FinnAgain is kind of a shitty person.

[FinnAgain]

@clairobscur

SFG isn’t trolling.

Yes, she very clearly is. Take, for instance, her trolling about my response to Damuri’s accusations that I’d ever “shouted him down” as an “anti-Semite”. Rather than addressing the factual nature of that argument, she simply trolled by pointing out that I’d repeated certain words. In that way, she’s attempting to shut me up if I am uppity enough to defend myself from slanderous nonsense like Damuri likes to spew.

If I’d said nothing, Damuri’s lies stand unchallenged. If I point out that he’s full of shit, SFG trolls at how often I’ve used certain words. Likewise, if you don’t care about whether or not words are correct and only spaz out because they’re simply used, then all you’re doing is trolling someone for using them. “I don’t know whether what you’re saying is true or not, and I don’t care, but I’m going to give you a hard time and try to piss you off” is a pretty concise definition of one way that folks can troll.

Likewise, in a thread started by Lobo in order to troll, the fact that I’ve mentioned the word a few times is hardly surprising. Just like she’s normally been spazzing out because I’ve used words like “anti-Semite” while discussing claims that either other posters evinced anti-Semitism or, (as when she was trolling me for being uppity enough to dispute Damuri’s lies), pointing out the fact that I hadn’t done what he said.

Several days ago I asked her:

[

why don’t you try honestly discussing the issue?
or just highlight certain words in this post and I’ll know your answer to the question below.

Here, I’ll put the same question to you that I put to him: show how I’m wrong or concede the fact that you neither know nor care if my claims are correct and you’re simply trying to provoke a negative reaction from me without knowing or caring if what I’ve said is true or not. That is, you’re trolling.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13520010&postcount=177)

You’ll note that she still hasn’t addressed whether or not anything I’ve said is correct or incorrect, and is still trolling simply because I’ve said certain words. Naturally, it’s the same sort of trolling whereby someone will make something up about me and then moan about how awful it is that I point out people are lying. By trolling me, she gets to cut and paste the number of times I use that word.
Rather obviously, instead of (finally) addressing whether or not my accusations are factually accurate, she’ll just cut and paste her trigger words from this post and sperg out some more.

@Damuri_Ajashi

arabists

Another good example.
Damuri was debating the prevalence of Arabists within the US government while, he admits, he didn’t even know what the word “Arabist” meant. Damuri does not let a complete lack of knowledge get in his way.

@Damuri_Ajashi

you latch onto details about Madeleine Albright’s Jewishness because that is one argument that you can win.

He “latched onto” it because it demonstrates how you routinely argue in bad faith about things that you are totally ignorant about. In rebuttal to a comment about Arabists (a group who you didn’t even know the definition for) you mention Kissinger and Albright, because you think they’re both Jews. Only Albright isn’t, and you didn’t even know that.

@Damuri_Ajashi

diversionary nitpicking that Finn Again is famous for

As Damuri wouldn’t know how to argue in good faith, he’s whining about the fact that I’ve complained when his utter ignorance pops up.

Let’s take, for example, Damuri’s Witnessing about how the UN created Israel. The fact that it didn’t actually do that, couldn’t change his mind. Not at all.

@FinnAgain

I will point out, however, why Witnessing leads to these sorts of problems when you’re not looking at the facts to build a cohesive narrative, you’re looking at your narrative and trying to plug facts in to it. You can say “pot kettle” all you want, but as you’ve come to this debate not knowing the basis facts, and decided to argue anyways (often even after you’ve been corrected on the facts), this is just boring. Especially since it seems that not only do you not feel you have to learn the facts before you debate them, and that anything that shows you’re wrong is “distorted history”, but even when you’re shown to be flat out mistaken, you’ll repeat the same errors a bit later on. Or you claim that the UN created Israel because they used it as justification… and yet if they’d said that their justification was a God-given right to the land, you wouldn’t be arguing that Israel is divinely created. Created by a magic spell invoked by UN sorcerers? Sure. Created by God? Now that’s just silly.

Case in point, you’re now repeating something that was shown not to be true, and that you admitted wasn’t true, but you’re repeating because it fits into your narrative. After we just did the same dance.

You make the same error here That time saying: "So what exactly precipitated the war of 1948? I was under the impression it started the day after the UN “created” the Israel. "
I pointed out the facts. Rather basic facts, I might add, that one should already have before arguing about a time-line of causality. "No. The UN Partition Plan was approved on November 29, 1947.
On May 14, 1948 the declaration of independence made by Israel was met with a war of extermination by the surrounding Arab states. "
Your response was to try to find new facts to support the same argument you were just making. Sure, your original argument was that the Arabs invaded the day after the UN “created” Israel (which of course never happened in this universe), but when caught on the fact that such a claim is fictional, you then decided that a better argument would be that the Arabs invaded when the Brits left. If your argument is shown to be based on non-facts, just try to switch supporting facts in mid-argument, because your conclusion must be right, or else you wouldn’t be trying to find facts to support it.. That’s the very hallmark of an argument that works backwards from a conclusion rather than forwards from facts. Then you reverted to a modified version of your original claim, that Israel declared independence the day before the UN Partition was supposed to go into effect.
Again I tried to clear up your factual mistakes and pointed out that the Partition wasn’t to take effect until two months after the British withdrew.
You then admitted that you were wrong and were ignorant of the facts (while trying to handwave them away since they didn’t match with your narrative.) When shown that all your facts were wrong, that didn’t matter, as your argument wasn’t based on the facts anyways, but based on a conclusion that was in search of facts to justify it. So you rationalized a new way to support your conclusion “The partition hadn’t technically taken effect when hostilities commenced? There was certainly baptism by fire but the birth (while premature) was from the womb of the UN and the British efforts to facilitate a Jewish homeland in palestine.”

Of course, when shown that the British didn’t try to facilitate a Jewish homeland from about 1922 on, and in fact actively tried to stifle it in a great many ways, you tried to find new facts to support that conclusion, too. When pointed out that a non-binding UN resolution that wasn’t agreed to by both parties, didn’t inform the geography in question, and was never implemented at all couldn’t be said to have done anything, you found way to rationalize that away, too.
And now, of course, you’re using the exact same mistake you already had cleared up for you, and trying to base your Witnessing on the same non-fact. Again.

It was pointed out to you that this was simply fictional. You admitted it wasn’t correct. Now you’re using it, yet again, as support for your narrative.