In absolutes like you with Zegh. That is what I meant, but I guess I do need to include the qualifier. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
But getting back to the point I made: Unless you change your mind about reading Zegh--and that is where we differ; I don't think I ever claimed to stop reading Cal only to hunt him around the board later, I simply said he was full of shit and kept on reading--my point remains valid. I know you will disagree, but hey, that's life.
Another round? 
Oh I get the differences and they are a) not that significant and b) make no point as to being intellectually dishonest. Its just virtue signalling (I am better than you in x respect .... therefore my point has more weight and you are wrong)
Here is how it goes:
You say "I kept reading Cal" This is you saying a) I am better than you because you did not read Zegh and I did read Cal b) THEREFORE You have no position you can hold about whether Zegh is full of shit or not AND I can.
The fact is I can and I do, BUT more than this. You read Calandale's posts, right? According to you and I am happy to accept this as truth. Your assertion that NOT doing so would make you Intellectually dishonest (which is what you accuse me of being for exactly that reason). Your premise being that if you miss their posts then how can you say or mean someone is full of shit.
"You did not miss any of Calandale's posts and therefore missed no reference he could have made on Intensity. Therefore you are perfectly placed to pass judgement on him being full of shit whereas as I am not because I do not read Zegh at all."
Well now THAT would be a monumental lie. How many posts DID you miss of Calandale's in that time? None? A couple may have slipped through? A few a day? See, I know and you know, and many here know, the amount Calandale posted a day, every day. I clocked him one day at 75 posts and that was an average kind of a day for him. So I am not the slightest bit interested in the fact that you did not seek to not read him at all, but rather what you missed each day over a six month period. Now let's consider that against this standard "You did not miss any of Calandale's posts and therefore missed no reference he could have made on Intensity. Therefore you are perfectly placed to pass judgement on him being full of shit whereas as I am not because you do not read Zegh at all. "
Okay so you missed a whole lot of what he did, or did not say, and so contextually are not in a strong position to make such proclamations IF this is your standard. In fact all the difference between my position and your position as I say would amount to virtue signalling, which is barely window dressing. Its you saying "Well at least I made some kind of an effort". That doesn't impress me and it ought not impress you either.
So you would be essentially saying you were missing a substantial amount of what Cal said compared to me missing all of what Zegh said over 6 months. In percentage 100% will always be higher and in numbers I honestly did not miss as many of Zegh's posts as you would have missed of Cal's.
But then we look at Dr Bitch's claim to be studying Medicine. I doubt that she was, but I have no idea. You categorically said she was not and said she was "full of shit" for saying so. It was her second day posting. You had 18 small posts of her's by which to make this claim. So let's apply YOUR standard. You read her and you based it on ALL of the 18 posts she wrote as a member on the site for two days THEREFORE you can make that educated opinion and could not be at all intellectually dishonest. I mean Hell I have read many hundreds of posts of Zegh's over 7 years before I finally adopted the position that he was full of shit and not worth reading BUT look at you with your standard.
Now I do not deal in absolutes. Implying that I do, over Zegh or anything, is false and you know that absolutely. This standard of yours is certainly a standard but it is not the method by which one should measure intellectual dishonesty or judge it on. You refuse to look past this and look at context, and your refusal to look past your "You did not read him so you can't know" mantra is limited, weak and uncontextualised. That is why things like your own expressing people as being full of shit when examined fall to pieces when considered against your very own standard.
Why you know absolutely that I do not deal in absolutes with Zegh is that I have been equally as negative and opinionated about a good many people here (Nocturnalist, Bob, Randy, Richard, Penty, Butterflies, Squiddy, Scrapheap, Bint, Adam,.....actually more than a few people) and VERY few have I remained "absolute" about and I do not deal in "absolutes". In fact I get on with MANY people I have had an issue with. It is not that Zegh is different other than the fact I have stopped reading him. This YOU know absolutely. You are not confused about it or under any misapprehension. You have known me and my posting style over about 8 years so let's drop the "absolutes" arguments. Its bullshit and you and I know its bullshit.
"So you are saying then Al, that if it is not absolutes you will be nice to him and start reading him and...." NO. I have no reason to. Were I to get the impression he had changed, like I found out Penty had changed (from what someone else had posted) I would consider reserving judgement and reading. I did the same with Skyblue (Oppps he should have been on the list too LOL) and was shat on for it by him. I read what Richard said and again reserved judgment and he seems pretty cool now days. So let's drop the absolutes thing all together. Unqualified it was a lie and I would like to think that qualifying it was more desperate than dishonest.
You understand don't you Odeon, that your claim was baseless and weak? The intellectual dishonesty claim was not strong when it was padded with the tiptoeing claim or the pretense claim or the dishonesty claim nor the semantics claim. You have dropped each of these and now The thing I was accused of being intellectually dishonest in saying, you have said under similar conditions and when stripped down and examined the ways they are different is neither significant nor does either make a case for someone being full of shit as to not being full of shit.
The truth is and has always been that saying someone is full of shit, is simply saying that they talk a load of crap. It is not a position from which to claim someone is intellectually dishonest UNLESS the claim can be made for either the person not believing the claim they made (and I do of Zegh) or that the person accused of talking crap, does not talk crap (which Zegh certainly does). What kind of crap? Inconsequential things?, Lies? Yes but what about talking themselves up or insults or condescension, poorly thought out positions or stupid personal stories or experiences? Would any of that count as crap? Yes.
Do you need to have read EVERYTHING that person has ever said to make that assessment about them? NO. Is it saying EVERYTHING that they say MUST meet the conditions of being crap? No.
But this you know. You know the claim was bullshit. You know Zegh talks a load of shit because that is his posting style. Inconsequential things, Lies, talking himself up, insults, condescension, poorly thought out positions, stupid personal stories or experiences he hits the jackpot? Ergo he is full of shit. Doesn't mean that this is all he does. Hey you could say "Well I think YOU are full of shit, Al." Go for it. I will not call you intellectually dishonest because THAT would be stupid but I may ask you to explain what elements of what I think are full of shit. In fact I think at times people have made similar claims and I when they say things like "You write novel sized boring posts" I shrug. Its a fair comment. Again I do not call it intellectual dishonesty and I would be stupid to do so.
If you asked (without context) people at random, whether they thought
a) Obama
b) Hillary Clinton
c) Bernie Sanders
d) Donald Trump
e) Glenn Beck
f) Rush Limbaugh
g) Bill O'Reilly
were full of shit. Most people (presuming that they know who these people are) would agree with that assessment with at least a couple of those people. (I think I'd agree each of them to at least some degree). The expression does NOT and NEVER has conferred an expectation that you must know everything they have said or religiously follow them. Watch a handful of Glenn Beck interviews and if you are not convinced the guy is completely full of shit, you are seriously without any appreciable intellectual rigour. You do not HAVE to watch EVERYTHING he says to give you a moral hi five that you can hold the incontestable position that you are right about him, and NOT doing so does not make you intellectually dishonest when you proclaim he is full of shit.
It is and always was an argument that was beneath you Odeon. One you ought not have made in the first place and certainly ought not have defended.
