Mods are too lax

Gendanken,

Too bad.
Snip, I will not.

Fuck 'em.

You've completely changed your course of motivation then?
(Or did I completely misread your enthusiams earlier?)

Now you want to be a housekeeper?
Hmm.
Waste of good material, says I.
But if that's what you want. Have at it.
Sounds boring to me.

"Ah. Delete this. Edit that. Troll here. Spam there. Blah blah blah."

Blah.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Anyway.
Personally. I don't think there's that much trolling going on in the human sciences forum.
There's that Buddha guy who likes it up the ass but doesn't want to be called gay or whatever who has started a million and one threads. But seems like people really like talking about fags. Go figure.
Other than that... There's always the oddball thread that doesn't belong like the fighting styles bullshit and a few others that could be moved to Free Thoughts or something. But... not really much trolling. Unless you count Valich.

What exactly are you trying to say? That I'm being your press agent? You do realize that I've only mentioned you tangentially? I do think that you have a good record of writing inspiring threads and posts. And fuck you if you don't like me saying it. I don't care. But, what I was saying in here wasn't "Gendanken this. Gendanken that." It was "Hey. What you guys are saying really makes me think about this whole moderator issue. And about the slump. I have this idea about moderators being more than just housekeepers...."

So. Stick that 'press agent' bullshit up your ass.

How so?
I hardly remember half the garbage that went on in here, but I distinctly recall it starting out with me joking with Gustav and then him going off on all these weird-ass tangents. He was the one who kept calling my not respecting him some kind of punishment or whatever. I was only joking. I can't help it that he got sand in his crack over it. Who'da thunk it? I didn't figure he cared.

If you think I got 'creamed' because I went back on my 'gossip' accusation. Then fair enough. I can only give the excuse I've given all along. I was joking and didn't expect this kind of Spanish Inquisition. The point I was making was simple. I don't respect him. That's that. How did I get creamed? Because of all his red herrings and whatnot? Do you think that he really hit my mark by calling me the Grand Inquisitor? That I'm an anarchist nazi? What points, exactly, do you think were most effective in the creaming?
I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the matter.

Anyway.
I kinda doubt you read it all.
Just a hunch.
If you did, then your eyes are probably 'still' swimming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Considering that infamous dyslexia of yours that reads what's not there, YEAH.

Read what I wrote. The many who don't like me would vote for me on a technical basis (if)- either way I'd be mod.
How excalty does this influence my motive for modding?
At any rate, forget modding. I no longer want it.

Your wash rinse repeat routine is overwashed and rinsing. Quit repeating it.

Know what "fuck 'em" means?
Fuck 'em means you’ve assigned whomever the same status you do this chair and that cup.
Fuck em means their “doings” are as immaterial to you as its presence.
Know how silly saying:

or-

and then posting a dozen more of your gigantic wormholes is from someone saying ‘fuck ‘em’?

A billion words later in just one teeny thread where you've time again said This Is My Last One.......... and fuck 'em, huh?

I'd like plenty up my ass and bullshit ain't one of them.

Point being you don't have to. You've a history of Gendanken this. Gendanken that- that you did not do that here verbatim means what?

Go back and read you.
Granted, I'd like to squash him at times, but that Gustav thingy has stamina.

You say one thing, then something else, and voila there he is with both quoted rebutting each other.
Therefore, any fucking one in here can go back and read how you think, or better said attempt it since that slop you call 'rambling' is at bottom a circutious free for all where you're neurons are desperately pieceing that chaos in there together with little to no forethought.

And then I'm supposed to be the one that misunderstands YOU?

This the same hunch that had your 'first guess' at Gendanken?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gendy,

So. Vote for you technically if they think you're a bitch and vote for you because you're a talented writer otherwise? But... That would be admitting that you're inspiring.

By the way. If you read the whole thread, you'd realize that when I said 'inspiring', it wasn't perhaps the definition that you have in mind. More like.... being there. Caring. Spurring things on. I mentioned Q's old APOD threads as an example.

Anyway.
Bring back more of those opening posts yet?
Are you going to?

I thought you were enthusiastic about having motivation to post more again.
I liked the idea of moderation being about more than housecleaning.
You're no maid anyway.

Consider.
Trolls.
Would you clean up the flame wars?

Why not?

Now, spit. (Don't ask me why I thought of that. Little Shop of Horrors. With Steve Martin as the dentist.)
Did I talk you out of your mod desires?
I really think you should post more though.
Come on, damnit.
This place needs you.
Make time.

Hmm.
Ok.
First of all. The thing about saying that it was my last post to Gustav.
You might also realize that I later said this:
"Gusty: in anycase do not confuse the little scraps i throw at you as appeasement.

Me: What little scraps? You mean your posts? How you've started not replying to my posts so much as just little things? I figured that was a ploy, actually. Something along the lines of, "See. I don't even care enough to respond to your whole post. Hell, I haven't even read it... And look at you posting to me after you said you were done..."
Something like that.
Never thought it was appeasement.
Weird that you'd think I would. Unless you're talking about something else."

So. The answer to your question: "Know how silly saying: " is. Yes. I even stated it explicitly.
But... You read that, right?

See. The thing is that I show my 'not caring' in a different way. Rather than using a tactic like "I'm so bored that I won't even respond to you anymore or will do so only with stupid one-liners." I could have. I actually half-considered it. But, I didn't care to.
See? Or no see?
Sabes, Kemosabe?

This form of not caring showed up in earlier posts as well. I didn't care enough to selectively quote his posts as he did mine. (The way you did mine also, by the way.) That would be a tactic. Which would mean I'm interested in winning. And not only winning. But beeing seen to win.
See? No see? Asi asi? Un poco?


Alright.
I could also go on (again) about how my point was simply that I have no respect for him and that's that. I didn't see any need to prove it to him or to you or to anyone else.
I didn't care to.
You can see it as him creaming me or whatever. But the only way you'd be right is that my early joke of 'gossip' was poorly worded. That's all. And I conceded that quite early on. It was then that all the strawmen started showing up.
You know. More tactics.

Heh.
Flame wars.
Tactics.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
How many tactics are there?
You know lots of them. So does Gustav. I know some as well. But why bother? What's the point?
Do you, like Gustav, believe that a flame war is a test of intellect?
A game of chess maybe?


Anyway.
On to what I really meant by:

Before you quoted it out of context. (Tactics?)

If you scroll back up to that post, you might notice that I said 'fuck 'em' not in regards to Gustav, but in regards to most people coming here to kill time.

I actually meant for this to be bait. But not how you used it...
Anyway.

What I meant was fuck those people who come here to 'kill time'. Although, we're not just talking about 'killing time'. We all do that from time to time. But, rather the people who are a symptom of a slump. The idiots who gabble and gawk and blah blah blah. Who are incapable of reading more than two sentences in a row. Who think it's the height of hilarity to butt into threads with stupid one-liners and a hardey har har.
Basically, if you don't mind me sounding like a 'press agent' again for a minute.
The people who wouldn't be 'inspired' by any of your threads.

Fuck em.
Right up their slimey, worthless assholes.

I expected you to get on me about this like so: "What?! 'Fuck em'? But you're here talking about inspiration and blah blah blah? But you're showing contempt for those very people you wish to inspire?"
Something like that.
I was going to follow that with the fact that there would be a winnowing process.
Wheat from chaff.
There are those who are not here just to kill time and be idiots.
And with a shift in moderation emphasis, perhaps these people could be inspired and motivated to raise the level of the place.

Like I said long ago.
It's just a though.

And. Here you are. Like Gustav. Going off on inane tangents.
"He whooped you, boy! Well-doggies! You were like: 'You suck.' and he was like: 'Oh yeah? Here's why I don't. And here's why you do.' and you were like: 'Oh yeah? Your brain's the one with the shell on it....' "
Meh.

But. I don't care what you think anyway.
I've never respected you either.
It was all an act.
Tactics.
And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Oh?
That must be why the bullshit comes out of your ass rather than into it?
Muaha!!
You're so fucking fat. Cow.

Yeah.
When he brought you up.
I did mention you a bit in the first post. But I also talked about Spurious.
Am I his press agent too?
I'm an equal opportunity fan boi, eh?
Come on. Say it.
Call me an asslicker.
Call me a footstool.
Call me a stool groomer.
You know you want to.

That's because he cares. I don't.
I read like blah blah blab blah blah blooh.
That's because I don't give a shit about flame wars.
My tactic is honesty. Voluminous honesty. Pedantic honesty.

Anyway?
Stamina?
How so? By continuously resorting to tactics? By ignoring things I say so as to pick out one or two things out of context? To make me repeat myself regardless of the fact that I know he's doing it on purpose?
What's the point of flame wars?

Hey.
I'm repeating myself again.
Imagine that.

Example?
The only place I contradict myself is with the 'gossip' thing. But, I've explained ad nauseum, that it was a poor choice of words.

Do you think there was any point in me proving my lack of respect for him?
For spending hours going back over his history to quote the reasons why I don't respect him?

His main tactic was strawmanning.
He knew that he couldn't argue against my opinion of him which was all I was saying, so he tried shifting it to arguments he could win.
You know.
Tactics.

Yeah.
But, I doubt many would work their way through most of this shit. Why should they? I guess it's like people gawking at an accident. Blood sport and all that.
Forethought?
What was there to forethink?
Tactics?
Why?
The issue was simple.
I don't respect him.
What forethought does that require?

You're not supposed to be anything.
You weren't even involved.
However. You obviously fell for his tactics. Strawmanning and whatnot.
Proud of yourself?

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh.
Speaking of tactics.
Nice. The way you didn't quote the part where I said "If you did, then your eyes are probably 'still' swimming."
You know.
The part where I was covering my bases?
What was that? A rook to queen's bishop? I can't wait until we get to the part where the Knight jumps the Queen.
("It's good to be king." *wink*)


Anyway:

I'm curious. I know there is a chair there. But is there a cup?
What were you drinking?

Strange use of 'wormhole'. A wormhole is usually used to indicate a type of shortcut. A punching through of the space-time continuum so as to cover a huge amount of ground with minimal travel.
I suppose you're thinking more of those wormholes in old pianos?

Heh.
You know that wormholes are drilled into pianos to 'antique' them?
Tactics.


Alright. Alright.

Actually, the size of my posts decreased after "I was done". Use your word count if you don't believe me.
They did start to grow a bit at the end, but that's because we got to a breakthrough.
I.e. He finally got what I was saying.

I find it funny that he got my point. But you didn't.

I bet it really bugs you that a flame war should end with "yuck. i am beginning to like you."

Flame wars are supposed to end with one side beaten down with tactics. With all the observers in agreement as to the resolution.

A question.
When you are involved in a flame war, who are you posting for? Who are you writing to? The person you're fighting? Or the watchers?
You like to win, don't you?
I do realize that some of it is purely selfish. You like to win for yourself. But, you are also dependent upon the decisions of the others. Conscious of the 'peanut gallery'.
Aren't you?
You'd never let yourself be seen posting in a flame war as I have to Gustav, would you?

What of the old Wanderer incident? When I accused him of being Philocrazy? Remember that? Do you think he creamed me too?

And. Yes. I'm rambling.
Apologies, my dear.
I'm tired. A long, hard week.
At least I'm off tomorrow.

I'll try to be more proficient with my use of tactics in later posts to you. (That is, unless you use the tactic of ignoring me...)

 

Please someone explain to me what it means "to cream someone". I don't know that idiom and I don't understand what it means when it is used here.

 

I believe it comes from the process of turning cream into butter by beating the cream a lot. Basically it means invert got the shit kicked out of him.

 

Alright.

 

vert the masochist

a strawman is a response to an argument that has never been presented. i had not done so. every point i made was in response to quoted texts authored by you.

i made logical and probable inferences from your statements. if you dispute my inferences, you would have to explain how and why it cannot be a possible consequence of your intent. i would then choose to accept your explanation or not

i do not think i ever did. why? self serving, implausible and irrational

where do i take issue with this opinion of yours? show me.
do i ask why? show me
it is simply you that vomits this sentence endlessly as if it is something profound

since you are still here defending your conduct, i would say you care immensely. its funny tho, i never characterize the act of responding to a post as caring. i do not attach useless emotive tendencies to a rebuttal. it is purely mechanical and hopefully, intellectual. feelings are inconsequential.

now
about the scraps
i was referring to my post about gendy. it was a question you asked.....

i continue with another digression
you then remark (with some relief)........

to which i reply....

those digressions were just a lull in the flame. i was still quite intent on....on...how shall i put it...breaking your vagina

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i wanted you to be aware of that

alright, preschool is over

hmm, you did lie to water. and to me.

6. Always refer to yourself in the plural, as though you are speaking on behalf of the whole newsgroup: "all we are trying to say is..." sounds much more pompous than "all I am trying to say is...". When other people join in the thread, the rules are simple: if they side with you, follow-up immediately and enthusiastically, congratulating them on their courage; if they side with your opponent, ignore the tossers.

thats hilarious. i am so confident in my abilities to present a cogent argument
i am also confident in my abilities to acknowledge fallacies.
what can you do, vert?
rant "I don't respect him." endlessly?

 

i got everything that you said at the time you said it
you had no relevant point (s)

it was a toss up b/w...

yuck. i am beginning to like you.
yuck. i am beginning to feel sorry for you.

since i intended to disengage, i decided to be nice.

she has.
a few times
performed far better than you

oh
gendy meant "black hole", stoopid

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

to all the civilians AKA looky loos​

the mutt begs for an assessment
go on
give an opinion

 

Alright.
Despite past disagreements which make me generally want to say as little positive about 'gustav' as possible, I have to admit, Invert got his ass handed to him, and is apparently just too blind to see it.

 

pathetic that
the need for approval and vindication
no wonder i felt sorry for you and departed
even i could never get that cruel

but then again.....

*bolding mine

your absolute and fanatical conviction as evinced in this quote makes me wanna fuck with you some more. besides, the hamster has records to set

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

maggot
i am "new and improved",

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

will you be my friend?

 

probably not...

 

Gustav,

Oy.
It's back.

Actually. Just the opposite.
You're still having comprehension problems.
I don't care how I look to the gallery.
So. It's funny. Really funny. The gallery poking in to give their opinion.
I can't really blame them for thinking that you 'won' anything though.
Your use of tactics to misdirect coupled with my lack of interest in doing the same most likely leads to the consensus that I 'lost'.
But. The only way, as I see it, that I could lose is if you somehow showed that my singular point was wrong.
You know the one.


Anyway.
It's not me that begs for assessment.
It's you.
You're the one with tactics.
And strategies.
And the need to prove your intellect.
Me? I don't care.
Never have.
If I cared, I would have done things differently.


Anyway.

Wrong.

From Wikipedia:

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.

One can set up a straw man as follows:

1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.​

You were strawmanning by, either deliberately or not, misinterpreting my posts to you as being other than they were.

Examples?
Fine:

Let me try to organize these a bit.

Some of your strawmen actually seem to show just how important you seem to hold my opinion of you. And. Yes. It was an opinion. That's all it ever was. That's why I kept repeating it over and over again. A point which you noticed by the way:

""vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you"
vert: "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you""

Right?
You did see my point, but you refused to concede.

"it hurts so much!"

But, of course, you turn it into a strawman by tacking this on the end.
As if I were saying it to hurt you.)

And that's not the only time you admitted to seeing my point:

"ps: judging by the numerous refs of "no respect" in your dialogue, i take it must have been a momentous event to have said it? finally? were you nervous?"

Yes?
But, again, you make it a strawman in that you restate it to be a momentous event rather than a simple point.

Perhaps you could accuse me of a logical fallacy yourself. Argumenum ad nauseum. However. Personal opinion is not subject to logical laws.


Anyway.
This is a little something that I thought was really funny:

"now. how did you ever get the impression that i give a damn about your fucking opinion of me."

Gee. I wonder?

"ahh
here we go again. this urge to be in control and dictate my reality. a simple assertion of yours was disputed with facts. you could have let it go. yet you escalated with an attack on my intellect. to that, i will respond any fucking way i choose"

Ah. It's so hard to keep these organized. You demonstrate multiple fallacies in this one sentence.
First. I'm not sure what you'd call this fallacy, but you refuse to accept that I did in fact concede the 'gossip' thing. I did so numerous times, in fact. (It's true that I also explained what I really meant and why I chose the wrong word. 'Gossip' does have a basis in reality, but only a tenuous one. I've never stated otherwise. It was a poor word choice.)

Also, we see that which is the reason that it's in this particular category. The 'urge to be in control and dictate my reality' thing.
You accord my opinion a very high status. my opinion must be very powerful indeed to be seen as an attempt to dictate and control.

Also. Another repeated theme. The misinterpreted attacks on your intellect. I never once attacked your intellect. More on this in it's own category though. Let's try to be orderly here. My rambling tripe is getting on nerves.

"the self appointed grand inquisitor and keeper of standards..."

This is a repeated phrase which accords some sort of power to my opinion. As though my opinion were something that extends beyond myself and controls the external world. As though I were a judge, an inquisitor, a dictator, whose poor opinion you would fear.

"is it because you are control freak desperate to dictate responses to your garbage?"

Not that I was aware of. You seem to think otherwise though.

"mmm
so desperate to tar and feather, to burn at the stake, to gas.....
grand inquisitor indeed"

Tarring and feathering was quite painful and humiliating.
Burning at the stake speaks for itself (speaking of burning at the stake. I know that you don't care about these things, but now that I know that I'm playing for the peanut gallery, perhaps an interesting insertion about burning at the stake. It's said that when Joan of Arc was burned at the stake, her heart didn't burn. One possible explanation of this is calcific pericarditis, a calcification of the outer layers of the heart. This is a condition that is seen in tuberculosis. Now. Brain tuberculomas, tubercular tissue tumors in the brain, have been known to cause epileptic seizures. This is evidence that Joan of Arc suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy which, as some already know, often inspires religious experiences by various hallucinatory mechanisms....)
And 'to gas' implies death.

The actions of a grand inquisitor.
My opinion is so powerful.
So strong.
So important.
To you.

"the irrational judgement could potentially wreck havoc on this forum."

Yes. My 'irrational judgement' (i.e. opinion) is so powerful as to lay waste to the forum.


There's more of course. But, I think that that is enough of a sampling of things you've said which indicate that my opinion is important to you. (And. Not only my opinion. but the opinion of the gallery. Hello, gallery. How are you? Having fun?)



Next. Let's get to a similar series. The infamous attacks on your intellect.

"and that, troll, is what you want to lord over me. intellectual capacity aka dick size"

"you taunt that i cannot write a poem unless i plagiarize. you say i do not have the skills. you then challenge me"

I can somewhat understand the misunderstanding here. My use of the word 'stolen' coupled with the fact that you already feel that I have been attacking your intellect. However, I wasn't. I've already explained why I said 'stolen' and am not going to repeat again.

"as much as you would like to believe that you are the superior intellect in here"

"invert preens like a peacock. the mutt asserts his superior intellect....in all his delusional glory"

"and goes on to damn others as inferior..."

This latest was written after a quote from me with "Many of my posts do." boldfaced. I was talking about how I feel that many of my posts fit what I was talking about as 'inspiring' earlier while few of my threads do...

"hey vert
i just realized that my vocab and writing skills are superior to yours (tho usually very lazy)
imagine that "

Look at that.
Now you try to turn this fictitious attack on your intellect around to attack mine.

"a test of intellect"

But that's what's really funny about this whole thing.
The way you say, ""now. how did you ever get the impression that i give a damn about your fucking opinion of me."
But. Flaming is a test of intellect to you. Thus you're anxious to prove said intellect.... by flaming.
By 'winning'.
By being seen to win. By the gallery.

I've never derided your intellect. I have no opinion on your intellect in any way, shape or form. We have no interests in common and thus our intellects dwell in seperate worlds. And never the twain shall meet. It's your own insecurity showing itself.


Let's see here. Next, I suppose I'll gather up some of your strawmanning where you say that I've not conceded the gossip thing.
A point. I did concede it. Early on. Very early. I only half-heartedly attempted to 'justify' my joke and conceded the point long ago.
And yet. You just kept it going.

"in fact if you reworded....you're truly inspired, when you're flaming with other members, i would never argue with that."

I did, in fact, reword it just so after you made this statement. I conceded. But you just kept going and going and going and going...

"stand by your fucking words or issue a retraction with apology"

I did issue a retraction. Not an apology though. Rather, I posted an explanation of it being a joke and that I didn't think you'd get your panties in such a bunch of over it. I really was shocked by it. Took me by surprise.

I did, however, offer to give you an apology for hurting your feelings. I didn't mean to.

""you do not have the grace to concede like a frikkin human being."

I did concede.
I merely stated the reasons behind my poor word choice of 'gossip'.

"to me, the wriggling and inability to accept responsibility for ones words is merely a further indication of the validity of the charge"

"you could not just acknowledge your mistake and let it go"

Except I did.
It was you that couldn't let go.


And there's more. Of course. But that's enough for now.

Next?
How about... how you tried strawmanning me about my qualifications to be a moderator? An issue which was never an issue.

"vert. you are unfit to be a member of this board. you insidiously seek to undermine and restrict freedoms that we have enjoyed for the better part of decade with your evil machinations. you cast aspersions on the managers of this site with your constant criticism and meddlesome habits"

Strawman.
I've never strove to undermine or restrict freedoms.
Just the opposite. And I explained that to you both before and after this statement.

"sciforums will manage quite well without you"

Irrelevant.
Red herring.

"is this a guy that you would want to in a position of power or influence?"

Strawman.
Or Red Herring.
Me being a moderator is not at issue.

"i mean, if he had the authority, my dialogue and his in this thread would be forever be erased from the historical record. all the flame wars from the past, the ones that are an integral part of sciforums and allows it to stand out from the rest, providing unique memories, no more."

Slippery slope.

"and yet, bitches on rags is supposed to be untouchable
simply because he says so."

Strawman.
I never said it was supposed to be untouchable.

"and yet, will throw the ultimate hissy fit"

Lies. I merely mentioned it. I did so quite calmly.
Your misinterpretation of my calmness is your affair. Not mine.

"look at this nazi who desperately wants to be a mod and mold scifoums in his image actually desirous of censoring thoughts;"

You never responded to my use of Godwin's Law, by the way.

"he then goes on to demand a reward for his brilliance"

Strawman.
I never demanded anything.
Know what he quoted as my 'demand'?
"Well, friends and neigbors, I get to be Site Admin... Muahahahaaa!!!"
That was my demand.


More?
Oh yeah. Lots.
The categories are starting to blend together though.
How about... ah... yes. His paranoia that I was blackmailing him. Or out to get him. That I 'had his number'?
That was funny.

"are you trying to claw yourself up to the top of some imaginary heap and imagine that i am in your way?"

Heh. Yeah. Right.
Strawman.

"mmm
a confession. if i step out of line you hold the banning as a weapon. you blackmail me with it.
what an absolutely evil little fuck you are. i cannot believe you would make such an admission. you really do not give a fuck do you? about integrity, honesty, fairplay, nothing?

tell me. did it work? did i toe your line? could you provide the instances where you attempt to blackmail with this secret knowledge? what are the "only times" 1"

Strawman.
I never attempted to blackmail you.
I gave you an honest offer to delete any allusions to you being ****** if you wanted me to.
I never alluded to you having to 'toe the line' in order for me to do so. All you had to was ask.

"[/B]the self appointed grand inquisitor and keeper of standards? fuck you! understand this! flaming is not fucking gossiping. are you now holding me responsible for your perceived ills of sciforums."

Back to the 'grand inquisitor' but the reason this is in this section is because you think I hold you responsible for anything. I don't. You're just some troll. Nothing more.

"you ignore your failed premise and threaten to out me.
how very insidious and spiteful of you."

Again with the blackmail thing. As if I hadn't already told you that I never did any such thing.



My.
This is quite tedious.
And. There's more.
I suppose that I'm going to say fuck the categories and just throw out some general fallacies here.

"each to his own? it appears that you have an agenda that you expect others to follow."

This sorta goes to me being unfit for modship but doesn't really fit that category so it's here instead.
I have no agenda that I expect others to follow. However, I will judge people based on the actions that I perceive them engaged in.

"i see also you are playing to the gallery. you must be hoping for some butt buddies to chip in.
how trollish"

If I were playing to the gallery, I would have used tactics. Like you did.

"it is you that insists on looking at histories to condemn"

Strawman. (Or perhaps some other fallacy. A strawman would be to present a weak argument. Many of these are plain stupid. Like this one. YOU were the one to bring in histories and then accused me of doing it. I was merely speaking my opinion based upon the entirety of my past observations of you. I wasn't about to go digging in your history. Except for the little bit that I did when counting your threads anyway...)

"now you are free to be offended or not. i will deal with either consequence witth far more grace than what has been shown by you"

Not a strawman. But funny.
You? Grace?
Note. I'm not saying that I'm graceful. Far from.
But you've not offended me in the slightest.

"tell me this, vert
could this have been the most stressfull episode ever experienced in sciforums?
did you froth and foam? toss and turn? episodes of tourette’s perhaps?
dont lie "

Idiocy.
I've been utterly calm.
Still am.
Even now that the 'gallery' is beginning to show itself.

"look at the desperation. this frantic desire to have this flame war disappear."

Desperation. Frantic.
Lies.

"very clearly. i see an attempt to backpeddle. i see an attempt to redefine. i see an attempt to avoid any responsibilty for this flame war. i also see disingenuity"

Misinterpretation.
I redefine nothing. Merely stating the course of events as I saw them the whole time.
As you basically admitted by quoting my repitition of "You're a troll and I have no respect for you."

"i think you should accept that you are an asshole."

I have. Many times.
In here and elsewhere.

"here he attacks the monkey's posting habits.

i ask you this. who the fuck does this stupid maggot think he is? a grand inquisitor and bearer of standards? it would certainly seem so

look at the arrogance and sheer gall as he interviews and interrogates the monkey.
look how he goes on to belittle and denigrate
look how he then exorts the monkey to post according to his standards"

Strawman.
I wasn't attacking anything.
I wasn't belittling or denigrating anything.
I wasn't interrogating anybody.
Maybe interviewing would fit. Sort of.
I wasn't extorting shit.
I praised Spurious. I think highly of him.

"now what is the monkey's response?"

Yes. What was the monkey's response? "To be honest, I just like oneliners."
Heh.

"its funny how you present this explanation to be the final word. it is not negotiable. such desperation"

You wrote this in response to my stating that I've already explained how flames and flaming are personal.
I never stated anywhere that I was giving the final word.
Strawman.

"you flip flop like kerry"

Lies.
I reiterate one point over and over again.
Just because you were emotionally unstable because of hurt feelings and thus constantly misinterpret my words first on one side of the divide then the other... That's your problem. Not mine.

"are those not gendy's lines?"

The first appearance of the 'fan boi' tactic. It reappears momentarily later.

"notice how fanboy has absolutely nothing to say about his idol, gendy
it is obvious as far as inspiration goes, she is the pinnacle of perfection.
pathetic how he grovels and trails her like a little lapdog"

Ah.
And there it is.
To be honest, I'm surprised you didn't use this more often. It's so often the first attack.

"dunno
if i were to go with my impression of her based on a personal interaction, her involvement in threads that gained prominence and attention (the flame wars that builds reputations and cements stereotypes), it would not be flattering.

yet, that would be the intellectually lazy way.
it would also be unfair.
post histories might have a relevance if one is willing to do an accurate sampling in order to evaluate character and intellect.
most will not (yourself for example)
it is far easier to indulge in illogical soundbites based on erroneous and biased conceptions

better to get a measure of a poster by entering a dialogue. not the kind that you seem to favour (the backhanded compliments, the grudging acknowledgements, the put downs, the superiority complex, etc), but one s that can actually be productive and relevant"

You suggest that I am only focusing on your flame posts and ignoring the worthwhile ones.
Which is only partially true. I do focus on your troll posts because that's where I keep seeing you. I don't pay much attention to the two forums in which you post seriously (or at least so you lead me to believe and I have no information nor interest to go digging to find otherwise.) Whenever you pop up in forums in which I am interested, you're trolling.
Hence my opinion of you.
Is it fair?
No. I have no reason to be fair. No incentive. No obligation. No motivation.
I've never stated otherwise.
You and are less than nothing to each other. We have little to no interests in common.

"the premise is obviously that these folks are really good for nothing fucks and dont really deserve to be here."

This being a response to my quotes about James having written inspiring threads but not often. And my agreement that Spurious should get Biology if he wants but then asked what he felt about my idea of starting inspiring threads and mentioned his habit of one-liners. I also mention Mystech but know little about him and said so. I agreed with his modship simply because Tiassa vouched for him.

So. The premise obviously that these folks are good for nothing fucks and don't deserve to be here?
Oh?
Strawman.
Egregious strawman at that.

"it will never end. as long as this mutt breathes, the puffed up peacockery, these delusion of grandeur, will not abate
unless of course..."

This in response to my post to Gendanken about my 'important post'.
Strawman.
The post was labeled important because it was the post that I cared about. As opposed to this flame war nonsense.
This 'test of intellect'.

"it is the easiest thing in the world to drag out posts that make members look like shit. one can snip, take out of context or reproduce entirely a sizable portion of posting histories to demean and denigrate"

An admission of the use of tactics.
Not a fallacy per se, but noteworthy perhaps.
Right along with your confession that your original post was intended to provoke. (Quoted later.)

"in fact all the fucking n00bish thread starters cant even fucking spell their crap. yet it is the community that will rescue their shit and turn it into something useful"

Strawman.
The point behind my 'important post' was about moderators starting threads. Not hijacking them.

"i wonder what it is you think has been resolved here. and? so?"

Strawman?
Red Herring?
I never said anything was resolved. Or could be.
In fact, I've said repeatedly that it's just the opposite.

In fact, the only thing that could be resolved is 'winning'. You know. Like Gendanken seems interested in. In looking good. Coming out on top.
I had no interest in doing so.

"all he can he do is erect impotent strawmen"

A funny strawman. Seeing as how you're the strawman master.
You've repeatedly admitted that I've been simply repeating over and over again that I have no respect for you.

See. The thing is that you threw up all these tangents. Strawmen. Red Herrings. Whatever they were. And through this tactic you've fooled people into believing that you've proved anything. That you've 'won' anything. That you've resolved anything.
I played into this because I didn't just ignore your strawman tactics. I didn't use tactics of my own. Instead, I just sat here and responded to practically everything you said. Openly and honestly.
I saw and see no reason why not to.
I have nothing to prove.
I'm not worried about you 'beating' me or 'creaming' me or whatever.
I'm not worried about the gallery oohing and ahhing as you 'pummel' me 'mercilessly'.
I'm not really worried about them all being taken in by your use of tactics to confuse the argument.
So. Why am I here posting this list of your fallacies?
Thus, once more, proving that I do care? At least a little?
Well.
Because it might get fun now.
We'll see.
It might not.

But, at base, you've won nothing. You are incapable of winning because the only point that I've made after conceding the issue of 'gossip' is that I don't respect you and that I think you're a troll.
You can't logic me out of that.
That's why you found it necessary to strawman instead.


One last.

"how did this become the issue?
why? how is it connected to the claim that i have a affinity for AtB? that i mostly hang out there? how did that morph into an attack on my intellect?
you come out of the blue and accuse me of being a flamer/troll/gossip/whatnot, why do i have to either acknowledge or deny it?
i have to know the relevance of the accusation within the context of the issue at hand"

Because I'd already conceded the gossip issue. The affinity for AtB issue.
Strawman.
It never morphed into an attack on your intellect.
Strawman.
I didn't come out of the blue with any accusations. I responded to your instigations.
You admitted to the fact that your first post in this thread was intended to provoke.
"it was a flame intended to provoke."
Maybe that's why you read my joke as an attack. Because that is what you expected.
That's what you wanted.
I.e. A troll.



There.
A list.
A long list.
And only the tip of the iceberg although I think it covers a fair representation of your use of logical fallacies as tactics.

I have.
Several times over.
And you always chose not to accept my explanation.
Simple enough.

Your 'logical' inferences are fucked.
But, that's to be expected when your first logical inference was based upon the fact that your intention was to provoke and that you thus expected said behavior.

See above.
Repeatedly.

No. Not profound.
Simple.
And basically the only thing that I was saying.

Ah. But what do I care about?

So. What do you do when you come across an argument based entirely on feeling? (I.e. my opinion of you.)
Strawman?

I thought you didn't attach useless emotional tendencies to rebuttals? I thought it was purely mechanical?
Isn't relief an emotion?

(The only way that you'd be correct, by the way, is that I was somewhat hopeful that you'd finally understand my simple point. That I don't respect you and there's nothing else to argue about. Especially since my opinion should mean nothing to you.)

Ah.
Ok.
Those digressions were all that really made me keep going, by the way.
You were starting to slip back to the topic. By small degrees.

No. I didn't lie to water. Nor to you.

Then why so worried about me attacking your intellect?
And I still don't understand how you can present a cogent argument against an opinion.
When you do so, you end up as you have here.
Strawmanning.
Looks good to them though, doesn't it?

Rant?
Isn't that a bit emotional?

Anyway.
That's the whole of my point.
Simple as that.
I don't respect you.

Only one.
But it wasn't logical. It was relevant though.
In fact, it was the only relevant point. Unlike yours.

Ahh.
How sweet of you.
Still thinking I care?

That's because she likes to flame.
She's got gladiator blood in her.

My absolute and fanatical conviction of my opinion....
And you're going to disprove my opinion now?
How would you go about that?
Will there be more strawmen?

 

Remind me……
Next time my self-esteem and ego gets tied up on what someone else thinks – particularly if it’s over the internet -……just shoot me.
At that point I don’t really exist anyway. I’m sorta finding myself out there amongst the packets and electrons, acting as if I’m aloof when the topic itself speaks otherwise.

So, I’ve got a bag of popcorn and a gallon of water – no reference to the other water - and I’m wondering how this Knightly spar will unfold or if there’s even a prize, watching “indifferently” from the sidelines, spurring them on, from time to time, when they grow fatigued.

At this point I think someone owes someone else a nasty telephone call – just to notch things up a bit -, full of adolescent innuendo and teenage hyperbole.

I haven’t read the entire, enthralling exchange yet, so I’m wondering if they’ve gotten to the part where they mention each other’s penises.

If they have: Damn!!! I missed it!!!
If not, wait for it. It’ll be the best part.

 

Vert,

You do realize that you are only making yourself look more stupid with every post, right?

For instance, you've stated time and again that "gustav you are a troll and i have no respect for you" is, as anyone can plainly see, your opinion.

Opinions are not facts, nor logical arguments. Therefore, to attempt to apply logical rules to stating them and falicies to replies to them is, in effect the very thing you are claiming gustav guilty of doing; misdirecting.

You claim:"You have 868 posts. Far too many to go back for a true sampling of your posting style..."

Admitting that you cannot form an unbiased oppinion based only on the merits or flaws of his posts and posting history, then continuing on to say

" I can say, without reservation or doubt, that you show the greatest flair and interest, you're truly inspired, when you're gossiping about other members. And it is also an undeniable fact that the majority of those posts in other forums are spammy, trolling posts."

So how is it that are capable of dishing out "undeniable facts" when you never bothered, by your own words, to get a true sampling of his posts?

Self contradiction in the same paragraph. Of course, self contradiction is something that you do so often, as gustav has already shown adequately, that there is no reason to go into that further.

Also, you've made numerous claims of gustav using tactics. Infact, you seem to spit the word out as if you find it distasteful; as if the use of tastics is a negitive thing.

tac·tics
Pronunciation: 'tak-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin tactica, from Greek taktikE, from feminine of taktikos
1 : a device for accomplishing an end
2 : a method of employing forces in combat

Since the question isn't one of military, we'll just concern ourselves with the first definition. "A device for acomplishing an end."

Since you imply that you've used no 'tactics', we could assume that either you have no goal in this babbling of yours, or that you simply assume from the onset that you won't achieve it.

If either is the case, the it begs the question: Why?
Why waste your time if you have no goal?
And if you are wasting your time, since you have no goal wouldn't:

"What I meant was fuck those people who come here to 'kill time'."

your own words, apply to you?
If so, then please, do. Ie, go fuck yourself, Right up your slimey, worthless asshole.

Next up:

"Me? I don't care.
Never have."

So so you claim. Have you ever heard that saying, "actions speak louder than words"? Such is the case here.
If you don't care, then why do you keep coming back, refuting what is being said by gustav? Perhaps it's part of your insideous disign to make us all think that you are merely toying with him, as a cat would a mouse...
No. That would be a tactic. So that couldn't be tha case, could it...

Basically, in coming back here, time and again, over and over, doing nothing but weakly attempting to defend yourself from his attacks, you are showing that you do, very much, care.

Now, let's skip to this:

"You did see my point, but you refused to concede."

An opinion isn't a point. There isn't anything for him to concede there.
Nor is there any point for him to concede to in most of your posts. They just are a continual repetition of the same thing over and over, as he and others have already pointed out.

This is funny:
"Personal opinion is not subject to logical laws."

If you realize this, then why do you try to make his comments on your opinion subject to logical laws?
It's asinine, and defeats (well) over half of your last post.

Then there is this:

"...Like Gustav. Going off on inane tangents."

so what exactly would this be:

"Tarring and feathering was quite painful and humiliating.
Burning at the stake speaks for itself (speaking of burning at the stake. I know that you don't care about these things, but now that I know that I'm playing for the peanut gallery, perhaps an interesting insertion about burning at the stake. It's said that when Joan of Arc was burned at the stake, her heart didn't burn. One possible explanation of this is calcific pericarditis, a calcification of the outer layers of the heart. This is a condition that is seen in tuberculosis. Now. Brain tuberculomas, tubercular tissue tumors in the brain, have been known to cause epileptic seizures. This is evidence that Joan of Arc suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy which, as some already know, often inspires religious experiences by various hallucinatory mechanisms....)"

I'm sorry Vert. I didn't realize anyone here was discussing Joan of Arc or any of the other inanely tangental crap you were going on about in there.

Basically, here is a short recap of why popular oppinion will say you got your ass handed to you:

You: repetitive. fails to support arguments. self contradicting. tangental. Can't seperate oppinion from logical argument. Attempts to use logical falicies as a defence against oppinion and then accuses his "opponent" of the same. Hypocritical.

Gustav: Responds to most, if not all of your "points". Gives evidence in support of his arguments. Makes logical inferances based on your words and your behaviors.

Winner: Gustav.

And as to the question of flame wars being a test of intellect:
They can be depending on the nature of the war. In this case, I would say that it could certainly be viewed as such. You shown a distinct lack of the quality in question.

One other little point:
You constantly refer to gustav as a troll, mainly, it would seem, because you don't like the contents of his posts, or at least those that you bothered to read. This, however, doesn't make him a troll. While there are times that I would have said "gustav's" behavior was troll-like or close to it, recent times wouldn't fall in that catagory. I haven't seen him act in such a mannor in quite sometime, so perhaps there is some small truth in his claim of being new and inproved.

You, on the other hand, were on a trolling streak for a while. If that confuses you, one word: valich.

'nuss said.

-meph
(the messiah)

 

Most remain blissfully unaware that popular opinion almost always has a single source.

 

Kindly, or unkindly as you prefer, identify a single instance in which Invert trolled the weasel vallich. [Two or three instances would be better, but I don't want to tax you.]

 

Actually, since you were in on the 'fun' in at least one instance, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
BUT, since you don't want to "tax me", I'll only give you the one, where he openly admits to it.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49938&page=2&pp=40

go look at the histories. There was a time, no so long ago, when valich couldn't post anywhere without invert suddenly appearing to ride his ass.

Or at least that is the way it seems...

If you have issues with someone, it's far more constructive to simply ignore what they are saying than to "chase" them around the forum belittling them.

Or would you disagree?