|
I want you to stop posting about posting and get back to posting abut your ideas. You have clear, concrete steps you can take to get your ideas the consideration they deserve. You're avoiding doing those and endlessly rehashing the same arguments with your detractors. Here's a standard thing that's been leveled a half dozen times in this thread alone: Pesmerga posted:Eripsa, all I can say is that if you find this thread to be unfair and bullying, I don't think academia is for you. If you presented these ideas, in this format, at any of the big politics/philosophy/law conferences, you would be absolutely torn apart. On methodology, theoretical framework and ability to effectively engage with criticism. Boom. Done. Probably fewer words, but that's the standard foil you present for this line. I'd submit it's not worth your time to rehash it. What would actually shut everyone up is a spec and simulator. I told you to ignore the extant simulator and get a workable spec up. This is a concrete path that will vet your ideas and silence your detractors. Rehashing the same points you've done to death will not. If you want to move forward, make an active choice to pursue one of these directions.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
I certainly think there is bullying going on, yes, and that should stop. But I also think that some of the hostility towards you and your ideas are warranted. That it makes this a difficult situation for you is besides the point. You led yourself into the mess by consequence of the way in which you present your ideas and the haphazard nature of those same idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Being unable to relate to the situation you are put in is what makes this whole in/out-crowd thing work. There's quite a few posters who have mentioned this in one way or another but the hypocrite critics are certainly avoiding to empathize, either consciously or out of lack of self-insight. It's as if they have do this in order to make their shtick work. That's why I posted that boniface-article earlier because he writes about how he consciously did this in order to degrade his victims and string other along for the ride.Who What Now posted:If this is just a comedy forum then why the gently caress are you so upset that we're making fun of you. That's the point of a comedy forum. BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:A defence usually used to defend racism and other sorts of bigotry. so i guess eripsa is a racist as he's the one who used the "this is a comedy forum guys" argument, right what "who what now" is doing is explaining since erispa is using that argument, what that argument means so since you're defending eripsa i guess you're a racist too
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:so i guess eripsa is a racist as he's the one who used the "this is a comedy forum guys" argument, right What?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This is discursively unreasonable. If I didn't know any better I'd think you actually want me to stop posting. Please, do. Just forget about all the attention economy bullshit for a while and go and hang out with some friends or something. Go to a bar, play some videogames, whatever it is that you do for fun outside of this nonsense. You'll be a better person for it and hopefully not drowning yourself in the subject will give you some perspective on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:A defence usually used to defend racism and other sorts of bigotry. Hey you know if something is not actually done to defend racism and bigotry, it doesn't matter. Like people drive cars to go and be bigoted, that says nothing about driving cars. Making fun of incoherency is actually a worthwhile thing to do! Obviously there will be people (often *ahem* those who struggle with coherency themselves) that will react by reflexively defending that incoherency, but hopefully others will take a caution from it that if you talk and people can never understand you, that's what crazy is. e:b RealityApologist posted:This is discursively unreasonable. If I didn't know any better I'd think you actually want me to stop posting. And that'd be fuckin' inconceivable! *posts another manifesto written with barf as ink*
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:What? well, in between your and eripsa's nightly cross-burning sessions (since people who say "this is a comedy forum" are racists), you might have failed to notice in your rush to accuse who what now of being a racist (probably to hide your racism) that he didn't use the "this is a comedy forum" argument, eripsa did. who what now is merely basically saying "if you're going to hide behind 'this is just a comedy forum' for your arguments then you're going to have to extend that same right to the replies" so basically in your rush to call someone else a racist you misfired because you didn't read the thread~~~
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:Being unable to relate to the situation you are put in is what makes this whole in/out-crowd thing work. There's quite a few posters who have mentioned this in one way or another but the hypocrite critics are certainly avoiding to empathize, either consciously or out of lack of self-insight. What makes these unspecified critics hypocritical? And while we're at it, what have you contributed to this thread besides noise and meta-analysis of the increasingly pointless debate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Eripsa, all I can say is that if you find this thread to be unfair and bullying, I don't think academia is for you. Explicitly identifying the rhetorical situation is not evidence that I can't handle it. It's like we're playing streetball and I'm playing 30 against one and getting fouled left and right. I mean it's good practice and it's fun, but playing on a real court with refs and rules is a completely different game. Like, this is part of my montage training sequence; this isn't the big game. Getting beat up here is part of how that training works. Still, a foul is a foul, and it's completely reasonable to identify it as such. As street ball goes, I've made some good plays considering the odds stacked against me. It's unfortunate that this gets lost in the rhetoric, but that's not the limiting factor in this discussion. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:What would actually shut everyone up is a spec and simulator. I told you to ignore the extant simulator and get a workable spec up. This is a concrete path that will vet your ideas and silence your detractors. Rehashing the same points you've done to death will not. If you want to move forward, make an active choice to pursue one of these directions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This digression started by simply trying to identifying the vitriolic bullying, hostile misinterpretation, and character assassination I have to cope with in this thread. You invited every bit of it so it's pretty ridiculous to whine now. In your first post you established your contentious intellectual history with these forums, while also stating the thread would turn out roughly like it has and that you were OK with this as some kind of preemptive puppet master. It seems a bit hollow now that you're saying it's more than you wish to bear given that you quite literally asked for it. eXXon posted:What makes these unspecified critics hypocritical? And while we're at it, what have you contributed to this thread besides noise and meta-analysis of the increasingly pointless debate? Reminder for those still reading this thread who aren't up on D&D lore, BernieLomax is to perpetual motion machines as Eripsa/RealityApologist is to network theory. RealityApologist posted:It's like we're playing streetball and I'm playing 30 against one and getting fouled left and right. I mean it's good practice and it's fun, but playing on a real court with refs and rules is a completely different game. Like, this is part of my montage training sequence; this isn't the big game. Getting beat up here is part of how that training works. Getting trolled to poo poo is in no way helpful when preparing to defend your doctoral thesis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Explicitly identifying the rhetorical situation is not evidence that I can't handle it. If we're going to go for analogies, this isn't a training montage, this is little league. Big academic conferences are absolutely vicious. Particularly the younger scholars, bouncing from post-doc to post-doc, hoping for either tenure (US) or a permanent lectureship (most other places) will seize upon the tiniest flaw or methodological weakness and run with it. And they will make it personal. I've seen people have their paper dismissed, their entire thesis brought into question, sometimes even personal attacks made on the integrity of the speaker. Chairs of panels don't step in, because they see it as part of the 'free flow of information and healthy debate', and it's up to the speaker to defend both themselves and their position. I'm just warning you, this may feel unfair, but academics are even worse. In this respect, you're really going to have to develop a thick skin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:δB is the global change as a rolling average (there's your answer Jawn) over the growth of the thread. If δBx > 0, the users has more income than expenses on average, and vice versa for expenses. RealityApologist posted:Let δBx represent the (global) average change x's balance over the lifetime of the network, or δBx = ΔBx/Δt. And while I was digging this up I noticed this lil' throwaway gem: RealityApologist posted:Slanderer's main, bolded objection, which Jawn erroneously repeats, is that complexity is itself a barrier to our potential comprehension of a system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey you know if something is not actually done to defend racism and bigotry, it doesn't matter. Like people drive cars to go and be bigoted, that says nothing about driving cars. Making fun of incoherency is actually a worthwhile thing to do! Obviously there will be people (often *ahem* those who struggle with coherency themselves) that will react by reflexively defending that incoherency, but hopefully others will take a caution from it that if you talk and people can never understand you, that's what crazy is. Depends on what sort of criticism it is and the type of incoherence. It can be very abusive and directly dangerous as well, since accusing someone of being incoherent is often a technique used for ridiculing opponents (Can't think of any great quick examples, but the way teabaggers respond to criticism comes to mind). Let me try to explain. Yes, I can relate, and I guess I must sound real uppity who think there's some responsibility on the part of listener. I have issues with expressing myself clearly, and I notice very well that one person might have trouble understanding me while a different person will be able to understand me perfectly. And often this inability to understand me is used as an excuse to be abusive, and likely by constructing strawmen in the process and criticizing me for being incoherent (ie. be unable to understand me). It's hard for me to explain but I guess it is one of those things you have to experience yourself to actually understand. And the glaring logical contradiction is quite unbearable to me. There's a wide difference between being incoherent in expression and being incoherent in the head. At least one joke has punchline is "I'm crazy, not stupid". I'm not saying that all of the critic is illegitimate, but there's certainly examples of that in this thread. And while some critics require Eripsa to repent for his errors, there hasn't been the slightest admission of some of the graver errors on their part. But well, this is very hard to explain, and I guess it's easier to make fun of the notion than to relate. Hey, comedy forum! Exxon, this is just really just a response to huge portion of this thread dedicated to armchair psychoanalysis and explaining how incoherent Eripsa is. Evilweasel, that doesn't make sense at all. Eripsa and Who What Now's statement aren't comparable, and only the latter is actually in the form i'm referring to. BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Eprisa, if you feel like your audience consistently has a hard time understanding you, then it should be obvious that you need to "dumb it down." However, if you feel that we're willfully ignoring you or misunderstanding you on purpose, then there's nothing that can be helped about that other than doing the first thing and hoping that those who are interested but can't understand you can finally do so. Whenever you need to make a proposal, you need to tailor it to the audience. For a group of laypeople, this means huge simplification and possibly explaining things that you feel should be obvious (when in fact it isn't). The statements about your character are levied because you continue to make the same fundamental errors in your reasoning and explanation over and over again without any effort to amend those errors. The most general counter to your flaws in reasoning or explanation can't be levied toward the argument since it's fundamentally flawed in its reasoning or assumptions and thus become levied at you because it is an error that you made and not one of the subject itself. I hope that this is as simple as I can make it so that you don't ignore it like you seem to do with so many other valid or invalid criticisms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:Evilweasel, that doesn't make sense at all. Eripsa and Who What Now's statement aren't comparable, and only the latter is actually in the form i'm referring to. It makes perfect sense. Who What Now isn't saying "this is a comedy forum I can post anything I want". Eripsa was the one who chose to complain that he was held to too high a standard for "posting on a comedy website". Who What Now, correctly, pointed out Eripsa cannot whine that he's on a comedy website as an excuse for poor posts, then turn around and not extend that to everyone else. You chose to leap eyes shut into calling people racists. By your logic it's Eripsa who is a racist, and since you're on his side therefore you must be too. I hope you've learned a valuable lesson from this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It makes perfect sense. Who What Now isn't saying "this is a comedy forum I can post anything I want". Eripsa was the one who chose to complain that he was held to too high a standard for "posting on a comedy website". Who What Now, correctly, pointed out Eripsa cannot whine that he's on a comedy website as an excuse for poor posts, then turn around and not extend that to everyone else. You really can't tell the difference? But seeing the spectacular logic in your post I am sure you're acting in good faith here. I mean "on his side"? I guess I can expect a title soon so it will be even easier to discern the in/out-crowd. edit: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The one I liked the best myself was one that quoted me saying something like "my title is my autobiography" with a picture of DNS lookup error. And gently caress whoever it was who bought me a title when I had a permabanned title. That one took effort and it didn't even last a day. \/\/\/ BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:Forgot to write this in the previous post: "This is a comedy forum"-defence in itself is stupid since in this exact case it can be read as an excuse to commit cruel and unreasonable ridicule. This is not comparable to using it to justify writing (harmless) stupid stuff. I have a red title. It's pretty awesome TBH. I think the person getting it for me thought it was mockery, but look at it. It's bad-rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:Forgot to write this in the previous post: "This is a comedy forum"-defence in itself is stupid since in this exact case it can be read as an excuse to commit cruel and unreasonable ridicule. This is not comparable to using it to justify writing (harmless) stupid stuff. I'm saying that you chose to insinuate racism and misfired because you didn't even read what was going on. You didn't understand what was going on, and rather than realize you were wrong have chosen to try to draw bullshit distinctions to avoid admitting you were wrong. The correct response would have been something along the lines of "whoops, my mistake".
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You didn't understand what was going on, and rather than realize you were wrong have chosen to try to draw bullshit distinctions to avoid admitting you were wrong. The correct response would have been something along the lines of "whoops, my mistake". And he's a fan of Eripsa, you say?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
I gotta say, I've never been called racist because I thought people should hold themselves to the same standard as their peers. Thanks, BernieLomax, this has been educational.Obdicut posted:I have a red title. It's pretty awesome TBH. I think the person getting it for me thought it was mockery, but look at it. It's bad-rear end. I got a new avatar from a member of SASS that was trolling D&D. A week later I got my avatar swapped with someone from GBS. Avatars only mean something to literal idiots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm Quantum Boy. So the guy says to me, he says "I'm an alchemist" and I says "  are you retorted?"Just a lil pun there, vote 5. At this point the evidence pretty clearly suggests that Eripsa doesn't really understand what people are saying to him (in addition to being somewhat fuzzy about what he himself is actually saying), and I'm not sure how that can be fixed. There is a fundamental disconnect somewhere that probably will never be resolved in this comedy forum of ours, but the surrounding discussion is actually great. I've learned several things about stuff I normally don't bother with, so I'd like to thank all involved for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I'm saying that you chose to insinuate racism and misfired because you didn't even read what was going on. You didn't understand what was going on, and rather than realize you were wrong have chosen to try to draw bullshit distinctions to avoid admitting you were wrong. The correct response would have been something along the lines of "whoops, my mistake". The point was that I have only seen that defence being used by bigots (not racists exclusively, so saying I am insinuating racism specifically is an absurd interpretation), and the "bullshit distinction" shouldn't be necessary but I thought I had to spoon-feed it to you. Look: quote:If this is just a comedy forum then why the gently caress are you so upset that we're making fun of you. That's the point of a comedy forum. Or is the real opinion "You should be upset about being made fun of because this is/isn't a comedy forum". No, really, you don't make any sense at all. edit: My only point was that I have only seen bigots use that argument. That's an observation, and doesn't imply racism or anything. It rather means that the argument in itself is meaningless since by itself it has been used to justify racism. BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:He says straight out here that "The point of a comedy forum is to make fun of [Eripsa]" Nonono --- the point of a comedy forum is to make fun. Don't interpret that as him picking a specific target who we must now all mock unto eternity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I'm saying that you chose to insinuate racism and misfired because you didn't even read what was going on. You didn't understand what was going on, and rather than realize you were wrong have chosen to try to draw bullshit distinctions to avoid admitting you were wrong. The correct response would have been something along the lines of "whoops, my mistake". Isn't this level of cruelty to the handicapped barred by law?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:The point was that I have only seen that defence being used by bigots (not racists exclusively, so saying I am insinuating racism specifically is an absurd interpretation), and the "bullshit distinction" shouldn't be necessary but I thought I had to spoon-feed it to you. his point is that Eripsa has claimed that is unfair to hold him to a (quite reasonable) standard on a comedy website, so Who What Now is forcing him to confront the hypocrisy of claiming eripsa's posts are protected under ~only a comedy forum~ while complaining everyone else's is not up to par he is saying that eripsa cannot have it both ways, and you are an idiot who misunderstood it and decided to try to insinuate that Who What Now was a racist that is entirely on you, you have embarrassed yourself and should be ashamed
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:He says straight out here that "The point of a comedy forum is to make fun of [Eripsa]", or "You shouldn't be upset at us making fun of you because this is a comedy forum" and it doesn't depend on Eripsa's argument. I can argue against this isolated opinion without arguing against Eripsa's completely different argument. The "if" here is purely there to create a rhetorical question.  Whack this button on top a few more times, all the words have fallen to the bottom of your salad again. e: beaten again!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:edit: My only point was that I have only seen bigots use that argument. That's an observation, and doesn't imply racism or anything. It rather means that the argument in itself is meaningless since by itself it has been used to justify racism. well you saw erispa use it, ergo eripsa is a racist, ergo you as a defender of eripsa defend racism (a thing only racists do), ergo you are a racist all of these things are only observations not implications though
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:his point is that Eripsa has claimed that is unfair to hold him to a (quite reasonable) standard on a comedy website, so Who What Now is forcing him to confront the hypocrisy of claiming eripsa's posts are protected under ~only a comedy forum~ while complaining everyone else's is not up to par So, do you think that "This is a comedy forum" is a good excuse for making fun of Eripsa? And are you/Who What Now upset about Eripsa posting silly stuff? BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:So, do you think that "This is a comedy forum" is a good excuse for making fun of Eripsa? We don't need excuses to make fun of his terrible arguments. The reason they get made fun of is because they are terrible. Let's not even start with the meta-posting outside of his awful idea: RealityApologist posted:I'm okay with this stuff being cranky, as long as it's understood that the crankiness is motivated by hazy understandings of legitimate natural science, and not quasimystical Deepak Chopra technochakra bullshit or fascist/libertarian/tinfoil/triangular political ends. I'm not appealing to facts, methods, or research outside the mainstream of scientific discourse, I'm just putting them together in confused and incomplete ways, and that I'm willing to educated myself when corrected. Or the chemistry/alchemy thing, there are many more examples you can find just by opening a random page of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:So, do you think that "This is a comedy forum" is a good excuse for making fun of Eripsa? And are you/Who What Now upset about Eripsa posting silly stuff? I think that if Eripsa defends poor posts with "this is a comedy forum" that he should be reminded that everyone else's posts will be held to that standard. Which is exactly Who What Now's point, that you so completely missed and still don't get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:So, do you think that "This is a comedy forum" is a good excuse for making fun of Eripsa? Eripsa's ideas (to the extent they are fully discernible) are self-evidently worthy of dismissal and ridicule. Eripsa himself hits so many buffoonish notes that I'd be tempted to conclude his persona was an online performance art piece dedicated to creating a figure of fun (similar to TobleroneTriangular) if it weren't so apparent that he's in deadly earnest. This earnestness does engender a certain amount of genuine sympathy and actual good advice, but it doesn't change the fact that he exhibits characteristics that make him a nearly ideal and well-justified target for mockery. I can elaborate on those characteristics (and did at some length before I deleted it) but I think most people who read this thread can figure out what they are and I'd rather not bum him out too bad or come across as so hostile he tunes me out entirely. I really hope taking a few days off to have fun and get his head clear will provide an opportunity for some needed self-reflection. And really, if you are going to make fun of someone, is there a more appropriate vehicle than a comedy forum?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
I should be working on this spec, but you guys obviously need help. I interpreted Bernie's point to be that there's a difference between appealing to "Its a comedy forum" to justify less than rigorous academic standards, and using it to justify active bullying and personal attacks. I'm not writing an academic paper, and I'm not hocking pseudoscience. At best, my crime is ignorance. You are all engaging in collective bullying behavior designed to attack my character and sanity. You've escalated the exaggerated outrage in an effort to one-up each other in the extremity of your caricature, to the point that none of my posts receive even an attempt at charitable interpretation or understanding before half a dozen of your fall over yourselves to make the same dumb joke. The effort to top each other in your mockery is sometimes constructive for the discussion (ie, Adar), but has also resulted in inquiry into my personal life, demands that I be fired and that my adviser and institution be called into question, and harassment of my professional acquaintances. To think this that any of this is warranted by my writings here is sheer groupthink lunacy. Your attempts to provide constructive criticism about my writing and presentation would be far more convincing if you could model such behavior in your own posts, but you all have the restraint of howler monkeys in heat. The idea that I'm supposed to not only reconsider my whole interest in this topic, but my general goals and career and self-conception, in light of your fraternal jockeying in this thread is laughable to the point of being as obtuse as you think I am. But to think that my ignorance warrants the concerted attack on my character, identity, or psychological well-being is simply inhumane. BernieLomax is absolutely right to emphasize this point. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
LGD posted:I really hope taking a few days off to have fun and get his head clear will provide an opportunity for some needed self-reflection. This is wishful thinking on par with Eripa-posting in general. He's been doing this for years now. After being banned in the second attention economy thread for the sort of aggrieved "You guys aren't getting it, feh, typical" sort of bluster on display now, he later tried to sneak back under the guise of a new persona for more "discussion" and was pretty quickly recognized due to how characteristic his idiosyncrasies are. That he demands a greater spirit of charity from the forums after not having changed one whit and earning every bit of scorn is laughable, to say the least. When he insists that this is one of the best venues for critiquing and improving his ideas, I think that really speaks lowly of the quality of those ideas that we're the best hes able to find when you consider how every one of these threads plays out. Hes miffed about the response he gets and his own reputation without ever stopping to consider that he earned it all on his own. This doesn't deserve any more patience than hes getting, and frankly posters like Jawn seem saint-like in what they're willing to put up with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Please talk to a therapist. Therapists, unlike us, are unbiased and on your side; their main concern is your well-being. If you feel that this thread has endangered your sanity, please seek professional help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:The point was that I have only seen that defence being used by bigots (not racists exclusively, so saying I am insinuating racism specifically is an absurd interpretation), and the "bullshit distinction" shouldn't be necessary but I thought I had to spoon-feed it to you. Woah-ho-ho! Evilweasel has done an amazing job defending me, better than I deserve. But something that I feel he didn't go out of his way to make clearer is this: I didn't make the defense you're accusing me, RealityApologist/Eprisa did! You're either forgetting that or deliberately misrepresenting that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Your attempts to provide constructive criticism about my writing and presentation would be far more convincing if you could model such behavior in your own posts, but you all have the restraint of howler monkeys in heat. The idea that I'm supposed to not only reconsider my whole interest in this topic, but my general goals and career and self-conception, in light of your fraternal jockeying in this thread is laughable to the point of being as obtuse as you think I am. Eripsa, coming from the constructive criticism side of the fence, have you ever considered that you are actually wrong about how human communities work like, when you spend your life contemplating the mysteries of social networks and tightly connected groups, want to base a currency system around meta-network, but every single time you present this idea to a small part of the network itself it spontaneously decides your theory is dumb, does this imply something to you also, I really want to put the words "staggeringly incompetent" in here somewhere but that's more of a howler monkey thing to say so I'm just gonna bow out with a mere "possibly somewhat incorrect"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
RA you are literally,not figuratively but literally lying through your goddamn teeth if you think you aren't peddling pseudoscience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not hocking pseudoscience You apparently don't know what pseudoscience is. It's all you do. quote:But to think that my ignorance warrants the concerted attack on my character, identity, or psychological well-being is simply inhumane. It'd be unwarranted if you showed any sign of interacting with the real world or what people say to you. But after multiple threads and hundreds of pages it's not even controversial to say Eripsa, you're delusional. BernieLomax doesn't even reach the point of delusion, he's just having flashbacks to when he was targeted for his own incoherency. You're going to cop out of JawnV6's request, aren't you? Admit it. Your ego is too huge and your brain is too lazy for you to work while you know people are talking about you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:24
|
|