Jimmy Carter book controversy - Page 3

Copernicus · #21 12-09-2006, 11:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can we give Copernicus a warning/timeout for making a low-content OP?

Change that to no content.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mmm, ok. I don't really hand out bans for this, usually I'll just get the OP to give us some background or I'll get it myself. Poofer helped us out this time, so we're fine. I just don't like threads that are about guessing what the OP is talking about.

Copernicus, please don't do it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont do what? Dont call attention to an issue that is generating a lot of discussion because it ruffles the feathers of liberals and terrorist sympathizers?

and wtf has aardvark or whatever his name is posted of content? give him a time out.

Copernicus · #22 12-09-2006, 11:34 AM

Stein was interviewed and named some specific and purportedly important inconsistencies between Carter's claims in the body of the work and Carter sponsored legislation included in the Appendix. It certainly sounded like a lot more than sour grapes.

bisonbison · #23 12-09-2006, 11:43 AM

Dont do what? Dont call attention to an issue that is generating a lot of discussion because it ruffles the feathers of liberals and terrorist sympathizers?

Don't make OPs that fail to provide a substantive basis for a discussion. It's the 3rd item in the politics consitution, and one that Iron is apparently entirely unwilling to enforce.

Copernicus · #24 12-09-2006, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Dont do what? Dont call attention to an issue that is generating a lot of discussion because it ruffles the feathers of liberals and terrorist sympathizers?

Don't make OPs that fail to provide a substantive basis for a discussion. It's the 3rd item in the politics consitution, and one that Iron is apparently entirely unwilling to enforce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it have no substantive basis for a discussion. It raised awareness of something that apparently got little attention here (something I didnt even know about it until 2 days after it hit, and current enough that the few who didnt know anything about it could easily find it ), and it provided an opinion that no one has cared to discuss. It certainly contained more content than references to a sticky or requests from a forum non-entity that I be banned.

bisonbison · #25 12-09-2006, 12:07 PM

Why does it have no substantive basis for a discussion. It raised awareness of something that apparently got little attention here

You raised awareness of the existence of a topic without providing any details or opinion about the actual substance of the controversy. Let me make an analogous post:

Britney Spears crotch shots
I really didn't like her last album.

and it provided an opinion that no one has cared to discuss.

What opinion? That his Peace prize was undeserved? Cause that has NOTHING to do with the title of your post.

Copernicus · #26 12-09-2006, 12:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why does it have no substantive basis for a discussion. It raised awareness of something that apparently got little attention here

You raised awareness of the existence of a topic without providing any details or opinion about the actual substance of the controversy. Let me make an analogous post:

Britney Spears crotch shots
I really didn't like her last album.

and it provided an opinion that no one has cared to discuss.

What opinion? That his Peace prize was undeserved? Cause that has NOTHING to do with the title of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with the title of the post. You dont think that outing Carter for plagiarism and outright fabrication (in Stein's opinion of course) is related to his qualifications for the NPP?

If subtitles were enabled on the board, thats where it would have gone, with no body to the post even necessary. If the highly intelligent posters here need to be led by the hand then they arent that highly intelligent.

bisonbison · #27 12-09-2006, 01:24 PM

It has everything to do with the title of the post. You dont think that outing Carter for plagiarism and outright fabrication (in Stein's opinion of course) is related to his qualifications for the NPP?

No, I don't. And based on your OP, I have no reason to, cause you provide nothing - no links, no argument, no summary of the situation, no effort, no thought, no intelligence.

If subtitles were enabled on the board, thats where it would have gone, with no body to the post even necessary. If the highly intelligent posters here need to be led by the hand then they arent that highly intelligent.

So, if you'd had the ability to put more text in there as subtitles, you would have done so, but since you only had the option to put more text in there as the body of the post, you decided not to.

Yeah, clearly other posters are the ones needing handholding, since you can't be bothered to put 2 minutes' effort into a new thread.

Copernicus · #28 12-09-2006, 01:28 PM

reading comprehension 101:

If subtitles were enabled, the text of my post would have been the subtitle, and I would not have deemed ANY body necessary. Ive traded PMs with iron and apologized for my overestimating the intelligence and awareness of poster here. I'll try not to make the same mistake again.

iron81 · #29 12-09-2006, 01:32 PM

Now, I'm locking this. Get a room you two.