Spirituality
16 May 14
Originally posted by whodeyI think the word 'troll' is seriously overused in this forum. It now means "a person who said something that bothered me". It used to mean, "person who posts solely to get an emotional reaction", which IMO is not even close to applicable for FMF.
It reminds me of that song by Sting.
A doo, doo doo, a da, da, da ,da, that is all I want to say to you.
In your heart you know you are right, even though others may rape you with their words.
Much like having a conversation with a troll like FMF.
Remember STANG? Now that was a troll.
19 May 14
Originally posted by FMFEveryone is entitled to an opinion, although some are more informed than others.
I don't think this is true. I think you dig your heels in and plant fingers in your ears as much as,if not more than, most people here, and do so whilst covering up your characteristic reluctance to admit you're wrong with copious amounts of Clan Forum style trash talk. Just saying that's all. 🙂
Your opinion on this particular topic, for instance, reveals one which is based on feeling and perspective with literally nothing to do with actual facts.
My claim to admit my error is based on actual posts in which I have admitted error.
That's posts in the plural.
My claim further asserted the lack of admittance on the part of atheists--- or at least a lesser number of posts wherein an atheist admitted error.
To counter that claim, you would have to erase the posts in which I had admitted error as well as then show just one post of error admittance on the part of an atheist, just to have the score at 0-1.
Because you are unable to support the idea that atheists have admitted error and you are equally unable to discredit the existence of posts of mine in which error was admitted, you are left with an uninformed opinion.
You're perfectly within your rights to lay hold of it; it's just not worth much to anyone else.
Just saying.
19 May 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThere are more than a few from both sides of the aisle whom I simply won't engage for any reason, whatsoever.
May I take that as a 'yes'?
If yes, then why do you continue to argue with those people? (This isn't an accusatory 'why', but an inquisitive one).
There are also some who, despite their intransigence otherwise, still make the battle worth engaging simply for the different angles I acquire in the process simply because their perspective is one not previously considered in those exact ways.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 May 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe relevant statistic is not how often does someone admit they are wrong.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, although some are more informed than others.
Your opinion on this particular topic, for instance, reveals one which is based on feeling and perspective with literally nothing to do with actual facts.
My claim to admit my error is based on actual posts in which I have admitted error.
That's posts in the plural.
My cla ...[text shortened]... tly within your rights to lay hold of it; it's just not worth much to anyone else.
Just saying.
It's how often they admit they are wrong WHEN they are in fact wrong.
If you have two people and person A admits they are wrong twice a day, and
person B admits they are wrong once a month, that might simply be because
person A is wrong an awful lot more that person B is.
Unless you ALSO know how often they are actually wrong, the rate of admitting
that they are wrong is pretty meaningless.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou made a blow-your-own-trumpet assertion. I have made a counter-assertion. The whole thing is moot ~ except for the sound of you tooting on your trumpet.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, although some are more informed than others.
Your opinion on this particular topic, for instance, reveals one which is based on feeling and perspective with literally nothing to do with actual facts.
My claim to admit my error is based on actual posts in which I have admitted error.
That's posts in the plural.
My cla ...[text shortened]... tly within your rights to lay hold of it; it's just not worth much to anyone else.
Just saying.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI say troll because FMF traditionally makes personal attacks.
I think the word 'troll' is seriously overused in this forum. It now means "a person who said something that bothered me". It used to mean, "person who posts solely to get an emotional reaction", which IMO is not even close to applicable for FMF.
Remember STANG? Now that was a troll.
So I think FMF is a troll and FMF thinks I'm a bad debater. (Shrug)
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt's like trying to have a conversation with someone and then they retort, "Your breath sure smells"
I don't think personal attacks qualify one to be a troll. (If they did, practically everyone in here is a troll.)
You said that a troll is one that tries to generate an emotional response. Is this not the tactic? On top of being told I'm stupid, FMF also called me a liar by saying that it was virtually impossible to believe that I could have ever won a debate.
Now when people call you a liar and stupid, does that generate an emotional response? Does it aid the topic at hand? Does it do anything to nullify the point I was making?
I guess FMF is a good representative as to why these forums suck and it is people like you who help it keep sucking the way it does by turning a blind eye to posters that share your worldviews who engage in this crap.
Originally posted by whodeyHELP!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!!! I'M BEING TROLLED!!!!!~~
It's like trying to have a conversation with someone and then they retort, "Your breath sure smells"
You said that a troll is one that tries to generate an emotional response. Is this not the tactic? On top of being told I'm stupid, FMF also called me a liar by saying that it was virtually impossible to believe that I could have ever won a debate.
Now ...[text shortened]... ay it does by turning a blind eye to posters that share your worldviews who engage in this crap.
20 May 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
HELP!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!!! I'M BEING TROLLED!!!!!~~
Your jacket is a perfect fit.
20 May 14
Originally posted by FMFBlow my own trumpet?
You made a blow-your-own-trumpet assertion. I have made a counter-assertion. The whole thing is moot ~ except for the sound of you tooting on your trumpet.
So you're saying that a person who admits when they're wrong ought to be taken as a point of pride?
What world do you live in, exactly?
The world I reside in expects people to own up to their mistakes as a point of respect for the truth.
My post simply is a statement of fact.
If you have an actual counter-assertion, it must consist of examples which contradict either of my initial claims.
Barring that, your words are just so much noise.
20 May 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeThere is an inference here which suggests the atheists here are never wrong.
The relevant statistic is not how often does someone admit they are wrong.
It's how often they admit they are wrong WHEN they are in fact wrong.
If you have two people and person A admits they are wrong twice a day, and
person B admits they are wrong once a month, that might simply be because
person A is wrong an awful lot more that person B is ...[text shortened]... ften they are actually wrong, the rate of admitting
that they are wrong is pretty meaningless.
Please, please, PLEASE tell me you think this.