INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on March 16, 2016, 06:58:32 AM
-
Calling you out on it.
You know perfectly well what I mean. Don't pretend that you're replying to Zegh only because he did it first, that's all I'm saying.
I have literally no interest in having that discussion. I was commenting, not telling you what you can or can't do, and I don't care who did what first. I doubt you know, or Zegh knows, and months after the fact it doesn't matter so having that discussion holds no interest to me at all. However, I think DFG knows why she got so butthurt because she is angry and carrying a grudge. She seems to be tagging along for the ride because then she doesn't have to face Zegh alone, but that's my impression.
Both you and Zegh seem to enjoy this endless back and forth, though, so whatever works for you and all that. Just don't pretend it's something else than what it is.
So if you want to call me out, by all means do so, but please try to come up with a more relevant subject.
I'm saying pretty much what you did, that this is what they are, they like it, and so it's why they do it. But I'm also saying that Al shouldn't pretend it's about something else, which is how I read his post and why I replied.
Again, mate, I don't care who started this. It doesn't matter after all this time, if it ever did. The fact is that you do this because you enjoy it, you both do, and pretending it's something else (which was my impression of the post I replied to) is just dishonest.
Calling you out, Odeon.
From the outset I do not go with the my impression. If you had that impression I would imagine you, being smart and logical, would think "Mmmm it looks like Al might be being dishonest. I have known him for a long time, he does not tend to gravitate towards dishonesty. Maybe I am mistaken. Maybe I should clarify." THAT is in your character. Accusing me over and over? THAT is not. It leads me to suspect more than just "impression"
The "pretense" I have not the slightest idea about. What was I hiding and how? What proclamations had I made about singularity of reasons for posting crap at Zegh? I would like to see. I want to see how you jumped to this premise so insistently.
-
/shrugs
No biggie. As I explained when replying to you in that other thread, while you admit you enjoy the back and forth with Zegh, your posts (to me) implied that your replying to him is about more than that. Don't know what, exactly, but calling out his bs is one you've both implied at and admitted directly.
The problem with that one, though, is that you supposedly don't read his posts which means that either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts. You don't get to do both, it's either you read what he is saying and think it's bs, or you don't read it and, well, post ninja cats but cannot possibly know if it's bs or not. Assume, yes, sure, but know, certainly not. This what you mean when saying I'm calling you dishonest at best and a liar at worst?
But I also got the feeling (maybe I'm wrong about that and if so, tell me; as I said, no biggie) that you think he is the one keeping this thing alive and so you reply because of that, rather than the both of you posting at each other because you enjoy it.
I have no intention of digging through months and months of your (you and Zegh's) posts to find out who did what first and why, but my distinct impression is that you've both been following each other around the board. You both do it. You both enjoy it. That's what it looks like to me, not that just one of you is to blame.
But let me reiterate: this is my impression, so feel free to correct me if you know better. Yes, I've known you a long time, which is how I know there are people you don't suffer easily. Zegh quite obviously is one and Butterflies is another, and you tend to remind them. And since I have known you a long time, I'm perfectly happy to be wrong and admit it if that proves to be the case.
You have known me a long time, too, and so you should know by now that I don't call people dishonest or liars as a general rule. I do, however, question their motives when I feel it's warranted.
-
/shrugs
No biggie. As I explained when replying to you in that other thread, while you admit you enjoy the back and forth with Zegh, your posts (to me) implied that your replying to him is about more than that. Don't know what, exactly, but calling out his bs is one you've both implied at and admitted directly.
The problem with that one, though, is that you supposedly don't read his posts which means that either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts. You don't get to do both, it's either you read what he is saying and think it's bs, or you don't read it and, well, post ninja cats but cannot possibly know if it's bs or not. Assume, yes, sure, but know, certainly not. This what you mean when saying I'm calling you dishonest at best and a liar at worst?
But I also got the feeling (maybe I'm wrong about that and if so, tell me; as I said, no biggie) that you think he is the one keeping this thing alive and so you reply because of that, rather than the both of you posting at each other because you enjoy it.
I have no intention of digging through months and months of your (you and Zegh's) posts to find out who did what first and why, but my distinct impression is that you've both been following each other around the board. You both do it. You both enjoy it. That's what it looks like to me, not that just one of you is to blame.
But let me reiterate: this is my impression, so feel free to correct me if you know better. Yes, I've known you a long time, which is how I know there are people you don't suffer easily. Zegh quite obviously is one and Butterflies is another, and you tend to remind them. And since I have known you a long time, I'm perfectly happy to be wrong and admit it if that proves to be the case.
You have known me a long time, too, and so you should know by now that I don't call people dishonest or liars as a general rule. I do, however, question their motives when I feel it's warranted.
"The problem with that one, though, is that you supposedly don't read his posts which means that either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts. You don't get to do both"
Except this is not true or at least not entirely.
Now I have known Zegh a long time and I have seen his style of argument and what he falls back to. In addition I also see what others are replying to him.
For example I DID see this and it tells a lot:
Zegh now is putting himself on a month of restraint. His responsibility to do that. His responsibility to decide what to do after that month too. My challenge, his responsibility.
Zegh and Hyke won, Zegh by deciding to accept the challenge for a month and Hyke for issuing the challenge to begin with.
I see him posting again and seeming to gang up with Butterflies against PsychoFreak. I cannot know this is 100% correctly interpreted but seems to be judging off her posts and others. Also no one is saying "Al you have put the cart before the horse" or "You misread that".
AND of course I hit him with that memes about him lying.
How can I accuse a member of lying without reading his posts? That is how.
Now that is the reason why I am not being dishonest. HOWEVER there is one small point in this that I HAVE to concede. What if I miss some nuance by relying on second or third hand knowledge. What if there was something said that was generalising and leaving out specificity?
Yes, of course, I can't deny that.
Another point is IF I do not read things doesn't that make it many times harder for Zegh to resolve things? It was many months before I stopped reading his crap and he could have tried resolving it in before BUT yes.
What WOULD resolve things at this point? Not my problem. I actually do not care how long this goes on. But I do refer you to what I said about children. He makes a mess and does the wrong thing what steps does every child do to fix things? In Zegh's case it has been 8 months of mess heaped onto mess. He is a big boy though. If he wants to sort things out he can. If he doesn't that is fine. Nothing will change though until he does.
I do distrust him in this for two reasons his going back on his word and breaking his promise to do the 30 days thing and those PM's to me encouraging me to harass him. Neither suggests a want or an inability to sort things out himself.
-
So with that explained and with you saying I MUST be dishonest but it was just which of these instances I am dishonest in, which instances is it (because I MUST be dishonest)?
I am still interested in the matter of supposed pretence too because I am not seeing it. I see you proclaim it again and again but I have neither been pretending about anything nor have motivation to give that belief.
-
So you haven't been reading Zegh's posts for months? Fine. I have no reason to distrust that statement. It does make it hard to call his bs, though, as I pointed out and as you (at least partially) conceded.
And as you actually show in this thread, because basically it's all built on assumptions.
Essentially, what you're saying is that you read a quoted sentence here and spotted a reaction from others there, and that Zegh does not change, cannot change, from what you think he was whenever it was that you stopped reading him, and so therefore he is full of it. That about right?
But seriously, Al? Lots of assumptions going on here. You postulate what he was, all those months ago, and imply he cannot change but don't actually bother to check. You reply to him without reading his posts, sometimes extrapolating, sometimes posting ninja cats, yet here you are, saying that he is a big boy now and if he wants to sort things out, he can. His responsibility, not yours.
Then another member reappears (Butterflies) and posts to threads in which you don't read Zegh, someone whom you dislike as much or maybe more, and you say she seems to gang up with Zegh against DFG.
DFG, though, dislikes Zegh as much as you do, maybe more, and has been going after Zegh for months. An argument could easily be made, especially by someone who would just skim over posts and not read the endless back and forth, that she was ganging up with you against Zegh. See how this works?
God only knows why DFG dislikes Zegh. I'm guessing classic internet butthurt, but I don't know. My point is that she is hardly a neutral observer. Butterflies isn't either, given your history, but she only just reappeared so ganging up seems a bit less likely to me.
So yes, I am reading pretence into the above.
pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
noun: pretence; plural noun: pretences; noun: pretense; plural noun: pretenses
1.
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
"his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well"
synonyms: make-believe, act, putting on an act, acting, dissembling, shamming, sham, faking, feigning, simulation, falsification, dissimulation, invention, imagination, self-deception, play-acting, posturing, posture, posing, pose, cant, attitudinizing;
I freely admit the above is my impression, and if I am wrong, fine. But if I am, then how do you explain your assumptions?
-
So you haven't been reading Zegh's posts for months? Fine. I have no reason to distrust that statement. It does make it hard to call his bs, though, as I pointed out and as you (at least partially) conceded.
And as you actually show in this thread, because basically it's all built on assumptions.
Essentially, what you're saying is that you read a quoted sentence here and spotted a reaction from others there, and that Zegh does not change, cannot change, from what you think he was whenever it was that you stopped reading him, and so therefore he is full of it. That about right?
But seriously, Al? Lots of assumptions going on here. You postulate what he was, all those months ago, and imply he cannot change but don't actually bother to check. You reply to him without reading his posts, sometimes extrapolating, sometimes posting ninja cats, yet here you are, saying that he is a big boy now and if he wants to sort things out, he can. His responsibility, not yours.
Then another member reappears (Butterflies) and posts to threads in which you don't read Zegh, someone whom you dislike as much or maybe more, and you say she seems to gang up with Zegh against DFG.
DFG, though, dislikes Zegh as much as you do, maybe more, and has been going after Zegh for months. An argument could easily be made, especially by someone who would just skim over posts and not read the endless back and forth, that she was ganging up with you against Zegh. See how this works?
God only knows why DFG dislikes Zegh. I'm guessing classic internet butthurt, but I don't know. My point is that she is hardly a neutral observer. Butterflies isn't either, given your history, but she only just reappeared so ganging up seems a bit less likely to me.
So yes, I am reading pretence into the above.
pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
noun: pretence; plural noun: pretences; noun: pretense; plural noun: pretenses
1.
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
"his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well"
synonyms: make-believe, act, putting on an act, acting, dissembling, shamming, sham, faking, feigning, simulation, falsification, dissimulation, invention, imagination, self-deception, play-acting, posturing, posture, posing, pose, cant, attitudinizing;
I freely admit the above is my impression, and if I am wrong, fine. But if I am, then how do you explain your assumptions?
My assumptions are pretty easily explained and I believe I have done that. Do I deny assumptions are assumptions? No. I have no reason to imagine I would need to.
Pretty much most of what you write has me agreeing with it.
HOWEVER to clarify. Butterflies DID appear and "seemed" to go straight for DFG. Zegh who had gone on his 30 day (whatever) suddenly weighed into DFG too. I had seen him online for a few days NOT posting and after Butterflies comes in, he joins in against DFG and breaks his promise as far as I understand his promise to be.
Is it "ganging up"? Well given the circumstances it appears that way. It was enough to get him to break his promise and join in. Butterflies quoting him and talking to him is indicating to me he and her are double teaming.
More assumptions by me? Sure. I admit that. Maybe You and Hyke did not full describe what exactly he was going to do or not do in 30 days BUT I would imagine joining in giving shit to DFG is not a truce by any reading. Maybe him joining in with Butterflies is is not double teaming? Is it at all possible that two people can be effectively walking down the same path for different reasons at the same time? Is it possible for two members to strongly agree with a position or share a dislike? ABSOLUTELY. BUT in THIS particular instant. One was on self-administered 30 day truce and the other was away from the forum. She comes back and starts getting stuck into DFG and then he joins in. If you do not want to call that ganging up or if you want to say that is what you and DFG do to Zegh....okay. I have no problem with semantic differences but then I do not care for the point.
How "reasonable" are my assumptions? I can't know for certain but I imagine I am ballpark. certainly the sheer fact that people question whether I am reading anything he says suggests that I am reasonably close. How close? I honestly don't know and YES I may be degrees off here and there.
So then we get to you saying the above is pretence.
pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
noun: pretence; plural noun: pretences; noun: pretense; plural noun: pretenses
1.
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
"his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well"
synonyms: make-believe, act, putting on an act, acting, dissembling, shamming, sham, faking, feigning, simulation, falsification, dissimulation, invention, imagination, self-deception, play-acting, posturing, posture, posing, pose, cant, attitudinizing;
The only thing is pretence =/= assuming
I am not putting on an act or make believing or falsifying or faking. None of that. So again, where is the pretence? I have been open and transparent that I am not reading him and so where is the pretence you keep bringing up. I am not pretending I am reading him NOR pretending to know more than I can BUT I am assuming from what I can gauge or interpret and they are two very different things.
So we are right back where we started. Pretence. You have not shown my dishonesty and where I am pretending anything.
-
So you haven't been reading Zegh's posts for months? Fine. I have no reason to distrust that statement. It does make it hard to call his bs, though, as I pointed out and as you (at least partially) conceded.
And as you actually show in this thread, because basically it's all built on assumptions.
Essentially, what you're saying is that you read a quoted sentence here and spotted a reaction from others there, and that Zegh does not change, cannot change, from what you think he was whenever it was that you stopped reading him, and so therefore he is full of it. That about right?
But seriously, Al? Lots of assumptions going on here. You postulate what he was, all those months ago, and imply he cannot change but don't actually bother to check. You reply to him without reading his posts, sometimes extrapolating, sometimes posting ninja cats, yet here you are, saying that he is a big boy now and if he wants to sort things out, he can. His responsibility, not yours.
Then another member reappears (Butterflies) and posts to threads in which you don't read Zegh, someone whom you dislike as much or maybe more, and you say she seems to gang up with Zegh against DFG.
DFG, though, dislikes Zegh as much as you do, maybe more, and has been going after Zegh for months. An argument could easily be made, especially by someone who would just skim over posts and not read the endless back and forth, that she was ganging up with you against Zegh. See how this works?
God only knows why DFG dislikes Zegh. I'm guessing classic internet butthurt, but I don't know. My point is that she is hardly a neutral observer. Butterflies isn't either, given your history, but she only just reappeared so ganging up seems a bit less likely to me.
So yes, I am reading pretence into the above.
pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
noun: pretence; plural noun: pretences; noun: pretense; plural noun: pretenses
1.
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
"his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well"
synonyms: make-believe, act, putting on an act, acting, dissembling, shamming, sham, faking, feigning, simulation, falsification, dissimulation, invention, imagination, self-deception, play-acting, posturing, posture, posing, pose, cant, attitudinizing;
I freely admit the above is my impression, and if I am wrong, fine. But if I am, then how do you explain your assumptions?
My assumptions are pretty easily explained and I believe I have done that. Do I deny assumptions are assumptions? No. I have no reason to imagine I would need to.
Pretty much most of what you write has me agreeing with it.
I thought you would, which is why I find this callout to be puzzling.
HOWEVER to clarify. Butterflies DID appear and "seemed" to go straight for DFG.
In that she posted in a thread that caught her eye? That's far from ganging up with Zegh.
Zegh who had gone on his 30 day (whatever) suddenly weighed into DFG too. I had seen him online for a few days NOT posting and after Butterflies comes in, he joins in against DFG and breaks his promise as far as I understand his promise to be.
Can't be arsed to look it up, but I think you were on his case for that 30-day thing before Butterflies showed up. As I thought you would, btw, since you do enjoy this.
Yet Zegh's view of what he said he would and wouldn't do differs from yours. Thing is, how would you know unless you read what he wrote?
Is it "ganging up"? Well given the circumstances it appears that way. It was enough to get him to break his promise and join in. Butterflies quoting him and talking to him is indicating to me he and her are double teaming.
A quote equals ganging up on DFG? Seriously?
More assumptions by me? Sure. I admit that. Maybe You and Hyke did not full describe what exactly he was going to do or not do in 30 days
I did not describe it at all, basically, I merely commented that him stating what he did put him on the winning side of that callout. This is what I wrote:
Zegh and Hyke won, Zegh by deciding to accept the challenge for a month and Hyke for issuing the challenge to begin with.
BUT I would imagine joining in giving shit to DFG is not a truce by any reading. Maybe him joining in with Butterflies is is not double teaming? Is it at all possible that two people can be effectively walking down the same path for different reasons at the same time? Is it possible for two members to strongly agree with a position or share a dislike? ABSOLUTELY. BUT in THIS particular instant. One was on self-administered 30 day truce and the other was away from the forum. She comes back and starts getting stuck into DFG and then he joins in. If you do not want to call that ganging up or if you want to say that is what you and DFG do to Zegh....okay. I have no problem with semantic differences but then I do not care for the point.
Semantic differences are important since you say it's ganging up and I say it isn't. Semantics is about meaning.
How "reasonable" are my assumptions? I can't know for certain but I imagine I am ballpark. certainly the sheer fact that people question whether I am reading anything he says suggests that I am reasonably close. How close? I honestly don't know and YES I may be degrees off here and there.
Which means that you don't know but still maintain you're calling him on his bullshit. Sorry, but to me that's dishonest. Not dramatically so, but it is intellectually dishonest since you base what you say on assumptions and admit that's what they are and that you don't know, yet, at the same time basically say Zegh is full of it.
You can't have it both ways, and that is why I have a problem with it.
So then we get to you saying the above is pretence.
pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
noun: pretence; plural noun: pretences; noun: pretense; plural noun: pretenses
1.
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
"his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well"
synonyms: make-believe, act, putting on an act, acting, dissembling, shamming, sham, faking, feigning, simulation, falsification, dissimulation, invention, imagination, self-deception, play-acting, posturing, posture, posing, pose, cant, attitudinizing;
The only thing is pretence =/= assuming
In this case, you know that you don't know. You admit it. You *assume* something to be the case and act based on that assumption, even though that's all you have. Well, that and your back and forth from whenever it was that you still read his posts. To me, this equals "an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true". It's pretending to know more than you do.
Semantics, I know.
I am not putting on an act or make believing or falsifying or faking. None of that. So again, where is the pretence? I have been open and transparent that I am not reading him and so where is the pretence you keep bringing up. I am not pretending I am reading him NOR pretending to know more than I can BUT I am assuming from what I can gauge or interpret and they are two very different things.
So we are right back where we started. Pretence. You have not shown my dishonesty and where I am pretending anything.
But I have. We may not agree on the finer points, but I have.
Callout over?
-
No.
Semantic differences are important since you say it's ganging up and I say it isn't. Semantics is about meaning
Sometimes they absolutely are. But here is the difference. I called this BUT I do not care. You explained why you think its wrong. Okay. Is it important? Not to me. It is not a hill for me to die on. I have for the most part been ignoring Butterflies (apart from a chat about Feminism). I have been teasing Zegh a little about hiding behind her skirts. You say that ganging up was the "wrong" term or I misread the situation in respect to what was going on? Fine. I don't care. I was not that invested in it. You tell me how I should perceive this and I will go along with that. No, honestly make a good case and I will take it that you have the inside scoop. I just care nothing whether he was or not
For example, If he was on a sabbatical from posting shit at DFG and myself and that was reasonably cut short for reasons I am not aware of and she happened to come across things on her own volition that incensed her to start on DFG from the get go and the act of doing this somehow removed Zegh's self-imposed ban....Great! I don't care, but great. I am happy to adopt this new "right" way to view things. Spell it out an let me know. Otherwise I may well have the "wrong" opinion on this and I do not care enough about whether they were ganging up or not. It looked like it, I called it and moved on. I was never that invested in it.
Which means that you don't know but still maintain you're calling him on his bullshit. Sorry, but to me that's dishonest.
Except it isn't.
Archaeologists for example work with a base understanding centered around assumptions from which they gauge a world they cannot know intimately from hard and fast acts. SO...they are dishonest.
Psychologists that profile people in examining crime and try to track down serial killers and the like, cannot know so they need to assume certain things. So really they are just making assumptions. SO.....they are dishonest.
I can keep going. But I hope the point is being made. Assumption=/= dishonest. They are not synonymous and you are seeming to try to make this case and put it down to semantics. It isn't....at all.
IF I at any point actually said specifically that I DID know more than I can know or denied I made these assumptions you may have something. Don't call it semantics, Odeon.
Zegh is full of it
Isn't he just. But IF I say that he has no interest in sorting things out, YES there are assumptions on my part. BUT are they based on anything?
1. His want to avoid ownership or responsibilities for his part for 8 months (until recently sometime I understand....well done Zegh) for having any part in things.
2. His 30 day hiatus (whatever the parameters of that were) that he could not uphold for a week.
3. PM's I have shown by which he encouraged me to harass him until he left (Not that this is what I am doing but begging for me to do so is evidence of him not wanting this sorted out).
Again you make this assumption thing to be an all or nothing. No, even assumptions often are based on pretty solid reasoning and not all assumptions carry the same rigour. To assume this is the case is silly (joking).
So IS Zegh full of bullshit? You have my opinion of him strewn across this board and a LOT of it is based on similar reasoning. Maybe I am wrong but I make a decent case for it.
You *assume* something to be the case and act based on that assumption, even though that's all you have. Well, that and your back and forth from whenever it was that you still read his posts
Exactly. You make assumptions too. We all do. In fact interpreting any motive or intent of anyone here comes with certain amount of assumption. It does not make it wrong to do so. Nor is it dishonest to do so. Nor is it strange or silly.
Of course you could say, "But Al, you are a logical kind of guy, why not get better proof? Read what he says and there will be less room for possible misinterpretations or errors of judgment"
My answer to that would be "No thanks". He writes bullshit. He is not worth my time reading. IF that makes his mess harder for him to resolve I don't much care about that either.
-
No.
Are you prolonging it because you like it? IMHO, you've lost the argument.
Semantic differences are important since you say it's ganging up and I say it isn't. Semantics is about meaning
Sometimes they absolutely are. But here is the difference. I called this BUT I do not care. You explained why you think its wrong. Okay.
You don't care. How is that an argument for your case? It is an argument for you not bothering about meaning and definitions, and so ultimately about the very basis for any callout--a common vocabulary.
It's a beautiful green sky this morning. The moon is climbing fast.
See how this works?
Is it important? Not to me.
I think we established that.
It is not a hill for me to die on. I have for the most part been ignoring Butterflies (apart from a chat about Feminism). I have been teasing Zegh a little about hiding behind her skirts. You say that ganging up was the "wrong" term or I misread the situation in respect to what was going on? Fine. I don't care. I was not that invested in it. You tell me how I should perceive this and I will go along with that. No, honestly make a good case and I will take it that you have the inside scoop. I just care nothing whether he was or not
In other words, you don't care about the semantics, you just use a word that is dramatic enough, no matter the consequences? I'm not telling you how to perceive anything, I'm calling you out on the way you describe a situation even though you admit that the meanings of the words you use aren't important and could be wrong.
Ganging up is a dramatic phrase. It implies all kinds of things, most of which are at least a bit nasty. Yet here you are, stating that it doesn't matter.
Of course it matters, and I think you know it. The Al I know is good enough with words to know.
I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to decide the level of dishonesty of this particular point.
For example, If he was on a sabbatical from posting shit at DFG and myself and that was reasonably cut short for reasons I am not aware of and she happened to come across things on her own volition that incensed her to start on DFG from the get go and the act of doing this somehow removed Zegh's self-imposed ban....
It was probably a lot of things but a ban it wasn't. Again, meaning is important. But then, you don't read him, you assume that the impression you get by reading quoted bits and by observing the reactions of others, and, for all I know, posting ninja cats and the reactions to those, is enough, is correct, is true. But if it isn't, it doesn't really matter.
That about right? And remember that what we are discussing here is not the true nature of Zegh's character, even though it's what you try to make it to be, we are discussing whether or not your assumptions, your not knowing (and admitting that you don't know), are an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Don't you think this is intellectually dishonest?
Great! I don't care, but great. I am happy to adopt this new "right" way to view things. Spell it out an let me know. Otherwise I may well have the "wrong" opinion on this and I do not care enough about whether they were ganging up or not. It looked like it, I called it and moved on. I was never that invested in it.
We are debating things here. Are you saying that I'm enforcing my views on you? Are you the victim after calling me out?
Which means that you don't know but still maintain you're calling him on his bullshit. Sorry, but to me that's dishonest.
Except it isn't.
Archaeologists for example work with a base understanding centered around assumptions from which they gauge a world they cannot know intimately from hard and fast acts. SO...they are dishonest.
Don't you think that an archaeologist would ask that dead pharaoh directly if s/he could? Going with your comparison, you can.
Psychologists that profile people in examining crime and try to track down serial killers and the like, cannot know so they need to assume certain things. So really they are just making assumptions. SO.....they are dishonest.
They, too, would talk to the subject directly if they could. They, too, would immediately revise their assumptions based on any new evidence.
I can keep going.
So can I but I'd rather not.
But I hope the point is being made. Assumption=/= dishonest. They are not synonymous and you are seeming to try to make this case and put it down to semantics. It isn't....at all.
No, I'm using semantics because you brought it up. It is handy, though, isn't it, because it provides me with the tools I need to prove you wrong.
IF I at any point actually said specifically that I DID know more than I can know or denied I made these assumptions you may have something. Don't call it semantics, Odeon.
See above.
Zegh is full of it
Isn't he just. But IF I say that he has no interest in sorting things out, YES there are assumptions on my part. BUT are they based on anything?
Don't quote me out of context.
1. His want to avoid ownership or responsibilities for his part for 8 months (until recently sometime I understand....well done Zegh) for having any part in things.
2. His 30 day hiatus (whatever the parameters of that were) that he could not uphold for a week.
3. PM's I have shown by which he encouraged me to harass him until he left (Not that this is what I am doing but begging for me to do so is evidence of him not wanting this sorted out).
1. Not interested. It's not what this is about.
2. It's not a ban now, it's a hiatus? Otherwise, not interested. It's not what this is about.
3. Not interested. It's not what this is about.
Again you make this assumption thing to be an all or nothing.
No, I'm discussing semantics and the value of words. If you assume, you don't know. See my previous posts for the rest of it because I can't be arsed to repeat it again.
No, even assumptions often are based on pretty solid reasoning and not all assumptions carry the same rigour. To assume this is the case is silly (joking).
So IS Zegh full of bullshit? You have my opinion of him strewn across this board and a LOT of it is based on similar reasoning. Maybe I am wrong but I make a decent case for it.
Or maybe you are wrong.
You *assume* something to be the case and act based on that assumption, even though that's all you have. Well, that and your back and forth from whenever it was that you still read his posts
Exactly. You make assumptions too. We all do. In fact interpreting any motive or intent of anyone here comes with certain amount of assumption. It does not make it wrong to do so. Nor is it dishonest to do so. Nor is it strange or silly.
Depends on what you do with your assumptions. I have already stated that part of my case and am not interested in repeating it.
Of course you could say, "But Al, you are a logical kind of guy, why not get better proof? Read what he says and there will be less room for possible misinterpretations or errors of judgment"
Which is what I think you should do.
My answer to that would be "No thanks". He writes bullshit. He is not worth my time reading. IF that makes his mess harder for him to resolve I don't much care about that either.
His mess? Yours, too, mate. This is the second callout on the subject.
But I'm done here. I think I've presented my case as well as I can and so leave it to the peanut gallery to decide if it has any value.
-
There is another thing worth asking:
If it is that there was even the slightest suspicion that I was replying with enough accuracy as to be reading Zegh's crap replies, then I must be in ballpark. THEREFORE (for all my assumptions) what was I ACTUALLY getting wrong?
I mean well and good for you to say "Oh you are assuming and therefore you are not knowing the full story and not able to read things in context because you are not reading things in context and therefore you are wrong and therefore dishonest" but IF I am close to the mark, what DID I get wrong?
Or let's put it another way. IF I was reading or trying to read what had happened, COULD I be no more "off-track " than what I was with not reading. (Look at the last twenty callouts and you will see no shortage of people admitting to have read a callout and being none the wiser to what the particular callout was about.)
A) Why is this important? Because it goes to the heart of the matter. Someone reading the posts in full and not understanding them and/or making claims on what they can see, is THAT dishonest?
B) What if the reader had read everything and come to exactly the same conclusion as I do? Would they be dishonest?
C) What amount of assumption and postulating is too much? Or is the assuming okay until the point that someone does this without reading the posts they are making assumptions on?
It is sounding very much like C....and that seems pretty week.
It sounds pretty much like you are saying "Al you are not pretending to know more than you know BUT you ARE making assumptions on things that you MAY or may not have assumed had you have gone to the labour to have read what you chose not to have read. So on the basis of you not reading Zegh pointless bullshit I am going to say that whatever conclusions you drew are too assumptive and have no basis in reason, fact, rational and truth BECAUSE they were assumed without reading his meaningless drivel. Furthermore, the sheer fact that you did not read Zegh condescending diatribes and pseudo-intellectual propaganda means that you are now dishonest with any claim you make."
DO you honestly think I would nod my head to this or compromise my position down to this simply being semantics? I think if you want to talk about honesty or dishonesty, that is fine but saying that people assuming something is not the same as people being dishonest. Again, they are not synonyms and waving it off as semantics is uncharitable at best.
-
No.
Are you prolonging it because you like it? IMHO, you've lost the argument.
IMHO you have not made a decent case as to your assumption of my dishonesty. You have just made the claim over and over. That is hardly losing mate. I am happy addressing this issue until you do.
Semantic differences are important since you say it's ganging up and I say it isn't. Semantics is about meaning
No.
Sometimes they absolutely are. But here is the difference. I called it this BUT I do not care. You explained why you think its wrong. Okay.
You don't care. How is that an argument for your case? It is an argument for you not bothering about meaning and definitions, and so ultimately about the very basis for any callout--a common vocabulary.
It's a beautiful green sky this morning. The moon is climbing fast.
See how this works?
I can only imagine this reply is on the basis that YOU assume that my saying that Zegh was ganging up with Butterflies or visa versa (whichever I actually said) has some real bearing on this callout. It doesn’t. You think I used the wrong phrase. Cool. Tell me what was the “right phrase” to use. I will find where I said it and edit it with the “right phrase”. THAT is how uninvested I am in this aspect.
Maybe in your mind this is a pivotal part of the callout but I do not give a damn about it.
In my mind you telling me I am dishonest is the sum of all of this callout.
IF you want to discuss why I thought my phrase “ganging up was honest and not dishonest. I have done that. You want to say my wording was inappropriate given the circumstances; I give no fucks about that. I will happily change it. In fact I am thinking of setting up a poll on it with a few alternatives and so we can choose collectively what is the best choice of words for this instance. Think that may be a good idea? How important is this point? “Joining in”? Is that OK? What about “lending support”? “Providing cover fire”? “Breaking promises to throw insults from behind Butterflies?” Does that work better? Let me know, please!
Is it important? Not to me.
I think we established that.
We should have NOW!
It is not a hill for me to die on. I have for the most part been ignoring Butterflies (apart from a chat about Feminism). I have been teasing Zegh a little about hiding behind her skirts. You say that ganging up was the "wrong" term or I misread the situation in respect to what was going on? Fine. I don't care. I was not that invested in it. You tell me how I should perceive this and I will go along with that. No, honestly make a good case and I will take it that you have the inside scoop. I just care nothing whether he was or not
In other words, you don't care about the semantics, you just use a word that is dramatic enough, no matter the consequences? I'm not telling you how to perceive anything, I'm calling you out on the way you describe a situation even though you admit that the meanings of the words you use aren't important and could be wrong.
Ganging up is a dramatic phrase. It implies all kinds of things, most of which are at least a bit nasty. Yet here you are, stating that it doesn't matter.
Of course it matters, and I think you know it. The Al I know is good enough with words to know.
I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to decide the level of dishonesty of this particular point.
No, it really isn’t and what was a throwaway comment on what I had reasonable rationale to base my assumptions on is fine to me BUT not something I am inflexible on.
Do semantics ALWAYS matter or never matter or matter sometimes?
Well I think like Spelling and grammar Nazis, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. If I make a spelling blunder here, you may say “Al is hopeless in spelling and grammar and Dyslexic as all Hell BUT let’s get to the crux of what he is saying. IF I am writing to a senior official they are not likely to let these things slide so easily.
YOU may postulate any number of things I thought and evil intent or whatever on my part in respect to Butterflies or Zegh in the”ganging up”. They would simply be ASSUMPTIONS on your part and THOUGH you read me, your assumptions are likely wrong. As mentioned I am not that bond to them and happy to change them.
But to prove the point further, whilst DFG was *getting these two members having a slight difference of opinion with her on the lack of medication and lack of social interaction and lack of personality and size issues and lack of intellect*(Fuck! I hope this is okay and well thought out enough not to become subject of wrong choosing of words) I hardly participated apart from throwing a few memes at Zegh. Howe invested was I then and how invested am I now?
For example, If he was on a sabbatical from posting shit at DFG and myself and that was reasonably cut short for reasons I am not aware of and she happened to come across things on her own volition that incensed her to start on DFG from the get go and the act of doing this somehow removed Zegh's self-imposed ban....
It was probably a lot of things but a ban it wasn't. Again, meaning is important. But then, you don't read him, you assume that the impression you get by reading quoted bits and by observing the reactions of others, and, for all I know, posting ninja cats and the reactions to those, is enough, is correct, is true. But if it isn't, it doesn't really matter.
No, Hell no. There is a Hell of a lot of IF’s there if you had not noticed.
I do not know whether the point was really lost you or whether you are trying to play me here BUT it is asking for a lot to assume that:
1) Butterflies just happened to drop in and just happened on dropping in to see something that had her instantly confront DFG and
2) Zegh after his 30 day self-imposed disengagement (YES Odeon I am using different synonyms each time to see if you try picking up on these “different words” as an issue with semantics) decided to continue to re-engage with DFG
3) They were doing this completely independently.
Does it mean that the above was not the case? No. If it was would I have been able to assume it was the case without reading Zegh’s posts….maybe, maybe not. That sure as Hell does not mean it was the case though or a reflection on what actually happened.
That about right? And remember that what we are discussing here is not the true nature of Zegh's character, even though it's what you try to make it to be, we are discussing whether or not your assumptions, your not knowing (and admitting that you don't know), are an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Don't you think this is intellectually dishonest?
We are and you have yet to make that case.
An example of such dishonesty (which certainly would NOT involve me agreeing to not knowing something) may be me saying:
“Look you don’t know Zegh like I do. I just know alright?”
Or
“I read everything Zegh has ever written on here and so I am the foremost authority on what he says. I never assume”
OR
“ My assumptions are incontestable. If you show me refuting evidence YOU are wrong”
Or
“Any time anyone here bases what they know about a person’s personality or style or experiences as a member on this forum they are lying to themselves and the forum”
Yes I am against intellectual dishonesty too. How do you feel about it?
Great! I don't care, but great. I am happy to adopt this new "right" way to view things. Spell it out an let me know. Otherwise I may well have the "wrong" opinion on this and I do not care enough about whether they were ganging up or not. It looked like it, I called it and moved on. I was never that invested in it.
We are debating things here. Are you saying that I'm enforcing my views on you? Are you the victim after calling me out?
No and I would ask you to number the times I have EVER presented myself as a victim. No? None at all? Silly conclusion to jump to Odeon. Almost as silly as you claim I was being dishonest.
I’d like to know what is going on with you to be honest because you are not posting like……YOU.
Which means that you don't know but still maintain you're calling him on his bullshit. Sorry, but to me that's dishonest.
Except it isn't.
Archaeologists for example work with a base understanding centered around assumptions from which they gauge a world they cannot know intimately from hard and fast acts. SO...they are dishonest.
Don't you think that an archaeologist would ask that dead pharaoh directly if s/he could? Going with your comparison, you can.
They probably would but they make assumptions and the act of making assumptions is dishonest, right?
Psychologists that profile people in examining crime and try to track down serial killers and the like, cannot know so they need to assume certain things. So really they are just making assumptions. SO.....they are dishonest.
They, too, would talk to the subject directly if they could. They, too, would immediately revise their assumptions based on any new evidence.
Doesn’t matter if they WOULD they CAN’T and so they make ASSUMPTIONS and assumptions are dishonest, right? They make assumptions. I make assumptions. I am dishonest because I make assumptions. They make assumptions and so they are dishonest?
YES!!! Its sounds fucking stupid and disingenuous put like that BUT may help put this in perspective as to what in your narrative makes assumptions dishonest or not.
I can keep going.
So can I but I'd rather not.
I would rather hope you didn’t.
The point behind these examples goes to the heart of this. YOU saying something is fact DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. I know it would be easy to say:
1) You lost – therefore you lost.
2) You were dishonest and so therefore you were dishonest.
3) You assumed stuff and so therefore you were dishonest.
4) You did not read stuff I (Odeon the Webmaster – joking) would have wanted you to have read before you assumed what you assumed and so therefore you are dishonest by having any opinion (even when you happily vouch it is based on assumption and conjecture).
But the truth is that you still have to make a sound argument for what you are arguing. This assumption = dishonesty clearly is not a cogent one and I think you know this. You are going to have to spell out under what circumstances. I do not think you can.
I think this all boils down to this:
“I disagree with Al and would prefer that he did not fight Zegh anymore. The fact that he argues Zegh without reading what Zegh says, shits me. I would therefore like to call Al dishonest as a result of his not reading and just assuming stuff. If he presses I will just say “It is what it is” and I have no further comment”.
IF you choose this approach I would point the finger right square back at you and say “Are we talking about MY honesty or your own?” Be better not to do that, Odeon. We are what 6 or 7 posts into a callout? Better to sort it out by callout.
But I hope the point is being made. Assumption=/= dishonest. They are not synonymous and you are seeming to try to make this case and put it down to semantics. It isn't....at all.
No, I'm using semantics because you brought it up. It is handy, though, isn't it, because it provides me with the tools I need to prove you wrong.
Use them all you like but try to make a point worth making because you have not as yet.
Its very presumptuous of you to think you are proving me wrong.
So far you have proved one thing. My ambivalence as to whether Butterflies and Zegh are ganging up or “discussing a mutual acquaintance on the forum” (Is that turn of phrase well thought out enough not to be seen as having evil connotations or whatever?)
That is not really a point to you and something I am happy to concede. You presume a lot, Odeon and it is not a your better side.
IF I at any point actually said specifically that I DID know more than I can know or denied I made these assumptions you may have something. Don't call it semantics, Odeon.
See above.
Oh, I did see and it was pretty poor.
Zegh is full of it
Isn't he just. But IF I say that he has no interest in sorting things out, YES there are assumptions on my part. BUT are they based on anything?
Don't quote me out of context.
I will do you a deal I will stop being disrespectful and quoting you out of contrext and in return you will stop implying I am dishonest. No? No one way trading here…..or was that an order?
1. His want to avoid ownership or responsibilities for his part for 8 months (until recently sometime I understand....well done Zegh) for having any part in things.
2. His 30 day hiatus (whatever the parameters of that were) that he could not uphold for a week.
3. PM's I have shown by which he encouraged me to harass him until he left (Not that this is what I am doing but begging for me to do so is evidence of him not wanting this sorted out).
1. Not interested. It's not what this is about.
2. It's not a ban now, it's a hiatus? Otherwise, not interested. It's not what this is about.
3. Not interested. It's not what this is about.
1, 2, and 3. Of course not you were wanting to talk about whether the phrase “ganging up” was appropriate but don’t REALLY give a shit as to whether or not assumptions have merit or not because why not call them all dishonest? Unless they are Archelogists, or Psychologist or….well anyone else’s but Al. Fuck that noise Odeon
2. It’s a hiatus now. (As mentioned I am using different words for it to see what phrases are “out of bounds” in describing what Zegh was or was not doing. Clearly you are likely to take objection to ganging up but maybe Hiatus too is out of bounds. I am sure I will find the right word through trial and error but if you could help an assumptive Aussie out, that would be great.
Again you make this assumption thing to be an all or nothing.
No, I'm discussing semantics and the value of words. If you assume, you don't know. See my previous posts for the rest of it because I can't be arsed to repeat it again.
Not well if you are. It seemed like you were either outraged that I said ganging up and it was the wrong phrase OR you were outraged that I gave no fucks if I used that phrase. (Oh shit is “outraged” okay to use in this context? Should I tone it down. Will the semantics indicate you were more disagreeable than outraged. If you are concerned could you please mentally replace the word “disagreeable” wherever I wrote “outraged”)
Sorry you were discussing the semantics and value of words with me and out of interest what are you assuming about me and my premise and you place and my place in this argument. If you don’t know ANY aspect of ANY part of it then you are assuming and if you are assuming then you don’t know and if you don’t know then you are dishonest….see I was paying attention.
No, even assumptions often are based on pretty solid reasoning and not all assumptions carry the same rigour. To assume this is the case is silly (joking).
So IS Zegh full of bullshit? You have my opinion of him strewn across this board and a LOT of it is based on similar reasoning. Maybe I am wrong but I make a decent case for it.
Or maybe you are wrong.
You *assume* something to be the case and act based on that assumption, even though that's all you have. Well, that and your back and forth from whenever it was that you still read his posts
Exactly. You make assumptions too. We all do. In fact interpreting any motive or intent of anyone here comes with certain amount of assumption. It does not make it wrong to do so. Nor is it dishonest to do so. Nor is it strange or silly.
Depends on what you do with your assumptions. I have already stated that part of my case and am not interested in repeating it.
No that is bullshit. Sorry but all I see is you laying claim to being the arbiter of when assumption becomes dishonest. I have yet to see ANYTHING I have said that is dishonest. NOTHING!
But this is not how it works is it Odeon?
“If he doesn’t know then he is assuming and if he is assuming then “what he does with the assumption” is dishonest. If what he does with the assumption is makes claims that I do not like and he is not reading posts I would prefer him to read THEN “I” will declare him dishonest”.
Now THAT would be fucking weak, wouldn’t it. Don’t be THAT guy, Odeon.
Of course you could say, "But Al, you are a logical kind of guy, why not get better proof? Read what he says and there will be less room for possible misinterpretations or errors of judgment"
Which is what I think you should do.
Not happening and trying to shame me will simply get my back up and NOT get me doing what you would like me to do (whatever that is) nor will it mean that I was wrong in my assumptions. Nor does it mean that I was dishonest. Nor does it mean you have made a good case for yourself.
My answer to that would be "No thanks". He writes bullshit. He is not worth my time reading. IF that makes his mess harder for him to resolve I don't much care about that either.
His mess? Yours, too, mate. This is the second callout on the subject.
But I'm done here. I think I've presented my case as well as I can and so leave it to the peanut gallery to decide if it has any value.
No, he started it and he can resolve it. I would prefer to leave him to resolve it like the adult he ought to be. Had I started things I would have resolved it by now and you have seen me do so with many people here past and present including Richard and Bint and Sophist and others still on here now. So this “Yours too”. Nope, sorry. Not giving him a pass
It was pretty poorly done. I am just getting into this callout. There will be more to follow. But by all means drop it and walk away. I will call you out again.
I object to your calling me dishonest and you have made no good case for doing so. Until this is resolved I will seek to get it resolved. What you choose to do is up to you and likewise what I choose to do is up to me.
-
I get what it is about. I think Odeon is winning. Talking semantics Al doesn't stand a change and Al knows it.
edit, because my phone messes up with spacing and such.
That Al knows it is an assumption btw.
another edit, because phone messes up with periods at the end of sentences too.
It's over, I think.
Thought it might be a longer one, but it won't be. Because it is not about who in the "debate" between Zegh and Al is right, but about semantics, about the words Odeon used.
Al tried to shift the focus towards the nature of Zegh, diversion tactics. But Odeon did not fall for that. Odeon won.
The only way the nature of Zegh has place in a call-out is when Zegh enters a call-out with someone about that subject. That could be big part of the annoyance of Al, that Zegh refused, and probably will refuse, to enter a call-out with Al. Bit of it seemed to happen after the call-out I started was over. But only a bit.
What EXACTLY do I know and how would YOU know what "I" KNOW?
Odeon has not WON and it is not over.
I did not give a damn whether Zegh refused to do a callout with me because you know that he DID do a callout with me and had he have not chosen to i would not have cared.
And NO the semantics of whether or not dishonest = assumption =dishonest is certainly integral to the callout. What the underlying basis to which this alleged dishonesty comes from is a feud with Zegh and that makes it ABSOLUTELY integral to the callout.
Talking about semantics does not damage my point of view. He can reframe calling me dishonest any number of ways and it will not be a true representation and I think no amount of saying "Odeon won" will make that right and nor will banging on about him discussing semantics now weaken my position. He has not and will not be able to show my dishonesty because I have not been dishonest.
Its not semantics or anything like. Either I have framed what I have said honestly or not. This is different from the question are you right or are you wrong? Am I honest or dishonest? I say I am honest and Odeon is saying I am dishonest, and making absolutely no showing to support that. YET YOU are calling it a win.
For shame.
-
Al, I've made my case, for better or worse. I could go on, just as you can, but I'm pretty sure nothing new would emerge, only variations of what's already been said.
There is one clarification I do wish to make, though, as I consider you to be a friend and so I think it's important:
I don't think you are a dishonest person. It's not you, it's not how you do things as a general rule. Quite the opposite. Blunt, sure, dishonest, no.
In this particular case, however, I think you've acted out of character, and it was why I reacted. If it had been your MO, I wouldn't have bothered. It's why I don't really bother to address DFG--while she's ranting on and on in ways that I think frequently are inconsistent and hateful, it's been her MO for years.
You, on the other hand, are not like that. Going after Zegh was pretty much what you sometimes do (and not in any way dishonest in itself), so through all this time I have not bothered. Most of the time, I've only skimmed those posts.
Which, of course, means that I could easily have missed what made me react and what resulted in this callout.
All the more interesting that you think I'm not acting like me, but that's hardly the point of this callout, just as Zegh's nature is not the point of this callout, and so I'm not going to address that either.
But I felt I needed to point out that no, I don't think you are a dishonest person, it is not your MO, I think you displayed intellectual dishonesty in this particular case, and that's why I reacted.
-
Al, I've made my case, for better or worse. I could go on, just as you can, but I'm pretty sure nothing new would emerge, only variations of what's already been said.
There is one clarification I do wish to make, though, as I consider you to be a friend and so I think it's important:
I don't think you are a dishonest person. It's not you, it's not how you do things as a general rule. Quite the opposite. Blunt, sure, dishonest, no.
In this particular case, however, I think you've acted out of character, and it was why I reacted. If it had been your MO, I wouldn't have bothered. It's why I don't really bother to address DFG--while she's ranting on and on in ways that I think frequently are inconsistent and hateful, it's been her MO for years.
You, on the other hand, are not like that. Going after Zegh was pretty much what you sometimes do (and not in any way dishonest in itself), so through all this time I have not bothered. Most of the time, I've only skimmed those posts.
Which, of course, means that I could easily have missed what made me react and what resulted in this callout.
All the more interesting that you think I'm not acting like me, but that's hardly the point of this callout, just as Zegh's nature is not the point of this callout, and so I'm not going to address that either.
But I felt I needed to point out that no, I don't think you are a dishonest person, it is not your MO, I think you displayed intellectual dishonesty in this particular case, and that's why I reacted.
I do think that you are not acting as you. I suspect I know why. But the crux of all of this comes down at the end of the day to what I really really hope is simply misinterpretation because the alternative is that YOU are being intellectually dishonest and the irony in pointing that at my direction would be alarming.
So YOU think I have been intellectually dishonest. But you have yet to tell me how or in fact make point. I know you SAY you have but you haven't.
You say I have been pretending, acting under pretence, acting out of character, and being dishonest. HOW?
You mention that my describing Zegh and Butterflies acting in unison to DFG as "ganging up" was dishonest and what have you. But I give good reason why I said this. Now I may not be correct or I may be correct. That does not make me dishonest nor does it indicate a lack of transparency or as far as I can see anything that would presume dishonesty.
I was also more than happy to concede I may have described it badly or wrong. Also that I did not give a particular damn about it in the way you seemed to.
I also have been not reading Zegh which I have been upfront with and reply to his posts and yes making assumptions about him. Again something you did not have to drag out of me or denied by me. I was happy too to give my reasoning why I thought what I said about him (in particular about why I think he broke his promise and why I think he is dishonest about taking responsibility to resolve matters). Again though there is assumption and I gladly admit I could be wrong, the assumptions do not come out of a vacuum. There is reason and thought behind it.
So again I MAY be wrong on some or even everything to small or large degree. BUT you have not shown that to be the case or that it being wrong somehow equates to being dishonest.
SO you have not actually shown me to be wrong
You have not shown me to be dishonest.
I have been upfront and transparent and given sound reasoning when asked.
What the Hell HAVE you got? I mean big claim and you have what NOTHING? You then are trying to say "I lost the argument"? The only real argument seems to be you say:
"Al, my claim is that if you are not reading then you are assuming and that makes you wrong in any claim you make because you are not guaranteed the truth of the matter. Now whilst you admit you don't know and that you are making assumptions, it is not only wrong in your claim but this suddenly makes you intellectually dishonest too."
Its a load of horseshit Odeon. I think you must know this at least on some level.
-
This is what I think is REALLY happening. 8 months of feuding between a few members. You do not see an end in sight. You are not happy with that. You are not pleased with them. You see I am pretty unapologetic and as a way of disclaiming the feuding and tactics of mine you dislike, you call them dishonest. The problem is that:
a) they aren't,
b) neither am I
c) I would always do a callout on that
d) you have no way of defending this so you try to infer dishonesty as a form of simply being incorrect or doing something you don't like.
e) without anything stronger you say "My points have been made, callout over, you are losing"
f) saying so doesn't make it so.
THAT is why I think you are acting out of character. Not the best side of you but one I thankfully do not get that much exposure to.
-
::sigh::
Again, I have made my argument, for better or worse. I see little point in repeating or rewording it. You called me out, not the other way around, and while I completely understand that you may not be happy with my replies, I have explained my reasoning as well as I can and rather think that the outcome of this callout should now be left to the peanut gallery, if they are still interested enough to comment.
You're wrong about how I feel about the eight months of bickering between members, though. I don't really care. I tend to avoid it because it bores me, and this callout happened to some extent because I didn't avoid it completely.
Also, when stating that you lost, I added the "IMHO" because it is my opinion, not a universal truth. Otherwise, I believe I have repeatedly referred to the peanut gallery to pass judgment.
So is this out of character for me? I hope not.
-
::sigh::
Again, I have made my argument, for better or worse. I see little point in repeating or rewording it. You called me out, not the other way around, and while I completely understand that you may not be happy with my replies, I have explained my reasoning as well as I can and rather think that the outcome of this callout should now be left to the peanut gallery, if they are still interested enough to comment.
You're wrong about how I feel about the eight months of bickering between members, though. I don't really care. I tend to avoid it because it bores me, and this callout happened to some extent because I didn't avoid it completely.
Also, when stating that you lost, I added the "IMHO" because it is my opinion, not a universal truth. Otherwise, I believe I have repeatedly referred to the peanut gallery to pass judgment.
So is this out of character for me? I hope not.
Yeah, it is.
It kind of sucks. The main reason why it sucks is that you know what intellectual dishonesty is and isn't. You know that someone assuming something based on factors at their disposal and with solid reasoning is not being dishonest.
You know this and yet you tried in this instance to show either an ignorance of this OR a disbelief that the person making these assumptions was doing the above.
In other words there seems to be either:
A) You are pretending not to know the meaning of intellectual dishonesty (at least as it applies to this argument)
OR
B) You know the difference BUT given the option of me assuming (which I had vouched for) based on reasonable factors ( which I never have any difficulties listing and evidencing and explaining at the time or on demand) OR being dishonest (which would be both out of character and in the face of the above).....
.... You go right to the last option.
Odeon this is really out of character not for me but for you. At this point in the callout I would expect I would understand your position and/or your motive. I got nothing.
Neither of us are stupid. We were both party to this callout. A callout in which you on being asked to back repeated claims as to my dishonesty you try some small attempt of relating assumption to intellectual dishonesty. Before you are really pressed on this you try a bit of distraction with my use of the term "ganging up".
Then you say "I have made my point ".
But my efforts now in poking what I see as rather large holes in these (seemingly half-hearted) attempts of yours, have you falling back on "I have made my point".
No you really haven't. I am happy discussing this all in the one callout OR if you would rather prefer, break this down into a series of call outs. Whichever you'd prefer. I would have thought after having accused me of being dishonest, you'd have preferred it dealt with in one callout.
-
OK, so let me go through this one last time, then. I'll start with this, the result of a simple Google search:
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.
Intellectual Dishonesty
c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty
Following the link, the page starts with this:
When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
This links directly to what I meant. You claim on one hand that Zegh is full of it, while on the other admitting that you've not read him in once and that you may indeed be wrong. In other words, you avoid an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why is that? Because you prefer the back and forth rather than actually considering what your opposite number has to say? Because you don't actually want to even consider changing your opinions?
Instead you rely on quoted material, on second-hand information and on how others (thinking of DFG here, but I'm sure there are others) react to his posts.
Quoting the article again:
IntellectualDishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds. However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's IntellectualHonesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations.
Note that "IntellectualDishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds."
I think you make it easy for yourself, Al, for whatever reason, they key being that you base your views and actions on whatever your opinion of him was before you stopped reading but still go after him. As I hold you to higher standards than that--yes, I think you are intelligent enough--you simply did not live up to my expectations.
What surprised me, but also confirmed my view that you make it easy for yourself, is how you compared what you are doing to archaeologists assuming things about the distant past as if the two were even remotely comparable. I'm pretty sure they'd ask their subjects directly if they could, but you *choose* not to.
When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
So there it is. You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why? To post ninja cats? You tell me; I don't know.
And last but not least, the "ganging up" comment is an aside but it does pertain to the matter at hand in that it is the kind of easy characterisation I rather thought you would avoid. Higher standards and all that.
So, can we let this thing die now?
-
No.
I will go back and dismantle your argument in this post tonight but in the meantime I will point out something else.
I, at the start of this feuding, made some rather broad assumptions about Zegh and his character. Among which was that he likes to see himself as a "cut above" those with differing views. I assumed he sees himself as smarter, more honest, more moral and also that he likes to be seen that way by others.
Me? I don't care. I just dislike the smarmy condescending git and I have have my fill of reading his posts.
But I also assumed (again of what little I knew of him) would not likely cop to being responsible nor accountable to resolve this feud. He would expect it dropped eventually and him not having to sort it.
I made these assumptions and then had it backed with those PM's. However 8 months is a long time. He COULD have changed his mind on things. According to your post I could have asked him perhaps or read his posts to see if he would endeavour to resolve things. Apparently he did too. He made great efforts to say how he was a mere pwn or victim of circumstances (words to that effect) BECAUSE he asked Hyke for solutions. Of which him ignoring and abstaining from posting crap at either me or dfg for a month seemed to be it. (terrible "solution" and would not have worked).
But here is the kicker. You and Hyke I am sure would have met your definition of intellectual honesty right? You both gave him virtual pats on the back.
Within 7 days he screwed you both over when he re-engaged along with Butterflies against DFG (though I have been thoroughly convinced now it was definitely NOT ganging up and they both just happened upon her threads. Terrible misreading).
So IF I was intellectually dishonest how where my assumptions proven right and evidence proved by the conclusions to be solid? Why were neither yours nor Hyke's? I do not consider either of you dishonest in this, just incorrect in your assumptions. I just do not consider either of you used as much evidence to characterise him correctly, as I did.
But then that seems close to your definition doesn't it?
Of course the other point. The OTHER evidence I might have relied on could have been what he could have told me or said to others, in your view that would have been more intellectually honest. That's what you seem to indicate. What more information and from who? Zegh? Zegh who had already shown an unwillingness to resolve or be constructive in the feud well before I stopped reading his posts? Zegh who promise YOU guys 30 days and broke it in the week but "I" am dishonest because I picked it?
No Zegh was dishonest, I was disrespectful not dishonest and you and Hyke were conned. Let's call it as it is not what it isn't. That would be dishonest otherwise.
-
You're missing the point.
You took the easy way out rather than bothering to find out for yourself. That you now think your assumption happened to be right is irrelevant. This callout isn't about Zegh.
-
You're missing the point.
You took the easy way out rather than bothering to find out for yourself. That you now think your assumption happened to be right is irrelevant. This callout isn't about Zegh.
Easy way out? Did you honestly just write that? That's it, I want the real Odeon back.
You are a logical and rational guy so how the Hell is this a blindspot for you?
What do you imagine was the "better" and "harder way out"? It better not for one moment be reading his lies and taking them on face value like both you and Hyke seem to. Because relying on the lies of a liar (I called him out several times for lying in the callout and earlier in the feud for lying) is not harder or better. It is a lot of things. It is something to live down not live up to.
You imagine I suppose that reading everything he says is harder than not reading anything he says and yet keeping track or even the gist of things whilst keeping an eye on what other people say, marry it with what you know about him whilst remaining transparent in your assumptions.
I can't tell you how crazy this looks. If you were to say it is more disrespectful or annoying or whatever, sure.
Proof is in the pudding. What I did required a LOT more effort and proof was in the pudding. That is why I was able to male predictions based on assumptions based on critical reasoning.
It's ironic that the information and evidence and yes assumptions was probably better quality in assessing his honesty. Why not keep it real. Odeon?
I will dismantle the post of yours before last. Probably not tonight. Bad dramas atm.
Edit: it looks from the Peanut Gallery that Butterflies has agreed that "ganging up" it not an unreasonable description of what she and Zegh were up to which both kinda puts a fork in your "ganging up is a bad word to use" semantics side debate AND backs in a round about way that Zegh was indeed attacking DFG as I thought AND seemingly in contravention of promises he wouldn't for one month.
The liar lied.
You were taken in by promise I wasn't.
You talk of intellectual dishonesty being not availing yourself of all the facts necessary, why not admit that I did but ignored the lies and YOU did the opposite and as a result the one with the short end of the stick in this instance.
I would not normally give a shit, but in this instance you are trying to indicate that I dropped the ball or were taking the easy way out or being dishonest when it appears to me, so very easily that a better case could be made by pointing the finger back on yourself
-
You're missing the point.
You took the easy way out rather than bothering to find out for yourself. That you now think your assumption happened to be right is irrelevant. This callout isn't about Zegh.
Easy way out? Did you honestly just write that? That's it, I want the real Odeon back.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to belittle your ninja cats.
You are a logical and rational guy so how the Hell is this a blindspot for you?
I could ask you the same thing.
What do you imagine was the "better" and "harder way out"? It better not for one moment be reading his lies and taking them on face value like both you and Hyke seem to. Because relying on the lies of a liar (I called him out several times for lying in the callout and earlier in the feud for lying) is not harder or better. It is a lot of things. It is something to live down not live up to.
This is not about Zegh. I'm surprised that you still haven't figured it out.
You imagine I suppose that reading everything he says is harder than not reading anything he says and yet keeping track or even the gist of things whilst keeping an eye on what other people say, marry it with what you know about him whilst remaining transparent in your assumptions.
It's easy in that you don't have to change your mind about anything. I'm surprised that you keep missing this and take what I said so literally.
I can't tell you how crazy this looks. If you were to say it is more disrespectful or annoying or whatever, sure.
Proof is in the pudding. What I did required a LOT more effort and proof was in the pudding. That is why I was able to male predictions based on assumptions based on critical reasoning.
Pudding?
It's ironic that the information and evidence and yes assumptions was probably better quality in assessing his honesty. Why not keep it real. Odeon?
I am. We disagree.
I will dismantle the post of yours before last. Probably not tonight. Bad dramas atm.
Edit: it looks from the Peanut Gallery that Butterflies has agreed that "ganging up" it not an unreasonable description of what she and Zegh were up to which both kinda puts a fork in your "ganging up is a bad word to use" semantics side debate AND backs in a round about way that Zegh was indeed attacking DFG as I thought AND seemingly in contravention of promises he wouldn't for one month.
Butterflies "agreed"?
Can't be arsed getting involved in the drama between Les and Odeon, but this comment is just not right :thumbdn:
Within 7 days he screwed you both over when he re-engaged along with Butterflies against DFG (though I have been thoroughly convinced now it was definitely NOT ganging up and they both just happened upon her threads. Terrible misreading).
Yes, briefly, Zegh and myself were arguing with/mocking DFG. I done so because I chanced upon posts of her still whining about a silly picture I posted 8 months ago, and of her speaking of having tracked my IP and messaging other members with it. I don't know the history of why Zegh and DFG were fighting.
If that's ganging up, and I suppose by some definition it might be, then there would be no doubt that Les and DFG ganged up on Zegh for a very prolonged period of time. Certainly many months.
because I chanced upon posts of
If that's ganging up, and I suppose by some definition it might be
I don't think she is agreeing with you. She is certainly not confirming what you've said earlier in this callout.
The liar lied.
You were taken in by promise I wasn't.
This isn't about Zegh. This isn't about my comment in the peanut gallery, or Hyke's.
You talk of intellectual dishonesty being not availing yourself of all the facts necessary, why not admit that I did but ignored the lies and YOU did the opposite and as a result the one with the short end of the stick in this instance.
See above. This isn't about Zegh. This isn't about my comment in the peanut gallery, or Hyke's.
I would not normally give a shit, but in this instance you are trying to indicate that I dropped the ball or were taking the easy way out or being dishonest when it appears to me, so very easily that a better case could be made by pointing the finger back on yourself
See above. This isn't about Zegh. This isn't about my comment in the peanut gallery, or Hyke's.
Are you deflecting? You've made a whole post about the literal meaning of "taking the easy way out", an optimistic interpretation of what Butterflies actually said, and focussed on my comments about that previous callout that had nothing to do with the callout at hand, but not addressed my actual point.
If you want to discuss the results of the last callout, that I said Hyke and Zegh won, fine. Just don't pretend they are relevant to this discussion because they aren't.
-
Still not pretending.
That is the problem. You can say what you wish and that is fine. It is just disappointing that you seem at every point and turn to say I am pretending this or pretending that or being dishonest about this or that. When I take the time to give context to show that I am anything but what you ASSUMED, you try to tell me I am not addressing your point.
So what WAS I pretending? Nothing.
What was I being dishonest about? Nothing.
What did this callout directly relate to? My interactions with Zegh.
Now I do not believe you did belittle my ninja cats and I still maintain that you have yet to make ANY case for Intellectual dishonesty.
I KNOW you would have preferred I had read Zegh's posts and made no assumptions on what he said, intended or felt. I know that. You told me. WAS I intellectually dishonest in not doing so?
No.
Why not? Because IF we take the view that Zegh is liable to post bullshit and lies as he has done in the past then relying on such readings of his posts is likely to result on NOT being further informed nor having more reliable information. Listening to him would more likely result in lies and being lied to.
You COULD say "Well you are intellectually dishonest because you did not avail yourself of all the information the Zegh could have said and you made assumptions that were bereft of anything you would gain directly from reading."
And what was that? I missed out on more condescension , smarminess and lies. So how would this avail me of anything constructive and make me more intellectually honest. IN FACT by availing myself of such information I may have believed his lies about laying off me and DFG for 30 days.
I didn't and the result is that he broke his promise and lied.
Therefore my assumptions were proven grounded and correct. Furthermore it showed a justification for having not read him.
So what WAS pretended? Well apart from nothing at all. I know it is a claim you like throwing around, but it is as impotent as your claim that I was intellectually dishonest.
So I have been too literal in respect to "the easy way out". How literal? Did I not just show that what I did and how I reasoned was a lot more demanding and involved than the alternative and as a result I was not taken in by a lie. (Yes even whilst posting ninja cats and observing what others said about him).
As to not having to change my mind about something. I have that option now. I do not need to change my mind about anything I don't wish to.
However, let's look at an example of what I imagine you mean:
I believe Zegh has no wish to resolve a feud he started and of his own making.
About eight months ago he writes PM's top me stating that I only harass girls and he is not a girl and i should try and harass him off the board and try my hardest to do this (paraphrased - I have posted the PM's in question).
"But if you aren't reading him, then how do you know his position has not changed in the meantime Al, you are being intellectually dishonest and taking the easy way out and assuming what you can not hope to know" Right? I mean this IS the crux of what you are saying, right?
Except about a month ago in a callout someone mentioned that he had admitted to loving stirring things up with me and DFG, irrespective of previous proclamations about it being something he wanted to resolve.
Soon afterwards again it was brought to bear by someone other than Zegh that he has decided on a 30 day break from attacking DFG and myself.
He did not last a week and he was attacking DFG.
SO.....you can see that regardless of what I posted, I was well and truly across what was happening. Regardless of the fact, that I was not reading Zegh I could see what was happening. I could use this information to make reasonable assumptions and in fact reading him may have not been advantageous.
What exactly ought I have reassessed? HE showed exactly the same indifference to resolving things as he had 8 months ago and I still I was right then and right now. Why exactly do you imagine I would be inclined to change my mind? Any reason? Why do you think it may be reasonable?
Its a problem you say a lot of stuff but do not back it, and when I defend the claim you say "I'm not talking about that". It seems convenient.
Assumptions
Pretence
Pretending
Dishonest
Intellectual dishonesty
Easy way out
I call BULLSHIT on the lot of it. Line them up I will knock them down. The problem you have is that YOU made the above claims about me and they are incorrect. You can say I did not defend them correctly, or that what you said you did not mean literally, or that you mean something else but you need to make the point better if that is the case because I am still none the wiser as to what you mean.
You are either being really vague and hedging around what I put to you in order not to have your premise exposed or you have not made a case well enough for me to understand where in Hell you are coming from. (Of course there is the minute chance I simply have not understood and it is my failing :)) )
Spell it out Odeon. I don't mind being treated like an idiot in this context. Surely no worse than being treated like a pretending dishonest dude who takes the easy way out. That is a lot further from my personality, intent, motive and posting than being an idiot.
-
I really don't know how else to put it, Al. I've tried to explain in several different ways, so either I'm doing it very badly or you don't want to see it. Either way, I am not interested in repeating myself.
But, this is not about Zegh and never was, so stating this or that about what he did then and what he's done since is simply not relevant. I'm also not saying you are a dishonest person, so mischaracterising what I said doesn't help either.
We really should leave this to the peanut gallery now.
-
I'm also not saying you are a dishonest person, so mischaracterising what I said doesn't help either..
Well shit. I wopnder how I may have got the idea you were telling me I was dishonest. Such mischaracterisations on my part I am sure because surely you would not have said I was:
pretending,
dishonest,
intellectually dishonest,
taking the easy way out,
or anything else to that effect, huh?
Great! Then you did not say any of this below (italicised and bolded):
You know perfectly well what I mean. Don't pretend that you're replying to Zegh only because he did it first, that's all I'm saying.
Both you and Zegh seem to enjoy this endless back and forth, though, so whatever works for you and all that. Just don't pretend it's something else than what it is.
So if you want to call me out, by all means do so, but please try to come up with a more relevant subject.
I'm saying pretty much what you did, that this is what they are, they like it, and so it's why they do it. But I'm also saying that [b]Al shouldn't pretend it's about something else[/b], which is how I read his post and why I replied.
Again, mate, I don't care who started this. It doesn't matter after all this time, if it ever did. The fact is that you do this because you enjoy it, you both do, and pretending it's something else (which was my impression of the post I replied to) is just dishonest.
The problem with that one, though, is that you supposedly don't read his posts which means that either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts.
pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
noun: pretence; plural noun: pretences; noun: pretense; plural noun: pretenses
1.
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
"his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well"
synonyms: make-believe, act, putting on an act, acting, dissembling, shamming, sham, faking, feigning, simulation, falsification, dissimulation, invention, imagination, self-deception, play-acting, posturing, posture, posing, pose, cant, attitudinizing;
Which means that you don't know but still maintain you're calling him on his bullshit. Sorry, but to me that's dishonest. Not dramatically so, but it is intellectually dishonest since you base what you say on assumptions and admit that's what they are and that you don't know, yet, at the same time basically say Zegh is full of it.
You can't have it both ways, and that is why I have a problem with it.
It's pretending to know more than you do.
That about right? And remember that what we are discussing here is not the true nature of Zegh's character, even though it's what you try to make it to be, we are discussing whether or not your assumptions, your not knowing (and admitting that you don't know), are an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Don't you think this is intellectually dishonest?
I think you displayed intellectual dishonesty in this particular case
OK, so let me go through this one last time, then. I'll start with this, the result of a simple Google search:
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.
Intellectual Dishonesty
c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty
Following the link, the page starts with this:
When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
This links directly to what I meant. You claim on one hand that Zegh is full of it, while on the other admitting that you've not read him in once and that you may indeed be wrong. In other words, you avoid an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why is that? Because you prefer the back and forth rather than actually considering what your opposite number has to say? Because you don't actually want to even consider changing your opinions?
Instead you rely on quoted material, on second-hand information and on how others (thinking of DFG here, but I'm sure there are others) react to his posts.
Quoting the article again:
Intellectual Dishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds. However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's Intellectual Honesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations.
Note that "Intellectual Dishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds."
I think you make it easy for yourself, Al, for whatever reason, they key being that you base your views and actions on whatever your opinion of him was before you stopped reading but still go after him. As I hold you to higher standards than that--yes, I think you are intelligent enough--you simply did not live up to my expectations…..So there it is. You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why? To post ninja cats? You tell me; I don't know.
You took the easy way out
It's easy in that you don't have to change your mind about anything. I'm surprised that you keep missing this and take what I said so literally.
Now I know you say this was not about Zegh so I was very bad to discuss him in any way in this callout. But you know the problem with that?
Odeon You were dishonest/pretending/taking the easy way out/intellectually dishonest.
Al No I wasn't
Odeon Yes you were
Al How?
Odeon In your general dealings with Zegh you assumed some stuff and posted ninja cat and read what others were writing. I think you should have read him. To not have to assume.
Al Yet I maintain I would be no better off for listening because he lied and was caught, the very act of doing so exonerates the lack of quality in reading his drivel which justifies my conviction that it was not worth reading.
Odeon This is not about Zegh. Its about you being dishonest and anything else I feel fit to label you. Stop defending yourself
Can't tell you how weak this is.
-
Al: I haven't read Zegh's posts but he is full of shit and so I am going to keep on telling everyone what he is like.
Odeon: Don't you think that is being intellectually dishonest?
Al: That's it, you're calling me dishonest and a liar, I am calling you out.
That about right?
-
Al: I haven't read Zegh's posts {Well keeping it real - I have not read him since mid 2015 but HAVE read him from 2009-2015 - let's not be dishonest here}but he is full of shit (Keeping it real - Which is evidenced. We can call it a lucky guess but then and so I am going to keep on telling everyone what he is like}. and so I am going to keep on telling everyone what he is like. {Keeping it real - people feuding feud. Is this the measuring yardstick? If someone is fighting online they ought not say bad things because......reasons???}
Odeon: Don't you think that is being intellectually dishonest?
{So you weren't saying I WAS dishonest or pretending or taking easier options? Great! Why exactly do I NOT call bullshit on you and defend these notions?}
Al: That's it, you're calling me dishonest and a liar, I am calling you out.
Don't pretend that you're replying to Zegh only because he did it first.
Just don't pretend it's something else than what it is.
Al shouldn't pretend it's about something else
pretending it's something else (which was my impression of the post I replied to) is just dishonest.
either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts.
that's dishonest
It's pretending to know more than you do.
, you avoid an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach make it easy for yourself, You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach.
You took the easy way out
That about right?
{Oh boy!}
Yeah, Odeon. You can go down that path. You can try another tact. You can say "Oh I have made my point." You can even say that you are winning this argument.
You know what you cannot do? You cannot say "honesty" that I have pretended or being dishonest or have taken the easy way out. That does not mean you cannot say it at all or any other dumb shit BUT just not honestly.
You CAN try to have this conversation about my apparent inability to be honest without any context to what I may be dishonest about or what underpins or gives context to this claim......it just will not go favourably for you.
You cannot make any reasonable case for me being dishonest or pretending because there is and was never one to make.
You know what is even more cringeworthy? I do not think you can even make even a case for me being intellectually dishonest and I do not think you can make case of me even being incorrect in what I have said about Zegh. "You are dishonest.....but I am fucked if I know what it is that you were actually wrong about?"
-
We obviously disagree. I think I've made my point, made it in several ways, and I don't really have more to add. I mean, sure, I can go on rehashing and repeating and following your patterns for fun, but I don't actually have more to say on the subject. Sorry to disappoint you there.
Which is why I'm wondering what you hope to achieve. That I'll change my mind? Not going to happen since I think I'm right and you're wrong.
So, what do you hope to achieve?
-
We obviously disagree. I think I've made my point, made it in several ways, and I don't really have more to add. I mean, sure, I can go on rehashing and repeating and following your patterns for fun, but I don't actually have more to say on the subject. Sorry to disappoint you there.
Which is why I'm wondering what you hope to achieve. That I'll change my mind? Not going to happen since I think I'm right and you're wrong.
So, what do you hope to achieve?
I actually hoped for either of two options
1) to have you say something that is understandable and reasonable
Or
2) maybe have someone else translate some hidden point I have somehow missed in this
For example if you say: "You are dishonest" and then make no convincing case for me having been so, I find this unreasonable especially when I mercy kill weak suggestions to that end.
Or
If you say there is precisely two options a or b and you must believe one of them and both are dishonest, then I show I actually believe in neither and subscribe instead to option c.
Or
You say "What you do is easy" I then relate why it is harder and more comprehensive.
Or
You tell me my actions are a pretence and then cannot relate what I was pretending nor even what I was wrong about
Or
You tell me it's great that I don't have to change my mind about anything, yet do not provide any possible reason I would need to change my mind about anything
Do you see?
Now maybe the fault is with me. BUT YOU are NOT Zegh I value what you have said enough not to dismiss it out of hand. I do read and re-registered and analyse what you have said and I am no closer to see a reasonable point..
All I see is variations of the same themes "You did not read him", "You posted Ninja Cats". Like either of these were anything more than conversation starters and as if these points actually were irrefutable proof of your false claims of me. They weren't in either case
Yet my engagement in this is not what you want because whatever assumptions you have made, you are holding onto for dear life. When I give example after example to illustrate my point, I am apparently taking things too literally or bringing Zegh into the conversation.
I don't think it is me though. I suspect the reason why nothing said has any substance is not that I am missing it, but that you have no real substance. In fact in my last reply I showed the lack of such substance.due to no consideration of context.
You are not a stupid man, Odeon. I see no reason for you purposely wishing to make and defend baseless claims about me to which and surface analysis would render toothless. I think you are smarter than that. So I want to know what is going on
-
Well, I think my argument does have substance. The message is a simple one: if you don't read Zegh's posts, you can't actually know he is full of shit. You can make assumptions but you can't know.
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
Why you don't see this is anyone's guess. I certainly don't know.
I don't see a point with continuing this, as we are basically running around in circles and none of us is likely to change the other's views in any significant way. I will give you this, however: I regret using the word "pretend" in the posts that preceded this callout when intellectual dishonesty is what I actually wanted to highlight. My message is unchanged, but my choice of words could have been better.
We really should leave this to the peanut gallery now.
-
Yes I have been posting my opinions on here for months, years in fact and will continue to do so.
I will start a polling you like on whether we should be censored for opinions that aren't popular or perhaps whether holding opinions based somewhat on assumptions is intellectually dishonest.
How do you think they would do?
At what point did I deny I had assumed anything? No? Okay, at what point did I claim to know more than I could? No? Okay. So at what point did I get ANYTHING I said wrong? Where is your "Aha" moment?
You don't have one do you, Odeon?
Is Zegh full of shit? Yes. I contend he is. I have 6 years of posts, PM's and recent commentary from others to make this claim. Which more than makes a case for claims I make against him. So whether I read him in the last few months or so is neither here nor there - even when measured against your standards of intellectual dishonesty.
But what else have you got? That can't be the sum of your argument because it is weak and you are not one to make weak arguments. So I am suspicious.
But I have a question for you. If I read Zegh's posts, what would I have gleaned that would have or could have made a difference to how I see him? If I see him as a liar (being full of lies and inconsequentialities) then what would he have possibly said to dissuade me?
In other words if your claim is that it is dishonest to claim he is full of shit because I am assuming UNLESS I read him (right, tell me this is part of your belief around this) then what if I still would only have assumptions AFTER reading his posts.
Where does this place this point about intellectual dishonesty. (ie If nothing was either lost or gained in reading his posts) AND as in this case maintaining the line of reasoning that he talks shit seems to have been pretty on the money given his PM's of 6 months ago and recent broken pledge/promise? Yes without reading his posts, I proclaimed he was full of shit and the evidence seemed to indicate that for me and backs it now.
Therefore where is your point.
I tell you one thing Odeon, this callout has done precisely two things. Firstly it has gobsmacked me as to your disappointing efforts to make poor claims against me and not defend them. Secondly it motivates me to dig in my heels over this Zegh thing.
This callout is disappointing
-
Yes I have been posting my opinions on here for months, years in fact and will continue to do so.
I certainly hope so.
I will start a polling you like on whether we should be censored for opinions that aren't popular or perhaps whether holding opinions based somewhat on assumptions is intellectually dishonest.
Are you mentioning censorship because it's me, the site owner, posting? If so, why? And "somewhat"? Seriously? Aare you deliberately avoiding my point?
How do you think they would do?
I don't know. But here's a question for you: why do you even mention it? Do you feel there is a risk of you being censored?
At what point did I deny I had assumed anything? No? Okay, at what point did I claim to know more than I could? No? Okay. So at what point did I get ANYTHING I said wrong? Where is your "Aha" moment?
You're *acting* as if your *assumption* was the truth. No, you don't read his posts, but yet you keep right on following him around the board and acting on your assumption.
You don't have one do you, Odeon?
Well, I think I do or I wouldn't have reacted and this callout either wouldn't have happened or you would have been able to show me the errors of my ways. But I haven't bought your arguments.
Is Zegh full of shit? Yes. I contend he is. I have 6 years of posts, PM's and recent commentary from others to make this claim. Which more than makes a case for claims I make against him. So whether I read him in the last few months or so is neither here nor there - even when measured against your standards of intellectual dishonesty.
But it is, and that's where we differ. I do think it matters because I expected more from you. Don't you see that? Your actions scream that you don't care, that you've made up your mind and it's all there is and can ever be. I expected more than that from you of all people, and so I'm bloody disappointed. If I attack somebody, at least I have the honesty to read his or her posts while attacking. Hell, even Benji gets that treatment.
But what else have you got? That can't be the sum of your argument because it is weak and you are not one to make weak arguments. So I am suspicious.
That's it. I don't think it's a weak argument. It's a simple argument, though, one that is easy to make, and I think it's enough.
But I have a question for you. If I read Zegh's posts, what would I have gleaned that would have or could have made a difference to how I see him? If I see him as a liar (being full of lies and inconsequentialities) then what would he have possibly said to dissuade me?
I've no idea. It's irrelevant. The difference would have been that I hadn't reacted. I happen to like Zegh, but I know you don't, and that's fine.
In other words if your claim is that it is dishonest to claim he is full of shit because I am assuming UNLESS I read him (right, tell me this is part of your belief around this) then what if I still would only have assumptions AFTER reading his posts.
You would have made an effort, and that does make a difference. A big one.
Where does this place this point about intellectual dishonesty. (ie If nothing was either lost or gained in reading his posts) AND as in this case maintaining the line of reasoning that he talks shit seems to have been pretty on the money given his PM's of 6 months ago and recent broken pledge/promise? Yes without reading his posts, I proclaimed he was full of shit and the evidence seemed to indicate that for me and backs it now.
How many times do I need to repeat this? His actions are irrelevant. You are the one to make claims, you are the one who should make an effort. Or at least accept that I did hold you to higher standards than that.
Therefore where is your point.
Right here, in this post and in most of the others I've posted in this thread.
I tell you one thing Odeon, this callout has done precisely two things. Firstly it has gobsmacked me as to your disappointing efforts to make poor claims against me and not defend them. Secondly it motivates me to dig in my heels over this Zegh thing.
I have defended my claims. I have done my best to rephrase them to explain my views. I have even handled your deflections (the Butterflies thing and the archaeologist that would rather assume than ask his subjects come to mind; in addition to your characterisations of Zegh, of course). I know you wanted a more complex argument, but hey, you can't always get what you want.
This callout is disappointing
We have a point of agreement here at least.
Can we finally leave it to the peanut gallery?
-
Yes I have been posting my opinions on here for months, years in fact and will continue to do so.
I certainly hope so.
I will start a polling you like on whether we should be censored for opinions that aren't popular or perhaps whether holding opinions based somewhat on assumptions is intellectually dishonest.
Are you mentioning censorship because it's me, the site owner, posting? If so, why? And "somewhat"? Seriously? Aare you deliberately avoiding my point?
How do you think they would do?
I don't know. But here's a question for you: why do you even mention it? Do you feel there is a risk of you being censored?
At what point did I deny I had assumed anything? No? Okay, at what point did I claim to know more than I could? No? Okay. So at what point did I get ANYTHING I said wrong? Where is your "Aha" moment?
You're *acting* as if your *assumption* was the truth. No, you don't read his posts, but yet you keep right on following him around the board and acting on your assumption.
You don't have one do you, Odeon?
Well, I think I do or I wouldn't have reacted and this callout either wouldn't have happened or you would have been able to show me the errors of my ways. But I haven't bought your arguments.
Is Zegh full of shit? Yes. I contend he is. I have 6 years of posts, PM's and recent commentary from others to make this claim. Which more than makes a case for claims I make against him. So whether I read him in the last few months or so is neither here nor there - even when measured against your standards of intellectual dishonesty.
But it is, and that's where we differ. I do think it matters because I expected more from you. Don't you see that? Your actions scream that you don't care, that you've made up your mind and it's all there is and can ever be. I expected more than that from you of all people, and so I'm bloody disappointed. If I attack somebody, at least I have the honesty to read his or her posts while attacking. Hell, even Benji gets that treatment.
But what else have you got? That can't be the sum of your argument because it is weak and you are not one to make weak arguments. So I am suspicious.
That's it. I don't think it's a weak argument. It's a simple argument, though, one that is easy to make, and I think it's enough.
But I have a question for you. If I read Zegh's posts, what would I have gleaned that would have or could have made a difference to how I see him? If I see him as a liar (being full of lies and inconsequentialities) then what would he have possibly said to dissuade me?
I've no idea. It's irrelevant. The difference would have been that I hadn't reacted. I happen to like Zegh, but I know you don't, and that's fine.
In other words if your claim is that it is dishonest to claim he is full of shit because I am assuming UNLESS I read him (right, tell me this is part of your belief around this) then what if I still would only have assumptions AFTER reading his posts.
You would have made an effort, and that does make a difference. A big one.
Where does this place this point about intellectual dishonesty. (ie If nothing was either lost or gained in reading his posts) AND as in this case maintaining the line of reasoning that he talks shit seems to have been pretty on the money given his PM's of 6 months ago and recent broken pledge/promise? Yes without reading his posts, I proclaimed he was full of shit and the evidence seemed to indicate that for me and backs it now.
How many times do I need to repeat this? His actions are irrelevant. You are the one to make claims, you are the one who should make an effort. Or at least accept that I did hold you to higher standards than that.
Therefore where is your point.
Right here, in this post and in most of the others I've posted in this thread.
I tell you one thing Odeon, this callout has done precisely two things. Firstly it has gobsmacked me as to your disappointing efforts to make poor claims against me and not defend them. Secondly it motivates me to dig in my heels over this Zegh thing.
I have defended my claims. I have done my best to rephrase them to explain my views. I have even handled your deflections (the Butterflies thing and the archaeologist that would rather assume than ask his subjects come to mind; in addition to your characterisations of Zegh, of course). I know you wanted a more complex argument, but hey, you can't always get what you want.
This callout is disappointing
We have a point of agreement here at least.
Can we finally leave it to the peanut gallery?
This is actually interesting to me. So your accusations of me being dishonest, intellectually dishonest, pretending, and taking the easy way out were all underpinned on this simple argument. That's outrageous, Odeon.
The problem is not that I was thinking it was a more serious argument but that the argument's simplicity is so very easily countered and could only ever have the chance of having any more weight if it were part of a larger more complex argument.
I will show you what I mean but first, I was not deflecting anything. I was addressing things that either were bought up in this callout or I believed had bearing. At no point was I deflecting anything nor do I have any particular desire to. I do not think your argument is a good one for all its simplicity. I think you wanted to try to mischaracterise me and for reasons I don't care to know.
I do wonder whether you ever saw the following:
Stop being a child Al, and take some responsability.
Is this a "reaction"?
If so, does that compell you to keep going, indefinitely? Then you are a child.
All you do is revert to this "I'm just a troublemaker, I can't help it!"-crap. You can help it. We all can help how we behave. And you're not a "troublemaker" or a "badass" or a "bear" or a damn "genie" (stup using these angrandizing analogies. And see? You read my messages, all of them, which... I knew... ::) )
I'm going to go a little further, and givne Hyke 1 of my months to try "silent treatment" again. I will respond to normal communication, but not to "cat memes" or any other "provocative" bullshit.
One month, starting now.
[zeghing intensifies]
I don't recall you taking responsibility for your own childish behaviors. Yet you talk to others like your an adult and they're a child. You are delusional. Must be the weed giving you unwarranted self importance.
I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. Given every opportunity to see what he did wrong and what had not worked, I may as well read his reply.
Bloody Hell.
Did I not tell him that the tactics he had used were bad tactics? Did I not make that abundantly clear? Did I not say that ignoring was only sighting better than the shaming, daring and insulting tactics and doesn't resolve anything but rather would only work if others move on? Didn't I say that doing rinse repeat of the same tactics he had used (ignoring was a previous tactics) will not work?
So what does he do? :hahaha:
But that was not all. Was else did the smug condescending man-child say? Yup, I need to take responsibility. Well clearly I have the whole way through. I have no issue with this. I happily own everything I said and my place in it.
Kittenburger, you noticed (and I am sure anyone else reading did too) He did not take any responsibility. None. Effectively he says:
"I didn't do anything. I was not involved. I have no responsibility or accountability for my actions. But to" prove" my commitment to stopping it, I will try to use a tactic I previously used that was just denounced by one of the people I am feuding with. It did not work last time and I have been told explicitly that it won't this time, but I will use it again....and with righteous indignance and in a month' s time I will say "See!!" like a school child and you will all see how committed I was and how bad the others were"
This is virtue signalling. He is doing two things giving the pretence of wanting resolution by do something that appears that he is doing something constructive. But it has a nastier element to it which everyone should see. A petulant element. Earlier Hyke suggested maybe ignoring Kittenburger and I. She set no timestamp for this ignoring tactic. So he will come in, ignore all other advice, set a timestamp, trial ignoring for a month and then when it doesn't work, will petulant say "See, Hyke! You were wrong. I knew better. That tactic was your tactic and it doesn't work because nothing works and it's not my fault"
He is a man-child. It's not about fixing things. He is shifting blame. Hyke's fault because she gave bad advice, Al's responsibility because he will not finish what I started and allow me to not be accountable for my actions. It's Kittenburger's fault because she won't stop pointing out my shitty behaviours. The only person who isn't at fault is Zegh.
Oh he mentioned the Bear and the Genie, and his pea brain thought that in either of those analogies I was contextualising myself as the bear or the Genie.
The Genie for instance is the things carelessly said or doing, that causes havoc and becomes a bigger and bigger issue if uncontrolled. Therefore too difficult to control or contain back in the confines of the bottle. In this situation it makes the Genie, everything unconstructive thing you've said and your shit attitude about things to this point....not me.
As for the bear? You are an idiot. No worth explaining, you are still likely at the Genie example, trying to find a way that I was trying to make a point to me about me whilst speaking to you.. Because you are a dumb bastard.
So no surprises. I didn't expect much, so I wasn't disappointed. I won't hold the door open for you again, nor read the crap you say
So when I see you say:
At what point did I deny I had assumed anything? No? Okay, at what point did I claim to know more than I could? No? Okay. So at what point did I get ANYTHING I said wrong? Where is your "Aha" moment?
You're *acting* as if your *assumption* was the truth. No, you don't read his posts, but yet you keep right on following him around the board and acting on your assumption.
How was it not the truth? The one time in this that I gave him the benefit of the doubt and I saw what I have seen months before. It confirmed my assumptions and suspicions. As for acting on assumptions, we all do. Some of you assumed that when he spoke of not engaging with me or DFG for a month, you assumed he was not lying again. It was certainly not something I assumed. Why? Because I do more than just assume. I am forming opinions that DO have more than just dislike or assumptions attached to it and it would be silly to believe otherwise.
You made a big point of quoting the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty as though you thought quoting this helped your position.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.....
When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
My approach IS Honest.
It is entirely my belief and I am transparent, open and will give my reasoning behind it.
My approach is deliberate and I back my opinion as much or more than I need to.
My approach is comprehensive and this callout ought to promote that. I am not someone with no exposure to Zegh who never read a word and based all of the nothing I knew of him to smear him. The reason why I track him as well as I do is because I have a comprehensive approach. It is exactly the same reason that you are struggling to find ANYTHING that I have said that is incorrect.
As for changing beliefs, he has his work cut out for him to change my beliefs, but then I struggle to do that with liars. I have an aversion to it. I am more wary. But naturally I will keep an eye on things and if I see reports that he is becoming a bit more than what he is now, I will treat it with suspicion but ultimately see if he is keeping to his word. I was very suspicious of Richard for example. But that turned out well enough. Could Zegh rise to the level of Richard? I don't know. I did not think Richard had it in him and I do not think Zegh does. Richard happily proved me wrong. What is Zegh up to now on IntensitySquared, is he attacking DFG whilst still on his 30 day silent treatment as quoted above? Is that silent treatment? Have I any need to change my belief? COME ON, ODEON!
I do not apply different standards to Zegh than I do myself. I am hardly a hypocrite
As for apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, absolutely. I believe there is no inherent standard or quality in posting (as shown above in his "silent treatment"). I get as much information from examining what others say and applying it against his known behaviour and endearing personality. I am not exactly flying blind here.
But you can't know exactly what he is saying? Really? Okay. He and Butterflies are in a callout of SB and DFG:
Is he being nice to DFG?
Is he being supportive?
Is he giving her advice?
Is he encouraging her?
I mean why am not thinking any of these things? They would be assumptions if I was to think them. You are not about to tell me that he is. I would not be fool enough to believe you if he did.
Hey maybe he is ignoring her completely right? I mean he DID say he was doing one month of silent treatment and 1 month from March the first would mean he is still within this. Are you going to tell me he is or would my assumption be a little more grounded than that IF I told you WITHOUT READING HIM that he is being a condescending snide little shitbag and despite being on a self-imposed cone of silence in respect to DFG he is breaking protocol and joining in with Butterflies in giving DFG shit?
Hey YOU tell me.
See where this all falls down for you?
I can always back this position. It is NOT intellectually dishonest and with you saying you don't read his posts and you assume stuff.....and? It does not make your point. I do not know how you do not get this. I know you try to imply that if I assume anything then I cannot know or base this on anything but the assumption. Its not true. In fact in Zegh's case, I have yet to appreciate what more I would have at my disposal than an even greater sense of "I fucking knew it" as I did with that March the first post.
You do not even try to make that case those. It is simply you trying to equate not reading someone's posts as having NOTHING at your disposal to base solid assumptions on or being dishonest. But you won't show where the dishonesty is.
"What have I got wrong?"
"It doesn't matter".
"Well yes it does".
The reason it does goes entirely to the part of me being dishonest. Again, I was not flying blind and this is not mere chance or luck.
What you fail to appreciate is that none of this makes a case for you. Quite frankly I really hope that "the treatment" you give Benji stands up to examination a lot better than this effort.
So Odeon being that the claims against me and my character and actions are so very weak and easily euthanised, and that you are a smart man, ought I feel REALLY offended? (IF this is really the sum of your argument).
-
I did not "want to try to mischaracterise" you. It's one thing that you don't agree with my argument about your intellectual dishonesty--it's fine, it's not the first time people disagree with me and certainly won't be the last, and I can live it and so can you; you are a big boy--but another thing entirely to claim that I am deliberately mischaracterising you. I am not.
And again, Zegh's character is not relevant here. Your actions when chasing him across the board are. If you want to talk about Zegh and how your assumptions were right, etc, etc, etc, find someone who is interested. I am not.
What I have done is tell you what I think and why.
-
I've been thinking about this.
On one hand, I reacted because of what I see as intellectual dishonesty--that whole not reading Zegh but nevertheless acting based on old knowledge and assumptions thing. You've read my arguments so I won't repeat them here.
On the other, I've certainly not read every post you've made in this back-and-forth with him, an exchange you and most likely he both enjoy, and so it occurs to me that maybe I'm guilty of something similar to what I accuse you of doing. Can I really say you're guilty of it without admitting that what I've done is rather similar? I'm not sure what I'd find, to be honest, but that's not my point.
What do you think?
-
I've been thinking about this.
On one hand, I reacted because of what I see as intellectual dishonesty--that whole not reading Zegh but nevertheless acting based on old knowledge and assumptions thing. You've read my arguments so I won't repeat them here.
On the other, I've certainly not read every post you've made in this back-and-forth with him, an exchange you and most likely he both enjoy, and so it occurs to me that maybe I'm guilty of something similar to what I accuse you of doing. Can I really say you're guilty of it without admitting that what I've done is rather similar? I'm not sure what I'd find, to be honest, but that's not my point.
What do you think?
I think that what you are doing is similar. I do not think it is intellectually dishonest. Nor do either of our actions meet the standards of the definition that you showed.
Further to this, I can assume that no one has read every post of every or any Intensity Squared member. Anything anyone says about anyone is underpinned by this fact AND it does not make them intellectually dishonest NOT reading every or any posts (even by the definition you posted).
-
I don't know. It's not about reading every post there is, but every relevant post.
-
I don't know. It's not about reading every post there is, but every relevant post.
Now here is the kicker. Even IF this was the benchmark (that you had to read not every post, but every relevant post) - and it isn't - then how would you know you had missed any relevant post?
No, even by the definition that you had posted, this would not meet your Intellectual Dishonesty.
If you find it too difficult to come up with examples that are either easily countered completely or up to debate and definition then the term Intellectual Dishonesty probably was not the right one to use in the first instance. If you post the definition and my reaction is "I do not do any of those things" and then show this, it looks suspiciously to me that it does not apply.
What may have been a better term was "Being rude" or "being disrespectful", or "being annoying". I would not have started this callout were that the case.
-
Not convinced, sorry.
I don't know. It's not about reading every post there is, but every relevant post.
Now here is the kicker. Even IF this was the benchmark (that you had to read not every post, but every relevant post) - and it isn't - then how would you know you had missed any relevant post?
True, but it's not the same as deliberately not reading (and saying so). I miss posts all the time but I don't make assumptions about their contents.
No, even by the definition that you had posted, this would not meet your Intellectual Dishonesty.
If you hadn't proclaimed that you don't read his posts, it wouldn't. You did, however.
If you find it too difficult to come up with examples that are either easily countered completely or up to debate and definition then the term Intellectual Dishonesty probably was not the right one to use in the first instance. If you post the definition and my reaction is "I do not do any of those things" and then show this, it looks suspiciously to me that it does not apply.
But I think it was right, the key being that you said you didn't read his posts but still said he is full of shit and acted on that assumption.
The reason I thought about my own behaviour is if I missed something relevant (to my claims) when not reading all those posts.
What may have been a better term was "Being rude" or "being disrespectful", or "being annoying". I would not have started this callout were that the case.
Haha, you're all three. :smarty:
-
True. What I am not, is intellectually dishonest. Even by the definition you posted. If you had me:
A) denying I assumed anything
B) denying I could be wrong
C) lying about not reading the posts
D) Having no grounds on which to assume
E) being unopened to any information to prove my assumptions incorrect
You may well be in the ballpark.
You never had this and you still don't. By your own posted definition you do not meet the standard by which you accuse me. You are holding an empty sack.
As a means to give Zegh a bit of a break, it has worked a treat. But I am not impressed.
-
I don't actually care if you've given Zegh a break or not. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, and this was never about Zegh.
Not interested in repeating myself either. You're a big boy, too, and so I'm sure you will live, even though you've not been able to change my mind.
-
I don't actually care if you've given Zegh a break or not. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, and this was never about Zegh.
Not interested in repeating myself either. You're a big boy, too, and so I'm sure you will live, even though you've not been able to change my mind.
It makes good sense not to repeat yourself. Repeating a weak position over and over will not make it any better or stronger. It will just look worse by each repetition.
I mentioned Zegh in the last post just as to say that it looks as though this is pretty much where we leave things off and I go back to feuding with Zegh as though this callout and what preceded it had never happened. I am no worse or better for it. Slightly disappointed in you, but that is neither here nor there.
-
I don't actually care if you've given Zegh a break or not. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, and this was never about Zegh.
Not interested in repeating myself either. You're a big boy, too, and so I'm sure you will live, even though you've not been able to change my mind.
It makes good sense not to repeat yourself. Repeating a weak position over and over will not make it any better or stronger. It will just look worse by each repetition.
I mentioned Zegh in the last post just as to say that it looks as though this is pretty much where we leave things off and I go back to feuding with Zegh as though this callout and what preceded it had never happened. I am no worse or better for it. Slightly disappointed in you, but that is neither here nor there.
You've mentioned me in every second post, in an argument that was about YOUR credibility, Ross.
You aren't very into deep self analysis, are you? You just bark whatever hits your mind, whenever it hits it, and that's what makes you interesting. Interesting, and slightly pathetic, but interesting none the less.
I see you are back stalking me with lame ass memes again. That is very "in control" of you, Ross. Way to show everyone :]
Pathetic old fuck.
-
I'd like to hear what the peanut gallery has to say. Al thinks my arguments are weak, I don't.
-
I don't actually care if you've given Zegh a break or not. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, and this was never about Zegh.
Not interested in repeating myself either. You're a big boy, too, and so I'm sure you will live, even though you've not been able to change my mind.
It makes good sense not to repeat yourself. Repeating a weak position over and over will not make it any better or stronger. It will just look worse by each repetition.
I mentioned Zegh in the last post just as to say that it looks as though this is pretty much where we leave things off and I go back to feuding with Zegh as though this callout and what preceded it had never happened. I am no worse or better for it. Slightly disappointed in you, but that is neither here nor there.
You've mentioned me in every second post, in an argument that was about YOUR credibility, Ross.
You aren't very into deep self analysis, are you? You just bark whatever hits your mind, whenever it hits it, and that's what makes you interesting. Interesting, and slightly pathetic, but interesting none the less.
I see you are back stalking me with lame ass memes again. That is very "in control" of you, Ross. Way to show everyone :]
Pathetic old fuck.
Lots of words there Zegh. But how much of it was bullshit and bluster?
I know your one month of silent treatment of DFG and myself is almost up. Only a few days to go. That was a raging success wasn't it, asshat?
-
I don't actually care if you've given Zegh a break or not. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, and this was never about Zegh.
Not interested in repeating myself either. You're a big boy, too, and so I'm sure you will live, even though you've not been able to change my mind.
It makes good sense not to repeat yourself. Repeating a weak position over and over will not make it any better or stronger. It will just look worse by each repetition.
I mentioned Zegh in the last post just as to say that it looks as though this is pretty much where we leave things off and I go back to feuding with Zegh as though this callout and what preceded it had never happened. I am no worse or better for it. Slightly disappointed in you, but that is neither here nor there.
You've mentioned me in every second post, in an argument that was about YOUR credibility, Ross.
You aren't very into deep self analysis, are you? You just bark whatever hits your mind, whenever it hits it, and that's what makes you interesting. Interesting, and slightly pathetic, but interesting none the less.
I see you are back stalking me with lame ass memes again. That is very "in control" of you, Ross. Way to show everyone :]
Pathetic old fuck.
Lots of words there Zegh. But how much of it was bullshit and bluster?
I know your one month of silent treatment of DFG and myself is almost up. Only a few days to go. That was a raging success wasn't it, asshat?
Yes? I was mostly quiet as a mouse. Not only did I do exactly what promised: Not play along with your cat-meme crap, but I even took a little pause from posting altogether. That was something I did NOT promise, but something YOU held against me "you are still posting on the forum, you said you wouldn't", NO, you fucking manipulative sociopathic shit-for-brains, I would NEVER promise to fuck off FOR YOU. EVER. But, in the end, I did that. I fucked off, from the entire forum, for a week or so.
And on top of that
on top of that
You use it against me, at the best of your effort :D
You, on the other hand, didn't know where to put yourself while I was being quiet, so you launched at Odeon, DFG launched at Some Bloke. Spazzy-spazz.
Have fun, tin-foil heads.
-
I don't actually care if you've given Zegh a break or not. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, and this was never about Zegh.
Not interested in repeating myself either. You're a big boy, too, and so I'm sure you will live, even though you've not been able to change my mind.
It makes good sense not to repeat yourself. Repeating a weak position over and over will not make it any better or stronger. It will just look worse by each repetition.
I mentioned Zegh in the last post just as to say that it looks as though this is pretty much where we leave things off and I go back to feuding with Zegh as though this callout and what preceded it had never happened. I am no worse or better for it. Slightly disappointed in you, but that is neither here nor there.
You've mentioned me in every second post, in an argument that was about YOUR credibility, Ross.
You aren't very into deep self analysis, are you? You just bark whatever hits your mind, whenever it hits it, and that's what makes you interesting. Interesting, and slightly pathetic, but interesting none the less.
I see you are back stalking me with lame ass memes again. That is very "in control" of you, Ross. Way to show everyone :]
Pathetic old fuck.
Lots of words there Zegh. But how much of it was bullshit and bluster?
I know your one month of silent treatment of DFG and myself is almost up. Only a few days to go. That was a raging success wasn't it, asshat?
Yes? I was mostly quiet as a mouse. Not only did I do exactly what promised: Not play along with your cat-meme crap, but I even took a little pause from posting altogether. That was something I did NOT promise, but something YOU held against me "you are still posting on the forum, you said you wouldn't", NO, you fucking manipulative sociopathic shit-for-brains, I would NEVER promise to fuck off FOR YOU. EVER. But, in the end, I did that. I fucked off, from the entire forum, for a week or so.
And on top of that
on top of that
You use it against me, at the best of your effort :D
You, on the other hand, didn't know where to put yourself while I was being quiet, so you launched at Odeon, DFG launched at Some Bloke. Spazzy-spazz.
Have fun, tin-foil heads.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8b/b0/75/8bb0756c29dc5ad312562de0b9fd3f94.jpg)
-
I don't actually care if you've given Zegh a break or not. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, and this was never about Zegh.
Not interested in repeating myself either. You're a big boy, too, and so I'm sure you will live, even though you've not been able to change my mind.
It makes good sense not to repeat yourself. Repeating a weak position over and over will not make it any better or stronger. It will just look worse by each repetition.
I mentioned Zegh in the last post just as to say that it looks as though this is pretty much where we leave things off and I go back to feuding with Zegh as though this callout and what preceded it had never happened. I am no worse or better for it. Slightly disappointed in you, but that is neither here nor there.
You've mentioned me in every second post, in an argument that was about YOUR credibility, Ross.
You aren't very into deep self analysis, are you? You just bark whatever hits your mind, whenever it hits it, and that's what makes you interesting. Interesting, and slightly pathetic, but interesting none the less.
I see you are back stalking me with lame ass memes again. That is very "in control" of you, Ross. Way to show everyone :]
Pathetic old fuck.
Lots of words there Zegh. But how much of it was bullshit and bluster?
I know your one month of silent treatment of DFG and myself is almost up. Only a few days to go. That was a raging success wasn't it, asshat?
Yes? I was mostly quiet as a mouse. Not only did I do exactly what promised: Not play along with your cat-meme crap, but I even took a little pause from posting altogether. That was something I did NOT promise, but something YOU held against me "you are still posting on the forum, you said you wouldn't", NO, you fucking manipulative sociopathic shit-for-brains, I would NEVER promise to fuck off FOR YOU. EVER. But, in the end, I did that. I fucked off, from the entire forum, for a week or so.
And on top of that
on top of that
You use it against me, at the best of your effort :D
You, on the other hand, didn't know where to put yourself while I was being quiet, so you launched at Odeon, DFG launched at Some Bloke. Spazzy-spazz.
Have fun, tin-foil heads.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8b/b0/75/8bb0756c29dc5ad312562de0b9fd3f94.jpg)
That's one cranky-looking cat. :P
-
AND.....here it is.
Well, I think my argument does have substance. The message is a simple one: if you don't read Zegh's posts, you can't actually know he is full of shit. You can make assumptions but you can't know.
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
Why you don't see this is anyone's guess. I certainly don't know.
I don't see a point with continuing this, as we are basically running around in circles and none of us is likely to change the other's views in any significant way. I will give you this, however: I regret using the word "pretend" in the posts that preceded this callout when intellectual dishonesty is what I actually wanted to highlight. My message is unchanged, but my choice of words could have been better.
We really should leave this to the peanut gallery now.
I have been trying to work out why you have been so invested in such pitifully weak premises and arguments. What was the agenda? What was the "real reason"?
What would drive YOU a decent communicator, a good debaters and a smart man to make the claims in the first place and then hold on to them. I am not stupid, Odeon and I know YOU are not stupid and would not believe me to be stupid.
I did however let this evade me, somehow.
There was something behind this distraction. Some reason that you would make indefensible points. This is what it is.
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
You reacted BECAUSE you dislike me feuding with Zegh and saying bad things to him. You think it has gone on long enough and want me to lay off him and no longer be a constant in the forum.
THAT actually makes sense. It also makes sense that you would make a bad claim to start with and throw worse claim after worse to obfuscate things. It would also mean that you would "dig in" and not see what you would otherwise see in others as really shit arguments. You are invested in this argument but not because you actually agree with your shit arguments particularly but the reason behind you making them in the first place are important to you. Also perhaps explains the reason I was getting a vibe of righteous indignation from you.
That said, do you imagine your efforts here have achieved anything?
When you said:
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
Do you imagine in reacting, that I would not double down? Do you imagine that doing this would put winding things down about as far from my mind as possible? Curious.
-
That said, do you imagine your efforts here have achieved anything?
I wonder if you hear yourself, when you say stuff like this.
Or when you compare yourself to "a mighty bear"
What I'm suspecting now, though, is that you DO hear yourself, and that you nod - to yourself - and even give yourself a little applause. I also suspect that if you were to read an article about narcissism, you'd think "How is this a diagnosis? Everyone feels this way! I know I do!"
-
AND.....here it is.
Well, I think my argument does have substance. The message is a simple one: if you don't read Zegh's posts, you can't actually know he is full of shit. You can make assumptions but you can't know.
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
Why you don't see this is anyone's guess. I certainly don't know.
I don't see a point with continuing this, as we are basically running around in circles and none of us is likely to change the other's views in any significant way. I will give you this, however: I regret using the word "pretend" in the posts that preceded this callout when intellectual dishonesty is what I actually wanted to highlight. My message is unchanged, but my choice of words could have been better.
We really should leave this to the peanut gallery now.
I have been trying to work out why you have been so invested in such pitifully weak premises and arguments. What was the agenda? What was the "real reason"?
What would drive YOU a decent communicator, a good debaters and a smart man to make the claims in the first place and then hold on to them. I am not stupid, Odeon and I know YOU are not stupid and would not believe me to be stupid.
I did however let this evade me, somehow.
There was something behind this distraction. Some reason that you would make indefensible points. This is what it is.
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
You reacted BECAUSE you dislike me feuding with Zegh and saying bad things to him. You think it has gone on long enough and want me to lay off him and no longer be a constant in the forum.
THAT actually makes sense. It also makes sense that you would make a bad claim to start with and throw worse claim after worse to obfuscate things. It would also mean that you would "dig in" and not see what you would otherwise see in others as really shit arguments. You are invested in this argument but not because you actually agree with your shit arguments particularly but the reason behind you making them in the first place are important to you. Also perhaps explains the reason I was getting a vibe of righteous indignation from you.
That said, do you imagine your efforts here have achieved anything?
When you said:
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
Do you imagine in reacting, that I would not double down? Do you imagine that doing this would put winding things down about as far from my mind as possible? Curious.
I don't actually care if you wind it down or not. You going after Zegh is not the issue, it never was. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, just as you can. Just as DFG can, for that matter.
What is really strange is that you refuse to accept what I've been saying all along. It's as if you almost get it, sometimes. Almost but not quite. You even highlight a key trigger, yet you seem to think that it must be something else, something BIGGER, not something as simple and straight-forward as me being annoyed by the intellectual dishonesty you've displayed.
You also fail to see that your tiptoeing around DFG (and yes, it's my perception, it's not objective and never was, but the more I think about it, the more it fits, so fucking live with it) is not just something incidental, it's directly connected to this. Maybe it's why you don't see it, that blindness I think I mentioned in a post. I don't know. And what's sad is that you probably don't either.
Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
-
AND.....here it is.
Well, I think my argument does have substance. The message is a simple one: if you don't read Zegh's posts, you can't actually know he is full of shit. You can make assumptions but you can't know.
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
Why you don't see this is anyone's guess. I certainly don't know.
I don't see a point with continuing this, as we are basically running around in circles and none of us is likely to change the other's views in any significant way. I will give you this, however: I regret using the word "pretend" in the posts that preceded this callout when intellectual dishonesty is what I actually wanted to highlight. My message is unchanged, but my choice of words could have been better.
We really should leave this to the peanut gallery now.
I have been trying to work out why you have been so invested in such pitifully weak premises and arguments. What was the agenda? What was the "real reason"?
What would drive YOU a decent communicator, a good debaters and a smart man to make the claims in the first place and then hold on to them. I am not stupid, Odeon and I know YOU are not stupid and would not believe me to be stupid.
I did however let this evade me, somehow.
There was something behind this distraction. Some reason that you would make indefensible points. This is what it is.
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
You reacted BECAUSE you dislike me feuding with Zegh and saying bad things to him. You think it has gone on long enough and want me to lay off him and no longer be a constant in the forum.
THAT actually makes sense. It also makes sense that you would make a bad claim to start with and throw worse claim after worse to obfuscate things. It would also mean that you would "dig in" and not see what you would otherwise see in others as really shit arguments. You are invested in this argument but not because you actually agree with your shit arguments particularly but the reason behind you making them in the first place are important to you. Also perhaps explains the reason I was getting a vibe of righteous indignation from you.
That said, do you imagine your efforts here have achieved anything?
When you said:
I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.
Do you imagine in reacting, that I would not double down? Do you imagine that doing this would put winding things down about as far from my mind as possible? Curious.
I don't actually care if you wind it down or not. You going after Zegh is not the issue, it never was. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, just as you can. Just as DFG can, for that matter.
What is really strange is that you refuse to accept what I've been saying all along. It's as if you almost get it, sometimes. Almost but not quite. You even highlight a key trigger, yet you seem to think that it must be something else, something BIGGER, not something as simple and straight-forward as me being annoyed by the intellectual dishonesty you've displayed.
You also fail to see that your tiptoeing around DFG (and yes, it's my perception, it's not objective and never was, but the more I think about it, the more it fits, so fucking live with it) is not just something incidental, it's directly connected to this. Maybe it's why you don't see it, that blindness I think I mentioned in a post. I don't know. And what's sad is that you probably don't either.
Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
Not intellectual dishonesty.....or never was in the first place? I mean we have had me saying over and over for how long now, that I was not being intellectually dishonest? Then we had you repeating that I was (in this instance) Intellectually Dishonest and other claims (and even pretence and dishonesty claims hanging off this) and now you are saying what exactly?
Be honest here, Odeon?
Yes your tiptoeing claim is subjective, as your blind spot claim...You think either or both of them fit? Don't care. You can't back them, they are horseshit claims if you admit they are subjective feeling based claims residing solely in your head I don't much care.
You can deal with that.
What possessed you to make these kinds of claims? You couldn't back them, you battled to find any objective evidence to support them, relied on repeating them over and over to try to sell the message.....and in the end retract most of them and roll on to inconsequential subjective claims that are transparently subjective and weak.
So now, do I have a blind spot. I don't think so. I like DFG and I like many others here. She like many others here, I have fought in the past. If she has a go at me I will likely fire back. If she isn't, I'm unlikely to care too much. If she something silly or irrelevant or uninteresting I will probably let it slide. I am likely to do the same for most people here.
Unless I am targeted in a callout or feud I am unlikely to fit up or join in. If anyone here fights anyone else I am pretty unfazed. I don't feel a need to defend either party nor put myself into their grievance. I reserve the right to agree (I did that recently with Jack). It doesn't mean I am being selective if I do not agree with that person's every pronouncement.
Where that leaves your blindspot claim, i don't know? Likely where it always was. A subjective feeling based claim with no substance. You believe otherwise that is fine. You make that claim you ought to back it and not say that you simply felt that way. Well that WAS the way.
-
We should analyze why Al finds it so impossible to accept subjectivity in others, while advertising his own right to be subjective
That could be the "blind spot" in question :apondering:
-
It is interesting, isn't it? If I hold a view I announce right from the beginning as being subjective (which, by the way, most of the opinions expressed here by most of us are), I need to back it up.
So what is it that I need to back up? That it's how I perceive something? How do I do that?
This is just odd.
-
I know this is a call-out and I am breaking the rules, but can I just accuse the both of you of not being autistic and end the whole thing via Dunc's Law?
-
:hitler:
There, just to make it more definitive.
-
I know this is a call-out and I am breaking the rules, but can I just accuse the both of you of not being autistic and end the whole thing via Dunc's Law?
Are you going to accuse them of not being autistic because they're both doing such a great job of understanding the other's perspective?
-
It is interesting, isn't it? If I hold a view I announce right from the beginning as being subjective (which, by the way, most of the opinions expressed here by most of us are), I need to back it up.
So what is it that I need to back up? That it's how I perceive something? How do I do that?
This is just odd.
Sure, Odeon. See if you follow this:
Let's say it was not you and your claims of me being intellectually dishonest and all those other associated claims. Hypothetically, let's say I had said you were a coward. I then throw some more claims about you being a weak character and an authoritarian. (It doesn't really matter the claims, so long as they are out of character, subjective and unable to be backed up)
Now YOU may think "WTF? Why is Al saying that? That is out of character, he has to have some reasonable idea why he thought that because he is a reasonable person and a smart guy. If I press him, I will find a reasonable reason why he'd call me cowardly... And it had better be a good reason. It's likely a misunderstanding."
So you press and I start making vague anecdotal evidence and then point to the definition of coward. You contest that your behaviour doesn't match the definition . It makes no sense and by now you've introduced the other things like you being authoritarian and weak-willed. The cowardly claim is being repeated over and over and the condescending concession is that you are not always cowardly...just now.
You naturally suspect I'm not being entirely on the level, and why not? We have disagreed before but regardless of whether we disagreed or or indeed whether we were making arguments based on subjective opinion or speculation I had always managed in such disagreements to convey a reasoned approach to why I claimed what I claimed.
But now you suggesting this has me repeating my claim, but also asking to drop the matter and to facilitate this process, agreeing that you are not really weak-willed.
If you read this, and think about it, you may be struck with the thought that such a situation is odd at the least and unreasonable.
There is plenty strange here but I do not believe my reaction is one of them.
I can treat this as a test in adaptability.
I can at random, for no good reason, throw weak subjective claims, maybe reference a dictionary definition, repeat said claim without decent evidence or reasoning to back it and then tell you to drop it.
It's silly but I don't mind doing it if this is the new standard.
-
Al, please go on if you like. Me, I'm tired of this. I've repeated myself endlessly, told you I'm doing so, stating that I don't actually have more to add, but you're not listening. Hence the :hitler:, which was more in jest, in case you think I was being serious.
We have differing views on this. I do think you were being intellectually dishonest with that whole "not reading Zegh but he is an ass anyway" thing. I've explained why I think so.
Obviously you have not accepted any of it. Obviously you've not admitted to being intellectually dishonest, but you've also not accepted that I can have this opinion or think that I am right about it.
Similarly, you've not admitted to tiptoeing around DFG, which really goes without saying, but you've not accepted or allowed me to hold such a view.
Objectively, the latter is unprovable. The former, in my humble opinion, is not. yet I don't think we will agree on either.
I happen to think that your behaviour in both cases was out of character. You don't. What can I say?
-
Al, please go on if you like. Me, I'm tired of this. I've repeated myself endlessly, told you I'm doing so, stating that I don't actually have more to add, but you're not listening. Hence the :hitler:, which was more in jest, in case you think I was being serious.
We have differing views on this. I do think you were being intellectually dishonest with that whole "not reading Zegh but he is an ass anyway" thing. I've explained why I think so.
Obviously you have not accepted any of it. Obviously you've not admitted to being intellectually dishonest, but you've also not accepted that I can have this opinion or think that I am right about it.
Similarly, you've not admitted to tiptoeing around DFG, which really goes without saying, but you've not accepted or allowed me to hold such a view.
Objectively, the latter is unprovable. The former, in my humble opinion, is not. yet I don't think we will agree on either.
I happen to think that your behaviour in both cases was out of character. You don't. What can I say?
I am not sure why you were being so conceited and condescending?
-
I also suspect that if you were to read an article about narcissism, you'd think "How is this a diagnosis? Everyone feels this way! I know I do!"
We have a saying in America, "It takes one to know one". :laugh:
-
I also suspect that if you were to read an article about narcissism, you'd think "How is this a diagnosis? Everyone feels this way! I know I do!"
We have a saying in America, "It takes one to know one". :laugh:
Right. Like, a rape-victim must be a rapist, for realizing she is being raped by one! :o
-
Al, please go on if you like. Me, I'm tired of this. I've repeated myself endlessly, told you I'm doing so, stating that I don't actually have more to add, but you're not listening. Hence the :hitler:, which was more in jest, in case you think I was being serious.
We have differing views on this. I do think you were being intellectually dishonest with that whole "not reading Zegh but he is an ass anyway" thing. I've explained why I think so.
Obviously you have not accepted any of it. Obviously you've not admitted to being intellectually dishonest, but you've also not accepted that I can have this opinion or think that I am right about it.
Similarly, you've not admitted to tiptoeing around DFG, which really goes without saying, but you've not accepted or allowed me to hold such a view.
Objectively, the latter is unprovable. The former, in my humble opinion, is not. yet I don't think we will agree on either.
I happen to think that your behaviour in both cases was out of character. You don't. What can I say?
I am not sure why you were being so conceited and condescending?
Is that a question or a statement?
-
Al, please go on if you like. Me, I'm tired of this. I've repeated myself endlessly, told you I'm doing so, stating that I don't actually have more to add, but you're not listening. Hence the :hitler:, which was more in jest, in case you think I was being serious.
We have differing views on this. I do think you were being intellectually dishonest with that whole "not reading Zegh but he is an ass anyway" thing. I've explained why I think so.
Obviously you have not accepted any of it. Obviously you've not admitted to being intellectually dishonest, but you've also not accepted that I can have this opinion or think that I am right about it.
Similarly, you've not admitted to tiptoeing around DFG, which really goes without saying, but you've not accepted or allowed me to hold such a view.
Objectively, the latter is unprovable. The former, in my humble opinion, is not. yet I don't think we will agree on either.
I happen to think that your behaviour in both cases was out of character. You don't. What can I say?
I am not sure why you were being so conceited and condescending?
Is that a question or a statement?
Let's make it a question
-
In which case my answer to the question is another question, namely what are you on about?
-
In which case my answer to the question is another question, namely what are you on about?
Simply that I am saying that you were very conceited and extremely condescending through this whole thing.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condescension
Noun
condescension (usually uncountable, plural condescensions)
The act of condescending; a manner of behaving toward others in an outwardly polite way that nevertheless implies one’s own superiority to the others; patronizing courtesy toward inferiors. syn. [quotations ▼]
Conscious condescension breeds panderers and enemies, not friends.
(usually uncountable, pejorative) A patronizing attitude or behavior. [from 1930s] [quotations ▼]
Related terms
condescend
condescending (adjective)
Synonyms
(the act of condescending def.): condescendence
and
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conceit
noun
1.
an excessively favorable opinion of one's own ability, importance, wit, etc.
2.
something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea:
He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours.
3.
imagination; fancy.
4.
a fancy; whim; fanciful notion.
5.
an elaborate, fanciful metaphor, especially of a strained or far-fetched nature.
6.
the use of such metaphors as a literary characteristic, especially in poetry.
7.
a fancy, purely decorative article.
verb (used with object)
10.
to flatter (especially oneself).
11.
British Dialect. to take a fancy to; have a good opinion of.
12.
Obsolete.
to imagine.
to conceive; apprehend.
-
lol
SPOT THE IRONY
-
/shrug
You have the right to your opinion.
-
/shrug
You have the right to your opinion.
Absolutely.
-
That said, do you imagine your efforts here have achieved anything?
I wonder if you hear yourself, when you say stuff like this.
Or when you compare yourself to "a mighty bear"
What I'm suspecting now, though, is that you DO hear yourself, and that you nod - to yourself - and even give yourself a little applause. I also suspect that if you were to read an article about narcissism, you'd think "How is this a diagnosis? Everyone feels this way! I know I do!"
Haha this is hysterical. I actually LOL'ed :spitscreen: