Thomas Eshuis wrote:

stijndeloose wrote:I think we should get back to the OP.

Agreed, but that requires Methoxy to actually participate in an honest and meaningful way.

FIFY

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

stijndeloose wrote:I think we should get back to the OP.

Agreed, but that requires Methoxy to actually participate.

You naive Dutchman, you!

stijndeloose wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

stijndeloose wrote:I think we should get back to the OP.

Agreed, but that requires Methoxy to actually participate.

You naive Dutchman, you!

Ungrateful bumpkin, just wait until we reintegrate Belgium into the Dutch kingdom!

Oh look at you all brave and valiant now that you have a king again, for the first time in 176 years.

stijndeloose wrote:Oh look at you all brave and valiant now that you have a king again, for the first time in 176 years.

At least we have a likeable king.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

No sign yet of a moderators response. Maybe you are right. Insulting posters ISN'T inflammatory after all.

That's now what I said, read my posts carefully or stop lying.
Attacking posts isn't against the rules.
Attacking posters, i.o.w. people is.
No-one's attacked you, we have merely eviscerated your vacuous wibble.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:My apologies. But give it another day though.

You can wait until hell freezes over, no-one's attacked you personally.
Nor will this continued attempt at evasion get you anywhere.

So "bullshit" is a phrase that describes a literary output? and never refers to the mind-set of the author?
Hmm. That must mean that anything is possible. What do others think?

You clearly do not understand what bullshit means, allow me to clear things up:

Definition of bullshit in English
bullshit
Pronunciation: /ˈbʊlʃɪt/
vulgar slang
Translate bullshit | into German | into Spanish
noun
[mass noun]
stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense

Talk or writing is what it refers to, not persons nor their mind-set.

I see. So by applying vulgar slang against a post, one could, in fact, think well of its author. Yes, anything is possible. Are you saying that you are Jesus? you know, I mean forgiving everyone who writes bullshit?

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That's now what I said, read my posts carefully or stop lying.
Attacking posts isn't against the rules.
Attacking posters, i.o.w. people is.
No-one's attacked you, we have merely eviscerated your vacuous wibble.

You can wait until hell freezes over, no-one's attacked you personally.
Nor will this continued attempt at evasion get you anywhere.

So "bullshit" is a phrase that describes a literary output? and never refers to the mind-set of the author?
Hmm. That must mean that anything is possible. What do others think?

You clearly do not understand what bullshit means, allow me to clear things up:

Definition of bullshit in English
bullshit
Pronunciation: /ˈbʊlʃɪt/
vulgar slang
Translate bullshit | into German | into Spanish
noun
[mass noun]
stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense

Talk or writing is what it refers to, not persons nor their mind-set.

I see. So by applying vulgar slang against a post, one could, in fact, think well of its author.

It is completely irrelevant what one thinks of the author. As long as the author isn't attacked personally, there's no breach of the rules.
I can hate you intensely (don't flatter yourself, I don't), as long as I don't attack you, I'm not in violation.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Yes, anything is possible.

Nope, attacking members of this board is against the rules, as are things like racist slurs, deliberate misspelling of the names of forum members and several other things.
So no, not everything's possible.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Are you saying that you are Jesus?

Arthur Methoxy wrote: you know, I mean forgiving everyone who writes bullshit?

Where have I mentioned forgiveness, much less forgiven anyone?
Are you just going to spout random nonsense now?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

So "bullshit" is a phrase that describes a literary output? and never refers to the mind-set of the author?
Hmm. That must mean that anything is possible. What do others think?

You clearly do not understand what bullshit means, allow me to clear things up:

Definition of bullshit in English
bullshit
Pronunciation: /ˈbʊlʃɪt/
vulgar slang
Translate bullshit | into German | into Spanish
noun
[mass noun]
stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense

Talk or writing is what it refers to, not persons nor their mind-set.

I see. So by applying vulgar slang against a post, one could, in fact, think well of its author.

It is completely irrelevant what one thinks of the author. As long as the author isn't attacked personally, there's no breach of the rules.
I can hate you intensely (don't flatter yourself, I don't), as long as I don't attack you, I'm not in violation.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Yes, anything is possible.

Nope, attacking members of this board is against the rules, as are things like racist slurs, deliberate misspelling of the names of forum members and several other things.
So no, not everything's possible.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Are you saying that you are Jesus?

Arthur Methoxy wrote: you know, I mean forgiving everyone who writes bullshit?

Where have I mentioned forgiveness, much less forgiven anyone?
Are you just going to spout random nonsense now?

er... wait a minute...
if you have silent hatred for me, and if it is not a reason for insulting a post, then who will the insult be viewed by? Posts don't have eyes.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Wasted effort.
It's not against the FUA to attack posts. Only posters are protected by the FUA.


Can tell you right now it won't be the one you want.


Again there is nothing inflammatory or insulting about attacking ideas or posts. They aren't individuals nor are they sacred.


And I repeat yet again that that's bullshit, no matter how many times you blindly regurgitate it.

No sign yet of a moderators response. Maybe you are right. Insulting posters ISN'T inflammatory after all.

That's now what I said, read my posts carefully or stop lying.
Attacking posts isn't against the rules.
Attacking posters, i.o.w. people is.
No-one's attacked you, we have merely eviscerated your vacuous wibble.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:My apologies. But give it another day though.

You can wait until hell freezes over, no-one's attacked you personally.
Nor will this continued attempt at evasion get you anywhere.

So "bullshit" is a phrase that describes a literary output? and never refers to the mind-set of the author?
Hmm. That must mean that anything is possible. What do others think?

I think that your only intent here is trolling, plain and simply. I think you have no desire or intent to engage in discussion, and have no other purpose than attempting to annoy or infuriate the membership here.

Of course, I could be wrong, and you could demonstrate it by engaging in honest conversation instead of the bullshit your posting history is completely comprised of so far.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
You clearly do not understand what bullshit means, allow me to clear things up:


Talk or writing is what it refers to, not persons nor their mind-set.

I see. So by applying vulgar slang against a post, one could, in fact, think well of its author.

It is completely irrelevant what one thinks of the author. As long as the author isn't attacked personally, there's no breach of the rules.
I can hate you intensely (don't flatter yourself, I don't), as long as I don't attack you, I'm not in violation.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Yes, anything is possible.

Nope, attacking members of this board is against the rules, as are things like racist slurs, deliberate misspelling of the names of forum members and several other things.
So no, not everything's possible.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Are you saying that you are Jesus?

Arthur Methoxy wrote: you know, I mean forgiving everyone who writes bullshit?

Where have I mentioned forgiveness, much less forgiven anyone?
Are you just going to spout random nonsense now?

er... wait a minute...
if you have silent hatred for me, and if it is not a reason for insulting a post, then who will the insult be viewed by? Posts don't have eyes.

You cannot insult a post, it's an inanimate thing, it has no feelings.
You can attack a post, which is metaphor for critiquing the claims and ideas presented in it.
What you continue to fail to understand is that
A. Attacking a post =/= attacking the poster.
B. Attacking a post and/or using vulgar language =/= of hatred toward the poster.

Also by continuing this line of pathetic dodging you're only demonstrating that you're unwilling to discuss your OP rationally and honestly.

Gee it would be nice if the moderators took a hand in this. A user is making obvious trolling comments, and provoking numerous users here.

Weaver wrote:
I think that your only intent here is trolling, plain and simply. I think you have no desire or intent to engage in discussion, and have no other purpose than attempting to annoy or infuriate the membership here.

Of course, I could be wrong, and you could demonstrate it by engaging in honest conversation instead of the bullshit your posting history is completely comprised of so far.

Having made three genuine and unemotional attempts to engage the guy in serious conversation, without success, I'm going to agree with you.

jamest wrote:

Weaver wrote:
I think that your only intent here is trolling, plain and simply. I think you have no desire or intent to engage in discussion, and have no other purpose than attempting to annoy or infuriate the membership here.

Of course, I could be wrong, and you could demonstrate it by engaging in honest conversation instead of the bullshit your posting history is completely comprised of so far.

Having made three genuine and unemotional attempts to engage the guy in serious conversation, without success, I'm going to agree with you.

So, you are saying that if you tell a person that his posting history is "bullshit", you ought, at least, to expect a "serious conversation" from him, or else be quite entitled to evict him.

I don't think so.

Nobody can be as obtuse as that post makes you seem to be.

JamesT was saying he tried to engage you in serious conversation - he didn't mock you, he didn't make fun of your posts, he didn't do anything that you use as an excuse to justify your refusal to respond to the rest of us. That you didn't respond to him either serves as evidence to him that I am correct that your only intent here is trolling, and you aren't interested in honest discussions.

This latest response from you is just more of the same.

Weaver wrote:Nobody can be as obtuse as that post makes you seem to be.

JamesT was saying he tried to engage you in serious conversation - he didn't mock you, he didn't make fun of your posts, he didn't do anything that you use as an excuse to justify your refusal to respond to the rest of us. That you didn't respond to him either serves as evidence to him that I am correct that your only intent here is trolling, and you aren't interested in honest discussions.

This latest response from you is just more of the same.

Here it is again:
" I think that your only intent here is trolling, plain and simply. I think you have no desire or intent to engage in discussion, and have no other purpose than attempting to annoy or infuriate the membership here."

" Of course, I could be wrong, and you could demonstrate it by engaging in honest conversation instead of the bullshit your posting history is completely comprised of so far."

"Having made three genuine and unemotional attempts to engage the guy in serious conversation, without success, I'm going to agree with you."

Other interested readers please note that as my original post was bullshit (pseudoscience), and/or pseudoscience (bullshit), then I'm not up to being forced to having a polite conversation about it, even if it was logically possible, which it isn't, because it is pseudoscience.

Whatever. More trolling.

Those are MY lines, you non-attributing person. James simply said that since YOU refused to engage his civil overtures - what you supposedly said you needed - that he agreed with me. You cannot use that as retroactive justification for ignoring him before.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

jamest wrote:

Weaver wrote:
I think that your only intent here is trolling, plain and simply. I think you have no desire or intent to engage in discussion, and have no other purpose than attempting to annoy or infuriate the membership here.

Of course, I could be wrong, and you could demonstrate it by engaging in honest conversation instead of the bullshit your posting history is completely comprised of so far.

Having made three genuine and unemotional attempts to engage the guy in serious conversation, without success, I'm going to agree with you.

So, you are saying that if you tell a person that his posting history is "bullshit", you ought, at least, to expect a "serious conversation" from him, or else be quite entitled to evict him.

I don't think so.

Now you're talking "bullshit", as I have at no time been aggressive or disrespectful in any post that I have addressed towards you directly.

You should know this about me, Arthur: I am probably the member with the most radical views on this forum. However, I have survived in spite of my views, simply because I have not shirked from genuine engagement with the members here. This is not to say that there is no antagonism towards me, but for the most part people recognise that I'm not simply trolling the forum (they just think I'm mad, or something). Now, whilst I recognise that you have some radical opinions of your own, I have to confess that I've been sorely disappointed with the mode of your participation in this thread (especially) and others too. Of course, you probably don't care two shits about the level of my disappointment, but let me tell you this:

If you do not change your ways you won't be a member here for much longer.

That's not a threat, it's a prophecy, based upon being a member here (and other similar forums) for quite a significant time. Sincerely, Arthur, you need to amend your ways, lest you become another forgotten victim of social demands. I wouldn't bother to say this to you if I didn't think that you had the potential to say something justifiably-interesting, so please give it more than a semblance of consideration. You could be the biggest genius on Earth, but if you lack the capacity to communicate with anyone then your genius shall die with you.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

jamest wrote:

Weaver wrote:
I think that your only intent here is trolling, plain and simply. I think you have no desire or intent to engage in discussion, and have no other purpose than attempting to annoy or infuriate the membership here.

Of course, I could be wrong, and you could demonstrate it by engaging in honest conversation instead of the bullshit your posting history is completely comprised of so far.

Having made three genuine and unemotional attempts to engage the guy in serious conversation, without success, I'm going to agree with you.

So, you are saying that if you tell a person that his posting history is "bullshit", you ought, at least, to expect a "serious conversation" from him, or else be quite entitled to evict him.

I don't think so.

Your personal credulity is irrelevant, read this:
Goldenmane's third rule

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

Weaver wrote:Nobody can be as obtuse as that post makes you seem to be.

JamesT was saying he tried to engage you in serious conversation - he didn't mock you, he didn't make fun of your posts, he didn't do anything that you use as an excuse to justify your refusal to respond to the rest of us. That you didn't respond to him either serves as evidence to him that I am correct that your only intent here is trolling, and you aren't interested in honest discussions.

This latest response from you is just more of the same.

Here it is again:
" I think that your only intent here is trolling, plain and simply. I think you have no desire or intent to engage in discussion, and have no other purpose than attempting to annoy or infuriate the membership here."

" Of course, I could be wrong, and you could demonstrate it by engaging in honest conversation instead of the bullshit your posting history is completely comprised of so far."

"Having made three genuine and unemotional attempts to engage the guy in serious conversation, without success, I'm going to agree with you."

Other interested readers please note that as my original post was bullshit (pseudoscience), and/or pseudoscience (bullshit), then I'm not up to being forced to having a polite conversation about it, even if it was logically possible, which it isn't, because it is pseudoscience.

So you admit your OP was pure nonsense?
'Cause then we can close this thread and end your trolling.