Mods are too lax

i think invert and gustav should get married. they seem so suited for one another.

yes i believe we should follow twits around with ballbats.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A passionate affair would suffice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think they are pretty passionate already. they need to tie the knot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well. Hello, Peanut.

And you just don't get it.
(Actually. You just don't believe me. But that's ok. Not the first time. Won't be the last.)
I don't care.

Gee. Did you come up with this all on your own?
I mean. I could never have actually said this explicitly or anything. I never could have repeated this time and time again.
Naw.
That couldn't possibly be.

Bah.
Semantics.
It's undeniable that Gustav is a troll.
That's my opinion.
It's a fact.

Anyway.
To do so would be an utter waste of time.
I know what I know about Gustav.
It's not a big deal.
Certainly not a big enough deal to go 'sampling' his history.

Ah. He's shown it so adequately by continually throwing up strawmen?

A negative thing?
I think it is a negative thing in certain instances.
When the object becomes 'winning' rather than understanding... then it is negative.
This whole thing is trumped up from: first a joke, second my opinion.
He didn't adequately respond to my posts as you claim. He ignored crucial parts of them and only quoted portions out of context.
As a tactic.
To keep the war going.
To win.
Because the gallery is watching.

Well. Combat doesn't necessarily imply military. There is single combat. Like gladiators, you know.
But, either definition works.
Let's take the first definition as you suggest.
A device for accomplishing an end.
The end being victory.
By whatever means necessary.
As I've already said. His desire to prove his intellect (which he came into the thread with) overwhelmed any desire to actually respond to what I was actually saying. Rather, he strawmanned what I was saying into the various fallacies I've already listed.
And it works, doesn't it?
You're an excellent example.

Heh.
By the way.
To borrow a much over-used and foolish tactic.
'We'?
Got a mouse in your pocket?

Both assumptions would be correct.
The first would be correct because I had no goal in my babbling with him. None. Least of all to look good for you and the rest of the gallery. I did start out with a goal. A simple one. My goal was originally to discuss my idea on moderation. I actually thought that joking with Gustav might grease the wheels of conversation a little bit. I really didn't suspect he'd freak out like he did. So. After I conceded the joke was poorly worded, and he still didn't relent then I no longer had any goals with my talks with him. After I stated explicitly my lack of respect for him. My opinion of him. After I confirmed my opinion of him. There was no goal after that.

The second would also be correct because once I realized that he'd overreacted so much to my original joke and that all he was going to do was strawman without ever recognizing my simple point being that I had a poor opinion of him... I knew that I'd most likely never get him to recognize my point.

So. Both would be correct.


However. Your approach on the whole would be fallacious.
You've brought in a dictionary definition. Thrown away the part that didn't fit what you wanted to say (even though it fit just as well as the other. Better, in fact.) And then used that definition to mean that goals can only be achieved through tactics and thus my denigration of tactics implies that I have no goals.
Nice little logical loop.
But stupid, really. Logic gets that way sometimes.
My use of tactics is obviously more suited to the definition that you threw out. To use the definition you kept, you'd have have to define the goal as victory. Which implies combat of some sort. Some sort of competition or struggle.
Nice try though.
Cute.

Both are the case.
And the answer to the question why is simply because I'm pedantic. Sometimes.
Also.
I overtly gave up the goal of getting him to understand, but somewhere deep inside I still maintained hope that maybe he could understand. Once he got his panties out of his crack, that is.
I'm rather idealistic sometimes.
I mean. Look. I actually thought he'd gotten the point finally. But. Nope. I guess not.

Somewhat.
But not quite.
See. You just used tactics.
Selectively quoting.
You 'forgot' about this part.
"Although, we're not just talking about 'killing time'. We all do that from time to time."
Didn't you? Oops?

(Psst. By the way. You missed an opportunity to use the 'we' tactic against me. Wake up, boy. Where's your head at?)

And you're repeating points already made ad nauseum.
The point has, in fact, been made by me.
As well as Gustav.
As well as Gendanken.
Now you're here to belatedly add it yourself as though you had accomplished something.
Congratulations anyway.

First. I'm not toying with him like a cat would a mouse.
Although.... Maybe I am.
Deriding tactics could easily be a tactic.
However, if I were using tactics so masterfully, then why would the gallery be against me?

Second. I've already dealt with this the last several times it was brought in. So. Scroll back if you want to read it. I'm not repeating it again. After all. Repetition is bad. Right?
Hey. What about repeating what others have already said? Is that as bad as repeating yourself? Better? Worse? Just curious what the gallery thinks.

I don't think that there is anything that says an opinion isn't a point. But whatever.

The 'point' was that it was only my opinion. What he should concede is that I've repeatedly stated that it is only an opinion.

You 'forget' that it has already been repeatedly pointed out by me as well.
What are you rebutting exactly?
Funny. How you repeat that it has been repeatedly repeated that this whole conversation is a series of repititions repeated endlessly.
Ha.

Because, while my side of the 'argument' is solely based on opinion. His is not.
I can't help it that he's trying to rebut opinion with logic and finding that he can't do so without resorting to strawmanning.
I've tried repeatedly to explain to him. But he refuses to accept it.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

That, dear friend, would be an interesting tangent.

And here's a short recap of why I don't care what popular opinion says about how I fare in flame wars.

I don't care.

Ah. So my repetitiveness counts against me?
So that's why the tactic of ignoring key points and forcing your opponent to repeat them is so effective?
Wonderful things, these tactics. So wonderful for 'winning' arguments.

There's no argument to support.

I never contradict myself.
Ok. So I do from time to time.
But I never do.

Heh. You're saying that my bringing in Joan of Arc is evidence of my 'defeat'? Even though it came after your judgement?
And what of his strawmen? I see that you've listed only negatives for me and positives for him.
Imagine that.

On the contrary. I have seperated opinion from logical argument.
My side of the 'fight' is opinion.
His side is logical argument.

No. If I were doing that then Gustav's side would have to be opinion and not logical argument. Unless I'm trying to defend myself against my own opinion...

Maybe a little. But just a little.

Lies. Gustav selectively responds.

Arguments against what?
Oh. You mean his strawmen?

Funny how all his logical inferences ended up in strawmen.

Thanks, Peanut.
Do you have a trophy for him too?

I agree. They can be a test of intellect. I've never stated otherwise.
However, they're not conclusive as such as some just don't care to commit to them.
What quality is it that's in question? Intellect? Flame war ability? Interest?

Ah. Valich.
Well. He's a special case.
Valich is dangerous. Gustav is not.

'nuss said.

Dealing with Valich is not fun.

There were a couple of others as well.
Threads where he wasn't being dangerous. Just stupid. And I, fresh from the important threads with him, couldn't help but transfer that animosity even to the non-important ones.

However, a post or three does not a troll make.

Ah-ha!
Nice tactic.
Get me to say something like "Appearances can be deceiving" and then come back with "Yes. They can. Like how Gustav seems to you..."
Heh.
However.
I've also repeated several times that my opinion of Gustav is not fair. That I've undoubtably missed a number of his posts that aren't spammy and trolling. Especially because his forums of interest are my forums of disinterest.
So. If that was your intent, you'd be too late. Again.

Anyway.
Appearances can be deceiving.
There were some threads with Valich where I got involved. Some where I didn't. If you look at the 'history' then you will see a period of time when a majority of my posting was about Valich, but this isn't to say that I was following him everywhere. Simply that, at that time, I was mostly lured into posting by his idiocy.

I'd disagree. And I suspect that Ophiolite does as well as he's openly stated a number of times.
Valich is dangerous in that there is a chance that some who are interested in a subject but not necessarily schooled in it might be taken in by his idiocy. Valich is poison.

However, I've realized the futility in being a guard against Valich.
Mostly because he generally shows himself to be an idiot without any need for a dedicated 'guard'.
However, the fucker is.... irresistable.
He's got to be a troll. I mean a sock puppet. Even a troll according to Gustav's definition.

But how would ignoring them be 'constructive'? At best it would be neutral. Neither constructive or destructive.


Satyr,

Yup. It's been brought up already.
Strangely enough, it was a response to a poem...
Make of that what you will.

I've wondered the same thing myself.
The answer that I've come up with is simply the accolades of the gallery.


Harlequin,

Damn you sock puppets.
Now. To puzzle out who you are.

Tell me, oh Harley, do you too side with the foul Gustav?
Am I spurned by the crowd in its entirety?
Oh. The boos and catcalls.
I feel so nasty and dirty.
As if I've failed to live up to some standard set by the wonderful players of the past.
Oh. The flame wars of old.
And here I am. Some two bit flamer who couldn't flame his way out of a paper sack.
I probably should kill myself.
Douse myself with gasoline like that buddhist monk in Vietnam or whatever.
That'd be fitting, don't you think?

Anyway.
Your response is enigmatic.
I wonder what the single source might be.
Care to elaborate?
I can think of several 'single' sources.


Ophiolite,

Tis true, friend Ophiolite.
I must admit to trolling him.
Although I mostly devoted myself to the threads in the Science forums, I have butted into a thread or two in free thoughts where he was merely being foolish (and obviously so).
I have no excuse. None but the insidiousness of the creation.

Oh. Speaking of moderation. I noticed the other day that you've been made moderator over at the other place. Congratulations. I haven't been following any threads over there lately. Anything interesting going on? Is it getting better?


Spurious,

Are you suggesting this is all foreplay?
I am a little wet.

 

I would disagree 100% in the case of vallich. There are a number of posters with whom one might have significant disagreement. For convenience they may be grouped into two classes.
a) Nutters.
b) Extremists.

The first group have a theory. It is pseudo science at its worst. The theory demonstrates that conventional science has it wrong and conventional scientists (the bastards) wont give the theorist the time of day.

The second group hold prejudiced, stereotypical views, unswayed by logic.

Members of both groups are easily identified as such, consequently your strategy of ignoring them can be quite effective.

Vallich introduced a third grouping that is not so easily identified. The reasonably intelligent, reasonably educated individual who gets it wrong then wont admit it. Now, why is that important. Very simple: it spreads disinformation about the sciences. The apparently scholarly nature of vallich's posts, with many references to solid science, convey the impression that he knows what he is talking about. Sometimes he does, but often he is badly wrong.
That in itself should not be a problem. I doubt if there is anyone on these fora who has not made some error of fact from time to time. However, vallich compounds his error by refusing to admit his error when corrected and posting a mass of irrelevant material that to those unfamiliar with the field may seem to support him.
I believe one of the functions of sciforums is to educate people in science. Vallich's posts were often disrupting that function. Invert Nexus was correct to attack them.

 

i'm afraid to ask but which am i?

 

Just slightly misinformed, but we're getting there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Getting to greatly misinformed? Or would that be thinking as you do?

 

Invert:

Popular opinion. That logical fallacy.
Popular opinion is a curious animal. It tends to vary from adherant to adherant, depending on how much that adherant is enamoured of the faction offering that particular view.

An independant thinker would cringe from calling on it in order to reinforce hs own views, or at least attempt to determine the true reasons for his agreement with it. More often than not, you'll find that agreement is based more upon an already-existing emotional empathy rather than a logical thought process.

The reasoning comes after the opinion is formed, not before.

And that post-reaction reasoning is what we see here, in this thread, which inspired my comment.

You can see this in action in any thread on this forum. Take a look at WE&P, or religion... Probably the best examples, although the evidence for it can be found anywhere on this site, anywhere where debates of any nature occur.

You know, I'm moved to quote this single line more often than I should, but I can't help but think of its particular relevance in nearly everything I read. I will also permit myself a little smile on occasion after reading what I write myself, here and elsewhere. We are none of us immune, but some are at least aware enough to laugh a little at themselves, and a lot more at everyone else.

"We do not see things as they are; We see them as we are."
- Anais Nin.

Remarkable woman.

 

And what prompted that little personal attack? Leopold and I have had some useful exchanges in a couple of threads. I have no problem with Leopold: I don't think Leopold has a problem with me. This is well illustrated by our brief interaction above.
Apparently you do have a problem with me, or were you just trying to be witty and failing. If it is a problem, would you care to express it a little more cogently.

 

Invert did get annihilated, but gustav has purposefully sculpted himself as an untouchable flaming machine, while invert is an open boring book.
Every thought that comes into his head subsequently discharges freely into his ridiculously long posts, and he clearly lacks the ability to feel shame.
Gustav has conditioned himself to be an elite flamer, the only info about himself he has let slip is that he consciously avoids letting anything about himself slip.
With gustav you see the end of a line of trial and error, a line geared towards success in flame wars. All you see is a heavily armoured, heavily trained and conditioned warrior(... for internet message boards, ofcourse).
With invert you see a cement shovelling bogan who fancies himself as a deep thinker and blah, blah, blah. We know everything about this faggot.

And I can't talk because I've fagged it up like invert as well, I basically made the shakey transition into an adult on these pages and spent many a drunken night talking shit about myself and sharing teenage "mind blowing realisations" and etc, so there's a tonne of material on me.
Everyone on earth is essentially quite lame when they open their vagina and queef out their "inner thoughts".
Gustav has always had "flame wars" on his mind though, and he's been very disciplined in maintaining himself as a flame warrior and hiding his lameness.

Anyway, my point is, "test of wits" my ass.
Invert is the cyber equivalent of a naked fat chick.
Ever seen a naked fat chick score a "zinger" on a hot chick who took 3 hours getting dolled up? It's not going to happen.
Which doesn't mean the hot chick is smarter, she's just got so much to work with and no visible vulnerabilities.

 

Well, I'm telling you, people, I love this board. I've never had such a prolonged opportunity to view so many intellectuals with their pants around their ankles. I have been given precious insights into what it takes to succeed in science without really trying.

 

Little dogs often surreptitiously check the height of the fence before yapping madly at whatever goes by.

 

The title of this thread and the way this thread goes cause me to muse ...

 

I'll tentatively accept that definition. It's not quite right, but with the proper definitions and associations set in place... I can see it. I'd say more but I'm on my way to the salt mine to shovel rocks. I'll explain more when I come back.

Also it should be interesting to read all the added gallery posts. I've been judged. I'm so sad.

Seriously though. I find it somewhat despicable that no one at all agrees with my characterization of Gustav's strawman and diversionary tactics. You all think I'm just trying to defend myself. I've not tried to do so during this whole affair. Not really. As Lou says, I'm an open book.

My tactic is the tar baby. (Although that's not quite right as I have posted many words which would seem to indicate myself exerting energy and care into the affair. I think that some here at least would realize just how easy it is for me to whip out these huge posts. The lack of expenditure of energy is shown in the carelessness with which they have been constructed. The vaunted self-contradictions and rambling babble and whatnot.)

Anyway.
Like I said earlier. This little flame war might get fun now. Depending. It might not.
We'll see.


Harlequin,

Well. Hello.
You're looking good.
No time to respond, I'm afraid.

 

vert responds to comments​

mmm
gendy is a fat fucking cow
the rest are dispicable

why?
it is a rule in the trolling handbook

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 and intelligence; if they side with your opponent, insult the tossers.

 

No, the rest are despicable, not dispicable.
I think you'll agree that's correct, so by the rules, please follow-up immediately and enthusiastically, congratulating me on my courage and intelligence.

 

How many lines of explanation would you like?

 

this little nugget of info, this insight to the mutts psyche, would be fascinating if it wasnt, so obviously, a blatant exhibition of emotional and intellectual retardation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

so
we having fun yet? or not? fun? not fun? fun? not fun...........................?
freud would be soiling in his pants

/cackle

 

As many as you deem appropriate. If I want more, I'll let you know.