Looking Askance

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

Oakman

Ilíon wrote:

Has it never occurred to you that there might have been some hidden rule or other?

No it hasn't. What an assinine idea.

Ilíon wrote:

Clearly, you're not taking into account that my posts frequently vanished with only a couple of votes against them

Wrong again. Chris lowered the number of delete votes to six from thirteen in an attempt to help his loungers get rid of a couple of trolls. But the delete votes were only effective if the total score of the message remained below two.

Ilíon wrote:

and especially when it seemed that a certain passive-aggressive pussy-man was around).

ROFL. I only had one vote, dimwit; but you're right I'm sure I got more pussy any year of my life than you've gotten in your entire life. Now, why don't you stop collecting unemployment checks and get a job? That would cut down on the number of inane posts in here and possibly lower my tax bill. I'm tired of supporting your laziness.

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:

No it hasn't. What an assinine idea.

Is it? Why is that?

Oakman wrote:

Wrong again. Chris lowered the number of delete votes to six from thirteen in an attempt to help his loungers get rid of a couple of trolls. But the delete votes were only effective if the total score of the message remained below two.

Obviously, you're missing something.

Oakman wrote:

ROFL. I only had one vote, dimwit; but you're right I'm sure I got more pussy any year of my life than you've gotten in your entire life.

You pathetic inanity;"passive-aggressive pussy-man" isn't an oblique reference to you.

Oakman wrote:

Now, why don't you stop collecting unemployment checks and get a job?

Fool: to *stop* would I not have to first *start?*

Synaptrik

Most likely someone was able to log in with multiple accounts that have different IP addresses and then just voted abuse/spam to get them removed. Technically doesn't require hacking, but is a subversion of the rules of the site, if not the safeguards.

This statement is false

Oakman

Synaptrik wrote:

Most likely someone was able to log in with multiple accounts that have different IP addresses and then just voted abuse/spam to get them removed.

That's what I thought at first - as did Chris, I believe. But a remove vote carries an automatic 1 vote with it. Some of the messages that were removed (you could still track what they were voted in the player profile) had only two or three votes and all of them were strongly positive. If I understand the mechanism correctly, as designed, it is impossible for a message to be removed with a score of 2 or more. Even if I am wrong, the remove votes should have been tallied in the votes the message garnered, and the score on a message that (as one did) received one 4 and three 5's should have been considerably lower before being automatically removed. There was a bug somewhere, I am fairly sure. At first I thought Ilion was doing it, but realised that he was not technologically savvy enough.

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