INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on May 12, 2016, 09:07:40 AM
-
I know I know. You will repeat your I've answered everything, I have repeated myself, and so on.
No you really haven't you made a heap of points that you have retracted and are left with the:
"You have not read Zegh and so therefore you can not know he is full of shit" mantra
However repeating that over and over irrespective of what I say does not make your point and nor does it address my points. You know better than that. Because you would not address this in other threads I have had to make this a more formalised callout.
I made specific points for you to address and the Mantra is not a coverall response to each of the points in my reply. (Therefore saying that you have already addressed these points or that you can't be bothered repeating yourself is just dishonest as you have not addressed these points in the first place....which you know because (a) you read what I say and (b) you are not stupid)
Oh I get the differences and they are a) not that significant and b) make no point as to being intellectually dishonest. Its just virtue signalling (I am better than you in x respect .... therefore my point has more weight and you are wrong)
Here is how it goes:
You say "I kept reading Cal" This is you saying a) I am better than you because you did not read Zegh and I did read Cal b) THEREFORE You have no position you can hold about whether Zegh is full of shit or not AND I can.
The fact is I can and I do, BUT more than this. You read Calandale's posts, right? According to you and I am happy to accept this as truth. Your assertion that NOT doing so would make you Intellectually dishonest (which is what you accuse me of being for exactly that reason). Your premise being that if you miss their posts then how can you say or mean someone is full of shit.
"You did not miss any of Calandale's posts and therefore missed no reference he could have made on Intensity. Therefore you are perfectly placed to pass judgement on him being full of shit whereas as I am not because I do not read Zegh at all."
Well now THAT would be a monumental lie. How many posts DID you miss of Calandale's in that time? None? A couple may have slipped through? A few a day? See, I know and you know, and many here know, the amount Calandale posted a day, every day. I clocked him one day at 75 posts and that was an average kind of a day for him. So I am not the slightest bit interested in the fact that you did not seek to not read him at all, but rather what you missed each day over a six month period. Now let's consider that against this standard "You did not miss any of Calandale's posts and therefore missed no reference he could have made on Intensity. Therefore you are perfectly placed to pass judgement on him being full of shit whereas as I am not because you do not read Zegh at all. "
Okay so you missed a whole lot of what he did, or did not say, and so contextually are not in a strong position to make such proclamations IF this is your standard. In fact all the difference between my position and your position as I say would amount to virtue signalling, which is barely window dressing. Its you saying "Well at least I made some kind of an effort". That doesn't impress me and it ought not impress you either.
So you would be essentially saying you were missing a substantial amount of what Cal said compared to me missing all of what Zegh said over 6 months. In percentage 100% will always be higher and in numbers I honestly did not miss as many of Zegh's posts as you would have missed of Cal's.
But then we look at Dr Bitch's claim to be studying Medicine. I doubt that she was, but I have no idea. You categorically said she was not and said she was "full of shit" for saying so. It was her second day posting. You had 18 small posts of her's by which to make this claim. So let's apply YOUR standard. You read her and you based it on ALL of the 18 posts she wrote as a member on the site for two days THEREFORE you can make that educated opinion and could not be at all intellectually dishonest. I mean Hell I have read many hundreds of posts of Zegh's over 7 years before I finally adopted the position that he was full of shit and not worth reading BUT look at you with your standard.
Now I do not deal in absolutes. Implying that I do, over Zegh or anything, is false and you know that absolutely. This standard of yours is certainly a standard but it is not the method by which one should measure intellectual dishonesty or judge it on. You refuse to look past this and look at context, and your refusal to look past your "You did not read him so you can't know" mantra is limited, weak and uncontextualised. That is why things like your own expressing people as being full of shit when examined fall to pieces when considered against your very own standard.
Why you know absolutely that I do not deal in absolutes with Zegh is that I have been equally as negative and opinionated about a good many people here (Nocturnalist, Bob, Randy, Richard, Penty, Butterflies, Squiddy, Scrapheap, Bint, Adam,.....actually more than a few people) and VERY few have I remained "absolute" about and I do not deal in "absolutes". In fact I get on with MANY people I have had an issue with. It is not that Zegh is different other than the fact I have stopped reading him. This YOU know absolutely. You are not confused about it or under any misapprehension. You have known me and my posting style over about 8 years so let's drop the "absolutes" arguments. Its bullshit and you and I know its bullshit.
"So you are saying then Al, that if it is not absolutes you will be nice to him and start reading him and...." NO. I have no reason to. Were I to get the impression he had changed, like I found out Penty had changed (from what someone else had posted) I would consider reserving judgement and reading. I did the same with Skyblue (Oppps he should have been on the list too LOL) and was shat on for it by him. I read what Richard said and again reserved judgment and he seems pretty cool now days. So let's drop the absolutes thing all together. Unqualified it was a lie and I would like to think that qualifying it was more desperate than dishonest.
You understand don't you Odeon, that your claim was baseless and weak? The intellectual dishonesty claim was not strong when it was padded with the tiptoeing claim or the pretense claim or the dishonesty claim nor the semantics claim. You have dropped each of these and now The thing I was accused of being intellectually dishonest in saying, you have said under similar conditions and when stripped down and examined the ways they are different is neither significant nor does either make a case for someone being full of shit as to not being full of shit.
The truth is and has always been that saying someone is full of shit, is simply saying that they talk a load of crap. It is not a position from which to claim someone is intellectually dishonest UNLESS the claim can be made for either the person not believing the claim they made (and I do of Zegh) or that the person accused of talking crap, does not talk crap (which Zegh certainly does). What kind of crap? Inconsequential things?, Lies? Yes but what about talking themselves up or insults or condescension, poorly thought out positions or stupid personal stories or experiences? Would any of that count as crap? Yes.
Do you need to have read EVERYTHING that person has ever said to make that assessment about them? NO. Is it saying EVERYTHING that they say MUST meet the conditions of being crap? No.
But this you know. You know the claim was bullshit. You know Zegh talks a load of shit because that is his posting style. Inconsequential things, Lies, talking himself up, insults, condescension, poorly thought out positions, stupid personal stories or experiences he hits the jackpot? Ergo he is full of shit. Doesn't mean that this is all he does. Hey you could say "Well I think YOU are full of shit, Al." Go for it. I will not call you intellectually dishonest because THAT would be stupid but I may ask you to explain what elements of what I think are full of shit. In fact I think at times people have made similar claims and I when they say things like "You write novel sized boring posts" I shrug. Its a fair comment. Again I do not call it intellectual dishonesty and I would be stupid to do so.
If you asked (without context) people at random, whether they thought
a) Obama
b) Hillary Clinton
c) Bernie Sanders
d) Donald Trump
e) Glenn Beck
f) Rush Limbaugh
g) Bill O'Reilly
were full of shit. Most people (presuming that they know who these people are) would agree with that assessment with at least a couple of those people. (I think I'd agree each of them to at least some degree). The expression does NOT and NEVER has conferred an expectation that you must know everything they have said or religiously follow them. Watch a handful of Glenn Beck interviews and if you are not convinced the guy is completely full of shit, you are seriously without any appreciable intellectual rigour. You do not HAVE to watch EVERYTHING he says to give you a moral hi five that you can hold the incontestable position that you are right about him, and NOT doing so does not make you intellectually dishonest when you proclaim he is full of shit.
It is and always was an argument that was beneath you Odeon. One you ought not have made in the first place and certainly ought not have defended.
-
Don't you already have a callout going against the same person for the same shit?
Yeah, yeah, breaking the rules. Whatever, don't care. I'm starting to worry about you a little Al. You aren't acting like yourself.
-
You know what all this is REALLY about?
Me being "full of shit"
:autism:
-
You're full of something, that's for sure.
Perhaps a discussion of exactly what you're full of would prove more fruitful. :M
-
You're full of something, that's for sure.
Perhaps a discussion of exactly what you're full of would prove more fruitful. :M
You're SO late to this particular party, pappy, but by all means - get involved :'D
If you can find anybody... anybody at all, who gives a shit anymore, besides Al, they could provide you with the excrutiating list of endless threads of Al's essays on how full of shit I am.
Interested? Knock yourself out!
-
No, i'm not interested, I simply said that a discussion of your dumbfuckery would likely be more productive. ::)
-
No, i'm not interested, I simply said that a discussion of your dumbfuckery would likely be more productive. ::)
Like I said, you're late to the party. Al has been trying to open up several discussions regarding my dumbfuckery for almost an entire year.
Pay attention ::)
-
Al has been trying to open up several discussions regarding my dumbfuckery for almost an entire year.
Well, at least you acknowledge your condition, that's a start. :-*
-
Al has been trying to open up several discussions regarding my dumbfuckery for almost an entire year.
Well, at least you acknowledge your condition, that's a start. :-*
Okay :)
-
I'm going to Balmoral. Anyone (except Al and odeon) who wants some peace and quiet, please invite yourself.
-
(http://www.velocityaircraft.com/images/TCXL.jpg)
-
(http://www.velocityaircraft.com/images/TCXL.jpg)
Oh good. What time will you be arriving?
-
For fuck's sake, Al, get a life.
-
(http://www.velocityaircraft.com/images/TCXL.jpg)
Oh good. What time will you be arriving?
Arriving?? Man, I'm LEAVING!! :scrap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT6AZigiBDs
-
For fuck's sake, Al, get a life.
I missed this. Just back from a 50th. Danced like a madman. Both impressed my daughter and the friends of the birthday girl. Drank like a fish. Joined the girls for shots. Went to an after party. Kicked arse in pool. Had a blast. Missed the replies in this thread.
"Get a life"? Okay.
Is that your retort, Odeon? Really?
I am not online a lot of my "life":
* When I am on Twitter I read tweets in my timeline and on hashtags I am interested in and tweet when I feel like it.
* When I am reading select blogs I read and appreciate whatever the spin they put out there.
* I do the same with news sites.
* When I am on I2, I scan the replies and respond to when I find interesting and in whichever way I feel like.
Now what has this got to do with anything? Well, it says that ,my "life" is NOT IntensitySquared and only an absolute moron would try to draw that correlation. I would imagine that MOST of us have far more in life than I2. That the importance of I2 is marginal to negligible to our life. You think Work is less important? What about Family?. Hell, even Zegh has more than I2. You think dope is going to smoke itself or dinosaurs are going to draw themselves? You are not a complete moron so I will question your advice to get a life.
My life is fine. My life is not impacted by my posts or lack of posts or style or context of posts on IntensitySquared. So what DO you mean by "Get a life"? Is it stop arguing with me?
Is it code for, "I cannot back myself against you", like I implicitly agree to each time I log on. (Hey you are owner and webmaster. you can skirt the Back yourself obligation if you want to I suppose).
Same as you could choose not to read me. Hell I stopped reading Zegh. I DO understand. (Of course I did not stop backing myself and nor did I call anyone intellectually dishonest for not reading me. I can be annoying and so can Zegh)
-
(http://www.velocityaircraft.com/images/TCXL.jpg)
Oh good. What time will you be arriving?
Arriving?? Man, I'm LEAVING!! :scrap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT6AZigiBDs
I meant arriving at Balmoral.
-
For fuck's sake, Al, get a life.
I missed this. Just back from a 50th. Danced like a madman. Both impressed my daughter and the friends of the birthday girl. Drank like a fish. Joined the girls for shots. Went to an after party. Kicked arse in pool. Had a blast. Missed the replies in this thread.
"Get a life"? Okay.
Is that your retort, Odeon? Really?
I am not online a lot of my "life":
* When I am on Twitter I read tweets in my timeline and on hashtags I am interested in and tweet when I feel like it.
* When I am reading select blogs I read and appreciate whatever the spin they put out there.
* I do the same with news sites.
* When I am on I2, I scan the replies and respond to when I find interesting and in whichever way I feel like.
Now what has this got to do with anything? Well, it says that ,my "life" is NOT IntensitySquared and only an absolute moron would try to draw that correlation. I would imagine that MOST of us have far more in life than I2. That the importance of I2 is marginal to negligible to our life. You think Work is less important? What about Family?. Hell, even Zegh has more than I2. You think dope is going to smoke itself or dinosaurs are going to draw themselves? You are not a complete moron so I will question your advice to get a life.
My life is fine. My life is not impacted by my posts or lack of posts or style or context of posts on IntensitySquared. So what DO you mean by "Get a life"? Is it stop arguing with me?
Is it code for, "I cannot back myself against you", like I implicitly agree to each time I log on. (Hey you are owner and webmaster. you can skirt the Back yourself obligation if you want to I suppose).
Same as you could choose not to read me. Hell I stopped reading Zegh. I DO understand. (Of course I did not stop backing myself and nor did I call anyone intellectually dishonest for not reading me. I can be annoying and so can Zegh)
^
that isn't getting a life Al :D
-
"The back yourself obligation"? What obligation is that, Al? Please pick the one you meant:
obligation
ɒblɪˈɡeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: obligation; plural noun: obligations
an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
"I have an obligation to look after her"
synonyms: duty, commitment, responsibility, moral imperative; More
function, task, job, chore, assignment, commission, business, burden, charge, onus, liability, accountability, requirement, debt, engagement;
datedoffice;
archaicdevoir;
literarytrust
"I have an obligation to look after her"
duty, compulsion, indebtedness, duress, necessity, pressure, constraint
"she took him in solely out of a sense of obligation"
the condition of being morally or legally bound to do something.
"they are under no obligation to stick to the scheme"
a debt of gratitude for a service or favour.
"she didn't want to be under an obligation to him"
synonyms: contract, agreement, deed, covenant, bond, treaty, deal, pact, compact, understanding, transaction More
"the company's export obligations"
owing someone a favour, obliged, beholden, in someone's debt, indebted, obligated, owing someone a debt of gratitude, duty-bound, honour-bound, grateful, owing someone thanks
"she didn't want to be under an obligation to him"
Law
a binding agreement committing a person to a payment or other action.
Origin
Middle English (in the sense ‘formal promise’): via Old French from Latin obligatio(n- ), from the verb obligare (see oblige).
I'm done with the callout, in case you missed it. I have responded, and I have explained what I meant, but you don't like the explanations. You think they are "weak" and so you keep on posting and baiting, hoping I will be drawn back, somehow. It really looks like an obsession to me (are you going to call me out on that, too?), a fixation you are unable to let go of. And for what? Because I had the audacity to challenge your behaviour? Because--OMG, the horror!--I said what you did was intellectually dishonest?
I think you should try to accept that our opinions on this differ and will continue to differ. No amount of baiting (I like how you subtly reference the fact that I pay the bills here) will change this.
Oh, and "get a life" is an expression, which you very well know, a way of saying that you really, really, really should try to move on.
-
"The back yourself obligation"? What obligation is that, Al? Please pick the one you meant:
obligation
ɒblɪˈɡeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: obligation; plural noun: obligations
an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
"I have an obligation to look after her"
synonyms: duty, commitment, responsibility, moral imperative; More
function, task, job, chore, assignment, commission, business, burden, charge, onus, liability, accountability, requirement, debt, engagement;
datedoffice;
archaicdevoir;
literarytrust
"I have an obligation to look after her"
duty, compulsion, indebtedness, duress, necessity, pressure, constraint
"she took him in solely out of a sense of obligation"
the condition of being morally or legally bound to do something.
"they are under no obligation to stick to the scheme"
a debt of gratitude for a service or favour.
"she didn't want to be under an obligation to him"
synonyms: contract, agreement, deed, covenant, bond, treaty, deal, pact, compact, understanding, transaction More
"the company's export obligations"
owing someone a favour, obliged, beholden, in someone's debt, indebted, obligated, owing someone a debt of gratitude, duty-bound, honour-bound, grateful, owing someone thanks
"she didn't want to be under an obligation to him"
Law
a binding agreement committing a person to a payment or other action.
Origin
Middle English (in the sense ‘formal promise’): via Old French from Latin obligatio(n- ), from the verb obligare (see oblige).
I'm done with the callout, in case you missed it. I have responded, and I have explained what I meant, but you don't like the explanations. You think they are "weak" and so you keep on posting and baiting, hoping I will be drawn back, somehow. It really looks like an obsession to me (are you going to call me out on that, too?), a fixation you are unable to let go of. And for what? Because I had the audacity to challenge your behaviour? Because--OMG, the horror!--I said what you did was intellectually dishonest?
I think you should try to accept that our opinions on this differ and will continue to differ. No amount of baiting (I like how you subtly reference the fact that I pay the bills here) will change this.
Oh, and "get a life" is an expression, which you very well know, a way of saying that you really, really, really should try to move on.
Oh....okay so the expression "Get a life" is merely an expression and not actually a deeper point about the person having no "life", so to speak. It is not a great point about any lack, it is merely saying stop doing X because it is pointless/stupid/not worth your effort/annoying? In fact trying to position such a comment in terms of a broader context of the person's life and lending the expression more than a surface level of derision or insult is "probably"intellectually dishonest?
Do you think what I just wrote is fair?
If so I will ask, and under EXACTLY the same standard, whether saying someone is "full of shit" is merely an expression or whether it likewise needs to be applied to everything someone says or writes at all time and that the person calling it has to be a party to all interactions at all time in order to "pass such judgment"?
If you asked (without context) people at random, whether they thought
a) Obama
b) Hillary Clinton
c) Bernie Sanders
d) Donald Trump
e) Glenn Beck
f) Rush Limbaugh
g) Bill O'Reilly
were full of shit. Most people (presuming that they know who these people are) would agree with that assessment with at least a couple of those people. (I think I'd agree each of them to at least some degree). The expression does NOT and NEVER has conferred an expectation that you must know everything they have said or religiously follow them. Watch a handful of Glenn Beck interviews and if you are not convinced the guy is completely full of shit, you are seriously without any appreciable intellectual rigour. You do not HAVE to watch EVERYTHING he says to give you a moral hi five that you can hold the incontestable position that you are right about him, and NOT doing so does not make you intellectually dishonest when you proclaim he is full of shit.
-
"The back yourself obligation"? What obligation is that, Al? Please pick the one you meant:
obligation
ɒblɪˈɡeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: obligation; plural noun: obligations
an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
"I have an obligation to look after her"
synonyms: duty, commitment, responsibility, moral imperative; More
function, task, job, chore, assignment, commission, business, burden, charge, onus, liability, accountability, requirement, debt, engagement;
datedoffice;
archaicdevoir;
literarytrust
"I have an obligation to look after her"
duty, compulsion, indebtedness, duress, necessity, pressure, constraint
"she took him in solely out of a sense of obligation"
the condition of being morally or legally bound to do something.
"they are under no obligation to stick to the scheme"
a debt of gratitude for a service or favour.
"she didn't want to be under an obligation to him"
synonyms: contract, agreement, deed, covenant, bond, treaty, deal, pact, compact, understanding, transaction More
"the company's export obligations"
owing someone a favour, obliged, beholden, in someone's debt, indebted, obligated, owing someone a debt of gratitude, duty-bound, honour-bound, grateful, owing someone thanks
"she didn't want to be under an obligation to him"
Law
a binding agreement committing a person to a payment or other action.
Origin
Middle English (in the sense ‘formal promise’): via Old French from Latin obligatio(n- ), from the verb obligare (see oblige).
You have found INTENSITY², the autistic spectrum site everyone loves to hate.
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
As such this site is not suitable for children. If you are under 18 please come back when you aren't any more.
If you are over 18 and have the bottle for it
Every time you log in. That is what EVERY member of this community logs in with the obligation. Is it "legally enforceable"? No. But make no mistake it is an obligation that if you post on I2 you do so under the condition that you may be challenged and if so it is a necessity that you back yourself.
So thanks again for your definitions but again they rather make the point for me.
-
It is an obligation!
"make no mistake!"
Or face the wrath of the community!
:D
LOOK OUT, THE COMMUNITY IS COMING!
-
::sigh::
This is an obsession for you now, Al, hence the expression "get a life". You, on the other hand, spend months going after Zegh while proudly stating that you've stopped reading him, the action equivalent of the phrase "full of shit". In other words, both actions and words, for months.
If I had spent anything near that time insisting you should get a life while blindly ignoring anything you might say in your defence, then you might have a point.
Might.
Oh, and I have backed up my words. You refuse to acknowledge that, but the community seems to be fine with it cos there's no wrath anywhere in sight. If anything, they avoid these threads like the plague.
-
::sigh::
This is an obsession for you now, Al, hence the expression "get a life". You, on the other hand, spend months going after Zegh while proudly stating that you've stopped reading him, the action equivalent of the phrase "full of shit". In other words, both actions and words, for months.
If I had spent anything near that time insisting you should get a life while blindly ignoring anything you might say in your defence, then you might have a point.
Might.
Oh, and I have backed up my words. You refuse to acknowledge that, but the community seems to be fine with it cos there's no wrath anywhere in sight. If anything, they avoid these threads like the plague.
No, I absolutely have a point and you ought to know this.
The expression "Get a life" is not a literal definition and nor does it require a deeper examination. People when they use it, use it to denounce the object of their derision and are signalling their displeasure at that person's actions.
The expression "Full of shit" is not a literal definition and nor does it require the person requiring a deeper insight into everything someone says. It could be based off one conversation or an impression or a series of actions. It DOES NOT require you have hears or read everything someone says NOR that you are studying them. (ie If you watch a couple of interviews with Glenn Beck, you would certainly be in good company saying he is full of shit. There would not be an expectation to watch and read everything he says for the next six months. Nor would you be intellectually dishonest if you proclaimed this after not having watched or read him for 6 month. Only an absolute idiot would argue that point.) People use that when they use it, use it to denounce the value of the object of their derision and they are signalling their displeasure at that person.
"hypocrisy" in British English
See all translations
hypocrisy
noun UK /hɪˈpɒk.rɪ.si/ US /hɪˈpɑː.krə.si/ disapproving
C2 a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:
There's one rule for her and another rule for everyone else and it's sheer hypocrisy.
expend iconexpend iconMore examples
Her strongest criticism was reserved for the prime minister whom she accused of 'nauseating hypocrisy'.
I'm amazed at the hypocrisy of the man - buying a foreign car after urging everyone else to buy British products.
In constantly criticizing others for being intolerant while refusing to hear anyone else's view, they are guilty of supreme hypocrisy.
His behaviour in this whole affair does rather savour of hypocrisy - he's certainly not without blame himself.
Why can't politicians just be honest with themselves and stop all this hypocrisy?
(Definition of hypocrisy from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
-
So where is the wrath of the community? This is deep waters for you, mate.
-
So where is the wrath of the community? This is deep waters for you, mate.
Not at all.
- If you abuse an animal, you MAY get a large fine. Therefore THAT is the main reason not to abuse animals?
- If you park in a disabled zone, you MAY get a fine. That is your punishment. Therefore that is the main reason not to do it, right?
- If you steal someone's wallet or purse you MAY get caught. If you do you may get caught and MAY end up in jail. (though probably will not if first offence). Therefore that is the main reason court or jail risk?
- If you do not back your words on IntensitySquared, you may incur the wrath of the community, Therefore the only reason you should not is the wrath you MAY invoke?
Except, you are not really that silly, Odeon and the only reason you are making the argument about the wrath of the community (and no, let's not go with the "You bought it up" as it was not what I underlined), is that it is a distraction away from my premise of the similar explanations between "Get a life" and "Full of shit" as mere expressions.
So this argument like your claim of me tiptoeing, being dishonest, me pretending and so forth, is dead in the water. The reason it is ought not need to be explained. Quite simply the spirit of the board is and always has been to foster a culture whereby people in this "on the spectrum" community can discuss things in a combative way without risking banning or censoring. Conversely with only one rule, enforcing this rule is more than difficult without said risk of censorship. So what is the only counter to this if the member does not adhere? The punishment is the wrath of the community. You do NOT think this is the sole reason that people ought to back themselves on I2. You are an idiot if you truly believe this and I do not think you are.
No, this is a mere distraction from the very similarly compared claims of me needing to "get a life" and my saying Zegh is "full of shit". Neither, as expressions, need a deeper reading, and in doing so would show an ignorance that neither you nor I have, and looks disingenuous.
The expression "Get a life" is not a literal definition and nor does it require a deeper examination. People when they use it, use it to denounce the object of their derision and are signalling their displeasure at that person's actions.
The expression "Full of shit" is not a literal definition and nor does it require the person requiring a deeper insight into everything someone says. It could be based off one conversation or an impression or a series of actions. It DOES NOT require you have heard or read everything someone says NOR that you are studying them (ie If you watch a couple of interviews with Glenn Beck, you would certainly be in good company saying he is full of shit. There would not be an expectation to watch and read everything he says for the next six months. Nor would you be intellectually dishonest if you proclaimed this after not having watched or read him for 6 month. Only an absolute idiot would argue that point). People use that when they use it, use it to denounce the value of the object of their derision and they are signalling their displeasure at that person.
This all comes back to where I was a few months ago with you. I have a nose for bullshit, Odeon.
There is something bigger here. It never smelled right. This is why I have pursued it as I have. It is not personal, nor upsetting per se. It all seems terribly beneath you intellectually and so I think the reason for you doubling down and denying is something else.
- Your original claims were NOT JUST about me being intellectually dishonest but of being dishonest as well and of pretending, assuming things, and so on. You since dropped this claims or merged them into your greater claim
- You raised some point about something I said about Butterflies ("ganging up")and when I addressed it, you tried the crazy argument technique of questioning ME raising it (points for originality)
- You posted the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty as though I needed that explanation to know what the term meant. In fact I answered every aspect of the term, to show it wanting (something that unto itself, would run against the grain of "transparency" for intellectual dishonesty)
- You then kept repeating variations of the Mantra "You did not read Zegh, so you can't know for sure, he is full of shit, therefore you are intellectually dishonest". Then admonishing me when I had the temerity to question why this alone makes a case for intellectual dishonesty
- You tried a new tact and said that I was tiptoeing around DFG. This was an even weaker claim and you soon dropped it
- Changing tact you suggested I was not Intellectually dishonest afterall and it was a blindspot I had. That premise went nowhere and you gravitated back to the Intellectually dishonest premise again.
- I then showed a few instances of YOU using the term. Once with Calandale - to whom you could NOT have read everything he said for 6 months either (and so could not have been absolutely sure he was "full of shit" .... as if that was ever an argument worth making) and secondly I showed you casting such sentiments to Dr Bitch to something she said in one of her 18 posts, after having joined the day before. You did not (chose not to?) see the similarity of what you were doing and what you accused me of doing
- You then tried to reference Zegh as a reference point to support your claims (I just can't tell you how bizarre this is). Not only have I stopped reading him (because he is full of shit) but referencing him after suggesting that I was wrong about my suggestions you were "sticking up for him", you now try to use him as a reference point to your arguments of my feuding with him. No bias?
- Now I find you telling me to "get a life" and point out the examination of such a generalised insult is stupid and disingenuous AND more importantly, very similar in nature to saying someone is "full of shit". You agreed that get a life was a "mere expression". You have yet to see the hypocrisy.
What all the above tells me is that this line of premise is crap and always was. You likely were not expecting to get challenged, or in the way that I have. You were not expecting or wanting to give ground. You doubled down on what you knew was really weak. You did this for a reason that had NOTHING to do with me being Intellectually Dishonest and I don't think you actually even believed it.
I could be wrong. It does happen. But now trying to sell me on the fact that Zegh now says this or that to support you, is like me trying to evidence you being wrong by referencing something Sol says against you. Yes it is THAT stupid and disingenuous AND that not like you.
You have to have a good reason to act the way you have, and to have done so from the outset. I think it was simply that you were starting to get sick and tired of Zegh and I feuding, me not reading Zegh, spamming Ninja Cats and you were wanting it to stop. You possibly thought that to shame my methods of posting and accuse me of being dishonest, assuming things, being intellectually dishonest, pretending, being intellectually lazy, tiptoeing and use dramatic phrases no matter the consequences. Maybe you thought I would get too distracted or maybe embarrassed or maybe that once pointed out, the rest of the board would join in and I would feel obliged to self-censor. The problem is that it did not work and you have distanced yourself now from everything but the "intellectually dishonest"claim. That claim is looking from where I sit, pretty petty and hypocritical, considering how you use not only other similar general insults and derision BUT also how you use the term itself. I think you wanted to side with Zegh without appearing partisan. Too late for that now.
I honestly believe that this is the case and after having doubled down and given some ground you do not wish to admit what seems transparent to me. I would not have had much of an issue if you had not have just said, "You know, you weren't being intellectually dishonest BUT you were pissing me off and others in I2 were not liking it either. I do blame your part in things more than Zegh and I was just wanting you to stop and hoped by saying something, anything, that you would just drop it." That would seem quite fair. Hell, I may have even considered dropping things with Zegh. No you doubled down again and again after being called on it. So I too will double down with you and with Zegh.
Terrible shame, Odeon. I expected better.
-
It's kind of funny how you have no idea how insane you are, Al.
Kind of.
If you weren't such a harmless lump, it could have been worrying, but it isn't really :D
-
It's kind of funny how you have no idea how insane you are, Al.
Kind of.
If you weren't such a harmless lump, it could have been worrying, but it isn't really :D
Hey Zegh! Great you could chime in. How did you go with all of that? Let me guess? You said:
Something snarky and condescending about the length of my post?
Something snarky and condescending about how old and or senile I am?
Something snarky and condescending about me being fat?
Something snarky and condescending about the fact I am divorced?
Something snarky and condescending about how I am still going?
Something snarky and condescending about how crazy I am?
Something snarky and condescending about what I think or don't about you?
Something snarky and condescending about how awesome Odeon is and in turn, how bad I am?
It was pretty short whatever it was. Hallmarks of a throwaway insult.
You know Odeon makes a song and dance about how if I don't read you I can not know you are full of shit....but I will need convincing that you are not here in this call out posting some snarky condescending little throwaway insult. You are full of shit and will be tomorrow as you were yesterday.
Go draw some dinosaurs LOL.
-
Bloody hell, mate.
I decided to trust you on not tiptoeing around DFG since you made a good argument. Are you saying I shouldn't have?
The "full of shit" expression is just that, an expression, just like "get a life" is. Yet you seem to treat both as if they somehow were instrumental to my claiming you were intellectually dishonest.
This literal-mindedness then leads you to searching the board for instances of me using "full of shit", and spotting a couple of them where I said Cal was full of shit. He was, frequently, and admitted as much. But I moved on, and he moved on. You, however, seem unable to.
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
And finally, the bullshit you say you're smelling, I don't think the smell is from this direction. You might want to check your own trail first.
-
Bloody hell, mate.
I decided to trust you on not tiptoeing around DFG since you made a good argument. Are you saying I shouldn't have?
The "full of shit" expression is just that, an expression, just like "get a life" is. Yet you seem to treat both as if they somehow were instrumental to my claiming you were intellectually dishonest.
This literal-mindedness then leads you to searching the board for instances of me using "full of shit", and spotting a couple of them where I said Cal was full of shit. He was, frequently, and admitted as much. But I moved on, and he moved on. You, however, seem unable to.
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
And finally, the bullshit you say you're smelling, I don't think the smell is from this direction. You might want to check your own trail first.
Indeed the reason you have given for my apparent intellectual dishonest is to say that Zegh is full of shit without reading him (thus knowing for sure) therefore ..... intellectually dishonest"
I am happy to reference it with quotes you made to that effect.
I actually agree that they are just expressions. I also agree that I am not intellectually dishonest for making such proclamations about Zegh without reading him any more.
In fact all the above is my point. I am not intellectually dishonest for not reading Zegh.
-
If we make a search of my name, 80% of the results will lead to Al's posts
-
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
I think that what is left of the community doesn't give a shit, one way or the other. :yawn:
-
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
I think that what is left of the community doesn't give a shit, one way or the other. :yawn:
I would be surprised if any member of this community other than Jack has even read all those posts. I started skipping them months ago.
-
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
I think that what is left of the community doesn't give a shit, one way or the other. :yawn:
Kind of my point.
-
Bloody hell, mate.
I decided to trust you on not tiptoeing around DFG since you made a good argument. Are you saying I shouldn't have?
The "full of shit" expression is just that, an expression, just like "get a life" is. Yet you seem to treat both as if they somehow were instrumental to my claiming you were intellectually dishonest.
This literal-mindedness then leads you to searching the board for instances of me using "full of shit", and spotting a couple of them where I said Cal was full of shit. He was, frequently, and admitted as much. But I moved on, and he moved on. You, however, seem unable to.
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
And finally, the bullshit you say you're smelling, I don't think the smell is from this direction. You might want to check your own trail first.
Indeed the reason you have given for my apparent intellectual dishonest is to say that Zegh is full of shit without reading him (thus knowing for sure) therefore ..... intellectual dishonest"
I am happy to reference it with quotes you made to that effect.
I actually agree that they are just expressions. I also agree that I am not intellectually dishonest for making such proclamations about Zegh without reading him any more.
In fact all the above is my point. I am not intellectually dishonest for not reading Zegh.
I'm glad you agree with the above. Especially the last bit.
None of it was an argument for or against your intellectual dishonesty, though.
-
Bloody hell, mate.
I decided to trust you on not tiptoeing around DFG since you made a good argument. Are you saying I shouldn't have?
The "full of shit" expression is just that, an expression, just like "get a life" is. Yet you seem to treat both as if they somehow were instrumental to my claiming you were intellectually dishonest.
This literal-mindedness then leads you to searching the board for instances of me using "full of shit", and spotting a couple of them where I said Cal was full of shit. He was, frequently, and admitted as much. But I moved on, and he moved on. You, however, seem unable to.
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
And finally, the bullshit you say you're smelling, I don't think the smell is from this direction. You might want to check your own trail first.
Indeed the reason you have given for my apparent intellectual dishonest is to say that Zegh is full of shit without reading him (thus knowing for sure) therefore ..... intellectual dishonest"
I am happy to reference it with quotes you made to that effect.
I actually agree that they are just expressions. I also agree that I am not intellectually dishonest for making such proclamations about Zegh without reading him any more.
In fact all the above is my point. I am not intellectually dishonest for not reading Zegh.
I'm glad you agree with the above. Especially the last bit.
None of it was an argument for or against your intellectual dishonesty, though.
Correct. You made no argument for me being intellectually dishonest. The argument you had against me you have stepped away from. The very last one was that I was intellectually dishonest because on one hand I proclaimed Zegh "full of shit" but did not read him, so therefore could not know for sure".
Now with your agreement with me that "full of shit" is a mere expression, you've stepped away from that too.
You are now holding an empty sack
-
"full of suit"
"full of shot"
Im full of suits and shots :'D
Obviously, clear signs of drunk ravings are nothing to be ashamed of - quite the contrary, it is a sign of hardy manlyness! Or so alcoholics tend to tell themselves :]
Ross, have you ever considered writing a collection of poems?
-
Sir Les is dyslexic.
-
Doesn't make him less of a drunk
-
Though it does explain his frequent misspellings.
-
Either way, I should get more suits :apondering:
-
Sir Les is dyslexic.
I am too. My spelling is not improved with autocorrelation on mobile phones. Every Friday night my spelling will suffer a bit more because Friday night is bourbon night.
But yes I struggle with writing.
-
You've been missing my point for months, Al. What's a few more posts then?
But here is what I'm currently wondering: are you doing it deliberately?
-
You've been missing my point for months, Al. What's a few more posts then?
But here is what I'm currently wondering: are you doing it deliberately?
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?
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.
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.
Neither, as expressions, need a deeper reading, and in doing so would show an ignorance that neither you nor I have, and looks disingenuous.
The expression "Get a life" is not a literal definition and nor does it require a deeper examination. People when they use it, use it to denounce the object of their derision and are signalling their displeasure at that person's actions.
The expression "Full of shit" is not a literal definition and nor does it require the person requiring a deeper insight into everything someone says. It could be based off one conversation or an impression or a series of actions. It DOES NOT require you have heard or read everything someone says NOR that you are studying them (ie If you watch a couple of interviews with Glenn Beck, you would certainly be in good company saying he is full of shit. There would not be an expectation to watch and read everything he says for the next six months. Nor would you be intellectually dishonest if you proclaimed this after not having watched or read him for 6 month. Only an absolute idiot would argue that point). People use that when they use it, use it to denounce the value of the object of their derision and they are signalling their displeasure at that person.
The "full of shit" expression is just that, an expression, just like "get a life" is. Yet you seem to treat both as if they somehow were instrumental to my claiming you were intellectually dishonest.
Jesus Christ!
-
Get a life Ross
-
Does the term "paraphrasing" mean anything to you, Al?
And no, I didn't expect you to magically get it this time either.
-
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
I think that what is left of the community doesn't give a shit, one way or the other. :yawn:
Kind of my point.
No, that's the opposite of what I said.
Let's say for sake of argument that you didn't back up anything you said and Al was 100% right.
The community STILL doesn't give a flying shit and won't say anything BECAUSE NONE OF US GIVES A GOOD GODDAMN!!
Does that make sense or do I need to make a callout about how intellectually dishonest you are?? :zoinks:
-
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
I think that what is left of the community doesn't give a shit, one way or the other. :yawn:
Kind of my point.
No, that's the opposite of what I said.
Let's say for sake of argument that you didn't back up anything you said and Al was 100% right.
The community STILL doesn't give a flying shit and won't say anything BECAUSE NONE OF US GIVES A GOOD GODDAMN!!
Does that make sense or do I need to make a callout about how intellectually dishonest you are?? :zoinks:
You are beyond dense.
AL started this. AL is bothering the entire community.
This is like me poking you in the eye, non stop, for then to tell YOU that nobody gives a shit about YOU getting poked in the eye.
Do you ever try to not be so fucking dense?
Hint: This thread is made by Al, the other callouts made by Al. Al, Al, Al.
Still, somehow, you see Odeon as having started this because
1. You're Al's buddy.
2. You still haven't backtracked this discussion, cus it's "too complicated" or something, you "don't give a shit"
3. But then, when you have 0 fucking clue what's going on, and you butt in as if you HAVE a clue, you only end up looking as dense as you look just now.
But hey, you're IMMUNE to all this, I know. SO FULL OF INSECURE FORCED CONFIDENCE HELL YEAH U-S-A! U-S-A!
-
Either way, I should get more suits :apondering:
Men look nice in suits. :M
-
Does the term "paraphrasing" mean anything to you, Al?
And no, I didn't expect you to magically get it this time either.
The "magic" doesn't come from my end. Let's look at your end and see your "magic trick" - your shell game.
I talk straight. You? When you finally agree that the "full of shit" expression is just that, an expression, and not needing a deeper inspection or understanding, I show you your own words. Those words stated the expression as part of the message and key to your argument of why I am apparently intellectually dishonest.
Then you lift the shell " paraphrasing".
No. "Your message", "Key", and this is from March 25 and March 27. This is your words from the beginning. I simply held you to your words.
Now let's not pretend I do not know what paraphrasing is. We both do and we both know what intellectual dishonesty is, therefore without any more shell games, just straight talk and no logical leaps or over-reaching, can you show:
Me denying any assumption I made as being intellectually dishonest ( not to say for example that if I am in a callout with someone else and Zegh keeps popping in, I can be reasonably sure he saying negative things about me. It's still an assumption but an educated rather than a random guess)
Have I denied I could be wrong (I am as stubborn and opinionated ad the next guy, assuming the next guy is a complete pain in the arse too, but I am not immune to getting it wrong, nor have said so)
Did I lie about nor reading the posts?
Were there no grounds for assumptions I may have made?
Have I been unopen to any other opinions to prove me wrong...in fact have I not been asking for something solid to hang my hat on?
If you can't show this, and without stretching then I struggle to see how your intellectual dishonest doesn't and hasn't had legs from its inception.
-
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
I think that what is left of the community doesn't give a shit, one way or the other. :yawn:
Kind of my point.
No, that's the opposite of what I said.
Let's say for sake of argument that you didn't back up anything you said and Al was 100% right.
The community STILL doesn't give a flying shit and won't say anything BECAUSE NONE OF US GIVES A GOOD GODDAMN!!
Does that make sense or do I need to make a callout about how intellectually dishonest you are?? :zoinks:
It doesn't make any sense, so you'd better call me out.
-
Oh, and Al:
"Full of shit" was always just a phrase, an expression. The fact that you only caught on late in the game doesn't change that, it only shows that I made a mistake in assuming that you'd recognise it for what it was. Your intellectual dishonesty stems from the fact that you, as they put it, "took the easy way out", proud of not reading Zegh but nevertheless showing with your every word and your every action what you thought about him and how nothing would change that.
I might not have said anything if you hadn't continued to follow him across the board with your moronic ninja cats and whatnot, if you'd simply stopped reading and stopped caring. Plenty of people here who stop reading other people's posts. They move on, though; you don't.
-
/me is now waiting for the inevitable next literal-minded reply
-
Oh, and Al:
"Full of shit" was always just a phrase, an expression. The fact that you only caught on late in the game doesn't change that, it only shows that I made a mistake in assuming that you'd recognise it for what it was. Your intellectual dishonesty stems from the fact that you, as they put it, "took the easy way out", proud of not reading Zegh but nevertheless showing with your every word and your every action what you thought about him and how nothing would change that.
I might not have said anything if you hadn't continued to follow him across the board with your moronic ninja cats and whatnot, if you'd simply stopped reading and stopped caring. Plenty of people here who stop reading other people's posts. They move on, though; you don't.
Only a dickhead would think "I" "caught on this late in the game". I don't think you are a dickhead, nor do I for one moment believe you think I only just got this. More fool you if this IS the case. I knew what it was. I had a fair bit of your premise to dismantle first, and did this systematically:
- Your original claims were NOT JUST about me being intellectually dishonest but of being dishonest as well and of pretending, assuming things, and so on. You since dropped this claims or merged them into your greater claim
- You raised some point about something I said about Butterflies ("ganging up")and when I addressed it, you tried the crazy argument technique of questioning ME raising it (points for originality)
- You posted the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty as though I needed that explanation to know what the term meant. In fact I answered every aspect of the term, to show it wanting (something that unto itself, would run against the grain of "transparency" for intellectual dishonesty)
- You then kept repeating variations of the Mantra "You did not read Zegh, so you can't know for sure, he is full of shit, therefore you are intellectually dishonest". Then admonishing me when I had the temerity to question why this alone makes a case for intellectual dishonesty
- You tried a new tact and said that I was tiptoeing around DFG. This was an even weaker claim and you soon dropped it
- Changing tact you suggested I was not Intellectually dishonest afterall and it was a blindspot I had. That premise went nowhere and you gravitated back to the Intellectually dishonest premise again.
- I then showed a few instances of YOU using the term. Once with Calandale - to whom you could NOT have read everything he said for 6 months either (and so could not have been absolutely sure he was "full of shit" .... as if that was ever an argument worth making) and secondly I showed you casting such sentiments to Dr Bitch to something she said in one of her 18 posts, after having joined the day before. You did not (chose not to?) see the similarity of what you were doing and what you accused me of doing
- You then tried to reference Zegh as a reference point to support your claims (I just can't tell you how bizarre this is). Not only have I stopped reading him (because he is full of shit) but referencing him after suggesting that I was wrong about my suggestions you were "sticking up for him", you now try to use him as a reference point to your arguments of my feuding with him. No bias?
- Now I find you telling me to "get a life" and point out the examination of such a generalised insult is stupid and disingenuous AND more importantly, very similar in nature to saying someone is "full of shit". You agreed that get a life was a "mere expression". You have yet to see the hypocrisy.
So what points ought I have made in what particular order? This is a how long is a piece of string question. If I did not make a particular point at a particular time does that mean that it only occurred to me? To me, I had bigger things to concentrate on such as:
- Attacking the premise that I was "pretending" and being "dishonest", both of which you conceded were poorly chosen and that you wished to express ONLY intellectual dishonesty.
- Showing the irrelevance of the "ganging up" inference premise of yours
- Show a defence against every aspect of the claim that I was intellectually dishonest by identifying every aspect of the definition and contrasting that against my own actions to find it wanting
- Outlining the weakness of your tactic of making a weak subjective premise without any support and to show a dictionary definition of a word then repeat a point over and over.
- Arguing your introduced point about me apparently tiptoeing
- Showing your own use of the phrase "full of shit"
I am not about repeating the same point over and over. Nor do I expect have an expiration date on a disagreement. It finishes when it finishes. I think that each aspect of what you said WILL be addressed and in time.
So yes the "only just occurred to you" was a pretty silly thing to say, wasn't it?
I might not have said anything if you hadn't continued to follow him across the board with your moronic ninja cats and whatnot, if you'd simply stopped reading and stopped caring. Plenty of people here who stop reading other people's posts. They move on, though; you don't.
Yes, I don't, or at least, I haven't....and?
Now you HAVE said something AND? How has that all turned out for you? Better? Has it stopped my efforts against Zegh? Has it resolved anything? Is it likely to make a long term difference?
You are getting closer to the point where you confess your reason for bringing it up in the first place was to get me to stop and to do so was that it annoyed you and whilst you did not want to be involved in the argument or "choose sides" you thought by making a few weak but pointed accusations you could either distract me or shame me into shutting up and stopping feuding with Zegh, without looking partisan.
Again, I don't care. I may have paid attention to this if a month or so ago you had said this was the case, and may have stopped. But you didn't. You doubled down and so now will I. Don't you think that is fair?
Your intellectual dishonesty stems from the fact that you, as they put it, "took the easy way out", proud of not reading Zegh but nevertheless showing with your every word and your every action what you thought about him and how nothing would change that.
I have shown that by ANY rational, intelligent and logical viewing my views on Zegh are not uniformed EVEN if I have not read him for six months. Reading someone is easy. Reading someone and getting a bead on them is easy (generally, unless said person is known to lie - such saying that they will have one month of silent treatment [directed at me and DFG] and then not follow through) BUT what is much harder is to keep a decent bead on them based off 7 years worth of experience of reading and interacting with them and watching what and who they react to and second hand reports on what they said or did not say and the interactions people have with them. This is MUCH harder and therefore by any decent reasoning, NOT the easy way out.
Its pretty easy to understand. Getting it wrong after reading them and paying attention to them is possible but less likely that relying on all of the above that I do. So how well do I do? Well, see all those examples on the board where people have said "Zegh did not say what you accused him of" and "You were so off base, Zegh was so not being snarky, condescending, and full of shit. He was actually just popping into your callouts to say complimentary things to and about you. I think he has really changed since you stopped talking to him. He never lies, is respectful and reasonable. I think you would find him very tolerable nowdays"
No? You don't see that? Do you see ANYONE point out anything that I said about him which is factually incorrect? Anything Odeon?
Okay, new question. IF I manage to maintain this without reading him....is this easier .....or.....harder? If you say easier you either deliberately disingenuous or your IQ is slipping.
My every word and action? Yup, I think he is an asshat and is full of shit. And??
" how nothing would change that"
This is dishonest. Why are being dishonest? No, Odeon, you are and you know you are. I have been very clear that it is up to Zegh to sort things out. I have been extremely clear that I have sorted out differences between others that i had issues with. Its a very long list and you have been here on I2 with me years and know this is the case. People that I have disliked just as much as Zegh. He is NOT special.
Why then are you being dishonest and for who's benefit?
What is amazing to me is how closely this post's general points resemble this post way early on in the piece. I am consistent.
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?
-
/me is now waiting for the inevitable next literal-minded reply
Its no big crime for an Autistic to be accused of being literal. I certainly don't care. So I am literal and happily confess that....what about me being intellectually dishonest? Can you make a case for that?
To be honest I think this whole "being too literal" is simply (like the "paraphrasing" claim) another shell in the shell game.
-
This is surreal
-
This is surreal
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/54/37/15/5437150e30773666a72801b0e276e528.jpg)
-
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
I think that what is left of the community doesn't give a shit, one way or the other. :yawn:
Kind of my point.
No, that's the opposite of what I said.
Let's say for sake of argument that you didn't back up anything you said and Al was 100% right.
The community STILL doesn't give a flying shit and won't say anything BECAUSE NONE OF US GIVES A GOOD GODDAMN!!
Does that make sense or do I need to make a callout about how intellectually dishonest you are?? :zoinks:
It doesn't make any sense, so you'd better call me out.
In other words you're bored and desperate for drama??
-
And then there is this obligation/wrath of the community thing. Here is the thing: I'm betting that if the community really thought I hadn't backed up my stuff, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
I think that what is left of the community doesn't give a shit, one way or the other. :yawn:
Kind of my point.
No, that's the opposite of what I said.
Let's say for sake of argument that you didn't back up anything you said and Al was 100% right.
The community STILL doesn't give a flying shit and won't say anything BECAUSE NONE OF US GIVES A GOOD GODDAMN!!
Does that make sense or do I need to make a callout about how intellectually dishonest you are?? :zoinks:
It doesn't make any sense, so you'd better call me out.
In other words you're bored and desperate for drama??
He is refering to the fact that Al has called him out 2 or 3 times, for not agreeing with him with everything.
Now you're cluelessly hopping along, defending Al (presumably defending his habit of calling out people for everything)
Since you're such a huge fan of calling people out - or defending people for calling people out (your sucking of Als cock here), he is jokingly suggesting that you join Al in calling everyone out.
So, again, you're being a clueless idiot. Congrats! Keep it up, moron!
TLDR: Al is the one calling everyone out. Al is the one "desperate for drama", you are too, through association. Fag.
-
^^ Keep making those strawmen Zegh, you're almost as good at it as drawing dinosaurs. :autism:
-
^^ Keep making those strawmen Zegh, you're almost as good at it as drawing dinosaurs. :autism:
I see you are dedicated to loyalty! What a virtue!
-
Mocking those with actual human decency. Keep it up Zeghtard!! :thumbup:
-
Human decency from the one arguing for several pages that girls are fuckable as soon as they develop anything resembling boobs.
You probably still think the rest of us are pussies, for not wanting to fuck children, don't you? That's how your mind works, just like Al thinks the reason the rest of us don't spam the whole board for 11 months consecutive is that we're sissies or something.
Real reason:
We don't want to fuck kids, cus pedophilia is fucking reprehensible.
We don't spam the forum, or make "call out" threads on everyone who disagrees, because we don't have rampant ocd and impulse control problems. We are also not sociopaths.
Oh, you!
-
Having sex with post-pubescent teenagers isn't pedophilia, Jesus Fuck! get a dictionary. ::)
-
swelling with pride, because at this point, it's all you can do :D
pride in your stupidity, pride in your blind loyalty towards people of shared ideology regardless of actions, pride in your own fucking pedophilia (I don't buy your semantic nitpicking for even a moment. I know what you're computer is full of, you fucking piece of garbage)
How does it feel, to be like this?
Rawkin awesome, I bet!
-
Oh, and Al:
"Full of shit" was always just a phrase, an expression. The fact that you only caught on late in the game doesn't change that, it only shows that I made a mistake in assuming that you'd recognise it for what it was. Your intellectual dishonesty stems from the fact that you, as they put it, "took the easy way out", proud of not reading Zegh but nevertheless showing with your every word and your every action what you thought about him and how nothing would change that.
I might not have said anything if you hadn't continued to follow him across the board with your moronic ninja cats and whatnot, if you'd simply stopped reading and stopped caring. Plenty of people here who stop reading other people's posts. They move on, though; you don't.
Only a dickhead would think "I" "caught on this late in the game".
You sure fooled me. Did you, or did you not, understand that the expression "full of shit" was just that, an expression, a paraphrasing of your words and actions?
Call me what you like.
I don't think you are a dickhead, nor do I for one moment believe you think I only just got this. More fool you if this IS the case. I knew what it was. I had a fair bit of your premise to dismantle first, and did this systematically:
- Your original claims were NOT JUST about me being intellectually dishonest but of being dishonest as well and of pretending, assuming things, and so on. You since dropped this claims or merged them into your greater claim
I agreed that "pretending" was a poor choice of words. I didn't say you were dishonest, you did. I also wrote this in reply to your callout:
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?
Now, you can, of course, take this very literally and say I was calling you dishonest since the intellectual dishonesty definition, which is really what this boils down to, is a couple of posts away still, at this point, but before that, I do explain why I read pretence into your posts, adding that it was my impression.
- You raised some point about something I said about Butterflies ("ganging up")and when I addressed it, you tried the crazy argument technique of questioning ME raising it (points for originality)
You said Butterflies ganged up with somebody, I don't remember who, and I thought she didn't. What's your point, exactly? Do you even know?
- You posted the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty as though I needed that explanation to know what the term meant. In fact I answered every aspect of the term, to show it wanting (something that unto itself, would run against the grain of "transparency" for intellectual dishonesty)
I did, because you apparently did need it. It's worth quoting the post in its entirety:
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?
- You then kept repeating variations of the Mantra "You did not read Zegh, so you can't know for sure, he is full of shit, therefore you are intellectually dishonest". Then admonishing me when I had the temerity to question why this alone makes a case for intellectual dishonesty
It's not a mantra, it is a definition found on top of a Google search that was spot on. I wrote: You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why? To post ninja cats? You tell me; I don't know.
I still think it's the case, which you proved soon after post this. Let me quote it:
This is surreal
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/54/37/15/5437150e30773666a72801b0e276e528.jpg)
- You tried a new tact and said that I was tiptoeing around DFG. This was an even weaker claim and you soon dropped it
You provided an explanation I thought was believable. I still do find the fact that you completely avoided what DFG was saying fascinating, to say the least, but I am willing to give you the benefit of a doubt there.
You never came close to believable when we were discussing your actions around Zegh. One of your first, and epic, failures was the archaeologist argument. Remember that one? I'm glad you abandoned it, but that's when I knew I wasn't mistaken.
- Changing tact you suggested I was not Intellectually dishonest afterall and it was a blindspot I had. That premise went nowhere and you gravitated back to the Intellectually dishonest premise again.
I was trying to be nice as you are a mate, but also, I believe the blind spot argument was about you and DFG rather than you and Zegh (but feel free to check if you like). Your intellectual dishonesty was, and is, about how you act around Zegh.
- I then showed a few instances of YOU using the term. Once with Calandale - to whom you could NOT have read everything he said for 6 months either (and so could not have been absolutely sure he was "full of shit" .... as if that was ever an argument worth making) and secondly I showed you casting such sentiments to Dr Bitch to something she said in one of her 18 posts, after having joined the day before. You did not (chose not to?) see the similarity of what you were doing and what you accused me of doing
If you really don't see the difference between what you're doing and what I said about Cal, then you really don't understand the fact that my reaction was never about an expression of yours. I have tried explaining but at this point, either you just don't get it or are too obsessed to see the difference.
- You then tried to reference Zegh as a reference point to support your claims (I just can't tell you how bizarre this is). Not only have I stopped reading him (because he is full of shit) but referencing him after suggesting that I was wrong about my suggestions you were "sticking up for him", you now try to use him as a reference point to your arguments of my feuding with him. No bias?
Sorry, but what are you on about?
- Now I find you telling me to "get a life" and point out the examination of such a generalised insult is stupid and disingenuous AND more importantly, very similar in nature to saying someone is "full of shit". You agreed that get a life was a "mere expression". You have yet to see the hypocrisy.
"Get a life" is about you obsessing over all this. Or are you saying that you aren't? No hypocrisy, just weariness, plus the fact that if you think the two expressions in themselves mean ANYTHING, then you are still not getting it.
So what points ought I have made in what particular order? This is a how long is a piece of string question. If I did not make a particular point at a particular time does that mean that it only occurred to me? To me, I had bigger things to concentrate on such as:
- Attacking the premise that I was "pretending" and being "dishonest", both of which you conceded were poorly chosen and that you wished to express ONLY intellectual dishonesty.
Pretence was a poor choice since intellectual dishonesty is what I meant, which I said. Dishonest was in a context, even though adding "intellectual" took me a few posts, IIRC. My quoted post, above, only says "dishonest" but in a context, which I thought would be enough.
I was not saying that "Al is dishonest" without any qualifiers because that would have been wrong.
- Showing the irrelevance of the "ganging up" inference premise of yours
You were the one to claim that Butterflies was doing it, not me. I reacted because it was unfair and wrong.
- Show a defence against every aspect of the claim that I was intellectually dishonest by identifying every aspect of the definition and contrasting that against my own actions to find it wanting
Starting with your archaeologist argument. Yes, that went really well, and then it all went downhill from there. You have provided what you hope are contrasting arguments, but I'm not buying them and from the looks of it, nobody else is either.
- Outlining the weakness of your tactic of making a weak subjective premise without any support and to show a dictionary definition of a word then repeat a point over and over.
My "tactic"? ROFL. I showed a definition and explained why you r actions matched the definition. I realise you probably wouldn't want to admit to any of it but considering your replies, I'd say I hit home.
- Arguing your introduced point about me apparently tiptoeing
You did avoid DFG's posts in a way you've probably not done with anyone here, ever, but I accepted your explanation.
- Showing your own use of the phrase "full of shit"
It was NEVER about the expression, it was ALWAYS about the sum of your actions, because they frequently speak louder than words. Here is an example:
This is surreal
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/54/37/15/5437150e30773666a72801b0e276e528.jpg)
We've all said that someone is full of shit, which you showed using a search. Well done. But by doing that you also showed how you've completely missed the point. Not so well done after all.
I am not about repeating the same point over and over. Nor do I expect have an expiration date on a disagreement. It finishes when it finishes. I think that each aspect of what you said WILL be addressed and in time.
So yes the "only just occurred to you" was a pretty silly thing to say, wasn't it?
Nope.
And I'm sure you will continue this.
I might not have said anything if you hadn't continued to follow him across the board with your moronic ninja cats and whatnot, if you'd simply stopped reading and stopped caring. Plenty of people here who stop reading other people's posts. They move on, though; you don't.
Yes, I don't, or at least, I haven't....and?
Now you HAVE said something AND? How has that all turned out for you? Better? Has it stopped my efforts against Zegh? Has it resolved anything? Is it likely to make a long term difference?
Remember that thing you quoted from our start page? That's what I did.
Do I care if you continue posting ninja cats? Not really, but you're not really helping your case either. Keep on replying with the ninja cats and all the rest of it, and your actions will continue speaking louder than words. Call it something else? Sure, go ahead, it's your credibility, not mine.
You are getting closer to the point where you confess your reason for bringing it up in the first place was to get me to stop and to do so was that it annoyed you and whilst you did not want to be involved in the argument or "choose sides" you thought by making a few weak but pointed accusations you could either distract me or shame me into shutting up and stopping feuding with Zegh, without looking partisan.
And here is where you are wrong. I don't give a shit if you go on with the ninja cats. Zegh can handle you. You won't know this, of course, unless you peek, but whatever you hope to achieve, you're not getting there.
Again, I don't care. I may have paid attention to this if a month or so ago you had said this was the case, and may have stopped. But you didn't. You doubled down and so now will I. Don't you think that is fair?
Your intellectual dishonesty stems from the fact that you, as they put it, "took the easy way out", proud of not reading Zegh but nevertheless showing with your every word and your every action what you thought about him and how nothing would change that.
I have shown that by ANY rational, intelligent and logical viewing my views on Zegh are not uniformed EVEN if I have not read him for six months. Reading someone is easy. Reading someone and getting a bead on them is easy (generally, unless said person is known to lie - such saying that they will have one month of silent treatment [directed at me and DFG] and then not follow through) BUT what is much harder is to keep a decent bead on them based off 7 years worth of experience of reading and interacting with them and watching what and who they react to and second hand reports on what they said or did not say and the interactions people have with them. This is MUCH harder and therefore by any decent reasoning, NOT the easy way out.
Its pretty easy to understand. Getting it wrong after reading them and paying attention to them is possible but less likely that relying on all of the above that I do. So how well do I do? Well, see all those examples on the board where people have said "Zegh did not say what you accused him of" and "You were so off base, Zegh was so not being snarky, condescending, and full of shit. He was actually just popping into your callouts to say complimentary things to and about you. I think he has really changed since you stopped talking to him. He never lies, is respectful and reasonable. I think you would find him very tolerable nowdays"
Why would he? You've been acting like an ass for months.
This is surreal
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/54/37/15/5437150e30773666a72801b0e276e528.jpg)
It doesn't matter to me much, though. I'm not here to protect Zegh.
No? You don't see that? Do you see ANYONE point out anything that I said about him which is factually incorrect? Anything Odeon?
Okay, new question. IF I manage to maintain this without reading him....is this easier .....or.....harder? If you say easier you either deliberately disingenuous or your IQ is slipping.
My every word and action? Yup, I think he is an asshat and is full of shit. And??
This is surreal
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/54/37/15/5437150e30773666a72801b0e276e528.jpg)
" how nothing would change that"
This is dishonest. Why are being dishonest? No, Odeon, you are and you know you are. I have been very clear that it is up to Zegh to sort things out. I have been extremely clear that I have sorted out differences between others that i had issues with. Its a very long list and you have been here on I2 with me years and know this is the case. People that I have disliked just as much as Zegh. He is NOT special.
"sorted out differences between others that i had issues with"
How many others have you treated the way you treat Zegh?
Why then are you being dishonest and for who's benefit?
I am not being dishonest. I am criticising you, however, and I am disagreeing with what you've offered as counterarguments.
I originally hoped it to be for your benefit, actually. Now, it no longer matters because I don't think you will admit to anything.
What is amazing to me is how closely this post's general points resemble this post way early on in the piece. I am consistent.
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?
And....................... next.
-
Zegh, have not read BUT have you gone for a reasoned argument this time, or are you just being snarky, condescending and outraged?
You should try actually reading and addressing things. It's why you don't like callouts. I believe. Easier to yell snarky insults than defend a position or argue your own.
Either says that you have no faith in your position to allow it to be defended and need to distract...or you have narcissistic level of believe of every point you make so that you could not bring yourself to even consider an alternative opinion.
Maybe though you are just so drug-addled you are incapable of the focus required for a job any adult responsibilities a disagreement.
Well are you going to throw some condescending snarky and distraction from what I said, my way? Or perhaps you want to draw a dinosaur?
-
You should try addressing HIM. Right now, you come off as an idiot, Al. Yes, I know, you don't read him, but this latest post of yours is just another example of your easy way out mentality re Zegh.
Like he said, this is surreal.
-
Al, you're wrong.
I'm not "reasoning" with Pappy, I am hurling ad hominems at him, trying to be a dick. Snarky, as you said. Because I want to, and I don't have any respect for him.
You might have experienced this before, and I will explain it - one more time
I don't do your "call outs" (or any other) because what is said is said, and won't be said any differently in an "arena" of sorts.
A separate "call-out" thread won't change my mind about feminism, and won't make you make any more sense than in any other separate forum post. The idea of the "call-out" is to have "the gallery" finally declare a winner, and make a lengthy flame-war end. Am I right, or do I have the wrong idea?
Where is the gallery?
Where are the votes?
Where is the shit I'm supposed to give what a limited 3rd party thinks about my arguments? Where is the shit you give?
THIS call-out is a fantastic example of the futility of having any kind of "reasonable argument" with you.
Odeon isn't defending me, and I'm not out to defend him, we have never spoken outside of casual forum replies, unlike you - and your pathetic cronies
THAT SAID - he is doing an impressive job at ACTUALLY trying to play to your rules. He is addressing _every retarded point_ you make, one... after the other... ad nauseam.
I applaud that. But I also regard it as sky diving or something - an activity I simply have no interest in replicating.
I am guessing he is doing it just to see what it will take, maybe out of morbid curiousity.
I also suspect he has stronger discipline than me, regarding how low to let himself sink, in regards to communicating with people. I am willing to scrape the bottom, you wife-beating psychopathic assfuck. See? I don't care about that.
He isn't willing to go there, and I understand that, and so, reasonable arguments are bounced against the wall like a game of squash.
To put it simply: You have no interest in *the exchange*, which isn't a big surprise, I'm not either, I'm not sitting here going "maybe I should give him a chance of making me afraid of women too!" - but I AM willing to "live and let live", and that's where it gets very messy with people like you.
You OBSESS
You cannot allow someone who engaged in argument with you, to walk away "unconvinced". There is no rational reason as to why this is so difficult for you. Obsessiveness is not rational. It "itches" you, it's on your mind, it's always there, "They left unconvinced!" it eats at you, and its your problem and not mine.
SO...
At the end of the day, I'm on this forum, I'm free to post, and most post content goes unpunished, so... whenever I'm not sick to fucking death of seeing your rabid ramblings, I take a few moments out of my time to be snarky, cus lol. Otherwise, you are annoying and lame and boring and predictable. Yes, you annoy me. If that gives you some sort of pathetic gratification, then congratufuckinlations
"I didn't read any of that but - " yawn...
-
Surely I'm not the only one who can see that this behaviour is genuinely destroying the site, if it hasn't already :thumbdn:
Before this crap got started, this place was kinda awesome. Now it just sucks. This is sucking the life out of i2.
For the last 4 years, the site seems to have been a succession of bizarre, pointless, and totally obsessive feuds, often lasting the best part of a year each.
A large portion of good members have simply drifted away, and the site is dying. These feuds are the cancer that is killing the site :thumbdn:
Arguments are fine. I enjoy the odd argument. 8 month arguments are not cool, and they're not normal. If this behaviour keeps going, I'm sure even more people will be driven away.
-
It's not destroying the site. :laugh: Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.
-
I have to agree with fluffy evil one here.
No one wants to read essay vs essay about nothing.
Retards like odeon do make me laugh though. He can spend all day nattering like he's some kind of argument guru, but can only muster a meme when it comes to mankind.
-
The fluffy evil one sees nostalgic bygone I2 years, filled with her friends, through rose colored glasses which filter out the old feuds.
-
It's not destroying the site. :laugh: Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.
I'm not specifically talking about the Odeon v Les dispute. I'm talking about the seemingly constant stream of disputes that's been going on for the last few years, of which, this is just the latest chapter.
You seem to enjoy it, and that's cool. Each to their own. However, I get the strong feeling that the majority of people left here can't stand it, and I'm certain that it's played a huge part in driving a lot of people away over the last few years.
-
It's not destroying the site. :laugh: Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.
I agree with what you say. Odeon might be acting like a smart arse but he is not acting smart in pretending I or you or anyone else here has difficulties in understanding what intellectual dishonesty is. It comes across as pandering to the idea that his opponents don't understand phrases or concepts and therefore needs to play tutor before they can have an opinion whether he is wrong. Each time he posts a definition as a rebuke., he is engaging in this.
Yet in his apparent stellar post he tries justifying this. It's weak, transparent and smells like bullshit. Tell me, according to the definition of intellectual dishonesty whether THAT ticks a few boxes?
I will answer him tonight
-
It's not destroying the site. :laugh: Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.
I'm not specifically talking about the Odeon v Les dispute. I'm talking about the seemingly constant stream of disputes that's been going on for the last few years, of which, this is just the latest chapter.
You seem to enjoy it, and that's cool. Each to their own. However, I get the strong feeling that the majority of people left here can't stand it, and I'm certain that it's played a huge part in driving a lot of people away over the last few years.
Some of the people who have left were also some of the ones starting a lot of fights. If anything I2 has mellowed for being smaller. There used to be a lot more people, and a crap ton of fighting. Yes, enjoyed it, because just like you said, it's not cool and it's not normal. What else is to be expected on a forum designed for people who don't know how to socialize properly? If it's really and truly destroying the site, then it's probably fitting and just, and I'm not really sure what to say about that. Good! damn it. :laugh:
-
understanding what intellectual dishonesty is.
Don't even think the term can be applied to this topic. The difference between intellectual dishonesty and regular dishonesty, is the context of an intellectual stance. Like cherry picking facts, omitting facts, or presenting biased conclusions based on facts, in order to support a stance. It is in fact smart lying, because the facts aren't really lies, and omissions aren't really lies either. The first term used, pretending, was probably better. If Odeon just thinks you're pretending to not read Zeg, then he's entitled to his opinion. If he had stood firm to that personal perception, you would have lost this callout.
-
understanding what intellectual dishonesty is.
Don't even think the term can be applied to this topic. The difference between intellectual dishonesty and regular dishonesty, is the context of an intellectual stance. Like cherry picking facts, omitting facts, or presenting biased conclusions based on facts, in order to support a stance. It is in fact smart lying, because the facts aren't really lies, and omissions aren't really lies either. The first term used, pretending, was probably better. If Odeon just thinks you're pretending to not read Zeg, then he's entitled to his opinion. If he had stood firm to that personal perception, you would have lost this callout.
I don't think even in that eventuality I would have lost. The reason being, he would have still had to evidence
That "Gotcha" moment would never have come because it was not there.
Proclaiming something over and over or lower and louder doesn't make the argument better
-
Al claims to not read *any* of my posts or shouts in the shout box.
This is simply not possible. The human brain involuntarily recognizes the symbols in our alphabet, to such a degree, it can eevn rceognzie scarlmbed leterts
So simply from there, Al either pretends or lies. But whatever ::)
HI ROSS
-
understanding what intellectual dishonesty is.
Don't even think the term can be applied to this topic. The difference between intellectual dishonesty and regular dishonesty, is the context of an intellectual stance. Like cherry picking facts, omitting facts, or presenting biased conclusions based on facts, in order to support a stance. It is in fact smart lying, because the facts aren't really lies, and omissions aren't really lies either. The first term used, pretending, was probably better. If Odeon just thinks you're pretending to not read Zeg, then he's entitled to his opinion. If he had stood firm to that personal perception, you would have lost this callout.
I don't think even in that eventuality I would have lost. The reason being, he would have still had to evidence
That "Got ha" moment would never have come because it was not there.
Proclaiming something over and over or lower and louder doesn't make the argument better
Thinking the callout wouldn't have been able to be won, because Odeon doesn't have to prove he has an opinion about what you read, just like you don't have to prove Zeg is full of shit just because you think it. At best, it could have ended effortlessly on the point of the word pretending. Like when SG called me a liar. Odeon wouldn't really be lying by saying he thinks you're pretending, because that's the truth of his perception and what he thinks. Though you in fact have rebutted that you're not pretending, and him saying you are pretending is a lie. So he can either accept you are telling him the truth, or you can accept his opinion you're pretending, or neither, and the two of you can continue to call each other liars.
-
Al claims to not read *any* of my posts or shouts in the shout box.
This is simply not possible. The human brain involuntarily recognizes the symbols in our alphabet, to such a degree, it can eevn rceognzie scarlmbed leterts
So simply from there, Al either pretends or lies. But whatever ::)
HI ROSS
It was many months after you began fighting when he told me he was joking in the very beginning, then began skimming, and by that point he wasn't really reading much of you at all. Might have missed where he said he doesn't read a single bit. Maybe he's not reading, or maybe reading every word; couldn't really say. Have explained how logic explains he's not pretending, and have no problem taking him for his word because it doesn't matter to me either way. He also might not really care if you or I think he's pretending. He cares what Odeon thinks. Have to say, over the years, there have been a couple of people encountered here who didn't get read. That's not to say every word escaped me, and probably even responded to something they said from time to time, but yes, largely passed them by. Wouldn't consider myself as lying by saying I didn't read them.
-
understanding what intellectual dishonesty is.
Don't even think the term can be applied to this topic. The difference between intellectual dishonesty and regular dishonesty, is the context of an intellectual stance. Like cherry picking facts, omitting facts, or presenting biased conclusions based on facts, in order to support a stance. It is in fact smart lying, because the facts aren't really lies, and omissions aren't really lies either. The first term used, pretending, was probably better. If Odeon just thinks you're pretending to not read Zeg, then he's entitled to his opinion. If he had stood firm to that personal perception, you would have lost this callout.
I don't think even in that eventuality I would have lost. The reason being, he would have still had to evidence
That "Got ha" moment would never have come because it was not there.
Proclaiming something over and over or lower and louder doesn't make the argument better
Thinking the callout wouldn't have been able to be won, because Odeon doesn't have to prove he has an opinion about what you read, just like you don't have to prove Zeg is full of shit just because you think it. At best, it could have ended effortlessly on the point of the word pretending. Like when SG called me a liar. Odeon wouldn't really be lying by saying he thinks you're pretending, because that's the truth of his perception and what he thinks. Though you in fact have rebutted that you're not pretending, and him saying you are pretending is a lie. So he can either accept you are telling him the truth, or you can accept his opinion you're pretending, or neither, and the two of you can continue to call each other liars.
I think more than this though. If his claim had of been that I pretend not to read Zegh, then it's saying I'm lying.
As a claim it is toothless without evidence.
Again or should be clear there is no evidence to indicate me as having read Zegh, because I haven't
-
Of course you perceive it that way. Sort of tricky, isn't it? It's possible to believe something and say so, without actually claiming to know, without knowing for certain, much less being able to prove it. My perception of the situation is, he believes you're lying and he said so. You believe his belief is a claim. You're both calling each other liars.
-
Jack, you assume that everything he says is honest.
I am pointing out that I do not assume the same thing. He might have explanations for it, but I see them as flailing and dishonest.
He just repeated not to have read, yet he is on the same page we are. He cannot possibly have escaped what I wrote - yet he keeps pretending he did not notice.
He will change his explanations to fit the situation. You can take his words for it, in a pragmatic way, but I choose not to. I take it as flimsyness.
"There is no evidence to indicate I have read - " is meaningless in itself. What evidence would that be? Video footage?
-
Surely I'm not the only one who can see that this behaviour is genuinely destroying the site, if it hasn't already :thumbdn:
Before this crap got started, this place was kinda awesome. Now it just sucks. This is sucking the life out of i2.
For the last 4 years, the site seems to have been a succession of bizarre, pointless, and totally obsessive feuds, often lasting the best part of a year each.
A large portion of good members have simply drifted away, and the site is dying. These feuds are the cancer that is killing the site :thumbdn:
Arguments are fine. I enjoy the odd argument. 8 month arguments are not cool, and they're not normal. If this behaviour keeps going, I'm sure even more people will be driven away.
I hear you.
Although I wouldn't say this place is dying. People are always leaving and coming back.
-
I have to agree with fluffy evil one here.
No one wants to read essay vs essay about nothing.
Retards like odeon do make me laugh though. He can spend all day nattering like he's some kind of argument guru, but can only muster a meme when it comes to mankind.
I love you too.
-
It's not destroying the site. :laugh: Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.
You don't need to go any further than this thread. I believe he's said Zegh is full of shit in this thread while saying that he doesn't read his posts. He's also posted another cat picture here.
I don't know if he is reading Zegh's posts or not. I suspect he does read some of them because, as Zegh points out, it's how the brain works. There is no way to prove it one way or the other, though. What is possible to prove, however, is that when it comes to Al, he is still taking the easy way out with Zegh, which was, and is, my point re the intellectual dishonesty.
The easy way out here means that no matter what Zegh says, Al will continue posting ninja cats in response while stating that he doesn't read Zegh's posts. This, of course, also means that no discussion between them is possible, which means that resolving the differences is not possible.
Which, I think, is also taking the easy way out.
For the literal-minded, "posting ninja cats in response" is an expression meant to cover the usual variations, from the actual ninja cats to the snarky response second-guessing Zegh's posts.
-
Surely I'm not the only one who can see that this behaviour is genuinely destroying the site, if it hasn't already :thumbdn:
Before this crap got started, this place was kinda awesome. Now it just sucks. This is sucking the life out of i2.
For the last 4 years, the site seems to have been a succession of bizarre, pointless, and totally obsessive feuds, often lasting the best part of a year each.
A large portion of good members have simply drifted away, and the site is dying. These feuds are the cancer that is killing the site :thumbdn:
Arguments are fine. I enjoy the odd argument. 8 month arguments are not cool, and they're not normal. If this behaviour keeps going, I'm sure even more people will be driven away.
I hear you.
Although I wouldn't say this place is dying. People are always leaving and coming back.
Of course this place is dying. It has to be :P In the good old days when the site was awesome, it was dying. Just at a much slower pace.
The constant drama is simply speeding up the inevitable end :(
Here is my opinion, and hence, very possibly completely wrong. It's also based on my shaky knowledge of the history of this place, which might also be very wrong :laugh:
This place was created by some cataclysmic event on WP. Alex seemed to piss a lot of people off, and many of the brightest and best WP posters created this community. With WP being by a mile the biggest, and most well known aspie site, there was an abundance of good posters to make this place interesting in its infancy.
Basically, this site was created by a one-off event. It's success was largely based on taking its membership from a much larger and more established site.
Over time, as with any community, members will slowly drift away. Therefore, the key to keeping the community healthy is to find a way to bring in new productive members, at least as fast as you lose the old members.
Obviously this site lacks the profile, and resources of WP, and bringing in new members at the necessary rate is an almost impossible task. Fewer active members will result in fewer new members, and this ultimately results in a vicious circle spiraling until there aren't enough members to keep the place active.
This is definitely not a criticism of anybody involved in running the site, who I actually think do a rather decent job. It's just my opinion of how a site like this has a very definite life cycle, and is destined to eventually die, whether that be in 5 years, or 25 years.
-
Of course you perceive it that way. Sort of tricky, isn't it? It's possible to believe something and say so, without actually claiming to know, without knowing for certain, much less being able to prove it. My perception of the situation is, he believes you're lying and he said so. You believe his belief is a claim. You're both calling each other liars.
I don't know. I think it would be reasonable for someone to illustrate (after 6 months) of an example where I replied to, or was informed by, something I could not have got from NOT having read him. IF Odeon or anyone else wants to make the claim I DO read Zegh (I do not think Odeon IS making this claim), then again, he can make it BUT it is not a strong claim. It is simply a subjective "I believe X but have nothing to show it is the case or is not the case". It is not a claim to argue or defend.
If it is a "I say" and "he says" then neither is a winning position....and things are not resolving.
-
....and things are not resolving.
Actually, this is kinda my point. Does everything need resolved?
I'm not saying you were wrong to call out Odeon over this. Truth is, I've not read enough of this to form any opinion over the rights and wrongs of the argument.
But, at what point do you just say "looks like we'll have to agree to disagree?"
This has been going on for over 2 months now, and there seems to be no end in sight. Would it not be better to move on?
-
It's not destroying the site. :laugh: Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.
You don't need to go any further than this thread. I believe he's said Zegh is full of shit in this thread while saying that he doesn't read his posts. He's also posted another cat picture here.
I don't know if he is reading Zegh's posts or not. I suspect he does read some of them because, as Zegh points out, it's how the brain works. There is no way to prove it one way or the other, though. What is possible to prove, however, is that when it comes to Al, he is still taking the easy way out with Zegh, which was, and is, my point re the intellectual dishonesty.
The easy way out here means that no matter what Zegh says, Al will continue posting ninja cats in response while stating that he doesn't read Zegh's posts. This, of course, also means that no discussion between them is possible, which means that resolving the differences is not possible.
Which, I think, is also taking the easy way out.
For the literal-minded, "posting ninja cats in response" is an expression meant to cover the usual variations, from the actual ninja cats to the snarky response second-guessing Zegh's posts.
You don't need to go any further than this thread. I believe he's said Zegh is full of shit in this thread while saying that he doesn't read his posts.
Well as to the charge of me saying Zegh is full of shit, I will refer to my good friend, earlier Odeon.
Oh, and Al:
"Full of shit" was always just a phrase, an expression. The fact that you only caught on late in the game doesn't change that, it only shows that I made a mistake in assuming that you'd recognise it for what it was.
Thanks Earlier Odeon, just a phrase, an expression?
He's also posted another cat picture here.
I did too. I feel bad.
(http://imgfave-herokuapp-com.global.ssl.fastly.net/image_cache/1452784312480237.jpg)
I call this one Bernard.
Having cleared this up. Now comes the stretch. YES I did both posted a cat pic AND said Zegh is full of shit (ie used a "just an expression" phrase) BUT....
Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede,
Neither of these are me calling Zegh out on his shit. I do not know what he said. He is full of shit generally. Just an expression or dows it transform to something specific when I say it in a way that it doesn't when you have said it?
What is possible to prove, however, is that when it comes to Al, he is still taking the easy way out with Zegh, which was, and is, my point re the intellectual dishonesty.
Then please prove it. You can prove it right? IF if it possible to prove it, then prove it. "Proving it" is not simply you saying it is so.
I have made an argument that Reading is simple. It is NOT hard. If you read and manage to keep a decent track on what someone is saying or is reacting to things, THAT is not hard.
IF you don't read what someone says and yet keep track of someone, THAT requires a lot more effort and energy. You may disbelieve this BUT I do not much care. No one (including you) is finding me anything that I have been mistaken about, with Zegh.
So I certainly have a different point of view. Your view does not trump mine because you say it does and nor does it "prove" your point as superior to mine. But you said its possible to prove, so how about going about doing that? Or are you now to retort that you could if you wanted but you just don't want to?
Which, I think, is also taking the easy way out.
and...I don't. For reasons I have expressed.
In fact given your own definition, I think you are stretching even considering this one point as the basis for clarifying something as intellectually dishonesty. What else have you got to show intellectual dishonesty?
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty
Intellectual Dishonesty
What is meant when one uses this term? Some possible meanings:
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.
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. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc.
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
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.
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.
So I ask you, in looking at this definition, when did I show intellectual dishonesty by:
a) Fail to apply standards of rational evaluation that I was aware of?
b) Judges others more critically than myself?
c) Avoid an honest approach?
d) Avoid a deliberate approach?
e) Avoid a comprehensive approach?
f) Commit oneself to higher standards? (and higher than what I wonder?)
The problem here is that I KNOW you don't like my approach. That is a given. I KNOW that you think it would be better and maybe you even believe it to be MORE comprehensive or comprehensive in different ways to simply read Zegh.
I never had an issue with you believing any of that. BUT none of that makes something intellectually dishonest. I AM deliberate in my approach and honest in how I go about that and apply the same standard one myself as to others. I am transparent. I act on information that I have. Given Zegh propensity to lie, I think that my standards would not be higher by reading him and given his standard of writing prior to me stopping reading the standard was pretty low. I do not believe anything was lost in not reading him and conversely nothing is gained by reading him.
None of this has a thing to do with Intellectual dishonesty. So what else have you got, Odeon?
-
You sure fooled me. Did you, or did you not, understand that the expression "full of shit" was just that, an expression, a paraphrasing of your words and actions?
Call me what you like.
Which is EXACTLY why "I" raised that point. You are not stupid Odeon. Please do not pretend you are. WHY did I make such a point? Look at what you said only a few posts ago about me now saying Zegh is "full of shit" without having read anything he said. Even NOW you are trying to correlated me calling Zegh full of shit with me reading him or not reading him after me having dragged you to the apparent realisation that it IS just an expression.
What is that expression you used once? "You can't have it both ways"
Either it IS just an expression and as such a generic insult not imbued a deeper meaning OR it is saying that I have read or examined everything Zegh has said and am passing a judgment based on everything he has said lately.
I actually use it pretty much in the former (though obviously I had 7 years of observation and interacting that gave me an "appreciation" of the "depths" of his personality.) and YOU seem to switch and change....which is a bit dishonest BUT worse still you now try to pull this "you only just caught on" bullshit.
Cut the shit, Odeon. You are not my tutor and neither of us are stupid. You playing tutor is not your best side.
I agreed that "pretending" was a poor choice of words. I didn't say you were dishonest, you did.
Cool then you did not say this:
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. 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?
Earlier Odeon strikes again.
You said Butterflies ganged up with somebody, I don't remember who, and I thought she didn't. What's your point, exactly? Do you even know?
Why exactly would I NOT know? You are trying to imply something here, what exactly and more importantly why?
It was Zegh. Yes I did use that term. You tried (not I) to get some mileage out of it. If memory serves, you were trying to tell me that I was trying to paint a bad picture by using this term which was "dramatic" and "nasty". The term "ganging up" was not used by me to suggest what you wanted me to be suggesting or have wanted to suggest. In fact later I even made a thread on alternatives. You did not seem to care for that thread too much. In fact if memory again serves. You said the term was fine. After having had made the point that my use was purely to infer a nasty dramatic sense of the word.
My reason for mentioning it was simply part of outlining a set of premises and positions and actions I have taken in this ongoing "discussion". It is one of MANY things listed and a large part of the reason I did not go straight to the "full of shit is just an expression".
I did, because you apparently did need it.
No you did not Odeon. Stop pretending to be my tutor.
Here is what you are doing. Just so that you know and I know and anyone that is reading knows.
Rather than defend your positions well and back what you are saying, you are trying to make believe that I not only have no arguments to counter but have suddenly regressed in intellectual capacity to that of a child and so I need you...the smart and patient wise old Odeon, to teach me rudimentary concepts and logical structures and how to form opinions of my own and only then will I even be able to have the ability to be make an opinion.
As I said, cut the shit. Saying that you ACTUALLY believe this is blatantly dishonest. You don't. It is a very transparent ploy. It did not work when you started posting definitions. It did not work work when you tried to convince me that full of shit is just an expression which was exactly the point I was making to you. It did not work when you second guessed as to whether I knew why I post something I chose to post and will not work now.
So, again, pretending you are being genuine is not working. You are better than that. Do not be a dickhead, Odeon.
It's not a mantra, it is a definition found on top of a Google search that was spot on. I wrote: You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why? To post ninja cats? You tell me; I don't know.
Here is where you tell me what I did or said or read that was not deliberate? No? What about Honest? No, nothing? What about comprehensive? No
Oh wait. Here is where you say "You did not read him so that is not comprehensive, so therefore you are intellectually dishonest"
Slam dunk? Not so much. Why? Two reasons:
A) The first is that if THIS was the sole criteria for hanging one's hat on, in determining intellectual dishonesty then broaden this and see how ridiculous it is. I used in previous examples Glenn Beck. But Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or Adolf Hitler or any other person could be used in a similar way. "Okay so you saw a couple of sound bytes of Trump and he came across as a buffoon. But did you hear every speech in full? Okay then how can you have an opinion on him? You are intellectually dishonest for having such an uniformed position. When did you last see something he said? Six months ago and you did not try to listen to more of him? Well that is so intellectually dishonest"
B) Secondly, I contest that I WAS comprehensive. Whilst you see only Ninja Cats I am very comprehensive in keeping tabs on him - who does he reply to?, what do they say to him?, Who replies to him? How is he reacting (long posts, short posts, Caps)?, What posts is he replying to? How did the conversation in a thread he reply in just change and what would have prompted such a change?
It is hardly conventional BUT it IS comprehensive and the proof of this is that no one has shown me what I have got wrong in 6 months when dealing with him. There is only you saying "you can't know he is full of shit" over and over.
You provided an explanation I thought was believable. I still do find the fact that you completely avoided what DFG was saying fascinating, to say the least, but I am willing to give you the benefit of a doubt there.
No, I do not think you found something so mundane fascinating. You never found my ignoring most of Lit's posts fascinating. Never said a word of it. Nor my ignoring your and Benji's fight. There was not call to arms there or accusing me of tiptoeing around both of you. C'mon Odeon. Fascinating?
You never came close to believable when we were discussing your actions around Zegh. One of your first, and epic, failures was the archaeologist argument. Remember that one? I'm glad you abandoned it, but that's when I knew I wasn't mistaken.
I did not abandon it. I answered it. How is one equal to the other? Were you trying to be dishonest here? It was not an epic failure. Why would you be glad if I abandoned it?
The point was rather simple and much into it that I was not saying. It does not make you right for reading into it what I was not saying. It means you misunderstood.
It was one of a few explanations. it was not a "gotcha" moment.
It was simply saying this simple message "You can be comprehensive and piece together an accurate picture of things using assumptions and reasoning and other evidences and doing so is not intellectually dishonest."
I know, I know, you will just say "but you post ninja cats" or "but you don't read his posts". That misses the point of what I say
And YES I DO remember that one and YES you WERE mistaken.
I was trying to be nice as you are a mate, but also, I believe the blind spot argument was about you and DFG rather than you and Zegh (but feel free to check if you like). Your intellectual dishonesty was, and is, about how you act around Zegh.
I dunno I might have to consult with Earlier Odeon
Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
If you really don't see the difference between what you're doing and what I said about Cal, then you really don't understand the fact that my reaction was never about an expression of yours. I have tried explaining but at this point, either you just don't get it or are too obsessed to see the difference.
No, the TWO examples cover two critical aspects to your "read everything they say in order to be comprehensive enough to avoid the charge of intellectual dishonesty" premise (paraphrased....yes Odeon, it was stupid of you to pretend I did not know what that meant too)
The first instance was comparing not how much of Cal you read but rather how much you did not read of him. As stated I clocked him one day at random posting 75 posts that day. That was not a big day it was about standard. YOU over the 6 months of the post that you called him full of shit, missed possibly hundreds of his posts and maybe thousands. Are you in a position that you could have a comprehensive approach to him? I did not read Zegh and I missed far less of Zegh's posts than yo would of Calandale.
But Dr Bitch you said was full of shit. She was only on her second day and with only 18 posts to her name. You had less than two days experience of her and you were calling her full of shit. Is THAT comprehensive? Is it Intellectually dishonest? I think I could argue that I knew Zegh a bit more comprehensively than you did her. I also had a touch more to base my opinions on than you did her EVEN if you had reach all 18 posts.
Sorry, but what are you on about?
You referenced Zegh as being right (In his support for you and opposition to me). Big surprise he would support you. But as mentioned that is like me finding a post of Sol criticising you and posting it as trying to give my argument credibility on his endorsement. Zegh, Sol, Whatever.
"Get a life" is about you obsessing over all this. Or are you saying that you aren't? No hypocrisy, just weariness, plus the fact that if you think the two expressions in themselves mean ANYTHING, then you are still not getting it.
No I KNOW They don't which is precisely why I do not do this:
You don't need to go any further than this thread. I believe he's said Zegh is full of shit in this thread while saying that he doesn't read his posts
:Sigh:
You were in such good form Earlier Odeon. You dropped the ball this time.
Pretence was a poor choice since intellectual dishonesty is what I meant, which I said. Dishonest was in a context, even though adding "intellectual" took me a few posts, IIRC. My quoted post, above, only says "dishonest" but in a context, which I thought would be enough.
I was not saying that "Al is dishonest" without any qualifiers because that would have been wrong.
You did and it was wrong. You then merged them into the intellectual dishonest claim.
You were the one to claim that Butterflies was doing it, not me. I reacted because it was unfair and wrong.
No it wasn't. It is how it looked to me. Looked she was ganging up/joining in/mobbing/dogpiling/lending support/constructively criticising/forming a posse/providing cover fire
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23601.0.html
You saw that as an awful thing to say and said that it implied nasty connotations, no it did not and doesn't.
Starting with your archaeologist argument. Yes, that went really well, and then it all went downhill from there. You have provided what you hope are contrasting arguments, but I'm not buying them and from the looks of it, nobody else is either.
Did not go downhill at all. Did you still not get the point of it? Is that it? You thought you were on a winner with that one position and now bring it up like a trophy and proof you were somehow right about everything? Hate to break it to you. You weren't and are not. Downhill is the direction your premises have stayed since their inception 2 months ago.
I do not care if you are buying them or not. Why do you imagine I would?
No one else is? :hahaha: Do you imagine everyone on I2 is reading through everything we say? Jesus!
My "tactic"? ROFL. I showed a definition and explained why you r actions matched the definition. I realise you probably wouldn't want to admit to any of it but considering your replies, I'd say I hit home.
No the contrary. I showed how weak it was by repeating it with you. It was and is weak.
"I think you are disingenuous Odeon.......Ha, I think you are wrong.....You are still wrong here is the definition of disingenuous to prove my claim because you do not know what disingenuous means.....{repeat} ........I am not going to repeat myself anymore. I have said all I need to say and proved my point"
That above is NOT either backing yourself or making a point and that was precisely what you were doing.
You did avoid DFG's posts in a way you've probably not done with anyone here, ever, but I accepted your explanation.
Bullshit. I did this with Lit for one. I also did with others when they were being provocative and fighting such as PPK, El Pres and even Calvera. I also recently completely let you and Benji go at it without interference. To say you had not seen it or that it is rare is simply not true.
It was NEVER about the expression, it was ALWAYS about the sum of your actions, because they frequently speak louder than words. Here is an example:
That looks suspiciously like "FUCK, I HATE WINKING CATS" and less like "You were being Intellectually dishonest". Big difference.
I post in lots of places on lots of topics over many years and in many ways.
We've all said that someone is full of shit, which you showed using a search. Well done. But by doing that you also showed how you've completely missed the point. Not so well done after all.
No, very well done. I get to hold myself up to and contrast against your standard of behaviour.
Nope.
And I'm sure you will continue this.
Yes it was. It was completely moronic and beneath you.
Remember that thing you quoted from our start page? That's what I did.
Do I care if you continue posting ninja cats? Not really, but you're not really helping your case either. Keep on replying with the ninja cats and all the rest of it, and your actions will continue speaking louder than words. Call it something else? Sure, go ahead, it's your credibility, not mine.
It would not matter overly if you cared what I posted, would it? I remember the thing I posted from the start page. If I remember you took exception to me doing so and tried to say that the only reason you ought not do things was because you would face the wrath of the community and because there did not seem to be any wrath...(paraphrased - did it again)
I actually have a better idea. How about I keep replying however I feel like, even IF there is ninja cats amongst it like I have been and not be as concerned about my "credibility" as you are? Deal?
And here is where you are wrong. I don't give a shit if you go on with the ninja cats. Zegh can handle you. You won't know this, of course, unless you peek, but whatever you hope to achieve, you're not getting there.
I know. You do not keep bringing up me posting ninja cats. Its obvious you do not care about them.
Why would he? You've been acting like an ass for months.
As has he, certainly was for months before i stopped reading him (it did NOT come out of a vacuum), and that lying about the 1 month silent treatment? That was such bad form.
It doesn't matter to me much, though. I'm not here to protect Zegh.
No you are here to pick a side in a feud because one party is annoying you more. Its not protecting. But whatever. It sure worked well. Your efforts were rewarded.
"sorted out differences between others that i had issues with"
How many others have you treated the way you treat Zegh?
Off memory Richard, Binty, Bob, Randy, and Penty. (Maybe Nocturnalist and Skyblue1 too)
I am not being dishonest. I am criticising you, however, and I am disagreeing with what you've offered as counterarguments.
I originally hoped it to be for your benefit, actually. Now, it no longer matters because I don't think you will admit to anything.
I doubt it. You are partisan in Zegh and my feuding.
I also have squared things away with others but needed good reason to do so. What I will NOT to is to be shamed or coerced into anything nor make nice or smooth things over for other's benefits. I certainly would not do that for someone lately taken to faux-tutoring me or doubling down on calling me a liar. Doesn't do it for me. You can understand that surely?
And....................... next.
Indeed.
-
"Given Zegh propensity to lie"
You'll say absolutely anything now won't you, you manipulative shit.
WHEN have I lied _once_?
You REALLY REALLY need me to be a boogeyman, and this just goes to show how far gone you are about this. Are you STILL going on about the sumerians "longevity myths" (MYTHS!) as "zegh being a liar"?
Is it when I called Pappy out for being a fucking pedophile? He is one, he defended it no more than ONE day ago, and he defended it with pride.
Is it when I call Kittenburger fat? She IS fat.
What is this myriad of lies I have been telling? Since you're sitting on ENDLESS examples, I dare you to give _a single_ example.
I have not told ONE lie here, yet - somehow - you need it in your rethoric, that I have a "propensity" for it.
You will say just about ANYthing if it fits your manipulative rethoric
And nope, I am your #1 nemesis. As utterly pathetic as it sounds, and you know why that is?
I know why.
It's because I _refused_ to take part in your idiotic call-out.
I also did not flee away from this site (like EVERYONE ELSE in your examples did. EVERYONE)
I told you that, from the start, in PM - I know EXACTLY what your tactic is: Block-of-text-spam me OFF the site. I told you from the first day, that it wasn't going to work. That's the reason why you are obsessing with me.
You are getting no resolution. I'm not agreeing. I'm not leaving. Odeon might actually take my place as #1 nemesis, since I _might_ yet tire of this shit, and actually leave - while he is site admin, and is most probably going nowhere.
-
:thumbdn:
-
....and things are not resolving.
Actually, this is kinda my point. Does everything need resolved?
I'm not saying you were wrong to call out Odeon over this. Truth is, I've not read enough of this to form any opinion over the rights and wrongs of the argument.
But, at what point do you just say "looks like we'll have to agree to disagree?"
This has been going on for over 2 months now, and there seems to be no end in sight. Would it not be better to move on?
Yes, it would. This is not leading anywhere. I will not agree with Al, and he will not agree with me, but what might happen is that the arguments degrade further and turn nasty. I have been tempted, and I'm sure he has been. The signs are there.
As things are now, it's a rehash of what's already been said.
What does annoy me is that he thinks I must be dishonest or pretend to be stupid for not agreeing with him. This is probably the only reason I care enough to continue this, and it's why I sometimes feel like flaming him all the way to the Kuiper belt and back. A couple of years ago, I might have.
-
....and things are not resolving.
Actually, this is kinda my point. Does everything need resolved?
I'm not saying you were wrong to call out Odeon over this. Truth is, I've not read enough of this to form any opinion over the rights and wrongs of the argument.
But, at what point do you just say "looks like we'll have to agree to disagree?"
This has been going on for over 2 months now, and there seems to be no end in sight. Would it not be better to move on?
Yes, it would. This is not leading anywhere. I will not agree with Al, and he will not agree with me, but what might happen is that the arguments degrade further and turn nasty. I have been tempted, and I'm sure he has been. The signs are there.
As things are now, it's a rehash of what's already been said.
What does annoy me is that he thinks I must be dishonest or pretend to be stupid for not agreeing with him. This is probably the only reason I care enough to continue this, and it's why I sometimes feel like flaming him all the way to the Kuiper belt and back. A couple of years ago, I might have.
You CAN try that approach. I am not concerned that you may. I do not think that will resolve things. That is simply a prediction. May work wonders for you.. It would be no worse that your "tutoring" nonsense and probably more honest too.
-
You CAN try that approach.
Gangsta-alert everybody!
If Odeon (site admin) tries some flamin shit against Al here - he will SURELY regret it :'O
*gangsta-beats*
-
You don't need to go any further than this thread. I believe he's said Zegh is full of shit in this thread while saying that he doesn't read his posts. He's also posted another cat picture here.
I don't know if he is reading Zegh's posts or not. I suspect he does read some of them because, as Zegh points out, it's how the brain works. There is no way to prove it one way or the other, though. What is possible to prove, however, is that when it comes to Al, he is still taking the easy way out with Zegh, which was, and is, my point re the intellectual dishonesty.
The easy way out here means that no matter what Zegh says, Al will continue posting ninja cats in response while stating that he doesn't read Zegh's posts. This, of course, also means that no discussion between them is possible, which means that resolving the differences is not possible.
Which, I think, is also taking the easy way out.
For the literal-minded, "posting ninja cats in response" is an expression meant to cover the usual variations, from the actual ninja cats to the snarky response second-guessing Zegh's posts.
He can in fact have it both ways, not reading Zeg and also believing he's full of shit. He can also be an annoying ass harassing Zeg with cat photos, an annoying ass who has completely given up on resolving differences with Zeg, while also having it both ways. There's nothing dishonest about having an opinion of someone, so that only leaves if he is being honest about reading Zeg. So, admittedly don't know what he reads, suspect he might be lying, but can't prove anything other than Les has clearly giving up debating with Zeg. There's nothing intellectually dishonest to be applied to that. The only type of dishonesty to be read into that is, if he is, or is not, reading Zeg. Sir Les isn't refuting the accusation of being lazy in giving up on resolving a dispute. He's refuting being called dishonest. Actually think this is getting somewhere now, since you plainly said don't believe he's not reading Zeg. That seems clear enough.
-
Jack, you assume that everything he says is honest.
I am pointing out that I do not assume the same thing. He might have explanations for it, but I see them as flailing and dishonest.
He just repeated not to have read, yet he is on the same page we are. He cannot possibly have escaped what I wrote - yet he keeps pretending he did not notice.
He will change his explanations to fit the situation. You can take his words for it, in a pragmatic way, but I choose not to. I take it as flimsyness.
"There is no evidence to indicate I have read - " is meaningless in itself. What evidence would that be? Video footage?
So what? Even if I thought he was lying, probably wouldn't bother saying so. There's plenty of things read here over the years which were viewed as lies, or completely out of line, and didn't say anything because didn't feel like debating opinions or feelings. Sometimes it seems important enough to say something and take that risk. Said something to you defending Sir Les' spelling, because I spell like a child and can't help it. Used to defend Richard for that crap too. Do believe Sir Les didn't read your apology, because you're the first person I've ever seen him continue to snipe at after they've conceded, and you've since said some other things he would have definitely called you out again for, some of them before he ever said he stopped reading. He's been able to make amends with people who called him much much worse than a stupid illiterate. So either Sir Les has changed his stripes just special for you, or he really did stop giving a crap about reading your posts. Other people can twist his words or take them too literal, and claim he said he doesn't read a single word of it, but that's not what he said at all, and thinking people know that. Actually feel sort of responsible for all of this, by bringing it up in the first place. It was something funny, gone really bad.
-
So Zegh apologised?
I admit I have not seen this. Obviously pretty late on in the piece. I will search through Zegh posts for such a post. I will have shovel, gloves and disinfectant at the ready.
I am a little curious as to what he did say. It is out of character to his normal snide, sneering, condescending assist persona. But then people are rarely two dimensional. I will reserved judgement until I see said apology.
I expect a non-apology but I will be open-minded.
Takes guts to apologise regardless, so.....
Yes I haven't been reading Zegh at all. I know I've said it a bit but it's fine if folks choose to disbelieve me. It's not that hard to avoid Zegh's gibberish . I deal with privacy issues at work and the ability to self censor your curiosity and not expose yourself to information you ought not have, is paramount. If I see his avatar I simply don't read whatever is contained in that post. If I see impeded quotes I read who the name is at top of the quote and if it is Zegh I ignore it and read the reply. It is more or less routine.
-
Not certain it would be considered an apology; not exactly an 'I'm sorry' sort of quote, but he did do exactly what you challenged him to do. He took responsibility for starting what he couldn't stop, admitted taking things too far, and expressed he would be open to apologizing, and he did it without criticizing anyone else in defense of his behavior. Will try to find it.
-
Huh. It was the same day I brought up the reading. http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23531.45.html
-
Thank you Jack, really appreciated. Yes you are right in what you say. No nothing more is needed or wanted by me at least.
I had not seen this. He had plenty of opportunity to write this when I WAS reading him to post something like this, it was simply bad timing on his part the I had stopped reading him by this point. I had not seen it at all.
It is what it is though and took more guts and responsibility than I had otherwise credited him for.
I don't like him as a personality but in light of this I will ignore anything shifty he has said prior to this date and stop stirring him up. Fairs fair. (Not that difficult, I am out of the habit of reading him and will probably not read that much of what he said.
Thanks again Jack.
Doesn't mean he can't pass me off in future but I am happy dropping hostilities with him.
-
....and things are not resolving.
Actually, this is kinda my point. Does everything need resolved?
I'm not saying you were wrong to call out Odeon over this. Truth is, I've not read enough of this to form any opinion over the rights and wrongs of the argument.
But, at what point do you just say "looks like we'll have to agree to disagree?"
This has been going on for over 2 months now, and there seems to be no end in sight. Would it not be better to move on?
Yes, it would. This is not leading anywhere. I will not agree with Al, and he will not agree with me, but what might happen is that the arguments degrade further and turn nasty. I have been tempted, and I'm sure he has been. The signs are there.
As things are now, it's a rehash of what's already been said.
What does annoy me is that he thinks I must be dishonest or pretend to be stupid for not agreeing with him. This is probably the only reason I care enough to continue this, and it's why I sometimes feel like flaming him all the way to the Kuiper belt and back. A couple of years ago, I might have.
You CAN try that approach. I am not concerned that you may. I do not think that will resolve things. That is simply a prediction. May work wonders for you.. It would be no worse that your "tutoring" nonsense and probably more honest too.
My "tutoring nonsense" is no worse than your hidden agenda bs. :M
-
Thank you Jack, really appreciated. Yes you are right in what you say. No nothing more is needed or wanted by me at least.
I had not seen this. He had plenty of opportunity to write this when I WAS reading him to post something like this, it was simply bad timing on his part the I had stopped reading him by this point. I had not seen it at all.
It is what it is though and took more guts and responsibility than I had otherwise credited him for.
I don't like him as a personality but in light of this I will ignore anything shifty he has said prior to this date and stop stirring him up. Fairs fair. (Not that difficult, I am out of the habit of reading him and will probably not read that much of what he said.
Thanks again Jack.
Doesn't mean he can't pass me off in future but I am happy dropping hostilities with him.
And this is what I've been saying all along. You took the easy way out by not reading him, then made a point out of it by posting ninja cats. And so missed that he did, in fact, change.
But "bad timing on his part"? Seriously, mate? You took the decision to stop reading him, surely the bad timing was yours?
-
....and things are not resolving.
Actually, this is kinda my point. Does everything need resolved?
I'm not saying you were wrong to call out Odeon over this. Truth is, I've not read enough of this to form any opinion over the rights and wrongs of the argument.
But, at what point do you just say "looks like we'll have to agree to disagree?"
This has been going on for over 2 months now, and there seems to be no end in sight. Would it not be better to move on?
Yes, it would. This is not leading anywhere. I will not agree with Al, and he will not agree with me, but what might happen is that the arguments degrade further and turn nasty. I have been tempted, and I'm sure he has been. The signs are there.
As things are now, it's a rehash of what's already been said.
What does annoy me is that he thinks I must be dishonest or pretend to be stupid for not agreeing with him. This is probably the only reason I care enough to continue this, and it's why I sometimes feel like flaming him all the way to the Kuiper belt and back. A couple of years ago, I might have.
You CAN try that approach. I am not concerned that you may. I do not think that will resolve things. That is simply a prediction. May work wonders for you.. It would be no worse that your "tutoring" nonsense and probably more honest too.
My "tutoring nonsense" is no worse than your hidden agenda bs. :M
Really? Okay. I believe there is a "hidden agenda". You may say that is crazy or wrong or whatever BUT I think this whole "if you did not do X I would not have done Y" type talk is evidencing this, as is the talk about how I post ninja cats, as the weakness of your peripheral arguments. (Your main argument is simplistic and subjective BUT not as weak as the others, that have died or morphed along the way)
I originally thought you were being dishonest and deliberately (and look at my earliest posts in my callout saying this). I was a bit incensed that you were projecting ignorance of what I saw as perfectly transparent. You were pissed off with me and sought a weak stance and a whole heap of weaker insinuations and claims to distract or pushback at me as retaliation for the endless cat pics and feuding with Zegh. I mean it sure looked pretty cut and dried. It was about this and about trying to garner an amount of shaming or self-censoring on my part. It was EVEN understandable.
But then you never admitted it. You made allusions to it. Then strangely ironic projection it at me. The "Blindspot". It felt like mocking BUT I then started thinking 'Maybe it is NOT something he is consciously aware of".
So "YES" I still believe this "hidden agenda bs".
But you in turn do not believe this tutoring thing. Not for a second. It was simply you mocking. It was transparent. What is curious here, is that I credit you with intellect and good argumentative skills. I am in fact disappointed when you lower the bar BECAUSE I think you ARE better than that. You are not stupid even if occasionally you post stupid things and sometimes for stupid reasons. You are human. Sometimes too you contradict yourself and again I do not expect you to be an inhuman robot.
You though consider this "tutor" bullshit as a distracting or points scoring exercise and ultimately it is obvious, transparent, petty AND.........you do not believe it. Its stupid and an ill-thought out tactic. I consider it a lapse of judgement.
Comparing your tutor bullshit and my hidden agenda "bs" is like comparing night and day.
-
Thank you Jack, really appreciated. Yes you are right in what you say. No nothing more is needed or wanted by me at least.
I had not seen this. He had plenty of opportunity to write this when I WAS reading him to post something like this, it was simply bad timing on his part the I had stopped reading him by this point. I had not seen it at all.
It is what it is though and took more guts and responsibility than I had otherwise credited him for.
I don't like him as a personality but in light of this I will ignore anything shifty he has said prior to this date and stop stirring him up. Fairs fair. (Not that difficult, I am out of the habit of reading him and will probably not read that much of what he said).
Thanks again Jack.
Doesn't mean he can't piss me off in future but I am happy dropping hostilities with him.
And this is what I've been saying all along. You took the easy way out by not reading him, then made a point out of it by posting ninja cats. And so missed that he did, in fact, change.
But "bad timing on his part"? Seriously, mate? You took the decision to stop reading him, surely the bad timing was yours?
Okay I have had a couple of bourbons and I am chuckling to myself here. But I do not blame it on the bourbons entirely. Why?
Bad timing? Yup. You say it is bad timing on my part not on his? You say "Pah-Tah-Toes" and I say "Poh-tay-toes". You know what it doesn't matter. At this point you are simply being contrary. The situation is the same.
Zegh started shit and I responded and he responded back. It got shitty. I got sick of reading what he wrote. I started randomly insulting him and stirring him up, he did whatever he was doing. But a couple of months ago he THEN decided to respond to me and admit his part in things and try to resolve things. He had months he COULD have resolved it when I was still responding to what he was saying and communicating. He didn't. He held off until I was not reading him.
Now there IS a point to the argument of "Hurr Durr how could he have known you would stop reading him? Well he couldn't. BUT at the same time, I only stopped reading him is because he stopped being worth reading to me because he was posting non-stop crap. So there is another equally valid argument of should he have tried to resolve things WAY earlier than holding out until the other party has lost interest in engaging reasonably with you?
So I fully expect you to take the anti-me side but I consider both positions and do not see your position as better. It is a moot point.
NOW here is why I was laughing. Yes, I have mocked your arguments here as weak and toothless and often disingenuous BUT with THIS statement:
And this is what I've been saying all along
"What you have been saying all along"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85b5iY5b-E
Yes you are horribly consistent. I simply do not get you and your arguments. Odeon, My Tutor.
ONE
You don't need to go any further than this thread. I believe he's said Zegh is full of shit in this thread while saying that he doesn't read his posts.
Oh, and Al:
"Full of shit" was always just a phrase, an expression. The fact that you only caught on late in the game doesn't change that, it only shows that I made a mistake in assuming that you'd recognise it for what it was.
So this "full of shit was simply an expression right? Consistent?
TWO
I agreed that "pretending" was a poor choice of words. I didn't say you were dishonest, you did.
Oh, and I don't recall using "dishonest" without a qualifier, either a direct one or one that should be clear from the context in which it was made. Do you know why this is? Simple, mate, it's because I don't think you are a dishonest person.
Consistency
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. 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?
THREE
I was trying to be nice as you are a mate, but also, I believe the blind spot argument was about you and DFG rather than you and Zegh (but feel free to check if you like). Your intellectual dishonesty was, and is, about how you act around Zegh.
Consistency
Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
FOUR
"Get a life" is about you obsessing over all this. Or are you saying that you aren't? No hypocrisy, just weariness, plus the fact that if you think the two expressions in themselves mean ANYTHING, then you are still not getting it.
Consistency
You don't need to go any further than this thread. I believe he's said Zegh is full of shit in this thread while saying that he doesn't read his posts
FIVE
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?
Consistency
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.
SIX
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.
Consistency
For fuck's sake, I didn't object to the word
SEVEN
At some point, Al started tiptoeing around DFG whenever they were both attacking Zegh.
Consistency!
You make a good argument and I accept your explanation. I think I was wrong about it
EIGHT
Al will continue posting ninja cats in response while stating that he doesn't read Zegh's posts. This, of course, also means that no discussion between them is possible, which means that resolving the differences is not possible.
Okay. You were right all along, right? Put your money equally on black and red and I bet you win SOME money every time. Not very Intellectually honest though, surely?
Thank you Jack, really appreciated. Yes you are right in what you say. No nothing more is needed or wanted by me at least.
I had not seen this. He had plenty of opportunity to write this when I WAS reading him to post something like this, it was simply bad timing on his part that I had stopped reading him by this point. I had not seen it at all.
It is what it is though and took more guts and responsibility than I had otherwise credited him for.
I don't like him as a personality but in light of this I will ignore anything shifty he has said prior to this date and stop stirring him up. Fairs fair. (Not that difficult, I am out of the habit of reading him and will probably not read that much of what he said.
Thanks again Jack.
Doesn't mean he can't piss me off in future but I am happy dropping hostilities with him.
(http://thefunniestpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/funny-pics-al-catpone.jpg)
Meet Bruce - Gangsta cat.
-
Wow. For a second there I thought this shit might de-escalate into something less boring.
-
Wow. For a second there I thought this shit might de-escalate into something less boring.
Hard luck there Hubert. Not to be
-
And... you still don't get it. Don't worry, I didn't expect you to. I tried to help but I can only do so much. Forget about tutoring, you have to do some stuff on your own. How else will you learn?
Sort of amusing to read your latest work, though, especially where you try to categorise and compare my posts. It's embarrassingly clear that you just don't get it, but amusing nevertheless. But then again, I'm having a beer, it's Friday evening and my only purpose now is to relax.
And... next!
-
It's not destroying the site. :laugh: Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.
I agree with what you say. Odeon might be acting like a smart arse but he is not acting smart in pretending I or you or anyone else here has difficulties in understanding what intellectual dishonesty is. It comes across as pandering to the idea that his opponents don't understand phrases or concepts and therefore needs to play tutor before they can have an opinion whether he is wrong. Each time he posts a definition as a rebuke., he is engaging in this.
Yet in his apparent stellar post he tries justifying this. It's weak, transparent and smells like bullshit. Tell me, according to the definition of intellectual dishonesty whether THAT ticks a few boxes?
I will answer him tonight
I would call him more intellectually bankrupt. That probably leads to the dishonesty. He pretends to be all knowing, but he knows nothing.
-
It's not destroying the site. :laugh: Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.
I agree with what you say. Odeon might be acting like a smart arse but he is not acting smart in pretending I or you or anyone else here has difficulties in understanding what intellectual dishonesty is. It comes across as pandering to the idea that his opponents don't understand phrases or concepts and therefore needs to play tutor before they can have an opinion whether he is wrong. Each time he posts a definition as a rebuke., he is engaging in this.
Yet in his apparent stellar post he tries justifying this. It's weak, transparent and smells like bullshit. Tell me, according to the definition of intellectual dishonesty whether THAT ticks a few boxes?
I will answer him tonight
I would call him more intellectually bankrupt. That probably leads to the dishonesty. He pretends to be all knowing, but he knows nothing.
Get your own callout, Benji. Al has the courage to stand up for what he thinks is right. What do you have? Someone else's platitudes copied and pasted into a borrowed thread?
-
I just wanted to respond to Al's point.
-
Al:
How about us letting go of this thing now? I don't see anything good can come out of it, only bad stuff, and it's just not worth it.
-
I just wanted to respond to Al's point.
Fucking coward.
-
I just wanted to respond to Al's point.
Fucking coward.
:lol1:
Cause I won't do a callout? I'm just not interested and don't take the site's traditions very seriously.
-
I just wanted to respond to Al's point.
Fucking coward.
:lol1:
Cause I won't do a callout? I'm just not interested and don't take the site's traditions very seriously.
You are a coward because you are afraid to live your true life with your true self. Be proud man. :ghey:
-
You probably do actually have some kind of fetish about me being gay. It's okay, you can store me in your wank bank if it means that much to you.
-
And... you still don't get it. Don't worry, I didn't expect you to. I tried to help but I can only do so much. Forget about tutoring, you have to do some stuff on your own. How else will you learn?
Sort of amusing to read your latest work, though, especially where you try to categorise and compare my posts. It's embarrassingly clear that you just don't get it, but amusing nevertheless. But then again, I'm having a beer, it's Friday evening and my only purpose now is to relax.
And... next!
Al:
How about us letting go of this thing now? I don't see anything good can come out of it, only bad stuff, and it's just not worth it.
"Try"? Hey I did fantastic. Especially considering it was Friday night, Bourbon Night.
I think you give yourself far too much credit and me far to little, but then that in itself amuses me too. I had a good laugh picking through the previous replies.
Contradictions reigned supreme and I had yet to collate them all together. I had a suspicion Just like how you previously adopted the mantra, now you would go to your new catchphrase "You just don't get it".
I read this as "You have shown my previous points wrong or weak or contradictory....its your fault you do not see them as worthy, not mine. They were good points all along"
The irony of course underlying all of these interactions is that were I Intellectually dishonest, it is HIGHLY unlikely that you would be having a hard time pointing out where I was intellectually dishonest and you sure as Hell would not be saying "You just don't get it". I imagine it could be theoretically possible for someone who IS intellectually dishonest to not get it and for the person accusing them of being so not to be able to do so effectively after 2 or 3 months, BUT it is not likely.
Far more likely is that the Intellectual dishonesty is blatant if it was noticed enough to be called on the months earlier and the accused once pointed out would not be able to extricate themselves from their actions AND would be aware of exactly what they were doing. Not so here.
What is more likely? "You don't get it". Maybe, just maybe, there was nothing to "get". Maybe the efforts you have gone to and the contradictions you have made along the way, the points you have dropped, the similar behaviours you have portrayed, the sheer amount of time and energy you have made defending weak positions weakly was NEVER about Intellectual Dishonesty.
Its only my thoughts. I, unlike you, have remained pretty consistent on this. Maybe I was never Intellectually Dishonest in this. Maybe YOU had an ill-thought out position that you uncharacteristically ran with and then equally uncharacteristically doubled down on BECAUSE you had simply reached the point of your endurance with what was happening with Zegh and I. Any more cat pictures or me not reading Zegh when I "should have" or commenting when I "shouldn't have" and you would give me a piece of you mind and try shaming me into inaction. Maybe in doing so I would stop fighting Zegh or maybe it would encourage the board through the Peanut Gallery to condemn me and my actions and/or arguments. Hell maybe you even believed your arguments a little.
But it did not work. The Peanut Gallery remained pretty silent. I doubled down. I exposed the weakness in your overall argument and other tangentials you introduced. Though you tried stepping away from the worst of the tangential arguments and you asked many many times for me to drop it - it did not work, you even apologised for upsetting me - that did not work, you tried condescending to me like a tutor - that did not work. You now try to threaten things getting nasty if this keeps going on. I am fine with that, Odeon. Bring it to the table.
I resolved things with my beef with Zegh but not you, not nearly. You want to get nasty? That is your choice but that will not give me cause for concern nor would I shy from it. Alternatively you could keep your "You don't get it shield" up high against anything I say. A third option is far less radical. You COULD address the points I make and make your own. You know.....back yourself on IntensitySquared. I know what you were trying to say with this "I can't tutor you, tutor yourself" (Paraphrased .... yes, yes, that thing I have no idea about. LOL) But it comes across as "I cannot make any points I can adequately defend and my attempts at condescending you failed miserably. Stop picking out flaws in what I said about you".
As a last point
Al:
How about us letting go of this thing now? I don't see anything good can come out of it, only bad stuff, and it's just not worth it.
It was worth it for you in the first place to say, it is worth it for me to defend against. The fact you misjudged the outcome is not on me in the slightest. Simply a bad choice to say it and then double down on it.
-
For fuck's sake, Al. I asked if you'd be willing to let this thing go because it's not going anywhere, it's just getting nastier and I was hoping continuing to be friends rather than letting this escalate. It's not the same as saying I agree with your arguments... cos I don't. I haven't changed my mind, I simply thought it might be a good idea to agree to disagree, as someone said.
But if you don't want to do that, then fine. Seeing that you started yet another thread, I guess you don't.
-
For fuck's sake, Al. I asked if you'd be willing to let this thing go because it's not going anywhere, it's just getting nastier and I was hoping continuing to be friends rather than letting this escalate. It's not the same as saying I agree with your arguments... cos I don't. I haven't changed my mind, I simply thought it might be a good idea to agree to disagree, as someone said.
But if you don't want to do that, then fine. Seeing that you started yet another thread, I guess you don't.
What were you hoping to resolve starting this this up 3 months ago? Being that we are mates, and you want to continue to be friends, that is great, BUT how matey did you think it was accusing me of being intellectually dishonest and under such weak pretext? What about tutoring me like I am an intellectual child? Is THAT mateship?
So now ME continuing this on, is a bar to friendship. I understand emotional blackmail and I am not playing.
I do not think that you did not believe I would not react. In fact I think you were counting on a reaction. You got it. You do not particularly like the reaction nor that it has gone on so long. That I get. What I do not get, is that you think you then have the platform to try emotional blackmail, nor that you have the moral position by which to do so.
I have put a few things to you which look very much like contradictions. It appears to me that these things are not mutual inclusive positions. It looks to me like that intellectual dishonesty definition may need to be re-visited and applied to YOUR contradictions.
I believe in fair, Odeon. Accusing me of intellectual dishonesty when it is unwarranted and on weak reasoning is neither fair nor reasonable.
Same with trying to pretend that I am an intellectual child and same with emotional blackmail.
You may say what I am doing is not fair, but what is that? Demanding you back positions and things you have said and things about me? That is completely fair and in the spirit of this place. I will not pretend you are an intellectual midget in doing so and neither will I threaten friendship over it. I consider that poor form.
-
Of course I wanted a reaction, three months ago. I thought then, and think now, that you were being intellectually dishonest, that you took the easy way out, when it comes to Zegh. You know perfectly well why I think so. You may not agree, but you know nevertheless, because I have explained why. It doesn't actually matter you called my arguments weak because you never convinced me I was wrong about it. It takes more than you saying so, even if you turn it to a mantra.
And it doesn't help that you indirectly, and sometimes directly, imply I am acting dishonestly, that I have a hidden agenda. I don't. It's not about me being tired of the ninja cats. As I've said several times, if you want to go on chasing Zegh across the board, fine. Do it. He was always able to handle you.
Now, of course, it turns out that you were wrong about him. You might have found out about it yourself but you were too busy posting ninja cats. In other words, you were too busy taking the easy way out. Case closed, I'd say, because this is exactly what I meant and exactly why you were being intellectually dishonest according to the definition I provided.
But emotional blackmail? Really, mate? Is that what you want to call it when I'm trying to end this because I think continuing being friends might be a tad more important than a three-month argument on an internet message board that isn't going anywhere? Fine, if you think that's what it was, I won't bother you with a peace offering again.
So let me address your misconceptions, even though you have already lost this one.
One:
Yes, it was always only an expression. You took it literally the first time around, which I didn't realise at the time. What it meant then and what it means now is that your words and actions both showed that no matter what, Zegh was "full of shit", that he couldn't change. I think you mentioned that latter bit, too, btw. My point, on the other hand, was that you should instead have either read his posts to find out for yourself, if you were following him around anyway, or stopped following him but with your convictions intact.
Two:
Yes, it would appear that I called you dishonest without the qualifier. I addressed what that post was about:
Don't pretend that you're replying to Zegh only because he did it first, that's all I'm saying.
Isn't that exactly what happened?
I haven't been pretending a damn thing and whether I replied first or he did, I don't believe I have made any indication one way or another that I am replying to him for that reason and I am"pretending" Nothing.
Odeon can no doubt tell us that he was not making decrees or demands as the owner of the board about what I can say or do. He can also make a case as to what pretence of mine he is referencing.
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.
Show me exactly what I have pretended and whilst you do that I will show again and again that I said that I do enjoy it.
Odeon are you an Aspie, or a male, or a resident of Sweden?
Pick one and do not pretend to be anything other than that one specific thing you pick.
How fucking stupid would that statement be? Tell me you are not doing the same. I WILL find where I said I enjoy this.
Up to you now to show what exactly I am pretending.
This one was what I replied to, after skimming through a couple of your previous ones:
My misunderstanding then. Personally not gooad at reading between the lines, and sometimes read things between the lines which aren't really there. :laugh:
No you were on the money. If Zegh thinks I read his posts religiously and the PM's he sends me, I am chuffed. Not reading someone's posts and answering them without sounding vague, non-specific or random is tricky. If I do a good job, I am pleased. Since the Twilight posts and the Neanderthal face painting posts I had started skimming and not long after that I stopped reading his. Glad my posting doesn't suffer too much and he believes I still am reading his twaddle.
Here's what I don't get:
If you don't read his posts, why reply to them? What's the point?
Great question.
I am actually surprised no one asked it earlier.
Disclaimer. I am really drunk - Long weekend (and see condolence for $130 thread I wrote earlier) and so I may not do the explanation justice but...
I honestly think it evolved from the Neanderthal face (testicle)Painters and then the "Twilight" threads and evolved from there. I realised just how worthless his threads were. There was actually MORE benefit skimming them.
I had called him out many times on blatant dishonesty. He was being condescending and I could not appreciate from what moral or intellectual platform or position he thought he was humouring me from.
What if I did not respond to him and what if I did not read him. One question was easily answered. He talked bullshit and was a smarmy, sarcastic git. Why read him? Why feed his ego?
At the same time, I had really enjoyed giving him shit/mocking him/criticising him.
Skimming his posts and replying had been a lot of fun. But if I couldn't read him at all???
Trickier but not impossible and I realised that he kept responding. Sometimes with pictures to give me a hint at what he was going on about. Sometimes lengthy posts with Caps lock which I could only imagine would be lengthy diatribes, other times shorter posts which I imagined snappy smarmy putdowns. But to help me out, I had three supports, My previous posts to gauge what "I" had had said, to which he was replying to (or if Psychofreak had replied, her post) to guide me as to what his response would be, I had my knowledge of him, and lastly I had people's replied to his bullshit.
8 Months in and you look for additional challenges ("Ninja Cat" memes, Template memes, skimming him, not reading him, or whatever).
Relying on this, how do I do? Apparently okay. I am coherent enough apparently.
You will notice I do often hedge my bets and give multiple choice ("You are either doing x, y or z"). Even so, my ego is I do more right than not because he is still posting at me.
This, to me, is one of your more ambivalent posts. On one hand, you seem to be claiming that you don't read his posts but at the same time, the opposite seems to be true as well. You say that you think he is posting bullshit which is kind of hard to know if you don't actually read the posts. It's also hard to know what, exactly, he did promise to do for 30 days if you don't read his posts.
I'm pretty sure the various ninja cats and whatnot were the results of not reading Zegh's posts, which is why many of them are just off and rather pointless.
I think you reply because you enjoy it regardless of who started what and when, and I'm glad we seem to agree on that point. It just seems to me that you were pretending to have other reasons as well, which is why I replied. Happy to be wrong, though.
I tend to prefer your non-Zegh posts, though, so I probably won't be reading the Zegh ones. I' might skim through them.
Reading your next quote from me, I fail to spot the inconsistency. I'm sure you had a point but you failed to make it.
Three:
I said this:
Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
Why not quote the context?
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.
I know, it makes it a lot harder to prove an inconsistency, but I think you mentioned something about believing in fairness. Fair is to quote the context instead of trying to make cheap and ultimately worthless points.
Five:
Where is the inconsistency in me first stating that reading pretence into your actions is my *impression* and then, a week later, saying that I regret using that word when intellectual dishonesty is what I was after? I can admit it when I think I was using the wrong word. Can you?
Six:
As a champion of fairness, be honest enough to quote context. Here is the first:
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.
And here is the second:
Seriously, mate?
Seriously.
Hey I did not bring that up as an issue. But IF it is an issue. We should really get to a point where we know what is "acceptable". IS "dogpiling" and "mobbing" okay? I would not have thought twice about it previously. Then again I would not have thought "ganging up" was a bad turn of phrase.
YOU obviously do and put a lot of investment into it as the quotes above show. It IS important OR its not. IF it isn't then it ought never have been a point to your callout.
I did not think it was. YOU did. I am after other opinions on it.
For fuck's sake, I didn't object to the word, I objected to you stating that Butterflies was ganging up with somebody. She did, too, which is why I thought you decided to drop it. How is it possible that you so completely misread what I was saying?
Unless you are butthurt over a callout that didn't get you anywhere.
As you can see, it's not about the phrase, it's about you stating that Butterflies ganged up with somebody. You obviously had a problem with the phrase, though, considering you started a thread about it.
But all I wanted to say was that you said Butterflies was doing something she said she wasn't.
Seven:
Yes, I thought you made a good argument. I thought you liked fairness and listening to one another's points, and admitting fault. Do you want me to take it back?
Eight:
I'm sorry but did you have an actual point here? You had Jack do the hard lifting for you. You were still taking the easy way out. Kind of a bitch when it turns out that you were wrong, isn't it?
Finally:
I realise that no matter what I say, this will continue. I think you are unable to back down now, for whatever reason, and I think it is
unfortunate. It is your choice, though, and I shall try not being too nasty.
-
And here is a message to Scrap:
If you think I am being inconsistent or dishonest, prove it. Call me out. Don't hide in other people's threads like a little girl.
Or is it that you don't feel safe if you call me out?
-
Of course I wanted a reaction, three months ago. I thought then, and think now, that you were being intellectually dishonest, that you took the easy way out, when it comes to Zegh. You know perfectly well why I think so. You may not agree, but you know nevertheless, because I have explained why. It doesn't actually matter you called my arguments weak because you never convinced me I was wrong about it. It takes more than you saying so, even if you turn it to a mantra.
Then be of good cheer Odeon. You wanted a reaction 3 months ago and three months ago you got a reaction. Probably a bigger reaction than you ever imagined. :party:
And it doesn't help that you indirectly, and sometimes directly, imply I am acting dishonestly, that I have a hidden agenda. I don't. It's not about me being tired of the ninja cats. As I've said several times, if you want to go on chasing Zegh across the board, fine. Do it. He was always able to handle you.
Why would I chase him around the board? I have resolved things with him for the past.
If you wish for more ninja cats you do not have to plead for the seeing of them. I have them in abundance.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/cats/images/1/1e/Meme_defy_gravity.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140411161145&path-prefix=en)
I call this one Neo.
:neo: :neo: :neo: :neo: :neo: :neo: :neo:
It does not help that I see no substance behind what you say and what looks like contradictions and inconsistencies in your message along 3 months.
I am a pretty easy person to figure. I say what I think and will do so one novel at a time. That is me. My message today is pretty much identical to what it was 3 months ago. It may make me predictable or stubborn or opinionated and an absolute pain in the arse BUT it is transparent, honest and consistent with my set of values. (Which ironically flies in the face of the kind of mindset needed for intellectual dishonesty).
Now, of course, it turns out that you were wrong about him. You might have found out about it yourself but you were too busy posting ninja cats. In other words, you were too busy taking the easy way out. Case closed, I'd say, because this is exactly what I meant and exactly why you were being intellectually dishonest according to the definition I provided.
I was wrong about him? Well, without starting things up again, I really do not think so. I think I was spot on with him and I read a few random posts the last few days until I well and truly had my fill, just to confirm.
That said, I am happy to give credit where credit is due. At one point in this and after obviously more than a little coaxing and thought he did try to bridge the gap. That WAS him and I am please to recognise that. Took some guts. That is why I have called off hostilities with him. Jack was right, it WAS what I wanted from him and I got it.
Now taking that anomaly aside. I (as I say) looked at a few posts he has made in the last 3 months, some that I stopped myself from reacting to, and to a post they were exactly what I had been saying. In fact when you were promoting the "How would you know if you do not read him", well now I have and I was NOT wrong in my estimation.
This is looking to me like "Well my initial callout was based around your behaviour in the feuding between you and Zegh and now that you two are squared away, I think we should pretend that I said nothing. My underlying issue for baiting you in the first place is resolved so..." No.
But emotional blackmail? Really, mate? Is that what you want to call it when I'm trying to end this because I think continuing being friends might be a tad more important than a three-month argument on an internet message board that isn't going anywhere? Fine, if you think that's what it was, I won't bother you with a peace offering again.
Yes "really mate". It absolutely is emotional blackmail. It says quite transparently "If you do not drop this argument, we can't be friends. Chose the argument or my friendship". I do not play that game. Never have and never will. Makes me inclined to want to dig my heels in when I feel like I am being played.
As to whether or not you offer peace offerings, I do not believe I asked for that, in the same way I never asked for you baiting me in the first place.
So let me address your misconceptions, even though you have already lost this one.
I have yet to see me having lost anything so THAT may be the biggest misconception of them all....but not on my end.
Yes, it was always only an expression. You took it literally the first time around, which I didn't realise at the time. What it meant then and what it means now is that your words and actions both showed that no matter what, Zegh was "full of shit", that he couldn't change. I think you mentioned that latter bit, too, btw. My point, on the other hand, was that you should instead have either read his posts to find out for yourself, if you were following him around anyway, or stopped following him but with your convictions intact.
"Should have" or "could have"? There is no specific designated to do much of anything here. That is simply you subscribing YOUR want of how "I" have to behave on here. Here is the answer to any such expectation (in advance and without you expressing any specific action or behaviour) "No, Odeon, but thank you for the suggestion".
See once that is out the way then it becomes a question of whilst I could, why should I? I know you have a very specific reading of intellectual dishonesty and want to apply it a very specific way but it really does not do what you want it to do. Here is what I mean. Its silly to say "If you subscribe to the idea or concept of a word then you subscribe to every possible negative connotation of what the word may remotely imply when carrying through this concept to absurd extremes."
Maybe sometimes a specific reading or a literal reading is better and I dare say more healthier and honest.
Want an example?
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
Recognise this? Yes, its part of your Intellectual Dishonesty definition. But it is not just any part of the definition/explanation. It is the part that you think thoroughly supports your position. You believe because you think that my behaviour meets an interpretation of what this part of an explanation of Intellectual Dishonesty, that is it a slam dunk or game, set and match.
Unless we see how this same interpretation may play out in ANY other environment. Pick a polarising figure. Let use Trump. Most people have an opinion on him and most people know who he is. Go up to a friend, colleague, or a random, and ask them this "What do you think of Donald Trump and why?" Now whatever their answer, I want you to say "But you have not heard everything they said and in fact I bet you have hard listened to anything but a few soundbytes or a couple of other people's interpretations. 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".
I double dare you. :mischief: Truth is that these people having such an opinion on Donald Trump is not Intellectually Dishonest, and neither was I for exactly the same reasons. In the same reason that these people do NOT need to watch or read more to have a better informed decision to mitigate risk in being intellectually dishonest, is the same reason I don't.
You need to have a bit more. Now what if with these people you were to say "Look, I have some better arguments, and can show you that you were incorrect". Well it depends. Maybe you don't have better arguments, or dont have what THEY consider better arguments, maybe they have other reasons for not wishing to hear more ("Dude you are harassing me on a street, I don't even know you"). BUT in the event that they do listen or see a different point of view, then them now agreeing with a new position, or changing their mind is not intellectually dishonest, nor does it mean/suggest/imply that they were intellectually dishonest in the first place.
Had I not been saying quite clearly, "If I am wrong show me"? (paraphrased Just letting you know I still know what that means, my Tutor). If you do not believe me, I can show quotes to back this, because you know I do not have a problem in backing myself (Something I would struggle with IF I was Intellectually Dishonest, right?). So my reaction and my conduct is not intellectually dishonest. In fact for all my "not getting it" and being "too literal" I am very honest and transparent and consistent.
This is akin to the following situation:
Odeon: "What do you think of Donald Trump and why?"
Workmate: "He is America's only hope. Go Trump!/He is a racist, sexist, hateful bigot that is all bluster and bad hair"
Odeon: "But you have not heard everything they said and in fact I bet you have hard listened to anything but a few soundbytes or a couple of other people's interpretations. 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"
Workmate: Fuck you.
Odeon: Haha fair call, what an idiot I was promoting this interpretation of what Intellectual dishonesty is. But hey out of interest could you look at this unfiltered and unedited clip of Trump, it may make you change your mind about something.
Workmate: Sure I guess
<<Watches Clip>>
Workmate: Well I initially thought he is America's only hope. Go Trump!/He is a racist, sexist, hateful bigot that is all bluster and bad hair BUT now, in light of this new piece of information that I was not aware of I think he is He is a racist, sexist, hateful bigot that is all bluster and bad hair/he is America's only hope. Go Trump!
Odeon: Well all's well that ends well. You know, you were not intellectually dishonest after all. It was a silly interpretation. In fact intellectual dishonesty is more about intent and whether people are being open and honest in the way they look at things. You appeared honest in your opinions, transparent, and open to new information, BUT you were not obliged to have to see everything of him to have an opinion. I mean when did you last read or actually watch anything of him?
Workmate: I dunno six months?
Odeon: But there, you had strong opinions regardless and they were not intellectually dishonest to have nor were you wrong in having or expressing them. So I was wrong saying you were intellectually dishonest.
Workmate: Dude are you tutoring me here?
Odeon: I like tutoring and pretending you are too stupid to have concepts or ideas of your own.
Can you see the flaw? (BTW My opinion of Zegh has not changed. But because he did all I asked I will not pursue hostilities, let's not try to confuse issues, right?)
Yes, it would appear that I called you dishonest without the qualifier. I addressed what that post was about:
Lots of exchange between us
Reading your next quote from me, I fail to spot the inconsistency. I'm sure you had a point but you failed to make it.
Yes you called me dishonest without a qualifier, in the same way you said I was pretending and in the same way you said I was trying to be dramatic and infer something nasty in the term "ganging up" and in the same way you said I was tiptoeing. All of it was as wrong.
They were just as wrong as the Intellectual Dishonesty claim. They are all separate claims you made at me at different times and you made each of those charges for a reaction from me that you are now enjoying. Just as well we are mates.
As for the second point yes I was never dishonest about calling him out on his dishonesty nor dishonest about not reading him. If so show me what dishonest thing that I said. Back yourself. You will have to do a damn sight better than something generic like "Zegh is full of shit". Better also be something uniformed that I had no good reason to believe. No? So have you got an empty sack here or have you not?
I said this:
Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
Why not quote the context?
More discussion
I know, it makes it a lot harder to prove an inconsistency, but I think you mentioned something about believing in fairness. Fair is to quote the context instead of trying to make cheap and ultimately worthless points.
Because it would have made no difference. It is not worthless on your say so and your posting does not make it less inconsistent or moreso.
Is it intellectually dishonesty or a blindspot or something else completely. You seem to be hedging your bets $50 on red and $50 on black. THAT is the inconsistency. Moving between positions but not actually adopting either and no I believe that having a blindspot by its "blindness" is not intellectual dishonesty" (not that I find that an admirable trait nor a nice claim and not that I think I have a blindspot over all of this either). These are not a subsets of each other but rather different claims.
Where is the inconsistency in me first stating that reading pretence into your actions is my *impression* and then, a week later, saying that I regret using that word when intellectual dishonesty is what I was after? I can admit it when I think I was using the wrong word. Can you?
Sure can. Not sure I have had grounds to here.
Its more of the same. Dishonesty. Pretence. Intellectual Dishonesty. Tiptoeing. All the same to me. Defend them, abandon them, merge them into what you consider a better claim or change your mind. Its fine. I was simply shining a mirror to your posting history. You used the words you used and I am reacting to what you said. Which is what you wanted.
As a champion of fairness, be honest enough to quote context. Here is the first:
More discussion
As you can see, it's not about the phrase, it's about you stating that Butterflies ganged up with somebody. You obviously had a problem with the phrase, though, considering you started a thread about it.
But all I wanted to say was that you said Butterflies was doing something she said she wasn't.
Oh....."I" OBVIOUSLY had a problem with the phrase and THAT was my reason for starting a thread about it? Except, of course, that was not in any way shape or form correct. YOU had a problem with the phrase YOU said here in what you quoted
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.
That was not me. That was YOU. 100% YOU. I did not have an issue with the word. I objected with what you were implying of what I thought in my own head about the word, or how I meant to infer or imply anything. As a result I started a thread so that I had "better alternatives" to use, should ever such an occasion come again, when two or more members of Intensitysquared took an interest in another member, and were negatively interacting with that person. Got lots of suggestions too.
Let's keep it real. I did not have a problem with the word nor did I the action. You did. You SAY I meant the word to be dramatic. I didn't. You say I was trying to infer something nasty. I wasn't. Where that was taking place was in YOUR head, not mine. It was either just a phrase or it was something nasty and dramatic. I simply used it to say that Butterflies and Zegh were collectively "criticising" DFG. End of. No implication of anything more and no judgement. That was best left to you to try to make unwarranted mileage out of.
Yes, I thought you made a good argument. I thought you liked fairness and listening to one another's points, and admitting fault. Do you want me to take it back?
I do not really mind what you do. I mention this as part of a large pattern. You make unfounded claims to bait me and I react to them. A lot of these claims are neither fair, reasonable or strong claims. None of them are true.
Now you can say "Oh but I merged that claim or I retracted that claim". That is perfectly reasonable to point out. Each of these things individually and at their face is fine. BUT (and here is the point of it), collectively and given the relatively short period of time to consider each of these claims COLLECTIVELY it looks like a metaphoric shotgun blast. Shotgun pellets will scatter and do damage but much of it negligible. Whatever or whoever is the recipient of said shotgun blast need not concentrate on the damage of wayward pellets but ought to look at the whole blast and all the pellets collectively. Same intent, same purpose and part of a greater and collective blast.
They were all equally as wrong. They were all unfair. They were all said for a reaction. They all collectively got a reaction.
I'm sorry but did you have an actual point here? You had Jack do the hard lifting for you. You were still taking the easy way out. Kind of a bitch when it turns out that you were wrong, isn't it?
Hahaha. I dunno, Odeon when you realise you were wrong in all of this tell me just what a bitch it is.
Just so we are on the same page here because I would HATE to second guess or put words in your mouth. You are not so fucking stupid to for a second believe that the fact that, just because Zegh wrote his acceptance of his part in things, that this makes me wrong about what I thought about him or that he is now somehow right...?
No? Great! I did not think so. Whew, that could have got awkward.
Again I did not take the easy way out of ...anything. I have since read some of what he did say over the last six months and I now, after taking the "easier way" (to read what he said) I am more assured of how spot on my convictions about who and what he is were all along. Reading is SO much easier than trying not reading and keeping a semblance of what he is talking about and who. The fact that I was as close as I was, is testament to the effort involved. Great work me.
I will save you the next argument if you like:
Odeon: "Oh...but there was something you missed from him at one point, Al".
Al: "Yes, yes there was......and?"
Odeon: "So therefore I was right because he said something in 6 months that you did not read and because you did not read everything he said in 6 months...."
Al: "I will stop you there. IF I WAS reading what he wrote, its possible I would have missed it anyhow. No one here reads everything everyone says on every thread. In fact an example of this is EVERY Peanut Gallery ever. How many people have read this thread? Jack is unusual in that regard. In fact the fact that I missed it and Jack supplied it is great. It was a little gem amongst the shit pile and Jack found it. It was all cleared up. That says nothing bad about intellectual dishonesty and rather makes the opposite point. It makes a greater point for doing what I said, adhering to my values and principles, and being honest and transparent. It also does not change my overall impression of Zegh. I am glad he posted what he did and yes I will hold true to what I said i would do.
Odeon: "too literal.....don't get it....intellectual dishonesty.....easy way out.....don't get it....too literal..."
So could you be a bit clearer with your point because that one was shit.
I realise that no matter what I say, this will continue. I think you are unable to back down now, for whatever reason, and I think it is
unfortunate. It is your choice, though, and I shall try not being too nasty.
It was your choice too. This did not all come out of a vacuum. I hear a lot of "your choice, your choice, your choice" Not much about your part in things. As I said a few times. You wanted a reaction and you have one. Why be sad? You got a reaction. You want to get nasty over my reaction to you? Your choice. You want to blame me for reacting to your fishing for a reaction? Fine. You want to threaten friendship over it? Okay. You are right, choices are involved.
But you have some points to defend and opinions to back. I will leave you with it.
-
Of course I wanted a reaction, three months ago. I thought then, and think now, that you were being intellectually dishonest, that you took the easy way out, when it comes to Zegh. You know perfectly well why I think so. You may not agree, but you know nevertheless, because I have explained why. It doesn't actually matter you called my arguments weak because you never convinced me I was wrong about it. It takes more than you saying so, even if you turn it to a mantra.
Then be of good cheer Odeon. You wanted a reaction 3 months ago and three months ago you got a reaction. Probably a bigger reaction than you ever imagined. :party:
Three months of misconceptions and repetitions, combined with a refusal to accept other viewpoints than your own. Yes, I didn't expect that. I thought you would do better.
And it doesn't help that you indirectly, and sometimes directly, imply I am acting dishonestly, that I have a hidden agenda. I don't. It's not about me being tired of the ninja cats. As I've said several times, if you want to go on chasing Zegh across the board, fine. Do it. He was always able to handle you.
Why would I chase him around the board? I have resolved things with him for the past.
Jack resolved it for you. Without her, you would still be at it because you like to make things easy for yourself. A ninja cat was always funnier than bothering to read his posts. Why not admit it?
If you wish for more ninja cats you do not have to plead for the seeing of them. I have them in abundance.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/cats/images/1/1e/Meme_defy_gravity.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140411161145&path-prefix=en)
I call this one Neo.
:neo: :neo: :neo: :neo: :neo: :neo: :neo:
It does not help that I see no substance behind what you say and what looks like contradictions and inconsistencies in your message along 3 months.
I am a pretty easy person to figure. I say what I think and will do so one novel at a time. That is me. My message today is pretty much identical to what it was 3 months ago. It may make me predictable or stubborn or opinionated and an absolute pain in the arse BUT it is transparent, honest and consistent with my set of values. (Which ironically flies in the face of the kind of mindset needed for intellectual dishonesty).
Your values being "when I make up my mind, that's it until someone who is neutral will prove me wrong, in which case I transparently, honestly and consistently change my mind"?
Well done.
Now, of course, it turns out that you were wrong about him. You might have found out about it yourself but you were too busy posting ninja cats. In other words, you were too busy taking the easy way out. Case closed, I'd say, because this is exactly what I meant and exactly why you were being intellectually dishonest according to the definition I provided.
I was wrong about him? Well, without starting things up again, I really do not think so. I think I was spot on with him and I read a few random posts the last few days until I well and truly had my fill, just to confirm.
Except that you were. Otherwise you would still have been at it.
That said, I am happy to give credit where credit is due. At one point in this and after obviously more than a little coaxing and thought he did try to bridge the gap. That WAS him and I am please to recognise that. Took some guts. That is why I have called off hostilities with him. Jack was right, it WAS what I wanted from him and I got it.
Here is the thing: you'd never had seen it, or believed it, without Jack. You would have gone right on with your moronic hostilities, set in your beliefs.
You never considered ending what you were doing, he did, in spite of your steady stream oh hostile bullshit. Which, of course, means that it is you who needs help to change, not Zegh.
I expect the same to be true now, with me. I very much doubt anything I say will change your mind about anything. It would take someone else, someone neutral like Jack.
So yes, Jack was right. Which means that you were wrong.
Now taking that anomaly aside.
LOL
I (as I say) looked at a few posts he has made in the last 3 months, some that I stopped myself from reacting to, and to a post they were exactly what I had been saying. In fact when you were promoting the "How would you know if you do not read him", well now I have and I was NOT wrong in my estimation.
This is looking to me like "Well my initial callout was based around your behaviour in the feuding between you and Zegh and now that you two are squared away, I think we should pretend that I said nothing. My underlying issue for baiting you in the first place is resolved so..." No.
Says the guy who posted ninja cats and the like (an *expression*) for months. That is funny.
I suggested us to end this before Jack pointed out the errors of your ways, and actually again recently, not because I wanted to pretend anything but because I thought it would be better to move on. You called it emotional blackmail.
/shrugs
But emotional blackmail? Really, mate? Is that what you want to call it when I'm trying to end this because I think continuing being friends might be a tad more important than a three-month argument on an internet message board that isn't going anywhere? Fine, if you think that's what it was, I won't bother you with a peace offering again.
Yes "really mate". It absolutely is emotional blackmail. It says quite transparently "If you do not drop this argument, we can't be friends. Chose the argument or my friendship". I do not play that game. Never have and never will. Makes me inclined to want to dig my heels in when I feel like I am being played.
I'm glad you don't see this as a threat to our friendship, because I do. I think that if this escalates, which I suspect it will, it's going to be hard to be friends.
I don't want that, but neither do I want to be accused of emotional blackmail. I know what I meant when asking us to stop; you apparently don't.
Some years ago, I talked to a shrink about relationships. She pointed out that when two people disagree about the meaning behind something one of them said and can't agree, then with all things being equal, the interpretation should ultimately be up to the person who made the comment.
Her reasoning is that assuming that person tells the truth--which is advisable if the two actually want to resolve the differences instead of getting involved in a meta argument, an argument about the original argument that neither of them can win because that argument is always going to be about "he said, she said"--he or she will know why the comment was made.
I may be explaining this poorly, but essentially, you can either choose to accept my explanation about why I made the peace offering or choose to think I am lying. The former will resolve that particular argument while the latter will escalate it, as well as the ones that preceded it. You will have added another point of disagreement to the existing argument.
As to whether or not you offer peace offerings, I do not believe I asked for that, in the same way I never asked for you baiting me in the first place.
I never asked you to treat Zegh the way you did, either.
So let me address your misconceptions, even though you have already lost this one.
I have yet to see me having lost anything so THAT may be the biggest misconception of them all....but not on my end.
You were wrong about Zegh but needed a third party to point that out to you. You could have done it yourself but chose to not read his posts while making a point out of not reading him while stating how he was full of shit (an *expression*) and how he was unable to change.
Which is what I said, and which is why you lost.
Yes, it was always only an expression. You took it literally the first time around, which I didn't realise at the time. What it meant then and what it means now is that your words and actions both showed that no matter what, Zegh was "full of shit", that he couldn't change. I think you mentioned that latter bit, too, btw. My point, on the other hand, was that you should instead have either read his posts to find out for yourself, if you were following him around anyway, or stopped following him but with your convictions intact.
"Should have" or "could have"? There is no specific designated to do much of anything here. That is simply you subscribing YOUR want of how "I" have to behave on here. Here is the answer to any such expectation (in advance and without you expressing any specific action or behaviour) "No, Odeon, but thank you for the suggestion".
See once that is out the way then it becomes a question of whilst I could, why should I? I know you have a very specific reading of intellectual dishonesty and want to apply it a very specific way but it really does not do what you want it to do. Here is what I mean. Its silly to say "If you subscribe to the idea or concept of a word then you subscribe to every possible negative connotation of what the word may remotely imply when carrying through this concept to absurd extremes."
Maybe sometimes a specific reading or a literal reading is better and I dare say more healthier and honest.
Want an example?
No.
I told you why I think you were being intellectually dishonest. It was quite obvious then but even more obvious now. I know you disagree, but hey, that's life and and I have been proven right since.
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
Recognise this? Yes, its part of your Intellectual Dishonesty definition. But it is not just any part of the definition/explanation. It is the part that you think thoroughly supports your position. You believe because you think that my behaviour meets an interpretation of what this part of an explanation of Intellectual Dishonesty, that is it a slam dunk or game, set and match.
<snipped a pointless and irrelevant discussion and imagined conversation about whothefuckknowswhat>
Can you see the flaw? (BTW My opinion of Zegh has not changed. But because he did all I asked I will not pursue hostilities, let's not try to confuse issues, right?)
Which is your way of trying to convince someone, I really don't now who, that while proved wrong, you somehow weren't but you chose to stop hostilities anyway because that's just the kind of guy you are.
My bullshit detector just went off the scale.
Yes, it would appear that I called you dishonest without the qualifier. I addressed what that post was about:
Lots of exchange between us
Reading your next quote from me, I fail to spot the inconsistency. I'm sure you had a point but you failed to make it.
Yes you called me dishonest without a qualifier, in the same way you said I was pretending and in the same way you said I was trying to be dramatic and infer something nasty in the term "ganging up" and in the same way you said I was tiptoeing. All of it was as wrong.
They were just as wrong as the Intellectual Dishonesty claim. They are all separate claims you made at me at different times and you made each of those charges for a reaction from me that you are now enjoying. Just as well we are mates.
As for the second point yes I was never dishonest about calling him out on his dishonesty nor dishonest about not reading him. If so show me what dishonest thing that I said. Back yourself. You will have to do a damn sight better than something generic like "Zegh is full of shit". Better also be something uniformed that I had no good reason to believe. No? So have you got an empty sack here or have you not?
I said this:
Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
Why not quote the context?
More discussion
I know, it makes it a lot harder to prove an inconsistency, but I think you mentioned something about believing in fairness. Fair is to quote the context instead of trying to make cheap and ultimately worthless points.
Because it would have made no difference. It is not worthless on your say so and your posting does not make it less inconsistent or moreso.
Is it intellectually dishonesty or a blindspot or something else completely. You seem to be hedging your bets $50 on red and $50 on black. THAT is the inconsistency. Moving between positions but not actually adopting either and no I believe that having a blindspot by its "blindness" is not intellectual dishonesty" (not that I find that an admirable trait nor a nice claim and not that I think I have a blindspot over all of this either). These are not a subsets of each other but rather different claims.
I theorised about it being a blind spot rather than intellectual dishonesty, partly because I wanted to offer a more charitable explanation. See it as a way out for you.
You have since proved that it certainly wasn't a blind spot.
Where is the inconsistency in me first stating that reading pretence into your actions is my *impression* and then, a week later, saying that I regret using that word when intellectual dishonesty is what I was after? I can admit it when I think I was using the wrong word. Can you?
Sure can. Not sure I have had grounds to here.
Its more of the same. Dishonesty. Pretence. Intellectual Dishonesty. Tiptoeing. All the same to me. Defend them, abandon them, merge them into what you consider a better claim or change your mind. Its fine. I was simply shining a mirror to your posting history. You used the words you used and I am reacting to what you said. Which is what you wanted.
OK then, react to all of them. Me, I eventually picked intellectual dishonesty over the others because it convey what I'm after better. If you want to see it as inconsistency, by all means.
I don't know about you but I do change over time. As arguments evolve, I sometimes correct myself, if I think I was wrong about something or if I think of a better way of stating my points. I also admit I'm wrong if that is what the argument requires. Is that being inconsistent? Sure, why not, if you define inconsistency as changing one's views over time if proven wrong or if the original view was lacking in some respect.
If that is what you mean, then sure, I have been inconsistent in the past and I will surely be inconsistent again in the future. I do try to learn from whatever mistakes I have made, so yeah, sure.
Which brings me to intellectual dishonesty and taking the easy way out. I never claimed never to be guilty of that myself. I can think of instances where I've certainly taken the easy way out. I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be.
Are you?
As a champion of fairness, be honest enough to quote context. Here is the first:
More discussion
As you can see, it's not about the phrase, it's about you stating that Butterflies ganged up with somebody. You obviously had a problem with the phrase, though, considering you started a thread about it.
But all I wanted to say was that you said Butterflies was doing something she said she wasn't.
Oh....."I" OBVIOUSLY had a problem with the phrase and THAT was my reason for starting a thread about it? Except, of course, that was not in any way shape or form correct. YOU had a problem with the phrase YOU said here in what you quoted
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.
That was not me. That was YOU. 100% YOU. I did not have an issue with the word. I objected with what you were implying of what I thought in my own head about the word, or how I meant to infer or imply anything. As a result I started a thread so that I had "better alternatives" to use, should ever such an occasion come again, when two or more members of Intensitysquared took an interest in another member, and were negatively interacting with that person. Got lots of suggestions too.
Let's keep it real. I did not have a problem with the word nor did I the action. You did. You SAY I meant the word to be dramatic. I didn't. You say I was trying to infer something nasty. I wasn't. Where that was taking place was in YOUR head, not mine. It was either just a phrase or it was something nasty and dramatic. I simply used it to say that Butterflies and Zegh were collectively "criticising" DFG. End of. No implication of anything more and no judgement. That was best left to you to try to make unwarranted mileage out of.
Yes, I thought you made a good argument. I thought you liked fairness and listening to one another's points, and admitting fault. Do you want me to take it back?
I do not really mind what you do. I mention this as part of a large pattern. You make unfounded claims to bait me and I react to them. A lot of these claims are neither fair, reasonable or strong claims. None of them are true.
I did not say you were tiptoeing around DFG to bait you, I said it because that was my impression. An anomaly, as you say.
That one is a classic case of he said, she said, something that is impossible to prove, which is why I chose to accept your explanation. It made sense and you, I think, had the right of interpreting your actions, all else being equal.
But again, if you want me to take it back to feed your butthurt or whatever, I can.
Now you can say "Oh but I merged that claim or I retracted that claim". That is perfectly reasonable to point out. Each of these things individually and at their face is fine. BUT (and here is the point of it), collectively and given the relatively short period of time to consider each of these claims COLLECTIVELY it looks like a metaphoric shotgun blast.
A short time? Really?
Shotgun pellets will scatter and do damage but much of it negligible. Whatever or whoever is the recipient of said shotgun blast need not concentrate on the damage of wayward pellets but ought to look at the whole blast and all the pellets collectively. Same intent, same purpose and part of a greater and collective blast.
They were all equally as wrong. They were all unfair. They were all said for a reaction. They all collectively got a reaction.
Fine, I will not concede anything, ever, when arguing with you. ::)
But on a more serious note: it is clear that collectively, my comments did hurt you.
I'm sorry but did you have an actual point here? You had Jack do the hard lifting for you. You were still taking the easy way out. Kind of a bitch when it turns out that you were wrong, isn't it?
Hahaha. I dunno, Odeon when you realise you were wrong in all of this tell me just what a bitch it is.
Not going to happen. You already lost, which means I won.
Just so we are on the same page here because I would HATE to second guess or put words in your mouth. You are not so fucking stupid to for a second believe that the fact that, just because Zegh wrote his acceptance of his part in things, that this makes me wrong about what I thought about him or that he is now somehow right...?
Yes, I do think so. You did not expect it, in fact you claimed the opposite, that he was not able to change, and acted from that assumption.
For months.
No? Great! I did not think so. Whew, that could have got awkward.
I don't feel it. Must be you.
Again I did not take the easy way out of ...anything.
Right. Of course you didn't. What do you call it?
I have since read some of what he did say over the last six months and I now, after taking the "easier way" (to read what he said) I am more assured of how spot on my convictions about who and what he is were all along. Reading is SO much easier than trying not reading and keeping a semblance of what he is talking about and who. The fact that I was as close as I was, is testament to the effort involved. Great work me.
The fact is, you were wrong.
<snipped irrelevant attempt at some argument or another, not sure exactly what the point was>
So could you be a bit clearer with your point because that one was shit.
I realise that no matter what I say, this will continue. I think you are unable to back down now, for whatever reason, and I think it is
unfortunate. It is your choice, though, and I shall try not being too nasty.
It was your choice too. This did not all come out of a vacuum. I hear a lot of "your choice, your choice, your choice" Not much about your part in things. As I said a few times. You wanted a reaction and you have one. Why be sad? You got a reaction. You want to get nasty over my reaction to you? Your choice. You want to blame me for reacting to your fishing for a reaction? Fine. You want to threaten friendship over it? Okay. You are right, choices are involved.
But you have some points to defend and opinions to back. I will leave you with it.
Just did.
And... next.
-
Three months of misconceptions and repetitions, combined with a refusal to accept other viewpoints than your own. Yes, I didn't expect that. I thought you would do better.
Yes three month of refusing to admit that I am dishonest, refusing to admit that I am pretending, refusing to admit that I am intellectually dishonest, refusing to admit to believing what I don't believe, and believing you capable of a better and clearer understanding of me after 8 years on your board. Well, fuck!
You make that sound like a bad thing? A crazy way to go about things? Defending yourself on I2? Backing yourself? Refusing to be spoken down to like pupil?
The only thing I really did wrong here was not ending this with you and on your say so. Hell you will even threaten friendship over it to get your way. Right?
Jack resolved it for you. Without her, you would still be at it because you like to make things easy for yourself. A ninja cat was always funnier than bothering to read his posts. Why not admit it?
Here is a quick question. It is NOT a trick question. This WILL test your Intellectual honesty.
Is it easier to:
A) Read someone's posts to understand what they are saying?
B) Not read them but have to base every understanding on what they are saying through Private messages, seeing what threads they are posting in, who they are replying to, how long their posts are, whether they were shouting (Caps lock), seeing what others are replying to them and seeing how the thread has changed with the insertion of their post.........all whilst posting ninja cat posts.
If you say "Well if it was easier why not just do A". That is another question and one I have already answered.
You first.
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ninja-cats-2-3__605.jpg)
EVEN WHILST SLEEPING, TERRENCE PRACTICES THE ANCIENT ART OF CAMOUFLAGE!!
Your values being "when I make up my mind, that's it until someone who is neutral will prove me wrong, in which case I transparently, honestly and consistently change my mind"?
Well done.
Please list my values for me. No? But you will talk of what my values are. Are you talking absolute crap or are you wanting to ask a question or amusing yourself? I think a little of all three. I will wait until you actual ask me a direct question. Amuse yourself by all means but I will not be a party nor watch you do so. As for talking crap, had my fill of reading that lately.
Except that you were. Otherwise you would still have been at it.
I was not wrong at all.
I do not think you are stupid. So I am embarrassed in pointing it out.
Zegh started crap. I was responding. I dislike/d Zegh. Zegh encompasses a lot of characteristics in his personality that I am not a big fan of. I like upsetting Zegh and even the thought that what I am doing may upset him, because i do not like him. I do not feel sorry for him. I do not think there is anything to like. I doubt this will really shift.
Well before I stopped reading, I made it clear to Zegh that he could resolve crap like an adult. I made it clear what that would be entail and also that I doubted he would do this. Time wore on and I was still having fun upsetting him but gradually stopped reading him.
It of course made it difficult for him to meet the conditions of me stopping. In fact he did fulfill the conditions I set and I did not see it. Hilarious. But then Jack bought it to my attention and I stopped as I said I would.
Now I was NOT stirring Zegh up BECAUSE he had not posted his acceptance. I was stirring him up BECAUSE I don't like him and because he started shit with me. It is guilt free entertainment at his expense. I do not like him for all the reasons I have previously spoken of. They ARE still there and I still believe those things. Posts he has made in the last 6 months make it as clear to me as when I did not read them that I was right.
However my terms were that regardless of how much I disliked him and regardless of the fact that he started shit with me and regardless of the truth of his personality flaws, IF he would admit it (in exactly the way he did) I would stop. He did, I stopped and I absolutely did not think he would and nor did I particularly care if he didn't.
So you trying desperately to say "See you were wrong, I was right" and whatever.....what the fuck are you actually talking about? No seriously. Is it that I did not think he would meet my terms? Right I did not.......and? Is that it? Is that the extent of it? Wow. :hahaha:
Here is the thing: you'd never had seen it, or believed it, without Jack. You would have gone right on with your moronic hostilities, set in your beliefs.
You never considered ending what you were doing, he did, in spite of your steady stream oh hostile bullshit. Which, of course, means that it is you who needs help to change, not Zegh.
I expect the same to be true now, with me. I very much doubt anything I say will change your mind about anything. It would take someone else, someone neutral like Jack.
So yes, Jack was right. Which means that you were wrong.
Stop being melodramatic, Odeon. Its not your best side. Its almost as bad as your Tutor persona.
I am fine the way I am. I have yet to see Jack try to tutor me, nor call me dishonest nor intellectually dishonest or infer anything like that. But, yes if you had of said, actually Zegh did apologise to you here <link> I would have had the same reaction as I did with Jack. In the same way that I kept demanding you to show me where I was wrong.
As for you second guessing my intents, motivations, values or how I would have could have or may have reacted....stop guessing. The last three months have shown you bereft of the slightest idea of what drives me or what I hold dear. Its almost insulting when you try.
I know I have said so in the previous post but you think him posting his admission post changed my view of him or even that I wanted to drop hostilities? Bloody Hell.
LOL
Random. You think that his admission post was in character to his posts to me. Mmmmokay. Hell it was not only posts to me. I admit an impartiality certainly but pretty much all the posts I viewed the other night were not of the same standard. It WAS an Anomaly. For all that, it was a good post and kudos to him.
Says the guy who posted ninja cats and the like (an *expression*) for months. That is funny.
I suggested us to end this before Jack pointed out the errors of your ways, and actually again recently, not because I wanted to pretend anything but because I thought it would be better to move on. You called it emotional blackmail.
/shrugs
It WAS emotional blackmail. No ifs or buts.
I did post Ninja Cats for months. I also studied every thread he was in and tried to keep a bead on him. Neither is mutually exclusive. You were possibly trying to make a point. Damned if the guy who posted ninja cats, has the slightest idea of what you mean?
(http://buzzryan.com/images/15/January/23/ninja-cat-hiding-funny-107__6051.jpg)
BRUCE THE NINJA CAT HAS IT ALL OVER FIDO.
I'm glad you don't see this as a threat to our friendship, because I do. I think that if this escalates, which I suspect it will, it's going to be hard to be friends.
I don't want that, but neither do I want to be accused of emotional blackmail. I know what I meant when asking us to stop; you apparently don't.
Some years ago, I talked to a shrink about relationships. She pointed out that when two people disagree about the meaning behind something one of them said and can't agree, then with all things being equal, the interpretation should ultimately be up to the person who made the comment.
Her reasoning is that assuming that person tells the truth--which is advisable if the two actually want to resolve the differences instead of getting involved in a meta argument, an argument about the original argument that neither of them can win because that argument is always going to be about "he said, she said"--he or she will know why the comment was made.
I may be explaining this poorly, but essentially, you can either choose to accept my explanation about why I made the peace offering or choose to think I am lying. The former will resolve that particular argument while the latter will escalate it, as well as the ones that preceded it. You will have added another point of disagreement to the existing argument.
You can mean it however you like. I think that your reaction to me in the collective things you threw at me and indeed the "tutor" fail was NOT rational. I just don't. You may believe that these things are fine and in no way a threat to friendship and it is only me no being so unreasonable as to not stop on your say so. I don't.
I am trying not to be mean. I think these things came from a place that was not rational, logical and analytical. I think these things were spurred on by emotion and something a bit more visceral. When you speak of me doing this for months and those horrible rascally Ninja Cats, you reacted.
For what it is worth I do believe you believe what you are saying when you say that you did not have an agenda and that you were not trying to emotionally blackmail me. I feel that there is a bit of this going on at some level in both instances and I do not feel at all comfortable with being a party to it.
I never asked you to treat Zegh the way you did, either.
"Zegh can handle you, he is a big boy" Great then what is your business in how I handle him or visa versa? As far as I can see it has approximately NOTHING to do with you. Are you his agent? His Mum? What is this about and why should care about you not asking for how I treated Zegh?
You were wrong about Zegh but needed a third party to point that out to you. You could have done it yourself but chose to not read his posts while making a point out of not reading him while stating how he was full of shit (an *expression*) and how he was unable to change.
Which is what I said, and which is why you lost.
Yes I expect he won't change. Not to say that people can't. Remember Richard of old and Jesse of today? What about Penty? Big changes from both. You think Buttcoffee will change or Meadow? I don't think so. Zegh? I don't think so.
Jack did not point out I was wrong about him? What the fuck are you on about. He DID adhere to some terms I laid down and good for him. I did not expect that, but how is he different to how he was 6 months ago? (and remember I have read a number of his posts from the last 6 months to myself and others). Jack DID point out that he had met my terms to stop hostilities with him. In fact two months after he had posted him. I got an extra two months in before I was obliged to stop. He could have stopped it earlier had he have posted them before I stopped reading him. there would have been a better chance (though not 100% chance) that I would have read him.
You are not stupid enough to confuse him having changed and him surpassing himself on an occasion by meeting my terms.....so what in fact ARE you saying?
How exactly have I lost and lost what exactly? You seem to say this a bit, must mean something?
No.
I told you why I think you were being intellectually dishonest. It was quite obvious then but even more obvious now. I know you disagree, but hey, that's life and and I have been proven right since.
I have already proven you were wrong in your assessment. You cannot tailor an interpretation of a concept to a single person and NOT have it apply to others. If the interpretation falls over when applying it in the same way to others, then your interpretation is wrong and the failure of that is on YOU and solely you.
"You did not read what someone wrote in 6 months and therefore having an opinion or a point of view about someone and sharing that is intellectually dishonest because you should read everything you can about them to have any opinion on them and not doing so is Intellectually dishonest"
"and thus it was with Zegh....."
YET, in ANY other setting and with any other person, a reasonable person would not apply this interpretation of Intellectual Dishonesty. There would be other characteristics and intents and such that would need to come into place.
It was also a shit interpretation. It was always wrong and never had legs. I don't know whether it is bias, ego or what that helps you refuse to see this.
Replace Me with a random person in your life like a work mate or acquaintance and replace Zegh with Donald Trump or some other well known figure.
"You did not read what someone wrote in 6 months and therefore having an opinion or a point of view about someone and sharing that is intellectually dishonest because you should read everything you can about them to have any opinion on them and not doing so is Intellectually dishonest"
See how you go. You do not have to actually ask them but imagine how you would shore up their likely answers and the conclusions with Intellectual Dishonesty. I think you would struggle. I think you would see it doesn't work and your definition allows for both interpretation, a number of requirements and an expectation of intent. You have taken a narrow interpretation of a part of the overall definition and apply it liberally. You got it wrong three months ago and it is no more right now.
Which is your way of trying to convince someone, I really don't now who, that while proved wrong, you somehow weren't but you chose to stop hostilities anyway because that's just the kind of guy you are.
My bullshit detector just went off the scale.
You are not stupid Odeon so do not pretend to be. It insults both of us. Jack told you why I did. Your bullshit detector needs a service. I stopped hostilities because I gave terms that he fulfilled and I dropped the hostilities immediately. Why did I drop hostilities? Because I was made aware (by Jack) that he had fulfilled the terms I set.
Okay. Now which part of this is because I am a nice guy? Go on, Odeon. No?
Whilst proved wrong? What about Zegh am I proved wrong about? Anything? You are just plain ridiculous if you think that me being incorrect in my assumption he would not take responsibility for his part is some Waterloo or even what I particularly wanted. After some of the things he said and the way he carried on, I wanted him mad and upset. BUT fair is fair he did exactly what I asked and Jack was right in pointing it out and confirming he did all I asked. He met my terms. I was not going to go back on my word. I say I was completely right with everything I said about Zegh, however he certainly did surprise me in meeting my terms. I was unexpected.
So this all means something big to you or something?
I theorised about it being a blind spot rather than intellectual dishonesty, partly because I wanted to offer a more charitable explanation. See it as a way out for you.
You have since proved that it certainly wasn't a blind spot.
I am glad about that. It was not Intellectual Dishonesty either. I think you need a new theory.
OK then, react to all of them. Me, I eventually picked intellectual dishonesty over the others because it convey what I'm after better. If you want to see it as inconsistency, by all means.
I don't know about you but I do change over time. As arguments evolve, I sometimes correct myself, if I think I was wrong about something or if I think of a better way of stating my points. I also admit I'm wrong if that is what the argument requires. Is that being inconsistent? Sure, why not, if you define inconsistency as changing one's views over time if proven wrong or if the original view was lacking in some respect.
If that is what you mean, then sure, I have been inconsistent in the past and I will surely be inconsistent again in the future. I do try to learn from whatever mistakes I have made, so yeah, sure.
Which brings me to intellectual dishonesty and taking the easy way out. I never claimed never to be guilty of that myself. I can think of instances where I've certainly taken the easy way out. I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be.
Are you?
Look at our first call out. I do not think you need to ask that question, do you?
What I was doing was not easier, but then I have already given you the simply test of intellectual honesty above. I am wondering whether you will pick A or B. I think you will beyond all reason and logic choose B and in doing so strip away the last layer of respect for your intellect.
I did not say you were tiptoeing around DFG to bait you, I said it because that was my impression. An anomaly, as you say.
That one is a classic case of he said, she said, something that is impossible to prove, which is why I chose to accept your explanation. It made sense and you, I think, had the right of interpreting your actions, all else being equal.
But again, if you want me to take it back to feed your butthurt or whatever, I can.
Yes I posted the word anomaly and you LOL'ed for some reason. Is that the new style?
I think I answered this once. You surely are not asking the same question again and wanting a different answer, are you?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein
A short time? Really?
Absolutely, Dishonesty was only a few days, pretending about a week, The ganging up last a bit longer still, then there was the tiptoeing claim, full of shit expressions being not literal or literal or whatever, the tutoring....I dunno, they all were within two months but systematically they dissolved until there was only the Intellectual Dishonesty weak claim as last man standing. I say from 2-60 days for all of these tangential arguments is a short time. I am surprised that you are still thinking the Intellectual Dishonesty claim was still worth defending but there you go.
Fine, I will not concede anything, ever, when arguing with you. ::)
But on a more serious note: it is clear that collectively, my comments did hurt you.
Sure, you can do that. No, not really. I have been in turns Frustrated, Disappointed, Indignant, Incredulous, Dumbstruck and at times Amused. I don't know about Upset. Probably not upset.
Not going to happen. You already lost, which means I won.
If I lost then I guess you won. If we are competing against each other. That would make sense. Of course it really does help if I in fact lost something that we were competing in. I know you will no doubt appraise me of this apparent loss and I will have something to accept or contend. Thank you for the heads up.
Yes, I do think so. You did not expect it, in fact you claimed the opposite, that he was not able to change, and acted from that assumption.
For months.
I still do not think he will change. I think he will be the Zegh I dislike for many years to come and perhaps for life. I still do not think he will change and I still act from that assumption. You do not think him posting the acceptance of his part in things gives rise for me to imagine he has changed do you? I do not think you that silly nor me that silly.
I will not downplay it. It is kudos for him. Took a bit of guts. I will not second guess whether it came from frustration, pressure, a spur of the moment, a weariness of receiving non-stop Ninja Cats or a genuine want to admit his part in things to make things better. But he did it. Well done.
Does doing it change him? No. Does it make him a better person? No. Does it stop hostilities? Yes.
I am still acting under the assumption that he has not and will not change. However I am still also acting on the assumption that if he meets the terms I gave him, I will stop hostilities and he did. Months? Pfftt.
I don't feel it. Must be you.
I am not feeling it. If I was agreeing to something as silly I would be all kinds of embarrassed.
Right. Of course you didn't. What do you call it?
A challenge and a fair bit of fun along the way. Started off the fun you could get skimming a post and responding to it. He would be yelling at me asking whether "I had even read it". The reaction was the catalyst to a slow wind down to stopping reading him. That was around the Neaderthal threads. I evolved to posting without reading him and only reading his replies to what I wrote and then eventually I stopped reading altogether and just kept tabs on who he was responding to and what they were saying about him or replying. Getting a sense of what he was up to and why. All the while posting things at him, like ninja cats, to stir him up. Laughing at the amount of wasted texts he sent my way that remained unread.
Just did.
And... next.
Much more comprehensive and in depth than the last. I appreciate it. Not really sure about the you were wrong and I was right and you lost and I won thing but I am sure you will be backing those claims up too.