Looking Askance

0x3c0

Fisticuff's profile[^]

General ITS NOT MYSTERIOUS AT ALL GOD IS PUNISHING US FOR DARING TO CENSOR HIS CHOSEN PROPHET ON EARTH [^] by Fisticuffs at 17:40 28 Feb '09 The Back Room (Forum) Score: 5.0 (4 votes).

Tenth or eleventh from the bottom. I clicked the link, and got a 'Message Automatically Removed' message. I would give more examples, but the latest messages page only goes 200 messages back. There's still about three or four others just below the one I pointed out though

Ilion

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Ilíon: And you're worse than an imbecile: you a fool. L'il Twit: Aren't they, like, pretty much the same thing?

You don't really read, do you? I've pointed this out many times: an 'imbecile' (or an 'idiot' or a 'retard' or whatever equivalent term one wants to use) cannot help but be stupid. On the other hand, a 'fool' *chooses* to behave stupidly.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Where are you getting these facts from? I would agree with your conclusion if I could verify your premises.

You can verify them to be true by the fact that I have said them. You might also recall that I said them at the time and that I also explicitly said (at the time and when he was actively taking a part) that Maunder knows them to be true and that he didn't contradict me.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Ilíon: Talk to Mr Maunder. He'll know exactly how the rules allowed it. I can speculate, but it remains speculation. L'il Twit: He didn't when we asked him.

Well then, perhaps it's the case that the speculation I have thought of, which seems to me most reasonable, is not so far from the truth. But it's not very flattering, on multiple levels, and I'd hate to think it of someone.

Ilion

Yes, your post was vanished; that is not in dispute. And it was soooo unfair, wasn't it? But, the fact remains that it was done entirely by the rules: there was no hack and there were no sock-puppet accounts.

soap brain

Ilíon wrote:

You don't really read, do you? I've pointed this out many times: an 'imbecile' (or an 'idiot' or a 'retard' or whatever equivalent term one wants to use) cannot help but be stupid. On the other hand, a 'fool' *chooses* to behave stupidly.

Fool: 1. unintelligent or thoughtless person: somebody who is regarded as lacking good sense or judgment 2. ridiculous person: somebody who looks or is made to appear ridiculous, or who behaves in a ridiculous way 3. US enthusiast: somebody who is particularly talented at, interested in, or fond of something specified 4. court entertainer: somebody employed in the past to amuse a monarch or noble, usually by telling jokes, singing comical songs, or performing tricks 5. FOOD creamy fruit dessert: a cold dessert made from puréed fruit mixed with cream or custard 6. offensive term: an offensive term for somebody with below average intelligence or a psychiatric disorder (archaic)

Ilíon wrote:

You can verify them to be true by the fact that I have said them.

I'm bookmarking this.

Ilion

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

I'm bookmarking this.

Good for you: I doubt not that you'll take it out of context; you are what you are, after all.

soap brain

In what context is it NOT narcissistic?

0x3c0

Ilíon wrote:

And it was soooo unfair, wasn't it?

That depends on whether it was done by the rules. If so, then it was perfectly fair. It would have told me that I was out of line. But this and this post were deleted in a similar manner to vigilante-deletion. Tell me where you disagree with me:

Ordinarily, marking a post for deletion univotes it at the same time
The two links I posted had 4 and 3 5-votes respectively (checking the Latest Messages page confirms this)
When a post is univoted, it becomes almost impossible to get the rating up to a 'perfect' 5 (unless there are large numbers of people who vote 5 to counteract it; then it depends on the rounding)
Therefore, marking a post for deletion makes it difficult to achieve a rating of five
The links I gave were marked for deletion and removed (I suspect this is where you'll disagree)
If they were marked for deletion, how could they have a five rating

Of course, if you have a logical explanation which can explain this, then I'd be happy to hear it

Oakman

Computafreak wrote:

Of course, if you have a logical explanation which can explain this, then I'd be happy to hear it

Of course he doesn't. Because he has declared, without any special knowledge at all, that what all of us saw happening didn't happen.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Oakman

Ilíon wrote:

Talk to Mr Maunder. He'll know exactly how the rules allowed it. I can speculate, but it remains speculation.

Check out his blog. Note where he agreed that messages with 4 and 5 vote averages were being removed.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Ilion

Oakman wrote:

Check out his blog. Note where he agreed that messages with 4 and 5 vote averages were being removed.

How blind are you? How does that even begin to address your false and insistent belief that CP was hacked?

Ilion

Oakman wrote:

Of course he doesn't. Because he has declared, without any special knowledge at all, that what all of us saw happening didn't happen.

You're so dishonest ... though, perhaps I need to reverse my long-standing policy and consider the possibility that you really are stupid: I said nothing of the sort. I said that the posts were vanished entirely within the framework of the rules (whatever those rules happen to have been). Has it never occurred to you that there might have been some hidden rule or other? Clearly, you're not taking into account that my posts frequently vanished with only a couple of votes against them (and especially when it seemed that a certain passive-aggressive pussy-man was around).

Ilion

Computafreak wrote:

Of course, if you have a logical explanation which can explain this, then I'd be happy to hear it

You're refusing to reason properly; you're question-begging; you're asserting: "Unless you can offer me an explanation I will accept, then the one I already have is The TrVth (despite that it necessarily ignores relevant facts which show it to be wrong)" edit: To put this another way, you're doing the very thing your sort does about the real world -- you're banging your fists and asserting that the world (or the forum, as the case may be) conforms to your theory of how it is and works, despite that it clearly does not.

0x3c0

Ilíon wrote:

you're asserting: "Unless you can offer me an explanation I will accept, then the one I already have is The TrVth (despite that it necessarily ignores relevant facts which show it to be wrong)"

I simply asked for your view. If you state it, and it makes more sense than the one I have at the moment, then I'd happily believe it. Unfortunately, you haven't said it and thus I have no choice but to go with my thoughts on the matter, which although not vetted by Your Holiness, make sense to me and a fair few of the denizens of this message board

Ilion

Computafreak wrote:

Ilíon: you're asserting: "Unless you can offer me an explanation I will accept, then the one I already have is The TrVth (despite that it necessarily ignores relevant facts which show it to be wrong)" Computafreak: I simply asked for your view. If you state it, and it makes more sense than the one I have at the moment, then I'd happily believe it. Unfortunately, you haven't said it and thus I have no choice but to go with my thoughts on the matter, which although

Is that not *exactly* what I said? Fact: Your theory of the CP Fora is clearly defective (or perhaps even erroneous) ... but you refuse to let go it unless you have another to grasp.

0x3c0

Ilíon wrote:

Your theory of the CP Fora is clearly defective (or perhaps even erroneous) ... but you refuse to let go it unless you have another to grasp.

And...my attention is wandering again. I'm not going to assume my theory is correct. It is the one which makes the most sense to me at the moment, and matches a lot of the outcomes that would theoretically result, but I have no way of knowing that it is absolutely correct. Either way, neither of us really know which of the theories (if either) is correct I very rarely let go of theories completely, unless they're completely unsalvageable compared to what is clearly correct. I prefer to integrate the suggestions together, and chuck out the wrong bits. In this case I have nothing to integrate my suggestion with, so it remains the same You have asserted that my suggestion is wrong, but haven't given any proof of it. This is getting tedious and repetitive now, so either provide objective proof that it's wrong or an alternative suggestion or leave the subject for now entirely. And by proof, I don't mean "you're such an ignorant *fool*, and you choose to lie rather than accept my %truth%". I mean laying your suggestion out in a clear, logical manner

Ilion

LOL

0x3c0

Aww. I invoked an undefined chat subroutine. Isn't it nice to know that even the most basic chat systems have redundancy protocols, in cases of extended conversations?

Ilion

You'll never get it because you refuse to reason. Even when you admit of yourself[^] what I've said, you'll never get it. And now, let me point out that you bore me. Translation: I have unchecked the "notify me" box, and so I will be quite unaware of any "response" you post.

0x3c0

That's fine with me. Peace and quiet until I notice your next mistake (probably not an error). FWIW, I'm assuming that you have no explanation which you feel courageous enough to share with the rest of the forum. Coward. I've never known someone in my life who seems so utterly detached from reality, and revels in their detachment to such an extent

Oakman

What an intellectually *dishonest* ass you are.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin