The Lanny Papers

[DeanOMac]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Nov 3 2004, 10:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Nov 3 2004, 10:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BlackArcher101@Nov 3 2004, 09:42 PM
You are a real peice of work you know that?

Thank you.

You will notice how I didn't demand that Cow and Lanny keep it to a private conversation. It was a suggestion. Something that Pagel1234567 can't say for himself. Big big difference my friend. [/b][/quote]
Plus you got points for using the word "wanks". B)

Edit- 2 ######ed spelling errors.

[albertGQ]

Wow! I elected not to check this thread out because I figured it was just going to be a boring politics debate. Didn't know this thread got so heated. And I thought my debate with MMF last night and Rougeunderoos today were bad. That was nothing compared to Lanny versus Bingo and Cow in a handicap match. Although this thread did keep me entertained. Thanks everyone!!!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by DeanOMac@Nov 3 2004, 11:24 PM
Plus you got points for using the workd "wank".

See, you understand, why can't others? lol :biglaff:

[BlackArcher101]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm@Nov 4 2004, 12:06 AM
You will notice how I didn't demand that Cow and Lanny keep it to a private conversation. It was a suggestion. Something that Pagel1234567 can't say for himself. Big big difference my friend.

"but don't make the rest of us watch."

Maybe it's just me, but the word Don't in that sentence sure makes it sound like you are telling them what to do. The word is one sided and can't be taken as meaning the opposite. This was not a suggestion, I fail to see this big big difference.

[Jagger]

Holy crap!

My eyes are watering after reading this thread.

Scary stuff.............

[Five-hole]

Okay, Cow, so your point in posting this email is what, exactly?

To invalidate Lanny's points as a "left wing conspiracy theory wackjob"? The point of an argument is completely seperate from the point-maker and should be evaluated on its own merits, not on the merits of its speaker. I'm pretty sure you know about ad hominem attacks and the weakness they expose in the arguments of those that use them; and for the amount of time you and Bingo criticize Lanny for the ad hominem attacks it doesn't seem like you're too far above them either.

You know, I used to believe a lot of things that I now think are completely idiotic. Were I to have a conversation with myself-of-4-years-ago I'd probably think I was a misguided, ill-informed sod. I changed. I'll probably change again. Oh, and another thing: I was just as convinced that I was right back then as I am now. People tend to be that way. They also tend to strongly disagree with their opposition and cannot fathom why anybody would think differently than them; thus, when you radically switch viewpoints you often end up on the side of the fence you used to demean. I wouldn't expect you to hold the same opinion for your entire life and I'm surprised you would expect Lanny or anybody else to. Nor would I expect you to make any excuse for discarded opinions than being misguided at one point in time.

Lastly: opinions should be based on evidence. Opinions not based on evidence, or opinions which would reflect a state of affairs completely contrary to evidence presented, are called "faith". When your opinions do not change regardless of new evidence presented, you are either a zealot, or an idiot. I do not want to argue with either, because both are a waste of time. There's no point in arguing with someone if they've proven to be completely immovable in opinion, so I would think that you'd be glad that Lanny has proven to be mutable in his, since you seem to love to argue with him so.

In light of this, I'll have to assume your intent in posting this was to discredit him. Unfortunately, like minds tend to stick together, and it's really only going to polarize the existing factions more than they already are. Many of my opinions and political views are parallel with many of Lanny's opinions and political views, and that he used to think differently doesn't change MY opinions any. I hope you don't think it would.

It stinks of ad hominem pretty severely, man. Seeking to discredit an opponent not on his arguments or on the merits of your own, but on some perceived character flaw. Weak.

[showtime]

I use to believe in Santa...But i've since learned he doesnt exist ...At least i still have the Easter Bunny

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally posted by showtime@Nov 4 2004, 04:15 AM
I use to believe in Santa...But i've since learned he doesnt exist

Santa exists.........in fact, he's one of the biggest Flames fans around. He shaved his beard during the playoffs.........you might have seen him at the Dome.........


I also believe he has posted here from time to time.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Five-hole@Nov 4 2004, 09:37 AM
Okay, Cow, so your point in posting this email is what, exactly?

To invalidate Lanny's points as a "left wing conspiracy theory wackjob"? The point of an argument is completely seperate from the point-maker and should be evaluated on its own merits, not on the merits of its speaker. I'm pretty sure you know about ad hominem attacks and the weakness they expose in the arguments of those that use them; and for the amount of time you and Bingo criticize Lanny for the ad hominem attacks it doesn't seem like you're too far above them either.

You know, I used to believe a lot of things that I now think are completely idiotic. Were I to have a conversation with myself-of-4-years-ago I'd probably think I was a misguided, ill-informed sod. I changed. I'll probably change again. Oh, and another thing: I was just as convinced that I was right back then as I am now. People tend to be that way. They also tend to strongly disagree with their opposition and cannot fathom why anybody would think differently than them; thus, when you radically switch viewpoints you often end up on the side of the fence you used to demean. I wouldn't expect you to hold the same opinion for your entire life and I'm surprised you would expect Lanny or anybody else to. Nor would I expect you to make any excuse for discarded opinions than being misguided at one point in time.

Lastly: opinions should be based on evidence. Opinions not based on evidence, or opinions which would reflect a state of affairs completely contrary to evidence presented, are called "faith". When your opinions do not change regardless of new evidence presented, you are either a zealot, or an idiot. I do not want to argue with either, because both are a waste of time. There's no point in arguing with someone if they've proven to be completely immovable in opinion, so I would think that you'd be glad that Lanny has proven to be mutable in his, since you seem to love to argue with him so.

In light of this, I'll have to assume your intent in posting this was to discredit him. Unfortunately, like minds tend to stick together, and it's really only going to polarize the existing factions more than they already are. Many of my opinions and political views are parallel with many of Lanny's opinions and political views, and that he used to think differently doesn't change MY opinions any. I hope you don't think it would.

It stinks of ad hominem pretty severely, man. Seeking to discredit an opponent not on his arguments or on the merits of your own, but on some perceived character flaw. Weak.

You're actually defending Lanny on the basis that a personal attack diminishes the argument?

Okay, I can pick myself up off the floor now and stop laughing.

Its none of my business I guess but this is, after all, a guy who was banned at Hockeys Future after several years of non-stop personal attacks and has been cautioned on every message board he's ever frequented for the same crime.

That's a knee slapper. If that's the trade I have to take I'll grab it!!

I don't recall calling him a wackjob by the way.

If you feel Lanny is discredited, it will be because he hoisted himself with his own words. Obviously.

He clearly believed in the neocon agenda, (admitted as much to myself in an e-mail last week), largely disappeared from the off-topic board for a couple of years, then showed up about six months ago exposing a neocon plot to rule the world while reminding us he "was right all along" and labelling anyone who disagreed with him his intellectual inferior.

He promoted the agenda that eventually came to pass then reappeared and called the perpetrators of that agenda "nazi's."

I don't care if he changes his mind as I've said before. More power to him. If he thinks GW Bush is a Nazi, then good for him. We're all entitled to an opinion. The only difference today is that you know ALL of Lanny's opinions and can better judge the merits of his debate points on that basis.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Well Cow, you certainly are a hypocrite, aren't you. Its funny, but a couple years ago I accidentally let something slip that was exchanged between us in a PM/e-mail and you and Bingo had a complete and total hissy fit over it. I was raked over the coals for it by you two. It was an accident and I said as much, even apologizing. But now you publish a full e-mail that I sent you over three years ago and think that is okay and above board? I sure hope you don't treat your investment clients with the same level of confidentiality that you do this matter? I know I wouldn't use the services of a piece of crap that did this, especially for his personal gain. Which is exactly what you have done.

As for personal attacks, we take different approaches to them. You try and deminish the person by insulting their intelligence with putting drivel in their mouths that is so incredibly lame that you can't possibly believe anyone would think it. I take a different approach and just call the person out and get it done. I call a piece of sh*t when I step on one, like now, and say, you sir are a piece of sh*t. There, the attack is out in the open and we can move on. Its much easier that way.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 4 2004, 04:09 PM
Well Cow, you certainly are a hypocrite, aren't you. Its funny, but a couple years ago I accidentally let something slip that was exchanged between us in a PM/e-mail and you and Bingo had a complete and total hissy fit over it. I was raked over the coals for it by you two. It was an accident and I said as much, even apologizing. But now you publish a full e-mail that I sent you over three years ago and think that is okay and above board? I sure hope you don't treat your investment clients with the same level of confidentiality that you do this matter? I know I wouldn't use the services of a piece of crap that did this, especially for his personal gain. Which is exactly what you have done.

I guess you shouldn't have publicly invited me to put the referenced e-mail on the board. I regarded it as private until your invitation. As you well know.

Nice try though.

As for personal attacks, we take different approaches to them. You try and deminish the person by insulting their intelligence with putting drivel in their mouths that is so incredibly lame that you can't possibly believe anyone would think it. I take a different approach and just call the person out and get it done. I call a piece of sh*t when I step on one, like now, and say, you sir are a piece of sh*t. There, the attack is out in the open and we can move on. Its much easier that way.

Yeah, you're a real high road guy. Anyone can see that.

Cowperson

[Captain Sensible]

To be quite honest, I wish that more people had spent the last 3 years reconsidering the knee-jerk reactions they had to 9/11. I certainly have.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Gee Cow, after you p*ssed and moaned a while back about stuff off the board being a sacred cow I thought you would hold to that. I guess I gave you way too much credit than you deserve. Frankly, the e-mail you talk about proves absolutely nothing except that I am willing to change my mind as more information comes along. Seems a lot more people respect that than certain someones who made up their mind immediately and have yet to adjust their thinking.

And I have NEVER claimed to be a high road guy. Quite the opposite. I admit that I like to get into the trenches and get dirty. It doesn't bother me. You like to THINK this annoys me, but it doesn't. I actually think its great because it makes YOU look extremely small and makes YOU look like the ***hole. Really, who goes and releases information from a private communication? Who goes and releases the FULL body of that communication? Only someone that is very small and has a score to settle from getting the ass beat. Gee Cow, how do you feel now? Like the ***hole you are?

:P

[Bingo]

Lanny ...

last time. No more expletive swearing on the board. Do it again and you're banned

You can call that a bias is you want, that I'm picking on someone that I am currently arguing with, but the masses have seen me warn you on this about 100 times.

Plus the clear personal attacks again in using said curse words.

Reign it in, or you're done.

[Bingo]

I can't speak for Cow, or anyone else in this string, but I think I have clearly said on about 5 occasions in the last two days that my issue isn't changing ones mind.

About two weeks ago I think I said that this off topic board, and the daily battles with people on the left side of the scale has been healthy in changing some of my views over time.

But when a guy talks down to, belittles and insult those that have different views, when it turns out they themselves thought even more so in that direction is damn weak, and says a lot about a guy's character.

That's my issue. If a guy like Flames Addiction or Rouge has changed their mind it wouldn't be an issue, as they've disagreed with me and others in a civil tone for months, with very few deviations.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 4 2004, 04:54 PM


And I have NEVER claimed to be a high road guy. Quite the opposite. I admit that I like to get into the trenches and get dirty. It doesn't bother me. You like to THINK this annoys me, but it doesn't. Really, who goes and releases information from a private communication? Who goes and releases the FULL body of that communication? Only someone that is very small and has a score to settle from getting the ass beat.
:P

I actually think its great because it makes YOU look extremely small and makes YOU look like the ***hole.

So what are you whining about?

Like I said at the start, you should be happy that I managed the impossible, actually turning youself into a sympathetic figure!!!

You should be thanking me.

Gee Cow, after you p*ssed and moaned a while back about stuff off the board being a sacred cow I thought you would hold to that. I guess I gave you way too much credit than you deserve.

Ah, still with that lame excuse. I guess you shouldn't have gotten yourself sucked into inviting me to post it with this sentence: What ever turns you on Cow. Toss it out there if it makes you feel better.

What was I suppose to do? Not post it after that challenge?

Frankly, the e-mail you talk about proves absolutely nothing except that I am willing to change my mind as more information comes along. Seems a lot more people respect that than certain someones who made up their mind immediately and have yet to adjust their thinking.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. That should end the bizarre argument of some others here that you hadn't changed your position at all. You were a neocon Nazi and a promoter of that criminal agenda. Got it. You changed your mind. Got it.

Gee Cow, how do you feel now? Like the ***hole you are?

Sprightly if you must know.

But when a guy talks down to, belittles and insult those that have different views, when it turns out they themselves thought even more so in that direction is damn weak, and says a lot about a guy's character.

Bingo.. . . . er, bingo.

Cowperson

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 4 2004, 08:09 AM
You're actually defending Lanny on the basis that a personal attack diminishes the argument?

Okay, I can pick myself up off the floor now and stop laughing.

Its none of my business I guess but this is, after all, a guy who was banned at Hockeys Future after several years of non-stop personal attacks and has been cautioned on every message board he's ever frequented for the same crime.

That's a knee slapper. If that's the trade I have to take I'll grab it!!

I don't recall calling him a wackjob by the way.

If you feel Lanny is discredited, it will be because he hoisted himself with his own words. Obviously.

He clearly believed in the neocon agenda, (admitted as much to myself in an e-mail last week), largely disappeared from the off-topic board for a couple of years, then showed up about six months ago exposing a neocon plot to rule the world while reminding us he "was right all along" and labelling anyone who disagreed with him his intellectual inferior.

He promoted the agenda that eventually came to pass then reappeared and called the perpetrators of that agenda "nazi's."

I don't care if he changes his mind as I've said before. More power to him. If he thinks GW Bush is a Nazi, then good for him. We're all entitled to an opinion. The only difference today is that you know ALL of Lanny's opinions and can better judge the merits of his debate points on that basis.

Cowperson

Did you even read my post? Or skim it?

Let me reiterate an important point: "I'm pretty sure you know about ad hominem attacks and the weakness they expose in the arguments of those that use them; and for the amount of time you and Bingo criticize Lanny for the ad hominem attacks it doesn't seem like you're too far above them either."

Lanny is by far the worst culprit of personal attacks. Why he flies of the handle and insults people, I'm not sure. Probably out of frustration that people can't see his viewpoint. However, this is usual far after he's explained his points (often with some vitriol) and well after people keep ignoring them and saying the same damn things over again. I can understand his frustration as it seems people on the right seem to have a very serious problem actually addressing points made by the left and instead focus on very small points or use completely diversionary tactics on which to base their arguments.

Such as posting an email sent three years ago when most of the western world was still frothing at the mouth.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Five-hole@Nov 4 2004, 12:10 PM
Lanny is by far the worst culprit of personal attacks. Why he flies of the handle and insults people, I'm not sure. Probably out of frustration that people can't see his viewpoint. However, this is usual far after he's explained his points (often with some vitriol) and well after people keep ignoring them and saying the same damn things over again. I can understand his frustration as it seems people on the right seem to have a very serious problem actually addressing points made by the left and instead focus on very small points or use completely diversionary tactics on which to base their arguments..

People on the right huh?

I think this is a classic example of how a person sees wrong with opposing views to their own, but tend to ignore the exact same thing happening the other way.

You don't honestly believe that skim reading, or replying only to certain aspects of a post are right leaning in nature do you?

I've had disagreements with many on this site over and over again in the past six months, but Lanny is out there on his own in the way he makes points, and the personal nature that he seemingly has to take in order to make said points.

That's why I find his email to Cowperson a joke. To treat people like they are subhuman for having an opinion that differs from his own only to find out that he shared that same opinion and more is the bottom line.

Credibility ... shot.

[longsuffering]

Am I the only one who is concerned by what seems to be a personal attack being made on a forum member by a moderator, apparently with the full support of the site owner/administrator?

Talk about using the bully pulpit!

It is not, or ever, appropriate to dig out a 3 year old email, then post it on a message board in an attempt to ridicule someone you dont' agree with, or have a personal difference with. It's much, much worse when a moderator does it.

Cow, you and I have our differences, but you've crossed the line with this thread.

Bingo, I respect you and what you've made of this board, but even you have gotten too personal in your attacks against Lanny.

If anyone else other than Cowperson had posted an ancient, and if I understand, private email in order to mock another forum member, I'm quite certain it would have been pulled and the poster warned.

In this case, because of his 'status' on this board, Cowperson has been able to do what no one else would have been permitted to do.

I think that's wrong.

Bingo, I'd suggest you look at this thread with a dispassionate eye and consider whether it should remain on the board.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by longsuffering@Nov 4 2004, 02:16 PM
Am I the only one who is concerned by what seems to be a personal attack being made on a forum member by a moderator, apparently with the full support of the site owner/administrator?

Talk about using the bully pulpit!

It is not, or ever, appropriate to dig out a 3 year old email, then post it on a message board in an attempt to ridicule someone you dont' agree with, or have a personal difference with. It's much, much worse when a moderator does it.

Cow, you and I have our differences, but you've crossed the line with this thread.

Bingo, I respect you and what you've made of this board, but even you have gotten too personal in your attacks against Lanny.

If anyone else other than Cowperson had posted an ancient, and if I understand, private email in order to mock another forum member, I'm quite certain it would have been pulled and the poster warned.

In this case, because of his 'status' on this board, Cowperson has been able to do what no one else would have been permitted to do.

I think that's wrong.

Bingo, I'd suggest you look at this thread with a dispassionate eye and consider whether it should remain on the board.

My views on your post.

The Moderator Thing:

I think that a little unfair. Are you saying that Cowperson, and I guess anyone that helps out at Calgarypuck is unable to take part in any discussion that might lead to a disagreement of some kind?

Not my philosophy if that's what you are hinting at.

I would, however, jump in and hammer a moderator for using his power to ban those that disagree with them, or alter strings (deleting posts) in order to hide things said by others, etc.

That's abuse of power. But to suggest that anyone is out of line for a discussion between two adults that has been going on for months is grossly unfair.

Getting Personal:

With all due respect, ... where have I got personal? I haven't called him any names, haven't used strong language to belittle him, and have kept my comments to the topic at hand. If I have stepped out of line (which I did when I posted the picture of a toilet bowl beside the word credibility) I've quickly removed it and pointed out that I should have practiced what I preach.

Email Issue

That's for Cow to answer ... not me.