- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
ooooh!*arrives in my skimpy orange-with-blue-edging g-string bikini, lays out a towel, lays back to get my tan from the ever spreading flamewar*
It never ceases to amaze me just how quick people here are to find any reason to go allYou must be registered to see the linkson each other.
I was unsure as to whether your initial post was literal or humorous in intent, and I could not assume either way without potentially being wrong, so I covered both possibilities. There really wasn’t any other way for me to proceed. Also, this is wrong:I found this interesting, sometime you get a glimpse of the truth and somtime you do a 180° turn, kinda feels like you're shooting in all directions hitting somthing while not being sure what you're aiming for exactly. You begin saying that i seem to take SirOni literally, being unaware of the human tendency to not mean what they say, then you go back on this saying you personally think that i did know since my argument was so over-exagerated (as it was for not so obvious reasons which you seem to still have managed to miss). In the end it looks like you first take me literally then you realize i might be human and i might not be saying exactly what i mean, it's like a flow of conscience, just to be clear i'm not saying it in a bad way.
What I said was that, because your argument was so over-exaggerated, you could only have made it in a truthful manner if you were taking him too literally – ala this:You begin saying that i seem to take SirOni literally, being unaware of the human tendency to not mean what they say, then you go back on this saying you personally think that i did know since my argument was so over-exagerated
See, problem is, I default to assuming that someone is arguing in a serious manner till I find reasonably concrete proof that they aren’t. The idea that you were posting frivolously, and making a meta-joke about the tendency of arguments to include comparisons to Nazi Germany, was second (and last) on my list of possible interpretations to your post – especially considering the seriousness to which you continued to discuss the topic with maikochan afterwards.personally I think you already knew what Oni meant when you responded. I can’t be sure, though, because your argument is ridiculously over-exaggerated, and could only really apply if you thought Oni was trying to tell everybody to ignore all people that do not browse the totality of our forum.
You are confusing his advertising with what he added to the discussion. The discussion in question was determining what the BB site was like; the conclusion to this was that it focused very little on hentai, and was more like erotic fights. BB attempted to add to this discussion with “Barbarian Babes.com is a catfight website first and foremost, rather than a hentai/sex site.” This had already been pointed out, if not in so many words, and thusly added nothing to the discussion that it revived. The update to the status of BB’s games is, as I said, entirely valid, and related to the thread, but had nothing to do with the discussion that BB revived.1. The discussion isn't concluded until the thread is closed or cancelled, since the simple fact of being allowed(seen you like this word a lot) to post means you can do it whatever you might think and as i have previosly stated there was indeed new content added in BB's post, just saying no for the sake of negating won't make your point, you need to prove it, the thread is small check it there are indeed similar names, but there are also new ones not previously mentioned, i know a wall-o-text is hard to make, but please don't be lazy.
Though it isn’t reflected in this account, I have spent a considerable amount of time at ULMF, through all three of the different forums we’ve been on. While I cannot –know-, it is the opinion of someone that had been with this community for a good while that BB would not have been taken badly if his post had not been as poorly made.2.And i can guarantee if he said hi he would have gotten the same treatment, now since none of us has the ability to know what "would" have happend "if" something happend...nah, i'll be here all night if i start this...
Yes. I never said that it didn’t, only that he had no ability to change people’s opinions in excess of normal human levels. The statement was in order to point out that his expression of opinion was in no way a serious threat to other’s freedom of expression, following the possibility that you could have been incredibly mentally retarded and somehow thought that he was. When looking at your initial arguments and considering the possibility that they had your serious backing, it isn’t a farfetched interpretation.Oh, before i forget, SirOni's opinion does influence other people opinions, because thats the way humans work, thats the what advertising is about.
There isn’t a problem with you responding to both. However, you are incorrect in the idea that your answer easily applies to both; the first sentence is clearly only addressing moomoo, while the second sentence only had any relevance to maikochan. Since you quoted maikochan and responded to moomoo’s argument, (which maiko did not make nor endorse in any way,) without noting that you were responding to moomoo, it looks like you are making the mistake of attributing moomoo’s argument to maiko. And really, that isn’t the important question regarding this. The real question is, why the hell didn’t you just separate the first sentence, only dealing with moomoo, into a part underneath a quote of his statement, and then responded to maikochan’s statement underneath her quote? Or, as you did with Slith, mark it with an “@(poster)”? Because that’s all the “credits” that you would need to do to make the arguments properly attributed – the things you were already doing, but for some reason chose not to do.They both confront me on the necrobumbing part so i am answering both and there is no problem in that, since my answer can easily apply to both (and it still works for you too) for it proves with facts that it was not a necrobump, what's your problem, should i had credits at the end of every post?
Not a bad response to end this line of the argument with; people will interpret it for themselves however they will. I, also, will leave people to decide if Oni’s post was ‘attacking DarkWarp’s statement’, or if the attack was incidental to the meaning of the post.Quote:
Oni did not attack DarkWarp’s statement. Hell, he never even responded to the content of DarkWarp’s post, he just stated that he wasn’t going to consider the opinions of people who only browsed the hentai section of the forum. He never stated that DarkWarp could not express his opinion, that DarkWarp was wrong to express his opinion, just that he would not listen to it. Yes, Oni was hostile, but the actual content wasn’t an attack so much as a decision to not argue about it.
I'll answer with just a quote to this...
Quote:
I'm not in the mood to take crap from someone who only posts in the hentai section (PbP section doesn't count), you're the equivalent of a /b/tard so your opinion is moot.
I am not claiming that you called Oni a Nazi. I am claiming that you said that Oni thinks someone that is part of a minority does not have the right to speak their mind. You were very clear about separating what a Nazi is: “Nazism and fascism both used repressive measures to silence all non-conforming lines of thought, basically stripping people of their freedom of expression,”, and what you claim Oni thinks: “if you apply this to the idea SirOni has that someone who is part of a minority has no right to speak his mind, you might find a connection you earlier missed”.Phew, that was a long wait but here we are at long last. A wild accusation indeed, but did i actually accuse anyone of being a nazi? Hmmm...i wonder...
…Is for the very purpose of avoiding this kind of misinterpretation that occurs so frequently in arguments. …Well, alright, it’s really just that it happens to be the default way I write more so than something I decided to do, but the point stands. Even if it can end up backfiring as often as not…Douchebag, doubt you'll take it personally so i'm gonna say it straight, you are very redundant in your exposition to the point of almost seeming just longwinded, making your post kind of boring to read, although you have some good ideas and your funny moments.
And therein lies the main problem. You were trying to be elaborate, and in a subtle manner, on the Internet, while insulting someone. Unlike earlier in the argument, I’m now fairly sure you’re reasonably intelligent, so I’m not sure why you proceeded to go through with your first post, despite knowing, as your second sentence indicates, that people were almost certain to interpret it poorly."I was just elaborately calling SirOni and asshole for calling DarkWarpalg6 a /b/tard."
Hah, the power of human's malice, always trying to see the worst in other's words.
Your interpretation of my reasoning is incorrect. Hostility =/= violence. Being hostile, as I said, is not inherently wrong. Violence is wrong (by the markers of civilised society, for reasons that are not worth getting into), but hostility is not violence. You replied to my argument as if I had said that hostility is justified in all cases, and then split hairs between hostility that is justified and unjustified, but my argument was that hostility is “not inherently wrong”, i.e., it can be a correct response in some instances and can not be a correct response in some others. I also did not say it was a good thing; I said it was a neutral thing that can be used one way or another – effectively, all you did was agree with me.Man thats just sad, and you were doing so well, by following that reasoning, someone is allowed to come knocking on your door and beat you to a bloody pulp cause he is 2m tall, can lift 3 times his weight over his head, and is a blackbelt 9th Dan, being hostile without having been offended or caused distress is always wrong, it's one of the basic principles of civilized societies. The fact that we simply ignore it and do as we please don't make it a good thing, besides, since i only post in the hentai section too, i didn't like being called a /b/tard, so my hostility was barely justified in case you wanted to answer that way.
You are entirely correct. I confused the definition of ‘caring’ you were using, which had the meaning of finding it important, with the ‘caring’ that signifies emotional responses. Again, could have been prevented by being more anally retentive about the precise meaning of your words (‘finding it significant’ would have been more unambiguous), but this one’s almost wholly my bad.The fact that you are not emotionally affected doesn't mean you don't care,
I did not say that DarpWarp’s post was aggressive. I said that DarkWarp’s post was confrontational. While quite similar, these are not the same thing. Further, it doesn’t matter if he was polite by the relative standards of the Internet; by an objective standard, or by as objective a standard as is possible, what he wrote was not polite. And I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that DarkWarp’s opinion on the net worth Oni derived from chastising BB was incorrect. Just because it’s his personal opinion on the matter doesn’t mean that I can’t find it to be incorrect.DarkWarpalg6's post was not aggressive, it didn't include "please", "sorry" or "thank you" but it was incredibly polite for iternet's standards, especially since he didn't use offensive words, but offered his opinion on Sir Oni's opinion as i offered my my opinion on SirOni's opin...damn...
(What's more you have it wrong in the parentheses, dark uses an interrogative form referring to what oni might think, but an affermativeform about what he himself think, but i bet this was just a misunderstanding on your part.)
Aside from the fact that your point was framed in a positive, dismissive light, and mine in a negative one, I didn’t steal it – I pirated it! Pirating =/= stealing!That aside i'm the first one to say i'm not good at being polite, making my point yours is theft.:O
THIS. IS. TRUTH. And the opinion that all who argue should have.And where is the fun in that???
Oh wait i should try to be informative and constructive, not have fun...doh...
Sorry… I’d prefer it if my posts were less tiring, but there’s only so much I can do…*Heavy breathing*
Phew, that was tough...
I have sacrificed most of my emotions ability to overwhelm me for the sake of thinking,emotionally caring
A not-so-wise-as-he-would-like-to-be man once said, intelligent people says intelligent things to elevate themselves and those of their kind to be able to discern them from the masses.I was unsure as to whether your initial post was literal or humorous in intent, and I could not assume either way without potentially being wrong, so I covered both possibilities. There really wasn’t any other way for me to proceed. Also, this is wrong:
Quote:
You begin saying that i seem to take SirOni literally, being unaware of the human tendency to not mean what they say, then you go back on this saying you personally think that i did know since my argument was so over-exagerated
What I said was that, because your argument was so over-exaggerated, you could only have made it in a truthful manner if you were taking him too literally – ala this:
Quote:
personally I think you already knew what Oni meant when you responded. I can’t be sure, though, because your argument is ridiculously over-exaggerated, and could only really apply if you thought Oni was trying to tell everybody to ignore all people that do not browse the totality of our forum.
See, problem is, I default to assuming that someone is arguing in a serious manner till I find reasonably concrete proof that they aren’t. The idea that you were posting frivolously, and making a meta-joke about the tendency of arguments to include comparisons to Nazi Germany, was second (and last) on my list of possible interpretations to your post – especially considering the seriousness to which you continued to discuss the topic with maikochan afterwards.
Quote:
"I was just elaborately calling SirOni and asshole for calling DarkWarpalg6 a /b/tard."
Hah, the power of human's malice, always trying to see the worst in other's words.
And therein lies the main problem. You were trying to be elaborate, and in a subtle manner, on the Internet, while insulting someone. Unlike earlier in the argument, I’m now fairly sure you’re reasonably intelligent, so I’m not sure why you proceeded to go through with your first post, despite knowing, as your second sentence indicates, that people were almost certain to interpret it poorly.
Since you already know that the human subconscious will attempt to take the most offensive interpretation of something when given the possibility, why did you allow yourself to leave so many possible misinterpretations in your argument, instead of just saying “It isn’t nice to just discount someone offhand, and also you’re an asshole”(paraphrased)?
Adding new content to a site might alter the general quality of said site, since new content might be of better quality or because an higher quantity of content might make the monetary effort more worth it.You are confusing his advertising with what he added to the discussion. The discussion in question was determining what the BB site was like; the conclusion to this was that it focused very little on hentai, and was more like erotic fights. BB attempted to add to this discussion with “Barbarian Babes.com is a catfight website first and foremost, rather than a hentai/sex site.” This had already been pointed out, if not in so many words, and thusly added nothing to the discussion that it revived. The update to the status of BB’s games is, as I said, entirely valid, and related to the thread, but had nothing to do with the discussion that BB revived.
The amount of time you spend on the forum can give you a general idea of the kind of people that usually dwell in it, but you can't seriously belive that you can "guarantee" someone won't show up and be aggressive, especially since we are on the internet, the lawless land where the anonymous army reign supreme.Though it isn’t reflected in this account, I have spent a considerable amount of time at ULMF, through all three of the different forums we’ve been on. While I cannot –know-, it is the opinion of someone that had been with this community for a good while that BB would not have been taken badly if his post had not been as poorly made.
That's a much better explanation than the other sarcastic one and i'll accept it.Yes. I never said that it didn’t, only that he had no ability to change people’s opinions in excess of normal human levels. The statement was in order to point out that his expression of opinion was in no way a serious threat to other’s freedom of expression, following the possibility that you could have been incredibly mentally retarded and somehow thought that he was. When looking at your initial arguments and considering the possibility that they had your serious backing, it isn’t a farfetched interpretation.
Since you want to go the synthax way, necrobump is not an official word, so in itself it means nothing more than what meaning people gives to it, as such it is more an opinion than an actual definition, you can google it all you want but it isn't more than internet slang, and it has no definite and clear meaning (something like love or justice i might add), or it specify an amount of time for it to be applicable. Definition by Urban dictionary:There isn’t a problem with you responding to both. However, you are incorrect in the idea that your answer easily applies to both; the first sentence is clearly only addressing moomoo, while the second sentence only had any relevance to maikochan. Since you quoted maikochan and responded to moomoo’s argument, (which maiko did not make nor endorse in any way,) without noting that you were responding to moomoo, it looks like you are making the mistake of attributing moomoo’s argument to maiko. And really, that isn’t the important question regarding this. The real question is, why the hell didn’t you just separate the first sentence, only dealing with moomoo, into a part underneath a quote of his statement, and then responded to maikochan’s statement underneath her quote? Or, as you did with Slith, mark it with an “@(poster)”? Because that’s all the “credits” that you would need to do to make the arguments properly attributed – the things you were already doing, but for some reason chose not to do.
Your argument, further, does not serve as an adequate response to mine. You failed to address the fact that necro-bumping has nothing to do with the content of the post. As I said previously, necro-bumping is a simple case of time. BB posted that in a thread that had no activity for over a year; ergo, BB necro-bumped. The content of the post has no bearing on this status, so there is no if, and, or but to it.
So, ok, as you say you can consider it just a matter of time, so what?verb: (internet) To revive a long dormant forum thread by adding a new post, thus bringing it to the top of the forum list. Often a tactic of trolls attempting to control a forum
Thanks.Not a bad response to end this line of the argument with; people will interpret it for themselves however they will. I, also, will leave people to decide if Oni’s post was ‘attacking DarkWarp’s statement’, or if the attack was incidental to the meaning of the post.
I am not claiming that you called Oni a Nazi.
Yeah, you're right, you were not claiming, you were insinuating.Insinuating Nazism – because yes, that’s what mentioning nazi’s and relating them to a person is
Hell no, i never claimed to know what SirOni might think. I said (damn i have quoting myself):I am claiming that you said that Oni thinks someone that is part of a minority does not have the right to speak their mind.
I am stating a fact and implying SirOni might not have noticed that is behavior had similarities with said fact, suggesting (hmmm, bold, let's see how it works...) that he think about his behavior, and i'm very satified from his response, i never expected or wanted (nor cared) for him to be sorry.So, basically if someone was to find this forum barely interesting only for its hentai section, his/her opinion, for reasonable and politely exposed it could be, would be reduced to "moot", completely stripping said person of any human dignity along with the freedom of expression. This is feature of radical and authoritarian dictatorships, like nazism or fascism. I suggest you try to be a little more considerate about other people opinions,
I already answered this in the beginning so there is not much to say, but i understand your point and your way, it's just heavy for everyone else, hell i'm heavier than you are if i put some effort into it...Quote:
Douchebag, doubt you'll take it personally so i'm gonna say it straight, you are very redundant in your exposition to the point of almost seeming just longwinded, making your post kind of boring to read, although you have some good ideas and your funny moments.
…Is for the very purpose of avoiding this kind of misinterpretation that occurs so frequently in arguments. …Well, alright, it’s really just that it happens to be the default way I write more so than something I decided to do, but the point stands. Even if it can end up backfiring as often as not…
Hostility is in itself a form of violence, it's an act of aggression to others in which you try to make your point stronger not just by reasoning but through the force of your words. When you chose force there might be someone getting hurt (there might not be, but the chance still exist), imagine a simple minded polite and shy 10 years old kid, his parents got him a computer, so he's all excited, it's his first time on the internet, he knows nothing about how wild and dangerous the place is, he googles something, finds a forum, finds a thread he's interested in and speak his opinion, first answer is the rage of pissed off oldtimers in a bad mood. It can leave a scar.Your interpretation of my reasoning is incorrect. Hostility =/= violence. Being hostile, as I said, is not inherently wrong. Violence is wrong (by the markers of civilised society, for reasons that are not worth getting into), but hostility is not violence. You replied to my argument as if I had said that hostility is justified in all cases, and then split hairs between hostility that is justified and unjustified, but my argument was that hostility is “not inherently wrong”, i.e., it can be a correct response in some instances and can not be a correct response in some others. I also did not say it was a good thing; I said it was a neutral thing that can be used one way or another – effectively, all you did was agree with me.
Further, responding to something, which has neither offended nor distressed you, with hostility is not inherently wrong. It can be wrong in a given situation, to a given person, but is not inherently so. To say that something is inherently wrong is to say that it cannot be justified in any situation, imaginable or unimaginable. I can already think of one scenario that I have seen on media in modern society, which justifies this type of hostility: one person acts with hostility toward a second person. The second person, who is not offended, and instead amused, and who is not distressed, instead keeping a cool head, responds to the first person with hostility for his enjoyment; ‘this is portrayed in a positive light’, to use high-school English phrasing that I had hoped I would never have to write again.
Also, the way that you wrote your example, namely justifying it with “cause he is 2m tall, can lift 3 times his weight over his head, and is a blackbelt 9th Dan”, causes me to suspect that you misread my post. I wrote: “It isn’t the fact that he has more credibility that allows Oni to act in a hostile way. It is the fact that he is allowed to express his opinion, like all other people are, that allows him to act in a hostile way.” I’d post the whole bit of yours about checking your sources again, but it’s only funny the first time.
And i answer you that even tho he is allowed to share his opinion he should not allow himself to share it in a hostile way.I wrote: “It isn’t the fact that he has more credibility that allows Oni to act in a hostile way. It is the fact that he is allowed to express his opinion, like all other people are, that allows him to act in a hostile way.”
There is no objective (starndard doesn't go with objective since the word is an absolute, while standard refers to a variable amount) definition of "being polite"(although there is for the word polite), certain people/cultures find polite certain actions while other people/cultures find them impolite, so whatever you might think in the context of the internet where people tell you to f**k your m****r, for saying hi, i found his post very polite, but you are free to have your opinion on the matter.I did not say that DarpWarp’s post was aggressive. I said that DarkWarp’s post was confrontational. While quite similar, these are not the same thing. Further, it doesn’t matter if he was polite by the relative standards of the Internet; by an objective standard, or by as objective a standard as is possible, what he wrote was not polite. And I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that DarkWarp’s opinion on the net worth Oni derived from chastising BB was incorrect. Just because it’s his personal opinion on the matter doesn’t mean that I can’t find it to be incorrect.
With the laws on copyright pirating is as stealing, i'll have my lawyer contact you.Aside from the fact that your point was framed in a positive, dismissive light, and mine in a negative one, I didn’t steal it – I pirated it! Pirating =/= stealing!
Don't worry about it, the harder the post, the more rewarding is crushing it. Bwaaaaahahahahahaha...*cough*Sorry… I’d prefer it if my posts were less tiring, but there’s only so much I can do…
is wrong. A thread is dead when there's no posts for a certain period of time. This is a matter of definition. Who decides the definition? Majority. If most people agree that a phrase means something, then that phrase means that, regardless of the original or intended meaning(although the original meaning doesn't go away; a phrase can have multiple definitions). Therefore, a thread is dead when no one posts in it for a certain period of time. That period varies, but is generally less than a year. Therefore, any thread with no posts for a year is dead. Necroposting means posting in a dead thread. Therefore anyone posting in a topic with no posts for a year is necroposting.My answer is "no", because the discussion was not dead, it's a thread about opinions, as long as there exist an hermit in a lost corner of this world who might have an opinion on the target of such thread then that thread will always be alive, till every single idiot will have said what he/she/it wanted to say, till then the thread is just sleeping quietly in wait.
I'm no good with boxxy, i know, i suck at life...I said this thread is now about boxxy.
If most people agree that a phrase means something, that does not mean i'll have to agree too, besides, if most people agree about something it does not make it inherently correct. Also following your reasoning based on majority, as long as i can reasonably express my opinion and convince the majority of people reading it that it is more correct than an opinion based solely on a time factor than my definition will become the right one. Just pointing out that something is wrong cause it's not what most people says, it's like saying that all ideas of all minorities are wrong.A thread is dead when there's no posts for a certain period of time. This is a matter of definition. Who decides the definition? Majority. If most people agree that a phrase means something, then that phrase means that, regardless of the original or intended meaning(although the original meaning doesn't go away; a phrase can have multiple definitions). Therefore, a thread is dead when no one posts in it for a certain period of time. That period varies, but is generally less than a year. Therefore, any thread with no posts for a year is dead. Necroposting means posting in a dead thread. Therefore anyone posting in a topic with no posts for a year is necroposting.
So what?Your comparison to mathematics is also faulty. Mathematics is absolute; no matter how many people say that 3+3=4, 3+3 always equals 6. This is not the case with language.
"Hostility is in itself a form of violence" makes this a troll?Edit: I just read the rest of the post. I can't believe I fell for such an obvious troll. "Hostility is in itself a form of violence"?
You completely missed the part where I said this applies to language. If most people agree that necroposting means posting to a thread with no posts for a month, then that's what it means, whether you agree or not, because then most people using that phrase will mean that meaning, which means that that phrase has that meaning. You can argue about it all you want, but if someone says "no" they're very unlikely to mean "yes" regardless of your opinion in the matter. And you can argue about it all you want, but it wont change anything.If most people agree that a phrase means something, that does not mean i'll have to agree too, besides, if most people agree about something it does not make it inherently correct. Also following your reasoning based on majority, as long as i can reasonably express my opinion and convince the majority of people reading it that it is more correct than an opinion based solely on a time factor than my definition will become the right one. Just pointing out that something is wrong cause it's not what most people says, it's like saying that all ideas of all minorities are wrong.
You can argue all you want, but the fact is people don't always mean what they say, as Douchebag said, and as you said if someone says "no" they are unlikely to mean yes, but that sometime depends on the situatuation, funny as it might seem comunication doesn't work as math. When arguing about something being strict is a fault, because in the world of human minds there is no absolute truth, everything is an opinion. Your strict opinion of this being this and that being that, is close minded and limits your ability to grow and evolve your opinions.You completely missed the part where I said this applies to language. If most people agree that necroposting means posting to a thread with no posts for a month, then that's what it means, whether you agree or not, because then most people using that phrase will mean that meaning, which means that that phrase has that meaning. You can argue about it all you want, but if someone says "no" they're very unlikely to mean "yes" regardless of your opinion in the matter. And you can argue about it all you want, but it wont change anything.
You've spent about 2000 words arguing an opinion no-one else here shares and you're calling me closed minded? Communication indeed does not work like math, which I just pointed out to you in my next to last post. Communication works like democracy, and because no-one shares your opinion, that means you're wrong.You can argue all you want, but the fact is people don't always mean what they say, as Douchebag said, and as you said if someone says "no" they are unlikely to mean yes, but that sometime depends on the situatuation, funny as it might seem comunication doesn't work as math. When arguing about something being strict is a fault, because in the world of human minds there is no absolute truth, everything is an opinion. Your strict opinion of this being this and that being that, is close minded and limits your ability to grow and evolve your opinions.