UPDATED: Smackdown

Updated: Since I like to have complete records of such things, I've gone ahead and reproduced the communications between S____ and myself. It gives a little more context as to why I went after him so hard. I also sent another message to him, summarizing points that I'd left unaddressed yesterday. A couple of them were potential errors on my part.

I don't have access to the original post from which this began, so in brief: a friend posted video of the NYPD scooter/NLG legal observer incident. S____ commented to the effect that:

... the “reprobate” threw himself under the scooter/intentionally faked being hit.... ... Occupy Wall Street is funded by George Soros and is made up mostly of “lazy rich kids”... (quoted text is verbatim to the best of my recollection, ellipses indicate additional text that eludes my memory).

He went on to pretty much vilify the protesters using very unkind language. Foaming-at-the-mouth type of stuff like you might see on FreeRepublic or Ace of Spades, etc. Unkind enough that I got pretty pissed off that he was attacking these people who'd never harmed him and who weren't there to defend themselves. So I left this comment in reply:

S____? That reprobate was a legal observer. And no, Occupy Wall Street isn't funded by George Soros. Chill the fuck out. Oh, and fuck you. Unbelievable.

Which was followed by the private FB message thread below.

Him:

"S____? That reprobate was a legal observer. And no, Occupy Wall Street isn't funded by George Soros. Chill the fuck out. Oh, and fuck you. Unbelievable."

Thomas, you really need to figure out that it is well past time for you to grow-the-fuck-up. You are not in high school anymore. Really. You're not.

Me:

I just got around to reading this a few days ago, and am just now getting around to replying.

See, I'm kind of confused here. I was under the impression that you were a respected member of the ____ community, and a fairly reasonable person. In an earlier exchange we had, you seemed pretty rational and explained your position at length and at a seemingly high level of reasoning. I'm not being sarcastic; my previous impression of you is completely at odds with this most recent little tiff. I stopped and thought hey, maybe he was being facetious or I was misunderstanding his point... but the subsequent comments on the thread seem to indicate that the other participants took your words in the same light I did. And this private message you sent certainly seems to continue the behaviour. Okay, then. In that case, I'm going to go with the evidence available and assume that you meant exactly what you said, and respond accordingly.

So.... you go off on some flat-out factually incorrect rant, in the process of which you make negative value judgments on the people in question... reprobate, lazy, whiners, whatever the hell else you called them. I respond with the facts. And I tell you to chill the fuck out and to fuck off. Neither of which, by the way, are actually value judgments of you as a person. Let me be clear, I'm not complaining about your little private tantrum. I could give a shit if you're pissed at me. You're not that scary. But... I make a point of the whole "value judgment" thing because you're telling me that I need to grow up.

Dude, that's pretty funny.

You posted lies and insults. I posted facts and insults. And you're telling me *I* need to grow up? Based on what? The fact that I said "fuck" and you didn't? Dude, if that's your criteria for being a grownup, you're seriously missing the bus... so, it's okay to lie and insult people, just don't swear while you're doing it? I mean, is that what you're saying? Or... what? Anyone who disagrees with you needs to grow up? Seriously, you're not even making sense. If you're going to tell someone they're being immature, and if you are doing it for anything close to the right reasons, you'll tell them, y'know, WHAT IT IS THEY'RE DOING THAT'S IMMATURE.

So. Tell me, S____. What was my immature behaviour? What exactly is the difference between my words and yours that makes you think you're at all qualified to judge me? Because you've got nothing, dude. I mean, seriously, I'm trying to find a way to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's just not there. I can't think of any excuses for you. Help me out, why don't ya?

Oh, wait, almost forgot... fuck you.

Him:

Thomas, your source of confusion comes from your insistance in remaining willfully ignorant. If you were following the story presented, you would be forced to face facts you would rather not have to face. As I asserted the so-called "observer" did indeed throw himself at the scooter being driven by the police officer. If you were following the story you would find that the "observer" did indeed lie down on the ground and did indeed scramble on the ground to place his leg under the already stopped scooter and did indeed attempt to make it seem as though he were the victim. There are numerous accounts of observers on both sides of the protest that identified the actions of the so-called "observer" and the unaltered video clearly shows this. In my opinion, there are few beings in the world more dispicable than a liar. That dude is a liar. There are, in my mind, no doubt that that there are instances of a police officer or a security agent who may cross the line. Because this dude made the clearly documented attempt to frame the police officer, any actual abuse ever after is questionable because self-titled highly-placed members of the protest performed in such egregiously unethical behavior. When the story was posted, I researched the story. You did not. That was immature, immoral and unethical behavior. The whole of the protest is illogical. The protestors have no real complaint other than that they want an end to what is nebulously referred to as "corporate greed", amongst a host of other demands, such as "Throw out Capitalism! Embrace Communism!", "I Want A Job On Wall Street! Somebody Give Me A Job With 6 Figures", "Somebody Else Pay For My Tuition And Student Loans", and etc. For what the protest is protesting for one may just as well unfurl a banner that reads "Freedom To The Unborn, Dead, Gay, Baby Whales And Seals Now!" It all reminds me of the Anti-Vietnam War Protest that took place in San Francisco in 1977. Now as to why I think YOU need to grow the fuck up is because you choose to degrade into profanity and denigration of my character because I don't support what YOU support. On the other hand, I chose to research the incident and the circumstances, you choose to accept what is spoon-fed to you. That makes me a mature and intellectually capable man and that makes you a sheeple. Making the choice to view every accusation with a skeptical eye and research each assertion objectively has nothing to do with my ______ beliefs and practices, nor does it have anything to do whomever may, or may not, respect me within whatever community I may be assocaited with. Protestors, as a general rule, are idealists. Any idealists presents their view with an effort to persuade. I prefer to analyze and achieve my own conclusions through objective investigation. You, and apparantly several others like you choose to not do so. And that is why, as I earlier mentioned, you need to grow the fuck up.

Me:

Hey, at least you gave reasons this time. Thanks for that. You've made several assumptions without proof other than I have a different set of facts. You cannot make a conclusion as to my actions based on said difference in facts. It's not logically possible. Also, you've displayed the same behaviour -- in the same (rather long) paragraph, no less -- as you assert that I have, and use that assertion to support your negative judgment of me. Way to go, at best (for you) you just indicted both of us.

Also, since we are talking research and facts, let's start posting, y'know, documentation. This started with a video. You made assertions without documenting the sources and validity of those assertions. I told you you were wrong, also not documenting my response. Now you've gone on a long, opinion-laden condemnation of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Fine. Source material, dude. Let's compare information sources. Let's see that video of the LEGAL OBSERVER shoving his leg under the scooter. Let's see what the true demographics and stated desires of the protesters are, instead of unsourced, cliche, and emotion-laden dog-whistle quotes, paraphrases, and caricaturizations.

S____, you opened the whole thing with mean-spirited, demeaning language towards others. Guess what? Do something like that, without provocation or need,and you don't get to complain about the consequences. And, as the one who attacked without provocation, *you* are the less mature one. Saying "fuck" while ALSO using logic and reason to disprove your assertions doesn't make me immature. It's stupid and pointless to even make that an issue. All it says to me is that you don't like it and don't think I should do it (to you, at least), which in turn means that you're one of those people who thinks the universe should play by their rules. It doesn't, dude. It just doesn't. Deal with that or spend a good portion of your life being pissed-off and unhappy.

Once I get home and get some time, I'll do a real response. With documentation, links, yadda yadda. You wanna discuss the facts or just keep trying to have an "I'm more mature than you, nyah nyah" pissing contest?

Him:

Personally, if you want to look up the references, then feel free. Google is your best friend. Like I ALWAYS say, do your own research and do not depend on others to do it FOR you. First I googled teh video and looked at it for myself. You can do the same. Next, I looked up the organization that gave the guy the card that said "LEGAL OBSERVER". The National Lawyers Guild is an activist organization that is participating in the protest, therefore, they cannot be objective. Second, teh NLG has no authority to appoint anyone in a status as a "LEGAL OBSERVER". In fact, I have as much authority as they have. Simply pronting out a card that says "LEHAL OBSERVER", does not provide one the legal status as a "LEGAL OBSERVER". Dude, I am a freaking expert at making statistical data say what I might want it to say. Because I am an expert at it, I make it a point of not doing it. To prove that I do not do it, I request other provide the data analysis themselves. Fact of the matter is, most cannot read statistical data and therefore are less than capable of discussing it. Were I to break down the analysis quantitatively, that usually would be the equivalent of an Economics professor discussing macro-economic international trade principles among differently developed trading partners at an elementary school assembly, and expecting the audience to understand and particpate in an open discussion. If you want to have a discussion that incorporates the merits and principles espoused by the 5,000 protestors in New York City, a city, by the way with a population of 8,364,000, then have at it. My breakdown of that equates to 0.50%. So 0ne person out of every 1,673 people in New York City are unhappy about.....something. If you can nug down their claims to one single coherent and reparable point, then you are truly blessed among mankind because nobody else can figure it out. As far as whether or not I am unhappy? Or pissed-off? Or I care that you use profanity? Dude, I am perfectly content in my life. I am retiring, going back to my home and doing quite well in life. I don't care what other people do in their life, and that contributes to why I am happy. What offends ME about these protests are teh fact that less than 1% of the population thinks they have the right to insist I make changes in MY life so this 1% can have a happier life. I do not support the protest because, simply put, I am the real 99%, I am happy where I am in my life, and I am not going to write bigger checks to appease the OTHER 1%.

Me:

Finally, I have some time. My life is hopefully done exploding for awhile. Now I can answer your last message using my usual researching methods. I've got to admit, the sheer density of factual errors, assumptions, and poor logic in your last message makes this a more involved task than usual.

Fair warning, btw. It's been a long time since I've let loose on anyone the way I'm about to let loose on you. But oh my god dude, you deserve it more than anyone I've encountered in a long long time.

S____, it's funny that you're lecturing me about how to do research and use Google. It's funny because you apparently have no idea how this type of discussion works. Asking you for sources is not having you do my work for me. It's asking you to prove that what you're saying is true. I mean, seriously, do you not get that?

Let me explain how this works. Pay attention. Two people are arguing a point. Each person produces information in support of their position on said point. You've got that part right. But you utterly fail on the rest. Here's how it goes: each person also needs to produce the sources of their information, for several reasons. First, to prove that they're not just making shit up. Second, to allow the source to be judged for reliability. Here's a simple example for you: if you tell me that eating five plums a day will give me back a full head of hair, improve my eyesight, and make me extraordinarily equipped to sexually satisfy women, I'm going to ask you where you got that information. If the only source you can cite is the National Plum Growers Association, I'll tell you that, since your only source has a high level of self-interest in the effect of that information, I'm not going to consider the information credible until you can cite independent, objective sources that support those claims.

Do you see how that works? I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that you need this explained to you.

So, let's proceed.

You say you googled the video and looked at it for yourself. Er, *the* video? Did you know that there are *three* videos? You might want to check the other two out. In fact, go to my FB photos and look at the album entitled “NYPD Scooter hits Legal Observer 10/14/2011 – analysis.“ It also has the addresses where you can view them for yourself.

Now, I don't know whether Ari Douglas was faking or not. From my analysis of the (ahem) THREE videos, I believe that the cop ran over his left foot with the scooter's front tire. I also believe that at least Douglas' right pant leg was pinned by the scooter's rear tire. Two reasons for that: first, it's highly unlikely that he could thrash and gyrate as he did without his right ankle moving from its position (which it did not, after the scooter came to rest) unless there was an outside force anchoring it. Also, if you look at his right pants-leg during this time, it appears that the fabric is taught taut [homonymic spelling error... annoying - ed.], with the anchor point being just in front of his shin/ankle. Look at the way the fabric is tight against his right knee, and the line of tight fabric from his knee to his hips/waist. Both of those observations make it likely that at least for a time his leg was, indeed trapped.

Now, in your original comment – which I can't seem to access now – you mentioned witnesses. Okay, source time again. Please tell me who the witnesses are, and what their connection to the event is. No, wait, never mind; I'll do your work for you. I've found references to exactly *two* specific witnesses. The first is Joe Marino, a photographer for the New York Daily News. From http://www.verumserum.com/?p=30720 :

Daily News photographer Joe Marino, who witnessed the confrontation, said “the bike definitely hit him” but the officer didn’t run him over. “I saw him sticking his legs under the bike to make it appear he was run over,” Marino said of the lawyer.

The second is an unnamed AP photographer. Why unnamed? Because the only knowledge of that “witness” that we have is the word of an NYPD police spokesman. From the same site:

“[Police spokesman] Mr. Browne said he was also told by The Associated Press that one of its photographers witnessed Mr. Douglas deliberately putting his feet under the scooter. “

The New York Times article from which this quote was pulled also says:

“Independent witnesses said he purposely put his legs under the scooter and then claimed falsely he was trapped,” Mr. Browne said.

Okay, unnamed and vaguely-referenced independent witnesses and one unnamed specific witness – cited by a police spokesman. I'd say that source has a vested interest in the perception of this event, so absent further evidence, I don't consider his claims credible.

There's a quote on the veraserum page from another LO (Legal Observer) from the NLG stating that Douglas' leg was stuck under the bike. But I'm betting you wouldn't view that as credible information. Fine. Neither is the NYPD spokesman.

That leaves us with one possibly credible witness who says Douglas stuck his feet under the scooter. Against the numerous people IN THE VIDEO shouting that the scooter was on Douglas' foot/leg/whatever. I researched Marino and didn't find anything that would definitively suggest he has an agenda or interest in this incident, so for now I'll consider him an honest witness, whether his perception is accurate or not.

As I said earlier, I don't know exactly what happened. But that's not the point right now. The point is that you didn't know how to have a fact-based discussion. Now you do. Because your claim of “I looked at the video” as an argument is pretty pathetic. What I did is pretty standard. Find the information available on the topic. Evaluate the sources of the information. If possible, make your own direct judgment of the information. Then present all that as documented, sourced, and credible (all up for debate, of course, by your opponent) information that supports your premise. That's how it's done. Ok? Got it?

As an aside – and this is only a personal opinion based on my experience – Douglas' screams don't sound faked to me. Maybe they are, but it's very hard for someone, even professional actors, to make sounds like that if they're not actually *in* severe distress -- either flat-out pain or a combination of pain and fear. I know a little something about both. I know what actual screaming sounds like. So I am claiming myself as more qualified than most to make such a judgment.

Moving right along... I've researched the NLG. Here's an exercise for you: now YOU research the NLG and present me with the information and sources that support your claims that a.) it is an activist organization, b.) it is participating in the protest, and c.) the LO's cannot be objective.

You're probably making some assumptions at this point about my views and/or findings on the NLG. I find that amusing.

Oh, also “Legal Observer” has NEVER BEEN, in and of itself, a “legal status.” Even the NLG doesn't claim it as such: http://www.nlg.org/resources/legal-observing/ . So sure, you have the authority to label yourself a Legal Observer. Of course, don't expect anyone to take you seriously until you've been around about 70 years (NLG, founded 1937) and/or have an actual Legal Observer training program – in other words, having a card (er, dude, the NLG legal observers wear green hats... you'd know that if you'd bothered to do any research) doesn't make someone an NLG LO... they are actually trained.

One thing I'd like to point out, however. Sure, I just rebutted your “but, but... they're not real!” argument... but you don't seem to understand that their authority or lack of has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INCIDENT WE'RE DISCUSSING. Nothing. That's called an ad hominem argument. I'll wait while you go find a dictionary.

Onward. First off, let's get this out of the way. Quoting you:

“Dude, I am a freaking expert at making statistical data say what I might want it to say. Because I am an expert at it, I make it a point of not doing it. To prove that I do not do it, I request other provide the data analysis themselves. Were I to break down the analysis quantitatively, that usually would be the equivalent of an Economics professor discussing macro-economic international trade principles among differently developed trading partners at an elementary school assembly, and expecting the audience to understand and particpate in an open discussion. “

Dear god, self-important much? Pretty impressed with ourselves, aren't we? How often do you use that kind of line? When you do, has it occurred to you to check and see if people are rolling their eyes behind your back? It is, by the way, a convenient way to avoid having an actual discussion. Rather than making any attempt to explain the basic concept of your argument, you just put on your “I'm a freaking expert” hat and strike an authoritative pose.  How cute.

As an aside, if you put such stock in “expertise” in any particular field, I'd be interested to hear your opinion of global warming.

Anyway, okay, you're an expert at statistics, huh? Hm. And you make a point of not manipulating statistical data, you say?

And you prove it by asking the other person (I assume that's what you meant, though you left out at least one word) provide the data analysis?

That's funny about not manipulating statistical data, 'cause right after that, you go ahead and do it anyway.

I've found varying numbers on the population of Zuccotti Park. Where did you get the 5,000? I've seen an estimate of 100-200 people on a continuous basis. In any case, let's take your number. For the population of New York City, you're (approximately) using the Census Bureau's 2008 estimate – the actual number is 8,346,794 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml ). The U.S. Census site lists the 2010 number as 8,175,133 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/census2010/pgrhc.pdf ).

So, statistics expert that you are, you divide 5,000 protesters by the (outdated) total population of NYC and conclude that 0.50% of New Yorkers support OWS. Okay, first:

5,000 / 8,346,794 = 5.990323949530802e-4 = .0005990323949530802

Dude, that's 0.05%. That's five 100ths of a percent, not ½ of one percent. That's off by a factor of ten, in case you missed it. So first, there's that. I'll give that to you as a slip of the keys, though. Could happen to anyone. That's actually not the main problem, anyway.

There's several problems with your numbers:

1. You're taking the TOTAL population of NYC. WRONG. At least, unless you're going to take a poll of toddlers to see what they think of OWS. So, from the same site that I got my population number from, I'm getting 21.6% of the residents of NYC are under 18. So let's go with voting age as a cutoff, shall we? That means that the number of people in NYC whose opinions we're going to count goes from 8,175,133 down to 6,409,304. Which gives:
   
   5,000/6,409,304 = 0.08%
   
   Yeh, that's only 160% off your original number. Yeesh.
2. You're making the assumption that every single person not at the protests doesn't support it. That's almost too stupid for words.

So you're such a freakin' expert that it never occurs to you to not count humans who aren't potty-trained, and not to equate absence with non-agreement. Okay, dude, here's the options: you're lying your ass off about knowing anything at all about statistics, or you actually think you *are* an expert but you're just fucking incompetent, or you *know* that your logic and conclusions are wrong, but you're putting them forward anyway for some unknown but most probably pathological reason of your own. Pick one, S____. You're either a liar, incompetent, or crazy. Which is it?

Here's some statistics for you:

11/12/2011, Sienna College: 49% support OWS – http://www.siena.edu/pages/179.asp?item=314242

11/11/2011, Rochester Business Journal: 46% support OWS – http://www.rbj.net/article.asp?aID=189411

11/7/2011, Knowledge Networks: 35% support OWS – http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-07/news/30367763_1_new-national-poll-tea-party-favorable-impression

11/1/2011, Marist Poll: 44% support OWS – http://maristpoll.marist.edu/111-occupy-wall-street-dummy-post/

mid-October, unidentified poll: 67% of NYC residents support OWS – http://sustainablesecurity.blogspot.com/2011/11/time-to-occupy-democratic-party.html

You want the OWS claims in the form of “one single coherent and reparable point”. Well, first – dude, were you drunk when you wrote this? Do you even know what “reparable” means? If you didn't find a dictionary the first time, I'll wait while you go look again.

How about this, from http://occupynashville.org/frequently-asked-questions/ :

“The single grievance that unites us all is the undue influence of corporations upon our government. None of us can effectively participate in the political process to air and resolve our individual grievances if corporate interests and their checkbooks are between us and our elected representatives. “

That clear enough for ya? And what was that about Google being your friend?

You say you're happy and content. Here's the thing: you're not. Terribly arrogant of me to tell you that, you say? S____, I'm pretty good with human nature. And I will tell you with conviction that truly happy people do not lash out at others without provocation. Truly happy people don't feel the need to belittle, devalue, or insult others. You, S____, do lash out at people. You do insult and belittle people. You've got some anger issues, dude. I suspect that you're angry a lot more than you admit, possibly even more than you realize. Deal with it, or continue embarrassing yourself like you've done here.

Okay... nearly done. Just a few more logic failures to deal with. The first is your assertion that the protesters are insisting that you make changes in your life. Well, first off, if you don't know what the protesters want or stand for, as you claim, how the hell do you know that they're insisting that you change? Dude, epic logic fail. I'll help you out, though. The OWS protesters *aren't* insisting that you change. Please do some research and present to me evidence of such insistence. Seriously, go do some fucking research. Explain to me how having a grievance over undue corporate influence in government (see above) is asking *you* to change anything about your life. And who exactly is telling you to write any checks to anyone? I mean, where are you getting this shit? Seriously, wow. Just... wow.

There's a number of points in preceding parts of this conversation that I'd enjoy addressing, if only I had access to them. It looks like older posts drop off and are just gone. Annoying. I do remember you calling the OWS protesters a bunch of lazy rich kids, or some such. Uhm, S____? Do you really think a bunch of lazy rich kids would camp out in New York City in freakin' November? I don't. I think *actual* lazy rich kids would be in some well-appointed luxury apartment playing Call of Duty or Portal 2. There's some other points in your previous messages that are also just waiting to get torn into little bitty pieces, but really, I think I've made my point. Let me know if you want more.

If you've made it this far, congratulations. I'll give you a little credit for having done so. Other than that, no. S____, I *very* rarely go after anyone like this anymore (I'm still holding back just a little). But with your utter arrogance, meanness, and willful ignorance --all combining into one of the largest gaps between perceived/projected competence and *actual* competence I've ever see – dude, you bloody well deserved to have your ass handed to you. And like it or not, admit it or not, that's what I just did.

Your turn. Let's see what you've got.

Have a great night.

Oh, and...

wait for it....

….

fuck you.

-Thomas

And once more, tonight.

Me:

A few loose ends, stuff which I referenced but didn't get to last night. Left-overs from earlier in the conversation, mostly. I figure, hey, might as well finish the job (that would be the handing-your-ass-to-you job).

One statement of mine could be clarified -- it lead you to address an issue that I didn't actually raise.

One logical error that could be argued as having originated from a statement of mine.

I'll leave it to you to find those, if you are so inclined or able.

Your comment on the source of my confusion was totally irrelevant to the explanation I gave for that confusion. It's also totally irrelevant to the explanation YOU gave for the source of my confusion. Basically, it made no sense.

Clarification/expansion: you assumed that I was not following the story, apparently because I did not agree with your version of the story.

Clarification/expansion: you assumed that my disagreement meant that I lacked the desire to "face facts."

Clarification/expansion: you assumed that I did not research the story, apparently because I did not agree with your version of the story.

You (apparently) incorrectly identified Ari Douglas as a highly-placed member of the protest.

You incorrectly labeled my profanity as denigration of character, ignoring my earlier explanation of what is and is not judgment of a person's value.

After accusing me of denigration of character, you then practice hypocrisy by referring to me as "sheeple."

You claimed that I degraded into profanity. First off, your use of the word "degrade" is incorrect. As an intransitive verb, "degrade" describes a qualitative change in the subject. A person, in this sense, cannot qualitatively change. A person's language, however, can. So you should either have said something like "you chose to allow your language to degrade into profanity and [you also chose] to denigrate my character" (since language, as a concept, cannot denigrate a person's character) or "you chose to descend into profanity and denigration of my character." Okay, grammar lesson over.

Aside from your poor word usage, such a value judgment -- that "I degraded" -- requires that you care whether I did or did not use profanity. You later claimed (or implied) that you didn't care whether I used profanity. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have made a value judgment about it.

Yeh, that's pretty much it. Have a nice life.

Oh, and...

well, you know.