RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Fortress of Awesome Chat My Fellow Insurgents

Alright, since I'm such a nice guy, I'll give Danny a hint.

Now Danny, what exactly did those quotes you pulled proceed? Mull over this one carefully 'cuz I know it's pretty easy for you to miss.

Is this another one of those syllogisms that you pull out of your ass? Cause I'm not intrested in chasing shadows as part of your cowardly denial.

If there was any real substance to it you'd post it yourself.

Is this another one of those syllogisms that you pull out of your ass? Cause I'm not intrested in chasing shadows as part of your cowardly denial.

If there was any real substance to it you'd post it yourself.

No. No syllogisms Danny. I promise.

All you have to do is figure out the chronology of the quotes you posted. Like, for instance, what came before and after them.

No. No syllogisms Danny. I promise.

All you have to do is figure out the chronology of the quotes you posted. Like, for instance, what came before and after them.

This subterfuge shows that you are afraid to put your cards down on the table.

Stop just standing there and help Danny dammit! He's racking his brain trying to figure this out!

Exactly. We kept to ourselves doing what we usually do because that's our local custom.

On the other hand, you came here for the exact purpose of changing our morality and verbal traditions. That would make you the aggressors.

This is weak.

You guys ganged up on Whomod so we came. We don't care about your stupid traditions anymore then you care for our rules.

Apparently you do since you're coming here for the sake of someone who's been here for years and can attest to the nature of this place. And yet, even after the thorough understanding of what a person must put up with if they decide to stay here, you still feel there's warrant to come here for the sake of justice. The problem here is that your definition of justice seems to be wholly different from ours.

We've already explained that you're no different from anyone else on this board in the way you interact with other posters, but all the same you still feel that you're a unique snowflake falling on this wasteland of ours.

By this logic you care about our rules cause you bitch about them.

It's a basic action/reaction thing. Deal with it.

I don't bitch about them. I say you're stupid for pretending they're relevant.

You don't have to react to us, and yet you choose to.

That's bitching.

We chose to react to your aggressions. That much is true.

*IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT HE EDITED THAT SECOND SENTENCE IN*

All that means is that you pick and choose what scenario qualifies as "bitching" according to what's convenient for you.

You've said multiple times are rules are stupid. Bitching.

Actually, it's just a statement of fact.

If I actually went over to your boards and then petitioned you through spam and alts to change your rules, due to them being stupid, then that would qualify as "bitching."

Hello kettle? This is the pot. You're black.

You've misused the phrase; I don't have a rules to contradict here and I haven't migrated to your board to give you lectures.

Pariah is claiming to own a phrase probaly older then everyone on this board? No wonder he's gotta go after minors.

How exactly does stating the proper use of the phrase qualify as me saying that I own it?

You don't get to decide that. The basic message of the phrase was clear.

His intent was clear based on the context of the situation, but that doesn't mean his message was clear. Because he made an erroneous comparison between my intentions and the Insurgency intentions, his point made no sense. In which case, he misused the phrase and made an ass out of himself.

Actually, friend, I'm paraphrasing its usage from a once popular television program (Friends, if you're feeling froggy). So I didn't, in point of fact, misuse the phrase. Perhaps if you got off the computer every so often and socialized with non-fuck wits you'd learn something...and maybe you'd stop trying to fuck minors. But I kind of doubt it.

What does you paraphrasing it have to do with the fact that you've misjudged the propriety of its use?

The phrase has been around longer than Friends.

Because he didn't. You're a reaching.

Actually, he did. I explained specifically that he misinterpreted my intentions for posting on messageboards for his own and therefore his attempt at being witty failed. No reaching has been done.

There are no assumptions. As I said, and Dan agrees, your intent was clear. Your execution was not.

Once again, .

You are in this very conversation doing the thing you are accusing the Insurgents of doing (that'd be reacting to us, whilst feigning to be above such things), therefore you are the kettle. You, good sir, are black. Figuratively speaking, anyway.

PS I win. That's how it's done around here, right?

I come here to post. I'm posting.

I don't come here to go to your board in reaction to your "rules."

Thank you for playing.

Straw man. No wonder you guys "win" all of your arguments here. You cheat.

No strawman was used. I let your words speak for themselves and I responded to them.

I deflect your strawman.

Of course you do

Seek help. Seriously.

Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

I used your exact quote and I responded to it with a direct statement. Not an interpretation of your meaning. You're floundering.

You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right.

There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell.

I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not.

I'm sensing a pattern here...

*sigh* I gave you a chance to turn back Danny. Just know that much.



To which Danny replied:



And so:
















Now here's where we switch from Danny to Daniel!

















To which Danny cleverly replied with:











And then he torches my ass with:



WHOA!!



And Danny was just so incredibly witty with:







And then after all this conversation with mainly me formulating the arguments, Danny very smartly observes.





And then, of course:



Which are abridged quotes that precede and proceed full responses in other respective posts that have nothing to do with Daniel or our original conversations.

You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right.

Is he right Doctor Fate? Can it be true!?

Actually, it doesn't. Try again.



Sorry Confucius, but your "pedophile" cat-calls haven't, and won't, make me lose sleep.

That sounds more like your own personal character flaw.

Yes, it is.

Hey "Pariah," allow me to let you in on a little secret: Nobody gives a shit about you here. You're getting ripped to shreds at every turn. Where are your friends? Who will stand with you against us? No one. You have been thrown to the dogs. We will feast upon your carcass until until the bones remain. Leave this place.

Define subjectivity for me. Tell me again what the weight of words are upon all people's psyches and then tell me how one can refute something that's simply a lie through and through.

And yet Danny was wrong. As you can see, Daniel and Danny both had their hands full trying to come up with terse comments to my full fledged arguments throughout this thread.

Poor Doctor Fate.

Define subjectivity for me. Tell me again what the weight of words are upon all people's psyches and then tell me how one can refute something that's simply a lie through and through.

What you don't understand Pariah, it is not my words that incriminate you. It is your own and how they stray from the topic at hand.

*sigh* I gave you a chance to turn back Danny. Just know that much.



To which Danny replied:



And so:
















Now here's where we switch from Danny to Daniel!

















To which Danny cleverly replied with:











And then he torches my ass with:



WHOA!!



And Danny was just so incredibly witty with:







And then after all this conversation with mainly me formulating the arguments, Danny very smartly observes.





And then, of course:



Which are abridged quotes that precede and proceed full responses in other respective posts that have nothing to do with Daniel or our original conversations.

Yeah I have pretty much no idea what any of that has to do with Pariah's denial. Those aren't even the same quotes that I posted.

Well God DAMN! I'd say you've gotten under this prick's skin. Excellent work.

Zzap!

P.S. Wait for his next post in which he denies that we're winning. I told you guys last night that this fake Pariah was dense.

Well God DAMN! I'd say you've gotten under this prick's skin. Excellent work.

Zzap!

P.S. Wait for his next post in which he denies that we're winning. I told you guys last night that this fake Pariah was dense.

A big post is one thing, but that hasn't got shit to do with anything we're talking about. He's dead in the water.

Which is the point isn't it. You ignored this entire thread for the sake of rounding off my character with a "denial" blanket-statement that only pays attention to another thread in which the quotes you pulled were actually complemented by the context of other posts made by me.

To put it simply Danny: You're an idiot.

Which is the point isn't it. You ignored this entire thread for the sake of rounding off my character with a "denial" blanket-statement that only pays attention to another thread in which the quotes you pulled were actually complemented by the context of other posts made by me.

To put it simply Danny: You're an idiot.

The subject was your denial, not our previous arguments that had nothing to do with denial. So...who's an idiot?

I WIN AGAIN!

You tried to hussle in your "denial" finagle so as to distract from the fact that I made a fool of you and Daniel. But I didn't let you and dismissed your blanket-statement--Embarrassing you for the 12th time.

I win again.

That's nice and all but what does it have to do with proving I editted or abridged your posts? You don't even know which conversation you're having right now let alone things you say in the past.

you just ended a sentence with a preposition.

in times new roman, no less!

Wow. You bumped a thread near the top of the forum. You're a real rebel.