7.18.2006

he's back

GaryStJ is back, and he says: "Unfortunately, however, L-girl (and I mean no offence), the burden of proof is on you."

Burden of proof? No offence Gary, but fuck you! I've explained all I'm going to explain, in recent posts, and throughout my blog. Wmtc readers have expanded and emphasized my basic points. You're not paying attention, and you're not worth it.

Y'all are free to argue with him, of course. I'll enjoy it from the sidelines.

33 comments:

redsock said...

In the "confusion" post, Gary commented:

I've argued that the two country's actions are comparable, not better or worse than one another's.

In the "idiocy" post, I linked to a list of US foreign military actions, covert operations, coups, etc.

Gary, since you believe that "the two country's actions are comparable" and not a matter of better or worse -- and the US's shameful history of meddling in the affairs of other (often democratic) countries was a major reason in my decision to leave the country -- please provide the comparable list of Canadian foreign military actions, covert operations, coups, etc.

Thanks.

Masnick96 said...

L-Girl, he just dosen't get it.

I know nothing of Gary, but my guess is he has never lived in the US, and sits on the sidelines on his academic high chair lobbing his acutely aimed commentary (that's insult in American English) over the border and onto his own countrymen (and women.)

I'm not going to enagage a passive-aggresive personality in a tit for tat because all that does is gives him a raging hard-on and keeps him coming back for more.

Know this L-Girl & Redsock...you have more people in the world who understand and respect your decision then academic high horses questioning it.

redsock said...

Gary wrote recently:

forgive me if I sounded as if I was attacking you, I meant no offence.

For the record, this is some of what he initially wrote:

In fact, you sound an awful lot like the American "right wing, wing-nuts" you rail against regularly ...

Nothing personal, but ... Canada doesn't need anymore of these types of people. ... self-congratulatory attitudes such as yours ... [are] a slap in the face to people like me who see real injustices here faced by real, living people. ...

you seem to be well on your way down the slope to Canada fanboyism. ... I'm not holding anything against you or trying to sound cheeky.


As LP commented elsewhere, we know how to read.

L-girl said...

Gary also said "I seem to have struck a nerve".

That is one my least favourite rhetorical devices.

Person A is rude. Person B is offended at Person's A rudeness, and says as much.

Person A says "I seem to have struck a nerve," implying that there was no offense, merely "the truth hurts", thereby removing his own responsibility for the original offense.

As you know, in the "confusion" post, I responded to each of Gary's questions individually. Yet this burden of proof is still on.

Hey Nick, thanks. :)

L-girl said...

If you don't yet understand why an American would be lauded in moving to Canada for reasons of one country "being better" than another, then you haven't yet realized the national (specifically, Central-Canadian) ethos.

This is another obfuscating rhetorical device. Gary implies that wmtc readers are defending my and Allan's POV because it makes them feel good about themselves.

It might, but that's a separate issue. M@, Lone Primate, James, Teflonjedi, MSEH, Nick, Scott M - and forgive me if I'm forgetting anyone, I'm recalling names off the top of my head - gave specific, detailed responses, hardly cheerleading or "fanboyism" (is that academic-speak, too?). But Gary ignores those responses and tells me I haven't yet realized the national ethos.

redsock said...

It seems that Gary has conceded the point, in a somewhat roundabout way.

Alex Elliott said...

I know that grammar flames are lame, but he does claim that he's used to an "academic writing style", yet he continually misuses the phrase "beg a question", which is one of my huge pet peeves.

"Beg the question" is not a synonym for "raise the question", the way Gary has used it. Instead, it's a very specific type of logical fallacy wherein one answers a question by just reasserting the original questionable fact in a different form. Perhaps he thinks that using the phrase makes him sound academic, but misusing the phrase only makes it sound like he's trying to sound academic.

Lone Primate said...

he continually misuses the phrase "beg a question", which is one of my huge pet peeves.

Hi, James; I think we've covered this. Society's moved on; get over it. We don't hyphenate "to-day" anymore either. Oh, and we're known to happily split infinitives, too. :)

GarySTJ said...

I said I was used to the academic style, I never said I was writing academically here.

And thanks, Lone, for the unexpected and appreciated getting of my back. Alex, to "beg a question" is perfectly common and acceptable in the manner I've used it. Rewind a few years and it wouldn't have been. But thanks for sharing your pet peeve with us.

Wrye said...

...

May I?

GarySTJ said...

By all means!

---

I will be reading/posting in this thread only from now on. Bouncing back from one to the other is asinine.

James said...

Gary, there is no burden of proof, because no-one is required to prove anything. Laura and Allan are not answerable to you or anyone (other than Immigration Canada) about their reasons for moving. Furthermore, pretty much the entire back catalog of this weblog actally does cover their reasons, in detail. It's obvious from your posts that you didn't actually go back to read any of it (or, if you did, that you didn't pay much attention).

If you're going to accuse someone of intellecutal dishonesty, fanboyism, and so on, the least you can do is demonstrate that your accusations are based on a valid premise (namely, that your claim that there is nothing to differentiate the US and Canada other than "aesthetics").

he continually misuses the phrase "beg a question", which is one of my huge pet peeves.

Hi, James; I think we've covered this. Society's moved on; get over it. We don't hyphenate "to-day" anymore either. Oh, and we're known to happily split infinitives, too. :)


That's not me, though. I'm not the only one with that peeve. "Begging the question" is a precise technical term with a specific meaning (namely, the logical fallacy petitio principii), after all. ("Lay" for "lie" bugs me too.)

Regardless of colloquial use, and academic who claims to be being blunt because he's using writing in an academic style should know better than to use a term from logic (supposedly a purview of academia, after all) incorrectly. After all, the phrase "raise the question" avoids this mistake without even adding an extra syllable to your statement.

Lone Primate said...

After all, the phrase "raise the question" avoids this mistake without even adding an extra syllable to your statement.

I think we can safely say that for nearly everyone who speaks the English language since, ohhh, Mark Twain, "to beg the question", whatever it may once have meant, today means "to raise the question". In common usage, you would be the one confusing people. There might be a certain nobility in being the last Japanese soldier huddled on a coral island, but the time has come to accept that the war you're fighting ended a long time ago, you lost, the world has moved on, and the Emperor wants you to come home now.

GarySTJ said...

James

There is a burden of proof. L-Girl and Allan can simply choose not to answer my questions and that is well within their perogative.

Aesthetics refers to the alternative reason for leaving if not for an objective one.

Re: my reading through the blog archives, see my other posts.

This is the last time I will correct readers for obvious comprehension mistakes. You will just have to read my posts more carefully - or simply choose not to read them at all.

As for "begging a question", this has already been established. The usage is perfectly correct. Wikipedia does, however, appreciate your continued support.

M@ said...

Let me see if I can summarize this:

Gary questioned and Laura and Allan's reasons for moving to Canada because Canada is no better than the USA.

However, Gary steadfastly refuses to back up his claim that the two countries are equivalent, or to even identify the terms on which that claim is made.

Furthermore, Gary feels that Laura and Allan bear the burden of proof to show that when they moved to Canada, they weren't turning a blind eye to Gary's analysis of the comparitive merits of the two countries, weren't being jingoistic fanboys for Canada, and weren't acting like the right-wingers they think they hate.

This despite Gary's apparently being the only person in the discussion, and possibly in Christendom, to hold his view of the two countries.

Am I close?

L-girl said...

Being away from the computer for a couple of hours, then coming back and catching up, the whole thing is crystal clear.

Gary is a more literate, Canadian version of the kind of wingnuts who used to plague this blog before we moved. Everything he says here is some variation on "I've hit a sore spot", parts 2, 3, and etc.

Gary is completely unwilling to defend his position. Instead, he plays verbal games, makes accusations, asks questions, twists logic, claims his questions have to be answered, claims he's been understood, and so forth. But never, not once, does he back up any of his statements, all the while insisting that everyone else do so. (Which everyone else has done.)

Gary repeatedly claimed that everyone here was spouting empty platitudes - even though numerous commenters had given concrete examples, to which he refused to respond. The few concrete examples he did not ignore (eg, SSM), he blithely explained away with some gobbledygook about a strong federal government. [Tell that to all the gay Americans who don't live in Massachusetts (not that the battle's won there, either) and all the American women who can't obtain an abortion. The fact that women in New York can obtain abortions doesn't help them much.]

In something like this--

This is the last time I will correct readers for obvious comprehension mistakes. You will just have to read my posts more carefully - or simply choose not to read them at all.

--he accuses others of what he's been doing all along.

Gary still has not acknowledged or responded to my point-by-point answer of every question he posted (the second part of the "confusion" post).

The only statement to which he directly responds at any length is a non-sequitor ("begs the question"). [Let's agree to disagree on this one, folks, and not get too hung up on it, ok?]

"Folks" does not include GaryStJ.

I've never heard the expression "balloon juice salesman" but it's 100% apt.

L-girl said...

Typo:

claims he's been understood

Correction:

Claims he's been misunderstood.

Wrye said...

...

Just not worth it.

L-girl said...

Just not worth it.

So true, but will you, please, anyway? Just once? Aw come on, Wrye, pretty please?

L-girl said...

Canrane, if you're still reading: thank you. :)

L-girl said...

I just caught this:

[Gary to Allan:]

I've conceded nothing. The issue you raise is of a temporal nature only.

Can anyone think of anything more full of shit than this? This is beyond balloon juice. This is intellectual manure.

A man answers a straightforward question in this way and has the chutzpah to accuse others of the sin of intellectual dishonesty.

Wow.

James said...

There is a burden of proof. L-Girl and Allan can simply choose not to answer my questions and that is well within their perogative.

Laura and Allan do not need to prove anything to you or anyone else. They are not answerable to you.

Furthermore, this is Laura's blog. Web-wise, you've come into her home and insulted her to her face (and, when told you were being insulting, said, "No, I'm not" and did it again). Basic social graces would suggest that, if you're going to attack someone in their own space (virtual though it may be), you substantiate your accusations.

In any case, the answers to your questions can be found throughout the postings going back just a little over two years (both in the posts themselves and follow-ups in the comments). Much of what you've cited (the Middle East, socially progressive legislation, even the CBC and jingoism) have all been addressed -- thoughfully and with considerable care and attention.

Wrye said...

Very well.

LG, can I play with Gary?

L-girl said...

James, thank you. :)

Wrye, yes you may. I look forward to it.

L-girl said...

There is a burden of proof. L-Girl and Allan can simply choose not to answer my questions and that is well within their perogative.

Laura and Allan do not need to prove anything to you or anyone else. They are not answerable to you.


I answered every single one of Gary's questions, but he ignored my answers. I have said this again and again, but he has never responded, still claiming we are ignoring him.

Wrye said...

All right then. Everybody else take five, relax, go enjoy the day. Let me talk to my man Gary.

Gary, it's just you and me, man. How are you feeling? Everything all right there?

James said...

I answered every single one of Gary's questions, but he ignored my answers.

Well, yes. But you were under no obligation to. A priori, it's extremely rude to barge in, make accusations and demand answers.

Ignoring the answers given turns it up a notch or two, of course...

L-girl said...

But you were under no obligation to.

I agree - absolutely. I prefaced my response by saying as much. Although Gary was rude, he seemed to have put time and thought into his questions, so I decided to be courteous and respond thoughtfully.

To which I now say: pfft.

teflonjedi said...

All right then. Everybody else take five, relax, go enjoy the day. Let me talk to my man Gary.

Oh, dammit, but I just got back! Can't I have some fun too? :)

There is a burden of proof.

Gary, we seem to be engaged in a debate here. Perhaps two.

The problem is, you have started a debate, but do not wish to engage in it.

You have made a proposition above, which I cannot determine from what you have said whether you have even attempted to offer a line of argument to support your proposition. (I am using "argument" in the classic Monty Python sense, as being "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.")

You appear to have repeated this proposition several times throughout the postings.

I assure you, you have walked into a den of skilled and intelligent debaters. The fact that you have commited several logical fallacies, including the proposition above, which is only intended to support your other line of argument as an argumentum ad verecundiam line of reasoning, is not lost on them. Other logical fallacies I have seen thus far: bifurcation, dicto simpliciter, petitio principii, and shifting the burden of proof. (Source)

I suspect that, if you were actually interested in debating these topics, you would find the folks here quite agreeable in a pretty vigorous debate. You may want to come better armed than you have, though, because logical fallacies tends to chum the water around here a little bit.

However, I don't think you're interested in that kind of engagement. You may just like stirring the pot up, which would make you a not-so-nice person, or you're actually trying to engage in research of some kind, and are trying to get the nice folks here to do it for you...which makes you a not-so-nice person.

Me, I can't engage in such debates here, because they move so quickly during the course of the day. Also, my debate interests tend to run towards science-based topics, given that is where my primary interests lie. However, when you say things like this:

I'm referring specifically to the comment that "Canada works for change while the US preserves the status quo". In order for this to be an accurate assertion, every piece of legislation in Canada would need to be in the active process of being changed, while every respective piece of legislation in the US in the active process of being preserved - a ridiculous prospect, and utterly indefencible at that!

...you'd better understand that I spotted dicto simpliciter from a mile away.

Please don't bring a knife to a gun fight.


Sorry...I'm rambling again.

L-girl said...

Dear Teflonjedi,

Thank you. You are great. Please stop apologizing.

P.S. I know you can't help it, you're Canadian.

P.P.S. Which of course is fundamentally the same thing as being not Canadian.

P.P.S. Not.

Lone Primate said...

or you're actually trying to engage in research of some kind, and are trying to get the nice folks here to do it for you...

Actually, this occurred to me, too. I wonder if that's not the case. Is Gary some kid with a term paper on Canadian constitutionality, or some such thing, due on Friday? I suppose students these days are apt to turn to the net (I myself, sadly, graduated four or five years before that was feasible, alas, and actually had to read books with some level of discernment). So here's Gary, who's probably all for most of what we believe, but is too lazy even to build straw men for us. He can barely muster the will to look up from the latest walk-right-beat-up-anything-that-arrives-fest and mutter, "Yeah, yeah, there's some straw men over in the lower forty; why don't you go knock 'em down for me? Thanks loads."

I smell valedictorian, don't you? :)

Wrye said...

Wryette's graduation, being at art school, featured three valedictorians--the last of which had no speech, but played music while distributing candy to the waiting students.

Valedictorians: like maudlin street lunatics, but with hostages.

teflonjedi said...

Please stop apologizing.

Oops. Sorry 'bout that.

;)

Once again, I must read and catch up.