Re: Blue Pill Time

From: Keith Nellist <keithnellist_at_7JLa7y-gykK3EuCHGToILVwziVlmlwCl0NJqOyAaTPkXa-t3pFJ8GwDAFpEYSgK>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:37:43 +1000


Personally, I think that this is a beautiful post that should be referred to by future generations as a classic of Immoderate writing.

It is almost a modern day version of Monty Python's argument sketch within the 'Glorantha' genre.

What we now need is John to anthropowank all over it, Dr. Pid to give us historic 18th century lesbian military duck analogues and some bastards to do some other shit.

Keep it up, excellent people. [sarcasm]

Keith

  On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Peter Metcalfe wrote:

> At 01:57 p.m. 26/04/2007, you wrote:
>> 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:
>> 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?
>
> So when I said in the messages that you were responding to:
>
> In any event, I've responded to his latest and lamest post
> off-line so you needn't be worried about collateral damage.
>
> did by any chance a clue ever trigger inside your fucking head as
> to what the hell I was talking about? Or did it just breeze through
> from anus to anus?

  Maybe you should have noticed that your supposed offline posts had no   impact on what I was saying and that maybe it hadn;t reached me? That I   didn't reply to you offline?

  I suspect a lot of this has been caused because I never saw that message   and you never realised I didn't. But somehow I don't think that's going   to help now....

>>> 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.
>
> Evasion of the question, noted.

  While I don't think the answer that necessary I don't think anything I   wrote to be anymore flamebait than what you wrote. So turn the question   around and ask it of yourself. I was responding in kind.

>>> 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.
>
> And the point of giving "a proper reference point" to others
> was what precisely? To assuage your wounded ego? All
> you did was pour lit petrol on already troubled waters.

  If I did, it was you who lit them. You started throwing around accusation   of "dogmatism". I responded by quoting a dogmatic post of yours. At least   I showed some proof to back up my accusations.

>> Obviously, how could the debate have started without me knowing the
>> starting point?
>
> Because you did not respond to the "original starting point". The
> first message of mine that you responded to was message #1609
> (note well the alleged certainty that you claim ticked you off).

  See below

> ::The sources are far less clear on her identity and the chaos
> ::leakage could have been caused by Larnste's stomping rather than
> ::the creature he was attempting to stomp.
>
> There is only one reply to the original statement (#1567) and
> that is Simon Phipp's. You responded to my followup (#1602)
> which merely listed the runes and said "which one of these
> is not like the others".
>
> At no time did you ever claim about my definitiveness until
> you tried to cover your arse with flamebait.

  If you think what I was posting was flamebait you are either very   sensitive or have a limited experience of genuine flamebait.

  As to which exact message I responded to, so what? It was all part of the   same thread and youyourself admit here that 1567 was your original   statement. It is that email that contains the line "Krarsht isn't   chaotic". That I waited a little while before joining the debate is   neither here not there. You made the statement. I have just re-read your   posts 1567,1569 and 1602 (1569 being the only one from you on that topic   between 1567 and 1602). In none of them is there any hint of   prevarication. So why does it matter at what point I replied?

>> On the other hand there was
>> more support on WorldofGlorantha for my position than yours.
>
> Big deal. Glorantha isn't a democracy. There's far less support
> for Lesbian Vingans but that has a greater chance of becoming
> canon.

  Now you're avoiding the point. Your point was that world didn't care   about my views. I was refuting it by pointing a little bit more cared   about mine than yours. Tough.

>>> 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.
>
> Free Clue: Look up metaphor in the dictionary. And thanks once
> again for evading my point.

  Oh, so you can use metaphor and I can't use sarcasm? Hmmm. I could just   as easily accuse you of repeatedly shireking, howling and gibbering "But   Krarst isn't Choatic" whenever you were presented with reasons that she   might be.

>> And more
>> swearing makes me laugh.
>
> That's the second time in this post you've claimed that you're amused.
> Since your emotional state isn't really germane to this topic, it's
> suggests that you're desperately trying to convey an impression of
> being untouched by the row.

  Well, at least I know your use of it means you are touched.

>> So your position changed?
>
> No, it did not, retard. What I was pointing out was that throughout
> the thread, it was clear to all but the thickshits such as yourself
> that I was saying was only my opinion. Moreover pointing out
> that something is my only opinion is not a shift in opinion.

  Ah well, that's your opinion. For my sins I have just re-read allyou   posts in the thread. I can find a "could" in 1609. A "my interpretation"   in 1631 and an "I suggested" in 1708. None of these are a clear statement   as whether your saw your interpreation as an additional alteranative or an   authoriative replacement. It certainly could have been the former, but as   you note that heat was rather high by that time. In such cases less   ambiguity is needed.

>> Cool. So did mine. Why are we still arguing?
>
> Oo, this is a hard one. Could it be because you are a fucktard?

  No, that's a reason to insult someone. Which you seem to be trying to,   although not very well. I'm more intersted in what you think our   differences of opinion about Krarsht still are.

>> Oh, and why are you allowed to use "I think" but I'm not?
>
> Because you use "I think" when posting vapid long-winded
> limp-wristed lame-arsed critiques of other people's statements
> whereas I used "I think" when prefacing suggestive statements
> about glorantha.

  Your opinion. Your problem.

> YOU: I think therefore I might be a pontificating buffoon.
>
> ME: I think Krarsht has non-chaotic origins.
>
> Spot the difference?

  Yes, between something you made up and reality.

>> I lost counts
>> of the number of times you criticised me for using those words?
>
> You can't count on the fingers of one hand? I feel so sorry for you.

  No, it was simply that your carping wasn't worth the small number of brain   cells it would have taken to keep track of it.

>>> 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?
>
> Swearing and abuse are valid means of communication whether you
> like it or not. Implying that the other person is a newbie, on the other
> hand, is pretty much a fucking stupid thing to do when you don't
> know much about him.

  Newbie means new. I've known lots of people with years of experience in   e-mail and the like that don't understand what is happening in the   communication. Take it as you will.

>>>> 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.
>
> You did pretend that Y was no longer canonical. And you can't read for shit.
> I clearly said "you two" referring to You and Jeff.

  The above is unclear (perhaps deliberately on your part) as to which you   attributing to me, which to Jeff, and which to both of us. I'll bother to   reply further to this point when you properly define which of these things   you think I (singular) did. Most, if not all, of what you mention here   was Jeff, not me. I did none of the quoting you mention and I think the Z   refers to a publication written by Jeff.

>> Of course, you never
>> replied to my message pointing that out.
>
> Aww, poor widdle Michael Hitcwhens. He's crying his eyes out because
> I've been ignoring his posts. Wah-fucking-wah. Just because your
> parents didn't love you as much as they should doesn't mean I have
> to be your sugar-daddy showering you with words of praise.

  No, I'm not crying, as I would not expect a sensible reply from you. But   you criticised me for not replying to you. So I simply noted two cases   where you had not replied to me. If one is a crime, so is the other.

>>> 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.
>
> I can and have. It's just that all the evidence being tendered
> so far by the opposing side have been stupid arguments.

  Which you cleverly refute by ignoring them? Hmmm.

>> 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.
>
> I like the shifting goalposts. From talking about all my posts, you
> rowback to talking about an out of context statement from one post
> that you didn't even see as objectionable the first time around.

  I did object to it actually. Doesn't mean I had to reply *immediately*.   And I still contend that I did not take your original comment out of   context. Again, I know I won't convince you. Others will form their own   opinions.

  I think the end result of this is that we agree that the sources on   Krarsht are open to at least two interpretations, but that in future there   is a high likelihood we will regard each other's posts as little more than   trash.

  And yes I've used "I think" again. Naughty me.

  Michael



  Dr. Michael Hitchens
  Senior Lecturer, Department of Computing   Macquarie University
  michaelh_at_8TfPfCS_I1w5WZIKZnMFx0RcG908RvHBBuDcxLke8KrU_aR-qPzBtZ0Bo6nHtZmzArtSOcjXyMwrbvgG.yahoo.invalid    

  No virus found in this incoming message.   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 4/25/2007 12:19 PM

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]            

Powered by hypermail