Guthrie recently put this question to our good friend, Undecided.

However, our friend was rather taken aback by this and never offered a definitive answer.
As far as I could tell, he was either genuinely taking umbrage or just being evasive.

Since he hesitates to say for himself, perhaps the community should decide who he is for him, as absurd as it may seem.


The "Other" option is, ideally, for those that actually have conjured up an option that wasn't listed.
I write "conjure up" because there really aren't any options other than those I've listed... I think.

However, if you feel that this is a petty, banal, or somehow deficient thread, simply choose the "Other" option and proceed to verbally flounce and flagellate me in as creative a way you can.


You might also choose that option if you do not have adequate data but are too lazy and/or disinterested to bring up and compare a few of Nico's and Undecided's posts.

Alternatively, you could flip a coin. That would be more exciting, so I recommend it.


Edit:

After thirty days, this poll will close.
If, by that date, Undecided has not released a clear statement regarding his identity, I will believe whatever the poll indicates and I will continue to believe whatever it indicates from then and into eternity, forever and ever and ever, Amen.

Well, I might have disagreements with undecided, but I think a poll about it is going a little too far....

This is a question which does not neccessairly warrant an answer. It is nothing more than curiosity, not a request or a proposal for anything ergo it does not have any purpose being in Open government. If Undecided does not want to answer he doesn't have to.

Did I claim he had to?

As for this not belonging in Open Government, yeah, you're doubtlessly right, but it's too late for me to do anything about that.

I don't know where else this poll could be posted. Seems like the right forum to me.

Obviously this is a rhetorical question, but it will be funny to see nico scream and yell about this being just another in the long line of conspricacies currently aligning themselves against her. Break out the tin foil hats! :D

I see this thread is allowed to happen even though it's reason d'etre is based on a threat which goes against sci rules. What question to Rappaccini is what relevance does my identity has to you? I have never even seen you before and allofasudden you acquire some form of legitimacy to question me? The irony cuts very deep, my solution to your problem is to wait and see. It is rather interesting to see you and some others get all uncomfortable when my presence is near. Does this mean you are threatened by me? Maybe, or maybe you have absolutely nothing better to do, which is a sad comment. But this thread has no reason, and thus it should be closed. The irony is that I am trying to stop the ad hom, and now we have encountered it with the greatest flurry of curosity killed the cat syndrome. This is a vile thread and I think sentiment shows that to be true.

He sure writes like nico;)

This may be a misplaced thread, but it is neither a threat nor a personal attack. Nothing about it is against the rules.


I read quite a number of Nico's posts and I'd like to know if the same guy/girl is making your posts. That's your identity's relevance to me.



What do you mean by "legitimacy"? You registered onto this forum, didn't you?
Therefore, I can and will question you as much as I like. If that disturbs you, put me on ignore, please.

Given, it would be highly inappropriate for me to ask certain less-than-tasteful questions, and I'm not distputing that.
Yet, this thread is quite harmless, Undecided.
It's not as though I'm asking for your number here.





"Sentiment," up to this point, also shows that you are Nico.

However, the way you shuffle your feet, you might very well not be he.

If that's the case, then just say so; I won't argue. I promise.

It is of no relevance to me what that vote indicates, because I know who I am. It is funny to see ppl actually care so much about nothing. It reminds me of gay marriage, a nice distraction from the real issue. So let the masses wonder, and ponder on the irrelevancies of life, while I laugh. This is quite a social commentary, and I would love to see how it ends up. Surprise me...

Now that I've ruminated on it for a bit, I believe that this isn't such a misplaced thread after all...

It is nothing more than curiosity, not a request or a proposal for anything ergo it does not have any purpose being in Open government.

To be sure, it is a curiosity, but it can also be held as a clear-cut proposal. As I indicated earlier, it is a community decision.

The community may decide the case for me, seeing as I have found it difficult to decide for myself.

The sciforums citizenry is free to discuss and reflect on the possibilities I've laid out, limited as they may be.
The sciforums citizenry is also free to choose "Other" and spit in my face.


So far, the vote is in favor of Nico being Undecided.
I'll admit now that I did vote for this option, simply because it appears to be the most plausible, given all the lingual tendences Undecided displays.

Undecided is free to endorse or refute that judgment. I cordially invite him or her to do so.



Edit:

It is of no relevance to me what that vote indicates... It is funny to see ppl actually care so much about nothing.

Surprise me...

You consider your identity to be nothing? That's odd.


What you consider relevant isn't really of any bearing. If you must know why, it's because, when I made the poll, I didn't have your preferences in mind.

The thread itself doesn't actually require any participation from you, Undecided, though it would be convenient if you could quickly dispell my uncertainty and name yourself openly.

It would be convenient, but not necesary; if you will not tell me, sciforums, as a body, will tell me.




Besides, Undecided, you're enjoying this. Don't feign disgust.
As Micky D's might say you're lovin' it.

So why don't you surprise everbody and cooperate, for the heck of it?


If you plan on leaving me in suspense for a while, go ahead! It'll make the end even better!
You have thirty days, anyway! Plenty of time to continue your campaign against that mean, old Stokes.

I am enjoying this but not for the reasons you prescribe to, the reason I am enjoying this is because it totally and completely supports my assertions that sci ad homers have taken over, and it's so overt that it shatters any illusions to the contrary. I am laughing at you, because you care more then I care. Shouldn't it be the other way round? Guess not, like I said surprise me. What more do you have to say? Because the more you do the more obvious this is totally irrelevant, and an insult to the forum's collective intellectuality.

I am enjoying this but not for the reasons you prescribe to, the reason I am enjoying this is...

That's nice, Undecided. Especially 'cause I didn't give any "reasons". Check, if you like.

... and, while you're checking that, why don't you consider stopping this farce I've started?
You claim to resent "ad homers" and yet you purposefully fail to do the one thing that will shut me up.

What is wrong? Are you a coward, or are you relishing this attention too much to give it up so easily?
Since you're so outspoken, my mind leans to the latter, but, of course, I could be wrong.

It happens quite often, after all.
Ever happen to you?

Originally posted by "the artist formerly known as nico"

while I laugh

There is indeed hope for you after all. I was beginning to think you weren't capable. Do you understand the true meaning of irony? A lot of people don't, but think that they do. They misuse the term. So here is some irony for you.

If you truly didn't care, if you truly were capable of being as magnanimous as you proclaim, there wouldn't be a stupid asshat proposal to ban Stokes. Think about it...

He is definately Nico, and nothing he says can sway me otherwise.
One only has to look at his first posts. One only has to look at this THREAD.

Rappaccini

Thank you... give me more. I can quickly see this thread is degenerating into nothingness. Now I will sit back and relax, ad hom away.

Rappaccini ad hom away.

Since you are so willing to accuse, might I ask that you provide a demonstration of an ad hom from his posts, directed at you. Please illustrate the correlation of your analysis to the definition of an ad hominem attack.

This thread is based on the premise of not a issue, but a person. That would be characterized as an ad hom. Where I am being degenerated for no verifiable reason, also this thread is childish at best. Also he is appealing to popularity to make up his mind which is not exactly cognitive if you ask me.

Ad hominem? Are you kidding?
Must've gotten so used to having it slide off your fingers, you forgot what it means.

Well... in this thread, you'll not be able to use that retreat.


Here, you are the topic.




Degenerating into nothingness? Happens to the best of us, all threads included, but you know what they say... it's better burn out than to rust out!


With that in mind, why not avert this slow oxidization that you readily condemn as "ad hom"? Why not tell me that which I want to hear?

No?

Oh, so you'd rather enjoy the show?
Get a few wicked laughs?
That isn't very upstanding of you, but it's all right with me, buddyroo.


Keep on wagging your finger at Stokes and basking in the attention you so love, and, if you allow it, sciforums will decide who you are for you.

Here, you are the topic.

Thank you, this is why the threads premise is a ad hom attack against me. Secondly the thread is done in a vengeful attack against me as you even indicated, there is a correlation btwn this thread and Stokes and that is that you want to attack me for me "attacking" Stokes. You obviously have showing me why this thread should be closed, you don't care who I am. You only care that I had the audacity to show the truth about Stokes. Vengeance is a disgusting thing.

The irony is that I am trying to stop the ad hom..."Argumentum ad hominem" is literaly translated as "argument directed against the man". It is commited when, insted of trying to refute the truth of what is affirmed, the person that made the affirmation is atacked. The irony is, in light of your protestations within this thread, that it is you who is guilty of this type of fallacious argument.

:m: Peace.

A poster's identity does not matter. What matters is the idea of each post.

If you can't carry an argument, it does not mean you have to insult people, dig into their lives, etc. Be adults!

Besides, many people re-register a few times, nico wouldn't be the first one. In fact, anyone who got banned can keep coming back again and again. Then, what's the point of banning? Might as well find a different way to deal with the problem, like ignore the poster, or be a little more competent in arguments....

How so? The thread unto itself is "argument directed against the man". Is it not? The premise of the entire thing is fallacious, and it is vengeful at best. But I know the tinge of these parts, and I know the ppl who posted on this thread are not the most savory of characters here on sci. Just intent on furthering my character assination. This thread should be closed because it has literally nothing to do with governing sci forums firstly, and I have already listed my other argumentations as to why this is the epitome of idiocy and should be discarded at best.

No, Undecided, this is not Ad Hominem.


An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the man"), is a fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion.

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

Look it up on your own, if you must, my friend.


My question concerns you.
You are my topic.

I have not directed anything "against the man," but merely toward the topic with which I started this discussion and poll.



Stokes? What about him? Certainly I do not approve of the motion you started, but this thread cannot rightly be called "vengeance".

It is merely a question.

Will you answer it, or must your peers do that for you?

My suggestion to you is be rational and make some conclusions:

prem·ise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prms)
n. also prem·iss (prms)
A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=premise

My question concerns you.
You are my topic.

"argument directed against the man".

The premise of this thread is ad hom.

Sounding more and more like nico through this argument.

Your reasoning for this thread being closed is the same as your reasoning for wanted Stokes banned. Ad hom attacks. Seeing how you've already lost the fight to have Stokes banned, your attempt at closing this thread will ultimately have the same result. Your best bet is to stop fueling the fire, and to sit back (as you said you would earlier) and watch the show.

Undecided, I made no argument against you;
My premise was a question, not a perjorative assertion.

I asked a question, a very simple question.



I am "the man" that ad hominem refers to.
Your response to me was an assault, an argument that was "against" me.

You mocked me and stigmatized this thread as "vengeance" instead of simply and easily silencing me with an answer.


You are a hypocrite.


Happy Trails. :D

Sounding more and more like nico through this argument.
As if there is doubt?

Not that it particularly matters, but he is nico. He as much as admitted it in some thread a ways back. It's a dead issue. I would note however that nico also at some point a while before tha claimed directly that he is not nico as well. Which really just cements the "is nico" thing.

Is nico, check.

Where have I mocked you? All I said is that this thread is laughable. What assault? Where do these imaginary assaults occur? If your mind is made up anyways, what is the point of continuing this? Simple to attack my character, the premise is overt. Do continue.

What's funny is that you know the two votes "no" are nico and undecided.

*smirk*

Anybody got any good recipe's for crow? Somebody is going to have a plateful to eat before this thread is locked.

Where do these imaginary assaults occur?

http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/nico.jpg

This would be a good place to start looking.

Please do not pollute this thread with images. I do not want it closed prematurely.
The poll should be open for all to use.



Undecided, none of your responses answered my question and a few hardly even addressed the topic.
Those that did basically conveyed your perpetual, universally applicable opinion: this is stupid.





... an insult to the forum's collective intellectuality.

My question is an insult to the collective intellectuality of this forum? Nice.

Maybe, or maybe you have absolutely nothing better to do, which is a sad comment.

Bellow the belt, mayhap? :rolleyes:

I know the ppl who posted on this thread are not the most savory of characters here on sci.

Discrediting me and everyone else posting. Very nice.

I am enjoying this is because it totally and completely supports my assertions that sci ad homers have taken over.

You callin' me an "ad homer"?

I think sooooooo.



You are, in this case, guilty of ad hominem, that very same fallacy you constantly complain of.

I am saddened by this show of ridiculousness, attacking me and attacking the intelligence of the community is quite an accomplishment. Of course we here have the typical posters who make it their business to decide who I am for me. Which is ok, b/c I think most ppl simply don't care who I am. As whitewolf has said it is the posts that matter not the man. Some ppl are simply incapable of grasping that, and I don't blame them for doing it. Frankly I think it is social commentary not only of this community but of society at large. You simply cannot go through life without the occasional assassin waiting to kill your character. I can live with it though; I have for quite a while now. I recognize my shortcomings, they are plenty. But I don't think ppl are introspective enough to question themselves, ppl are to scared to question themselves. The ppl who regularly attack me for whichever reason do the same thing, and in excess. I obviously am a very important poster on this website, enough to rattle some heads into doing these threads. It is a twisted irony that I take pleasure in knowing that the ppl who want dead (character wise) are not succeding. I wonder why some ppl take this type of "tabloid" thread into consideration, and importance? It is symptomatic of a great thing, a thing where the masses can forget their inadequacies, and make some up for their enemies. This is ominous to me because it is like a leering shadow over my head that wants to consume me. Almost everyone who has posted here has an agenda to see me sequel and squirm under the pressure for their own enjoyment, quite possibly to forget their misgivings of their lives. Me like an idiot fell for it, and I recognize that as a weakness. So I leave the 4 or 5 posters who take pleasure in this to debate this like girls debate over the next episode of passions.

Can't swallow what you dished out for yourself?

Do you think that diatribe, rife with new insults, is going to make up for your hypocrisy?

It makes you seem all the more absurd a character, a character that is less the victim of unjust "assassination," as you term it, and more the victim of his own mindless equivocation and woe's-to-me attitude.


To cease with this digression, are you Nico?
Yes or no will do, friend.

And the question is important to what?

As far as I can tell, the whole issue with Nico/Undecided is the fact that people wish to continue having the same, useless problems with Undecided that they had with Nico.

The issue of identity and credibility is one I've wondered about before; after all, I've been accosted for my treatment of a "new user", yet among those who would call me out on such a position is at least one who has, in the past, pushed the Nico/Undecided stake. I'm not entirely sure what difference it makes whether or not somebody is someone else. I've had plenty of folks over time sign up under new handles and seek to resume an old argument. Undecided, in this sense, would not be the first one.

And it's quite a bit easier if I don't try to track who's who this week. Turns out the "new user" I was apparently so mean to wasn't a new user, but just a secondary identity. I'm not going to try to account for that. Nor am I going to try to account for a number of people with whom I've had several nasty arguments who happen to match up with another poster I actually respect.

In the meantime, could somebody answer for me a simple question: Why is this important at all?

Think about it: How important is Nico or Undecided to you people that this discussion persists?

Rather quite, it would seem.

To comment on one specific part of this topic and its posts, however:So why don't you surprise everbody and cooperate, for the heck of it?Said the rapist to the little girl. Said the soldier to the dead man. (I can go on.)

I make these harsh counterpoints because, while it certainly would be easier if Undecided would simply accommodate those obsessed with him, it would also be easier if the question actually mattered in any way.

I'm voting "Other" because there's not a "Who freaking cares?" option.

(And I thought the Ban Wars were ridiculous ....)

"Other" is the "who freaking cares" option.
I specified this in my first post, though not explicitly.





... I'll admit, in all honesty, that this thread was a set-up for Undecided.


But the question, stripped of my designs, does have merit, Tiassa, if only for the fact that it was asked in truest curiosity.

I do care, I suppose, and, if Undecided will not resolve the matter, the voters will.

I'll admit, in all honesty, that this thread was a set-up for UndecidedVery well.I do careBut why?!

This is what makes no sense to me.

Honestly, I don't see what the answer to the question changes.

"Argumentum ad hominem" is literaly translated as "argument directed against the man". It is commited when, insted of trying to refute the truth of what is affirmed, the person that made the affirmation is atacked.I disagree with the irony.

- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Nizkor entries on fallacies including ad hominem, ad hominem tu quoque, "ad hominem abusive" (personal attack), and "poisoning the well."

- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Dictionary.com entry on ad hominem, see usage note; I would do the copy and paste here but I'm using a Windows box that frightens me insofar as it feels as if it's twenty years old, running at modern speed. (Sorry, even my negative opinion of Windows doesn't extend to expect this particular reality.)

At any rate, the basis of ad hominem seems to have been relatively neutral, and it is in recent times, in an effort to trump up shallow political and legal argumentation, that the transformation to the term we're all so vaguely familiar with at Sciforums.

What is referred to as "personal attack" and "poisoning the well" at Nizkor are, I think, the most relevant "ad hom" aspects that Undecided is trying to stop. And while there may be an argument to be had for irony, I don't think the present is actually it.

But why?!


... asked in truest curiosity.

:rolleyes:

People take pleasure in the suffering of others. Reminds me of a novel, "Lord of the Flies" only these are supposedly adults. Yup, much work to do. Nothing worth while here.

Go try to browbeat somebody that cares.

:rolleyes: And what does the answer change?

Does it somehow affect Undecided's arguments? Does it affect his value as a person? What's at stake that we should inflame this already-festering issue merely for curiousity? That you should bait someone for your curiosity?

You wrote, in your topic post:Guthrie recently put this question to our good friend, Undecided.

However, our friend was rather taken aback by this and never offered a definitive answer.
As far as I could tell, he was either genuinely taking umbrage or just being evasive.

Since he hesitates to say for himself, perhaps the community should decide who he is for him, as absurd as it may seem . . . .

. . . . After thirty days, this poll will close.
If, by that date, Undecided has not released a clear statement regarding his identity, I will believe whatever the poll indicates and I will continue to believe whatever it indicates from then and into eternity, forever and ever and ever, Amen.Personally, I'm curious about a number of things in the Universe, but resolving that curiosity with fact usually affects my perspective in some way. What is the value of the answer to the question?

The value of my question is the satisfaction the answer would bring... at least to me.
I can live without it, but that's not the point.

I bait only in that I ask a question that he is, remarkably, decidedly unwilling to answer. It was predictable, certainly, and, of course, it suggests that he is, indeed, Nico (though that is still up for debate).

I do not believe I upset him in the least, and, even if I had, so what?
It was worth it.

I bait only in that I ask a question that he is, remarkably, decidedly unwilling to answer. It was predictable, certainly, and, of course, it suggests that he is, indeed, Nico (though that is still up for debate).The question was originally asked in order to divert another topic.It was worth it.Okay. Fair 'nuff.

Is this thread stupid, yes I think so.

But after reading though it something bothers me...
Undecided: are you nico or not, yes or no, answer please!

And what does the answer change?On the other hand, why don't we all post anonymously?

Rappaccini: "Go try to browbeat somebody that cares."

Right on Rappa ! That is my point. Those who don't care come to rule the roost in an online forum. This genre of communication software is inherently bogus. The callous wallow in their filth. I feel for ya though. Perhaps someday, you'll see something new that people jump to join that actually works to sustain relationships amongst large populations. In the mean time, experiments will come and go.

This thread is bringing out the supercilious, not silly or entertaining in any way. Just another lesson to learn: Those who would put aside the alienation and get on with the fascination, (from Limelight by Rush), leave the chicken coop to the squawking.

Fetus, and anyone else who wants to know;

Doesn't it seem that if Undecided wasn't nico, that this user would deny it, and then argue against it? Rather, Undecided is attacking the purpose of the thread, and has yet to deny being nico. Is this significant? Probably not. But I know that if I was accused of being someone I wasn't, then the first thing I would say would be "no, I'm not that person" as opposed to "this is a useless thread!"

This is open government. Rappacinni started a thread about a topic. If you don't like the topic, don't read the thread.

I think Survivor is a bullshit tv show, so I don't watch it. Beyond that, I could give a shit if it's still on tv ten years from now.

nico has only herself to blame for the events that lead to the creation of this thread. Therein lies the lesson.

Look, I just don't see why people who have changed their identities before are so bothered with this.

Most of you have been conned, and quite easily. Remember that the only reason it matters whether Undecided is Nico is that a couple of single-digit IQ's would like to continue their rampage of interrupting topics to slam Nico for his age.


In the meantime: This is open government. I disagree to a certain extent, 15. Put this in free thoughts or about the members, but this isn't much of an SFOG topic.

In the sense of open government, what does this topic accomplish?

And given your recent asshat tirade, what credibility does your opinion really have?

Not that I care, 15. But I did see your picture in the picture thread and it struck me that when you grow up to be as old as the guy holding you in the picture, you'll be a pretty impressive mind. In the meantime, we're all very proud of your spelling and typing ability, but frankly I think you'll come to be embarrassed by the excessive and aggressive immaturity of your posts. And that would be unfortunate.

So get yourself together, little girlie. Because this is about as much "government" as Ted Kennedy driving home from Chappaquiddick.

Thanks for splendiferously transmogrifying the issue, Mr. Chips.
Your verdict has been noted, though perhaps not too respectfully.

Are you happy?



Tiassa, in the long run I am indifferent towards Undecided. I wrote up this thread to firstly sate my curiosity and secondly for kicks.

Is that all right with you, Great Complicator? Or must I go to the corner with the rest of the dissolute ne'er-do-wellers?



As for this being a misplaced thread, I initially agreed. Then I disagreed. Now I am resigned to unsurety.
Leave it to the mods.

Apparently you didn't get the memo Rap. Having a larf at the expense of another poster, or a shared mindset of several posters is strictly forbidden at Sciforums. Wit and gest are for stupid people. We should all strive to be more high-strung and thin-skinned. It seems to be working for these asshats. Look how happy they are. :D

Ok, off to stomp on some kittens and steal an old ladies cane. :mad:

Having a larf at the expense of another poster, or a shared mindset of several posters is strictly forbidden at Sciforums.Forgive those, 15, who don't thank you for your efforts to make it so.

I'm sure a lot of people thought Lenny Bruce was a total broke-dick in his day too t.

Oh, yes, they certainly did.

There's no such thing as an over-eagerness to poke fun, 15ofthe19, but there is such a thing as bad taste.
Comparisons to Lenny Bruce fall into that category.

Tiassa has his reasons to question me, and I'd guess about 75% of the active populace here has a reason to call you down.


You see, sadly, the word asshat, the phrase I am never wrong, and fiery denunciation of 'Everybody Loves Raymond' also fall into the aforementioned category.





Edit:

Tiassa, I remember your thread on Dr. Lou's so-called provocation, that which concerned evolution, I believe?

Well, I don't think that that was case of essentially malicious design. This one was, and I have admitted as much to you, while perhaps dragging my feet along the way.

This is your chance to hold a legitimate trial, if you wish.
If you feel I've overstepped my bounds in this bit of trickery, you can make a thread to discuss and vote on a penalty. I will not protest to the mods or interfere.

Link the thread to this one and advise the voters to read over my comments and decide for themselves. I will not try to sway them; I will not post in said thread, unless, of course, I am requested to do so by you or a mod.

The options of the poll would be up to you, though I do recommend you provide a variety, especially one to the effect of "acquittal," so as to ensure fair play.

Even though I do not think myself deserving of any sort of penalty, I am not afraid of the judgment of others and will accept it.
If Undecided truly feels slighted, he will have the chance to vote against me.



This is only a suggestion, Tiassa, so feel free to flatly refuse.
I will not do it myself, because that would be... in bad taste, a little reminiscent of Zarkov...
Your style of writing is much better suited, anyhow.

There's no such thing as an over-eagerness to poke fun, 15ofthe19, but there is such a thing as bad taste.
Comparisons to Lenny Bruce fall into that category.

Tiassa has his reasons to question me, and I'd guess about 75% of the active populace here has a reason to call you down.


You see, sadly, the word asshat, the phrase I am never wrong, and fiery denunciation of 'Everybody Loves Raymond' also fall into the aforementioned category.

So what you're saying is, you also fall into that category of posters on sciforums that don't know sarcasm when they see it? Terrific. This place is like a damned funeral home.

I've never watched a single episode of Raymond you asshat.

And sadly, I thought you might actually be one to get the joke.

Firstly, do you really think you should be taking this seriously? :rolleyes:


Secondly, your sarcasm is just like an onion:

It's mere presence is making me cry.
It's of the dirt beneath my feet.
It consists of many layers, which, when peeled away, reveal... nada, emptiness, zilch, a lack of substance.





Edit:

Thirdly, you think Sciforums is like "a funeral home"? Is everyone here too dull for ya?

... let me think... How original can I get?





Turn that frown:( upside down:D, buddyroo, 'cause there's somthin' you can do!


Why don't you show us what's up and...

Just Leave (http://yourethemannowdog.com/)?

They have made great strides in the treatment of schitzophrenia Rap. You should look into it. Sorry I inadvertantly pissed in your Cheerios. :D

I'm not going anywhere beeeyatcch. :p

I'm not going anywhere beeeyatcch.
I see you've finally hit puberty....

Where in the world did Stokes' post go?

I was just about to comment on how interesting I found the idea that he'd done the statistical analysis.

^^ note ninja edit:

Undecided = nico. No question.

The funniest part is that, even though he's so ashamed of his past that he refuses to admit who he is, he hasn't changed his mannerisms one iota. Hell, he still posts the same globalsecurity.org crap 10 times a day. That alone is diagnostic of nicoism.

He's kind of annoying. I've considered putting him on my ignore list before, but what fun is that? If anybody's wondering, nico put me on his ignore list for a grand total of two days before he broke and started responding again.

You should have named this thread:

is nico undecided?

I am too new, so I never encountered nico, and Undecided has never given me any offense. Neither has Stokes or anyone else for that matter.

Of course, I am so obnoxious that it is only a matter of time... :D

Hi, most of you proly rmember me, though i havnt posted for a few months. I used to talk frequently on MSN with both whitewolf and nico. They also talk frequently to each other. They = friends. Of course, if a friend is threatened, or banned, or other such things, another will protect, right? SO, nico get sbanned, and whitewolf has the account (undecided) lying around she isnt using. What better use then to give her friend nico it so that he can post on it! Maby this time he wont make the same errors, and his views will be more widely read, admired, whatever? BUT, people still guessed and saw through :( poor nico.

Yes, undecided and nico are one and the same, both whitewolf, the original creator of the account, and nico, the banned one, have told me so.

Oh, this is 1234,. the whole point of me posting :)