**** votes.

Who's the unchained poster that caused the most drama, fun and interest in this forum?

I vote DeucesMcKraken, the Unchained poster of the year.

- 9/11

- War against Gamblor

- War against Ikes and the Duck Tales 77 hand episode

- Smaller battle against DudeImBetter.

- Treyvon Martin Epicness

- Died/banned not so long ago and revived on the 7th day

- Argued against everyone in every subject and topic. Went all out and didn't hold any punches.


Which subject hasn't this poster engaged in? The real unchained MVP in my opinion.

considering he fostered debate more than anyone else, I don't see why not.

speaking of 9/11, there is news this week. ... maybe it can wait until 2015 ... will give coincidence theorists time to whip their "yeah, but that doesn't prove 9/11" default response into shape.

NotTien

chimpstare

Thakid

none of them

None of the ones that caused drama also caused fun. None of the ones that caused fun also caused drama.

BruceZ drama was a ton of fun and I hope to see recurring flare ups in 2015.

Bruce Z wasn't fun? Who the heck was fun in your opinion?

I nominate Fly because he's fun to swat.

He's a one trick pony, and only turned it on in Q4.

Fly and Ikes are solid and dependable characters when it comes to this. Think both are tough to beat.

Deuces rising from the ashes of perma was pretty dramatic. I get the feeling I miss his best work by not giving a **** about Israel/Palestine.

lol all of y'all are terrible.

Can we credit Bruce for the chain of events that led to the de-greening of spankie? What percentage of new threads were started because of him?

If not Bruce, then it should be a group award for Team Bruce.

I'm still trying to figure out what I wrote in the zim thread that was so controversial. When pressed, none of my detractors has been able to produce anything. But that was 2013 in any case.

This year was all about the Israelis thread, as events happened which legitimated a lot of tendentious claims made earlier by myself and Haywood. The developments on the ground, which have lowered even further the status of Israel in world opinion, of course only ramped up the frothing of the Israeli apologists and so made for some hard clashes.

As far PU, the 9/11 thread was good fun. That thread saw two people take on all comers and spank every last one of them. While it's true the vanquished were all handicapped by adopting the fragile cover-up narrative of proven murderers, torturers, and liars, it was their choice to do so and so they deserve no more sympathy than theKid, Gamblor, or any other sycophant to power.

But I would go with spank for Unchained poster of the year. TBH I don't follow every accusation in the back and forth between spank and the regs. But I think he has stimulated more debate about the nature of the discourse here and in the main politics forum than anyone else. His journey from poster to mod to resident dissident was the biggest spectacle in PU and, given that no one has ever changed a single political opinion in the history of the politics forums, probably was the forum's biggest learning opportunity as well.

Same question I pose to Jiggs when he makes a claim like this - could you post a couple of people (who aren't the two people above) that agree with this claim?

You're like a religious zealot who claims to beat all intellectual opponents in a debate by citing the Bible while your opponents use actual hard evidence.

Not to brown nose, but I probably would say Joey joe joe shabbadu junior.

A lot of drama ensued around him, but he didn't get all ****ty the way spank did. He kept you on your toes, never making it easy to see where he was gonna go next. And even if I disagreed with him, I could usually make out where he was coming from.

Honorable mention to Mat on pain killers.

It's probably Jeff.

You're offensively disgusting.

Dids is good people.

I reject the premise of your question.

I wouldn't care if every person in the world thought, as you do, that there is a shred of merit in comparing the NIST collapse model with Einstein's theory of relativity in terms of validity. That comparison, which you made, is so ignorant that it beggars description. I would literally have to explain to you what science is and what modeling is in order to be sure you know how invalid your comparison is and how misleading any belief in it is.

Almost every sub-topic eventually wound up with one of the government story faithful argued into some kind of utterly idiotic statement, at which point they would usually just stop engaging on that sub-topic and either leave the debate or move on to the next sub topic.

You've got it backwards. You and the other government truthers are the ones hopelessly trying to defend a fragile narrative, a morality play, on faith alone. I'm the rational skeptic debating against the congregation.

That's a lot of words just to say "No, I can't post anybody that agrees I'm kicking ass".

Go to Saudi Arabia, set up a booth in a public square out of which you deconstruct Islam from a rational scientific perspective, and tell me how many people there think you are kicking ass.

Lol Deuces.

lol u

I've sighted the polls. The country is split on the issue of who is responsible for 9/11, even with a high percentage of the population not knowing the facts most damning to the official propaganda. Therefore there is a a good chance that more than two people think I or Jiggs or both of us kicked your asses. But positive feedback is extremely rare in the politics forums, and is rarer still on the more controversial issues. Practically one poster out of hundreds, devaut, is ever praised for his posting. Yet many arguments, such as yours in the 9/11 thread, are made short work of all the time.

So the idea of a cheering section, in this place, as the arbiter is just another wrong headed idea from you. But it's predictable- you can't argue on the merits so you look to some vague, imagined consensus to back you up. This is an extremely weak form of argument by authority, weak because the consensus isn't real (the null, given the population polls, is that I am supported) but even if it was real, the credentials of the authority (as anonymous posters on an internet site) are poor.

So you keep imagining fake support which, even if real, wouldn't be support since it doesn't even rise to the usual standards required for a convincing logical fallacy. I will keep whacking your mole head back down when you pop up to make dumb arguments in the 9/11 or other threads here.

Douches making a case for the most unhinged poster in unchained ITT.