Gandhi & King were about putting themselves in danger to make the point. All the rest of this, in the contemporary United States, is just children of divorce trying to extend the moral umbrella of their youthful naiveté.

Well, you little fuckers, it's raining, and you're all wet.

The US Constitution protects Americans' right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. That's it. Petition. It says nothing about the right to destroy public and private property in a mob-led temper tantrum over real or imagined slights.

If enough people in an area want to feel the Bern then it looks like the businesses will also feel the burn.

Since you now know how twisted the news media reporting is in this country, I’m waiting for everyone to examine, with a jaundiced eye, everything they have ever seen on the news or read for the last fifty years.

When they aren’t lying by commission, they are lying by omission.

I'd think they were secretly engineered by the Committee to Re-Elect Donald Trump

I see the mayor of DC came out and said that "was highly inappropriate" and "likely against the law." I guess that means the polling data shows it doesn't play well in Peoria. Or lots of other places, for that matter.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/protests/mayor-bowser-criticizes-protesters-confronting-restaurant-diners/65-5063699f-4fd5-4ca5-a20a-ab6313ddf045

Jimmy Failla wins Twitter.

I'm not sure what the argument here is... we've already established that these folks have the moral high ground.

It seems that having the moral high ground now absolves one from any criminal prosecution from any crime whatsoever. Arson in general gets you 10+ years in prison, but not now. The Kenosha shooting may or may not be justified, but given that there are several hundred police shootings per year, there won't be anything left to burn down pretty soon.

cc,

Except right wing folks don't actually care about arson.

Trump pardons convicted arsonists when they are from the right wing... or should we just ignore that inconvenient reality?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44775113

Those right wing folks were convicted for causing a half million dollars in arson damage to federal property... and Trump pardoned them.

This whole idea that arson should come with a 10+ year prison sentence would resonate more if we were operating under a system that only seems concerned when political opposition commits crimes... and has no care in the world when political support commits crimes.

I'd love it if we lived in a society that actually condemns things like violence and arson... unfortunately the right wing currently has a serious double standard problem.

Three fascinating tweets from @MrAndyNgo 's account last night. Condensing the text:

@MrAndyNgo 12H

The 3 shot (2 killed) in #Kenosha, Wisc. at the BLM riot have been identified.

Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, was the first one killed. Video allegedly shows him chasing teen shooter & throwing something at him. Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender for a sex crime involving a minor.

Anthony Huber, 26, was shot & killed in Kenosha, Wisc. at the BLM riot. He was filmed chasing down the armed teen and hitting him when he was on the ground with a skateboard. He has a criminal history that includes charges of battery & repeat domestic abuse. #KenoshaRiots

The third who was shot (& survived) is Gaige Grosskreutz, 26. He's a member of the People’s Revolution Movement. He was filmed chasing after the teen w/a pistol. He was shot at close-range in the upper arm. He has a criminal record that includes being intoxicated & armed w/a gun.

Some say this morning that Wisconsin has been swung for Trump.

Orion, do you live in the United States? Have you ever visited? Do you know any Americans? Have you graduated high school?

Crud,

America is a heterogeneous society comprised of people with many different views and backgrounds. Why does this very simple reality constantly elude you?

You are like the person who was brought up in a fundamentalist cult who cannot fathom the existence of other religious faiths.

The world is larger and richer than you appreciate. Get out there, talk to people... build lasting and meaningful relationships.

Riiiiiight... Anything but answer the question.

So you're in China, right? I knew it.

Crud,

Have you ever spoken to someone suffering from dementia?

They ask the same questions over and over and over and never seem to remember the answers.

I don't bother answering your questions because your memory appears to be nonfunctional.

I've explained on numerous occasions that I have a doctoral level degree... they do not issue those to people who failed to graduate from high school.

I've also explained on numerous occasions that I vote in US elections... one cannot do that without being a citizen of the US.

That you cannot seem to retain this information is the problem.

So you will continue to ask the same questions over and over forever because your retention is non-existent.

It is utterly pointless to respond to you in a serious way because nothing sticks... when I see evidence that you have stopped being an addle-brained sundowner we can revisit this assessment.

I don't believe you. You're too desperate to fight.

Trump pardons convicted arsonists when they are from the right wing... or should we just ignore that inconvenient reality?

There's a huge difference between a fire, even a prohibited one, on your own lands that spreads to adjacent federal lands and marching through a neighborhood flinging Molotov cocktails with the stated intent of burning it down. But don't let that stand in the way of your self-righteousness hissy fit, Artie.

The arson charges against the Hammonds stemmed from the fact that the burns lit by the Hammonds were prohibited. Prosecutors tried to allege that the Hammonds set the adjacent federal lands on fire deliberately. There were also allegations of illegal deer killing by the Hammonds; covering up the evidence being the alleged reason for setting the original burn.

After word came that the jury had reached unanimous guilty verdicts on two of the eight charges and not guilty on two, the Hammonds struck a deal with the prosecutors to have the remaining four charges on which the jury was still deliberating dropped and waived their right to appeal the original conviction.

The Obama administration prosecutor asked that the Hammonds be sentenced under an anti-terrorism law (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) to a mandatory minimum of five years, a sentence the original trial judge said would "shock the conscience." The original judge sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months in prison and Steve Hammond to 366 days. Both men served their sentences in full.

However, the Obama administration appealed the original sentence, demanding the mandatory minimum under the aforementioned anti-terrorism law, five years. The US 9th Circuit ordered new sentences for the Hammonds and the new judge sentenced them to five years, with credit for time already served.

Steve Hammond was scheduled to be released on June 29, 2019 and Dwight on February 13, 2020. Both were pardoned on July 10, 2018 at the request of Oregon representative Greg Walden.

This case did not really justified pardons. The Hammonds were convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers. But pardons have always been political in nature; this is not something new under Donald Trump so can the manufactured outrage, Artie.

I would have preferred that, if anything, Trump had merely commuted their sentences on the grounds that the original prosecutors had been overzealous in prosecuting the Hammonds under an anti-terrorism law.

Even so, these pardons in no way justify a blanket charge that "right wing folks don't actually care about arson."

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

...I have a doctoral level degree.... ~ Artemis at August 27, 2020 10:55 AM

Interesting choice of words there, Artie. Not "a doctorate," but a "doctoral level degree." So, not an actual doctorate?

What exactly is a "doctoral level degree?" From what university and in what course of study do you get one of those?

Remember that idiot Florida political candidate several years back who told voters she had a Bachelors degree when what she actually had was "Degree of Bachelor" from Hamburger University, a McDonald's training program? The word parsing here kinda reminds me of that.

What exactly is your "doctoral level degree" in, Artie?

Crud Says:

"I don't believe you."

Then stop saying I haven't answered your inane questions.

That you don't believe me is a product of your own inability to process any information that doesn't conform to whatever conclusions you had ahead of time.

So let's get to the nutty gritty here... why on earth do you obsess about me answering questions I have already answered if you are just going to reject those answers?

The answers aren't suddenly going to change just because you want to wish them away.

"I don't bother answering your questions because your memory appears to be nonfunctional."

Nor mine, apparently. Maybe it's you.

"I've explained on numerous occasions that I have a doctoral level degree... they do not issue those to people who failed to graduate from high school."

Well, some do. Nor do they "issue" those to people who complete a dissertation - they are awarded.

Yours - if it exists - was not in a STEM field. If you had logical training, you would recognize your failure to be of use to this blog.
Here's hard news about my background: marina operator in Florida, USN nuke electrician on an SSBN and SSN qualified to supervise and maintain PWR reactor equipment, radioactive waste processor at Savannah River Site handling regulatory-grade documents. My handle isn't my realname because an offended script kiddie can attack my work network more easily if they have it; this happened for a coworker in 1998.
Your turn?

Crid, Isab, Conan, lujlp, Jeff Guinn, Patrick and the concise Andrew M Garland all have areas of expertise evident in their posts; even the long-unseen Lena Cuisina (!) displayed serious chops while at play here. ALL have produced regularly insightful views. Most have gone, "Damn! I better go look now!" when challenged.

By contrast, the best appellation I can assign an Artemis comment is "TL;DR". Volume obscures the one or two amazing instances when you a) addressed the real issue without a fallacy, and b) suggested a reasonable path forward for it.

You do spell things correctly. Count your words overall vs. those on topic... not so great.

Claim all you want. It is by the hand that one knows the artist, and your splatter isn't art.

-----

Back to the topic:

"I'm not sure what the argument here is... we've already established that these folks have the moral high ground."

If this is sincere, you're fulla shit.

A young black male is over TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TIMES more likely to be shot by another black male than a police officer, INCLUDING those instances when the police shooting was justified.

Don't miss that factor of 2300 in your haste to deflect to the term, "justified". DO note that police shootings INCLUDE those by female, Hispanic and black officers - which demographic is SO embarrassing that A&E had to cancel their fabulously profitable "LivePD" - apparently because cops must be shown to be "white".

> Then stop saying I haven't answered
> your inane questions.

Don't be all butthurt when you've been play a six-year charade about who you are and why anyone should give a F-Fuck about how your opinion should matter.

I went out to dinner- Coney got there first:

> Interesting choice of words
> there, Artie.

It's important to understand that Conan is writing idiomatically... Specifically, he's being sarcastic. He's not actually saying that you're an interesting person, or that any of us cares enough to take notes on the little crumbs of personal data which you imagine we keep indexed on a spreadsheet.

He's saying the reason you're such a paranoid twat has got to be more interesting than anything you've ever said here... Because nothing could be less interesting.

I think you're a sexually & emotionally obliterated ChiCom, maybe a part-time (fifth-tier) student at Sichuan International Studies University or someplace. But who knows.

And to be clear, you haven't answered my questions.

Conan,

You are spending a significant amount of time trying to excuse arson by right wing convicted criminals.

These folks were found guilty by a jury of their peers who were presented with the full facts of the case.

"The arson charges against the Hammonds stemmed from the fact that the burns lit by the Hammonds were prohibited. Prosecutors tried to allege that the Hammonds set the adjacent federal lands on fire deliberately."

It isn't "alleged" anything Conan... they were found guilty of 2 charges of arson on federal lands.

The prosecution proved their case to the satisfaction of a jury and as far as you are concerned it is somehow still "alleged".

This is how warped right wing thinking has become.

Right wing convicted felons only have "alleged" crimes... but left wing folks who have not been convicted of anything are apparently already guilty.

Why aren't the crimes for the people who haven't had their day in court "alleged"?

Your bias and delusion is bone deep.

You are beyond reason and facts, just an empty vessel for conservative talk radio and propaganda.

When you assert that crimes committed by convicted felons are "alleged" you just look like an idiot.

This is why I say right wing folks don't actually care about arson.

What they care about is politically motivated application of the law... which is an aspect of fascism.

Locking up political adversaries and releasing political supporters is a hallmark of fascism.

You are up to your eye balls in doublethink Conan.

"Interesting choice of words there, Artie. Not "a doctorate," but a "doctoral level degree." So, not an actual doctorate?"

Don't be an idiot Conan. You know very well the degree I am talking about is a PhD.

I've told you this numerous times, you have acknowledged this numerous times... and suddenly you are having a memory lapse?

Once again you are either utterly dishonest or you have suffered massive cognitive impairment.

Take your pick, either way you are a useless person to talk with.

It is not simply possible to have a rational conversation with a pathological liar or a person unable to maintain long term memory.

Perhaps you should see a neurologist to help with the rapid decline in your mental faculties.

Radwaste Says:

"Well, some do. Nor do they "issue" those to people who complete a dissertation - they are awarded.

Yours - if it exists - was not in a STEM field."

Sorry Radwaste... my PhD is in a stem field... specifically dealing with condensed matter physics of low dimensional materials and the associated properties.

I've explained this before, but the issue is I am dealing with people who have the combined memory capacity of an acorn.

In any event, here are just one example of when I have gone over this before:

"When I earned my Ph.D. I published in areas of nanolithography, photovoltaics, lithium ion batery technology, low dimensionality materials, transistors, etc..." - Artemis at July 28, 2018 3:00 PM

And here is an example of where Conan accused me of never answering this same question and then acknowledging that I have actually answered it but he missed it:

"PhD. Got it. Musta missed that the first time." - Conan the Grammarian at March 20, 2019 4:33 AM

This isn't an issue of you guys missing it the 1st time or the 2nd time or the 3rd time...

This is an example of your morons asking the same question over and over and over and over ad nauseum despite the fact that we've been over this many many times already.

I must logically conclude at this point that you are all idiots... you are all illiterate... or that you are all liars who "conveniently" forget things when it suits your purpose.

In any event Radwaste... you are a technician whose understanding of fundamental physics is superior to that of the general public but is not even close to the level of understanding required to handle upper level undergraduate work in physics.

A while back I tried to explain to you for example where your understanding of thermodynamics was flawed... but I am sure you missed that too.

Enjoy living in fantasy land.

Well, Orion, that's what I'd say, too…

…If I lived in 'Qingdao, a major sub-provincial city in eastern Shandong province, located on the western shore of the Yellow Sea coast'!

AHA! Gotcha!

Amy, I can’t believe that you are falling for Trump’s propaganda. All Trump has to do is call this Biden’s America.

The protests are a direct response to people feeling abused and unheard. It is a response to implicit or explicit support white nationalists and Nazis. It is a response to a President encouraging division and violence. This is Trump’s America.

I am against the rioting. I am against the destruction, but blaming it on Biden?

Jen,

Everything you are saying is correct.

The sad reality is that the country can fall apart under Trumps watch and his supporters will blame it on anyone and everyone else.

Amy is correct that all of this will have no impact on his supporters... but acting as if everything going smoothly would work against Trump is also a fantasy.

At the end of the day if Trump loses by a little or a lot his sycophantic fan base will never buy it and he will never concede.

Buckle up for more fascist nonsense in the near future and a horde of conservative zombies who buy into it hook line and sinker.

Do you live in the United States?

Crud,

I wouldn't know, I've never resided in China to be an expert on their culture.

However, since you keep insisting that *you* are an expert on Chinese culture wouldn't that indicate that it is your nationality of origin?

Such massive expertise can only be obtained by a lifetime of cultural immersion, no?

Or... perhaps you are just an internet idiot who speaks out of their rectum.

Crud,

We've already established that you don't remember anything.

Answering your questions is an exercise in futility because your brain soaks up information about as efficiently as a block of granite soaks up water.

Demonstrate evidence of intelligent thought and the ability to hold onto facts for more the long term and we'll talk.

Until then you will remain a joke to me.

Amy, I can’t believe that you are falling for Trump’s propaganda. All Trump has to do is call this Biden’s America.

The protests are a direct response to people feeling abused and unheard. It is a response to implicit or explicit support white nationalists and Nazis. It is a response to a President encouraging division and violence. This is Trump’s America.

I am against the rioting. I am against the destruction, but blaming it on Biden?

No one is excusing arson, Artie. By right-wing or left-wing folks. My use of "alleged" was in the sense of a trial, where the prosecution is attempting to prove the allegations. Remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, Artie?

In this case, the prosecution alleged the intent of the Hammonds was to burn federal lands. They were able to prove two charges to the satisfaction of a jury, but unable to prove two others. Four were still being deliberated by the jury when a deal was struck.

The presiding judge felt the punishment demanded by the law under which the Hammonds were prosecuted did not fit the crime for which they were convicted and gave them a lesser sentence - a sentence overturned on appeal to the 9th Circuit.

If you knew how to read, you'd have understood that what I said was the pardons should have been, at best, commutations of their sentences. I never argued their guilt should be expunged.

I did, however, admit there are two sides to this story. The Hammonds had been in a long-standing dispute with the Bureau of Land Management, which had been trying to acquire the Hammond land for years. In fact, the final settlement with the government included giving the BLM the first position to purchase the Hammond land if they decide to sell. The BLM at that time owned 75% of the land in Harney County and was looking to acquire more.

The Bureau of Land Management does not have clean hands in this matter. How much of the government's vigilant prosecution of this case, use of a terrorism law to prosecute it, and insistence on the mandatory minimum sentence under that law was driven by BLM's desire to acquire the Hammond land or the ill-will generated on both sides in the previous attempts?

You, Artie, are incapable of seeing two sides to a dispute. Your rigid adherence to left-wing dogma dictates that only your chosen side is correct and anyone who disagrees with you is a right-wing fanatic, a Nazi, a fascist, a conservative zombie, and every other name the radical socialist playbook tells you to call them.

You know very well the degree I am talking about is a PhD.

If you actually have a PhD, presumably from an accredited university, why do you write at a fourth-grade level?

And why do you have readily at-hand all those cites of previous exchanges with me? That's a bit stalker-y, Artie. You're not gonna break into my house and boil a rabbit, are you?

Amy, I can’t believe that you are falling for Trump’s propaganda. All Trump has to do is call this Biden’s America.

The protests are a direct response to people feeling abused and unheard. It is a response to implicit or explicit support white nationalists and Nazis. It is a response to a President encouraging division and violence. This is Trump’s America.

I am against the rioting. I am against the destruction, but blaming it on Biden?

Orion, do you live in the United States?

Conan,

You are acting as an apologist for arson by right wing people when you do the following:

1 - Classify the crimes of convicted right wing felons as "alleged"

2 - Speak about the alleged crimes of left wing people who have never had their day in court as if they were already guilty

Those two things in combination do not demonstrate the character of a dispassionate observer of events.

They demonstrate the character of a deeply partisan hack who has no allegiance to truth, facts, logic, or reason.

There is no crime too heinous for a right wing person to commit for you to start the hamster wheel of rationalization spinning to generate excuses... and there is no crime too small for a left wing person to commit for you to want to crack skulls.

"You, Artie, are incapable of seeing two sides to a dispute."

Nonsense Conan... I just recognize when there are two sides and when there are facts on the table.

One does not have a debate with a moron claiming that 2+2 = blueberry because they insist that there is another "side" to addition that must be considered.

You have difficulty recognizing facts.

I can debate interpretations of facts... but you cannot seem to agree that facts even exist.

"And why do you have readily at-hand all those cites of previous exchanges with me? That's a bit stalker-y, Artie. You're not gonna break into my house and boil a rabbit, are you?"

Conan, I've told you before and I will tell you again.

Google can search this site very efficiently.

That you constantly lie over and over and hope that it is too difficult to get caught is not my problem.

You knew very well that my degree is a PhD... and yet in this very thread you feign ignorance and fake a memory lapse.

This is just one more example of what a dishonest slimy weasel you are... we'll just add it to the pile.

The sad reality for you is that regardless of how much you whine and complain, I've still accomplished more than you from an academic perspective.

This is a reality you are just going to have to learn to come to grips with.

Needless to say, I don't even bring it up unprompted because I am not a fan of waving credentials in other peoples faces.

However that isn't good enough for you, you turn every conversation into an inquisition and then have a sudden bout of amnesia a few weeks later.

Crud,

You need to get your memory checked.

Conan Says:

"My use of "alleged" was in the sense of a trial, where the prosecution is attempting to prove the allegations. Remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, Artie?"

Except you seem to have forgotten the inconvenient reality that they were found guilty.

Those "alleged" crimes are no longer alleged... they were proven.

I do stand by the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Your problem is you never seem to apply that standard to BLM folks (they never have "alleged" crimes when you discuss their protests)... and even when right wing folks have had their day in court and have been found guilty and sentenced you still cannot help yourself and refer to their crimes as "alleged".

This is a deep psychological illness Conan.

You should be able to recognize that when right wing folks are found guilty it is appropriate to drop the "alleged" language. They were in fact proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers.

Good Lord. And I thought I was obnoxious.

> This is a deep psychological
> illness Conan.

That failure of punctuation was profoundly Benlike.

Artemis is right. Left and Right alike condemn bad behavior when the opposition does it, and pardon it when it comes from their own.

Killing people is wrong. Burning books is wrong. Beating people is wrong. Smashing windows is wrong. Burning businesses is wrong. Stealing is wrong.

Doesn't matter who is doing it, it is wrong.

> The protests are a direct response
> to people feeling abused and
> unheard.

Yeah, sure! "A direct response"… That's right, Jen.

They are unheard, and want to share how they feel.

Is that so wrong?

Artemis is right. Left and Right alike condemn bad behavior when the opposition does it, and pardon it when it comes from their own. ... Killing people is wrong. Burning books is wrong. Beating people is wrong. Smashing windows is wrong. Burning businesses is wrong. Stealing is wrong. ~ NicoleK at August 28, 2020 5:36 AM

Artie not right. His ideological blinders make him the poster boy for the problem you describe.

Conan,

How long before you accuse NicoleK of being a sock puppet account of mine for the "crime" of agreeing with my point?

This is another disgusting habit of yours.

I have never excused the bad behavior of anyone... that is your wheel house when you consistently carry the water for right wing extremists.

Despite the fact that white nationalist right wing folks have a long and repeated history of murdering people who protest things they do not agree with... you insisted they only lost the "moral high ground" *after* they murdered someone again.

Keep in mind another right wing loon murdered folks at the protest in Kenosha.

These aren't one off events. This is a pattern of behavior that has been going on for years.

Yet despite all of your talk about "both sides" you never seem to bring any of this up.

This is precisely why I even brought up the whole "moral high ground" statement.

You are structurally incapable of criticizing the political left with the same standards that you criticize the political right.

I'd be happy to chat about how arson is criminal and should be punished for example... but not with an arson apologist for people who happen to be convicted felons from the right wing.

Conan,

Also... this post is just for fun:

"... why do you write at a fourth-grade level?" - Conan the Grammarian at August 27, 2020 8:49 PM

Shortly followed by:

"Artie not right." - Conan the Grammarian at August 28, 2020 6:38 AM

Looks like someone needs a refresher grammar lesson.

Not to worry Conan, I can teach you how to properly form sentences using the very useful word "is".

Perhaps it is time for you to consider the following two possibilities:

1 - Stop casting stones when you live in a glass house... typos on internet blogs happen to everyone.

2 - If you insist that my typos are indicative of something deeper, but your typos are not... that you are operating from an extremely biased mental framework.

This is why I always advise you to stick to the facts. The problem is that when the facts don't fit your preferred narrative you always resort to dirty rhetorical tactics involving the search for any typo you can find.

How long before you accuse NicoleK of being a sock puppet account of mine for the "crime" of agreeing with my point? ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 6:59 AM

I would never accuse NicoleK of being a sock puppet for anyone, especially you. Unlike you, she thinks for herself.

Besides, she's posted here many times and on various topics. On the other hand, Jacquelope was a sock puppet account of yours - appearing in only one post that was made solely to praise you and attack me, never to be heard from again.

Not to mention that NicoleK has always been NicoleK. She didn't change her handle when her old handle became synonymous with idiocy, as Orion did when you changed it to Artemis.

...you insisted they only lost the "moral high ground" *after* they murdered someone again. ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 6:59 AM

Yet another lie by Artie. A vicious lie, but that's par for the course for you - cherry pick a portion of a comment and twist it to conform to your bias.

You seem to be incapable of honestly debating someone. You stuff them into a predetermined archetype based on your own bias and then debate the archetype. You don't debate the person. We're all guilty of that to some extent, but you take it to extremes.

Got news for you, Artie. Not everyone who leans right is a Nazi or sympathetic to white supremacists. If you bothered to actually read or listen to discern a person's individual point of view, you would know that. You'd be well-advised to stop categorizing individual people by the group identity you assign to them.

Looks like someone needs a refresher grammar lesson. ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 7:24 AM

You are not the one to deliver it.

And I've already conceded that everyone will make typos; even I do.

The errors on your part that I point out are errors in basic grammar - capitalization, punctuation, sentence structure, etc. - i.e., the kind of errors a PhD. claiming to have been published multiple times in professional publications should not be making.

Conan,

Except you have accused multiple other people of being sock puppets for agreeing with me with zero evidence.

This is your habit because you do not seem to be able to imagine any sizable portion of the population holding a different view from you on anything.

"Besides, she's posted here many times and on various topics. On the other hand, Jacquelope was a sock puppet account of yours - appearing in only one post that was made solely to praise you and attack me, never to be heard from again."

Nonsense Conan... that is precisely why I find you to be laughable.

I don't use sock puppets. You just cannot handle the existence of people who agree with my positions when they come into conflict with your own.

I am sorry to burst your delicate little bubble, but the world is filled with very educated and highly intelligent people who believe that your neophytic perspective on the world is devoid of merit.

They do not believe such things because they are partisan... they believe it on the basis of the facts and evidence. These are two things that you have a very unfortunate relationship with.

"Artie. Not everyone who leans right is a Nazi or sympathetic to white supremacists."

I never said everyone who leans right is a Nazi or sympathetic to white supremacists.

The only people who are sympathetic to white supremacists are those who act as apologists for them.

If the shoe fits wear it.

If the shoe doesn't fit then stop trying to put it on.

"The errors on your part that I point out are errors in basic grammar - capitalization, punctuation, sentence structure, etc. - i.e., the kind of errors a PhD. claiming to have been published multiple times in professional publications should not be making."

Nonsense Conan.

This is an internet blog. I don't stake my professional career on the typing quality of talking to idiots like you on the internet.

Not to put too fine of a point on it Conan, but you do not have the slightest chance of understanding one paragraph of an academic publication in the fields I studied.

If you ever get around to publishing an article in a reputable science journal in the field of physics then you can get back to me what is actually involved.

Until then talk less and listen more... you might learn something.

Unlike you, I am qualified to teach graduate level courses as a real university.

You aren't even qualified to make a video for fake "universities" like PragerU.

That this might sting isn't something I can help you with. I did the work while you were busy being brain washed by conservative propaganda.

This is an internet blog. I don't stake my professional career on the typing quality of talking to idiots like you on the internet. ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 11:50 AM

If writing is that important to you, then competent writing should be reflexive by now. For you, it's not. So you can sniff an huff all you want about how scientific your writing is and how you don't worry about trivialities like good grammar and punctuation in your day-to-day commenting. You're still a lousy writer.

Not to put too fine of a point on it Conan, but you do not have the slightest chance of understanding one paragraph of an academic publication in the fields I studied. ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 11:50 AM

Not to put too fine a point on it Artie, but if I didn't study those fields. Nor am I challenging anyone in them.

You, on the other hand, continually comment on things you don't understand - economics, politics, law, business - as if you have more expertise and understanding than the people who actually work in those fields or have studied them. I've seen you lecture a people on how to do their jobs.

Until then, try reading for comprehension. You might actually learn something. You remind me of something a stockbroker I used to know told me. He loved selling to people highly educated in one field because they thought they were smarter than everyone else in any field, He called it the perfect combination of stupid and rich; just appeal to their egos and you can sell them junk. Artie, you've been sold junk.

You've evidenced no understanding of the vagaries of life outside academia. Your thinking is rigid and shows no sign of being able to handle something not prescribed by structures.

Unlike you, I am qualified to teach graduate level courses as a real university. ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 11:50 AM

Well, you go ahead and be a real university.

I did the work while you were busy being brain washed by conservative propaganda. ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 11:50 AM

You go ahead and tell yourself that.

Meanwhile, your posts paint you as someone who swallowed the radical left talkings points whole, without any critical thought, and is merely regurgitating them. To you, every conservative is a Nazi.

And yes, Artie, you never actually said it in those words, but your comments indicate very little grasp of the diversity and variety of thought among people who call themselves conservatives or right-leaning libertarians.

When you show signs of being able to think for yourself, I'll start taking you seriously.

The only people who are sympathetic to white supremacists are those who act as apologists for them. ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 11:50 AM

And I have not done so. That you say I have is an outright lie.

Now, to be clear. I'm in favor of people being able to protest or demonstrate, even for cause with which I do not agree, perhaps especially so. However, do it peacefully - whether white supremacists or Black Lives Matter. I disagree with both, for different reasons.

When someone starts blocking traffic, burning buildings, beating people, shooting people, looting businesses, or running over people in your name and you fail to condemn or criticize those actions in no uncertain terms, you lose any pretext of whatever moral high ground you may have been trying to claim. And, Artie, that is what I said about the white supremacists in Charlottesville.

I changed my handle from Nicole to NicoleK when another Nicole posted. I should have just kept Nicole, as she posted on one thread and never returned.

Conan,

Your understanding of how anything works is truly pathetic.

When putting together an article for publication no one ever has a perfect first draft.

There is nothing "reflexive" about avoiding human error.

That is what the editing process is all about.

You would know this if you have ever written something of any value. Instead you rant and rave on the internet as if this qualifies you to do anything.

You aren't even qualified to be admitted to the courses I am qualified to teach.

Cut the shit already and sit down.

Let me know when you've submitted your first article for peer review... I am sure we will all be impressed.

"You, on the other hand, continually comment on things you don't understand - economics, politics, law, business - as if you have more expertise and understanding than the people who actually work in those fields or have studied them. I've seen you lecture a people on how to do their jobs."

No Conan.

I express my opinion on a variety of topics just as anyone else does.

When I talk to an actual expert I listen and try to learn.

You aren't a recognized expert in anything Conan.

I cannot count the number of times you have tried to tell me what it is like to publish papers in scientific journals... I've actually done this many times over and you refuse to listen to anything or learn anything.

If I talk to an economist and we are talking about economics I listen... if I talk to some random moron on the internet such as yourself who has demonstrated a complete inability to speak factually about subjects I am deeply familiar with it means they have no credibility on anything.

You were once busy trying to "both sides" me when it came to homeopathy.

You are a joke Conan.

I'll give you that you are more intelligent than Crid or Isab for example, but the part you are missing is that just because you may be the smartest baboon in the troop doesn't change the fact that you are a baboon.

You don't chat on the internet in a search for truth. You chat to impress other idiots to try an be their king idiot.

Anyone with any real education or understanding of the world would not be the least bit impressed by you.

What is even more amazing is that you... a person with no scientific training... no Ph.D. in any subject... no knowledge when it comes to what it takes to be awarded such advanced degrees somehow thinks their opinion matters when it comes to who is conferred such things.

No one cares what you think Conan... no one is inviting you to sit on a thesis committee... no one is desperate to get you to review their next paper.

In this regard you are a complete and utter nobody and yet you somehow have it in your head that anyone might care what you think.

Get over your delusions of grandeur already. You are a know-nothing know-it-all... always have been, always will be.

This is why you keep harping over my academic credentials, because for some reason it gets under your skin.

Get over it already.

NicoleK,

Conan is just a conspiracy theorist who makes things up to create a reality he is more comfortable with.

I've been posting here using the handle Artemis as far back as 2005:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2005/12/what_goes_aroun.html

> incapable of honestly debating

Integrity doesn't cover this… it's just not adult coherence. On the spectrum, or Chinese social incompetence, or institutionalized interpersonal development, whatever. Everything's a bitterly defensive fight with siblings who never loved him. ̶V̶e̶r̶y̶,̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶i̶c̶u̶l̶t̶ flatly impossible to believe such a presence could negotiate higher ed.

In America, anyway.

Just an observation.

"You stuff them into a predetermined archetype based on your own bias and then debate the archetype. You don't debate the person. We're all guilty of that to some extent, but you take it to extremes." - Conan the Grammarian at August 28, 2020 9:50 AM

"On the spectrum, or Chinese social incompetence, or institutionalized interpersonal development, whatever." - Crid at August 28, 2020 1:32 PM

The only folks who stuff people into predetermined archetypes based on their own biases who then debate the archetype are on your side of the table.

As usual the criticisms of folks like you are all projection.

This kind of nonsense isn't anything new either. You've been up to these kinds of shenanigans for years.

I have to be capable of dispassionately evaluating information as part of my profession.

You guys just make shit up when the facts don't serve your purpose and start making all sorts of accusations to find any excuse to dismiss the person when it is impossible to dismiss the facts.

But sure... the person accused of being on the spectrum, locked in an institution, or from a completely different cultural background is the one trying to "stuff others into predetermined archetypes".

The level of delusion present here is truly astounding.

And yet you're desperate for our engagement: You think we should be taking notes! You're afraid to let us know anything about the people in your life, whom I'd bet would recognize a brief description of these patterns.

Crid,

You're the one who constantly reaches out to me... I never initiate discussions with you.

You are like the sexual harasser in the work place constantly grabbing women on the behind and saying how into it they are because they slap you on the face after.

I would be perfectly content if you never tried to feel me up, but your just can't seem to help yourself.

You're still going to get slapped because the alternative of doing nothing isn't better.

Honey, it's a bazaar, not a telegraph office. You wanna contact people individually, that's fine. But comments here are to be seen by anyone passing by.

Indeed, my touch warms even the coldest, most disaffected of hearts. Let's talk about your nipples.

Are you in the United States?

Crid,

I'm just pointing out the simple fact that you are clearly the one desperate to talk to me.

I would be completely content to not have any interactions with you at all.

I'm sure this isn't the first or second or third time you've been unable to take the hint that someone wasn't interested in you.

There is a reason you are divorced and that reason stares back at you in the mirror whenever you are brave enough to take a look.

Orion, I'm trying to make you interesting!… You can't swing it on your own! You should thank me! It's like that movie!

The only folks who stuff people into predetermined archetypes based on their own biases who then debate the archetype are on your side of the table. ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 1:49 PM

So, your argument that you don't lump people into a predetermined archetype is to lump Crid and me into a predetermined archetype, on that side of the table? Sure, that makes sense.

Has it ever occurred to you that Crid and I might disagree on a few things? That we might not be sitting next to each other on that side of the table? That we might in fact be on opposite sides of other tables?

It hasn't. That's mostly because you can't distinguish differences in people with whom you disagree. You can't see the depth and breadth of thought going on in political philosophies with which you disagree.

You really do have a blind spot there, Artie. You should work on that.

I have to be capable of dispassionately evaluating information as part of my profession. ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 1:49 PM

A profession you refuse to disclose, but assure us it's highly technical and requires great intelligence and rigor to pursue. You have a PhD, so that must mean you're smarter than the rest of us. Bad news, Artie, it doesn't mean that at all. And if you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd know that.

And, Artie, getting published does not make you the infallible expert you think you are.

If I talk to an economist and we are talking about economics I listen... ~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 1:00 PM

No you don't. Artie, I've seen you argue with people about their own professions and fields of expertise. If they don't agree with you, you call them incompetent. You don't shut up and learn something.

You've lectured with Isab about the law. She's an attorney and you're not.

You lectured me about working for "top" companies based on the experiences of an acquaintance of yours, not your own experience. I've worked for some highly competitive companies that would fall into that "top" category. Have you? Have you ever worked outside of academia? If so, in what capacity?

And, Artie, I didn't tell you about "what it is like to publish papers in scientific journals." I told you that you're a lousy writer - and you are - and I wondered how someone who gets articles and papers published, as you claim to, can be such a lousy writer in a non-scientific realm like this one. Your answer was that we're all morons and you don't bother to write properly when communicating with us. Gee, why can't Artie make friends?

Unlike you, I am qualified to teach graduate level courses as [sic] a real university.

You aren't even qualified to make a video for fake "universities" like PragerU.

~ Artemis at August 28, 2020 11:50 AM

Get over yourself, Artie.

You're qualified to teach in one field and perhaps a few ancillary ones. That doesn't make you qualified or even well-informed in any other unrelated field.

And "qualified to teach graduate level course at a real university" is not the heroic qualification you seem to think it is.

Yes, it is impressive, only to a point however. Those of us who went through grad school and were taught by people who were also qualified to teach graduate level courses at real universities find it ridiculous that you think we should regard it as a stinging retort. Those of us who have worked for PhDs in the private sector also find it ridiculous.

Artie, you don't know what I or anyone else here is qualified to do. You don't know what anyone here has done or what experience they have from which you could learn. And you're not interested in finding out that you're not the god-like being you imagine yourself to be; that others have experience or knowledge about things where you don't and that they may have better insight than you do on those subjects.

Your only interest is in aggrandizing yourself. The problem frustrating you is that the "morons" here on this forum refuse to acknowledge your greatness, no matter how much you tell them about it.

Good bye, Artie. Have fun teaching graduate level courses at a real university. I guess the rest of us will have to console ourselves with making Prager U videos. By the way, what the hell is Prager U?

> Crid and I might disagree

With the passage of time, I think of the shitty things I've probably said to Conan and my blood freezes with shame... But that's not enough to go back and check and feel the regret anew. Conan's the best- and most widely-read guy on the blog, with few contenders.

C'mon, Orion is not a teacher. Not in the United States, and not in any other nation either. This guy does not lead young minds. It ain't possible.

One thing everybody probably doesn't know is that I have (the equivalent of) a Masters (level degree) in Intellectual Development™ from a MAJOR (and presumably) respected institution of higher learning with powerful, powerful international reputation for excellence. And good work. And aptitude and insight.

So that's where I'm coming from, and everyone needs to know that.

It's possible that I never mentioned it in sixteen years of casual commentary on every possible topic under the sun, but it's absolutely true, and everyone should keep it in mind going forward.

I mean seriously, when was the last time someone so proud of postgrad achievement was ashamed to say exactly what degree from exactly what institution, and when?

“I should have just kept Nicole, as she posted on one thread and never returned.“

She’s now living with mountain gorillas in Uganda.

Conan Says:

"So, your argument that you don't lump people into a predetermined archetype is to lump Crid and me into a predetermined archetype, on that side of the table? Sure, that makes sense."

No Conan... I don't have any "predetermined" anything for either of you.

I have observed your behavior and antics over several years and come to my own conclusions on the basis of those observations.

There is nothing "predetermined" about any of it.

My assessments can be demonstrated with a myriad of quotes.

For example your constant dishonestly is easily proven time and again despite your consternation about how terrible it might be for me to throw your own historic statements back in your face.

Just be an honest interlocutor and use facts and logic to defend your positions and everything would go smoothly.

That is how adult conversations work.

I suggest you try it some time.

"Has it ever occurred to you that Crid and I might disagree on a few things? That we might not be sitting next to each other on that side of the table? That we might in fact be on opposite sides of other tables?"

You don't sit on the opposite side of the table when it comes to stuffing people into predetermined archetypes based on their own biases and then debating the archetype.

You've been fully aware of this nonsense for years... you have chatted with Crid about it in threads I was not even a part of.

You expressed no concern or disagreement for any of it.

This implies that either you agreed... or that you are a weak-willed unprincipled pathetic excuse for a person who cannot express disagreement with Crid's obviously antisocial and toxic behavior.

You don't have to care about it, but don't then cry when I point out that you don't seem all that concerned and then complain about how you feel you are being unfairly maligned.

The time to speak up is when you see the behavior impacting anyone, not when your poor little fee fees get hurt.

"You have a PhD, so that must mean you're smarter than the rest of us."

This is really the core of it for you Conan isn't it?

It is your own deep seeded insecurities.

Let's recap shall we... I don't go around talking about my credentials, that has been your and Crid's major complaint for years. Yet when I do tell you that my own accomplishments happen to eclipse your own... suddenly you accuse me of believing that my degree means I am smarter than you.

I would have been perfectly happy keeping that information to myself and just discussing facts and citing references when necessary.

Unfortunately that wasn't good enough... you needed credentials.

Yet when it turns out I have them and you don't suddenly you cry how they don't mean I know more than you do.

In actuality it does mean I know more than you do about a wide variety of things associated with the nature of my degree which I have explained in some detail to you before (not than you necessarily know what any of it means).

"You've lectured with Isab about the law. She's an attorney and you're not."

That is incorrect.

I have lectured Isab on the nature of how science works and how to understand the findings of published research... then she ignores all that and tells me she knows better.

Like always you have things completely backwards.

Would you really like me to present several cases of me explaining to you how the science publication process works to you and you sitting there and telling me otherwise?

Imagine how you look to me when you do that?... you look like a god damned fool.

All it demonstrates to me is that you are willing to speak completely out of your ass on topics you know nothing about.

How do I know you know nothing about it?... because I've done it many times over and nothing you say even remotely reflects the actual process.

You are completely ignorant and yet purport to rant and rave instead of shutting up for even one second to learn something.

"You lectured me about working for "top" companies based on the experiences of an acquaintance of yours, not your own experience. I've worked for some highly competitive companies that would fall into that "top" category. Have you?"

What are you smoking Conan?... I have plenty of my own experience working at top companies. By top I mean within the top 100 of the Forbes 500 list.

I've won dozens of industrial awards and been awarded patents.

You almost certainly use or have used products I have been directly involved in making.

I don't know what to tell you Conan, but everything you say is made up nonsense that doesn't reflect reality at all.

"I told you that you're a lousy writer - and you are"

Once again you mix up fact and opinion.

You are welcome to think I am a lousy writer. That is your own subjective assessment and I have no inclination to change your mind.

When you say "and you are" though you are entering into a space where you purport to speak for the rest of human kind.

Everyone I work with and have ever worked with have always praised my communication skills both verbal and written.

I respect their assessments to a far greater degree than some random jackass on an internet blog with a complex.

"Gee, why can't Artie make friends?"

JD and I get along just fine... but then again he is another person you accused without evidence of being a sock puppet account of mine.

"Get over yourself, Artie."

I am over myself Conan... how about you try getting over me.

You are seriously obsessed and it doesn't seem like you are coping well.

I'm just here to talk about the topics at hand. I have zero desire to talk about myself at all.

You and Crid are the ones constantly badgering me for personal information.

Let's think about this logically for just one moment... really try and engage with whatever rational part of your brain might exist.

If you are constantly demanding personal information from me... and I am constantly wanting not to talk about those things and just focus on the subject of the thread... who exactly needs to get over me?

Don't worry, I'm not going to make you try and figure this out all on your own. I'll tell you the answer... it's you.

"I am over myself" are four of the 1093 words in that comment.

Crid,

I know this may be outside of your own self-obsessed personality... but I have no need to have my ego stroked.

You see statements like "I am over myself" as meaning something unusual because you cannot fathom someone being interested in reason above and beyond themselves.

I've explained this to you before but you just don't get it.

When it comes to any argument or discussion, you are unimportant, I am unimportant... only the facts, evidence, and reason matter.

I've won dozens of industrial awards and been awarded patents. | You almost certainly use or have used products I have been directly involved in making. ~ Artemis at August 29, 2020 12:44 AM

Name one. Just one. Show us that you're even half as vital to the functioning of this modern world as you claim to be.

You're full of crap, Artie. You make grandiose claims for your own greatness, "I've won dozens of industrial awards and been awarded patents." but, when called upon to back up said claims, retreat into, "I prefer my privacy."

Your claims ring hollow, little more than playground boasts.

By the way, Artie, it's granted patents. Patents are granted.

I have plenty of my own experience working at top companies. By top I mean within the top 100 of the Forbes 500 list. ~ Artemis at August 29, 2020 12:44 AM

"Top 100 of the Forbes 500 list." Another empty boast of greatness. The credentialism is strong in this one.

By the way, Artie, it's the Fortune 500. Good try, though.

JD and I get along just fine... but then again he is another person you accused without evidence of being a sock puppet account of mine. ~ Artemis at August 29, 2020 12:44 AM

No, Artie, I did not. Jacquelope and one other (forgot the name, but it wasn't JD) - both of whom have only posted here once and only to sing your praises - were the only ones I said were you posting under another name. And it's not like there's not a precedent for the suspicion of you using another name to disguise your presence. Isn't that right, Orion?

People here have actually engaged with JD. He shared some personal details with other posters (having lived in Minnesota) and connected with some of the forum posters here. You are incapable of doing that.

I believe it was Crid who asked if JD had ever posted to a thread on which you were not already present? That's not exactly an accusation of sock puppetry. Others jumped in to say he had and because he did not act like a paranoid weasel, it was unlikely he was you.

Everyone I work with and have ever worked with have always praised my communication skills both verbal and written. ~ Artemis at August 29, 2020 12:44 AM

Everyone? Ever? Always?

So, in moments of random conversation, people just just blurt out, "My what a grand communicator you are, both verbal and written." Do they flutter their eyelashes while they tell you this?

Let me guess, you've won industrial awards and been awarded patents for your communication skills.

I mean seriously, when was the last time someone so proud of postgrad achievement was ashamed to say exactly what degree from exactly what institution, and when? ~ Crid at August 28, 2020 9:11 PM

I used to work for a guy who had a doctorate in Statistics. He never mentioned it. I found out from a coworker weeks after I started working for that particular Fortune 500 company. I knew the guy was smart as a whip - he showed it in his communications, both verbal and written - but I was unaware of his education credentials.

In answer to your questions, I've never met anyone who boasted of having PhD. who was not then willing to tell you in what subject and from what university.

I've never met anyone who bragged of having patents who wasn't willing to at least tell you in what products or pursuits his patents were being used.

I've never met anyone who boasted of being published in numerous publications who was not at least willing to tell you what those publications were.

Oooh, but you might use that information to discover Artie's real identity. Then you'll tell the Joker that he's Batman.

Conan Says:

"By the way, Artie, it's granted patents. Patents are granted."

Yes Conan... patents are granted.

However it is very standard for folks within the sciences to refer to patents as being awarded:

https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states/indicator/patents-per-1000-se-occupation-holders

"Patents Awarded per 1,000 Individuals in Science and Engineering Occupations"

That is a government website for the NSF (national science foundation).

This is how professional scientists and engineers speak about granted patents... we speak of them as being awarded.

The issue at hand is that you know so very little that you erroneously believe that you are an expert in things where you have no knowledge or experience at all.

Just shut up already and maybe you will learn something.

JD,

If you are still lurking in the background, do you happen to recall the time when you were accused of being another account for me?

If so please feel free to chime in because Conan's memory has gone foggy again.

Conan,

"By the way, Artie, it's the Fortune 500. Good try, though."

Dear god you know next to nothing.

I was not referring to the Fortune 500, which is another list entirely.

The Forbes 500 was a different list:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/forbes500.asp

Admittedly I haven't kept track since early on in my career that this list was converted to the Forbes Global 2000.

When I say I've worked for companies that were in the top 100 of the Forbes 500 list that is an accurate statement.

That this list has since been replaced is completely immaterial in this case.

Let's discuss why I believe you to be utterly dishonest and stupid though. Here you are demanding to know if I have worked for "top" companies:

"You lectured me about working for "top" companies based on the experiences of an acquaintance of yours, not your own experience. I've worked for some highly competitive companies that would fall into that "top" category. Have you?" - Conan the Grammarian at August 28, 2020 8:52 PM

And here you are whining and complaining that I am using "credentialism" when I even bother to answer your inane and useless questions:

""Top 100 of the Forbes 500 list." Another empty boast of greatness. The credentialism is strong in this one." - Conan the Grammarian at August 29, 2020 8:35 AM

Except I am completely uninterested in boasting. I would be completely content not discussing my background at all as I don't actually believe any of this is important or relevant.

The fundamental point here is that an honest person could not possibly do what you have done above if they were the least bit intelligent.

This implies that you are either an unrepentant liar or that you are profoundly stupid... or perhaps you are both.

I haven't come to this conclusion in a predetermined manner. It is based entirely upon how you comport yourself.

You demand answers to questions that when provided you get all pissed off about.

The reality is you don't care about the answers to such questions any more than you care about arson or murder by right wing individuals.

It's all a circus and you are just another clown.

JD, If you are still lurking in the background, do you happen to recall the time when you were accused of being another account for me?

I just happened to check this thread one more time before heading out for the day (our best local record store is having a sale for today's "Record Store Day.")

I recall the accusation, Artemis, but don't remember who made it. It may have been Conan or it may have been our resident narcissist. The RN seems more likely as he is obviously obsessed with you. Or, I suppose, it may have been both.

When threads are taken over by your arguments I always lose track and become unsure about what you are arguing about, exactly.

NicoleK,

What invariably occurs is I make an honest attempt to discuss the topic at hand and then Crid and Conan divert the entire conversation to explain why I need to hand over my drivers license, birth certificate, diploma, social security card, and marriage license before I should be permitted to talk about anything in peace.

When threads are taken over by your arguments I always lose track and become unsure about what you are arguing about, exactly.

JD,

Thanks for the confirmation.

When threads are taken over by your arguments I always lose track and become unsure about what you are arguing about, exactly. ~ NicoleK at August 29, 2020 12:19 PM

So does everyone else.

Artie has been using a cherry picked quote taken out of context to paint me as a racist for several days now, claiming I think that white supremacists hold the moral high ground. Despite my rebutting his claim with the actual quote and full context of my original comment, he continues to try and paint me as a racist white supremacist.

Now, he's claiming I excuse arson by right-wing individuals while condemning it by left-wing individuals. Despite my argument showing him he's comparing apples to oranges (lighting a fire on your own property and throwing a Molotov cocktail into a local business are not equivalent acts) and despite my subsequent argument that the pardon for the Hammonds was inappropriate, he continues to maintain his claim that I excuse right-wing arson.

This kind of behavior is why people have, over the years, become exasperated with his nonsense. This is why he's the least-respected poster on this forum. He maintains his lie - even when corrected or proven wrong.

I've been arguing with with him so that people new here will know he's lying about me. He's an idiot masquerading as an intellectual. He's a troll. I give up. My patience is exhausted.

This is how he wins the argument, relentless lies . He wears out the target with a barrage of repeated lies.

Just know this, NicoleK, I'm not sympathetic to white supremacists or right-wing arsonists, no matter how many times Artie repeats the lie.. So, when he next accuses me of it, you'll know he's full of crap.

It may have been Conan or it may have been our resident narcissist. The RN seems more likely as he is obviously obsessed with you. Or, I suppose, it may have been both. ~ JD at August 29, 2020 12:10 PM

No, JD, it was not I. And to be fair, you had not been around for a little while when Crid asked "Does JD exist in threads in which Orion hasn't participated?"

Also, to be fair, Artemis has posted under at least one different name without letting anyone know he was the one posting under the new name. Remember Orion? He one day became Artemis without any notice, thinking no one would notice the similarities of language, rigid thinking, and smug self-righteousness.

Over time, there have been a few random one-off posts sympathetic to Artie that have been made by people who have never posted before and then never post again after that. So, suspecting him of goosing his own support from time to time is not unreasonable.

> an idiot masquerading as
> an intellectual

Well, never convincingly. I mean, that describes most everyone here. Most of the guys, anyway.

Nothing Orion says is worth reading again, it's never sustained even the first time. But the desperation of his tone is fascinating.

Conan Says:

"Now, he's claiming I excuse arson by right-wing individuals while condemning it by left-wing individuals. Despite my argument showing him he's comparing apples to oranges (lighting a fire on your own property and throwing a Molotov cocktail into a local business are not equivalent acts) and despite my subsequent argument that the pardon for the Hammonds was inappropriate, he continues to maintain his claim that I excuse right-wing arson."

No Conan, as per usual you don't really grasp what is going on.

What I am saying is that the way you approach and analyze situations involving right-wing versus left-wing individuals is completely inconsistent.

One the one hand you behave as an apologist for right-wing people or groups where you parse every little detail looking for any and all mollifying or exculpatory arguments you can possibly make. You also use the least harsh language available to describe the situation, often twisting language into knots in order to get where you want to be.

On the other hand, when it comes to left-wing people or groups you parse every little detail looking for any and all elements that allow you to exaggerate the scenario under consideration.

You are never even handed and you never use similar standard or rhetoric to evaluate these situations. For you the rule seems to be politics first while facts and logic are lucky to be applied at all.

You claim that I am comparing apples and oranges and that is actually true, but not in the manner you suggest.

When it comes to the Hammond family's arson conviction we aren't simply talking about a fire lit on private property that accidentally got out of control as your rendition might suggest. Here is a contemporary news article on the topic:

https://katu.com/news/local/criminal-history-of-the-hammond-familys-arson-conviction

What actually occurred was that eye witness testimony indicated that the Hammond's had "illegally slaughtered deer on federal property in 2001, then started a fire to cover it up."

There was also a second conviction associated with "starting "back fires" in 2006 to save winter feed, despite a burn ban in effect because of high fire danger."

In other words, they were found guilty of 2 counts of arson, one of which is more akin to your statement while you conveniently ignored the arson associated with the cover up of illegal poaching activity on federal lands.

Why are you only focusing on 1 count of arson they were found guilty of Conan?... why completely ignore the other count if you are looking at this situation in a wholistic and fair way?

On top of this you referred to their crimes as "alleged" despite the fact that they were found guilty by a jury of their peers and convicted. There is nothing "alleged" about it, the case was proven.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't actually translate into innocent even after proven guilty.

Now on the other hand when you talk about arson associated with the protests one would never even imagine that you thought there was even the possibility anyone was innocent. At this stage any crimes associated with recent events would be properly classified as alleged and yet you refrain from using that terminology. This is even the way the justice department talks about such things:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/tacoma-washington-woman-arrested-allegedly-setting-five-police-vehicles-fire-during

"Tacoma, Washington, woman arrested for allegedly setting five police vehicles on fire during Seattle protest"

That is actually the reason these situations are an apples and oranges comparison... not because I am fail to see the relevant distinctions, but rather because you fail to see them.

In one situation the right-wing folks had their day in court, were found guilty, and sentenced. In the other accused haven't had a chance to mount a legal defense consistent with our legal process and the protections provided by the constitution.

Yes, they are apples and oranges Conan... you are being an apologist for convicted right wing felons while treating arson at the protests as if the accused are already guilty before they've had their day in court.

"This is how he wins the argument, relentless lies . He wears out the target with a barrage of repeated lies."

Nothing I said above is a lie Conan.

It is all backed up by sound facts and logic.

Do you really care for me to reference the time you were an apologist for a right-wing murderer?

"So, suspecting him of goosing his own support from time to time is not unreasonable."

Yes it is unreasonable because I've been posting here for years and what you are saying is that it is reasonable or logical to presume that I just pop on with a sock puppet account once every 3 years on average to "goose" support?

That is too infrequent to make any sense.

You would have a better case to make if random folks were popping in on the regular with one off posts, but that isn't what's happening here.

You are just making spurious claims based on nothing other than your own fantasies.

841

6243 in the thread so far.

Crid,

Are you feeling neglected?

If it makes you feel better you are still an idiot.

...why completely ignore the other count if you are looking at this situation in a wholistic [sic] and fair way? ~ Artemis at August 29, 2020 4:14 PM

It's "holistic" Artie. Seriously, a PhD? From a real university?

...you are being an apologist for convicted right wing felons while treating arson at the protests as if the accused are already guilty before they've had their day in court. ~ Artemis at August 29, 2020 4:14 PM

Whom have I denied a day in court, Artie? Whom have I railroaded to the gallows?

We're talking about specific people in one case (the Hammonds) and no one specific in the other. But you have me hauling people off to the gallows without a trial. A little hyperbolic there, Artie, even for you.

Pointing out that there are differences in the Hammond case and in the riots (with arson) going on in American cities now is not "being an apologist for convicted right wing felons."

Nor did I argue the Hammonds deserved the pardon they received. I did point out that the original trial judge felt the minimum sentence called for by law under which they were tried would "shock the conscience" and issued a reduced sentence, which was overturned on appeal.

While they shouldn't be, presidential pardons and commutations are politically motivated at times. Sometimes people get presidential pardons they don't deserve, but which are politically useful to the president or party issuing them.

Trump gained considerable support among ranchers for the Hammond pardons - ranchers who often find themselves in conflict with the Bureau of Land Management regarding the use of Western lands (as the Hammonds were) and who blame the BLM for what they feel was an overzealous prosecution of the Hammonds.

It can be argued that Oscar Lopez Rivera didn't deserve the commutation he received from President Obama in 2017; or the offer of conditional clemency by Bill Clinton in 1999. On the other hand, Rivera was 74 years old in 2017 and a national hero to some Puerto Ricans, an important voting bloc for Democrats.

Do you really care for me to reference the time you were an apologist for a right-wing murderer? ~ Artemis at August 29, 2020 4:14 PM

Sure, bring on the cherry-picked quote taken out of context. I'll shoot down your accusation with the full quote and some context.

You would have a better case to make if random folks were popping in on the regular with one off posts, but that isn't what's happening here. ~ Artemis at August 29, 2020 4:14 PM

The times you tried it you were obvious and you got caught. That limited your ability to use the same ploy again.

I have faith in you though. You'll think of something else underhanded to do. Perhaps if you were a better writer, you could have disguised your deceit a little better. Maybe work on that and try it again.

Conan,

We've been through this before people make typos.

Honest people recognize that this is part of being human. "To err is human" is a common aphorism for a reason.

Your problem is that when you make typos you insist they are just mistakes... but when I make typos they are indicative of something deeper.

Just as when some random person happens to post something in agreement with me your mind runs wild with conspiracy theories of sock puppet accounts.

None of this suggests you are capable of rational thought, just a constant search nonsense.

As Crid pointed out, my post consisted of hundreds of words and you are hyper focused on one meaningless typo as if it is last piece of the puzzle to help you unlock the secrets of the universe.

Let me remind you that just just yesterday you posted this little gem:

"Artie not right." - Conan the Grammarian at August 28, 2020 6:38 AM

Perhaps you should consider calling yourself Tarzan instead of Conan the Grammarian.

Tarzan is know for broken English involving dropping works like "is". Conan is known for listening to the lamentation of the women. The former seems to fit better than the later given the evidence.

Now back to the topic at hand.

"While they shouldn't be, presidential pardons and commutations are politically motivated at times. Sometimes people get presidential pardons they don't deserve, but which are politically useful to the president or party issuing them."

This goes back to my very original point that the political right isn't all that concerned with arson committed by folks they are politically aligned with.

That was the entire point I was bringing to the table that NicoleK agreed with me on that you've been fighting against this entire conversation.

What I am saying is that when the political right is comfortable issuing pardons to right-wing felons for political gain there is no reason to take them seriously when they whine and moan about arson committed by folks from the political left.

It is a double standard so utterly ridiculous that it makes all feigned concerns about arson and property damage hollow and empty.

Trump does not actually care about arson... his supporters in general do not actually care about arson... they care about crushing political adversaries and emboldening political allies.

This is the very heart of fascism.

I'm perfectly content calling out all arson as a crime.

Folks on the political right do not get to do that and be taken seriously when they just say that the Hammond's were pardoned for arson because it was politically expedient for the president.

"The times you tried it you were obvious and you got caught. That limited your ability to use the same ploy again."

Has the thought ever even entered into your mind that you were wrong?

This is why you strike me as such a profoundly stupid person.

Imagine for one moment what you look like to someone who didn't do what you accuse them of and yet you stick to your guns without any evidence just because you really really believe.

Conan Says:

"Sure, bring on the cherry-picked quote taken out of context. I'll shoot down your accusation with the full quote and some context."

I don't think you really understand what cherry-picking entails or what it means for something to be taken out of context.

While it is true that I quote only the relevant portions of your statements, I do so in such a way that doesn't change the meaning of your words and focuses on the point I am trying to highlight.

This is necessary precisely because to quote everything you have to say doesn't actually add value because the unrelated information acts as a distraction to the principle point.

"Notice the language MSN uses to describe the incident: "...the day he gunned down an unarmed black man in the parking lot of a Florida convenience store."

Gunned down. Not "shot." "Gunned down." Not "shot his assailant." "Gunned down." Not "after being attacked." "Gunned down." Not "in a dispute." "Gunned down." Not even "allegedly in self-defense." "Gunned down." The trial hasn't even started and MSN has already determined that Drejka's guilty of murder." - Conan the Grammarian at September 4, 2018 5:38 AM

Then there is some irrelevant ranting about how much you despise the media followed by this next important piece:

"And, even if Michael Drejka did not need to shoot to defend himself, Markeis McGlockton was not "gunned down." At least not until a jury presented with all the facts in the case decides he was." - Conan the Grammarian at September 4, 2018 5:38 AM

So let's summarize. An article was published indicating that Michael Drejka "gunned down" an unarmed black man.

In response you lost your shit and went on a tirade of all the ways the article should have been written to be more positive about Drejka and more negative about the person he killed.

The main thrust of your argument was that using the term "gunned down" was the equivalent of the media declaring Drejka guilty of murder before he even had a trial.

There is a major problem with this assessment though and it has to do with the meaning of words. I know you are often at odds with the dictionary Conan, but like it or not, it is the authority on definitions while you are just some dude on the internet. Here is the definition of "gun down":

"to shoot (someone) with a gun"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gun%20down

That's all it means. There is no insinuation of guilt involved in this terminology at all.

Therefore when you offer the following criticism we need to really think about what this means:

"Gunned down. Not "shot.""

Gunned down is just a more specific version of the word "shot". One can be shot with an arrow, or a missile, or a bullet, or any number of other projectiles.

Gunned down just specifies that the person who was killed was shot with a gun.

Yet despite all of this you ranted and raved about how unfair that choice of words was despite the reality it was actually about as neutral as one can get. It carries no negative inference, it is just a statement of fact.

That wasn't good enough for you though because for some reason when an unarmed black man was killed by a right-wing white guy the articles that are written must in some form describe the black man as an "assailant" or claim that the white man was acting in "self-defense".

Neutral terminology was enough to cause you to practically froth at the mouth.

In any event, Drejka was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years.

So there you pitching a fit over completely neutral language in the media relating to a right winger who was later convicted of manslaughter because you wanted the language to work more in his favor.

No "context" changes any of these facts Conan. Those are just the facts and how you operate.

Drejka? That's what you came up with?

Artie, if you'd bothered to read further threads and posts about the incident, you'd know that Patrick and I disagreed on the need for Drejka to shoot Markeis McGlockton, with me taking the side that Drejka did not need to shoot him, that McGlockton was retreating, and it was not self-defense. Patrick and I had a huge blowout about it. It was a part of the animosity that developed between us.

I did, however, concede to Patrick that, since the younger and larger McGlockton had pushed the older and smaller Drejka violently to the ground, we could not dismiss the possibility that Drejka was, in fact, acting in fear of his life, despite McGlockton's small retreat just before Drejka fired. But I held then, and still hold, that Drejka should have held his fire.

In the slow motion video, you can clearly see the small retreat. However, Drejka's perceptions of the incident were in real time. The jury in his trial agreed and did not watch the slow motion video the prosecution entered into evidence, preferring to see things at the speed at which Drejka saw them.

Given the earlier violent confrontation between Drejka and McGlockton, I didn't agree with some characterizations of it as deliberate murder and felt that the phrase "gunned down" had connotations that did not fit this incident. A nitpick on word usage? Perhaps, but that was why I criticized MSN's "gunned down" wording.

By the way, Artie, what you did there with the "gun down" quote from a single one of my posts is cherry-picking and taking things out of context, a specialty of yours. You used a selected part of a quote to show me as excusing a right-wing murderer (notice you call it "murder" when the charges and conviction were for manslaughter). You gave no context to the selected quote and did not include or reference any subsequent comments or debate in your zeal to paint me as an apologist for a right-wing murderer. In addition, you left the earlier violent confrontation between Drejka and McGlockton out of your story in your zeal to portray Drejka as a murderer. You simply used one small part of an exchange to paint me as a right-wing fanatic and apologist for murder.

Done deliberately and on a regular basis, that's called lying, Artie - and that's why I called you a liar.

You keep being you, Artie, and don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your narrative.

This is the very heart of fascism. ~ Artemis at August 29, 2020 8:14 PM

No, Artie, that is not "the very heart of fascism." Loathsome as it is, fascism is an actual system of collectivist political thought, not just a name you give people with whom you disagree.

The fasces was a bundle of wooden rods given to Roman magistrates as symbols of their authority. Benito Mussolini, after his break from Italian socialism, adopted the fasces as a symbol of his new political philosophy and party, calling it fascism. It was mean to symbolize the collectivism that is a central tenet of fascism.

Conan,

I'll note that you haven't actually addressed what you've said in the past.

Your response to Drejka is just one example amongst many that demonstrates a very clear pattern of behavior for you when it comes to how you talk about right-wing violence (especially against black people in specific and minorities in general).

Each and every time a black person is killed you spend your time talking about how it isn't "technically" murder... and you describe anything you view as a potentially mitigating factor for the right-wing killer.

The way you talk it is as if you are a defense attorney for the accused killer... you do not and have never operated as a neutral observer of events.

Let's be clear when it came to Drejka. You would have been completely fine if the news reported that he ""shot his assailant."... but you vehemently objected to completely neutral terminology like "gunned down".

Neutral terminology wasn't acceptable to you. The media needed to report the black man as the assailant and the right-wing white man as acting in self-defence.

"By the way, Artie, what you did there with the "gun down" quote from a single one of my posts is cherry-picking and taking things out of context, a specialty of yours."

That isn't what cherry picking is Conan and nothing was taken out of context.

Those were your words plain and simple.

Just like you chose to completely ignore the fact that the Hammonds were found guilty of 2 charges of arson and focused your attention solely on the 1 charge you thought you could make your best case for. You "conveniently" ignored the charge involving arson for the cover-up of illegal poaching activity on federal lands.

They were repeat offenders and you talk about them as if they just had a fire accidentally get out of control.

You also talk about their crimes as if they remain "alleged" ever after they were found guilty.

Going back to Drejka for a moment, that entire thread is full of real gems... here is Patricks response to you for example:

"Conan is correct. While I felt (and still feel) that Drejka was justified, MSN's language is extremely biased." - Patrick at September 4, 2018 6:10 AM

So even at the time it was recognized by others that you were asserting that completely neutral terminology was evidence of media bias.

So far as you two were concerned just stating facts like an unarmed black man was gunned down (i.e., shot with a gun) was beyond the pale. The language needed to cast the dead black man as the assailant apparently for you two to be satisfied with the reporting.

It goes further than that though because in the very same discussion Patrick then said the following:

"In response to the Kaepernick/Nike debacle, which has prompted a boycott of Nike, a black woman tweeted that her race is sufficiently large to keep Nike afloat.

I responded, "No, stealing Nikes from stores, especially during natural disasters when the stores are closed, will not keep Nike afloat."" - Patrick at September 4, 2018 11:42 AM

You were in that thread... you saw that comment.

That comment is disgustingly racist... and you said nothing.

Now while your aren't responsible for the racist comments Patrick made, you are responsible for your utter silence.

You will spend paragraphs bitching and moaning if I erroneously add a "w" to a post involving hundreds of words, but when someone implies that black people as a community are just a bunch of thieves within a conversation where an unarmed black man was just killed by a right-wing white guy... then you have absolutely nothing to say at all.

In addition you will rant and rave about how awful rioting and looting are... but when a black man quietly kneeled on a field you had the following to say:

"Kapernick needs to realize that, for all its faults, the US offers its minorities more (and better) opportunities than other countries offer their minorities." - Conan the Grammarian at August 29, 2016 5:50 AM

Followed by this:

"I applaud Kap's effort to make things better, but he needs to ask himself if sitting in his mansion during the week and making his statement on the weekend is all he can do. If he really thinks things are bad, he should get off his ass and donate his time to the cause - instead of sitting in his police-protected enclave and sniffing about oppression elsewhere." - Conan the Grammarian at August 29, 2016 5:50 AM

So when a black man just silently kneels in protest you have lots of criticism about how he really needs to understand that he doesn't have much to complain about because it could always be worse and that in some sense his protest rung hollow to you because if he *really* believed it he would "get off his ass" and do something more.

Great... so what happened after Kaepernick "got off his ass" and set up his own foundation:

https://www.usresistnews.org/profiles/colin-kaepernick-foundation/

And worked with many charities to try and address the issues of concern to him:

https://www.ninersnation.com/2018/1/31/16956016/colin-kaepernick-donations-full-list-of-organizations-one-million-dollars

Well after all that here is what you had to say:

"Ah yes, starting a conversation, the last line of defense for people caught lying or behaving in a way that earns them social opprobrium.

Colin Kaepernick was not disrespecting the flag. He was "starting a conversation."" - Conan the Grammarian at February 17, 2019 7:52 AM

Suddenly it's all been reduced to him being an unpatriotic ingrate.

However the white nationalists protesting the legal removal of statues of traitors to the united states... then you embed any criticism of them in the mollifying language of how they "lost the moral high ground" *after* they murdered someone.

In other words, if not but for the murder they would have retained the "moral high ground" in some sense.

Cut the shit already Conan. I'm not lying, I'm not cherry picking, I am not quoting you out of context.

When you speak in the language of racists, when you say nothing in response to clearly racist comments, when you are constantly criticizing black people no matter how innocent their actions, when you demand that the media present black people who have been killed as aggressors and right-wing right people who killed those black people as victims, when you speak about the crimes of right-wing convicted felons as "alleged" but talk about potential crimes of left-wing folks who have never had their day in court as if the accusations have already been proven... when you do all of those things it paints a picture... and that picture is rather ugly.

8580; Gassy or autistic?

Crid,

Unlike you or Conan when I make a claim I back it up with facts.

I could always just assert that Conan's behavior is consistent with the behavior of a bigot in the same way you just assert that I live in China... but that isn't intellectually honest or rigorous.

I present the facts that support the underlying thesis.

Each and every time a black person is killed you spend your time talking about how it isn't "technically" murder...

You're like a dog with a favorite chew toy.

Artie, you brought up the Drejka case as murder, not I. The only arguments I made were in a debate with Patrick and those were about whether it was arguably self defense. You called it murder, not I. The DA and the jury called it manslaughter.

You're trying so very hard to paint me as a racist that your arguments have devolved into complete and utter nonsense (even for you). Yes, I admitted there were some circumstances in the McGlockton shooting that made it less than a slam dunk. Despite conceding those circumstances, l still argued it was not self defense you complete and utter fucking moron!

However the white nationalists protesting the legal removal of statues of traitors to the united states... then you embed any criticism of them in the mollifying language of how they "lost the moral high ground" *after* they murdered someone.

Another of your repeated lies, Artie. I didn't even say they had the moral high ground - only that they lost any pretext of it when James Allen Fields drove his car into a crowd and they failed to condemn his act. Pretext, Artie. Please, take some time and learn to read for comprehension before you make an even greater fool of yourself than you already have.

As for Confederates as "traitors," Abraham Lincoln issued 64 pardons to former Confederacy generals and politicians. Andrew Johnson followed up with a blanket amnesty, but excluded Robert E. Lee from that amnesty. Confederates who signed the Amnesty Oath were pardoned and reinstated as citizens. Lees citizenship was reinstated in 1975 when his signed Amnesty Oath was found in the archives.

Ironically, since the removal of his statue was the pretext for the "Unite the Right" gathering in Charlottesville, Robert E. Lee opposed memorials to Confederates, "I think it wiser … not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

Lee's biographer, Jonathan Horn indicated, "Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker. He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive."

...when you demand that the media present black people who have been killed as aggressors and right-wing right people who killed those black people as victims.... ~ Artemis at August 30, 2020 9:36 AM

Another lie. I have demanded no such thing. I have argued that the media should portray people as aggressors when they are. I'm assuming your insinuation stems from the Michael Brown case in which Brown was, in fact, the aggressor, but was portrayed as a victim with "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" becoming a meme.

In writing about that case, I also argued that there were legitimate reasons for the rage the black people of Ferguson and the other small towns outside of St. Louis were feeling toward the government and the police. But you be you, Artie, and don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

By the way, Artie, my stance about aggressors includes the idiot from Charlottesville who murdered - yes, murdered - a woman with his car and tried to murder others.

My statement about James Allen Fields being a murderer was conveniently left out of the snippet of my comment you cherry-picked to quote. Remember this part that you left out: "He was not defending anyone. He was not protecting a group of beleaguered protesters from attacking hoodlums. He was seeking to murder as many random people as he could as quickly as he could." Hmm. There's that word again, murder; the very word Artie claims I don't use when referring to white supremacists who kill.

In the same post on that same thread, I also wrote this about the white supremacists: "They need to stop pretending they have a legitimate viewpoint in this and slink back under the rocks from which they crawled." So much for me being an apologist for white supremacists.

Those parts of what I said didn't fit your narrative, so you conveniently left them out. Without them, you thought you could portray me as a racist. That's called lying, Artie, and doing it makes you a liar.

...when I make a claim I back it up with facts. ~ Artemis at August 30, 2020 10:42 AM

You back your arguments up with cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes. You use those quotes to make slanderous insinuations (perhaps libelous, since this is a written forum) about people who disagree with you.

Artie, you couldn't find a fact if you smeared yourself with fact musk and wandered naked through the fact forest during fact mating season.

Artie, you are a complete and utter fucking moron!

Artie, you are a complete and utter fucking moron!

Conan the Grammarian at August 30, 2020 2:23 PM

Conan, you are wasting your breath sweetie. Artemis is the smartest person he knows. Just ask him.

He will remain the same 4th grade smart ass for the rest of his life.

"A while back I tried to explain to you for example where your understanding of thermodynamics was flawed... but I am sure you missed that too."

You were full of crap then, and you are now, and I can only take comfort in the idea you're not a position to teach.