But its chalk full of crunchy goodness!
(That’s OK, XT, I’ve struggled myself to upgrade to English from my native peckerwood…)
Or reveal you to be one.
Oooh, snap! Wilde?
Thats not fair. In one posting XT spelled caveat caviot. I was tempted to jump all over and say that we should ignore his post since his misspelling indicated stupidity. I just could not bring myself to do it.
I’m actually beginning to find it quite interesting to watch how Lucy trolls. Point out that, by his own numerous statements all over the board,he doesn’t actually believe that those who take objection to annoying, stupid gits are the one’s at fault for caring but when he wants to annoy people, suddenly he believes that? Point out that he argues for the sake of argument without care or concern for actual facts? Point out that he goes as far as to argue about the contents of documents which he refuses to read? Point out that by his own admission, he posts in debates only to try to ‘tear things down’ by mockery, and doesn’t even pretend to be interested in contributing, let alone debating?
Why… the response is “Yuck yuck, you are teh dumb, yuck yuck. I are knowing what teh clevar satirist be, you amn’t!”
It’s a study in trolling by playing dumb, and I have to admit that, purely on the basis of trolling-technique, it’s somewhat interesting to observe.
Honestly, why join a board, let alone post in debate threads, if you’ve got no interest in the practice of debating? I can understand not enjoying debating, fighting ignorance or dispelling lies. Doing all that isn’t for everybody. But then, don’t post. Why join and post in order to try to ruin it for those people who are actually there in accordance with a place’s mission statement?
Take, for instance, consummate trolls like Lucy. There are actual forums on the 'net where real debate isn’t expected, and where trolling threads for yucks is considered an art form. Lucy is a Goon at heart, but he’s no Doper. Obviously, he’d fit in and be much happier at a forum where his sort of trollng is considered standard operating procedure. If someone wants to troll instead of debate, why not go to a place where they can do that without shitting all over debates?
I don’t enjoy bowling, so I don’t go bowling.
I don’t head out to the lanes and then smear grease all over the floor so I can try to stop people from bowling.
There are plenty of social networking boards. There are plenty of humor boards. There are plenty of Partisan Faithful boards. There are even plenty of troll boards. What possible purpose is there in not just belonging to a board whose very purpose is clearly anathema to someone, but in trying to ruin threads for others who do take that board’s mission statement seriously? And if you went to the Dope to chew the fat with a generally intelligent membership, why not camp out in MPSIMS or IMHO? I mean, we already have forums where unsupported opinions that don’t pretend to be posts in a debate, belong.
Great Debates, rather obviously, isn’t one of them.
Why go to a forum that one is, temperamentally and intellectually, unsuited for, and attempt to ruin it for those who actually can handle it?
I guess what I’m saying is I can’t understand what motivates trolls.
Huh. elucidator is the Necronomicon.
Who knew?
Naw, that’d be a gibbering, non-euclidian cyclopean baboon.
Something to do with geometry, apes, and Greek mythology? Did he just call me the Primate of Athens?
Nope. Just a lowly Persian I’m afraid.
Surely you’ve noticed by now we’re not that high on FriendFinn’s (The Energizer Bunny Of Crazed Zionists) list of favorite posters.
Best have another one to drown-out my sorrows…
::::hick:::
Cheers!
Note . The name calling and nastiness are not mine. I get constant crap from the egomaniacs who think they enhance their arguments with insults. The debate is not fleshed out,just a clearer picture of the person who thinks that is a good technique. Some of you kids would not be much fun. All the anger and noise. I think you guys should make a conscious effort not to do that. It is totally unredeeming. It never buttresses an argument. It is a total waste.
Okay. I am sufficiently red-faced over my failure to use the appropriate punctuation and my misspelling. And I’ve forgotten whose Law I’ve broken! I’ve thoroughly humiliated myself. (You know I will get you magellan10
And I’m not about to start using the “dumbest” label on anyone.
xtisme, you generally write reasonably well. It just bothered me to see you criticize Gonzomax while you made grammar mistakes.
I have no trouble comprehending what Gonzomax is saying. Maybe your background contributes some to the problem. And maybe my training as a teacher is helpful to me.
Sometimes some of us don’t follow the style of traditional debating obviously. I used to love to watch a good formal debate, especially if it involved William F. Buckley. But is there a rule about the style that has to be used in debating topics in Great Debates?
I do think that some serve as a sort of a hilarious Greek Chorus at times. That may seem strange in a debate but they certainly can make their viewpoints known.
It seems like it is not too often that I agree with you Zoe, but I agree on this post fully. I am not here to defend or condemn Gonzo, but sometimes the “best” debaters in GD end up looking like braying repetitive assholes that are incapable of listening to anyone else.
Jim
The main point I was trying to convey (obviously unsuccessfully) isn’t his grammar or syntax mistakes as I find those trivial, to be honest. The main point was that he doesn’t take the time to put down his own thoughts, just a couple of cryptic sentences and a link (often to some off the wall web site or article…sometimes with little to no relevance to what is being discussed). He doesn’t usually bother to quote passages from his links indicating why he is linking them or what we should be drawing our attention to. He doesn’t bother putting down his own thoughts or bother even attempting to build an argument.
Perhaps that is ok with you. Others agree with you as well and that’s fine. I’m sure gonzo will be genuinely gratified that not everyone dislikes his posting style. To each his own. For my part it bothers me that he doesn’t even attempt to expend the effort to try and actually engage in the debate.
C’est la vie, ehe?
-XT
It’s not about style, but substance.
I don’t expect an Affirmative Constructive followed by the Negative Rebuttal, or what have you.
I do expect people to 1) know about the topic they’re trying to argue 2) read cites that they’re disagreeing with instead of just trying to pick a fight and, if they’re really committed to an honest analysis of the issues 3) admit their mistakes when they’re proven wrong and realize why they made such factual errors, instead of just trying to change the subject and pick a new fight.
There are many various styles that can be used to debate an issue, I don’t have issue with that as long as one is still debating the issue. If one wants to ‘make their views known’, we have IMHO and MPSIMS. If one wants to debate facts and their interpretation, it behooves them to actually know what the facts are and actually be committed to discussing them honestly rather than simply trying to fight about them for the sake of fighting.
And, a P.S.
Come on now, you’re hardly even trying to troll.
Re: XT
He certainly doesn’t do so on your terms. But, again, who’s he hurting?
Its like on of those Eat Yourself Half to Death Buffets. You go in, you say to yourself “I got a hankerin’ for a big ol’ serving of FinnAgain Stew.” Well, there it is, simmering in its, ah, pot. Or you might want a slice of Zoe Pie, with a big ol’ glass of Red Furry (an arrogant young sauterne, but amusing…) Or maybe you should have a nice cup chamomile, XT? Sooths yer nerves, even better than kicking a puppy. OK, not as good as drop kicking him through the goal posts from the 40, but still…
And all we are saying is give peas a chance!
See what I mean? You pick what you like, nobody makes you eat a slice of raw Gonzo, before a dessert of…well, modesty forbids. Freak freely. I mean, after all, you are specifically unjoined to permit “witnessing”, no? Is there anything more ultimately non-evidentiary and immune to debate? If that is included, who are you or I to say what isn’t?
My reactiion to Gonzo’s post is usually mildly perplexed. Sometimes II chuckle, usually I don’t bother. But it sure don’t hurt me none, his being there.
What, somebody comes to you in a debate thread, and says, Hey, you lost because you didn’t respond to** Gonzo’s ** cogently reasoned and crystalline rebutal, neener, neener?
Try to give the guy the benefit of a doubt and whaddya get? 
Incorrect. You are defining people who think snotty insults as debate. Truth is if you have what you think is winning argument ,give a try at presenting it like an adult. Adults don’t feel a need to call those who disagree with them names. You are acting like a petulant baby. Stick to info and present your opinion without snotty remarks and all the debate forums will be elevated. You go play in the mud and pretend you are clean. You kiddies just lower the debate level and feel acting like a pimply teenager is justified because someone disagrees with your narrow little thinking. How will you guys ever learn.
It keeps going, and going…and going…and going…
Oh, aye? Well, just keep it in mind the next time you are responding caustically to the right wing equivalent to gonzo, ehe? Not that there are to many left, mind…but who knows what the coming years will bring…
-XT
I love you gonzomax. I love you for your absolute and utter stupidity. This is far and away the most hilarious thread I have EVER read here. Aside from the annoying side-arguers, the whole board has bonded over you and their agreement that you are the biggest imbecile the board has ever seen. Thank you!
So, I don’t really mean it, and will change my tune dependent entirely on the ideological perspective of the poster? Perhaps. Are we to assume that you hold yourself wholly innocent of such?