I was saving this one for Tony but now I think it's more apt here.
Mine is [email protected].
I imagine I'll come crawling back at some point, once I make it through this particular real-world gauntlet XD
Inquirer stated: source post
In my head I see you having this huge database of appropriate gifs to choose from whenever the need arises.
She inspired me to start my own. : )
WW3 stated: source post
Maybe. From what I've seen both Ed's and your arguments are legitimate and genuine. Edvard sincerely believes the validity of his arguments. I say this because I can sympathize with Edvard as some people do not take my genuine comments on race seriously.
Hehe. Berk beat me to the punch XD
TheCrowOnTheFence stated: source post
Essentially, assuming he can't win an argument through facts and understanding, he'll turn to simply accusing the other side of losing, in hopes that anyone reading (or perhaps even participating) will not be paying enough attention to disagree.
Regardless of if he is or isn't doing this, this in general seems to work on some people here.
Mostly the TLDRs.
So there's something I've been noticing lately (the past several months, though I suspect it's been going on much longer), and while it doesn't have to do with the subject of this thread and will be of interest to a rather limited number of people, I think it's worth expounding upon. The way Ed argues interests me. The more I argue with him, the more I notice how lacking in substance it is. He tends to spend the majority of time "exposing" the tactics of the opponent and trying to discredit through personal attacks, rather than actually addressing the subject at hand. As an example, here's everything he's said in this argument, condensed. The bold sections are where he's talking about the matter of whether or not Haarts flattery was genuine. The rest is..... filler.
"You don't know anything about Haart's past and why some material related to kids might be sensitive for her. Now you call her full of shit because she flattered people? The majority of people out there have a sensitivity to kids being mistreated, and also like to say nice polite things about others, especially when departing. I suggest you should psychoanalyze yourself why you thought that was hypocritical or insincere from haart. Imo, this kinda shows you have a limited ability to detach yourself from what you'd do/say in some contexts, and understand other people's mindsets."Disarming"? "Dangerous"? XD Wow you must have really high anxiety levels if a couple of compliments turn you this paranoid. Do you see plots after plots to get influence over the posters everywhere? Haart's actions (decision to leave, and leave on a good note) are perfectly coherent and make sense, regardless of whether her decision to leave stays final or not.
Do you usually call people out on their bullshit only if you have some personal ego related reason to do so? What has Haart done to you and Crow, then?
I said, you didn't take her reasons for leaving seriously either, not just the flattering thread. Don't backtrack and contradict yourself. Both you and Turn suspected ulterior motives for Haart to write a kind goodbye thread ("Never trust anyone who flatters everyone."). You can't talk of ulterior motive, if you think haart was genuine in her leaving this site.
It flew over your head. What I said was: "Do you usually call people out on their bullshit only if you have some personal ego related reason to do so? What has Haart done to you and Crow, then?", after you accused me of calling you out on your bullshit with "zeal" for personal ego-related reasons (haart's flattering or our last argument).
It's too far fetched to justify you and Crow calling Haart "full of bullshit". It's much like Xena being called a schizophrenic in the other thread. It's like Crow being called a zoophile because why couldn't she be.
It was a rhetorical question. You assumed the same about me responding to you. From what I've learned about haart, my own "character assessment", I ended up liking and respecting her. That's enough to make me want to have a say in this topic. This is pretty typical behavior out of me.
I know. By "you" I meant you and Crow. I find it easier to address you two as a package sometimes.
Does what I'm writing even get to you? Try to make an effort to pay attention, I don't have the time to type essays or repeat myself endlessly.
And you brought up our last argument, namely the part where you called me a hypocrite, to paint my responses to you as some sort of personal vendetta. Didn't have the attention span to read my whole sentence, Crow, or are you purposefully cherry picking and diverting the attention away from my message? Let's try again:
"You don't know anything about Haart's past and why some material related to kids might be sensitive for her. Now you call her full of shit because she flattered people? The majority of people out there have a sensitivity to kids being mistreated, and also like to say nice polite things about others, especially when departing. I suggest you should psychoanalyze yourself why you thought that was hypocritical or insincere from haart. Imo, this kinda shows you have a limited ability to detach yourself from what you'd do/say in some contexts, and understand other people's mindsets.
You called her full of shit. Not partially filled owithshit. You made it sound as if you aimed to discredit everything she said about her goodbye.
That you even take saying a few nice things to people she's talked to here as "adoration and admiration" is kinda weird, tbh. You should stop trying to exaggerate stuff just to prove a point.
Then maybe you understand why Crow's reaction was disproportionate and why I wanted to point it out.
Do you usually call people out on their bullshit only if you have some personal ego related reason to do so? What has Haart done to you and Crow, then?
I said, you didn't take her reasons for leaving seriously either, not just the flattering thread. Don't backtrack and contradict yourself. Both you and Turn suspected ulterior motives for Haart to write a kind goodbye thread ("Never trust anyone who flatters everyone."). You can't talk of ulterior motive, if you think haart was genuine in her leaving this site.
It flew over your head. What I said was: "Do you usually call people out on their bullshit only if you have some personal ego related reason to do so? What has Haart done to you and Crow, then?", after you accused me of calling you out on your bullshit with "zeal" for personal ego-related reasons (haart's flattering or our last argument).
It's too far fetched to justify you and Crow calling Haart "full of bullshit". It's much like Xena being called a schizophrenic in the other thread. It's like Crow being called a zoophile because why couldn't she be.
It was a rhetorical question. You assumed the same about me responding to you. From what I've learned about haart, my own "character assessment", I ended up liking and respecting her. That's enough to make me want to have a say in this topic. This is pretty typical behavior out of me.
I know. By "you" I meant you and Crow. I find it easier to address you two as a package sometimes.
Does what I'm writing even get to you? Try to make an effort to pay attention, I don't have the time to type essays or repeat myself endlessly.
And you brought up our last argument, namely the part where you called me a hypocrite, to paint my responses to you as some sort of personal vendetta. Didn't have the attention span to read my whole sentence, Crow, or are you purposefully cherry picking and diverting the attention away from my message? Let's try again:
This was addressed to both you and Turn since both of you were accusing me of the same thing. I covered both your parts in it.
I will treat you two as one package when it saves me time, because you basically repeat the same thing just to make double the noise and support one another, explain each other's posts and refuse to call each other on the mistakes you'd call anyone else."
Of course I understand why he feels the need to keep relevant statements to a minimum, if this is the kind of relevance he offers:
"Now you call her full of shit because she flattered people?" - Repeating my statement as a question.
"The majority of people out there like to say nice polite things about others, especially when departing." - The fairest point he's brought up so far, but still weak tea, considering where we are.
"Haart's actions (decision to leave on a good note) are perfectly coherent and make sense" - Stating that his side "makes sense", without offering evidence.
"Both you and Turn suspected ulterior motives for Haart to write a kind goodbye thread" - Repeating our statements, again.
"You can't talk of ulterior motive, if you think haart was genuine in her leaving this site." - Suggesting that if Haart is genuine about one thing, she must be genuine about all things?
"It's too far fetched to justify you and Crow calling Haart "full of bullshit"." - Telling us our take on it is "too far fetched", again without evidence.
My theory, is that Ed feels intellectually inferior to many people (which would explain why he's so defensive towards people he sees as intellectual snobs and so ready to preamble any argument with a disclaimer about his own lack of knowledge/intelligence), and as such has developed an ability to argue through mimicry of the people he sees as "winning" most arguments here. Which would account for his extremely frequent and seemingly random use of words like "evasion", "deflection", "projection", "backpeddaling", etc.... And having turned this into such a habit, I don't expect he's even really trying to offer anything of substance at this point. Essentially, assuming he can't win an argument through facts and understanding, he'll turn to simply accusing the other side of losing, in hopes that anyone reading (or perhaps even participating) will not be paying enough attention to disagree.
WW3 stated: source post
Maybe. From what I've seen both Ed's and your arguments are legitimate and genuine. Edvard sincerely believes the validity of his arguments. I say this because I can sympathize with Edvard as some people do not take my genuine comments on race seriously.
ahaha You're a gem, Berk. : )
WW3 stated: source post
Maybe. From what I've seen both Ed's and your arguments are legitimate and genuine. Edvard sincerely believes the validity of his arguments. I say this because I can sympathize with Edvard as some people do not take my genuine comments on race seriously.
All Ed has to do is ask himself if he really is, "a responsible, good and kind man" .
He actually likes to see people get destroyed, often enough he'd rather do it himself. He also runs around asking women to assist him in hating on others, some fall for it. But not Sugar ! I'm glad she doesn't let Ed manipulate her into attacking others like some other trixies on this block.
It's always like him to give merit to bullshit anyway, so he'll unkindly argue against the truth.
She should have said Ed's sincere, then he'd have nothing to defend.