No.
Are you prolonging it because you like it? IMHO, you've lost the argument.
IMHO you have not made a decent case as to your assumption of my dishonesty. You have just made the claim over and over. That is hardly losing mate. I am happy addressing this issue until you do.
Semantic differences are important since you say it's ganging up and I say it isn't. Semantics is about meaning
No.
Sometimes they absolutely are. But here is the difference. I called it this BUT I do not care. You explained why you think its wrong. Okay.
You don't care. How is that an argument for your case? It is an argument for you not bothering about meaning and definitions, and so ultimately about the very basis for any callout--a common vocabulary.
It's a beautiful green sky this morning. The moon is climbing fast.
See how this works?
I can only imagine this reply is on the basis that YOU assume that my saying that Zegh was ganging up with Butterflies or visa versa (whichever I actually said) has some real bearing on this callout. It doesn’t. You think I used the wrong phrase. Cool. Tell me what was the “right phrase” to use. I will find where I said it and edit it with the “right phrase”. THAT is how uninvested I am in this aspect.
Maybe in your mind this is a pivotal part of the callout but I do not give a damn about it.
In my mind you telling me I am dishonest is the sum of all of this callout.
IF you want to discuss why I thought my phrase “ganging up was honest and not dishonest. I have done that. You want to say my wording was inappropriate given the circumstances; I give no fucks about that. I will happily change it. In fact I am thinking of setting up a poll on it with a few alternatives and so we can choose collectively what is the best choice of words for this instance. Think that may be a good idea? How important is this point? “Joining in”? Is that OK? What about “lending support”? “Providing cover fire”? “Breaking promises to throw insults from behind Butterflies?” Does that work better? Let me know, please!
Is it important? Not to me.
I think we established that.
We should have NOW!
It is not a hill for me to die on. I have for the most part been ignoring Butterflies (apart from a chat about Feminism). I have been teasing Zegh a little about hiding behind her skirts. You say that ganging up was the "wrong" term or I misread the situation in respect to what was going on? Fine. I don't care. I was not that invested in it. You tell me how I should perceive this and I will go along with that. No, honestly make a good case and I will take it that you have the inside scoop. I just care nothing whether he was or not
In other words, you don't care about the semantics, you just use a word that is dramatic enough, no matter the consequences? I'm not telling you how to perceive anything, I'm calling you out on the way you describe a situation even though you admit that the meanings of the words you use aren't important and could be wrong.
Ganging up is a dramatic phrase. It implies all kinds of things, most of which are at least a bit nasty. Yet here you are, stating that it doesn't matter.
Of course it matters, and I think you know it. The Al I know is good enough with words to know.
I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to decide the level of dishonesty of this particular point.
No, it really isn’t and what was a throwaway comment on what I had reasonable rationale to base my assumptions on is fine to me BUT not something I am inflexible on.
Do semantics ALWAYS matter or never matter or matter sometimes?
Well I think like Spelling and grammar Nazis, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. If I make a spelling blunder here, you may say “Al is hopeless in spelling and grammar and Dyslexic as all Hell BUT let’s get to the crux of what he is saying. IF I am writing to a senior official they are not likely to let these things slide so easily.
YOU may postulate any number of things I thought and evil intent or whatever on my part in respect to Butterflies or Zegh in the”ganging up”. They would simply be ASSUMPTIONS on your part and THOUGH you read me, your assumptions are likely wrong. As mentioned I am not that bond to them and happy to change them.
But to prove the point further, whilst DFG was *getting these two members having a slight difference of opinion with her on the lack of medication and lack of social interaction and lack of personality and size issues and lack of intellect*(Fuck! I hope this is okay and well thought out enough not to become subject of wrong choosing of words) I hardly participated apart from throwing a few memes at Zegh. Howe invested was I then and how invested am I now?
For example, If he was on a sabbatical from posting shit at DFG and myself and that was reasonably cut short for reasons I am not aware of and she happened to come across things on her own volition that incensed her to start on DFG from the get go and the act of doing this somehow removed Zegh's self-imposed ban....
It was probably a lot of things but a ban it wasn't. Again, meaning is important. But then, you don't read him, you assume that the impression you get by reading quoted bits and by observing the reactions of others, and, for all I know, posting ninja cats and the reactions to those, is enough, is correct, is true. But if it isn't, it doesn't really matter.
No, Hell no. There is a Hell of a lot of IF’s there if you had not noticed.
I do not know whether the point was really lost you or whether you are trying to play me here BUT it is asking for a lot to assume that:
1) Butterflies just happened to drop in and just happened on dropping in to see something that had her instantly confront DFG and
2) Zegh after his 30 day self-imposed disengagement (YES Odeon I am using different synonyms each time to see if you try picking up on these “different words” as an issue with semantics) decided to continue to re-engage with DFG
3) They were doing this completely independently.
Does it mean that the above was not the case? No. If it was would I have been able to assume it was the case without reading Zegh’s posts….maybe, maybe not. That sure as Hell does not mean it was the case though or a reflection on what actually happened.
That about right? And remember that what we are discussing here is not the true nature of Zegh's character, even though it's what you try to make it to be, we are discussing whether or not your assumptions, your not knowing (and admitting that you don't know), are an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Don't you think this is intellectually dishonest?
We are and you have yet to make that case.
An example of such dishonesty (which certainly would NOT involve me agreeing to not knowing something) may be me saying:
“Look you don’t know Zegh like I do. I just know alright?”
Or
“I read everything Zegh has ever written on here and so I am the foremost authority on what he says. I never assume”
OR
“ My assumptions are incontestable. If you show me refuting evidence YOU are wrong”
Or
“Any time anyone here bases what they know about a person’s personality or style or experiences as a member on this forum they are lying to themselves and the forum”
Yes I am against intellectual dishonesty too. How do you feel about it?
Great! I don't care, but great. I am happy to adopt this new "right" way to view things. Spell it out an let me know. Otherwise I may well have the "wrong" opinion on this and I do not care enough about whether they were ganging up or not. It looked like it, I called it and moved on. I was never that invested in it.
We are debating things here. Are you saying that I'm enforcing my views on you? Are you the victim after calling me out?
No and I would ask you to number the times I have EVER presented myself as a victim. No? None at all? Silly conclusion to jump to Odeon. Almost as silly as you claim I was being dishonest.
I’d like to know what is going on with you to be honest because you are not posting like……YOU.
Which means that you don't know but still maintain you're calling him on his bullshit. Sorry, but to me that's dishonest.
Except it isn't.
Archaeologists for example work with a base understanding centered around assumptions from which they gauge a world they cannot know intimately from hard and fast acts. SO...they are dishonest.
Don't you think that an archaeologist would ask that dead pharaoh directly if s/he could? Going with your comparison, you can.
They probably would but they make assumptions and the act of making assumptions is dishonest, right?
Psychologists that profile people in examining crime and try to track down serial killers and the like, cannot know so they need to assume certain things. So really they are just making assumptions. SO.....they are dishonest.
They, too, would talk to the subject directly if they could. They, too, would immediately revise their assumptions based on any new evidence.
Doesn’t matter if they WOULD they CAN’T and so they make ASSUMPTIONS and assumptions are dishonest, right? They make assumptions. I make assumptions. I am dishonest because I make assumptions. They make assumptions and so they are dishonest?
YES!!! Its sounds fucking stupid and disingenuous put like that BUT may help put this in perspective as to what in your narrative makes assumptions dishonest or not.
I can keep going.
So can I but I'd rather not.
I would rather hope you didn’t.
The point behind these examples goes to the heart of this. YOU saying something is fact DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. I know it would be easy to say:
1) You lost – therefore you lost.
2) You were dishonest and so therefore you were dishonest.
3) You assumed stuff and so therefore you were dishonest.
4) You did not read stuff I (Odeon the Webmaster – joking) would have wanted you to have read before you assumed what you assumed and so therefore you are dishonest by having any opinion (even when you happily vouch it is based on assumption and conjecture).
But the truth is that you still have to make a sound argument for what you are arguing. This assumption = dishonesty clearly is not a cogent one and I think you know this. You are going to have to spell out under what circumstances. I do not think you can.
I think this all boils down to this:
“I disagree with Al and would prefer that he did not fight Zegh anymore. The fact that he argues Zegh without reading what Zegh says, shits me. I would therefore like to call Al dishonest as a result of his not reading and just assuming stuff. If he presses I will just say “It is what it is” and I have no further comment”.
IF you choose this approach I would point the finger right square back at you and say “Are we talking about MY honesty or your own?” Be better not to do that, Odeon. We are what 6 or 7 posts into a callout? Better to sort it out by callout.
But I hope the point is being made. Assumption=/= dishonest. They are not synonymous and you are seeming to try to make this case and put it down to semantics. It isn't....at all.
No, I'm using semantics because you brought it up. It is handy, though, isn't it, because it provides me with the tools I need to prove you wrong.
Use them all you like but try to make a point worth making because you have not as yet.
Its very presumptuous of you to think you are proving me wrong.
So far you have proved one thing. My ambivalence as to whether Butterflies and Zegh are ganging up or “discussing a mutual acquaintance on the forum” (Is that turn of phrase well thought out enough not to be seen as having evil connotations or whatever?)
That is not really a point to you and something I am happy to concede. You presume a lot, Odeon and it is not a your better side.
IF I at any point actually said specifically that I DID know more than I can know or denied I made these assumptions you may have something. Don't call it semantics, Odeon.
See above.
Oh, I did see and it was pretty poor.
Zegh is full of it
Isn't he just. But IF I say that he has no interest in sorting things out, YES there are assumptions on my part. BUT are they based on anything?
Don't quote me out of context.
I will do you a deal I will stop being disrespectful and quoting you out of contrext and in return you will stop implying I am dishonest. No? No one way trading here…..or was that an order?
1. His want to avoid ownership or responsibilities for his part for 8 months (until recently sometime I understand....well done Zegh) for having any part in things.
2. His 30 day hiatus (whatever the parameters of that were) that he could not uphold for a week.
3. PM's I have shown by which he encouraged me to harass him until he left (Not that this is what I am doing but begging for me to do so is evidence of him not wanting this sorted out).
1. Not interested. It's not what this is about.
2. It's not a ban now, it's a hiatus? Otherwise, not interested. It's not what this is about.
3. Not interested. It's not what this is about.
1, 2, and 3. Of course not you were wanting to talk about whether the phrase “ganging up” was appropriate but don’t REALLY give a shit as to whether or not assumptions have merit or not because why not call them all dishonest? Unless they are Archelogists, or Psychologist or….well anyone else’s but Al. Fuck that noise Odeon
2. It’s a hiatus now. (As mentioned I am using different words for it to see what phrases are “out of bounds” in describing what Zegh was or was not doing. Clearly you are likely to take objection to ganging up but maybe Hiatus too is out of bounds. I am sure I will find the right word through trial and error but if you could help an assumptive Aussie out, that would be great.
Again you make this assumption thing to be an all or nothing.
No, I'm discussing semantics and the value of words. If you assume, you don't know. See my previous posts for the rest of it because I can't be arsed to repeat it again.
Not well if you are. It seemed like you were either outraged that I said ganging up and it was the wrong phrase OR you were outraged that I gave no fucks if I used that phrase. (Oh shit is “outraged” okay to use in this context? Should I tone it down. Will the semantics indicate you were more disagreeable than outraged. If you are concerned could you please mentally replace the word “disagreeable” wherever I wrote “outraged”)
Sorry you were discussing the semantics and value of words with me and out of interest what are you assuming about me and my premise and you place and my place in this argument. If you don’t know ANY aspect of ANY part of it then you are assuming and if you are assuming then you don’t know and if you don’t know then you are dishonest….see I was paying attention.
No, even assumptions often are based on pretty solid reasoning and not all assumptions carry the same rigour. To assume this is the case is silly (joking).
So IS Zegh full of bullshit? You have my opinion of him strewn across this board and a LOT of it is based on similar reasoning. Maybe I am wrong but I make a decent case for it.
Or maybe you are wrong.
You *assume* something to be the case and act based on that assumption, even though that's all you have. Well, that and your back and forth from whenever it was that you still read his posts
Exactly. You make assumptions too. We all do. In fact interpreting any motive or intent of anyone here comes with certain amount of assumption. It does not make it wrong to do so. Nor is it dishonest to do so. Nor is it strange or silly.
Depends on what you do with your assumptions. I have already stated that part of my case and am not interested in repeating it.
No that is bullshit. Sorry but all I see is you laying claim to being the arbiter of when assumption becomes dishonest. I have yet to see ANYTHING I have said that is dishonest. NOTHING!
But this is not how it works is it Odeon?
“If he doesn’t know then he is assuming and if he is assuming then “what he does with the assumption” is dishonest. If what he does with the assumption is makes claims that I do not like and he is not reading posts I would prefer him to read THEN “I” will declare him dishonest”.
Now THAT would be fucking weak, wouldn’t it. Don’t be THAT guy, Odeon.
Of course you could say, "But Al, you are a logical kind of guy, why not get better proof? Read what he says and there will be less room for possible misinterpretations or errors of judgment"
Which is what I think you should do.
Not happening and trying to shame me will simply get my back up and NOT get me doing what you would like me to do (whatever that is) nor will it mean that I was wrong in my assumptions. Nor does it mean that I was dishonest. Nor does it mean you have made a good case for yourself.
My answer to that would be "No thanks". He writes bullshit. He is not worth my time reading. IF that makes his mess harder for him to resolve I don't much care about that either.
His mess? Yours, too, mate. This is the second callout on the subject.
But I'm done here. I think I've presented my case as well as I can and so leave it to the peanut gallery to decide if it has any value.
No, he started it and he can resolve it. I would prefer to leave him to resolve it like the adult he ought to be. Had I started things I would have resolved it by now and you have seen me do so with many people here past and present including Richard and Bint and Sophist and others still on here now. So this “Yours too”. Nope, sorry. Not giving him a pass
It was pretty poorly done. I am just getting into this callout. There will be more to follow. But by all means drop it and walk away. I will call you out again.
I object to your calling me dishonest and you have made no good case for doing so. Until this is resolved I will seek to get it resolved. What you choose to do is up to you and likewise what I choose to do is up to me.
"Is she gone yet?"