INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on May 30, 2016, 08:18:26 AM
-
Whilst you were not lending your voice to the discussing I was having with Jack on this thread http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23563.0.html
There was discussed a few topics to which Jack and I were second guessing where you were coming from. (Heads up, I will be paraphrasing - and yeah I know what "paraphrasing means".
A: Jack tended to suggest that you have been fumbling about from one incorrect word to another whilst you tried to place what you were trying to describe.
Now I said this was not correct because you are smart, a good debater and reasoner. But more than this, that you would not be so silly and hypocritical to months earlier say THIS of ME
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.
Look at the date.
So I guess this is Jack saying "Hey he got it wrong continually and consecutively for 10 weeks but now he is starting to say what he actually means when he says things. He just was not good with his words"
I am saying "No, Odeon is a smart guy. He is not a fumbler and he sure as Hell would not be a hypocrite over this. I have never seen him struggle this much and I doubt its sincerity for those reasons."
Question: Which of us is correct?
B:Jack and I also discussed the way you used a very specific way to use a specific part of a specific definition of intellectual dishonesty to indicate I was intellectual dishonest. Jack and I seem to be in one mind that the definition selected and how it was summarised was suspect but its application suffers.
I illustrated that here:
He does not seem to apply higher standards to his argument in fact whilst we know he is great at arguing and a smart guy he falls so very short here. This mucking around with the meaning of words (like some of his other aforementioned tactics) seems to show a reluctance at best to argue his claimed position of intellectual dishonesty in an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally held views and beliefs about how wrong I was. I know too that whilst you Jack, have been very even handed and acknowledge that Zegh was a jerk for a good while before I started being a complete jerk and stop reading him, Odeon does not address Zegh's part and seems to deflect away from an Zegh's PM's showing his want not to end things and his failed "one month silent treatment" to the point where, when he quotes my quote showing the PM's of Zegh stating this, he snips it out. But then he also tries to show me Zegh supporting his version of things. Comes across as deflection of criticism of a friend (the friend being Zegh rather than myself in this case). In fact one could even look at this whole things as being one big deflection for the benefit of Zegh if one were inclined to view it that way.
Perhaps the bigger point is that his ability to evaluate his premises is suffering with each new tactic. All of which are self-serving, trying to distract me away from the argument or to back out unresolved. Within this is a lack of applying the same standards to himself as he expects of me. I have shown his accusing me of not applying a high standard of me of using words in their right meaning and right context and yet he clearly fails this himself. The other point is that he accuses me of intellectual Dishonest and......LOOK AT THE BOLDED PASSAGES.
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.
Intellectual Dishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds. However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's Intellectual Honesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations.
Now before you start defending your own intellectual dishonesty, This was illustrative not accusatory. I think I COULD make an argument FAR better than the narrow argument you thrust vaguely in my direction. It would not make me right or correct. In fact both would be wrong. Mine would just appear the stronger of two poorly applied claims.
Question: So what are your thoughts? Do you see what Jack and I see? Do you see this definition in respect to the argument, worth discarding for its uselessness?
C:It really is not up for question whether I did not read Zegh or not. So was I lazy for NOT reading him? If I was lazy does that make me intellectually lazy and IF I was intellectually lazy, then was I intellectually dishonest?
It looks to me like tenuous linkages at best and far stretches. It is like saying if someone is not saying the complete truth about something then they are a liar. There is heaps of grounds on which a person may not be a liar. Maybe they are talking in generalities, maybe they are being concise, maybe they are not aware of the truth, maybe they are unable to comprehend the truth, maybe they are telling a version of the truth (ie is it true that the Earth is a planet OR is it true that the Earth is home for billions of human being lifeforms?).
By narrowing your focus and pushing all actions through a filter it kind of looks like a poor attempt to make a premise fit a conclusion.
I do not have ANY trouble honestly appreciating that you did not LIKE me not reading Zegh. I believe you thought it reason poor form. I think as good a case as you could make for my conduct being "lazy", I can make at least as good a point for it not being lazy
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.
I think the answer is reading him would have been easier and would have been better form. Not reading was more difficult and messy. Though I think more effective.
So the point of laziness is certainly not clear cut and could be argued either way. Making the next linkages and stretches rather pointless considering.
Question: Don't you think this makes sense?
D:I broached with Jack your singling out of me and your ability to look the other way with Zegh.
There could be reasons for it:
Perhaps you think Zegh got the rough end of the deal
Perhaps you thought I was in the wrong and he in the right
Perhaps you disliked my conduct more
Perhaps you were contacted by Zegh in confidence and asked to address me
Perhaps you were contacted by someone else in confidence and asked to address me
Perhaps after one too many Ninja Cats, something snapped.
But I DID notice a bias and I think it would be foolish to deny this.
Any point in my mentioning his part in things was ignored, minimised or defended by you.
No?
....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.....
Indeed, yet you singled me out
Zeg was the jerk in the beginning and Les was the jerk in the end, but it's over now and I still like them both
"without repeating yourself"
=
"finally agreeing with me"
::)
Yes, mainly.
Another callous specific to these points you have read but are not addressing?
I think Zegh got it right. I did explain my views, you simply chose not to accept them. You think my argumentation is weak, I don't. Etc.
Question: Would THIS be any more disingenuous (getting someone I was fighting with and who disliked me as much as I disliked him) to support your premise, IF I got Sol to support a premise of mine? You see how bad that looks?
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?
Question: Cringeworthy. WERE you supporting Zegh or not?
So anyway, we have this one:
(http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/4454242.jpg)
You going to resolve things, yet? No? No, you like this and want it to keep going.
This is in Hyke's challenge to Al, DFG and Zegh. The last two pages illustrate my points, especially the last few posts
Here are the last three:
Zegh has been playing you all for suckers as he tried doing with the 1 month silent treatment. This pretense of him wanting to sort things out (that he made in the Peanut Gallery) is a con. I hate the dishonesty of it. He actually wants this and all but requested it by any reading.
Do not take my word. Read what he said. My response and his.
Pm’s titled I am not a woman
<snippety of quotes but go read if you want to>
Do not be fooled by his moral virtue signalling. He is simply trying to offer a pretense of being above it all and a victim of poor circumstance that he is trying to make the best of. But pretense is pretense.
He has no wish to contribute to this resolving. He would certrainly like it to disappear because he is seemingly incapable of sorting out his own shit. What responsibilities does he have in life? How old is he? He doesn't want to be responsible for resolving messes of his own making. Better pretending to be a victim and blame others.
But look at what you snipped out in your evidence of my "knowingly misrepresenting" things
Or a girl.
So, try to "hound" me off the site. Try. Try harder. Try all you can muster. Let me watch you try :]
That alone goes a LONG way to evidencing the exact opposite and you snipped it out. In context it was quite a good example of me acting on knowledge to expressly told to me by Zegh about what HE wanted me to do. So me knowingly acting on the basis of him NOT being too keen on resolving things based on THAT alone would have been a reasonable assumption REGARDLESS of whether I was right or wrong in my assessment.
Question: So DID you favour Zegh's part in things over mine and why did you not foist the same attention on him?
E:You keep saying that you won.
Question: Won what exactly, and how? How does it feel to have won?
F:A claim you started to make was that I knowingly misrepresented Zegh
Question: If "knowingly misrepresented" by your own redefinition is far from conventional and you are not able to evidence any instances that I actually did "knowingly misrepresent", are you happy conceding that you meant something completely different to "knowingly misrepresent"?
G:Intellectual laziness and Intellectual dishonesty are hard to pin on my actions, whereas descriptors such as difficult, mean-spirited, jerk, rude, boring, painful, and such are better descriptors.
Question: Do you not think these are better suited and your intellectual laziness and dishonesty claims are simply incorrect and poorly applied to the situation?
H:Reading back on the initial claims compared to the claims you are trying to make now is chalk and cheese. (Seriously look at the first page here http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23562.0.html)
Question: What happened and why are they radically different?
-
Whilst you were not lending your voice to the discussing I was having with Jack on this thread http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23563.0.html
Believe it or not, but I have better things to do than repeating myself. Yesterday, I was preparing for travel and I2 was low on my list, and today I travelled.
There was discussed a few topics to which Jack and I were second guessing where you were coming from. (Heads up, I will be paraphrasing - and yeah I know what "paraphrasing means".
A: Jack tended to suggest that you have been fumbling about from one incorrect word to another whilst you tried to place what you were trying to describe.
Now I said this was not correct because you are smart, a good debater and reasoner. But more than this, that you would not be so silly and hypocritical to months earlier say THIS of ME
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.
Look at the date.
So I guess this is Jack saying "Hey he got it wrong continually and consecutively for 10 weeks but now he is starting to say what he actually means when he says things. He just was not good with his words"
I am saying "No, Odeon is a smart guy. He is not a fumbler and he sure as Hell would not be a hypocrite over this. I have never seen him struggle this much and I doubt its sincerity for those reasons."
Question: Which of us is correct?
You brought up the ganging up thing, by saying that's what Butterflies was doing when she posted. I thought you were wrong. Remember that? I thought you were clever enough to know how loaded a phrase "ganging up" can be, but you said you didn't, and even started a thread about it, as if I had been the one to bring it up.
But I didn't. You did.
B:Jack and I also discussed the way you used a very specific way to use a specific part of a specific definition of intellectual dishonesty to indicate I was intellectual dishonest. Jack and I seem to be in one mind that the definition selected and how it was summarised was suspect but its application suffers.
I illustrated that here:
He does not seem to apply higher standards to his argument in fact whilst we know he is great at arguing and a smart guy he falls so very short here. This mucking around with the meaning of words (like some of his other aforementioned tactics) seems to show a reluctance at best to argue his claimed position of intellectual dishonesty in an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally held views and beliefs about how wrong I was. I know too that whilst you Jack, have been very even handed and acknowledge that Zegh was a jerk for a good while before I started being a complete jerk and stop reading him, Odeon does not address Zegh's part and seems to deflect away from an Zegh's PM's showing his want not to end things and his failed "one month silent treatment" to the point where, when he quotes my quote showing the PM's of Zegh stating this, he snips it out. But then he also tries to show me Zegh supporting his version of things. Comes across as deflection of criticism of a friend (the friend being Zegh rather than myself in this case). In fact one could even look at this whole things as being one big deflection for the benefit of Zegh if one were inclined to view it that way.
Perhaps the bigger point is that his ability to evaluate his premises is suffering with each new tactic. All of which are self-serving, trying to distract me away from the argument or to back out unresolved. Within this is a lack of applying the same standards to himself as he expects of me. I have shown his accusing me of not applying a high standard of me of using words in their right meaning and right context and yet he clearly fails this himself. The other point is that he accuses me of intellectual Dishonest and......LOOK AT THE BOLDED PASSAGES.
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.
Intellectual Dishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds. However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's Intellectual Honesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations.
Now before you start defending your own intellectual dishonesty, This was illustrative not accusatory. I think I COULD make an argument FAR better than the narrow argument you thrust vaguely in my direction. It would not make me right or correct. In fact both would be wrong. Mine would just appear the stronger of two poorly applied claims.
Question: So what are your thoughts? Do you see what Jack and I see? Do you see this definition in respect to the argument, worth discarding for its uselessness?
I've not read your and Jack's discussion. As a matter of fact, this was just about the first thing when logging on, just now.
I've said several times that this is NOT about Zegh. It was never about Zegh. His one month of whatever is neither here or there. It's completely irrelevant, a distraction. If he said he would shut up for a month and then didn't, talk to HIM about it, not me.
This is about your intellectual dishonesty, that self-serving and lazy behaviour that compelled you on one hand not read Zegh but on the other hand still reply to him, frequently misrepresenting him and missing the fact that he was actually trying to solve things. And why? Because you wanted to be a jerk (which you admitted, IIRC)? That IS applying lower standards in a self-serving fashion, it happened because you'd rather be a jerk than give him a chance.
All of which you have admitted, btw, except for the label I've given it.
You disagree with the label, which is fine. If you'd rather just be seen as a jerk, it's also fine. And I should add that you most certainly are not a jerk, generally speaking. An opinionated bastard, sure, but a jerk, no. I am talking about one specific case.
C:It really is not up for question whether I did not read Zegh or not. So was I lazy for NOT reading him? If I was lazy does that make me intellectually lazy and IF I was intellectually lazy, then was I intellectually dishonest?
It looks to me like tenuous linkages at best and far stretches. It is like saying if someone is not saying the complete truth about something then they are a liar. There is heaps of grounds on which a person may not be a liar. Maybe they are talking in generalities, maybe they are being concise, maybe they are not aware of the truth, maybe they are unable to comprehend the truth, maybe they are telling a version of the truth (ie is it true that the Earth is a planet OR is it true that the Earth is home for billions of human being lifeforms?).
By narrowing your focus and pushing all actions through a filter it kind of looks like a poor attempt to make a premise fit a conclusion.
I do not have ANY trouble honestly appreciating that you did not LIKE me not reading Zegh. I believe you thought it reason poor form. I think as good a case as you could make for my conduct being "lazy", I can make at least as good a point for it not being lazy
How?
And yes, it was poor form but that's not why.
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.
I think the answer is reading him would have been easier and would have been better form. Not reading was more difficult and messy. Though I think more effective.
So the point of laziness is certainly not clear cut and could be argued either way. Making the next linkages and stretches rather pointless considering.
It was more effective? Why?
What if you HAD read him, and you HAD solved whatever it is that started this instead of all this? Wouldn't it have been more effective, provided you actually did want to solve it at some point rather than continue being a jerk?
Question: Don't you think this makes sense?
My views, yes. Yours, I don't think so because I don't see your point.
D:I broached with Jack your singling out of me and your ability to look the other way with Zegh.
There could be reasons for it:
Perhaps you think Zegh got the rough end of the deal
Irrelevant.
Perhaps you thought I was in the wrong and he in the right
Irrelevant, but about what, exactly?
Perhaps you disliked my conduct more
This is true, when comparing what I saw from you both. Your conduct, after all, was what I reacted against.
Perhaps you were contacted by Zegh in confidence and asked to address me
No.
Perhaps you were contacted by someone else in confidence and asked to address me
No.
Perhaps after one too many Ninja Cats, something snapped.
No.
But I DID notice a bias and I think it would be foolish to deny this.
Because I reacted against how you handled this? Yes, I don't think he did what you did. But as I've said before, this is not about Zegh.
Any point in my mentioning his part in things was ignored, minimised or defended by you. [/b][/i]
No?
....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.....
Indeed, yet you singled me out
I reacted against what you did. If Zegh had done something like it, I might be having this conversation with him. But he didn't.
And just as I said, I wouldn't have said anything if it had been once or twice.
Zeg was the jerk in the beginning and Les was the jerk in the end, but it's over now and I still like them both
"without repeating yourself"
=
"finally agreeing with me"
::)
Yes, mainly.
Another callous specific to these points you have read but are not addressing?
I think Zegh got it right. I did explain my views, you simply chose not to accept them. You think my argumentation is weak, I don't. Etc.
Question: Would THIS be any more disingenuous (getting someone I was fighting with and who disliked me as much as I disliked him) to support your premise, IF I got Sol to support a premise of mine? You see how bad that looks?
That I think Zegh got it right? No. I think he had a point. I had explained my views over and over again, and I'm doing it now, again, and I bet you're not going to accept them now, either.
What do you hope to achieve?
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?
Question: Cringeworthy. WERE you supporting Zegh or not?
So anyway, we have this one:
(http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/4454242.jpg)
You going to resolve things, yet? No? No, you like this and want it to keep going.
This is in Hyke's challenge to Al, DFG and Zegh. The last two pages illustrate my points, especially the last few posts
Here are the last three:
Zegh has been playing you all for suckers as he tried doing with the 1 month silent treatment. This pretense of him wanting to sort things out (that he made in the Peanut Gallery) is a con. I hate the dishonesty of it. He actually wants this and all but requested it by any reading.
Do not take my word. Read what he said. My response and his.
Pm’s titled I am not a woman
<snippety of quotes but go read if you want to>
Do not be fooled by his moral virtue signalling. He is simply trying to offer a pretense of being above it all and a victim of poor circumstance that he is trying to make the best of. But pretense is pretense.
He has no wish to contribute to this resolving. He would certrainly like it to disappear because he is seemingly incapable of sorting out his own shit. What responsibilities does he have in life? How old is he? He doesn't want to be responsible for resolving messes of his own making. Better pretending to be a victim and blame others.
But look at what you snipped out in your evidence of my "knowingly misrepresenting" things
Or a girl.
So, try to "hound" me off the site. Try. Try harder. Try all you can muster. Let me watch you try :]
That alone goes a LONG way to evidencing the exact opposite and you snipped it out. In context it was quite a good example of me acting on knowledge to expressly told to me by Zegh about what HE wanted me to do. So me knowingly acting on the basis of him NOT being too keen on resolving things based on THAT alone would have been a reasonable assumption REGARDLESS of whether I was right or wrong in my assessment.
Question: So DID you favour Zegh's part in things over mine and why did you not foist the same attention on him?
No, I did not. The only reason I snipped content, above, is that I wanted to focus on what I saw as relevant. I don't think that quote changes anything.
E:You keep saying that you won.
Question: Won what exactly, and how? How does it feel to have won?
Heh. Read it the way you expected me to read how "weak" my arguments are.
F:A claim you started to make was that I knowingly misrepresented Zegh
Question: If "knowingly misrepresented" by your own redefinition is far from conventional and you are not able to evidence any instances that I actually did "knowingly misrepresent", are you happy conceding that you meant something completely different to "knowingly misrepresent"?
"Knowingly" isn't the best choice of words because you had no idea what Zegh was saying, yet the word implies you had--I was referring to the fact that you couldn't possibly know what Zegh was saying but still chose to tell us all what he meant. That you were misrepresenting what he was saying should be obvious, so would you prefer "consciously"? "Deliberately"?
G:Intellectual laziness and Intellectual dishonesty are hard to pin on my actions, whereas descriptors such as difficult, mean-spirited, jerk, rude, boring, painful, and such are better descriptors.
IMHO, intellectual laziness and dishonesty happened because of those things.
Question: Do you not think these are better suited and your intellectual laziness and dishonesty claims are simply incorrect and poorly applied to the situation?
See above.
H:Reading back on the initial claims compared to the claims you are trying to make now is chalk and cheese. (Seriously look at the first page here http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23562.0.html)
Question: What happened and why are they radically different?
My argument evolved. It took me a few posts to say what I meant, which is why I admitted that "pretence" was a poor choice of words. I have no problems admitting that I should have handed it better, but I didn't. Why? Maybe I didn't ponder it enough before posting, maybe I didn't fully understand myself why I was so bothered about your behaviour. I was baffled by it because I know you can do better than that--you were being a jerk rather than using your wits.
And that is disappointing.
-
Believe it or not, but I have better things to do than repeating myself. Yesterday, I was preparing for travel and I2 was low on my list, and today I travelled.
Aha, don't care. Honestly, mate, why would I? We all have a life we live, and other things in our life. I don't need to know your schedule.
You brought up the ganging up thing, by saying that's what Butterflies was doing when she posted. I thought you were wrong. Remember that? I thought you were clever enough to know how loaded a phrase "ganging up" can be, but you said you didn't, and even started a thread about it, as if I had been the one to bring it up.
But I didn't. You did.
Side step.
"Remember that" Better than you, it seems. I said "ganging up" to describe her and Zegh collectively arguing/debating/fighting with DFG. It was no value judgment and nor did I mean what you wanted me to have meant by saying ganging up. It was not a loaded term. To test the point, I made a thread about it. The upshot, it was seen as fine in using in the context I used it with and there were many other alternatives that would have equally sufficed. I still say it was fine and not something that is needing to be defended against. The only person who seemed to see its usage as nasty, was you.
You WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was).
HOWEVER YOU saw fit to try to talk to me about using the wrong terms and ones that are "loaded" and said I know better.
What about you using the word pretense or the word dishonest? Okay, that was only early flounderings. What about Tiptoeing? What about "knowingly misrepresenting"?
So I guess this is Jack saying "Hey he got it wrong continually and consecutively for 10 weeks but now he is starting to say what he actually means when he says things. He just was not good with his words"
I am saying "No, Odeon is a smart guy. He is not a fumbler and he sure as Hell would not be a hypocrite over this. I have never seen him struggle this much and I doubt its sincerity for those reasons."
Question: Which of us is correct?
I've not read your and Jack's discussion. As a matter of fact, this was just about the first thing when logging on, just now.
I've said several times that this is NOT about Zegh. It was never about Zegh. His one month of whatever is neither here or there. It's completely irrelevant, a distraction. If he said he would shut up for a month and then didn't, talk to HIM about it, not me.
This is about your intellectual dishonesty, that self-serving and lazy behaviour that compelled you on one hand not read Zegh but on the other hand still reply to him, frequently misrepresenting him and missing the fact that he was actually trying to solve things. And why? Because you wanted to be a jerk (which you admitted, IIRC)? That IS applying lower standards in a self-serving fashion, it happened because you'd rather be a jerk than give him a chance.
All of which you have admitted, btw, except for the label I've given it.
You disagree with the label, which is fine. If you'd rather just be seen as a jerk, it's also fine. And I should add that you most certainly are not a jerk, generally speaking. An opinionated bastard, sure, but a jerk, no. I am talking about one specific case.
This is about your intellectual dishonesty, that self-serving and lazy behaviour that compelled you on one hand not read Zegh but on the other hand still reply to him, frequently misrepresenting him and missing the fact that he was actually trying to solve things. And why? Because you wanted to be a jerk (which you admitted, IIRC)? That IS applying lower standards in a self-serving fashion, it happened because you'd rather be a jerk than give him a chance.
I'll raise you
He does not seem to apply higher standards to his argument in fact whilst we know he is great at arguing and a smart guy he falls so very short here. This mucking around with the meaning of words (like some of his other aforementioned tactics) seems to show a reluctance at best to argue his claimed position of intellectual dishonesty in an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally held views and beliefs about how wrong I was. I know too that whilst you Jack, have been very even handed and acknowledge that Zegh was a jerk for a good while before I started being a complete jerk and stop reading him, Odeon does not address Zegh's part and seems to deflect away from an Zegh's PM's showing his want not to end things and his failed "one month silent treatment" to the point where, when he quotes my quote showing the PM's of Zegh stating this, he snips it out. But then he also tries to show me Zegh supporting his version of things. Comes across as deflection of criticism of a friend (the friend being Zegh rather than myself in this case). In fact one could even look at this whole things as being one big deflection for the benefit of Zegh if one were inclined to view it that way.
Perhaps the bigger point is that his ability to evaluate his premises is suffering with each new tactic. All of which are self-serving, trying to distract me away from the argument or to back out unresolved. Within this is a lack of applying the same standards to himself as he expects of me. I have shown his accusing me of not applying a high standard of me of using words in their right meaning and right context and yet he clearly fails this himself. The other point is that he accuses me of intellectual Dishonest and......LOOK AT THE BOLDED PASSAGES.
I think I do a better job of making the claim fit the conclusion. This is illustrative not accusatory.
The thing is you may well be intellectually dishonest. Maybe. But if you think the fact that I can pathologise your behaviours to a point where they are easily molded around a conclusion I have supported with a part of a wiki definition of an abstract word, is any way proof you are what I accuse you of, then you are not nearly as smart as I credit you.
As you are doing the same thing with me, I would appreciate that you have as much respect for my intellect and not try to similarly pathologise my behaviour nor infer similar claim to fit the conclusion.
Alternatively I would also appreciate if you did not say, "Okay maybe I was intellectually dishonest and so were you and so were most people and how mundane and droll, being intellectually dishonest is". It is not mundane and of no consequence.
I know I have said it often. Show me where i am frequently misrepresenting him. For that matter him trying to solve things? I am not so sure of that at all.
Let's place just a little bit of context here. As Jack said. Zegh was being a Jerk. A big one. For about six months (May or June to November) . Then for about 6 months I stopped reading him (by degrees from November before i stopped entirely). At what point did he try to resolve things?
Was it before November? December after I stopped reading him? January? February? March?
Yes, March.
In March he had a month's silent treatment. It started on March 1 and was promptly broken. In fact on March 12 he suggested that he was wishing to admit his part in things and amiable to resolving things.
So now we have a bit of context, I am not at all sure that you are right in what you said. I know you said that he was trying to resolve things but was he? Maybe his one month silence treatment 12 days before was genuine but it was broken well and truly before the time he made another shot at resolution. Was think similar disingenuous? What have you to support that he was genuine at the time? Blind faith after having 12 days before broken his word on his first resolution attempt?
So, no, Odeon you need to bring something a little more concrete to the table. If you want to pathologise my behaviour, leave out all context, give an account that biases my conduct and minimises Zegh's and make sweeping statements, expect I will call you on it about 100% of the time.
How?
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.
Now you may well like to say "Well that is not how I mean it at all. In some respect it was less lazy but in some ways that I am thinking of specifically, it WAS lazy." Depending on what point you were trying to convey I may even agree. But that would STILL not mean that I was intellectually lazy nor that Intellectual dishonesty.
Jack called the application of your Intellectual Dishonesty "cherrypicking". I concur, but I think it was more a molding a narrative around a conclusion. It is like when you speak to people who make "All roads lead to Rome". A conspiracy theorist will make all claims end up with "Aliens" or "Illuminatii", The devout make all claims end up being God did it, and the Feminists make all claims end up being "Because of Patriarchy". I do not think your argument makes a decent claim for me to be intellectually dishonest any more than it did of pretending or of "knowingly misrepresenting.
It was more effective? Why?
What if you HAD read him, and you HAD solved whatever it is that started this instead of all this? Wouldn't it have been more effective, provided you actually did want to solve it at some point rather than continue being a jerk?
As previously mentioned, he was being a jerk and not prepared to do anything about being a jerk. May or June to November and NOTHING. From November I start skimming him and then slowly stopped reading him. Within the next four months of starving him of respecting him enough to read him and assailing him with Ninja cats and memes, he was actually contemplating resolving things. Whether he was genuine or not I don't know. I simply know that his first attempt was disingenuous.
I have seen his posts whilst I was reading and after I was reading and I can see his reaction was much more distressed than I gauged it would be. I surprised at just how frantic it got. It was funny.
Without doing so I do not think I would have had the same resolution and on my terms and certainly not as quickly. He got to be a jerk for 6 months and so did I. I think I got more pleasure out of the deal than he did.
I reacted against what you did. If Zegh had done something like it, I might be having this conversation with him. But he didn't.
And just as I said, I wouldn't have said anything if it had been once or twice.
I simply do not believe this. I think there is a bias there that you perhaps do not recognise. Jack did. Zegh was a jerk for 6 months precluding me beginning a period of not reading him (and thus being a jerk in return). I was a Jerk for about the same amount of time. I do not much care if you do not think his conduct was as bad as mine. I think mine was comparable to his and I do not think it was exactly the same style of being a jerk but was comparable. He started it. I ended it and on my terms.
At every point and turn you defend, minimise and let me know that this has nothing to do with Zegh. You are defending him in this. You really ought to have stayed well out of it or at least been even-handed in condemnation. If you were not able to bring yourself to do this, then you ought to have tried at least to give me some solid criticism. This intellectual dishonesty is simply a crap criticism.
That I think Zegh got it right? No. I think he had a point. I had explained my views over and over again, and I'm doing it now, again, and I bet you're not going to accept them now, either.
What do you hope to achieve?
No, Zegh was biased against me for some reason. Anything I said would have been seen by him as crap and skewed. If all questions and inquiries all lead to the same stock phrases then I suspect that repeating yourself is neither helpful nor is it saying I want you to "necessarily" agree with me. It is saying your previous answer does not address my point nor does it address all points I may make now or at another time. That is not even closely resembling ""without repeating yourself"="finally agreeing with me".
You are not an idiot and so you can plainly see this. As you can see this, why did you say you think Zegh got it right? Just curious?
Consider too, if I was arguing with you and then told you that Sol agreed with me about my opinion, how much credence would you lend that point. Now reflect on why I thin kit was silly you introducing Zegh's point of view into a discussion between us.
What do you hope to achieve?
I am not sure why you ask me what "I" hope to achieve? This is born of you fishing for a reaction of me and making a number of bad and weak claims of me. Of which Intellectually dishonest" was one. I would have been quite happy having not have that thrust at me by you but it has happened and now I am reacting to it. I would have been happy for it not to have occurred and under the same circumstances, i'd have not sought you out for the same sort of attention under the same premises. You did and I am the reaction to that.
The question is misplaced. YOU were the one who fished for a reaction. You fished for it and got it. What did you hope to achieve? What have you achieved in doing so? What do you hope to achieve now? Now what do you hope to do with me and my reaction now you have it?
No, I did not. The only reason I snipped content, above, is that I wanted to focus on what I saw as relevant. I don't think that quote changes anything.
Sure it did.
The question as to whether (without reading him) it could be reasonably ascertained that he was not prepared to resolve things. Would need to take four things into account
1. What he had previous said
2. His actions and behaviour in the past
3. What was saying now
4. Any contradiction in his words and actions.
1. His PM you left out of the quote clearly said that he WANTED me to continue the feud with him as I was (this is not a want to resolve things)
2. His previous actions and words from May/June to November. No let up and no want of resolution.
3. He had said he wanted to have a 1 month silent treatment to try to resolve things after talking his situation over with some forum members
4. He broke said one month silent treatment within a couple of days.
So yeah it kind of was a bit of a thing. It changes a lot.
Heh. Read it the way you expected me to read how "weak" my arguments are.
Still no idea. I get the feeling after you telling me I will announce "Congratulations! You win 5 internets" but I don't know.
"Knowingly" isn't the best choice of words because you had no idea what Zegh was saying, yet the word implies you had--I was referring to the fact that you couldn't possibly know what Zegh was saying but still chose to tell us all what he meant. That you were misrepresenting what he was saying should be obvious, so would you prefer "consciously"? "Deliberately"?
No, describing "Knowingly" to something that the person accused, does not know, certainly sounds incorrect by any measure. Much like Pretending was wrong and dishonest and tiptoeing and intellectual dishonest.
I do not think you are a word fumbler. You have been articulate and deliberate and smart in every argument i have seen you in. I know you would not try to say I was misusing words (ganging up" example above) whilst fumbling through the use of appropriate words and phrases yourself, right? It would be hypocritical and I know you are not that. I know you are a smart guy.
When you say that I am telling everyone what Zegh was saying although I was not reading him ARE YOU LYING? You have made that claim about half a dozen times and I have asked you at least three times to back that. If not I want you to admit you were lying. I do not believe that i did but happy to be shown otherwise.
IMHO, intellectual laziness and dishonesty happened because of those things.
I think your application is too subjective in its bias against me. You try to find a claim to fit the conclusion you have reached already. I think THAT is lazy.
My argument evolved. It took me a few posts to say what I meant, which is why I admitted that "pretence" was a poor choice of words. I have no problems admitting that I should have handed it better, but I didn't. Why? Maybe I didn't ponder it enough before posting, maybe I didn't fully understand myself why I was so bothered about your behaviour. I was baffled by it because I know you can do better than that--you were being a jerk rather than using your wits.
And that is disappointing.
Yes we have evolved now to a stage where you still make strong claims like "You knowingly misrepresented" and then walk it back. "When I say knowingly, I don't mean actual literal knowingly, as in actually knowing something in actuality. more a sort of kind of knowing, if you know what I mean" (Paraphrased LOL)
I think you certainly ought to have pondered a while before responding because I seen in EVERY other interaction on I2, you conduct yourself better. You do not spend months word fumbling, trying weak tactics and doubling down on weak positions. One of my favourite callouts to read here is our first callout. This argument is a dog's breakfast in comparison.
Even now, the claim you made is no stronger or better than when it was first made. I know you have said you did not have ulterior motives, and I will have to take your word for it that you believe this and that perhaps its true.
This is where we are:
Odeon: So your behaviour was intellectually dishonest"
Al: No it wasn't.
Odeon Well you didn't read him.
Al: I know
Odeon: Well it was lazy.
Al: No it wasn't. I worked have to keep up with Zegh whilst not reading him.
Odeon: Okay sure. But in other ways it was sort of lazy.
Al: Maybe. I do not know in which ways or how they compare to the ways in which I was not lazy.
Odeon: You did knowingly misrepresent what Zegh said
Al: Come on now....
Odeon: Not literally of course but sort of .
Al: Really?
Odeon: You told everyone what he was writing without knowing what he was writing
Al: Really?
Odeon: Yes you did a lot
Al: I am going to have to have you show me
Odeon: You did it frequently and it was really intellectually dishonest
Al: BACK IT UP.
The whole things is a shitshow. Its far from done. >:(
-
"Remember that" Better than you, it seems. I said "ganging up" to describe her and Zegh collectively arguing/debating/fighting with DFG. It was no value judgment and nor did I mean what you wanted me to have meant by saying ganging up. It was not a loaded term. To test the point, I made a thread about it. The upshot, it was seen as fine in using in the context I used it with and there were many other alternatives that would have equally sufficed. I still say it was fine and not something that is needing to be defended against. The only person who seemed to see its usage as nasty, was you.
You WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was).
I didn't think it was cool, and I felt it was a loaded comment. I think I did make some comments about disagreeing with the term "ganging up."
"Ganging up" is a negative term that is often associated with bullying. I felt there was no need to use that term, when there was obviously many other terms that could have been used, without any nasty connotations.
Perhaps wrongly, when I see somebody write something like that, I credit them with the intelligence to know what they are writing, and how their words will be taken. And, I'm certainly no stranger to using loaded language myself :P
Obviously it would be wrong of me to tell you what you meant when you wrote it. However, when I read it, I assumed that you were deliberately using loaded language. I was very surprised to see you implying that you were genuinely unaware of how those words would be taken.
-
I see Butterflies replied re "ganging up", so I see no need to add to it. She explained it well.
As for all the rest of it, what this all boils down to is that I explain what I think and why, and you reply with a rather wordy "I don't believe it, the Odeon I know is smarter than that" or some variant of the same, which means that you are saying either that I'm stupid or I'm lying. Just say it instead of implying it. Be done with it.
But also, again, this is not about Zegh. What he did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, etc, is irrelevant. This is about your behaviour.
And yes, I know you didn't appreciate me saying he had a point, but I still think he did. Yes, horror of horrors, even though you don't like him.
-
"Remember that" Better than you, it seems. I said "ganging up" to describe her and Zegh collectively arguing/debating/fighting with DFG. It was no value judgment and nor did I mean what you wanted me to have meant by saying ganging up. It was not a loaded term. To test the point, I made a thread about it. The upshot, it was seen as fine in using in the context I used it with and there were many other alternatives that would have equally sufficed. I still say it was fine and not something that is needing to be defended against. The only person who seemed to see its usage as nasty, was you.
You WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was).
I didn't think it was cool, and I felt it was a loaded comment. I think I did make some comments about disagreeing with the term "ganging up."
"Ganging up" is a negative term that is often associated with bullying. I felt there was no need to use that term, when there was obviously many other terms that could have been used, without any nasty connotations.
Perhaps wrongly, when I see somebody write something like that, I credit them with the intelligence to know what they are writing, and how their words will be taken. And, I'm certainly no stranger to using loaded language myself :P
Obviously it would be wrong of me to tell you what you meant when you wrote it. However, when I read it, I assumed that you were deliberately using loaded language. I was very surprised to see you implying that you were genuinely unaware of how those words would be taken.
That's interesting. There was a great thread I had dedicated to exactly that specific occasion. Very interesting. There were a lot of alternatives offered, collectively it was both seen as a non-issue and people did not see "ganging up" in the kind of nasty, mustache-twirlingly diabolical way you both seem to see it.
I don't doubt either of your sincerity but I will let you know I was stunned that this was an issue at the time. I did not mean it in any loaded sense.
Out of interest what word should I have used. When I asked Odeon a while ago. He admitted it was fine. What word ought we use now for the same kind of situation, just so we aren't caught short using the "wrong" word. Curious?
-
I see Butterflies replied re "ganging up", so I see no need to add to it. She explained it well.
As for all the rest of it, what this all boils down to is that I explain what I think and why, and you reply with a rather wordy "I don't believe it, the Odeon I know is smarter than that" or some variant of the same, which means that you are saying either that I'm stupid or I'm lying. Just say it instead of implying it. Be done with it.
But also, again, this is not about Zegh. What he did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, etc, is irrelevant. This is about your behaviour.
And yes, I know you didn't appreciate me saying he had a point, but I still think he did. Yes, horror of horrors, even though you don't like him.
Okay what point DID he make because I am NOT asking you to agree with me and DO NOT think that equates to repeating yourself. Now you yourself talk of evolution and your move away from bad positions and badly chosen ways of explaining things. THAT lack of repetition MUST BE agreeing with me right? Under Zegh's position that you agreed with?
You don't believe that.
Shock, horror? Okay now I will let you show me. Given that context exactly what this point you are throwing your lot in with.
There was nothing nasty in ganging up and it was not meant with any nasty context or bullying connotations.
But by all means tell me which phrases I "should" have used instead.
-
But by all means tell me which phrases I "should" have used instead.
Thinking these should be the last words of this argument. Had previously stated not wishing to contribute further, but Butterflies just made Sir Les' argument for him. Up until this point, was viewing Odeon as coming close to making his case, even though taking a messy long time to do it. Odeon posted quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg on this crap while simultaneously claiming not to read, supporting the point of not being able to have it both ways. Odeon also posted quotes of Sir Les unknowing misrepresenting Zeg, by saying Zeg wasn't interested in resolution after Zeg had already conceded. My only objection to Odeon's approach was the label given to these actions was unfitting, by disagreeing with the definition, and believing Odeon should give more consideration to what the label also means to Sir Les. In the argument between Zeg and Sir Les, Zeg has stood accountable for starting the fight and taking things too far, and Sir Les has stood accountable for being a jerk by not giving Zeg a chance to quit and continuing to fight after it was over. Odeon may personally have higher standards for Sir Les' behavior. Butterflies made me realize Sir Les was trying to tell me something I missed. Didn't really read the stuff about ganging up because it seemed irrelevant, and one of multiple side-tracking mini-arguments within the argument which were paid no attention. Today it was read. Odeon stated the words ganging up imply all sorts of things most of which are at least a bit nasty, and criticized Sir Les for not caring about the consequences of his words. Odeon said semantic differences are important because Sir Les thinks a behavior means ganging up and Odeon doesn't; these things matter. The fact is, the phrase gang up has definitions which in no way define doing anything nasty like bullying. Though it's true the phrase carries some clearly nasty connotations and implications. Intellectual dishonesty also carries clear nasty connotations, so does knowingly misrepresenting, and those connotations are deliberately deceptive. Sir Les has shown Odeon to be hypocritical in this argument, and it makes sense he assumes Odeon doesn't care about what these words imply to, or about him. Odeon has presented the following definition: 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. Thinking the important word there is, because. Sir Les has clearly stated his manner of approach was because he wanted to be petty, vindictive and unreasonable in return of Zeg's behavior. There's nothing to suggest Sir Les' approach was for any other reason. Odeon has not proven Sir Les to be intellectually dishonest or knowing misrepresentative, so once again, will declare Sir Les the winner of this callout. May I also act a referee and declare the fight over? Gentlemen, please go to your corners.
-
"Remember that" Better than you, it seems. I said "ganging up" to describe her and Zegh collectively arguing/debating/fighting with DFG. It was no value judgment and nor did I mean what you wanted me to have meant by saying ganging up. It was not a loaded term. To test the point, I made a thread about it. The upshot, it was seen as fine in using in the context I used it with and there were many other alternatives that would have equally sufficed. I still say it was fine and not something that is needing to be defended against. The only person who seemed to see its usage as nasty, was you.
You WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was).
I didn't think it was cool, and I felt it was a loaded comment. I think I did make some comments about disagreeing with the term "ganging up."
"Ganging up" is a negative term that is often associated with bullying. I felt there was no need to use that term, when there was obviously many other terms that could have been used, without any nasty connotations.
Perhaps wrongly, when I see somebody write something like that, I credit them with the intelligence to know what they are writing, and how their words will be taken. And, I'm certainly no stranger to using loaded language myself :P
Obviously it would be wrong of me to tell you what you meant when you wrote it. However, when I read it, I assumed that you were deliberately using loaded language. I was very surprised to see you implying that you were genuinely unaware of how those words would be taken.
That's interesting. There was a great thread I had dedicated to exactly that specific occasion. Very interesting. There were a lot of alternatives offered, collectively it was both seen as a non-issue and people did not see "ganging up" in the kind of nasty, mustache-twirlingly diabolical way you both seem to see it.
I don't doubt either of your sincerity but I will let you know I was stunned that this was an issue at the time. I did not mean it in any loaded sense.
Out of interest what word should I have used. When I asked Odeon a while ago. He admitted it was fine. What word ought we use now for the same kind of situation, just so we aren't caught short using the "wrong" word. Curious?
in the kind of nasty, mustache-twirlingly diabolical way you both seem to see it.
I felt your comment was uncool, and rather loaded. Not "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
In case you're unaware, you are appearing to deliberately misrepresent my position, and possibly Odeons :thumbdn:
misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>
My post was pretty clear. I disagreed with the negative connotations that "ganging up" was likely to imply, and I felt there was no need to use the term. You have taken my simple post, and implied that I was suggesting your post was "nasty" and "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
This is why I have trouble believing anything you write. I feel you have a rather nasty habit of misrepresenting things, and I think it's deliberate.
Reality = I get involved in a fight with DFG.
Your take on the matter = Zegh and myself are ganging up on DFG.
Reality = I point out that I feel your "ganging up" comment was uncool, and unnecessary.
Your take on the matter = I seem to see your comment of "ganging up" as "nasty," and "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
-
"Remember that" Better than you, it seems. I said "ganging up" to describe her and Zegh collectively arguing/debating/fighting with DFG. It was no value judgment and nor did I mean what you wanted me to have meant by saying ganging up. It was not a loaded term. To test the point, I made a thread about it. The upshot, it was seen as fine in using in the context I used it with and there were many other alternatives that would have equally sufficed. I still say it was fine and not something that is needing to be defended against. The only person who seemed to see its usage as nasty, was you.
You WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was).
I didn't think it was cool, and I felt it was a loaded comment. I think I did make some comments about disagreeing with the term "ganging up."
"Ganging up" is a negative term that is often associated with bullying. I felt there was no need to use that term, when there was obviously many other terms that could have been used, without any nasty connotations.
Perhaps wrongly, when I see somebody write something like that, I credit them with the intelligence to know what they are writing, and how their words will be taken. And, I'm certainly no stranger to using loaded language myself :P
Obviously it would be wrong of me to tell you what you meant when you wrote it. However, when I read it, I assumed that you were deliberately using loaded language. I was very surprised to see you implying that you were genuinely unaware of how those words would be taken.
That's interesting. There was a great thread I had dedicated to exactly that specific occasion. Very interesting. There were a lot of alternatives offered, collectively it was both seen as a non-issue and people did not see "ganging up" in the kind of nasty, mustache-twirlingly diabolical way you both seem to see it.
I don't doubt either of your sincerity but I will let you know I was stunned that this was an issue at the time. I did not mean it in any loaded sense.
Out of interest what word should I have used. When I asked Odeon a while ago. He admitted it was fine. What word ought we use now for the same kind of situation, just so we aren't caught short using the "wrong" word. Curious?
in the kind of nasty, mustache-twirlingly diabolical way you both seem to see it.
I felt your comment was uncool, and rather loaded. Not "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
In case you're unaware, you are appearing to deliberately misrepresent my position, and possibly Odeons :thumbdn:
misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>
My post was pretty clear. I disagreed with the negative connotations that "ganging up" was likely to imply, and I felt there was no need to use the term. You have taken my simple post, and implied that I was suggesting your post was "nasty" and "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
This is why I have trouble believing anything you write. I feel you have a rather nasty habit of misrepresenting things, and I think it's deliberate.
Reality = I get involved in a fight with DFG.
Your take on the matter = Zegh and myself are ganging up on DFG.
Reality = I point out that I feel your "ganging up" comment was uncool, and unnecessary.
Your take on the matter = I seem to see your comment of "ganging up" as "nasty," and "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
Not at all. I do not see the connotation that you and Odeon see attached to it.
Odeon called it nasty and said that it inferred all kind of bullying and nasty implications. I can find the actual quote. To me it was a phrase that I did not think too hard on. You and Zegh were both apparently having a go at DFG. I did not defend her and I did not much care what was said, nor did I know the reasons. My way of saying you two were collectively and at the same time having an altercation or disagreement or heated discussion or argument of some description, with DFG, was to say you were ganging up. I did think on it in the terms I was accused of and even now I think the term was fine and the meaning neither nasty nor inferring you were bullying her.
So I have no real point of reference for Odeon or your belief of inferring bad things and nasty things and bullying things. Nasty he said and mustache twirling is what I said. I imagine it follows naturally from nasty and making inferences and loading terms and such. (None of which I was doing or making).
So the larger point about you saying
This is why I have trouble believing anything you write. I feel you have a rather nasty habit of misrepresenting things, and I think it's deliberate.
I don't really give a flying fuck what you believe or don't, Butterflies. So what is your point?
-
But by all means tell me which phrases I "should" have used instead.
Thinking these should be the last words of this argument. Had previously stated not wishing to contribute further, but Butterflies just made Sir Les' argument for him. Up until this point, was viewing Odeon as coming close to making his case, even though taking a messy long time to do it. Odeon posted quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg on this crap while simultaneously claiming not to read, supporting the point of not being able to have it both ways. Odeon also posted quotes of Sir Les unknowing misrepresenting Zeg, by saying Zeg wasn't interested in resolution after Zeg had already conceded. My only objection to Odeon's approach was the label given to these actions was unfitting, by disagreeing with the definition, and believing Odeon should give more consideration to what the label also means to Sir Les. In the argument between Zeg and Sir Les, Zeg has stood accountable for starting the fight and taking things too far, and Sir Les has stood accountable for being a jerk by not giving Zeg a chance to quit and continuing to fight after it was over. Odeon may personally have higher standards for Sir Les' behavior. Butterflies made me realize Sir Les was trying to tell me something I missed. Didn't really read the stuff about ganging up because it seemed irrelevant, and one of multiple side-tracking mini-arguments within the argument which were paid no attention. Today it was read. Odeon stated the words ganging up imply all sorts of things most of which are at least a bit nasty, and criticized Sir Les for not caring about the consequences of his words. Odeon said semantic differences are important because Sir Les thinks a behavior means ganging up and Odeon doesn't; these things matter. The fact is, the phrase gang up has definitions which in no way define doing anything nasty like bullying. Though it's true the phrase carries some clearly nasty connotations and implications. Intellectual dishonesty also carries clear nasty connotations, so does knowingly misrepresenting, and those connotations are deliberately deceptive. Sir Les has shown Odeon to be hypocritical in this argument, and it makes sense he assumes Odeon doesn't care about what these words imply to, or about him. Odeon has presented the following definition: 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. Thinking the important word there is, because. Sir Les has clearly stated his manner of approach was because he wanted to be petty, vindictive and unreasonable in return of Zeg's behavior. There's nothing to suggest Sir Les' approach was for any other reason. Odeon has not proven Sir Les to be intellectually dishonest or knowing misrepresentative, so once again, will declare Sir Les the winner of this callout. May I also act a referee and declare the fight over? Gentlemen, please go to your corners.
Thanks Jack.
I think you pretty much have the right of it, which is fucking extraordinary given the amount of posts and time.
-
"Remember that" Better than you, it seems. I said "ganging up" to describe her and Zegh collectively arguing/debating/fighting with DFG. It was no value judgment and nor did I mean what you wanted me to have meant by saying ganging up. It was not a loaded term. To test the point, I made a thread about it. The upshot, it was seen as fine in using in the context I used it with and there were many other alternatives that would have equally sufficed. I still say it was fine and not something that is needing to be defended against. The only person who seemed to see its usage as nasty, was you.
You WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was).
I didn't think it was cool, and I felt it was a loaded comment. I think I did make some comments about disagreeing with the term "ganging up."
"Ganging up" is a negative term that is often associated with bullying. I felt there was no need to use that term, when there was obviously many other terms that could have been used, without any nasty connotations.
Perhaps wrongly, when I see somebody write something like that, I credit them with the intelligence to know what they are writing, and how their words will be taken. And, I'm certainly no stranger to using loaded language myself :P
Obviously it would be wrong of me to tell you what you meant when you wrote it. However, when I read it, I assumed that you were deliberately using loaded language. I was very surprised to see you implying that you were genuinely unaware of how those words would be taken.
That's interesting. There was a great thread I had dedicated to exactly that specific occasion. Very interesting. There were a lot of alternatives offered, collectively it was both seen as a non-issue and people did not see "ganging up" in the kind of nasty, mustache-twirlingly diabolical way you both seem to see it.
I don't doubt either of your sincerity but I will let you know I was stunned that this was an issue at the time. I did not mean it in any loaded sense.
Out of interest what word should I have used. When I asked Odeon a while ago. He admitted it was fine. What word ought we use now for the same kind of situation, just so we aren't caught short using the "wrong" word. Curious?
in the kind of nasty, mustache-twirlingly diabolical way you both seem to see it.
I felt your comment was uncool, and rather loaded. Not "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
In case you're unaware, you are appearing to deliberately misrepresent my position, and possibly Odeons :thumbdn:
misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>
My post was pretty clear. I disagreed with the negative connotations that "ganging up" was likely to imply, and I felt there was no need to use the term. You have taken my simple post, and implied that I was suggesting your post was "nasty" and "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
This is why I have trouble believing anything you write. I feel you have a rather nasty habit of misrepresenting things, and I think it's deliberate.
Reality = I get involved in a fight with DFG.
Your take on the matter = Zegh and myself are ganging up on DFG.
Reality = I point out that I feel your "ganging up" comment was uncool, and unnecessary.
Your take on the matter = I seem to see your comment of "ganging up" as "nasty," and "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
Not at all. I do not see the connotation that you and Odeon see attached to it.
Odeon called it nasty and said that it inferred all kind of bullying and nasty implications. I can find the actual quote. To me it was a phrase that I did not think too hard on. You and Zegh were both apparently having a go at DFG. I did not defend her and I did not much care what was said, nor did I know the reasons. My way of saying you two were collectively and at the same time having an altercation or disagreement or heated discussion or argument of some description, with DFG, was to say you were ganging up. I did think on it in the terms I was accused of and even now I think the term was fine and the meaning neither nasty nor inferring you were bullying her.
So I have no real point of reference for Odeon or your belief of inferring bad things and nasty things and bullying things. Nasty he said and mustache twirling is what I said. I imagine it follows naturally from nasty and making inferences and loading terms and such. (None of which I was doing or making).
So the larger point about you saying
This is why I have trouble believing anything you write. I feel you have a rather nasty habit of misrepresenting things, and I think it's deliberate.
I don't really give a flying fuck what you believe or don't, Butterflies. So what is your point?
So I have no real point of reference for Odeon or your belief of inferring bad things and nasty things and bullying things. Nasty he said and mustache twirling is what I said. I imagine it follows naturally from nasty and making inferences and loading terms and such. (None of which I was doing or making).
I said you possibly misrepresented Odeon's view. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. That's for him to decide.
You certainly misrepresented mine. I never said your comment was "nasty," or "mustache-twirlingly diabolical." Nowhere have I made comments, even vaguely to that effect :thumbdn: That's certainly a form of dishonesty :thumbdn: In fact, it was clearly a straw man, and at a push, it could almost be described as a mild form of intellectual dishonesty :P
I don't really give a flying fuck what you believe or don't, Butterflies. So what is your point?
:lol1:
I was correctly pointing out that "You (Odeon) WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was) " was untrue.
Odeon wasn't the only one who had an issue with your use of the term "ganging up." I very clearly stated at the time that I disagreed with your "ganging up" comment.
Perhaps you just forgot that I disagreed with the term, and made an honest mistake.
Perhaps you deliberately misrepresented the situation, to wrongly make it look like Odeon was out of step, and the only person who thought "ganging up" was a poor choice of phrase.
I don't really care what your motive was. You brought me into your silly feud, and misrepresented my position. I was pointing out that what you said was untrue.
Not at all. I do not see the connotation that you and Odeon see attached to it.
I do. Odeon does, and so does Jack.
I believed you were smarter than that, but if you say that you can't see any negative connotations, then I have no choice but to take you at your word.
But really, it's no big deal. I commented at the time that I disagreed with your choice of phrase, and for me, that was the end of it. You made the comment at least 2 months ago. I would have to be butthurt on a pretty epic scale, to still want to debate the meaning of that silly comment, over 2 months later :zombiefuck:
-
"Remember that" Better than you, it seems. I said "ganging up" to describe her and Zegh collectively arguing/debating/fighting with DFG. It was no value judgment and nor did I mean what you wanted me to have meant by saying ganging up. It was not a loaded term. To test the point, I made a thread about it. The upshot, it was seen as fine in using in the context I used it with and there were many other alternatives that would have equally sufficed. I still say it was fine and not something that is needing to be defended against. The only person who seemed to see its usage as nasty, was you.
You WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was).
I didn't think it was cool, and I felt it was a loaded comment. I think I did make some comments about disagreeing with the term "ganging up."
"Ganging up" is a negative term that is often associated with bullying. I felt there was no need to use that term, when there was obviously many other terms that could have been used, without any nasty connotations.
Perhaps wrongly, when I see somebody write something like that, I credit them with the intelligence to know what they are writing, and how their words will be taken. And, I'm certainly no stranger to using loaded language myself :P
Obviously it would be wrong of me to tell you what you meant when you wrote it. However, when I read it, I assumed that you were deliberately using loaded language. I was very surprised to see you implying that you were genuinely unaware of how those words would be taken.
That's interesting. There was a great thread I had dedicated to exactly that specific occasion. Very interesting. There were a lot of alternatives offered, collectively it was both seen as a non-issue and people did not see "ganging up" in the kind of nasty, mustache-twirlingly diabolical way you both seem to see it.
I don't doubt either of your sincerity but I will let you know I was stunned that this was an issue at the time. I did not mean it in any loaded sense.
Out of interest what word should I have used. When I asked Odeon a while ago. He admitted it was fine. What word ought we use now for the same kind of situation, just so we aren't caught short using the "wrong" word. Curious?
in the kind of nasty, mustache-twirlingly diabolical way you both seem to see it.
I felt your comment was uncool, and rather loaded. Not "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
In case you're unaware, you are appearing to deliberately misrepresent my position, and possibly Odeons :thumbdn:
misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>
My post was pretty clear. I disagreed with the negative connotations that "ganging up" was likely to imply, and I felt there was no need to use the term. You have taken my simple post, and implied that I was suggesting your post was "nasty" and "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
This is why I have trouble believing anything you write. I feel you have a rather nasty habit of misrepresenting things, and I think it's deliberate.
Reality = I get involved in a fight with DFG.
Your take on the matter = Zegh and myself are ganging up on DFG.
Reality = I point out that I feel your "ganging up" comment was uncool, and unnecessary.
Your take on the matter = I seem to see your comment of "ganging up" as "nasty," and "mustache-twirlingly diabolical."
Not at all. I do not see the connotation that you and Odeon see attached to it.
Odeon called it nasty and said that it inferred all kind of bullying and nasty implications. I can find the actual quote. To me it was a phrase that I did not think too hard on. You and Zegh were both apparently having a go at DFG. I did not defend her and I did not much care what was said, nor did I know the reasons. My way of saying you two were collectively and at the same time having an altercation or disagreement or heated discussion or argument of some description, with DFG, was to say you were ganging up. I did think on it in the terms I was accused of and even now I think the term was fine and the meaning neither nasty nor inferring you were bullying her.
So I have no real point of reference for Odeon or your belief of inferring bad things and nasty things and bullying things. Nasty he said and mustache twirling is what I said. I imagine it follows naturally from nasty and making inferences and loading terms and such. (None of which I was doing or making).
So the larger point about you saying
This is why I have trouble believing anything you write. I feel you have a rather nasty habit of misrepresenting things, and I think it's deliberate.
I don't really give a flying fuck what you believe or don't, Butterflies. So what is your point?
So I have no real point of reference for Odeon or your belief of inferring bad things and nasty things and bullying things. Nasty he said and mustache twirling is what I said. I imagine it follows naturally from nasty and making inferences and loading terms and such. (None of which I was doing or making).
I said you possibly misrepresented Odeon's view. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. That's for him to decide.
You certainly misrepresented mine. I never said your comment was "nasty," or "mustache-twirlingly diabolical." Nowhere have I made comments, even vaguely to that effect :thumbdn: That's certainly a form of dishonesty :thumbdn: In fact, it was clearly a straw man, and at a push, it could almost be described as a mild form of intellectual dishonesty :P
I don't really give a flying fuck what you believe or don't, Butterflies. So what is your point?
:lol1:
I was correctly pointing out that "You (Odeon) WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was) " was untrue.
Odeon wasn't the only one who had an issue with your use of the term "ganging up." I very clearly stated at the time that I disagreed with your "ganging up" comment.
Perhaps you just forgot that I disagreed with the term, and made an honest mistake.
Perhaps you deliberately misrepresented the situation, to wrongly make it look like Odeon was out of step, and the only person who thought "ganging up" was a poor choice of phrase.
I don't really care what your motive was. You brought me into your silly feud, and misrepresented my position. I was pointing out that what you said was untrue.
Not at all. I do not see the connotation that you and Odeon see attached to it.
I do. Odeon does, and so does Jack.
I believed you were smarter than that, but if you say that you can't see any negative connotations, then I have no choice but to take you at your word.
But really, it's no big deal. I commented at the time that I disagreed with your choice of phrase, and for me, that was the end of it. You made the comment at least 2 months ago. I would have to be butthurt on a pretty epic scale, to still want to debate the meaning of that silly comment, over 2 months later :zombiefuck:
Okay so you did have a problem with it. It did not look like it to me at the time. You now tell me you did and I was wrong. And what is the point? I do not care if I was wrong about what I saw. I saw it I called it and I am over it.
I am still not seeing the point. I don't care if you disagree with me and I don't care if you like me or don't or if you believe me or not.
I am also not sure if what I have said partially or completely answers what you are trying to put to me. I see a lot of unhappy emoticons but I think I can bear up. If you would like me to cover something else or clarify or expand (regardless if you agree or believe or whatever) let me know
-
Okay so you did have a problem with it. It did not look like it to me at the time. You now tell me you did and I was wrong. And what is the point? I do not care if I was wrong about what I saw. I saw it I called it and I am over it.
I am still not seeing the point. I don't care if you disagree with me and I don't care if you like me or don't or if you believe me or not.
I am also not sure if what I have said partially or completely answers what you are trying to put to me. I see a lot of unhappy emoticons but I think I can bear up. If you would like me to cover something else or clarify or expand (regardless if you agree or believe or whatever) let me know
Okay so you did have a problem with it. It did not look like it to me at the time. You now tell me you did and I was wrong. And what is the point?
My point was simply that you misrepresented my position. You say it was an innocent mistake. Naturally, I will have to take you at your word :thumbup:
I don't care if you disagree with me and I don't care if you like me or don't or if you believe me or not.
I never said I don't like you :hug:
Actually, joking aside, I did dislike you, but not now. I used to think you were an internet baddie :laugh: launching these feuds as some kind of bloodsport. Having watched this feud with Odeon, I genuinely realize that I got you wrong. You don't behave like this because you're bad, or nasty. You behave like this because you're fucking crazy, and probably no little bit ill.
Crazy is way better than nasty :2thumbsup: I actually don't mind crazy people :thumbup:
I am also not sure if what I have said partially or completely answers what you are trying to put to me. I see a lot of unhappy emoticons but I think I can bear up. If you would like me to cover something else or clarify or expand (regardless if you agree or believe or whatever) let me know
Thanks, but no. We cool Bro :2thumbsup:
-
We are all a bit crazy here. If believing I am crazy works for you, I am okay with that. It does not affect me in any meaningful way.
Out of interest, IF the word ganging up was completely unsuited to describe things, what was the "right" phrase that I "should have used"?
-
We are all a bit crazy here. If believing I am crazy works for you, I am okay with that. It does not affect me in any meaningful way.
Out of interest, IF the word ganging up was completely unsuited to describe things, what was the "right" phrase that I "should have used"?
I don't know what phrase you should have used. I would have to go back and look at the context, and I'm really not for doing that :laugh:
You're a big boy, and I think you're perfectly capable of choosing the right phrases by yourself :thumbup:
It really doesn't matter anyway. It was a long time ago, and there's no point in going over it now. It wasn't a big deal at the time, and it's certainly not a big deal now.
-
We are all a bit crazy here. If believing I am crazy works for you, I am okay with that. It does not affect me in any meaningful way.
Out of interest, IF the word ganging up was completely unsuited to describe things, what was the "right" phrase that I "should have used"?
I don't know what phrase you should have used. I would have to go back and look at the context, and I'm really not for doing that :laugh:
You're a big boy, and I think you're perfectly capable of choosing the right phrases by yourself :thumbup:
It really doesn't matter anyway. It was a long time ago, and there's no point in going over it now. It wasn't a big deal at the time, and it's certainly not a big deal now.
Certainly wasn't to me but when the spotlight was shone on it (after I recovered from the WTF's?) I had a bit of fun with it.
I was genuinely curious. As I said before I think the term was fine as it was. I was after your opinion. You say it doesn't matter? I say I agree. It probably never did and was one of many points of contention that were non-issues.
-
But by all means tell me which phrases I "should" have used instead.
Thinking these should be the last words of this argument. Had previously stated not wishing to contribute further, but Butterflies just made Sir Les' argument for him. Up until this point, was viewing Odeon as coming close to making his case, even though taking a messy long time to do it. Odeon posted quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg on this crap while simultaneously claiming not to read, supporting the point of not being able to have it both ways. Odeon also posted quotes of Sir Les unknowing misrepresenting Zeg, by saying Zeg wasn't interested in resolution after Zeg had already conceded. My only objection to Odeon's approach was the label given to these actions was unfitting, by disagreeing with the definition, and believing Odeon should give more consideration to what the label also means to Sir Les. In the argument between Zeg and Sir Les, Zeg has stood accountable for starting the fight and taking things too far, and Sir Les has stood accountable for being a jerk by not giving Zeg a chance to quit and continuing to fight after it was over. Odeon may personally have higher standards for Sir Les' behavior. Butterflies made me realize Sir Les was trying to tell me something I missed. Didn't really read the stuff about ganging up because it seemed irrelevant, and one of multiple side-tracking mini-arguments within the argument which were paid no attention. Today it was read. Odeon stated the words ganging up imply all sorts of things most of which are at least a bit nasty, and criticized Sir Les for not caring about the consequences of his words. Odeon said semantic differences are important because Sir Les thinks a behavior means ganging up and Odeon doesn't; these things matter. The fact is, the phrase gang up has definitions which in no way define doing anything nasty like bullying. Though it's true the phrase carries some clearly nasty connotations and implications. Intellectual dishonesty also carries clear nasty connotations, so does knowingly misrepresenting, and those connotations are deliberately deceptive. Sir Les has shown Odeon to be hypocritical in this argument, and it makes sense he assumes Odeon doesn't care about what these words imply to, or about him. Odeon has presented the following definition: 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. Thinking the important word there is, because. Sir Les has clearly stated his manner of approach was because he wanted to be petty, vindictive and unreasonable in return of Zeg's behavior. There's nothing to suggest Sir Les' approach was for any other reason. Odeon has not proven Sir Les to be intellectually dishonest or knowing misrepresentative, so once again, will declare Sir Les the winner of this callout. May I also act a referee and declare the fight over? Gentlemen, please go to your corners.
One thing here that I think needs saying. Is you are right about the application of the definition which is something I have argued over. Indeed i have shown how I can similarly (and I say better apply the definition that Odeon uses to shoehorn Odeon's actions to fit Intellectual dishonesty. I think comparatively I would make an even better case than what he introduced.
I am smart enough to know that this would still be disingenuous and it is simply pathologising his actions and showing them in the worst light and examining them with a pre-conceived conclusion. It is the cherrypicking you referred to earlier.
The linkages are tenuous and forced and so pointing rightly as the "because" implying a reason I did not have is like pushing a domino and seeing it all fall. The arguments that he has doubled down on are not strong.
I think there was a reason for this and for the word fumbling and the inability to find his way in 3 months in the argument and why he has tried various tactics and has dropped merged and retracted various tangential arguments along the way.
I do not think his argument was that great and I think unlike the Odeon that we are used to seeing that is logical, precise with his words, able to articulate and choose his words carefully, he adopted a poor position in anger or frustration and without thinking and doubled double for all he was worth.
That is my honest assessment. I think it is a terrible shame because I actually like Odeon despite this. I see it as beneath him and out of character. I see it as him at his worst. It is akin to watching your favourite play with your favourite actor, and him coming in blind drunk and clumsily, missing his cues and speaking inarticulately. You know that it is an anomaly and is neither normal, nor necessarily going to happen again, but it is so disappointing it happened the first time.
As to why he failed so badly? I don't know. If I HAD to guess....
It looks bad and cringeworthy. Its not you. That is its not normal you. Its like you are doubling down on the position because to admit it really did not have legs is kind of saying I was right but if you are viewing this from an emotional and reactive mindset, THAT may feel like it then not only dismisses a weak claim but says that I WAS right, you were wrong and your opinion was invalid and so therefore your motivations or feelings were insincere.
I could sympathise with that kind of position. I have been very happy to admit I was a jerk. No issue. I made things difficult. Ninja Cats were probably as aggravating for others as they were for Zegh. Six months of this is a long time. Mocking him whilst not reading him may have really worn on your sense of it being poor form. It WAS a new tactic and an abrasive one.
Any of these things may have been enough for you to want to have a go at me. What would have been my defence? I was not being a jerk? It may even drive someone to try something a little more substantial an argument. To attack their values or integrity. Something that may give them pause to think and not just brush it off and admit to it. A guy who is good at arguing may even be able to prop an argument up which looks substantial enough at first glance. It may just be enough to make someone like me to back up a bit and perhaps others to join in condemnation.
I would understand how something like THAT could happen and how when questioned a want to make it look more substantial and scrambling on the fly would lead someone to word fumble. Would also reason that doubling down would make the argument look stronger and so would merging and amalgamating other claims into it.
Of course that is what it looked like to me. The irony of course is that the were that or something like it the case, the strong claims are the ones that I could not contest. They are ones that ultimately could have got a bit of traction. Were they claims I had to contest, we would not have been here.
-
I see it as beneath him and out of character.
Have said before, that seems exactly what Odeon was trying to say about you. So now you're both disappointed. Good. :laugh: That seems a fair enough ending. My personal bias for Odeon wanted him to win. Odeon was given by me, ample opportunity and sufficient reasons to bend away from the term and definition, without my saying exactly why it's a losing stance. Odeon's choice of definition contained a motive.
-
I see it as beneath him and out of character.
Have said before, that seems exactly what Odeon was trying to say about you. So now you're both disappointed. Good. :laugh: That seems a fair enough ending. My personal bias for Odeon wanted him to win. Odeon was given by me, ample opportunity and sufficient reasons to bend away from the term and definition, without my saying exactly why it's a losing stance. Odeon's choice of definition contained a motive.
Again you are right.
He did try saying something similar about me. I had forgotten that further ironic point. He fumbled away ever since.
You are right in saying he is disappointed in me as I in him. The difference though, I believe, is simply he did not like my tactics and how I conducted myself and tried to present it as an intellectual, moral or ethic failing. It was me simply being nasty and giving back with interest. I was being a jerk.
So his disappointment I believe and think is genuine
I don't think he liked my actions. I the same as he. But that is where our similarities dissipate
-
I did not only try, I said it. I also said at the time that your use of "ganging up" was loaded. I also believe there was no way you wouldn't be aware of that fact. All of which was beside the point, because this was something you said.
I don't think I failed at all.
But Jack, really? Hypocritical? Did you read me at all? Ganging up was not a part of this argument, it was something Al said about Butterflies, something Butterflies denied.
Thinking Butterflies is closer to the truth than either of you, and she is not emotionally invested in this.
-
But Jack, really? Hypocritical? Did you read me at all? Ganging up was not a part of this argument, it was something Al said about Butterflies, something Butterflies denied.
Yes, yes, and yes. Semantic differences are important in personal conflicts, because one must consider what the other side interprets of the meaning, regardless of the intent of use. It wasn't the actual argument, but part of the argument and you were absolutely right about that. Sir Les' main contention against your claim was one of the importance of semantic differences. That was the sole basis of any case he made for himself against the words being used; he wanted you to care those words mean liar to him. Butterflies thoughts about those words are certainly the more relevant in that discussion because she was on the receiving end, and Sir Les' thoughts on the receiving end are no less relevant. Should probably add you're not hypocritical generally speaking; am talking about this one specific case. If you believe hypocracy isn't the correct term for me to use, then how would you better describe it? Am absolutely willing to consider your feelings, and perfectly fine to be wrong about that. Personally am a hypocrite about all sorts of stuff, but still have no problem saying something is the wrong thing to do; the fact I've done it or do it doesn't change still thinking it's wrong.
I don't think I failed at all.
Then keep fighting about it, and prove Sir Les 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. Even if dropping the word professionally from that, it will entail calling him a liar about the reason why he said he did it. It seemed clear all along he was doing it because he was angry, and maybe even enjoying it. It wasn't the right term.
-
I don't know what phrase you should have used.
Jack called it a coincidence.
-
But Jack, really? Hypocritical? Did you read me at all? Ganging up was not a part of this argument, it was something Al said about Butterflies, something Butterflies denied.
Yes, yes, and yes. Semantic differences are important in personal conflicts, because one must consider what the other side interprets of the meaning, regardless of the intent of use. It wasn't the actual argument, but part of the argument and you were absolutely right about that. Sir Les' main contention against your claim was one of the importance of semantic differences. That was the sole basis of any case he made for himself against the words being used; he wanted you to care those words mean liar to him. Butterflies thoughts about those words are certainly the more relevant in that discussion because she was on the receiving end, and Sir Les' thoughts on the receiving end are no less relevant. Should probably add you're not hypocritical generally speaking; am talking about this one specific case. If you believe hypocracy isn't the correct term for me to use, then how would you better describe it? Am absolutely willing to consider your feelings, and perfectly fine to be wrong about that. Personally am a hypocrite about all sorts of stuff, but still have no problem saying something is the wrong thing to do; the fact I've done it or do it doesn't change still thinking it's wrong.
I don't think I failed at all.
Then keep fighting about it, and prove Sir Les 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. Even if dropping the word professionally from that, it will entail calling him a liar about the reason why he said he did it. It seemed clear all along he was doing it because he was angry, and maybe even enjoying it. It wasn't the right term.
Exactly.
-
But Jack, really?
If it's any consideration, have been under a lot of stress and thus acting out of character. Talking too much both here and work. The consequence has meant upsetting people and shooting myself in the foot.
-
But Jack, really?
If it's any consideration, have been under a lot of stress and thus acting out of character. Talking too much both here and work. The consequence has meant upsetting people and shooting myself in the foot.
I can send the Royal Physician to tend to your foot and also bring suitable liquid medicine for the stress.
-
But Jack, really?
If it's any consideration, have been under a lot of stress and thus acting out of character. Talking too much both here and work. The consequence has meant upsetting people and shooting myself in the foot.
Jack, where else but here ought that not matter.
What you said is fine and your ability to read and understand 3 months + is awesome
-
It matters.
And my gratitude, Your Majesty.
-
It matters.
And my gratitude, Your Majesty.
If there was ever a sanctuary to have an opinion (Hell even a bad one!) this is the place. Your views were honest, transparent and articulate. Why should you feel bad or justifying that?
You are fine, mate.
-
It seems to matter to Odeon, so matters to me. Hypocritical can be a pretty loaded word.
-
It seems to matter to Odeon, so matters to me. Hypocritical can be a pretty loaded word.
Okay, fair enough. But it also matters what YOU think. He does not trump you and visa versa. We are all equal here.
-
But Jack, really? Hypocritical? Did you read me at all? Ganging up was not a part of this argument, it was something Al said about Butterflies, something Butterflies denied.
Yes, yes, and yes. Semantic differences are important in personal conflicts, because one must consider what the other side interprets of the meaning, regardless of the intent of use. It wasn't the actual argument, but part of the argument and you were absolutely right about that. Sir Les' main contention against your claim was one of the importance of semantic differences. That was the sole basis of any case he made for himself against the words being used; he wanted you to care those words mean liar to him. Butterflies thoughts about those words are certainly the more relevant in that discussion because she was on the receiving end, and Sir Les' thoughts on the receiving end are no less relevant. Should probably add you're not hypocritical generally speaking; am talking about this one specific case. If you believe hypocracy isn't the correct term for me to use, then how would you better describe it? Am absolutely willing to consider your feelings, and perfectly fine to be wrong about that. Personally am a hypocrite about all sorts of stuff, but still have no problem saying something is the wrong thing to do; the fact I've done it or do it doesn't change still thinking it's wrong.
I don't think I failed at all.
Then keep fighting about it, and prove Sir Les 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. Even if dropping the word professionally from that, it will entail calling him a liar about the reason why he said he did it. It seemed clear all along he was doing it because he was angry, and maybe even enjoying it. It wasn't the right term.
No, it's not since Al is certainly clever enough to know that what he says is loaded. I'd say that his behaviour later, when starting a thread about alternative meanings, says more than I ever could. Plus, of course, Butterflies' reaction both then and now.
But here is the thing: "ganging up" was never my phrase, it was just a phrase that I reacted against, just as Butterflies did, because it is a loaded phrase and there is no way in hell Al doesn't get that.
If anything, it's a case of semantics mattering, which is what I have been saying all along, so using his phrasing against me in this particular instance makes no sense to me.
If Al does understand this, then it's disappointing. If he doesn't, then possibly even more.
-
But Jack, really?
If it's any consideration, have been under a lot of stress and thus acting out of character. Talking too much both here and work. The consequence has meant upsetting people and shooting myself in the foot.
Jack, where else but here ought that not matter.
What you said is fine and your ability to read and understand 3 months + is awesome
You would say that, wouldn't you? Jack getting it wrong is good for you.
-
It seems to matter to Odeon, so matters to me. Hypocritical can be a pretty loaded word.
It matters to me because I don't understand or agree with it at all. It makes me feel as if either you've not read what I've said or I've been exceptionally poor at expressing myself. Neither alternative seems right to me.
-
It seems to matter to Odeon, so matters to me. Hypocritical can be a pretty loaded word.
Okay, fair enough. But it also matters what YOU think. He does not trump you and visa versa. We are all equal here.
Of course it matters. If it didn't, would I even be responding now, either to you or to Jack?
-
I'm highly disappointed none of these insinuations are about me. :soapbox:
-
But here is the thing: "ganging up" was never my phrase, it was just a phrase that I reacted against, just as Butterflies did, because it is a loaded phrase and there is no way in hell Al doesn't get that.
If anything, it's a case of semantics mattering, which is what I have been saying all along, so using his phrasing against me in this particular instance makes no sense to me.
Already know it wasn't your phrase and reacted against it by criticizing Sir Les for using loaded words, just like he has criticized you for using loaded words. From an outside view, it appears the only interpretations either of you care about is your own, and at the same time insist other people are wrong if they don't see your point of view. So now thinking about it more, maybe should have called you both hypocrites, but probably neither. It was an ass move. Again, I didn't think it important for the two of you to agree on a definition, or for either to say they're wrong about it, but rather more important for both to stop insisting on being right about it. My decision was based on what the words mean to me, and concluding it was the wrong term even by the standards of the definition presented. Although could have made that final decision without saying anything at all about the importance of implications or calling you hypocritical; it wasn't necessary to do that, and I shouldn't have.
-
It seems to matter to Odeon, so matters to me. Hypocritical can be a pretty loaded word.
Okay, fair enough. But it also matters what YOU think. He does not trump you and visa versa. We are all equal here.
Of course it matters. If it didn't, would I even be responding now, either to you or to Jack?
I see what you are saying. Let me put it a little clearly. Jack ought not silence their voice because you may not agree. Same with me. Same with you. If being questioned or disagreed with makes you feel bad, that is a shame but it ought not unto itself make you change your views.
A lot of what I see Jack say is 100% dead on. A lot of her posts I agree with mostly. I think she has shown an alarming amount of insight. Because I agree with her mostly, you would disagree mostly. But I just do not believe she ought to feel bad about that. At all. Jack was hardly being personal or insulting. I can't say the same for myself and Jack has shown a lot of reserve and plenty of patience.
-
But Jack, really? Hypocritical? Did you read me at all? Ganging up was not a part of this argument, it was something Al said about Butterflies, something Butterflies denied.
Yes, yes, and yes. Semantic differences are important in personal conflicts, because one must consider what the other side interprets of the meaning, regardless of the intent of use. It wasn't the actual argument, but part of the argument and you were absolutely right about that. Sir Les' main contention against your claim was one of the importance of semantic differences. That was the sole basis of any case he made for himself against the words being used; he wanted you to care those words mean liar to him. Butterflies thoughts about those words are certainly the more relevant in that discussion because she was on the receiving end, and Sir Les' thoughts on the receiving end are no less relevant. Should probably add you're not hypocritical generally speaking; am talking about this one specific case. If you believe hypocracy isn't the correct term for me to use, then how would you better describe it? Am absolutely willing to consider your feelings, and perfectly fine to be wrong about that. Personally am a hypocrite about all sorts of stuff, but still have no problem saying something is the wrong thing to do; the fact I've done it or do it doesn't change still thinking it's wrong.
I don't think I failed at all.
Then keep fighting about it, and prove Sir Les 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. Even if dropping the word professionally from that, it will entail calling him a liar about the reason why he said he did it. It seemed clear all along he was doing it because he was angry, and maybe even enjoying it. It wasn't the right term.
No, it's not since Al is certainly clever enough to know that what he says is loaded. I'd say that his behaviour later, when starting a thread about alternative meanings, says more than I ever could. Plus, of course, Butterflies' reaction both then and now.
But here is the thing: "ganging up" was never my phrase, it was just a phrase that I reacted against, just as Butterflies did, because it is a loaded phrase and there is no way in hell Al doesn't get that.
If anything, it's a case of semantics mattering, which is what I have been saying all along, so using his phrasing against me in this particular instance makes no sense to me.
If Al does understand this, then it's disappointing. If he doesn't, then possibly even more.
Evidently and by your own measure Al is a moron because he did not at any time (as I have repeated over and over) attach ANY (got that Odeon) negative connotation, nor was he using the the term "ganging up" in any loaded way or meaning.
So now either I am lying or I am not, which Odeon? Choose one.
That is as simple as this gets.
The thread was genuine. It was me genuinely mocking you, but also genuinely seeing how off track I was. It appears that I wasn't. BUT let's test the theory, here were some suggestion of better alternatives, you tell me what I "SHOULD HAVE" used:
"mobbing"
"dog piling"
"Lending support"
"Constructive Criticism"
"Forming a Posse"
Now you may have a problem with any of these suggestions too. But they may well have been used by the members offering them. Mind you THOSE members never pulled me up on MY phrase. So I want you to tell me which of these phrases YOU do not find appropriate or loaded?
Then tell me what phrase GIVEN the context I SHOULD have used?
Its fine to throw it out there and say I meant x in a y way. But YOU need to back yourself. If I deny it am I lying? Yes or no? If I ought not have used that phrase then what phrase would have been suitable in the way that I meant it, and in describing what I was describing? As you have not told me I sought other opinions, were THEIR opinions equally wrong or right?
IF they are wrong too or if you find it difficult in finding an appropriate phrase then are YOU perhaps wrong? If you come up with a better phrase, is it JUST your opinion and does that make your a moral arbiter?
Recently in Australia, we had an idiot in some position of power they don't deserve pushing idiotic narratives.
Here is one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jTt3Vb4FTI
There has been A LOT of pushback. Why? Because to most people "Hey guys" is NOT a loaded phrase. But to some it is. Some people saying "Hey guys" mean it to say "hey everyone" BUT there is a thought that some may mean it to be purely an allocation of masculine gender identity or whatever this idiot is pronouncing. So the speaker has to re-think THEIR position? NO!
If you are with me so far, you will probably agree that it matters in which way the person meant it and that there was more than one way they could have. You would likely agree, it may mean a person upset by the usage can complain or express confusion as to how they actually meant it, BUT THAT does not change the usage or intent.
They have found the use of "Hey girls" for women is almost equally rejected. Most people are not sensitive to it and most do not see it as problematic.
If I take this a step further, if I say "Hey gang" what am I implying about the make up of the people I am talking about? Not a lot?
When I said "ganging up" I meant it entirely in the sense that they were both collectively and together disagreeing/arguing/critiquing/criticising DFG. THAT is it. Together and at the same time.
There was NO moral judgement. There was nothing nasty. There as no implication of bullying - not on here.
So again I have asked a lot of very reasonable questions (many of which you seem to have sought to evade) and in context of all I have said, I would not mind some answers.
-
But Jack, really?
If it's any consideration, have been under a lot of stress and thus acting out of character. Talking too much both here and work. The consequence has meant upsetting people and shooting myself in the foot.
Jack, where else but here ought that not matter.
What you said is fine and your ability to read and understand 3 months + is awesome
You would say that, wouldn't you? Jack getting it wrong is good for you.
I've answered this elsewhere
I see what you are saying. Let me put it a little clearly. Jack ought not silence their voice because you may not agree. Same with me. Same with you. If being questioned or disagreed with makes you feel bad, that is a shame but it ought not unto itself make you change your views.
A lot of what I see Jack say is 100% dead on. A lot of her posts I agree with mostly. I think she has shown an alarming amount of insight. Because I agree with her mostly, you would disagree mostly. But I just do not believe she ought to feel bad about that. At all. Jack was hardly being personal or insulting. I can't say the same for myself and Jack has shown a lot of reserve and plenty of patience.
-
It seems to matter to Odeon, so matters to me. Hypocritical can be a pretty loaded word.
It matters to me because I don't understand or agree with it at all. It makes me feel as if either you've not read what I've said or I've been exceptionally poor at expressing myself. Neither alternative seems right to me.
You have railed against me apparently using the wrong words or using words with a loaded or greater meaning. YET you have continually fumbled and stumbled over the last 3 months accusing me of one thing and then walking it back, retracting it or saying that it was used in the wrong context or that it was perhaps correct but the wrong word for what you were saying.
Yes dishonest was one and pretending was another. But there have been others too including the phrase "knowingly misrepresenting".
Compare YOUR conduct against what you accused me of doing and you ought to be able to see hypocrisy. You ought to be able to see a reluctance to administer the same level of scrutiny with my behaviour as you afford yourself.
The key difference if any is that in my case I think the charge of me using a loaded term which means specifically being nasty or bullying is not right in that context, whereas YOU admit each of those examples of yours were.
-
Jack getting it wrong is good for you.
Just noticed this. Don't think I got it wrong. It was a jerk thing for me to say, and wrong to single you out for a behavior you both were doing.
-
Jack getting it wrong is good for you.
Just noticed this. Don't think I got it wrong. It was a jerk thing for me to say, and wrong to single you out for a behavior you both were doing.
I disagree BUT I do not think it was a jerk thing for you to say and neither do I think you were wrong. More importantly, I believe you ought to feel free to say what you think. Maybe not at work, maybe not at home, but here.
-
But Jack, really? Hypocritical? Did you read me at all? Ganging up was not a part of this argument, it was something Al said about Butterflies, something Butterflies denied.
Yes, yes, and yes. Semantic differences are important in personal conflicts, because one must consider what the other side interprets of the meaning, regardless of the intent of use. It wasn't the actual argument, but part of the argument and you were absolutely right about that. Sir Les' main contention against your claim was one of the importance of semantic differences. That was the sole basis of any case he made for himself against the words being used; he wanted you to care those words mean liar to him. Butterflies thoughts about those words are certainly the more relevant in that discussion because she was on the receiving end, and Sir Les' thoughts on the receiving end are no less relevant. Should probably add you're not hypocritical generally speaking; am talking about this one specific case. If you believe hypocracy isn't the correct term for me to use, then how would you better describe it? Am absolutely willing to consider your feelings, and perfectly fine to be wrong about that. Personally am a hypocrite about all sorts of stuff, but still have no problem saying something is the wrong thing to do; the fact I've done it or do it doesn't change still thinking it's wrong.
I don't think I failed at all.
Then keep fighting about it, and prove Sir Les 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. Even if dropping the word professionally from that, it will entail calling him a liar about the reason why he said he did it. It seemed clear all along he was doing it because he was angry, and maybe even enjoying it. It wasn't the right term.
No, it's not since Al is certainly clever enough to know that what he says is loaded. I'd say that his behaviour later, when starting a thread about alternative meanings, says more than I ever could. Plus, of course, Butterflies' reaction both then and now.
But here is the thing: "ganging up" was never my phrase, it was just a phrase that I reacted against, just as Butterflies did, because it is a loaded phrase and there is no way in hell Al doesn't get that.
If anything, it's a case of semantics mattering, which is what I have been saying all along, so using his phrasing against me in this particular instance makes no sense to me.
If Al does understand this, then it's disappointing. If he doesn't, then possibly even more.
How many people are needed in order for a gang to be a gang? Out of interest.
(http://www.gerweck.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/one-man-gang.jpg)
"One Man Gang"
A gang of one? A gang of two? A gang of three? I'd probably say three or more.
-
Who cares, Al? You brought it up, not me, so you answer it. I'm done with all this.
-
Who cares, Al? You brought it up, not me, so you answer it. I'm done with all this.
Who bought it up exactly? You did. I mentioned in passing that Zegh was ganging up with Butterflies or visa versa. I did not bring that up as an issue. YOU did.
Who cares? YOU do.
You want to say I meant it in x way or Y way, you are either being dishonest or claiming far more than you could possibly know. It is pretty poor.
I have said before and a number of times that I did not say it in a negative way or with partiality and still you say that I did.
Why?
Its not at all up for question that i am saying unequivocally that what you claim I am meaning, intending or motivated by is incorrect and I say this as someone who actually KNOWS what is in my own head.
So spell out the argument in contrast to my absolute denial of your suspicions of what I thought and meant.
-
::sigh::
Who cares? Well, for one, Butterflies did. She reacted the same way I did. She had the same interpretation of the term as I did. Words matter, Al, and there is no way you are not aware of the implications of "ganging up".
Why is it that if you use a term "in passing", we're supposed to ignore it since you claim you didn't "say it in a negative way" but you generate page upon page of callout posts if somebody else does it?
You might as well kill that newest callout of yours, btw. I am not going to respond to it, and nor am I interested in continuing this one.
-
::sigh::
Who cares? Well, for one, Butterflies did. She reacted the same way I did. She had the same interpretation of the term as I did. Words matter, Al, and there is no way you are not aware of the implications of "ganging up".
Why is it that if you use a term "in passing", we're supposed to ignore it since you claim you didn't "say it in a negative way" but you generate page upon page of callout posts if somebody else does it?
You might as well kill that newest callout of yours, btw. I am not going to respond to it, and nor am I interested in continuing this one.
I do not much care whether you are continuing it or not. As I said if you are not prepared to back yourself that is completely on you.
Whether you choose to ignore something or not is entirely your own choice. Did I say you were "supposed to ignore" something? Did I say anything remotely similar? Is this a strawman?
You can react as you feel fit. This is Intensitysquared.
I did find it odd as to your reaction because you ascribed a lot of bullshit to something I wrote, without any intent of any of that. Again....it is like the "hey guys" phrase. Now it MAY offend or make the reader/listener think it is gender specific, BUT if the speaker/writer intended it to NOT be gender specific, then it does not much matter. One is presuming in a specific sense of what a word means and another in another way.
Here is the big question IF you believe I may have meant "ganging up" in a bad, nasty, bullying, and whatever other way. Then that is fine. If you read it in context that way. That too is fine. If you then questioned me as to this, that too is fine. If you then told me I meant it is a certain way You are an foolish because you do not know what I know and don't know in which way I meant it. If i tell you how I meant it and you are resist to appreciating that it was meant in a different way to to how you thought I meant it and you insist you know how I meant it, you are an idiot.
Where that places you exactly, I don't know. Probably on the sillier side of reasonable or towards idiotic. I don't know why you would imagine that to be a good idea.
Context alone should have broadcasted the situation rather loudly. We are at IntensitySquared. In IntensitySquared grizzling or arguing or debating is pretty standard. What MAY be considered bullying or nasty or whatever is not generally considered that here. In fact were i to highlight each of these occasions as bullying or nasty I would be making multiple reports some days and many of them on myself. So the sheer redundancy of me trying to draw attention to something being bullying or nasty is laughable.
At the time there were a few things going on and a few spates with multiple people joining in together. I think a callout with DFG and Some Bloke too. I do not mind people fighting on here generally nor others having callouts. I game no shits about Butterflies involvement nor gave her a hard time about this. I only mentioned this as a way of drawing attention and mocking Zegh for breaking his one month silent treatment.
There was nothing crafty nor clever in saying "ganging up".
I asked before, IF that phrase was "wrong" what phrase "should" I have used. You refuse to answer and so I will presume it was fine and you are making a big deal over fuck all. I got some great alternatives too.
-
I'm telling you how I reacted--that the wording you chose implied nastiness--not what you meant, which I don't know. I do know, however, that Butterflies read pretty much the same thing into your post that I did. I also think that there is little chance of you not being aware of the negative connotations of the term.
So you might as well avoid the name-calling for now or I shall have to call you an idiot for missing those connotations
And I'm sure you'll continue this. This is Intensity, where people can post largely uncensored. And, in your case, unread.
-
I'm telling you how I reacted--that the wording you chose implied nastiness--not what you meant, which I don't know. I do know, however, that Butterflies read pretty much the same thing into your post that I did. I also think that there is little chance of you not being aware of the negative connotations of the term.
So you might as well avoid the name-calling for now or I shall have to call you an idiot for missing those connotations
And I'm sure you'll continue this. This is Intensity, where people can post largely uncensored. And, in your case, unread.
And I'm sure you'll continue this. This is Intensity, where people can post largely uncensored. And, in your case, unread.
If I attack somebody, at least I have the honesty to read his or her posts while attacking. Hell, even Benji gets that treatment.
So you might as well avoid the name-calling for now or I shall have to call you an idiot for missing those connotations
May as well, you have already said I was intellectually dishonest and implied I was lying. Why not take the plunge here too?
Butterflies read pretty much the same thing into your post that I did
How do you imagine you will go selling me on ANYTHING Butterflies thinks?
If I showed you somethings that Sol thought of you, would that move you at all? Would it strengthen my position to say that I agreed with him?
-
And that seems to be that. Odeon does not appear to read all of what I say prior to responding to me
And I'm sure you'll continue this. This is Intensity, where people can post largely uncensored. And, in your case, unread.
and yet this seems to be his soapbox by which he sought to condemn me.
If I attack somebody, at least I have the honesty to read his or her posts while attacking. Hell, even Benji gets that treatment.
It is no big thing to have your credibility questioned by someone who is hypocritically doing exactly the same thing. I at least acknowledged that I was doing so and in order to be a jerk. You?