FIFY
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
stijndeloose wrote:Oh look at you all brave and valiant now that you have a king again, for the first time in 176 years.
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.
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.
Arthur Methoxy wrote:Yes, anything is possible.
Arthur Methoxy wrote:Are you saying that you are Jesus?
Arthur Methoxy wrote: you know, I mean forgiving everyone who writes bullshit?
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?
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?
Arthur Methoxy wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest