention illogical.

You said “As far as “running to mommy”, statements like that, doesn’t look to me as you’re sincere about burying the hatchet. Having said that, of course it wasn’t running to mommy. There can, and should be, consequences for going to far.”

I’ll tell you what. I will stop with the labels and the snarks if you do. Draw a line right now. And not just at each other, but the snark toward others as well. No more blanket, negative statements, using absolutes about entire groups or organizations either. If we make a claim, we back it up with researched evidence that has been verified. If we see someone, or each other, make an unsupported claim, we can critique that but with the intent to inform and educate, not tear down or belittle.

Here’s a line. Do you want to join me in stepping across it?

——————————————-

dietz1963 Dec 16, 2016 2:15pm

Fair deal.

Our serial continues.

 

dietz1963 Dec 15, 2016 4:20pm

Oh brother. As usual just picking and choosing what you want to respond to and, taking things out of context. And arguing for the sake of arguing.

Again, you quoted a law that doesn’t exist and failed to correct yourself. You turn around and say I omitted an important piece of what I quoted, without excusing yourself for having omitted yourself from that very paragraph. You talk about precedence’s without quoting so much as one, nor providing proof of how the law defines the paragraph.

What draft dodger has anything to do with this, I don’t know (is this an example of you staying on topic?) but I took issue with you calling him a draft dodger when a draft dodger is (as I clearly stated) someone who claims something not true to get out of the draft or jumps country. Applying for draft deferment and being granted as such is not a draft dodger. But then stated to you, if that is one, you are one. Taking you at your word of you being a man, and taking you at your words when you write in terms of decades ago, puts you at a time in a draft. You’ve provided absolutely no proof what so ever this claim, which I said is an educated guess based on how you write, is untrue. And based on how you write, you absolutely did not serve and if you didn’t, managed to avoid the draft through draft deferment, also an educated guess based on what level of education you suggest you have.

BTW, some name calling here and there is fine. But terms like segregationist, white supremacist, creationist, and most certainly the last one, are unacceptable, not true, offensive to me and will be reported again if you go down that path again.

Have your usual fun with me on your blog if you will, it is your blog after all so little I can do about it. But here, try a different tactic. Better yet, since you seem to consider me inferior and a “dolt”, you probably should be debating with someone you consider more in your league instead of badgering me. Right?

James Daggett Dec 16, 2016 8:33am

Michael Di said “Oh brother. As usual just picking and choosing what you want to respond to and, taking things out of context. And arguing for the sake of arguing.”

Michael, can we deal with this and, maybe, use this thread to finally put away any animosity that might have existed between us? Let’s review and go through this.

I responded to YOUR comment, the first comment on the thread, where you said “not sure why a pedestrian crossing in an area that has no designated crossing area isn’t cited.”

Since you indicated that you were “not sure” how a citation was not issued to the pedestrian, I explained how the Montana Code designates “unmarked crosswalks” as places of right-of-way for pedestrians and that is likely why LE cited the driver rather than the pedestrian.

Knowing that you would likely jump on the “unmarked crosswalk” issue, and knowing that it was not explicitly defined in the Montana Code, and knowing that you would likely use that to maintain your position that the pedestrian should have been the one to be cited, I researched the definition of “unmarked crosswalk.”

What I discovered in this process that the pedestrian language in the Montana Code is word-for-word identical to the laws in many other states. This is not unusual as states tend not to reinvent the wheel when they write their laws but, frequently, rely on laws already established in other states, especially when those laws have stood the test of time and the appeals process.

What I found in many other states was that the definition of “unmarked crosswalk,” was shared among them:

“that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections”

That is very specific and easy to understand. I noted that most of the states that use this definition are northerly, that is, receive snow in the winter. That they define “unmarked crosswalks” this way makes sense considering that with snow on the streets, obscuring marked crosswalks from view, without that definition there would be no place where a pedestrian could legally find a place to cross.

So, that is how I responded to your “not sure” comment. Instead of erasing the “not sure,” you double down and continue to support your position that the pedestrian should have been cited, all with anecdotal reports about what some LE told you, suggesting that the definition of “unmarked crosswalk” is “open to interpretation,” and telling me that since “unmarked crosswalk” isn’t defined in the MCA that it is “open to interpretation.”

I explained that not all law is defined in the MCA and many definitions are found in subsequent court decisions. That is simply fact. And, if the pedestrian had been cited, they could cite the definition of “unmarked crosswalk” as used in other states if they couldn’t find a Montana case that did so.

So, when you say “Again, you quoted a law that doesn’t exist and failed to correct yourself.”

As I just explained, not all law is contained in the MCA. That is simply fact.

You said “You talk about precedence’s without quoting so much as one, nor providing proof of how the law defines the paragraph.”

I thought about doing so, but considering how you hold the position that law isn’t law unless it is in the MCA, I figured it wasn’t worth it since you would not accept it. This is a prime example of how you double-down on an erroneous claim.

You said “Lastly, we’ll be going by LE’s interpretations as being more familiar with the law then some anonymous commenter.”

And LE’s interpretation in this case completely supports my position that the pedestrian had the right-of-way so your statement supports me, not you. It was the driver who was cited, not the pedestrian, so, yes, I will go “by LE’s interpretations as being more familiar with the law” in this situation.

You said “You are of course free to provide proof of your legal qualifications.”

I didn’t know that was necessary in order to comment on any topic here, especially when I cited evidence to support what I stated.

[An aside……Michael, while I have no intention of providing proof of what I am about to write, so you can go ahead and take it anyway you wish, and while I rarely disclose anything personal about myself, I have been on several career paths in my life and one of them was in the field of law enforcement, both academically and in practice. This is an area about which I have both an interest and some background. Can’t you tell that by the way I have approached this topic? I haven’t been “shooting from the hip.”]

You asked “What draft dodger has anything to do with this, I don’t know (is this an example of you staying on topic?) but I took issue with you calling him a draft dodger when a draft dodger is (as I clearly stated) someone who claims something not true to get out of the draft or jumps country.”

Then our issue is the definition of “draft dodger,” on which we disagree. That is what should have been discussed, but, no, you label me a draft dodger and then double-down (you see, that again) and go off and build a straw man explanation of why you think I am one, and, don’t even use YOUR definition of draft dodger to do so.

To illustrate the fallacious nature of your argument I followed its procedure but inserted what is known about you, from your own disclosures, and used the same “deductive reasoning” and “guess work” to conclude what I did about you. I hoped that you would see it as the illustration is was and admit/retract your position, but, no, you wouldn’t do that. And, likely, you ran to the moderator and complained about the label I had attached to you without explaining the context that got us there.

You said “Taking you at your word of you being a man…”

I have never stated that.

You said “…and taking you at your words when you write in terms of decades ago…”

That could be anywhere from 20 years or greater. The draft ended in 1972.

You said “…puts you at a time in a draft.”

So, no, it doesn’t.

You said “You’ve provided absolutely no proof what so ever this claim, which I said is an educated guess based on how you write, is untrue.”

It is not up to me to disprove your guesses. Michael, THAT is your oldest logical fallacy, telling someone they have to prove a negative, and you’ve been busted on it for a couple years now but still continue to use it. I could say the same to you regarding the label I attached to you. Does that mean you are guilty because you cannot prove you are not?

You said “And based on how you write, you absolutely did not serve…”

Really? “Absolutely?” And your credentials for writing analysis are what? Face it, you’ve got nothing here. You are simply using your limited definitions, probably based solely on personal experience, to make a fallacious claim.

You said “BTW, some name calling here and there is fine. But terms like segregationist, white supremacist, creationist, and most certainly the last one, are unacceptable, not true, offensive to me and will be reported again if you go down that path again.”

Ah, so you do admit to running to Mommy. Look, regarding those labels, here’s what you have to do to rid yourself of them. Admit that slaves didn’t join the Confederate army by the “tens of thousands,” which was the original claim that you used Edgerton to back up. So far you have never backed down on that. As for creationist, admit that True Authority IS a creationist site, which it is, and, therefore is no way a more reliable source of science information than Scientific American. Do that and those cases are closed. We could continue to discuss how science knows the age of the earth from there if you wish.

You said “Have your usual fun with me on your blog if you will, it is your blog after all so little I can do about it.”

I will neither confirm nor deny ownership of that blog but I do find the latest twist, watching what goes on here like a serial, rather an amusing and creative approach.

You said “Better yet, since you seem to consider me inferior and a “dolt”, you probably should be debating with someone you consider more in your league instead of badgering me. Right?”

Yes.