Re: Blue Pill Time

From: Michael Hitchens <michaelh_at_QS_evUxSf3deluUO9g8oKpEfxBGjcCr8XQq7MH1py3W7wEBBj97bEOYy9EgcZwweBMa>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:57:43 +1000 (EST)


On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Peter Metcalfe wrote:

> At 07:36 p.m. 20/04/2007, you wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> Watch me give a shit. I responded offline to your original
> self-justification with far more politeness than this post
> and never even got an answer.

My, my, my. One way I know I'm winning the argument is when the other side starts swearing. Who's the loser now Peter?

As to some offline message you *claim* to have sent. Well, I never recevied it. But given your tendency to rewrite history, who knows if it was ever sent?

>> The Thed,
>> Vivamort and Bagog crack was sarcasm - sorry if you didn't notice.
>
> It was fucking stupid to idiotic questions that read as actual
> questions but were intended as sarcasm. In case you hadn't
> noticed the debate was already heated - how is posting
> an extra flamebait going to help?

Poor Peter - you have to pity his lack of comprehension.

>> For those not attending to World of Glorantha the argument started when
>> Peter made a bald statement
>> "Krarst isn't chaotic"
>
> To which I said offline that one statement was in a single
> post of opinions and I did not have the time and the patience
> to attach IMO to each and every statement. That Micheal
> Hitchens was too self-obsessed with being right to even
> spot this obvious fact only shows why the debate turned
> out as it did.
>
> Moreover I do find it odd that if the original message was
> so glaring, Michael didn't even see it until he was forced
> to dig through the archives in order to justify his own
> bad faith arguments.

Are you really this dim? Or just pretending? I went back to the source, to give a proper reference point to others. I already knew about it. Obviously, how could the debate have started without me knowing the starting point? If you are trying to get to me, try harder. Obviously flawed arguments don't work.

>> I can refer you to the message and line in the yahoo archive if you'd
>> like.
>
> Why bother? You made the same claim in tedious and self-fellating
> detail on another flamebaiting post while completely oblivious to
> the fact that the world doesn't really care.

No, the world doesn't care. If the world cared then there would be a copy of KoS in every house. Don't think there is. On the other hand there was more support on WorldofGlorantha for my position than yours.

>> The statement is not taken out of context and was presented with no
>> moderating "in my opinion" or "there is evdience suggesting perhaps". It
>> was simply stated to be so by Peter. Hence he appeared to be trying to
>> stop our reading of Krarsht as chaotic. Intransigence on both sides.
>
> So you admit you were intransigent in trying to shout me down? Funny
> that's not what you claimed in your original self-justification.

Debate is about people moving position. You don't seem to like when people disagree with and you don't like it when people agree with you. Sad.

>> Now some of us took a little exception to this, it seeming to be going
>> against the published sources.
>
> And is going against published sources such a crime that you have
> to repeatedly shriek, howl and gibber "But Krarsht is Chaotic!" whenever
> I suggest reasons that she isn't? What a fucking hypocrite.

Given that typed words make no sound your depiction is lame. And more swearing makes me laugh.

>> Peter has since backtracked a little, saying he is now presenting a "novel
>> reading" and how unfair we are to argue against possible interpretations.
>
> Hitchens is bullshitting through his teeth. In many of the
> subsequent posts and before I pointed out to Jeff and
> Michael that they were shouting down a novel
> interpretation, I was making statements like:
>
> "Which means that she could be from distant Pamaltela as
> far as anybody knows."
> Or:
> "But I think she seeks to bring Chaos under her control
> rather a Chaotic Goddess."
> Or:
> "As I said before, he may have stomped too hard and tore a
> hole in the cosmos."
> Or:
> "And you don't accept Gods of Glorantha and Cults of Terror either.
> So why do you complain about my interpretations?"

So your position changed? Cool. So did mine. Why are we still arguing? Oh, and why are you allowed to use "I think" but I'm not? I lost counts of the number of times you criticised me for using those words?

> But because you were so blinded by your sig file of Michael Hitchens, Ph.D.
> (tell me, do you have it tattooed on your arse?), you somehow failed to
> read the OPINIONS in each and every one of these statements. It is
> only when I decided state explicitly what you two were doing that that
> you finally got a FUCKING CLUE.

Ohhh. Swearing in all upper case. Sign of desperation.

>> Given that he started arguing one thing "Krarsht is not chaotic" and
>> is now arguing another "Some sources can be read that Krarsht is
>> not chaotic" it's no wonder I don't understand the argument.
>
> Wrong. I gave a clear and concise summary of my position. Read,
> mark, learn, inwardly digest and quit being a fuckwit.

And more swearing. Do you even have the remotest understadning of how human communication works (and doesn't) via this medium? Somehoe I doubt it.

>> Oh, and this is, to me, obviously related to one of the points I was
>> trying to make in the gag/core debate - we are too careless about
>> the difference
>> bewteen
>> "I believe X is this way"
>> "I believe it is possible to rad the source as saying X might be this way"
>> Two very different things.
>
> What's the fucking difference? You were saying that my X was impossible
> because the sources said Y. I pointed out that the sources weren't so
> definitive on Y so my X could still be possible. To which you two pretended
> that Y was no longer canonical, quoted a truncated quotation from
> Y to make it more definitive, boasted about how you had written Z (which
> for all your care still got Dendara wrong) amonmg other things.

Wrong. That wasn't me. I said your quoting was off. I could go and look up the archive to check who it was, but it wasn't me. Of course, you never replied to my message pointing that out. Just like when you challenged me to come up with different defintions to your for "choatic" and "chaotic feature". Which I did - and you never replied.

>>> Greg was silent in the entire exchange and Mike
>>> failed to recognize what sort of argument he was
>>> dealing with.
>
>> No surprise as you changed your position at the end and then claimed
>> that was what you had been arguing all along.
>
> You can quit lying now. I have never changed my position.

I'm happy to let people go and read the posts. That's what archives are for. They can make up their own minds. You obviously can't admit to being wrong or changing your mind about anything. You convinced me that it is possible to read the sources as Krarsht not being chaotic. So I've modified my original position. But that's not the positon of your original post. The other thing you have convinced me of is that your level of maturity is well, let's just say lower than you obviously think it is.

Michael



Dr. Michael Hitchens
Senior Lecturer, Department of Computing Macquarie University
michaelh_at_0aJsRpp6ODUfl1LtlZcFYftpmdwSs7h37OU4NLx8Kq7V5S1gj-J21OnyZVEaFdNFf63HQxIOv-JKxK4uRA.yahoo.invalid            

Powered by hypermail