If you're trying to get yourself banned, you'll have to do worse than post Beverly Hillbillies videos.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't know why - although your recent history hints at some likely factors. Anyway, Fox News isn't site feedback, so I've reported the thread to have it moved or closed, or whatever they do when threads wander off-topic.
I think good therapy for me would be to give you an official warning for trolling. There. Now I feel much better.
Dave, I think that after Plan A - trying to get himself voted off the island - fizzled due to lack of interest, he has decided to try Plan B - annoy the moderators until he gets a ban. I predict that Plan B will work. Whether he gets the drama and attention he craves in the process is another matter.
So ... the thread stays open? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Historically, maybe someone does, but even if you link to it, many would pretend to miss the point. There have been times, for instance, when quoting a post isn't enough, and linking to it is useless because ostensibly educated people can't figure out that the quote comes from the linked post; I even once sent a photo of a post to someone in order to jog their memory, since links and quotes weren't helping him remember, and he still could not understand the point; the alternative explanation would be a little less kind in suggesting he had reason to miss the point, since the whole point was that he had been caught out saying something that was untrue. More directly, the standard of believable competency is both low and unstable. I am not quite either sarcastic or sincere if I say you are being somehow elitist and oppressive in expecting he should know what thread anyone is talking about; over the course of years, expecting people to have a clue about their own conduct is strangely controversial. Honestly, I still chuckle at a weird occasion I experienced, earlier this year, when someone made a strange assertion, so I responded that his point ran afoul of the evidence, and said, quite literally, here's one example, and quoted the example with a link. The response came back that it was not clear from the post what it meant to point out by referring to the source. Don't get me wrong, the evidence was conclusive; the source in question simply did not match the description, which point I also explicitly stated. Now, sure, I guess I can believe he didn't remember his own post, hours earlier; but tossing a coin on his confusion—when he is explicitly told, "your argument runs afoul of the record", and, "just so you understand, here's one example"—is not necessarily charitable per the principle regarding philosophical discourse, as it presumes particularly clownish error and omission matters of otherwise unbelievable accident; truth is, after all, stranger than fiction. I even provided a second example of disagreement 'twixt description and record. And I mention the episode because it's the sort of bizarre thing that passes muster around here. (Not quite apropos of nothing: Is there a rational argument for a given issue? Is a given advocate actually bringing a rational argument? If other people refuse deliberate exercises in fallacy and insistent repetition thereof, does that mean advocacy of whatever issue in question is forbidden?) Not necessarily irrelevant: Do you happen to recall we briefly discussed the idea of this place as a "science site" or not, maybe a couple years ago? The phrase, "science forum", popped up recently, reminding me, and, well, yeah. There are reasons this stuff goes on. In the present moment, what people should remember is that Bowser is, for whatever reason, begging for attention. Sure, there's some irony in that, which in turn is only worth what attention we give it.
Threads may wander off-topic, but they usually stay loosely tied to the the topic of the forum they're in. This thread is in the Site Feedback Forum. Anyway, I've enjoyed most of the conversations we've had over our time here up until recently. I'd rather preserve what it was than what's it's becoming, so I'd prefer not be an enabler in your self-destruction. I will bid you adieu and put you on Ignore so I don't have to watch it.
Don't take it so seriously. I will be back. Yep, I'm being issued speeding tickets, but I won't let that keep me away from you. I truly like you guys, so how could I possibly stay away?
And the remaining mystery would be what about his behavior now suddenly unsettles you enough to act. His behavior is the same as it's ever been. An abstract question, not quite apropos of nothing: If Bowser manages to annoy you badly enough to finally send him on his way, then what political views will you have silenced? Hint: There's an obvious answer, and it's pretty much the same as it's ever been.
Threads wander off topic all the time. They are reigned in all the time - first by people on the thread suggesting they move back on topic, and then (if needed) by moderators.
1) Between #14-20 above. 2) The discussion is still about Bowser, so, technically, it's not off topic. 3) The thread was a troll job to begin with, and thus cannot actually be off topic. Pick one. Or more. They can all be simultaneously true, depending on how we constrain perspective or not. The thing about few words, Bowser, is whether they have any significant or useful meaning.
I thought it went off topic when allegations of racism entered the conversation. The conversation started on Aliases and possible change (which is still on the table). How so a troll? You could write a book and still have very little to say.
