David Brooks' take on the transition...

[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]

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

Why not come to that conclusion if it turns out to be true 9 times out of 10? (that's the average to date)
You've accused at least swampy and guitarist of being pete (0-2). I don't buy that it's him, but we'll see.

I don't think conservatives are anti-education, but rather, realize there are more important things. Maybe that's just me, though. kj.

[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.

That's true. Thanks, that's pretty reasonable. I tend to cut pete a lot more slack than others. Occasionally he would put together some amazing analyses. I also think a lot of the posters deliberately contributed to his meltdowns, and are equally to blame. I disagreed with him several times, and he was respectful as long as I was respectful. I know I'm alone in that opinion though. kj.

[wave rider]

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.

That's true. Thanks, that's pretty reasonable. I tend to cut pete a lot more slack than others. Occasionally he would put together some amazing analyses. I also think a lot of the posters deliberately contributed to his meltdowns, and are equally to blame. I disagreed with him several times, and he was respectful as long as I was respectful. I know I'm alone in that opinion though. kj.
kj, 'pete is a troll and had you on his line; had he blown up, he would have lost you. 'pete admitted publicly that he does trolls for the sport. He did the same to me, always sending me on far flung links that bolstered his arguments (but were really bogus sites factually) but would turn on a dime when I called him on his sources.

Blaming 'pete's meltdowns on others, even partially, is crazy talk. His "meltdowns" may even be part of his trolling strategy anyway...

=wr=

[kj]

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

[swampy]

I'm with Stizz.. Who is pete? Must have been before my time here in the FPR forum.

DAVE: "...and swampy is actually capable of debate..."

I appreciate that, Dave.

[wave rider]

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, this is an internet forum; one can step away from the keyboard at any time. That 'pete didn't is on him and no one else. There may have been many cheering him on as he threw himself onto the "meltdown pyre," 'pete is the one that kept typing the meltdown.

Which is why I'm not so sure the "meltdown" isn't just another one of 'pete's trolling tools.

=wr=

[kj]

>>>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.

[Wags]

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.

I agree agree with kj here, although 'pete does have a gift for imaginative invective and his meltdowns are quite entertaining. Reminds me of the character Ignatius J. Reilly in Toole's novel, "A Confederacy of Dunces". Its easy to get caught up in the rock throwing. Amazing how normally polite people will devolve into nastiness under the cover of anonymity.

[Black Landlord]

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.

LOL!