But by all means tell me which phrases I "should" have used instead.
Thinking these should be the last words of this argument. Had previously stated not wishing to contribute further, but Butterflies just made Sir Les' argument for him. Up until this point, was viewing Odeon as coming close to making his case, even though taking a messy long time to do it. Odeon posted quotes showing Sir Les calling Zeg on this crap while simultaneously claiming not to read, supporting the point of not being able to have it both ways. Odeon also posted quotes of Sir Les unknowing misrepresenting Zeg, by saying Zeg wasn't interested in resolution after Zeg had already conceded. My only objection to Odeon's approach was the label given to these actions was unfitting, by disagreeing with the definition, and believing Odeon should give more consideration to what the label also means to Sir Les. In the argument between Zeg and Sir Les, Zeg has stood accountable for starting the fight and taking things too far, and Sir Les has stood accountable for being a jerk by not giving Zeg a chance to quit and continuing to fight after it was over. Odeon may personally have higher standards for Sir Les' behavior. Butterflies made me realize Sir Les was trying to tell me something I missed. Didn't really read the stuff about ganging up because it seemed irrelevant, and one of multiple side-tracking mini-arguments within the argument which were paid no attention. Today it was read. Odeon stated the words ganging up imply all sorts of things most of which are at least a bit nasty, and criticized Sir Les for not caring about the consequences of his words. Odeon said semantic differences are important because Sir Les thinks a behavior means ganging up and Odeon doesn't; these things matter. The fact is, the phrase gang up has definitions which in no way define doing anything nasty like bullying. Though it's true the phrase carries some clearly nasty connotations and implications. Intellectual dishonesty also carries clear nasty connotations, so does knowingly misrepresenting, and those connotations are deliberately deceptive. Sir Les has shown Odeon to be hypocritical in this argument, and it makes sense he assumes Odeon doesn't care about what these words imply to, or about him. Odeon has presented the following definition: When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs. Thinking the important word there is, because. Sir Les has clearly stated his manner of approach was because he wanted to be petty, vindictive and unreasonable in return of Zeg's behavior. There's nothing to suggest Sir Les' approach was for any other reason. Odeon has not proven Sir Les to be intellectually dishonest or knowing misrepresentative, so once again, will declare Sir Les the winner of this callout. May I also act a referee and declare the fight over? Gentlemen, please go to your corners.
One thing here that I think needs saying. Is you are right about the application of the definition which is something I have argued over. Indeed i have shown how I can similarly (and I say better apply the definition that Odeon uses to shoehorn Odeon's actions to fit Intellectual dishonesty. I think comparatively I would make an even better case than what he introduced.
I am smart enough to know that this would still be disingenuous and it is simply pathologising his actions and showing them in the worst light and examining them with a pre-conceived conclusion. It is the cherrypicking you referred to earlier.
The linkages are tenuous and forced and so pointing rightly as the "because" implying a reason I did not have is like pushing a domino and seeing it all fall. The arguments that he has doubled down on are not strong.
I think there was a reason for this and for the word fumbling and the inability to find his way in 3 months in the argument and why he has tried various tactics and has dropped merged and retracted various tangential arguments along the way.
I do not think his argument was that great and I think unlike the Odeon that we are used to seeing that is logical, precise with his words, able to articulate and choose his words carefully, he adopted a poor position in anger or frustration and without thinking and doubled double for all he was worth.
That is my honest assessment. I think it is a terrible shame because I actually like Odeon despite this. I see it as beneath him and out of character. I see it as him at his worst. It is akin to watching your favourite play with your favourite actor, and him coming in blind drunk and clumsily, missing his cues and speaking inarticulately. You know that it is an anomaly and is neither normal, nor necessarily going to happen again, but it is so disappointing it happened the first time.
As to why he failed so badly? I don't know. If I HAD to guess....
It looks bad and cringeworthy. Its not you. That is its not normal you. Its like you are doubling down on the position because to admit it really did not have legs is kind of saying I was right but if you are viewing this from an emotional and reactive mindset, THAT may feel like it then not only dismisses a weak claim but says that I WAS right, you were wrong and your opinion was invalid and so therefore your motivations or feelings were insincere.
I could sympathise with that kind of position. I have been very happy to admit I was a jerk. No issue. I made things difficult. Ninja Cats were probably as aggravating for others as they were for Zegh. Six months of this is a long time. Mocking him whilst not reading him may have really worn on your sense of it being poor form. It WAS a new tactic and an abrasive one.
Any of these things may have been enough for you to want to have a go at me. What would have been my defence? I was not being a jerk? It may even drive someone to try something a little more substantial an argument. To attack their values or integrity. Something that may give them pause to think and not just brush it off and admit to it. A guy who is good at arguing may even be able to prop an argument up which looks substantial enough at first glance. It may just be enough to make someone like me to back up a bit and perhaps others to join in condemnation.
I would understand how something like THAT could happen and how when questioned a want to make it look more substantial and scrambling on the fly would lead someone to word fumble. Would also reason that doubling down would make the argument look stronger and so would merging and amalgamating other claims into it.
Of course that is what it looked like to me. The irony of course is that the were that or something like it the case, the strong claims are the ones that I could not contest. They are ones that ultimately could have got a bit of traction. Were they claims I had to contest, we would not have been here.
