rationalskepticism.org

Nevets wrote:

Fallible wrote:This is what happens when you are a jerk to enough people, Steven.

I do apologise.
However, you are under no obligation to reply to my threads.
If you looked at what the thread was concerning, this would be for people wish to discuss this subject.
Obviously you are unable to keep your animosities to yourself.
It is actually obvious that a number of users on this forum as also sockpuppet accounts.
I thought this was a really good forum.
But unfortunately i have realised Skepticism actually depresses me.
The people that claim to be skeptics i think are amongst the most rude and obnoxious people i have ever met.
Childish almost.
Still laughing about farts.
Sorry that i was a jerk to you.
But no biggy.
Just click red X.
Poof.

No one's under any obligation to reply to your threads in the same way you're under no obligation to post those threads.

You don't want to 'discuss' this subject any more than you wanted to discuss any of the prior subjects. You want to pretend you're knowledgeable because you've read a Wikipedia page. The problem is that you don't appear to be able to read those pages as you cite them in support of arguments you make that are factually contradictory to the very source you cite.

In this life, the way you act nets you responses. Wander round punching people in the nose, don't be surprised when people start pre-emptively beating the shit out of you. Similarly, when you join a forum and splurge bullshit everywhere, strawman people, cite one-liners from Wikipedia that materially contradict yourself all the while posing as some kind of superior intellect, then 'rude and obnoxious' is about the best you can hope for.

You've tried to accuse me and Thomas Eshuis of being the same person - but you didn't stop and think about how fucking stupid that is. Both of us have been members of this forum for a very long time, and while I can't speak for Thomas, I can tell you I've met a number of people here in real life, so it'd be just a bit tricky to maintain such a pretense over so many years. The fact is that both Thomas and I like history - Thomas having specialized in it, graduated in History and now teaches it - whereas for my part, I am more of an interested layman with a hobby of history, although I did study pre-Hellenistic Greece at university and consequently know how the historical method works; something you clearly don't. My academic area is actually Anthropology, and consequently when you start yanmering on about language families (after I taught you what they were) then you're moving into an area in which I have some expertise - certainly knowledge that's superior to a layman, and to a much greater depth than you can find on a 200 word entry on Wikipedia. So the reason why Thomas and I have responded to a lot of your posts is because we're both interested in history and have the background to know and show why you're wrong. That we both find your silly arguments lacking doesn't make us the same person.

Waltzing in, dumping piles of shit, misrepresenting people, and making allegations like this just make you entirely unwelcome. Check your own fucking behavior instead of assuming everyone has to cater to you.