Ahh. So in other places you are free to go apeshit whenever it suits, and attack others without provocation. Okay, at least we’re clear on that. You will certainly agree that my having started a pit thread about something completely different has a far more tenuous relationship to arguments about how to use quotes (that, once again, I never actually made - though it hasn’t stopped you for condemning me for making them) than your behavior in GQ has to your behavior elsewhere on the boards.
The irony is I probably would have agreed with Lute Skywatcher and Starving Artist up until this thread. But here we see his disregard for reality, his tendency to respond to perceived attacks with irrationality, and his all around assholishness once again.
Wait! Maybe that’s what lissener is doing here! This is a brilliant, thought-provoking bit of satire he’s engaging in right now! The joke’s on us, that’s for sure!
Ah, but if you decided that from now on to reinvision any movie which…well no let’s expand this: Any movie which has no point PLUS contains scantily clad babes, is a satire of the pointlessness of life–well then all those movies will be wickedly good satires…with scantily clad babes.
As I acknowledged above, I participate in the GQ we have, not the GQ I wish we had. I guess you think that makes me a hypocrit. Seems thin to be, but whatever.
Also, just to note: the reason those “cites” were so easy for you to search out is because whenever I *do *express an opinion in a GQ thread, I try to make it explicitly clear that it *IS *an opinion. Many GQ threads have a simple concrete answer; many require a process of discussion to approach such a thing. Those kinds of threads necessarily include some educated opinions–i.e., hypotheses–as part of the process. I didn’t think my “wishlist” would be subject to scrutiny for final language, so I didn’t give it that kind of effort. Nonetheless, I did specifically mention “uninformed opinions.” Now, this is of course open to debate, but personally I wouldn’t qualify any of the opinions I expressed in your list of cites as uninformed. The kind of opinion I was wishing away is the kind where an uninformed person drops an ignorance bomb into a GQ thread and everything has to be put on hold while we bring that person up to speed.
Well, in this very thread, you called me a hypocrite for much less. You don’t even measure up to your own standards for GQ - though you seem free to condemn others for what you perceive as rudeness there. You call me a hypocrite - repeatedly - but you yourself are bitching and moaning about the content of GQ while contributing to what you complain about. Not only are you a hypocrite for doing so, but you’re hypocritical about that, by being quick to lay the charge on others while freely engaging in hypocrisy yourself.
You’re a metahypocrite!
Not much of a counterargument here.
Nope! The reason those instances were so easy to find was because I looked through a list of your most recent posts in GQ. I’m sure there were many more; 30 pages came up, and I only looked at the first three. So it’s not as though it took a great deal of effort to find those; were they rare exceptions, it would have required far more searching to find the same number.
But I guess everyone really needed to hear about how much you hate beige.
So it’s not uninformed guesses - like your guess about dogs’ surface area to volume ratio (cuz it ain’t like you had any reasoning behind that) - what you really get upset about is people being wrong in GQ. So you think that, instead of just having an entire message board to say, “No, that’s wrong, and I’ll prove it”, moderators should police this place for accuracy. Why, how dare anyone ever be wrong? I guess we need to follow your shining, infallible example, right?
For what it’s worth, I was a bit surprised at the mod intervention, but then the whole concept of ‘intervention’ has changed over the years, and now one sometimes gets involved where in the past he or she just lived and let live. Whatever, I didn’t feel misquoted, or unduly or unfairly ‘derogated’. After all, I was the one charging into a 3-week old thread with some controversial reflections, vividly put. However…(always one of these at the dope!)
I can’t let lissener get away with the manipulative use of presuppositions. No, lissener - and pray be as good as your name for a moment - I never suggested that Gervais misunderstood anything; you did. The so-called misunderstanding of “the standards of scientific notation and publication” (as if there was one agreed set of standards! - another presupposition, achieved through the use of the definite article, cf. “the Soviet threat”, “the War on Terror”) is not one I suggested Gervais had, not one Gervais claimed he himself had. The notion is all yours, in your head. Be man enough to say what you say, and, um, listen to what others say. Otherwise, it’s like a boxer who punches below the belt. No one likes him -especially fellow combatants - and sooner or later he’ll get himself disqualified.
Pardon the interuption:
I think **Frank ** and **Fluid Druid ** are the newest Mods.
I am not sure but I think **Rico ** is also newer than Giraffe.
Resume ranting.
