How to Argue with Assholes

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#61  Postby igorfrankensteen » Oct 19, 2015 11:21 am

Spearthrower wrote:
igorfrankensteen wrote:As long as we include spurious calls for documentation, either in situations where supporting documentation doesn't apply (such as expressions of opinion), or where the subject matter itself is entirely conceptual, so that there CAN be no supporting documentation...


I am not sure whether you read the OP, but I was quite clear about the method one would use to express an opinion - using a phrase which makes it clear to your audience that this is purely subjective opinion, and not intended as a factual statement.


igorfrankensteen wrote: ...or in general, using the request for external support as a trick, claiming that the lack of it proves the opposing point, when it doesn't do so at all.


If the claim is intended or portrayed as a factual statement, and the claimant cannot support said factual statement by reference to information validating it, then it's not so much that it proves the claim wrong as shows it's probably just an opinion being misleadingly couched as if it were a factual statement.


igorfrankensteen wrote: ANY tool can be misused and abused.


As an historian, I would have thought you'd be in agreement of the necessity of sources to establish supposed facts. Requests for citations for purportedly factual claims do not seem to be an abuse or a misuse of anything.


igorfrankensteen wrote: As for "arguing with assholes" in general, I am also in the camp that argues right up to the point where I realize that the person IS an asshole (i.e. that they willfully ignore logic and/or facts, and demonstrate no sense of personal honor), and then stop bothering.


I don't think you watched the video, as it quite expressly states that holding stupid opinions which are couched as if they are facts doesn't make the person an asshole. I am also not sure where personal honour comes into this, discourse not revolving around a warrior code, but I think there's a big problem with the usage of the word 'logic' in many people's posts. Logic is not just a 'but it seems to follow for me' - logic is an actual formal system of judging the validity of reasoning, whereas many people who have no background in the study of logic tend to use it to declare they are right by some nebulous principle with a word they think lends credibility to that.

Further, as the video says, it's not necessary to 'argue' with such people, but simply to find where the person has sourced their claim. If you're dealing with a matter like climate science or evolutionary biology, people are perfectly entitled to misinformed opinions, but if they wish to declare their opinions as facts then you just need to ask them to source their claims to allow them to show themselves and their claim as being unsupported.




Okay, first of all, you can buy into the idea that the universal definition of "asshole" is limited to the exact set of parameters spelled out in this particular video if you want. However, I happen to know that neither the people who made the video, nor the threadstarter here, has the AUTHORITY required, to thus limit said definition...

..unless, of course, you can cite a valid alternate authority that does confer such authority on the appropriate people.

Next, it is YOU who clearly didn't read what I said here: "where supporting documentation doesn't apply (such as expressions of opinion), or where the subject matter itself is entirely conceptual, so that there CAN be no supporting documentation...." That, or you think that people misuse the "call for documentation" ploy ONLY on expression of opinions. Demanding certifications, and self-righteously proclaiming that an opponents statements are false without them, is used in all manner of discussions, and is NEVER valid in and of itself. If nothing else, before you can call for certifications of some sort, and make claims about them, YOU have to demonstrate that the certifications being demanded even exist, and have authority. Otherwise, it is YOU who are misusing the requirement of proof, to disguise your own lack of it.

I would have thought you'd be in agreement of the necessity of sources to establish supposed facts. Requests for citations for purportedly factual claims do not seem to be an abuse or a misuse of anything.


I never once said otherwise. Implying that I did, is irresponsible and ingenuous on YOUR part.

In this context, however, people do play a trick as well, where they demand that "facts" not at issue be supported, or that "facts" which their opponent never even mentioned, be supported, as a trick to use "demand for citations" as a ploy to discount valid arguments.

Again. ANY TOOL, NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT, AND NO MATTER HOW BENIGNLY DESIGNED, CAN BE MISUSED TO DO THE OPPOSITE OF IT'S INTENDED PURPOSE.
User avatar
igorfrankensteen
 
Name: michael e munson
Posts: 2114
Age: 67
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#62  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 19, 2015 11:22 am

:picard:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#63  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 19, 2015 11:41 am

igorfrankensteen wrote:
Okay, first of all, you can buy into the idea that the universal definition of "asshole" is limited to the exact set of parameters spelled out in this particular video if you want.


And this firmly spells out the fact that you did not watch the video, but you're going to declaim upon it anyway.

How about actually watching the video PRIOR to commenting on it Igor?


igorfrankensteen wrote: However, I happen to know that neither the people who made the video, nor the threadstarter here, has the AUTHORITY required, to thus limit said definition...


You happen to know nothing relevant because you didn't bother to watch the video before declaiming it.


igorfrankensteen wrote: ..unless, of course, you can cite a valid alternate authority that does confer such authority on the appropriate people.


Only you are labouring under an unwarranted delusion that I or the maker of the video claims to be an authority on the definition.

If you'd watched the video, you'd understand what I mean. As you clearly didn't, you're just flapping around without actually having a clue what you're talking about.

Go watch the video and then come back and acknowledge just how fucking wrong you've been.



igorfrankensteen wrote:Next, it is YOU who clearly didn't read what I said here:


:doh:

Seriously, get over yourself chap.


igorfrankensteen wrote:"where supporting documentation doesn't apply (such as expressions of opinion), or where the subject matter itself is entirely conceptual, so that there CAN be no supporting documentation...." That, or you think that people misuse the "call for documentation" ploy ONLY on expression of opinions. Demanding certifications, and self-righteously proclaiming that an opponents statements are false without them, is used in all manner of discussions, and is NEVER valid in and of itself. If nothing else, before you can call for certifications of some sort, and make claims about them, YOU have to demonstrate that the certifications being demanded even exist, and have authority. Otherwise, it is YOU who are misusing the requirement of proof, to disguise your own lack of it.


Nope, you're talking out of the wrong orifice. If someone is making a truth claim about a specialist subject, then they can be asked to support that claim by reference to evidence. That is not a difficult request to oblige, and anyone who struggles to achieve it duly falls under suspicion of making shit up and pretending it's fact.

Of course, no one has actually said anything that would warrant your strawman. No one says that X is false because you didn't provide evidence for it on request - instead, people are saying that until you support your assertion with evidence I am not going to consider it fact and discard it from consideration in this topic - again, as a self-declared historian, I am struggling to understand why you would find this difficult to comprehend.

In your professional expertise as an historian, how often do you take what people claim in the absence of evidence as a fact? If I declare that the USA was founded by Sarmatian horsemen in the 12th century, do you just believe me? If you said 'hmmm, that's not what I've read, could you supply some support for your claim?' and I failed to support that claim, wouldn't you retain your skepticism until I offered said support?

Methinks you're just arguing for the sake of being argumentative.

Either that, or skepticism is inconvenient for you.


igorfrankensteen wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I would have thought you'd be in agreement of the necessity of sources to establish supposed facts. Requests for citations for purportedly factual claims do not seem to be an abuse or a misuse of anything.


I never once said otherwise. Implying that I did, is irresponsible and ingenuous on YOUR part.


Oh fuck off! You've just written 2 posts claiming that I've said a tonne of shit I clearly never said, and you're ignoring any protestations on my part to the contrary. Don't play this po-faced shit with me.

Incidentally, the word you were looking for is 'disingenuous' - try harder to get a rise - perhaps you can comment on my mother, that might work?


igorfrankensteen wrote: In this context, however, people do play a trick as well, where they demand that "facts" not at issue be supported, or that "facts" which their opponent never even mentioned, be supported, as a trick to use "demand for citations" as a ploy to discount valid arguments.


Derailing wibble.

Valid arguments concerns logic - not factual claims. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises, but doesn't infer that the premises are correct. A valid argument is where the conclusion is necessarily true IF the premises were correct.

A purportedly factual claim about science or history has nothing whatsoever to do with valid argumentation.

Learn some elementary concepts before flailing at people on the internet.



igorfrankensteen wrote: Again. ANY TOOL, NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT, AND NO MATTER HOW BENIGNLY DESIGNED, CAN BE MISUSED TO DO THE OPPOSITE OF IT'S INTENDED PURPOSE.


WRITING STUFF IN CAPS DOESN'T LEND IT MORE IMPORTANCE OR VALIDITY.


What i think this is all about is you've been spanked numerous times on the forum by other people when making bullshit claims you can't support, and consequently you've taken this thread personally when it had nothing to do with you. But thanks for volunteering as a case example of why its important to ask people to support their claims - if they go loco, they're most likely bullshitting.

So yeah, about your publications as a professional historian? :naughty2:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#64  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 19, 2015 11:50 am

Potholer54 wrote:In many cases, these guys are not arseholes anyway. They're actually very nice people.


Anytime you want to acknowledge how absurd your posts here have been, Igor, I'll be happy to consider your apology.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#65  Postby hackenslash » Oct 19, 2015 12:34 pm

Spearthrower wrote:How about actually watching the video PRIOR to commenting on it Igor?


Because that would constitute doing research and, him being a superior historian and all, he doesn't need to dirty his hands with such artisan work.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#66  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 19, 2015 12:37 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:How about actually watching the video PRIOR to commenting on it Igor?


Because that would constitute doing research and, him being a superior historian and all, he doesn't need to dirty his hands with such artisan work.

If I could write my masters thesis with the MO he seems to employ, I could've had my history master two years ago.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#67  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 19, 2015 12:47 pm

Actually, I think it's a good example.

Igor claims to be an historian - he's done so many, many, many times. He's done so in some threads in such a way as to be rude and dismissive of other people, to declare his own authority (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/histo ... l#p2227413).... now it might well be the case that he is an historian, and it might be the case that he does possess some kind of educational authority on whatever era he would have specialised in, but it's a purportedly factual claim, and as such it should be easily supported by reference to external evidence.

I think it stands to reason that one can only rightfully call oneself an historian if one either a) has published b) is in a professorial role or c) has some professional role as an historian. Given that anonymity is unimportant considering he has provided his name, why would it be difficult to present some support for the claim?

I studied ancient history, but I am not an historian. I did actually have a couple of articles published, but they were in a compendium of historical articles written by teenagers (I was 14 :D) so I wouldn't hang any personal authority on them! ;)

This stands as a good case example about how easy it is to make purportedly factual claims on the internet, and how people can be duly skeptical until supporting evidence is provided. See how quickly my skepticism evaporates when presented with said evidence.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#68  Postby hackenslash » Oct 19, 2015 1:06 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Given that anonymity is unimportant considering he has provided his name, why would it be difficult to present some support for the claim?


Dunno, assuming that's actually his name. A quick google for Michael E Munson turns up only a chiropodist, a cocaine dealer and somebody on the sex offenders' register, but no historians.

Actually, scratch the coke dealer, he was Canadian.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#69  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 19, 2015 2:15 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.


They wouldn't be difficult to find if they actually existed.

I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#70  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 19, 2015 2:19 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.


They wouldn't be difficult to find if they actually existed.

I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:

What lost posts?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#71  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 19, 2015 2:27 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.


They wouldn't be difficult to find if they actually existed.

I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:



David - you are lying about me again.

How many times do you need to be told to stop lying about me before you get it?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#72  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 19, 2015 2:29 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.


They wouldn't be difficult to find if they actually existed.

I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:

What lost posts?



The posts have to be 'lost' because then David gets to claim that his bullshit accusations about me are somehow justified, and the fact that he can't cite any evidence to support those bullshit accusations is just the will of the internet gods.

As usual, this is because David doesn't know how to say 'you know what? I was wrong - my mistake' - I don't know how one gets to an advanced age without appropriating this basic concept.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Oct 19, 2015 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#73  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 19, 2015 2:29 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.


They wouldn't be difficult to find if they actually existed.

I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:

What lost posts?

Do you not remember that a whole load of posts were lost once, due to a severe crash? OK,it was a while back, but it definitely happened.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#74  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 19, 2015 2:32 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:

They wouldn't be difficult to find if they actually existed.

I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:

What lost posts?

Do you not remember that a whole load of posts were lost once, due to a severe crash? OK,it was a while back, but it definitely happened.



Like it 'definitely happened' that I posted what you said.

Like it 'definitely happened' that I knew I had posted them but it was 'so long ago that I knew I'd be "safe" from being "caught out"'

Like it definitely happened that it wasn't actually on these fora, but on the old RD forum.

Like it definitely happened that the particular posts which you just so happen to need to support your accusation are the posts which have disappeared.


David.

It is time to make a public retraction. Say you are sorry, say you were honestly mistaken. Do so, and I will drop this immediately. Fail to do so and we can wave goodbye to David for another few months.

Your choice.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#75  Postby hackenslash » Oct 19, 2015 2:33 pm

I remember something about some accusations that were levelled at the moderating staff regarding some posts that nobody else remembers except Dave, whose memory has been shown on more than one occasion to be less-than reliable.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21444
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#76  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 19, 2015 2:33 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:

They wouldn't be difficult to find if they actually existed.

I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:

What lost posts?



The posts have to be 'lost' because then David gets to claim that his bullshit accusations about me are somehow justified, and the fact that he can't cite any evidence to support those bullshit accusations is just the will of the internet gods.

As usual, this is because David doesn't know how to say 'you know what? I was wrong - my mistake' - I don't know how one gets to an advanced age without appropriating this basic concept.

You are making that up. And joining forces with hack to insult me. The reality is that you don't want to admit that YOU made mistakes in the past.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#77  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 19, 2015 2:33 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:

They wouldn't be difficult to find if they actually existed.

I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:

What lost posts?

Do you not remember that a whole load of posts were lost once, due to a severe crash? OK,it was a while back, but it definitely happened.

This was the same day the sun revolved around the earth? Because that definitely happened a while back too.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#78  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 19, 2015 2:35 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:

What lost posts?



The posts have to be 'lost' because then David gets to claim that his bullshit accusations about me are somehow justified, and the fact that he can't cite any evidence to support those bullshit accusations is just the will of the internet gods.

As usual, this is because David doesn't know how to say 'you know what? I was wrong - my mistake' - I don't know how one gets to an advanced age without appropriating this basic concept.

You are making that up. And joining forces with hack to insult me. The reality is that you don't want to admit that YOU made mistakes in the past.



Right.

In this post:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2263258

You were explicitly told by the mods to stop making false accusations about me.

You were also told not to take it to other threads.

Since then, you have taken it to three other threads including this one.

You had your opportunity to say you were mistaken, but as you refuse to stop making accusations, I will simply report you and be done with it.

Bye bye.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#79  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 19, 2015 2:36 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that they might have been among the "lost posts" that followed from a major site crash a couple of years ago. :dunno:

What lost posts?



The posts have to be 'lost' because then David gets to claim that his bullshit accusations about me are somehow justified, and the fact that he can't cite any evidence to support those bullshit accusations is just the will of the internet gods.

As usual, this is because David doesn't know how to say 'you know what? I was wrong - my mistake' - I don't know how one gets to an advanced age without appropriating this basic concept.

You are making that up. And joining forces with hack to insult me. The reality is that you don't want to admit that YOU made mistakes in the past.

Oh look, a persecution complex and 'no, you!' In one comment. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How to Argue with Assholes

#80  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 19, 2015 2:39 pm

hackenslash wrote:I remember something about some accusations that were levelled at the moderating staff regarding some posts that nobody else remembers except Dave, whose memory has been shown on more than one occasion to be less-than reliable.

More insults and innuendos. How surprising. Also, I only once had a memory failure, and then it was who made a particuloar post, not what the content was.
Note to the mods: I know most of you don't like me, but surely there mjust be a rule against campaigns of denigration against another member?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest