"We've discussed this ad nauseam" is not an answer to candidate queries

[WilliamPitt]

I've heard that a lot, and I can't blame candidate advocates for getting tired of answering repeated questions about their candidate. But I have also walked into the mixmaster on occasion around here - I hear something about a candidate for the first time, ask a question about it, and get fifty replies from that candidate's supporters beating me up because the matter has been discussied "a billion times," "ad nauseam," etc. I just found this happening again in another thread.

Get used to answering the same questions over and over. Maybe prepare a cut-and-paste document of answers to the questions that always seem to come up. Why?

Newbies. People coming in to DU and taking an interest in your candidate = A Good Thing. They may have absorbed some bullshit elsewhere, and will ask questions about it. You may have answered that question fifty times, but you should probably be happy to answer it again. It means someone has turned their eyes towards your candidate.

So, "We've discussed this ad nauseam" is something I see a lot around here. It's a bad answer. Just mho.

[WilliamPitt]

1. Doink

[stickdog]

2. How many times do we have to answer this question, Will?

;-)

[WilliamPitt]

3. LOL

Touche. :)

[dfong63]

4. you're right about that

"We've discussed this ad nausem," does not constitute a substantive response.

neither does, "This has been refuted over and over."

neither does, "What crap."

so when are you going to pay up?

link

[WilliamPitt]

5. When you get around to establishing why I should

[dfong63]

10. please see the linked discussion

you said you'd donate $100 to the DUer of my choice if anyone could find a post where you called Dean 'unelectable'. i found it. so pay up.

WilliamPitt: I will donate $100 to the DUer of your choice if you can find one time where I said Dean was 'unelectable.'

next, quoting WilliamPitt from the initial message of that thread:

In a better world, a man like Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich would win the nomination and barnstorm into the Presidency. ...
In a better world...but this isn't a better world. This is this world, and this world is a mess.

how else can the above quote be interpreted, except as a claim that Dean is unelectable? and if you don't believe that Dean is unelectable, then your use of the "ABB" rationale to select Clark, does not make sense in the context of a thread titled, "an ABB defense of Clark". Dean is just as much of an "ABB" as Clark is.

and your only response was, "What crap." which is just as non-substantive as the kind of responses you're decrying in this thread.

[ModerateMiddle]

12. logic 101

If A, then B

does not imply

If Not-A, then Not-B

[dfong63]

14. you're missing the point

it is Pitt who was employing the logical fallacy. read the relevant messages in the original thread. the point isn't that Pitt said not-A, the point is that Pitt implicitly relied on the conclusion not-B. if Pitt wasn't saying that Dean is unelectable, his argument makes no sense.

[bearfartinthewoods]

16. there is a big difference between saying Dean is unelectable

and the barntorn line you quoted.

you assume that's what he meant but IMHO, bet's aren't won on assumptions.

he didn't bet you that he hadn't said something that could be interptrued to mean Dean is electable. he said he didn't say 'Dean is not electable".

[Tinoire]

17. lol - trust me... A lawyer would have Will Pitt for lunch over that one!

n/t

[dfong63]

24. yeah, and i'm sure Will would buy that kind of argument from Colin Powell

[Clark Can WIN]

22. Wrong.

Without the rest of the surrounding context we cannot know what his broader argument was. The snippet you posted is merely that and would melt faster than crepe paper in a hurricane under scrutiny, as it already has.

[dfong63]

23. hey dude, i posted a link to the whole thread

... and i invited everyone to check out the whole thread. i'm not trying to hide or distort anything, but i'm not going to insert the whole thing here. if you don't believe me, you're more than welcome to read the whole thing.

[sistersofmercy]

19. It's speculative of both candidates ergo can not be logically applied to

either.

[dfong63]

25. it was a disjunction - Pitt was really saying both were unelectable

[sistersofmercy]

27. Sorry not following, please expound your position.

Don't see how the statement is an exclusive disjunction.

[dfong63]

28. let's review

Will Pitt said,
``...
In a better world, a man like Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich would win the nomination and barnstorm into the Presidency. ...
In a better world...but this isn't a better world. This is this world, and this world is a mess.
...''

by referring to Dean -or- Kucinich (disjunction) in the negative here, Pitt is really making a negative statement about -both- of them. alternatively, you could read this as a negative statement about the class of "men like Dean or Kucinich". either way, the statement applies to Dean -and- Kucinich.

[Tinoire]

18. Hey Will- Pay up!

You lose! :) Make my day! Make it a good week for me- just pay up:)


I re-read that about 10 times and dfong is right. If you didn't say that they were unelectable- just what were you saying ;)

I mean it's not a better world, is it? And this world is a mess, isn't it? ;)

Yep, yep, yepper- pony up Will...

I'll have my banker contact your banker :)

Though to be honest, you ponied up in advance for this one in San Francisco.

I'd still like to have my banker contact your banker though. We could even swap bank accounts. Ok- I'll settle for one of your book deals. Something about gods, politicians and demons.

[ModerateMiddle]

11. Neither is

"that author is supporting xyz so their words can't be trusted"

"that author/person is (bad,republican,a whore) so we can't trust them"

"Yawn"

[diamondsoul]

6. AMEN! I know people get tired of

repetition, and heaven help me so do I. I've lost track of how many times I've responded about Kucinich's "abortion flip-flop" or "bankrupted Cleveland" allegations.

Now of all things, I'm working on breaking down the Repuke brainwashing on Kucinich's blog! If I gave up and said "this has been covered endless times" to this guy, he'd think I and my candidate were idiots who couldn't respond to his claims. Feh! I want his vote! I may not get his, but just maybe, another Republican will see my answers to him and stop long enough to reconsider their politics.

[thebigidea]

7. if you're gonna use that tactic, at least post a link to the "refutation"

"Get used to answering the same questions over and over."

Yeah, exactly. These questions will come up for the next year or so - and beyond!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

8. agreed. anything worth saying is worth repeating. one of my faves...

is seeing bobthedrummer post 'I think it's time for another bush/nazi post'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?

because you never know who's scrolling by and can use the info.

[mike_c]

9. that's the nature of open public forums...

...and "regulars" tend to forget. Good point, Will. We all need to remember that this is a continuing discussion, but not necessarily a linear one.

[sistersofmercy]

13. Hey Will do you have contact info for..

Kerry donations? After deliberating, I've decided to support Kerry. I love Geppy but don't think he'll get the nomination, would be marvelous VP. Graham ditto. Dean lost my support after the last debate.

[bpilgrim]

15. excellent suggestion sensei

:toast:

EACH 1 TEACH 1

peace

[Clete]

20. Besides newbies, there are oldies who find they

have to take care of the many things they have neglected while trying to keep current on news events. When they return they have a lot of catching up to do. Thanks for saying this.

[Clark Can WIN]

21. Will you may want to remind other ole timers

That new Democratic members in the Democratic Underground is a GOOD thing, because many of them only like the ones that come in their flavor.

[LiberalBushFan]

26. i agree to a certain point

but on the other hand, there are people who start several threads about the same thing or people who paste the things over and over again in every single thread relating to the candidate. People post accusations and then when they're refuted (or argued), they start a new thread with the same point. Then when someone says "that's been refuted already," they reply "no, it has not once been refuted." If it has not once been refuted, then why not keep kicking the thread where it was not refuted instead of making a new one and claiming it wasn't refuted in previous ones? Thus we have a very common case where "that's crap" is ok.