XKCD comic on Internet arguments
Boy, does today's XKCD ever resonate with me -- every year, my New Year's resolution is "stop arguing with strangers on the Internet" and every year, I break it within days.
Link
Boy, does today's XKCD ever resonate with me -- every year, my New Year's resolution is "stop arguing with strangers on the Internet" and every year, I break it within days.
Link
Possibly your best post ever. Now if it could just be turned into a catLOL...
that post was NOT FUNNY!
what do you mean it wasn't funny!
Don't joke about this, guys. The internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS.
don't you trivialize this!
Hey Cory, welcome back. We had a big argument while you were away: I'm still hoping to get your perspective on it.
look you guys are all wrong.
this post is actually about being made fun of
Hey! stop fighting, and you are all wrong anyway. As everyone knows, the internet is for pr0n.
you're all Nazis!!
@9, Godwin's Law.
I used to argue on the Internet.
Now I just make random posts that have nothing to do with anything else in the thread, solely for my own amusement.
This one isn't funny, though.
Straight male seeks Bush supporter for fair, physical fight - m4m
________________________________________________________________________
Reply to: anon-47785163@craigslist.org
Date: Wed Nov 03 19:11:50 2004
I would like to fight a Bush supporter to vent my anger. If you are one, have a fiery streek, please contact me so we can meet and physically fight. I would like to beat the shit out of you.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
________________________________________________________________________
Copyright © 2004 craigslist
With the large following that XKCD has, surely there's someone talented out there who could offer to draw it properly.
The simplistic artwork is a huge part of XKCD's charm.
Some of the earlier strips *do* make use of considerably more "advanced" artwork, proving that the strip's author is a fairly decent artist.
I just want to comment on the lack of maturity shown by the person that called me a nazi
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out."
ALT TITLE:
What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!
Thanks Evil Jim.
Cory, you can't put the comic out there without the alt title text included - you lose half the comic! - okay, maybe a quarter....
Pfft, if someone on the internet disagrees with you (i.e., "is wrong"), then clearly they must be a troll ... report them at once to the mods and then write a long ranty post on your mySpace blog decrying the horrible immaturity and lack of manners among folks on the internets today (bonus points if you can manage to work in a reference to that Penny Arcade 'Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory' comic) ...
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or be indistinguishable from - selfrighteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of time."
Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
IM IN UR TUBES PRUVIN UR AL RONG!
-abs
xkcd is OK, but I strongly perfer the far more intelligent, original humor found on Ebaum's World.
*runs for the hills*
Ay-yi-yi. XKCD once again reveals its uncanny powers of surfing the collective unconscious. What's even sadder is that trolly-troll comments still provoke that reaction in my brain to "bash bash!" with the hammer of JUSTICE! Learning to spot and ignore internet trolls should be a rite of passage into adulthood.
Arguing on the internet? Call it what it is: psychopathy
But, dammit, they are WRONG!!!
And I'm willing to keep a thread going until the end of time to pound it into their thick, Neocon skulls!
Hahahaha!
The detail that you are all so easily missing is how much you all suck compared to me.
Simply do what I say and everything will go a lot easier for everybody.
That is all.
Why is the mainstream media ignoring THE ONLY CANDIDATE with a PRACTICAL solution to the problem of BEING WRONG ON THE INTERNET?
Google RON PAUL!
But will the airplane take off?!
no, YOU have missed MY point you scumbag !!!!!!
Bobba Fett was in no way related to the Ewoks you idiot. I am a PROFFESIONAL at this subject, I asked George Lucas when I said to him about it only last WEEK.
Thats it I'm sick of this thread and am going to bed so don't even bother replying.
#6
Ted, I agree entirely.
I've been eagerly awaiting Corey's return, to see what he made of the whole Hamster's Lunch debacle.
Corey, we had a big fight, and haven't made up yet. Please don't let peoples negative feelings over this solidify into a burgeoning dislike for BB.
Let's talk :)
#24 Arguing on the internet? Call it what it is: psychopathy
No no no! Objectivism is psychopathy! ;)
ZippySpincycle @24 - I like what you did there
HA!
You're all psychopaths!
This is SO not just an internet phenomenon. It's like rich people being eccentric. We can just afford to do it on the internet.
RON PAUL '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gee, and fans of a certain failed Republican presidential candidate wonder why they get accused of being spam bots.
(psst... it was a joke. I no fall for Paul.)
Noen, that's exactly the sort of groupthink I'd expect from you, and frankly from all of the collectivists in the hive-mind that is BoingBoing.
BUT... BUT... YOU'RE ALL WRONG AND NOT ONLY ARE YOU ALL WRONG BUT YOU KEEP ON BEING WRONG EVEN WHEN I PROVE TO YOU THAT THE TRUTH VALUE OF EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS FALSE!! I SIMPLY CANNOT REST WHILE THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE MAKING FALSE AND UNVERIFIED STATEMENTS. I MUST GO FROM FORUM TO FORUM CORRECTING YOU AND SHOWING YOU THE ERRORS OF YOUR WAYS. IT'S A TIRESOME AND THANKLESS TASK BUT I MUST KEEP ON BECAUSE THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET, INDEED THE FUTURE OF FREEDOM DEPENDS ON ME!!
Your resolution to stop arguing with strangers seems similar to au revoir when you went to hang out with your new infant.
As a dad, I figured that would actually RAISE your post count. Anyone want to do the math?
It's a funny comic, but this "don't argue" attitude is one mechanism by which groupthink is enforced.
Everyone gets along because they share the same (often misguided) opinions; they go nuts when a "troll" expresses a different opinion (or points out factual/logical errors); and then they blame the "troll" for starting the argument. The solution always is to eliminate the "trolls," which leads to even worse groupthink.
Website admins have gotten better at enabling members to enforce groupthink (e.g., profile pages and the "happy mutants" label to make users feel like they're part of a unified community, report buttons, Digg's downmod button), but I haven't seen any technological advances in encouraging critical thought and diverse opinion.
Some ideas:
1. Require users to pass a reading comprehension or IQ test before enabling the "post" button. This would double as a sobriety test.
2. A comment reply system that uses overlays, similar to adding comments to photos on Instructables. Every comment would become a wiki to some extent, with the original remaining intact.
3. Start a writing critique site, and use BoingBoing comments as fodder for revision practice.
There, there, Moonbat.
Cory, you'll just have to get to know more people.
Monnbat @41: (I don't want to disagree with you but) It's funny that you should mention reading comprehension, since it's been explained several times that you don't get disemvowelled at Boingboing merely for having a different opinion; you get disemvowelled for being rude and offensive.
Here, Moonbat, read these:
Digression removed from a moderator's comment
Unqualified Offerings: Blog
Making Light: Blog
The preserved skeleton of an argument
Make sure you look at the comment threads as well as the main entries.
Nelson C.: You are wrong.
Yeah, that pretty much puts you on the side of mass ignorance. You might as well have linked a photo of yourself in an SS uniform, spanking a naked man.
What does dressing up in uniforms and spanking naked persons have to do with ignorance?
Re #45, so Moonbat read all that in 10 minutes?
No, Teresa used her power as a site admin to edit her own comment.
It may not have been her intention, but it had the effect of making me look bad.
#41
You're sounding more and more elitist as you go.
You truly don't seem to like BB and it's reader/commenter interactions.. why are you still here? Maybe you just like making sweeping generalizations and having pointless arguments with a bunch of collectivist groupthinkers.
(personally I haven't yet solidified my prejudices enough to reside in any *ist category)
- separately -
#44 & #46
I wonder why hedonisbot was disemvowelled here.
The comment was made, and was most definitely trollish, but it was dealt with by the next few comments and order was restored. The comment was there long enough for anyone who cared to respond (and they did), and a while later (i only noticed today) it was edited away.
curious.
"It's been explained several times that..." does not equal "It is true that..."
Explanations of groupthink-enforcing* behavior are often rationalizations or outright lies.
Since your ego is attached to this forum (since you believe you are part of a community here), it's important that you realize I am not talking about BoingBoing. I'm talking about all Internet forums, from Usenet to GameFAQs to Little Green Footballs. All forums exhibit the same irrational group behavior to varying degrees.
For a non-BoingBoing example of forum members denying that groupthink-enforcement occurs, look at how Digg users still don't realize that site has moderators who delete comments and ban users, often for inappropriate reasons. Look how the "bury brigade" buries comments that state simple facts about how Digg works. I'm not talking about the various Digg conspiracies either (some of which made the front page of this website). I mean simple, simple, facts, like that Digg employs moderators.
Go to Metafilter and see if they admit to harassing conservatives.
Go to Little Green Footballs and see if they admit to harassing liberals.
Now, about the disemvoweling; no, that is not the reason comments are disemvoweled. Comments are disemvoweled because the moderators dislike them and want to send a message to anyone who would make similar comments. That may include rude and offensive comments, but not always, and not primarily.
If you don't believe me, do a Google search: site:www.boingboing.net th nd
Of course, that won't reveal many comments that have been deleted and won't tell you which users have been banned.
See how many devoweled comments you can find that were not rude and offensive.
For bonus points, read a few recent threads and see how many rude and offensive comments were not devoweled.
If you watch the comments long enough--on any forum--you will see a pattern emerge. You will see that selective enforcement favors the "party line" (or "groupthink") position.
* = I call it "groupthink-enforcement" because I'm an anti-groupthink activist (or "troll"), but it's just norm enforcement. It's standard behavior in all groups. No conspiracy or unusual condition is needed--just normal people in a group. Ask a Sociology professor.
The Internet is potentially the greatest consciousness-raising technology ever known, but it is being misused. We need to stop being playgrounds to indulge our worst traits.
Can't you see, sheeple? The internets are being misused! I've explained this all before, but still you refuse to listen!
Do your research!
That's an excellent example of groupthink-enforcement right there.
Talk about basic Sociology in any other setting and see how "crazy" it seems. Only on the Internet do people reject such basic information about how social groups work.
If you've never thought about this before, try asking yourself these questions:
What is the content value of that comment? What does it add to the discussion?
If you were to remove the logically fallacious portions of that comment, what would be left? "I disagree with you"?
Since the comment is rude and offensive, having no other content value, shouldn't it be devoweled? Shouldn't someone at least call him on it?
Why do you think he allowed himself to behave that way, and why do you think others encourage him?
Do you think the Internet could be used to help people overcome their urge to behave that way?
#45, Teresa Nielsen Hayden
That last link is genius.
The question is: What can we do about it? Protecting your own forum from "trolls" may prevent flame wars, but it does nothing to improve the quality of thought or diversity of opinion.
Moonbat, my problem is that you seem to immediately call 'groupthink' whenever a number of people don't agree with you.
I don't think people appreciate being told they are just sheeple; (conciously or not) carrying some party line, when in fact they are individually expressing an opinon. So some of the wrath (objectivism thread) which you say is unfounded, is in fact just reaction to that type of implication.
As you say, groupthink (etc.) is a standard part of sociology; people who tend toward the things that interest them, in places they feel comfortable will hold certain similar views.
But that doesn't mean everybody in said place is defined by those individual strands of agreement, or indeed, by that community.
I see plenty of opposition in most posts I read on BB (passionate or otherwise), and I doubt that anybody here agrees with everything published, or that anyone here agrees with every thought of any other poster, even though they both may have been in agreeement on some topic just the other day. But that statistic somehow gets washed away when a vocal minority are involved in a discussion, in which you (singularly sometimes) are on the opposition. Now you are a victim of mindless groupthink, BB is just full of [insert mindless rabble cliche here]'s.
I agree that on BB there is a general negative feeling toward subjects like: TSA, Bush administration, DHS, War on Terror, Police over-zealousness, Iraq/Afghanistan, Overreaching Copyright Laws, etc. but frankly, I don't personally know anyone in my wide reaching circles of human interaction who wouldn't hold similar views as a given.
Thats not to say I know anyone's view on a subject before I meet them, but I think they are widely held views both inside and outside the US, and BB is a place where those type of people read a portion of their news and entertainment.
So, some people think differently on some topics, and on a few topics you are the only proponent.
meh.
me #56
"" ..and BB is a place where those type of people.. ""
*amongst others*
FIXED :)
every read Harlan Ellison's account of his encounter with a "stone science fiction fan"?
I am absolutely convinced Moonbat that everywhere you go you are discriminated against by groupthinking collectivists. I am equally convinced that if you were to create your ideal forum there would one and only one person that would enjoy being there.
*ahem*
errr... I'm not that funny, but loads of y'all are.
So I request: Ignore Moonbat and get back to funny.
Or I'm going to go look at the Moon. (i wish it wasn't to cold for bats)
Fuck it, I actually AM going to look at the Moon... anyone want to join?
Eight-eighths cloud cover here, and past my bedtime, anyway. Thanks for the offer, though.
That's everyone's excuse, isn't it?
It's funny and sad at the same time.
I learned this a long time ago: Talk to someone who doesn't often use the Internet about the kinds of people who use the Internet and how they behave, that person will agree with every word you say. Talk to someone who does often use the Internet about people on other sites, that person will agree with about 90% of what you say (he'll deny a small number of things he personally does). Talk to someone about the website he is using at that moment, he'll call you fucking crazy, incoherent, egomaniacal...anything he can say to get out of it, like a man caught in the act of murder.
One problem in your comment:
This...
Leads to this...
And that causes irrational group behavior when you meet up with like-minded people on forums like this one, because you all (the most vocal members anyway) think you're speaking for the mainstream and anyone who disagrees is crazy.
#62
I've never spoken for the main stream in my life.
I made personal observations about the things I've seen on this site and the environment I find myself in. Beyond that, I called you on crying 'groupthink' everytime someone disagrees with you and that's about it..
No attack, just interaction with someone who seems to be quite negatively vocal recently on a site I frequent for, as Searconflex put it, the funny comments on the news of the day.
Now I'm going to look at the rising sun, in lieu of Searconflex's moon.
Also, in quoting me above; you happily left out the small correction I made to the last paragraph you quoted of me, which made it clear I meant that the sort of people I knew were some of the people who read BB, and not that BB was read by a single mindset of people.
But that should be obvious, you are here, no?
Those are all unnecessary comments. You haven't surprised me or pointed out any mistake I made.
#65
Why would I try to surprise you? And why would I point out your mistakes?
Jump on me for this if you like, but it sounds like you have a persecution complex, or at least like a good oul' fight. Either way, you just come off as rude, with all the dismissive remarks and sweeping generalizations.
I'm not trying to catch you out Moonbat, I was trying to point out the reason people seem to be getting caught up on you lately, to try stop the seemingly endless you-against-the-world drama we are all having to live through with your persistant wank.
You can be the winner if you like, I don't care enough. I'm just after a little shut-the-fuck-up.
This is the paradox at the core of you, Moonbat. You claim you want a diversity of opinion, yet you rail against everyone who disagrees with you.
What's the word to describe the situation wherein a comments thread becomes (first cheekily, and then seriously) a parody of the very thing the original post was humorously pointing out?
"Irony" doesn't seem to quite capture it.
#68 it's e-rony
#69 wins teh internets!
#66, ARKIZZLE
You failed to do either of those things.
I was only pointing that out. Why do people feel compelled to reply to every comment, even when their reply adds no content value? It's all symptoms of the same disease.
#67, NELSON C.
Not everyone.
This is just more of the same nonsense I've condemned in previous comments. Every time someone points out irrational group behavior, mass ignorance, ignorance of any kind...the response is always, "Well, he just disagrees with everyone. He's just an awful person."
OK, I didn't want to do it, but I see no other recourse but to say:
Moonbat is HITLER and is clearly bosom buddies with the Nazis.
..and that's the end of that chapter. Case closed. Those pesky kids etc..
also #69 Mojo Jojo FTW. Eat up, the e-rony is delicious.
I always knew "Godwin's Law" was a scam.
What you fail to realize is I'm the only one not arguing here. I'm addressing the futility of argument, and the reaction is vocal disagreement.
we are the Boing. You will be ass-stimulated.
Perhaps your comments make sense to you.
Post (apparent meaning): Arguing on the Internet is wrong.
Everyone (apparent meaning): Arguing on the Internet is wrong.
Me (actual meaning): Arguing on the Internet is wrong.
Everyone: Violent disagreement.
You see? I'm agreeing with the apparent sentiment of the original post. It's ironic that others are attempting to argue with me, but I am not arguing with anyone.
Post (apparent meaning): Arguing on the Internet is wrong.
Everyone (apparent meaning): Arguing on the Internet is wrong.
Me (actual meaning): Everyone here is guilty of GroupThink.
Everyone: Violent disagreement.
FIXED.
(Sorry gang, I couldn't help it, it was just a small morsel and he looked so hungry with his little troll'y face..)
not necessarily, I could be arguing on my own time.
(from next door: "WAUUGH!"
No, I wrote that the "don't argue" attitude is one mechanism by which groupthink is enforced. Everyone (actually several core retards) intuitively recognized their own behavior in that comment and lashed out.
If you think I've written any false claim, feel free to point it out. That would be a refreshing change after all the false claims and personal attacks coming from you and your ilk.
You would do well to repent and surrender your life to the Lord.
come on Moon, the first one is free...... you know you want to.... all the cool kids are doing it....
Moonbat, there's no groupthink going on here. There's no groupthink going on in most of the places you've mentioned. Most people who analyze the internet in terms of groupthink are wrong. They're also nutbars. You're about as sane as anyone I've seen who thinks that groupthink is a major force in online interactions; but that doesn't mean I think you're right. I think you're wrong.
Also, you ever explained what dressing up in Nazi uniforms and spanking naked men has to do with ignorance.
Just so you know: what you're mistaking for groupthink is more than one person disagreeing with you at a time. That's all.
...
Arkizzle, Hedonisbot was disemvowelled there because we are not having that argument. Boing Boing posts get enough long-tail traffic for a significant number of people to see that comment. All it takes is one or two hotheads to get that argument going.
Moonbat again (55):
That's where you're dead wrong. True groupthink and echo-chamber effects are actually characteristic of chaotic, uncivil online venues. Diverse and complex opinions can only flourish in conditions of civility and trust. I truly believe that free speech is moderated speech, just like I believe that a free society is a society of laws.ya know Teresa, If I were you I'd be really, really offended at the suggestion that your thinking shares a cabana with mine. I mean honestly, you'd be up all night scrubbing with steel wool.
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.
Q: How do you deal with trolls?
A: Hunt them down and exterminate them like the vermin they are.
CIP: Daniel Joseph Min, Brad Guth, Thomas Lee Elfritz, and the rest of the racist trolls currently polluting usenet.
but vermin are Buddha's creatures too
killing is easy, try converting sometime if you want a workout.
Though I respect any entity's right to honourable suicide
Takuan, if you're very, very good, I'll someday tell you about all the varieties of literature I've edited in the course of my career.
not...not... EULAs (opleasegodsayno)
Define groupthink.
If you could retrace the steps of the shell game you've played on your own mind, you might come to realize why you claimed a) norm enforcement is not a major force in social interaction or b) online interaction is not social.
Just imagine if your link had led to a photo of you dressed in an SS uniform, spanking a naked man. It's a visual image. No explanation required.
So you think accusations of psychopathy promote civility and trust?
You think Takuan's comment spam raises the level of discourse?
Imagine for a moment we're on Little Green Footballs. The users there are hostile to anything or anyone that contradicts the party line, and site staff encourage abusive behavior by selectively enforcing undefined rules and never condemning or acknowledging the widespread abuse that occurs. This is hypothetical. In explanation, one of the moderators writes what you just wrote:
What do you say to him?
What could you possibly say to a person like that?
Can you see how it would be like debating childcare with a pedophile?
#81 Theresa
Ok, fair enough.
Hedonisbot was waaaay off base and clearly only contributing to rile. I suppose I just felt the comment got shot down and that was that.
IANAMod though, so I hadn't really thought about the whole: flame-bait comment keeps re-igniting as new people come across the topic..
I'm certainly appreciating the way you are trying to address each disemvowelment, somewhere below the offending comment, recently. Maybe it's not new, but I especially noticed it in the 2nd Kosovo thread where you made clear your reasons for doing it.
I think it's important to affix some form of per-use justification when using such a tool, even for the benefit of late comers, because otherwise it just looks mob-handed, and I'm sure that's not the intention
Are you having a bad week, princess?
lessee now; ss uniforms, naked men, roped in, pedophiles, oh yeah : scat....
Moonbat; you have serious issues. Why do you have these sexual problems? Remember, this is the ultimate place for anonymous confession. We will not hurt you, speak.
Now you're just moonbaiting.
You see this, Theresa?
Everything's going according to plan, isn't it?
I bet you love this. With such faithful supporters, you'll hardly have anyone to ban; outsiders will see the hostile environment and won't comment.
You aren't tempted to comment on Little Green Footballs, are you? No? Because you know how hostile the environment is to unpopular (i.e., rational) opinion?
no, not baiting.
speak.
I know that it's mean, but narcissistic invective is hilaaaaaarious. We're having fun, currently at your expense. We're going to continue having fun with or without you.
Of course you are. And Theresa's going to allow it. Why? Because that's how the Internet works.
You know this. You just happen to like it that way.
speak
You know this. You just happen to like it that way.
A perfectly accurate summation of the situation.
don't be afraid, speak
courage
Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!
I just think it's hilarious that someone who has chosen the name 'Moonbat' to describe himself will rant for post after post on thread after thread about how nobody takes him seriously, and how it's all because of their bad bad groupthink. Impressive.
That's funny.. I think it's hilarious that most Internet users take these stupid names seriously.
When you can't separate a message from the messenger, you aren't using reason--you're using something else that you erroneously think is superior.
we choose our names for their power
I still listen
Moonbat (88):
No, no, a thousand times no, and if this were a game I'd award you a penalty for asking. ZippySpinCycle was the first to use "groupthink" in this thread, but heesh was obviously joking. You were the first person to use it seriously. You've used it repeatedly. You've claimed to be able to see its operations in this thread. We don't owe you a definition of "groupthink." You owe us one.Now, that is really offensive. I'm serious. You're telling me that I'm not only mistaken, but self-deluded; that you are familiar with the mental processes whereby I did this to myself; and that if I had engaged in clear, correct reasoning, I'd have come to the same conclusions that you have.That takes some nerve. Do you think the same of everyone else you accuse of groupthink -- that we're being willfully self-deluded when we react to your opinions by whistling softly and shaking our heads?
You don't know how I think. You wouldn't know even if I'd told you, because you can't parse a good half of my comments, even when I keep them simple. For example:
Wrong. That's not what I said.BZZZZZZZZZZT!That one gets a penalty even if it's not a game. Where did you get the idea that there's no explanation required for visual images? There's just as much explanation required as there is for anything else offered as an argument.
Sheesh.
First: I never said any such thing, so WTF are you smoking?Second: You're the one who's been accusing others of having pathological thought processes.
Third: Should I ask why you're so defensive about this issue?
Fourth: Is this your best effort? Because I can substantiate that assertion I made. Do you have anything to offer by way of refutation, beyond this irrelevant and grossly distorted misrepresentation of the discussion?
(Moderator removes glasses, pinches bridge of nose.)I don't suppose it would do any good for me to recommend that you read up on comment spam? Because Takuan's comments Do Not Qualify.
LGF doesn't really have a party line. LGF's ground troops are perpetually looking for reasons to feel outraged, and LGF accommodates them. Suppressing abusive behavior is not part of that transaction.Hello? How do you do? Glad to see you read Boing Boing?I don't know, Moonbat; what do I say? You're either hypothesizing that a moderator on LGF would quote me, or you're hypothesizing that he might somehow duplicate that paragraph of mine in some other context. In neither case is that enough to tell me what he means by it.
1. Hello.2. How do you do? I'm pleased to meet you.
It's always a good opening.
No. Not even vaguely. I can't begin to guess how you arrived at that image.Arkizzle (89), deprecating the comment is my first priority.
S