Topic: FAO: LatestDude
TrollBuster3000 started this discussion 15 years ago #11,111
who r u
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| kimmo | 3 | 50% | |
| to4sti | 3 | 50% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later[^] [v] #199,188
He's neither.
Triptych !LightPenis joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 42 seconds after the original post[^] [v] #199,189
Neither. He's a chill guy.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 59 seconds after the original post[^] [v] #199,190
He's awesome.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #199,193
but who is he
The Editor !FuckWtfW8M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #199,203
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #199,205
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #199,207
oh cool. I like him
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #199,214
This poll is dildos.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #199,216
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #199,242
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,248
@199,189 (Triptych !LightPenis)
@199,190 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
@199,207 (TrollBuster3000)
@199,214 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
D'awww. <3 I like all of you too!
However, I am neither of the people listed in the poll. I'm just a random 17-year-old with too much free time.
@199,190 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
@199,207 (TrollBuster3000)
@199,214 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
D'awww. <3 I like all of you too!
However, I am neither of the people listed in the poll. I'm just a random 17-year-old with too much free time.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,253
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,254
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,260
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,261
@previous (TrollBuster3000)> more like illeagleland
I laughed.
Seeing as how I've been involved in an odd number of political discussions lately, here's my Political Compass result for the hell of it.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,266
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I've never really understood left libertarianism. How does it work?
I've never really understood left libertarianism. How does it work?
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,270
RelevantVisualPun !gU4NFwCPKQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,273
@199,266 (TrollBuster3000)
Libertarianism on a mainly social scale, left-winged on a mostly economic scale. Basically: you should -- as an individual -- be able to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Legalization/taxation of all drugs, even the "hard" ones, falls under this category. Businesses, falling on the economic spectrum, should be regulated tightly, and shouldn't be allowed to be in control of certain things (socialized medicine FTW). I'm all for capitalism, but it shouldn't apply universally.
There are way too many things to cover in a few general sentences without point, so feel free to ask me anything specific.
Libertarianism on a mainly social scale, left-winged on a mostly economic scale. Basically: you should -- as an individual -- be able to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Legalization/taxation of all drugs, even the "hard" ones, falls under this category. Businesses, falling on the economic spectrum, should be regulated tightly, and shouldn't be allowed to be in control of certain things (socialized medicine FTW). I'm all for capitalism, but it shouldn't apply universally.
There are way too many things to cover in a few general sentences without point, so feel free to ask me anything specific.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,276
@previous (RelevantVisualPun !gU4NFwCPKQ)
Also, I forget to change tripcodes back more than I remember. Stupid tripcode system. Novelty accounts are so much easier to pull off on reddit.
Also, I forget to change tripcodes back more than I remember. Stupid tripcode system. Novelty accounts are so much easier to pull off on reddit.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,287
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,288
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,289
@199,273 (RelevantVisualPun !gU4NFwCPKQ)
> left-wing
You mean statist. I understand libertarianism, I was wondering how "left" libertarianism differs from... well, libertarianism.
So left supports statist confiscation of private property, prohibits consensual contracts between individuals, and supports a large, intrusive state with expansive powers to regulate the economy?
PROTIP: That's not liberty.
> left-wing
You mean statist. I understand libertarianism, I was wondering how "left" libertarianism differs from... well, libertarianism.
So left supports statist confiscation of private property, prohibits consensual contracts between individuals, and supports a large, intrusive state with expansive powers to regulate the economy?
PROTIP: That's not liberty.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,292
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,297
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,298
@199,289 (TrollBuster3000)
> So left supports statist confiscation of private property
No. Not without proper warrants, anyway. Show me where I implied that.
> prohibits consensual contracts between individuals
... ?
> supports a large, intrusive state with expansive powers to regulate the economy
If you wanted that loaded language to imply "reasonable federal government with the ability to regulate corporations," then yes.
> So left supports statist confiscation of private property
No. Not without proper warrants, anyway. Show me where I implied that.
> prohibits consensual contracts between individuals
... ?
> supports a large, intrusive state with expansive powers to regulate the economy
If you wanted that loaded language to imply "reasonable federal government with the ability to regulate corporations," then yes.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,310
@199,297 (I)
It was a joke.
@199,289 (TrollBuster3000)
And no; looking up the definition of statist, it does not apply to me. Again: I am all for capitalism. I'm talking anti-trust laws and FDA-level regulation, not fascist control.
It was a joke.
@199,289 (TrollBuster3000)
And no; looking up the definition of statist, it does not apply to me. Again: I am all for capitalism. I'm talking anti-trust laws and FDA-level regulation, not fascist control.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,314
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,316
@previous (I)
How have I come off as such to you, then? I try to make simple and logical arguments for everything I claim. If I have failed to do so in your eyes, point it out to me, and I shall do my best to correct it.
How have I come off as such to you, then? I try to make simple and logical arguments for everything I claim. If I have failed to do so in your eyes, point it out to me, and I shall do my best to correct it.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,328
@199,298 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Socialism (which you have advocated for medicine) requires the forced confiscation and reallocation of private property. Completely inimical to libertarianism.
Libertarianism isn't the idea that the state is good, but people are running it poorly. Libertarianism is the idea that the state is bad.
You are not a libertarian. You are a socialist.
Socialism (which you have advocated for medicine) requires the forced confiscation and reallocation of private property. Completely inimical to libertarianism.
Libertarianism isn't the idea that the state is good, but people are running it poorly. Libertarianism is the idea that the state is bad.
You are not a libertarian. You are a socialist.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,334
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
Incorrect. I am not a socialist, nor am I a statist; I would appreciate you stop trying to label me for me. I can do that just fine.
As far as what you posted: no, I don't think taxes are evil. I think moderate taxing in order to support socialized medicine is quite reasonable. We could fund it now if we cut half of our Defense spending, and we'd still have the most well-funded military on Earth by a large factor. I think socialism in general is a terrible idea, actually. It simply works when applies to certain things. Our police are already socialized, or are you against that as well?
You have also not yet explained:
> prohibits consensual contracts between individuals
Incorrect. I am not a socialist, nor am I a statist; I would appreciate you stop trying to label me for me. I can do that just fine.
As far as what you posted: no, I don't think taxes are evil. I think moderate taxing in order to support socialized medicine is quite reasonable. We could fund it now if we cut half of our Defense spending, and we'd still have the most well-funded military on Earth by a large factor. I think socialism in general is a terrible idea, actually. It simply works when applies to certain things. Our police are already socialized, or are you against that as well?
You have also not yet explained:
> prohibits consensual contracts between individuals
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,336
@199,310 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> Statism is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals.
You are not for capitalism. You are for socialism and regulation. The FDA is one of the first things a libertarian would get rid of. A statist, however, would support the notion that the state has the power to criminalize certain foods and prohibit consensual private transactions between individuals.
> Statism is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals.
You are not for capitalism. You are for socialism and regulation. The FDA is one of the first things a libertarian would get rid of. A statist, however, would support the notion that the state has the power to criminalize certain foods and prohibit consensual private transactions between individuals.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #199,338
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
Will you do me a favor, TrollBuster3000? Will you read this for me? http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
I am not an economic libertarian. I have already stated that. I reject the notion that I am a socialist or statist.
Will you do me a favor, TrollBuster3000? Will you read this for me? http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
I am not an economic libertarian. I have already stated that. I reject the notion that I am a socialist or statist.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,342
@199,336 (TrollBuster3000)
> prohibit consensual private transactions between individuals.
Also: corporations are not people.
> prohibit consensual private transactions between individuals.
Also: corporations are not people.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,345
I had a serious question for LatestDude (Pic related. Just kidding.) but I forgot it. May take me a few moments.LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,346
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,351
@199,334 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> Socialism simply works
Socialist detected. You love the state; you are a statist.
You seem to be implying that I don't support "Defense" i.e. military spending. You would be wrong.
Socialized medicine would be a huge excuse for government regulation and action. We'll only socialize certain medicine: you're simple if you think that a state empowered to do this would not be compelled to socialize all medicine, healthy foods, healthy activities, ban unhealthy foods/lifestyle choices.
This isn't the slippery slope argument. To begin these limited policies the state must be given power to enact unlimited policies but trusted to remain limited, which will never happen.
> Socialism simply works
Socialist detected. You love the state; you are a statist.
You seem to be implying that I don't support "Defense" i.e. military spending. You would be wrong.
Socialized medicine would be a huge excuse for government regulation and action. We'll only socialize certain medicine: you're simple if you think that a state empowered to do this would not be compelled to socialize all medicine, healthy foods, healthy activities, ban unhealthy foods/lifestyle choices.
This isn't the slippery slope argument. To begin these limited policies the state must be given power to enact unlimited policies but trusted to remain limited, which will never happen.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,352
@199,336 (TrollBuster3000)
> You are not for capitalism. You are for socialism and regulation.
blackandwhitethinking.jpg
> You are not for capitalism. You are for socialism and regulation.
blackandwhitethinking.jpg
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,353
@199,338 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I agree with trollbuster that that chart should not call the green area "Libertarian Left". There is no such thing. IMO, the purple area of that chart is the only area that's Libertarian. I'm not saying you have to be in the far bottom-right corner to be libertarian, but at least in the purple.
Some people "in the purple" may still support minimal to mild taxes and social programs, but I don't think that anyone on the economic left can say they're libertarian, nor can anyone be for moderate socialism/taxes and claim to be on the economic right. They're just democrats.
I agree with trollbuster that that chart should not call the green area "Libertarian Left". There is no such thing. IMO, the purple area of that chart is the only area that's Libertarian. I'm not saying you have to be in the far bottom-right corner to be libertarian, but at least in the purple.
Some people "in the purple" may still support minimal to mild taxes and social programs, but I don't think that anyone on the economic left can say they're libertarian, nor can anyone be for moderate socialism/taxes and claim to be on the economic right. They're just democrats.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,354
@199,351 (TrollBuster3000)
Deliberate misquoting, random labeling, barely-related tangents. Three strikes and that argument is over. You can try again if you want. Also, @199,352 (K)
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Deliberate misquoting, random labeling, barely-related tangents. Three strikes and that argument is over. You can try again if you want. Also, @199,352 (K)
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,360
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I can't take it on my phone, but I've taken it before and I'm the middle of the purple.
I can't take it on my phone, but I've taken it before and I'm the middle of the purple.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,363
@199,346 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Hmm. I asked you a number of questions you posted that thread on Tinychan a long time ago. I was trying to re-read it for some mild inspiration but I found none.
Anyway, how have you liked your time so far since I see you've started to post semi-regularly on this board? Are the shackles of no longer having to be a wiseguy letting you kind of express your opinions more openly and frequently? That being said, I readily welcome your posts because this place isn't held to such a ridiculously high standard but maintains itself in a certain way to preserve quality. I think it's a pretty nice compromise, personally.
Would you have done anything differently given your circumstances/history?
What would you have done differently?
Oh, I remember what it was! What theme do you use on this site?
Sorry if this seemed interrogative. I don't mean to put you on the spot or make this into another "Ask a former Wiseguy anything" thread.
Hmm. I asked you a number of questions you posted that thread on Tinychan a long time ago. I was trying to re-read it for some mild inspiration but I found none.
Anyway, how have you liked your time so far since I see you've started to post semi-regularly on this board? Are the shackles of no longer having to be a wiseguy letting you kind of express your opinions more openly and frequently? That being said, I readily welcome your posts because this place isn't held to such a ridiculously high standard but maintains itself in a certain way to preserve quality. I think it's a pretty nice compromise, personally.
Would you have done anything differently given your circumstances/history?
What would you have done differently?
Oh, I remember what it was! What theme do you use on this site?
Sorry if this seemed interrogative. I don't mean to put you on the spot or make this into another "Ask a former Wiseguy anything" thread.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,364
@199,338 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> economic liberty
lolno. There is only liberty. I am libertarian, too. Just not a racial libertarian. WTF?
Liberty is not divided into sections or compartments. Liberty is right inherent to individuals and cannot be abrogated because you feel that certain activities should be classified in an arbitrary aspect of life in which they lose their rights.
You support the extension of socialism; you are a socialist. To be a socialist you must be a statist.
> economic liberty
lolno. There is only liberty. I am libertarian, too. Just not a racial libertarian. WTF?
Liberty is not divided into sections or compartments. Liberty is right inherent to individuals and cannot be abrogated because you feel that certain activities should be classified in an arbitrary aspect of life in which they lose their rights.
You support the extension of socialism; you are a socialist. To be a socialist you must be a statist.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,365
@199,342 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Do you feel that it is dangerous to recognize corporations as an entity separate to the people who comprise it?
Do you feel that it is dangerous to recognize corporations as an entity separate to the people who comprise it?
TrollBuster3000 (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,368
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,370
@199,364 (TrollBuster3000)
> You support the extension of socialism; you are a socialist. To be a socialist you must be a statist.
Nope, sorry. Try again.
@199,363 (B)
> Anyway, how have you liked your time so far since I see you've started to post semi-regularly on this board?
It's decent. Not enough moderation, in my opinion, but there are also discussions here that wouldn't fly anywhere else. I can live with the trolls and legitimately braindead.
> Are the shackles of no longer having to be a wiseguy letting you kind of express your opinions more openly and frequently?
Not really. I haven't once posted as an anonymous individual here; there are certain things I won't express as a result so as to prevent discrimination/fueling trolls.
> That being said, I readily welcome your posts
Thank you. :)
> Would you have done anything differently given your circumstances/history?
In regards to? My life in general?
> Oh, I remember what it was! What theme do you use on this site?
Turquoise. :)
> You support the extension of socialism; you are a socialist. To be a socialist you must be a statist.
Nope, sorry. Try again.
@199,363 (B)
> Anyway, how have you liked your time so far since I see you've started to post semi-regularly on this board?
It's decent. Not enough moderation, in my opinion, but there are also discussions here that wouldn't fly anywhere else. I can live with the trolls and legitimately braindead.
> Are the shackles of no longer having to be a wiseguy letting you kind of express your opinions more openly and frequently?
Not really. I haven't once posted as an anonymous individual here; there are certain things I won't express as a result so as to prevent discrimination/fueling trolls.
> That being said, I readily welcome your posts
Thank you. :)
> Would you have done anything differently given your circumstances/history?
In regards to? My life in general?
> Oh, I remember what it was! What theme do you use on this site?
Turquoise. :)
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,371
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,373
@199,354 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Cute. You don't refute anything I said, hoping instead that saying a few malapropos will scare people into rejecting my arguments.
Cute. You don't refute anything I said, hoping instead that saying a few malapropos will scare people into rejecting my arguments.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,375
@199,370 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
That's more than an ample response, so thanks. I was referring to your history with AnonTalk, but I suppose it's really an immaterial/meta question anyway, so don't feel like you need to respond.
> Not really. I haven't once posted as an anonymous individual here
And this is what intrigues me most, considering how AnT was so ambitious on 1) being completely anonymous, yet you only use a name here, and 2) the lack of editing your own posts there. What's your take on that?
That's more than an ample response, so thanks. I was referring to your history with AnonTalk, but I suppose it's really an immaterial/meta question anyway, so don't feel like you need to respond.
> Not really. I haven't once posted as an anonymous individual here
And this is what intrigues me most, considering how AnT was so ambitious on 1) being completely anonymous, yet you only use a name here, and 2) the lack of editing your own posts there. What's your take on that?
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,376
@199,368 (TrollBuster3000)
Well, some people are able to keep more than two ideas in their head at once.
Well, some people are able to keep more than two ideas in their head at once.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,377
@199,373 (TrollBuster3000)
You deliberately misquoted me and then gave me any fear-mongering labels you could think of. Try not doing that long enough to string together a coherent paragraph, in direct response to something I said.
Also, @previous (K).
You deliberately misquoted me and then gave me any fear-mongering labels you could think of. Try not doing that long enough to string together a coherent paragraph, in direct response to something I said.
Also, @previous (K).
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,379
@199,370 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
You said ITT that you support the extension of socialism.
One who favors the extension of socialism is a socialist.
For one to be a socialist, one must believe the state to have the ability to violate an individuals rights, making you a statist.
You are a statist.
You said ITT that you support the extension of socialism.
One who favors the extension of socialism is a socialist.
For one to be a socialist, one must believe the state to have the ability to violate an individuals rights, making you a statist.
You are a statist.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,380
@199,375 (B)
> I was referring to your history with AnonTalk
Not really. Gotten out earlier, perhaps. Yelled at Sysop more. :)
> being completely anonymous, yet you only use a name here
I like having an identity. I liked the concept of a site that didn't allow me to use one. The latter outweighed the former.
> the lack of editing your own posts there
I edit my own posts here all the time. It was incredibly irritating not being allowed to do so on AT, but I did get around it most of the time.
> I was referring to your history with AnonTalk
Not really. Gotten out earlier, perhaps. Yelled at Sysop more. :)
> being completely anonymous, yet you only use a name here
I like having an identity. I liked the concept of a site that didn't allow me to use one. The latter outweighed the former.
> the lack of editing your own posts there
I edit my own posts here all the time. It was incredibly irritating not being allowed to do so on AT, but I did get around it most of the time.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,381
@199,371 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
You specifically endorse the type of thinking that led to the "corporation rights" theory, yet deny this logical conclusion?
Reject irrationality and fuzzy thinking!
You specifically endorse the type of thinking that led to the "corporation rights" theory, yet deny this logical conclusion?
Reject irrationality and fuzzy thinking!
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,382
@199,380 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> I like having an identity. I liked the concept of a site that didn't allow me to use one. The latter outweighed the former.
Could you elaborate on that a little more? Are you saying you liked forced anonymous posting or not? I am sort of confused by what you mean.
> I like having an identity. I liked the concept of a site that didn't allow me to use one. The latter outweighed the former.
Could you elaborate on that a little more? Are you saying you liked forced anonymous posting or not? I am sort of confused by what you mean.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,383
@199,379 (TrollBuster3000)
> You said ITT that you support the extension of socialism.
I feel like it is the best option available for certain industries, segmented from the majority-capitalist market. You never answered my question: do you think the police should not exist? Or should be replaced with private mercenaries-for-hire, only available for anyone who can pay? The justice system here is entirely based around socialism.
Not replying to anything else. @199,377 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> You said ITT that you support the extension of socialism.
I feel like it is the best option available for certain industries, segmented from the majority-capitalist market. You never answered my question: do you think the police should not exist? Or should be replaced with private mercenaries-for-hire, only available for anyone who can pay? The justice system here is entirely based around socialism.
Not replying to anything else. @199,377 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,384
@199,376 (K)
> not sure if trolling or just stupid.
People who act according to conflicting principles (or according to no principles) make bad policy.
> not sure if trolling or just stupid.
People who act according to conflicting principles (or according to no principles) make bad policy.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,385
@199,381 (TrollBuster3000)
Without labeling or misquoting me, explain your point of view. How fucking clear do I need to make this before you'll understand the concept?
Without labeling or misquoting me, explain your point of view. How fucking clear do I need to make this before you'll understand the concept?
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF double-posted this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,387
@199,382 (B)
Sorry. No, I do not like forced anonymous posting. I liked AT more than I had a distaste for not being allowed to have a named identity.
Sorry. No, I do not like forced anonymous posting. I liked AT more than I had a distaste for not being allowed to have a named identity.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,391
@199,377 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Did I ask you to repeat your slander? If you refuse to point out these abuses why even bring them up, except to create an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion?
Did I ask you to repeat your slander? If you refuse to point out these abuses why even bring them up, except to create an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion?
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,392
@199,387 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> I liked AT more than I had a distaste for not being allowed to have a named identity.
Had to re-read that a few times because of the double negatives but I think I understand what you meant. Thanks for responding! :)
> I liked AT more than I had a distaste for not being allowed to have a named identity.
Had to re-read that a few times because of the double negatives but I think I understand what you meant. Thanks for responding! :)
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,396
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,397
@199,392 (B)
Sorry. :P Just to be clear, I'll try expanding this as much as possible:
I enjoy having a named identity. I enjoyed the concept of AT. While AT did not allow me to have a named identity, I enjoyed AT enough to warrant staying there.
Sorry. :P Just to be clear, I'll try expanding this as much as possible:
I enjoy having a named identity. I enjoyed the concept of AT. While AT did not allow me to have a named identity, I enjoyed AT enough to warrant staying there.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,406
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
That's a perfect response. Thanks, LatestDude. Are you going to be around for a little bit longer? Like say, at least 20 minutes or so? I wanted to ask you another question or two but I need to step outside for a moment.
That's a perfect response. Thanks, LatestDude. Are you going to be around for a little bit longer? Like say, at least 20 minutes or so? I wanted to ask you another question or two but I need to step outside for a moment.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,409
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,414
@199,383 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> private mercenaries-for-hire
epic redundancy
> I feel like it is the best option available for certain industries, segmented from the majority-capitalist market.
Why do you feel this way? and why medicine, of all things? Why not food? or housing?
I support the forming of voluntary associations such as Neighborhood Watches &c. to protect people and property. Don't let emotions get the better of you - the police have no duty to protect individuals, only to enforce the law.
> private mercenaries-for-hire
epic redundancy
> I feel like it is the best option available for certain industries, segmented from the majority-capitalist market.
Why do you feel this way? and why medicine, of all things? Why not food? or housing?
I support the forming of voluntary associations such as Neighborhood Watches &c. to protect people and property. Don't let emotions get the better of you - the police have no duty to protect individuals, only to enforce the law.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,416
TrollBuster3000 (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,422
@199,396 (K)
I know, right! That's why we have such problems today! It's cause we aren't considering Stalin's viewpoint, Mao's view point, Pol Pot's viewpoint - seeing other people's viewpoints will save us!
I can see your viewpoint, which is how I can explain to you why it is wrong.
I know, right! That's why we have such problems today! It's cause we aren't considering Stalin's viewpoint, Mao's view point, Pol Pot's viewpoint - seeing other people's viewpoints will save us!
I can see your viewpoint, which is how I can explain to you why it is wrong.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,433
@199,409 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Following up: do you or Homestar maintain correspondence with RevNick? I've seen some posts from his name but never a tripcode, and I'm wondering if it's the real deal or not. If either of you do talk to him, maybe suggest that he get one if he continues here. I am enthusiatic that a number of you ex-wiseguys post here because I think you all understand how quality should operate in a number of these threads. That aside, the *chan elements are also testament how MC acts dynamically; primarily the thought is to just ignore what is crap, let it be, don't get upset about it, let the serious threads persist, and in the end trust the mods to clean up stuff that is disruptive, but don't be over-zealous about it.
Following up: do you or Homestar maintain correspondence with RevNick? I've seen some posts from his name but never a tripcode, and I'm wondering if it's the real deal or not. If either of you do talk to him, maybe suggest that he get one if he continues here. I am enthusiatic that a number of you ex-wiseguys post here because I think you all understand how quality should operate in a number of these threads. That aside, the *chan elements are also testament how MC acts dynamically; primarily the thought is to just ignore what is crap, let it be, don't get upset about it, let the serious threads persist, and in the end trust the mods to clean up stuff that is disruptive, but don't be over-zealous about it.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,435
@199,414 (TrollBuster3000)
http://web.archive.org/web/20100427234737/http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html
To clarify, you are against the police?
@199,416 (TrollBuster3000)
I asked for your opinion of why I am wrong. No ad hominems, no misquoting, no labeling.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100427234737/http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html
To clarify, you are against the police?
@199,416 (TrollBuster3000)
I asked for your opinion of why I am wrong. No ad hominems, no misquoting, no labeling.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,437
@199,433 (B)
I do not correspond with RevNick, and I am almost entirely sure that Homestar doesn't either (but you should ask him to make sure). I don't know if he has ever legitimately posted here. Also, thank you very much. ^_^
I do not correspond with RevNick, and I am almost entirely sure that Homestar doesn't either (but you should ask him to make sure). I don't know if he has ever legitimately posted here. Also, thank you very much. ^_^
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,442
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
An example of one of his posts, I'm sure you saw this: http://minichan.org/topic/11068#reply_198752
Anyways, I think discretion on both mod and user parts are what are important to making threads more quality reliable. I think slowly this place is moving towards that direction but obviously it takes some time to shape that overall theme but we're slowly getting there.
An example of one of his posts, I'm sure you saw this: http://minichan.org/topic/11068#reply_198752
Anyways, I think discretion on both mod and user parts are what are important to making threads more quality reliable. I think slowly this place is moving towards that direction but obviously it takes some time to shape that overall theme but we're slowly getting there.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,443
@199,435 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> cancer
You form political decisions on weak, emotional bs?
> popo
What is there to clarify? How could I have been more clear?
> waaaa
I have told you why you are wrong. Feel free to argue in your defense.
> cancer
You form political decisions on weak, emotional bs?
> popo
What is there to clarify? How could I have been more clear?
> waaaa
I have told you why you are wrong. Feel free to argue in your defense.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,445
@199,442 (B)
Ah. He seems to be a misogynist. One of my least favorite kinds of people. If that is, in fact, him, I'm glad I never pursued correspondence.
Ah. He seems to be a misogynist. One of my least favorite kinds of people. If that is, in fact, him, I'm glad I never pursued correspondence.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF double-posted this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,447
@199,443 (TrollBuster3000)
Not really. You've just called me a socialist and a statist a few hundred times. I respect your opinion on many things, but you aren't making particularly convincing arguments of any kind here.
Not really. You've just called me a socialist and a statist a few hundred times. I respect your opinion on many things, but you aren't making particularly convincing arguments of any kind here.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,449
@199,445 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Maybe it was taken entirely out of context. I have legitimately no idea. I wouldn't judge someone based upon a single post given the subject matter. I think if he continues to post we'll have a better overall picture.
Also as a seasoned poster I would suggest you take whatever TrollBuster3000 says with a large grain of salt. He used to post by the name of "mountainman" and has often been considered a troll largely by the board in general. In particular, his troll arguments include discussing about how Christianity is the only correct religion, talking about how Ron Paul should be elected in 2012 in the United States although he is from Australia, as well as his unscrupulous interactions with young girls (ages around 12 years) from his own Christian youth group that he claims to be a group leader of. He also throws around the terms "strawman argument" and "ad hominem" to reckless abandon; he's been banned many times from here but continues to proxy. The reason he is not banned on sight is because he won't stop, wait out his bans, or otherwise just continue with his nonsense so most of the board already understands what his objectives are when he posts, and therefore he discredits himself simply by posting.
Maybe it was taken entirely out of context. I have legitimately no idea. I wouldn't judge someone based upon a single post given the subject matter. I think if he continues to post we'll have a better overall picture.
Also as a seasoned poster I would suggest you take whatever TrollBuster3000 says with a large grain of salt. He used to post by the name of "mountainman" and has often been considered a troll largely by the board in general. In particular, his troll arguments include discussing about how Christianity is the only correct religion, talking about how Ron Paul should be elected in 2012 in the United States although he is from Australia, as well as his unscrupulous interactions with young girls (ages around 12 years) from his own Christian youth group that he claims to be a group leader of. He also throws around the terms "strawman argument" and "ad hominem" to reckless abandon; he's been banned many times from here but continues to proxy. The reason he is not banned on sight is because he won't stop, wait out his bans, or otherwise just continue with his nonsense so most of the board already understands what his objectives are when he posts, and therefore he discredits himself simply by posting.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,451
@199,447 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
If they are unconvincing you would be able to refute them easily yet you have not replied to a single one.
If they are unconvincing you would be able to refute them easily yet you have not replied to a single one.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,454
@199,449 (B)
Most of this is true, but you've put weird slants on it to try and make it seem bad.
1. I'm a Christian, of course I think Christianity is correct. While it is by far the best religion, I have been having dangerous flirtations with universalism of late.
2. Ron Paul saved me from statism! Restore America Now! Australian politics is rather boring and no one here knows anything about it, so it wouldn't make much sense to post about it here.
3. That was at my old church. I went through some hard times but I think I'm pretty much over it now.
4. I call it how I see it. If someone uses an ad hominem or strawman argument, I will call it. I always use the terms correctly, unlike many other posters here.
5. I am permabanned because I used the banned phrase "strawman argument".
Most of this is true, but you've put weird slants on it to try and make it seem bad.
1. I'm a Christian, of course I think Christianity is correct. While it is by far the best religion, I have been having dangerous flirtations with universalism of late.
2. Ron Paul saved me from statism! Restore America Now! Australian politics is rather boring and no one here knows anything about it, so it wouldn't make much sense to post about it here.
3. That was at my old church. I went through some hard times but I think I'm pretty much over it now.
4. I call it how I see it. If someone uses an ad hominem or strawman argument, I will call it. I always use the terms correctly, unlike many other posters here.
5. I am permabanned because I used the banned phrase "strawman argument".
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,458
@199,451 (TrollBuster3000)
As a general rule, I do not reply to anything directly attacks me, no. Try rewriting it without the well poisoning, and I shall.
As a general rule, I do not reply to anything directly attacks me, no. Try rewriting it without the well poisoning, and I shall.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,461
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,466
@199,454 (TrollBuster3000)
> Most of this is true, but you've put weird slants on it to try and make it seem bad.
>
> 1. I'm a Christian, of course I think Christianity is correct. While it is by far the best religion, I have been having dangerous flirtations with universalism of late.
Yet you continually try to stuff it down other's throats ad nauseum. Understand this: you aren't going to magically convert anyone's opinion on this board so keep it to yourself.
> 2. Ron Paul saved me from statism! Restore America Now! Australian politics is rather boring and no one here knows anything about it, so it wouldn't make much sense to post about it here.
So talk about Australian politics. You're just using this as an excuse to rile people up and propagate your own worthless opinions.
> 3. That was at my old church. I went through some hard times but I think I'm pretty much over it now.
More troll shit from you. I would also label this as attentionwhoring but you've got some pretty odd ideas on how you discuss your personal life. Either way, true or not, you brought it up and you aren't beyond escaping your own past.
> 4. I call it how I see it. If someone uses an ad hominem or strawman argument, I will call it. I always use the terms correctly, unlike many other posters here.
You use it as a reason for your arguments, once again, ad nauseum but don't hold yourself to the same standard. It's hypocritical and annoying and contributes nothing to threads you are involved in. Stop with the labels and start with the actual points of your own arguments because they only make you look even more foolish.
> 5. I am permabanned because I used the banned phrase "strawman argument".
After you've been warned several dozen times to quit throwing it around. You fall back on this logical fallacy argument because you lack any sort of other substance; it's your cannon fodder argument and it doesn't reinforce whatever you're saying. Instead, you're just painting yourself into the picture of a stereotypical troll which you clearly are and it by no means does it make anyone anymore sympathetic to the shit you keep saying over and over and over.
> Most of this is true, but you've put weird slants on it to try and make it seem bad.
>
> 1. I'm a Christian, of course I think Christianity is correct. While it is by far the best religion, I have been having dangerous flirtations with universalism of late.
Yet you continually try to stuff it down other's throats ad nauseum. Understand this: you aren't going to magically convert anyone's opinion on this board so keep it to yourself.
> 2. Ron Paul saved me from statism! Restore America Now! Australian politics is rather boring and no one here knows anything about it, so it wouldn't make much sense to post about it here.
So talk about Australian politics. You're just using this as an excuse to rile people up and propagate your own worthless opinions.
> 3. That was at my old church. I went through some hard times but I think I'm pretty much over it now.
More troll shit from you. I would also label this as attentionwhoring but you've got some pretty odd ideas on how you discuss your personal life. Either way, true or not, you brought it up and you aren't beyond escaping your own past.
> 4. I call it how I see it. If someone uses an ad hominem or strawman argument, I will call it. I always use the terms correctly, unlike many other posters here.
You use it as a reason for your arguments, once again, ad nauseum but don't hold yourself to the same standard. It's hypocritical and annoying and contributes nothing to threads you are involved in. Stop with the labels and start with the actual points of your own arguments because they only make you look even more foolish.
> 5. I am permabanned because I used the banned phrase "strawman argument".
After you've been warned several dozen times to quit throwing it around. You fall back on this logical fallacy argument because you lack any sort of other substance; it's your cannon fodder argument and it doesn't reinforce whatever you're saying. Instead, you're just painting yourself into the picture of a stereotypical troll which you clearly are and it by no means does it make anyone anymore sympathetic to the shit you keep saying over and over and over.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,485
@previous (B)
> Yet you continually try to stuff it down other's throats ad nauseum. Understand this: you aren't going to magically convert anyone's opinion on this board so keep it to yourself.
I've started like one "Ask a Christian Anything" thread.
> So talk about Australian politics. You're just using this as an excuse to rile people up and propagate your own worthless opinions.
I'll talk about whatever I want, thank you very much.
> More troll shit from you. I would also label this as attentionwhoring but you've got some pretty odd ideas on how you discuss your personal life. Either way, true or not, you brought it up and you aren't beyond escaping your own past.
lolwut i dont even get what you're trying to say
> You use it as a reason for your arguments, once again, ad nauseum but don't hold yourself to the same standard. It's hypocritical and annoying and contributes nothing to threads you are involved in. Stop with the labels and start with the actual points of your own arguments because they only make you look even more foolish.
Labels ≠ad hominem. This is the only thread I've done this in: people like protip are honest enough to call themselves pregressives.
> After you've been warned several dozen times to quit throwing it around. You fall back on this logical fallacy argument because you lack any sort of other substance; it's your cannon fodder argument and it doesn't reinforce whatever you're saying. Instead, you're just painting yourself into the picture of a stereotypical troll which you clearly are and it by no means does it make anyone anymore sympathetic to the shit you keep saying over and over and over.
I don't throw it around. I use it only when appropriate.
> Yet you continually try to stuff it down other's throats ad nauseum. Understand this: you aren't going to magically convert anyone's opinion on this board so keep it to yourself.
I've started like one "Ask a Christian Anything" thread.
> So talk about Australian politics. You're just using this as an excuse to rile people up and propagate your own worthless opinions.
I'll talk about whatever I want, thank you very much.
> More troll shit from you. I would also label this as attentionwhoring but you've got some pretty odd ideas on how you discuss your personal life. Either way, true or not, you brought it up and you aren't beyond escaping your own past.
lolwut i dont even get what you're trying to say
> You use it as a reason for your arguments, once again, ad nauseum but don't hold yourself to the same standard. It's hypocritical and annoying and contributes nothing to threads you are involved in. Stop with the labels and start with the actual points of your own arguments because they only make you look even more foolish.
Labels ≠ad hominem. This is the only thread I've done this in: people like protip are honest enough to call themselves pregressives.
> After you've been warned several dozen times to quit throwing it around. You fall back on this logical fallacy argument because you lack any sort of other substance; it's your cannon fodder argument and it doesn't reinforce whatever you're saying. Instead, you're just painting yourself into the picture of a stereotypical troll which you clearly are and it by no means does it make anyone anymore sympathetic to the shit you keep saying over and over and over.
I don't throw it around. I use it only when appropriate.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,488
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
> > Yet you continually try to stuff it down other's throats ad nauseum. Understand this: you aren't going to magically convert anyone's opinion on this board so keep it to yourself.
>
> I've started like one "Ask a Christian Anything" thread.
From what hasn't been deleted given your previous track-record.
> > So talk about Australian politics. You're just using this as an excuse to rile people up and propagate your own worthless opinions.
>
> I'll talk about whatever I want, thank you very much.
So tell us more about the politics that are conflicting your own country for a change.
> > More troll shit from you. I would also label this as attentionwhoring but you've got some pretty odd ideas on how you discuss your personal life. Either way, true or not, you brought it up and you aren't beyond escaping your own past.
>
> lolwut i dont even get what you're trying to say
You made your bed and now you have to sleep in it. Deal with it, mountainman. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
> > You use it as a reason for your arguments, once again, ad nauseum but don't hold yourself to the same standard. It's hypocritical and annoying and contributes nothing to threads you are involved in. Stop with the labels and start with the actual points of your own arguments because they only make you look even more foolish.
>
> Labels ≠ad hominem. This is the only thread I've done this in: people like protip are honest enough to call themselves pregressives.
I never once used the word 'ad hominem'. Your arguments previously were tossed around 'ad nauseum'. I await your response to pick on this point, given it's not exclusive to this thread alone.
> > After you've been warned several dozen times to quit throwing it around. You fall back on this logical fallacy argument because you lack any sort of other substance; it's your cannon fodder argument and it doesn't reinforce whatever you're saying. Instead, you're just painting yourself into the picture of a stereotypical troll which you clearly are and it by no means does it make anyone anymore sympathetic to the shit you keep saying over and over and over.
>
> I don't throw it around. I use it only when appropriate.
No, you use it extensively and you've been told to quit it. Your limited repertoire cannot move past these few logical arguments, and that's what you come back to them because they're easy for you without actually contributing any real substance. If you want to be legitimate, change up your argumentative strategies, otherwise you sound stale, boring, and redundant. That's pretty much all you ever seem to be good for these days when you argue this at all.
> > Yet you continually try to stuff it down other's throats ad nauseum. Understand this: you aren't going to magically convert anyone's opinion on this board so keep it to yourself.
>
> I've started like one "Ask a Christian Anything" thread.
From what hasn't been deleted given your previous track-record.
> > So talk about Australian politics. You're just using this as an excuse to rile people up and propagate your own worthless opinions.
>
> I'll talk about whatever I want, thank you very much.
So tell us more about the politics that are conflicting your own country for a change.
> > More troll shit from you. I would also label this as attentionwhoring but you've got some pretty odd ideas on how you discuss your personal life. Either way, true or not, you brought it up and you aren't beyond escaping your own past.
>
> lolwut i dont even get what you're trying to say
You made your bed and now you have to sleep in it. Deal with it, mountainman. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
> > You use it as a reason for your arguments, once again, ad nauseum but don't hold yourself to the same standard. It's hypocritical and annoying and contributes nothing to threads you are involved in. Stop with the labels and start with the actual points of your own arguments because they only make you look even more foolish.
>
> Labels ≠ad hominem. This is the only thread I've done this in: people like protip are honest enough to call themselves pregressives.
I never once used the word 'ad hominem'. Your arguments previously were tossed around 'ad nauseum'. I await your response to pick on this point, given it's not exclusive to this thread alone.
> > After you've been warned several dozen times to quit throwing it around. You fall back on this logical fallacy argument because you lack any sort of other substance; it's your cannon fodder argument and it doesn't reinforce whatever you're saying. Instead, you're just painting yourself into the picture of a stereotypical troll which you clearly are and it by no means does it make anyone anymore sympathetic to the shit you keep saying over and over and over.
>
> I don't throw it around. I use it only when appropriate.
No, you use it extensively and you've been told to quit it. Your limited repertoire cannot move past these few logical arguments, and that's what you come back to them because they're easy for you without actually contributing any real substance. If you want to be legitimate, change up your argumentative strategies, otherwise you sound stale, boring, and redundant. That's pretty much all you ever seem to be good for these days when you argue this at all.
RevNick joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,562
@199,445 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> He seems to be a misogynist.
I am certainly not a misogynist. I love women and despise most kinds of bigotry (towards anyone).
> If that is, in fact, him
It is.
@199,433 (B)
None of the other wiseguys seemed to like me. I don't really know why. The only exception was Deprehensio, who I spoke to outside of AT quite a lot.
> He seems to be a misogynist.
I am certainly not a misogynist. I love women and despise most kinds of bigotry (towards anyone).
> If that is, in fact, him
It is.
@199,433 (B)
None of the other wiseguys seemed to like me. I don't really know why. The only exception was Deprehensio, who I spoke to outside of AT quite a lot.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,565
@previous (RevNick)
lol.
LatestDude and I know the real RevNick's email address. Prove you're him by emailing us. :)
lol.
LatestDude and I know the real RevNick's email address. Prove you're him by emailing us. :)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
RevNick replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,584
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Okay. I'll email LatestDude now (I don't have your email). :)
EDIT: Done. Sent to LatestDude's Gmail.
Okay. I'll email LatestDude now (I don't have your email). :)
EDIT: Done. Sent to LatestDude's Gmail.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,607
MM, why don't you ever talk about Australian politics?
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,611
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I would like to know his opinion on school chaplains in public schools in Australia. Also, that whole internet filter thing.
I would like to know his opinion on school chaplains in public schools in Australia. Also, that whole internet filter thing.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,614
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,803
@199,584 (RevNick)
Are you referring to [email protected]? I deleted that email a while ago. I made a new slave email; re-send: [email protected]
Are you referring to [email protected]? I deleted that email a while ago. I made a new slave email; re-send: [email protected]
RevNick replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,810
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,812
@previous (RevNick)
Oh, hey, it does come from his email. I stand corrected. Greetings, RevNick. You should come up with a tripcode.
Oh, hey, it does come from his email. I stand corrected. Greetings, RevNick. You should come up with a tripcode.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,815
Also curious to know which theme RevNick uses.
RevNick replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,818
@199,812 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Aww, I knew you were a nice person really. *hug*
How do I use a "tripcode"? I've been here for a while, but I usually post Anon (when I do decide to post)...
Aww, I knew you were a nice person really. *hug*
How do I use a "tripcode"? I've been here for a while, but I usually post Anon (when I do decide to post)...
!VoCaLoNunI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,819
RevNick replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,820
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,822
@199,818 (RevNick)
Just use an octothorpe (#) followed by whatever you want as a "password" of sorts. It generates a random string of characters as "!8Ad2De1" . Some people generate vanity tripcodes for this purpose using a program called Tripcode Explorer. Secure tripcodes are unique to individual sites, and are made in the same fashion but using two octothorpes (##). This will generate something like "!!ead1D33" or whatever.
Just use an octothorpe (#) followed by whatever you want as a "password" of sorts. It generates a random string of characters as "!8Ad2De1" . Some people generate vanity tripcodes for this purpose using a program called Tripcode Explorer. Secure tripcodes are unique to individual sites, and are made in the same fashion but using two octothorpes (##). This will generate something like "!!ead1D33" or whatever.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,823
!VoCaLoNunI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,825
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,828
@199,822 (B)
Today I learned what that mark was properly called. I can safely say that my life is enriched by this information.
Today I learned what that mark was properly called. I can safely say that my life is enriched by this information.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,940
Hi RevNick,
Nice to see you again. I assume you know who I am?
How long have you been lurking Minichan?
How long have you bene posting here?
What is your opinion of MC?
I remember you criticising LatestDude for how he went to TC after being unmade from AT.
How do you feel about AT's demise?
More questions to follow :)
Nice to see you again. I assume you know who I am?
How long have you been lurking Minichan?
How long have you bene posting here?
What is your opinion of MC?
I remember you criticising LatestDude for how he went to TC after being unmade from AT.
How do you feel about AT's demise?
More questions to follow :)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,950
Awwww, it’s another thread in which MM goes nuts over defining terms.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,952
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
He seems to have given up, thankfully. His entire argument seemed to consist of calling me whatever terms popped into his head first.
He seems to have given up, thankfully. His entire argument seemed to consist of calling me whatever terms popped into his head first.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #199,954
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
That’s his entire process for “conversing†with me. My political compass measures out just a tiny bit more authoritarian than yours. I believe we’re both near where Ghandi would supposedly be.
That’s his entire process for “conversing†with me. My political compass measures out just a tiny bit more authoritarian than yours. I believe we’re both near where Ghandi would supposedly be.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,012
@199,940 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> Nice to see you again. I assume you know who I am?
Nice to see you too, *ahem* Sylvester. :)
> How long have you been lurking Minichan?
Since not long after I became an AnonTalk mod.
> How long have you bene posting here?
Not very long. I think this was my first post here, but I might be wrong: http://minichan.org/topic/8932#reply_157585
> What is your opinion of MC?
I preferred AnonTalk, but I think it's quite good. I've always thought there's something "boring" about MC. TinyChan has always been more fun in my opinion (I only lurk there), but there aren't many users. :(
> I remember you criticising LatestDude for how he went to TC after being unmade from AT.
On the Roundtable? Yes, I didn't think it was very nice. I do like LatestDude, though. I just don't see what he wanted to achieve by doing that.
> How do you feel about AT's demise?
Sad.
> More questions to follow :)
Go ahead. :)
> Nice to see you again. I assume you know who I am?
Nice to see you too, *ahem* Sylvester. :)
> How long have you been lurking Minichan?
Since not long after I became an AnonTalk mod.
> How long have you bene posting here?
Not very long. I think this was my first post here, but I might be wrong: http://minichan.org/topic/8932#reply_157585
> What is your opinion of MC?
I preferred AnonTalk, but I think it's quite good. I've always thought there's something "boring" about MC. TinyChan has always been more fun in my opinion (I only lurk there), but there aren't many users. :(
> I remember you criticising LatestDude for how he went to TC after being unmade from AT.
On the Roundtable? Yes, I didn't think it was very nice. I do like LatestDude, though. I just don't see what he wanted to achieve by doing that.
> How do you feel about AT's demise?
Sad.
> More questions to follow :)
Go ahead. :)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,036
Since I already know Homestar's position on this, what do LatestDude and RevNick think of Depressionman?
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,037
!VoCaLoNunI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,038
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
In short, fucktard of the highest degree, lies a lot, owes AC/Protip money.
He's fun to fuck with.
In short, fucktard of the highest degree, lies a lot, owes AC/Protip money.
He's fun to fuck with.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,042
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,045
So a long time ago I decided to see if there was any information about you on the internet... and this information was actually surprisingly easy to find! You seem to be an interesting person, to say the least. What information about yourself are you willing to share with the MC community?
Do you participate on any other anonymous forums?
What are your hobbies?
Have you maintained any contact with Kimmo since you were unmade?
Do you participate on any other anonymous forums?
What are your hobbies?
Have you maintained any contact with Kimmo since you were unmade?
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,046
@200,036 (B)
I've never spoken to him, but I was compared to him on TinyChan... I think it's quite funny how he's carried on "trolling" for this long. That's dedication.
@200,037 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> I know nothing about him.
Are you serious? I thought everyone on this corner of the Internet knows about DM?
I've never spoken to him, but I was compared to him on TinyChan... I think it's quite funny how he's carried on "trolling" for this long. That's dedication.
@200,037 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> I know nothing about him.
Are you serious? I thought everyone on this corner of the Internet knows about DM?
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,047
@200,042 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
He was a (mostly) entertaining and a (fairly) reasonable man(child) when he was a layabout living off of student loans. Now that he’s an unemployed layabout in his mother’s home, the transition from student life has broken him into an angry shell of his former self.
He was a (mostly) entertaining and a (fairly) reasonable man(child) when he was a layabout living off of student loans. Now that he’s an unemployed layabout in his mother’s home, the transition from student life has broken him into an angry shell of his former self.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,050
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,058
!VoCaLoNunI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,059
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,061
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,062
@200,050 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
@200,047 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Weren't a few of his memes also in the Wiseguy handbook?
@200,047 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Weren't a few of his memes also in the Wiseguy handbook?
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,064
@previous (B)
"Depressionman" was listed. I don't know how many of the listed ban-on-sight phrases were his.
"Depressionman" was listed. I don't know how many of the listed ban-on-sight phrases were his.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,065
@200,062 (B)
Probably :3
FWIW, a lot of DM-related trolling is from the same small group of people doing things in his name
Probably :3
FWIW, a lot of DM-related trolling is from the same small group of people doing things in his name
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,068
@200,045 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> So a long time ago I decided to see if there was any information about you on the internet... and this information was actually surprisingly easy to find! You seem to be an interesting person, to say the least. What information about yourself are you willing to share with the MC community?
I won't share any very personal information, like my address for instance. I probably wouldn't share a photo, simply because I'm scared of people finding me. I'll share almost anything else. Did you find info on me just from my username?
> Do you participate on any other anonymous forums?
No. I don't use any other forums.
> What are your hobbies?
Great, this is when I remember how crap my life is. I do voluntary work for a charity, socialise with friends (Socialise = drink) and I'm studying a part-time degree in computing. Apart from that, I look for work and read the newspaper. And procrastinate on the Internet, of course.
> Have you maintained any contact with Kimmo since you were unmade?
I messaged him a few times after I got unmade. It was very pleasant. We also spoke once though email after the site closed down.
> So a long time ago I decided to see if there was any information about you on the internet... and this information was actually surprisingly easy to find! You seem to be an interesting person, to say the least. What information about yourself are you willing to share with the MC community?
I won't share any very personal information, like my address for instance. I probably wouldn't share a photo, simply because I'm scared of people finding me. I'll share almost anything else. Did you find info on me just from my username?
> Do you participate on any other anonymous forums?
No. I don't use any other forums.
> What are your hobbies?
Great, this is when I remember how crap my life is. I do voluntary work for a charity, socialise with friends (Socialise = drink) and I'm studying a part-time degree in computing. Apart from that, I look for work and read the newspaper. And procrastinate on the Internet, of course.
> Have you maintained any contact with Kimmo since you were unmade?
I messaged him a few times after I got unmade. It was very pleasant. We also spoke once though email after the site closed down.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,070
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
> Did you find info on me just from my username?
Heh... we had a bit of fun Googling your email address/the username portion of it. Neither of us will ever share it without your permission; it was just to see.
> Did you find info on me just from my username?
Heh... we had a bit of fun Googling your email address/the username portion of it. Neither of us will ever share it without your permission; it was just to see.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,078
@200,068 (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
> I probably wouldn't share a photo, simply because I'm scared of people finding me. I'll share almost anything else. Did you find info on me just from my username?
What LatestDude said. We found your Myspace and Facebook. You can trust us, though. But yeah... you seem interesting.
> Great, this is when I remember how crap my life is.
Fear not, you're on Minichan. Most of us don't have lives.
> > Have you maintained any contact with Kimmo since you were unmade?
> We also spoke once though email after the site closed down.
Are you able to share what was said?
> I probably wouldn't share a photo, simply because I'm scared of people finding me. I'll share almost anything else. Did you find info on me just from my username?
What LatestDude said. We found your Myspace and Facebook. You can trust us, though. But yeah... you seem interesting.
> Great, this is when I remember how crap my life is.
Fear not, you're on Minichan. Most of us don't have lives.
> > Have you maintained any contact with Kimmo since you were unmade?
> We also spoke once though email after the site closed down.
Are you able to share what was said?
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,082
@200,070 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Oh, that's fine. :) My Myspace is very old. But yeah, Facebook is up-to-date.
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
I've deleted the email since then, but he basically said he was working on another way to fund AT and that he couldn't tell me what. He said you and LatestDude both ran to the "clones" as soon as you left.
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Oh, that's fine. :) My Myspace is very old. But yeah, Facebook is up-to-date.
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
I've deleted the email since then, but he basically said he was working on another way to fund AT and that he couldn't tell me what. He said you and LatestDude both ran to the "clones" as soon as you left.
!VoCaLoNunI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,084
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,085
@previous (!VoCaLoNunI)
I can't remember exactly, but it must have been about a week after AT shut down. Maybe a bit more.
I can't remember exactly, but it must have been about a week after AT shut down. Maybe a bit more.
!VoCaLoNunI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,087
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,092
@previous (!VoCaLoNunI)
I can't remember exactly, but it must have been about a week after AT shut down. Maybe a bit more.
I can't remember exactly, but it must have been about a week after AT shut down. Maybe a bit more.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,112
@199,488 (B)
> > I've started like one "Ask a Christian Anything" thread.
>
> From what hasn't been deleted given your previous track-record.
I have no idea what that even means.
> > I'll talk about whatever I want, thank you very much.
>
> So tell us more about the politics that are conflicting your own country for a change.
I don't understand this sentence either.
> > lolwut i dont even get what you're trying to say
>
> You made your bed and now you have to sleep in it. Deal with it, mountainman. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm not asking for any special treatment.
> > Labels ≠ad hominem. This is the only thread I've done this in: people like protip are honest enough to call themselves pregressives.
>
> I never once used the word 'ad hominem'. Your arguments previously were tossed around 'ad nauseum'. I await your response to pick on this point, given it's not exclusive to this thread alone.
Seriously, it's like you're speaking another language. None of this makes any sense.
> > I don't throw it around. I use it only when appropriate.
>
> No, you use it extensively and you've been told to quit it. Your limited repertoire cannot move past these few logical arguments, and that's what you come back to them because they're easy for you without actually contributing any real substance. If you want to be legitimate, change up your argumentative strategies, otherwise you sound stale, boring, and redundant. That's pretty much all you ever seem to be good for these days when you argue this at all.
Appropriate and extensive aren't mutually exclusive. It would be better if people stopped using fallacious arguments, rather than me stop refuting their fallacies.
Here's what actually happens:
1. I present an argument.
2. Someone attempts to refute said argument with fallacious reasoning.
3. I point out their fallacious reasoning. My initial argument still stands.
> > I've started like one "Ask a Christian Anything" thread.
>
> From what hasn't been deleted given your previous track-record.
I have no idea what that even means.
> > I'll talk about whatever I want, thank you very much.
>
> So tell us more about the politics that are conflicting your own country for a change.
I don't understand this sentence either.
> > lolwut i dont even get what you're trying to say
>
> You made your bed and now you have to sleep in it. Deal with it, mountainman. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm not asking for any special treatment.
> > Labels ≠ad hominem. This is the only thread I've done this in: people like protip are honest enough to call themselves pregressives.
>
> I never once used the word 'ad hominem'. Your arguments previously were tossed around 'ad nauseum'. I await your response to pick on this point, given it's not exclusive to this thread alone.
Seriously, it's like you're speaking another language. None of this makes any sense.
> > I don't throw it around. I use it only when appropriate.
>
> No, you use it extensively and you've been told to quit it. Your limited repertoire cannot move past these few logical arguments, and that's what you come back to them because they're easy for you without actually contributing any real substance. If you want to be legitimate, change up your argumentative strategies, otherwise you sound stale, boring, and redundant. That's pretty much all you ever seem to be good for these days when you argue this at all.
Appropriate and extensive aren't mutually exclusive. It would be better if people stopped using fallacious arguments, rather than me stop refuting their fallacies.
Here's what actually happens:
1. I present an argument.
2. Someone attempts to refute said argument with fallacious reasoning.
3. I point out their fallacious reasoning. My initial argument still stands.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,120
@199,607 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Given that most users are so uninformed as to make discussions of US politics largely unfruitful, I have no real desire to waste time talking about Australian politics.
Given that most users are so uninformed as to make discussions of US politics largely unfruitful, I have no real desire to waste time talking about Australian politics.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,121
@200,112 (TrollBuster3000)
> 1. I present an argument.
> 2. Someone attempts to refute said argument with fallacious reasoning.
> 3. I point out their fallacious reasoning. My initial argument still stands.
Oh, okay.
> 1. I present an argument.
> 2. Someone attempts to refute said argument with fallacious reasoning.
> 3. I point out their fallacious reasoning. My initial argument still stands.
Oh, okay.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,122
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,127
@199,611 (sluggy)
Internet filter is yet another socialist Labor Party agenda. All information must be approved by the state. Currently the Greens are pushing for a media enquiry, in an attempt to gain further state control over the dissemination of knowledge.
School chaplains should be privately funded.
Internet filter is yet another socialist Labor Party agenda. All information must be approved by the state. Currently the Greens are pushing for a media enquiry, in an attempt to gain further state control over the dissemination of knowledge.
School chaplains should be privately funded.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,130
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,133
@200,112 (TrollBuster3000)
Items two and three, however, are declared from your own perspective and in no way correspond with the observations of others.
Items two and three, however, are declared from your own perspective and in no way correspond with the observations of others.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,137
@199,950 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
This post enriched this thread. It made this thread better. You are a good person for making this post.
I've never understood why people are jerks. I guess maybe if you can't have fun helping people, you try to have fun hurting people? idk
This post enriched this thread. It made this thread better. You are a good person for making this post.
I've never understood why people are jerks. I guess maybe if you can't have fun helping people, you try to have fun hurting people? idk
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,154
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
You have long ago squandered away any respect and goodwill you might have had. You’ve also shown a flawless pattern of intellectual laziness (or simply disingenuous) with your pet terms about statism, decadence, consent, and sweet loli ass.
You have long ago squandered away any respect and goodwill you might have had. You’ve also shown a flawless pattern of intellectual laziness (or simply disingenuous) with your pet terms about statism, decadence, consent, and sweet loli ass.
!VoCaLoNunI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,156
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
> You have long ago squandered away any respect and goodwill you might have had. You’ve also shown a flawless pattern of intellectual laziness (or simply disingenuous) with your pet terms about statism, decadence, consent, and sweet loli ass.
This. So. Hard. It. Hurts. And. Makes. Me. Type. Like. Kimmo.
> You have long ago squandered away any respect and goodwill you might have had. You’ve also shown a flawless pattern of intellectual laziness (or simply disingenuous) with your pet terms about statism, decadence, consent, and sweet loli ass.
This. So. Hard. It. Hurts. And. Makes. Me. Type. Like. Kimmo.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,161
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,162
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,165
@199,952 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
lol. I wish I had your ability to be so entirely uncritical of myself, and completely ignore information that I don't like. You're like the creationist saying "evolution is only a 'theory'". You know full well that I contest your self-labeling on completely logical grounds, and that my argument against your positions is not based upon labels.
You have confused (I will assume deliberately, out of respect for your intelligence) two issues.
1. The position you hold is not called libertarianism. It is a statist position, which advocates the extension of socialism. Inasmuch as you endorse extending socialism, your philosophy is socialistic, and you are a socialist. Socialism, being involuntary and nonconsensual is an enemy to libertarianism.
2. My arguments against the statist philosophy you advocate.
lol. I wish I had your ability to be so entirely uncritical of myself, and completely ignore information that I don't like. You're like the creationist saying "evolution is only a 'theory'". You know full well that I contest your self-labeling on completely logical grounds, and that my argument against your positions is not based upon labels.
You have confused (I will assume deliberately, out of respect for your intelligence) two issues.
1. The position you hold is not called libertarianism. It is a statist position, which advocates the extension of socialism. Inasmuch as you endorse extending socialism, your philosophy is socialistic, and you are a socialist. Socialism, being involuntary and nonconsensual is an enemy to libertarianism.
2. My arguments against the statist philosophy you advocate.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,168
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
Socialism is voluntary and consensual, as the residents are free to leave, bud.
Socialism is voluntary and consensual, as the residents are free to leave, bud.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,172
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,173
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,176
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,178
@200,165 (TrollBuster3000)
Statist! Socialist! SOCIALISM! SOCIALISTIC! SOCIALISM! ENEMY! RAWR!
Look what I found upstream:
@199,385 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Statist! Socialist! SOCIALISM! SOCIALISTIC! SOCIALISM! ENEMY! RAWR!
Look what I found upstream:
@199,385 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,184
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
BUT YOU ARE MAKING SUBTLE AND TACTFUL USE OF THINGS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED FALLACIES BY SOME PEOPLE AND YOU’RE DOING IT TO MAKE SOME INTERESTING AND NUANCED POINTS AND THEREFORE YOU’RE ENTIRELY WRONG BECAUSE YOU MADE REFERENCE TO SOMETHING I CONSIDER FALLACIOUS
BUT YOU ARE MAKING SUBTLE AND TACTFUL USE OF THINGS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED FALLACIES BY SOME PEOPLE AND YOU’RE DOING IT TO MAKE SOME INTERESTING AND NUANCED POINTS AND THEREFORE YOU’RE ENTIRELY WRONG BECAUSE YOU MADE REFERENCE TO SOMETHING I CONSIDER FALLACIOUS
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,188
@199,954 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
wtf man. what are you even talking about. i hate it when people just make it up as they go along. I have never contested self-identifying labels with you - you readily identify as a Progressive.
The political compass fails by separating some instances of liberty from others, and similarly with authoritarianism. The left-right "economic" axis is completely meaningless. The left libertarian would acknowledge no state, and form voluntary communes of cooperating individuals. But as there is no compulsion, this ceases to be a political issue. Politics is force - and the only true distinction is between people who advocate more politics (the ares they advocate for further politics is irrelevant) and those who advocate less. LatestDude advocates more politics, I argue for less.
wtf man. what are you even talking about. i hate it when people just make it up as they go along. I have never contested self-identifying labels with you - you readily identify as a Progressive.
The political compass fails by separating some instances of liberty from others, and similarly with authoritarianism. The left-right "economic" axis is completely meaningless. The left libertarian would acknowledge no state, and form voluntary communes of cooperating individuals. But as there is no compulsion, this ceases to be a political issue. Politics is force - and the only true distinction is between people who advocate more politics (the ares they advocate for further politics is irrelevant) and those who advocate less. LatestDude advocates more politics, I argue for less.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,189
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,190
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,191
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,192
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,193
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,195
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,197
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,198
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,205
@200,130 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I love reading Plato because he was really smart and knew how to get his points across. He used this method a lot because it is so effective.
I am ready to discuss this issue seriously, but if all you want to do is shitpost like this, this will not be possible.
I love reading Plato because he was really smart and knew how to get his points across. He used this method a lot because it is so effective.
I am ready to discuss this issue seriously, but if all you want to do is shitpost like this, this will not be possible.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,210
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
It's not particularly effective when all you're doing is throwing words that don't apply to me, at me.
@199,385 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
It's not particularly effective when all you're doing is throwing words that don't apply to me, at me.
@199,385 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,212
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
This is why I warned you to ignore this troll, brah. This is all he is capable of doing.
This is why I warned you to ignore this troll, brah. This is all he is capable of doing.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,214
@200,133 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Look, bud, don't go making generalizations now. If you feel that this is going on in specific circumstances call it out then - don't just come into a thread and say "you're always wrong and everyone agrees". Cite specific examples as they occur. It leads to civil discussion, instead of husband-wife -"you always x!" - "when was the last time I x?" - "idk you just always do!"
Look, bud, don't go making generalizations now. If you feel that this is going on in specific circumstances call it out then - don't just come into a thread and say "you're always wrong and everyone agrees". Cite specific examples as they occur. It leads to civil discussion, instead of husband-wife -"you always x!" - "when was the last time I x?" - "idk you just always do!"
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,215
@200,205 (TrollBuster3000)
> ready to discuss
> discussion only consists of ramblings about own ideals and throwing “badâ€Â labels at others without caring for the nuance behind the beliefs
> ready to discuss
> discussion only consists of ramblings about own ideals and throwing “badâ€Â labels at others without caring for the nuance behind the beliefs
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,216
@200,212 (B)
Eh. He's clearly not going away, and this isn't a thread that can really be derailed. I don't mind that much. I do want to see if he can eventually manage to do it. Feel free to post around him. :D
Eh. He's clearly not going away, and this isn't a thread that can really be derailed. I don't mind that much. I do want to see if he can eventually manage to do it. Feel free to post around him. :D
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,220
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Granted you're sorta new here, watching him do this over and over again for months on end gets really tiresome. Oh well, you'll get the gist of it sooner or later.
Granted you're sorta new here, watching him do this over and over again for months on end gets really tiresome. Oh well, you'll get the gist of it sooner or later.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,221
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,224
@200,154 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
> implying you need specific goodwill toward a person to not be a jerk to them
Maybe this is how you live your life. I try to love everyone.
> more generalizations
Why do you even bother? If I make a post containing "intellectual laziness (or simply disingenuous)" call it out; to merely say that I do that without providing any proof is completely meaningless. Your post is a classic example of laziness - trying to mar my character with accusations instead of correcting my errors. Can you see the difference?
> implying you need specific goodwill toward a person to not be a jerk to them
Maybe this is how you live your life. I try to love everyone.
> more generalizations
Why do you even bother? If I make a post containing "intellectual laziness (or simply disingenuous)" call it out; to merely say that I do that without providing any proof is completely meaningless. Your post is a classic example of laziness - trying to mar my character with accusations instead of correcting my errors. Can you see the difference?
TrollBuster3000 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,227
@200,168 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
LOL. Worst argument ever. Racism is voluntary and consensual, as blacks are free to leave, bud.
LOL. Worst argument ever. Racism is voluntary and consensual, as blacks are free to leave, bud.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,229
@200,220 (B)
@200,221 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Look at it this way: the busier he is posting shit here, the less time he'll have to post it everywhere else. :D
Alternatively: at least he's not Voice of Wisdom.
@200,221 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Look at it this way: the busier he is posting shit here, the less time he'll have to post it everywhere else. :D
Alternatively: at least he's not Voice of Wisdom.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,233
@200,178 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I can find no excuse for this kind of post. You're 17 years old. You're not a child. This is not how adults talk. Why even bother replying if you're not going to discuss what I said at all?
I can find no excuse for this kind of post. You're 17 years old. You're not a child. This is not how adults talk. Why even bother replying if you're not going to discuss what I said at all?
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,234
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,235
@200,233 (TrollBuster3000)
I did discuss what you said. You used your speaking time to call me anything vaguely fascist you could think of.
@199,385 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I can post that as many times as you can try to pretend it doesn't exist.
I did discuss what you said. You used your speaking time to call me anything vaguely fascist you could think of.
@199,385 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I can post that as many times as you can try to pretend it doesn't exist.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,237
@200,184 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Caps lock doesn't make it any funnier or veracious.
He is not committing any formal fallacies; he is merely being rude, and ignoring my arguments.
You resort to lies once again. Fallacies are not subjective. Logic is objective and fallacies are clearly defined. I do not disregard whole posts or arguments because part of them is fallacious - but that which depends upon fallacy must be disregarded.
Caps lock doesn't make it any funnier or veracious.
He is not committing any formal fallacies; he is merely being rude, and ignoring my arguments.
You resort to lies once again. Fallacies are not subjective. Logic is objective and fallacies are clearly defined. I do not disregard whole posts or arguments because part of them is fallacious - but that which depends upon fallacy must be disregarded.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,238
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,239
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,240
@200,210 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I, clearly, with distinct, logical steps, demonstrate why and how these words apply to you.
Your response:
"they dont apply to me becuase um just because stop saying them i dont like them".
Feel free to explain why they don't apply to you. The best way to do this would be to refute my argument on why they apply to you. You have not done this, and I feel that you never will.
I, clearly, with distinct, logical steps, demonstrate why and how these words apply to you.
Your response:
"they dont apply to me becuase um just because stop saying them i dont like them".
Feel free to explain why they don't apply to you. The best way to do this would be to refute my argument on why they apply to you. You have not done this, and I feel that you never will.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,241
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,242
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,243
@200,215 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Never thought I would hear protip saying that socialism and statism were bad. They aren't "bad". I disagree with them. I feel that assumptions and preconceptions like this, held by you, is what prejudices debates and arguments. It may explain you seemingly irrational and trollish behavior - you are reading insult and offense into phrases and arguments that isn't there. I do not argue on an emotional level and my arguments have no appeals to emotion. They are based upon strict, plain text logic.
I will add that once again you generalize without pointing to a specific instance. If anyone could be said to have a "tactic", it would be you.
Never thought I would hear protip saying that socialism and statism were bad. They aren't "bad". I disagree with them. I feel that assumptions and preconceptions like this, held by you, is what prejudices debates and arguments. It may explain you seemingly irrational and trollish behavior - you are reading insult and offense into phrases and arguments that isn't there. I do not argue on an emotional level and my arguments have no appeals to emotion. They are based upon strict, plain text logic.
I will add that once again you generalize without pointing to a specific instance. If anyone could be said to have a "tactic", it would be you.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,245
@200,240 (TrollBuster3000)
Okay, TrollBuster3000: let me try to present this in a nicer and more expanded way. I don't know whether or not you are a troll. Anonymous B and protip both seem to believe so, but I don't know for certain, and I like to assume the best of people. You're acting a bit like a troll by blatantly disregarding what I'm saying, but maybe you either don't understand or are misinterpreting my problem with what you have posted thus far.
In short, my problem is with the fact that you have not yet posted either your opinion, or a legitimate rebuttal to mine. You are doing nothing more than dismissing my calling myself a social libertarian by comparing the very limited information I have posted thus far about my own beliefs to socialism and statism. I reject these labels, because I can tell you for certain — having just read up a reasonable amount of information on both socialism and statism, prompted by your posts — that my economic beliefs can not be classified as either. But you don't agree with that, right? Fine. Let me tell you why I haven't really responded to that part: I don't care.
I do not care, nor have I ever cared, about labels. I would rather articulate each individual, relevant, belief that I hold, and let the general populous make a reasonable assessment of me via what I divulge. I have offered at the beginning of this thread to divulge each and every one of my opinions upon request. You have not once taken me up on my offer. The entire sum of what you have posted thus far has been completely void of any actual opinion on your part — it consists of attempting to discredit me using fear-mongering terminology. For all you go on about logical fallacies, you should know that this is well-poisoning, and is a fallacy in and of itself.
If you wish to get a polite and relevant discussion going, discuss my beliefs, not what you believe I am. Debate my character, or define your own so that I may respond to it. From this point forward, I am ignoring anything and everything you post that contains "statist" or "socialist."
Okay, TrollBuster3000: let me try to present this in a nicer and more expanded way. I don't know whether or not you are a troll. Anonymous B and protip both seem to believe so, but I don't know for certain, and I like to assume the best of people. You're acting a bit like a troll by blatantly disregarding what I'm saying, but maybe you either don't understand or are misinterpreting my problem with what you have posted thus far.
In short, my problem is with the fact that you have not yet posted either your opinion, or a legitimate rebuttal to mine. You are doing nothing more than dismissing my calling myself a social libertarian by comparing the very limited information I have posted thus far about my own beliefs to socialism and statism. I reject these labels, because I can tell you for certain — having just read up a reasonable amount of information on both socialism and statism, prompted by your posts — that my economic beliefs can not be classified as either. But you don't agree with that, right? Fine. Let me tell you why I haven't really responded to that part: I don't care.
I do not care, nor have I ever cared, about labels. I would rather articulate each individual, relevant, belief that I hold, and let the general populous make a reasonable assessment of me via what I divulge. I have offered at the beginning of this thread to divulge each and every one of my opinions upon request. You have not once taken me up on my offer. The entire sum of what you have posted thus far has been completely void of any actual opinion on your part — it consists of attempting to discredit me using fear-mongering terminology. For all you go on about logical fallacies, you should know that this is well-poisoning, and is a fallacy in and of itself.
If you wish to get a polite and relevant discussion going, discuss my beliefs, not what you believe I am. Debate my character, or define your own so that I may respond to it. From this point forward, I am ignoring anything and everything you post that contains "statist" or "socialist."
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,247
@200,234 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
lol you're not very good at this/ you are really good at the whole reddit pseudo-intellectual Portland hipster thing...
My argument was not a strawman. It WAS a reduction ad absurdum (which is not a fallacy), which clearly demonstrated the falseness of your argument.
That you were unable to refute it demonstrates acceptance of it, or continued belief in your argument in the absence of logic and reason.
lol you're not very good at this/ you are really good at the whole reddit pseudo-intellectual Portland hipster thing...
My argument was not a strawman. It WAS a reduction ad absurdum (which is not a fallacy), which clearly demonstrated the falseness of your argument.
That you were unable to refute it demonstrates acceptance of it, or continued belief in your argument in the absence of logic and reason.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,250
@200,245 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
This post probably caused mountainman to jizz his pants furiously. I hope this gets it out of your system because you're going to see it a whole lot more in the future if you stay here.
This post probably caused mountainman to jizz his pants furiously. I hope this gets it out of your system because you're going to see it a whole lot more in the future if you stay here.
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,252
@200,235 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I never called you a fascist. If I did, you could easily prove me wrong as your views are clearly not fascist. As it is, you have serious trouble proving me wrong, which would indicate to me that I have aptly described your views.
The name of the view is the least important part, and I have no idea why you're spending so much time talking about it. The important part is what you advocate, which you prefer to ignore in favor of what you like to call yourself.
I never called you a fascist. If I did, you could easily prove me wrong as your views are clearly not fascist. As it is, you have serious trouble proving me wrong, which would indicate to me that I have aptly described your views.
The name of the view is the least important part, and I have no idea why you're spending so much time talking about it. The important part is what you advocate, which you prefer to ignore in favor of what you like to call yourself.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,253
@200,245 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
10/10 bud
He is not quite a troll, in that he genuinely sticks around and never strays from these obnoxiously-presented beliefs. However, he never does anything else of substance and just rambles on about pet topics. He is not worth the time that you could be spending shitposting.
10/10 bud
He is not quite a troll, in that he genuinely sticks around and never strays from these obnoxiously-presented beliefs. However, he never does anything else of substance and just rambles on about pet topics. He is not worth the time that you could be spending shitposting.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,254
@200,250 (B)
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
I already said I'm going to ignore anything he posts in the future if he doesn't cease his current behavior. You two should as well. :)
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
I already said I'm going to ignore anything he posts in the future if he doesn't cease his current behavior. You two should as well. :)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
TrollBuster3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,255
@200,239 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
woke up, watched an hour long video of why you should never talk to the police, got on mc
woke up, watched an hour long video of why you should never talk to the police, got on mc
TrollBuster3000 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,258
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,261
@200,247 (TrollBuster3000)
> reddit
> pseudo-intellectual
> Portland
> hipster
> I use strict, text-based logic
> pseudo-intellectual
> Portland
> hipster
> I use strict, text-based logic
protip !!pMmAiEwOm double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,262
@200,254 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
No, no. Do not ignore the mountainman, become the mountainman.
You need to learn the ways of decadence, Ron Paul 2014, and liberty, for they are yet the trees that shall bear shitposting fruits.
No, no. Do not ignore the mountainman, become the mountainman.
You need to learn the ways of decadence, Ron Paul 2014, and liberty, for they are yet the trees that shall bear shitposting fruits.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,263
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
I prefer to post quality replies/topics. I shall take your advice if I ever wish to start "shitposting," however.
I prefer to post quality replies/topics. I shall take your advice if I ever wish to start "shitposting," however.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,264
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Here's the conundrum: mountainman's posts/replies that appear to be "quality replies/topics", however they are quintessentially shitposts when you see the context. He's very crafty at glossing his own turds.
Here's the conundrum: mountainman's posts/replies that appear to be "quality replies/topics", however they are quintessentially shitposts when you see the context. He's very crafty at glossing his own turds.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
StatistSocialist3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,265
@200,245 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Read back through this thread and actually reply to my posts. Like legit, go back to the top of the thread and actually reply to my posts.
Maybe it means something different in America - but socialism and statism are just political/economic theories. They are not bad or scary words. By attaching magical significance to words you make it difficult to have rational discussion.
Read back through this thread and actually reply to my posts. Like legit, go back to the top of the thread and actually reply to my posts.
Maybe it means something different in America - but socialism and statism are just political/economic theories. They are not bad or scary words. By attaching magical significance to words you make it difficult to have rational discussion.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,266
StatistSocialist3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,267
@200,261 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
I even distinguish the separable parts of my posts.
You are engaging in what you accused me of earlier - ignoring separability.
I even distinguish the separable parts of my posts.
You are engaging in what you accused me of earlier - ignoring separability.
StatistSocialist3000 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,268
@200,263 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I'm looking forward to your quality replies to my arguments instead of shitposts about how you're scared by certain words.
I'm looking forward to your quality replies to my arguments instead of shitposts about how you're scared by certain words.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,269
@200,266 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Not at all. You're good, LatestDude. You're much more like-able than mountainman. Look at this post in itself: @200,265 (StatistSocialist3000)
> Read back through this thread and actually reply to my posts
This is another classic troll manuever from mountainman. Essentially he's asking you to nitpick everything he says because he just wants to continue wasting your time. I think we can all recognize what he's doing.
Not at all. You're good, LatestDude. You're much more like-able than mountainman. Look at this post in itself: @200,265 (StatistSocialist3000)
> Read back through this thread and actually reply to my posts
This is another classic troll manuever from mountainman. Essentially he's asking you to nitpick everything he says because he just wants to continue wasting your time. I think we can all recognize what he's doing.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,270
StatistSocialist3000 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,359
> Ask people to reply to your arguments instead of ignoring them
> "Classic trolling maneuver"
wtf
> "Classic trolling maneuver"
wtf
!VoCaLoNunI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #200,361
@previous (StatistSocialist3000)
I seriously can't wait until this place has an ignore list for names.
I seriously can't wait until this place has an ignore list for names.