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.
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. He's also posted another cat picture here.
I don't know if he is reading Zegh's posts or not. I suspect he does read some of them because, as Zegh points out, it's how the brain works. There is no way to prove it one way or the other, though. What is possible to prove, however, is that when it comes to Al, he is still taking the easy way out with Zegh, which was, and is, my point re the intellectual dishonesty.
The easy way out here means that no matter what Zegh says, 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.
Which, I think, is also taking the easy way out.
For the literal-minded, "posting ninja cats in response" is an expression meant to cover the usual variations, from the actual ninja cats to the snarky response second-guessing Zegh's posts.
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.
Well as to the charge of me saying Zegh is full of shit, I will refer to my good friend, earlier Odeon.
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.
Thanks Earlier Odeon, just a phrase, an expression?
He's also posted another cat picture here.
I did too. I feel bad.
I call this one Bernard.
Having cleared this up. Now comes the stretch. YES I did both posted a cat pic AND said Zegh is full of shit (ie used a "just an expression" phrase) BUT....
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,
Neither of these are me calling Zegh out on his shit. I do not know what he said. He is full of shit generally. Just an expression or dows it transform to something specific when I say it in a way that it doesn't when you have said it?
What is possible to prove, however, is that when it comes to Al, he is still taking the easy way out with Zegh, which was, and is, my point re the intellectual dishonesty.
Then please prove it. You can prove it right? IF if it possible to prove it, then prove it. "Proving it" is not simply you saying it is so.
I have made an argument that Reading is simple. It is NOT hard. If you read and manage to keep a decent track on what someone is saying or is reacting to things, THAT is not hard.
IF you don't read what someone says and yet keep track of someone, THAT requires a lot more effort and energy. You may disbelieve this BUT I do not much care. No one (including you) is finding me anything that I have been mistaken about, with Zegh.
So I certainly have a different point of view. Your view does not trump mine because you say it does and nor does it "prove" your point as superior to mine. But you said its possible to prove, so how about going about doing that? Or are you now to retort that you could if you wanted but you just don't want to?
Which, I think, is also taking the easy way out.
and...I don't. For reasons I have expressed.
In fact given your own definition, I think you are stretching even considering this one point as the basis for clarifying something as intellectually dishonesty. What else have you got to show intellectual dishonesty?
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty
Intellectual Dishonesty
What is meant when one uses this term? Some possible meanings:
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.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.
Intellectual Dishonesty
c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty
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.
IntellectualDishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds. 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.
So I ask you, in looking at this definition, when did I show intellectual dishonesty by:
a) Fail to apply standards of rational evaluation that I was aware of?
b) Judges others more critically than myself?
c) Avoid an honest approach?
d) Avoid a deliberate approach?
e) Avoid a comprehensive approach?
f) Commit oneself to higher standards? (and higher than what I wonder?)
The problem here is that I KNOW you don't like my approach. That is a given. I KNOW that you think it would be better and maybe you even believe it to be MORE comprehensive or comprehensive in different ways to simply read Zegh.
I never had an issue with you believing any of that. BUT none of that makes something intellectually dishonest. I AM deliberate in my approach and honest in how I go about that and apply the same standard one myself as to others. I am transparent. I act on information that I have. Given Zegh propensity to lie, I think that my standards would not be higher by reading him and given his standard of writing prior to me stopping reading the standard was pretty low. I do not believe anything was lost in not reading him and conversely nothing is gained by reading him.
None of this has a thing to do with Intellectual dishonesty. So what else have you got, Odeon?
