Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Steve_Kow, May 4, 2005.
Hey dudes--take it to AIM
Since making new threads is the rage nowadays.
Don't look at me. I was perfectly content to keep it contained to one thread before Garbad decided we needed a New York Times poll about some obscure sub-sub-sub-point of the argument.
He's not getting my AIM name though. He's been bugging me for my number for a while and it's starting to creep me out.
I don't really want to get involved, but are you joking? Do you remember your thread about the link plz fallacy? Surely that was inspired by the police discrimination thread. I'm not saying anything about whether or not you should keep it contained to a single thread, I'm just saying that I don't think it's fair for you to say that you were content to keep it to a single thread.
Did you really have to add yet another thread?
I voted yes. (the second one down) :thumbsup:
"link plz" is a phenomenon that transcends and preceeds the Po-lice thread, amigo. In fact I'm almost 100% certain that I've created threads about it before. It's not like it's anything new or anything that depends on the police discussion for its existence.
Can't the same be said for Garbad's child in the oven post? I don't have a problem saying that the post was pretty transparent, but he never tried to bring up the specific topic of the police thread. Just like your link plz fallacy thread, this thread could have stood indepdendent of the police argument.
Ah, well. I guess it comes down to interpretation. I interpreted your link plz fallacy thread to be a jab at Garbad. Cheers, though. No big deal. I haven't got the patience to argue like you and Garbad. By the way, I just feel like saying that I'm not trying to defend Garbad. ( I couldn't call myself a member of the former stratorgy if I said that, now could I? )
I voted the last "yes".
I don't think children in ovens has ever before been a discussion topic here, let alone a repeatedly-observed phenomenon on and off the forum.
*explicitly approves of all the threads*
Can I vote for "live and let live?" Can you add that to your poll?
Also, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen any children-in-oven discussions in the last few months, so I gotta give him props for originality on that one. I've seen a lot of "link plz" though, so... props for originality on observing the phenomenon there, as well.
And I recognize the argumentum no linkum fallacy of not providing a link to a "link plz" request.
(If I made a thread about half the threads I didn't like, I'd own the first 3 pages.)
I like the debate. It's been relatively civil. There have been low blows, but it reached a low point and stayed there, without going into the thread lock range. I just can't figure out what the heck you guys are arguing anymore. Oh well, they both seem to be enjoying it, judging from the long posts there. No sense for them to stop.
I think we're arguing about whether or not I should stuff him into an oven.
You're goin' down like a sweet muffin, LaLoser!
I guess I should expand a bit. That's not exactly what I meant by same.
When I said same, I was addressing the words: anything that depends on the police discussion for its existence.
and not the rest of it. I really should have clarified that. Sorry, my fault. The reason I responded to the last bit is because that's the only part that I believe is important. I usually don't post in a very logical fashion, so I guess I could try putting down exactly what I mean.
I think that both threads were inspired by the police thread. I'm pretty sure I see the point you're making about Garbad's post being a continuation of the police thread. I just think that your post was the same. I understand that it's a topic that's been talked about before, but I still think you intended a direct reference to the police thread.
As far as I can see, it's gonna be pretty silly for us to argue over how to interpret the reason you posted the link plz thread. You're not gonna get me to believe that it wasn't meant to be a continuation of the police thread and I'm not gonna get you to agree with my point of view. I'm pretty satisfied leaving it at that. I'm sure we could bicker for 20 pages about it, but that's no fun.
Edit: er, just to kinda clear things up: I'm not one of those people who has a need to get the last word in. My post kinda makes it sound like that, but I'm really fine without. Reason I made this post was to clear up my stance, since I had left out what I was addressing, which is a pretty important piece of information!
You all do realize that by not voting yes, you're showing tacit approval for creating new threads to tackle sub-sub-sub points, and thus are all equally guilty of spamming the forums, right? :teeth:
Well, if I really wanted to be a baby (possibly in an oven) about it, I'd be posting polls about whether or not intentionally misquoting a source constitutes academic dishonesty. I don't have a link to back me up, but I still have plenty of equally childish ideas that don't see the light of day.
Edit: Like this one -
Addddduuurrrrrr I'm DrunkCajun and I understand words good! Yes, numbnuts, everyone but you knows what tacit means.
See? I can be a baby a lot better than creating and supporting a new logical fallacy.
i voted no
No need to be nasty, Duped.
But you do realize that I meant every poster on these boards, right? Because they are all members of this community, and so if they don't vote yes, they're tacitly approving of spam. Even the ones that don't realize there's a poll going on. They're part of the "precinct" of these forums.
Addddduuurrrrrr I'm DrunkCajun and I'm going to stick with the same weak strawman that got my ass handed to me five times in two threads.
So you argue not for the sake of your ideology but for the sake of wining? That's pathetic.
Not to mention being just downright mean. Here I am trying to poke fun about something, and Duped has to go and insult me. Bah.
I dunno if you need to get some more sleep or something Duped, but (and no offense meant, though I'll still probably get flamed for saying this) I feel like in the last few weeks you've been exceedingly more grouchy than usual. Honestly don't mean that as a mean thing, and it may just be because you've been dogpiled in a few threads by several people, which I know can be annoying, but honestly man, if you have a problem with me, there's an abundance of ways to take it up with me. PM, email, IM, seriously. No need to go around publicly insulting me.
PS--I left that argument to begin with because I felt like Garbad was doing a better job with it than I was, and I was getting irritated with it. I also felt like you having to goaltend against half a dozen people as it was probably was enough without me adding to the mix. You can throw scores at me all you want, but at the end of the day I debate because I enjoy rolling up my sleeves and matching wits with someone, not because I want something to lord over them later on down the road.
Admittedly, my "humor" in this thread was probably a little bit on the mean side, so sorry about that. But seriously man, we've been on the same side of the screaming match more often than not, no need to make a mortal enemy out of it because of one thread.
Actually the score deal was for Garbad. He said in that thread that he didn't actually have a side and wasn't attacking or defending either one, but that he was participating with the goal of controlling my actions. I figured I'd play a "take the control away from a control freak" angle for a while since we weren't really getting anywhere anyway.
Unless you meant the five times/two threads thing, in which case I wasn't really counting, I just remember it coming up previously. And I was actually figuring I was having to defend myself again since Garbad and Anakha both showed a willingness to preemptively carry it over into other threads (and even create new threads to carry it into in Garbad's case). So, like, in conclusion, no hard feelings.