Is Undecided Nico?

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by Rappaccini, Mar 13, 2004.


Is Undecided Nico?

Poll closed Apr 12, 2004.
  1. Undecided is Nico.

    18 vote(s)
  2. Undecided is not Nico.

    2 vote(s)
  3. Other

    4 vote(s)
  1. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    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.


    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.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2004
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

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

    to hide all adverts.
  5. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    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.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    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.
  8. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    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!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. Undecided Banned Banned

    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.
  10. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    He sure writes like nico

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    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.
  12. Undecided Banned Banned

    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...
  13. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

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

    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.


    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.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2004
  14. Undecided Banned Banned

    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.
  15. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    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?
  16. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Originally posted by "the artist formerly known as nico"

    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...
  17. Shmoo The CzarnaChapka Registered Senior Member

    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.
  18. Undecided Banned Banned


    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.
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    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.
  20. Undecided Banned Banned

    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.
  21. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    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?


    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.
  22. Undecided Banned Banned

    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.
  23. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    "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.

Share This Page