"You're not the only one I've 'accused' of misrepresenting the chief's posts and corrected"
Right, so it's taken you less than one sentence to show that my point has completely floated over your head then. Apparently the Chief is immune from your tiresome rants, and in fact you're purposely defending him, by accusing other people of something he is just as guilty of.
No, nothing hypocritical or dishonest about that is there, you daft twat.
Do you understand what 'hypocrisy' means? It means doing something youself when complaining about others doing the same thing. My complaint has been about people misrepresenting the arguments of other people when their actual arguments are clear.
For me to be hypocritical I'd have to be clearly misrepresenting an argument made by someone else (like the notion that the Chief uses the fact Bayern lost 2 - 0 to prove we need OH - that's nothing like what he's argued.)
You misrepresented the chief's arguments,
I haven't misrepresented you or anyone else - it isn't even necessary for you to be fully serious when misrepresenting the chief in order to make it fair and appropriate that someone points that out.
I'm not a hypocrite on that basis.
Neither am I a hypocrite because I don't comment on every case.
Feedingseagulls said:
but I fairly regularly criticise anyone and everyone who is guilty of intellectual dishonesty in any thread in any forum.
But I thought you just said "That does not oblige me to trawl through every post on the cafe looking to make the same points"?
Look at what I actually wrote: 'I fairly regularly criticise... intellectual dishonesty' - that doesn't mean I carefully look through every post on the cafe to see if there is an example.
It does mean that I will comment upon a number of examples, as and when I encounter them,
not every example, nor every example I encounter (in this place that would take too long).
That's fairly basic stuff - I don't see how you could have got the idea that there was any confusion between my 2 statements.
I've certainly had run-ins with old 'Intercourse Accident' in the past - whether on the basis of intellectual dishonesty or another issue I don't remember.
Lastly,
I'm not obliged to comment on every instance of 'intellectual dishonesty' not doing so does not make me either hypocritical (see above)
or dishonest, after all, I'm not misrepresenting their views am I? However, there is a sizable group of people consistently misrepresenting what the chief says - that makes their misrepresentation more noticeable and more likely to raise adverse comment. Their comments are also therefore generally unjust to Hargreaves and I reckon that's unfair.
There are also other posters here - surely they are equally capable of making the same points? Hell, if you really reckon the chief is misrepresenting someone's point of view that you've noticed, you could raise it yourself. Though you'd need it rather more grounded in the facts than the accusation you level at me. If you really can't manage it and would like me to check then I'm happy to do so when I have time (if you
really feel it's that important to you) - otherwise I'll just wait until I happen to notice him doing it in future and comment if it's not already been dealt with (my usual practice).
So, regarding your
false accusations of hypocrisy & dishonesty:
'Retract,
Retract,
Retract, retract, retract!'
Don't bother. Going and coming back wont change anything. Because even simply things that are blatantly obvious are clearly beyond your intellectual grasp. That is why you base enough to call them shit.