The one thing the article doesn’t mention?

The Dutch are starting a campaign to turn their citizens into snitches, by educating them on the means to spot and turn in illegal marijuana growers. The article talks about the “risk” associated with these illegal growers, whom get accused of stealing power to keep their hydroponic operations going, to give this campaign the veneer of legitimacy. But the real reason that the Dutch government is doing this is never mentioned. From the article:

Police estimate the bulk cultivation and sale of cannabis was worth some 2.2 billion euros in 2012, most of it in the hands of criminal organisations.

And that’s the real motivation behind this campaign to turn people into snitches folks. The Dutch politicians are pissed government isn’t getting its cut of that 2.2 billion euros. If you are growing the stuff to sell, you need to be licensed and pay taxes. Pay up BITCHEZ! It’s always about their take with these “social justice” types. It is genius that they pretend to be concerned about anything but the money, though.

I suspect that this campaign will work, and work well. The Dutch have been heavily inculcated with envy of what others have and had subservience to the state beating into them hardcore. After all, this is a country that passed a law restricting the top pay of private company leadership to be on par with what they pay politicians, under the pretense of social justice, and fairness, and what not, but really so the political class could tie support for pay increases of their pay to big donations from their corporate cronies. And they did that by playing on the sheeple’s envy of what others have.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    This is why I think marijuana and indeed a lot of currently illegal activities will be legal eventually. The government can’t stand not getting it’s cut.

    Thumb up 1

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Big Prison will grease a lot of palms to make sure it stays illegal as long as possible. There’s a lot of money to made by locking people up.

    Thumb up 1

  3. pekka

    I see your point – most of Europe’s smokers are getting taxed so badly it’s obscene. All because it’s bad for your health, of course.

    Still – when given the choice of a marijuana business licensed by the state (where at least some of the revenue will benefit society, the product is more likely to be safe, etc.) and one run by former Yugoslavian war criminals, I’ll take the former.

    Aren’t you guys about to see a similar system coming up in Washington state? (If the feds allow it to work out.) Either way, from where I stand, a state-controlled marijuana system, as sucky as that is and as much as it’s going to be misused to balance broken budgets, at the moment looks infinitely more preferable to illegality – which keeps prices up, and feeds a criminal underworld as well as an insane and expensive prison system. No?

    In an *ideal* world, to me, the stuff would be legal to grow and to sell as you please, but that doesn’t seem realistic anytime soon, anywhere in the world

    > After all, this is a country that passed a law restricting the top pay of private company leadership to be on par with what they pay politicians, under the pretense of social justice, and fairness, and what not,

    That would be news to me. Do you have a link for that? All I can find is a 2008 initiative of the socialist then-prime minister, but it doesn’t seem to have amounted to anything.

    Thumb up 1

  4. CM

    It’s an ‘Alex Fact’, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.

    I like how the article apparently doesn’t mention the thing that it mentions….

    Hot! Thumb up 5

  5. Iconoclast

    I like how the article apparently doesn’t mention the thing that it mentions…

    Umm, I think Alex’ point is that the article doesn’t mention it, based on the title of the thread (emphasis added):

    The one thing the article doesn’t mention?

    Now we can argue all day long as to whether “Alex’ Fact” is true or not, but I think it’s rather clear whether that fact is mentioned in the article — just my two cents…

    Thumb up 6

  6. Thrill

    “I like how the article apparently doesn’t mention the thing that it mentions….”

    I’ll admit to being baffled by this one too.

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    “Now we can argue all day long as to whether “Alex’ Fact” is true or not”

    To have an argument at all he needs some evidence to argue with. At least on Planet Earth.

    Thumb up 2

  8. Poosh

    “Illicit cannabis cultivation is dangerous because of the fire-risk created by illegal electricity connections and faulty wiring, Boelhouwer told AFP.

    “At least 20 percent of all industrial fires are caused by illegal marijuana cultivation,” added Danielle Nicolaas, spokeswoman for energy company Stedin, which forms part of the project.”

    …just saying.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Iconoclast

    To have an argument at all he needs some evidence to argue with. At least on Planet Earth.

    Well, I recall your arguing rather vociferously that, in your view, George Zimmerman made “race-based” decisions on that fateful night of Trevon Martin’s death, in spite of a complete lack of supporting evidence. And, assuming for the sake of argument that Alex has not yet presented any evidence to support his claim, that doesn’t necessarily mean no evidence exists.

    One can make an inference even without direct evidence, based on historical patterns, knowledge of human nature, and other such factors, and one can argue their case based on those factors, your snarky reference to “Planet Earth” notwithstanding. After all, such is exactly what you appeared to be doing in the Zimmerman case.

    Thumb up 6

  10. AlexInCT *

    …just saying.

    To me that was just a convenient excuse and nothing else Poosh. It’s just like the GWoT has become the reason always given that our own NSA and the Obama government, especially the Obamacare data gathering initiative that is supposed to help with our healthcare but really looks to have much less to do with healthcare and everything to do with giving leftists information about people they can use against them, to treat us all like terrorists and deprive us of our rights.

    Maybe it is a problem with my reflexive reaction to the words “I am from the government, and I am here to help you”, but you have to grant me that when they show up with a means to restrain you, scissors to cut your clothes off, a jar of Vaseline, and that look in their eyes that they are going to enjoy ass raping you, you are going to learn to assume the worst from them every time you hear these words. Like the old saying goes: government “services” its people the way a bull “services” cows.

    Just saying…

    Thumb up 0

  11. Poosh

    Just think, just this once, it *does* look like this government had good reason, and doesn’t seem to be an excuse. You’ve got a lot of quotes from energy companies there and 20% of Industrial fires, pretty big stuff. Maybe this once the government was doing the right thing?

    Shutting these people down does not translate into more tax money surely, seeing as (at least from the article) they were hardly business men but criminal scum stealing energy and other people’s property in order to grow their drugs. Unless I misread the article.

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    Iconoclast, this is a specific and definitive claim:

    “After all, this is a country that passed a law restricting the top pay of private company leadership to be on par with what they pay politicians, under the pretense of social justice, and fairness, and what not”

    Which is a world away from my speculations about what happened in George Zimmerman’s brain. Particularly as I said all along that I was just speculating. We even had our usual painful tedious back-and-forth about the fact that I was speculating (even though I specifically said I was from the outset).
    You’ve even acknowledged that this in your post above (“in your view”).
    Not even remotely similar to Alex claiming something specific and definitive.
    (I guess you’ll now accuse me of a “knee-jerk denial” now though so I probably just wasted my time)

    Thumb up 0

  13. Iconoclast

    My point, CM, is that one does not need direct evidence in order to have an argument. I am challenging the specific claim:

    To have an argument at all he needs some evidence to argue with.

    Your example, whether “worlds away” or not, is a valid illustration of my assertion that one does not need direct evidence in order to have an argument.. Again, you appeared to be basing your argument on a knowledge of human nature, not evidence. Now sure, you did qualify your claims as being your personal view, but the underlying premise (that you argued from a knowledge of human nature and not from evidence) is still valid, unless you can show otherwise.

    Thumb up 6

  14. CM

    You do need some evidence if you’re arguing something as a specific and apparently definitive as “this is a country that passed a law restricting the top pay of private company leadership to be on par with what they pay politicians, under the pretense of social justice, and fairness, and what not”.
    They’ve either passed the law or they haven’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. Which is why the example you’re trying to use just doesn’t work at all.
    I will have to assume wires are crossed here.

    Thumb up 1

  15. AlexInCT *

    All right, since CM, as usual, is trying to take the conversation away from the actual topic at hand – a tactic he uses whenever he doesn’t want people to focus on the issue that makes the left look bad – I guess I should point out that my source tells me that the law I mentioned never passed the Dutch house and became law of the land. My bad. However, the Dutch have some of the most onerous anti-corporate exec pay laws you can imagine and I am certain that this corporate exec pay cap will happen. Dutch Corporate aw is onerous when it comes to pay.

    So drop this issue already CM and focus on the fact that the real reason the Dutch government is going medieval on the pot growers is their perceived loss of income. I stress again that the house fire thing is a red herring – a convenient cover considering the Dutch people’s propensity for herring – used to justify their crackdown. It’s incidental. The real issue is the fact that the Dutch government, like all socialist entities, is looking for more revenue – other people’s money – and hates anyone that isn’t ponying up.

    Back to ignoring stupid.

    Thumb up 1

  16. Iconoclast

    You do need some evidence if you’re arguing something as a specific and apparently definitive as “this is a country that passed a law restricting the top pay of private company leadership to be on par with what they pay politicians, under the pretense of social justice, and fairness, and what not”.
    They’ve either passed the law or they haven’t. It’s not a matter of opinion.

    While you are correct that the statement you quoted is not a matter of opinion, I do not believe that the statement you quoted is what Alex is actually arguing. On the contrary, the statement you quoted is an assumption on Alex’ part, said assumption being used as a premise for his argument, which is:

    And that’s the real motivation behind this campaign to turn people into snitches folks. The Dutch politicians are pissed government isn’t getting its cut of that 2.2 billion euros. If you are growing the stuff to sell, you need to be licensed and pay taxes. Pay up BITCHEZ!

    In my view, that is what Alex is arguing, because that is what the article he references is discussing, the growing of marijuana and how it can be detected by ordinary citizens. The “fact” that the article “doesn’t mention”, the “fact” that Alex is arguing, is that the Dutch government is “pissed” that it isn’t collecting taxes on that marijuana.

    So, when I said that “we can argue all day long as to whether ‘Alex’ Fact’ is true or not”, it was that “fact” to which I was referring. So, when you replied:

    To have an argument at all he needs some evidence to argue with.

    I took exception, because, again, you yourself had made an argument without evidence, as I have already explained. Since the actual argument, in my view, is whether the Dutch government is “pissed”, it definitely struck me as the same kind of argument as your arguments on Zimmerman’s alleged “race-based” decision-making.

    So, my original observations stand. Whether the statement, “this is a country that passed a law restricting the top pay of private company leadership to be on par with what they pay politicians, under the pretense of social justice, and fairness, and what not”, is true or not is, in my view, a completely separate issue. If the statement is false, then sure, Alex’ premise is undermined, but that doesn’t have any direct impact on whether the Dutch government is “pissed”. The Dutch government either is or is not “pissed” about the marijuana/2.2 billion Euros issue, and one can make the same observations you did about the other statement (the one you quoted): It’s either true or it isn’t, and it is not a matter of opinion. That being said, it can still be argued without direct evidence, which is what Alex attempted with his statement, the one you quoted. If that statement is not true, it still doesn’t affect whether, in general, one can argue specific arguments without direct evidence, and it likewise doesn’t affect whether the Dutch government is “pissed”.

    So, to summarize, yes, you are correct in that if one is arguing a specific, hard fact, such as whether a government passed a specific law, you do indeed need evidence. However, if you are arguing something a bit less tangible, such as whether a government is “pissed” about something, or whether someone’s decisions were “race-based”, you don’t need direct evidence at all, but can indeed argue using other means, such as inference, logic and indirect evidence (such as a knowledge of human nature). I will concede that the statement Alex used to support his argument should indeed be vetted, but again, the argument would still be viable had that statement never been made, and the argument would still be viable even if that statement turned out to be false — it might just be a bit harder to argue, but the argument would not necessarily be lost by any means.

    Hopefully, this clears things up.

    Thumb up 6

  17. AlexInCT *

    So, my original observations stand. Whether the statement, “this is a country that passed a law restricting the top pay of private company leadership to be on par with what they pay politicians, under the pretense of social justice, and fairness, and what not”, is true or not is, in my view, a completely separate issue. If the statement is false, then sure, Alex’ premise is undermined, but that doesn’t have any direct impact on whether the Dutch government is “pissed”. The Dutch government either is or is not “pissed” about the marijuana/2.2 billion Euros issue, and one can make the same observations you did about the other statement (the one you quoted): It’s either true or it isn’t, and it is not a matter of opinion.

    All right then. Forget the comment I made about the Dutch government limiting executive pay. I had that wrong as the law never passed. They are just marginally doing that pay limitation for now through other means, as I showed. But even if I got that wrong, it doesn’t take away my point that the Dutch government is in this for the money. Let’s focus on another fact: how much money the cannabis tax makes them. That’s $600 million a year, on around $3.2 billion in legal annual sales at the licensed coffee shops, and that was in 2008. If anything they are selling even more dope these days, and the tax rate on these sales is higher. This is one of the Dutch government’s biggest revenue streams.

    Now from the article I linked in the post we see that there is another $2.2 billion in sales going untaxed, and likely another $450-500 million that the cash strapped, “we are running out of other people’s money because too many people suck at the teat, and not enough people produce”, Dutch government isn’t raking in. Anyone here want to pretend that’s not pissing off the greedy parasitical government class in Den Haag (that’s the Hague for those that don’t “Spreek Nederlands”)? Is that the argument you are making CM? Or is your point that you refuse to acknowledge that collectivists are driven by greed, so the only viable argument is their “concern” for the poor apartments getting burned? Because, as I said before, I find as much credibility in their faux concern as I do in Obama’s claim that his NSA isn’t really doing much spying, or when they do, it is for our own good, or that that he didn’t order the IRS to fuck over his political enemies before the 2010 elections. It’s all hyperbole and bullshit to hide the real motives, which aren’t pretty at all.

    Thumb up 1

  18. CM

    “While you are correct that the statement you quoted is not a matter of opinion, I do not believe that the statement you quoted is what Alex is actually arguing.”

    That’s what my statement was about.

    pekka:
    “That would be news to me. Do you have a link for that? All I can find is a 2008 initiative of the socialist then-prime minister, but it doesn’t seem to have amounted to anything.”

    CM:
    “It’s an ‘Alex Fact’, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.”

    “On the contrary, the statement you quoted is an assumption on Alex’ part, said assumption being used as a premise for his argument”

    Right. But as usual Alex doesn’t bother checking to see if something is actually correct or not. Which is exactly my point. He doesn’t feel he needs to because he doesn’t consider it to be very relevant.

    “Since the actual argument, in my view, is whether the Dutch government is “pissed”, it definitely struck me as the same kind of argument as your arguments on Zimmerman’s alleged “race-based” decision-making.”

    As above, wasn’t referring to that.
    Secondly, it still wouldn’t really be the same as I took pains to point out that I was speculating whereas Alex just sets out his opinion as fact (like there is no possible, or likely, alternative).

    “Hopefully, this clears things up.”

    Yep, you mistakenly assumed my comment was in relation to a whole lot of stuff, whereas it was responding directly to the last thing that previous poster said. I thought that was blatantly obvious, and I still do, but there we go. As I keep pointing out – I could simply say “hello” and you’d interpret that as “fuck you”.

    “Is that the argument you are making CM?”

    What have I said that would make you ask that question Alex?

    “Or is your point that you refuse to acknowledge that collectivists are driven by greed, so the only viable argument is their “concern” for the poor apartments getting burned?”

    My point when I said what?

    Thumb up 0

  19. pekka

    While I dislike the snitching stuff, I don’t think this is a great example for a great socialist masterplan. I live in Pennsylvania at the moment, where anything stronger than beer is sold only by state-owned liquor stores. Alcohol tax is 10% I believe. Now imagine there were a black liquor market in Pennsylvania, controlled mostly by Mexican cartels, costing the state $2.2 billion in taxes annually, and causing 20% of industrial fires. Even if you discard the fire angle as baloney – what would the reaction be?

    If you ask me, the Dutch are going about drugs the best way currently possible. Let the common man grow his own weed (5 plants should get you through the season okay.) License and tax everybody who wants to make a business out of it. I’m not even sure there even is a specific Cannabis tax – it could be that this is all just about sales tax!

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT *

    Just think, just this once, it *does* look like this government had good reason, and doesn’t seem to be an excuse. You’ve got a lot of quotes from energy companies there and 20% of Industrial fires, pretty big stuff. Maybe this once the government was doing the right thing?

    I ask 20% of how many fires total? And I am sure the problem for the energy companies is all the pain they deal with around people stealing the power – I hope you didn’t miss that in the article – to grow the pot. They are not getting paid for most of that and want their cash too. Helping the government put an end to it, for whatever reason, is good for their bottom line.

    BTW poosh, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. The government might want to stop the fires and the energy theft, AND also stop a practice that is affecting their bottom line. The thing is they are pretendign they are doing what they are doing without pointing the later out.

    Thumb up 0

  21. AlexInCT *

    While I dislike the snitching stuff, I don’t think this is a great example for a great socialist masterplan. I live in Pennsylvania at the moment, where anything stronger than beer is sold only by state-owned liquor stores. Alcohol tax is 10% I believe. Now imagine there were a black liquor market in Pennsylvania, controlled mostly by Mexican cartels, costing the state $2.2 billion in taxes annually, and causing 20% of industrial fires. Even if you discard the fire angle as baloney – what would the reaction be?

    I wonder why you didn’t choose to use cigarettes in your example. And an industrial fire and an apartment fire, at least to me, are not the same thing. I am really weary of that statistic. Especially since I can’t tell what the actual numbers are. It’s not like politicians aren’t in the habit of conflating and making up shit to push their agenda.

    I think your example is a poor one. It’s not illegal cartels of foreign nationals that are growing pot for sale and denying the bureaucrats their take: it is Dutchmen that are doing it themselves. If a bunch of PA bootleggers were bucking the government and selling their stuff, I would be rooting for them. Even if I were to side with the government over some law breakers on something, especially where big money they are losing is involved, I wouldn’t be stupid enough to think that the government’s primary motivation, as it is always wasn’t to abrogate itself more power, and to increase its revenues. And I would call them on it if they conveniently left that fact out.

    BTW, here in CT I can go to any Native American reservation and buy tax free alcohol and tobacco. Our state has instituted all sorts of policies to deter this practice, and you will often find troopers lying in wait to catch and punish people that try to not get ripped the fuck off by the tax and spenders. Just like it feels like the only speed traps the state troopers in CT man anymore are up on the border with Massachusetts, where people lucky enough to live close to the border go to buy gas that is anywhere from 12 to 20 cents cheaper.

    If you ask me, the Dutch are going about drugs the best way currently possible. Let the common man grow his own weed (5 plants should get you through the season okay.) License and tax everybody who wants to make a business out of it. I’m not even sure there even is a specific Cannabis tax – it could be that this is all just about sales tax!

    I agree with you on this: they do have the best way of handling this issue. And this comes from a guy that has never done drugs and will never do them. And yes, it is about some kind of revenue first to these government types. Had they said so, I wouldn’t have bothered to write about this. I am not advocating they allow people to do whatever they want, but my point was and remains that they are not disclosing all the reasons they are movtivated by, and specifically the one most likely to be the driver to this policy: they want their cash.

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT *

    Right. But as usual Alex doesn’t bother checking to see if something is actually correct or not. Which is exactly my point. He doesn’t feel he needs to because he doesn’t consider it to be very relevant.

    As I said, you couldn’t argue against the point I made, and as usual, you decided to pick on minutia to distract. I am surprised you don’t take a page out of one of our other libs here and pick on my grammar and spelling, as if that suddenly invalidates the other stuff. I know I got under your skin and you are desperate to score some cheap points, but you are not gettign them here.

    I followed your advice and showed you there was plenty of evidence to support my point that the loss of revenue is a driver behind this policy with other evidence. You can ignore that information as well if it pleases you.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Iconoclast

    Yep, you mistakenly assumed my comment was in relation to a whole lot of stuff, whereas it was responding directly to the last thing that previous poster said. I thought that was blatantly obvious, and I still do, but there we go.

    Yeah, there we go. You know, you could quote what you’re responding to, so that it actually would be blatantly obvious. I usually do exactly that, even if what I’m quoting directly precedes my post. It’s just a matter of trying to be as clear as I can and not making assumptions. As it stood, your response was ambiguous, whether you care to realize that or not. Sure, it could be a response to what is directly above, or it could be a general response to the whole thread. Just because something is “blatantly obvious” to your superior intellect, it shouldn’t preclude you from showing enough humility to realize that we are not all blessed with your keen insight. Oh, but then it should be rather obvious to you what’s going on inside your own head. I apologize profusely for not seeing what you see from your privileged vantage point.

    As I keep pointing out – I could simply say “hello” and you’d interpret that as “fuck you”.

    Oh you poor, poor thing. It must be rough going through life being so bloody misunderstood. How do you cope?

    Thumb up 2

  24. Poosh

    I don’t understand still, these are criminals stealing energy – property – to grow their pot. They are not people legally using energy to grow pot? These people are not going to, once caught, begin to grow pot legally and pay their taxes. So the tax motive seems dubious to me.

    “There are around 30,000 illegal cannabis plantations across the Netherlands, and police estimate that cannabis was a €2.2 billion industry in 2012 – mostly controlled by criminal gangs.” – from an article I can’t post link because all the buttons have vanished.

    The police don’t care, apparently, if you’re growing it for personal use – these are plantations run off stolen energy. The article I read stated millions of dollars stolen from the energy companies. I suspect that most of these drugs, from what I can gather from other reading, are EXPORTED to other countries.

    I am not sure why these people, who steal someone else’s property to grown their product in the first place, should not pay their taxes and sell abroad … god knows the other criminal activities they engage in.

    Perhaps I’m wrong but I suspect, sadly, I am not. Sure, the government wants a cut of pot, but at the very least the government and people should be getting SOME tax, seeing as we’re not wide-eyed far right libertarians or anarchists here, and believe taxes are needed for some things…

    The fire thing is not a red herring, i mean millions of pounds worth of property stolen from the energy companies – the government is SUPPOSED to stop that from happening. And 20% of industrial fires, I don’t know how many that is but I think industrial fires are fairly dangerous, I googled quickly and a few fires came up but sure, I don’t know how many fires are being caused but I’m fairly sure siphoning energy is always a dangerous thing… But yes, maybe they are being a bit dishonest about their motivations but stopping these criminal acts will not gain them any money at all.

    Thumb up 1

  25. CM

    “Yeah, there we go. You know, you could quote what you’re responding to, so that it actually would be blatantly obvious.”

    I thought, and still think, it was blatantly obvious. It wouldn’t make sense for it to apply to anything else.

    “As it stood, your response was ambiguous, whether you care to realize that or not.”

    Whether I care? Sheesh.

    “Sure, it could be a response to what is directly above, or it could be a general response to the whole thread.”

    Except it wouldn’t really make any sense. If it’s ambiguous to you, why don’t you seek clarification with a quick and non-aggressive/abusive question?

    “Just because something is “blatantly obvious” to your superior intellect”

    A question that doesn’t involve shit like that.

    “it shouldn’t preclude you from showing enough humility to realize that we are not all blessed with your keen insight.”

    Yes yes that’s it. I deliberately made it ambiguous because I’m not humble enough.
    Honestly, what is the point of this now?

    “Oh, but then it should be rather obvious to you what’s going on inside your own head. I apologize profusely for not seeing what you see from your privileged vantage point.”

    Apology accepted.
    Again, just ask if something is unclear. Particularly as you have an uncanny ability to come up with an alternative interpretation for so much (“Hello” = “Fuck You”), and always in a negative way (strangely, not).

    “Oh you poor, poor thing. It must be rough going through life being so bloody misunderstood. How do you cope?”

    I’m sorry you’ve had a terrible day. I hope tomorrow is better for you.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Iconoclast

    It wouldn’t make sense for it to apply to anything else.

    Alex:

    The one thing the article doesn’t mention?

    Police estimate the bulk cultivation and sale of cannabis was worth some 2.2 billion euros in 2012, most of it in the hands of criminal organisations.

    And that’s the real motivation behind this campaign to turn people into snitches folks.

    You

    It’s an ‘Alex Fact’, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.

    I like how the article apparently doesn’t mention the thing that it mentions…

    Yeah, I hate to admit it but you are absolutely and unquestionably correct — the rules of English simply do not allow that to make any sense whatsoever, to anybody but a compete and utter moron.

    </sarcasm>

    I deliberately made it ambiguous…

    I never said that you deliberately did anything.

    Apology accepted.

    Inability to recognize sarcasm noted.

    I’m sorry you’ve had a terrible day.

    While dealing with your sanctimony can indeed be irritating, it doesn’t completely ruin my day. You really need to get over yourself, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen…

    Thumb up 2

  27. Poosh

    “Yes, that should work. Use the preview to verify it.”

    No preview button is showing up!? Is is my browser? I see other people using Bold and Italics and links etc.

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    Poosh they are manually typing out the code. Alex, maybe you can give it to us again.

    “Yeah, I hate to admit it but you are absolutely and unquestionably correct — the rules of English simply do not allow that to make any sense whatsoever, to anybody but a compete and utter moron.”

    Except:
    “It’s an ‘Alex Fact’, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.”
    is clearly responding to someone questioning whether something is true or not. Which happened directly before my comment. Come on, this is blatantly obvious for fuck’s sake.
    What you have done makes no sense.

    “I never said that you deliberately did anything.”

    Yeah true, I guess I don’t even notice my lack of humility.

    “Inability to recognize sarcasm noted.”

    It didn’t work as sarcasm. Neither did your attempt above. I can see that you were trying for it.

    “While dealing with your sanctimony can indeed be irritating, it doesn’t completely ruin my day. You really need to get over yourself, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen…”

    What was that about not understanding sarcasm?
    You’re the one who can’t simply ask a simple clarification question, or just let something go when you discover you’ve misinterpret. Ever.

    Thumb up 0

  29. Iconoclast

    It wouldn’t make sense for it to apply to anything else.

    Except it wouldn’t really make any sense.

    It didn’t work as sarcasm. Neither did your attempt above.

    You’re the one who can’t simply ask a simple clarification question, or just let something go when you discover you’ve misinterpret.

    And you are the one who apparently cannot allow that the inherent ambiguity of human language can lead to different interpretations that are equally valid, initial intent notwithstanding. You are the one who apparently thinks his interpretation of language is the only valid one (anything else simply “wouldn’t make sense”, universally), even going so far as to pass judgement on whether my sarcasm “works” (I was indeed being sarcastic even if it “didn’t work” for you, even if you didn’t realize it).

    Like I said, if you had quoted the statement to which you were responding, it absolutely would have been blatantly obvious to someone even as dim as myself, and this whole discussion would not have happened (your incessant and insipid “‘hello’==’fuck you'” whining notwithstanding). If you cannot be bothered to resolve ambiguity, why should I bother to resolve it?

    What you have done makes no sense.

    Then I must be a moron, because that’s exactly how I took it. Glad we cleared that up…

    Thumb up 1

  30. Iconoclast

    Here is a mental exercise for your bad-ass self, CM. Start reading the thread from the top, but let’s say you’re a bit distracted by Life and got bored with pekka’s somewhat long-winded post about halfway through, so you skip to the next one. Humor me.

    Thumb up 2

  31. CM

    “And you are the one who apparently cannot allow that the inherent ambiguity of human language can lead to different interpretations that are equally valid, initial intent notwithstanding.”

    Ah, yes I can:
    “If it’s ambiguous to you, why don’t you seek clarification with a quick and non-aggressive/abusive question?”
    I still don’t see how the non-sequitur example you provided could be described as “equally valid”.
    Also, YOU are the one who often won’t even accept the intended meaning of what is say. This happens again and again and again. I’ve said it before – you don’t get to determine what I meant. You can call me on bad wording or ambiguity, but you don’t ultimately get to decide what I meant.

    “You are the one who apparently thinks his interpretation of language is the only valid one (anything else simply “wouldn’t make sense”, universally),”

    No, again, misinterpretations happens and we’ve all got the ability to seek clarification if we’re unsure. Ambiguity is a continuum though. Each case is different. In this case my comment is quite specific – it’s clearly in direct response to someone questioning something that Alex has claimed as fact. The first place to look would be directly before my comment. And there it is. It isn’t any more complicated than that.

    “even going so far as to pass judgement on whether my sarcasm “works” (I was indeed being sarcastic even if it “didn’t work” for you, even if you didn’t realize it).”

    I totally realised that you were intending it to be.

    Like I said, if you had quoted the statement to which you were responding, it absolutely would have been blatantly obvious to someone even as dim as myself

    Agreed, it would have been even more obvious.

    “If you cannot be bothered to resolve ambiguity, why should I bother to resolve it?”

    WTF?! How have I not bothered to resolve it? As soon as I realised something wasn’t right (didn’t make sense) I said “I will have to assume wires are crossed here.”. Whereas where exactly did you seek clarification to make sure you correctly understood my comment?

    “Then I must be a moron, because that’s exactly how I took it. Glad we cleared that up…”

    This from someone who wrote “Oh you poor, poor thing. It must be rough going through life being so bloody misunderstood. How do you cope?”? Wow….ok.
    Explain to me how it makes sense then.
    This is your interpretation:

    Alex:

    “The one thing the article doesn’t mention?

    Police estimate the bulk cultivation and sale of cannabis was worth some 2.2 billion euros in 2012, most of it in the hands of criminal organisations.

    And that’s the real motivation behind this campaign to turn people into snitches folks.”

    You

    “It’s an ‘Alex Fact’, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.

    I like how the article apparently doesn’t mention the thing that it mentions…”

    Which part of Alex’s comment am I responding to when I say “doesn’t matter if it’s true or not”? I’m clearly addressing something specific that has been said about accuracy or validity. Which part of Alex’s comment raises that issue? And even before that – starting the sentence with “it’s” means that I’m directly following on from something else. Which specific part of Alex’s quote am I following on from?

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    “Here is a mental exercise for your bad-ass self, CM. Start reading the thread from the top, but let’s say you’re a bit distracted by Life and got bored with pekka’s somewhat long-winded post about halfway through, so you skip to the next one. Humor me.”

    What is that going to prove? If you can’t be bothered reading the thread properly (his post wasn’t very long at all, and was only the the third) then it shouldn’t be surprising to find that you’ve got the wrong end of the stick. But, yet again, once it starts to look like that might have happened, wouldn’t the obvious thing be to go back and check. Even before seeking clarification? As opposed to your counter-productive method?
    It’s highly ironic that you accused me of not being “bothered”.
    This reminds me of Alex continually not bothering to read his own source material (which has contradicted his main point more times than I can remember), because he’s been too lazy, and then getting shitty with others for calling him on it, rather than just acknowledging it, moving on, and making sure he is less lazy next time.

    And why the need for the whole ‘bad-ass self’ bullshit?

    Thumb up 0

  33. AlexInCT *

    Poosh they are manually typing out the code. Alex, maybe you can give it to us again.

    I will CM. That’s a good suggestion

    To create a code comment section use <blockquotes> your comments here </blockquotes> and leave out the spaces between the html characters and your text entry.

    To bold text use <b> your comments here </b> and leave out the spaces between the html characters and your text entry.

    To indent your text use <i> your comments here </i> and leave out the spaces between the html characters and your text entry.

    To underline your text use <u> your comments here </u> and leave out the spaces between the html characters and your text entry.

    To strike text out use <strike> your comments here </strike> and leave out the spaces between the html characters and your text entry.

    For all the HTML character codes so you can do all sorts of nasty shit, look at this site.

    Note: the RTFTLC site’s html editor will clip any malformed HTML, leaving you with some seriously bad shit showing, but it sometimes fubars, so please be careful or you could cause all sorts of formatting problems.

    If you create malformed text and want it fixed, let me know. I can usually edit and fix them, but I will not touch your posts unless asked or if the entry breaks the site.

    Thumb up 1

  34. Iconoclast

    Explain to me how it makes sense then.

    “And that’s the real motivation behind this campaign to turn people into snitches folks” is an Alex fact, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.

    I like how the article apparently doesn’t mention the thing that it mentions (which is “that’s the real motivation behind this campaign to turn people into snitches”, which isn’t mentioned in the article).

    But then I’m a moron…and you’re fucking awesome.

    Thumb up 1

  35. Iconoclast

    How have I not bothered to resolve it?

    Oh, you bothered to resolve it. You clarified that you were responding to pekka on October 14, 2013 3:59 PM, three days after my initial posting. Prior to that, I had no idea that you were responding to pekka, but then I am a moron…

    Whereas where exactly did you seek clarification to make sure you correctly understood my comment?

    I thought I understood it all along, which is why I didn’t “seek clarification”. It wasn’t until three days later that I realized the nature of my error, but by then, you were already in “hello == fuck you” mode.

    Thumb up 1

  36. Iconoclast

    If you can’t be bothered reading the thread properly …

    If you can’t be bothered to quote what you’re responding to…

    We can play these games all day, but in truth, “reading a thread ‘properly'” is meaningless. A thread might actually contain several threads of conversation, each independent of the others. That’s why quoting is so popular — it keeps things clear. But yeah, from now on I realize that if you submit a post that doesn’t have a quote, I need to assume that you are responding to the quote immediately above, which is something new for me. I’m just used to people quoting, even if it’s quoting the immediately preceding post, unless the preceding post is a one-liner (which pekka’s was not).

    But then, I am a moron, and you’re fucking awesome…

    Thumb up 1

  37. CM

    According to my time stamps it was 2 days. But the more relevant part is that when I was fairly sure we weren’t talking about the same thing I raised it.
    Neither of your suggested i alternative interpretations make sense. I could explain why but i’m pretty sure we can both agree that this should be put out of it’s misery. However I will genuinely acknowledge and accept your point and make a greater effort to be clearer about specifically what i am responding to (i’m on tablet now so not using quotes in this post). And no, you very clearly a very intelligent person, there is no doubt about that.

    Thumb up 0

  38. Iconoclast

    According to my time stamps it was 2 days.

    Not sure what you mean by “your” time stamps, but on this page in my browser, my initial posting was on October 11, 2013 8:50 AM, and the post where you specifically mentioned pekka’s name for the first time was stamped October 14, 2013 3:59 PM. No matter how I do the math, I get three full days, more than that, actually, when you factor in the actual hours. 8:50 AM to 3:59 PM is an additional 7 hours and 9 minutes.

    But the more relevant part is that when I was fairly sure we weren’t talking about the same thing I raised it.

    True enough — on October 13, 2013 11:46 PM, you did indeed say, “I will have to assume wires are crossed here.” So I responded with a rather verbose posting on October 14, 2013 9:13 AM, trying to explain exactly where I was coming from in detail, in an attempt to uncross the wires. I even acknowledged that you were correct about a couple of things, and tried to clarify my position the best I could. Your response?

    Yep, you mistakenly assumed [blah blah blah]

    Basically, you dismissed my detailed explanation as “Yep, you fucked up…”, and did so in the same post where you mentioned pekka for the first time. You then followed up with your “it’s blatantly obvious” dismissal, wrapped up with the apparently obligatory “hello == fuck you” criticism, in spite of my efforts to be as clear and objective with my explanation as I reasonably could.

    Yeah, I admit it, I fucked up, but then I am a moron, as we have already established:

    …the rules of English simply do not allow that to make any sense whatsoever, to anybody but a compete and utter moron.

    Your response:

    Except:
    “It’s an ‘Alex Fact’, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.”
    is clearly responding to someone questioning whether something is true or not. Which happened directly before my comment. Come on, this is blatantly obvious for fuck’s sake.

    Yeah, it’s obvious now, after it has been clarified that you were responding to pekka. But it wasn’t obvious to me prior to that because I had not yet read pekka’s relevant comments.

    You then followed up with:

    What you have done makes no sense.

    So you are basically saying that I am a moron, plain and simple, since I had already stated that “the rules of English simply do not allow that to make any sense whatsoever, to anybody but a compete and utter moron”, and, as it obviously made sense to me (and nobody else apparently), the obvious conclusion is that I am indeed a moron.

    Neither of your suggested alternative interpretations make sense.

    I wasn’t aware that I made more than one, but whatever. I would venture to suggest that the proper thing to say is that it doesn’t make sense to you personally, but that there is no way you could possibly know that it doesn’t make sense to others. I would venture that, but perhaps the well is already too poisoned.

    And no, you very clearly a very intelligent person, there is no doubt about that.

    I’m not so certain, but thanks, I guess…

    Thumb up 1

  39. CM

    True enough — on October 13, 2013 11:46 PM, you did indeed say, “I will have to assume wires are crossed here.”

    Yes, that’s the relevant span of time I was referring to.

    Your response?

    No, that was part of my response. Please don’t cherry pick and try to pretend otherwise.
    Yes, I did mention your uncanny ability to misinterpret my meaning, because it’s not the first time it’s happened. The ‘hello=fuck you’ is deliberately exaggerated to underline and simplify the point, but it does accurately contain the always-negative way you do it.

    Yeah, it’s obvious now, after it has been clarified that you were responding to pekka. But it wasn’t obvious to me prior to that because I had not yet read pekka’s relevant comments.

    Well I didn’t know that at the time. I had the reasonable expectation that you’ve read the thread. It would be unreasonable for me to have assumed you simply didn’t read what I was directly and specifically responding to.

    So you are basically saying that I am a moron, plain and simple, since I had already stated that “the rules of English simply do not allow that to make any sense whatsoever, to anybody but a compete and utter moron”, and, as it obviously made sense to me (and nobody else apparently), the obvious conclusion is that I am indeed a moron.

    No, I’m not saying you are a moron (you clearly are not a moron). It doesn’t have to go beyond “I don’t think your argument holds up, because the logical doesn’t follow”. It does not have to extend to ‘you are therefore a moron’. Just like someone can make a dick move without them necessarily being a dick. People aren’t necessarily (or shouldn’t be) defined by a single action.
    Perhaps we can leave the moron thing alone now.

    I wasn’t aware that I made more than one

    You interpreted both my sentences.

    I would venture to suggest that the proper thing to say is that it doesn’t make sense to you personally, but that there is no way you could possibly know that it doesn’t make sense to others. I would venture that, but perhaps the well is already too poisoned.

    No, I can accept that it’s possible for most things to mean something to mean something different to someone else. Especially if they have a hold a strong opinion about that person and they share a wildly different world-view. There is always a tendency to interpret through a lens, which may well distort the true meaning of what is said. That’s something we all need to be careful about. For example Seattle Outcast and Alex constantly clearly mentally add and subtract from what I say to make it consistent with what they think.
    In this case (if I were someone else) I just can’t see how I would have come up with your interpretation without thinking ‘but hang on, that doesn’t really make sense, perhaps he means something else, let me read the few posts above his again before I post’.

    Thumb up 0

  40. CM

    ARRRGHHHHHH I thought I’d sorted out the quote codes thing. FUCK. Sorry.
    Not sure how I could have gotten it wrong EACH time in that post though. I did it carefully each time.

    Thumb up 1