Born the wrong species

[zinfamous]

I don't have such a list. I have an ignored user list. I have put them there because I prefer to not interact with them further based on past interactions. Not because I think of them as A-holes.

Why do you prefer not to interact with them?

 

[buckshot24]

Why do you prefer not to interact with them?

It doesn't matter. I'm not calling them names.

 

[zinfamous]

It doesn't matter. I'm not calling them names.

Well, you've already called all of them "hypocrites" at one time or another, multiple times each. So now you are already lying again.

Why do you prefer not to interact with them? Be honest for once.

 

[buckshot24]

Well, you've already called all of them "hypocrites" at one time or another, multiple times each. So now you are already lying again.

Ahhh, good point. I don't consider that to be a pejorative just a statement of fact. I'll quit calling you a hypocrite though. You're acting hypocritically.

Why do you prefer not to interact with them? Be honest for once.

They are all different. Obviously, it isn't just from disagreement or you'd be on the list 20 times over. You've never been on the list BTW.

Lots of people are on there for mocking, some for misrepresenting what I've said, and others because I decided they were a waste of time.

And I'm always honest, I could simply be mistaken or forgotten something. I don't intentionally lie.

 

[zinfamous]

Ahhh, good point. I don't consider that to be a pejorative just a statement of fact. I'll quit calling you a hypocrite though. You're acting hypocritically.
They are all different. Obviously, it isn't just from disagreement or you'd be on the list 20 times over. You've never been on the list BTW.

Lots of people are on there for mocking, some for misrepresenting what I've said, and others because I decided they were a waste of time.

And I'm always honest, I could simply be mistaken or forgotten something. I don't intentionally lie.

I don't consider nutjob a pejorative, either, when it is, indeed, a statement of fact.

 

[feralkid]

Dammit man, you know the rules
First, "The List™" is trademarked, secondly, please include dramatic chipmunk as it clearly defines the severity and importance of aforementioned 'List'

O.K. but let it be known that is a prairie dog, not a chipmunk.


D:

 

[buckshot24]

I don't consider nutjob a pejorative, either, when it is, indeed, a statement of fact.

It isn't a fact. It is an opinion and you're not qualified to determine people's sanity anyway. (assuming you're not).

 

[buckshot24]

Well, you've already called all of them "hypocrites" at one time or another, multiple times each. So now you are already lying again.

I haven't called any of the people on my list a hypocrite either. Chippy and you are not on my list.

 

[zinfamous]

It isn't a fact. It is an opinion and you're not qualified to determine people's sanity anyway. (assuming you're not).

One would make a strong case by pointing out to you that when you fail at properly applying the terms "hypocritical" or "hypocrite," that you are merely stating an opinion by doing so anyway.

 

[buckshot24]

One would make a strong case by pointing out to you that when you fail at properly applying the terms "hypocritical" or "hypocrite," that you are merely stating an opinion by doing so anyway.

Fine, I've given my reasons though. You're being hypocritical by blasting me for calling Bruce, Bruce while calling me an idiot. Especially if insensitivity has anything to do with it.

 

[zinfamous]

Fine, I've given my reasons though. You're being hypocritical by blasting me for calling Bruce, Bruce while calling me an idiot. Especially if insensitivity has anything to do with it.

I have no intent to be insensitive--that would be disrespectful.

I am merely being consistent in pointing out that people earn the labels that they project through actions, words, and behavior. (and not to forget legal precedent)

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

O.K. but let it be known that is a prairie dog, not a chipmunk.


D:

Yea, I kinda thought that too, but when I typed in 'dramatic' in google, chipmunk was the first choice, so derp on me.

 

[buckshot24]

I have no intent to be insensitive--that would be disrespectful.

Neither do I.

I am merely being consistent in pointing out that people earn the labels that they project through actions, words, and behavior. (and not to forget legal precedent)

I'm not buying it. Take a hike.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Neither do I.
I'm not buying it. Take a hike.

damn. that's real close to The List™ level of dismissal. Better be wary Zin.

 

[chipwitch]

Is referring to people as "nut jubs" a sign of respect? Hypocrite.
.

HA! You dissemble CONSTANTLY. Here is what I said for the record...

You wouldn't by chance be one of those right wing nut jobs who finds it offensive to reduce humans to the level of animals incapable of controlling their behavior, are you?

Do you like to reduce humans to the level of animals incapable of controlling their behavior? If you are, then you're a nut job.

Or, is it just you are a little sensitive to "nut job?" Self-conscious?

 

[buckshot24]

HA! You dissemble CONSTANTLY. Here is what I said for the record...

You wouldn't by chance be one of those right wing nut jobs who finds it offensive to reduce humans to the level of animals incapable of controlling their behavior, are you?

Do you like to reduce humans to the level of animals incapable of controlling their behavior? If you are, then you're a nut job.

Or, is it just you are a little sensitive to "nut job?" Self-conscious?

Very insensitive and meant to hurt. Shame on you. How does hypocrisy taste?

 

[MongGrel]

Haha, I didn't see that "view post" link until you said this. No, I do not read every post I have on ignore.

I bow out of the conversation and another page is written about me. Glad to see I'm in all of your heads so much.

You're not in our heads.

We just laugh a lot about you more or less

You should really be embarrassed at yourself at this point, but you keep digging that hole.

 

[Exophase]

It's nice there's a new person for P&N to stand in unity against now that Texashiker is rarely here.

 

[shira]

And I'm always honest, I could simply be mistaken or forgotten something. I don't intentionally lie.

Honestly involves more than simply making statements that you believe to be true. For example, it's highly dishonest to respond to a set of statements that - taken together - make a coherent argument by selecting only a non-representative subset and pretending that you've addressed the argument.

Intellectual dishonesty, which is what I'm referring to, involves anything that leads someone to consistently NOT address relevant points made by others or to omit from one's own argument relevant information that undercuts that argument. It also involves intellectual laziness; being too willing to believe questionable information; not making the effort to seek out relevant information from reputable sources; making arguments from a position of willful ignorance; etc. It also involves a misrepresentation - whether willful or induced by unconscious character-flaws - of what others are writing. I could go on and on.

But THE point is that what's most important in this forum, in my opinion, is INTELLECTUAL honesty.

Evaluating you by that standard, I find you to be well below average in the "honesty" department.

 

[buckshot24]

It's nice there's a new person for P&N to stand in unity against now that Texashiker is rarely here.

You better enjoy it because I won't be around much longer.

 

[buckshot24]

Honestly involves more than simply making statements that you believe to be true. For example, it's highly dishonest to respond to a set of statements that - taken together - make a coherent argument by selecting only a non-representative subset and pretending that you've addressed the argument.

Intellectual dishonesty, which is what I'm referring to, involves anything that leads someone to consistently NOT address relevant points made by others or to omit from one's own argument relevant information that undercuts that argument. It also involves intellectual laziness; being too willing to believe questionable information; not making the effort to seek out relevant information from reputable sources; making arguments from a position of willful ignorance; etc. It also involves a misrepresentation - whether willful or induced by unconscious character-flaws - of what others are writing. I could go on and on.

But THE point is that what's most important in this forum, in my opinion, is INTELLECTUAL honesty.

Evaluating you by that standard, I find you to be well below average in the "honesty" department.

You haven't demonstrated any of these points.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us how the origin of life is "pretty well understood" because I find that to be a complete misrepresentation of the facts. You've continually failed to explain what you meant.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You better enjoy it because I won't be around much longer.

Rapture coming?

 

[shira]

You haven't demonstrated any of these points.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us how the origin of life is "pretty well understood" because I find that to be a complete misrepresentation of the facts. You've continually failed to explain what you meant.

Your response here is a perfect example of your intellectual dishonesty: Regardless of whether or not I personally have made a false statement in a completely different thread and refuse to allow you to divert the discussion in THIS thread, that's completely irrelevant to my RELEVANT assertion about you in this thread.

But there you go, jumping at the chance to change the focus from yourself (YOU claimed in THIS thread "I'm honest," and I replied to that claim) to me. My honesty isn't the issue; yours is. By refusing to engage on THAT subject, you're being intellectually dishonest. And you do this type of thing MOST of the time, not just occasionally.

 

[buckshot24]

Your response here is a perfect example of your intellectual dishonesty: Regardless of whether or not I personally have made a false statement in a completely different thread and refuse to allow you to divert the discussion in THIS thread, that's completely irrelevant to my RELEVANT assertion about you in this thread.

But there you go, jumping at the chance to change the focus from yourself (YOU claimed in THIS thread "I'm honest," and I replied to that claim) to me. My honesty isn't the issue; yours is. By refusing to engage on THAT subject, you're being intellectually dishonest. And you do this type of thing MOST of the time, not just occasionally.

You've given your opinion with no facts. What am I supposed to do with that?

Your origin of life nonsense is just an example of your dishonesty (or incompetence) but we can shelf that for now. Tell me exactly how I have been intellectually dishonest, with examples.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's nice there's a new person for P&N to stand in unity against now that Texashiker is rarely here.

If only we could get him threatening to marry his toaster, this place would feel like home again.