Archive for December 2016
Season cliffhanger?
Posted on: December 16, 2016
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?
——————————————-
Fair deal.
The next installment…
Posted on: December 16, 2016
Our serial continues.
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?
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.
This serial, the Dolt of Helena, really does deliver on its title. In the latest episode the title character blunders into another mess of his own creation. In this case it was about a news story where a pedestrian was struck by a truck. That story stated, in part:
“Police said the full-size truck was traveling west on Lyndale Avenue. It struck the pedestrian at the intersection of Lyndale and National avenues.
The driver of the truck, a 22-year-old man, was cited for failure to yield to a pedestrian.”
The Dolt weighed in with this:
MDTCM Dec 14, 2016 1:59pm
Sorry this person was hit, but not sure why a pedestrian crossing in an area that has no designated crossing area isn’t cited. Used to be called jaywalking. Now a days many folks don’t look right or left before crossing and while crossing a street even in a crossing zone. Time to start citing these folks.”
He is “not sure why a pedestrian crossing in an area that has no designated crossing area isn’t cited?”
So, along comes his antagonist to explain tings to him:
James Daggett Dec 14, 2016 3:10pm
MDTCM, you should do your homework before commenting. (Now there is a novel idea.)
I direct you to Montana Code 61-8-50:
(1) (a) Except as provided in subsection (1)(b), when traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if necessary, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection…”
Now, before you go off on “unmarked cross walk,” well, here, I will help you out with what they are:
that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections
You are welcome.
And the double-down:
MDTCM Dec 14, 2016 5:00pm
I’ll bet it took you a while to dig that MCA up. I am very familiar with many of the MCAs which why I also know, this one could apply to the east side of National Ave at that intersection…. but not the west side and since we don’t know which side they did cross….
Now, the verbiage “ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection” is open to interpretation by law enforcement as to what exactly that means. I know this because I’ve posed this question before to law enforcement. So where one may cite the driver using this MCA, the other one may not. One very good example of judgment calls are on rear end accident. What one LE would cite for following to close, another may cite for careless driving, and another may cite for reckless driving.
You are welcome.
And the final nail in the Dolt’s coffin:
James Daggett Dec 14, 2016 10:11pm
MDTCM said “I’ll bet it took you a while to dig that MCA up…
About 8 seconds. GIYF
MDTHCM said “since we don’t know which side they did cross….”
The cop must have known since he issued the citation.
MDTCM said “Now, the verbiage “ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection” is open to interpretation by law enforcement as to what exactly that means.”
No, it is what I said it was. Do your homework and you will find that “unmarked intersections” and legally defined. Look, if the only place it was legal to cross the street was at a “marked crosswalk,” we’d have no place to legally cross in the winter when ice and snow cover the markings.
Let’s go back to your first comment where you said
“Sorry this person was hit, but not sure why a pedestrian crossing in an area that has no designated crossing area isn’t cited.”
That law that I cited explains this quite clearly, that is, the pedestrian has the right-of-way in both marked and unmarked crosswalks. That is why the driver was cited. Do you understand now or are you going down your usual route of doubling down on your error.
MDTCM said “Used to be called jaywalking.”
That in nonsense according to the Montana Code. A pedestrain crossing in an unmarked intersection has the right-of-way according to the law.
MDTCM said “I know this because I’ve posed this question before to law enforcement. So where one may cite the driver using this MCA, the other one may not.”
Whoever your source was is not familiar with the law. The Montana Code is extremely clear on this. And, if you take the time to do the research (Ha! like that would ever happen) you will find that most states share similar or the exactly same language in this area of the law.
You said “You are welcome.”
Copying what I say, again? How original. And welcome for what? All you did was attempt to back up your misinformation.
Maybe you should offer to defend the driver in court.
Some dolts never learn
Posted on: December 15, 2016
I popped a new batch of popcorn and tuned in for the latest installment of the Dolt of Helena, a serial that is predictable because the lead character is so unteachable and stumbles along making the same mistakes over and over again. It’s difficult whether to call this series a comedy or a tragedy.
In the latest episode, our star doubles down on his faux pas from the last episode where he’d established a new set of rules he said he could use to make claims about others. Here’s the latest script:
MDTCM Dec 13, 2016 4:46pm
Then lets me accurate, I never said Hillary was not trustworthy, I said she’s a liar.
James Daggett Dec 13, 2016 10:41pm
And you have called many people liars without substantiation.
MDTCM Dec 14, 2016 10:53am
Going back in history, atheist liar, over on your blog you said I abandoned my kids. That’s just one of several lies. You’ve also referred to me as an dolt. Lie number two. A segregationist. Lie number 3. A white supremacy. Lie number 4. A creationist. Lie number 5. Called many people liars without substantiation? If by that you mean 3, you being one of them, part of your statement is true, but without substantiation is lie number 6. You use atheist educator and have a blog with that name, also going by James Daggett, Elbert Michou, Elbert Michout and Timothy Schacer…and have denied this. Lie numbers 7 and 8.
You sure you want to go down this path?
James Daggett Dec 14, 2016 12:24pm
MDTCM said “Going back in history, atheist liar, over on your blog you said I abandoned my kids. That’s just one of several lies.”
No. You told us all about how your got shafted in your divorce and your ex-wife got the kids and you moved away from where they were and didn’t have much contact until later in life when you straightened them out about your ex. That is the story YOU told. Since you were not there for them, you abandoned them. How does a parent even think about doing such a thing?
You said “You’ve also referred to me as an dolt.”
dolt: a stupid person
stupid: lacking intelligence or common sense
You told us yourself that you don’t engage your cognitive skills here, saving them only for life and death situations. That’s the “lacking intelligence.” The lack of “common sense” has been exhibited numerous times such as the amount of personal information you have disclosed here, not fessing up to error when facts are used to show you are wrong, and blaming your comments of “family members” using your account. Anyone with “common sense” would recognize that no one is fooled by any of that. And I won’t even get into your rant to PaulMont and AE, a rant that appeared, when, the liquor talking. Do you want to look at that comment again and then argue that you have “common sense?”
You said “A segregationist. Lie number 3. A white supremacy. Lie number 4.”
When you cite a segregationist with white supremacist ties as a source to support your erroneous claim regarding the Civil War, and then refuse to back down and continue to tout this source as credible, what other conclusion should we come to?
You said “A creationist. Lie number 5.”
When you cited a creationist source as more reliable than Scientific American, what other conclusion would we have come to?
You said “If by that you mean 3, you being one of them, part of your statement is true, but without substantiation is lie number 6.”
You obviously do not know what “substantiation” is and/or have a very low standard for what constitutes it.
You said “You use atheist educator and have a blog with that name, also going by James Daggett, Elbert Michou, Elbert Michout and Timothy Schacer…and have denied this. Lie numbers 7 and 8.”
If that is true, which you cannot prove, how is that a lie?
You posted as dietz1963 for quite a wile here. Was that al ie?
You posted as Steven Di before you were MDTCM. Was that a lie?
You said “You sure you want to go down this path?”
Gladly because until you start retracting your lies, such as claiming I am a draft dodger, you will continue to be, based on your rules of reason, MDTCM the Child Molester.
All those tings, above, that you said are lies, are perfectly explained by using your rules of reason. After all here are the rules you claimed are good enough:
“I can claim what I wish based on deductive reasoning. Call it guess work. Now if I am wrong in my claims or guess work, you are free to provide proof.”
I am playing by your own rules and using your own words. If you want to abandoned centuries of logic-based reasoning and play with different rules, you have to be willing to accept the consequences.
You see, the power to end all of this is with you. It is the only power you have.
Then there was a break followed by the script taking us on another adventure.
MDTCM Dec 13, 2016 2:05pm
Bentley, but, you and a lot of others have stated Hillary and the democrats are absolutely to be trusted and the saviors of human kind. So which is it?
James Daggett Dec 13, 2016 10:45pm
MDTCM said “Bentley, but, you and a lot of others have stated Hillary and the democrats are absolutely to be trusted and the saviors of human kind. So which is it?”
I would like to see proof that ANYONE said that “Hillary and the democrats are absolutely to be trusted and the saviors of human kind.”
Whenever you use words like “all, “every,” or “absolutely,” I know that you are wrong.
MDTCM Dec 14, 2016 11:00am
Again, why are you policing my comments (and being wrong, as usual) but not your buddies that many times use words like “all, every or absolutely”. Your gal skooter and sometimes twangs have use these words, but 1) never see you call them out on them and 2) you don’t tell them you know that they are absolutely wrong when they do making you 3) an absolute hypocrite.
This is where we could refer to you as a dolt, or just plain dense. Because the average person knows using terms like those is just a figure of speech. So when you come off with an idiotic statement if those words are used a person is wrong, you’re just being the village idiot.
MDTCM Dec 14, 2016 11:03am
Sort of like when you use the words “say or said”. By your rational, makes you wrong because I’ve never spoken to you ever, just wrote. So we can negate this last ad hominem attack on me, “MDTCM said….”. No I didn’t, I wrote it. Never said it.
James Daggett Dec 14, 2016 1:16pm
MDTCM the Child Molester said “Again, why are you policing my comments (and being wrong, as usual) but not your buddies that many times use words like “all, every or absolutely”.”
You have evidently missed how I’ve been hammering away on Marvin and Mitch for that. It sounds like you are playing the victim, again. Nice try but you lose again. Besides, I don’t have any “buddies” here.
I suggest that you either admit that your use of those terms DOES make your claims fallacious or defend your position that in ALL cases your claim is true.
However, just like how another commenter busted you on your game, you followed the script here, again. Here is what he wrote about YOU:
“Anyone with half a brain can see that Skooter schools you hard, Monday thru Friday. It goes like this: You make an incorrect statement, misusing or parsing facts. Skooter responds, pointing out your misstatement. You fire back, throwing in a bunch of insults. He nails you, it being that he has the facts on his side. Escalation, just what you’re hoping for! You then focus on one small point, thereby missing the picture. You take that one point and make a half true statement of it, twisting it into some other topic , which you then repeat ad naseum. Add a heavy duty dash of false equivalencies, heavy doses of outrage and indignation…and presto! Topic switched and, from your point of view, success!
Conversation derailed.”
MDTCM said “Because the average person knows using terms like those is just a figure of speech.”
Not in an argument that will be carefully parsed by others. Now you are trying to slither away from the fact that you do not chose your words carefully.
MDTCM said “So when you come off with an idiotic statement if those words are used a person is wrong, you’re just being the village idiot.”
There is nothing idiotic about pointing out the logical fallacies in a comment. Only a village idiot would not recognize that.
MDTCM said “Sort of like when you use the words “say or said”. By your rational, makes you wrong because I’ve never spoken to you ever, just wrote. So we can negate this last ad hominem attack on me, “MDTCM said….”. No I didn’t, I wrote it. Never said it.”
You do not get to make up your own word definitions. From Merriam-Webster:
say
a : to express in words : state
b : to state as opinion or belief
There is nothing that limits the expression or stating to spoken language.
said – past and past participle of say
There is nothing that limits the expression or stating to spoken language.
You see, again, MDTCM, how easy it is to deflate one of your arguments?
Answer me this, why didn’t YOU look up the definition of those words before pontificating on their meanings? Didn’t you think I would look them up and, as usual, skewer you with your own words? When will you ever learn? I am actually trying to teach you something here but your ego is so sensitive and bruised it is going to let you continue down your path of predictable errors.
OK, I am ready for your “heavy doses of outrage and indignation.”
I can hardly wait for the next installment.
After putting together a nice batch of popcorn, I sat back and watched the Dolt of the HelenaIR get his ass handed to him, again.
As stated in a previous post, dietz1963 has been trolling that site calling another commenter, James Daggett, a “draft dodger” and a “chickenhawk.” Now, the reason he is doing this is that the other commenter had labeled Trump as a “draft dodger” and made a broader statement about politicians who are chickenhawks. deitz1963, who has never had an original thought in his life, rebounds by calling this commenter a “draft dodger” and a “chickenhawk.”
Huh? That’s right, dietz1963 takes what someone else says and runs with it, just like he does the word “obtuse.” It’s pretty obvious that dietz1963 was impressed by the impact these words and labels had on himself so he erroneously thinks it’s just matter of using them and they will have the same impact on others.
Well, James Daggett fired back and started demanding that dietz1963 post some evidence that Daggett was a “draft dodger” and a “chickenhawk.” Instead of backing down and admitting that he had nothing, dietz1963 doubles down and tries to make his case. Daggett responds back and uses dietz1963 own “logic” to fire back at him. The blow should be fatal. Here’s the dialog:
Di, back up your claim that I am a “chicken hawk.” Do you realize how ridiculous you look with that claim?
And where did I say that ALL people end up in poverty due to poor choices.
Reread what I wrote. It is clear that it states that poor choices are contributor to poverty. It doesn’t limit the source of poverty to that.
Here’s some advise. When you read something I write, ignore that it is from me and try to comprehend what is written. You read what I write parsing it in the context of how you can object to it. They is why you make this comprehension error. You did the same thing earlier this week.
This is why so many on here take you to task. You are not careful. You end up looking foolish and then whine about being trolled, stalked, picked on, and all the other ways you play your victim card.
Save your breath atheist liar, we both know what you’re about. You have continually lied, more than once, taken words out of context, omitted words, sentences or even paragraphs of ALL what was written with the end goal of having some amusement, drawing people into arguments, pitting folks against each other….anything but being cordial. The most insulting of course is you making claims YOU can’t back up but turn around and demand others back up their claims.
Throughout the last 2 years, based on how you write and speaking many times in terms of decades past, investments you’ve had over the years, statements like “unplugged” the television decades ago ect….puts you around 60s to 70s age range. Also based on how you write, we can infer that 1) you never served in the armed forces and 2) your level of education and age put you in a place to apply for draft deferment which you call draft dodging or chicken hawking.
Now, disprove anything I just wrote or just be quiet about it. But if you’re going to go simply by “your word” on anything, then your word is no better or worse then anyone elses on here and your claims are no more true or false then anyone elses claims on here.
Michael Di refers to my comment “as if you care” and said “This a direct attack and insult to me and will be met with like words.”
It was based on what you have said in the past about those who receive government welfare.
Michael Di said “You have continually lied, more than once, taken words out of context, omitted words, sentences or even paragraphs…”
Post examples. Otherwise you are just making an unsupported claim. I can post direct samples of your words, why can’t you do the same.
Without the evidence, the claims are nothing.
You said “The most insulting of course is you making claims YOU can’t back up but turn around and demand others back up their claims.”
What claims?
You said “…based on how you write…..puts you around 60s to 70s age range….we can infer that 1) you never served in the armed forces and 2) your level of education and age put you in a place to apply for draft deferment which you call draft dodging or chicken hawking.”
All of these “inferences” are not evidence.
We do have YOU claiming that I am female. If that is the case, how would I have been eligible for the draft?
Also, to be a chickenhawk one has to be a draft dodger AND an advocate of war. Where have I ever advocated war?
It seems you loose on all accounts.
You said “Now, disprove anything I just wrote or just be quiet about it.”
I should disprove your wild claims about me? That is a fallacious request (you never learn do you?) It is incumbent upon YOU to prove YOUR claims, and not just by inferences.
If you can’t back up what you claim, you get to eat your own words and I’ll be happy to serve them up to you.
You know, we tussle over lots of issues but it is only YOU who makes these false, unsupported claims about others. It seems you do this because you can’t defend your point of view.
You said “But if you’re going to go simply by “your word” on anything, then your word is no better or worse then anyone elses on here and your claims are no more true or false then anyone elses claims on here.”
I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Where have I ever done so? I cite my sources when required. And I check them first, unlike YOU, Mr. TrueAuthority.com.
What YOU do not like is that I use your own words against you. That being the case, one would think you’d choose them more carefully.
Admit that you are wrong once in a while instead of doubling down on your errors and maybe we all will get off your case.
See what I mean Tim? And just to be fair to you, with “James” here, once again playing like she’s not been set straight, I went over each and every one of her bogus claims before, in detail, to set her straight. Here she is, once again, months later….regurgitating the same c.rap and suggesting her claims are fact, providing no facts what so ever but then suggesting my claims are not factual with both of us using the same forum. About the only thing she’s “close” on this time around is the draft. On the one hand, in the past (admittedly) she has denied she’s female, didn’t exactly say she’s male either so not sure what to think there but, ok. For the sake of argument she’s a man and as such with “his” age, would have had to get draft deferment or what he/she calls dodging the draft. But note how now “he’s” back peddling and now saying, more or less, how could he “dodge” a draft being a female?
So at the end of the day he/shes a master of deception and just trying to stir stuff up which is why we’re now at this point. In a round about sort of way, she asks questions in such a way to figure out who a person is, she’s not so much interested in their point of view.
Michael Di said “I went over each and every one of her bogus claims before, in detail, to set her straight.”
You attempted to and every one of them was still unsupportable nonsense, just like your “draft dodger” and “chickenhawk” claims. You offered excuses and even when faced with your own words that showed you were wrong you still said you were not.
You said “About the only thing she’s “close” on this time around is the draft.”
What it comes down to is that I have NEVER disclosed my gender so you simply do not know so there is nothing you can offer to support your claim that I am a draft dodger.
You don’t know my gender.
You don’t know my age.
You don’t know if I was under the old draft or the lottery.
You don’t know if I was under the lottery if I had a high number or not.
You don’t know anything about this so why did you choose to start labeling me a “draft dodger?” Why not a bank robber and then demand that I prove that I am not? Or a serial killer? Or a space alien?
Do you get it now?
All I am doing is attempting, futile, I know, to get you to stay on topic and quit name-calling.
If you can’t contribute to the discussion, maybe you should stay out of it.
If you can’t take having what you say challenged, maybe you should stay out of it.
If you don’t want to see your own words used against you, maybe you should stay out of it.
Just what of anything have you been trolling me on been on topic? Now you’re just being ridiculous. The words you are writing are not my words, they are your words. All you’re doing is “claiming” in many cases they are my words.
Now as far as claims go, and considering this is considered a free country, I can claim what I wish based on deductive reasoning. Call it guess work. Now if I am wrong in my claims or guess work, you are free to provide proof.
Oh and, lets go ahead and school you. A draft dodger is someone who, during a draft, either flees the country or lies as to why they can’t be drafted (back in the day it was claiming g.ay not being g.ay) or some other false claim. Requesting and being granted a draft deferment is not dodging a draft and in fact can be denied. But if you are going to claim folks getting draft deferments are draft dodgers, and claim “neutral” as to your gender, age ect….I am free to make an educated guess or “claim” as you will, based on your writing style and what you’ve written in the past, to call you a draft dodger. You are free to challenge this claim by stating age, gender and dates of military service. Otherwise, it is what it is.
Michael Di asks “Just what of anything have you been trolling me on been on topic?”
I am not “trolling” you, I am responding to your comments and pointing our the factual and logical errors.
You said “All you’re doing is “claiming” in many cases they are my words.”
When something is posted under your name they are your words. How does my quoting them make them my words?
You said “Now as far as claims go, and considering this is considered a free country, I can claim what I wish based on deductive reasoning. Call it guess work. Now if I am wrong in my claims or guess work, you are free to provide proof.”
If this was not an anonymous venue, the laws covering slander and libel would require YOU to show proof.
So, if you claim I am serial murderer it is up to me to prove you wrong?
OK, I can play.
I see that your ex-wife got the kids in your divorce because you’d been molesting them. Care to prove that wasn’t the case? How long did you molest them before she found out? Were charges ever filed? Is that why you left the Air Force? Is that why you don’t comment on weekends, because you are serving time in one of those group homes for sexual offenders?
You see, I am using your “deductive reasoning” methods and coming up with a pretty good scenario. You can try to deny it but it’s going to take more than that the rid yourself of your past crimes.
You said “A draft dodger is someone who, during a draft, either flees the country or lies as to why they can’t be drafted…”
No, a draft dodger is someone who employs any means to see that they avoid military service during the time of the draft.
You said “Requesting and being granted a draft deferment is not dodging a draft and in fact can be denied.”
It is a way to avoid military service and is a form of cowardice.
You said “I am free to make an educated guess or “claim” as you will, based on your writing style and what you’ve written in the past, to call you a draft dodger.”
Listen, the only reason that you latched on to this is because I called your guy, Trump, a draft dodger. As usual, you have no creative thoughts on your own. The only thing missing is that you didn’t call be an “obtuse” draft dodger.
Face it, dietz1963, you simply parrot back what you hear. Nowhere have you indicated you put effort into thinking things through. You are even on record telling us that you save your cognitive skills only for life or death situations. Remember that one? You were pretty naive back then.
You said “You are free to challenge this claim by stating age, gender and dates of military service. Otherwise, it is what it is.”
Yes, just your made-up nonsense.
Now, we are waiting for that proof that you didn’t molest your kids which led to your ex-wife getting custody of them in your divorce.
I suppose, following your lead, I will just refer to you from now on as Michael Di the Child Molester.
Taking a look
Posted on: December 8, 2016
I’ve stayed away from the fray at the HelenaIR while concentrating on other endeavors but decided to lurk for a while and see how things are going.
They did institute some changes. For one, they require “real names.” That’s a laugh. All they require is that users put something that sounds like a real name in their user profile. It’s really easy to see who is who since pointing your mouse at a user name shows their old user name in the URL preview. (YMMV, depending on your browser.)
What is really funny is that it looks like only a few are using their real names and these are the band of conservative know-nothings we used to deal with and talk about here. Our old friend dietz1963 put a “real name” in and then must have realized that he’d exposed himself and changed it. First he was Steven Di and now he is Michael Di. Yeah, right.
The other change is in the “Report Abuse” comment removal system. It looks like, as I suggested when I wrote to them several times, the comments reported are no longer immediately deleted but are then screened by a moderator. The mass deletion of comments no longer seems to be a problem.
However, what takes place on the threads does seem to be about the same.
We have dolphind3 threatening those who will care to listen about how he’s going to get tough with them and then he goes from thread to thread whining about how come nobody is using their real name so he can hunt them down and assault them.
MontanaMadeMan is still stuck in his “everything is a partisan issue” game. The guy is so predictable.
getaclue is still there contributing nothing to any thread he comments on, leaving his screeds like stinky piles of manure that every seems to avoid stepping in.
countrydoc was back but now seems to be on break. He and another commenter got in a bit of a dust up when the other commenter pointed out that the doc had a low rating on some online rate-your-doc site. In what was obviously a bit of humor it was suggested that maybe doc would have had more ratings but all his patients had died. doc went bonkers and started threatening lawsuits and finally got wound up so tight that he made threats to physically assault those who critiqued him. He even told another commenter that he wanted to “do” the commenter’s mother in the “heiny.” It wasn’t long after that he dropped off the site. One wonders if he got himself banned.
And, of course, deitz1963 is there in all his glory. He gets thrashed on almost every thread for his idiotic comments, lies, and misstatements. He does make himself an easy target as has been documented here. In one of his latest tirades, he’s labeling another commenter a “draft dodger” because that commenter said the same about Trump and, as usual, won’t back up his claim. The guy continues to be a simple-minded boob. However, just today, his whole modus operandi was detailed by another commenter. It was great and really sums up deitz1963 quite well:
“Dietz….I am not about to look into the details of your latest squabble. Get serious. Obviously the fun in this for you is getting personal, left vs right, b&w just like the Twilight Zone, to the point where you seem to be naming sides. High school my school.
Anyone with half a brain can see that Skooter schools you hard, Monday thru Friday. It goes like this: You make an incorrect statement, misusing or parsing facts. Skooter responds, pointing out your misstatement. You fire back, throwing in a bunch of insults. He nails you, it being that he has the facts on his side. Escalation, just what you’re hoping for! You then focus on one small point, thereby missing the picture. You take that one point and make a half true statement of it, twisting it into some other topic , which you then repeat ad naseum. Add a heavy duty dash of false equivelencies, heavy doses of outrage and indignation…and presto! Topic switched and, from your point of view, success!
Conversation derailed.”
So, there you have it. Business as usual at the HelenaIR.
An Atheist Educator 
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.