Believe it or not, but I have better things to do than repeating myself. Yesterday, I was preparing for travel and I2 was low on my list, and today I travelled.
Aha, don't care. Honestly, mate, why would I? We all have a life we live, and other things in our life. I don't need to know your schedule.
You brought up the ganging up thing, by saying that's what Butterflies was doing when she posted. I thought you were wrong. Remember that? I thought you were clever enough to know how loaded a phrase "ganging up" can be, but you said you didn't, and even started a thread about it, as if I had been the one to bring it up.
But I didn't. You did.
Side step.
"Remember that" Better than you, it seems. I said "ganging up" to describe her and Zegh collectively arguing/debating/fighting with DFG. It was no value judgment and nor did I mean what you wanted me to have meant by saying ganging up. It was not a loaded term. To test the point, I made a thread about it. The upshot, it was seen as fine in using in the context I used it with and there were many other alternatives that would have equally sufficed. I still say it was fine and not something that is needing to be defended against. The only person who seemed to see its usage as nasty, was you.
You WERE the only one who had an issue and were trying to make mileage out of it. I wasn't, nor was Butterflies or DFG (I don't know if Zegh was).
HOWEVER YOU saw fit to try to talk to me about using the wrong terms and ones that are "loaded" and said I know better.
What about you using the word pretense or the word dishonest? Okay, that was only early flounderings. What about Tiptoeing? What about "knowingly misrepresenting"?
So I guess this is Jack saying "Hey he got it wrong continually and consecutively for 10 weeks but now he is starting to say what he actually means when he says things. He just was not good with his words"
I am saying "No, Odeon is a smart guy. He is not a fumbler and he sure as Hell would not be a hypocrite over this. I have never seen him struggle this much and I doubt its sincerity for those reasons."
Question: Which of us is correct?
I've not read your and Jack's discussion. As a matter of fact, this was just about the first thing when logging on, just now.
I've said several times that this is NOT about Zegh. It was never about Zegh. His one month of whatever is neither here or there. It's completely irrelevant, a distraction. If he said he would shut up for a month and then didn't, talk to HIM about it, not me.
This is about your intellectual dishonesty, that self-serving and lazy behaviour that compelled you on one hand not read Zegh but on the other hand still reply to him, frequently misrepresenting him and missing the fact that he was actually trying to solve things. And why? Because you wanted to be a jerk (which you admitted, IIRC)? That IS applying lower standards in a self-serving fashion, it happened because you'd rather be a jerk than give him a chance.
All of which you have admitted, btw, except for the label I've given it.
You disagree with the label, which is fine. If you'd rather just be seen as a jerk, it's also fine. And I should add that you most certainly are not a jerk, generally speaking. An opinionated bastard, sure, but a jerk, no. I am talking about one specific case.
This is about your intellectual dishonesty, that self-serving and lazy behaviour that compelled you on one hand not read Zegh but on the other hand still reply to him, frequently misrepresenting him and missing the fact that he was actually trying to solve things. And why? Because you wanted to be a jerk (which you admitted, IIRC)? That IS applying lower standards in a self-serving fashion, it happened because you'd rather be a jerk than give him a chance.
I'll raise you
He does not seem to apply higher standards to his argument in fact whilst we know he is great at arguing and a smart guy he falls so very short here. This mucking around with the meaning of words (like some of his other aforementioned tactics) seems to show a reluctance at best to argue his claimed position of intellectual dishonesty in an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally held views and beliefs about how wrong I was. I know too that whilst you Jack, have been very even handed and acknowledge that Zegh was a jerk for a good while before I started being a complete jerk and stop reading him, Odeon does not address Zegh's part and seems to deflect away from an Zegh's PM's showing his want not to end things and his failed "one month silent treatment" to the point where, when he quotes my quote showing the PM's of Zegh stating this, he snips it out. But then he also tries to show me Zegh supporting his version of things. Comes across as deflection of criticism of a friend (the friend being Zegh rather than myself in this case). In fact one could even look at this whole things as being one big deflection for the benefit of Zegh if one were inclined to view it that way.
Perhaps the bigger point is that his ability to evaluate his premises is suffering with each new tactic. All of which are self-serving, trying to distract me away from the argument or to back out unresolved. Within this is a lack of applying the same standards to himself as he expects of me. I have shown his accusing me of not applying a high standard of me of using words in their right meaning and right context and yet he clearly fails this himself. The other point is that he accuses me of intellectual Dishonest and......LOOK AT THE BOLDED PASSAGES.
I think I do a better job of making the claim fit the conclusion. This is illustrative not accusatory.
The thing is you may well be intellectually dishonest. Maybe. But if you think the fact that I can pathologise your behaviours to a point where they are easily molded around a conclusion I have supported with a part of a wiki definition of an abstract word, is any way proof you are what I accuse you of, then you are not nearly as smart as I credit you.
As you are doing the same thing with me, I would appreciate that you have as much respect for my intellect and not try to similarly pathologise my behaviour nor infer similar claim to fit the conclusion.
Alternatively I would also appreciate if you did not say, "Okay maybe I was intellectually dishonest and so were you and so were most people and how mundane and droll, being intellectually dishonest is". It is not mundane and of no consequence.
I know I have said it often. Show me where i am frequently misrepresenting him. For that matter him trying to solve things? I am not so sure of that at all.
Let's place just a little bit of context here. As Jack said. Zegh was being a Jerk. A big one. For about six months (May or June to November) . Then for about 6 months I stopped reading him (by degrees from November before i stopped entirely). At what point did he try to resolve things?
Was it before November? December after I stopped reading him? January? February? March?
Yes, March.
In March he had a month's silent treatment. It started on March 1 and was promptly broken. In fact on March 12 he suggested that he was wishing to admit his part in things and amiable to resolving things.
So now we have a bit of context, I am not at all sure that you are right in what you said. I know you said that he was trying to resolve things but was he? Maybe his one month silence treatment 12 days before was genuine but it was broken well and truly before the time he made another shot at resolution. Was think similar disingenuous? What have you to support that he was genuine at the time? Blind faith after having 12 days before broken his word on his first resolution attempt?
So, no, Odeon you need to bring something a little more concrete to the table. If you want to pathologise my behaviour, leave out all context, give an account that biases my conduct and minimises Zegh's and make sweeping statements, expect I will call you on it about 100% of the time.
How?
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.
Now you may well like to say "Well that is not how I mean it at all. In some respect it was less lazy but in some ways that I am thinking of specifically, it WAS lazy." Depending on what point you were trying to convey I may even agree. But that would STILL not mean that I was intellectually lazy nor that Intellectual dishonesty.
Jack called the application of your Intellectual Dishonesty "cherrypicking". I concur, but I think it was more a molding a narrative around a conclusion. It is like when you speak to people who make "All roads lead to Rome". A conspiracy theorist will make all claims end up with "Aliens" or "Illuminatii", The devout make all claims end up being God did it, and the Feminists make all claims end up being "Because of Patriarchy". I do not think your argument makes a decent claim for me to be intellectually dishonest any more than it did of pretending or of "knowingly misrepresenting.
It was more effective? Why?
What if you HAD read him, and you HAD solved whatever it is that started this instead of all this? Wouldn't it have been more effective, provided you actually did want to solve it at some point rather than continue being a jerk?
As previously mentioned, he was being a jerk and not prepared to do anything about being a jerk. May or June to November and NOTHING. From November I start skimming him and then slowly stopped reading him. Within the next four months of starving him of respecting him enough to read him and assailing him with Ninja cats and memes, he was actually contemplating resolving things. Whether he was genuine or not I don't know. I simply know that his first attempt was disingenuous.
I have seen his posts whilst I was reading and after I was reading and I can see his reaction was much more distressed than I gauged it would be. I surprised at just how frantic it got. It was funny.
Without doing so I do not think I would have had the same resolution and on my terms and certainly not as quickly. He got to be a jerk for 6 months and so did I. I think I got more pleasure out of the deal than he did.
I reacted against what you did. If Zegh had done something like it, I might be having this conversation with him. But he didn't.
And just as I said, I wouldn't have said anything if it had been once or twice.
I simply do not believe this. I think there is a bias there that you perhaps do not recognise. Jack did. Zegh was a jerk for 6 months precluding me beginning a period of not reading him (and thus being a jerk in return). I was a Jerk for about the same amount of time. I do not much care if you do not think his conduct was as bad as mine. I think mine was comparable to his and I do not think it was exactly the same style of being a jerk but was comparable. He started it. I ended it and on my terms.
At every point and turn you defend, minimise and let me know that this has nothing to do with Zegh. You are defending him in this. You really ought to have stayed well out of it or at least been even-handed in condemnation. If you were not able to bring yourself to do this, then you ought to have tried at least to give me some solid criticism. This intellectual dishonesty is simply a crap criticism.
That I think Zegh got it right? No. I think he had a point. I had explained my views over and over again, and I'm doing it now, again, and I bet you're not going to accept them now, either.
What do you hope to achieve?
No, Zegh was biased against me for some reason. Anything I said would have been seen by him as crap and skewed. If all questions and inquiries all lead to the same stock phrases then I suspect that repeating yourself is neither helpful nor is it saying I want you to "necessarily" agree with me. It is saying your previous answer does not address my point nor does it address all points I may make now or at another time. That is not even closely resembling ""without repeating yourself"="finally agreeing with me".
You are not an idiot and so you can plainly see this. As you can see this, why did you say you think Zegh got it right? Just curious?
Consider too, if I was arguing with you and then told you that Sol agreed with me about my opinion, how much credence would you lend that point. Now reflect on why I thin kit was silly you introducing Zegh's point of view into a discussion between us.
What do you hope to achieve?
I am not sure why you ask me what "I" hope to achieve? This is born of you fishing for a reaction of me and making a number of bad and weak claims of me. Of which Intellectually dishonest" was one. I would have been quite happy having not have that thrust at me by you but it has happened and now I am reacting to it. I would have been happy for it not to have occurred and under the same circumstances, i'd have not sought you out for the same sort of attention under the same premises. You did and I am the reaction to that.
The question is misplaced. YOU were the one who fished for a reaction. You fished for it and got it. What did you hope to achieve? What have you achieved in doing so? What do you hope to achieve now? Now what do you hope to do with me and my reaction now you have it?
No, I did not. The only reason I snipped content, above, is that I wanted to focus on what I saw as relevant. I don't think that quote changes anything.
Sure it did.
The question as to whether (without reading him) it could be reasonably ascertained that he was not prepared to resolve things. Would need to take four things into account
1. What he had previous said
2. His actions and behaviour in the past
3. What was saying now
4. Any contradiction in his words and actions.
1. His PM you left out of the quote clearly said that he WANTED me to continue the feud with him as I was (this is not a want to resolve things)
2. His previous actions and words from May/June to November. No let up and no want of resolution.
3. He had said he wanted to have a 1 month silent treatment to try to resolve things after talking his situation over with some forum members
4. He broke said one month silent treatment within a couple of days.
So yeah it kind of was a bit of a thing. It changes a lot.
Heh. Read it the way you expected me to read how "weak" my arguments are.
Still no idea. I get the feeling after you telling me I will announce "Congratulations! You win 5 internets" but I don't know.
"Knowingly" isn't the best choice of words because you had no idea what Zegh was saying, yet the word implies you had--I was referring to the fact that you couldn't possibly know what Zegh was saying but still chose to tell us all what he meant. That you were misrepresenting what he was saying should be obvious, so would you prefer "consciously"? "Deliberately"?
No, describing "Knowingly" to something that the person accused, does not know, certainly sounds incorrect by any measure. Much like Pretending was wrong and dishonest and tiptoeing and intellectual dishonest.
I do not think you are a word fumbler. You have been articulate and deliberate and smart in every argument i have seen you in. I know you would not try to say I was misusing words (ganging up" example above) whilst fumbling through the use of appropriate words and phrases yourself, right? It would be hypocritical and I know you are not that. I know you are a smart guy.
When you say that I am telling everyone what Zegh was saying although I was not reading him ARE YOU LYING? You have made that claim about half a dozen times and I have asked you at least three times to back that. If not I want you to admit you were lying. I do not believe that i did but happy to be shown otherwise.
IMHO, intellectual laziness and dishonesty happened because of those things.
I think your application is too subjective in its bias against me. You try to find a claim to fit the conclusion you have reached already. I think THAT is lazy.
My argument evolved. It took me a few posts to say what I meant, which is why I admitted that "pretence" was a poor choice of words. I have no problems admitting that I should have handed it better, but I didn't. Why? Maybe I didn't ponder it enough before posting, maybe I didn't fully understand myself why I was so bothered about your behaviour. I was baffled by it because I know you can do better than that--you were being a jerk rather than using your wits.
And that is disappointing.
Yes we have evolved now to a stage where you still make strong claims like "You knowingly misrepresented" and then walk it back. "When I say knowingly, I don't mean actual literal knowingly, as in actually knowing something in actuality. more a sort of kind of knowing, if you know what I mean" (Paraphrased LOL)
I think you certainly ought to have pondered a while before responding because I seen in EVERY other interaction on I2, you conduct yourself better. You do not spend months word fumbling, trying weak tactics and doubling down on weak positions. One of my favourite callouts to read here is our first callout. This argument is a dog's breakfast in comparison.
Even now, the claim you made is no stronger or better than when it was first made. I know you have said you did not have ulterior motives, and I will have to take your word for it that you believe this and that perhaps its true.
This is where we are:
Odeon: So your behaviour was intellectually dishonest"
Al: No it wasn't.
Odeon Well you didn't read him.
Al: I know
Odeon: Well it was lazy.
Al: No it wasn't. I worked have to keep up with Zegh whilst not reading him.
Odeon: Okay sure. But in other ways it was sort of lazy.
Al: Maybe. I do not know in which ways or how they compare to the ways in which I was not lazy.
Odeon: You did knowingly misrepresent what Zegh said
Al: Come on now....
Odeon: Not literally of course but sort of .
Al: Really?
Odeon: You told everyone what he was writing without knowing what he was writing
Al: Really?
Odeon: Yes you did a lot
Al: I am going to have to have you show me
Odeon: You did it frequently and it was really intellectually dishonest
Al: BACK IT UP.
The whole things is a shitshow. Its far from done.