I had the audacity to question both the motives and the methods behind Al's months-long bullying of a member who, as a result, is no longer posting here. Al, in spite of what you may be led to believe, does not take kindly to criticism.
Is this really why you're feuding with Al? As far as I've seen (haven't read all the crap) this is the first either of you have mentioned it as a direct cause.
Funny thing about that.
Many months ago I did exactly that. I framed it as Odeon picking a side.
The expression "Get a life" is not a literal definition and nor does it require a deeper examination. People when they use it, use it to denounce the object of their derision and are signalling their displeasure at that person's actions.
The expression "Full of shit" is not a literal definition and nor does it require the person requiring a deeper insight into everything someone says. It could be based off one conversation or an impression or a series of actions. It DOES NOT require you have heard or read everything someone says NOR that you are studying them (ie If you watch a couple of interviews with Glenn Beck, you would certainly be in good company saying he is full of shit. There would not be an expectation to watch and read everything he says for the next six months. Nor would you be intellectually dishonest if you proclaimed this after not having watched or read him for 6 month. Only an absolute idiot would argue that point). People use that when they use it, use it to denounce the value of the object of their derision and they are signalling their displeasure at that person.
This all comes back to where I was a few months ago with you. I have a nose for bullshit, Odeon.
There is something bigger here. It never smelled right. This is why I have pursued it as I have. It is not personal, nor upsetting per se. It all seems terribly beneath you intellectually and so I think the reason for you doubling down and denying is something else.
- Your original claims were NOT JUST about me being intellectually dishonest but of being dishonest as well and of pretending, assuming things, and so on. You since dropped this claims or merged them into your greater claim
- You raised some point about something I said about Butterflies ("ganging up")and when I addressed it, you tried the crazy argument technique of questioning ME raising it (points for originality)
- You posted the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty as though I needed that explanation to know what the term meant. In fact I answered every aspect of the term, to show it wanting (something that unto itself, would run against the grain of "transparency" for intellectual dishonesty)
- You then kept repeating variations of the Mantra "You did not read Zegh, so you can't know for sure, he is full of shit, therefore you are intellectually dishonest". Then admonishing me when I had the temerity to question why this alone makes a case for intellectual dishonesty
- You tried a new tact and said that I was tiptoeing around DFG. This was an even weaker claim and you soon dropped it
- Changing tact you suggested I was not Intellectually dishonest afterall and it was a blindspot I had. That premise went nowhere and you gravitated back to the Intellectually dishonest premise again.
- I then showed a few instances of YOU using the term. Once with Calandale - to whom you could NOT have read everything he said for 6 months either (and so could not have been absolutely sure he was "full of shit" .... as if that was ever an argument worth making) and secondly I showed you casting such sentiments to Dr Bitch to something she said in one of her 18 posts, after having joined the day before. You did not (chose not to?) see the similarity of what you were doing and what you accused me of doing
- You then tried to reference Zegh as a reference point to support your claims (I just can't tell you how bizarre this is). Not only have I stopped reading him (because he is full of shit) but referencing him after suggesting that I was wrong about my suggestions you were "sticking up for him", you now try to use him as a reference point to your arguments of my feuding with him. No bias?
- Now I find you telling me to "get a life" and point out the examination of such a generalised insult is stupid and disingenuous AND more importantly, very similar in nature to saying someone is "full of shit". You agreed that get a life was a "mere expression". You have yet to see the hypocrisy.
What all the above tells me is that this line of premise is crap and always was. You likely were not expecting to get challenged, or in the way that I have. You were not expecting or wanting to give ground. You doubled down on what you knew was really weak. You did this for a reason that had NOTHING to do with me being Intellectually Dishonest and I don't think you actually even believed it.
I could be wrong. It does happen. But now trying to sell me on the fact that Zegh now says this or that to support you, is like me trying to evidence you being wrong by referencing something Sol says against you. Yes it is THAT stupid and disingenuous AND that not like you.
You have to have a good reason to act the way you have, and to have done so from the outset. I think it was simply that you were starting to get sick and tired of Zegh and I feuding, me not reading Zegh, spamming Ninja Cats and you were wanting it to stop. You possibly thought that to shame my methods of posting and accuse me of being dishonest, assuming things, being intellectually dishonest, pretending, being intellectually lazy, tiptoeing and use dramatic phrases no matter the consequences. Maybe you thought I would get too distracted or maybe embarrassed or maybe that once pointed out, the rest of the board would join in and I would feel obliged to self-censor. The problem is that it did not work and you have distanced yourself now from everything but the "intellectually dishonest"claim. That claim is looking from where I sit, pretty petty and hypocritical, considering how you use not only other similar general insults and derision BUT also how you use the term itself. I think you wanted to side with Zegh without appearing partisan. Too late for that now.
I honestly believe that this is the case and after having doubled down and given some ground you do not wish to admit what seems transparent to me. I would not have had much of an issue if you had not have just said, "You know, you weren't being intellectually dishonest BUT you were pissing me off and others in I2 were not liking it either. I do blame your part in things more than Zegh and I was just wanting you to stop and hoped by saying something, anything, that you would just drop it." That would seem quite fair. Hell, I may have even considered dropping things with Zegh. No you doubled down again and again after being called on it. So I too will double down with you and with Zegh.
Terrible shame, Odeon. I expected better.
He denounced it for all he was worth. It was clear to me he was focussed exclusively on me, but no, the mere suggestion he was taking a side was so unreasonable. He has other reason aside from that and it was not related.
His efforts then to examine and clarify these positions was a failure of stupendous proportions. Retracting some aspects, redefining definitions, reclarifying positions....
its because the whole thing was bullshit. Odeon lied. Odeon for all his gaslighting WAS picking a side and had no position he believed in. As Cleocatra mentioned rather well tbe type of combative feuding Zegh and I partook against EACH other is no different to the conduct he and others partake in, yet framed it now as me bullying.
I find this re-writing of the narrative really pathetic.
Careful though Pyraxis. He will probably go in with
"this conversation stops here" and/or lock the thread. Moderation creep is real. Think how much moderation has taken place in the last 6 months. I think it was more than the previous 5 years.
