Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#802 Apr 10 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If you feel so confident about your belief of me being "stupid", then give me examples.

Why? Because I'm stupid enough to think that the right example will get you to say "Man, you're right..." so I should waste time harvesting examples for you to shoot down and say "Doesn't count! Doesn't count!! That one doesn't count either!!"? When the entire point here is that you steadfastly refuse to admit to any such problems with your "style"?

Sorry, champ. Nothing in it for me. Reread the major threads and you'll find dozens of examples of people pointing out errors. And dozens of examples of "Doesn't count! Doesn't count!!". Which actually goes to prove my point twice for me :)

Edited, Apr 10th 2011 4:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#803 Apr 10 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you feel so confident about your belief of me being "stupid", then give me examples.

Why? Because I'm stupid enough to think that the right example will get you to say "Man, you're right..." so I should waste time harvesting examples for you to shoot down and say "Doesn't count! Doesn't count!! That one doesn't count either!!"? When the entire point here is that you steadfastly refuse to admit to any such problems with your "style"?

Sorry, champ. Nothing in it for me. Reread the major threads and you'll find dozens of examples of people pointing out errors. And dozens of examples of "Doesn't count! Doesn't count!!". Which actually goes to prove my point twice for me :)

Edited, Apr 10th 2011 4:16pm by Jophiel


I honestly questioned myself on keeping that sentence in there 3 or 4 times because I knew you would respond with that, but I gave you credit to believe that you would at least respond to the rest of the post. /sigh, I guess I was wrong.

The point I was focusing on was the following:


Almalieque wrote:
When there are posters on a thread who disagree with each other, but are not debating each other, only me, then what do you call that?


Almalieque wrote:
All you or anyone else have said is "You fail to comprehend a basic point", which is a whole lot like saying "You're misunderstanding me". Yet, somehow me saying that makes me stupid, but when you say it, it makes you right. You haven't provided anything that I haven't already provided to the discussion. As a result, this is nothing more than a "You don't agree with me, therefore you are stupid". I can just as equally say "you don't understand the most basic point". Does that some how now make me right and you wrong?



I didn't expect you to list any examples because you would just respond with "You don't get it", "You don't get it", which would just keep us in this circle. I only gave you an opportunity if you felt so bold about something. Just as you refused to explain your earlier contradiction, you could have stated your opinion and not explained it. You chose not to simply because you have nothing, given that you still responded to my post.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#804 Apr 10 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I honestly questioned myself on keeping that sentence in there 3 or 4 times because I knew you would respond with that, but I gave you credit to believe that you would at least respond to the rest of the post.

Why? You've already established that you don't believe any of what I said was true. At that point, you get the response you deserve, not the one you hoped for.

I disagree with posters all the time. Generally, it leads to either one of us soon admitting an error, a quick establishment that although we disagree, neither of us holds an entirely irrational position or a general lack of interest. It's really only that perfect storm of inaccuracy plus irrationality plus a feeling of complete certainty that leads to a continued defense of the irrational position that creates threads such as those by you or Gbaji or Shadowrelm.

Edited, Apr 10th 2011 4:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#805 Apr 10 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I honestly questioned myself on keeping that sentence in there 3 or 4 times because I knew you would respond with that, but I gave you credit to believe that you would at least respond to the rest of the post.

Why? You've already established that you don't believe any of what I said was true. At that point, you get the response you deserve, not the one you hoped for.



When there are posters on a thread who disagree with each other, but are not debating each other, only me, then what do you call that?


All you or anyone else have said is "You fail to comprehend a basic point", which is a whole lot like saying "You're misunderstanding me". Yet, somehow me saying that makes me stupid, but when you say it, it makes you right. You haven't provided anything that I haven't already provided to the discussion. As a result, this is nothing more than a "You don't agree with me, therefore you are stupid". I can just as equally say "you don't understand the most basic point". Does that some how now make me right and you wrong?



I didn't expect you to list any examples because you would just respond with "You don't get it", "You don't get it", which would just keep us in this circle. I only gave you an opportunity if you felt so bold about something. Just as you refused to explain your earlier contradiction, you could have stated your opinion and not explained it. You chose not to simply because you have nothing, given that you still responded to my post.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#806 Apr 10 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Responded in edit.

Let me ask you, if you agree that other forum posters disagree with one another on a regular basis, why do you suspect that only disagreements with a select few posters result in threads like yours? If it was purely an inability on everyone else's part to "understand" or whatever, why aren't we having these threads all over the place?

Edited, Apr 10th 2011 5:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#807 Apr 10 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Responded in edit.

Let me ask you, if you agree that other forum posters disagree with one another on a regular basis, why do you suspect that only disagreements with a select few posters result in threads like yours? If it was purely an inability on everyone else's part to "understand" or whatever, why aren't we having these threads all over the place?

Edited, Apr 10th 2011 5:01pm by Jophiel


It's not an "inability" on everyone else to understand. People understand my points. I've learned that people either A) don't actually read all of my posts and then respond or B) trolling.

Most of the time, when we're engaged in a circular thread, it's because of one of the two reasons. Posters openly admit all of the time of not reading my posts, so how can you turn around and believe that they "understand" my point if they didn't even read it?

Once posters have actually read my posts, the topic typically dies off quickly in comparison. Take for example, me and Sir X in this thread. We both misunderstood each other, but once we understood each other, it was over.

In the remaining amount of times, the posters are just trolling because people choose to react that way to me.

Other posters probably don't like to argue as much as I do. If I have the time, I will almost always debate about it. Internet forums are one of the few places where I'm guaranteed to find something worth arguing about. I've learned that people I know don't always like arguing about stuff.

So, I'll spend 20 pages debating about something while others might just give up and say "eff it". Add in the trolls, the people who generally disagree and the people who just respond for the sake of responding and you have your answer.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#808 Apr 10 2011 at 4:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So it's everyone else's fault because if they'd only read your posts the right way, they'd understand. Or else they're just trolling.

Well, that's certainly one theory. Funny how it's only your posts (well, and Gbaji's) that have this problem and we don't have ten pages threads where two other people just failed to read the posts correctly.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#809 Apr 10 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So it's everyone else's fault because if they'd only read your posts the right way, they'd understand. Or else they're just trolling.

Well, that's certainly one theory. Funny how it's only your posts (well, and Gbaji's) that have this problem and we don't have ten pages threads where two other people just failed to read the posts correctly.


Their words not mine.

Besides, I said most of the time, not all of the time. You asked why "my" threads are the way they are, long and drawn out. There are many times where someone is wrong, succumbs and it's the end of the topic, but that's not the majority reason nor what you are referring to.

In reference to circular threads, which was your concern, it's drawn out typically because people admit to not reading or they are trolling. That's not to say there aren't any confusion involved, but that is the minority for why the topic is drawn out the way it is.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#810 Apr 10 2011 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Again, certainly one theory. Which still doesn't explain why there's this selective blind spot to your posts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#811 Apr 10 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
Alma, not many people here are actually debating with you. We're wasting time. This is a message board where most people visit while they have some downtime at work.
#812 Apr 10 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Whatever you need to tell yourself, I guess. It's everyone else's problem, not yours.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#813 Apr 10 2011 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Again, certainly one theory. Which still doesn't explain why there's this selective blind spot to your posts.


Almalieque just wrote:
Other posters probably don't like to argue as much as I do. If I have the time, I will almost always debate about it.

....

So, I'll spend 20 pages debating about something while others might just give up and say "eff it". Add in the trolls, the people who generally disagree and the people who just respond for the sake of responding and you have your answer.


Nadenu wrote:
Alma, not many people here are actually debating with you. We're wasting time. This is a message board where most people visit while they have some downtime at work.


Read above.

Bsphil wrote:
Whatever you need to tell yourself, I guess. It's everyone else's problem, not yours.


That's the thing. It isn't a "problem" for anyone, yet you are trying to paint the scenario as if there is one. I state a position, someone disagrees. I don't agree with their position, S/he doesn't agree with my position. That's how debates commonly operate. There isn't a "problem". There are factors of people not reading, misreading or misunderstanding, but that's all common in debates as well.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#814 Apr 10 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, you said that people either don't read it all or are trolling. Setting aside anyone trolling and given your theory that it's all about other people's reading, why do your posts have this selective issue that no one else's seem to have?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#815 Apr 10 2011 at 9:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
No, you said that people either don't read it all or are trolling. Setting aside anyone trolling and given your theory that it's all about other people's reading,


Almalieque already wrote:
You asked why "my" threads are the way they are, long and drawn out. There are many times where someone is wrong, succumbs and it's the end of the topic, but that's not the majority reason nor what you are referring to.

In reference to circular threads
, which was your concern, it's drawn out typically because people admit to not reading or they are trolling. That's not to say there aren't any confusion involved, but that is the minority for why the topic is drawn out the way it is.


Jophiel wrote:
why do your posts have this selective issue that no one else's seem to have?


Other posters probably don't like to argue as much as I do. If I have the time, I will almost always debate about it.

So, I'll spend 20 pages debating about something while others might just give up and say "eff it". Add in the trolls, the people who generally disagree and the people who just respond for the sake of responding and you have your answer.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#816 Apr 10 2011 at 9:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So you're not getting any special (or unfair) treatment from the posters, you just like to talk a lot.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#817 Apr 11 2011 at 3:46 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So you're not getting any special (or unfair) treatment from the posters, you just like to talk a lot.


In reference to circular threads, which was your concern, it's drawn out typically because people admit to not reading or they are trolling. That's not to say there aren't any confusion involved, but that is the minority for why the topic is drawn out the way it is.

I'll spend 20 pages debating about something while others might just give up and say "eff it". Add in the trolls, the people who generally disagree and the people who just respond for the sake of responding and you have your answer.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#818 Apr 11 2011 at 4:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Add in the trolls, the people who generally disagree and the people who just respond for the sake of responding and you have your answer.


Doesn't that describe you?
#819 Apr 11 2011 at 5:09 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Add in the trolls, the people who generally disagree and the people who just respond for the sake of responding and you have your answer.


Doesn't that describe you?


Let's see.

1. I don't create arguments that I don't believe to stir emotions, so I'm not a troll.

2. "People who generally disagree" is applicable to everyone as we all don't agree on everything.

3. I may argue for the sake of arguing, but I have my points and bring my arguments. They are not "+1's" just to say things like "Is this thread still going on?", "Wow, I haven't read anything in this thread," "I don't want to know what's going on.", etc.

So, to answer your question, no, it doesn't describe me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#820 Apr 11 2011 at 6:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Add in the trolls, the people who generally disagree and the people who just respond for the sake of responding and you have your answer.


Doesn't that describe you?
Completely. He responds solely for the sake of responding since he knows no one is reading his posts.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#821 Apr 11 2011 at 6:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So you're not getting any special (or unfair) treatment from the posters, you just like to talk a lot.
In reference to...

It was a "yes" or "no" sort of thing. Or, as I said, you just talk too much.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#822 Apr 11 2011 at 6:23 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So you're not getting any special (or unfair) treatment from the posters, you just like to talk a lot.
In reference to...

It was a "yes" or "no" sort of thing. Or, as I said, you just talk too much.


It was not a "yes" or "no" sort of thing, it was the answer that I gave you. There are different results to different conditions and I gave all of them to you. You just wanted to focus on one of the conditions to make it appear that I was contradicting myself, by ignoring the other parts. When I gave you the whole shabang, your tactic failed.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#823 Apr 11 2011 at 6:27 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So you're not getting any special (or unfair) treatment from the posters, you just like to talk a lot.
In reference to...

It was a "yes" or "no" sort of thing. Or, as I said, you just talk too much.
He likes to repeat himself. Copying and pasting arguments from 3 pages back and reusing them again. He always assumes we missed it and needed to be shown again, which is funny because if we missed it the first time, we're probably not going to read it the 2nd time either. Or, more likely, we disregarded it as dribble the first time and will do the same 2nd time around. It's possible he's dumb enough to do this thinking we'll care the 2nd time around, but I think in all honesty, he's just doing as everyone else, responding for the sake of it.

Edited, Apr 11th 2011 9:28am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#824 Apr 11 2011 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
It was not a "yes" or "no" sort of thing, it was the answer that I gave you.

Heh... okay.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#825 Apr 11 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
Wow, I'm glad I'm not reading this thread. You'd think that with THIS many posts, there's actually be some drama in here.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#826 Apr 11 2011 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,689 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Wow, I'm glad I'm not reading this thread. You'd think that with THIS many posts, there's actually be some drama in here.
This thread is about as pointless and boring as they get. It's really just some people using Alma to farm posts.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#827 Apr 11 2011 at 11:40 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Wow, I'm glad I'm not reading this thread. You'd think that with THIS many posts, there's actually be some drama in here.
This thread is about as pointless and boring as they get. It's really just some people using Alma to farm posts.


Heh... Okay,

4391....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#828 Apr 12 2011 at 11:10 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
It takes two to tango, and there are also far less graceful dances that require, two, three, or more. What shall we call this one?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#829 Apr 12 2011 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
******
43,139 posts
Kachi wrote:
It takes two to tango, and there are also far less graceful dances that require, two, three, or more. What shall we call this one?
The Hucklebuck.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#830 Apr 12 2011 at 1:18 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Alma i see you are at 4392 posts. I heard 4400 is a nice round number to stop at.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#831 Apr 12 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Alma i see you are at 4392 posts. I heard 4400 is a nice round number to stop at.


Correction: 4394 posts...

Stop for what occasion?

I recall asking you to expound on a statement that you made on the "No-Fly Zone" thread...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#832 Apr 12 2011 at 7:59 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Its been expounded champ and you didn't reply to it, so um...crisis averted? Also....
You Wrote wrote:

Seriously people.. 3900 is a nice round number to stop at


I figured 4400 was just as nice a round number.

edit relevant link is relevant.

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1292714560124432388&page=7&howmany=50#msg1293509370233822182

and considering your edit at 2:51 we will just use Joph's initial reply at 1:30 to support thats what you said (because I don't recall your family event being involved at the time when we were laughing at you)

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1292714560124432388&page=7&howmany=50#msg1293517662317336282

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 10:03pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#833 Apr 12 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Quote:
Its been expounded champ and you didn't reply to it, so um...crisis averted? Also....


Well, I'll go back and reread it.


rdmcandie wrote:

Almalieque out of context wrote:

Seriously people.. 3900 is a nice round number to stop at


I figured 4400 was just as nice a round number.


As I asked, for what occasion? There was a specific occasion for why 3900 was a "nice round number to stop at", which you conveniently left out. So what is the occasion for 4400 or are you just making up some random number? Oh, wait, you already answered that question. Ok, that's nice to know that you have no logic behind your statement.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#834 Apr 12 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Alma i see you are at 4392 posts. I heard 4400 is a nice round number to stop at.
Nice try, but as long as people keep responding to him, he's going to keep posting.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#835 Apr 12 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Alma i see you are at 4392 posts. I heard 4400 is a nice round number to stop at.
Nice try, but as long as people keep responding to him, he's going to keep posting.


Just trying to get him 5 more so he can stop at a round number is all.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#836 Apr 12 2011 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Alma i see you are at 4392 posts. I heard 4400 is a nice round number to stop at.
Nice try, but as long as people keep responding to him, he's going to keep posting.


Just trying to get him 5 more so he can stop at a round number is all.


I heard 1,000,000 is a much better round number to "stop at" for whatever imaginary occasion that you created.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 1:50pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#837 Apr 21 2011 at 4:30 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Are we really going to let this thread die with only 3 pages left till 20? I'm sure there's something else we can talk about....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#838 Apr 21 2011 at 6:53 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I'll once again reiterate what a retard you are. I mean, really, "Why is 4400 a good number to stop at?" Because, deutschebag, you're a blight on these boards and no one would be sad to see you stop posting. You fail at basic reading comprehension and you have a naivete that is astounding for an adult man. You can't just add more words and say "No one understands me because they don't read my entire post!!!" It's the other way around. No one reads your posts in their entirety because they fail to understand your @#%^ing point two paragraphs into seven. Face it, the majority of people on this board disagree with you because there are fundamental flaws in your rationality, just like varus. You seem to acknowledge and accept the existence of trolls, yet you apparently don't know what that even means. If I see someone trying to troll me, I ignore them. The fact that you reply to every single post Ugly makes just shows what ripe troll bait you are. People with the intelligence to comprehend emotion over a text medium usually don't let themselves get trolled. But, as it's been reiterated numerous times, you just have a functional failing somewhere in your brain that causes people to bang their heads against the wall, and opens up a door for them to feel sublimely superior to someone else with very little effort at all.
#839 Apr 21 2011 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Guenny wrote:
I'll once again reiterate what a retard you are. I mean, really, "Why is 4400 a good number to stop at?" Because, deutschebag, you're a blight on these boards and no one would be sad to see you stop posting. You fail at basic reading comprehension and you have a naivete that is astounding for an adult man. You can't just add more words and say "No one understands me because they don't read my entire post!!!" It's the other way around. No one reads your posts in their entirety because they fail to understand your @#%^ing point two paragraphs into seven. Face it, the majority of people on this board disagree with you because there are fundamental flaws in your rationality, just like varus. You seem to acknowledge and accept the existence of trolls, yet you apparently don't know what that even means. If I see someone trying to troll me, I ignore them. The fact that you reply to every single post Ugly makes just shows what ripe troll bait you are. People with the intelligence to comprehend emotion over a text medium usually don't let themselves get trolled. But, as it's been reiterated numerous times, you just have a functional failing somewhere in your brain that causes people to bang their heads against the wall, and opens up a door for them to feel sublimely superior to someone else with very little effort at all.


After reading this, I just wanted to say thank you for your nice post in my failed ash Wednesday joke thread :)

OT: not racist, nor funny. If anything it is sexist, but not racist
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#840Almalieque, Posted: Apr 21 2011 at 11:40 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And the fish bites......
#841 Apr 21 2011 at 12:11 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Hahaha. Oh Alma, I'll let you win, because it's like playing tug-of-war with my Shih Tzu - no way his brute strength will overpower me, but just placing the idea of a "win" in his head sure makes him feel good.

The German comment was more than enough for a good laugh. God, you're such a deutschebag.
#842 Apr 21 2011 at 12:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Guenny wrote:
Hahaha. Oh Alma, I'll let you win, because it's like playing tug-of-war with my Shih Tzu - no way his brute strength will overpower me, but just placing the idea of a "win" in his head sure makes him feel good.

The German comment was more than enough for a good laugh. God, you're such a deutschebag.


Well, you didn't last too long.... but whatever makes you feel better..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#843 Apr 21 2011 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,132 posts
In a nut shell.

Abstract wrote:
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#844 Apr 21 2011 at 5:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Samira wrote:
In a nut shell.

Abstract wrote:
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.




Exactly.. Couldn't have said it better myself... Thanks for the tid-bit.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#845 Apr 21 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Exactly.. Couldn't have said it better myself... Thanks for the tid-bit.

It's about you, numb-nuts. @#%^ing christ.
#846 Apr 21 2011 at 8:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Majivo wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Exactly.. Couldn't have said it better myself... Thanks for the tid-bit.

It's about you, numb-nuts. @#%^ing christ.


Really? I didn't notice.. You're such a tool.. I was merely pointing out the fact that it could easily go either way and the simple fact that you insist it's "about me" is exactly what the abstract is in reference to.

and you call me stupid.....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#847 Apr 21 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,277 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
In a nut shell.

Abstract wrote:
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.




Exactly.. Couldn't have said it better myself... Thanks for the tid-bit.


You honestly thought Sam was talking about everyone else in the entire world and not you? Well, and others like you.

Holy hell.
#848 Apr 21 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Assassin Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
In a nut shell.

Abstract wrote:
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.




Exactly.. Couldn't have said it better myself... Thanks for the tid-bit.


You honestly thought Sam was talking about everyone else in the entire world and not you? Well, and others like you.

Holy hell.


Read above... Not you too...

Let's think about this for a second.. Not a single person has "sided" with me yet, ever. So WTF would Samira (who has already insulted me ) come and blast everyone else? Really? Really?

And you call me stupid ....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#849 Apr 21 2011 at 11:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Alma is not actually always retarded. He just has a ridiculously bad ratio of argumentativeness to legitimate insight, which makes it not worth drawing attention to the rare occasion that he makes a fair point.

I wouldn't want to see him go, personally, but then I thrive on the conflict.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#850 Apr 22 2011 at 2:59 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,158 posts
Samira wrote:
In a nut shell.

Abstract wrote:
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.


Some of us, of course, are just that good.

^
<
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#851 Apr 22 2011 at 3:51 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Kachi wrote:
Alma is not actually always retarded.
Neither is gbaji. Difference being, gbaji's reasoning can be followed, Alma's is always abstract at best and all over the place most often.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CDT
Aethien, TirithRR, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (46)