S
sl1982
Guest
Perhaps, but life isnt fair. As a person who 'trolled the trolls' you have been labelled as such. Is it right? No, but past behaviour is usually the best predictor of the future.
- Status
X
xLostWingx
Guest
I'm not your opponent. I don't need to give examples because I don't need to prove something to you that I know to be true. I don't care if anyone believes me or not. If you don't think that you've ignored logical arguements then say so. Or you could acknowledge that you have. You know I'm perfectly capable of producing examples...but then they would be subject to your deluded scrutiny. Where would that get us? Another 70 posts of wasted time. Or translated into KM languge = Win
Last edited:
K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
So if I troll trolls, does that mean I troll everyone for the fun of it, regardless of whether I think their argument has merit?
Or are you saying that when I get accused of trolling, you regard the people I'm arguing against as trolls? You've accused me of trolling for arguing against you many times; does that mean that you're a troll?
I must also remind you that during Hermoor's first stay here, before everyone started regarding him as a poor, innocent victim of cyber bullying, you treated him in a way that might be regarded as trolling the troll. So did obesebear.
Are you even trying? So you can make a claim with no evidence at all, then say "I know I'm right, so I don't need to prove anything"? How convenient!
You eat babies. I don't need to give examples because I don't need to prove something to you that I know to be true.
And your language has revealed that, contrary to your claims, you do have some sort of grudge against me. In fact, some of your language might be regarded as a personal attack.
X
xLostWingx
Guest
My language is the result of your calling me out. Like I said, me putting up evidence is the first step towards the a pointless waste of time. As of right now you don't believe me, and thats fine with me. Ugh...what a defeat.
I can make a claim without evidence if I have no interest in the perception of my claim, yes.
I can make a claim without evidence if I have no interest in the perception of my claim, yes.
Last edited:
K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you called me out.
Yes, if I look at the order of the posts, you accused me of ignoring logical arguments before I said anything to you. So you called me out.
Ouch, that must be embarrassing!
And I strongly suspect your reluctance to show any evidence is because you either don't have any, or because you're worried that, when out under scrutiny, it might be revealed that those logical arguments I am accused of ignoring either might not have been ignored, or might not have been logical.
Y
yarLson
Guest
Actually its like he says, evidence isn't needed if you have read the thread, and since KM you've been defending yourself this whole time I assume you have read it and you know whether he is right or wrong so why point it out again and again. Honestly I think he was trying to be nice
X
xLostWingx
Guest
Yes, you're delusional. Uh oh, is that a personal attack? Nah, oh wait...I need to provide evidence. Darn. Guess you win again KM.
Oh I'm embarassed at your interpretation of my calling out out when in fact you referred to me as an opponent, and I was pointing out an observation...so embarassing. You choose to use words like "accuse". Well since we can choose which words to use, I'll say it is my opinion that you ignore logical arguements from time to time. Now the arguement is over, because I'm merely stating an personal opinion. Do you want to argue whether or not I hold this opinion?
Oh and I know that in situations such as this, your revised rules for winning are that I continue to post and waste my time. So feel free to say whatever accusatory and off the wall things you want, because I won't be responding again. "Running Away" right?
Oh I'm embarassed at your interpretation of my calling out out when in fact you referred to me as an opponent, and I was pointing out an observation...so embarassing. You choose to use words like "accuse". Well since we can choose which words to use, I'll say it is my opinion that you ignore logical arguements from time to time. Now the arguement is over, because I'm merely stating an personal opinion. Do you want to argue whether or not I hold this opinion?
Oh and I know that in situations such as this, your revised rules for winning are that I continue to post and waste my time. So feel free to say whatever accusatory and off the wall things you want, because I won't be responding again. "Running Away" right?
Last edited:
S
sl1982
Guest
Yeah at the beginning I probably did feed the trolls so to speak, unfortunately the Lulz thread is gone or you would see that I did not participate in it, or even condone what was going on. And lets see examples of where I accused you of trolling me.
And stop taking what I say as absolutes. Do you troll all the time? No. Is everyone you argue with a troll? No. Everytime you argue something are you trolling? No. Do you always troll the trolls? Usually, but not always.
K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
Evidence is always needed.
And I have addressed the "logical" arguments that have been made against me in this thread. Indeed, Seifer actually agrees with me now. The point of my disagreement with him was about whether planes were safer than cars. He now agrees that they are. Apparently, his logical arguments were not only addressed, they were refuted. Of course, he won't admit it and is pretending that he was making a different point, but that's because it's so embarrassing to call someone a troll, accuse them of all sorts of horrid things and then realise that they were right.
Yes it is.
Oh, it's your "opinion"? So you admit that there's no factual basis to your claims and it's just a subjective, emotional response? I hope you won't mind if I state my opinion:
Opinions are worthless.
Give me some facts next time, or at least some logic. You see, your claim was not about a subjective matter, such as whether Mozart was better than Beethoven, but about an objective one. If you say that I ignore logical arguments, that is a statement about a factual, objective matter. It is either right or wrong. Any "opinion" about such a matter is of no interest to me. We need facts and logic before such a claim can be taken seriously, and it looks like you can't provide them. Oh dear! How embarrassing!
As a person who 'trolled the trolls' I shall label you as such
Let me just have a look through the past posts. It could take a while. I'll edit this post when I find some, unless there's a new post that it would be more appropriate to put them in. I definitely know there have been times when we have disagreed about some matter regarding moderation, and you have accused me of trolling.
EDIT:
Oh snap, the search function isn't working. Nor is the function for searching user posts. Does anyone know why the server load is so high? Maybe someone is trying to DDoS us.
Proof, in case anyone accuses me of lying:
Your actions do not match your words.
Last edited:
Y
yarLson
Guest
Okay, in a perfectly logical world, being personally attacked does not give you the right to do it right back. I agree with you that opinions are worthless, but the FACT is your just accusing people who accuse you. Truthfully it's no way to argue, and I think this thread should be closed down already. I dunno if you notice or not but your jumping around from person to person so much that your not really giving out too much evidence yourself. Saying something is one thing, but proving it is quite another. I don't think anyone here is really proving anything. In fact, I wish someone would just delete all this already.
S
sl1982
Guest
The thread stays open, Kudistos has the right to respond. Post any evidence you have in this thread Kudi-san.
Kudi, you may label me whatever you wish, but the fact of the matter is i stopped doing it, you didnt.
Kudi, you may label me whatever you wish, but the fact of the matter is i stopped doing it, you didnt.
J
Jari
Guest
A
Armorvil
Guest
Summary of the thread :
"You're a troll !"
"No, I'm not !"
"You're wrong !"
"No, I'm right !"
Brillant. Some people like to waste their time, and I wish I had that much on my hands. Contrary to popular belief, in these kinds of arguments, the winner is always the one who stops replying first. Not the arrogant one who wants to have the "last word".
"You're a troll !"
"No, I'm not !"
"You're wrong !"
"No, I'm right !"
Brillant. Some people like to waste their time, and I wish I had that much on my hands. Contrary to popular belief, in these kinds of arguments, the winner is always the one who stops replying first. Not the arrogant one who wants to have the "last word".
K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
You're a troll.
So, I've found that even when the search function is working, it doesn't work. It certainly doesn't display consistent results. Nevertheless, there is at least one definite example of you accusing me of trolling you when I simply disagreed. See the thread called completely unlrelated. Arguing for the sake of it is trolling, is it not? I mean, it implies that the purpose of the arguing is trouble causing, so that's classified as trolling. You also seem to accuse me of trolling you in the "The New Rules" thread (google cache is needed to see this one; the thread was deleted). Unfortunately, google doesn't seem to have a record of the whole thread, but there's one incident in which you might be interpreted as saying that I'm trolling. It's something that could be interpreted several ways, but you accuse me of just bitching about the rules and imply that I would have done so even if the rules had been different. That can be interpreted as an accusation of trolling, no?
I'll have a look for some more things when the search function is working better. I do recall quite a few times when you have dismissed any of my disagreements with the moderating system as being arguing "just for the sake of it". That is to say, trolling.
And hey, before anyone complains that I have not provided sufficient evidence, at least I've provided some evidence for my claims. That's more than anyone has done for their claims against me.
So, why do you allow a person who has been banned god knows how many times to have an account? If this person has threatened to kill people and spammed the boards with porn, don't you think he should be prevented from having an account? After all, past behaviour is usually the best predictor of the future.
S
sl1982
Guest
Heh. I think you and I have a different definition of trolling. Arguing just for the sake of it is just that. Some people like to be contrary as it can provide deeper insight to the topic at hand. Arguing for the purpose of getting a rise out of someone else is trolling.
D
DLPB_
Guest
You are all doing what I used to do. Playing them at their own game. The more you argue the more they are winning. Leave the thread and let them talk to themselves. They are clearly a pair of trolls and so there is no use trying to reason. Kud for example, seems to have his own definition of everything. be it troll or baiting... he has his own definition of "good". He has a warped justification for everything he is doing, and so does Jari.
K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
Oh really? If you had accused me of "playing Devil's advocate", that might have got your meaning across better. As it is, your language suggested that I was just seeking to cause trouble. In any case, you were accusing me of arguing because I wanted to argue, not because I believed what I was saying. That's the central issue here. When you say that, you automatically give yourself a licence to ignore me, since I'm just arguing because I want an argument. You can use this technique to avoid ever having to engage with anything I say.
Furthermore, you said that and then took a dismissive tone, which adds more weight to the "it means trolling" interpretation of what you said than the "it means playing Devil's advocate".
It's not like you don't have your own definition of certain words. After all, your definition of words like "trolling" and "baiting" seems to be "disagreeing with me" or "pointing out my mistakes". You also seem to have a strange definition of truth, one that does not resemble anyone else's definition of it.
BTW, you've just addressed me, haven't you? Isn't that "playing me at my own game"?
S
sl1982
Guest
I am more genuinely curious then anything. If he thinks he does not troll then I would like to understand why he thinks that. If he thinks he is always debating the topic at hand then perhaps that is all he is doing. Things like rules should never be concrete, intent should always play a factor in things.
S
sl1982
Guest
Look, I am not a man of fancy words. If you interpreted what I said as something else well I apologize. As for the dismissive tone well that would most likely be because I did dismiss your opinion.
Not because I thought you were trolling, but because I did not agree with said opinion. (I cant remember the rules thread and couldnt find it on google)
K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
Yes, you did. Without giving any reason why.
And it seems that other people in that thread agreed with me, including obesebear.
It was the one that was in the "projects" forum (then called "game tweaking"). Obesebear deleted it. For some reason, most of the debating about the rules that were made a year ago happened in that thread.
- Status