yeah that parting shots is pretty...
well
why does he feel the need to be so controlling, does he not realise it makes him look like a dickhead two year old or does he just not care?
yeah true, shroom
it's sort of interesting, from an armchair-sociologist perspective, all that in-group stuff demonising guys as 'idiots' or 'chewtoys' or whatever
and has AD always been such a wanker?
btw for those of you who didn't get a chance to read the post he took a sentence out of context of before he deleted it
the point of that paragraph was a person can still fit a label even if he insists he doesn't
for example, someone saying "i'm not a monarchist" yet going on and vigorously promoting the monarchy after that
which is what he alleged legault of doing - denying an accurate label - when he got banned: "[..]Frankly, I think you're actually a fundie who's pretending to be an atheist so you can spout the usual anti-science fundie bullshit without having to defend religious dogma. But either way, I've got better things to do than waste time on liars like you."
I'm a bit "shocked" by the argument "I've got no time to waste arguing with you, SO I'm going to ban you.". I mean... I don't know, it sounds pretty childish all things considered.
I wouldn't consider "wasting someone's time" as a bannable offense myself - after all, only yourself are responsible for your own time passed on an internet board.
Or am I misrepresenting Mike's case here ? :
adr wrote:which is what he alleged legault of doing - denying an accurate label - when he got banned: "[..]Frankly, I think you're actually a fundie who's pretending to be an atheist so you can spout the usual anti-science fundie bullshit without having to defend religious dogma. But either way, I've got better things to do than waste time on liars like you."
I just
if he doesn't want to waste time on 'liars', why not just ignore them
if his arguments were as good as he seems to think they are, he should just make his point and let everyone see that the other guy is wrong, rather than throwing a hissy fit
man, legault seemed like an OK guy with interesting opinions, shame he broke the unwritten rule
from bakustra: "I have better things to do with my time than fix hardware and software issues to keep this board running just so I can repeatedly correct your foul misrepresentations of my position."
from me: "It's the most absurd example of a vendetta I've ever seen, and I have better things to do than waste my time fighting your never-ending character attacks."
of ocurse, the bannable offense he gives is very often "dishonesty", or "trolling", which they define in terms of dishonesty, which they never bother proving, and there can be no defense; after they label you dishonest, they just assume any defense is just more lies...
evilsoup wrote:I just
if he doesn't want to waste time on 'liars', why not just ignore them
if his arguments were as good as he seems to think they are, he should just make his point and let everyone see that the other guy is wrong, rather than throwing a hissy fit
man, legault seemed like an OK guy with interesting opinions, shame he broke the unwritten rule
I asked in that thread. He's apparently tired of having to defend himself...
So uh yeah, he has control issues and according to the rumour mill has managed to piss off everyone who was friends with him on asvs and is pretty much a massive dick in rl. But at the end of the day, we win because we're not bitter, obsessed individuals. So you know, we can function outside our fiefdoms.
I ask for my peers the authorization to lock this thread and re-locate it to New Testing for archival purpose ; because we have discussed a lot of interesting things in this thread that have nothing to do with TEO and I wouldn't want to lose them to the auto-prune.
