Moth3r can block, delete and ban anything here.
He is is a moderator and he is thankfully a very fair and moderate moderator (especially on this board).
Blocking those threads sent a message, hopefully the message has been received by all and I imagine if it hasn't further action may be taken.
Bingowings said:
Blocking those threads sent a message, hopefully the message has been received by all and I imagine if it hasn't further action may be taken.
The message I received said that people can continue to act however they like and permanently ruin legitimate threads for others.
After I heated it with an iron, the lemon juice between the lines read:
"Don't feed the trolls".
doubleKO said:
Bingowings said:
Blocking those threads sent a message, hopefully the message has been received by all and I imagine if it hasn't further action may be taken.
The message I received said that people can continue to act however they like and permanently ruin legitimate threads for others.
Exactly the same message I got.
I don't think Moth3r was trying to send any sort of a message, or even really moderate. He was just lazily taking action because he had been getting complaints, and locking down every thread that seemed to have the least bit of heat in it was the easiest way to do that without having to waste time actually moderating.
Again, I appreciate the lack of moderation; but lazy moderation and preventing Frink's legitimate effort to get everyone to band together and starve the troll is hard to appreciate. If there has to be moderation, I'd rather have REAL moderation than half-assed bullshit like this.
ANCIENT BANTU PROVERB :
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Bingowings said:
When I read twooffour I read him as a self important, obsessive person who will pick any post to pieces even if it doesn't need to be.
Sometimes that's a good thing and it pretty much describes a large number of the people posting here, including myself.
It's my perception of his posting style and nine times out of ten I moderate my reaction based on that subjective reading of his style (which may not be anything to do with the actual person typing the words).
I think this sums it up pretty accurately.
Lots of the stuff I object to, doesn't really "need" any objections to be posted - there also are a lot of diplomatic, politically correct ways of getting across criticism of some perceived fallacy, than those I usually go with.
In most cases, people will rather listen to arguments said in a nice tone, because condescension and asperity are likely to activate defense mechanisms, and agreeing or complying begin to seem to come at a higher price.
But that's really all I do - I easily get annoyed by stupid arguments, especially in the context of argument or sweeping statements, and I mostly just tend to spout it out without any filtering.
I'm pretty sure I have no delusions about what subjects I actually know few things about, and which I don't (those I don't, you usually don't see me commenting on), and I've lost track of arguments often enough to know when I'm starting to fail.
Ok, I'm not outta this thread.
CP3S said:
Bingowings said:
However sometimes what he post is stimulating, either as food for thought and further discussion or just as an example of how looney we all are.I agree that he posts some fairly decent ideas from time to time, but he pads out those ideas with so much bullshit and manual pleasuring of himself, finding those decent ideas is a bit like digging through large heaps of reeking diarrhea to find bits of mediocre tasting (and now shit laced) chocolate.
Mind if I defend myself here?
I haven't seen you actually substantiate anything of the sort, a single time.
All the time it's just making empty claims about some sort of of "bullshit" in my posts, but I don't remember a single instance where you actually pointed it out and made a case.
Everytime you've tried, you've failed - be it when you accused me of selective cheering, or other instances of stubborness, hypocrisy or reading failure.
Last time I deconstructed one of those, what came? NOTHING. Not a line of defense or rebuttal, just silence and now the bold claims again. Sorry, doesn't work like that.
To use your metaphor, you don't get to accuse the other guy of throwing shit at you before checking whether it's shit or chocolate without much sugar in it (you know it's healthier), and if you throw a lot of shit at someone else, you should expect some of it to be attached to the chocolate he would otherwise throw in a clean state.
Furthermore, honestly what is the point of having someone bring decent ideas to the table, when they themselves are not willing to listen to the ideas of others?
The problem is the people who can't distinguish whether the other dude hasn't listened to their ideas, or has considered and rejected them, while MAKING A CASE FOR JUST THAT in the same post.
Especially when the vast majority of the time that person is just talking out of their ass.
Loudmouthed claims made without substantiation = worthless droppings that belong in the canalization.
I know it is trendy to come to the defense of things that are unpopular, but I think those coming to the defense of twooffour's behavior really need to take a moment to really think about whether or not his behavior really merits any defense.
When you're ready to do just that to make a case in the opposite direction, you can return to the pult and preach reason. So far, you shouldn't.
Read back over his old posts, the kid keeps his boxing gloves on at all times and is constantly chomping at the bit to use them. Not just sometimes, not just on a bad day, literally all the time.
Remember when I made a joke, and you put on the boxing gloves all of a sudden? And couldn't stop fighting even after learning that it was a joke?
Remember how you basically started this all (certainly between the two of us)?
That's what I'm talking about. This might be the 20th time I'm pointing out this hypocrisy to you - you haven't managed to address it properly one single time, as far as I remember, and you won't now.
Instead, you'll just say something about "not wanting to wade through the diarrhea", and proceed to spout how I'm the (only) dick around here.
And I deeply despise this kind of self-righteous dishonesty, which is why you'll see me throw a LOT of unadulterated diarrhea in your general direction if you keep this up.
THREAD LOCKDOWN IMMINENT
CP3S said:
Ah, I see what you are saying and I agree. I think most of us have twooffour on ignore now, and I haven't seen any replies to him in a while, and it feels very nice and peaceful.
Peaceful like the ostrich in the infamous metaphor.
It must feel nice to put it on ignore and continue tossing accusations of trolling, if you can pretend that no objections or rebuttals (and it's the latter case here, just in case you're wondering) have been put up.
It's a way of making an idiot out oneself, without realizing it.
And you won't get a shred of respect for this kind of behavior - no one gets to ride on the high horse and complain about cow manure all the time with huge bricks of shit coming out of one's own business end and slipping off the horse's back. You simply won't get away with it, so might as well stop trying.
CP3S said:
but lazy moderation and preventing Frink's legitimate effort to get everyone to band together and starve the troll
In actuality, it's Frink's dishonest but hopefully effective effort to stop creating dirty nukes because of a few firecrackers.
But I already know for a fact that you'll never, ever comprehend this. It's quite impossible with your head up your own rectum, and believing in one's own rightness is so much easier with the ignore function on (the one in the head happily included) rather than making a solid case for it, time and time again.
Oh, am I being disrespectful here? Does my post smell like manure again? Well, as said previously - you rip what you sow, and you've just sown a new piece of undigested bullshit with the new few posts alone.
Don't dig through the cow manure, pal - there might be a mirror inside. Or a recording from a (futuristic) sowing supervision camera ;)
Just FYI, this will continue as long as you keep it up.
I'm not gonna let more pieces of poorly thought-out, hypocritical, unjustified accusations thrown in my direction, just hang in the air. Rebuking them is just WAY too fun.
Either you follow up on your "noble" intentions, or you continue making provoking remarks (as it "doesn't count" if it's not a direct response) in threads like this - resulting in more... reactions.
I've never had a habit of bringing up old grudges on my own initiative, and I certainly ain't about to start.
So it's entirely up to you :p
CP3S said:And in one case, even shutting down an organized effort to clean up and prevent more cow manure from accumulating (almost felt like he was saying, I won't be bothered to do anything about trolling, and I'll be damned if I let you try to do anything about it yourselves!).
I agree with this.
CP3S said:
doubleKO said:
Bingowings said:
Blocking those threads sent a message, hopefully the message has been received by all and I imagine if it hasn't further action may be taken.
The message I received said that people can continue to act however they like and permanently ruin legitimate threads for others.
Exactly the same message I got.
I don't think Moth3r was trying to send any sort of a message, or even really moderate. He was just lazily taking action because he had been getting complaints, and locking down every thread that seemed to have the least bit of heat in it was the easiest way to do that without having to waste time actually moderating.
Again, I appreciate the lack of moderation; but lazy moderation and preventing Frink's legitimate effort to get everyone to band together and starve the troll is hard to appreciate. If there has to be moderation, I'd rather have REAL moderation than half-assed bullshit like this.
and I agree with this.
TV's Frink said:
THREAD LOCKDOWN IMMINENT
lets hope not.
He locked a silly flame bait thread. Get over it.
Did you hear something?
Ziggy Stardust said:
Did you hear something?
*smack*
That counts!
TV's Frink said:
Ziggy Stardust said:
Did you hear something?
*smack*
That counts!
Duh, sorry boss.
twooffour said:
Bingowings said:
When I read twooffour I read him as a self important, obsessive person who will pick any post to pieces even if it doesn't need to be.
Sometimes that's a good thing and it pretty much describes a large number of the people posting here, including myself.
It's my perception of his posting style and nine times out of ten I moderate my reaction based on that subjective reading of his style (which may not be anything to do with the actual person typing the words).
I think this sums it up pretty accurately.
A problem I've had is that you often fail to offer a argument to support your dismissiveness. After much back and forth, I tease out that it is just so totally obvious to you that OP (whoever OP happens to be at the time) is wrong that you feel you don't really need to make an argument. You will make contrary assertions along with personal insults and expect them to stand on their own. And you hammer away, usually with more personal insults. And it's usually on a topic that is not entirely factual or provable. But you want people to concede you are right about such non-factual and non-provable topics...
In most cases, people will rather listen to arguments said in a nice tone, because condescension and asperity are likely to activate defense mechanisms, and agreeing or complying begin to seem to come at a higher price.
"Defense mechanisms" is one of your catch phrases, a means of dismissing those who just aren't smart enough to come to terms with your correctness (yes, that is sarcasm). But this is where I think CP3S has something of a point with his colorful analogy. On its own, the above statement has merit. People are more reluctant to admit error when it feels like someone they don't like is "winning." But as I wrote above, the problem is that you often don't make an argument. You make a contrary assertion. You expect people to just see how it's better or more reasonable or something.
And ultimately, many/most just don't agree with you. Not necessarily because they don't want to but because you haven't convinced them. It is pure arrogance to think they do so only out of pettiness.
But that's really all I do - I easily get annoyed by stupid arguments, especially in the context of argument or sweeping statements, and I mostly just tend to spout it out without any filtering.
Yes, you often rant. Stupid is in the eye of the beholder, as you've experienced. Bingowings expresses that he moderates himself based on a certain open-mindedness and consciousness of the nature of internet debates. At the very least, perhaps you could learn something from that.
The blue elephant in the room.
Mrebo, even though the thread is locked, please consider taking the pledge.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Take-the-twooffour-Pledge/post/524349/#TopicPost524349
There have been many, many instances here lately where I wrote something, then another one replied to it, but obviously didn't bother to read a section properly - resulting in things like reiterating their assertion rather than defending it, committing the same mistakes, and what not.
That's the kind of thing I mean by "defense mechanism" - your brain starts to fight, starts to skip over passages that appear uncomfortable, and maybe then tries to overcompensate by being overly sarcastic or dismissive.
Now there's no excuse for that, no matter how badly I'm making my point, and it has nothing directly to do with "not agreeing" or "not complying", either.
Having that said, I'm pretty sure I do give arguments for my positions - last time (was that something about Ebert's sex obsession?) I may have tossed a few assertions at the beginning, but I've proceeded to make arguments after that.
So yea, hey, that's what I remember.
I pledge to respond to anyone or anything that takes my fancy.
I don't expect anyone to read it though.
Just a note for anyone who might have missed it...the locked threads have been unlocked. So if you'd like to continue discussing Roger Ebert's sex life, now's your chance!
Eh, he's a commie anyhow.
In Communist Russia, sex has you!
TV's Frink said:
In Communist Russia, sex has you!
Lol! Good one!
