Fallible wrote:Utterly bizarre. It's almost as though you can dish it out but can't take it.

You're asking me to stay on topic. What topic are you sticking to?

I mean, you come here and make endless sneering, misrepresentative remarks about what others have said (what you say on the actual topic is scarce - mostly you're just going for 'look at the small people, talking about things. How piteous), then someone points out that everything you're having a go at others for is something you're equally guilty of, and suddenly it's that other person who's not sticking to the topic. You should be able to deal with criticism better than you do if you are intent on making it your thing.

Fallible wrote:I mean, you come here and make endless sneering, misrepresentative remarks about what others have said (what you say on the actual topic is scarce - mostly you're just going for 'look at the small people, talking about things. How piteous).

So much this.

TopCat wrote:

Fallible wrote:I mean, you come here and make endless sneering, misrepresentative remarks about what others have said (what you say on the actual topic is scarce - mostly you're just going for 'look at the small people, talking about things. How piteous).

So much this.

This is not a different approach than you take with jamest or SevenZarkSeven or (god forbid) Wortfish. If you didn't understand what I was sneering at, now you do.

Anyone could know what you’re sneering at. Just pick some random thing. Chances are, Cito’s sneering at it.

Fallible wrote:Anyone could know what you’re sneering at. Just pick some random thing. Chances are, Cito’s sneering at it.

You can find a few posts here that I'm not sneering at. A very few. But yes, chances are. That may not inform you, but that's not on my watch.

All right. As long as you feel you’ve said something.

Fallible wrote:All right. As long as you feel you’ve said something.

Well, SevenZarkSeven is sneering at your posts, too. Another thing I'm sneering at is that you don't make a distinction. It's all just sneering, to you. Must remember to sneer less, unless it's at 7Z7 or Wortfish.

Whether men are more violent than women is not a settled question. Yet we have a thread at a supposed rational skeptics' forum that begins by announcing that men are more violent than women, implying unspecified data that confirms it, and (golly) even explains it. Can't I sneer at that, even a little? On sociology:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Are hormones making Cito inscrutable ?

Did hormones get James banned again?

Is Dutch Courage a euphemism for hormones?

That is not something I have any knowledge of, I'm afraid.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:All right. As long as you feel you’ve said something.

Well, SevenZarkSeven is sneering at your posts, too.

LOOK OVER THERE! I know you hate it when people name fallacies (people who might think they are clever, or people who might be indicating they are experts, are particular issues for you, I know - how very dare they??), so I'm sorry, but tu quoque is just so fucking lazy, Cito.

Another thing I'm sneering at is that you don't make a distinction. It's all just sneering, to you.

I see. You're sneering at something you just made up. I do make a distinction, as it goes. You sneer more in general and more consistently that 7Z7. You have a veritable sneer career going. That's not what you meant, is it. I know what you meant. Your sneering is proper intelligent sneering that really-o truly-o has some kind of value outside of that which you place on it, not like those other awful dullards. Unfortunately, no. You go so laughably off-piste that it becomes nothing but a continuous sour diatribe, so tedious to decipher that it reduces to the level of monotonous drone. If that's what you're aiming for, mission accomplished. Feel free to spin that as people being so far below you that they can't even extract the True Intelligence from your gems.

Must remember to sneer less, unless it's at 7Z7 or Wortfish.

Oh hey, sneer at whoever you like. If there's something you want to work on, you could try not to get quite so pissy when you find yourself hoist with your own petard.

Whether men are more violent than women is not a settled question. Yet we have a thread at a supposed rational skeptics' forum that begins by announcing that men are more violent than women, implying unspecified data that confirms it, and (golly) even explains it. Can't I sneer at that, even a little? On sociology:[snip video I won't watch]

Oh me oh my, someone made an assumption on the internet! Your time from now to the grave is going to be seriously impacted if you intend to craft some scathing, meandering monologue every time this happens. Are you aware of how many claims you've just thrown out here, either about 'not settled' issues, or about issues which are settled but you prefer, from your place of ignorance, to make disingenuous comments about? Anyone who desires Internet forum posts to contain nothing but evidence-based comments or premises should probably pray to Jebus for relief. Something's wrong on the internet! The life of the perfectionist sure is upsetting, isn't it.

Fallible wrote:I'm sorry, but tu quoque is just so fucking lazy, Cito.

How much lazier is it than just bitching that somebody is 'sneering'? Hm?

If I were you, I'd get busy making a case for the notion that men are more violent than women, unless you don't think so, and just want to complain that somebody is sneering at a notion you don't support anyway.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm sorry, but tu quoque is just so fucking lazy, Cito.

How much lazier is it than just bitching that somebody is 'sneering'? Hm?

How much lazier is it than sneering at everyone all the time ?

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm sorry, but tu quoque is just so fucking lazy, Cito.

How much lazier is it than just bitching that somebody is 'sneering'? Hm?

How much lazier is it than sneering at everyone all the time ?

I don't sneer at everyone. I'm restricted by the FUA from sneering at everyone as much as I might like to do. I sneer at their feeble assertions, the same way you feebly sneer at the assertions of theists but never quite manage to confront shit like a blog post that explains why "men are more violent than women" because it flatters your preconceptions. The author attached references to a blog post. That almost turns it into peer-reviewed research.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm sorry, but tu quoque is just so fucking lazy, Cito.

How much lazier is it than just bitching that somebody is 'sneering'? Hm?

How much lazier is it than sneering at everyone all the time ?

I don't sneer at everyone. I'm restricted by the FUA from sneering at everyone as much as I might like to do. I sneer at their feeble assertions, the same way you feebly sneer at the assertions of theists but never quite manage to confront shit like a blog post that explains why "men are more violent than women" because it flatters your preconceptions. The author attached references to a blog post. That almost turns it into peer-reviewed research.

If you spent less time looking at your belly button, and more time actually reading content, you'll notice that I also provided a link to the WHO page on the matter, which contains links to global reviews that, according to them

benefited from the participation of over 160 experts from around the world, receiving both peer-review from scientists and contributions and comments from representatives of all the world’s regions.

Pretty much every study from any source gives the same result. But don't let that influence your preconceptions.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm sorry, but tu quoque is just so fucking lazy, Cito.

How much lazier is it than just bitching that somebody is 'sneering'? Hm?

Doing it again probably takes the prize. The effort you made misrepresenting my post though could have been directed to more worthwhile ends, but I think you're just in a habit that you can't break at this point.

For clarity: I'm not 'just bitching that someone is 'sneering''. I'm indicating my amusement that you, specifically you, not 'somebody', out of everyone, criticise another member, completely straight-faced, for suggesting they have more knowledge than you do on a particular topic when you are on record as having had a huge shit fit in the past because your self-professed expertise wasn't accepted at face value. I'm also highlighting the hypocrisy in your criticisms that people don't provide robust evidence-based arguments here, just opinions, when I can't remember seeing a time when you have contributed anything but your opinion, formed from a basis of a lack of knowledge in some cases. All you have is this meta crap. That and the puns. But I don't want to mention them too much, in case I bring them on.

If I were you, I'd get busy making a case for the notion that men are more violent than women, unless you don't think so,

Well, you'll never be me, but you are you right now. So before you bother yourself with how people can be rendered more worthy for you, maybe you should get busy making a case that men are not more violent than women, unless you don't think so...

and just want to complain that somebody is sneering at a notion you don't support anyway.

...and just want to complain that somebody is challenging your sneering hypocrisy over a claim and the negation of it you don't support anyway (and don't seem to have any particular insight into).

You can say 'the question's not settled, provide evidence for your assertion' without delving into perfectionists and praying to Jebus and spoon bending and people spending their time exchanging worthless opinions and 'you know what I think of this matter' like someone should care. What do I care that someone I don't know and don't agree with started a slapdash thread? You talk like it has something to do with me. Why is that?

Fallible wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:All right. As long as you feel you’ve said something.

Well, SevenZarkSeven is sneering at your posts, too.

LOOK OVER THERE! I know you hate it when people name fallacies (people who might think they are clever, or people who might be indicating they are experts, are particular issues for you, I know - how very dare they??), so I'm sorry, but tu quoque is just so fucking lazy, Cito.

Another thing I'm sneering at is that you don't make a distinction. It's all just sneering, to you.

I see. You're sneering at something you just made up. I do make a distinction, as it goes. You sneer more in general and more consistently that 7Z7. You have a veritable sneer career going. That's not what you meant, is it. I know what you meant. Your sneering is proper intelligent sneering that really-o truly-o has some kind of value outside of that which you place on it, not like those other awful dullards. Unfortunately, no. You go so laughably off-piste that it becomes nothing but a continuous sour diatribe, so tedious to decipher that it reduces to the level of monotonous drone. If that's what you're aiming for, mission accomplished. Feel free to spin that as people being so far below you that they can't even extract the True Intelligence from your gems.

Must remember to sneer less, unless it's at 7Z7 or Wortfish.

Oh hey, sneer at whoever you like. If there's something you want to work on, you could try not to get quite so pissy when you find yourself hoist with your own petard.

Whether men are more violent than women is not a settled question. Yet we have a thread at a supposed rational skeptics' forum that begins by announcing that men are more violent than women, implying unspecified data that confirms it, and (golly) even explains it. Can't I sneer at that, even a little? On sociology:[snip video I won't watch]

Oh me oh my, someone made an assumption on the internet! Your time from now to the grave is going to be seriously impacted if you intend to craft some scathing, meandering monologue every time this happens. Are you aware of how many claims you've just thrown out here, either about 'not settled' issues, or about issues which are settled but you prefer, from your place of ignorance, to make disingenuous comments about? Anyone who desires Internet forum posts to contain nothing but evidence-based comments or premises should probably pray to Jebus for relief. Something's wrong on the internet! The life of the perfectionist sure is upsetting, isn't it.

I doubt that Cito really considers that he has a problem. But the fact that you also have encapsulated everything that I myself have said to him in a PM, hopefully may get him thinking. He could do a lot worse than having you as his psychoanalyst; because I am pretty certain that his problem would soon be resolved.

I'm only talking about what I see on internet fora. I know I'm a completely different person offline, so it's possibly true for others too. I try not to have anything to say about people's potential 'problems' unless that's freely offered up. I've talked about the cancer, for example, so it's fair game. Also, I'm not a psychoanalyst.

Fallible wrote:I'm only talking about what I see on internet fora. I know I'm a completely different person offline, so it's possibly true for others too. I try not to have anything to say about people's potential 'problems' unless that's freely offered up. I've talked about the cancer, for example, so it's fair game. Also, I'm not a psychoanalyst.

I didn't actually think that you were a psychoanalyst by profession. It is also good practice not to speak about someone's personal problems unless freely offered. But, just the fact that everything you have said here pretty much covers much of what I had to say to Cito in PM - regarding a specific incident with a member here - leaves me hopeful that he may begin to see that there is indeed some merit to the comments.

Cito di Pense wrote:
If this discussion required a technical understanding of 'hormone', I'd be more careful, but it does not.

What about just a basic understanding?