Consensus on Global Warming?Follow

The fact that you cannot have a reasonable argument without resorting to insulting people is indicative of your inability to argue at a mature adult level.

I'm happy to have a reasonable argument. Was that your goal when you posted claiming I never provide eveidence, that you secretly want to blow me, yadda ydaa? Because I just took it as hero worship, ace.


I don't have to insult your intelligence to point out your shortcomings here. They're painfully obvious.

My primary shortcoming is doing a poor job of communicating with idiots or the overly sensitive. You don't really want to have a reasonable argument with me, I can write well, and I'm smarter than you. It would be me clinically chopping you into little bits with relentless precision. If I were in the mood to do that I'd post on a forum where people had some vague chance of defending themselves.

Nothing personal.

But, hey. If you want to debate the relative merits of something you know about, let's do that.

Wasn't this basically just posted with a word changed?

No.

"I'm right, you're stupid, I don't need to prove it." Got it.

This is correct. Every poster here does *exactly* the same thing. Also, I'm lazy and Jeff's usually on it anyway.

Do any of your 21614 posts use the Quote feature?

Thousands, I'd imagine.

ETA: Although I'm not going to link thousands to "prove" it, sorry :(

Edited, May 21st 2008 11:27pm by Smasharoo

That's your ego giving you a false positive. You really should have it checkecd.



Wrong, buddy. Your primary method of arguing with practically everybody on this site (and I suppose IRL, as well) is to present what you consider to be truth, and then respond with insults, insinuations, and general childish behavior when those "truths" are challenged. If someone such as yourself were genuinely interested in proving himself right and perhaps educating a few people in the process, he might post sources for his numbers, papers supporting his views, or some other form of verifiable evidence.

Someone such as yourself, who merely resorts to challenging the ability of his opponent to find evidence that may or may not exist is obviously only interested in reinforcing his straw house with elmer's glue. That's OK though - I haven't the huff and the puff to blow your little hut down at the moment.

Apparently it makes it easier on his dyslexia if he antagonizes every other reader by using an annoying quoting style.

Funny story, no one in the Asylum ever commented on it.

If you want the truth, the reason I started doing it was that there was at one point in time a limit on how many quotes one could use in a single post, and the tags would just stop working after 8 or whatever it was and it made posts looks terrible. Long ago, I used to parse entire Gbaji posts and offer counterpoints and evidence to each idea. This was before I realized he was mentally disabled. At any rate, using bold looked much cleaner, and I never changed back.

It worked out to be much easier to read for me, as well. I do have to highlight the text quote boxes to read it accurately.

Wait, so you posted evidence before?

Interesting.

And yeah, the limit on quotes per post is still around (either 13 or 14, if memory serves - god knows there's enough broken quote pyramids in here that one could find it if they were so inclined, which I'm not).

I think nobody in the Asylum ever commented on it because you vs. gbaji is just such great theatre. That said, since the arguments in here tend to be somewhat more... eh, pedestrian... the whole "bold pseudoquote" style stands out more and annoys people, I guess, because we're not being as entertained by the whole back-and-forth.

If it weren't for the whole "let's use a different background color for every stylesheet" here, I'd just suggest you add color to it and be done with it, but you'll end up running into some group of users that will be like "BAWWWWWWWWW I CAN'T READ IT". So I'm not going to bother making that suggestion.

If someone such as yourself were genuinely interested in proving himself right and perhaps educating a few people in the process, he might post sources for his numbers, papers supporting his views, or some other form of verifiable evidence.

Hahaha. Holy, sh*t. Where would you ever get the impression I was genuinely interested in educating you people? If someone really actually shows interest in something beyond "I hate you, you're mean, so I'm going to argue!" I think you'll find I'm happy to explain my point of view.

See the quantum physics thread, or the questions about linguistics in whatever thread that was.

If you're going to start with the assumption that we're intellectual equals, though, you'd better be right, and be able to suck it up if I make fun of you when you're wrong. Joph knows more than I do about a good many things. Catholicism, for example. I try to pull my own weight on the subject if he's posting, but I'll sometimes just ask if I don't know something. Flea knows a good deal more than me on other subjects, and I'll just ask if I don't know. Nexa knows more about gays and human sexuality than I do, among other things. Nobby knows more about playing guitar, or British history, and probably a dozen more things. Ditto Samira, Tare, etc. etc.

Your problem, Gabji's problem, most poster's problem, frankly is that they don't.

Not my fault.



Edited, May 21st 2008 11:39pm by Smasharoo

I personally don't doubt that.

It'd just be nice to see them sometimes (not saying he doesn't ever give citations, just that they're occasionally omitted).

Yes, Joph does it right, and I generally don't question him for it. I have no reason to.

Honest question:

Have you noticed the correlation between what I say and what Joph says?

It's an interesting argument you make, that being correct isn't as important as demonstrating you're correct to people who can't be bothered to find out for themselves.



Edited, May 21st 2008 11:50pm by Smasharoo

Blame the public school system.

All that "it's not important if you're right or wrong, as long as you show your work" *********** Whose goddamn idea was that in the first place?

But generally I do believe Smash is willing to cite sources.

This is true. I admit I'm occasionally guilty of making arbitrary posts to lure someone down a certain path, though. Genuinely not that often, and usually Gbaji. It seems unsporting not to, considering the enormous amount of things he arbitrarily conjures.