What's new
By:

We need some general rules for posters who routinely engage in “bad faith” discussion tactics.

FAILED STATE said:
I’m aware of the fact that you think you know exactly what was in my thoughts. And I’m aware that you are confident of your read on the situation—despite your many deficits in knowledge and experience on this matter. But now you want me to pretend that you didn’t start out with a ridiculous premise (What is NAOS thinking?), AND you want me to do your research for you, too?

I think I’ve seen this tactic before. Pretty ****ing insulting, if you ask me. Grats.
Click to expand...
Or, to put it more succinctly, I was right. And congrats on picking a perfect new name for yourself, BTW.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Or, to put it more succinctly, I was right. And congrats on picking a perfect new name for yourself, BTW.
Click to expand...
If you came here to make a point about perpetuating insulting behavior in the internet, then you did a good job.

I guess you know exactly what this new name refers to... which explains why you like it. Glad it be so.
 
FAILED STATE said:
If you came here to make a point about perpetuating insulting behavior in the internet, then you did a good job.

I guess you know exactly what this new name refers to... which explains why you like it. Glad it be so.
Click to expand...
I congratulated you on your choice of names. Sheesh. Some people can't take a compliment.

I guess you are going to ignore the part about providing evidence that I was incorrect about your obsession with Jazzy, right? You apparently didn't like that I provided such a simple solution to the paradox you claimed we are embroiled in.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I congratulated you on your choice of names. Sheesh. Some people can't take a compliment.
Click to expand...
I guess we need to go back to my previous post? With respect to your comment about my new name, I said , “I guess you know exactly what this new name refers to... which explains why you like it. Glad it be so.” Not sure where you see my anguish or whatever. And besides, you’ve already alleged to know exactly what I’m thinking when I write, so how could I hide anything from you? You must understand my name completely.


Joe Bagadonuts said:
I guess you are going to ignore the part about providing evidence that I was incorrect about your obsession with Jazzy, right? You apparently didn't like that I provided such a simple solution to the paradox you claimed we are embroiled in.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s pretty easy to dislike when someone parachutes into a conversation, makes a claim that says I know exactly what you were thinking when you wrote___________, and then has the bald-faced idiocy to think the burden is on the accused to prove him wrong. It’s even more irritating when, in the middle of making accusations, this person also admits to ignorance in the matter.

There’s no paradox here. That’s a word for people who don’t have an adequate explanation of events. It’s precisely because we lack a paradox that I can say, confidently: you’re wrong + an *******.

I forget, did you ever address the elephant in the room? I said there was no way forward for us until you had some response to that. I guess you can just keep looking for a place to impress me with your rhetorical flares. I know you think you bring the bar up around here just by showing up. Can’t wait to see what comes next!!1!
 
Last edited:
FAILED STATE said:
I guess we need to go back to my previous post? With respect to your comment about my new name, I said , “I guess you know exactly what this new name refers to... which explains why you like it. Glad it be so.” Not sure where you see my anguish or whatever. And besides, you’ve already alleged to know exactly what I’m thinking when I write, so how could I hide anything from you? You must understand my name completely.



Yeah, it’s pretty easy to dislike when someone parachutes into a conversation, makes a claim that says I know exactly what you were thinking when you wrote___________, and then has the bald-faced idiocy to think the burden is on the accused to prove him wrong. It’s even more irritating when, in the middle of making accusations, this person also admits to ignorance in the matter.

There’s no paradox here. That’s a word for people who don’t have an adequate explanation of events. It’s precisely because we lack a paradox that I can say, confidently: you’re wrong + an *******.

I forget, did you ever address the elephant in the room? I said there was no way forward for us until you had some response to that. I guess you can just keep looking for a place to impress me with your rhetorical flares. I know you think you bring the bar up around here just by showing up. Can’t wait to see what comes next!!1!
Click to expand...
Anybody who has read the Impeach Trump thread and then saw you create this thread would come to the same conclusion I did. You told everyone that you were ignoring Jazzy and then you went around trying to get everyone else to ignore him too. Why you can't admit you were thinking about him when you created this thread is a mystery to me. It's obvious that he owns some significant real estate between your ears.

And the elephant that you are seeing is only visible to you, If you think that people who see things differently than you are lacking the facts then simply provide them with the facts. Where are the posts that motivated you to plead with the mods to create new rules? It seems pretty obvious that you ought to point them out. The fact that you won't seems like it proves my point. I'm tired of your whining though, so I'm putting you on ignore.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Anybody who has read the Impeach Trump thread and then saw you create this thread would come to the same conclusion I did. You told everyone that you were ignoring Jazzy and then you went around trying to get everyone else to ignore him too. Why you can't admit you were thinking about him when you created this thread is a mystery to me. It's obvious that he owns some significant real estate between your ears.

And the elephant that you are seeing is only visible to you, If you think that people who see things differently than you are lacking the facts then simply provide them with the facts. Where are the posts that motivated you to plead with the mods to create new rules? It seems pretty obvious that you ought to point them out. The fact that you won't seems like it proves my point. I'm tired of your whining though, so I'm putting you on ignore.
Click to expand...
It was never clear to me that Political Jazz Fan was a human being. It seemed probable—even likely—that it was a spam bot. It would respond to comment after comment with a wave of retweets and copy and pastes to support it’s supposed stance. ‘Stance’ is probably a generous term—everyone was trying to figure out exactly what its stance was—but it was probably just distraction. No language of its own. This seemed to set a new precedent for the board and wasn’t exactly the kind of thing that the board’s rules wasn’t set to handle. It’s a new common problem in these spaces.

I’ve had a years-long discussion with mods on the rules with regard to the “readability of the board,” and this was clearly just the next iteration of that discussion.

Thanks for your contributions to this thread, though.
 
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Anybody who has read the Impeach Trump thread and then saw you create this thread would come to the same conclusion I did. You told everyone that you were ignoring Jazzy and then you went around trying to get everyone else to ignore him too. Why you can't admit you were thinking about him when you created this thread is a mystery to me. It's obvious that he owns some significant real estate between your ears.

And the elephant that you are seeing is only visible to you, If you think that people who see things differently than you are lacking the facts then simply provide them with the facts. Where are the posts that motivated you to plead with the mods to create new rules? It seems pretty obvious that you ought to point them out. The fact that you won't seems like it proves my point. I'm tired of your whining though, so I'm putting you on ignore.
Click to expand...
Just had a minute to cycle back and lol at this. You live in a quasi-drunk reality.
 
FAILED STATE said:
It appears that bad faith discussion practices, as long as they refrain from breaking the most basic rules like circumventing the profanity filter, are totally fine at JFC. The mods appear unwilling to pursue bad faith behavior on the grounds that it makes the board less readable (by intentionally exploding conversation). There would be some precedent for taking this route.

The mods currently have an opportunity to revise their thinking on this problem.
Click to expand...
You could always delete yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top