The Soapbox Rules
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
"The goal was to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives".
No idea what the original thread was about but isn't that specifically just a subset of the following? "For discussing anything related to a software developer's life" That of course is what the lounge says - so what would be left for the Soapbox?
Chris updated the Soapbox rules the other day at about the same time he read the riot act to Matt's post about 'Is this racist'. The quote I reference is to be found in the updated Soapbox rules.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss both sides of the story, even that which they do not agree with. The latter blindly accepts and parrots everything they see and are told.
No that isn't it. That is however how many people attempt to rationalize probably every wild unbelievable thought that crosses their mind.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
As such, tell me, what other explanations can you offer to explain the pictures you see?
That you and for that matter the rest of the universe is nothing but a figment of my imagination. That of course is just philosophical bit-twiddling that leads to nothing that is useful but is in fact a valid philosophical argument. But for everyone else living in the real world addressing every possible possibility is not reasonable nor practical. And even philosophers realize that. So fantastical claims about implausible possibilities are not even worth discussing.
We are then at an impasse as we both contend different things and do not agree with the other. This was Matt's call to challenge me. I will call his bluff and let him run this play out. Who knows, perhaps he does know what he is talking about. But I doubt it. Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation. While he could surprise me yet, it is more likely he will stay true to form, ignore everything I say and wait for our next exchange to see if can try his luck in another boxing match (i.e. MMR #4).
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss both sides of the story, even that which they do not agree with. The latter blindly accepts and parrots everything they see and are told. I will not discuss this topic here at CP. But you apparently have no such reservations. As such, tell me, what other explanations can you offer to explain the pictures you see? Show me that you have read both sides of this story and that you actually know what you are talking about.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss
I didn't know opinions can discuss. Very clever things these 'opinions'. Remarkable animals really!
-
We are then at an impasse as we both contend different things and do not agree with the other. This was Matt's call to challenge me. I will call his bluff and let him run this play out. Who knows, perhaps he does know what he is talking about. But I doubt it. Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation. While he could surprise me yet, it is more likely he will stay true to form, ignore everything I say and wait for our next exchange to see if can try his luck in another boxing match (i.e. MMR #4).
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
This was Matt's call to challenge me
Ooh, pistols at dawn? :) As they old saying goes, build a bridge dude and get over it. You a pompous and self opinionated bore with little of interest to say, so why not just go back where you came from and leave us to do what we like doing.
-
I had started a rather long winded account of my exchange with Matt, starting in January[^] but realized it was probably pointless. You have access to all of my exchanges since that time. You tell me where you want to start. My opinion is that the SoapBox needs to be cleaned up and I have made this point repeatedly, both implicitly and explicitly, in my exchanges. Matt has the dubious honor of being the one most intent on pushing beyond the SoapBox boundaries. I tried several approaches to encourage Matt to self-moderate, even to the point of using wry humor/sarcasm[^] to get my point across. Nothing worked and Chris had to step in two days ago. This is as much my home as it is your home. I finally got fed up with what I saw happening. I recognize my part in escalating events to the point where Chris had to step in. You apparently do too. My question is why you not only tolerate the poor behavior such as Matt and Slacker demonstrate but actually appear to be encouraging it?
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
My opinion is that
Well, you know what they say about opinions. They are like arseholes, everyone has one.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
My opinion is that
Well, you know what they say about opinions. They are like arseholes, everyone has one.
And everyone else's stinks. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
My opinion is that
Well, you know what they say about opinions. They are like arseholes, everyone has one.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
What distinguishes an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion is the former can discuss
I didn't know opinions can discuss. Very clever things these 'opinions'. Remarkable animals really!
I will take that to mean you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Chris read you the riot act the other day. So when I first read your response to me here, my immediate impression was you are acting like a whipped Chihuahua who is attempting to ingratiate himself before his master and audience. Your response confirms my suspicions. In your haste to demonstrate your repentant ways, you thought how opportune it would be to project yourself as the Holocaust standard bearer. So, knowing little to nothing about the Holocaust, you did a quick Google search, came up with a bunch of pictures and...voila, stuck the proverbial foot in your mouth again. I just called your bluff and you unwittingly showed everyone here that you are a wind bag and nothing more. If you are going to pick a fight, first learn how to throw a punch.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
This was Matt's call to challenge me
Ooh, pistols at dawn? :) As they old saying goes, build a bridge dude and get over it. You a pompous and self opinionated bore with little of interest to say, so why not just go back where you came from and leave us to do what we like doing.
I will give you a second opportunity to redeem yourself. What is wrong with the pictures you referenced? Here is a clue. Those on both sides of this story share something in common. This is so simple and straightforward. If you are unwilling to answer then you really will demonstrate that you know nothing. In this case, your Google search reflects an uniformed opinion and all you were doing was taking a cheap shot at me. Why don't you give us a pleasant surprise and demonstrate you actually know something about WWII. Now, are you going to punch or are you going to wrist slap?
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ok.
Oppps! This is rather embarrassing for you isn't it! Don't you now wish you had paid attention to what Chris wrote instead of flailing away with child like accusations? +1 for Matt, -1 for you.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
I will take that to mean you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Chris read you the riot act the other day. So when I first read your response to me here, my immediate impression was you are acting like a whipped Chihuahua who is attempting to ingratiate himself before his master and audience. Your response confirms my suspicions. In your haste to demonstrate your repentant ways, you thought how opportune it would be to project yourself as the Holocaust standard bearer. So, knowing little to nothing about the Holocaust, you did a quick Google search, came up with a bunch of pictures and...voila, stuck the proverbial foot in your mouth again. I just called your bluff and you unwittingly showed everyone here that you are a wind bag and nothing more. If you are going to pick a fight, first learn how to throw a punch.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
You have a fascinating mind.
-
We are then at an impasse as we both contend different things and do not agree with the other. This was Matt's call to challenge me. I will call his bluff and let him run this play out. Who knows, perhaps he does know what he is talking about. But I doubt it. Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation. While he could surprise me yet, it is more likely he will stay true to form, ignore everything I say and wait for our next exchange to see if can try his luck in another boxing match (i.e. MMR #4).
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation.
No. I don't need to read (and watch and listen to) and endless, really endless, nonsensical outpouring of opinionated pieces about things like extraterrestrials, internal earth dwellers, ghosts, Illuminati conspiracies, ancient advanced societies, bigfoots, fairies, odd ball conspiracies, etc to know that they are nonsense. That is because that they all, without exception, are attempting to modify existing data to fit their skewed view of the world. At best. At worst they are just lying to sell a product. Just to be clear I have in fact read articles and/or seen shows about all of the above subjects in the past written by proponents of those theories. But, if they want to prove their hypothesis then they are going to need to provide new, significant and extensive evidence to support it. Because extreme claims require that. And none of them do that.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation.
No. I don't need to read (and watch and listen to) and endless, really endless, nonsensical outpouring of opinionated pieces about things like extraterrestrials, internal earth dwellers, ghosts, Illuminati conspiracies, ancient advanced societies, bigfoots, fairies, odd ball conspiracies, etc to know that they are nonsense. That is because that they all, without exception, are attempting to modify existing data to fit their skewed view of the world. At best. At worst they are just lying to sell a product. Just to be clear I have in fact read articles and/or seen shows about all of the above subjects in the past written by proponents of those theories. But, if they want to prove their hypothesis then they are going to need to provide new, significant and extensive evidence to support it. Because extreme claims require that. And none of them do that.
First of all, my sincere compliments for acknowledging my talking point and offering a civil response. Your first three sentences are nothing but deflections designed to distract us from the simple fact you really do not know anything about the Google reference you provided. There is nothing sinister or nefarious about the errors and misinformation that is readily apparent in your reference. Indeed, anyone who has read about and studied the conditions of WWII (i.e. those on both sides of this issue) will agree on this point. This has nothing to do with hypothesis and requiring extensive support. It simply involves looking at your reference with a critical eye and open mind - this is an Egg of Columbus. You just are not able to see what is sitting right in front of you. I have nothing more to add or say.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Had he read any books from the side he does not agree with then he would never have cited his Google reference. This is because it reveals some very telling errors and misinformation.
No. I don't need to read (and watch and listen to) and endless, really endless, nonsensical outpouring of opinionated pieces about things like extraterrestrials, internal earth dwellers, ghosts, Illuminati conspiracies, ancient advanced societies, bigfoots, fairies, odd ball conspiracies, etc to know that they are nonsense. That is because that they all, without exception, are attempting to modify existing data to fit their skewed view of the world. At best. At worst they are just lying to sell a product. Just to be clear I have in fact read articles and/or seen shows about all of the above subjects in the past written by proponents of those theories. But, if they want to prove their hypothesis then they are going to need to provide new, significant and extensive evidence to support it. Because extreme claims require that. And none of them do that.
You appear to be claiming you have read and understand both sides of this story. If so then your second last paragraph belies your claim. Everything else you wrote is just window dressing to deflect from this point.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
You appear to be claiming you have read and understand both sides of this story. If so then your second last paragraph belies your claim. Everything else you wrote is just window dressing to deflect from this point.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
If so then your second last paragraph belies your claim. Everything else you wrote is just window dressing to deflect from this point.
Incorrect. That is a revisionist argument made for every single odd ball view out there. Including things like that the earth is flat. Every single one of those extreme views has been attempting to use existing evidence and then completely ignoring the rational conclusion from that evidence, and then twisting it to support some very extreme view. If someone wants to prove that extraterrestrials have been visting the earth for thousands of years then they need have those ETs show up on all of the talk shows with the picture books to prove their visitations. If they want to prove bigfoot exists then they need to show up with one in a cage and let everyone examine it. New evidence. And extreme evidence.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
If so then your second last paragraph belies your claim. Everything else you wrote is just window dressing to deflect from this point.
Incorrect. That is a revisionist argument made for every single odd ball view out there. Including things like that the earth is flat. Every single one of those extreme views has been attempting to use existing evidence and then completely ignoring the rational conclusion from that evidence, and then twisting it to support some very extreme view. If someone wants to prove that extraterrestrials have been visting the earth for thousands of years then they need have those ETs show up on all of the talk shows with the picture books to prove their visitations. If they want to prove bigfoot exists then they need to show up with one in a cage and let everyone examine it. New evidence. And extreme evidence.
This event is considered one of THE central/pivotal events of the last century. It is a cornerstone of jewish identity and the state of Israel. This is not just another ghost story and for you to equate it with ghost stories, extraterrestrials and flat earthers reinforces my opinion of what you do not know. You persist in demanding evidence and yet appear oblivious to the extensive, meticulous and methodical research that revisionists have conducted to support the rational and common sense conclusions they draw. What is telling is not what you say but rather what you have not said, despite having ample opportunity to do so. By the way, do you realize you have employed a line of argument first set forth by revisionists when you wrote, "...completely ignoring the rational conclusion..."? Indeed, there is one author who was the first to make this point. Tell me, do you know who it is? If you know the other side of this story then you should be able to tell me. You reinforce my impression that you do really do not know the other side of this story and are simply parroting criticisms that have been expressed by others from the traditionalist camp. I will not discuss any further details of the jewish holocaust at CP. So we are at another impasse. I reject what you contend and you reject what I contend. As such, I have nothing more to add to this thread.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
This event is considered one of THE central/pivotal events of the last century. It is a cornerstone of jewish identity and the state of Israel. This is not just another ghost story and for you to equate it with ghost stories, extraterrestrials and flat earthers reinforces my opinion of what you do not know. You persist in demanding evidence and yet appear oblivious to the extensive, meticulous and methodical research that revisionists have conducted to support the rational and common sense conclusions they draw. What is telling is not what you say but rather what you have not said, despite having ample opportunity to do so. By the way, do you realize you have employed a line of argument first set forth by revisionists when you wrote, "...completely ignoring the rational conclusion..."? Indeed, there is one author who was the first to make this point. Tell me, do you know who it is? If you know the other side of this story then you should be able to tell me. You reinforce my impression that you do really do not know the other side of this story and are simply parroting criticisms that have been expressed by others from the traditionalist camp. I will not discuss any further details of the jewish holocaust at CP. So we are at another impasse. I reject what you contend and you reject what I contend. As such, I have nothing more to add to this thread.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
You persist in demanding evidence and yet appear oblivious to the extensive, meticulous and methodical research that revisionists have conducted to support the rational and common sense conclusions they draw.
Apparently you are unaware of the "extensive, meticulous and methodical research" that has been going on for at least 40 years to prove that extraterrestrials are on the earth. Apparently you are unaware of the "extensive, meticulous and methodical research" that has been going on for hundreds of years to prove that the earth is flat. On my part I am aware of both of those. And contrary to what you are claiming I have read some of the holocaust revisionism. Not do mention stuff on any number of other crackpot theories. And every single one is taking existing evidence, evidence that contradicts their view, and attempting to rewrite it to fit their view. Which is what I said.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
You reinforce my impression that you do really do not know the other side of this story and are simply parroting criticisms
You are incorrect.
