›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

Rottweiler got banned

1…1314161819…26

Comments

  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    That seems to contradict the first thing you said.
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    ^ INCEPTION
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    Look, I can remember how I got here, it's not a dream.
  • PonicalicaPonicalica
    (void)
    «You know, Rott, if you're going to insist that everyone who debates with you has to read [philosophical text] first, why even bother arguing? Why not just post a philosophy reading list every time you enter a thread?»
    Because then he would be icycalm, and as bad as Rott is, he's not that bad.

    Also: bwoooooooooooooooooooong
  • KinoKino
    Quit being a whiny bitch and man up.
    @Rott: I had no idea you were here, now I feel Like I wasted time writing that PM; how's the missus?
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    @Kino: Yeah, obviously a PM would be wasted.

    Leigh is fine; I'm not.
  • KinoKino
    Quit being a whiny bitch and man up.
    Yeah, I read that post of yours.
  • TheMightyAnonymTheMightyAnonym
    ~♥YES♥~! I *AM* a ~♥cupcake♥~! ^_^
    "You know, the first step to successfully mocking Aristotle would be reading him.

    That's how Hobbes managed. Get back to me when one of you is clever as him."

    And that's why Rott got banned.
  • BobBob
    edited 2011-04-26 19:43:30
    [Comment deleted]
    [Reason: Shitpost]
  • GLORIOUSLeaderGLORIOUSLeader
    When in Turkey, ROCK THE FUCK OUT
    Well duh. After all, total monarchies are TOTALLY GAY
  • KhwarizmiKhwarizmi
    edited 2011-04-26 20:11:09
    Because you never know what you might see.
    @ Rott: Hey, I wasn't mocking, I had a serious disagreement! :(

    >The same idea is the same, no matter who presents it, be it a pauper on an inner-city street or a billionaire sitting in his oceanfront private office.

    While this is technically true, unless said pauper or businessman is extremely well-read, they're unlikely to have as firm a grasp of the ideas in question as the philosopher who invented them.  At least, not unless the ideas are already the norm in that society, and even then that's no guarantee that the majority of the general populace will understand the reasoning behind them.
  • HatterHatter
    Glaives are better.
    Even though I'm a terrible scientist, am historically ignorant and blissfully unaware of pop culture, I endeavor to be at least literate in such subjects. Expecting others to be literate in a subject they're arguing about isn't objectionable, at least in my opinion.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    That's what Wikipedia is for.  When you need background information about something you don't know.

    Or when you just want to read up on stuff you already know because it's fun, heh.

    That said, Wikipedia's math articles suck.  They are frequently useless for providing background information to laypersons.
  • BeeBee
    On the other hand, they're quite useful for learning more about college-level statistics than the actual college-level statistics course, professor, and textbook could teach combined.
  • BonSequiturBonSequitur
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    As an academic, I feel I should point out that in academic writing, it's not considered rigorous to point out to some other author unless it's extremely trivial to the discussion at hand (E.g., biology papers don't have to cite Darwin, because it's taken for granted as prior knowledge of readers); you have to make your points completely. If you cite, you have to actually cite and provide a relevant passage of the text; simply browbeating your readers with 'you should know this already,' when the context of the discussion isn't one where they should, isn't rigorous or productive, but simply rude.
  • LoneWolfEburgLoneWolfEburg
    I was not mocking Aristotle anyway.
  • BonSequiturBonSequitur
    edited 2011-04-26 23:39:54
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    Besides, you can't borrow someoene else's ideas anwyay. Telling somebody to read Aristotle carries no guarantee that you, yourself, understand what Aristotle meant.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Rottweiler, Beholderess and Myrmidon:

    You are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

    Rottweiler was not banned from the forum because he was condescending, had opposing views or because of the way he expressed his views.

    He was banned because of what his views led to.

    Rottweiler, you would walk into a thread and make a condescending statement towards people you disagreed with. This is where you and Tongpu differ; the way you phrase your arguments makes them feel personal towards your opponent, whereas Tongpu makes blanket statements that shock... on a distant scale.

    You would write up long posts responding to dozens of posts before you. (Incidentally, after spending so much time on the forum, this should have been the first tip you were going to be banned. Fast Eddie has declared that he is not going to install a quote function specifically so people cannot do this.) This long post would carry the same level of condescension, of my-views-are-better-than-you-because-I-am-morally-superior-to-you, that you always carry.

    This incited the other posters in the thread to respond to you specifically. And that is bad, because the forum you did this most in is called On-Topic Conversations, not Refute Rottweiler's Position. You stick to the topic in the thread; you do not change it to a discussion of your views on the topic.

    And you would continue with the same level of condescension that you brought in with you over the period of the whole conversation.
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    So Tongpu spams Earthquake and Torment while Rottweiler used Flamethrower and Ice Beam?
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    No, Rottweiler uses Torment. He makes people angry, but also confuses them at the same time.

    Tongpu spams Lick.
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    @Bobby: You were just saying you don't like the idea of natural purpose and would prefer that existentialism be true?

    @Cygan: You would write up long posts responding to dozens of posts before you.
    (Incidentally, after spending so much time on the forum, this should
    have been the first tip you were going to be banned. Fast Eddie has
    declared that he is not going to install a quote function specifically
    so people cannot do this.)

    Somehow you missed all the times opponents would attack me for not replying to every single reply?

    It's a textbook case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." The only way to win is to agree with what Myrmidon aptly called the mindless circlejerk. Any fool can see what they should believe in order to be popular.

    Of course I never believed in being any fool.
  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    Nope, to win one needs to not act condescending.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    @ Rottweiler: Somehow you missed all the times opponents would attack me for not replying to every single reply?

    Nope.

    Somehow nobody else has this problem. It seems to only be the person known for writing overly long replies to a topic to the point that people recognize him for it.

    Of course, you could always, say, reply to the topic like everyone else.
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    edited 2011-04-27 00:44:08
    Inside, too dark to read
    @vandro: You have any idea how many people would be banned if expressing fashionable beliefs in a condescending way was counted as "being a dick"?

    @Cygan: Believe that if you want to.
  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    You tell me, I am waiting a list, hastily, I admit.
  • BeholderessBeholderess
    edited 2011-04-27 02:11:33
    Ahem, there are quite a lot of posters who act as if they are oh so much more intellectually superior than anyone else. This one is not going to make a list (for obvious reasons, and also because it is very possible that she is mistaken in her judgement), but at least one of them left on his own because he felt that the conversations were "beneath him", and people were sad about that

    You would write up long posts responding to dozens of posts before you.
    (Incidentally, after spending so much time on the forum, this should
    have been the first tip you were going to be banned. Fast Eddie has
    declared that he is not going to install a quote function specifically
    so people cannot do this.)

    Umm, this is a wrong thing to do? This one tends to do it often when she catches up with a thread that moved quite a lot in her absence...
  • TheMightyAnonymTheMightyAnonym
    ~♥YES♥~! I *AM* a ~♥cupcake♥~! ^_^
    Indeed, I have great difficulty shrugging off posts that were directed at me instead of responding properly.
  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    Intelectual superior is not the same as morally superior, both are smug, mind you, but most people often act as if they are right, not smarter, there is a subtle difference there, sometimes not enough to bother, however.
  • LoneWolfEburgLoneWolfEburg
    I admit, I don't see how Rott derailed this thread at all. His views and his manner of expression was the topic of this thread from the very start.

  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    "Umm, this is a wrong thing to do? This one tends to do it often when she catches up with a thread that moved quite a lot in her absence..."

    Yes- Fast Eddie dislikes this practice.
Sign In or Register to comment.