Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Hopper]

I'm operating on the belief that you are simply not letting it die just to be annoying or to get back at the mods. I strongly feel that you do in fact understand what is being said... I'm done in here.

I never claimed I "didn't understand what is being said," Catratcho. Yeah, I can read. Never was my claim, or my point. But, certainly, one should always "operate on his belief" system.

If one guy tells me that 5 +5 = 20, I understand what he is claiming.

If another guy tells me that 5 + 5 = 15, I also understand what he is claiming.

Without either of them sayin another word, I also know that, while they could both be wrong, both can NOT be right.

Matter of fact, a week or two back, a homey of mine made just that claim, i.e., that 5 + 5 = 20. It just didn't sound quite right to me, so I asked him how he figured that out. His explanation didn't make much sense, and I tried to tell him that, but, turns out, I never told him anything. He told me plenty, though. I don't know how many times he told me that I "just wasn't listening," and that I was just "too stupid" to understand him.

 

[sirkickyass]

I don't respond to the same post multiple times, certainly. If you really think my longest string is 3 even in this new incarnation of the boards, you're just wrong.

Of course, from my recollection, you said you investigated a some 25 or so of my most recent posts.

I have just completed reviewing all 147 posts you have made in this incarnation of the board. I found one instance last month where you made four posts in a row. You responded to the same poster all four times because that poster wrote several separate posts replying to no one in particular.

I'll give you one guess who that one poster was.

If you believe my calculation is in error, please point me to the instance that I've missed.

 

[moevillini]

yup, still here, the ol' nag aint quite dead yet...

Mo! When you and me gunna git together for that there little "group hug," eh!?

 

[Hopper]

I told you before, I investigated this and it was a false confession. One Brow has no consecutive strings of posts longer than three and none replying to the same post multiple times. You have had no response to this.

Well, I guess ya don't need my response no more, eh, Kicky?

I have just completed reviewing all 147 posts you have made in this incarnation of the board. I found one instance last month where you made four posts in a row.

I never got schooled so good, or nuthin, but I think 4 is "longer than three," aint it?

Either way, the "selective enforcement" aspect is just a side issue (by "side issue," I don't mean "totally irrelevant," but...). What is the "need" for, or "usefulness of" such a rule in the first place, if you give all relevant aspects due weight?

Back in ancient times, certain civilizations had a rather interesting "legislation" procedure. Anyone could propose a new law, if they felt it was that important. Once proposed, the enactment of the law would later be decided by majority vote. There was one unique aspect, though. Anyone who proposed a new law that was NOT subsequently enacted would have a 20-lb iron ball chained to each of his legs for the rest of his life.

This was deemed to be due and deserved "punishment" for proposing to restrict the freedom of others without sufficient cause or justification.

 

[sirkickyass]

You got me aint. I corrected myself after doing a complete review as opposed to my previous quick review. I admitted the error (because four is greater than three) and pointed out that this is still contrary to One Brow's claim that he has strings of five or more.

Are you done?

 

[Hopper]

I corrected myself after doing a complete review as opposed to my previous quick review. I admitted the error (because four is greater than three)...

Well, Kicky, first of all, kudos for fessin up.

But, you might do well to ask yourself why there was any need for that in the first place. Aint my bidnizz, and I aint tryin to tell ya what to do, but just a suggestion: If you didn't make unqualified assertions based on knowledge that you know to be incomplete at the time you make the claim, you could save yourself the trouble, ya know?

The unnecessary exaggeration which you are prone to (e.g. sumthin done once immediately becomes "repeatedly" on your re-tellin, just for example) does not enhance your argument or credibility in the long run, even though it may temporarily appear to do so. Maybe it would help if you focused less on convincing others that any claim you make must be right, and more on just gittin to the bottom of things--followin truth wherever it may lead, rather than straining to lead truth to where you are--and you would benefit more from the argumentation you're so fond of. Just sayin....

 

[sirkickyass]

I am glad you feel you are in a position to dispense personal advice about how I should conduct my life. I am sure you feel like a big man having won a major victory after I voluntarily did your work for you on the issue clearly most crucially relevant to the primary discussion. Especially given that fact that the "confession" was still false, although by a different margin. I will give your thoughts the consideration they are due.

Are you done?

 

[Hopper]

I voluntarily did your work for you on the issue clearly most crucially relevant to the primary discussion.

1. My work?

2. As you should be able to discern from my penultimate post, I don't view this as "the issue clearly most crucially relevant to the primary discussion." We can disagree on that, though, don't really matter.

 

[sirkickyass]

1. My work?

I did the leg-work on it. In essence, I proved myself wrong. I was really running away from that one, obviously.

2. As you should be able to discern from my penultimate post, I don't view this as "the issue clearly most crucially relevant to the primary discussion." We can disagree on that, though, don't really matter.

Sarcasm aint. Sarcasm.

And trust me, I wish that had been your penultimate post. Somehow I think you've got another couple of pages of whining (although given the analogies you're choosing, I'm sure you view it as "freedom fighting") in you.

 

[Hopper]

In essence, I proved myself wrong. I was really running away from that one, obviously.

Kicky, ya aint done nuthin to support this unqualified claim, eh?:

As stated above, no other posters are posting 5+ times consecutively in the same thread.

Don't git me wrong, I aint even asking you to. Feel free, however, to admit that you do not have an adequate factual basis to support that assertion, if you so choose.

 

[sirkickyass]

Kicky, ya aint done nuthin to support this unqualified claim, eh?:

Hopper, outside of reviewing every single thread every made on this board in an audited fashion where you can do so over my shoulder you know there is no way to universally prove the negative to your satisfaction. That audited framework is impossible given geographic separation and logistical circumstances.

I will extend to you the same offer I have repeatedly (as in, now at least the third time): If you can show me an instance where someone else posts 5+ times consecutively, we'll talk about it. One poster has alleged that they did so. I fully and painstakingly investigated it. They were wrong.

Until an example is brought up, I have no reason to believe that statement is incorrect. You see, conversely you have not proven that enforcement was selective. Feel free, again, to give me an example and then we'll address it.

As it stands, none of these issues have any real impact on our ultimate issue but appear to instead be instances where you're trying to score ancillary points. I have no problem conceding ancillary issues like "four is bigger than three" and "I have not done the impossible and proven a negative" because they don't affect the ultimate conclusion.

If you'll be happy with those points scored, feel free. I have not invested my ego in them. I hope you feel better.

For the third time, are you done?

 

[Hopper]

...there is no way to universally prove the negative to your satisfaction. I have no problem conceding [that] "I have not done the impossible and proven a negative"...

What "negative" could you possibly be talking about? You made a positive, unqualified assertion of fact, to wit:

As stated above, no other posters are posting 5+ times consecutively in the same thread.

You can admit that you did so without an adequate factual basis, or not--your choice. But trying to call an absolute assertion a "negative" aint gunna fly, sorry.