I have just lost a ton of respect for Rush....

[Matthew_Page2000]

Bubba, would you provide us with three links to posts here on Interference where you acknowledge that you were wrong in a substantive way on any issue? Note my use of "substantive." An acknowledgement from you that you got an insignificant statistic wrong but that it doesn't speak to your larger point doesn't count.

Thanks,
MAP

[U2live]

can't believe all the typing involved over one of the most meaningless, boring, blowhards in the universe. Could this epitomy of the word narcissist actually mean that much to anyone? Doubt it.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
Bubba, would you provide us with three links to posts here on Interference where you acknowledge that you were wrong in a substantive way on any issue? Note my use of "substantive." An acknowledgement from you that you got an insignificant statistic wrong but that it doesn't speak to your larger point doesn't count.

Thanks,
MAP

I do not wish to continue this discussion, but neither do I have any desire to give the false impression - through my silence - that I'm somehow caught without words.

To answer your request, no, I won't provide any such links.

Why? Because they do not exist. In terms of the most substantive issues, I have not found myself on the wrong side of any issue in this forum. I have not encountered an argument pursuasive enough to convince me to reverse my views.

I will not post any links where I admit I'm substantively wrong because those links can't be found - and I can trace that directly to the fact that I believe I'm generally right.

I know many people believe that it's "weird" to actually think an opinion is either right or wrong, that there is no real truth, and that only interpretations exist.

I'm simply not one of those people.

I don't believe my opinions are right because they're MINE; I believe they're right becuase they are based on facts and logic, and because they hold up to careful scrutiny.

So, I don't believe I've ever been seriously incorrect in this forum.

I must ask, what does that prove?

(I know the response: that I'm arrogant, a "bully" and a "bulldozer".)

But seriously, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY ARE WRONG?

Not very many, I can tell you that for damn certain.

As far as I can tell, there are essentially two groups here:

1. The objectivists who believe that truth does exist: in most cases, they think they're right and the other guy's wrong.

2. The so-called subjectivists who clam to believe that truth doesn't actually exist: they think nobody's right and nobody's wrong, and (I suppose) we should all go skipp merrily through the woods singing songs about trees and rainbows.

(Though, I suspect if subjectivists HONESTLY believed that truth doesn't exist, they wouldn't even try to offer any evidence to support their opinions and pursuade others to see thing their way.)

The fact remains: NEITHER GROUP OFTEN ADMITS THEY'RE WRONG.

Now, if you're done, I'm outta here.

[80sU2isBest]

Good job Achtung Bubba,
I'm glad you came back for one more post, to set the record straight. You have been unfairly lambasted by a couple of people who ought to be ashamed of the way they've carried on. But you're right, it seems in this world that if you stand by your convictions, you're a "bully" and "arrogant"...oh, let me rephrase that; if you stand by your CONSERVATIVE convictions, you're labeled a "bully" and "arrogant".

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Im with you Bubba.

Db9

ps-
you made me giggle about the subjective crowd 'skipping thru the woods'..

[chain]

Bubba,

A little help my friend.

Here IS how it is done.

I would like to pay you a sincere complement. A while back in a different thread concerning the confederate flag, you stated that if it offended minorities you thought it should not be displayed.
Most of my friends who reside quite a bit south of the Mason Dixon line give weak arguments about Southern pride, culture, etc. I expected something similar from you, ****(I WAS WRONG) and was pleasantly surprised.
Your postings reveal you to be a huge Rush fan, I was once, *****(I WAS WRONG) I now hear what many others hear, (Joyful, etc)

Re: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Here is a thought, go up to 5 or 6 random people (not your like minded peers, include some people of color) and ask them to respond to this remark.

If you are not comfortable repeating it, then print it out on paper and present it that way.

Let�s call it a home study assignment for a, sociology? or media? class.


It is painless and liberating.

Let me help you get started,

When the issue doesn't much matter, I respect different opinions. (were you wrong here?)
When I'm wrong about facts or what someone else said, I admit it. (maybe here?)
When I clearly go too far in my use of figurative language or harsh language, I apologize. (not wrong, you have)
When someone else makes a good point (regardless of whether I disagree), I point that out, too. (?)

Through my college studies I read Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, and most of Atlas Shrugged.
Objectivism, is a neat, clean philosophy. It works perfectly in theory. But, as I explain to my students, it goes wanting in real world applications.


Regards,

Chain

[melon]

LOL...these threads are all the same, regardless of who debates in it. Hence why I consciously stopped arguing in it. Good day...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by melon:
LOL...these threads are all the same, regardless of who debates in it. Hence why I consciously stopped arguing in it. Good day...

Melon

I find it funny.. 'LOL', that you make a point of coming into this thread and pointing out to all of us that 'Woo Hoo', You didn't post in here.. Hahaha.. That's very amusing Melon, feeling a little left out?...

L.Unplugged

[Achtung Bubba]

Chain,

Again, I have no desire to continue this discussion - as I have already said twice. Fact of the matter is, I'm soon taking a vacation from the forum to focus on work and other websites.

I would like to have ended these discussions on a civil note, but I believe I will make an exception for you.

Chain, what the fuck do you think you are doing?

Originally posted by chain:
It is painless and liberating.

Let me help you get started,

When the issue doesn't much matter, I respect different opinions. (were you wrong here?)
When I'm wrong about facts or what someone else said, I admit it. (maybe here?)
When I clearly go too far in my use of figurative language or harsh language, I apologize. (not wrong, you have)
When someone else makes a good point (regardless of whether I disagree), I point that out, too. (?)

Through my college studies I read Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, and most of Atlas Shrugged.
Objectivism, is a neat, clean philosophy. It works perfectly in theory. But, as I explain to my students, it goes wanting in real world applications.

You know what else is liberating? Being completely honest: to be honest, you are an asshole.

You suggest that I'm wrong (i.e., lying) about the fact that I *do* in fact respect other opinions in matters of lesser importance, that I do apologize when I get facts wrong and misinterpret posts, and that I do concede when opponents make good points.

And all this is said without one TRACE of an explanation, reasoning, or evidence.

You then tell me this: "as I explain to my students, (objectivism) goes wanting in real world applications."

Tell me, when you explain this to your students, do you also simply assert it as fact - again without evidence OR logic OR even a rough explanation?

If you are as arrogantly presumptuous to them as you are to me, I'd be shocked to learn that they have any respect for you at all. And IF your students can think logically for themselves, I'm sure it's despite you, not because of you.

(And don't be too shocked that I'm this irate about this: did you actually think "as I explain to my students" is a sufficient substitute FOR AN ACTUAL EXPLANATION?)

Above ALL THIS, you present your idiocy as if you're proofreading my work, arrogantly suggesting precisely where I should apologize.

You may be a teacher somewhere else, but you're not a teacher here. And if you think arrogant comments on one's work is irritating when it comes from your teacher, it's INFURIATING when coming from a complete stranger who has offered, as far as can tell, NOTHING of substance to this debate.

Now, if I may be honest about one more quote:

Originally posted by chain:
Your postings reveal you to be a huge Rush fan, I was once, *****(I WAS WRONG) I now hear what many others hear, (Joyful, etc)

I don't believe you: what you're saying is that you were a "huge Rush fan" who now hears what other people hear - other people that don't actually listen to the show and simply quote a one-sided editorial that takes Rush completely out of context.

Uh-huh. Right.

Finally, you should end sentences with periods, not commas. I hope you share that little bit of wisdom to your students, and that they benefit from it.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-21-2002).]

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
LOL...these threads are all the same, regardless of who debates in it. Hence why I consciously stopped arguing in it. Good day...

Melon

It appears you consciously stopped the moment I asked for more definitive proof that conservatives are Nazis.

Convenient timing.

[Salome]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
a couple of people who ought to be ashamed of the way they've carried on

I agree that some people should be ahamed of the way they carry on

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[80sU2isBest]

Achtung, I realize that Chain's post have been arrogant beyond words, but please don't stoop to the level of a couple of our opponents who name call. To be honest, I think it only adds fuel to the fire. It shocked me when I read it because it's so unlike you.

[Not George Lucas]

When I first saw this thread, I thought you were talking about the band, Rush, not the idiot radio whore Rush.

------------------

Truth is offensive.
I'm morally opposed to rape, and I would never rape anyone, but I think, ultimately, it's up to the rapist and no one else.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Achtung, I realize that Chain's post have been arrogant beyond words, but please don't stoop to the level of a couple of our opponents who name call. To be honest, I think it only adds fuel to the fire. It shocked me when I read it because it's so unlike you.

At some point, a human being has to decide that enough is enough.

Very recently, I've been criticized for my religious beliefs; conservative Christians have been called homophobic Bible-thumper in a forum that supposedly practices religious tolerance. I've been harassed for my political beliefs; conservatives and the leading conservative commentators have been called NAZIs without the shadow of a legitimate reason, in a forum where I can't dare call Michael Moore an idiot. And I've been personally attacked, being called a bully and Pharisee.

Why has this happened?

Three reasons: my beliefs are contrary to many other beliefs here, I confidently hold that I am actually right, and I am able to brilliantly defend my position.

Seriously: if you people could have picked apart my arguments even in this thread, you would have by now. You would have addressed the reminder of Malcolm X's violent legacy in the wake of the L.A. Riots. You would have countered the claim that a scandal-happy Senator should be under scrutiny, despite the fact that she happens to black and female. And you would have responded to the fact that the 40,000 residents of East St. Louis constitute less than two percent of the metropolitan population.

But you didn't attack my actual points, you attacked the fact that I made those points to begin with:

Originally posted by Salome:
trying to convince that you are right has become more important in here then trying to find out what the exact truth might be

A Catch-22 of contradiction if I ever saw one. Had I merely said, "the article's biased," you'd chalk that up to "a difference of opinion." I actually demonstrate the worthlessness of the article, and now I'm apparently too concerned with proving my point.

You claim I responded out of nothing more than anger:

Originally posted by chain:
So you post a said requested list, and three angry white males get hopping mad.

Another trap: merely disagreeing with someone and backing up the disagreement with evidence and logic now constitutes anger.

And you went right to name-calling:

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Bubba, I can't talk to you. I do not find your observations "astute." You have a need to be right. I don't. I find you to be a bully and I will not debate with a bully. I disagree with 80s 99% of the time, but at least he is a nice person. I don't think you are.

All because I demonstrated, paragraph-by-paragraph, that that petty little editorial is worthless.

When chain posted his most recent banality, I decided I had enough.

You people don't discuss anything, you don't address my actual arguments - any of the points I actually make - and instead resort to name-calling and hypothetical arguments that don't stand up to any scrutiny at all.

(Again, NAME ANYONE on this forum who's seriously changed their opinions and apologized accordingly. I'd say no one has, so it doesn't matter that I don't either.)

Ultimately, if you can call me names, I can and eventually WILL return the kindness. I won't turn off my brain and start spewing emotional drivel. I will use my brain to harness my hatred and tear you a new 'hole.

[Achtung Bubba]

One more thing:

CHAIN ACTUALLY IS AN ASSHOLE.

Look at his replies in this thread:

Originally posted by chain:
Joyfulgirl,

Or course you are right.

Any clear thinking, rational person hears the mean spirited and intolerant statements Rush continues to make.


Chain

�Tell the truth and people will not like you, tell the truth when they know you are right and they will hate you�

Originally posted by chain:
Joyfulgirl,

You are a voice of reason.


�I'd definitely like to see you list any racist remarks he has made.�


So you post a said requested list, and three angry white males get hopping mad.

"Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
How exactly is this racist?
Anyone?


That says it all!

Anyone who would ask this question just does not get it, probably never will.


I now light a candle against the darkness.

Chain

�Tell the truth and people will not like you, tell the truth when they know you are right and they will hate you�

Amusing: two nearly identical posts, neither of them saying anything of any importance.

Not terribly outrageous in comparison to what would follow, but this already demonstrates his two worst attributes: pseudointellectual arrogance and a complete lack of anything substantive.

The obvious reply is that I too am arrogant. Let's say for the sake of argument I'm arrogant and not merely confident. At least I back up what I say.)

Chain asserts that Rush's comments are clearly racist, this after I posted an essay of 1,151 words picking apart the article, arguing to the contrary. Does he dispute my repsonse? No - all he does is claim my response is just proof that I'm mad, and that I'm clearly wrong, again without explanation. Does he offer his own defense of the article? NO.

Originally posted by chain:
First Mr. Bubba,

I would like to pay you a sincere complement. A while back in a different thread concerning the confederate flag, you stated that if it offended minorities you thought it should not be displayed.
Most of my friends who reside quite a bit south of the Mason Dixon line give weak arguments about Southern pride, culture, etc. I expected something similar from you, and was pleasantly surprised.

Your postings reveal you to be a huge Rush fan, I was once, I now hear what many others hear, (Joyful, etc)

Re: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Here is a thought, go up to 5 or 6 random people (not your like minded peers, include some people of color) and ask them to respond to this remark.


If you are not comfortable repeating it, then print it out on paper and present it that way.


Let�s call it a home study assignment for a, sociology? or media? class.


Regards,

Chain

This post again contains no substantive arguments, only implying that majority rule should determine what's racism. It has this really artificial "sincere complement", the claim that he was once a "huge Rush fan" who's now seen the light (again, by hearing the same thing that joyfulgirl hears, even though she doesn't listen to the show), and this insincere "Regards" that lawyers, CEOs, and other use so well when they really don't mean it.

It's at this point I begin to suspect a more thoroughly irritating individual - again, a person marked by arrogance but lacking the mental prowess to support such evidence.

That said, I replied quite reasonably, quoting a case in which popular opinion thought something was racist when it wasn't (the word "niggardly") AND a case in which popular opinion doesn't support the activists' case for establishing racism (the SI article about Native American mascots).

Did he acknowledge this response at all?

No.

Instead, he offered "help" that I never requested in apologizing for things that I don't think qualify. Again, the post that first led me to bring my anger to bear:

Originally posted by chain:
Bubba,

A little help my friend.

Here IS how it is done.

I would like to pay you a sincere complement. A while back in a different thread concerning the confederate flag, you stated that if it offended minorities you thought it should not be displayed.
Most of my friends who reside quite a bit south of the Mason Dixon line give weak arguments about Southern pride, culture, etc. I expected something similar from you, ****(I WAS WRONG) and was pleasantly surprised.
Your postings reveal you to be a huge Rush fan, I was once, *****(I WAS WRONG) I now hear what many others hear, (Joyful, etc)

Re: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Here is a thought, go up to 5 or 6 random people (not your like minded peers, include some people of color) and ask them to respond to this remark.

If you are not comfortable repeating it, then print it out on paper and present it that way.

Let�s call it a home study assignment for a, sociology? or media? class.


It is painless and liberating.

Let me help you get started,

When the issue doesn't much matter, I respect different opinions. (were you wrong here?)
When I'm wrong about facts or what someone else said, I admit it. (maybe here?)
When I clearly go too far in my use of figurative language or harsh language, I apologize. (not wrong, you have)
When someone else makes a good point (regardless of whether I disagree), I point that out, too. (?)

Through my college studies I read Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, and most of Atlas Shrugged.
Objectivism, is a neat, clean philosophy. It works perfectly in theory. But, as I explain to my students, it goes wanting in real world applications.


Regards,

Chain

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: he claims I was lying about my general civility in these forums AND he claims that objectivism "goes wanting in real world applications." Does he offer ANY evidence to support either claim? Of course not.

And between this attempt to proofread MY post and the "a home study assignment for a, sociology? or media? class", he's clearly trying to affect the personality of an English teacher when this is a forum of equals, when he's been registered for a month (having posted less than 50 times), and he's shown himself to be absolutely TERRIBLE at offering anything substantive.

The end result is that I would like to meet the guy personally, so I bash his skull in.

"You are a voice of reason."

"I now light a candle against the darkness."

"But, as I explain to my students, it goes wanting in real world applications."

Gosh, he sounds so smart. It's a damn shame he hasn't demonstrated a single idea that suggests he's actually as smart as the phrases he uses.

Unless he does demonstrate a level of rhetorical skills commensurate with his language skills, I will continue to believe that he is a know-nothing pretending to be a know-it-all.

An asshole.

[80sU2isBest]

Achtung, I hope you don't think I was jumping your case. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything, I just don't think we should respond in the same way some of them do. Anyhow, I've got your back on this one!

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Achtung, I hope you don't think I was jumping your case. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything, I just don't think we should respond in the same way some of them do. Anyhow, I've got your back on this one!

No, I didn't take your post the wrong way. My original tirade just needed more explanation.

And if you thought THAT post was bad, you should have seen it in its original form.

[z edge]

A-Bubba calm down and take a breather please. Don't post any 1500+ essays for a while, and dont let the ants make you scratch.

Enjoy your weekend

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Lemonite, I've been wondering about something:
That new "chauvenist" bit under your name; did you put that on there, or did someone just decide to put that there for you?

Hahaha, 80's, Naah, I didn't put it there, I was sort of bestowed that by our Integrity Filled Leader Elvis as his final 'nyah' in some sort of Argument that He had with me..

I just sort of go with it.. The green is a nice touch though.. Don't ya think?

L.Unplugged

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Lemonite:

Hahaha, 80's, Naah, I didn't put it there, I was sort of bestowed that by our Integrity Filled Leader Elvis as his final 'nyah' in some sort of Argument that He had with me..
I just sort of go with it.. The green is a nice touch though.. Don't ya think?
L.Unplugged

Yeah, I agree. The green is a nice touch. I wonder if he attached the word "leprechaun" to the wrong person, though. He obviously doesn't know that I stand only 5 ft 4 and am of strong Irish descent.