EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 417 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:50 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
wijim wrote:
Origam wrote:
Ya' know.. it gets kind of old when people act like the users at FMB are some sort of gang out for blood or that we've got some sort of club and have a secret handshake (if we do ya'll are in trouble for not letting me in on it)you have to know to get in. We've had out fair share of bickering over there amongst members, however it seems we're all able to take it all in stride and continue to be friendly with each other regardless of what is said.

It does get rough at FMB sometimes when it comes to debating.. but if you go to the dog pound where the big dogs are you can't expect to not get stepped on and roughed up a bit from time to time.


well said. one characterization that can be made about fmb is that.....we have called each other out on various things or tried to correct each other on various things. but by using that its often misrepresented that "we canibalize one another"....but when we stand up for one another in like minded fashion....it's considered (in a negative sense) "gang mentality".




You and I had quite a go over bow hunting peg and the game ranch peg both being attacked by ARA and both groups needing to be supportive of one another. Festus and I had quite a knock down over trapping and whether I would guarantee no harm to animals. I never felt that we had reached agreement but understanding of each others positions even though a heated exhange was a portion of the argument. Jerrimiah had real difficulty seeing what I was driving at in askin g him to support farmers and game ranches. Having dealt with Sianblooz and her presentations for so long I can see why Festus wanted to nip that liar shit in the bud. It was paticurlarly obvious when she told you not to lie about killing your cat again when in fact you had presented the case that you had killed your cat to begin with. Her point was to make you look like you lied and hid the fact you killed the cat somewhere but she couldn't find out where.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:06 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 1340
great examples donnie. it was nice to see you could bring up some instances where you were wrong and i was right.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



im joking you do realize.

_________________
lately i been thinkin' aunt betty stopped her blinkin'....soon she'll be a stinkin'..........my deceased mother in law speaking of her aunt who had died.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:12 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 1340
im pretty certain sianblooz/barb will be gone, because of the lack of ability to deny the lies. i mean with grace no longer available as an ally.....(grace needs barb's dishonesty tied to her causes like a hole in the head)....she has no use and familiar ties to deal with.

i mean...grace spoke on barb = sianblooz, briefly, and she was very smart to distance herself from that situation.

as wayne could note.....barb and grace knew each other for quite a long time and grace has a familiarity with barb on a different level other than a completely antagonistic relationship. if anyone would know barb...it'd be grace.

_________________
lately i been thinkin' aunt betty stopped her blinkin'....soon she'll be a stinkin'..........my deceased mother in law speaking of her aunt who had died.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:24 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
wijim wrote:
im pretty certain sianblooz/barb will be gone, because of the lack of ability to deny the lies. i mean with grace no longer available as an ally.....(grace needs barb's dishonesty tied to her causes like a hole in the head)....she has no use and familiar ties to deal with.

i mean...grace spoke on barb = sianblooz, briefly, and she was very smart to distance herself from that situation.

as wayne could note.....barb and grace knew each other for quite a long time and grace has a familiarity with barb on a different level other than a completely antagonistic relationship. if anyone would know barb...it'd be grace.



Actually Bean was one who had been a very close friend of Barbs and noted hundreds of times that Bean put loyality to a friend above everything. However Bean could not put Barbs deciet to the back burner forever and finially moved on. It seems that Grace also has moved on and left Barb as "Trail Dust." Barb can not survive on any board for any lenght of time unless she controls the banning/deletion buttons and clone options. Other then that she just can not keep her dishonesty factor from being exposed. As for me being wrong, I notice you are much more supportive of all types of hunting today then you were last year. :wink:

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:29 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
BTW , I would be remiss if I didn't state that RF had a great deal to do with having me be more supportive of hunters I was not very respectful of before. His points on all factions of animal use needing to protect each other carries a lot of weight with me.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:01 pm 
RF wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
How many times do you have to hear it stated before you understand, I based the crteria of misrepresentation on the complaint leveled by Capitalistswine. I have spelled this out several times before and you keep trying to ignore it.


Actually, I've addressed it at least a couple times. Your fondness for quotes about accuracy and honesty doesn't extend to a fondness for being either, apparently.


That would mean you admit to being dishonest in your last statement, because the criteria was not mine but Capitalistswine's.


Back to your position of cowardice? Also, let's remember that you are just giving your presumption of what Festus's criteria should be, reference my post. Why not change your original labeling of my post as a "misrepresentation" to reflect that? You seem to want it both ways. That it might be just be a misrepresentation in Festus's view...and that it might be a misrepresentation in fact. Why should I allow YOU to label my post that, and then allow you to retreat to whining that it is the view of someone else as your cowardice moves you?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, IF Sianblooz misrepresented Capitalistswine then by that criteria you misrepresented Sianblooz. IF you did not misrepresent Sianblooz then Sianblooz did not misrepresent Capitalistswine and the complaint was moot.


Nope...it ain't so simple. You have to show that the criteria for one category is properly applied to the other. And yes, "stupid people" and "liars" can both reasonably considered categories.
Neither myself nor Festus have to agree with "Wayne Logic"...especially when it is so weak.


It was so weak that when directly asked you had to use a Straw Man answer that mis-defined the term "stupid" from the original context? That does not give your position very much credibility.


You haven't shown any "mis-definition." You gave a definition for the adjective "stupid", and it included multiple meanings. You highlighted one part of the definition that itself had various shades of meaning, and declared it to be the meaning Festus used. You then declared that another part of the definition was the meaning I used. Nothing to support that except your own declaration.

Almost any of the various meanings could apply to the adjective as used, though. And they could easily differ when the adjective is applied to the act as opposed to the person.

Absolutely nothing says that someone must accept your say-so as authoritive.

Quote:
Quote:
Is it that hard to understand that connection?


Quote:
I understand the connection you're trying to make. Have all along. I don't buy it, and I still want to know where you get off mischaracterizing my post as a mischaracterization.


Then you are not ignorant you are just dishonest in your posting?


Neither necessarily applies to someone just because they disagree with your paternalistic pronouncements of what everyone MUST accept. You might have a case that Festus was mistaken in viewing Sianblooz's statement as a misrepresentation. Sianblooz could have been misrepresenting Festus...and could also have NOT been misrepresenting Festus...at least on that point. That he argued he was misrepresented leads me to believe he WAS...even if unintentionally. (On another point, she obviously DID misrepresent him through sheer fabrication.)

But none of that is relevant to my post, that YOU labeled as a misrepresentation.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Since the complaint was against Sianblooz in the first post and there were several supporting posts, that must be the preferred definition of "misrepresentation" according to the posters here. I have not seen you do anything but try to twist the discussion into other areas as opposed to dealing with the initial postings.


Other areas...like trying to get you to support your own words. Hey...they're your words. If you don't like them, keep your fingers off the keyboard next time.


This is a perfect example, you ignore the key element and try to deflect the discussion off on a tangent. Again it shows the level of honesty in your posts as being low.


Heh...I'll say one thing. It's a good example of you making multiple statements, failing to support, and then declaring that someone addressing your statements is off on an irrelevancy. If it's so irrelevant and you don't intend to support it, why say it?

Your statement labeling my post as a misrepresentation is on the first page of this thread. It isn't some "other area" I'm addressing. You just don't want to back up your statement, and so you are trying to hand off responsibility to Festus.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The compalint was that Sianblooz misrepresented the post of Capitalistswine by changing his meaning from "children that do something stupid" to "stupid children" was it not? That should be a fairly simple to answer question.

The post by RF made a similar change from "someone told a lie" to "someone is a liar", which you say was not a misrepresentation in the earlier post. If it is not a misrepresentation then the statement made by Sianblooz was also not a misrepresentation using that same criteria.


What's the criteria, Wayne? Stupid can have several definitions. Liar can be reasonably assumed to simply mean "one who lies". I asked if you had an alternate definition.


Stupid can only have one general definition in the context in which it was used. The attempt to misrepresent through redefinition is just as dishonest, but if you can show us where these "other" definitions of "stupid" will work in the context used you can try to make the point from there. If you cannot make the other definitions work you have proved your attempt to be falsely based. I suppose any further discussion along this line is complete unless and until you are able to show the contextual use of those "other" different definitions.


Actually, Sianblooz seemed to indicate multiple instances of lying. "Someone told a lie" is, I believe, YOUR misrepresentation.

But still, it's easy enough to show that the other definitions of "stupid" can work. But you'll have to point out which SINGLE definition of the adjective you think MUST APPLY to any of the nouns in question which it is used to modify. That is the implication of your argument, but you haven't actually supported it as required. You pointed out multiple definitions, likely to leave room for further equivocation.

Quote:
Quote:
Here's partially what Sianblooz wrote:

Quote:
YOU addmitted killing your kids cat. I didn't make it up. I didn't misrepresent anything. Your lying AGAIN if you say I am. I can't find the thread but I know damn well you admited killing your kids cat so don't bother lying anymore about it.... I don't get why people like you and RF lie about things right after you say them.


How is she not saying that Wijim is a liar?

He lies...he'll lie again...he should not bother lying anymore...but she isn't saying he is a liar?

Oh DO tell us how that would work, Wayne.


That is simple. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, there are levels of statements. One may make an honest mistake and state something which is untrue. Technically that is a lie, but we refer to it as an "untruth" to indicate our level of concern. Now if that untruth is defended and a correction is ignored, it may later be called a "lie" due to the increased level of concern. If that is still defended one may choose to then say the person is lying thereby showing an even greater concern on their part. The last level would be calling someone a liar, which has gone past the concern for the truthfulness of the statement and attacked the person directly. The latter will generally get you a warning about such an attack. This level of use is necessary since we cannot hear inflections of the voice, see body language, or any of the other clues we get from visual/verbal conversations so it is much harder to communicate via written word. One has to be more precise and careful in writing and still the interpretation is largely based on what the reader is thinking when they read those written words. It is much easier to misunderstand communication in such a media as this than most others. That is why general rules of communication are developed and followed by most of the folks.


So that's how it works, eh? I think we can distill that down to "Stand on vague insinuation of presumption...avoid accuracy."

So yes...we do see how you would deny responsibility, if someone were so disrespectful as to hold you to your words. Perhaps Sianblooz will be grateful for this object lesson, and now come in to explain that she wasn't calling Wijim a liar, even though she accused him of lying.

Quote:
Quote:
You're a master of insinuation and the art of turning a waffle to a fine crisp...DO fill us in on how you would weasel out of such an obvious position.


I would not, but I bet you can tell us which fallacy might help the most.


So uh...above, that isn't how you would do the weasel? That's your assessment of how Sianblooz would, or could do it?

I mean...come on...it's pretty obvious that someone making multiple accusations of lying is saying that the accused is a liar. To fall back and say, "But I didn't specifically write 'You are a liar' " is reminiscent of childish games. You know the ones, Wayne. "Leave your brother alone, Wayne." "But I'm not touching him, Mom."

Quote:
Quote:
Then explain why in the hell a poster would WANT to spend a significant amount of time writing about someone who lies...going into various ways of accusing him of lying....and then have that lying someone wasn't being called a liar.


I don't know, some of these folks here have gone on and on about things that happened some time ago on different boards creating new threads upon new threads on the subject. I expect if we were to total the posts there are many many more on the side you seem to be supporting than the other. Why would that be?


It would have been sufficient for you to stop with your affirmation of your inablilty to supply an answer to the question. No need for the continued digression into trying to call the motives of an entire group of posters into question. It simply isn't relevant...and besidesl...if you can't determine Sianblooz's motive, there's no reason to suppose you are any better at determining motive of a group.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:20 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
Quote:
Quote:
Quote: Me
Then explain why in the hell a poster would WANT to spend a significant amount of time writing about someone who lies...going into various ways of accusing him of lying....and then have that lying someone wasn't being called a liar.



Quote:
Wayne:::I don't know, some of these folks here have gone on and on about things that happened some time ago on different boards creating new threads upon new threads on the subject. I expect if we were to total the posts there are many many more on the side you seem to be supporting than the other. Why would that be?





Quote:
RF::::: It would have been sufficient for you to stop with your affirmation of your inablilty to supply an answer to the question. No need for the continued digression into trying to call the motives of an entire group of posters into question. It simply isn't relevant...and besidesl...if you can't determine Sianblooz's motive, there's no reason to suppose you are any better at determining motive of a group.




I think myself that the posters are tired of Sianblooz pulling this type of stunt and wanted it nipped in the bud. The only fault I could see is that Festus did go over a line with the Darwinian stupidity remark but the rest of his complaints are basically about having words put in his mouth by Sianblooz that he never uttered and his complaints are are warrented. I know what my motives are in addressing Sianblooz for twisting what Festus said, into things he didn't say and I can easily see why RF questioned the liar comments by Sianblooz. A lie by mistake was not the issue here. Sianblooz knew what her twist was and she certainly affirmed RF's point of her disingenious type of wording when she made the comments about Wiijim & the cat.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:35 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:25 pm
Posts: 825
Location: Georgia
Grace wrote:
Bean wrote:
josh knauer wrote:
I just thought he was being a whiner and pointed it out.


Interesting.

So if I ever perceive that someone is a whiner, I can call them on it if I'm in the mood to do so, and I won't be reprimanded for doing so?

Cool! 8)


You should enjoy the liberty of that one, since you must have called me a whiner oh about 43 times.


Oh quitcher whining. :lol: :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:56 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: S. Fla
Bean wrote:
Grace wrote:
Bean wrote:
josh knauer wrote:
I just thought he was being a whiner and pointed it out.


Interesting.

So if I ever perceive that someone is a whiner, I can call them on it if I'm in the mood to do so, and I won't be reprimanded for doing so?

Cool! 8)


You should enjoy the liberty of that one, since you must have called me a whiner oh about 43 times.


Oh quitcher whining. :lol: :wink:


Touché. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:36 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20483
Location: Southeastern US
Origam wrote:
Ya' know.. it gets kind of old when people act like the users at FMB are some sort of gang out for blood or that we've got some sort of club and have a secret handshake (if we do ya'll are in trouble for not letting me in on it)you have to know to get in. We've had out fair share of bickering over there amongst members, however it seems we're all able to take it all in stride and continue to be friendly with each other regardless of what is said.


It may get old, but that does not make it any less true. If you look back over this thread you will see the support structure consists of a group with that one point in common. Even families have disagreements but there seems to be a exceptional level of support even when there has to be a level of willful blindness.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:01 pm 
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Origam wrote:
Ya' know.. it gets kind of old when people act like the users at FMB are some sort of gang out for blood or that we've got some sort of club and have a secret handshake (if we do ya'll are in trouble for not letting me in on it)you have to know to get in. We've had out fair share of bickering over there amongst members, however it seems we're all able to take it all in stride and continue to be friendly with each other regardless of what is said.


It may get old, but that does not make it any less true. If you look back over this thread you will see the support structure consists of a group with that one point in common. Even families have disagreements but there seems to be a exceptional level of support even when there has to be a level of willful blindness.


What a wonderous point you think you have made.

"Those mean nasty Cesspool SOBs"

Course...that solidarity you think stems from...oh...perhaps dishonesty and a general trait of nastiness in the group...

Couldn't POSSIBLY be that the group sees your attempt to paint them with a broad brush as perhaps one of the clumsiest, most long-winded exercises in puff-and-blow they have ever witnessed? And not coincidentally...perhaps they agree it is reasonable to hold that Sianblooz was attempting to represent Wijim as a liar.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:31 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:49 pm
Posts: 6178
Location: Dame Glooy'd Sneefrugs
Wayne Stollings wrote:
[It may get old, but that does not make it any less true. If you look back over this thread you will see the support structure consists of a group with that one point in common. Even families have disagreements but there seems to be a exceptional level of support even when there has to be a level of willful blindness.


I don't have the time or patience to go back through this whole thread.. it reminds me of the song that never ends and it goes on and on my friend.

I find it amusing that people who hav been smacked down, put down, thrown to the wolves, beat up verbally, kicked while they were down, etc. (Amy comes to mind when she first joined FMB) are now a part of the family (that just conjures up images of Manson.. and look, I gave ya'll an opening to compare RF, Festus, Jim, and Donnie to Charlie..). She didn't turn tail and run like other people seem to do.. wonder why that is? Oh yeah.. maybe because she sees us for what we really are.. people who like to talk, debate, and get to know each other?

Yup, families has disagreements (Who's your daddy?) and such.. but it says a lot for a group that has managed to stay friendly even when things get nasty.

I think it's kind of funny that people have to bring all of FMB into arguements they have with a few people from the board.. like we're all some toga wearing (don't get any ideas), idol worshipping, lovefest throwing, bow down and obey the commands of our "Gods" group just because some of us agree on the same things.

I guess the fact that a lot of the folk from FMB have had run in's with Barb in the past doesn't make their participation in this thread relevant? It actually kind of reminds me of Jr. High days when one kid said something and most of the class agreed with him and two or three people didn't and they pitched a big fit and tried to talk over everyone to get their point across even though the one kid was right.

_________________
I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish he didn't trust me so much. - Mother Theresa Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:33 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20483
Location: Southeastern US
RF wrote:
RF wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
How many times do you have to hear it stated before you understand, I based the criteria of misrepresentation on the complaint leveled by Capitalistswine. I have spelled this out several times before and you keep trying to ignore it.


Actually, I've addressed it at least a couple times. Your fondness for quotes about accuracy and honesty doesn't extend to a fondness for being either, apparently.


That would mean you admit to being dishonest in your last statement, because the criteria was not mine but Capitalistswine's.


Back to your position of cowardice?


Hey if you want to call the truth cowardice, it is about as honest as any of your other claims.

Quote:
Also, let's remember that you are just giving your presumption of what Festus's criteria should be, reference my post. Why not change your original labeling of my post as a "misrepresentation" to reflect that?


No, I took the stated criteria and applied it to other similar instances and gave the reference in the very first post.

Quote:
You seem to want it both ways.


No, you have just confused yourself by trying to change the definitions too often. Maybe if you tried dealing with the direct truth for a change, it might be easier.

Quote:
That it might be just be a misrepresentation in Festus's view...and that it might be a misrepresentation in fact. Why should I allow YOU to label my post that, and then allow you to retreat to whining that it is the view of someone else as your cowardice moves you?


If you had read the first post you would have seen the connection made, but you seem to have jumped to whatever conclusions you did and have never stopped trying to deflect the discussion from that original set of points.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, IF Sianblooz misrepresented Capitalistswine then by that criteria you misrepresented Sianblooz. IF you did not misrepresent Sianblooz then Sianblooz did not misrepresent Capitalistswine and the complaint was moot.


Nope...it ain't so simple. You have to show that the criteria for one category is properly applied to the other. And yes, "stupid people" and "liars" can both reasonably considered categories.
Neither myself nor Festus have to agree with "Wayne Logic"...especially when it is so weak.


It was so weak that when directly asked you had to use a Straw Man answer that mis-defined the term "stupid" from the original context? That does not give your position very much credibility.


You haven't shown any "mis-definition." You gave a definition for the adjective "stupid", and it included multiple meanings. You highlighted one part of the definition that itself had various shades of meaning, and declared it to be the meaning Festus used. You then declared that another part of the definition was the meaning I used. Nothing to support that except your own declaration.


You blather on in generalizations, when all it would take is to provide the specific definition you believe works in the context in which it was used and how it relates to the post you made. You claimed you would get back to that but never did, it must have been too hard to think of another Straw Man to use. Of course, you will avoid any specifics because that nails you down and gets you in trouble. You can only write in vague generalizations, specifically asking inane question after inane question.

Quote:
Almost any of the various meanings could apply to the adjective as used, though. And they could easily differ when the adjective is applied to the act as opposed to the person.


Almost? Which ones SPECIFICALLY would that be? You have already been caught using a fallacy once, are you too afraid to try again?

Quote:
Absolutely nothing says that someone must accept your say-so as authoritive.


And even less says that you must be taken seriously either ... you had a point other than you have nothing to offer a real discussion?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Is it that hard to understand that connection?


Quote:
I understand the connection you're trying to make. Have all along. I don't buy it, and I still want to know where you get off mischaracterizing my post as a mischaracterization.


I cannot explain it to you in single syllable words, which must be the only way you could understand it if it is really the reason for your ignorance. I believe you are just playing dumb because you do it so well.


Quote:
Quote:
Then you are not ignorant you are just dishonest in your posting?


Neither necessarily applies to someone just because they disagree with your paternalistic pronouncements of what everyone MUST accept.


Only if you understand the use of reason and logic, which seems to let you out.

Quote:
You might have a case that Festus was mistaken in viewing Sianblooz's statement as a misrepresentation. Sianblooz could have been misrepresenting Festus...and could also have NOT been misrepresenting Festus...at least on that point. That he argued he was misrepresented leads me to believe he WAS...even if unintentionally. (On another point, she obviously DID misrepresent him through sheer fabrication.)

But none of that is relevant to my post, that YOU labeled as a misrepresentation.


That would be because you say so? You forget I used the prior criteria in the determination. The connection is there and you just want to ignore it.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Since the complaint was against Sianblooz in the first post and there were several supporting posts, that must be the preferred definition of "misrepresentation" according to the posters here. I have not seen you do anything but try to twist the discussion into other areas as opposed to dealing with the initial postings.


Other areas...like trying to get you to support your own words. Hey...they're your words. If you don't like them, keep your fingers off the keyboard next time.


This is a perfect example, you ignore the key element and try to deflect the discussion off on a tangent. Again it shows the level of honesty in your posts as being low.


Heh...I'll say one thing. It's a good example of you making multiple statements, failing to support, and then declaring that someone addressing your statements is off on an irrelevancy. If it's so irrelevant and you don't intend to support it, why say it?


Still trying to bury the points so you do not have to deal with them. Do you ever get tired of such dishonesty in posting? Just because you wish to label your deflection as relevant to your goals means nothing to me.

Quote:
Your statement labeling my post as a misrepresentation is on the first page of this thread. It isn't some "other area" I'm addressing. You just don't want to back up your statement, and so you are trying to hand off responsibility to Festus.


Yes, and IF you were to read it you would see where it criteria of Captitalistswines post was used. To keep saying that it is not when the post is there for anyone to see does not do much for your credibility.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The complaint was that Sianblooz misrepresented the post of Capitalistswine by changing his meaning from "children that do something stupid" to "stupid children" was it not? That should be a fairly simple to answer question.

The post by RF made a similar change from "someone told a lie" to "someone is a liar", which you say was not a misrepresentation in the earlier post. If it is not a misrepresentation then the statement made by Sianblooz was also not a misrepresentation using that same criteria.


What's the criteria, Wayne? Stupid can have several definitions. Liar can be reasonably assumed to simply mean "one who lies". I asked if you had an alternate definition.


What of the "several" definitions work in that context that do not have the same result as I have noted? You keep ranting about these generalizations but the only specific item you posted was not truthful.


Quote:
Quote:
Stupid can only have one general definition in the context in which it was used. The attempt to misrepresent through redefinition is just as dishonest, but if you can show us where these "other" definitions of "stupid" will work in the context used you can try to make the point from there. If you cannot make the other definitions work you have proved your attempt to be falsely based. I suppose any further discussion along this line is complete unless and until you are able to show the contextual use of those "other" different definitions.


Actually, Sianblooz seemed to indicate multiple instances of lying. "Someone told a lie" is, I believe, YOUR misrepresentation.


Hmmm, there we see you ignoring the direct requests for specifics yet again and going for those nebulous generalizations again. Can you or can you not show where the definition of "stupid" can honestly be shown to say what you claim? We have seen you show it dishonestly but that proves nothing other than you seem to be not very honest.


Quote:
But still, it's easy enough to show that the other definitions of "stupid" can work. But you'll have to point out which SINGLE definition of the adjective you think MUST APPLY to any of the nouns in question which it is used to modify. That is the implication of your argument, but you haven't actually supported it as required. You pointed out multiple definitions, likely to leave room for further equivocation.


If you have done so much work, other than that last misrepresentation of the truth, maybe you can point out which of the definitions do not work. I have already pointed out one ... the one you claimed was possible. :wink:

Quote:
Quote:
Here's partially what Sianblooz wrote:

Quote:
YOU addmitted killing your kids cat. I didn't make it up. I didn't misrepresent anything. Your lying AGAIN if you say I am. I can't find the thread but I know damn well you admited killing your kids cat so don't bother lying anymore about it.... I don't get why people like you and RF lie about things right after you say them.


How is she not saying that Wijim is a liar?

He lies...he'll lie again...he should not bother lying anymore...but she isn't saying he is a liar?

Oh DO tell us how that would work, Wayne.


As stated before, the same way it works when Capitalistswine says when he stated ~"doing something stupid was not saying that person was stupid" and demanding to see the "direct quote of the statement" thus we have the same situation and no direct quote either.


Quote:
Quote:
That is simple. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, there are levels of statements. One may make an honest mistake and state something which is untrue. Technically that is a lie, but we refer to it as an "untruth" to indicate our level of concern. Now if that untruth is defended and a correction is ignored, it may later be called a "lie" due to the increased level of concern. If that is still defended one may choose to then say the person is lying thereby showing an even greater concern on their part. The last level would be calling someone a liar, which has gone past the concern for the truthfulness of the statement and attacked the person directly. The latter will generally get you a warning about such an attack. This level of use is necessary since we cannot hear inflections of the voice, see body language, or any of the other clues we get from visual/verbal conversations so it is much harder to communicate via written word. One has to be more precise and careful in writing and still the interpretation is largely based on what the reader is thinking when they read those written words. It is much easier to misunderstand communication in such a media as this than most others. That is why general rules of communication are developed and followed by most of the folks.


So that's how it works, eh? I think we can distill that down to "Stand on vague insinuation of presumption...avoid accuracy."


You could but then again you have misrepresented the truth before and can do it again if you wish.

Quote:
So yes...we do see how you would deny responsibility, if someone were so disrespectful as to hold you to your words. Perhaps Sianblooz will be grateful for this object lesson, and now come in to explain that she wasn't calling Wijim a liar, even though she accused him of lying.


You re-post the explanation and then ask the question again. Did you by chance suffer a fall from a height and maybe land on your head?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're a master of insinuation and the art of turning a waffle to a fine crisp...DO fill us in on how you would weasel out of such an obvious position.


I would not, but I bet you can tell us which fallacy might help the most.


So uh...above, that isn't how you would do the weasel? That's your assessment of how Sianblooz would, or could do it?


No that is my assessment of how YOU have already tried to do it. You are the one who uses the logical fallacies in your attempt to weasel out of the hole you have dug for yourself.

Quote:
I mean...come on...it's pretty obvious that someone making multiple accusations of lying is saying that the accused is a liar. To fall back and say, "But I didn't specifically write 'You are a liar' " is reminiscent of childish games. You know the ones, Wayne. "Leave your brother alone, Wayne." "But I'm not touching him, Mom."


No more obvious that someone saying that if a child does something stupid enough to cause their death they were saying the child was stupid. You see that is the interconnection to the two situations. If one is correct then both are and if one is incorrect they both are, but not if one is correct the other is incorrect.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then explain why in the hell a poster would WANT to spend a significant amount of time writing about someone who lies...going into various ways of accusing him of lying....and then have that lying someone wasn't being called a liar.


I don't know, some of these folks here have gone on and on about things that happened some time ago on different boards creating new threads upon new threads on the subject. I expect if we were to total the posts there are many many more on the side you seem to be supporting than the other. Why would that be?


It would have been sufficient for you to stop with your affirmation of your inablilty to supply an answer to the question. No need for the continued digression into trying to call the motives of an entire group of posters into question. It simply isn't relevant...and besidesl...if you can't determine Sianblooz's motive, there's no reason to suppose you are any better at determining motive of a group.


Sainblooz' motive was not my point and thus irrelevant to my point. The double standard and the support thereof was the point. The support of that double standard is proved by the actions of the group, thus that is their connection to that point.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:40 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20483
Location: Southeastern US
RF wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Origam wrote:
Ya' know.. it gets kind of old when people act like the users at FMB are some sort of gang out for blood or that we've got some sort of club and have a secret handshake (if we do ya'll are in trouble for not letting me in on it)you have to know to get in. We've had out fair share of bickering over there amongst members, however it seems we're all able to take it all in stride and continue to be friendly with each other regardless of what is said.


It may get old, but that does not make it any less true. If you look back over this thread you will see the support structure consists of a group with that one point in common. Even families have disagreements but there seems to be a exceptional level of support even when there has to be a level of willful blindness.


What a wonderous point you think you have made.

"Those mean nasty Cesspool SOBs"

Course...that solidarity you think stems from...oh...perhaps dishonesty and a general trait of nastiness in the group...

Couldn't POSSIBLY be that the group sees your attempt to paint them with a broad brush as perhaps one of the clumsiest, most long-winded exercises in puff-and-blow they have ever witnessed?


Nah, if they were honest about it that is. They would have seen your other posts before :wink:


Quote:
And not coincidentally...perhaps they agree it is reasonable to hold that Sianblooz was attempting to represent Wijim as a liar.


If that was the case they would also reasonably hold Capitalistswines statement as not being misrepresented at the same time. The support for one and the attack of the other would have been the point if anyone were actually reading the posts.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:45 pm 
It's very simple...

Did I misrepresent Sianblooz, Wayne?

Come on...be a man and answer for yourself.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 417 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group