Forums | MacLife

hi,

my name is more or less and i am incoherent.   and i have two strikes for defending myself from people who call me names.

when i defend myself, or the arguments, i am actually sniping.

and when i say someone is wrong, it is only becuase i am really superior to them, not because i am disagreeing with them, or that they may be wrong on the issue.  i am actually always wrong if i am in a disagreement.

every argument i make is actually a testament to my spectacularity, not about anything in the issue itself.  in other words, i am secretly not trying to argue about the issue, but just demostrate how spectcular i am.

i do this by repeatedly asking people to stay on topic, instead of just directly addressing what makes me so wonderful.

for, while i am a know it all, i actually dont know anything.  the proof that i do not know anything is that i disagree with people, and use facts and theories and critical thinking skills.

in other words, i am the educated stupid.

and finally, i should not bring in facts, theories, philosophy, or formal arguments into the forum - i should instead link to newspapers, blogs, and political pundits in the media.

if i do anything else, i might upset the two or three people that the forum exists to serve.




is that about right?  let's add that to the rules, shall we?


oh, and shnicky is always right.  france is racist.  and nothing matters because while shnicky thinks that the process of change is painful, he does not think the current painful process is a process of change, and yet he also thinks nothing really ever changes.  he is clear about this.


though i disagree, i only do so because i am wrong.

this all true.  the previous statement is a lie.  the previous statement was not a dialectic meta-ethical statement, because i always am lying.  the prevous statement is not true.

Last edited by more or less (2005-11-11 7:36 pm)

More or Less -

There's hardly a thread in MiniThink today that you haven't contributed significantly to derailing. 

Yes, the other regulars are contributing to the derailing when they respond to you... but that's just it - it really seems to me that you're the instigator in the majority of the threads that go South.

Despite what everyone may think, I really don't like handing out bans and putting people in the Free Speech Zone, but it really seems like you're leaving us with little choice. 

Please don't force our hands.

no,

you just buy into the claims without the evidence.  if you can show me, since these are specific examples

I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

otherwise i do want them off my back, as you are just following their lead.

telling me i am the instigator is itslelf a claim, and if you really want me to change my behavior i would really need to know what i am doing wrong.

if i didnt care, i wouldnt ask.

feel free to PM the thread and the point of instigation.  i will wait breathlessly for it.

hell, you have my blessing to do it here in this thread, as people seem to love to talk about me, and you dont seem to be doing jack smurf to stop it.

i dare say i can defend myself publically if i must.  this is way past retarded now.

Last edited by more or less (2005-11-11 7:57 pm)

no

links would have been nice.  i will find he posts of those i responded prior to that, and then we can ponder the whole farce.

btw, i meant the so-called STRIKE threads/  but i'm okay-dokey with what you got/

you can start by telling what rule i viollated with this

res,

if you really want to get his goat, ask him why the president is giving a speech at what he has labeled as a photo-op.  photo-ops usually dont have speeches.


i'd hassle his biased ass, but he might explode.

more or less wrote:

links would have been nice.  i will find he posts of those i responded prior to that, and then we can ponder the whole farce.

btw, i meant the so-called STRIKE threads/  but i'm okay-dokey with what you got/

you can start by telling what rule i viollated with this

res,

if you really want to get his goat, ask him why the president is giving a speech at what he has labeled as a photo-op.  photo-ops usually dont have speeches.


i'd hassle his biased ass, but he might explode.

You are "hassling his ass" by posting it.  The two strike threads are
http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/72787
http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/72884

I'm not here to argue with you about it.  I'm telling you that you need to stop causing / participating in these these about-the-poster-not-the-topic thread derailments.

So is this your final answer?  That you're not going to stop causing / participating in these these about-the-poster-not-the-topic thread derailments?

oh, so its okay to respond to me with "you've ceased making sense" and "you done editting that"

when my point is VALID  good god.

the enitre post and you slice out "damn your thick" and you call that a DERAILMENT?

smurfin a/ man, i call smurf.  you are reaching man, hard.

more or less wrote:

the enitre post and you slice out "damn your thick" and you call that a DERAILMENT?

smurfin a/ man, i call smurf.  you are reaching man, hard.

Yeah. That's a personal attack, not just a derailment. It's a derailment as well, of course, because it's about the thickness of a poster's head.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

more or less wrote:

the enitre post and you slice out "damn your thick" and you call that a DERAILMENT?

smurfin a/ man, i call smurf.  you are reaching man, hard.

Yeah. That's a personal attack, not just a derailment. It's a derailment as well, of course, because it's about the thickness of a poster's head.

but it had been established that i had ceased making sense.  and who the hell are you to judge?

oatmeal wrote:

more or less wrote:

all you have to do back off calling me the instigator.

and i need to know what "rules" earned me those strikes. i aint psychic.

I have to back off when I'm telling you how things run around here? That's not how it works, pal.  What I see is relative calm in the forum that went to smurf with your posts.

Others contributed to it as well, but for the most part they're backing down.  One of them even PMd me to say that he understood that he was part of the problem and would understand it if I felt the need to ban him.  You? You're just being confrontational when I tell you how things need to be.

As for the rules you're violating?

1) Don't be a jerk (DBAJ)
- The MacAddict forums-wide edition of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- When in doubt, DBAJ.

2) No flamewars.
- Solve personal conflicts at the lowest possible level.  If not quickly in a thread, then take it to email.
- If you can't solve it between yourselves, contact a Mod or Admin.
- Do not take it upon yourself to chase someone from thread to thread to heckle them.

4) Stay on topic.
- Don't derail threads.  Someone probably put some effort and/or thought into creating them.
- No personal attacks.  If you disagree with something, refute the post, don't flame the messenger.

all you have to say is DONT BE A JERK.  dont single me out as the instigator  if you cannot back it up.

see how logical that is?

i admit i was being jerk, but as i had "ceased making sense" and am busy "editing posts" i think the topic becoming ME was not instigaetd by ME.

that is the derailment, i did not START DOING THAT.

and sorry, but if you allow jerks to be jerky, jerky is what you get.

more or less wrote:

so yeah,

i apologize for being jerky.

but the instigator claim is bunk.

Like I said - what I saw was the forum go from relative calm to uproar almost the moment you appeared. I haven't had to lock a thread because people were attacking each other in weeks (unless you count any of XYZ's topics, I don't care to go look right now 'cause that's neither here nor there), and suddenly I'm locking topics, editing out pages of off topic posts...

If you can keep those three rules I posted above in mind when you're posting it will help a hell of a lot. 

Despite what everyone may think, I really don't like handing out bans and putting people in the Free Speech Zone.

These are not just words.  I really, really don't like doing it.

more or less wrote:

it was calm?

Ha.  Relatively speaking. 

Duke?  I've barely said two words to him lately, and definitely not in a modding capacity.


I'm not talking about last time, just this one. This time EVERYONE could stand to re-familliarize themselves with those rules in particular, but you were the only one arguing with me about it.