Mods are too lax

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Communist Hamster, Oct 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. whitewolf asleep under the juniper bush Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    Invert, Invert! I was only gone for a short while. What happened to your intelligence?!
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    It was a shock to me too. He seemed to lose it all in one instant of a second, somehow. I'm still shaking my head. Everyone just turned on him for some reason. Fickle humanity.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Ah. More peanuts.

    First.
    Peanut #1.
    Your words would indicate that you once found me intelligent.
    Think.
    When? And why?
    Then you'll have your answer.

    Peanut #2,
    Your words are rather ironic. Especially considering that I'm highly doubtful that you intended the irony.

    The first half of your paragraph mourns my loss of intelligence. Wonders at the speed of it. The mystery.

    And the second seems to equate this loss of intelligence (or at least your perception of it) with fickly humanity and how everyone turned on me for 'some reason'.

    Do you see it?
    I bet my new friend does.
    Maybe even my old.

    Tee hee.


    Anyway...
    I was getting an answer together for Gendy, Gusty, and Harley and figured I'd take a moment to address the peanuts.
    Oh. Wait. How could I forget Peanut #3?
    Charming as always, Peanut #3.
    Missed your quaint pleasantries.
    Where ya been? Dimmu Borgir on tour or something?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    Peanut #2 says, no, he did not see it. Do I get to move up to Peanut #1 now? Pretty please with sugar on top.
     
  8. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Loser ISO Internet Girlfriend:

    I have been:

    Gaming fucking drinking fucking gaming gaming fucking drinking working drinking fucking gaming fucking gaming drinking gaming shrooming fucking studying fucking gaming gaming drinking family.

    You are all stupid. You will therefore be mocked in my attempt to amuse myself whilst listening to the sound of "ow! fucking tree! ow! damn stand!"
     
  9. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    Xev, are you a dude or a bitch?
     
  10. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Whatever I am, I have more balls than you.
     
  11. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    Do ya now? Well, whip 'em out, bitch.
     
  12. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    They're metaphysical.
     
  13. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    Thats not what you said to me in our deep personal PM discussions.
    You said that they never descended out of your vulva.
    I remember it specifically because you used the word vulva.
     
  14. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    Ahh, that's all good. My tight little poontang is sublimely metaphysical as well. Care to joust?
     
  15. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Only if you don't mind being speared, cottontop. I should love to feast upon your virginal sighs and moans. Lou Natic doesn't stand a chance because he's a whore
     
  16. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    And you think I'm not? Regardless, I don't mind being speared once in a while. Just don't take my horse, k?

    Lunatic is less. Ignore him.
     
  17. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Gendanken

    Wait. Let me get thist straight. Now you look like frothy vaginosis? What did you look like before?

    So... You're saying that I'm fixating on Gustav here because he represents what I think I'm not?
    Errr...
    I don't get what that has to do with my question about what people get out of flaming though...
    Let's see. People flame. When they flame they flame those who represent things they desire to not be, therefore they're fixating on things they're not to validate that which they are?

    Are you saying that this is what you get out of flaming? Or are you being abstract here?

    Uh. Pardon me, my dear. But where did you get that from my post?
    You're still having a hard time understanding where I stand on popular opinion after I wrote this: "I'm not ascribing some personification to it like Harlequin has done. I do see his point, and not all of what he says can be dismissed, but I believe that every individual has come to their own conclusions as to the outcome of the flame war (although I imagine few were able to do so without the aid of certain assumptions, preconceptions, and biases.). It is these individual conclusions that blend into and create popular opinion. It is after a certain weight of conclusions has come to the party that it welds into a force which influences those who come after to decide."

    I'm not saying that you thinking that I look 'silly' made everyone else see me as so. Far from. (However, Asch's study indicates that it can't be entirely dismissed either. But, not merely your opinion, but those who came after.)


    Now. What I was saying with that quote you used: "I can see that you're speaking in generalities, but in the context of this thread, one can see how popular opinion is a crucial element of a flame war, yes? One can see how many if not most of the tactics are aimed at presenting a finished product for the masses to consume. Even if they're completely out of context. Even if they're completely irrelevant. As long as they are presented with gusto and skill, they're devoured whole."

    Has nothing to do with you other than the fact that you've fallen prey to it.
    Gustav's tactics are specifically designed to sway the gallery. You've stated yourself that the most damning evidence against me is those quotes where he uses me against me. I say each and every one of those is bullshit. Out of context and not showing what he says they show. Instead, he's put together a packaged presentation, put a label on it, and made it easier for the crowd to make their decision by doing their thinking for them.

    I'm really surprised that you fell for it though. You usually are more perceptive. More daring. However, perhaps I missed one of those infamous posts. I've pulled them all out and was prepared to post but I want you to show me the most damning one. The one you think is most damning.

    Or. I'll post them all and debunk them one by one.

    Your choice.

    I won't deny that I ramble. I don't recall ever using the term 'happy rambling' though. But, maybe I just forget.
    Anyway. I do ramble. And, yes, I do it in other threads as well. But, none so much as I have in here, eh? Look at what the last two peanuts have to say. That I was intelligent but lost it somewhere along the way. This indicates that, even if I ramble at times, I do get my point across. When I care.

    Exactly. That's why you think I got creamed. Because you are under the assumption that I was doing something more than babbling. About nothing.

    You've failed, time and time again, to mention the strawmen. Do you think they were all true? Did Gustav effectively 'shut me down' with his 'logical inferences'?


    As to me being confounded... You've done it again. You think that what I've done in this thread is attempt to prove my intellect. You've ascribed to me Gustav's 'test of intellect' concept. You've ascribed to me the desire to win the 'flame war'.
    Assumptions, Gendanken. How they make an ass out of you and me. (Of course. It's interesting that you see me as an ass while I see you as one... Muaha!)

    I really can't blame the gallery for thinking as they do. I can't and don't. I am a touch disturbed that no one sees the strawmen. But, it just goes to show that I don't understand these flame war thingies. I've watched them before. And even half-heartedly become involved before. But I've never really analyzed them. Never truly understood the methods, the goals, the outcomes.

    You're so mean.
    You make me sad.
    (Actually. You're being too fucking nice. Bitch.
    Where's the gusto?
    Where's the skill?
    Damn you.
    You've done this to me before, you cumguzzling queen.)

    Yes. Yes. But we're saying the same thing.
    I didn't package my words in a user-friendly manner with ribbons and bows. I didn't seperate the wheat from the chaff. I didn't even bother to make my point plain because I thought it was so plain that I didn't need to. I do have Mephura to thank for that. His post showed me that he seriously thought I was trying to use my opinion as a weapon or shield. When in fact it was nothing but a phantasm.

    Then. I made my stance plain.
    Do you agree with that much at least? That after I understood that I wasn't clear that I finally made my point plain and clear?

    However, that's the thing.
    Prior to that, I didn't bother to package things. I just talked with no plan. Just answering things as they came up. Gustav, on the other hand, packaged everything to delight the audience. And delight it did.

    So. Answer me, Gendanken. What do you get out of a flame war?
    I truly don't understand.

    What would be my excuse for what? Not repeating myself as much as I might have? (That's what I accused you of, you know.)
    I would say... my indomitable willpower and my respect for a sweet and intelligent lady.

    Ah. She concedes. Wunderbar.
    Does many stop at two?
    Absolutely not.
    There would be as many reasons to vote for you as there are people to vote.

    However, you would make it easier for them to decide if you gave them neat and tidy pre-packaged reasons to vote. All tied up with pretty bows and festive colors.
    Yes?

    Sigh.
    Ok. I can see where you misunderstood on this one then.
    Sort of.
    Here. What I said in that long ago post.
    "Anyway. I think you're taking my use of inspiration wrong. I'm not saying that said mod will be a shining beacon that will direct the flow of conversation in his/her forum with the sheer might of his/her creative ingenuity.

    Just... active in the forum.
    Trying.
    Caring.
    That's what I'm saying.

    Take, for instance, Q's APOD threads when he first became mod. Those were simple threads which he didn't even need to think about. Straight up copy and pastes. And yet, they inspired conversation... sometimes."


    It's not about housecleaning. It's not about deleting trolls. Not about editing content.
    But about providing it.
    When I said it wasn't perhaps the definition you had in mind, I erred. It is the definition you had in mind. Just... perhaps not as strong as you had in mind.

    But. Like I said. It's not necessarily writing an inspiring essay. That's one way to go about it. Yes. But not the only way. Q's APOD threads are another way. They introduce content which inspired conversation in several instances. Spurious's news threads are another way. James's threads on the Provisional Nature of Science. That wasn't an essay. But it was inspiring.

    When I said not the definition you were thinking of, I meant for you to not think of it as some shining beacon. And by extension to not think of the 'inspirer' as some shiny knight riding in to singlehandedly save the world.

    Muddled? Vague? I'll admit that.
    But do you begin to see what I'm saying?

    Wake up, damn you. You think I'm doing this for my fucking health?


    Gustav, Gustav, Gustav,

    What to do with you?
    You just can't stop, can you?
    I've clearly and simply stated my lack of argument in my earlier discussion with you. That I was only stating a personal opinion. And not only a mere opinion, but an unfair opinion and one which I refused to 'dig' for evidence to to either back it up or shoot it down.
    You acknowledged my statement.
    And yet. Here you are.
    Still presenting the same old arguments. As if I were presenting my opinion as something important. Something tangible. Something defensible.

    Witness:
    Graded? To be considered?
    Where did I ever say that i wanted it to be considered?
    In fact, I've stated just the opposite.
    In the very quote you picked out, in fact.
    "there is no need to rationalize my opinion. No need to justify it. No need to prove it."
    And there isn't.
    You and I have nothing in common.
    Nothing.
    Perhaps if you posted on topics that interest me then I'd have a vested interest in validating my opinion of you one way or the other. But, you don't. You are nothing to me. I'm nothing to you.
    My opinion, unfair as it is, is what it is and I see no reason to go out of my way to rationalize it.

    More of your faulty analogies.

    Tout: To solicit customers, votes, or patronage, especially in a brazen way.

    I.e. to solicit support for your opinion. To sway popular opinion towards your opinion.

    I'm not touting any opinion.

    And. Ironically enough. The opinion that you've chosen to 'tout' in your example is the classic example used in the problem of induction.
    Naughty naughty.

    Listen and listen close.
    I have no interest in digging for proof of my opinion.
    I have no interest in swaying popular opinion to a belief in my opinion.
    I have no interest in rationalizing my opinion.
    I will not dig. I briefly entertained the notion long ago back when I first made the shift from my joke to a statement of my opinion, but quickly pushed it aside as unnecessary. I still deem it unnecessary and I will not, no matter how you quote me out of context to awe the gallery, ever find it necessary to prove my opinion of you.
    Ever.

    Hee hee.
    Now you can call me self-contradicting here. Seeing as how I just got done saying that I won't go digging. But, I don't think that using your quotes in this thread constitutes 'digging'.

    Gustav: "a fair number of my posts are involved in flame wars."

    Gustav: "spammy... a few. rude....a lot. flames.... tons. in fact if you reworded....you're truly inspired, when you're flaming with other members, i would never argue with that."

    Gustav: "it was a flame intended to provoke."

    Ha ha hee hee ho ho.
    Anyway.
    What the fuck ever, Gustav.
    I don't give a shit.
    I have a poor opinion of you.
    Big fucking whoop.
    Whoppity fucking doo.
    Post however the fuck you want.
    No skin off my nutsack.

    Can I assume from the smiley that you've conceded the issue of my 'attacking your intellect'?
    That I've never done any such thing and now you can only use it as a joke?

    Hmm. As a matter of fact. You never mentioned any of my examples of your strawmanning, did you?
    I guess your silence means that you've conceded all them as well?
    Nice.

    One. My opinions and perceptions of the world around me are never frozen. They are always on the revise. Sometimes drastically. Sometimes not. I have no fear of revising my opinion of you.

    I don't go digging in your post history for the simple reason that I don't give a shit.
    I have no reason to do so.
    The areas where you may have posted seriously (and which I have already acknowledged exist) are areas which I have little to no interest in.
    The areas that I do have an interest in, I've only seen you in a trolling capacity.
    So. My opinion of you is formed from where our interests coincide.
    I do not find you important or interesting enough to go out of my way to dig up evidence one way or the other.
    I won't.
    So give it up.
    I've admitted that not doing so is unfair.
    I've admitted that my opinion is unfair and is not worthy of defense.
    And yet.
    You continue behaving as if it were.

    Blah-de-fucking-blah.
    I will no longer be responding to any of your repetitions.
    Unless it serves my purposes, that is. (*gasp* Did I just admit to having a goal?! What of tactics?! *wink*)

    One of a few, actually. But, I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

    Nice rationalization.
    Did you do that on purpose, by any chance?
    You know. Making yourself a caricature of Harlequin's thesis?
    Even if only facetiously?

    Anyway.
    Even though you're being specious, I wonder.
    This is the second time you've made a statement that speaks of respect owed rather than earned.
    Do you feel that you're owed respect?

    You, unlike me, will find that you have no need to repeat your opinion.
    I have no problems with you having no respect for me.
    Did you think I would?

    Wrong.
    Repeat came before tactic.
    Should I now offer my own red herring by saying you're not worthy of being a moderator because you can't even follow the events of a single thread?

    Nice use of tactics.
    The way you snipped the relevant portions of the quote that explain that I'm not, in fact, attempting to 'reason' but rather that I'm admitting my opinion of you is not only unfair but unreasonable.
    And the way you used color and size in the title.
    Nice big friendly letters.
    And the funny thing is?
    That your tactics work.
    Amazing stuff.

    My first thought was, he lied in every word,
    That hoary cripple, with malicious eye
    Askance to watch the working of his lie
    On mine, and mouth scarce able to afford
    Suppression of the glee that pursed and scored
    Its edge, at one more victim gained thereby.

    --Childe Rolande to the Dark Tower Came​

    I wonder if you'll see the delicate irony in selecting this particular poem?



    Harlequin,

    Yes. But no one is forcing the panner to do anything against his will, yes?

    This is also true of everything intended for public consumption, aye? Pretty boxes all in a row.

    And. This is understandable. After all, which river would you rather pan? A turgid and seething monster full of gravel torn from the gullies as it washed down from high atop the mountain where it would take all your strength and stamina to stand long enough to pull forth a single nugget of gold from tons of useless granite? Or a calm, placid river where you can see the bottom covered in gold, sparkling ore where you have to fight for space with all the other panners but even so you're pulling out golden rock by the sackful? It doesn't matter that it's pyrrhite. Not while panning. The thrill is the same. And, if you never have the ore tested then the thrill never goes away.

    I can't blame them at all. I just find it funny. That's all. Really interesting, this human animal. And, I imagine that if I weren't in the center of this whole thing and if I didn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt my intentions throughout. I'd probably be right along with the rest of the peanuts. I'm certainly not calling myself special.

    This has been a rather informative experience for me and I don't regret it at all. It's given me a lot to think about.

    Not just an entertainer.
    I think the entertainment factor comes in mostly in close competitions. I think the key element demonstrated in this thread is the ability to package your ideas into an easily digestible form. It doesn't matter that Gustav's ideas were strawmen. And it doesn't matter that those posts Gendanken has such a hankering for were all taken way out of context. What matters is that they were clear and easily understandable. While my posts were a seething mass of words showing nothing but contempt for the audience because I didn't take the time to package them.

    I'm brought to mind of me showing up at christmas with my gifts still in the plastic sacks they came in.

    Amazingly, even Xev was drawn from the framework. Had to be coincidence, though, yes? She'd probably been passed down from the band to the roadies and the roadies had probably finally got tired of slamming her gaping asshole and so she had to come back home and fortune favors us with her showing up just in time for the 'fun'. (That harlequin shit was pretty nasty though, eh? Had you heard of it before?)

    Anyway. Why won't you start a thread? Because the evidence is here? Or you're claiming to not play for the gallery?
    (At the risk of being called a hypocrite or a flip-flopper, I'm now playing for the gallery. But perhaps not in the way that most would have in mind.)

    Yes. Well. You know what the gallery apparently thinks of tangents.

    I'm not so sure that 'emotion before reasoning' is entirely correct though. I think they go hand in hand. The mistake is trying to seperate them at all. And placing emotion before reasoning is another attempt to seperate them but in the opposite way that most logicians would.

    Remove the emotive element of the brain and what have you?
    Remove the logical portion of the brain and what have you?

    We do not use 20 percent of our brains. We use all of it.

    Illustrations all around.

    I remember going to watch the Blair Witch Project back when it first came out.


    Xev,

    Yup. Sounds like you've been following the band around all autumn. Bet your asshole is sore, eh? I hear Dimmu Borgir is really into anal sex.

    By the way. I like how it's all verbs until the 'family' at the end. Your statement could be interpreted as each verb applying to the sole noun at the end. Each in turn.

    And gaming? D&D? That's actually kind of amazing to me that you'd admit that. After all, everything else up there is 'cool'.
     
  18. Harlequin Banned Banned

    Messages:
    126
    Chumming over? Why don't you read again, Gendanken.. something you seem to have lost the knack for lately. Show me where it appears I've been "chumming". All I see is neutrality towards Invert on my part. I wonder why you're seeing more than is there. Which is not a question, of course.

    In fact, let's dispense with the bullshit altogether, shall we?

    You know, Gendanken... a few months ago, you would have seen what is happening here as well as some others already have. A few months ago you would have read more carefully - or perhaps I'm giving you more credit than I should.

    You know damned well that an entertained reader is likely to have more sympathy for the entertainer than his victim.
    You know damned well that those of the ilk of Spookz (terribly sorry - the new, more refined Gustav), Lou, and... you... have a following which is attracted for reasons in addition to (or other than) what they're actually saying.
    Deny it so strenuously, and you merely look ridiculous.

    It's difficult to believe you are actually denying it. How much attention would the likes of Gustav and Lou get here if they weren't entertaining about their dribble? Do they offer anything worth reading otherwise? Perhaps once in a while - rarely. Now as far as I can see, both are followed rather avidly on occasion. Ask yourself why.

    And you? Well. 6 months ago, I probably wouldn't have put you in the same grouping. You actually did have quite a few interesting things to talk about, and you did it well. Now... it appears you've lost something. It's patently obvious you took little care with the way you read this thread. Your interpretations of what I've said, your reaction to it, and the way you've reacted (key word there) to parts of Inverts posts betray a complete lack of reading. I'd prefer to believe that than you not having the intelligence to understand what was being said.

    And this "skimming", was something you used to hate... so... much.
    I never thought I'd see the day where not only did you fail to understand what was going on in favour of pursuing your own agenda, but display yourself as the perfect example of what was being discussed in the background. An emotional reaction with enough just reason to make it seem coherant, reminiscent more of a fishwife. It's patently obvious that your reaction to this entire thread, and one particular aspect of it, has been based not on what was said but who it was said about.
    And there is the key.
    Emotion before reason.
    How strange it is to see Gendanken being as foolish as the one she's seeking to hurt. Gendanken losing control over her reason - how you must hate that.
    Or you could simply deny it... you know, for the gallery. Or your mirror. You're good enough to get away with it too. But you aren't fooling me.
    It reminds me of something you said once, regarding falcons. I wonder if you reailse you've been less a falcon than a vulture.

    Your own agenda was, incidentally, the public humiliation of someone who has shown you nothing but loyalty in the past. One might think that the least you could have done was berate him in private - or, if you're no longer talking, keep it to yourself in remembrance of someone you counted a friend once. Nailing idiots I can understand. This... I do not.

    Your actions here have been disgusting - not in what you've said, necessarily, but how and where you've said it.
    But Gendanken is far above playing for the gallery... isn't she. Or perhaps it's all been for certain elements of the gallery. It's difficult to believe that this particular portion of the argument could have gone on for so long otherwise. In public, with the "observers" drooling over every word.
    Then again... it's not as if you don't have a history of that sort of thing.

    Tell me something. How's the sibling these days?
     
  19. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    yes boy, i am simply incorrigible, ja?

    dunno, i presume you are an adult........

    of course you are presenting as if it is inscribed on one of moses's tablet. you know, the ones from the almighty.
    as much as you wish for a cessation in rebuttals, it will never happen since.......

    you do understand the concept of time and measurement, ja? an opinion in a discussion started on 11-26-05, 02:18 PM is still referenced by you, 2 days ago (12-16-05, 09:18 PM).
    now. what makes you so special? you seek to bar me from the festivities? you now desire to present your hoary, old and moronic opinion, unchallenged?

    i suggest you wake up from this fantasy world of yours.

    why would i give a shit about what you want? i will consider anything that is on the table regardless of your desires.
    to present something implies a need for opinion and consideration
    it is simply the case. denials will be treated with dismissive contempt and disdain
    i am sorry
    you have no clue as to why this forum exists

    type a single letter into a post
    watch my response

    i choose to characterize it that way. it is extremely apt. the sheer number of times you bring up the issue of your opinion, absolutely warrants it.
    here mutt
    a dic def....tout: to praise or publicize lavishly and often excessively

    funny that this is an issue. of course, if i consider the fact that you have to grasp at the slimmest of straws in the hopes of striking the mother lode, it makes perfect sense why you would do so

    desperation

    huff and puff

    what a relief? think you got me? watch this, lamer

    1 - "sizable"
    2 - "fair number"
    3 - "few"
    4 - "a lot"
    5 - "tons"

    do you see anything defined? all the terms are amenable to a subjective interpretation
    with a post count around 7 to 10 thousand, there is room for all manner of posts

    you are truly pathetic. grow a fucking brain, maggot
    you are not worthy of my attention

    tout = advance, advertise, announce, boost, herald, offer, plug, promote, publicize; assert, aver, claim, declare, lay down, make out, proclaim, pronounce

    desperation, crap posts come out of crap brains. it is a logical inference (a skill you show no indication of possessing)

    occasionally i will ignore the moronic. in this case, mephura explained things to you. he was right on the money. yet you refused to acknowledge. i this see no reason to bash myself against your thick skull any futher.

    i could clear things up for you but i prefer to see you wallow in this morass of confusion like the retarded peasant you truly are

    read, maggot. you have no clue about what it takes to form a civic society
    you are an admitted asshole. a sociopath
    you will not understand
    i see it when you think it implies the hyper-sensibilities of a prison culture

    sure. it is not a red herring. it is a fucking fact. if repeat did come before tactic, you are entitled to disparage. yet....to do so would expose more of you than it would do me...... a nitpicking and delusional mutt

    nope
    your lack of consistency is what is amazing. your opinion according to you is both worthless and sacrosanct
    as always, i inteprete as i see fit
    with logic and reason
     
  20. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    To praise. I've not praised my opinion. You have.
    And publicity? You're the advertising executive with your pretty presentations and all. Quite lavish.

    You don't like definition when they don't suit you, do you?

    A definition for you.
    Red herring. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.
    Whether or not it is a fact or true is irrelevant.

    Yes. You will. With gusto and style.
    The Spookz Brand Flame. tm.
    *applause*
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2005
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    rationalize and nitpick all you want, boy
    soothe that fragile ego if you must
    it is immensely entertaining
     
  22. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    "Amazingly, even Xev was drawn from the framework. Had to be coincidence, though, yes? She'd probably been passed down from the band to the roadies and the roadies had probably finally got tired of slamming her gaping asshole and so she had to come back home and fortune favors us with her showing up just in time for the 'fun'."

    Oh hi invert nexus.
    Well I must say, whatever I do in my real life is probably a lot less pathetic than going on the internet to mourn my e-girlfriend's choice to become Mephura's actual girl (can you believe that? is such a thing possible, that anyone would be so actually lame as to try to meet someone and build a relationship off the internet?)

    I certainly have never been the equivalent of as pathetic in real life as to say "oh psst guy on other forum, my e-lady love has been barred and forbidden to you!"

    Actually, I poked in out of boredom. I know this sounds ridiculous, as you've become acclimated to this sort of drama, but I actually do things and interact with the opposite sex away from my computer.

    Now but hmm, we could send private messages:

    Do you think they'll marry?
    Will she wear white?
    Is it true love?

    I mean seriously, do you think any insult could ever have meaning from a man who follows a woman around trying to sniff her crotch, when he's never ever met her and has only the hope that (as he so happily broadcasts) she's met other guys before.

    You must be next, man. Good luck! Go for it!

    Mephura:

    My belated thanks for the note: had I read sooner, I wouldn't have posted but simply laughed hysterically at 1: the fact that you expect me to care and 2: the fact that you expect something out of me caring. For fuck's sake stick to a forum, too, I don't even post there.
     
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    lets establish intellect

    tabula rasa. from a dead philosopher.
    what do we know now?

    *The significance of genes is apparent when we see that identical twins often demonstrate similar personality traits. For example, one set separated since birth had very different developmental backgrounds.

    One was raised Jewish in Africa, while the other was raised in the Nazi Youth Movement. Although they never met, they both wore rubber bands on their wrist, and both enjoyed scaring people by sneezing in elevators. There are many other similar examples demonstrating the significance of genes in determining many facets of personality. link

    *When Bouchard and his team compared the answers to these and other personality questions, they found strong statistical evidence that identical and non-identical twins tended to answer differently. If one identical twin showed evidence of religious thinking or behaviour, it was much more likely that his or her twin would answer similarly.

    Non-identical twins, as might be expected (they are, after all, related), showed some similarities of thinking, but not nearly to the same degree. Crucially, the degree of religiosity was not strongly related to the environment in which the twin was brought up. Even if one identical twin had been brought up in an atheist family and the other in a religious Catholic household, they would still tend to show the same kind of religious feelings, or lack of them.

    Work by several other scientists has inclined to confirm Bouchard's findings. One study, conducted by an international team at the Institute of Psychiatry in London under Dr Hans Eysenck, looked at information from twins living in the UK and Australia.

    The researchers found that attitudes to Sabbath observance, divine law, church authority and the truth of the Bible showed greater congruity in identical rather than non-identical twins - again supporting the idea of a genetic influence. link


    lets move on...

    what do we know now?

    *Bodily symmetry is thought to be an indicator of developmental stability. Deviations from symmetry result from an organism's failure to cope with various inclement environmental (e.g., climate, malnutrition, parasitization) and genetic (e.g., inbreeding) factors (Moller, 1997).

    *Better "quality" individuals may resist environmental hazards more effectively than poorer quality individuals; some of this quality may be heritable. As such, a preference for symmetry in sexual partners may have been favored by natural selection. In non-human animals, symmetry appears to be correlated with reproductive success (Moller & Thornhill, 1998).

    * Studies of asymmetry in natural faces (e.g., Grammer & Thornhill, 1994) and more recent studies using manipulated, but not chimaeric, stimuli (e.g., Perrett et al., 1999) indicate that facial symmetry does make some contribution to both male and female facial attractiveness in humans.

    *The peacock's tail is often cited as a classic example of "honest advertisement," whereby males demonstrate their quality by displaying costly ornaments. In mammals, the growth of secondary sexual traits is linked to levels of androgens (Owens & Short, 1995), which depress immune system function (Folstad & Karter, 1992). Hence, only males in good condition can bear the "handicap" of large secondary sexual traits that represent an honest advertisement of male viability.

    *Considerable evidence suggests that extremely feminine female faces are considered attractive. A wide variety of techniques ranging from measurement of facial photographs of women (Grammer & Thornhill, 1994), through studies of facial composites (Perrett et al., 1994; 1998) to the generation of attractive female face shapes using genetic algorithms (Johnston & Franklin, 1993) indicate that feminine features indicating estrogenized female faces increases their attractiveness cross-culturally.

    *Outdoor aesthetics 101. A practical introduction to the principles of landscape design architecture, as well as the basic elements upon which they are grounded. Starting point for backyard makeovers. Unity (harmony), colors, focalization, perspectives, textures, forms, massing, repetitions, balance, symmetry


    so we have a crackpot running around this board with his philosophical mumbo jumbo unwilling to consider anything except with the most superficial of consideration and treatment.

    the shit is presented with fanatical religiosity. it is the final word. a firmly held conviction.

    what a fucking mutt
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2005
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page