Lindsay Perigo at the Crossroads

[william.scherk]

Over at the other place, the remaining partially-sane member, Michael Moeller, is coming dangerously close to being banned disciplined.

Here is a sample from the last day, below. The entire thread is worthwhile to read -- if one is interested, as am I, in the struggles of arrogant people to dominate the other arrogant folks.

Here, top dog Perigo is finding himself challenged on logic, coherence, comprehension and a general ability to follow an argument.

I suspect neither Perigo nor Moeller want this to blow up into Schism, but in the meantime, Moeller is pressing hard, very hard.

(personally, I learned a lot from a long drawn-out SOLO combat with Moeller. He is not averse to insult, ad hominem and grandstanding, but has a firm grounding in law. He is not insulting Lindsay directly, but coming close to the edge)

I imagine Lindsay is trying hard to stop himself from thumbing the red button, while not allowing his amour propre to be compromised. Tough contortion for an old emperor.

Let us bow our heads and snicker at all the departed argumentarians of SOLO. The pond shrinks, the water grows more murky, and the fish trapped therein make some mighty interesting thrashing movements.

Not filed under humour.

Linz's Dangerous Ignorance...

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Sat, 2013-01-12 18:09.

Linz says I am wrong to assert that he is offering an assault on the First Amendment. Further, I assume he disagrees that it is him who is ushering government into the personal lives of individuals.

Who is right?

Consider this statement by Linz:

Not at all. If it's a Catholic marriage, and there's a dispute subsequently as to whether it conforms to Catholic doctrine, of course the government (hereinafter known as "Gummy"), in resolving the dispute, must ascertain what Catholic doctrine is. "Ascertain" does not mean "wade into," much less "dictate." It means "identify what Catholic doctrine is."

Notice that Linz totally evaded answering the scenario directly.

Why? Because to answer directly would refute the distinction he just tried to make. Obviously, if Catholic doctrine holds inconsistencies and contradictions, to decide a the case would be deciding what Catholic doctrine is.

Let's run the scenario again. Note that many modern Christians hold that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet, in the Old Testament, there are many cases of polygamy, including among those favored by God who were not punished for practicing polygamy (see, eg., David).

Billy and Erin decide to get married as Christians and according to Christian doctrine. They have a full wedding consummated by a priest and in front of family and friends. Erin later finds out that Billy is already married to two women in other states. She wants the marriage declared void because they agreed to get married as Christians, and Christianity does not permit polygamy. She brings in clergy to testify to that effect.

Billy, wanting to get a piece of Erin's wealth, says the marriage is perfectly valid according to Christianity. He wants the marriage declared valid, and instead argues for a divorce because he wants some of Erin's dough. He cites the Old Testament, and brings in clergy arguing in his favor that Christianity permits polygamy.

Well, the court has to decide one way or the other. In deciding whether the marriage was valid and who gets what property, the court must decide whether Christianity permits polygamy. Ergo, Linz has placed "Gummy" in the position of deciding Christian doctrine, contrary to his assertion.

So much for Linz's claim that:

"'Ascertain' does not mean 'wade into,' much less 'dictate.' It means 'identify what Catholic doctrine is.'"

Well, what about the fact that Christian doctrine is contradictory or inconsistent? To speak nothing of ordinary scenarios where the intent and consummation of marriage may be ambiguous?

Blank out.

The real kicker is that Linz accuses *me* of introducing the government into personal relationships up to its "frilly knickers", while he has unwittingly allowed the government to determine Christian doctrine.

No, defining marriage and setting formalities for consummating a marriage is government intrusion, even if just for the purpose of settling property and custody disputes that arise from marriage. Nevermind the fact that the government does it (validly) for all types of voluntary associations, contrary to Linz's general "principles", such as business partnerships, real estate relationships, professional relationships (eg. doctor-patient), and so on. This is intrusive Gummy.

But having two people define marriage any way they want and have it recognized by law, through Linz's mystical notions of "contract", is just dandy. Nevermind the fact that one of the consequences is that government will be intertwining itself with religion.

No specialized knowledge about the law is required. Libertarian dogma will suffice.

Michael

Edited January 14, 2013 by william.scherk

[Jonathan]

If Moeller gets kicked out, it's going to be really hard to decide who should take his place as the least retarded person at SOLO.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

If Moeller gets kicked out, it's going to be really hard to decide who should take his place as the least retarded person at SOLO.

J

.

Does Fred Seddon no longer post on SOLO?

Ellen

[Jonathan]

If Moeller gets kicked out, it's going to be really hard to decide who should take his place as the least retarded person at SOLO.

J

.

Does Fred Seddon no longer post on SOLO?

Ellen

I should have said "least retarded regular poster at SOLO."

J

[Robert Campbell]

Fred Seddon rarely discusses anything on SOLO. He just posts and leaves.

I still don't know why he doesn't give us a try over here.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

LP once chortled that someone on SOLO was getting "Moellered." Now he is getting "Moellered."

I wonder how long before he shuts SOLO down.

--Brant

"When Weak Egos Collide"--soon to be a major stupid-smartphone production

[william.scherk]

LP once chortled that someone on SOLO was getting "Moellered." Now he is getting "Moellered."

I wonder how long before he shuts SOLO down.

He can't shut SOLO down, I don't think, because it is his only platform (besides his sad and awful community access TeeVee progamme). It would be death to his ego, and to his amour propre ...

But, who knows how far the Moeller will press Lindsay. Moeller's second-to-last post is a masterpiece of slagging, to my eyes.

Just Take Responsibility, Linz!!

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Wed, 2013-01-16 23:17.

Linz,

You have misrepresented me on multiple occasions, including the topic of this thread. Don't debate if you don't want, but obviously I will stampede right over you if you re-enter the thread with stuff like I am in favor of "Gummint" up to its "frilly knickers". If you insist on such misrepresentations -- without rebutting the actual points -- I will be pissed. Period.

And the same goes for the Romney thing. You are still not taking responsibility with this garbage:

I hereby retract "insistence" and substitute "unrealistic optimism." The distinction is inconsequential in my view because both fall under the rubric of pollyanna-ism.

Really?

If you read my comments before the election, as you said you have, then you would realize that I said multiple times that I put Romney's chances at just above 50-50, and was nowhere near as optimistic as people like Rove and Dick Morris.

And here you are STILL saying "unrealistic optimism" and "pollyanna-ism". Considering Romney lost by 3.5 million votes, I was not that far off with just above 50-50 chance of winning.

And the "I'm Feelin' Good" thing you quoted from me while I was watching the voting returns, and Romney was up early in Florida and Virginia. At that point I was optimistic because he needed those states. Then you can see my mood change as the votes went against him, and this was all during the voting returns.

If you are not going to properly represent what I actually said and contort yourself to STILL justify a false claim about my conclusions, then I will regard you as the enemy.

Take responsibility for misrepresenting what I said. And you are still not correct with my view of your "Airhead America" theory.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The way for LP to put this behind him is to stop replying because Moeller only posts replies to replies on a mature thread. Note there was a several day break before LP came back only to be immediately swatted down by M. As for the discussion per se, I find it tedious and vain and therefore stupid consequent to its essential triviality.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I hear ya'.

I'm trying to understand why on earth this is important--other than, maybe, William giving me payback for the Glenn Beck stuff by putting the name of that SLOP jerk on an OL thread title.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I'm trying to understand why on earth this is important--other than, maybe, William giving me payback for the Glenn Beck stuff by putting the name of that SLOP jerk on an OL thread title.

Please garbage bin or Outer Limits or retitle it as you wish, Michael -- I didn't think it inappropriate when I banged it up, but I could have appended it to a previous Over There thread, now that you point it out.

I surmised that I might not be the only one to be interested in the contortions the 'Slop jerk' might perform to not ban Moeller. You will not have noticed, but SOLO is losing audience (or so says Alexa). A little schadenfreude is not a bad thing, since he so richly deserves ill fortune, given his past rebarbative and/or insane tirades and so on ...

We had a good long and useful couple of discussions over Glenn Beck claims and errors, you and I, I recall. In my mind there is bashing, nitpicking. and then reasonable -- if persistent -- criticism. I shall try not to hit your buttons with emotion-laden words (huckster, clown, etcetera) when next I react to a Beck piece.

I have a lot of respect for what you have done and continue to do, Michael -- keeping this forum going gives me a place to let WSS out to do what he does, and I appreciate it very much. Sometimes I hit the mark, sometimes I don't. When I don't, I do hear the hisses of the crowd, as well I should.

Incidentally, and off-topic, I have been haunting the IPB help/panic boards to see if any board owners had posted a ticket/complaint on weird video embed difficulties. So far, nobody has raised the particular issue that we have here.

If you like, I can post a link to the help thread I have been checking at IPB, if you are not already on it. I know you are not the only one frustrated with what should work seamlessly after the upgrade.

Edited January 17, 2013 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

That was a quip.

A quip...

If I didn't have great affection for you, I wouldn't have made it.

Michael