Glossary and terms

1) intellectual dishonesty.

Examples:

Fur-balling: you deliberately do not address the content of the post you are replying to and instead post a few inches of waffle which is quite difficult to follow as it contains numerous grammatical errors logical fallacies and circular reasoning.

Counter Measures: you answer a direct question with another question(s) with the intention of streering the laser-beamed question aimed at you...away from you and onto something sort of related but not as awkward.

Defective mirroring: you accuse someone of something they have never done. E.g. you are being accused of “intellectual dishonesty” in debate, and you counter by saying something like “so every time someone disagrees with you they are being dishonest?”

Hairdriering: you are in a pinch and desperate to deflect from a great question put to you. You have tried using the tactics above and now another poster has also noticed you squirming. Use the “hairdryer” tactic: you write several very long posts full of loads of html italics, bolds, capitalisations, quotes of quotes of quotes etc then spam dump all the posts in one hit. One of the posts contains the answer to the laser question but in the confusion no one notices. Later you claim to have “answered the question” and can smugly accuse your interrogator of poor reading comprehension.

@divegeester said
1) intellectual dishonesty.

Examples:

Fur-balling: you deliberately do not address the content of the post you are replying to and instead post a few inches of waffle which is quite difficult to follow as it contains numerous grammatical errors logical fallacies and circular reasoning.

Counter Measures: you answer a direct question with another que ...[text shortened]... have “answered the question” and can smugly accuse your interrogator of poor reading comprehension.

Lexi-cockup-graphy: self-serving 'misunderstanding' or misuse of a word's meaning to which one sticks come what may and regardless of corrective explanations.

Unprocessed and Unacknowledged Response Syndrome: parody-of-conversation achieved by steadfastly refusing to factor in any of the replies -answers or observations - one is receiving.

Somewhat Dementedly Disproportionate Response [SDDR]: in the face of robust or unyielding dissent by a poster, liken them to a leper, or cockroach, or a snake or rat, or an unclean pig or dog, or a smelly drunk, or accuse them of being diseased or causing suicides or spreading germs or eating feces or causing "God" to torture people etc. etc. Linked to...

Somewhat Dementedly Deluded Justification [SDDJ]: the purveyor of SDDR later claims he or she "was provoked" without being able to show where or by what.

BS-ing

The refusal to answer a question that has you by the balls on the basis that you have supposedly answered it in the past.

[Possession of] Special Knowledge Inaccessible to Disagreers [SKID]: Appeals to SKID are, in terms of their vehemence, are conversely proportional to the haplessness and lack of credibility of the Appellant.

Limited Apology Screen [LAS]: apologise for a relatively minor thing that happened during the course of sticking to a manifestly weak argument but then rule out further discussion of that argument on account of it already being 'settled' by the apology.

Trite & Tawdry Holy Scripture Usage [TATHSU]: example... Decline to address an argument or answer a question by, instead, Googling a list of the occurrences of the word "fool" in the Bible and simply copy pasting it into the discussion without comment.

@divegeester said
1) intellectual dishonesty.

Examples:

Fur-balling: you deliberately do not address the content of the post you are replying to and instead post a few inches of waffle which is quite difficult to follow as it contains numerous grammatical errors logical fallacies and circular reasoning.

Counter Measures: you answer a direct question with another que ...[text shortened]... have “answered the question” and can smugly accuse your interrogator of poor reading comprehension.

Sonship recently introduced me to a new term:

Graduation - In a thread where he had been thoroughly out-argued and his views highlighted as judgemental and poorly-considered he announced his pending exit from the thread by saying his was 'graduating' on to a new topic. (In lower circles we describe this as escaping with one's tail between one's legs).

Total Website Annihilation Theory

Total Website Annihilation Theory, or TW*T is a concept held by relatively few posters but one which manifests frequently within that group. The core belief structure is built upon the notion that posters in these various forums, by the act of posting and the content therein, will have a lasting inpact on the commercial wellbeing of Red Hot Pawn.

The two sects of this belief system are:

1) Verbose Always Gains, or VAGs
This group believe that the frequency of their posts, the more threads they start and the more grandiose in style their contributions are, the more site benefits through some sort of (completely unknown and unproven) $-for-clicks mechanism. The psychology associated with this belief permits the VAG to deflect any criticism of their posting by being a total TW*T and insisting that their expertise in TW*Tishness is somehow financially benefiting “Russ”, the website owner and forum overload.

2) Protector of Ordinary Posters, or POOPs
This group harbour a vehement belief that when one of their forum allies finds themselves under pressure, that is their absolute duty to step in and break up the discourse by firing aggressive barrages of righteous indignation at those “attacking” “persecuting” “destroying” those they see as their allies, and thereby protecting the website from complete and total collapse.

POOPs are extremely, but misguidedly loyal to their targeted allies and it is unclear to observers how this catastrophic website collapse would occur; but interestingly POOPs will rarely alert the posts which their POOPAS (protection of ordinary posters alert system) have detected.

Gas Released & Lit: broad sweeping matter-in-hand-evading assertion that a non-believer actually does believe but is 'too angry with God' to admit it.

You bunch of sooks.

Sarcschism

The incorrect use of sarcasm or humorous quip whereby the word or phrase does not mean what the author intended.

E.g. “sook” : Australian slang for a person lacking in spirit or self confidence.

Not to be confused with Sarchasm which is commonly understood to be the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.