No more mantra, Odeon. Back yourself.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Mocking those with actual human decency. Keep it up Zeghtard!! 

[ZEGH8578]

Human decency from the one arguing for several pages that girls are fuckable as soon as they develop anything resembling boobs.

You probably still think the rest of us are pussies, for not wanting to fuck children, don't you? That's how your mind works, just like Al thinks the reason the rest of us don't spam the whole board for 11 months consecutive is that we're sissies or something.

Real reason:
We don't want to fuck kids, cus pedophilia is fucking reprehensible.
We don't spam the forum, or make "call out" threads on everyone who disagrees, because we don't have rampant ocd and impulse control problems. We are also not sociopaths.

Oh, you!

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Having sex with post-pubescent teenagers isn't pedophilia, Jesus Fuck! get a dictionary. 

[ZEGH8578]

swelling with pride, because at this point, it's all you can do
pride in your stupidity, pride in your blind loyalty towards people of shared ideology regardless of actions, pride in your own fucking pedophilia (I don't buy your semantic nitpicking for even a moment. I know what you're computer is full of, you fucking piece of garbage)

How does it feel, to be like this?
Rawkin awesome, I bet!

[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. Your intellectual dishonesty stems from the fact that you, as they put it, "took the easy way out", proud of not reading Zegh but nevertheless showing with your every word and your every action what you thought about him and how nothing would change that.

I might not have said anything if you hadn't continued to follow him across the board with your moronic ninja cats and whatnot, if you'd simply stopped reading and stopped caring. Plenty of people here who stop reading other people's posts. They move on, though; you don't.

Only a dickhead would think "I" "caught on this late in the game".

You sure fooled me. Did you, or did you not, understand that the expression "full of shit" was just that, an expression, a paraphrasing of your words and actions?

Call me what you like.

I don't think you are a dickhead, nor do I for one moment believe you think I only just got this. More fool you if this IS the case. I knew what it was. I had a fair bit of your premise to dismantle first, and did this systematically:

• 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

I agreed that "pretending" was a poor choice of words. I didn't say you were dishonest, you did. I also wrote this in reply to your callout:

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?

Now, you can, of course, take this very literally and say I was calling you dishonest since the intellectual dishonesty definition, which is really what this boils down to, is a couple of posts away still, at this point, but before that, I do explain why I read pretence into your posts, adding that it was my impression.

• 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 said Butterflies ganged up with somebody, I don't remember who, and I thought she didn't.  What's your point, exactly? Do you even know?

• 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)

I did, because you apparently did need it. It's worth quoting the post in its entirety:

OK, so let me go through this one last time, then. I'll start with this, the result of a simple Google search:

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

Following the link, the page starts with this:

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.

This links directly to what I meant. You claim on one hand that Zegh is full of it, while on the other admitting that you've not read him in once and that you may indeed be wrong. In other words, you avoid an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why is that? Because you prefer the back and forth rather than actually considering what your opposite number has to say? Because you don't actually want to even consider changing your opinions?

Instead you rely on quoted material, on second-hand information and on how others (thinking of DFG here, but I'm sure there are others) react to his posts.

Quoting the article again:

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.

Note that "IntellectualDishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds."

I think you make it easy for yourself, Al, for whatever reason, they key being that you base your views and actions on whatever your opinion of him was before you stopped reading but still go after him. As I hold you to higher standards than that--yes, I think you are intelligent enough--you simply did not live up to my expectations.

What surprised me, but also confirmed my view that you make it easy for yourself, is how you compared what you are doing to archaeologists assuming things about the distant past as if the two were even remotely comparable. I'm pretty sure they'd ask their subjects directly if they could, but you *choose* not to.

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.

So there it is. You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why? To post ninja cats? You tell me; I don't know.

And last but not least, the "ganging up" comment is an aside but it does pertain to the matter at hand in that it is the kind of easy characterisation I rather thought you would avoid. Higher standards and all that.

So, can we let this thing die now?

• 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

It's not a mantra, it is a definition found on top of a Google search that was spot on. I wrote: You avoid the honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach. Why? To post ninja cats? You tell me; I don't know.

I still think it's the case, which you proved soon after post this. Let me quote it:

This is surreal

• You tried a new tact and said that I was tiptoeing around DFG. This was an even weaker claim and you soon dropped it

You provided an explanation I thought was believable. I still do find the fact that you completely avoided what DFG was saying fascinating, to say the least, but I am willing to give you the benefit of a doubt there.

You never came close to believable when we were discussing your actions around Zegh. One of your first, and epic, failures was the archaeologist argument. Remember that one? I'm glad you abandoned it, but that's when I knew I wasn't mistaken.

• 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 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.

• 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

If you really don't see the difference between what you're doing and what I said about Cal, then you really don't understand the fact that my reaction was never about an expression of yours. I have tried explaining but at this point, either you just don't get it or are too obsessed to see the difference.

• 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?

Sorry, but what are you on about?

• 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.

"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.

So what points ought I have made in what particular order? This is a how long is a piece of string question. If I did not make a particular point at a particular time does that mean that it only occurred to me? To me, I had bigger things to concentrate on such as:

• Attacking the premise that I was "pretending" and being "dishonest", both of which you conceded were poorly chosen and that you wished to express ONLY intellectual dishonesty.

Pretence was a poor choice since intellectual dishonesty is what I meant, which I said. Dishonest was in a context, even though adding "intellectual" took me a few posts, IIRC. My quoted post, above, only says "dishonest" but in a context, which I thought would be enough.

I was not saying that "Al is dishonest" without any qualifiers because that would have been wrong.

• Showing the irrelevance of the "ganging up" inference premise of yours

You were the one to claim that Butterflies was doing it, not me. I reacted because it was unfair and wrong.

• Show a defence against every aspect of the claim that I was intellectually dishonest by identifying every aspect of the definition and contrasting that against my own actions to find it wanting

Starting with your archaeologist argument. Yes, that went really well, and then it all went downhill from there. You have provided what you hope are contrasting arguments, but I'm not buying them and from the looks of it, nobody else is either.

• Outlining the weakness of your tactic of making a weak subjective premise without any support and to show a dictionary definition of a word then repeat a point over and over.

My "tactic"? ROFL. I showed a definition and explained why you r actions matched the definition. I realise you probably wouldn't want to admit to any of it but considering your replies, I'd say I hit home.

• Arguing your introduced point about me apparently tiptoeing

You did avoid DFG's posts in a way you've probably not done with anyone here, ever, but I accepted your explanation.

• Showing your own use of the phrase "full of shit"

It was NEVER about the expression, it was ALWAYS about the sum of your actions, because they frequently speak louder than words. Here is an example:

This is surreal

We've all said that someone is full of shit, which you showed using a search. Well done. But by doing that you also showed how you've completely missed the point. Not so well done after all.

I am not about repeating the same point over and over. Nor do I expect have an expiration date on a disagreement. It finishes when it finishes. I think that each aspect of what you said WILL be addressed and in time.

So yes the "only just occurred to you" was a pretty silly thing to say, wasn't it?

Nope.

And I'm sure you will continue this.

I might not have said anything if you hadn't continued to follow him across the board with your moronic ninja cats and whatnot, if you'd simply stopped reading and stopped caring. Plenty of people here who stop reading other people's posts. They move on, though; you don't.

Yes, I don't, or at least, I haven't....and?
Now you HAVE said something AND? How has that all turned out for you? Better? Has it stopped my efforts against Zegh? Has it resolved anything? Is it likely to make a long term difference?

Remember that thing you quoted from our start page? That's what I did.

Do I care if you continue posting ninja cats? Not really, but you're not really helping your case either. Keep on replying with the ninja cats and all the rest of it, and your actions will continue speaking louder than words. Call it something else? Sure, go ahead, it's your credibility, not mine.

You are getting closer to the point where you confess your reason for bringing it up in the first place was to get me to stop and to do so was that it annoyed you and whilst you did not want to be involved in the argument or "choose sides" you thought by making a few weak but pointed accusations you could either distract me or shame me into shutting up and stopping feuding with Zegh, without looking partisan.

And here is where you are wrong. I don't give a shit if you go on with the ninja cats. Zegh can handle you. You won't know this, of course, unless you peek, but whatever you hope to achieve, you're not getting there.

Again, I don't care. I may have paid attention to this if a month or so ago you had said this was the case, and may have stopped. But you didn't. You doubled down and so now will I. Don't you think that is fair?

Your intellectual dishonesty stems from the fact that you, as they put it, "took the easy way out", proud of not reading Zegh but nevertheless showing with your every word and your every action what you thought about him and how nothing would change that.

I have shown that by ANY rational, intelligent and logical viewing my views on Zegh are not uniformed EVEN if I have not read him for six months. Reading someone is easy. Reading someone and getting a bead on them is easy (generally, unless said person is known to lie - such saying that they will have one month of silent treatment [directed at me and DFG] and then not follow through) BUT what is much harder is to keep a decent bead on them based off 7 years worth of experience of reading and interacting with them and watching what and who they react to and second hand reports on what they said or did not say and the interactions people have with them. This is MUCH harder and therefore by any decent reasoning, NOT the easy way out.

Its pretty easy to understand. Getting it wrong after reading them and paying attention to them is possible but less likely that relying on all of the above that I do. So how well do I do? Well, see all those examples on the board where people have said "Zegh did not say what you accused him of" and "You were so off base, Zegh was so not being snarky, condescending, and full of shit. He was actually just popping into your callouts to say complimentary things to and about you. I think he has really changed since you stopped talking to him. He never lies, is respectful and reasonable. I think you would find him very tolerable nowdays"

Why would he? You've been acting like an ass for months.

This is surreal

It doesn't matter to me much, though. I'm not here to protect Zegh.

No? You don't see that? Do you see ANYONE point out anything that I said about him which is factually incorrect? Anything Odeon?
Okay, new question. IF I manage to maintain this without reading him....is this easier .....or.....harder? If you say easier you either deliberately disingenuous or your IQ is slipping.

My every word and action? Yup, I think he is an asshat and is full of shit. And??

This is surreal

" how nothing would change that"

This is dishonest. Why are being dishonest? No, Odeon, you are and you know you are. I have been very clear that it is up to Zegh to sort things out. I have been extremely clear that I have sorted out differences between others that i had issues with. Its a very long list and you have been here on I2 with me years and know this is the case. People that I have disliked just as much as Zegh. He is NOT special.

"sorted out differences between others that i had issues with"

How many others have you treated the way you treat Zegh?

Why then are you being dishonest and for who's benefit?

I am not being dishonest. I am criticising you, however, and I am disagreeing with what you've offered as counterarguments.

I originally hoped it to be for your benefit, actually. Now, it no longer matters because I don't think you will admit to anything.

What is amazing to me is how closely this post's general points resemble this post way early on in the piece. I am consistent.

I do read and re-registered and analyse what you have said and I am no closer to see a reasonable point..
All I see is variations of the same themes "You did not read him", "You posted Ninja Cats".  Like either of these were anything more than  conversation starters and as if these points actually were irrefutable proof of your false claims of me. They weren't in either case
Yet my engagement in this is not what you want because whatever assumptions you have made, you are holding onto for dear life. When I give example after example to illustrate my point, I am apparently taking things too literally or bringing Zegh into the conversation. 

I don't think it is me though. I suspect the reason why nothing said has any substance is not that I am missing it, but that you have no real substance. In fact in my last reply I showed the lack of such substance.due to no consideration of context.

You are not a stupid man, Odeon. I see no reason for you purposely wishing to make and defend baseless claims about me to which and surface analysis would render toothless. I think you are smarter than that. So I want to know what is going on?

And....................... next.

[Al Swearegen]

Zegh, have not read BUT have you gone for a reasoned argument this time, or are you just being snarky, condescending and outraged?

You should try actually reading and addressing things. It's why you don't like callouts. I believe. Easier to yell snarky insults than defend a position or argue your own.

Either says that you have no faith in your position to allow it to be defended and need to distract...or you have narcissistic level of believe of every point you make so that you could not bring yourself to even consider an alternative opinion.

Maybe though you are just so drug-addled you are incapable of the focus required for a job any adult responsibilities a disagreement.

Well are you going to throw some condescending snarky and distraction from what I said, my way? Or perhaps you want to draw a dinosaur?

[odeon]

You should try addressing HIM. Right now, you come off as an idiot, Al. Yes, I know, you don't read him, but this latest post of yours is just another example of your easy way out mentality re Zegh.

Like he said, this is surreal.

[ZEGH8578]

Al, you're wrong.
I'm not "reasoning" with Pappy, I am hurling ad hominems at him, trying to be a dick. Snarky, as you said. Because I want to, and I don't have any respect for him.

You might have experienced this before, and I will explain it - one more time

I don't do your "call outs" (or any other) because what is said is said, and won't be said any differently in an "arena" of sorts.
A separate "call-out" thread won't change my mind about feminism, and won't make you make any more sense than in any other separate forum post. The idea of the "call-out" is to have "the gallery" finally declare a winner, and make a lengthy flame-war end. Am I right, or do I have the wrong idea?

Where is the gallery?
Where are the votes?

Where is the shit I'm supposed to give what a limited 3rd party thinks about my arguments? Where is the shit you give?

THIS call-out is a fantastic example of the futility of having any kind of "reasonable argument" with you.
Odeon isn't defending me, and I'm not out to defend him, we have never spoken outside of casual forum replies, unlike you - and your pathetic cronies
THAT SAID - he is doing an impressive job at ACTUALLY trying to play to your rules. He is addressing _every retarded point_ you make, one... after the other... ad nauseam.

I applaud that. But I also regard it as sky diving or something - an activity I simply have no interest in replicating.
I am guessing he is doing it just to see what it will take, maybe out of morbid curiousity.
I also suspect he has stronger discipline than me, regarding how low to let himself sink, in regards to communicating with people. I am willing to scrape the bottom, you wife-beating psychopathic assfuck. See? I don't care about that.
He isn't willing to go there, and I understand that, and so, reasonable arguments are bounced against the wall like a game of squash.

To put it simply: You have no interest in *the exchange*, which isn't a big surprise, I'm not either, I'm not sitting here going "maybe I should give him a chance of making me afraid of women too!" - but I AM willing to "live and let live", and that's where it gets very messy with people like you.
You OBSESS

You cannot allow someone who engaged in argument with you, to walk away "unconvinced". There is no rational reason as to why this is so difficult for you. Obsessiveness is not rational. It "itches" you, it's on your mind, it's always there, "They left unconvinced!" it eats at you, and its your problem and not mine.

SO...
At the end of the day, I'm on this forum, I'm free to post, and most post content goes unpunished, so... whenever I'm not sick to fucking death of seeing your rabid ramblings, I take a few moments out of my time to be snarky, cus lol. Otherwise, you are annoying and lame and boring and predictable. Yes, you annoy me. If that gives you some sort of pathetic gratification, then congratufuckinlations

"I didn't read any of that but - " yawn...

['Butterflies']

Surely I'm not the only one who can see that this behaviour is genuinely destroying the site, if it hasn't already

Before this crap got started, this place was kinda awesome. Now it just sucks. This is sucking the life out of i2.
For the last 4 years, the site seems to have been a succession of bizarre, pointless, and totally obsessive feuds, often lasting the best part of a year each.

A large portion of good members have simply drifted away, and the site is dying. These feuds are the cancer that is killing the site



Arguments are fine. I enjoy the odd argument. 8 month arguments are not cool, and they're not normal. If this behaviour keeps going, I'm sure even more people will be driven away.

[Jack]

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.

[benjimanbreeg]

I have to agree with fluffy evil one here.

No one wants to read essay vs essay about nothing. 

Retards like odeon do make me laugh though.  He can spend all day nattering like he's some kind of argument guru, but can only muster a meme when it comes to mankind.

[Jack]

The fluffy evil one sees nostalgic bygone I2 years, filled with her friends, through rose colored glasses which filter out the old feuds.

['Butterflies']

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'm not specifically talking about the Odeon v Les dispute. I'm talking about the seemingly constant stream of disputes that's been going on for the last few years, of which, this is just the latest chapter.

You seem to enjoy it, and that's cool. Each to their own. However, I get the strong feeling that the majority of people left here can't stand it, and I'm certain that it's played a huge part in driving a lot of people away over the last few years.

[Al Swearegen]

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

[Jack]

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'm not specifically talking about the Odeon v Les dispute. I'm talking about the seemingly constant stream of disputes that's been going on for the last few years, of which, this is just the latest chapter.

You seem to enjoy it, and that's cool. Each to their own. However, I get the strong feeling that the majority of people left here can't stand it, and I'm certain that it's played a huge part in driving a lot of people away over the last few years.

Some of the people who have left were also some of the ones starting a lot of fights. If anything I2 has mellowed for being smaller. There used to be a lot more people, and a crap ton of fighting. Yes, enjoyed it, because just like you said, it's not cool and it's not normal. What else is to be expected on a forum designed for people who don't know how to socialize properly? If it's really and truly destroying the site, then it's probably fitting and just, and I'm not really sure what to say about that. Good! damn it.