mikeylikesit wrote:
[quote=kj]
Everyone who disagrees with you guys is "pete". Boy did he get into your heads. kj.

davester wrote:
That's not true. Both swampy and shakeman disagree with me (though actually, shakeman pays no attention whatsoever to what anybody else says so that may be incorrect), but they are generally bearable and swampy is actually capable of debate. Pete has a very specific, easily recognized pompous, always wrong, always combative style. He is always on the attack, no matter what the other person says. There is no doubt that each of his sockpuppets is the same person.

What's interesting to me is that when he used the nick "lafayette pete" back in the early dealmac days he was actually an interesting and relatively reasonable (but very right wing) person. However, he eventually went off the deep end, posting long strings of profanity ridden posts replete with threats to many people on dealmac and other related forums. He's had his chance and several second chances. He failed.

kj wrote:
[quote=davester]
That's not true. Both swampy and shakeman disagree with me (though actually, shakeman pays no attention whatsoever to what anybody else says so that may be incorrect), but they are generally bearable and swampy is actually capable of debate. Pete has a very specific, easily recognized pompous, always wrong, always combative style. He is always on the attack, no matter what the other person says. There is no doubt that each of his sockpuppets is the same person.

What's interesting to me is that when he used the nick "lafayette pete" back in the early dealmac days he was actually an interesting and relatively reasonable (but very right wing) person. However, he eventually went off the deep end, posting long strings of profanity ridden posts replete with threats to many people on dealmac and other related forums. He's had his chance and several second chances. He failed.

kj wrote:
I saw the "meltdowns". You can't tell me people didn't instigate. At any rate, is he here? I really doubt it. kj.

kj wrote:
>>>kj, this is an internet forum; one can step away from the keyboard at any time.

Which is exactly why no one needs to get ugly with swampy, sam, or even pete. If you don't want a meltdown, don't beg for one. If you don't like their "tactics", don't respond. I get sick of all the "free-thinkers" around here trying to badger people off the forum. Pete was wrong for losing his cool. But it's not right to instigate things either. Both are wrong, I don't care which is more wrong. Pete spent way too much time justifying his positions to be just a troll. There are way more efficient ways to troll. Plus, if he's guilty of trolling, everyone else who responded is just as guilty of feeding the troll. I don't know which is dumberer (to borrow one from pete). The only reason people bring up pete is to try to rally the troops. If "pete's" here, we must expel him quickly. Give it a rest. I really think you guys can handle some disagreement. kj.

Stizzealth wrote:
Your analogy wilts under light examination. First of all, one can't compare Pol Pot's anti-intellectualism to plain old anti-stupidity. First of all, Pol Pot's policies demanded the absolute political illiteracy of the general populace, as does liberalism today. Anybody who is even moderately politically and economically informed ought to know that flooding the market drives down prices and strangling companies with regulation prohibits their growth. It would make sense that economically minded voters would swing to the Republican Party, yet soaking Peter to pay Paul is just SO enticing, isn't it? Today's institutions of higher learning are sadly one-sided, and as I previously mentioned, one can go to Harvard to get stupid. I don't fear pointy-headed intellectuals, as the disconnected ones concoct various snake-oil concoction to sell to the public that are usually fairly easy to debunk. There's nothing to fear about something that can be defeated.