6/17/2006

OTBL'er Joins BBA - Brief Bloggers Anonymous!















Breaking News .....

A lone Borderwhiner has broken with the basement boxer short bloggers at OTBL and joined the BBA.

Brief Bloggers Anonymous (BBA) provides a safe harbor for those bloggers who choose to anonymously blog in their whitey-tighties instead of the standard blogger boxer shorts.

The BBA twelve-step program provides guidance on everything from proper cahones-cooling to Sears catalogue modeling.

(Note: BBA members must supply their own duct tape.)


19 comments:

Wait Till We get our Hanes on you said...

Well we know this isn't Dr. Bill or
SpiritOfBullshit. There's nothing brief about their posts.

Perry Mason said...

You can bet your grapes, the Republican bloggers from the southeast corner of Wisconsin will be filing briefs on this post shortly.

Fruit of the Loom said...

Let's hope they keep the Spotted Horse's ass covered.

Nicholas Green said...

Cool Blog, I were whitey tighties. Go visit my blog at http://nerdsstories.com

Cato said...

Ho ho ho ho ho so funny.


Hold on, I'm not done holding my sides.


I think that the people on this site have an entirely unhealthy obsession with the people on another website, possibly stemming from a secret desire to be them.

SIRHC said...

We don't actually want to be them. We just want to get the filming rights to their famous hot tub parties.

CATO are you related to the pro-gay rights, pro-legalize marijuana libertarian think tank be the same name?

Cato said...

Cato, as in the defender of the Republic and liberty as well as a pseudonym for an Anti-Federalist author. The Cato Institute works for me as well.

Why do you want video of hot-tub parties? You don't even know who these people are.

AndyRand said...

Hey CATO,
Instead of holding your sides, why don't you cover your ears so all that grey matter doesn't leak out of your overly inflated ego. I'd kill myself before I'd even think of wanting to be one of those Skunks.

Cato said...

I do not think you have heard of the nizkor project, have you andyrand? They have a neat section on their site which I can link for you.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Thanks for the link to the Dr. Bill playbook. Looks like something telemarketers use when they can't convince people eating supper that they need to buy a vacation home.

Now I know why you guys all have the same answers. Very creative (not).

Cato said...

Fallacies are not arguments andyrand, and do not deserve responses. What is unfourtunate here is that you will think you have "won" but I am merely not responding to fallacies. I sent you a link with all common fallacies and then you proceeded to use them more.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

This is what's make you guys funny.
You are soooooo serious about everything. You have no sense of humor.
Is this to Ad Hominum for you?
If you think you won, Fine, you won. Are you happy now. Are you a better person? I don't give a rat's ass who wins.
I scanned your "PAGE of Fallacies" TM. And immediately I saw terms you guys use all the time. Maybe my responses don't fit into your rule book, but at least they come from me
not some internet "giver of truth"
website.

This is the other thing that bugs me about your thinking. You think you've given me the keys to all wisdom on one web page. So I have to play by your rules right, otherwise what am I, not the intellecktigent that you are. If you want that title you can have it. There's more to life than being a brainiac.
Why don't you point out the fallacy (objectivist Mortal Sin ) I've commited?

Cato said...

A list of fallacies, by ayndrand, in one post:

"Thanks for the link to the Dr. Bill playbook.

"Looks like something telemarketers use when they can't convince people eating supper that they need to buy a vacation home.

"Now I know why you guys all have the same answers.

"Very creative (not)."

You seem to perfer to use appeal to ridicule but there are Ad Hominum attacks scattered throughout your writing. Saying I have no sense of humor is not an Ad Hominum fallacy. Saying I am wrong because I have no sense of humor, on the other hand, is.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
When I said:

"Looks like something telemarketers use when they can't convince people eating supper that they need to buy a vacation home."

Seriously, that's kind of what your link reminded me of, a telemarketing manual used by someone who dare not stray from the script.
Most people would recognize a bit of tongue in cheek and maybe get a chuckle from the comment.
Saying you have no sense of humor is not my arguement that you are wrong, it's more of an observation and to be honest, is partly projected upon you based on my experience with people who subscribe to similar philosophies as yours. It could be an undeserved generalization. In reality, I could be totally wrong and you could be Johnny Carson dequised as an internet blogger.
I no doubt have a bit of sarcasm in what I write. But feel that if I can dish it out I should be ready to take it as well.

It's just not my style to have to consult with the manual of argumention everytime I feel I have something to say. It's seems you've studied this dilligently enough to point out violations of these rules of discussion. If this were a formal debate, maybe you'd be correct in doing so. But this is a casual blog.
In my mind, there are many ways to effectively make a point and many of them may well be listed in you book of fallacies.

Cato said...

I honestly do not "get" your "joke" about telemarketers. But I wouldn't get carpal tunnel syndrome over it trying to explain.

I am fine with arguing with people who on occaision use fallacies. Instead of pointing them out I work around them, or even address them and explain why they are wrong (not just the fact they are wrong because they are fallacies). However, since you have a predilection for sophistry, I thought I could nip it in the bud.

AndyRand said...

CATO
Your said:
"Saying I have no sense of humor is not an Ad Hominum fallacy."

Is this not a fallacy because it is not Ad Hominum, or because you have no sense of humor? Just curious?

"a predilection for sophistry" ouch,
a blow to the soft underbelly of what I value, creativity. Very clever.

I'll try to be serious for a moment.
Really CATO, have you never spoken with a telemarketer that had a answer for every objection you could imagine to not buy something from them? They function from a script that tells them how to respond to each objection. That's what your list of fallacies reminds me of.
Now I'm not even chuckling.
My wrist is getting sore so I'll leave it that.

We could probably have an interesting conversation here. But I
find it a bit difficult since you seem to believe you have the market of Truth cornered, and everyone else speaks fallacies.
I hope that your belief in objectivism helps you along on your pursuit of happiness. Sorry but it's just not my cup of tea.

Cato said...

Telling someone they are speaking in fallacies is an objection itself; perhaps that is why I still do not get your "joke." Using fallacies is not an "argument." I did not say anone else other than you are using fallacies here. Like I said I don't mind it once in a while but consistently you are using fallacies instead of an actual argument. I was merely trying to help you out so you do not look the fool and just throw personal attacks at people instead of saying something substantive.

Fallacies are used to present an "argument." Saying I have no sense of humor makes no mention of why my claim was incorrect, which is why it was not an Ad Homeinem fallacy. Perhaps we can call it a personal attack or a poisoning the well fallacy, but I don't mind in this instance, for you were not trying to cover up lack of evidence for support of a claim with fallacies, you were just saying I have no sense of humor. Which is demonstrably false.

AndyRand said...

CATO

Has it ever occurred to you that you are more enamored with the process of a discussion than its substance? You seem to care little about the content of a discussion and concentrate entirely on how the discussion is conducted. Perhaps this comes from valuing style more than content. I could be accused of this as well, though I feel my "style" to be much less rigid.

You find fault with my process and dismiss my points because of the way they are presented and not on their own merits.


If your goal is to communicate, I think you fall far short of the mark. I believe your goal is to belittle in order to demonstrate your superior intellect, not to communicate.

Perhaps you've achieved your goal.

"I was merely trying to help you out so you do not look the fool and just throw personal attacks at people instead of saying something substantive."

Don't you find this to be a rather pompous attitude? I know I do. I'll make the assumption that others do as well.

Cato said...

In my other few discussions here I have not taken anyone to task for using fallacies. One cannot argue effectivley against fallacies, which is why people use them. I do not see how someone pointing out a site on what fallacies are is "belittling" to others, unless that's all you have to offer. In other comments you can see I was not concerned about the process of the discussion but rather the substance.