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.
Which is EXACTLY why "I" raised that point. You are not stupid Odeon. Please do not pretend you are. WHY did I make such a point? Look at what you said only a few posts ago about me now saying Zegh is "full of shit" without having read anything he said. Even NOW you are trying to correlated me calling Zegh full of shit with me reading him or not reading him after me having dragged you to the apparent realisation that it IS just an expression.
What is that expression you used once? "You can't have it both ways"
Either it IS just an expression and as such a generic insult not imbued a deeper meaning OR it is saying that I have read or examined everything Zegh has said and am passing a judgment based on everything he has said lately.
I actually use it pretty much in the former (though obviously I had 7 years of observation and interacting that gave me an "appreciation" of the "depths" of his personality.) and YOU seem to switch and change....which is a bit dishonest BUT worse still you now try to pull this "you only just caught on" bullshit.
Cut the shit, Odeon. You are not my tutor and neither of us are stupid. You playing tutor is not your best side.
I agreed that "pretending" was a poor choice of words. I didn't say you were dishonest, you did.
Cool then you did not say this:
Again, mate, I don't care who started this. It doesn't matter after all this time, if it ever did. The fact is that you do this because you enjoy it, you both do, and pretending it's something else (which was my impression of the post I replied to) is just dishonest.
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?
Earlier Odeon strikes again.
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?
Why exactly would I NOT know? You are trying to imply something here, what exactly and more importantly why?
It was Zegh. Yes I did use that term. You tried (not I) to get some mileage out of it. If memory serves, you were trying to tell me that I was trying to paint a bad picture by using this term which was "dramatic" and "nasty". The term "ganging up" was not used by me to suggest what you wanted me to be suggesting or have wanted to suggest. In fact later I even made a thread on alternatives. You did not seem to care for that thread too much. In fact if memory again serves. You said the term was fine. After having had made the point that my use was purely to infer a nasty dramatic sense of the word.
My reason for mentioning it was simply part of outlining a set of premises and positions and actions I have taken in this ongoing "discussion". It is one of MANY things listed and a large part of the reason I did not go straight to the "full of shit is just an expression".
I did, because you apparently did need it.
No you did not Odeon. Stop pretending to be my tutor.
Here is what you are doing. Just so that you know and I know and anyone that is reading knows.
Rather than defend your positions well and back what you are saying, you are trying to make believe that I not only have no arguments to counter but have suddenly regressed in intellectual capacity to that of a child and so I need you...the smart and patient wise old Odeon, to teach me rudimentary concepts and logical structures and how to form opinions of my own and only then will I even be able to have the ability to be make an opinion.
As I said, cut the shit. Saying that you ACTUALLY believe this is blatantly dishonest. You don't. It is a very transparent ploy. It did not work when you started posting definitions. It did not work work when you tried to convince me that full of shit is just an expression which was exactly the point I was making to you. It did not work when you second guessed as to whether I knew why I post something I chose to post and will not work now.
So, again, pretending you are being genuine is not working. You are better than that. Do not be a dickhead, Odeon.
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.
Here is where you tell me what I did or said or read that was not deliberate? No? What about Honest? No, nothing? What about comprehensive? No
Oh wait. Here is where you say "You did not read him so that is not comprehensive, so therefore you are intellectually dishonest"
Slam dunk? Not so much. Why? Two reasons:
A) The first is that if THIS was the sole criteria for hanging one's hat on, in determining intellectual dishonesty then broaden this and see how ridiculous it is. I used in previous examples Glenn Beck. But Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or Adolf Hitler or any other person could be used in a similar way. "Okay so you saw a couple of sound bytes of Trump and he came across as a buffoon. But did you hear every speech in full? Okay then how can you have an opinion on him? You are intellectually dishonest for having such an uniformed position. When did you last see something he said? Six months ago and you did not try to listen to more of him? Well that is so intellectually dishonest"
B) Secondly, I contest that I WAS comprehensive. Whilst you see only Ninja Cats I am very comprehensive in keeping tabs on him - who does he reply to?, what do they say to him?, Who replies to him? How is he reacting (long posts, short posts, Caps)?, What posts is he replying to? How did the conversation in a thread he reply in just change and what would have prompted such a change?
It is hardly conventional BUT it IS comprehensive and the proof of this is that no one has shown me what I have got wrong in 6 months when dealing with him. There is only you saying "you can't know he is full of shit" over and over.
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.
No, I do not think you found something so mundane fascinating. You never found my ignoring most of Lit's posts fascinating. Never said a word of it. Nor my ignoring your and Benji's fight. There was not call to arms there or accusing me of tiptoeing around both of you. C'mon Odeon. Fascinating?
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.
I did not abandon it. I answered it. How is one equal to the other? Were you trying to be dishonest here? It was not an epic failure. Why would you be glad if I abandoned it?
The point was rather simple and much into it that I was not saying. It does not make you right for reading into it what I was not saying. It means you misunderstood.
It was one of a few explanations. it was not a "gotcha" moment.
It was simply saying this simple message "You can be comprehensive and piece together an accurate picture of things using assumptions and reasoning and other evidences and doing so is not intellectually dishonest."
I know, I know, you will just say "but you post ninja cats" or "but you don't read his posts". That misses the point of what I say
And YES I DO remember that one and YES you WERE mistaken.
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 dunno I might have to consult with Earlier Odeon
Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
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.
No, the TWO examples cover two critical aspects to your "read everything they say in order to be comprehensive enough to avoid the charge of intellectual dishonesty" premise (paraphrased....yes Odeon, it was stupid of you to pretend I did not know what that meant too)
The first instance was comparing not how much of Cal you read but rather how much you did not read of him. As stated I clocked him one day at random posting 75 posts that day. That was not a big day it was about standard. YOU over the 6 months of the post that you called him full of shit, missed possibly hundreds of his posts and maybe thousands. Are you in a position that you could have a comprehensive approach to him? I did not read Zegh and I missed far less of Zegh's posts than yo would of Calandale.
But Dr Bitch you said was full of shit. She was only on her second day and with only 18 posts to her name. You had less than two days experience of her and you were calling her full of shit. Is THAT comprehensive? Is it Intellectually dishonest? I think I could argue that I knew Zegh a bit more comprehensively than you did her. I also had a touch more to base my opinions on than you did her EVEN if you had reach all 18 posts.
Sorry, but what are you on about?
You referenced Zegh as being right (In his support for you and opposition to me). Big surprise he would support you. But as mentioned that is like me finding a post of Sol criticising you and posting it as trying to give my argument credibility on his endorsement. Zegh, Sol, Whatever.
"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.
No I KNOW They don't which is precisely why I do not do this:
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
:Sigh:
You were in such good form Earlier Odeon. You dropped the ball this time.
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.
You did and it was wrong. You then merged them into the intellectual dishonest claim.
You were the one to claim that Butterflies was doing it, not me. I reacted because it was unfair and wrong.
No it wasn't. It is how it looked to me. Looked she was ganging up/joining in/mobbing/dogpiling/lending support/constructively criticising/forming a posse/providing cover fire
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23601.0.htmlYou saw that as an awful thing to say and said that it implied nasty connotations, no it did not and doesn't.
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.
Did not go downhill at all. Did you still not get the point of it? Is that it? You thought you were on a winner with that one position and now bring it up like a trophy and proof you were somehow right about everything? Hate to break it to you. You weren't and are not. Downhill is the direction your premises have stayed since their inception 2 months ago.
I do not care if you are buying them or not. Why do you imagine I would?
No one else is?
Do you imagine everyone on I2 is reading through everything we say? Jesus!
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.
No the contrary. I showed how weak it was by repeating it with you. It was and is weak.
"I think you are disingenuous Odeon.......Ha, I think you are wrong.....You are still wrong here is the definition of disingenuous to prove my claim because you do not know what disingenuous means.....{repeat} ........I am not going to repeat myself anymore. I have said all I need to say and proved my point"That above is NOT either backing yourself or making a point and that was precisely what you were doing.
You did avoid DFG's posts in a way you've probably not done with anyone here, ever, but I accepted your explanation.
Bullshit. I did this with Lit for one. I also did with others when they were being provocative and fighting such as PPK, El Pres and even Calvera. I also recently completely let you and Benji go at it without interference. To say you had not seen it or that it is rare is simply not true.
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:
That looks suspiciously like "FUCK, I HATE WINKING CATS" and less like "You were being Intellectually dishonest". Big difference.
I post in lots of places on lots of topics over many years and in many ways.
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.
No, very well done. I get to hold myself up to and contrast against your standard of behaviour.
Nope.
And I'm sure you will continue this.
Yes it was. It was completely moronic and beneath you.
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.
It would not matter overly if you cared what I posted, would it? I remember the thing I posted from the start page. If I remember you took exception to me doing so and tried to say that the only reason you ought not do things was because you would face the wrath of the community and because there did not seem to be any wrath...(paraphrased - did it again)
I actually have a better idea. How about I keep replying however I feel like, even IF there is ninja cats amongst it like I have been and not be as concerned about my "credibility" as you are? Deal?
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.
I know. You do not keep bringing up me posting ninja cats. Its obvious you do not care about them.
Why would he? You've been acting like an ass for months.
As has he, certainly was for months before i stopped reading him (it did NOT come out of a vacuum), and that lying about the 1 month silent treatment? That was such bad form.
It doesn't matter to me much, though. I'm not here to protect Zegh.
No you are here to pick a side in a feud because one party is annoying you more. Its not protecting. But whatever. It sure worked well. Your efforts were rewarded.
"sorted out differences between others that i had issues with"
How many others have you treated the way you treat Zegh?
Off memory Richard, Binty, Bob, Randy, and Penty. (Maybe Nocturnalist and Skyblue1 too)
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.
I doubt it. You are partisan in Zegh and my feuding.
I also have squared things away with others but needed good reason to do so. What I will NOT to is to be shamed or coerced into anything nor make nice or smooth things over for other's benefits. I certainly would not do that for someone lately taken to faux-tutoring me or doubling down on calling me a liar. Doesn't do it for me. You can understand that surely?
And....................... next.
Indeed.
