No more mantra, Odeon. Back yourself.

[Al Swearegen]

Thank you Jack, really appreciated.  Yes you are right in what you say. No nothing more is needed or wanted by me at least.
I had not seen this. He had plenty of opportunity to write this when I WAS reading him to post something like this, it was simply bad timing on his part the I had stopped reading him by this point. I had not seen it at all.

It is what it is though and took more guts and responsibility than I had otherwise credited him for.

I don't like him as a personality but in light of this I will ignore anything shifty he has said prior to this date and stop stirring him up. Fairs fair. (Not that difficult,  I am out of the habit of reading him and will probably not read that much of what he said).

Thanks again Jack.

Doesn't mean he can't piss me off in future but I am happy dropping hostilities with him.

And this is what I've been saying all along. You took the easy way out by not reading him, then made a point out of it by posting ninja cats. And so missed that he did, in fact, change.

But "bad timing on his part"? Seriously, mate? You took the decision to stop reading him, surely the bad timing was yours?

Okay I have had a couple of bourbons and I am chuckling to myself here. But I do not blame it on the bourbons entirely. Why?

Bad timing? Yup. You say it is bad timing on my part not on his? You say "Pah-Tah-Toes" and I say "Poh-tay-toes". You know what it doesn't matter. At this point you are simply being contrary. The situation is the same.
Zegh started shit and I responded and he responded back. It got shitty. I got sick of reading what he wrote. I started randomly insulting him and stirring him up, he did whatever he was doing. But a couple of months ago he THEN decided to respond to me and admit his part in things and try to resolve things. He had months he COULD have resolved it when I was still responding to what he was saying and communicating. He didn't. He held off until I was not reading him.

Now there IS a point to the argument of "Hurr Durr how could he have known you would stop reading him? Well he couldn't. BUT at the same time, I only stopped reading him is because he stopped being worth reading to me because he was posting non-stop crap. So there is another equally valid argument of should he have tried to resolve things WAY earlier than holding out until the other party has lost interest in engaging reasonably with you?

So I fully expect you to take the anti-me side but I consider both positions and do not see your position as better. It is a moot point.




NOW here is why I was laughing. Yes, I have mocked your arguments here as weak and toothless and often disingenuous BUT with THIS statement:

And this is what I've been saying all along

"What you have been saying all along"
 



Yes you are horribly consistent. I simply do not get you and your arguments. Odeon, My Tutor.

ONE

You don't need to go any further than this thread. I believe he's said Zegh is full of shit in this thread while saying that he doesn't read his posts.

Oh, and Al:

"Full of shit" was always just a phrase, an expression. The fact that you only caught on late in the game doesn't change that, it only shows that I made a mistake in assuming that you'd recognise it for what it was.

So this "full of shit was simply an expression right? Consistent?

TWO

I agreed that "pretending" was a poor choice of words. I didn't say you were dishonest, you did.

Oh, and I don't recall using "dishonest" without a qualifier, either a direct one or one that should be clear from the context in which it was made. Do you know why this is? Simple, mate, it's because I don't think you are a dishonest person.

Consistency

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.

The problem with that one, though, is that you supposedly don't read his posts which means that either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts. You don't get to do both, it's either you read what he is saying and think it's bs, or you don't read it and, well, post ninja cats but cannot possibly know if it's bs or not. Assume, yes, sure, but know, certainly not. This what you mean when saying I'm calling you dishonest at best and a liar at worst?

THREE

I was trying to be nice as you are a mate, but also, I believe the blind spot argument was about you and DFG rather than you and Zegh (but feel free to check if you like). Your intellectual dishonesty was, and is, about how you act around Zegh.

Consistency

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

FOUR

"Get a life" is about you obsessing over all this. Or are you saying that you aren't? No hypocrisy, just weariness, plus the fact that if you think the two expressions in themselves mean ANYTHING, then you are still not getting it.

Consistency

You don't need to go any further than this thread. I believe he's said Zegh is full of shit in this thread while saying that he doesn't read his posts

FIVE

So yes, I am reading pretence into the above.

pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
noun: pretence; plural noun: pretences; noun: pretense; plural noun: pretenses

    1.
    an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
    "his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well"
    synonyms:   make-believe, act, putting on an act, acting, dissembling, shamming, sham, faking, feigning, simulation, falsification, dissimulation, invention, imagination, self-deception, play-acting, posturing, posture, posing, pose, cant, attitudinizing;

I freely admit the above is my impression, and if I am wrong, fine. But if I am, then how do you explain your assumptions?

Consistency

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.

SIX

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.

Consistency

For fuck's sake, I didn't object to the word

SEVEN

At some point, Al started tiptoeing around DFG whenever they were both attacking Zegh.

Consistency!

You make a good argument and I accept your explanation. I think I was wrong about it

EIGHT

Al will continue posting ninja cats in response while stating that he doesn't read Zegh's posts. This, of course, also means that no discussion between them is possible, which means that resolving the differences is not possible.

Okay. You were right all along, right? Put your money equally on black and red and I bet you win SOME money every time. Not very Intellectually honest though, surely?

Thank you Jack, really appreciated.  Yes you are right in what you say. No nothing more is needed or wanted by me at least.
I had not seen this. He had plenty of opportunity to write this when I WAS reading him to post something like this, it was simply bad timing on his part that I had stopped reading him by this point. I had not seen it at all.

It is what it is though and took more guts and responsibility than I had otherwise credited him for.

I don't like him as a personality but in light of this I will ignore anything shifty he has said prior to this date and stop stirring him up. Fairs fair. (Not that difficult,  I am out of the habit of reading him and will probably not read that much of what he said.

Thanks again Jack.

Doesn't mean he can't piss me off in future but I am happy dropping hostilities with him.

Meet Bruce - Gangsta cat.

[MLA]

Wow.  For a second there I thought this shit might de-escalate into something less boring.

[Al Swearegen]

Wow.  For a second there I thought this shit might de-escalate into something less boring.

Hard luck there Hubert. Not to be

[odeon]

And... you still don't get it. Don't worry, I didn't expect you to. I tried to help but I can only do so much. Forget about tutoring, you have to do some stuff on your own. How else will you learn?

Sort of amusing to read your latest work, though, especially where you try to categorise and compare my posts. It's embarrassingly clear that you just don't get it, but amusing nevertheless. But then again, I'm having a beer, it's Friday evening and my only purpose now is to relax.

And... next!

[benjimanbreeg]

It's not destroying the site. Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.

I agree with what you say. Odeon might be acting like a smart arse but he is not acting smart in pretending I or you or anyone else here has difficulties in understanding what intellectual dishonesty is. It comes across as pandering to the idea that his opponents don't understand phrases or concepts and therefore needs to play tutor before they can have an opinion whether he is wrong. Each time he posts a definition as a rebuke., he is engaging in this.

Yet in his apparent stellar post he tries justifying this. It's weak, transparent and smells like bullshit. Tell me, according to the definition of intellectual dishonesty whether THAT ticks a few boxes?

I will answer him tonight

I would call him more intellectually bankrupt.  That probably leads to the dishonesty.  He pretends to be all knowing, but he knows nothing. 

[odeon]

It's not destroying the site. Zeg took accountability for his crap, so happen to consider him in the clear. It took a long time for him to finally do it, but he provided exactly what was expected of him to end it. If it wasn't read by Sir Les, or simply came too late, or just wasn't accepted, is irrelevant. There's nothing more for him to do. It's no longer a valid dispute, but now rather a button pushing contest. Whatever, may the best troll win. The discussion between Sir Les and Odeon is still a valid dispute. Not completely sure what to make of the argument. On the surface it seems to be over a trivial matter, but intellectual dishonesty is by definition intentional, so that means supporting a claim one actually knows to be false or misleading. Being called a smart liar is the same as being called a liar, and that can sure tick off a friend. That's a hard thing to prove too, intent, and even harder when it's only about someone saying someone else is full of shit. Odeon's last post was stellar, but Sir Les isn't disputing the accusation of being called tenacious to the point of annoyingly absurd. This has all transpired over months, and Oden will simply have to find concurrent quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg out on his shit while at the same time claiming not to read that shit. If he's not going to bother doing that, then he should concede. Zeg and Sir Les may poke at each other from now on, other people here do that too, so what? Though this one in particular is between two friends and thinking it best to be resolved.

I agree with what you say. Odeon might be acting like a smart arse but he is not acting smart in pretending I or you or anyone else here has difficulties in understanding what intellectual dishonesty is. It comes across as pandering to the idea that his opponents don't understand phrases or concepts and therefore needs to play tutor before they can have an opinion whether he is wrong. Each time he posts a definition as a rebuke., he is engaging in this.

Yet in his apparent stellar post he tries justifying this. It's weak, transparent and smells like bullshit. Tell me, according to the definition of intellectual dishonesty whether THAT ticks a few boxes?

I will answer him tonight

I would call him more intellectually bankrupt.  That probably leads to the dishonesty.  He pretends to be all knowing, but he knows nothing.

Get your own callout, Benji. Al has the courage to stand up for what he thinks is right. What do you have? Someone else's platitudes copied and pasted into a borrowed thread?

[benjimanbreeg]

I just wanted to respond to Al's point. 

[odeon]

Al:

How about us letting go of this thing now? I don't see anything good can come out of it, only bad stuff, and it's just not worth it.

[odeon]

I just wanted to respond to Al's point.

Fucking coward.

[benjimanbreeg]

I just wanted to respond to Al's point.

Fucking coward.

 

Cause I won't do a callout?  I'm just not interested and don't take the site's traditions very seriously. 

[MLA]

I just wanted to respond to Al's point.

Fucking coward.

 

Cause I won't do a callout?  I'm just not interested and don't take the site's traditions very seriously.

You are a coward because you are afraid to live your true life with your true self.  Be proud man.   

[benjimanbreeg]

You probably do actually have some kind of fetish about me being gay.  It's okay, you can store me in your wank bank if it means that much to you. 

[Al Swearegen]

And... you still don't get it. Don't worry, I didn't expect you to. I tried to help but I can only do so much. Forget about tutoring, you have to do some stuff on your own. How else will you learn?

Sort of amusing to read your latest work, though, especially where you try to categorise and compare my posts. It's embarrassingly clear that you just don't get it, but amusing nevertheless. But then again, I'm having a beer, it's Friday evening and my only purpose now is to relax.

And... next!

Al:

How about us letting go of this thing now? I don't see anything good can come out of it, only bad stuff, and it's just not worth it.

"Try"? Hey I did fantastic. Especially considering it was Friday night, Bourbon Night.
I think you give yourself far too much credit and me far to little, but then that in itself amuses me too. I had a good laugh picking through the previous replies.
Contradictions reigned supreme and I had yet to collate them all together. I had a suspicion Just like how you previously adopted the mantra, now you would go to your new catchphrase "You just don't get it".

I read this as "You have shown my previous points wrong or weak or contradictory....its your fault you do not see them as worthy, not mine. They were good points all along"

The irony of course underlying all of these interactions is that were I Intellectually dishonest, it is HIGHLY unlikely that you would be having a hard time pointing out where I was intellectually dishonest and you sure as Hell would not be saying "You just don't get it". I imagine it could be theoretically possible for someone who IS intellectually dishonest to not get it and for the person accusing them of being so not to be able to do so effectively after 2 or 3 months, BUT it is not likely.

Far more likely is that the Intellectual dishonesty is blatant if it was noticed enough to be called on the months earlier and the accused once pointed out would not be able to extricate themselves from their actions AND would be aware of exactly what they were doing. Not so here.

What is more likely? "You don't get it". Maybe, just maybe, there was nothing to "get". Maybe the efforts you have gone to and the contradictions you have made along the way, the points you have dropped, the similar behaviours you have portrayed, the sheer amount of time and energy you have made defending weak positions weakly was NEVER about Intellectual Dishonesty.

Its only my thoughts. I, unlike you, have remained pretty consistent on this. Maybe I was never Intellectually Dishonest in this. Maybe YOU had an ill-thought out position that you uncharacteristically ran with and then equally uncharacteristically doubled down on BECAUSE you had simply reached the point of your endurance with what was happening with Zegh and I. Any more cat pictures or me not reading Zegh when I "should have" or commenting when I "shouldn't have" and you would give me a piece of you mind and try shaming me into inaction. Maybe in doing so I would stop fighting Zegh or maybe it would encourage the board through the Peanut Gallery to condemn me and my actions and/or arguments. Hell maybe you even believed your arguments a little.

But it did not work. The Peanut Gallery remained pretty silent. I doubled down. I exposed the weakness in your overall argument and other tangentials you introduced. Though you tried stepping away from the worst of the tangential arguments and you asked many many times for me to drop it - it did not work, you even apologised for upsetting me - that did not work, you tried condescending to me like a tutor - that did not work. You now try to threaten things getting nasty if this keeps going on. I am fine with that, Odeon. Bring it to the table.

I resolved things with my beef with Zegh but not you, not nearly. You want to get nasty? That is your choice but that will not give me cause for concern nor would I shy from it. Alternatively you could keep your "You don't get it shield" up high against anything I say. A third option is far less radical. You COULD address the points I make and make your own. You know.....back yourself on IntensitySquared. I know what you were trying to say with this "I can't tutor you, tutor yourself" (Paraphrased .... yes, yes, that thing I have no idea about. LOL) But it comes across as "I cannot make any points I can adequately defend and my attempts at condescending you failed miserably. Stop picking out flaws in what I said about you".

As a last point

Al:

How about us letting go of this thing now? I don't see anything good can come out of it, only bad stuff, and it's just not worth it.

It was worth it for you in the first place to say, it is worth it for me to defend against. The fact you misjudged the outcome is not on me in the slightest. Simply a bad choice to say it and then double down on it.

[odeon]

For fuck's sake, Al. I asked if you'd be willing to let this thing go because it's not going anywhere, it's just getting nastier and I was hoping continuing to be friends rather than letting this escalate. It's not the same as saying I agree with your arguments... cos I don't. I haven't changed my mind, I simply thought it might be a good idea to agree to disagree, as someone said.

But if you don't want to do that, then fine. Seeing that you started yet another thread, I guess you don't.

[Al Swearegen]

For fuck's sake, Al. I asked if you'd be willing to let this thing go because it's not going anywhere, it's just getting nastier and I was hoping continuing to be friends rather than letting this escalate. It's not the same as saying I agree with your arguments... cos I don't. I haven't changed my mind, I simply thought it might be a good idea to agree to disagree, as someone said.

But if you don't want to do that, then fine. Seeing that you started yet another thread, I guess you don't.

What were you hoping to resolve starting this this up 3 months ago? Being that we are mates, and you want to continue to be friends, that is great, BUT how matey did you think it was accusing me of being intellectually dishonest and under such weak pretext? What about tutoring me like I am an intellectual child? Is THAT mateship?

So now ME continuing this on, is a bar to friendship. I understand emotional blackmail and I am not playing.

I do not think that you did not believe I would not react. In fact I think you were counting on a reaction. You got it. You do not particularly like the reaction nor that it has gone on so long. That I get. What I do not get, is that you think you then have the platform to try emotional blackmail, nor that you have the moral position by which to do so.

I have put a few things to you which look very much like contradictions. It appears to me that these things are not mutual inclusive positions. It looks to me like that intellectual dishonesty definition may need to be re-visited and applied to YOUR contradictions.

I believe in fair, Odeon. Accusing me of intellectual dishonesty when it is unwarranted and on weak reasoning is neither fair nor reasonable.
Same with trying to pretend that I am an intellectual child and same with emotional blackmail.

You may say what I am doing is not fair, but what is that? Demanding you back positions and things you have said and things about me? That is completely fair and in the spirit of this place. I will not pretend you are an intellectual midget in doing so and neither will I threaten friendship over it. I consider that poor form.