<Removed>

[Juan_Bottom]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

[Symmetry]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Well, he did get that ban for calling for my death. I'd say that's a bit of an ad hominem attack taken to the extreme. Still, of course, your analysis is unbiased and it's totally me attacking BBS.

If you recall (you may not), I criticized him for that decision at the time it occurred. So did many others. I don't think anyone took his side. Further, it was likely a venting of frustration for many instances of the above discussion process. Not an excuse, but it's not like the decision to create a cake or death thread was created in a vacuum.

You feel I provoked him by arguing my points?

No. I feel he was frustrated by discussions with you that degenerated into ad hominem attacks. Not provocation and not an excuse, because I certainly would not have done what BBS did, no matter how much our discussions degenderated. And you and I have had similar discussion procedurals (which again, has to make you wonder, doesn't it, whether you are actually the one at fault since this happens to you a lot).

I'm not sure about that- I've never had someone run out of arguments to justify their beliefs to an extent where they asked if I was better off dead till then. It was pretty extreme.

[patrickaa317]

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

Funniest shit I have heard in a while!!

Keep em coming JB! I need a mood lightener.

[thegreekdog]

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

No. I said I wouldn't read the anti-Catholic threads. And I don't.

Ultimately, my argument in McGill was that you didn't like (to put it mildly) the "making fun of the Holocaust by making up fake movie names" thread but you had no problem bashing Catholics in another thread. That seems hypocritical to me.

[Juan_Bottom]

No. I said I wouldn't read the anti-Catholic threads. And I don't.

Ultimately, my argument in McGill was that you didn't like (to put it mildly) the "making fun of the Holocaust by making up fake movie names" thread but you had no problem bashing Catholics in another thread. That seems hypocritical to me.

Willing Participation:



MASS GENOCIDE:



You really see no difference?

[Juan_Bottom]

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

Funniest shit I have heard in a while!!

Keep em coming JB! I need a mood lightener.

That wasn't directed at our discussion, but only at Greek's comment. Anyway, you should be on my side here too. You and I might disagree sometimes, but I'm not going to ever lie about you & slander you & try to make you look stupid. Even on the internet, there is a code of Honor between gentlemen. Is there not?

[thegreekdog]

No. I said I wouldn't read the anti-Catholic threads. And I don't.

Ultimately, my argument in McGill was that you didn't like (to put it mildly) the "making fun of the Holocaust by making up fake movie names" thread but you had no problem bashing Catholics in another thread. That seems hypocritical to me.

Willing Participation:



MASS GENOCIDE:



You really see no difference?

Between the two pictures above? I do see a difference.

The question is not that. The question is whether I see a difference between a thread lambasting Catholics and a thread making joke movie titles involving the Holocaust. As I indicated, to paraphrase, because you were offended, I stopped posting in that thread. I assumed you would treat me the same way (not that I asked for it, because I have this great ability to not read stuff that offends me), and you did not. As you indicated, there are gentlemenly ways to treat with others, even on the internet.

[BigBallinStalin]

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

Well, he did get that ban for calling for my death. I'd say that's a bit of an ad hominem attack taken to the extreme. Still, of course, your analysis is unbiased and it's totally me attacking BBS.

If you recall (you may not), I criticized him for that decision at the time it occurred. So did many others. I don't think anyone took his side. Further, it was likely a venting of frustration for many instances of the above discussion process. Not an excuse, but it's not like the decision to create a cake or death thread was created in a vacuum.

I still disagree with the majority opinion on the Cake Question, but the underlined is correct. At least, I've confirmed that people like Sym and JB aren't capable of rational discussion. But! At least we've got a 5-step model of their behavior.

They've been dunking themselves in the 5th step for the past few posts too--it appears.

[BigBallinStalin]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

JB fails to recall the days when he didn't have me foe'd (Gee, JB's position took 5 seconds to sufficiently refute).

The 5-step process nevertheless applies to him recently as well as in the past.

[thegreekdog]

They've been dunking themselves in the 5th step for the past few posts too--it appears.

If you care to avoid any improriety, there are two ways to deal with this:

(1) Parachute away.
(2) Continue the discussion without resorting to ad hominems.

I've done both. Number (2) is more challenging but more rewarding. I've done (1) way more often.

[thegreekdog]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

JB fails to recall the days when he didn't have me foe'd (Gee, JB's position took 5 seconds to sufficiently refute).

The 5-step process nevertheless applies to him recently as well as in the past.

I'm 45% of the way to concluding that JB is trolling you actually. He's a pretty sharp dude, probably a notch below Saxitoxin. I'm almost convinced that most of his pro-Democrat threads are trolls of Phatscotty threads. And he's been successful with those threads in catching people like me (and you and Saxi).

[Juan_Bottom]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

JB fails to recall the days when he didn't have me foe'd (Gee, JB's position took 5 seconds to sufficiently refute).

The 5-step process nevertheless applies to him recently as well as in the past.

OH REALLY?
Hold on while I still have photobucket open.



You're a liar and a cad.

[BigBallinStalin]

No. I said I wouldn't read the anti-Catholic threads. And I don't.

Ultimately, my argument in McGill was that you didn't like (to put it mildly) the "making fun of the Holocaust by making up fake movie names" thread but you had no problem bashing Catholics in another thread. That seems hypocritical to me.

Willing Participation:
image of plain old inside of Church


MASS GENOCIDE:
appeal to emotion pic


You really see no difference?

This again is easy to break down.

1. TGD isn't arguing about a difference between genocide and those who arguably 'willingly' participate in a weekly mass.
2. JB insists that he is, thus creating a straw man fallacy.
3. TGD's point about JB implies that JB's being a 'militant' atheist toward the religious is insensitive. Yet, JB takes offense (i.e. becomes sensitive) to jokes about the Holocaust.
4. JB is being a hypocrite. He whines about a joke which offends his sensitive side, yet he has no problem inflicting emotional harm and anger on those who are sensitive about religion.


Let's apply this to the 5-step model:


Step One: JB makes a point.
Step Two: TGD attempts to refute. (mentions hypocrisy)
Step Three: JB does not adequately refute TGD's refutation. (JB relies on logical fallacies)
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy. (this post)

GUEST WHAT STEP 5 WILL BE?

Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS or TGD of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

(of course, since we mentioned this, they have an incentive to adjust their response accordingly).

[BigBallinStalin]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

JB fails to recall the days when he didn't have me foe'd (Gee, JB's position took 5 seconds to sufficiently refute).

The 5-step process nevertheless applies to him recently as well as in the past.

OH REALLY?
Hold on while I still have photobucket open.



You're a liar and a cad.

Step One: JB makes a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute. (mentions lack of citations)
Step Three: JB does not adequately refute BBS's refutation. (JB provides no citations, only points to his own words)
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy. (this post and the previous one)
Step Five: JB accuses BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually. ("You're a liar and a cad.").


That was easy.

[thegreekdog]

Oh my fucking Cthullu JB, you used Bernie Sanders as a source and didn't even provide a fucking link.

(of course, since we mentioned this, they have an incentive to adjust their response accordingly).

Yes, that is ultimately my goal - get them to adjust their responses accordingly.

And with that, I'm going to bed. I hope you guys work it out. I earnestly hope:

(1) That JB is trolling BBS.
(2) That no one is banned.
(3) That JB and Symmetry think about their arguments in the future.

I expect:

(1) That JB is trolling BBS.
(2) That one or both of JB and BBS will be warned or banned.
(3) That JB and Symmetry will continue the five step process in the future.

[BigBallinStalin]

You guys are doing the whiny, bitchy thing again?

Didn't you try to quite McGill because you believe that Catholicism deserves the exact same "don't make fun" status that the Holocaust has? You're shit does stink, mr.

At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

JB fails to recall the days when he didn't have me foe'd (Gee, JB's position took 5 seconds to sufficiently refute).

The 5-step process nevertheless applies to him recently as well as in the past.

I'm 45% of the way to concluding that JB is trolling you actually. He's a pretty sharp dude, probably a notch below Saxitoxin. I'm almost convinced that most of his pro-Democrat threads are trolls of Phatscotty threads. And he's been successful with those threads in catching people like me (and you and Saxi).

You might be right, but after talking to him about a very emotional issue (e.g. protectionism), it became apparent that he wears his nationalist sentiments on his sleeve, so his visage of trolling actually disappeared during that time. Other debates between him and I have revealed that he's not that sharp--just very emotional and nationalist. Fiercely nationalist; it's disconcerting.

I will admit that his past few posts were intended to make me respond in "furious anger", but really he's just butthurt that we've modeled his behavior correctly with the 5-step process.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh my fucking Cthullu JB, you used Bernie Sanders as a source and didn't even provide a fucking link.

(of course, since we mentioned this, they have an incentive to adjust their response accordingly).

Yes, that is ultimately my goal - get them to adjust their responses accordingly.

And with that, I'm going to bed. I hope you guys work it out. I earnestly hope:

(1) That JB is trolling BBS.
(2) That no one is banned.
(3) That JB and Symmetry think about their arguments in the future.

I expect:

(1) That JB is trolling BBS.
(2) That one or both of JB and BBS will be warned or banned.
(3) That JB and Symmetry will continue the five step process in the future.

Good plan. I'll let cooler heads prevail another day!

[Neoteny]

During my hourly search for things people have said about me, this thread came up a lot.

[thegreekdog]

During my hourly search for things people have said about me, this thread came up a lot.

I can type your name in other threads if you'd like. That should help diversify your thread search.

[Neoteny]

If you could maybe do an even number of positive and negative tone, I would be appreciative.

[stahrgazer]

Is it the tea-party that wants to shrink government?
Is it OWS that wants equality for the common man?
Is it the religious right that wants the bible to be the constitution?
Is it the bigots that wants to take away peoples rights?
Is it the ron pauls that want equal rights?
Is it the rmoney's that want to f*ck over the 99% to make the 1% richer?
Is it the angry/scared people that wants to take over the world with a larger army?
Is it the NSA peole that want to watch your every move?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and compassion for your neighbor?

What do you think the Republican Party is today? What do you want it to be?

You forgot an important one: the party that wants the sitting president to fail badly at every endeavor, even those endeavors that the majority of the people support.

The party has become anything Rush Limbaugh (and his ilk) say it should be, aka: the party of venomous screamers.

I'd like it to be, again, the party that upheld the Union even when that meant stepping on private businessmen's toes in the name of Equality (Lincoln).
I'd like it to be, again, the party that progressively overspent the military to end a costly cold war (Reagan).
I'd like it to be, again, the party that ended segregation in schools, used real threats against China, invested in technological research and development to benefit future Americans (one of those programs leading to 'the internet') while encouraging strong science education and investigating peaceful uses for things like nuclear energy (Eisenhower).

These are three primary reasons I registered Republican, but most of these look like Democrats these days.

[Juan_Bottom]

Oh my fucking Cthullu JB, you used Bernie Sanders as a source and didn't even provide a fucking link.

I'm sorry, but why the hell is that relevant? Are books without links garbage? Is BBS fingerless and unable to google the very specific information that I provided? I literally just googled the source that I provided and found it exactly, and immediately.
No and again no. He's just you're best friend and he can do no wrong because you love him.

But I know something you don't know.....

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=112367&start=45&p=2512097&view=show#p2512097

When I made that Bernie Sanders statement, I deliberately left out a link because I knew BBS would attack me for that. But here in this other thread, before the fight over the Holocaust he congratulated me on a post that I did not provide any links for. He went so far as to PM me and thank me, calling it "a worthy post."
Here was the exchange afterwards:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177067&start=45&hilit=Paul+Ryan+is+a+Marxist!&p=3867775&view=show#p3867775

BBS is a troll. A huge troll, and you're defending him. And you've also deliberately lied in this thread to make me look bad; you do not deny this. And you're going to continue mocking me for my unwillingness to debate you after that. What kind of respectful debate do you expect me to have with a troll and a liar? You should apologize to yourself, to your family, the community, Jesus, and all sorts of others because you're not a good person.

[thegreekdog]

I lied? Neoteny doesn't think I lied.*

*Part of the "Get Neotney in Your Thread" campaign.

[Ray Rider]

Oh my fucking Cthullu JB, you used Bernie Sanders as a source and didn't even provide a fucking link.

I'm sorry, but why the hell is that relevant? Are books without links garbage? Is BBS fingerless and unable to google the very specific information that I provided? I literally just googled the source that I provided and found it exactly, and immediately.
No and again no. He's just you're best friend and he can do no wrong because you love him.

But I know something you don't know.....

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=112367&start=45&p=2512097&view=show#p2512097

When I made that Bernie Sanders statement, I deliberately left out a link because I knew BBS would attack me for that. But here in this other thread, before the fight over the Holocaust he congratulated me on a post that I did not provide any links for. He went so far as to PM me and thank me, calling it "a worthy post."
Here was the exchange afterwards:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177067&start=45&hilit=Paul+Ryan+is+a+Marxist!&p=3867775&view=show#p3867775

BBS is a troll. A huge troll, and you're defending him. And you've also deliberately lied in this thread to make me look bad; you do not deny this. And you're going to continue mocking me for my unwillingness to debate you after that. What kind of respectful debate do you expect me to have with a troll and a liar? You should apologize to yourself, to your family, the community, Jesus, and all sorts of others because you're not a good person.

Actually, that's common of any poster in the forum--to not ask for sources about a post you agree with, but demand sources for info in a post you disagree with. That doesn't make anyone a troll. In that case, BBS calling you a troll seems uncalled-for, however, since you were making positive contributions to the thread. You seem to think it perfectly appropriate to fire the ad-hominem attacks right back though, so now you're both at the same level.

[BigBallinStalin]

By the power of SCIENCE, I summon Neoteny to answer the following:


What is the Republican Party?