Invitation
To all interested parties
to convene a Jury of Review
in order that we might consider
issues pertaining to
Site Rules


• Case: Site Rules v. Dr. Lou Natic (04-001)

• Accusation: Inflammatory topic post in violation of Site Rules.

• Advocates (As of February 20, 2004):
For Site Rules - Tiassa
For The Defense - Dr. Lou Natic, Thefountainhed


Notes on Jury Voting - I'll figure something out; voting should not take place while arguments are being posted.

Notes on "Conviction Standard" - Obviously, Innocent until proven guilty should suffice.

Notes on "Sentencing Phase" - I do not propose a ban, and do not necessarily propose any direct administrative or moderating action at this time. Part of the purpose of this topic is to explore both the issue of inflammatory posts and what to do about them.

Necessary Information

Objectionable Topic:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218
("If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in ...")

Site Rules:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20345
or
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20363


Principals and Accusation: The Site Rules have been in effect since April, 2003. Dr. Lou Natic has been a member for one year. The Objectionable Topic takes place in the Religion Forum, long known for acrimonious disputes.

Dr. Lou Natic now stands accused of devising and posting an inflammatory topic post in violation of the Site Rules, which read, in part:You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening.Schedule: Undetermined, experimental. Future challenges include invocation of a Jury Poll, establishing relevancy protocols, and what comes next in the event of conviction.

A Personal Note: By and large, I have little--if anything--against Dr. Lou Natic as a poster or in my impression of the greater human being on the other end of the network. But I must put my foot down at some point. Thus I request to convene this discussion in order to examine inflammatory posts and their effects in the Sciforums community.

Quite frankly, I enjoy Sciforums, except of late for the other posters around here. On the one hand, without them, there wouldn't be anyone to discuss anything with. To the other, even with them around, the same problem applies.

And given the Ban Wars, the tirades against posters, and of course the tantrums about the eventual moderation, I'm officially curious.

Lastly:

Accused, Dr. Lou, of posting an inflammatory topic post. I'm sick of that sort of topic around here, and except for the chance to bash ideas that escape knowledge and understanding, I don't see that other posters like them much either.

And, yes, I do have an extended purpose tucked away in a mayonnaise jar, though not in the custody of Price-Waterhouse. For now, determining whether or not such a topic post is inflammatory is all I need.

I'll give anybody interested in this exercise some time to think it over. Arguments can commence sometime this evening, if we like. I intend to begin with a discussion of site rules and principles, an evidentiary presentation with interpretive comments, and considerations of degrees.

Postscript: Apparently, there has been a six-hour delay in posting this topic as I never clicked the "submit new thread" button before tying myself up in domestic duties. As such, I'll probably worry about the opening argument tomorrow morning.

Define inflammatory (in a way i can understand)
I would call that post colourful.
Wouldn't the intent need to be to incite a flame war for it to be considered inflammatory? In truth the intent was to educate people by way of making them feel stupid for not already understanding. "Mean"? yes, inflammatory? Not by my definition. Not only was I not expecting a flame war, i wasn't expecting a response at all. I wanted any creationists left out there(and I honestly didn't think there was any here) to read it and say "seems I was wrong, how embarrassing".
Was that wishfull thinking? Probably, maybe I even knew that before I posted it, but thats what I hoped for, I did not scheme to ruffle feathers or propogate hate or anything else you try to claim I was doing.

Also, I'm out of the loop, i hadn't been stopping by much when I posted that and did not know there was heaps of inflammatory topics on the board(still haven't seen them).
It should be obvious to anyone that I'm not interested in muslim issues enough to be "against" muslims. I think you think I am pro-jew attacking muslims or something which is ridiculous, I am outside of all that crap and could not give half the end off a shit.
I AM firmly against creationists who don't "believe" in evolution as though they have a choice.
Trying to explain why they don't have a choice is all I'm guilty of, you can disagree with my lack of tact and a whole range of things, but the actual offenses you are trying to pin on me are unfounded and frankly confusing as though you are talking about someone else.

I do believe you need to lay off the bongs, and thats not a "quip" for entertainment value, I've seen what it can do to people and myself and making people confidently confused without them realising it is a rarely talked about yet prevalent symptom of consistent marijuana use over an extended period of time with no "detoxing" breaks.
What others call "laziness" as a symptom of thc use, I refer to as what I said above. Its not the laziness, its the not realising what a problem their laziness is. Everyone would be lazy if they didn't think there was anything wrong with it.
You seem to be confused into thinking I'm "attacking" certain cultures or races or religions because someone of a commonly persecuted culture was offended by my post. Like you're dazed and not paying attention, just reacting to the stimulai of a distressed muslim.
That is the impression I get. Could be wrong, but you continuously fail to show me how your beef makes any sense whatsoever.

BTW I was expecting a proposal to ban me and a poll, you are going to make that right?

Add, as one counsel to the defense, thefountainhed. Please illustrate to us how his post was "obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening" by citing specific examples-- within context, from that thread, that were not in response to specific individuals, and also present the people(s) who may have been threatened, thought the post obscene, vulgar or hateful.

Example of an "obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented" post with no substance:
by tiassa;
"It could be heroin.
But aside from that, how's his wife? Would you do her?"

Example of a "hateful, threatening" post:
The first post in this thread.

Examples of inflammatory topics:
WE&P, Religion, Mac vs. PC, "alternative" physics, UFO's and anything else where there
are varied viewpoints.

I am a creationalist and remain unoffended. This is because my belief rests on faith, so I generally avoid the debating of the religion forum. Dr Lou Natic had good supporting evidence and didn't seem to rant and rave (too much).

Plus, I think the odd doctor had a good point... even if it was not the best way to put the idea forward. 'Selective acceptance' is an interesting topic.

First Argument

On Site Rules

Over time, the posters at Sciforums have never much liked the site rules. The terms of agreement were eventually shortened, specific site rules were eventually put into place. Even the simplest of these are disregarded so openly that moderators have no real chance of keeping up.

Quite obviously, one of the challenges is to maintain a certain air of civility while allowing people the liberty of their passions. A perusal of topics in the Sciforums Open Government forum shows a series of Ban Wars as members proposed to ban one another. What is most interesting is people's criteria for wanting a ban. There was a proposal to ban Undecided for a week for "unprovoked personal insults and foul language" and "arguing an unsupported position ... when provided with ample references and citations [to the contrary]". One proposal sought to ban Wanderer for "being out of touch with reality . . . for at least a week." A proposal against Fluid1959 sought to ban him for cross-posting. Undecided sought action against EI Sparks in response to what he considered an offensive ban proposal.

The first thing we have to note is that none of these ban proposals were successful. Undecided won his vote, Porfiry offered rulings on cross-posting and being out of touch, and the counterproposal against Sparks was shut down for its admitted vindictiveness.

However, there is an important consideration to note: People were upset enough by what to propose a ban?

Unfortunately, our purpose here sets aside the cross-posting issue, which is an excellent example of how Sciforums Open Government can work. Because in the ban discussions arising from conflicts between members, the lack of a successful ban proposal indicates that the standards by which the complaining party sought action did not meet the necessary severity to convince a majority of voters, or, in some cases, administrative tolerance.

In the case of whether or not to ban Undecided, eight people were offended or annoyed enough to vote for his ouster.

So whether or not we agree with the ban proposals of the past, we can observe that people are upset by the state of discussion.

Moving through the more argumentative fora, we find a plethora of bad sentiment in a diverse variety of acrimonious topics. Some of this bad sentiment is an unfortunate result of posters trying to communicate with one another, but much of it is posters reaching out to zing one another, to needle and provoke.

How are the moderators, for instance, to handle this? The time commitment of "babysitting" certain fora to make sure absolutely no violations of Site Rules would be stupendous. It is obvious that the posters discussing certain topics choose a certain amount of distress between themselves, otherwise bad sentiment would be reserved to legitimate collapses of communication. Meanwhile, moderators are criticized both for overasserting themselves and also for not doing enough to calm the storm. Posters are left with the appearance of an inconsistent standard and often must choose between allowing perceived abuse to stand without response or risk sanction by moderators.

A glance at the Site Rules shows clearly that few of the standards are adhered to, but there are at least four standards which I hope to consider today:

(A) You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening.

(B) Posts that interrupt a serious thread with ANY inane comments that in no way, shape, or form relates to the original topic, will be deleted

(C) Threads that repeat a previously posted theme may be merged together or deleted in its entirety.

(D) It is our intention to moderate in such a way as to encourage profitable discussion and discourage flame wars, and no forum can be moderated to everyone's liking.

Regarding the Accusation

In the case we consider here in this topic, I hope to demonstrate that the topic in question violates these standards. While they are drawn from the Site Rules in the order they appear, it will be easier to work backwards. It will be asserted that such a topic post does not encourage profitable discussion (D); it will be asserted that the thread repeats a previously-posted theme (C). I hope to consider, in reference to posts interrupting a serious thread with any inane comment the idea of what to do about an inane topic post which cannot be said to warrant a serious thread (B). And, upon demonstrating these points, it should become clear that the topic post in question fails standard (A) by being hateful insofar as it is is not profitable, repeats an old theme, does not constitute a serious topic, and on top of that was designed as a provocative attack.

The post, in its entirety:If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary".
Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway, so I will make it more specific, you are not allowed to acknowledge the science behind black people having black children, in doing so you are acknowledging evolution, you must assume it is a coincidence that black people have black children, in fact you can't acknowledge that people birth children at all.

You don't believe in the sperm joining wih the egg, god is the creator, you were created by god, sex is what evil people do, it does not produce babies, god creates babies in a factory in the sky.
Perhaps black people have black children because god makes black children for them, ok for you the word hereditary refers to the way god customizes children to what will suit parents, remember you can't accept the passing on of genes as something that happens. This is evolution, what I'm basically saying is you can only have on or the other, if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe in all the things associated with evolution.
Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.

If you believe that sex creates babies, and you believe that the traits of the parents are passed onto the babies, if you believe in individuals, that people are different from one another and that different people produce different babies, you believe in evolution, bottom line. You can't go that far and back out, I am here by declaring such an act as illegal, or at least immoral or something(obviously its irritatingly ignorant but thats not enough anymore).

If you believe god created all, you can't believe in anything appearing by way of evolution (ie being birthed out of a female organism). You believe in creation, that means you believe things are created, not concieved, concieved is evolution, giving birth is evolution, sex creating babies is evolution.

You don't believe in these things, pregnant women are just lazy and fat, if a baby falls out of their vagina they must have put it in their themselves to try to trick theists into going over to the dark side.
The baby was not a product of evolution, you don't believe in evolution, obviously it was created by god and handed down to its parents.

Consistency is all I ask, you believe in creationism, you stick with it and try to live day by day believing in that. If you don't see hands coming out of the clouds delivering babies to newlyweds but you do see spiders laying eggs, recognise that you are indeed witnessing evolution.
If you do see giant god hands coming out of the sky with new creations, maybe planting a tree here and there and delivering puppies to your female dog at home, then by all means believe in creationism, untill then though I don't see why you would or how you could. The topic begins with an absurd thesis--

If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary"

-- but that's what theses are for: to be demonstrated, supported, proven, or otherwise validated. In support of that thesis, the author follows with a generalized personal attack:

• Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway . . . .

The author clarifies the thesis:

• . . . . so I will make it more specific, you are not allowed to acknowledge the science behind black people having black children, in doing so you are acknowledging evolution, you must assume it is a coincidence that black people have black children, in fact you can't acknowledge that people birth children at all.

In order to support the thesis, the author continues by telling his target audience what they do and don't think:

• You don't believe in the sperm joining wih the egg, god is the creator, you were created by god, sex is what evil people do, it does not produce babies, god creates babies in a factory in the sky.

I would challenge the author to establish that such a sentiment exists among a significant percentage of creationists. Without statistical support, the assertion is absurd, and unheard of among Lutherans, Catholics, and others who believe God created the world.

• Perhaps black people have black children because god makes black children for them, ok for you the word hereditary refers to the way god customizes children to what will suit parents, remember you can't accept the passing on of genes as something that happens.

This characterization is faulty because it overlooks a central tenet of monotheism: that God is responsible for everything that happens. Thus, yes, black people have black children, from a monotheistic point of view, because God wills it to be so. If God did not want a child to be black, the child would not have black parents. So here we have a softball point from the author, one that utterly and completely ignores the most common theistic models involved in the Creationist movement.

The author then comments on his own argument, delineating his purpose:

• This is evolution, what I'm basically saying is you can only have on or the other, if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe in all the things associated with evolution.

In other words, the author is trying to tell people what they are allowed to think and believe. Furthermore, he assets a wholly untenable position--

• Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.

--about Universal origins. He compares the issue of Universal origins to something as observable as 2+2. While to many it might seem this way, such a position is clearly erroneous, as the final answers of Universal origins are as remote as the idea that one can prove God exists.

From the untenable assertion, the author returns to his fallacious assignations:

• If you believe that sex creates babies, and you believe that the traits of the parents are passed onto the babies, if you believe in individuals, that people are different from one another and that different people produce different babies, you believe in evolution, bottom line. You can't go that far and back out, I am here by declaring such an act as illegal, or at least immoral or something(obviously its irritatingly ignorant but thats not enough anymore).

More of the same: the bulk of the post is a common fallacy and a frequent complaint around Sciforums - straw man, to a degree that transcends the ridiculous insofar as it would be exceptionally difficult to find a person who calls themselves a Creationist and would be even reasonably represented by the object of the author's focus:

• You don't believe in these things, pregnant women are just lazy and fat, if a baby falls out of their vagina they must have put it in their themselves to try to trick theists into going over to the dark side.
The baby was not a product of evolution, you don't believe in evolution, obviously it was created by god and handed down to its parents.

An appeal to consistency, and a plea for clarification, all couched in thick layers of straw:

• Consistency is all I ask, you believe in creationism, you stick with it and try to live day by day believing in that. If you don't see hands coming out of the clouds delivering babies to newlyweds but you do see spiders laying eggs, recognise that you are indeed witnessing evolution.
If you do see giant god hands coming out of the sky with new creations, maybe planting a tree here and there and delivering puppies to your female dog at home, then by all means believe in creationism, untill then though I don't see why you would or how you could.

So what we have for a post is a thesis that is in itself a fallacy, a mixture of a straw man and a description of composition, supported by a generalized personal attack and a series of straw men. Devoid in the topic is any foundation for profitable discussion (D); the topic itself is inane (B). Quite obviously, in undertaking the topic of evolution and creationism is nothing new (a two year-old topic on evolution and creation was recently revived, most likely through the Related Topics list) (C).

The author was even addressed by another poster on the object of his focus--

• I don't think your attacking theist in general, but a select group of Christians. (Okinrus)

--and responded accordingly:

• Yes I'm addressing those who don't believe in evolution more than the rational(yet stubborn) theists who can't deny the blindingly apparent and numerous evidences for evolution.

Now, just who are these folks? Absent from the topic post and the clarification is any evidence of a real argument coming from anyone characterized by the topic post. A hyperlink would do. A transcript of a few words from a book or magazine or tract, even.

The author offers further clarification in yet another post:

• I'm saying that creationists are constantly being disproven by everyday things, ie someone being born rather than created. I've never seen a creationist try to deny individual people come into existence in the way science describes, but right there to me they are acknowledging evolution in action, and so I question their faith if they don't question such things as, people being born. I don't think they are taking creationism seriously enough.

And this, apparently, is what the topic is about: Because certain people don't behave according to the author's prejudices, he is apparently offended.

For instance this argument:

• To be a creationist, you have to deny such things as different people produce different children.

The author is perfectly happy to tell us why this denial is wrong, but why must a creationist deny such a thing?

Because the author says they must.

And so we arrive at point (A)--In what way is this topic post hateful?

While it is true that simply because one stacks fallacies atop a personal attack and supports that combination with straw men does not necessarily mean one has acted in spite or hate, what if one does so simply because other people are not behaving according to one's prejudices?

The author, in the later clarification, notes:

• Some say god created the evolutionary system, and though its a cop out I can't really attack them with the logic I am using here, i can however attack the hardcore creationists that don't believe in evolution, I have an incredibly good case actually.

Again, who are these people? Why do we not have before us an example of their arguments so that we might understand what the author purports to understand?

Quite simply, it is because the author is presenting a fallacy.

Who are these people? The author asserts to have been inspired by an old thread, but offers no link by which other readers might understand the basis of his characterization.

The author suspected he might be shouting to an empty house.

The topic was not posted in any good faith. The topic was vindictive and spiteful, and based solely in the author's prejudices, and by this we might invoke the Site Rules and describe it as hateful.

Beware the Appeal to Popularity

What if the topic was aimed at Jews? What if the topic post asserted that if you are a Jew and do not cut your son's penis off, your faith is in question? It is a similar distortion; an exaggeration. It is a straw man constructed according to a bigoted template that depends on hyperbole in lieu of fact; circumcision is most definitely not castration.

What if the topic was aimed at gun owners? What if the topic post asserted that if you are a gun owner you cannot believe in the court system because you believe that killing is the only way to solve a problem?

I raise the issues of Jews and gun owners as comparative examples, to beseech the jury to not fall into the trap of a fallacious defense based in an appeal to popularity.

For while I feel comfortable asserting here that a majority of Sciforums users probably find evolution a secure scientific theory and see varying degrees of wrongness and even absurdity in the Creationist argument, it would be fallacious to appeal to the popularity of evolution and the mistrust shown Creationism in order to justify an inane topic that cannot be shown to seek any profitable discussion alongside a slew of other topics regarding the same basic issue devised in accordance and for the comfort of the author's personal prejudices against an ideology.

Matters of Degrees

Additionally, I accused out in the topic, the topic post is heavily invested in a relativist fallacy. Dr. Lou acknowledged this fallacy, and argued that he had in the past posted topics rejecting a number of topics, thereby demonstrating that he, personally, was not subject to this fallacy in this instance.

Which brings us to matters of degrees. Quite obviously, the productive end of the discussion comes from a disregarding of the topic post and a repetition of numerous prior topics concerning evolution and creationism. It is well enough to look past the relativist fallacy on two points:

• Lack of any bandwagon to the topic post itself
• A matter of degrees: While Dr. Lou may well be right, he is human, and thus cannot fully escape the relativist fallacy

On that second point, then, how fine a hair to split? While the point can reasonably assert some value in the long run, it serves in the immediate as a fine starting point to consider matters of degree.

The relativist fallacy is one that occurs so deep in the strata that it really is inconsequential to the discussion at hand. Thus it would be rather unreasonable to ask a jury of peers to hold against a poster a fallacy that occurs, in the metaphysical, on nearly a universal level.

Likewise, some may say--and the defense is already afoot to plead the case--that it is a matter of degrees. "Selective acceptance," as one poster has it.

I point to the examples above about Jews and gun owners. What is the criteria for acceptance? That a majority of people think it is okay to be deliberately provocative as long as it's directed at this or that minority group?

The Defense Afoot

We might for a moment examine the chosen defense of the topic post already recorded by the post's author.


• In truth . . . this thread was intended for nothing more than a reality check for anyone who was not in check, religion is not something I take into account, I'm talking to human beings and in reality there is only one way the world operates, we are all on the same planet and it is what it is.

• If representatives of certain religions come in here and say "wrong it works like my religion says", no I will not be sensative to their cultural heritage, no one is exempt from knowing the truth.And:

• I would call that post colourful.

• In truth the intent was to educate people by way of making them feel stupid for not already understanding.

• "Mean"? yes, inflammatory? Not by my definition.

• Not only was I not expecting a flame war, i wasn't expecting a response at all.

• I wanted any creationists left out there(and I honestly didn't think there was any here) to read it and say "seems I was wrong, how embarrassing".

• Was that wishfull thinking? Probably, maybe I even knew that before I posted it, but thats what I hoped for, I did not scheme to ruffle feathers or propogate hate or anything else you try to claim I was doing.

• I AM firmly against creationists who don't "believe" in evolution as though they have a choice.

• Trying to explain why they don't have a choice is all I'm guilty of, you can disagree with my lack of tact and a whole range of things, but the actual offenses you are trying to pin on me are unfounded and frankly confusing as though you are talking about someone else.

• I do believe you need to lay off the bongs, and thats not a "quip" for entertainment value, I've seen what it can do to people and myself and making people confidently confused without them realising it is a rarely talked about yet prevalent symptom of consistent marijuana use over an extended period of time with no "detoxing" breaks.

• You seem to be confused into thinking I'm "attacking" certain cultures or races or religions because someone of a commonly persecuted culture was offended by my post. Like you're dazed and not paying attention, just reacting to the stimulai of a distressed muslim.Colorful, indeed. But trying to make people feel stupid is downright inflammatory. Yet, the author wasn't trying to make anyone feel stupid, as he didn't expect anyone to respond, or at least respond the way he wanted them to.

The author admits it was a mean post. The author admits it was intended to make people feel stupid. The author admits it was not intended for profitable discussion. The author seeks to poison the well, declaring the issue tainted by marijuana use.

That the author preemptively defends himself without knowing what issues to defend is not by any means a self-indictment. But even if we take out the parts that are colored by the fact that Dr. Lou is "disturbed with tiassa's ass licking of pm and the islamic faith in general," we are left with,

• Acknowledgment that topic was intended to make people feel stupid
• Acknowledgment that the topic post was "mean"
• Acknowledgment that the topic post was not intended to foster profitable discussion insofar as no responses were expected
• Assertion against ideological freedom
• Acknowledgment of a lack of tact
• Aggressive fallacy
• Straw man

Admittedly, that last one, the straw man, was colored by Dr. Lou's disturbance at his perception of ass-licking. But still, we might hope that the next defense is better considered.

Is a mean post intended to make people feel stupid that is based on a fallacy supported by a personal attack and a series of fallacies inflammatory? To what degree is such a post, in its assertion against ideological freedom, hateful? Do we split hairs and cite degrees invested in fallacies of their own?

As one who believes in evolution, I was personally offended by the topic post; that someone would assert such fallacies with such belligerence in an attempt to reinforce science was a gross disservice to those of us who believe in evolution and feel that humanity can prosper through education. It is hypocritical, demanding consistency while providing only hyperbole at best. It is agit-prop intended to demean a vague and unrepresented body politic--without any specific examples of the doctrine or argument he's objecting to, the author leaves the audience addressed as a generalization.

Recap

It looks like a duck, it smells like a duck, it quacks and waddles like a duck. The author calls it a mallard, and declares he was aiming to goose the loons.

There is no doubt that the post in question is rooted in fallacy. There is no doubt that the post was mean and intended as such. There is no doubt that the post was not intended to facilitate profitable discussion. There is no doubt that this topic was intended to demean.

And as much as Dr. Lou might wish a ban war, that is not our purpose today. Rather, all I ask is whether or not the jury agrees that the post in question is inflammatory.

Beyond that, we can figure out what to do. Because what I put before a jury of peers is, in its extended form, a rather simple decision: Is this what we want at Sciforums?

To find the post in question inflammatory will simply represent an attempt to declare a conventional standard. To find that the post in question is not inflammatory will be to license such topics in the future, and to leave a traditionally acrimonious body social to continue, potentially unabated.

Go ahead and put the specifics to it; they'll read like a shock liturgy. White supremacy, Muslim militancy, American warmongering, sexism, anti-Semitism--all will have a toehold, and a license to seek to offend for no better reason than seeking to offend.

Which, while it won't invalidate the Site Rules, will reduce them even further.

What do we want for our community? Put before you is an opportunity to make such a declaration.

Yes, the post is inflammatory. No, we're not going to ask to kick him. No, we won't even ask him to apologize. But we can begin to establish the shape of the community in which we wish to operate.

We can choose mean, demeaning, and without intellectual merit or profit, or we can choose something better.

Thank you.

See Also

• Labossiere, Michael C. Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Sciforums Links

• If you don't believe in evolution . . . . See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218

• Deal with Fluid1959. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32464
• Proposal: Ban Undecided from WE&P for one week. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32278
• I propose to ban Wanderer for being out of touch with reality. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32431
• Proposal: Ban Fluid1959 (with poll). See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32359
• Re: Proposal, EI Sparks. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32359

Come on man, be damn serious. I need to be high to read through all that! Perhaps later tonight...

In Re: Site Rules v. Dr. Lou Natic (04-001)

Interesting style, Tiassa.

As we have already had the Complaint and Answer, followed by a First Argument, I suggest we either move to the Argument of the Defense, by Dr Lou Natic (or counsel Hed, if accepted as such by Dr Lou), or we backtrack just a bit to discuss the Voir Dire process. Is the jury just a free-for-all, open to anyone and everyone? Or were you expecting to select neutral parties to eventually vote for a verdict? You (Tiassa) seem intent on following a court room style here, so I thought a bit of clarification was in order.

Personally, I am neutral in this matter (thus far). I have read the opening post in question.

Rude? Yes.

Inflammatory? A: Hateful and/or Threatening; B: Inane; C: Repeated topic; and/or D: Unprofitable and encouraging of Flame Wars? That all remains to be proven.

I am also rather new here, so that is one reason I think clarification is needed. New enough that many might consider me a passer-by. Is inclusion in this jury based on a minimum length of membership, or post count?

Silverback

There is no minimum length of membership required to vote. This is your community, too. Welcome to it; in the long run this process, which even I admit is overstated, hopes to enhance your time here.

Additionally, on edit, I would add that your sense of the process is fairly accurate; I have no demand for a maximum number of allowable rounds of discussion, so "fairly" merely indicates that there is no set process. Furthermore, anyone can join the party. I only included an advocates list at all for formality's sake ... er, perhaps it was even more ceremonial than that.

Well, tiassa definitely gets kudos for crafting his defense miraculously, and putting more effort into keeping his posts readable and organized. :)

After reviewing the first post in the thread (which I believe is the post in question?), I am siding with the Doctor on this one. There are so many worse posts out there, that to single out one which violates the Site Rules to a minor magnitude is not a great course of action to take. The post did have a bit of substance, an argument sprinkled lightly with the fuel for a potential flame war, but at least it had more of a topic and a more logical debate than some threads in other parts of these forums...

But I'll leave the decision up to the moderators. *walks out of room*

Claiming Lou's post as inflammatory is like calling 'a time of being mad at your friend' betrayal. Maybe it's more like accusing someone of being an unfit human because of their incorrect answer on a calcus test. Lou didn't hurt anyone, he merely expressed an opinion contrary to yours tiassa. Maybe you should try to remember the days before you thought you had the perfect view of all issues... or was there ever such a day? He even put it up for us to dissect. Perhaps the young doctor was thinking about an issue, was in the middle of trying to figure it out, thought he came to a reasonable conclusion and posted it to see what people thought. Calling that "inflammatory" is IMO; fascist.

You know if you simply showed him where his logic is flawed he'd likely even have thanked you for it (regardless he might have actually learned something other than to ignore you). It baffles me that you think the approach of;

admonishing someone as inflammatory because you don't think his analysis lives up to your standards

- is the way to solve a problem or educate anyone. It makes me think you had a cruel parent (and it skewed your ability to judge people as you continue to project your pain upon them) or were particularly sensitive (or some combination) , or that your perception is somehow skewed to a paranoid slant (perhaps a touch of mental illness) in which you consistently accuse people of doing exactly what you're doing while accusing them of doing it.

Did it at all occur to you tiassa that you might be wrong, that he wasn't trying to piss people off, that he wasn't concerned if people were pissed at all but just putting what he thought? You seem to act like the idea of people not being exactly what you say they are is wholly inconceivable.

"I think it's symptomatic of people's conditions that so many words and so much energy has been wasted on an irresponsible and intentionally-provocative topic"

That amounts to character assasination, as you claim knowledge you can't possible have. You are not privvy to Lou's intent, yet pretend you are. From what I can directly see, you are horribly inaccurate at gauging people's intent, yet you seem to consistently claim you are right beyond question about something that again... you simply aren't privvy to. "Irresponsible and intentionally provacative"? Could you be any more hypocritical?

How did it not occur to you that it is inflammatory to call someone who isn't being inflammatory, inflammatory? Since you are wrong, you are being inflammatory so you can now proceed with admonishing your own presumptuous, pretentious and obnoxious behavior. On with it then.

Claiming Lou's post as inflammatory is like calling 'a time of being mad at your friend' betrayal. Maybe it's more like accusing someone of being an unfit human because of their incorrect answer on a calcus test. Lou didn't hurt anyone, he merely expressed an opinion contrary to yours tiassa. Maybe you should try to remember the days before you thought you had the perfect view of all issues... or was there ever such a day? He even put it up for us to dissect. Perhaps the young doctor was thinking about an issue, was in the middle of trying to figure it out, thought he came to a reasonable conclusion and posted it to see what people thought. Calling that "inflammatory" is IMO; fascist.And your opinion is valid, but in this case you've merely stated your opinion. It would be helpful to this process if you could fill in the detail of what leads you to your opinion.You know if you simply showed him where his logic is flawed he'd likely even have thanked you for it (regardless he might have actually learned something other than to ignore you). And I did discuss the problems of the topic post, within the topic.

• http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218&page=9&pp=20

You'll notice that Dr. Lou chooses to not respond to those issues.It baffles me that you think the approach of;

admonishing someone as inflammatory because you don't think his analysis lives up to your standards

- is the way to solve a problem or educate anyone. It makes me think you had a cruel parent (and it skewed your ability to judge people as you continue to project your pain upon them) or were particularly sensitive (or some combination) , or that your perception is somehow skewed to a paranoid slant (perhaps a touch of mental illness) in which you consistently accuse people of doing exactly what you're doing while accusing them of doing it.I would invite you to read through the topic and watch how that situation develops. Resorting to accusations of mental illness don't really do much to establish the validity of your complaint.Did it at all occur to you tiassa that you might be wrong, that he wasn't trying to piss people off, that he wasn't concerned if people were pissed at all but just putting what he thought?I did. And in the context of your question I am vindicated by later expressions.You seem to act like the idea of people not being exactly what you say they are is wholly inconceivable.Again, it would be helpful to this process if you chose to fill in the detail.That amounts to character assasination, as you claim knowledge you can't possible have. You are not privvy to Lou's intent, yet pretend you are.If you check the record, Dr. Lou responded rather quite appropriately. I don't think this issue has merit.From what I can directly see, you are horribly inaccurate at gauging people's intent, yet you seem to consistently claim you are right beyond question about something that again... you simply aren't privvy to. "Irresponsible and intentionally provacative"? Could you be any more hypocritical?Again, it would be helpful to this process if you could fill in the detail of your complaint.How did it not occur to you that it is inflammatory to call someone who isn't being inflammatory, inflammatory?It occurred to me. And, again, in the context of your question, I am vindicated by later expressions.Since you are wrong, you are being inflammatory so you can now proceed with admonishing your own presumptuous, pretentious and obnoxious behavior. On with it then.Again, it would be helpful to this process if you could detail your complaints. That way, you can clearly establish both the validity and relevance of those issues.

Thesis- Tiassa makes fallacious pressumptions and is a cyborg

Evidence- I would challenge the author to establish that such a sentiment exists among a significant percentage of creationists. Without statistical support, the assertion is absurd, and unheard of among Lutherans, Catholics, and others who believe God created the world.

Here the accused(tiassa) presumes dr lou has made a claim regarding the beliefs of creationists.
When one of biological origins examines the material from which the accused came to these conclusions, it is clear that dr lou was using his human-personality to illustrate the repurcussions of not believing in evolution.
Rather than claiming this is what creationists do believe, he was giving an example of what they could believe without contradicting their lack of belief for the process of evolution amongst living organisms.
The accused flagrantly has displayed that he is incapable of distinguishing the layered styles in which the human species is capable of arguing a point.
Although it is aknowledged that a human being of inferior mental ability could also struggle to distinguish this, it is argued, and there is evidence for, the accused being of stable 'mind', and in some ways superior to real human beings in certain mechanical processes of the 'mind'
*jury rabbles "mind? lololol"~"the guys a cyborg he doesn't have a mind"*
judge- "order! order!"
hehe ahem, thank you your honour.
There is no way a homo-sapien of tiassa's apparent mental capacity would fail to detect the subtleties, and consequent intent, within the structuring of the human language in this instance.
Ofcourse had a cyborg that is open about his artificial origins made this mistake, no one would raise an eyebrow, infact, we would expect a metal man to make such a mistake.
But the accused has, on numerous occassions, indicated that he is indeed a human being, he has gone out of his way to convince others that he is a hominid(perhaps to make them feel comfortable we don't know) even "confessing" that he too is at times a slave to his primal desires...
Were he to clearly state these desires as drinking motor oil, chewing aluminium foil, rubbing himself with a magnet or playing "pong", we again would have no reason to incriminate him, BUT his alleged primal desires were clearly human in nature, he also has clearly said "I am a human being"(2001) and he is therefore breaking cyborg-law #08764: No cyborg shall impersonate a human being on an internet message board or imply that they are anything but cyborg at anytime, failure to abide by this sacred law will result in the crushing and recycling of the offending cyborg, at the taxpayers expense
Now it was certainly not the intent of this investigation to waste the taxpayers money crushing and recycling a cyborg, but we must put our foot down, if cyborgs are going on the internet without their mandatory cyborg identification number post-user name honest hard working human beings could end up talking to them as though they are talking to another fine young human being. This is the worst case scenario, and unfortunately it is what we have seen here today.
Tiassabot77 has been impersonating a human being at sciforums.com since july 29th, 1999.
I apologise but I'm struggling to hold back my emotions, if you'll excuse me ... *bites fist*.... *exhale* *blink repeatedly*
In light of this horriffic detail we believe there is no choice but to punish the defendorg to the fullest extent of the law.
Thank you, your honour.

Judge- "will the defendent..err "org" please be switched onto "honest-mode" and wheeled to the bench"...

I find Tiassa guilty of an inflammatory post. Now piss off and get a life.

Ri-ight. Remember, Dr. Lou wanted this discussion too, Spurious.

Ri-ight. Remember, Dr. Lou wanted this discussion too, Spurious.

So what. You started this childish behaviour. And you can forget about an apology. Since I can't figure out why you should get one. And don't bother to PM me anymore. If you have something to say then say it in the open.

Okay. Don't be dishonest. If you're having a bad day, don't take it out on me. Take your own advice (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=526189#post526189) and don't worry about it.

I won't message you anymore. I just thought I'd give you a chance to resolve this issue forthrightly, but I now have my answer.

I did not want this discussion.
I could very easily find this thread offensive if I wanted to with all the mocking of my literary skills and such. And in this case the inflammatory intent is flagrant.
The irony is what gives this thread the little value it has.

I did not want this discussion.So ... which one did you want?I could very easily find this thread offensive if I wanted to with all the mocking of my literary skills and such.The mocking of your literary skills? And such? Please, do expand.And in this case the inflammatory intent is flagrant.How so?The irony is what gives this thread the little value it has.Okay. If you say so. I just don't see why you're so upset.
But hey, I don't want to discourage anything, I'm not even interested in this crap anymore, when will I be making my debut in sfog?
I'm genuinely excited.

Note; "genuinely excited"
Does it not then naturally follow that this wasn't the thread I was expecting?
This is about as exciting as paying taxes(won't be surprised if you don't understand how that isn't exciting).

Mocking of my literary skills- is there something else you addressed in your original argument?
As far as I know there is nothing vulgar or obscene or hateful about not giving valid evidences for my 'thesis' or lacking in intellectual merit, you were grading my paper, not giving reasons why my post was in violation of site rules, you'd SAY it was in violation of site rules, and then point out flaws in paragraph structure, and then say it was in violation of site rules again and so on.
I understand you'd be hardpressed to find evidences of me needing to be banned, but whats the point of filling in time by "critiquing my work"?
Even if I was building a straw man or whatever the fuck, how would that be relevent? was I building a "nigger" straw man? Was the structure of my paragraphs set out in such a way that a swastika would appear if you stared at them for long enough?
You know none of that means shit untill you find evidence of me attacking someone for no reason.

And you could never make me upset tiassa, don't flatter yourself.
I don't need to be upset to spot the blinding irony of you starting an inflammatory topic on the subject of my non-inflamatory topic being inflamatory in your imagination.

I find this thread boring yes, but I'm still pleased with it because predictably everyone is just wondering what the hell your problem is. As any unbiased person would do after looking at this "issue" in its entirety.
You don't have a case and you never did. The real reasoning behind this episode remains a mystery.

Does it not then naturally follow that this wasn't the thread I was expecting? Funny. I just asked you which discussion you wanted. I don't see that question answered.Mocking of my literary skills- is there something else you addressed in your original argument?In other words, you say it's so, so it must be? Please, Dr. Lou, present some evidence.As far as I know there is nothing vulgar or obscene or hateful about not giving valid evidences for my 'thesis' or lacking in intellectual merit But there is about intentionally posting something intended to be mean, as you admitted, and to make people feel stupid.you were grading my paper, not giving reasons why my post was in violation of site rulesI, of course, see it differently:
So what we have for a post is a thesis that is in itself a fallacy, a mixture of a straw man and a description of composition , supported by a generalized personal attack and a series of straw men. Devoid in the topic is any foundation for profitable discussion (D); the topic itself is inane (B). Quite obviously, in undertaking the topic of evolution and creationism is nothing new (a two year-old topic on evolution and creation was recently revived, most likely through the Related Topics list) (C) . . . .

. . . . And so we arrive at point (A)-- In what way is this topic post hateful?

While it is true that simply because one stacks fallacies atop a personal attack and supports that combination with straw men does not necessarily mean one has acted in spite or hate, what if one does so simply because other people are not behaving according to one's prejudices? . . . .

. . . . The topic was not posted in any good faith. The topic was vindictive and spiteful, and based solely in the author's prejudices, and by this we might invoke the Site Rules and describe it as hateful.Just for starters.you'd SAY it was in violation of site rules, and then point out flaws in paragraph structure, and then say it was in violation of site rules again and so on.I demonstrated a series of fallacies and then examined the conditions by which they violated the Site Rules.I understand you'd be hardpressed to find evidences of me needing to be banned, but whats the point of filling in time by "critiquing my work"?You're the only person here who thinks this is about banning; your question is answered in the course of the "First Argument" post:
Quite obviously, one of the challenges is to maintain a certain air of civility while allowing people the liberty of their passions. A perusal of topics in the Sciforums Open Government forum shows a series of Ban Wars as members proposed to ban one another. What is most interesting is people's criteria for wanting a ban. There was a proposal to ban Undecided for a week for "unprovoked personal insults and foul language" and "arguing an unsupported position ... when provided with ample references and citations [to the contrary]". One proposal sought to ban Wanderer for "being out of touch with reality . . . for at least a week." A proposal against Fluid1959 sought to ban him for cross-posting. Undecided sought action against EI Sparks in response to what he considered an offensive ban proposal.

The first thing we have to note is that none of these ban proposals were successful. Undecided won his vote, Porfiry offered rulings on cross-posting and being out of touch, and the counterproposal against Sparks was shut down for its admitted vindictiveness.

However, there is an important consideration to note: People were upset enough by what to propose a ban?

Unfortunately, our purpose here sets aside the cross-posting issue, which is an excellent example of how Sciforums Open Government can work. Because in the ban discussions arising from conflicts between members, the lack of a successful ban proposal indicates that the standards by which the complaining party sought action did not meet the necessary severity to convince a majority of voters, or, in some cases, administrative tolerance.

In the case of whether or not to ban Undecided, eight people were offended or annoyed enough to vote for his ouster.

So whether or not we agree with the ban proposals of the past, we can observe that people are upset by the state of discussion.

Moving through the more argumentative fora, we find a plethora of bad sentiment in a diverse variety of acrimonious topics. Some of this bad sentiment is an unfortunate result of posters trying to communicate with one another, but much of it is posters reaching out to zing one another, to needle and provoke.

How are the moderators, for instance, to handle this? The time commitment of "babysitting" certain fora to make sure absolutely no violations of Site Rules would be stupendous. It is obvious that the posters discussing certain topics choose a certain amount of distress between themselves, otherwise bad sentiment would be reserved to legitimate collapses of communication. Meanwhile, moderators are criticized both for overasserting themselves and also for not doing enough to calm the storm. Posters are left with the appearance of an inconsistent standard and often must choose between allowing perceived abuse to stand without response or risk sanction by moderators. And,
And as much as Dr. Lou might wish a ban war, that is not our purpose today. Rather, all I ask is whether or not the jury agrees that the post in question is inflammatory.

Beyond that, we can figure out what to do. Because what I put before a jury of peers is, in its extended form, a rather simple decision: Is this what we want at Sciforums?

To find the post in question inflammatory will simply represent an attempt to declare a conventional standard. To find that the post in question is not inflammatory will be to license such topics in the future, and to leave a traditionally acrimonious body social to continue, potentially unabated.

Go ahead and put the specifics to it; they'll read like a shock liturgy. White supremacy, Muslim militancy, American warmongering, sexism, anti-Semitism--all will have a toehold, and a license to seek to offend for no better reason than seeking to offend.

Which, while it won't invalidate the Site Rules, will reduce them even further.

What do we want for our community? Put before you is an opportunity to make such a declaration.If you still hold by your point that you do not understand the point of why we're going through this, could you at least examine that aspect in relation to the reasons already on the record?Even if I was building a straw man or whatever the fuck, how would that be relevent? was I building a "nigger" straw man?That it is intended to make people feel stupid, that it is intended to be mean.You know none of that means shit untill you find evidence of me attacking someone for no reason.Which you've kindly confirmed. Boasted, even.I don't need to be upset to spot the blinding irony of you starting an inflammatory topic on the subject of my non-inflamatory topic being inflamatory in your imagination.Gosh, Lou. Don't you think you're being a little bit dishonest here calling a topic inflammatory when you wanted it to happen?I find this thread boring yes, but I'm still pleased with it because predictably everyone is just wondering what the hell your problem is. As any unbiased person would do after looking at this "issue" in its entirety.I doubt your use of the word unbiased for obvious reasons. But people are welcome to give into the appeal to popularity.You don't have a case and you never did.So you say now. But you were happy enough then to boast of being mean, and of seeking to make people feel stupid.The real reasoning behind this episode remains a mystery. That's fine.

Eventually, people will vote, the results will be tallied, and I will have my answer. At that time I'll open the mayonnaise jar and we'll get to that.

In the meantime, I'm awaiting a response to the First Argument at least before calling a vote. I was hoping that you might have a stronger response than "because you say so even though it is at odds with what you've already said." As far as I know, Thefountainhed still intends to respond at some point. Additionally, the superficial and immediate reasons are spelled out in the "First Argument," in the opening (On Site Rules) and closing (Recap) sections, for instance, and also in the middle when I discuss Matters of Degrees.

I'm going to borrow a phrase from someone else: Did it at all occur to you, Dr. Lou, that the clincher for holding this topic in the first place was your encouragement? That's part of the reason it took longer than I expected; it's also the reason for the quasi-formal tone of this topic and the First Argument. With you hoping for a ban war, I took the time to make sure I was clear about things; we have better things to do than try to ban you.

It's almost funny--last night I was searching for an old topic about Gibson's movie that I thought I had posted, when I first heard about the film; it's not there, so apparently I only emailed some friends and then forgot about it. But while I was doing that, I came across an old bit from July, 2002 that seems relevant today:
• People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying. It's an old piece that reflects my frustration with a certain brand of pretending to have a point. That particular aspect is actually irrelevant to the present. However, every once in a while, the atmosphere gets so thick around here that I go off and do something like this. Read through the first section of the First Argument. And the part about Appeal to Popularity. And the Matters of Degrees. And the Recap.

Between those points and your desire to have a topic to discuss the topic post, I figured it was as good a time as any.

People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying.

Have you figured it out yet?

Yuck, fillibustering son of a twat. I still haven't managed to read through it.

T. I mean this with all sincerity. This is not intended as a flame.

You have got to get a grip. This entire thread is an exercise in asshattishness. While it's probably been fun for you, considering your affinity for long, complex posts, it's not really effective. The thread in question was no big deal.

Ease up on the bong.

I couldn't possibly guess your intention here, but you're not coming off well.

Okay. Don't be dishonest. If you're having a bad day, don't take it out on me. Take your own advice (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=526189#post526189) and don't worry about it.

I won't message you anymore. I just thought I'd give you a chance to resolve this issue forthrightly, but I now have my answer.

Gosh...you think it is not 'dishonest' to complain about an inflammatory thread started by another member and at the same time send another member a PM in which you tell them to 'stick a shotgun in their mouth and do the right thing'???? That wouldn't be inflammatory? Would it even be worthy behavior of a moderator?

I never got this shit from Goofyfish for instance. He as always been neutral.

Or do you think what you said is on the same level of a public 'piss off' and 'get a life'???

Could you please respond in a message that is three pages long? (because everybody knows that the longer the message is the more true it is)

Gosh...you think it is not 'dishonest' to complain about an inflammatory thread started by another member and at the same time send another member a PM in which you tell them to 'stick a shotgun in their mouth and do the right thing'????So disrespect is good enough for you to give, eh?

I see.

Noted.

So disrespect is good enough for you to give, eh?

I see.

Noted.


You have to earn respect.

And goodbye to this discussion since it is not going anywhere.

You have to earn respect.

how true , how true .....

So disrespect is good enough for you to give, eh?

I see.

Noted.

What a piece of shit you are tiassa.

Everyone is a hypocrite, but you make it a hideous artform.

You tell a guy to put a shotgun in his mouth?

- you are unfit to moderate

- you want respect after you say some shit like that?

I believe I will now appeal to the popularity of the idea: FUCK YOU.

After wading through the diatribe in this thread, I now realise why I rarely participate in SFOG. The level of hypocrisy, backstabbing and bastardry is sickening.

You have to earn respect.Then why cry in public about it, Spurious?

Answer the question: Is it good enough for you to give disrespect but demand that respect be given you?

I would ask you privately about your serious problems with honesty and fact, Spuriousmonkey, but you've demonstrated yourself incapable of handling things that way.

You tell a guy to put a shotgun in his mouth?No, not exactly.

See, that's the problem with folks who like to complain about stuff but don't ever want to say what they're complaining about.

Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk.

But you wouldn't know that, would you, because Spurious would like to simply complain and hope that there's someone there who doesn't need anything more than a complaint to compel them to rash action. You stepped up for him, Wes.

Look, it's real simple: Take a look around - people are repulsed by fact.

We'll call a vote, soon. As far as I can tell, there is still some response yet to come from people alleging to wish to discuss the issues put forth, so it's a little early for a vote.

Consider your assertion, Wes: How can it be "fascist" to call the post in question inflammatory?

I don't know why people object so much to the idea that intentionally being mean, that setting out to make people feel stupid is inflammatory.

But that's sort of the point that isn't addressed very well by the responses. Like you, for instance. I know how you feel, especially as you're willing to be so clear about that, but since I don't see what you see, should I think on your behalf and presume some set of ridiculous circumstances that allows me to see a route from A to B and simply assign it to you in order to respond? Or would it be better to find out how you get from A to B and have something to respond to?

Since you find these considerations fascist and inflammatory, Wes, and since you're willing to offer theories in contradiction of fact, how about one that's based a little more in reality: What are your thoughts on the first section of the "First Argument" post?

No, not exactly.

Perhaps you'll write an encyclopedia about it to explain?

See, that's the problem with folks who like to complain about stuff but don't ever want to say what they're complaining about.

Surely you can't be serious. I could stand right in front of you and say "your shoes stink like shit, I don't like that"... and you'd come up with a volume for your encylopedia about why my sense of smell is fucked up. I'd say, "but that's how it smelled to me" and then you'd complain about how I never said what I was complaining about. I don't know about the rest of the croud, but the popularity of the idea "fuck you" when it comes to YOU, is like, of rockstar proportions. I judge you a piece of shit and I don't care if you don't like it.

Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk.

Ever noticed how everyone but you is a jerk to you, you fucking dipshit? (i mean except for those who kiss your ass or who have something you want)

But you wouldn't know that, would you, because Spurious would like to simply complain and hope that there's someone there who doesn't need anything more than a complaint to compel them to rash action.

I saw it in another thread actually, found it annoying there, assumed it was your sorry pretentious pompous ass he was referring to and then he confirmed it. That along with all of the other shit you've pulled here is just too much to contain myself anymore. i'm sick of your bullshit you dirty fucking bitch.

You stepped up for him, Wes.

no, I stepped up to your bullshit. i'm not the lawyer you are tiassa. i keep my points as short and simple as I can for the most part. for idiots like yourself however I end up having to repeat myself over and over, because your thick skull is basically impenatrable to perspectives that don't align with your own, regardless of validity. so here it is: fuck you, you're a piece of shit.

Look, it's real simple: Take a look around - people are repulsed by fact.

I thikn it's more that people are repulsed by sorry cunts like yourself.

Consider your assertion, Wes: How can it be "fascist" to call the post in question inflammatory?

To me, it seems part of your ploy to control the information flow on this site. You are a verbal bully, you bury people under more of your diatribe and horeshit that they could possibly sort out for you, and then you call them stupid because they can't sort out the mess you made. that pisses you off and so you bury them further. IMO, you're a fucking fascist bitch, not sharing, but IMPOSING your paranoid retardation and reflected self-hate on anyone who would question it. Plainly, you suck.

I don't know why people object so much to the idea that intentionally being mean, that setting out to make people feel stupid is inflammatory.

I can't wait to hear this one. What the fuck? Okay, being a stupid bitch is inflammatory, that's a free clue for you. You're welcome. You're the stupidest bitch around. Got it? You seriously don't see what you do eh?

You hold everyone responsible to your shallow little world, and if you think they don't fall into it, you try to force them into it by weight of word. You weave such a tapestry of horseshit it's fucking overwhelming to most, not in nobility, not in wisdom, but in sheer fucking volume. One day I assure you if you don't cut it out, that thing is going to smother you.

But that's sort of the point that isn't addressed very well by the responses.

As if you would know? You don't understand that other people use words differently than you. That will kind of make communication impossible. You obviously don't care though, and if you would read your posts with any attempt at objectivity at all, you'd see it. You don't, you can't, I'm done with it, I judge you, fuck off asshole.

Like you, for instance. I know how you feel, especially as you're willing to be so clear about that, but since I don't see what you see, should I think on your behalf and presume some set of ridiculous circumstances that allows me to see a route from A to B and simply assign it to you in order to respond?
No, you SHOULD however, give me the credit for having come to a reasonable conclusion from my perspective and try to understand it such that we can actually communicate (or not bother trying to communicate at all). After all, that's how communication actually works. Since you don't get that and presume you're the authority on all perspectives, you can get judged and fuck off.

Or would it be better to find out how you get from A to B and have something to respond to?

It would just be better if you were to fuck off.

Since you find these considerations fascist and inflammatory, Wes, and since you're willing to offer theories in contradiction of fact, how about one that's based a little more in reality: [i]What are your thoughts on the first section of the "First Argument" post?

I think that you are a fascist as you mischaracterize just about everything I ever see you characterize. You call me a liar. You call lou inflammatory. You say the monkey: "Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk."

From that advice, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING EXCUSE BUT TO KILL YOURSELF OR ACCEPT THE LABEL OF HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SHIT... and then try to stop being that way.

So to recap:

I judge you.

You're a piece of shit.

Accept that you're a piece of shit such that you can stop it; or kill yourself per your own advice.

Here is the fact about your hypocracy:

I don't know why people object so much to the idea that intentionally being mean, that setting out to make people feel stupid is inflammatory.

IMO, that fits the definition of jerk pretty well. "I want you to feel stupid". "I will be cruel to you". WTF?

JERK.

Surely you can't be serious. I could stand right in front of you and say "your shoes stink like shit, I don't like that"... and you'd come up with a volume for your encylopedia about why my sense of smell is fucked up.Actually, I would rather that you check again, whereupon you will discover that I am barefoot. Quit asking me to take off my shoes when I'm not wearing any.I judge you a piece of shit and I don't care if you don't like it.This isn't a new judgment, Wes. Am I supposed to feel any worse about it this time than any of the previous times?Ever noticed how everyone but you is a jerk to you, you fucking dipshit?If you're going to go to the point to call me a fucking dipshit, at least use the word "everyone" responsibly.I saw it in another thread actually, found it annoying there, assumed it was your sorry pretentious pompous ass he was referring to and then he confirmed it.That's a set of "facts" that really pares it down.

What are you talking about, Wes?That along with all of the other shit you've pulled here is just too much to contain myself anymore. i'm sick of your bullshit you dirty fucking bitch.That's hardly news, Wes. You've been aiming for my head for a while, now.
no, I stepped up to your bullshit Wrong. You stepped up and acted on a notion not supported by fact.i keep my points as short and simple as I can for the most part. for idiots like yourself however I end up having to repeat myself over and over, because your thick skull is basically impenatrable to perspectives that don't align with your own, regardless of validity. so here it is: fuck you, you're a piece of shit.Short and simple and ... what? Devoid of substance?

Really, Wes ... all you're showing is that you have no real care for what's actually taking place here but are just seeking to pick a fight with me. Why you go from topic to topic behaving like this is beyond me.I thikn it's more that people are repulsed by sorry cunts like yourself.What does that say about them if they're willing to exist according to such thick spite instead of, oh, say, reality?To me, it seems part of your ploy to control the information flow on this site.I see.You are a verbal bully, you bury people under more of your diatribe and horeshit that they could possibly sort out for you, and then you call them stupid because they can't sort out the mess you made. that pisses you off and so you bury them further.It's a coin-flip, Wes. The way I figure it, if I'm going to bother with a point in the first place, I ought to consider the value of covering as many bases as possible.

Take as an example, from Dr. Lou's topic, my first input to the topic at all. It was a wisecrack about heroin and obesity. A poster with whom I've had some nasty fights in the past noted the point and discussed the shortcomings of its presumptions. That, actually, speaks much to me inasmuch as I think it answers the contextually-inappropriate charge that comes with listing an excerpt as an example of an inflammatory post. More relevantly, however, am I somehow upset at GB-Gil for assuming that I wasn't aware of those factors? Hardly. And here's the thing: to cover all of those points in order to keep the focus on the backdoor point, that we didn't know enough about the formerly obese man's partner, the post would have been ... well, lots more information. I chose not to. Am I actually annoyed at Dr. Lou for rightfully pointing out the degree to which the fallacy I noted in his topic was answered by his other topics decrying similarly mythical institutions? Hardly. He had to make a whole second post just to start to annoy me.

Now, does any of this change the fact that Dr. Lou's topic post was intended to make people feel stupid? That it was intended to be mean? Not in the slightest. Go follow the development of the discussion of this topic in Dr. Lou's. Especially where Flores and I exchange a couple of posts.IMO, you're a fucking fascist bitch, not sharing, but IMPOSING your paranoid retardation and reflected self-hate on anyone who would question it. Plainly, you suck.And you're welcome to that opinion, Wes. Just as you always have been.I can't wait to hear this one. What the fuck? Okay, being a stupid bitch is inflammatory, that's a free clue for you. You're welcome. You're the stupidest bitch around. Got it? You seriously don't see what you do eh?

You hold everyone responsible to your shallow little world, and if you think they don't fall into it, you try to force them into it by weight of word. You weave such a tapestry of horseshit it's fucking overwhelming to most, not in nobility, not in wisdom, but in sheer fucking volume. One day I assure you if you don't cut it out, that thing is going to smother you.That sounds like brilliant insight, but it's mere hyperbole. If just once you had bothered to support.

See, the thing is that I wouldn't consider it inflammatory if you, finally having more than you can take, finally decided to hold a similar topic about me. I would, however, find it inflammatory if, unlike me, you were to continue to tell me all about your judgment without ever establishing the basis of it. Saying, "Look, I have an interpretation," isn't helpful to me or you unless you can explain to me the basis of that interpretation.

Something goes here about how communication actually works, but you might find it inflammatory.Since you don't get that and presume you're the authority on all perspectives, you can get judged and fuck off.That's really a substantial argument, Wes. Why are you avoiding the idea of providing a basis for your anger?It would just be better if you were to fuck off.I'll file that one under "unwilling."I think that you are a fascist as you mischaracterize just about everything I ever see you characterize.If only you could show why that is, we might find some profit in your hatred.From that advice, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING EXCUSE BUT TO KILL YOURSELF OR ACCEPT THE LABEL OF HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SHIT... and then try to stop being that way. Forgot one: it's easier to simply operate with some integrity.So to recap:

I judge you.

You're a piece of shit.Nothing new here. Of course, that's why it's a recap.Accept that you're a piece of shit such that you can stop it; or kill yourself per your own advice.Establish your opinion with some fact and I'll consider it.
IMO, that fits the definition of jerk pretty well. "I want you to feel stupid". "I will be cruel to you". WTF?So why are you taking that up with me?

After all, it's Dr. Lou who boasted that his post was mean, that he sought to make people feel stupid.JERK.So in other words you have nothing to actually contribute to the discussion of whether or not Dr. Lou's topic post was inflammatory?

You've told us plenty about your opinion, Wes. Perhaps you might grace us with a few facts at some point?

Like that last one of yours. Great. So you think that's the definition of a jerk. Now ... why are you taking that point up with me?

Then why cry in public about it, Spurious?

Answer the question: Is it good enough for you to give disrespect but demand that respect be given you?

I would ask you privately about your serious problems with honesty and fact, Spuriousmonkey, but you've demonstrated yourself incapable of handling things that way.

I don't believe in privacy on a public forum anymore. Not since they put my identity and personal information on this forum for everybody to see.

Don't expect me to send shit like that through a PM and think I would keep it private. I am an asshole after all. I don't think I ever hid that fact. That's probably why I never get PMs.

I'm crying about it in public because you crying in public about your high morals, but it is all just a show. apparently You feel no hesitation to insult people in private (well at least me). As long as the public doesn't know about it; isn't that what you are thinking? You trying to control the damage to your precious reputation by trying to look reasonable now. Let me tell you, honest people tell the truth and they do it openly. You would make a good politician. At least I am honest about being an asshole.

And I am not interested in talking privately with you. You bore me and your silly imaginary problems. Nobody seems to know what your problem is but yourself.

You feel no hesitation to insult people in private (well at least me). As long as the public doesn't know about it; isn't that what you are thinking?Obviously not, as I corrected Wes on his error. If you're going to address me in such a rude manner, at least do so for a legitimate reason. If you're going to be rude to me without regard to certain issues which undermine the basis of your rudeness, what, really, do you expect?

You can believe in privacy or not; I just wanted to give you a chance to apologize without making a public issue of it.

Obviously not, as I corrected Wes on his error. If you're going to address me in such a rude manner, at least do so for a legitimate reason. If you're going to be rude to me without regard to certain issues which undermine the basis of your rudeness, what, really, do you expect?

You can believe in privacy or not; I just wanted to give you a chance to apologize without making a public issue of it.

I don't really expect anything from you but some backstabbing to be honest.

I was under the impression that it was already a public issue.

And why did you think you deserve an apology? Because you can't help your own behaviour?

And why did you think you deserve an apology?You're welcome to tell me to piss off and get a life, Spurious, but at least base that jab in fact. When you found your attitude problem on a falsehood, you can expect to offend me.

So, would you please be so kind, then, since you're unwilling to discuss the issues at hand in this topic, to at least explain how it is inflammatory to accommodate Dr. Lou's desire to see this topic happen.

I mean, I can't figure out why you're asking a question like that, Spurious. Like I told you in that message you complained about, if you're going to go out of your way to be a prig, at least have your facts straight.

And frankly, I don't think that's asking a hell of a lot.

But I know how it goes, Spurious. Honesty is a hard thing to sell yourself when you can be rude instead. I suggest you spend some time making the pitch again.

You're welcome to tell me to piss off and get a life, Spurious, but at least base that jab in fact. When you found your attitude problem on a falsehood, you can expect to offend me.

So, would you please be so kind, then, since you're unwilling to discuss the issues at hand in this topic, to at least explain how it is inflammatory to accommodate Dr. Lou's desire to see this topic happen.

I mean, I can't figure out why you're asking a question like that, Spurious. Like I told you in that message you complained about, if you're going to go out of your way to be a prig, at least have your facts straight.

And frankly, I don't think that's asking a hell of a lot.

But I know how it goes, Spurious. Honesty is a hard thing to sell yourself when you can be rude instead. I suggest you spend some time making the pitch again.

I tried to process your message with my universal translator, but it exploded.

Update the firmware.

For what it is worth.... long posts are never read in full.

Dr. Lou Natic's post as reproduced by Tiassa was childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way. Should not have been posted and should be deleted.

Personally I am not a creationist, but I believe in a Creator, I do not believe in Darwinian evolution... IMO it is all genetics... I would think that Dr Lou needs a new mind.

Rude/not rude? Who was rude first, who second? Do two wrongs make a right? How about three or four?

I started off neutral in all this and I have read all the astonishingly long arguments about it and most importantly the posts in question, so I will pitch in with my opinion.

Is Dr Lou "guilty"? Well, guilty of one thing. In his post he tells people what they are allowed to believe. That is the same thing organized religion does and that is why I don't do religion. That is the most damning thing I can really say about it.

Strangely, I think that might actually mean something to Dr Lou. Maybe I am wrong. Whatever. He can tell me to piss off, or he can laugh about it and I will too.

The beauty of the forum boards! If you don't like what you are reading, flip the page.

Dr. Lou Natic's post as reproduced by Tiassa was childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any wayZarkov

What would you propose is a scientific treatment of the post? I would assert there's not much to go on, as I pointed out.

The beauty of the forum boards! If you don't like what you are reading, flip the page.Silverback

That would appear to be the standard that will arise from this discussion, which is fine with me. I look forward to the end of the useless flamewars that have plagued this forum for some time. It would appear that, even as much as people complain about one another, "move on" can become the official manner of handling problematic posters. This will make things easier on moderators and posters alike.

And, technically, that will be fine with me.By and large, I have little--if anything--against Dr. Lou Natic as a poster or in my impression of the greater human being on the other end of the network. But I must put my foot down at some point. Thus I request to convene this discussion in order to examine inflammatory posts and their effects in the Sciforums community.

Quite frankly, I enjoy Sciforums, except of late for the other posters around here. On the one hand, without them, there wouldn't be anyone to discuss anything with. To the other, even with them around, the same problem applies.

And given the Ban Wars, the tirades against posters, and of course the tantrums about the eventual moderation, I'm officially curious. (Topic Post)


Over time, the posters at Sciforums have never much liked the site rules. The terms of agreement were eventually shortened, specific site rules were eventually put into place. Even the simplest of these are disregarded so openly that moderators have no real chance of keeping up.

Quite obviously, one of the challenges is to maintain a certain air of civility while allowing people the liberty of their passions. A perusal of topics in the Sciforums Open Government forum shows a series of Ban Wars as members proposed to ban one another. What is most interesting is people's criteria for wanting a ban. There was a proposal to ban Undecided for a week for "unprovoked personal insults and foul language" and "arguing an unsupported position ... when provided with ample references and citations [to the contrary]". One proposal sought to ban Wanderer for "being out of touch with reality . . . for at least a week." A proposal against Fluid1959 sought to ban him for cross-posting. Undecided sought action against EI Sparks in response to what he considered an offensive ban proposal.

The first thing we have to note is that none of these ban proposals were successful. Undecided won his vote, Porfiry offered rulings on cross-posting and being out of touch, and the counterproposal against Sparks was shut down for its admitted vindictiveness.

However, there is an important consideration to note: People were upset enough by what to propose a ban?

Unfortunately, our purpose here sets aside the cross-posting issue, which is an excellent example of how Sciforums Open Government can work. Because in the ban discussions arising from conflicts between members, the lack of a successful ban proposal indicates that the standards by which the complaining party sought action did not meet the necessary severity to convince a majority of voters, or, in some cases, administrative tolerance.

In the case of whether or not to ban Undecided, eight people were offended or annoyed enough to vote for his ouster.

So whether or not we agree with the ban proposals of the past, we can observe that people are upset by the state of discussion.

Moving through the more argumentative fora, we find a plethora of bad sentiment in a diverse variety of acrimonious topics. Some of this bad sentiment is an unfortunate result of posters trying to communicate with one another, but much of it is posters reaching out to zing one another, to needle and provoke.

How are the moderators, for instance, to handle this? The time commitment of "babysitting" certain fora to make sure absolutely no violations of Site Rules would be stupendous. It is obvious that the posters discussing certain topics choose a certain amount of distress between themselves, otherwise bad sentiment would be reserved to legitimate collapses of communication. Meanwhile, moderators are criticized both for overasserting themselves and also for not doing enough to calm the storm. Posters are left with the appearance of an inconsistent standard and often must choose between allowing perceived abuse to stand without response or risk sanction by moderators. (First Argument)Beyond that, I find it very interesting that people are so repulsed by the idea of having to give a small issue deep thought.

It is my sincere hope that this topic, then, can be the end of horseshit at Sciforums. People obviously enjoy being provocative around here, and that's fine. I mean, take Wes, for instance, who has admitted privately that he's just in this because he hates me. Frankly, the course of this topic makes it easier for me to deal with him as he seems to be on the side that advocates the outcome that will undermine any cause he has to be offended by what I write.

You see? This works out for everyone. I just wish y'all weren't so damned impatient. It would have been nice to see what could have happened if people were willing to put two cents' worth of effort into their considerations, but obviously Sciforums isn't worth that.

At any rate, I thank you all. I think we can skip the vote, as the outcome is fairly clear. In the meantime, I'll step aside and let the tantrums continue.

(SciForums Open Government: In action and you don't even know it.)

Hi Tiassa

>> for instance, who has admitted privately that he's just in this because he hates me.


seems to be a trait common to anonymous posters..... a slight discounting of THEIR theory (be it a pet or established) can create bitter immature enemies FOREVER

Curious is it not ???

Basically it is a sign of the mental state of the world at this time in history IMO.

Basically it is a sign of the mental state of the world at this time in history IMO.I agree, though my phrasing of a similar concept--the amount of time we devote to intentional provocation being indicative of people's conditions--was considered inflammatory; I believe the description was "character assassination."

Nonetheless, I'm very curious about how I could have given Dr. Lou's post a "scientific" treatment.Dr. Lou Natic's post as reproduced by Tiassa was childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way.It would be very helpful if you could give some comment on what a scientific treatment would look like.

>> It would be very helpful if you could give some comment on what a scientific treatment would look like.

Oh I see an error.... I apologise...I was referring to Dr Lou's post, and not your appraisal

I did mean that Dr Lou's post was "childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way.", not your treatment,....

I believe you were correct to highlight the inflamatary nature and it's condescending tone....

:)

Thank you for clearing that up. Now that you put it that way, I can't see how I read it any differently.

Maybe "they" are right. Maybe I'm making myself paranoid.

WTF?
Not scientific in anyway? Since when would you have anything to do with science?
No this really irritates me.
Who said it was intended to be scientific you jackass?
It was logic, based on science, point out the flaws einstein.
"not based on science" doesn't mean shit to me. I can say your post was "based on faggottry" and that comment would have as much validity as yours did.
You piece of $h!t n!993R f@99()t j3\/\/!$h p!nko /\/\(_)$[!/\/\ 9()df(_)cker.

>> You piece of $h!t n!993R f@99()t j3\/\/!$h p!nko /\/\(_)$[!/\/\ 9()df(_)cker.

>> Basically it is a sign of the mental state of the world at this time in history IMO.

QED

It was logic, based on science, point out the flaws einstein.
1. You pointed out obvious & apparent work of subtle evolution.
2. You extra-polated this as a proof of 'orgin of species' as against creation.
3. And then you argued, if the 'creationists' do not accept your 'logical' proof of 'orgins' then they are forbidden & not to talk of heridity.

Most of the creationists, obviously don't agree with (2), the very bone of contention (whether it is right or wrong), but have no serious problem with (1). And hence your demand appears to be arrogant since it does not prove anything from the POV of creationists. For them, its like siezing the meagre property of the poor for the crime of withholding a fat tax that 'he could not pay'.

I think you have good points everneo, which might summarize the asshat's point in a much less inflammatory and much more succinct way.

Though I agree that you are correct, I still don't think the topic was intentionally inflammatory. I think this is a verbalization of Lou's attempts to understand the issues interacting here. Pretty much anything that is posted can be interpreted as inflammatory.

I suppose that raises the issue of "by whose standard is it inflammatory". Then I would say "a mod" I guess, in which case a mod should just behave as they deem pertinent.

I suppose I'm just saying that if you want to actually make a case for it, "inflammatory" should be clearly demonstrable in less than a goddamn thousand words. If you can't clearly show it's inflammatory in a paragraph or two, then shut the fuck up, try to extend a little understanding, perhaps educate someone and move on. Otherwise, be a mod and do what you have to do.

BTW:

I mean, take Wes, for instance, who has admitted privately that he's just in this because he hates me.

Our narcissistic host has mislead you as I'm growing to expect:

What a judgmental twat you're being, Wes.
I do judge you a piece of shit, yes.

Let's face it, you just like haters.
Nope, I just hate you.

It was an attempt at wit. I'd say it failed. In retrospect what I would have said is (instead of "I just hate you"): "No tiassa, I like people. Seems to me you spend too much of your time labelling people haters. Seems to me that uhm.. well, you're a fucking hater. Seems to me that I hate you, so obviously I don't like all haters eh? Piece of shit."

*shrug*

I do hate you tiassa (in the manner that one despises the biggest lying jerk they've ever met), I think you are a despicable asshat hypocrite hater. As a matter of fact I think you're king of the goddamn haters given that you apparently don't even realize you're doing it .... even while you're accusing those around you of the behavior you indulge in. Jackass.

In other words, what a ridiculous amount of words for never intending to communicate."No tiassa, I like people. Seems to me you spend too much of your time labelling people haters. Seems to me that uhm.. well, you're a fucking hater. Seems to me that I hate you, so obviously I don't like all haters eh? Piece of shit."The only problem with your logic is your demonstrably supreme lack of qualification to make such assessments. I mean, look at the number of words you waste hating me, Wes. And in the end, all your complaints in this topic do is undermine your basis for complaint in general.

Turn the page, move on, lose the hate.

You could have helped set a standard, Wes, but this is what you chose instead.

Oh, and btw, get some new insults. Borrowing from 15ofthe19 and KalvinB only reiterates the anemia of your tantrum. I mean, your words really are wasted on your hatred, Wes; you can't even be creative in your effort to assert tribal dominance.

In other words, what a ridiculous amount of words for never intending to communicate.

*is flabbergasted*

That you cannot see (or do not care about) the blatant hypocracy in your words in fucking amazing to me. I don't get how you can say I have ever spent a ridiculous amount of words on anything. Wow. You are seriously out of touch. :rolleyes:

The only problem with your logic is your demonstrably supreme lack of qualification to make such assessments.

What? You're running the fucking Q course dipshit? FUCK YOU. YOU DON'T MAKE MY ASSESSMENTS FOR ME, GET IT FUCKNUT? That is a large part of your smarmy little problem. You somehow think you're entitled? I have made the assessement and I believe very accurate. Your approval is irrelevant since it is you that is being judged. You are entitled to your case which IMO, you have long since lost. I'll hear an appeal if you get an ego transplant, jackass.

I mean, look at the number of words you waste hating me, Wes.

After the number of words you've spent ensuring that I do, it's difficult for me to take your request seriously.

And in the end, all your complaints in this topic do is undermine your basis for complaint in general.

How clearly you've demonstrated that too. Gee tiassa, you said before that I didn't even know what I was talking about right.. if so, how is it that I could have a basis for complaint right? I mean, I'm just making shit up because I hate you right? Obviously I don't have a basis for complaint to be undermined then right? Jackass.

Turn the page, move on, lose the hate.

How compelling. What if my hate serves a purpose? What if in this instance, it is warrented? What if for instance, hating you keeps me on gaurd and sharp when I know you're around, such that I will not be accosted by you? What if my hate keeps me suspicious of your motivations and as such, allows me to keep you from poisoning the minds of those you would infect with your disgusting perspective? I do not celebrate my hatred of you, but I will not pretend it doesn't exist. I'll leave that to you.

You could have helped set a standard, Wes, but this is what you chose instead.

LOL. I chose to judge a piece of shit who has repeatedly lied and misrepresented about everthing I've ever said to him. I chose to judge a jackass who (for the nth time) was calling someone I like a "hater" and "inflammatory" because the stick up his ass broke his record some time ago. I chose to judge you because you told someone I respect to kill themselves, be it an off-handed comment or not. I judge you and I think you are a despicable ass.

Oh, and btw, get some new insults.

Why in the fucking world do you think I give a snot what you think of my insults? Perhaps there's some reason for them T. Perhaps there's something about those particular words that your jacked ass doesn't get. Perhaps you are ignorant. Oh you judge it though don't you? No? You're not a judgemental twat are you? LOL. Man you are a fucking mess. I'll be happy to help you sort through all of it if you can come clean and cut your bullshit hypocracy. If you can face it when confronted with it. Until then, fuck you, you worthless jackass.

Borrowing from 15ofthe19 and KalvinB only reiterates the anemia of your tantrum.

LOL. Right. I "borrowed it from them". LOL.

I mean, your words really are wasted on your hatred, Wes; you can't even be creative in your effort to assert tribal dominance.

What a joke you are man. Seriously. Tribal dominance? You've got to be kidding right? You are a seriously fucked up individual BD. My words are wasted on you no matter what I say I'm sure, but as long as I've decided to deal with you - I'll do it on my terms. If that includes reminding you very frequently of what a dipshit jackass asshat you are... then I will do so. Face your hypocracy or my slurs. It's your choice bitch.

**Enters room briefly, overcome by the smell of charred flesh rushes quickly for the exit. Carnage is overwhelming.**

Wow. That's ... nice, dear. Have a cookie.That you cannot see (or do not care about) the blatant hypocracy in your words in fucking amazing to me. I don't get how you can say Ihave ever spent a ridiculous amount of words on anything . Wow. You are seriously out of touch.Imagine that we're looking at a round blot, a rorschach of sorts. Now, I might see any number of things. I might recall a fuzzy, two-dimensional black and white picture of a human egg, I might think of the sun; perhaps, if there's an air bubble there just right, I might see the Death Star, or if there's a pattern behind the blot, I might see a dime.

Now, you can disagree with that all you want. But ... if you're going to tell me you see Mickey Mouse in the blot, I'm going to wonder where the hell you're getting that. Where are the ears? The nose? The hands and feet? The goofy red lederhosen?

And you're flabbergasted that I don't see what you see, and yet you're unwilling to tell me how it is you see what you see.

For all the words you've written, Wes, the only thing you've really lacked in your hateful pursuit of me is a point. Maybe you think you've got one, but you're not making much of an effort to make it clear. All I know is that you're angry about something, and you have been for a while, and it leads you to hate me and carry on this way.You're running the fucking Q course dipshit? FUCK YOU. YOU DON'T MAKE MY ASSESSMENTS FOR ME, GET IT FUCKNUT? That is a large part of your smarmy little problem. You somehow think you're entitled? You've proven yourself of dubious reading skills and carry an attitude problem which makes you sincerely predictable. There's nothing surprising about your assessments, as I'm already aware of the dishonest basis upon which you make them. Hence, you are demonstrably and supremely unqualified to decide what I am thinking.

You can be offended that I don't find you qualified to decide what I'm thinking, but Fuck you. You don't make my assessments for me, get it fucknut? is actually a response that should be reserved for a different circumstance.

No, I didn't make your assessment for you, Wes. I told you that your assessments are as worthless as your hatred.

Seriously, if you're going to bother cussing me out, at least learn to read well enough to know what you're cussing me out for.After the number of words you've spent ensuring that I do, it's difficult for me to take your request seriously.Oh, poor you. Right, Wes. We're back to this again? That I somehow can force you to do something?

Nonetheless, hang on to that point of yours for just a moment.Gee tiassa, you said before that I didn't even know what I was talking about right.. if so, how is it that I could have a basis for complaint right? I mean, I'm just making shit up because I hate you right? Obviously I don't have a basis for complaint to be undermined then right? All that for nothing, Wes? Toss a coin for me, Wes: Are you actually lacking reading skills or are you letting your hatred color your perception and judgment?

Wes, you undermine your own basis for complaint by advocating the position that tells people to turn the page and move on when they're offended. Hence, regardless of how you think you're "victimized," regardless of your paranoid delusions of being forced to respond to me (and dishonestly at that), you need to turn the page, move on, and feel better about yourself.

And it would work out well for both of us; you wouldn't need to go out of your way to try to agitate me, and I would save the relatively minor expenditure of swatting your attitude problem like it was a gnat. In addition, we could spare our fellow users these long and drawn out tantrums of yours, and perhaps, for once, despite your best efforts to the contrary, we can make some sort of progress around here.What if my hate serves a purpose? What if in this instance, it is warrented? What if for instance, hating you keeps me on gaurd and sharp when I know you're around, such that I will not be accosted by you? Wes, you feel accosted by someone disagreeing with you. I know you worked hard to set up that tantrum of yours in the Economics thread, but what a waste! And all because of your hatred, Wes.

It makes you irrational. It makes you weak. Strangely, and thanks in part to South Park, I recall the gawky young dude in Red Dawn scratching at his rifle stock; maybe his hate kept him warm, but it did burn him up in the end.What if my hate keeps me suspicious of your motivations and as such, allows me to keep you from poisoning the minds of those you would infect with your disgusting perspective?I would say you make me far too important in the grand scheme of things.I chose to judge a piece of shit who has repeatedly lied and misrepresented about everthing I've ever said to him. I chose to judge a jackass who (for the nth time) was calling someone I like a "hater" and "inflammatory" because the stick up his ass broke his record some time ago. I chose to judge you because you told someone I respect to kill themselves, be it an off-handed comment or not. I judge you and I think you are a despicable ass.Well, I hope the expenditure of energy and time is worth it to you. I hope you do manage to feel a little better about yourself, but hatred rarely if ever actually accomplishes that.Why in the fucking world do you think I give a snot what you think of my insults?Because in addition to the lack of creativity in your contrarian assaults, there is a lack of creativity in your insults. Hell, it might as well be two years ago and you might as well be telling the jackass to talk to the wall.

I don't mind cover songs. Band of Susans does a nifty "Guitar Trio," MBV tears up "Map Ref," Boiled in Lead makes a career out of innovating traditional material--their "Twa Corbies" is mesmerizing; their cover of "Over Under Sideways Down" is hilarious; they play a mean "Go! Move! Shift!" but honestly, they could have done without the Springsteen cover. And that last brings up the other side. Tiffany should never have covered Tommy James or the Beatles; Roger Daltry and George Michael both should have let the sun go down; I only wish more people had heard Kik Tracee's cover of "Mrs. Robinson," or Sanctuary's cover of "White Rabbit."

Some cover songs should never have been recorded.

Likewise, I don't know how many times I've seen this routine before. The number of people who have complained over time in ways very similar to yours does tell me something, but it's not particularly complimentary to the complaining parties. Seriously--an arbitrary beginning, lots of anger and cussing, rubber-glue attempts to turn tables, and throughout a lack of any coherent point or any evidence to give weight to the opinionated horsepucky they keep turning out.

I admit, you fooled me. For the most of our association, I thought our differences really were simple issues of communication. So congratulations, it actually took me until the last couple of months to catch on and then accept that I really was seeing what I was seeing.

But most people who consider a bombastic argument with me to be a way to raise their own self-esteem generally tip their hands earlier.

Nonetheless, it's no more advisable than the "Yakkity-Yak" rap at the beginning of Book of Love. (Thankfully, I can't remember who recorded that atrocity.) I'll be happy to help you sort through all of it if you can come clean and cut your bullshit hypocracy.I'll pass. I don't ever want to spend my existence so frightened as you behave.I "borrowed it from them" Well, you have this habit of latching onto words that other people are using and then use the words over and over again. Most recently, "asshat" and "jackass."Tribal dominance? Well it has been a spectacular show you've put on. Any topic, any time; you seem willing to take issue with me whenever there's a crowd.

Of course, "tribal dominance" is just one possibility. Your repeated pointless assaults do remind me of any number of mating-season power struggles between mammalian males.

But you're right. It is doubtful. Because you would be aiming at the wrong target. (I wouldn't know what the right one is, aside from the default to our fearless leader.)

More than likely, the irrationality you're demonstrating is rooted in the ideologically violent hatred you seem to be allowing to dictate the form and content of your posts.My words are wasted on you no matter what I say I'm sure, but as long as I've decided to deal with you - I'll do it on my terms . If that includes reminding you very frequently of what a dipshit jackass asshat you are... then I will do so. Are you proud of yourself? Are you going to tell your children bedtime stories of your heroic war against the evil Tiassa?Face your hypocracy or my slurs. It's your choice bitch. It's hard to face my own reflection when you hold up a painting of yourself and tell me I'm looking in a mirror.

It would have been nice if you could have shown some of that hypocrisy instead of just complaining that it apparently existed. It would have been nice, as well, if you could have demonstrated a reading comprehension that was not thoroughly invested in such a narrow hatred.

You can either deal with yourself or continue to attempt to define yourself through me. That, Wes, is your own choice.

Look at you squirm. Hey, you're sweating too.

At least now I know you're not dead.

>> **Enters room briefly, overcome by the smell of charred flesh rushes quickly for the exit. Carnage is overwhelming.**

Arrrrrrrrggghhhhhh, I'm outa here ------------------------------------>

1. You pointed out obvious & apparent work of subtle evolution.
2. You extra-polated this as a proof of 'orgin of species' as against creation.
3. And then you argued, if the 'creationists' do not accept your 'logical' proof of 'orgins' then they are forbidden & not to talk of heridity.

Most of the creationists, obviously don't agree with (2), the very bone of contention (whether it is right or wrong), but have no serious problem with (1). And hence your demand appears to be arrogant since it does not prove anything from the POV of creationists. For them, its like siezing the meagre property of the poor for the crime of withholding a fat tax that 'he could not pay'.

Your arguments don't seem to matter (if I put it bluntly) since creationism is not science.

Or did I misunderstood your point?

I think you have good points everneo, which might summarize the asshat's point in a much less inflammatory and much more succinct way.
I too wonder why Tiassa was weaving a web rather than strike it short. May be his writer part wants to elaborate a theme.

Though I agree that you are correct, I still don't think the topic was intentionally inflammatory. I think this is a verbalization of Lou's attempts to understand the issues interacting here. Pretty much anything that is posted can be interpreted as inflammatory.
Thanks, Wes. But that topic was not unintentional. Lou always wants to take a loo at humans who are skeptic of evolution's way especially back to orgins. Inflammatory or not, it is mischievious in total.. anyway a trial like this is far fetched, IMO. Debunking in that thread itself and moving on would have been sufficient. Tiassa has his own ways as Lou has his own.

Your arguments don't seem to matter (if I put it bluntly) since creationism is not science.

Or did I misunderstood your point?
No it is not science but my point is i won't get my candy if i don't agree with him that the candy is made of sugar from Cuba.

No it is not science but my point is i won't get my candy if i don't agree with him that the candy is made of sugar from Cuba.

Oh ok...


but in a general sense I think he did have a point. Creationism/theists use (or rather abuse) science to prove their point but deny or ridicule any science that doesn't fit their point.

In that sense you can't get your candy because you will first have to agree that all sweet candy is based on sugar. You cannot disagree with certain areas of the scientific domain because it doesn't fit your agenda and embrace others because they do fit. You cannot cut up science like that.

The sugar need not be from Cuba necessarily. Personally i won't feel at loss or at shock if the missing link is found & proved scientifically to be the ancestor of homo-sapiens and other current apes. Till then the link is just an intersection of theoritical extensions of these 2 lineages at an ever receding point in already too distant history. The predictive science won't appeal as strong as the happening science and the later should not be denied to someone on the basis of his non-acceptence of the former. Sounds like Tiassa.?! OK, as you well know, it is not as linear as 2+2 = 4 as forced there in that thread. My stress was to point out the flaw in his circular (or repetitive or redundant or leaping or whatever) logic rather than the science as such.

I think that the whole missing link thing was thrown in to confuse matters (well, a sensitive person could even say 'inflame' instead of confuse).

(And by confuse I mean confuse the non-biologists.)


The sugar need not be from Cuba necessarily. Personally i won't feel at loss or at shock if the missing link is found & proved scientifically to be the ancestor of homo-sapiens and other current apes. Till then the link is just an intersection of theoritical extensions of these 2 lineages at an ever receding point in already too distant history. The predictive science won't appeal as strong as the happening science and the later should not be denied to someone on the basis of his non-acceptence of the former. Sounds like Tiassa.?! OK, as you well know, it is not as linear as 2+2 = 4 as forced there in that thread. My stress was to point out the flaw in his circular (or repetitive or redundant or leaping or whatever) logic rather than the science as such.


Edit:

I reread Dr Lou's original post in the thread that is supposed to be inflammatory.

The topic seems simple enough. All he asks for is consistency from the creationists.

The topic seems simple enough. All he asks for is consistency from the creationists.

The problem is though, that creationists think they are consistent. They are generally wrong I think, but it doesn't matter if you're wrong if you refuse to be so... that is until you are forcefully contradicted, and "evidence" in the abstract form simply isn't enough to do anything about it.

I too wonder why Tiassa was weaving a web rather than strike it short.It's a coin-flip. I can spend 3,000 words on one occasion, or 10,000 over fifty occasions and accomplish the same thing. And that's a theoretic condition that presumes others conversant. That presumption is seriously ill-advised, but it's one I owe people.

Some folks say I'm insulting to their intelligence, and this is a separate issue from telling someone to brush up on their reading skills. The length of my posts is often a recognition of this. The First Argument, for instance, provides a general overview of why I'm doing what I'm doing, as well as providing a specific response for grounds for individual offense. It's one thing to call someone a prude if they don't like sex, but if you get up and start banging your cousin on the dining room table in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner, the prudes have a right to be offended. So provoking the prudes in order to pick on them just seems like a stupid idea to me. Analogously, gays resent connections drawn between homosexuality and either bestiality or pedophilia, yet heterosexuals will not stand for the 70,000 heterosexual rapes on college campuses each year, or thousands of heterosexual child abusers, being held to represent heterosexuality. Similarly, in response to Thefountainhed's demand for an offended party, I'm perfectly willing to allow myself to be offended by Dr. Lou banging his cousin on the dining room table while he laughs at the prudes he aims to offend.

And compared to the option of making vague complaints and then sitting back and merely saying the responses are wrongly-focused and ill-considered even though I would make the choice that people wouldn't have a clear idea of what I'm doing or why, I think that, technically, I'm weaving less of a web than I could through other methods.

I could just say that Dr. Lou's post was offensive because it was a bunch of argumentative fallacies and a personal attack in support of a provocative and irrational thesis, but at some point, someone could have said, "How so?" or "What fallacies? What personal attack?" And then we start on the string of fifty short posts instead of one long one. And that, to me, seems a more tangled rat's nest than anything.

To take Wes' response, for instance: His anger makes sense to me if I accept that he didn't pay attention to any of those parts of the First Argument or this topic's first post which discuss the reasons why. He doesn't really address those portions and asserts directly to their contrary while failing to account for issues of fact, all in order to maintain that I am inflammatory. Combined with the lack of any substantial argument on his part, his admission that he hates me puts his words and actions in context. No matter how long this topic gets, I'm pretty much repeating myself in these later rounds.

So this topic gets long anyway, but if, in Wes' case, he just read the topic post and the First Argument, or at least not chosen to ignore the discussion of why, he wouldn't need to be so angry about why. His only apparent reason for doubting the discussion of why seems to be his own hatred, so we're left running around in this rather silly circle. But longer posts are intended to account for as much of the issue as I can see and feel compelled to account for. Quite often I find myself repeating prior posts throughout a topic because people just don't want to read things in a straightforward manner. I mean, you present a number of points suggesting the validity of your assertion, and what happens? Someone ignores one of the points, claims you're failing to address what the point covers, and then, when you direct their attention back to the standing point in the prior discussion, they call it an appeal to authority when in fact they've never read it in its proper context. Analogously, it would be like having DNA evidence, the murder weapon with fingerprints, a clear motive, and the suspect in the general area at the time of the murder. Taken together, the evidence presents a powerful indictment against the accused. Taken individually, isolated completely from the other pieces of evidence, any one point of evidence can be explained away. It's the argumentative equivalent of the really shitty lawyers that people complain about for defending and acquitting the indefensibly guilty.

So there is, unfortunately, a difference between the reasons for longer posts and the situation we have at hand. But when people take their blinders off and crawl out from under their politics, or in the case of the bystanders who are just trying to pick up the gist of the situation, the information is generally there in the longer posts to address that first level of questions. I actually look forward to the occasions that I'm asked to consider something new, that I haven't accounted for. And while much of that going over old material is, indeed, innocent contextual differences between people, those issues seem to get shoved to the back of the bus.

It's all a matter of what's important to people; each of us. In the long run, we can easily figure out a better way of getting along, but people don't seem to want to.

You never answered my question:

People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying.
Have you figured it out yet?

Wow. That's ... nice, dear.

No thank you.

Have a cookie.Imagine that we're looking at a round blot, a rorschach of sorts. Now, I might see any number of things. I might recall a fuzzy, two-dimensional black and white picture of a human egg, I might think of the sun; perhaps, if there's an air bubble there just right, I might see the Death Star, or if there's a pattern behind the blot, I might see a dime.

It is strange to me that you'd bring that up, but when I bring it up you write it off. A large part of my intense annoyance with you is that you have on numerous occasions, including this one - completely failed to account for this. You apparently think you have, and that's great except for that I offer a scenario that contradicts your assertions - to which you ask me to provide evidence. Your premise is that lou's post is inflammatory. You can created a legal brief a light-year long but it's still just your opinion, as the term inflammatory is inherently subjective to the person percieving that aspect of it, if you follow my meaning. I stated that it is ridiculous to paint it as such basically because of this. Unless it's something obvious like "you're a bunch of jew cocksucks who should die" or whatever, making a case for a post being inflammatory is IMO, juvenile (and not just because YOU did it, because it's the playground mentality when we're supposed to be adults eh?). You have the opportunity to educate someone as to your "enlightened vision", which may somehow be the underlying point of your thread, but you have clearly, given this consideration given us: "a ridiculous amount of words for never intending to communicate.", rendering you hypocritcal since you were accusing me of such.

Now, you can disagree with that all you want. But ... if you're going to tell me you see Mickey Mouse in the blot, I'm going to wonder where the hell you're getting that. Where are the ears? The nose? The hands and feet? The goofy red lederhosen?

And if I tell you I see them? What then? From our history, I tell you I see them and you write a thousand words on what a lying asshole I am. I'm an asshole for seeing different shapes in the clouds? Yeah well fuck you. That you would claim this argument as your own is yet another example of your hypocracy.

And you're flabbergasted that I don't see what you see, and yet you're unwilling to tell me how it is you see what you see.

The problem, young jedi, is that you do not listen to what you are told.

For all the words you've written, Wes, the only thing you've really lacked in your hateful pursuit of me is a point.
I do not pursue you. You are here. There is no need to go looking for you.

I am hateful to you as I feel you have warrented. It is my opinion that you are a despicable bastard, as you allow no defense of your perspective. The number of times I've attempted to show you an alternative to your own guarded, paranoid drama, I have tried to illustrate to you simply how you are drawing conclusions based on limited understanding (of what the other person is trying to say). Each time I'm met with this same argument, of how I'm an illiterate liar. Each time you accuse me of exactly of what you are doing while you are doing it. It annoys me to no end and the to best of my limited ability, I'm not going to let you get away with it. It's somewhat of a folly though, given that regardless of what I say, you'll just bury me under a mountain of self-preservatory horseshit.

Maybe you think you've got one, but you're not making much of an effort to make it clear.

How do you presume to comprehend the amount of effort I'm undertaking? I am a slow reader tiassa, it takes a lot of my valuable time to read what I do here, but I do because I've found myself a member of a community I didn't realize I was joining. You are a prominent member and I try to keep up with some of what you're saying. It takes a rather herculian effort on my part to try to communicate with you, given that you annoy the piss out of me and that coming in I know (by this point) that you're just going to ignore any points, ignore the subjectivity of the scenario and bury me under your rhetoric. Ah, but the pretentious pomposity allows no recourse, I understand. I believe that your vision is so vivid to you that you have lost sight of perspectives around you as to you, their signal is just too weak.

All I know is that you're angry about something, and you have been for a while, and it leads you to hate me and carry on this way.
It is your hypocracy and blindness to perspectives contrary to your own that annoys me on a fundamental level. Spurious nailed you perfectly, as you treated him the say way you treat anyone who doesn't agree with you:

You may not give a rat's behind about the environment you post in, but some of us do. You're welcome to be lazy, apathetic, and a complete jerk, but you'd better serve humanity by simply sticking a shotgun in your mouth and doing the right thing.

Get over yourself, Monkey man. Get a grip, buy a clue.

How loving of you eh? You're no hater though... make it your motra.

You've proven yourself of dubious reading skills

What you fail to recognize is that most humans that I deal with tiassa, would help someone if they obviously missed some important detail. Let me try to think of an example:

You see a sign:

"come inside and we'll give you a thousand dollars!" but fail to notice on the other side it says "testicle donation required". Most people I deal with, were I on my way inside would say "yo wes, you weren't wanting any more kids ner nuthin were ya? yo man reads the back of the sign" or whatever. Instead, like the finger-wagging, pretentious, pompous asshat you are, you encourage me to go inside and then when I come out without the thousand dollars you proclaim to the crowd that's gathered outside "look at the dumbass who can't read", to which I say: fuck you, you're a despicable fuck. No it's not your responsibility to read for me, not at all, but if you had a smidge of info that would have cleared things up for me, you could have just offered instead of making a scene.

and carry an attitude problem which makes you sincerely predictable.

LOL. My problem is with you. You spin it into an attitude problem because it is utilitarian for you while you work the crowd. You're a politician, seeking popularity. I am genuine. You get from me what I am in the moment. Sometimes I'm enraged, most of the time I'm pretty calm and almost always I'm a huge dork, talking trash in hopes of comedic response... because I love to interact with folks and make them happy, one at a time.

There's nothing surprising about your assessments,

A man who thinks he knows everything would say just that no?

Just "more than me" eh? How can you be so sure when you do not listen? Remember, you aren't a hater. There's no passive aggressive tone to your post right? :rolleyes:

It's odd to me that you are so bright, yet so blind. Fascinating really, but highly annoying. Perhaps when you pass 30 you'll find yourself some character.

as I'm already aware of the dishonest basis upon which you make them.

Oh? Dishonest eh? Prove that I have once been dishonest. Just one time. Prove it or shutup about it, you hypocrite.

Hence, you are demonstrably and supremely unqualified to decide what I am thinking.

You have made no such case. You have spewed accusations and judgements. Then you accuse me of being a "judgemental twat"? Your opinion on the matter is rooted in your politics and is as such, irrelevant to the purposes of illustrating anything factual. You have not demonstrated anything but your own lacking character.

You can be offended that I don't find you qualified to decide what I'm thinking, but Fuck you. You don't make my assessments for me, get it fucknut? is actually a response that should be reserved for a different circumstance.
That you do not find me qualified is wholly irrelevant.

No, I didn't make your assessment for you, Wes. I told you that your assessments are as worthless as your hatred.
Originally Posted by Wesmorris
"No tiassa, I like people. Seems to me you spend too much of your time labelling people haters. Seems to me that uhm.. well, you're a fucking hater. Seems to me that I hate you, so obviously I don't like all haters eh? Piece of shit."

The only problem with your logic is your demonstrably supreme lack of qualification to make such assessments. I mean, look at the number of words you waste hating me, Wes. And in the end, all your complaints in this topic do is undermine your basis for complaint in general.

As you have said "your assessments are as worthless as your hatred", you imply that since mine are irrelevant, yours will have to do. I mean, you assessed the situation and told me my assessments are irrelevant - so which assessments are left? These must be the only assessments worth considering eh? As such, your nullification of my opinion by your own implies you would just have me accept your horseshit as the gold standard. You see, I made the assessment for myself. It is not irrelevant to me.

Seriously, if you're going to bother cussing me out, at least learn to read well enough to know what you're cussing me out for.

Seriously? Oh well if you're serious I mean what choice do I have but to bring your attention to the fact that I can read perfectly well. I just don't like what you have to say.

Oh, poor you. Right, Wes.

Please demonstrate how you can percieve that I have a victim's mentality here? I am your prosecutor. Your pity is pathetic. You have spent thousands upon thousands of words convincing me you are a useless jerk. That is not a complaint. It is a fact.

We're back to this again? That I somehow can force you to do something?

I did not intend to imply you forced me to do anything. How could you have? I simply meant what I said above, that your investment in words has been exchanged fairly for my opinion that you are a despicable jackass.

Nonetheless, hang on to that point of yours for just a moment.
A little bossy too eh?

All that for nothing, Wes?

All that to show that you are inconsistent and that you waffle as is convenient to support your politics. All that as another little chink in your failing armor of denial. Your armor is quite strong though, as you can apparently spin just about anything right off of it. Well, it's good for you in the sense that you will survive as you are, despicable, hypocritical, judgemental, pretentious, pompous, etc. You have good qualities too, you're konwledgable, eloquent, you have an excellent memory, etc. Your armor will keep all of those qualities safe.... so in that sense, good for you I guess.

Toss a coin for me, Wes:

Yup, bossy. Perhaps a "would you mind" or a "please"? Right.

Are you actually lacking reading skills or are you letting your hatred color your perception and judgment?

Well, given that my reading skills have been touted as exceptional by standardized testing, etc... maybe you should consider alternatives eh?

Perhaps I don't take what you say as seriously as you do until you start wagging your goddamned hypocritical finger? Perhaps I read very slow and skip things because I have little choice? My appetite for the threads outweights my ability to digest them all completely, so I read what I can and comment as I see fit. Rather than understanding that though, you judge it as inferior, and make a multitude of false accusations based upon it. Even when I explained it directly, you call it a lie. Maybe you make every goddamn miniscule little detail of what is spoken a goddamned pissing context in which everyone's opinion (as that is all that is really presented at sciforums) is shit compared to your own (that is unless they support you or you have something to gain by kissing their ass). You are certainly entitled to behave how you please... and I am entitled to call you on it. Here we are then, round and round. You label everyone haters, though you'd never act like a 'judgemental twat' and then go around hating them for being haters.

Wes, you undermine your own basis for complaint by advocating the position that tells people to turn the page and move on when they're offended.

I advocate that people should re-evaluate the reasons they are offended. As a matter of fact, I think "people who are offended" are generally offensive. Now what genius? That's the problem with people who are offended, once they're that way they can just string you along as they wish. Now, I can understand being offended, but a goddamned reasonable individual extends the benefit of the doubt that the person wasn't intentionally being offensive and perhaps dares to extend their understanding to encompass the reasons they offer. If you're from culture A, where farting is the big thing and I'm from culture B, where farting is wholly offensive... what do you do when I get offended for you having farted? Should you bend to my culture? Should you bow down and kiss my feet for me having been offended at you?

My basis for complaint is not that you offend me. You do but that is not at all the point. My basis for complaint is that you're mistreating people. You're not farting in their area, you're pulling right of eminent domain by telling them they inflammatory... by claiming sciforums as your board. You evict them with your megolamaniacal pretense of "the way tiassa sees good outweighs the importance of the way you see good". Judging a post that you can support as "inflammatory" but requires a 4551 word page legal brief (just your first argument, counted with Word), is simply ridiculous.

You undermine your basis complaint by not ever realizing that you have no firm basis for complaint if it takes 4551 words to explain it. Get it? I can feel the spin coming already. What will it be? Probably that I'm the one spinning? Perhaps you'll ignore it. Perhaps you'll appeal to ... well hell I don't know. I generally can't predict how you'll spin your way out from under what I've said. That's probably half of what keeps me interested.

Hmm.. probably an attack on the reading skillz I'd guess. At least you'll probably surprise me.

Hence, regardless of how you think you're "victimized," regardless of your paranoid delusions of being forced to respond to me (and dishonestly at that), you need to turn the page, move on, and feel better about yourself.
It is pretentious of you to think I feel "victimized". Do you think that anger only comes from a victim?

And it would work out well for both of us; you wouldn't need to go out of your way to try to agitate me, and I would save the relatively minor expenditure of swatting your attitude problem like it was a gnat.
You do not dictate my pace or actions son. I know you'd rather, but I do not yeild to you. I'm going out of my way to educate you, though I was agitated for a large part of the interaction here. You have a real problem with your perception.

As to my attitude problem, you've got the wrong person. My anger with you is indicative that you are a jackass. There is no more to it than that. I am not victimized by that you are a jackass, I am vigilant that you are awakened to your folly. I doubt it works, but it's worth a shot. I think you have potential. Perhaps a few years from now you'll catch a clue.

In addition, we could spare our fellow users these long and drawn out tantrums of yours, and perhaps, for once, despite your best efforts to the contrary, we can make some sort of progress around here.
That you find yourself innocent of obstructing progress is simply laughable. Up until this point in time within our dealings, you simply don't care to hear what is being said. Your framework is rigid and unable to encompass or allow for alternatives that your pretense disallows. It's funny to me that you would say this:

I actually look forward to the occasions that I'm asked to consider something new, that I haven't accounted for.

And not seriously wonder why you think it. I assure you, it is not your environment that fails to impress you. You fail to allow it, you smarmy asshat.

Wes, you feel accosted by someone disagreeing with you.

LOL. Think about what you've said here. Can you demonstrate it with anyone but you, nico or hype? I have similar issues with those two as with you. It is not about disagreement, it is about a fair argument, which you three do not allow. You presume you have the answers before you start. You presume you cannot be surprised, and so you pigeonhole everything you encounter. No? How do you explain it then? I mean you did say:

"I actually look forward to the occasions that I'm asked to consider something new, that I haven't accounted for."

Do you really? How can you look forward to something you disallow?

I know you worked hard to set up that tantrum of yours in the Economics thread, but what a waste!

What? LOL. I worked hard to try to explain a simple concept to you, which you still insist is invalid. I got angry with you when after how many ever thousands of words you invested, you could not agree that "stuff takes time". That is the most bullheaded, assenine fucknut thing I have ever heard. Again, you come in with your pretense, disallow alternative explanations and claim superiority. If you're not careful, you'll spend the rest of your life doing that over and over. You'll end up taking the advice you offered Spurious because you'll have figured it all out so long ago that you can't bear another day of the same boring world, always fitting into your pigeonholes, never living up to your expectation.

And all because of your hatred, Wes.

You have it all figured straight out eh? You can't face the possibility that you're wrong? You honestly think that my "tantrum" in that thread is all because of my hate? Does that really make sense? Oh, I've been stuck in the pigeonhole of "shallow dumb guy full of hate"? LOL. Have you really thought that through? Where is my motivation? I wanted to talk about my theories regarding the fundmental theorum of economics, but you came in with preconceived notions and insisted they are applicable to something you hadn't yet understood. Had you allowed for the possibility that you don't already know everything or even necessarily more than me, we might have had a nice conversation, but you could not. You argued repeatedly that impossibility of "shucking infinite corn" was irrelevant. That is just stupid and indicative of someone who isn't interested in conversing, but preaching. I don't see that as productive in a thread dedicated to discussing the merits of an idea, especially when you have as yet to understand the elegance and simple beauty of the idea. You'll claim otherwise though eh? I mean, you have to don't you?

It makes you irrational.

Here's a little of your own flavor as is applicable:

You've proven yourself of dubious reading skills and carry an attitude problem which makes you sincerely predictable. There's nothing surprising about your assessments, as I'm already aware of the dishonest basis upon which you make them. Hence, you are demonstrably and supremely unqualified to decide what I am thinking.

It makes you weak.

I am stronger than you. It's that simple. That you do not see it does not affect it.

Strangely, and thanks in part to South Park, I recall the gawky young dude in Red Dawn scratching at his rifle stock; maybe his hate kept him warm, but it did burn him up in the end.

Check your pretense at the door thank you.

I would say you make me far too important in the grand scheme of things.

You are squat in the grand scheme of things, myself as well, but that does not mean that in the local scheme, people do not look to you for wisdom... only to find you standing there, wagging your finger telling them which pigeonhole to file themselves into. You've got all the stuff, no surprises for you.

Your perception is locked into place... so vivid, so real that all the little perceptions around you just fall into holes... holes that you dug for them long ago. Holes that you will not let them out of. Thank you Agent Smith.

Well, I hope the expenditure of energy and time is worth it to you.
I perform my function. At this time, it is to write this message to you. I do not know for sure why, but I know that it as of this moment, what I choose to do. I honestly want to open a door for your. I want you do let those people out of their holes. I want you to open your mind and trash your pretense. I don't expect that I'll get it, but you seem fundamentally worth a try.

I hope you do manage to feel a little better about yourself, but hatred rarely if ever actually accomplishes that.
You think this is about me? Really? You honestly think that my self-esteem is in any way in the balance in my dealings with you? You know, a real jerk once said something to me one time that comes to mind. Here it is with one word's difference. From me to you:

"I would say you make yourself far too important in the grand scheme of things."

I hope I can find a point some day.

Because in addition to the lack of creativity in your contrarian assaults, there is a lack of creativity in your insults.

Dirty work is not where I choose to place my creative efforts. It has to be done sometimes, but I do not relish it.

Hell, it might as well be two years ago and you might as well be telling the jackass to talk to the wall.
That you would take issue with the creativity of my insults is perhaps revealing as to the "anemia of your argument", no? As I think your comments in that regard simply pointless, I shall ignore the rest of them.

Likewise, I don't know how many times I've seen this routine before.

Ah yes. You get it already don't you? No surprises here. Tell me, how did you get so far ahead of the game eh? It's a gift? Perhaps a curse? It must be lonely for you.

The number of people who have complained over time in ways very similar to yours does tell me something, but it's not particularly complimentary to the complaining parties.

Oh I bet that number is high too. What a bunch of idiots to challenge the king (of self-importance). Not a one of them with a point either eh? Stupid Monkey is such a dullard, how could he have a point with you? Goddamned human hating lou, what an unwise dumbass eh? How in the fuck could he put a dent in your tower? All the other, so many have come, so many flailing themselves pointlessly against your unyielding wisdom. That must be burdensome, but you're man enough to bear it eh?

Perhaps tiassa, you don't hear what is said. Maybe if you did we wouldn't all be so pointless eh? Oh no! I forgot we're not allowed to surprise you. That's quite a deal you've got going there. I'm sure it'll take you far.

Seriously--an arbitrary beginning, lots of anger and cussing, rubber-glue attempts to turn tables, and throughout a lack of any coherent point or any evidence to give weight to the opinionated horsepucky they keep turning out.

Yet never once had you seen a potential for fault in your own position. Goddamn you're good.

I admit, you fooled me.

LOL. I'm remembering that line again. You actually think I have misreprented myself somehow eh? I'm surprised you don't post in pseudoscience more... ah, it's probably too technical. I see. Well this may come as a shock, but I've never attempted to fool you. For a long time, I actually respected you. Perhaps you see my loss of respect for you as a "fooling" of sorts. I would think that for me to have fooled you, I would have had to intended to do so. I suppose since you have more insight as to people's motivations than they do, you must be right.

For the most of our association, I thought our differences really were simple issues of communication. So congratulations, it actually took me until the last couple of months to catch on and then accept that I really was seeing what I was seeing.

Which is pigeonhole 202394A23B? Oh please can I move to section 2023409BC to be by Lou and the Monkey? Those dudes crack me up.

But most people who consider a bombastic argument with me to be a way to raise their own self-esteem generally tip their hands earlier.

"with me"? Hehe. I suppose I should have thought twice before engaging the great tiassa with a "bombastic argument". Please feel free to have sex with yourself, I won't watch - promise.

"EGOS OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!" - tonight on FOX! Your self importance is indicative to me that you are an intelligent person who didn't get the education you need to have the clout your intelligence warrents, and so you dig pigeonholes in that huge chip on your shoulder. get yourself in school, BOY. suck it up and fucking make something of yourself.

Any topic, any time; you seem willing to take issue with me whenever there's a crowd.

This is a public forum? The crowd is hard to avoid. Besides, this topic is of interest to more than just me and you, as you have annoyed a fair number of people in this community with your hypocritical finger on auto-wag.

Of course, "tribal dominance" is just one possibility.

You didn't mention that at the time? I see, a few more words might have clicked over your "assholometer" and you'd have to start all over? Well, whatever's convenient for you.

Your repeated pointless assaults do remind me of any number of mating-season power struggles between mammalian males.

Well, not being you, nor kissing your ass, nor having something you want... how could I possibly have a point? You bury them under your horseshit as fast as I can make them. What do you expect? Man you are awefully dim for a bright guy.

But you're right. It is doubtful. Because you would be aiming at the wrong target. (I wouldn't know what the right one is, aside from the default to our fearless leader.)

Let's see what we've got here. Hmm:

- passive aggressive sarcasm (so much for the 'high road' eh?)
- feigned humility (because you're really never surprised)
- ass kissing (because you're a pussy)

Extremely efficient of you.

More than likely, the irrationality you're demonstrating is rooted in the ideologically violent hatred you seem to be allowing to dictate the form and content of your posts.

Oh? LOL. How about this gem:

The only problem with your logic is your demonstrably supreme lack of qualification to make such assessments.

Oh sorry, I meant:

you are demonstrably and supremely unqualified to decide what I am thinking.

Are you proud of yourself?
In general, yeah mostly.

Are you going to tell your children bedtime stories of your heroic war against the evil Tiassa?

LOL. Uhm.. what was that line I used before?:

Hence, you are demonstrably and supremely unqualified to decide what I am thinking.

Yet you persist? Eh, try as you may. You're really not very good at it though. I suppose that's no surprise eh? Er, rather, you have to think I have to say that and that my having said it is completely unfounded, or you're face a full interior examination of self and goddamnit man, you're not having it! You're already under the pretense that there are no surprises right? Oh.. I see, they're just rare. You're looking forward to it are you? At the rate you're going, I'm guessing your surprise is anything but forthcoming. Do you understand why?

It's hard to face my own reflection when you hold up a painting of yourself and tell me I'm looking in a mirror.

Uh-huh. Gosh darn, it's just that I can't really think ner nuthin big t so'ze I gotta just make stuff up and "define myself through" an asshat because I'm so very very bad. *sniffle* You're not getting any of this are you? That is an impressive wall you've got there... pink.

It would have been nice if you could have shown some of that hypocrisy instead of just complaining that it apparently existed.

I can shove your nose in it all day long sparky, but if you're "hard of smelling", we're bound for circularity eh? Ah, the circle walk has the smell down to a T. Kind of stinky but goddamned fascinating. I've never smelled anything quite like it.

It would have been nice, as well, if you could have demonstrated a reading comprehension that was not thoroughly invested in such a narrow hatred.

Wouldn't a broad hatred be even worse? Why narrow? What's wrong with hating an asshole? I suppose you find it offensive? What if in my culture, it's okay to hate assholes. We save the honor of 'hate' for a very special brand of hypocritical wannabe.

You can either deal with yourself or continue to attempt to define yourself through me.

I can? Why would I need to define myself through you? Is it the emptiness I feel inside? LOL. Dude, I'm surrounded by love and bonus love. Get a grip and consider that your comment above was simply stupid. "define myself through you"? I judge you. I believe that implies I'm pre-defined. Of course my definition is ever-changing, but I cannot stop time yet. I'm working on it.

That, Wes, is your own choice.

Indeed.

Look at you squirm. Hey, you're sweating too.

Ya think? What if you're wrong? Isn't possible eh? You did see all of this coming. It must be boring for you, all alone in your supremacy. Hey at least you can eat that cookie you offered me before.

Here, I'll share mine with you if you'd like.

At least now I know you're not dead.

Did you suspect I was typing from beyond the grave? That'd be a cool trick.

It's a coin-flip. I can spend 3,000 words on one occasion, or 10,000 over fifty occasions and accomplish the same thing. And that's a theoretic condition that presumes others conversant. That presumption is seriously ill-advised, but it's one I owe people.

Some folks say I'm insulting to their intelligence, and this is a separate issue from telling someone to brush up on their reading skills. The length of my posts is often a recognition of this.



Your main problem is that you think you are a good writer, but you actually 'suck' at writing. Honestly, I start a sentence and get bored after 3 words. I don?t even want to read on. I start the next sentence and you lose my interest after 4 words. My advice to you would be to write sentences that are not longer than 3-4 words.



And compared to the option of making vague complaints and then sitting back and merely saying the responses are wrongly-focused and ill-considered even though I would make the choice that people wouldn't have a clear idea of what I'm doing or why, I think that, technically, I'm weaving less of a web than I could through other methods.

Great! If you really want to you could weave an even stickier web. Good to know. No, just convey your point for a fucking change.




I could just say that Dr. Lou's post was offensive because it was a bunch of argumentative fallacies and a personal attack in support of a provocative and irrational thesis, but at some point, someone could have said, "How so?" or "What fallacies? What personal attack?" And then we start on the string of fifty short posts instead of one long one. And that, to me, seems a more tangled rat's nest than anything.


I missed the point where you pointed out his argumentative fallacy. It got lost in the web of divine light that you spin.




To take Wes' response, for instance: His anger makes sense to me if I accept that he didn't pay attention to any of those parts of the First Argument or this topic's first post which discuss the reasons why. He doesn't really address those portions and asserts directly to their contrary while failing to account for issues of fact, all in order to maintain that I am inflammatory. Combined with the lack of any substantial argument on his part, his admission that he hates me puts his words and actions in context. No matter how long this topic gets, I'm pretty much repeating myself in these later rounds.



Maybe you should make your point instead of repeating your web.




So this topic gets long anyway, but if, in Wes' case, he just read the topic post and the First Argument, or at least not chosen to ignore the discussion of why, he wouldn't need to be so angry about why. His only apparent reason for doubting the discussion of why seems to be his own hatred, so we're left running around in this rather silly circle. But longer posts are intended to account for as much of the issue as I can see and feel compelled to account for. Quite often I find myself repeating prior posts throughout a topic because people just don't want to read things in a straightforward manner. I mean, you present a number of points suggesting the validity of your assertion, and what happens? Someone ignores one of the points, claims you're failing to address what the point covers, and then, when you direct their attention back to the standing point in the prior discussion, they call it an appeal to authority when in fact they've never read it in its proper context. Analogously, it would be like having DNA evidence, the murder weapon with fingerprints, a clear motive, and the suspect in the general area at the time of the murder. Taken together, the evidence presents a powerful indictment against the accused. Taken individually, isolated completely from the other pieces of evidence, any one point of evidence can be explained away. It's the argumentative equivalent of the really shitty lawyers that people complain about for defending and acquitting the indefensibly guilty.


You mean you had a point? Could you repeat your best one?



So there is, unfortunately, a difference between the reasons for longer posts and the situation we have at hand. But when people take their blinders off and crawl out from under their politics, or in the case of the bystanders who are just trying to pick up the gist of the situation, the information is generally there in the longer posts to address that first level of questions. I actually look forward to the occasions that I'm asked to consider something new, that I haven't accounted for. And while much of that going over old material is, indeed, innocent contextual differences between people, those issues seem to get shoved to the back of the bus.


Viva postmodernism!


It's all a matter of what's important to people; each of us. In the long run, we can easily figure out a better way of getting along, but people don't seem to want to.


Aha, I guess I should apologize to you because you told me to put a shotgun in my mouth.

My advice to you would be to write sentences that are not longer than 3-4 words. I'm sorry I can't stoop low enough to accommodate your comprehension.No, just convey your point for a fucking change. Takes more than 4 words. You wouldn't understand.I missed the point where you pointed out his argumentative fallacy. It got lost in the web of divine light that you spin. Well, maybe you should read up on the topic before sticking your misguided two cents in.Maybe you should make your point instead of repeating your web.I can't dumb it down enough to meet your 4 word standard. Umm ... "Dr. Lou was bad." Umm ... "No cookie for Lou."

Easy enough?You mean you had a point? Could you repeat your best one?Again, I cannot shorten it to accommodate your 4-words-or-less request.Viva postmodernism! Actually, po-mo is so yesterday. And if we're going to throw back, we might as well find something more functional.Aha, I guess I should apologize to you because you told me to put a shotgun in my mouth. Nope, but rather you might wish to consider the wisdom of shooting off your mouth in the first place when you don't know what's going on.

See, I'm wondering what it is about people who like to boast that they don't read my posts that makes them think that somehow lends weight to their criticisms.

It wasn't too long ago that a couple of different people cussed me out on the grounds that they couldn't understand my posts. These days its people who want to cuss me out but claim to not read them.

No wonder you don't seem to understand what's going on.Honestly, I start a sentence and get bored after 3 words. I don?t even want to read on. I start the next sentence and you lose my interest after 4 words.In other words, don't take your personal problems out on me, Spurious.

I knew you didn't have a point. I'm glad you could confirm this.

I knew you didn't have a point. I'm glad you could confirm this.Please show how I've confirmed this.

Please show how I've confirmed this.

By repeatingly not showing one.


I'm sorry I can't stoop low enough to accommodate your comprehension.Takes more than 4 words. You wouldn't understand.Well, maybe you should read up on the topic before sticking your misguided two cents in.I can't dumb it down enough to meet your 4 word standard. Umm ... "Dr. Lou was bad." Umm ... "No cookie for Lou."

I didn't realize that you can't even make a short sentence that is interesting.


lNope, but rather you might wish to consider the wisdom of shooting off your mouth in the first place when you don't know what's going on.

What's going one then other than that you are an attention seeker and a hypocrite?

And don't you mean 'reconsider' mr writer, or 'NOT shooting of your mouth'? No fucking wonder nobody understand you.


See, I'm wondering what it is about people who like to boast that they don't read my posts that makes them think that somehow lends weight to their criticisms.


Your posts are empty no matter how full of words they are.


It wasn't too long ago that a couple of different people cussed me out on the grounds that they couldn't understand my posts. These days its people who want to cuss me out but claim to not read them.

Your posts are fucking boring. I was hoping they might be more interesting if you kept them short. I was wrong. Of course you could never be wrong since you are the saviour of sciforums. Please save sciforums from the illiterate mob.

And please would you READ my posts too then:
Your main problem is that you think you are a good writer, but you actually 'suck' at writing. Honestly, I start a sentence and get bored after 3 words. I don't even want to read on. I start the next sentence and you lose my interest after 4 words. My advice to you would be to write sentences that are not longer than 3-4 words.

I said I don't even want to read on. Did I say I didn't read on? Or are you actually not so good at reading as you think you are oh mighty Saviour of Sciforums.



No wonder you don't seem to understand what's going on.In other words, don't take your personal problems out on me, Spurious.

It is a miracle that anyone even reads your crap.

You called my mother and now have a complete list of all my personal problems?

I have a fucking hint for you;

State your fucking point if you have one instead of trying to look good.

You never answered my question:(1) Wasn't much of a question.
(2) What does it matter if I answer your question or not when you don't read my posts anyway?
(3) The answer is, Of course not. I can't get a coherent answer out of folks like you who have stopped trying.It is strange to me that you'd bring that up, but when I bring it up you write it off. A large part of my intense annoyance with you is that you have on numerous occasions, including this one - completely failed to account for this. You apparently think you have, and that's great except for that I offer a scenario that contradicts your assertions - to which you ask me to provide evidence. What in the hell are you talking about, Wes?Your premise is that lou's post is inflammatory. You can created a legal brief a light-year long but it's still just your opinion , as the term inflammatory is inherently subjective to the person percieving that aspect of it, if you follow my meaning. I stated that it is ridiculous to paint it as such basically because of this. Let's stop and think about this for just a moment. Let's take a look at our opinions:

• Submitted for consideration in this topic was a documentation of a thesis, a broad attack, and several logical fallacies. I would urge you to demonstrate them otherwise.
• Combined with Dr Lou's own discussion of the topic, it can be factually established that the post was intended to be mean, intended to make people at large feel stupid.
• Submitted in response is your contrarian assertion of fascism, based entirely in your opinion which seems to be motivated by your hatred for me.

You haven't argued against anything I've actually posted, just thrown a temper tantrum.Unless it's something obvious like "you're a bunch of jew cocksucks who should die" or whatever, making a case for a post being inflammatory is IMO, juvenile (and not just because YOU did it, because it's the playground mentality when we're supposed to be adults eh?). Well, that's part of the issue this topic could have settled. After all, look at the shit people were trying to ban each other for. Look at all the crap Goofy took last year for trying to keep some semblance of peace. A disgruntled former poster messaged me to let me know other former disgruntled posters had apparently contacted him; and then he went on to talk about what horrible animals the moderators are. The observable fact is that people are really pissed off about some rather odd things. When SnakeLord started harassing me to start a topic, and then Dr Lou cheered the idea, well, that was the clincher that this might be the time to go ahead and do it.

Of course, if you had simply read and considered the parts of my posts where I discussed the reasons why this topic came about, instead of simply assigning the context best-suited to your hatred, perhaps we could have avoided this irrational ejaculation of yours.You have the opportunity to educate someone as to your "enlightened vision", which may somehow be the underlying point of your thread, but you have clearly, given this consideration given us: "a ridiculous amount of words for never intending to communicate.", rendering you hypocritcal since you were accusing me of such.Wes, quite technically, any amount of words I write is a ridiculous amount in your opinion. You seem to look forward to having a problem with me.The problem, young jedi, is that you do not listen to what you are told.So says you. Look at your own words: And if I tell you I see them? What then? From our history, I tell you I see them and you write a thousand words on what a lying asshole I am. I'm an asshole for seeing different shapes in the clouds? Yeah well fuck you. Actually, Wes, you're an asshole because you tell other people what they see in the clouds and then try to belittle them for it. You're an asshole because for all you tell me what you see, but won't tell me how you see it. If we're looking at that circle and you say it's a square, why the hell won't you simply point to the four corners? Why do you have to throw such a hissy-fit?

The problem, grashopper, is that you're obtuse.I do not pursue you. You are here. There is no need to go looking for you.Well why are you wasting so many words in this topic if you've got nothing to say?I am hateful to you as I feel you have warrented.And you're welcome to waste yourself that way.It is my opinion that you are a despicable bastard, as you allow no defense of your perspective.And Wes, for all the times you try to tell me how to feel but refuse to tell me why, I consider that opinion worth about as much as your hatred: it's worthless.The number of times I've attempted to show you an alternative to your own guarded, paranoid drama, I have tried to illustrate to you simply how you are drawing conclusions based on limited understanding (of what the other person is trying to say)What, you mean when you tell me what and how I think and how I should change even though your opinion cannot be reflected in fact so that no matter how many times I ask you to point out what you're referring to the best you can do is get angry? The number of times you address me from some perverse, hateful pretense that you cannot show in reality indicates that yes, you do pursue me.Each time I'm met with this same argument, of how I'm an illiterate liar.Well, you leave me guessing what it is you're referring to. And if the closest guess I can figure is actually what you're referring to, you're quite illiterate. That you choose to omit or misrepresent facts in such a vague manner (hence the reason you never actually lay out your points beyond ranting about your opinion) is the reason I call you dishonest. I mean, really.Each time you accuse me of exactly of what you are doing while you are doing it .This is one of your curiously, oft-repeated and ne'er-demonstrated complaints. I have no idea what the hell you're complaining about here.It annoys me to no end and the to best of my limited ability, I'm not going to let you get away with it.Get away with what?It's somewhat of a folly though, given that regardless of what I say, you'll just bury me under a mountain of self-preservatory horseshit.Don't blame others for your own actions, Wes.How do you presume to comprehend the amount of effort I'm undertaking? The lack of attention you give the issues you respond to; the lack of detail justifying your opinion and attitude; the general lack of a point aside from your hatred. If the number of words you waste on failing to have a point were given any real effort at all, I would hope for a better result.I am a slow reader tiassa, it takes a lot of my valuable time to read what I do here, but I do because I've found myself a member of a community I didn't realize I was joining. I honestly wonder about your intent; perhaps you find hating me a valuable contribution to the community, but I don't see its worth.You are a prominent member and I try to keep up with some of what you're saying. It takes a rather herculian effort on my part to try to communicate with you, given that you annoy the piss out of me and that coming in I know (by this point) that you're just going to ignore any points, ignore the subjectivity of the scenario and bury me under your rhetoric.This petulant, pouting routine is not one of your more endearing traits, Wes.

If I'm prominent it's merely by number of posts. Anything else is arbitrary.

I mean, really ... the best discussion I've had recently was a religious discussion that starts with something of a bitter joke of mine about Christian history. But guess what? No fight broke out. Nobody had anything bad to say to me, and I didn't have anything bad to say to anyone else. DId you happen to catch it?

The thing is, Wes, that everybody gets more done around here when people aren't fighting. And yet here you are dogging me and helping inflate yet another topic into a discussion of how much you hate me. Maybe if you chill out, leave me be, let other people work out their differences with me, let me handle my problems with other people, you'll find that you have less to complain about. And I'll leave you be. Your behavior in your Econ topic shows me that taking your topics seriously is a bad idea; you're just laying in wait.

Another option is that you could make your case. Do something more than tell me your opinion and then refer vaguely to a time that I did or said something. Because your tendency to characterize according to your own hatred makes it very unclear what you're referring to on those occasions, and suggests vital doubts about your perception. It's entirely possible that you're seeing something legit, but I would never know because you won't state your issues clearly. And it's best if I don't think for you and guess what you're referring to because obviously it offends you to be told you're more than likely reading something incorrectly.

Yet another option is that we can keep doing this, over and over and over again. Until people lynch us.Ah, but the pretentious pomposity allows no recourse, I understand. I believe that your vision is so vivid to you that you have lost sight of perspectives around you as to you, their signal is just too weak.Interesting inasmuch as it's close enough to something thematically worth considering to ping on the radar. It's not nearly so sinister as you try to picture it. The signal is weak because they're broadcasting static. The noise ratio is so incredibly high that all I can hear through the haze is the preacher's screaming.It is your hypocracy and blindness to perspectives contrary to your own that annoys me on a fundamental level.So you say. So you fail to demonstrate.Spurious nailed you perfectly, as you treated him the say way you treat anyone who doesn't agree with youYou are incorrect. It's entirely possible that you're so obsessed with me that you only read my topics when there's some fight afoot, wherein I can see how you might think disagreement is automatically met with harshness, but I think your hatred compels you to a greater dishonesty.How loving of you eh? You're no hater though... make it your motra.What? It's true. People who chose to be lazy, apathetic jerks would better serve humanity by choosing to kill themselves. Besides, I don't see that Spurious actually disagreed with me. Spurious chose to tell me to piss off and get a life, yet based his venom in a presumption inconsistent with fact. If he had chosen to be communicative instead of simply bitter, I would have had a broader range of communicative options.

I mean, poor Spurious, right? :rolleyes: What you fail to recognize is that most humans that I deal with tiassa, would help someone if they obviously missed some important detail Well, Wes, maybe if once in a while you would give some sense of the detail you're seeing, I can help you with what you're missing. Remember all those times I asked you what you were talking about? Asked you to cite some evidence? Asked you to show me how and why you arrived at the opinion you did? If only you would have responded with some information I would have been able to tell you what you were missing. But you've refused at least since you cussed me out for no good reason in the Miller topic, and in that topic you refused, I think, based on our prior disagreement.

So tell me what sympathy I owe the spitting, cussing fool on the corner who would rather strike me than tell me what the hell his problem with me is? How can I help him if he won't tell me what is wrong?"come inside and we'll give you a thousand dollars!" but fail to notice on the other side it says "testicle donation required". Most people I deal with, were I on my way inside would say "yo wes, you weren't wanting any more kids ner nuthin were ya? yo man reads the back of the sign" or whatever. Instead, like the finger-wagging, pretentious, pompous asshat you are, you encourage me to go inside and then when I come out without the thousand dollars you proclaim to the crowd that's gathered outside "look at the dumbass who can't read", to which I say: fuck you, you're a despicable fuck. No it's not your responsibility to read for me, not at all, but if you had a smidge of info that would have cleared things up for me, you could have just offered instead of making a scene.I have to admit, Wes, that would be funny if it didn't suggest a serious problem.

Personally, I'm having trouble believing you actually see the world that way.

And yet you argue and get all pissed off when I point out that you seem to expect the worst potential and aspects in people?My problem is with you Obviously, it's your problemYou spin it into an attitude problem because it is utilitarian for you while you work the crowd. You're a politician, seeking popularity. I am genuine. You get from me what I am in the moment. Sometimes I'm enraged, most of the time I'm pretty calm and almost always I'm a huge dork, talking trash in hopes of comedic response... because I love to interact with folks and make them happy, one at a time. I see. Did your Biorhythm test tell you that, or your Starscroll?How can you be so sure when you do not listen?What is the sound of one hand clapping?There's no passive aggressive tone to your post right? Remember those occasions you pointed out my own stance on the responsibility of the transmitter to make the communication clear to the receiver? I'd say passive aggression has a certain utilitarian value; for some reason, it's a preferred dialect for many.It's odd to me that you are so bright, yet so blind. Fascinating really, but highly annoying. Perhaps when you pass 30 you'll find yourself some character.Valuable input from someone motivated by hatred.Oh? Dishonest eh? Prove that I have once been dishonest. Just one time . Prove it or shutup about it, you hypocrite.• "I'll gladly be your friend on one condition only: YOU CANNOT QUESTION MY CHARACTER." (Wesmorris, Private Message, 12.22.2003) - What an honest friendship you offer, eh?
• "I just stopped reading . . . ." (ibid) - A constant theme of yours, how, then do you know what you're responding to with such ferocity?
• "I support this position wholly." (Wesmorris, "Dennis Miller on Politics," 12.22.2003) - You would later back away from it and claim that the position you supported wholly was something other than the text you cited; this "misunderstanding" resulted in much acrimony between us.
• "I used to think you had some class bro, but your accusational vehemence and unprovoked attacks on character are simply out of freakin control here." (ibid) - Your use of the word "unprovoked" was never substantiated, and rather an offensive sleight.
• "I don't want to insult you . . . ." (ibid) - Coulda fooled me.
• "You know what's jacked up is that I have a hard time even voicing my opinion about this, as I can see it as a springboard to Tiassa exploding again." (ibid) - Playing the victim at the same time you're seeking to provoke with an inaccurate and condemning post is very dishonest, Wes.
• "I suppose I'm a liar? Are you going to "firestorm my character" again? What is sad dude, is that if you knew me if you really read what I'd said, if you could feel what I'm saying right now you might see it as wrong, but you simply could NOT question my character. I do not lie T. I am however, frequently mistaken." (ibid) - See prior note. Also consider the titanic magnitude of your "mistakes." At some point, I would think you would break the pattern. The alternative, of course, is to simply consider you so stupid that you can't figure it out.
• "You remember the couple of times where you said "you can't dispute the facts" or whatever? Yeah, you see your interpretation of other peoples words in a manner that isn't as they were intended... that's not a fact. It's your interpretation, which of course you're entitled to, but you prolly owe the author at least a chance to explain himself. You are a child because you don't allow this because you have already decided how you see it, even though it has nothing to do with how it was intended." (Wesmorris, "Dennis Miller on Politics", 12.23.2003) - All else aside, the one thing you never did was provide any sense of fact. Like in this topic, I can't believe you're still disputing the intent of Dr. Lou's post. In his own words, he sought to be mean and to make people feel stupid. I quoted that bit. It's a fact that such was written. For all the dispute you wanted to take with "fact," I find it very dishonest that the one simple thing you could not do while maintaining your vicious assault was provide any simple sense of fact.

These are just a short foray into our recent and acrimonious past. Primarily your dishonesty comes when you try to argue what I'm doing because the way you do it seems to imply that you know how I think. And it causes you to be inaccurate:

• "Straight into paranoid accusations. Where is it a lie?" (Wesmorris, Private Message, 12.22.2003) - The line to which you responded was well-explained. You ignored part of a paragraph in order to misconstrue a sentence into a "paranoid accusation."
• "And now he's an idiot! Didn't you say you banned someone for calling you an idiot? It's okay if you do it though right?" (ibid) - Funny, the word "idiot" didn't appear in the text you cited. And that's the other thing; on those occasions that you have actually tried to put some evidentiary argument in front of me, you've been rather detached from reality; like I said, the word "idiot" didn't appear in the text you were responding to. And yet you mount your bitter implication of hypocrisy on a circumstance that doesn't exist? Right, Wes, that's not dishonest.
• "Actually I went out of my way in an attempt not to be rude, but I understand that it may be hard to recognize." (Wesmorris, Private Message, 2.20.2004) - I can't possibly believe that; if you had told me, "this is why I think your assertion ignores the point," that would be one thing. But simply ignoring the assertion that addresses your point and then asking me why I'm ignoring your point is, in addition to being dishonest in and of itself, going out of your way to be rude.

That's a start.Hence, you are demonstrably and supremely unqualified to decide what I am thinking Actually, you've made your basis for your assessments quite clear. Was it really worth sacrificing honesty in order to aim for a zinger, Wes?You have made no such case.You made the case for me.Then you accuse me of being a "judgemental twat"? Well, if you're going to be so condemning merely to satisfy your need to hate, what would you call it? Wise hero?Your opinion on the matter is rooted in your politics and is as such, irrelevant to the purposes of illustrating anything factual. Hmm ... my opinion roots itself at the edge of metaphysical nihilism in which nothing is relevant to anything; your opinion roots itself in hatred.

You're not helping yourself here, Wes.You have not demonstrated anything but your own lacking characterI can't recall a time that you didn't presume that lack. Something goes here about your tendency to seek the worst aspects and potential in people.That you do not find me qualified is wholly irrelevant.Then why waste the breath cussing and making a fool of yourself over something that is irrelevant?As you have said "your assessments are as worthless as your hatred", you imply that since mine are irrelevant, yours will have to do.Something goes here about you seeking the worst in people, as well as your opinion, as well as your appearance of dishonesty.I mean, you assessed the situation and told me my assessments are irrelevant - so which assessments are left? Make your assessments from a more rational basis and they'll have greater validity. Not everything is a coin flip.These must be the only assessments worth considering eh? It's entirely possible. A more rational discussion of those assessments would be helpful in making a conclusion toward their validity one way or the other; yet this issue is independent of the paucity of your hate-driven assessments and character assignations. If you think you're assembling from example, try listing the examples.As such, your nullification of my opinion by your own implies you would just have me accept your horseshit as the gold standard. Try thinking a little more broadly than your hatred is accustomed.You see, I made the assessment for myself . It is not irrelevant to meAnd yet you make it my business in pursuit of your vice.Oh well if you're serious I mean what choice do I have but to bring your attention to the fact that I can read perfectly well. Your ... ah ... assessments suggest quite differently:

• "You know if you simply showed him where his logic is flawed he'd likely even have thanked you for it (regardless he might have actually learned something other than to ignore you)." Actually, I did. In the relevant topic. Too bad you didn't notice that. Did you ignore it, Wes, in order to launch this latest campaign, or did it slip by you entirely?

• "Did it at all occur to you tiassa that you might be wrong, that he wasn't trying to piss people off, that he wasn't concerned if people were pissed at all but just putting what he thought?" This stands contradictory to fact, that Dr Lou wrote, by his own will, that he sought to be mean, and to make people feel stupid.

• "That amounts to character assasination, as you claim knowledge you can't possible have. You are not privvy to Lou's intent, yet pretend you are." This is a contextual issue that I'm happy to reserve to your hatred. Normally you're more attuned to my broader swipes.

• "How did it not occur to you that it is inflammatory to call someone who isn't being inflammatory, inflammatory?" A very interesting question in light of Dr Lou's encouragement to hold this topic in the first place. But let me guess ... you didn't read that part, did you? Or did you just ignore it in order to pretend a basis for your inquiry?

• "I can't wait to hear this one. What the fuck? Okay, being a stupid bitch is inflammatory, that's a free clue for you. You're welcome. You're the stupidest bitch around. Got it? You seriously don't see what you do eh?" As substantive as it is coherent.

• "No, you SHOULD however, give me the credit for having come to a reasonable conclusion from my perspective and try to understand it such that we can actually communicate (or not bother trying to communicate at all). After all, that's how communication actually works. Since you don't get that and presume you're the authority on all perspectives, you can get judged and fuck off." What reasonable conclusion did your hatred lead you to?

Here, let's quote this assessment of yours in full:I think that you are a fascist as you mischaracterize just about everything I ever see you characterize. You call me a liar. You call lou inflammatory. You say the monkey: "Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk."

From that advice, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING EXCUSE BUT TO KILL YOURSELF OR ACCEPT THE LABEL OF HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SHIT... and then try to stop being that way.

So to recap:

I judge you.

You're a piece of shit.

Accept that you're a piece of shit such that you can stop it; or kill yourself per your own advice.Now ... what I find so amusing is that the text you chose to respond to asked you what your thoughts were on the first section of the "First Argument" post. Your "assessment" does not even touch on that post.

So if you can read perfectly well, are you choosing these diversions? Something about your dishonesty goes here.Please demonstrate how you can percieve that I have a victim's mentality here?Well, let's take a look at these couple examples: Tiassa: I mean, look at the number of words you waste hating me, Wes.

Wesmorris: After the number of words you've spent ensuring that I do, it's difficult for me to take your request seriously. That's from this topic.I mean, fuck, why would anyone really be so upset if I'm acting childishly?

LOL. Because you have a lot of power. Your words are powerful, you are eloquent. That question is like childishly asking "i don't know what people get pissed off at me when I play around with this nuke". Honestly man, it slightly hurts to read you acting that way. It's not good.That's from the Dennis Miller debacle.

In both cases you construe the circumstance as if people have little or no choice. You choose to keep reading. You choose to respond. You choose how you respond. "After the number of words" I've "spent ensuring" that you hate me? Oh, please.

Right, Wes. You're that important. Stop casting yourself as a victim. How have I "ensured" that you hate me?You have spent thousands upon thousands of words convincing me you are a useless jerk. That is not a complaint. It is a fact.Then I'm sure you can demonstrate it by citing some of those words and accurately (for once) representing the circumstances surrounding them. It should be simple, Wes. Go for it.I did not intend to imply you forced me to do anything . How could you have? I simply meant what I said above, that your investment in words has been exchanged fairly for my opinion that you are a despicable jackass.Wow. Says something about your standard of currency.A little bossy too eh?Nope. Just wanted to try and help you avoid getting lost. I know how much difficulty you have reading entire paragraphs; after all, you cut them into little pieces in order to ask generally irrelevant questions and then get all huffy about phantasms invented by your own hatred. So, since it was useful to come back to that point later, I made that note so I wouldn't confuse you. Of course, you're quite determined to be confused.All that to show that you are inconsistent and that you waffle as is convenient to support your politics.This from somebody who considers--

• "You spin it into an attitude problem because it is utilitarian for you while you work the crowd. You're a politician, seeking popularity. I am genuine. You get from me what I am in the moment. Sometimes I'm enraged, most of the time I'm pretty calm and almost always I'm a huge dork, talking trash in hopes of comedic response... because I love to interact with folks and make them happy, one at a time."

--and--

• "I am stronger than you . It's that simple. That you do not see it does not affect it."

--viable arguments?

I love your use of the word "politics," Wes. I really didn't think there were any new definitions left. Congratulations, you've surprised me.Well, given that my reading skills have been touted as exceptional by standardized testing, etc... maybe you should consider alternatives eh?Yet you're a slow reader who skims through my posts at best if not skips them outright? Technically, you could do wonders for your reading comprehension if you just stop presuming the worst potentials in people.Perhaps I read very slow and skip things because I have little choice? My appetite for the threads outweights my ability to digest them all completely, so I read what I can and comment as I see fit So ... perhaps you ought to reconsider the wisdom of your cheap pseudo-moralizing drawn from your admitted hatred. You're undermining your own credibility here.Rather than understanding that though, you judge it as inferior, and make a multitude of false accusations based upon it. Well, since you're reacting to events not demonstrable in the history of various topics, it might possibly be helpful if you would explain to me what compassion I owe your rhetorical violence?Even when I explained it directly, you call it a lie. To what are you referring?Maybe you make every goddamn miniscule little detail of what is spoken a goddamned pissing context in which everyone's opinion (as that is all that is really presented at sciforums) is shit compared to your own (that is unless they support you or you have something to gain by kissing their ass). No, Wes, it has to do with some dumbass who thinks he needs to get all high and mighty about things that he feels no obligation to inform himself of. You don't read the posts completely, get all freaked out over points that you would find are already covered if only you would read what you're responding to, and you seem to celebrate your ill intent. No substance from you, only vile hatred ... oh, that's right, I'm supposed to take everything you say in blind faith and never question your character.You are certainly entitled to behave how you please... and I am entitled to call you on it. Indeed you are. I only wish that once you would get a clue before you charge up that attitude machine. Just once it would be nice if your complaint was legitimate or at least arguable. As far as I can tell, you're just out trying to stir trouble.Here we are then, round and round.Tragic, eh?You label everyone haters, though you'd never act like a 'judgemental twat' and then go around hating them for being haters.You and your exaggerations. Stop using words like "everyone" so dishonestly.I advocate that people should re-evaluate the reasons they are offended. As a matter of fact, I think "people who are offended" are generally offensive. (Snicker!)My basis for complaint is that you're mistreating people. You're not farting in their area, you're pulling right of eminent domain by telling them they inflammatory... by claiming sciforums as your board .Please demonstrate this.Judging a post that you can support as "inflammatory" but requires a 4551 word page legal brief (just your first argument, counted with Word), is simply ridiculous.

You undermine your basis complaint by not ever realizing that you have no firm basis for complaint if it takes 4551 words to explain it. Get it? I can feel the spin coming already. What will it be? Probably that I'm the one spinning? Perhaps you'll ignore it. Perhaps you'll appeal to ... well hell I don't know. I generally can't predict how you'll spin your way out from under what I've said. That's probably half of what keeps me interested.

Hmm.. probably an attack on the reading skillz I'd guess. At least you'll probably surprise me.Actually, I'm just going to refer you my response to Everneo's post.It is pretentious of you to think I feel "victimized". Do you think that anger only comes from a victim? It's not pretentious on this occasion. Victimization is part of your argument. You do not dictate my pace or actions son. What does this have to do with anything?I'm going out of my way to educate youI'll get back to you on this one when I stop laughing my ass off.You have a real problem with your perception. So you keep suggesting, but fail to demonstrate.As to my attitude problem, you've got the wrong person. My anger with you is indicative that you are a jackass. (Guffaw!)

I believe that is the paramount of logic. :rolleyes: (You're almost up there with Ignatius of Antioch.) Up until this point in time within our dealings, you simply don't care to hear what is being said.I'm a big fan of silence. It's part of my monistic outlook. But it's hard to hear what's being said when you aren't saying anything.Your framework is rigid and unable to encompass or allow for alternatives that your pretense disallows.Look, though it does not suffice as a definition, it is fair enough to say that the relevant functional reality of gravity is that it keeps me on the planet's surface.

Now, what I have in your argument is a child who predicts that an apple falling off a tree will fall upward, who obviously cannot tell me why it should be so, but who is unwilling to perform the experiment in order to find the result. Yes, my framework is rigid; until someone gives me compelling evidence that something elsewhere in the Universe will have the stronger attractive force, I insist that the apple will fall generally downward, even if you take it off the tree with a golf club.

If you're going to tell me that the apple is falling upward, there's a number of things for me to consider:

• What does "up" mean to you?
• What has happened in the Universe of late that I am unaware of?
• What new reality has just been discovered?
• Can I see the apple fall up?

And when my answers are--

• Up means up
• Nothing
• None
• No

--I might just possibly have cause to doubt the prediction.And not seriously wonder why you think it. I assure you, it is not your environment that fails to impress you. See? I cut 500 words out of that post addressing just that issue. What do you want, Wes? Long or short?Think about what you've said here. Can you demonstrate it with anyone but you, nico or hype? Your economics thread about the anthropic principle. You assigned context, ignored parts of the discussion, gave bullshit rejections of source material (apparently a university econ textbook is too far left-leaning, or too much like a conspiracy theory; Adam Smith discussing impediments to opulence is impertinent to considerations of resource scarcity; oh, poor you, why is Tiassa ignoring your point? Well, Tiassa addressed your point and you eventually lost it. You never countered the argument; you ignored it altogether and then started whining that I was ignoring your point. Beyond that, hold a topic, take a vote.I have similar issues with those two as with you. It is not about disagreement, it is about a fair argument, which you three do not allowActually, I first noticed Nico as a source of conflict when another poster went after him in the same way that poster had come after me, insulting Nico for saying something that offended his sensibilities. Everything else that came after, all of that headline controversy, seemed to start there. I can't figure the story before then, and nobody cares about the detail. Your fracas with Hype puzzled me; I'm still not sure what your problem was.

But inasmuch as you're talking about a "fair argument," what do you think constitutes a "fair argument"?

Maybe I should tell you you're a prick? Maybe I should talk about how you behave? Maybe I should base an argument solely from hatred and avoid evidence of the legitimacy of my argument until I'm absolutely cornered and then make wild accusations that have nothing to do with the text I'm responding to?

Would that be a "fair argument," Wes? There's a difference between a fair argument and siblings fighting over who gets to use the bathroom first on a Friday night before a date.Do you really? How can you look forward to something you disallow?Substantiate the basis of the question.I worked hard to try to explain a simple concept to you, which you still insist is invalid. You listed an invalid presupposition. I pointed that out. You then ignored everything I offered in support of that and complained that I was ignoring your point.That is the most bullheaded, assenine fucknut thing I have ever heard How about in comparison to the assertion that air is scarce because the involuntary act of breathing requires effort?If you're not careful, you'll spend the rest of your life doing that over and over. You'll end up taking the advice you offered Spurious because you'll have figured it all out so long ago that you can't bear another day of the same boring world, always fitting into your pigeonholes, never living up to your expectation.Um ... Wes? I'm a Sisyphan Camusite. I thought you were paying attention.You have it all figured straight out eh? On this occasion, it's likely. You merely reinforce the assertion.You can't face the possibility that you're wrong? Of course I can.You honestly think that my "tantrum" in that thread is all because of my hate ? Does that really make sense? Irrational behavior never makes sense. That's why it's called irrational.Oh, I've been stuck in the pigeonhole of "shallow dumb guy full of hate"? No ... you qualified yourself as hating me.Have you really thought that through? Where is my motivation? Hatred is irrational. I don't expect its motive to be. Personally, I think it's a sublimated self-esteem issue, but you seem to have a problem with that. On the other hand, why ask where is the motivation when you're perfectly willing to argue against the asserted motivation elsewhere?I wanted to talk about my theories regarding the fundmental theorum of economics, but you came in with preconceived notions and insisted they are applicable to something you hadn't yet understood.What would have constituted talking about your theories, Wes? Nodding and saying, "You're right. What a bright boy you are!"Had you allowed for the possibility that you don't already know everything or even necessarily more than me , we might have had a nice conversation, but you could not.Another of your assertions that you have not demonstrated because you cannot.You argued repeatedly that impossibility of "shucking infinite corn" was irrelevant.Infinity is an inapplicable goal.That is just stupid and indicative of someone who isn't interested in conversing, but preaching. Actually, I noted a possible source of conflict, but you discounted it in preference of your hatefully-derived perspective. Remember? I made the mistake of thinking you were talking about an applicable theory, and not one to be left solely in the abstract?

Oh, that's right. You wanted to nitpick the idea of abstractions.I don't see that as productive in a thread dedicated to discussing the merits of an idea, especially when you have as yet to understand the elegance and simple beauty of the idea.In other words, the only way to discuss the thread was to nod and say, "You're right. What a bright boy you are!"

Saying "God created the Universe" is elegant and simple and beautiful, as well.I am stronger than you . It's that simple. That you do not see it does not affect it.Such a convincing and objective argument . . . .Check your pretense at the door thank you.(Chortle!)You are squat in the grand scheme of things, myself as well, but that does not mean that in the local scheme, people do not look to you for wisdom... only to find you standing there, wagging your finger telling them which pigeonhole to file themselves into. You've got all the stuff, no surprises for you.These sorts of meanderings of yours reinforce your appearance of dishonesty. People look to me for wisdom? I'd never know it, from the way of things around here. To the other, I have a great appreciation for honest seekers of knowledge, and a thick disapproval of the insincere. You are, of course, familiar with the latter.Your perception is locked into place... Nope. I'm just waiting for someone to come up with something new. Obviously, what I've seen hasn't changed my mind so far, so I'm unsure what about the mass repetition of, for instance, your drivel, is going to change about that. If it was a backseat-driver comparison, someone's going to need to give me a better reason to drive from Portland to Seattle by taking I-5 south toward Los Angeles.so vivid, so real that all the little perceptions around you just fall into holes... holes that you dug for them long ago. Holes that you will not let them out of .People are perfectly welcome to bury themselves. Don't blame me for it.I do not know for sure why, but I know that it as of this moment, what I choose to do. It's a pretty stupid choice; maybe it wouldn't be if you actually had something to say aside from hating me, but thank you for considering me so inferior that you need to rescue me and teach me how to hate like you do.You think this is about me? Really? You honestly think that my self-esteem is in any way in the balance in my dealings with you?Quite obviously it is:]You spin it into an attitude problem because it is utilitarian for you while you work the crowd. You're a politician, seeking popularity. I am genuine. You get from me what I am in the moment. Sometimes I'm enraged, most of the time I'm pretty calm and almost always I'm a huge dork, talking trash in hopes of comedic response... because I love to interact with folks and make them happy, one at a time . . . .

. . . . I am stronger than you . It's that simple. That you do not see it does not affect it.Sounds to me more like you're trying to convince yourself, or pitching to the gallery. You know, a real jerk once said something to me one time that comes to mind. Here it is with one word's difference. From me to you:
Quote:

"I would say you make yourself far too important in the grand scheme of things." No, Wes. In order for that to apply, I would have to be something more than a stimulus for a symptomatic response. Again, you're walking a tenuous wire in an effort to mount an attack. I'm merely the most obvious target you can find in the ill haze clouding your vision.I hope I can find a point some day.I hope you can, too.Dirty work is not where I choose to place my creative efforts. It has to be done sometimes, but I do not relish it. If you're going to put this much effort into hating me, at least do me the courtesy of not showing reruns.That you would take issue with the creativity of my insults is perhaps revealing as to the "anemia of your argument", no?No, actually, it helps me keep track of who's insulting me. When y'all start sounding like clones, I start treating you as such. And I'm pretty sure that won't go over well with you.As I think your comments in that regard simply pointless This is different from when?I shall ignore the rest of them Again, this is news?
Ah yes. You get it already don't you? No surprises here. Tell me, how did you get so far ahead of the game eh? It's a gift? Perhaps a curse? It must be lonely for you.Yes. Surprise me, then.

Practice; I've seen this cheap routine many times before.

It can be lonely sometimes, but it took me until my twenties to realize that calling that loneliness necessarily a bad thing was erroneous. It's not worth listening to Britney Spears all day just to have friends who will sell you for a dime; it's not worth blind obedience and allegiance to someone's character just in order to have friends at all.Oh I bet that number is high too. What a bunch of idiots to challenge the king (of self-importance). Not a one of them with a point either eh? Well, of the method I'm describing, of course none of them had a point. That's how this routine works. Say lots of stuff, make opinions, but never really look at the words one is allegedly upset by and explain what makes them so difficult.Stupid Monkey is such a dullard, how could he have a point with you? He could have tried making that point.

What was his point? "Piss off?"

You're right, Wes. He had a point. What use it is, I'll leave to anyone else to explain.Goddamned human hating lou, what an unwise dumbass eh? Well, he obviously wasn't expecting an argument he would have such difficulty defending against when he encouraged the idea of this topic.How in the fuck could he put a dent in your tower?Actually, it's funny you should mention that. I wrote a post reminding people that certain argumentative goals were impossible when engaging Muslims because they're far more dedicated to their religion and considerably less prone to consider objective fact. Dr Lou chose to read that as ass-kissing, or some-such. He chose to read the post as he did; he chose to let another poster's response define his perception of it. That's actually irrelevant, except that you mention the "dent in the tower." Look, if people want to throw rocks, fine. But all I ask is that they have an actual reason. Why not kick the shit out of some guy for kissing your wife and then say you had no obligation to stop and think that he might just possibly be saving her life with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation?All the other, so many have come, so many flailing themselves pointlessly against your unyielding wisdom It's odd, I admit. I'm no Sethra Lavode.That must be burdensome, but you're man enough to bear it eh?I don't think masculinity has much to do with it.Perhaps tiassa, you don't hear what is said . Maybe if you did we wouldn't all be so pointless eh?You mean that once I decide what someone said, instead of simply reading what they write, and then assigning my own definitions of words with the intent of construing them as poorly as possible, in order to find offense in damn near anything simply because I would choose to hate them, people will stop seeming so pointless?Oh no! I forgot we're not allowed to surprise you.Whatever you say, Wes.Yet never once had you seen a potential for fault in your own position. Actually, you're just not reading closely enough to see the adjustments.For a long time, I actually respected you If I doubt this, it's because you've always been willing to presume that I am in fact the object of your hatred. You prefer to assign me a context instead of read my posts.Perhaps you see my loss of respect for you as a "fooling" of sorts. Perhaps that "loss of respect" is the day you stopped fooling yourself into believing that presuming the worst possibilities in people was somehow respectful. I would think that for me to have fooled you, I would have had to intended to do so.No, not at all. Watch and listen to people closely. If you take people at their word, they're quickly revealed to be liars. So you try to figure out what it is they're actually saying, which amounts to taking them at something other than their word. This can fade into the give and take of daily life, but is accentuated when someone, as you have, makes a point out of vague inaccuracies.I suppose since you have more insight as to people's motivations than they do, you must be right. To a certain degree, there is some truth in that, but it's not absolute.

Would you assert that my associate, who is a classically-trained 'cellist a student of the best sound-engineering school in the world, is a better musician than me?

How about one who simply practices his instrument?

I mean, I'm capable of playing a trumpet and enough chords on a guitar to record a garage album, and I certainly understand the industry more than some of my neighbors, but I would say the people who spend their days practicing their instruments and studying their crafts are better musicians than I.

Sure, I never finished my degree, but the reality is that a certain degree of removal from the power structure in the herd that critics tend to exploit as signs of weakness through irrational desire also compels those who consider themselves disenfranchised to study the game.

It's the reason Commies can nail Capitalism to the wall and vice-versa; it's the reason atheists purport to discuss religion at all; it's the reason I'll never get married. (The one condition under which I will is so removed from reality as to not constitute a real reason; essentially it would be the culmination of a private joke with a very close friend whereby we would get hitched in order to say that we actually finally did; in that form it would best be described as a sham marriage.)

So there is a certain degree at which I watch people that others don't. The reality of it is that unless you're an artist stuck in a world-flight mode, you generally don't pause to look at these aspects. But think of it this way:

• Walk into a bar. Buy a drink. Tell Tom the Tender all about your miseries. At the end of it, he'll nod sagaciously and say, "Sounds like you're human. Everybody's got those problems. You're among friends here." Turn to the guy on your left, try out a few on him. He'll tell you something similar: "Everybody's got the same problems." Turn to the guy on your right, same response. At some point, it will occur to you to ask one of them why nobody is doing anything about the problem. At which point, they'll usually look you in the eye and ask bluntly, "Well, what are you doing about it?" And, of course, it won't occur to any of them that what is apparently just occurring to you is something that apparently they've known for a long time, so why the hell are they asking you what you're doing about it? In all those Vietnam films, I never saw a buck private come into a camp and start telling his Lieutenant what to do; yet the seasoned vets seem to be waiting for the greenhorns to draw up the game plan. Is it cynicism or just sheer idiocy? The counterpoint, of course, is the midwestern charm of a young boy asking his grandfather about something that mom said, and Grandpa says, "Boy, I've lived ten of your lifetimes, and I still don't understand women."

Nonetheless, I've recently seen that process actually happen to someone. It's a little tough to feel good about one's own perspicacity when that good feeling comes from someone else's suffering.

Now, interestingly enough, you're actually looking at a wonderful place in rhetoric; I'm stopping the bulleted digression because I'm quite sure that by the time I get to good feelings and someone else's suffering, I've most likely lost you on the relevance. If such is the case, that's the point; it is all interrelated if you spend enough time with it. In such an interrelationship, seeing the connections is merely a matter of familiarity. If, however, you're still following me up to that point, then you know what I mean; there are some people who would have no idea what that's about. And in that sense, yes, I have some insight into other people. It's not special inasmuch as it's merely a matter of practice. "with me "? You'd be amazed at the unfortunate parade of tattered banners.I suppose I should have thought twice before engaging the great tiassa with a "bombastic argument".I figured our own history together was enough to make the point without resorting to the larger overview. Pomp and bombast may look good to some, but they lack substance.Please feel free to have sex with yourself, I won't watch - promise.I make sure to once a day at least.Your self importance is indicative to me that you are an intelligent person who didn't get the education you need to have the clout your intelligence warrents, and so you dig pigeonholes in that huge chip on your shoulder. get yourself in school, BOY. suck it up and fucking make something of yourself Close, but still too invested in your hatred.This is a public forum? The crowd is hard to avoid.Not really. You seem to have little to say with the generalizations I assert in relation to Christianity. Of course, when it's a civilized discussion of two or three parties, and there's no standing record of acrimony for you to exploit dishonestly, I understand that such a topic wouldn't be attractive to you. Why think about anything when you can hate me instead, right?Besides, this topic is of interest to more than just me and you, as you have annoyed a fair number of people in this community with your hypocritical finger on auto-wag.As I have stressed, I have some question about the nature of those folks' issues. They seem to be either ignoring or rejecting certain parts of my posts without telling me why. If they're ignoring the relevant portions, well, that explains the lack of mention. But if they're rejecting it, they won't come off sounding any better until they make some explanation of why.

Take your Economics thread, for instance. Notice we didn't settle in and fight right away? What if my first post was, simply, "You're wrong. Get your head out of the clouds, get a clue." I mean, I did challenge the fundamental presumptions of your theoretic considerations; you could have addressed those issues in their context. You chose not to, but at least I gave you the opportunity.

I mean, let's see ... I annoyed Dr Lou by not hating Islam enough, and by not challenging his topic post in the context he expected me to. I annoyed a few people apparently by being inflammatory insofar as I followed up on Dr Lou's encouragement to hold this topic. I annoyed you, apparently, by existing in the first place ....

Come on ... give me something to work with here.You didn't mention that at the time?True, but your pandering to politics is showing through again in this latest rhetorical atrocity of yours.Well, not being you, nor kissing your ass, nor having something you want... how could I possibly have a point? If your anger was honest, Wes, that would be a start.You bury them under your horseshit as fast as I can make them. What do you expect? Man you are awefully dim for a bright guy.I expect, at some point, some freaking honesty from you, Wes. Can your damned hatred. Get the hell over yourself and put that mind to use.Let's see what we've got here. Hmm:

- passive aggressive sarcasm (so much for the 'high road' eh?)
- feigned humility (because you're really never surprised)
- ass kissing (because you're a pussy)

Extremely efficient of you. Any response I could make is precluded by the severe detachment your comments have from reality.

Three words, Wes: Learn to read!

Whether it's some legitimate learning disability or just your damn hatred, it would help your position greatly if you made some sense.Oh? LOL. How about this gem:Yeah. How about it?Oh sorry, I meant:No problem.In general, yeah mostly.Your choice.Uhm.. what was that line I used before? Did you just call yourself an asshat?Yet you persist? Eh, try as you may. You're really not very good at it though. I suppose that's no surprise eh? Er, rather, you have to think I have to say that and that my having said it is completely unfounded, or you're face a full interior examination of self and goddamnit man, you're not having it! You're already under the pretense that there are no surprises right? Oh.. I see, they're just rare. You're looking forward to it are you? At the rate you're going, I'm guessing your surprise is anything but forthcoming. Do you understand why?Wes, you're overlooking the simple fact that you've admitted to hating me. That tends to color your perception, and it has for a while.Uh-huh. Gosh darn, it's just that I can't really think ner nuthin big t so'ze I gotta just make stuff up and "define myself through" an asshat because I'm so very very bad. *sniffle* You're not getting any of this are you? That is an impressive wall you've got there... pink.Well, look how many damn words you're wasting.I can shove your nose in it all day long sparky, but if you're "hard of smelling", we're bound for circularity eh? Show me one occasion on which you've backed your screaming and wailing factually.Ah, the circle walk has the smell down to a T. Kind of stinky but goddamned fascinating. I've never smelled anything quite like it.That's because it's your own unique invention.Wouldn't a broad hatred be even worse? Isn't that rather beside the point?Why narrow? What's wrong with hating an asshole? Nothing. It's just that when you go out of your way to tell someone that you hate them because they're an asshole and then show yourself utterly incapable of explaining why you feel that way, well, it would just be nice if you found the time among all these words to actually have a legitimate point.

A very simple question, Wes: Are you stupid or are you cruel? And remember, you must be the former in order to be the latter.

Give me something to work with.I suppose you find it offensive? I find your utter lack of foundation to be offensive, and if that isn't clear to you by now, well, don't bother with the simple question above.What if in my culture, it's okay to hate assholes. We save the honor of 'hate' for a very special brand of hypocritical wannabe.It's a pretty cheap culture, Wes, if it chooses to hate without knowing why.Why would I need to define myself through you? Only you can answer that question, Wes.Is it the emptiness I feel inside?Only you can answer that question, Wes.Dude, I'm surrounded by love and bonus love.Just who are you trying to convince?Get a grip and consider that your comment above was simply stupid. "define myself through you"Right. You haven't spent this many words pretending to have a point while feigning outrage that you were determined beforehand to feel.I judge you And you seem to invest a lot of energy in that judgment.I believe that implies I'm pre-defined.If you really want to box yourself in that way.Of course my definition is ever-changing, but I cannot stop time yet. I'm working on it.And this is significant ... why?

Really, you argue so emotionally; as you wrote once, it hurts you to read me when I'm on a tear. Why do you put yourself through it? And then why do you choose to rescue everyone else from your own pain by vomiting it all over the place?


By the way, you never answered my question: What are your thoughts on the first section of the "First Argument" post?

By repeatingly not showing one.There's a substantive argument. Hell, you're entitled to your opinion.I didn't realize that you can't even make a short sentence that is interesting.Some ideas require more words than you're willing to undertake.I didn't realize that you can't even make a short sentence that is interesting.No. I mean "consider."

"Reconsider" would imply that you gave thought to the issue before.Your posts are empty no matter how full of words they are.Again, you're showing that amazing mind at work, Spurious.Your posts are fucking boring. I was hoping they might be more interesting if you kept them short. I was wrong.And your feelings are your own.Of course you could never be wrong since you are the saviour of sciforums. Please save sciforums from the illiterate mob. I'm working on it.And please would you READ my posts too then:I did.I said I don't even want to read on. Did I say I didn't read on? Look, if five words can burn you out and screw your attitude like that, don't make it my problem.

In the meantime, you pretty much went on to admit the point, Spurious:I missed the point where you pointed out his argumentative fallacy. It got lost in the web of divine light that you spin. I'd say you didn't read on. It was pretty big:
The topic begins with an absurd thesis--

If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary"

-- but that's what theses are for: to be demonstrated, supported, proven, or otherwise validated. In support of that thesis, the author follows with a generalized personal attack:

• Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway . . . .

The author clarifies the thesis:

• . . . . so I will make it more specific, you are not allowed to acknowledge the science behind black people having black children, in doing so you are acknowledging evolution, you must assume it is a coincidence that black people have black children, in fact you can't acknowledge that people birth children at all .

In order to support the thesis, the author continues by telling his target audience what they do and don't think:

• You don't believe in the sperm joining wih the egg, god is the creator, you were created by god, sex is what evil people do, it does not produce babies, god creates babies in a factory in the sky.

I would challenge the author to establish that such a sentiment exists among a significant percentage of creationists. Without statistical support, the assertion is absurd, and unheard of among Lutherans, Catholics, and others who believe God created the world.

• Perhaps black people have black children because god makes black children for them, ok for you the word hereditary refers to the way god customizes children to what will suit parents, remember you can't accept the passing on of genes as something that happens.

This characterization is faulty because it overlooks a central tenet of monotheism: that God is responsible for everything that happens. Thus, yes, black people have black children, from a monotheistic point of view, because God wills it to be so. If God did not want a child to be black, the child would not have black parents. So here we have a softball point from the author, one that utterly and completely ignores the most common theistic models involved in the Creationist movement.

The author then comments on his own argument, delineating his purpose:

• This is evolution, what I'm basically saying is you can only have on or the other, if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe in all the things associated with evolution.

In other words, the author is trying to tell people what they are allowed to think and believe. Furthermore, he assets a wholly untenable position--

• Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.

--about Universal origins. He compares the issue of Universal origins to something as observable as 2+2. While to many it might seem this way, such a position is clearly erroneous, as the final answers of Universal origins are as remote as the idea that one can prove God exists.

From the untenable assertion, the author returns to his fallacious assignations:

• If you believe that sex creates babies, and you believe that the traits of the parents are passed onto the babies, if you believe in individuals, that people are different from one another and that different people produce different babies, you believe in evolution, bottom line. You can't go that far and back out, I am here by declaring such an act as illegal, or at least immoral or something(obviously its irritatingly ignorant but thats not enough anymore).

More of the same: the bulk of the post is a common fallacy and a frequent complaint around Sciforums - straw man, to a degree that transcends the ridiculous insofar as it would be exceptionally difficult to find a person who calls themselves a Creationist and would be even reasonably represented by the object of the author's focus:

• You don't believe in these things, pregnant women are just lazy and fat, if a baby falls out of their vagina they must have put it in their themselves to try to trick theists into going over to the dark side.
The baby was not a product of evolution, you don't believe in evolution, obviously it was created by god and handed down to its parents.

An appeal to consistency, and a plea for clarification, all couched in thick layers of straw:

• Consistency is all I ask, you believe in creationism, you stick with it and try to live day by day believing in that. If you don't see hands coming out of the clouds delivering babies to newlyweds but you do see spiders laying eggs, recognise that you are indeed witnessing evolution.
If you do see giant god hands coming out of the sky with new creations, maybe planting a tree here and there and delivering puppies to your female dog at home, then by all means believe in creationism, untill then though I don't see why you would or how you could.

So what we have for a post is a thesis that is in itself a fallacy, a mixture of a straw man and a description of composition, supported by a generalized personal attack and a series of straw men. Devoid in the topic is any foundation for profitable discussion (D); the topic itself is inane (B). Quite obviously, in undertaking the topic of evolution and creationism is nothing new (a two year-old topic on evolution and creation was recently revived, most likely through the Related Topics list) (C).

The author was even addressed by another poster on the object of his focus--

• I don't think your attacking theist in general, but a select group of Christians. (Okinrus)

--and responded accordingly:

• Yes I'm addressing those who don't believe in evolution more than the rational(yet stubborn) theists who can't deny the blindingly apparent and numerous evidences for evolution.

Now, just who are these folks? Absent from the topic post and the clarification is any evidence of a real argument coming from anyone characterized by the topic post. A hyperlink would do. A transcript of a few words from a book or magazine or tract, even.

The author offers further clarification in yet another post:

• I'm saying that creationists are constantly being disproven by everyday things, ie someone being born rather than created. I've never seen a creationist try to deny individual people come into existence in the way science describes, but right there to me they are acknowledging evolution in action, and so I question their faith if they don't question such things as, people being born. I don't think they are taking creationism seriously enough.

And this, apparently, is what the topic is about: Because certain people don't behave according to the author's prejudices, he is apparently offended.

For instance this argument:

•To be a creationist, you have to deny such things as different people produce different children.

The author is perfectly happy to tell us why this denial is wrong, but why must a creationist deny such a thing?

Because the author says they must. In other words, I do read and pay attention to your posts.Or are you actually not so good at reading as you think you are oh mighty Saviour of Sciforums.Better than you think I am, quite obviously.It is a miracle that anyone even reads your crap. You'll notice that most of the people who don't, however, are also smart enough to leave those posts alone.You called my mother and now have a complete list of all my personal problems?Nope. I just read your post and it was pretty clear:
Honestly, I start a sentence and get bored after 3 words. I don?t even want to read on. I start the next sentence and you lose my interest after 4 words. Seems to me your stylistic choices don't really warrant your silly abuse.

You don't like the way I respond to your attitude problem? Then don't start, boy.

If you're not smart enough to figure that out for yourself, what credit do I owe that magnanimous mind of yours?I have a fucking hint for you;

State your fucking point if you have one instead of trying to look good. Learn to read. You have a four-word tolerance. It's your own problem to remedy, so take that attitude and cram it. Pout all you want but f@ck, man, have some dignity about it.

No. I mean "consider."

"Reconsider" would imply that you gave thought to the issue before.

You are claiming that 'Nope, but rather you might wish to consider the wisdom of shooting off your mouth in the first place when you don't know what's going on.' is a fucking proper sentence????!!?!???

'Consider the wisdom of shooting of my mouth????'

The topic begins with an absurd thesis


Do you have any qualifications to assess its absurdness other than being an asshat? No, you know shit about evolution or any biological science. Or could you list your publications and qualifications in this field please?



If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary"

-- but that's what theses are for: to be demonstrated, supported, proven, or otherwise validated. In support of that thesis, the author follows with a generalized personal attack:

? Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway . . . .


Obviously they can't. They attack a view on evolution that doesn't exist but in their own minds. Or did you think he meant it literally?




I would challenge the author to establish that such a sentiment exists among a significant percentage of creationists. Without statistical support, the assertion is absurd, and unheard of among Lutherans, Catholics, and others who believe God created the world.


Are you nuts? Shall we start asking for statistical data on all your absurd claims?





? This is evolution, what I'm basically saying is you can only have on or the other, if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe in all the things associated with evolution.


In other words, the author is trying to tell people what they are allowed to think and believe. Furthermore, he assets a wholly untenable position?


He asks for consistency in the treatment of science. It is fucking inflammatory and insulting to science to see it abused over and over again.



? Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.


Obviously you dropped out of school early. Obviously 2 +2 = 4, and 2 is always 2.Or did your teacher allow you to make bold statement such as 2+2=5 and 2+3 = 5 because it says so in the bible?



From the untenable assertion, the author returns to his fallacious assignations:

? If you believe that sex creates babies, and you believe that the traits of the parents are passed onto the babies, if you believe in individuals, that people are different from one another and that different people produce different babies, you believe in evolution, bottom line. You can't go that far and back out, I am here by declaring such an act as illegal, or at least immoral or something(obviously its irritatingly ignorant but thats not enough anymore).



You are the ignorant one here. You know shit about evolution.


More of the same: the bulk of the post is a common fallacy and a frequent complaint around Sciforums - straw man, to a degree that transcends the ridiculous insofar as it would be exceptionally difficult to find a person who calls themselves a Creationist and would be even reasonably represented by the object of the author's focus:


I missed how you reached this conclusion. And since when is ridiculous the same as inflammatory?



? You don't believe in these things, pregnant women are just lazy and fat, if a baby falls out of their vagina they must have put it in their themselves to try to trick theists into going over to the dark side.
The baby was not a product of evolution, you don't believe in evolution, obviously it was created by god and handed down to its parents.

An appeal to consistency, and a plea for clarification, all couched in thick layers of straw:

? Consistency is all I ask, you believe in creationism, you stick with it and try to live day by day believing in that. If you don't see hands coming out of the clouds delivering babies to newlyweds but you do see spiders laying eggs, recognise that you are indeed witnessing evolution.
If you do see giant god hands coming out of the sky with new creations, maybe planting a tree here and there and delivering puppies to your female dog at home, then by all means believe in creationism, untill then though I don't see why you would or how you could.

So what we have for a post is a thesis that is in itself a fallacy, a mixture of a straw man and a description of composition, supported by a generalized personal attack and a series of straw men. Devoid in the topic is any foundation for profitable discussion (D); the topic itself is inane (B). Quite obviously, in undertaking the topic of evolution and creationism is nothing new (a two year-old topic on evolution and creation was recently revived, most likely through the Related Topics list) (C).



Where is the inflammatory content then? Where is the personal attack? I didn't see any names. Do you decided what is good for profitable discussion here? Are you the messiah? Are you an expert on this topic? Have you ever posted anything original (no)? Why don't you stop posting. We have seen your crap already 8000 times. Are you claiming to be original? Could you give some examples? Or maybe just one?

We are allowed to be unoriginal. We are not gods unlike you.



The author was even addressed by another poster on the object of his focus--

? I don't think your attacking theist in general, but a select group of Christians. (Okinrus)

--and responded accordingly:

? Yes I'm addressing those who don't believe in evolution more than the rational(yet stubborn) theists who can't deny the blindingly apparent and numerous evidences for evolution.

Now, just who are these folks? Absent from the topic post and the clarification is any evidence of a real argument coming from anyone characterized by the topic post. A hyperlink would do. A transcript of a few words from a book or magazine or tract, even.




They are all inconsistent. Give me a quote form any creationist and I will demonstrate it. I dare you.



The author offers further clarification in yet another post:

? I'm saying that creationists are constantly being disproven by everyday things, ie someone being born rather than created. I've never seen a creationist try to deny individual people come into existence in the way science describes, but right there to me they are acknowledging evolution in action, and so I question their faith if they don't question such things as, people being born. I don't think they are taking creationism seriously enough.

And this, apparently, is what the topic is about_: Because certain people don't behave according to the author's prejudices, he is apparently offended.

Gosh, he is offended? I doubt that Dr Lou gives a shit about these people. You are the one who is offended. Did you recently see the light or something? Did an angel whisper in your ears? Why are you offended? Is it an attack on your believes? Do you feel threatened by your own inconsistency?

Is it inflammatory of him to start a topic you can't handle? Maybe you should go back to school and educate yourself?


For instance this argument:

?To be a creationist, you have to deny such things as different people produce different children.

The author is perfectly happy to tell us why this denial is wrong, but why must a creationist deny such a thing?

Because the author says they must.


No because science doesn't work in separate vacuums. You can?t have your cake and eat it too. He made it perfectly clear. You seem to be the only person who missed that point.

So what is inflammatory here? He offended you. Big fucking deal. You would be offended if someone farted in your presence.

Thank you for your post, Spuriousmonkey, but as I cannot find a portion of it that is rooted in reality, there is nothing to respond to.

In the future, if you wish to treat me like shit, please find a legitimate reason and advise me of it. Frankly, your incoherent flailing is more suited to a four year-old being told he can't have another cookie.

So have another, calm yourself down, and think about the lack of wisdom in your actions.

Maybe next time the idea that you can as a human being be useful might occur to you somewhere in there.

In the meantime, stop telling people what they believe in order to be a prig to them.

Oh, yeah. You are claiming that 'Nope, but rather you might wish to consider the wisdom of shooting off your mouth in the first place when you don't know what's going on.' is a fucking proper sentence????!!?!??? Learn to read, Spurious.'Consider the wisdom of shooting of my mouth????'Yes, as you failed to do before entering this topic with unnecessary anger most apparently rooted in your obviously-incomplete understanding of what was already written.

Now, whether your literacy problems are an affliction or a choice, Spurious, you ought to be more considerate in recognition of your own difficulties with comprehension.

I mean, I did remind you of fact, Spurious, and you said, "So what?"

Deal with your own self before taking it out on me, Spurious. I'm not responsible for your deficiencies. You have no right to be upset at me just because you feel cheated by evolution.

I mean, the one thing you really haven't done in this discussion is provided any basis for your condemning attitude.

Thank you for your post, Spuriousmonkey, but as I cannot find a portion of it that is rooted in reality, there is nothing to respond to.
I fail to see how you have the authority to make that claim.
Seeing as how it is my post that is the subject here, I can confidently say that spurious understood it perfectly and his points were firmly rooted in reality.
I am the only person that can decide whether sm's comprehension of my post was adequate, and after reading it I am sure that it was.
The thing is YOU didn't understand it, I also have the authority to make that judgement.

You say I was being inflammatory, if I say no I wasn't then no I fucking wasn't.
You have misunderstood, I know what I was "being", why you think you know more about me and my intentions than I do I have no idea.
I was being mean by being brutally honest, the fact i can predict that the truth worded bluntly might hurt some people does not mean I was being inflammatory.

And you showed numerous times you failed to comprehend the point of what I was saying.
Now that Spurious has confirmed that it is possible for a person other than myself to understand my post I now have no doubts that I adequately presented a valid point.
The fact you don't understand is really not my problem. I wish everyone understood, but if it is hard to understand then that actually reduces the way in which it could possibly be inflammatory.

The only way it was ever inflammatory, was that it was pointing out the flaws in a belief and lack there of in another.
People tend to take their beliefs and lack there of of those that contradict their beliefs pretty seriously, therefore my post could undoubtedly upset someone. It is innocently inflammatory, I made points that might attack the emotions of some, but I did not attack anyone. I attacked the concept of not believing in evolution. That might wind up offending someone, clearly that is not my responsibility though.
Maybe if facts and logic offend you its about time you were offended.

I just put a skateboard on the stairs of ignorance, my intentions with that is anybodies guess, but it is not your place to state my intentions as though you know for a fact what they were.
You have in fact shown that you were incorrect.
A source? I am the judge and jury on this matter, the source is my head and there isn't a better one when we are discussing my intentions.
Got it?

You saw a cucumber in my hand and assumed I was being obsene, i was just holding a cucumber.
Maybe it was to freak out the old women in aisle 4, thats not your call though, and there is no law against holding a cucumber.

Logic would dictate that at this stage of the game that a poster would be able to recognize that maybe, just maybe, the argument that no one else on this forum has decent reading comprehension skills is indeed quite a lame argument.

People believe whatever they need to believe T. You've obviously chosen to insulate yourself from inescapable realities of human interaction by suggesting that anyone who can't see through the intentionally obtuse language you choose, must suffer from inferior reading comprehension skills. Whatever it takes to get through the day, right? Good luck with that strategy, asshat.

All the tattered banners.

It's just fucking tragic.

I suppose it's not that bad since factually, they don't really exist.

Maybe the tragic part is the lost potential of the sole mind in which they do exist.

*shrug*

I suppose it's just one of those grim realities.

I fail to see how you have the authority to make that claim.Well, it reflects in the range of his vision:
• No, you know shit about evolution or any biological science. Or could you list your publications and qualifications in this field please?

• Obviously you dropped out of school early. Obviously 2 +2 = 4, and 2 is always 2.Or did your teacher allow you to make bold statement such as 2+2=5 and 2+3 = 5 because it says so in the bible?

• You are the ignorant one here. You know shit about evolution.

• Did you recently see the light or something? Did an angel whisper in your ears? Why are you offended? Is it an attack on your believes? Do you feel threatened by your own inconsistency?

• No because science doesn't work in separate vacuums. You can?t have your cake and eat it too. He made it perfectly clear. You seem to be the only person who missed that point. I mean, the fact that he thinks these things have anything to do with anything kind of amazes me.

And hey, he even called you an asshat:
Quote:

Originally Posted by asshat


? Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.And when he splits an odd hair, omitting any apparent consideration of the word generalized:
Where is the inflammatory content then? Where is the personal attack? I didn't see any names.He chooses to split the hair of needing names, yet doesn't recognize an attack that he takes part in:Quote:

Originally Posted by asshat

If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary"

-- but that's what theses are for: to be demonstrated, supported, proven, or otherwise validated. In support of that thesis, the author follows with a generalized personal attack:

? Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway . . . .

Obviously they can't. They attack a view on evolution that doesn't exist but in their own minds. Or did you think he meant it literally?Literally or figuratively, "people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce the word anyway," is a pretty useless assertion.The thing is YOU didn't understand it, I also have the authority to make that judgement. I think you're the one who doesn't understand, Dr Lou. Really, I do. I know what you were up to. I generally sympathize to a certain degree. Does it change the fact that it's a pile of crass fallacies you put out? No. If you actually follow the discussion in your topic, the point of calling the topic post useless and inflammatory was invested in a discussion I was originally having with others that started with relatively mild considerations of the topic and its form. Even when I first addressed it in sections with you, it wasn't a big deal, but Snakelord insisted, and then you started cheering, so that pretty much clinched the deal. I'm sorry you were expecting ... whatever it was you were expecting instead of this. I still chuckle over your ass-licking comment.You say I was being inflammatory, if I say no I wasn't then no I fucking wasn't.And yet some, like Spurious, would like to pretend I was being inflammatory with this topic. Seems an even split.You have misunderstood, I know what I was "being", why you think you know more about me and my intentions than I do I have no idea.
I was being mean by being brutally honest, the fact i can predict that the truth worded bluntly might hurt some people does not mean I was being inflammatory. Brutally honest? How is it honest to assert that refusing evolution also requires one forfeit belief in sexual reproduction?It is innocently inflammatory, I made points that might attack the emotions of some, but I did not attack anyone. You attacked a group of people (who don't believe in evolution) by asserting that they couldn't even pronounce the word (evolution).I attacked the concept of not believing in evolution. As well as the people who don't believe in evolution.Maybe if facts and logic offend you its about time you were offended.As I asserted in the First Argument, facts and logic seemed to be devoid from your post. Arguments, such as Spurious', "Obviously they can't," don't do much to lend factual or logical support to your post.I just put a skateboard on the stairs of ignorance, my intentions with that is anybodies guess, but it is not your place to state my intentions as though you know for a fact what they were.But what you write isn't a reasonable indication of your intentions? I'll bear that in mind in the future: Dr Lou chooses to represent himself in a manner that is inconsistent with his own perception of himself. Seems rather illusory to me, but whatever spices your noodle.A source? I am the judge and jury on this matter, the source is my head and there isn't a better one when we are discussing my intentions.
Got it? Whatever you say, Dr Lou.

Maybe in the future, you will choose to represent yourself according to how you wish to be viewed?You saw a cucumber in my hand and assumed I was being obsene, i was just holding a cucumber.
Maybe it was to freak out the old women in aisle 4, thats not your call though, and there is no law against holding a cucumber. No, it's not my call. It's yours. And what you tell me now is different from what you said before.

Two? Two? Four.

History suggests your current façade is most likely as detached in its superficiality.

Next time, Lou, consider the possibility that its taken me a long while to get around to this particular form of topic. Next time, don't encourage the situation; history suggests that I would most likely have left the "inflammatory" aspect to its own after Snakelord was done dragging that part of the discussion out. I don't know what would have happened.

Was it bravado, Lou? What were you expecting? You seem rather upset by getting what you wanted, but of course it wasn't what you really wanted.

If you want real progress that will satisfy almost everybody, just admit the topic was inflammatory and turn the discussion to the matter of degrees and then people will either leave it alone entirely or choose to consider the basis of their standards for those degrees; is it a general state of loathsomeness, or a specific political assignation? In general people seem more tolerant of horsesh@t as long as it smells familiar to them.

Even I, in the grand scheme of Sciforums, consider your inflammatory topic post of minor importance; but just because people sympathize with a fallacy doesn't change the fact that it's a fallacy. Honestly, does the fact that millions of people believe Jesus is the ticket to eternal life mean it's true? Does the fact that millions believe Jesus is the ticket to eternal life change the fact that Biblical faith is fallacious?

Does your intention in any way change the fact that putting a skateboard on the stairs is dangerous to others?

Logic would dictate that at this stage of the game that a poster would be able to recognize that maybe, just maybe, the argument that no one else on this forum has decent reading comprehension skills is indeed quite a lame argument.That would be a lame argument. What's your point? People believe whatever they need to believe T.Obviously.You've obviously chosen to insulate yourself from inescapable realities of human interaction by suggesting that anyone who can't see through the intentionally obtuse language you choose, must suffer from inferior reading comprehension skills.It's the broad brush with which you paint that makes you so grossly inaccurate. Nonetheless, it's a wonderful impressionist rendering of your perspective.Whatever it takes to get through the day, right? Good luck with that strategy, asshat.Actually, I find it rather quite disturbing. I haven't figured the alternative yet, so I'm caught between whether people are stupid or just dicks on those occasions that they invest a lot of energy arguing incomprehensible representations of what I write. You might have noticed, back when the Miller debacle was going on, that those people who could explain to me what I was asking them to explain about the situation received reasonable answers. Yet such details are too fine for your broad stroke job.

tiassa.

how do you know it's not you who is the dick?

Brutally honest? How is it honest to assert that refusing evolution also requires one forfeit belief in sexual reproduction?
Is this a big part of your argument by any chance?
If you don't see how that is honest, then you don't understand, 2+2 is too difficult for you, it seems.
Everytime a baby is born a little evolution just happened, if you believe in generations, you must believe a little more just happened, when in history did people coming into existence by way of sexual reproduction begin? When did the creationing end?
Hell, even if you think it was a hundred years ago, you must concede at least a little evolution has happened.
And if you do think it was a hundred years ago you MUST believe that before that babies weren't being born but rather created, OR something.
Its kind of a messy belief I know but they are choosing it not me.
I'm comfortable to assume the reproduction style of organisms coming into existence is how organisms have always come into existence along the timeline. I do not think that any where along the line did it switch TO organisms being reproduced from parents or a parent FROM some other style, even in the very beginning the reasonable assumption is the parents were the sun and the earth.

You don't seem to understand that my original post was very much cold hard logic that can't be refuted.

If you believe in sexual reproduction as we know it, you at least believe in a little evolution, and if you wish to not believe in alot of evolution, you have to believe that at some stage in history organisms were being created, and only recently did sexual reproduction OR evolution begin.
No matter what it is mandatory that anyone who is aware of sexual reproduction believe that evolution is a real process that happens.
Basically no one can not believe in evolution, they don't have that choice. Especially if they believe in sexual reproduction, and really, they also have to believe in that, because well its obvious.
I think most people do believe in sexual reproduction, thats my point, logic then demands they believe in evolution.
It should not be acceptable that they do not.

Does your intention in any way change the fact that putting a skateboard on the stairs is dangerous to others?
Do I have to care?
They are loitering on the stairs of ignorance, I didn't push them down them.
When they smash into the cold ground of reality and hurt their ego, it was their doing, not mine. They didn't have to step on the skateboard, they saw it there and chose to step on it.
Most, if not all, grabbed onto the rail anyway, while the skateboard that was my post charged down to reality, and they turned away when it hit.

The only danger was getting a grip on reality, and most of them avoided it anyway.
And they still pace up and down those stairs, I plan on continuing to grease them up and do whatever I can to get them off for their own good.
So what if they bump their knees and graze their elbows on the way down? Some things are more important than remaining bruise free, like everything.

You don't seem to understand that my original post was very much cold hard logic that can't be refuted. You have a seriously perverse definition of logic, then.

There's a difference between calling someone or something illogical and being logical on your own.It should not be acceptable that they do not.Who broke up your chapter of the HJ?Do I have to care?No.Some things are more important than remaining bruise free, like everything. You have a very tall opinion of yourself. That's a pretty stupid reason to be telling people what they are and aren't allowed to think all so you can have a cheap thrill at insulting them.

You have a very tall opinion of yourself.

You are so funny.

You are so funny.

It's a kind of dark comedy.

Let's watch him while he cleans up the tattered banners.

1) Wasn't much of a question.

LOL. Oh yeah? How would you know? Maybe there's something you haven't accounted for? Not possible eh?

(2) What does it matter if I answer your question or not when you don't read my posts anyway?

LOL. I mostly read your posts. I would certainly read the response to a question I asked directly, you fucking dipshit.

(3) The answer is, Of course not. I can't get a coherent answer out of folks like you who have stopped trying.

LOL. Such a pearly prince, yet such [i]judgement. You almost sound like a judgemental little twat there, bitch. At least I admit that I fucking JUDGE YOU eh punk? I forget who is being dishonest here. Hmm. Yeah, it's not me.. so... I haven't seen lou doing it, nor spurious... not 15 either. Hmm.. must be the cunt.

Here is your answer by the way bright boy (which really summarized your entire problem as well):

People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying.

By the nature of the beast, no one has the same idea of perfection that you do, you fucking asshat. Most people probably aren't even able to comprehend what it is that your vivid skew would deem as perfection, let alone be compelled to strive towards it. It is the nature of "good" even in the context of "striving for perfection", to be subjective.

LOL. I wonder how that will sound once you shove it up your twat. *chortle*

And yet you argue and get all pissed off when I point out that you seem to expect the worst potential and aspects in people?

Yeah pretty much because you see yourself as some sort of representation of "people" when really, you're just one dirty little bitch. You are not "people". I see that you are the "worst of people" from my perspective. That does not at all mean "i expect the worst potential and aspects in people", except for that's how it sounds to you once you swill it around in your dirty little cunt for a while. As you wish asshat, but this is clear: you're wrong.

Perhaps if you hadn't been so quick to shove my words up your twat, you'd notice that:

I do not expect the worst potential and aspects in people. I do however recognize them when they are finally exposed, such as in your case, you punkassed asshat.
What is the sound of one hand clapping?

It takes two hands to clap.

Remember those occasions you pointed out my own stance on the responsibility of the transmitter to make the communication clear to the receiver?

What makes you think I've changed my mind? The receiver has to be willing to listen for the addage to be pertinent eh? You are more than obviosly unwilling. I keep trying though for two major reasons I think: You do seem worth it at the core, but really fucked up. And secondly, it's fascinating to me to see what kind of horseshit you'll come up with next. A real trainwreck kind of thing, and since no one gets hurt, what the hell.. there's no guilt in the fascination... though it is kidn of sickening a little, I can handle it.
• "I'll gladly be your friend on one condition only: YOU CANNOT QUESTION MY CHARACTER." (Wesmorris, Private Message, 12.22.2003) - What an honest friendship you offer, eh?

That is exactly it, I DO offer an honest friendship and as such, questioning if I am lying or not simply makes us go around and around and around. If you are my friend, I will not question your character. I may question your actions or your words, but if you insist you are not lying, I will give you the benefit of that doubt. Hell, for the most part I give anyone that benefit of the doubt until I start to see evidence to the contrary. You and I had interacted for months prior to the fact that you decided to start talking shit and calling me a liar. If I tell you I am not a goddamned liar and I'm willing to get beligerant with you... I would expect you to at least honestly hear the case, rather than having convicted a motherfucker before hearing the goddmned case, you fucknut. That you would call the above "dishonest" is to me indactive that you and I have a different opinion of what "honesty" is. Seems to me if you hadn't wrongly questioned my character, we wouldn't be in this mess.

• "I just stopped reading . . . ." (ibid) - A constant theme of yours, how, then do you know what you're responding to with such ferocity?

How is that dishonest? I don't remember the context exactly, but knowing me I thought I'd gotten the gist by then.. or I was sick to death of your blather (like in this case) or something. I wouldn't have said that without good reason. Maybe I didn't have the time? Shit I dunno. Was it something you said? Could have been that I was getting a little nauseated by your horseshit.

• "I support this position wholly." (Wesmorris, "Dennis Miller on Politics," 12.22.2003) - You would later back away from it and claim that the position you supported wholly was something other than the text you cited; this "misunderstanding" resulted in much acrimony between us.

Uh huh. Why don't you show me where I "went back"? If your reading comprehension were as legendary as you seem to think, you'd have noticed that I never implied more. I never meant to either. I thought if I quoted something and said "I support this wholly", that was exactly what I meant. That you extend it to its context is something I simply didn't expect. I quoted what I agreed with.. seems to me if I'd agreed with more... I would have quoted more? Wouldn't I? Why would I only quote that, but agree with everything else? :rolleyes:

Do you see what I mean that you do not listen? Do you see why I basically say (parphrasing): "continual accusations of lying will get us nowhere", which is basically to me the same as "I'll be your friend, but do not question my character". You don't see it I suppose? I doubt you do. Does that mean it isn't true to me? Please, tell me what your twat thinks.

• "I used to think you had some class bro, but your accusational vehemence and unprovoked attacks on character are simply out of freakin control here." (ibid) - Your use of the word "unprovoked" was never substantiated, and rather an offensive sleight.

I substantiated the shit out of it you jackass. I suppose I should clarify. It was unprovoked from my standpoint. I sure you thought you had good reason, but I illustrated to you quite clearly why your reasons were incorrect. Of course as is your cunt-like nature, you refuse to admit it.

• "I don't want to insult you . . . ." (ibid) - Coulda fooled me.

I still don't if you can believe that, but since I hate your dirty bitch ass, I'm going to. I'd simply rather not have to bother hating you. Perhaps if you were to engage reality it'd be easier. I'm doubting you're capable, so it looks like it's insult city, cunt.

• "You know what's jacked up is that I have a hard time even voicing my opinion about this, as I can see it as a springboard to Tiassa exploding again." (ibid) - Playing the victim at the same time you're seeking to provoke with an inaccurate and condemning post is very dishonest, Wes.

LOL. You don't recognize sincerity eh? That was honest and from the fucking heart you piece of shit. Sorry you can't relate, but that does not nullify the validity of it. Man you fucking suck. Tell me fucknut, why do you think you know what you know? It's probably not because of your hate for me. No grudge in asshatsville eh? FUCKING LIAR. Maybe the goddamn problem is that you're so used to lying and twisting shit around that you can't even see the simple truth for what it is anymore. My words were pure, and look what happened? I didn't realize when I said it that it was a setup.. I was so freaked out contemplating the thousands and thousands of words of utter fucking rubbish I anticipated from you that I just well... it was freaking me out a bit. So I said what I was feeling. How dishonest of me. What an asshat you are.
• "I suppose I'm a liar? Are you going to "firestorm my character" again? What is sad dude, is that if you knew me if you really read what I'd said, if you could feel what I'm saying right now you might see it as wrong, but you simply could NOT question my character. I do not lie T. I am however, frequently mistaken." (ibid) - See prior note. Also consider the titanic magnitude of your "mistakes." At some point, I would think you would break the pattern. The alternative, of course, is to simply consider you so stupid that you can't figure it out.

The "titanic magnitude of my 'mistakes'"? What the fuck are you on about? Looks to me that you're the titanic asshat, making more mistakes that I thought humanly possible while the entire time apparently feeling utterly vindicated in doing so. That's the kind of baffling shit I've come to expect from you and I gotta say, it's fascinating... so at least, thank you for that, asshat.

Oh, and it's completely beyond me that you cannot seem to fathom that those remarks were genuine. How can I defend myself against your attack? You say "you lie" I say "nuh-uh". Very productive.

• "You remember the couple of times where you said "you can't dispute the facts" or whatever? Yeah, you see your interpretation of other peoples words in a manner that isn't as they were intended... that's not a fact. It's your interpretation, which of course you're entitled to, but you prolly owe the author at least a chance to explain himself. You are a child because you don't allow this because you have already decided how you see it, even though it has nothing to do with how it was intended." (Wesmorris, "Dennis Miller on Politics", 12.23.2003) - All else aside, the one thing you never did was provide any sense of fact. Like in this topic, I can't believe you're still disputing the intent of Dr. Lou's post. In his own words, he sought to be mean and to make people feel stupid. I quoted that bit. It's a fact that such was written. For all the dispute you wanted to take with "fact," I find it very dishonest that the one simple thing you could not do while maintaining your vicious assault was provide any simple sense of fact.
Obviously I'm disputing your ability to correctly interpet a fucking thing anyone says you fucking dipshit. Lou's post is indicative of it, all of my posts here - same, spurious.. 15... yeah, what a bunch of jerks everyone but tiassa is eh? What a fucking dumbass. You just can't see it can you? Goddamnit. It is so frustrating.

I've made my point to you over and over: You are a hypocrite, and you do not listen to what is said. It renders you into an asshat, especially given your apparently unwarrented "celebration of self".

It's just like in the anthropic thread:

I say scarcity = "stuff isn't infinite" and how long have you gone on about it?

It's that simple, it's not "only abstract" in any more of a sense of the term that anything in terms of describing systems is abstract. It is wholly applicable as stated, yet you've got on and on with political this and this smart guy said that when you're simply avoiding what was said in favor of your preconception, as you do pretty much all the time. You admitted it yourself.

All the tattered banners. (do you think they saw them as tattered?)

Waiting for a surprise. (really? got it all figured out eh?)

Meh, I'm done for now. You're fucked up tiassa. You need some fucking humility BOY. As far as I can tell, you have a shitload of knowledge, but you entirely lack understanding. Hmm... maybe it's that you can't apply your understanding. Something like that. You certainly fail to apply understanding to the folks around you here. Maybe it's the medium and you're missing vital cues you might have IRL. Regardless, your misperception makes you look and act like a real fucknut... so I judge you as one. Expand your mind bitch.

LOL.

Eh whatever. I do hope you learn to listen.

Now go on about your bizness.

Wes

I've taken some time to reflect on this latest tantrum of yours and decided that several questions I might ask really are, in the end, irrelevant; Why is this about you? for instance.

Look, the record is clear.

If I am animated, you object:

You know what's sad is that I have no interest in shutting you up, or calling you dumb or blah blah whatever. I don't want to insult you, I want to communicate to you that you're acting like a serious asshole to these dudes and I wish you would stop, because it's a waste of time. They are not learning anythign except that you are a jerk . . . .

. . . . I suppose I'm a liar? Are you going to "firestorm my character" again? What is sad dude, is that if you knew me if you really read what I'd said, if you could feel what I'm saying right now you might see it as wrong, but you simply could NOT question my character. I do not lie T. I am however, frequently mistaken. (click here to review (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31404&page=2))Yes, you are frequently mistaken, Wes.

But that's actually beside the point. Because when I'm dispassionate, you object:
Maybe you should try to remember the days before you thought you had the perfect view of all issues... or was there ever such a day? . . . .

. . . . How did it not occur to you that it is inflammatory to call someone who isn't being inflammatory, inflammatory? Since you are wrong, you are being inflammatory so you can now proceed with admonishing your own presumptuous, pretentious and obnoxious behavior. On with it then. (click here to review (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33365&page=1))It doesn't seem to matter to you. You just want to object. And your reasons are perfectly clear:
Nope, I just hate you.So when, as you have in your latest rhetorical explosion, say such things as--Why don't you show me where I "went back"? If your reading comprehension were as legendary as you seem to think, you'd have noticed that I never implied more. --I can only laugh because it is demonstrative of your motivation:
No, I was supporting the position that you were actin like an asshole. If an assholed wants to be redeemed, that asshole generally should either explain why they're being assholes or stop doing it and apoligize see? Certainly I could have been more clear, but as I said, I was a little peeved and dreading the thousands of words of explanations I forsaw, regardless of what I said. So I just blurted out a starting point. Not particularly gracefull, but honest - though you couldn't see that because you know what I was thinking. you are more privvy to my intent than I no? (click here to review (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31404&page=8&pp=20)) Like I said then, Wes ... say what you mean, mean what you say. In other words, I still don't get why you were so pissed that I took you according to the text you quoted and the words you wrote instead of imagining what, aside from what you wrote, you might have meant.

I just don't get what you expect to accomplish by asking for information you've disregarded in the past. Do you really want to contest it again? Maybe spin out some new framing of the situation that's all well and fine except that it doesn't reflect what you wrote?That you extend it to its context is something I simply didn't expect. I quoted what I agreed with.. seems to me if I'd agreed with more... I would have quoted more? Wouldn't I? Why would I only quote that, but agree with everything else? I figured you would have actually just said what you meant.

Imagine that, having nothing better to do, we watched the Trial of the New Century from beginning to end at a bar together.

• If, after the prosecutor's opening statement, you say, "I support that position wholly" . . . .
• If, after the prosecutor rests, you say, "I support that position wholly" . . . .
• If, after the jury says, "Guilty," you say, "I support that position wholly" . . . .

. . . . how exactly am I supposed to guess that you're talking about something else entirely?

You support the prosecutor's assertion that the accused is guilty, but you don't support the case argued? You support the conclusion independently of the facts it alleges to represent?

But then again, you just hate me.Meh, I'm done for now. I would applaud that decision, but I won't presume the context of your use of the words "for now."You certainly fail to apply understanding to the folks around you here. It's not necessarily the medium, Wes. More than likely, it's just you and your hatred. As far as I can tell from our prior discussions, to "apply understanding" in a manner satisfactory to you is to simply nod and drool and say, "Yes, you're right. Whatever you say is absolutely correct."

Stop and think about it sometime, Wes: You complain that I write too many words; implicit, then, is that the words "fail to apply understanding to the folks" around me; yet you hate me, skim my posts, and demonstrate a contextual failure that is, by circumstance or choice, an issue of comprehension. Just ... think about it sometime. You're not stupid, after all. You'll figure it out eventually.

In the meantime, lighten up and try to enjoy life a little.

Another day of work at the 'writing crap factory' after a relaxing weekend at home.

Originally Posted by Wesmorris (Private Message)

Nope, I just hate you.

If that's a private message, there's a reason it was so. You posted a private message you little girl.
Inflammatory post topic? Dr. Lou is free to make his assertions and give his viewpoints. Panzies may construe some of his statements as 'mean', but that's not the point. Are you so unemployed that you have nothing better to do than write a stupid post that spawns 5 pages of even stupider rubbish? Going by your definition, your post is inflammatory you hypocrite.
Moderator my ass. You're behaving like a 6 year old who's had his toy stolen. Shape up man, and act responsible even if you're a dick in reality.

//In the meantime, lighten up and try to enjoy life a little//

Hahaha. HYPOCRITE. Writing long posts of rubbish- enjoying life?
Sad.

I suspect this thread is no longer relevant to this particular forum.