No more mantra, Odeon. Back yourself.

[odeon]

Of course I wanted a reaction, three months ago. I thought then, and think now, that you were being intellectually dishonest, that you took the easy way out, when it comes to Zegh. You know perfectly well why I think so. You may not agree, but you know nevertheless, because I have explained why. It doesn't actually matter you called my arguments weak because you never convinced me I was wrong about it. It takes more than you saying so, even if you turn it to a mantra.

And it doesn't help that you indirectly, and sometimes directly, imply I am acting dishonestly, that I have a hidden agenda. I don't. It's not about me being tired of the ninja cats. As I've said several times, if you want to go on chasing Zegh across the board, fine. Do it. He was always able to handle you.

Now, of course, it turns out that you were wrong about him. You might have found out about it yourself but you were too busy posting ninja cats. In other words, you were too busy taking the easy way out. Case closed, I'd say, because this is exactly what I meant and exactly why you were being intellectually dishonest according to the definition I provided.

But emotional blackmail? Really, mate? Is that what you want to call it when I'm trying to end this because I think continuing being friends might be a tad more important than a three-month argument on an internet message board that isn't going anywhere? Fine, if you think that's what it was, I won't bother you with a peace offering again.

So let me address your misconceptions, even though you have already lost this one.

One:

Yes, it was always only an expression. You took it literally the first time around, which I didn't realise at the time. What it meant then and what it means now is that your words and actions both showed that no matter what, Zegh was "full of shit", that he couldn't change. I think you mentioned that latter bit, too, btw. My point, on the other hand, was that you should instead have either read his posts to find out for yourself, if you were following him around anyway, or stopped following him but with your convictions intact.

Two:

Yes, it would appear that I called you dishonest without the qualifier. I addressed what that post was about:

Don't pretend that you're replying to Zegh only because he did it first, that's all I'm saying.

Isn't that exactly what happened?

I haven't been pretending a damn thing and whether I replied first or he did, I don't believe I have made any indication one way or another that I am replying to him for that reason and I am"pretending" Nothing.

Odeon can no doubt tell us that he was not making decrees or demands as the owner of the board about what I can say or do. He can also make a case as to what pretence of mine he is referencing.

Again, mate, I don't care who started this. It doesn't matter after all this time, if it ever did. The fact is that you do this because you enjoy it, you both do, and pretending it's something else (which was my impression of the post I replied to) is just dishonest.

Show me exactly what I have pretended and whilst you do that I will show again and again that I said that I do enjoy it.
Odeon are you an Aspie, or a male, or a resident of Sweden?
Pick one and do not pretend to be anything other than that one specific thing you pick.
How fucking stupid would that statement be? Tell me you are not doing the same. I WILL find where I said I enjoy this.
Up to you now to show what exactly I am pretending.

This one was what I replied to, after skimming through a couple of your previous ones:

My misunderstanding then. Personally not gooad at reading between the lines, and sometimes read things between the lines which aren't really there.

No you were on the money. If Zegh thinks I read his posts religiously and the PM's he sends me, I am chuffed. Not reading someone's posts and answering them without sounding vague, non-specific or random is tricky. If I do a good job, I am pleased. Since the Twilight posts and the Neanderthal face painting posts I had started skimming and not long after that I stopped reading his. Glad my posting doesn't suffer too much and he believes I still am reading his twaddle.

Here's what I don't get:

If you don't read his posts, why reply to them? What's the point?

Great question.
I am actually surprised no one asked it earlier.
Disclaimer. I am really drunk -  Long weekend (and see condolence for $130 thread I wrote earlier) and so I may not do the explanation justice but...

I honestly think it evolved from the Neanderthal face (testicle)Painters and then the "Twilight" threads and evolved from there. I realised just how worthless his threads were. There was actually MORE benefit skimming them.
I had called him out many times on blatant dishonesty. He was being condescending and I could not appreciate from what moral or intellectual platform or position he thought he was humouring me from.
What if I did not respond to him and what if I did not read him. One question was easily answered. He talked bullshit and was a smarmy, sarcastic git. Why read him? Why feed his ego?
At the same time, I had really enjoyed giving him shit/mocking him/criticising him.
Skimming his posts and replying had been a lot of fun. But if I couldn't read him at all???
Trickier but not impossible and I realised that he kept responding. Sometimes with pictures to give me a hint at what he was going on about. Sometimes lengthy posts with Caps lock which I could only imagine would be lengthy diatribes, other times shorter posts which I imagined snappy smarmy putdowns. But to help me out, I had three supports, My previous posts to gauge what "I" had had said, to which he was replying to (or if Psychofreak had replied, her post) to guide me as to what his response would be, I had my knowledge of him, and lastly I had people's replied to his bullshit.
8 Months in and you look for additional challenges ("Ninja Cat" memes, Template memes, skimming him, not reading him, or whatever).
Relying on this, how do I do? Apparently okay. I am coherent enough apparently.
You will notice I do often hedge my bets and give multiple choice ("You are either doing x, y or z"). Even so, my ego is I do more right than not because he is still posting at me.

This, to me, is one of your more ambivalent posts. On one hand, you seem to be claiming that you don't read his posts but at the same time, the opposite seems to be true as well. You say that you think he is posting bullshit which is kind of hard to know if you don't actually read the posts. It's also hard to know what, exactly, he did promise to do for 30 days if you don't read his posts.

I'm pretty sure the various ninja cats and whatnot were the results of not reading Zegh's posts, which is why many of them are just off and rather pointless.

I think you reply because you enjoy it regardless of who started what and when, and I'm glad we seem to agree on that point. It just seems to me that you were pretending to have other reasons as well, which is why I replied. Happy to be wrong, though.

I tend to prefer your non-Zegh posts, though, so I probably won't be reading the Zegh ones. I' might skim through them.

Reading your next quote from me, I fail to spot the inconsistency. I'm sure you had a point but you failed to make it.


Three:

I said this:

Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
Why not quote the context?

AND.....here it is.

Well, I think my argument does have substance. The message is a simple one: if you don't read Zegh's posts, you can't actually know he is full of shit. You can make assumptions but you can't know.

I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.

Why you don't see this is anyone's guess. I certainly don't know.

I don't see a point with continuing this, as we are basically running around in circles and none of us is likely to change the other's views in any significant way. I will give you this, however: I regret using the word "pretend" in the posts that preceded this callout when intellectual dishonesty is what I actually wanted to highlight. My message is unchanged, but my choice of words could have been better.

We really should leave this to the peanut gallery now.

I have been trying to work out why you have been so invested in such pitifully weak premises and arguments. What was the agenda? What was the "real reason"?

What would drive YOU a decent communicator, a good debaters and a smart man to make the claims in the first place and then hold on to them. I am not stupid, Odeon and I know YOU are not stupid and would not believe me to be stupid.

I did however let this evade me, somehow.

There was something behind this distraction. Some reason that you would make indefensible points. This is what it is.

I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.

You reacted BECAUSE you dislike me feuding with Zegh and saying bad things to him. You think it has gone on long enough and want me to lay off him and no longer be a constant in the forum.

THAT actually makes sense. It also makes sense that you would make a bad claim to start with and throw worse claim after worse to obfuscate things. It would also mean that you would "dig in" and not see what you would otherwise see in others as really shit arguments. You are invested in this argument but not because you actually agree with your shit arguments particularly but the reason behind you making them in the first place are important to you. Also perhaps explains the reason I was getting a vibe of righteous indignation from you.

That said, do you imagine your efforts here have achieved anything?
When you said:

I would never have reacted if you had posted such opinions once or twice, but this has been going on for months. It's becoming one of the constants in this forum.

Do you imagine in reacting, that I would not double down? Do you imagine that doing this would put winding things down about as far from my mind as possible? Curious.

I don't actually care if you wind it down or not. You going after Zegh is not the issue, it never was. He is a big boy and can take care of himself, just as you can. Just as DFG can, for that matter.

What is really strange is that you refuse to accept what I've been saying all along. It's as if you almost get it, sometimes. Almost but not quite. You even highlight a key trigger, yet you seem to think that it must be something else, something BIGGER, not something as simple and straight-forward as me being annoyed by the intellectual dishonesty you've displayed.

You also fail to see that your tiptoeing around DFG (and yes, it's my perception, it's not objective and never was, but the more I think about it, the more it fits, so fucking live with it) is not just something incidental, it's directly connected to this. Maybe it's why you don't see it, that blindness I think I mentioned in a post. I don't know. And what's sad is that you probably don't either.

Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.

I know, it makes it a lot harder to prove an inconsistency, but I think you mentioned something about believing in fairness. Fair is to quote the context instead of trying to make cheap and ultimately worthless points.


Five:

Where is the inconsistency in me first stating that reading pretence into your actions is my *impression* and then, a week later, saying that I regret using that word when intellectual dishonesty is what I was after? I can admit it when I think I was using the wrong word. Can you?


Six:

As a champion of fairness, be honest enough to quote context. Here is the first:

No.

Are you prolonging it because you like it? IMHO, you've lost the argument.

Semantic differences are important since you say it's ganging up and I say it isn't. Semantics is about meaning

Sometimes they absolutely are. But here is the difference. I called this BUT I do not care. You explained why you think its wrong. Okay.

You don't care. How is that an argument for your case? It is an argument for you not bothering about meaning and definitions, and so ultimately about the very basis for any callout--a common vocabulary.

It's a beautiful green sky this morning. The moon is climbing fast.

See how this works?

Is it important? Not to me.

I think we established that.

It is not a hill for me to die on. I have for the most part been ignoring Butterflies (apart from a chat about Feminism). I have been teasing Zegh a little about hiding behind her skirts. You say that ganging up was the "wrong" term or I misread the situation in respect to what was going on? Fine. I don't care. I was not that invested in it. You tell me how I should perceive this and I will go along with that. No, honestly make a good case and I will take it that you have the inside scoop.  I just care nothing whether he was or not

In other words, you don't care about the semantics, you just use a word that is dramatic enough, no matter the consequences? I'm not telling you how to perceive anything, I'm calling you out on the way you describe a situation even though you admit that the meanings of the words you use aren't important and could be wrong.

Ganging up is a dramatic phrase. It implies all kinds of things, most of which are at least a bit nasty. Yet here you are, stating that it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters, and I think you know it. The Al I know is good enough with words to know.

I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to decide the level of dishonesty of this particular point.

For example, If he was on a sabbatical from posting shit at DFG and myself and that was reasonably cut short for reasons I am not aware of and she happened to come across things on her own volition that incensed her to start on DFG from the get go and the act of doing this somehow removed Zegh's self-imposed ban....

It was probably a lot of things but a ban it wasn't. Again, meaning is important. But then, you don't read him, you assume that the impression you get by reading quoted bits and by observing the reactions of others, and, for all I know, posting ninja cats and the reactions to those, is enough, is correct, is true. But if it isn't, it doesn't really matter.

That about right? And remember that what we are discussing here is not the true nature of Zegh's character, even though it's what you try to make it to be, we are discussing whether or not your assumptions, your not knowing (and admitting that you don't know), are an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

Don't you think this is intellectually dishonest?

Great! I don't care, but great. I am happy to adopt this new "right" way to view things. Spell it out an let me know. Otherwise I may well have the "wrong" opinion on this and I do not care enough about whether they were ganging up or not. It looked like it, I called it and moved on. I was never that invested in it.

We are debating things here. Are you saying that I'm enforcing my views on you? Are you the victim after calling me out?

Which means that you don't know but still maintain you're calling him on his bullshit. Sorry, but to me that's dishonest.

Except it isn't.

Archaeologists for example work with a base understanding centered around assumptions from which they gauge a world they cannot know intimately from hard and fast acts. SO...they are dishonest.

Don't you think that an archaeologist would ask that dead pharaoh directly if s/he could? Going with your comparison, you can.

Psychologists that profile people in examining crime and try to track down serial killers and the like, cannot know so they need to assume certain things. So really they are just making assumptions. SO.....they are dishonest.

They, too, would talk to the subject directly if they could. They, too, would immediately revise their assumptions based on any new evidence.

I can keep going.

So can I but I'd rather not.

But I hope the point is being made. Assumption=/= dishonest. They are not synonymous and you are seeming to try to make this case and put it down to semantics. It isn't....at all.

No, I'm using semantics because you brought it up. It is handy, though, isn't it, because it provides me with the tools I need to prove you wrong.

IF I at any point actually said specifically that I DID know more than I can know or denied I made these assumptions you may have something. Don't call it semantics, Odeon.

See above.

Zegh is full of it

Isn't he just. But IF I say that he has no interest in sorting things out, YES there are assumptions on my part. BUT are they based on anything?

Don't quote me out of context.

1. His want to avoid ownership or responsibilities for his part for 8 months (until recently sometime I understand....well done Zegh) for having any part in things.
2. His 30 day hiatus (whatever the parameters of that were) that he could not uphold for a week.
3. PM's I have shown by which he encouraged me to harass him until he left (Not that this is what I am doing but begging for me to do so is evidence of him not wanting this sorted out).

1. Not interested. It's not what this is about.
2. It's not a ban now, it's a hiatus? Otherwise, not interested. It's not what this is about.
3. Not interested. It's not what this is about.

Again you make this assumption thing to be an all or nothing.

No, I'm discussing semantics and the value of words. If you assume, you don't know. See my previous posts for the rest of it because I can't be arsed to repeat it again.

No, even assumptions often are based on pretty solid reasoning and not all assumptions carry the same rigour. To assume this is the case is silly (joking).

So IS Zegh full of bullshit? You have my opinion of him strewn across this board and a LOT of it is based on similar reasoning. Maybe I am wrong but I make a decent case for it.

Or maybe you are wrong.

You *assume* something to be the case and act based on that assumption, even though that's all you have. Well, that and your back and forth from whenever it was that you still read his posts

Exactly. You make assumptions too. We all do. In fact interpreting any motive or intent of anyone here comes with certain amount of assumption. It does not make it wrong to do so. Nor is it dishonest to do so. Nor is it strange or silly.

Depends on what you do with your assumptions. I have already stated that part of my case and am not interested in repeating it.

Of course you could say, "But Al, you are a logical kind of guy, why not get better proof? Read what he says and there will be less room for possible misinterpretations or errors of judgment"

Which is what I think you should do.

My answer to that would be "No thanks". He writes bullshit. He is not worth my time reading. IF that makes his mess harder for him to resolve I don't much care about that either.

His mess? Yours, too, mate. This is the second callout on the subject.

But I'm done here. I think I've presented my case as well as I can and so leave it to the peanut gallery to decide if it has any value.

And here is the second:

Seriously, mate?

Seriously.

Hey I did not bring that up as an issue. But IF it is an issue. We should really get to a point where we know what is "acceptable". IS "dogpiling" and "mobbing" okay? I would not have thought twice about it previously. Then again I would not have thought "ganging up" was a bad turn of phrase.

YOU obviously do and put a lot of investment into it as the quotes above show. It IS important OR its not. IF it isn't then it ought never have been a point to your callout.

I did not think it was. YOU did. I am after other opinions on it.

For fuck's sake, I didn't object to the word, I objected to you stating that Butterflies was ganging up with somebody. She did, too, which is why I thought you decided to drop it. How is it possible that you so completely misread what I was saying?

Unless you are butthurt over a callout that didn't get you anywhere.

As you can see, it's not about the phrase, it's about you stating that Butterflies ganged up with somebody. You obviously had a problem with the phrase, though, considering you started a thread about it.

But all I wanted to say was that you said Butterflies was doing something she said she wasn't.


Seven:

Yes, I thought you made a good argument. I thought you liked fairness and listening to one another's points, and admitting fault. Do you want me to take it back?


Eight:

I'm sorry but did you have an actual point here? You had Jack do the hard lifting for you. You were still taking the easy way out. Kind of a bitch when it turns out that you were wrong, isn't it?


Finally:

I realise that no matter what I say, this will continue. I think you are unable to back down now, for whatever reason, and I think it is
unfortunate. It is your choice, though, and I shall try not being too nasty.

[odeon]

And here is a message to Scrap:

If you think I am being inconsistent or dishonest, prove it. Call me out. Don't hide in other people's threads like a little girl.

Or is it that you don't feel safe if you call me out?

[Al Swearegen]

Of course I wanted a reaction, three months ago. I thought then, and think now, that you were being intellectually dishonest, that you took the easy way out, when it comes to Zegh. You know perfectly well why I think so. You may not agree, but you know nevertheless, because I have explained why. It doesn't actually matter you called my arguments weak because you never convinced me I was wrong about it. It takes more than you saying so, even if you turn it to a mantra.

Then be of good cheer Odeon. You wanted a reaction 3 months ago and three months ago you got a reaction. Probably a bigger reaction than you ever imagined.

And it doesn't help that you indirectly, and sometimes directly, imply I am acting dishonestly, that I have a hidden agenda. I don't. It's not about me being tired of the ninja cats. As I've said several times, if you want to go on chasing Zegh across the board, fine. Do it. He was always able to handle you.

Why would I chase him around the board? I have resolved things with him for the past.
If you wish for more ninja cats you do not have to plead for the seeing of them. I have them in abundance.

I call this one Neo.

It does not help that I see no substance behind what you say and what looks like contradictions and inconsistencies in your message along 3 months.

I am a pretty easy person to figure. I say what I think and will do so one novel at a time. That is me. My message today is pretty much identical to what it was 3 months ago. It may make me predictable or stubborn or opinionated and an absolute pain in the arse BUT it is transparent, honest and consistent with my set of values. (Which ironically flies in the face of the kind of mindset needed for intellectual dishonesty).

Now, of course, it turns out that you were wrong about him. You might have found out about it yourself but you were too busy posting ninja cats. In other words, you were too busy taking the easy way out. Case closed, I'd say, because this is exactly what I meant and exactly why you were being intellectually dishonest according to the definition I provided.

I was wrong about him? Well, without starting things up again, I really do not think so. I think I was spot on with him and I read a few random posts the last few days until I well and truly had my fill, just to confirm.

That said, I am happy to give credit where credit is due. At one point in this and after obviously more than a little coaxing and thought he did try to bridge the gap. That WAS him and I am please to recognise that. Took some guts. That is why I have called off hostilities with him. Jack was right, it WAS what I wanted from him and I got it.

Now taking that anomaly aside. I (as I say) looked at a few posts he has made in the last 3 months, some that I stopped myself from reacting to, and to a post they were exactly what I had been saying. In fact when you were promoting the "How would you know if you do not read him", well now I have and I was NOT wrong in my estimation.

This is looking to me like "Well my initial callout was based around your behaviour in the feuding between you and Zegh and now that you two are squared away, I think we should pretend that I said nothing. My underlying issue for baiting you in the first place is resolved so..." No.

But emotional blackmail? Really, mate? Is that what you want to call it when I'm trying to end this because I think continuing being friends might be a tad more important than a three-month argument on an internet message board that isn't going anywhere? Fine, if you think that's what it was, I won't bother you with a peace offering again.

Yes "really mate". It absolutely is emotional blackmail. It says quite transparently "If you do not drop this argument, we can't be friends. Chose the argument or my friendship". I do not play that game. Never have and never will. Makes me inclined to want to dig my heels in when I feel like I am being played.

As to whether or not you offer peace offerings, I do not believe I asked for that, in the same way I never asked for you baiting me in the first place.

So let me address your misconceptions, even though you have already lost this one.

I have yet to see me having lost anything so THAT may be the biggest misconception of them all....but not on my end.

Yes, it was always only an expression. You took it literally the first time around, which I didn't realise at the time. What it meant then and what it means now is that your words and actions both showed that no matter what, Zegh was "full of shit", that he couldn't change. I think you mentioned that latter bit, too, btw. My point, on the other hand, was that you should instead have either read his posts to find out for yourself, if you were following him around anyway, or stopped following him but with your convictions intact.

"Should have" or "could have"? There is no specific designated to do much of anything here. That is simply you subscribing YOUR want of how "I" have to behave on here. Here is the answer to any such expectation (in advance and without you expressing any specific action or behaviour) "No, Odeon, but thank you for the suggestion".

See once that is out the way then it becomes a question of whilst I could, why should I? I know you have a very specific reading of intellectual dishonesty and want to apply it a very specific way but it really does not do what you want it to do. Here is what I mean. Its silly to say "If you subscribe to the idea or concept of a word then you subscribe to every possible negative connotation of what the word may remotely imply when carrying through this concept to absurd extremes."
Maybe sometimes a specific reading or a literal reading is better and I dare say more healthier and honest.
Want an example?

However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's IntellectualHonesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations

Recognise this? Yes, its part of your Intellectual Dishonesty definition. But it is not just any part of the definition/explanation. It is the part that you think thoroughly supports your position. You believe because you think that my behaviour meets an interpretation of what this part of an explanation of Intellectual Dishonesty, that is it a slam dunk or game, set and match.

Unless we see how this same interpretation may play out in ANY other environment. Pick a polarising figure. Let use Trump. Most people have an opinion on him and most people know who he is. Go up to a friend, colleague, or a random, and ask them this "What do you think of Donald Trump and why?" Now whatever their answer, I want you to say "But you have not heard everything they said and in fact I bet you have hard listened to anything but a few soundbytes or a couple of other people's interpretations. One has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's Intellectual Honesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations".

I double dare you.  Truth is that these people having such an opinion on Donald Trump is not Intellectually Dishonest, and neither was I for exactly the same reasons. In the same reason that these people do NOT need to watch or read more to have a better informed decision to mitigate risk in being intellectually dishonest, is the same reason I don't.

You need to have a bit more. Now what if with these people you were to say "Look, I have some better arguments, and can show you that you were incorrect". Well it depends. Maybe you don't have better arguments, or dont have what THEY consider better arguments, maybe they have other reasons for not wishing to hear more ("Dude you are harassing me on a street, I don't even know you"). BUT in the event that they do listen or see a different point of view, then them now agreeing with a new position, or changing their mind is not intellectually dishonest, nor does it mean/suggest/imply that they were intellectually dishonest in the first place.

Had I not been saying quite clearly, "If I am wrong show me"? (paraphrased Just letting you know I still know what that means, my Tutor). If you do not believe me, I can show quotes to back this, because you know I do not have a problem in backing myself (Something I would struggle with IF I was Intellectually Dishonest, right?). So my reaction and my conduct is not intellectually dishonest. In fact for all my "not getting it" and being "too literal" I am very honest and transparent and consistent.

This is akin to the following situation:
Odeon: "What do you think of Donald Trump and why?"
Workmate: "He is America's only hope. Go Trump!/He is a racist, sexist, hateful bigot that is all bluster and bad hair"
Odeon: "But you have not heard everything they said and in fact I bet you have hard listened to anything but a few soundbytes or a couple of other people's interpretations. One has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's Intellectual Honesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations"
Workmate: Fuck you.
Odeon: Haha fair call, what an idiot I was promoting this interpretation of what Intellectual dishonesty is. But hey out of interest could you look at this unfiltered and unedited clip of Trump, it may make you change your mind about something.
Workmate: Sure I guess
<<Watches Clip>>
Workmate: Well I initially thought he is America's only hope. Go Trump!/He is a racist, sexist, hateful bigot that is all bluster and bad hair BUT now, in light of this new piece of information that I was not aware of I think he is He is a racist, sexist, hateful bigot that is all bluster and bad hair/he is America's only hope. Go Trump!
Odeon: Well all's well that ends well. You know, you were not intellectually dishonest after all. It was a silly interpretation. In fact intellectual dishonesty is more about intent and whether people are being open and honest in the way they look at things. You appeared honest in your opinions, transparent, and open to new information, BUT you were not obliged to have to see everything of him to have an opinion. I mean when did you last read or actually watch anything of him?
Workmate: I dunno six months?
Odeon: But there, you had strong opinions regardless and they were not intellectually dishonest to have nor were you wrong in having or expressing them. So I was wrong saying you were intellectually dishonest.
Workmate: Dude are you tutoring me here?
Odeon: I like tutoring and pretending you are too stupid to have concepts or ideas of your own.

Can you see the flaw? (BTW My opinion of Zegh has not changed. But because he did all I asked I will not pursue hostilities, let's not try to confuse issues, right?)

Yes, it would appear that I called you dishonest without the qualifier. I addressed what that post was about:

Lots of exchange between us

Reading your next quote from me, I fail to spot the inconsistency. I'm sure you had a point but you failed to make it.

Yes you called me dishonest without a qualifier, in the same way you said I was pretending and in the same way you said I was trying to be dramatic and infer something nasty in the term "ganging up" and in the same way you said I was tiptoeing. All of it was as wrong.

They were  just as wrong as the Intellectual Dishonesty claim. They are all separate claims you made at me at different times and you made each of those charges for a reaction from me that you are now enjoying. Just as well we are mates.

As for the second point yes I was never dishonest about calling him out on his dishonesty nor dishonest about not reading him. If so show me what dishonest thing that I said. Back yourself. You will have to do a damn sight better than something generic like "Zegh is full of shit". Better also be something uniformed that I had no good reason to believe. No? So have you got an empty sack here or have you not?

I said this:

Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
Why not quote the context?

More discussion

I know, it makes it a lot harder to prove an inconsistency, but I think you mentioned something about believing in fairness. Fair is to quote the context instead of trying to make cheap and ultimately worthless points.

Because it would have made no difference. It is not worthless on your say so and your posting does not make it less inconsistent or moreso.

Is it intellectually dishonesty or a blindspot or something else completely. You seem to be hedging your bets $50 on red and $50 on black. THAT is the inconsistency. Moving between positions but not actually adopting either and no I believe that having a blindspot by its "blindness" is not intellectual dishonesty" (not that I find that an admirable trait nor a nice claim and not that I think I have a blindspot over all of this either). These are not a subsets of each other but rather different claims.

Where is the inconsistency in me first stating that reading pretence into your actions is my *impression* and then, a week later, saying that I regret using that word when intellectual dishonesty is what I was after? I can admit it when I think I was using the wrong word. Can you?

Sure can. Not sure I have had grounds to here.
Its more of the same. Dishonesty. Pretence. Intellectual Dishonesty. Tiptoeing. All the same to me. Defend them, abandon them, merge them into what you consider a better claim or change your mind. Its fine. I was simply shining a mirror to your posting history. You used the words you used and I am reacting to what you said. Which is what you wanted.

As a champion of fairness, be honest enough to quote context. Here is the first:

More discussion

As you can see, it's not about the phrase, it's about you stating that Butterflies ganged up with somebody. You obviously had a problem with the phrase, though, considering you started a thread about it.

But all I wanted to say was that you said Butterflies was doing something she said she wasn't.

Oh....."I" OBVIOUSLY had a problem with the phrase and THAT was my reason for starting a thread about it? Except, of course, that was not in any way shape or form correct. YOU had a problem with the phrase YOU said here in what you quoted

Ganging up is a dramatic phrase. It implies all kinds of things, most of which are at least a bit nasty. Yet here you are, stating that it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters, and I think you know it. The Al I know is good enough with words to know.

That was not me. That was YOU. 100% YOU. I did not have an issue with the word. I objected with what you were implying of what I thought in my own head about the word, or how I meant to infer or imply anything. As a result I started a thread so that I had "better alternatives" to use, should ever such an occasion come again, when two or more members of Intensitysquared took an interest in another member, and were negatively interacting with that person. Got lots of suggestions too.

Let's keep it real. I did not have a problem with the word nor did I the action. You did. You SAY I meant the word to be dramatic. I didn't. You say I was trying to infer something nasty. I wasn't. Where that was taking place was in YOUR head, not mine. It was either just a phrase or it was something nasty and dramatic. I simply used it to say that Butterflies and Zegh were collectively "criticising" DFG. End of. No implication of anything more and no judgement. That was best left to you to try to make unwarranted mileage out of.

Yes, I thought you made a good argument. I thought you liked fairness and listening to one another's points, and admitting fault. Do you want me to take it back?

I do not really mind what you do. I mention this as part of a large pattern. You make unfounded claims to bait me and I react to them. A lot of these claims are neither fair, reasonable or strong claims. None of them are true.

Now you can say "Oh but I merged that claim or I retracted that claim". That is perfectly reasonable to point out. Each of these things individually and at their face is fine. BUT (and here is the point of it), collectively and given the relatively short period of time to consider each of these claims COLLECTIVELY it looks like a metaphoric shotgun blast. Shotgun pellets will scatter and do damage but much of it negligible. Whatever or whoever is the recipient of said shotgun blast need not concentrate on the damage of wayward pellets but ought to look at the whole blast and all the pellets collectively. Same intent, same purpose and part of a greater and collective blast.

They were all equally as wrong. They were all unfair. They were all said for a reaction. They all collectively got a reaction.

I'm sorry but did you have an actual point here? You had Jack do the hard lifting for you. You were still taking the easy way out. Kind of a bitch when it turns out that you were wrong, isn't it?

Hahaha. I dunno, Odeon when you realise you were wrong in all of this tell me just what a bitch it is.

Just so we are on the same page here because I would HATE to second guess or put words in your mouth. You are not so fucking stupid to for a second believe that the fact that, just because Zegh wrote his acceptance of his part in things, that this makes me wrong about what I thought about him or that he is now somehow right...?

No? Great! I did not think so. Whew, that could have got awkward.

Again I did not take the easy way out of ...anything. I have since read some of what he did say over the last six months and I now, after taking the "easier way" (to read what he said) I  am more assured of how spot on my convictions about who and what he is were all along. Reading is SO much easier than trying not reading and keeping a semblance of what he is talking about and who. The fact that I was as close as I was, is testament to the effort involved. Great work me.

I will save you the next argument if you like:
Odeon: "Oh...but there was something you missed from him at one point, Al".
Al: "Yes, yes there was......and?"
Odeon: "So therefore I was right because he said something in 6 months that you did not read and because you did not read everything he said in 6 months...."
Al: "I will stop you there. IF I WAS reading what he wrote, its possible I would have missed it anyhow. No one here reads everything everyone says on every thread. In fact an example of this is EVERY Peanut Gallery ever. How many people have read this thread? Jack is unusual in that regard. In fact the fact that I missed it and Jack supplied it is great. It was a little gem amongst the shit pile and Jack found it. It was all cleared up. That says nothing bad about intellectual dishonesty and rather makes the opposite point. It makes a greater point for doing what I said, adhering to my values and principles, and being honest and transparent. It also does not change my overall impression of Zegh. I am glad he posted what he did and yes I will hold true to what I said i would do.
Odeon: "too literal.....don't get it....intellectual dishonesty.....easy way out.....don't get it....too literal..."

So could you be a bit clearer with your point because that one was shit.

I realise that no matter what I say, this will continue. I think you are unable to back down now, for whatever reason, and I think it is
unfortunate. It is your choice, though, and I shall try not being too nasty.

It was your choice too. This did not all come out of a vacuum. I hear a lot of "your choice, your choice, your choice" Not much about your part in things. As I said a few times. You wanted a reaction and you have one. Why be sad? You got a reaction. You want to get nasty over my reaction to you? Your choice. You want to blame me for reacting to your fishing for a reaction? Fine. You want to threaten friendship over it? Okay. You are right, choices are involved.

But you have some points to defend and opinions to back. I will leave you with it.

[odeon]

Of course I wanted a reaction, three months ago. I thought then, and think now, that you were being intellectually dishonest, that you took the easy way out, when it comes to Zegh. You know perfectly well why I think so. You may not agree, but you know nevertheless, because I have explained why. It doesn't actually matter you called my arguments weak because you never convinced me I was wrong about it. It takes more than you saying so, even if you turn it to a mantra.

Then be of good cheer Odeon. You wanted a reaction 3 months ago and three months ago you got a reaction. Probably a bigger reaction than you ever imagined.

Three months of misconceptions and repetitions, combined with a refusal to accept other viewpoints than your own. Yes, I didn't expect that. I thought you would do better.

And it doesn't help that you indirectly, and sometimes directly, imply I am acting dishonestly, that I have a hidden agenda. I don't. It's not about me being tired of the ninja cats. As I've said several times, if you want to go on chasing Zegh across the board, fine. Do it. He was always able to handle you.

Why would I chase him around the board? I have resolved things with him for the past.

Jack resolved it for you. Without her, you would still be at it because you like to make things easy for yourself. A ninja cat was always funnier than bothering to read his posts. Why not admit it?

If you wish for more ninja cats you do not have to plead for the seeing of them. I have them in abundance.

I call this one Neo.

It does not help that I see no substance behind what you say and what looks like contradictions and inconsistencies in your message along 3 months.

I am a pretty easy person to figure. I say what I think and will do so one novel at a time. That is me. My message today is pretty much identical to what it was 3 months ago. It may make me predictable or stubborn or opinionated and an absolute pain in the arse BUT it is transparent, honest and consistent with my set of values. (Which ironically flies in the face of the kind of mindset needed for intellectual dishonesty).

Your values being "when I make up my mind, that's it until someone who is neutral will prove me wrong, in which case I transparently, honestly and consistently change my mind"?

Well done.

Now, of course, it turns out that you were wrong about him. You might have found out about it yourself but you were too busy posting ninja cats. In other words, you were too busy taking the easy way out. Case closed, I'd say, because this is exactly what I meant and exactly why you were being intellectually dishonest according to the definition I provided.

I was wrong about him? Well, without starting things up again, I really do not think so. I think I was spot on with him and I read a few random posts the last few days until I well and truly had my fill, just to confirm.

Except that you were. Otherwise you would still have been at it.

That said, I am happy to give credit where credit is due. At one point in this and after obviously more than a little coaxing and thought he did try to bridge the gap. That WAS him and I am please to recognise that. Took some guts. That is why I have called off hostilities with him. Jack was right, it WAS what I wanted from him and I got it.

Here is the thing: you'd never had seen it, or believed it, without Jack. You would have gone right on with your moronic hostilities, set in your beliefs.

You never considered ending what you were doing, he did, in spite of your steady stream oh hostile bullshit. Which, of course, means that it is you who needs help to change, not Zegh.

I expect the same to be true now, with me. I very much doubt anything I say will change your mind about anything. It would take someone else, someone neutral like Jack.

So yes, Jack was right. Which means that you were wrong.

Now taking that anomaly aside.

LOL

I (as I say) looked at a few posts he has made in the last 3 months, some that I stopped myself from reacting to, and to a post they were exactly what I had been saying. In fact when you were promoting the "How would you know if you do not read him", well now I have and I was NOT wrong in my estimation.

This is looking to me like "Well my initial callout was based around your behaviour in the feuding between you and Zegh and now that you two are squared away, I think we should pretend that I said nothing. My underlying issue for baiting you in the first place is resolved so..." No.

Says the guy who posted ninja cats and the like (an *expression*) for months. That is funny.

I suggested us to end this before Jack pointed out the errors of your ways, and actually again recently, not because I wanted to pretend anything but because I thought it would be better to move on. You called it emotional blackmail.

/shrugs

But emotional blackmail? Really, mate? Is that what you want to call it when I'm trying to end this because I think continuing being friends might be a tad more important than a three-month argument on an internet message board that isn't going anywhere? Fine, if you think that's what it was, I won't bother you with a peace offering again.

Yes "really mate". It absolutely is emotional blackmail. It says quite transparently "If you do not drop this argument, we can't be friends. Chose the argument or my friendship". I do not play that game. Never have and never will. Makes me inclined to want to dig my heels in when I feel like I am being played.

I'm glad you don't see this as a threat to our friendship, because I do. I think that if this escalates, which I suspect it will, it's going to be hard to be friends.

I don't want that, but neither do I want to be accused of emotional blackmail. I know what I meant when asking us to stop; you apparently don't.

Some years ago, I talked to a shrink about relationships. She pointed out that when two people disagree about the meaning behind something one of them said and can't agree, then with all things being equal, the interpretation should ultimately be up to the person who made the comment.

Her reasoning is that assuming that person tells the truth--which is advisable if the two actually want to resolve the differences instead of getting involved in a meta argument, an argument about the original argument that neither of them can win because that argument is always going to be about "he said, she said"--he or she will know why the comment was made.

I may be explaining this poorly, but essentially, you can either choose to accept my explanation about why I made the peace offering or choose to think I am lying. The former will resolve that particular argument while the latter will escalate it, as well as the ones that preceded it. You will have added another point of disagreement to the existing argument.

As to whether or not you offer peace offerings, I do not believe I asked for that, in the same way I never asked for you baiting me in the first place.

I never asked you to treat Zegh the way you did, either.

So let me address your misconceptions, even though you have already lost this one.

I have yet to see me having lost anything so THAT may be the biggest misconception of them all....but not on my end.

You were wrong about Zegh but needed a third party to point that out to you. You could have done it yourself but chose to not read his posts while making a point out of not reading him while stating how he was full of shit (an *expression*) and how he was unable to change.

Which is what I said, and which is why you lost.

Yes, it was always only an expression. You took it literally the first time around, which I didn't realise at the time. What it meant then and what it means now is that your words and actions both showed that no matter what, Zegh was "full of shit", that he couldn't change. I think you mentioned that latter bit, too, btw. My point, on the other hand, was that you should instead have either read his posts to find out for yourself, if you were following him around anyway, or stopped following him but with your convictions intact.

"Should have" or "could have"? There is no specific designated to do much of anything here. That is simply you subscribing YOUR want of how "I" have to behave on here. Here is the answer to any such expectation (in advance and without you expressing any specific action or behaviour) "No, Odeon, but thank you for the suggestion".

See once that is out the way then it becomes a question of whilst I could, why should I? I know you have a very specific reading of intellectual dishonesty and want to apply it a very specific way but it really does not do what you want it to do. Here is what I mean. Its silly to say "If you subscribe to the idea or concept of a word then you subscribe to every possible negative connotation of what the word may remotely imply when carrying through this concept to absurd extremes."
Maybe sometimes a specific reading or a literal reading is better and I dare say more healthier and honest.
Want an example?

No.

I told you why I think you were being intellectually dishonest. It was quite obvious then but even more obvious now. I know you disagree, but hey, that's life and and I have been proven right since.

However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's IntellectualHonesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations

Recognise this? Yes, its part of your Intellectual Dishonesty definition. But it is not just any part of the definition/explanation. It is the part that you think thoroughly supports your position. You believe because you think that my behaviour meets an interpretation of what this part of an explanation of Intellectual Dishonesty, that is it a slam dunk or game, set and match.

<snipped a pointless and irrelevant discussion and imagined conversation about whothefuckknowswhat>

Can you see the flaw? (BTW My opinion of Zegh has not changed. But because he did all I asked I will not pursue hostilities, let's not try to confuse issues, right?)

Which is your way of trying to convince someone, I really don't now who, that while proved wrong, you somehow weren't but you chose to stop hostilities anyway because that's just the kind of guy you are.

My bullshit detector just went off the scale.

Yes, it would appear that I called you dishonest without the qualifier. I addressed what that post was about:

Lots of exchange between us

Reading your next quote from me, I fail to spot the inconsistency. I'm sure you had a point but you failed to make it.

Yes you called me dishonest without a qualifier, in the same way you said I was pretending and in the same way you said I was trying to be dramatic and infer something nasty in the term "ganging up" and in the same way you said I was tiptoeing. All of it was as wrong.

They were  just as wrong as the Intellectual Dishonesty claim. They are all separate claims you made at me at different times and you made each of those charges for a reaction from me that you are now enjoying. Just as well we are mates.

As for the second point yes I was never dishonest about calling him out on his dishonesty nor dishonest about not reading him. If so show me what dishonest thing that I said. Back yourself. You will have to do a damn sight better than something generic like "Zegh is full of shit". Better also be something uniformed that I had no good reason to believe. No? So have you got an empty sack here or have you not?

I said this:

Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
Why not quote the context?

More discussion

I know, it makes it a lot harder to prove an inconsistency, but I think you mentioned something about believing in fairness. Fair is to quote the context instead of trying to make cheap and ultimately worthless points.

Because it would have made no difference. It is not worthless on your say so and your posting does not make it less inconsistent or moreso.

Is it intellectually dishonesty or a blindspot or something else completely. You seem to be hedging your bets $50 on red and $50 on black. THAT is the inconsistency. Moving between positions but not actually adopting either and no I believe that having a blindspot by its "blindness" is not intellectual dishonesty" (not that I find that an admirable trait nor a nice claim and not that I think I have a blindspot over all of this either). These are not a subsets of each other but rather different claims.

I theorised about it being a blind spot rather than intellectual dishonesty, partly because I wanted to offer a more charitable explanation. See it as a way out for you.

You have since proved that it certainly wasn't a blind spot.

Where is the inconsistency in me first stating that reading pretence into your actions is my *impression* and then, a week later, saying that I regret using that word when intellectual dishonesty is what I was after? I can admit it when I think I was using the wrong word. Can you?

Sure can. Not sure I have had grounds to here.
Its more of the same. Dishonesty. Pretence. Intellectual Dishonesty. Tiptoeing. All the same to me. Defend them, abandon them, merge them into what you consider a better claim or change your mind. Its fine. I was simply shining a mirror to your posting history. You used the words you used and I am reacting to what you said. Which is what you wanted.

OK then, react to all of them. Me, I eventually picked intellectual dishonesty over the others because it convey what I'm after better. If you want to see it as inconsistency, by all means.

I don't know about you but I do change over time. As arguments evolve, I sometimes correct myself, if I think I was wrong about something or if I think of a better way of stating my points. I also admit I'm wrong if that is what the argument requires. Is that being inconsistent? Sure, why not, if you define inconsistency as changing one's views over time if proven wrong or if the original view was lacking in some respect.

If that is what you mean, then sure, I have been inconsistent in the past and I will surely be inconsistent again in the future. I do try to learn from whatever mistakes I have made, so yeah, sure.

Which brings me to intellectual dishonesty and taking the easy way out. I never claimed never to be guilty of that myself. I can think of instances where I've certainly taken the easy way out. I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be.

Are you?

As a champion of fairness, be honest enough to quote context. Here is the first:

More discussion

As you can see, it's not about the phrase, it's about you stating that Butterflies ganged up with somebody. You obviously had a problem with the phrase, though, considering you started a thread about it.

But all I wanted to say was that you said Butterflies was doing something she said she wasn't.

Oh....."I" OBVIOUSLY had a problem with the phrase and THAT was my reason for starting a thread about it? Except, of course, that was not in any way shape or form correct. YOU had a problem with the phrase YOU said here in what you quoted

Ganging up is a dramatic phrase. It implies all kinds of things, most of which are at least a bit nasty. Yet here you are, stating that it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters, and I think you know it. The Al I know is good enough with words to know.

That was not me. That was YOU. 100% YOU. I did not have an issue with the word. I objected with what you were implying of what I thought in my own head about the word, or how I meant to infer or imply anything. As a result I started a thread so that I had "better alternatives" to use, should ever such an occasion come again, when two or more members of Intensitysquared took an interest in another member, and were negatively interacting with that person. Got lots of suggestions too.

Let's keep it real. I did not have a problem with the word nor did I the action. You did. You SAY I meant the word to be dramatic. I didn't. You say I was trying to infer something nasty. I wasn't. Where that was taking place was in YOUR head, not mine. It was either just a phrase or it was something nasty and dramatic. I simply used it to say that Butterflies and Zegh were collectively "criticising" DFG. End of. No implication of anything more and no judgement. That was best left to you to try to make unwarranted mileage out of.

Yes, I thought you made a good argument. I thought you liked fairness and listening to one another's points, and admitting fault. Do you want me to take it back?

I do not really mind what you do. I mention this as part of a large pattern. You make unfounded claims to bait me and I react to them. A lot of these claims are neither fair, reasonable or strong claims. None of them are true.

I did not say you were tiptoeing around DFG to bait you, I said it because that was my impression. An anomaly, as you say.

That one is a classic case of he said, she said, something that is impossible to prove, which is why I chose to accept your explanation. It made sense and you, I think, had the right of interpreting your actions, all else being equal.

But again, if you want me to take it back to feed your butthurt or whatever, I can.

Now you can say "Oh but I merged that claim or I retracted that claim". That is perfectly reasonable to point out. Each of these things individually and at their face is fine. BUT (and here is the point of it), collectively and given the relatively short period of time to consider each of these claims COLLECTIVELY it looks like a metaphoric shotgun blast.

A short time? Really?

Shotgun pellets will scatter and do damage but much of it negligible. Whatever or whoever is the recipient of said shotgun blast need not concentrate on the damage of wayward pellets but ought to look at the whole blast and all the pellets collectively. Same intent, same purpose and part of a greater and collective blast.

They were all equally as wrong. They were all unfair. They were all said for a reaction. They all collectively got a reaction.

Fine, I will not concede anything, ever, when arguing with you.

But on a more serious note: it is clear that collectively, my comments did hurt you.

I'm sorry but did you have an actual point here? You had Jack do the hard lifting for you. You were still taking the easy way out. Kind of a bitch when it turns out that you were wrong, isn't it?

Hahaha. I dunno, Odeon when you realise you were wrong in all of this tell me just what a bitch it is.

Not going to happen. You already lost, which means I won.

Just so we are on the same page here because I would HATE to second guess or put words in your mouth. You are not so fucking stupid to for a second believe that the fact that, just because Zegh wrote his acceptance of his part in things, that this makes me wrong about what I thought about him or that he is now somehow right...?

Yes, I do think so. You did not expect it, in fact you claimed the opposite, that he was not able to change, and acted from that assumption.

For months.

No? Great! I did not think so. Whew, that could have got awkward.

I don't feel it. Must be you.

Again I did not take the easy way out of ...anything.

Right. Of course you didn't. What do you call it?

I have since read some of what he did say over the last six months and I now, after taking the "easier way" (to read what he said) I  am more assured of how spot on my convictions about who and what he is were all along. Reading is SO much easier than trying not reading and keeping a semblance of what he is talking about and who. The fact that I was as close as I was, is testament to the effort involved. Great work me.

The fact is, you were wrong.

<snipped irrelevant attempt at some argument or another, not sure exactly what the point was>

So could you be a bit clearer with your point because that one was shit.

I realise that no matter what I say, this will continue. I think you are unable to back down now, for whatever reason, and I think it is
unfortunate. It is your choice, though, and I shall try not being too nasty.

It was your choice too. This did not all come out of a vacuum. I hear a lot of "your choice, your choice, your choice" Not much about your part in things. As I said a few times. You wanted a reaction and you have one. Why be sad? You got a reaction. You want to get nasty over my reaction to you? Your choice. You want to blame me for reacting to your fishing for a reaction? Fine. You want to threaten friendship over it? Okay. You are right, choices are involved.

But you have some points to defend and opinions to back. I will leave you with it.

Just did.

And... next.

[Al Swearegen]

Three months of misconceptions and repetitions, combined with a refusal to accept other viewpoints than your own. Yes, I didn't expect that. I thought you would do better.

Yes three month of refusing to admit that I am dishonest, refusing to admit that I am pretending, refusing to admit that I am intellectually dishonest, refusing to admit to believing what I don't believe, and believing you capable of a better and clearer understanding of me after 8 years on your board. Well, fuck!

You make that sound like a bad thing? A crazy way to go about things? Defending yourself on I2? Backing yourself? Refusing to be spoken down to like pupil?

The only thing I really did wrong here was not ending this with you and on your say so. Hell you will even threaten friendship over it to get your way. Right?

Jack resolved it for you. Without her, you would still be at it because you like to make things easy for yourself. A ninja cat was always funnier than bothering to read his posts. Why not admit it?

Here is a quick question. It is NOT a trick question. This WILL test your Intellectual honesty.

Is it easier to:

A) Read someone's posts to understand what they are saying?

B) Not read them but have to base every understanding on what they are saying through Private messages, seeing what threads they are posting in, who they are replying to, how long their posts are, whether they were shouting (Caps lock), seeing what others are replying to them and seeing how the thread has changed with the insertion of their post.........all whilst posting ninja cat posts.

If you say "Well if it was easier why not just do A". That is another question and one I have already answered.

You first.



EVEN WHILST SLEEPING, TERRENCE PRACTICES THE ANCIENT ART OF CAMOUFLAGE!!

Your values being "when I make up my mind, that's it until someone who is neutral will prove me wrong, in which case I transparently, honestly and consistently change my mind"?

Well done.

Please list my values for me. No? But you will talk of what my values are. Are you talking absolute crap or are you wanting to ask a question or amusing yourself? I think a little of all three. I will wait until you actual ask me a direct question. Amuse yourself by all means but I will not be a party nor watch you do so. As for talking crap, had my fill of reading that lately.

Except that you were. Otherwise you would still have been at it.

I was not wrong at all.

I do not think you are stupid. So I am embarrassed in pointing it out.

Zegh started crap. I was responding. I dislike/d Zegh. Zegh encompasses a lot of characteristics in his personality that I am not a big fan of. I like upsetting Zegh and even the thought that what I am doing may upset him, because i do not like him. I do not feel sorry for him. I do not think there is anything to like. I doubt this will really shift.

Well before I stopped reading, I made it clear to Zegh that he could resolve crap like an adult. I made it clear what that would be entail and also that I doubted he would do this. Time wore on and I was still having fun upsetting him but gradually stopped reading him.

It of course made it difficult for him to meet the conditions of me stopping. In fact he did fulfill the conditions I set and I did not see it. Hilarious. But then Jack bought it to my attention and I stopped as I said I would.

Now I was NOT stirring Zegh up BECAUSE he had not posted his acceptance. I was stirring him up BECAUSE I don't like him and because he started shit with me. It is guilt free entertainment at his expense. I do not like him for all the reasons I have previously spoken of. They ARE still there and I still believe those things. Posts he has made in the last 6 months make it as clear to me as when I did not read them that I was right.

However my terms were that regardless of how much I disliked him and regardless of the fact that he started shit with me and regardless of the truth of his personality flaws, IF he would admit it (in exactly the way he did) I would stop. He did, I stopped and I absolutely did not think he would and nor did I particularly care if he didn't.

So you trying desperately to say "See you were wrong, I was right" and whatever.....what the fuck are you actually talking about? No seriously. Is it that I did not think he would meet my terms? Right I did not.......and? Is that it? Is that the extent of it? Wow. 

Here is the thing: you'd never had seen it, or believed it, without Jack. You would have gone right on with your moronic hostilities, set in your beliefs.

You never considered ending what you were doing, he did, in spite of your steady stream oh hostile bullshit. Which, of course, means that it is you who needs help to change, not Zegh.

I expect the same to be true now, with me. I very much doubt anything I say will change your mind about anything. It would take someone else, someone neutral like Jack.

So yes, Jack was right. Which means that you were wrong.

Stop being melodramatic, Odeon. Its not your best side. Its almost as bad as your Tutor persona.

I am fine the way I am. I have yet to see Jack try to tutor me, nor call me dishonest nor intellectually dishonest or infer anything like that. But, yes if you had of said, actually Zegh did apologise to you here <link> I would have had the same reaction as I did with Jack. In the same way that I kept demanding you to show me where I was wrong.

As for you second guessing my intents, motivations, values or how I would have could have or may have reacted....stop guessing. The last three months have shown you bereft of the slightest idea of what drives me or what I hold dear. Its almost insulting when you try.

I know I have said so in the previous post but you think him posting his admission post changed my view of him or even that I wanted to drop hostilities? Bloody Hell.

LOL

Random. You think that his admission post was in character to his posts to me. Mmmmokay. Hell it was not only posts to me. I admit an impartiality certainly but pretty much all the posts I viewed the other night were not of the same standard. It WAS an Anomaly. For all that, it was a good post and kudos to him.

Says the guy who posted ninja cats and the like (an *expression*) for months. That is funny.

I suggested us to end this before Jack pointed out the errors of your ways, and actually again recently, not because I wanted to pretend anything but because I thought it would be better to move on. You called it emotional blackmail.

/shrugs

It WAS emotional blackmail. No ifs or buts.

I did post Ninja Cats for months. I also studied every thread he was in and tried to keep a bead on him. Neither is mutually exclusive. You were possibly trying to make a point. Damned if the guy who posted ninja cats, has the slightest idea of what you mean?



BRUCE THE NINJA CAT HAS IT ALL OVER FIDO.

I'm glad you don't see this as a threat to our friendship, because I do. I think that if this escalates, which I suspect it will, it's going to be hard to be friends.

I don't want that, but neither do I want to be accused of emotional blackmail. I know what I meant when asking us to stop; you apparently don't.

Some years ago, I talked to a shrink about relationships. She pointed out that when two people disagree about the meaning behind something one of them said and can't agree, then with all things being equal, the interpretation should ultimately be up to the person who made the comment.

Her reasoning is that assuming that person tells the truth--which is advisable if the two actually want to resolve the differences instead of getting involved in a meta argument, an argument about the original argument that neither of them can win because that argument is always going to be about "he said, she said"--he or she will know why the comment was made.

I may be explaining this poorly, but essentially, you can either choose to accept my explanation about why I made the peace offering or choose to think I am lying. The former will resolve that particular argument while the latter will escalate it, as well as the ones that preceded it. You will have added another point of disagreement to the existing argument.

You can mean it however you like. I think that your reaction to me in the collective things you threw at me and indeed the "tutor" fail was NOT rational. I just don't. You may believe that these things are fine and in no way a threat to friendship and it is only me no being so unreasonable as to not stop on your say so. I don't.

I am trying not to be mean. I think these things came from a place that was not rational, logical and analytical. I think these things were spurred on by emotion and something a bit more visceral. When you speak of me doing this for months and those horrible rascally Ninja Cats, you reacted.

For what it is worth I do believe you believe what you are saying when you say that you did not have an agenda and that you were not trying to emotionally blackmail me. I feel that there is a bit of this going on at some level in both instances and I do not feel at all comfortable with being a party to it.

I never asked you to treat Zegh the way you did, either.

"Zegh can handle you, he is a big boy" Great then what is your business in how I handle him or visa versa? As far as I can see it has approximately NOTHING to do with you. Are you his agent? His Mum? What is this about and why should care about you not asking for how I treated Zegh?

You were wrong about Zegh but needed a third party to point that out to you. You could have done it yourself but chose to not read his posts while making a point out of not reading him while stating how he was full of shit (an *expression*) and how he was unable to change.

Which is what I said, and which is why you lost.

Yes I expect he won't change. Not to say that people can't. Remember Richard of old and Jesse of today? What about Penty? Big changes from both. You think Buttcoffee will change or Meadow? I don't think so. Zegh? I don't think so.

Jack did not point out I was wrong about him? What the fuck are you on about. He DID adhere to some terms I laid down and good for him. I did not expect that, but how is he different to how he was 6 months ago? (and remember I have read a number of his posts from the last 6 months to myself and others). Jack DID point out that he had met my terms to stop hostilities with him. In fact two months after he had posted him. I got an extra two months in before I was obliged to stop. He could have stopped it earlier had he have posted them before I stopped reading him. there would have been a better chance (though not 100% chance) that I would have read him.

You are not stupid enough to confuse him having changed and him surpassing himself on an occasion by meeting my terms.....so what in fact ARE you saying?

How exactly have I lost and lost what exactly? You seem to say this a bit, must mean something?

No.

I told you why I think you were being intellectually dishonest. It was quite obvious then but even more obvious now. I know you disagree, but hey, that's life and and I have been proven right since.

I have already proven you were wrong in your assessment. You cannot tailor an interpretation of a concept to a single person and NOT have it apply to others. If the interpretation falls over when applying it in the same way to others, then your interpretation is wrong and the failure of that is on YOU and solely you.

"You did not read what someone wrote in 6 months and therefore having an opinion or a point of view about someone and sharing that is intellectually dishonest because you should read everything you can about them to have any opinion on them and not doing so is Intellectually dishonest"

"and thus it was with Zegh....."

YET, in ANY other setting and with any other person, a reasonable person would not apply this interpretation of Intellectual Dishonesty. There would be other characteristics and intents and such that would need to come into place.

It was also a shit interpretation. It was always wrong and never had legs. I don't know whether it is bias, ego or what that helps you refuse to see this.

Replace Me with a random person in your life like a work mate or acquaintance and replace Zegh with Donald Trump or some other well known figure.

"You did not read what someone wrote in 6 months and therefore having an opinion or a point of view about someone and sharing that is intellectually dishonest because you should read everything you can about them to have any opinion on them and not doing so is Intellectually dishonest"

See how you go. You do not have to actually ask them but imagine how you would shore up their likely answers and the conclusions with Intellectual Dishonesty. I think you would struggle. I think you would see it doesn't work and your definition allows for both interpretation, a number of requirements and an expectation of intent. You have taken a narrow interpretation of a part of the overall definition and apply it liberally. You got it wrong three months ago and it is no more right now.

Which is your way of trying to convince someone, I really don't now who, that while proved wrong, you somehow weren't but you chose to stop hostilities anyway because that's just the kind of guy you are.

My bullshit detector just went off the scale.

You are not stupid Odeon so do not pretend to be. It insults both of us. Jack told you why I did. Your bullshit detector needs a service. I stopped hostilities because I gave terms that he fulfilled and I dropped the hostilities immediately. Why did I drop hostilities? Because I was made aware (by Jack) that he had fulfilled the terms I set.

Okay. Now which part of this is because I am a nice guy? Go on, Odeon. No?

Whilst proved wrong? What about Zegh am I proved wrong about? Anything? You are just plain ridiculous if you think that me being incorrect in my assumption he would not take responsibility for his part is some Waterloo or even what I particularly wanted. After some of the things he said and the way he carried on, I wanted him mad and upset. BUT fair is fair he did exactly what I asked and Jack was right in pointing it out and confirming he did all I asked. He met my terms. I was not going to go back on my word. I say I was completely right with everything I said about Zegh, however he certainly did surprise me in meeting my terms. I was unexpected.

So this all means something big to you or something?

I theorised about it being a blind spot rather than intellectual dishonesty, partly because I wanted to offer a more charitable explanation. See it as a way out for you.

You have since proved that it certainly wasn't a blind spot.

I am glad about that. It was not Intellectual Dishonesty either. I think you need a new theory.

OK then, react to all of them. Me, I eventually picked intellectual dishonesty over the others because it convey what I'm after better. If you want to see it as inconsistency, by all means.

I don't know about you but I do change over time. As arguments evolve, I sometimes correct myself, if I think I was wrong about something or if I think of a better way of stating my points. I also admit I'm wrong if that is what the argument requires. Is that being inconsistent? Sure, why not, if you define inconsistency as changing one's views over time if proven wrong or if the original view was lacking in some respect.

If that is what you mean, then sure, I have been inconsistent in the past and I will surely be inconsistent again in the future. I do try to learn from whatever mistakes I have made, so yeah, sure.

Which brings me to intellectual dishonesty and taking the easy way out. I never claimed never to be guilty of that myself. I can think of instances where I've certainly taken the easy way out. I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be.

Are you?

Look at our first call out. I do not think you need to ask that question, do you?

What I was doing was not easier, but then I have already given you the simply test of intellectual honesty above. I am wondering whether you will pick A or B. I think you will beyond all reason and logic choose B and in doing so strip away the last layer of respect for your intellect.

I did not say you were tiptoeing around DFG to bait you, I said it because that was my impression. An anomaly, as you say.

That one is a classic case of he said, she said, something that is impossible to prove, which is why I chose to accept your explanation. It made sense and you, I think, had the right of interpreting your actions, all else being equal.

But again, if you want me to take it back to feed your butthurt or whatever, I can.

Yes I posted the word anomaly and you LOL'ed for some reason. Is that the new style?

I think I answered this once. You surely are not asking the same question again and wanting a different answer, are you?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein

A short time? Really?

Absolutely, Dishonesty was only a few days, pretending about a week, The ganging up last a bit longer still, then there was the tiptoeing claim, full of shit expressions being not literal or literal or whatever,  the tutoring....I dunno, they all were within two months but systematically they dissolved until there was only the Intellectual Dishonesty weak claim as last man standing. I say from 2-60 days for all of these tangential arguments is  a short time. I am surprised that you are still thinking the Intellectual Dishonesty claim was still worth defending but there you go.

Fine, I will not concede anything, ever, when arguing with you.

But on a more serious note: it is clear that collectively, my comments did hurt you.

Sure, you can do that. No, not really. I have been in turns Frustrated, Disappointed, Indignant, Incredulous, Dumbstruck and at times Amused. I don't know about Upset. Probably not upset.

Not going to happen. You already lost, which means I won.

If I lost then I guess you won. If we are competing against each other. That would make sense. Of course it really does help if I in fact lost something that we were competing in. I know you will no doubt appraise me of this apparent loss and I will have something to accept or contend. Thank you for the heads up.

Yes, I do think so. You did not expect it, in fact you claimed the opposite, that he was not able to change, and acted from that assumption.

For months.

I still do not think he will change. I think he will be the Zegh I dislike for many years to come and perhaps for life. I still do not think he will change and I still act from that assumption. You do not think him posting the acceptance of his part in things gives rise for me to imagine he has changed do you? I do not think you that silly nor me that silly.

I will not downplay it. It is kudos for him. Took a bit of guts. I will not second guess whether it came from frustration, pressure, a spur of the moment, a weariness of receiving non-stop Ninja Cats or a genuine want to admit his part in things to make things better. But he did it. Well done.

Does doing it change him? No. Does it make him a better person? No. Does it stop hostilities? Yes.

I am still acting under the assumption that he has not and will not change. However I am still also acting on the assumption that if he meets the terms I gave him, I will stop hostilities and he did. Months? Pfftt.

I don't feel it. Must be you.

I am not feeling it. If I was agreeing to something as silly I would be all kinds of embarrassed.

Right. Of course you didn't. What do you call it?

A challenge and a fair bit of fun along the way. Started off the fun you could get skimming a post and responding to it. He would be yelling at me asking whether "I had even read it". The reaction was the catalyst to a slow wind down to stopping reading him. That was around the Neaderthal threads. I evolved to posting without reading him and only reading his replies to what I wrote and then eventually I stopped reading altogether and just kept tabs on who he was responding to and what they were saying about him or replying. Getting a sense of what he was up to and why. All the while posting things at him, like ninja cats, to stir him up. Laughing at the amount of wasted texts he sent my way that remained unread.

Just did.

And... next.

Much more comprehensive and in depth than the last. I appreciate it. Not really sure about the you were wrong and I was right and you lost and I won thing but I am sure you will be backing those claims up too.