I refer to the above post which shows how language really works and how you are of course doubling down and entrenching over a clearly bad faith position:

Please dont call me friend, such acts of clearly fake attachment are offensive.

Wrong! I think your examples are quite reasonable. The suffix "-lite" indicates that the identifier being "lightened" isn't totally accurate.

Well you have been reduced to absurdity.

Is it not easier to just make a sincere apology?

As well it should be!

That's why I quickly apologized for calling you a "Liar."

I even provided an alternative explanation: You have comprehension issues! (For the record, so do I.)

I certainly wouldn't fault Browser for temp-banning me for calling you a liar, even though I retracted it soon after.

lite does not negate the entirety of the phrase it is attached to, that is the whole point of it as a qualifier.

If someone says they are X lite, that is still a positive claim to X.

I was calling Trolly "my friend." He and I have butted heads (not literally) for years.

Unlike you, he has a great sense of humor (imo)!

It's probably hard to be a true libertarian.

I don't really think it's grounded in sound ethics. Some of it is necessary unless you want to live in a nanny police state, but should people really be allowed to drive on the highway on their motorcycles with no helmets?

Lagtight is probably just hitting at this conundrum when he calls himself a libertarian light.

I certainly agree that the "-Lite" qualifier doesn't "negate the entirety of the phrase." But, in my opinion, it does serve the purpose of showing that the phrase is at the very least misleading.

Not sure what this tangent is about, but no one is insisting or claiming SS has to adhere to the whole policy stack of libertarianism, and no one is claiming that anyone who claims to be a libertarian has to either.

The vast majority of people who make positive claims to be X or Y have some degree of divergence from full adherence to the ideology or whatever.

For all we know, SS does not believe in a single element of libertarianism, we are discussing his claims about his position, not there actual content.

Torch carrying hard core militants are the exception not the norm.

This is the most absurd thing you have said.

So when you positively describe your self as libertarian lite, you are purposefully choosing to describe yourself in a misleading way.

You had every opportunity at that time to say " I am not libertarian."

Which is emphatic claim not to be libertarian, but you obviously chose not to say this, because you wanted to make some positive claim to being libertarian.

Just stop.

It's not the calling someone a "liar" that is the nittery. It is the road taken to where that becomes the topic of discussion.

Pretty much.

I believe that pigeon-holes are for pigeons. That's why identifying myself as "Libertarian-Lite" allows me to spread my wings a bit.

I think I must not be expressing myself clearly.

My point is that me identifying myself as "Libertarian-Lite" is less misleading than just claiming to be a "Libertarian."

Anyway, this conversation is tiring me. I will come back to this thread later.

Sure we see your claim you are a libertarian but not a hard core one etc, that is good information, however because there are no claims to other ideologies and no explicit denial of being an libertarian ala I am not a libertarian, this is still a claim to be a libertarian of some sort.

Which is why it is a contradiction on both claiming to have never said you were not a conservative and how many time must you tell me you are not a libertarian.

Its not even remotely close to debatable.

And yet a belief continues that simply demanding someone 'cite or ban' the statement will end the discussion with an admission.


I hope people now see how again i end up proving correct as always.

These demands of 'cite or ban' of even the most clear (just a couple posts upthread) almost never prove or change anything. The person goes in with a position 'I am right, you are wrong...cite your proof', and then once cited it they switch in a very Trumpy way to 'ok i said it, but it changes nothing' or just flat out refusing to acknowledge what is clearly 'cited'.

it generally does one thing and one thing only which is waste the time of the person who has to go back and look and annoy them allowing the other person to troll them based on that, exactly as you see laggy doing now. He is enjoying how his trolling played out.


I saw this time after time on the Rotten Tomatoes forum two decades ago. Demand for citation for years prior conversations. Citation searched and given proving allegation. it was then replied to with TL DR or ignored or just trolled changed nothing and when they person who did the work complained the 'Rustle meme' or 'you mad' meme being posted in reply.

Troll tactic successful.

There's Bud beer and Bud light beer. They share some ingredients but not all. Though both are made by Budweiser, they are different. I drink Bud Light. I don't drink Bud. I've said I'm a bud light drinker. If someone asks me if I'm a bud drinker I say no. I'm a bud light drinker. Saying Im a bud light drinker didsnt mean Im also a bud drinker.

If I agree with the republican position on defense spending, taxes and foreign affairs, but support abortion rights, am I a Republican? There are an awful lot of republicans who would accuse me of being a RINO and not actually a Republican. They would say supporting abortion rights disqualifies me from being a Republican. I might even agree with that. So if someone asked me my political views, I wouldnt say "Im a Republican". But I may well say Im a republican-lite as a shorthand to capture the fact that I support many but not all Republican positions. Saying Im a republican lite is in no way saying Im a republican. It rather indicates that I have some similar beliefs, but differ enough to make a distinction in what I call myself.

But once again, to divert a thread with a dozen plus posts arguing about whether a republican lite is also a republican is to lose sight of the purpose of the thread and it derails the actual discussion. And as far as the discussion goes, it just doesnt matter. It's pole vaulting over a sidewalk crack. It's a long run for a short slide. The juice isnt worth the squeeze. Whatever saying you want to use, these heads up battles dont add a thing to the thread. And IMO terms like gaslighting and bad faith posting irt these types of disagreements is vast overkill.

'lite' with any reasonable reading still includes you in the attached category. A person who self identifies as a Democrat lite is still a Democrat, but just a lighter version of them Bud light is still Budweiser beer even if a lighter version.


it would be unreasonable to walk around a district campaigning for election on the premise of being a Democrat lite, and then once elected tell the people you in know way ever claimed to be a Democrat. You DID claim to be a democrat, adding the qualifier lite does not suddenly eliminate the prior claim, it just modifies it.

This is ridiculous. If someone gets their braces off and I say "wow, your teeth look so much better than before", deleted! Bc I am noting an improvement, which implies past failures, and alluding to the dreaded past! Double whammy. My friend gets a new car "whoa bro, this car is way better than your last one", deleted!!!!! I could go on.

Your omnimod approach is turning out to be hysterical. Don't say this, say this, but say it nicely! I've never seen anything like it across any space, but I imagine it resembles some sort of behavior therapy camp. I'm looking forward to our demolition man future.

Clam bake is an insult, delete it! Deleted a compliment and kept the insult, good stuff

lol. i just posted the Budweiser example not reading yours and could not disagree more.

No one at budweiser would agree that bud light is not a budweiser beer in the way a person drinking bud light would be able to say I do not drink budweiser beer'. Budweiser beer has grown in to a family of beers each with a slightly different qualifier but they are ALL budweiser beers.

if you drink bud light then you do drink budweiser beer.

The difference is someones crooked teeth is not something they controlled. OTOH telling someone his his responses are better bc at least he's using words now is directly a dig on his previous posting, which is an action he took, not a characteristic he inherited. Just like Whoa, man, your posts are so much better now because at least now you sound like you have a clue! Is a compliment wrapped in an insult.

I figured a clam bake was an insult. But you didnt actually explain its origin or use as an insult.

Maybe in Canada, but in the US if you go to a bar and your friend says do you want a bud, you would say no, get me a bud light because they are two distinct products. No one cares if they were both made by the same parent company.

I think if you google "accusing someone of gaslighting over minor misinterpretations of phraseology" it should be the top google result.

This is iconic George Carlin.

Lmao. This goes further than even I claim

Look, if he can end fabricating people's positions without quotes, accusations of gaslighting, and accusing of lying, I'll take it as a win. He is about half way there already.

I think a good comparison is the Canadian parliament. There are all sort of rules in parliamentary systems about decorum in the legislatures, even stricter than in the US. It is all saying "Mr Speaker, the honourable member from Toronto-Danforth blah blah blah". Insane overwrought forced civility. But of course it is all window decorations. The actual words are implying those honorable members are thieving lying immoral scumbags without any of those words said. It is basically a game to be able to accuse your opponents of the most outrageous things and get the best media clips without overstepping the strict decorum rules. They abhor each other, they don't respect each other, they insult each other at every opportunity, but they do it nicely.

It is browser's basic philosophy on steroids.