Valete, Vox Imperatoris

[Hostile_Dialect]

He said the magic word!

Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Sr_Siete

Exactly! That’s why that would have been a fallacy! Because being a nice guy (or not) wouldn’t make me an expert in the written language!

Maybe, but the rest of the stuff QED and Hostile Dialect said also applies.

[Q.E.D]

@Sr_Siete

Exactly! That’s why that would have been a fallacy! Because being a nice guy (or not) wouldn’t make me an expert in the written language!

Sure, it’s a fallacy, but it’s not the fallacy of Appeal to Authority as you claimed it was.

[twickster]

@Hazle_Weatherfield

We could all refuse to participate in any thread created by the offenders until they quit it. Who’s in?

The problem is that they don’t limit themselves to threads they start. [movie announcer voice]Nowhere is safe![/mav]

[Sr_Siete]

@Q.E.D

Sure, it’s a fallacy, but it’s not the fallacy of Appeal to Authority as you claimed it was.

Yes it is. “Authority” in this case does not mean “titles”. Actually just read your own wikipedia link: as long as you say something good (like him being such a nice guy) about B, and that therefore that makes A true, that makes it an Appeal to authority fallacy.

[Q.E.D]

Uh, no. You can’t just cherry pick one small poorly-written portion of an article and claim that it means the entire article supports your wrong position. Right at the beginning, it explicitly defines the Appeal to Authority fallacy:

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the source asserting it.

[Sr_Siete]

@Q.E.D

Uh, no. You can’t just cherry pick one small poorly-written portion of an article and claim that it means the entire article supports your wrong position. Right at the beginning, it explicitly defines the Appeal to Authority fallacy:

Yes, but that’s the part that is not dealing with it as a fallacy. It’s a fallacy when it works as a reverse ad hominem, which is to say, anything good you say about the source that is not directly related to its expertise, even if it’s about its character.

At least that’s how I studied it.

[RedFury]

@clayton_e

I still don’t understand why we can’t just keep the sigs in the sig section. I don’t retype my username right under my username because it’s already there for anyone that wants to read it.

Apparently, it’s something quite elaborate that goes well beyond plain old common sense, as corroborated by the fact that this must be close to the twentieth combined page on the topic – though I must admit I’ve only read bits and pieces.

Personally, I think it amusing that the “signoffers” are actually getting a rise from some. Because that’s exactly why some of them are doing it, n’est-ce pas?

Affectaciously,
~NickInUpperLeftCorner

[Auntbeast]

It just occurred to me. Poor Vox would find it impossible to do a vanity search. He fucking signatures would blow the max responses right out of the water. Not to mention the convulsions it would cause the hamsters.

[Hostile_Dialect]

Vanity searches necessarily include (most of?) the threads you post in, anyway.

Hostile Dialect
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

[Lightnin]

@Shodan

You might want to dial back a bit on the ego, punkin - the notion that I should form my posts based on how the pettier minds of the SDMB will react is a bit of exaggeration that does not become you.

You know that many of us find it pretentious and annoying. You attach the signature as part of your message, preventing us from filtering it out. You’re doing it strictly for the reaction, and you fucking well know it, punkin.

[Critical1]

@Hostile_Dialect

I think that says more about you than the 13 year old boys.

Do you realize that the point of this exercise is to use two-line signatures?

Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

do you realize that you are the only one who knows the rules to the games you make up in your head until you tell others? is this a whoosh or are you serious?

I think you are missing the point that the thread has definitely been largely derailed, hi-jacked, and gone well off course. I think the people with the 10 line sigs have a bigger clue right now.

You’re a Dumas
Whats a Dumas?
It’s French for Dumbass Dumbass
Crit

[Jeff]

@Green_Bean

If you had bothered to read for comprehension, you would have seen that I don’t object to the sign-offs, per se. I simply think that it’s annoying when a person continues to engage in a behavior that annoys others and benefits no one just because they “can” or they “want to.” It’s immature.

You’re just arguing that your feelings and ego override other people’s. Just because it annoys you, doesn’t mean its wrong and it doesn’t mean your feelings factor into the situation at all.

Semper fudge,
Jeff

[Creaky]

@Critical1

… I think the people with the 10 line sigs have a bigger clue right now.

You’re a Dumas
Whats a Dumas?
It’s French for Dumbass Dumbass
Crit

Word, yo.

Or something like that!

[Green_Bean]

@Jeff

You’re just arguing that your feelings and ego override other people’s. Just because it annoys you, doesn’t mean its wrong and it doesn’t mean your feelings factor into the situation at all.

Well, yeah. Of course. But you accused me of something entirely different–choosing when to be annoyed based on whether I “liked” the poster or not. That accusation is false. You’re arguing all slippery-like. Sorta like Regards, Shodan!

Tired of thinking up sign-offs,
Green Bean

[Yookeroo]

@An_Gadai

At that age all I did was ejaculate my own body weight. Fair play to him for being precociously thoughtful and not just obsessed with boobs and asses.

Nah. He’d be far less irritating if he were obsessed with boobs and asses. He may be “precociously thoughtful”, but he’s apparently got the emotional maturity of a 4-year-old. Precociously thoughtful doesn’t give him a pass on being a tool.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Critical1

do you realize that you are the only one who knows the rules to the games you make up in your head until you tell others? is this a whoosh or are you serious?

Jeez, you really are an idiot. The rule allows for two-line signatures. Nevermind, I can’t get blood out of a rock no matter how hard I squeeze it.

Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

[Shodan]

@Lightnin

You know that many of us find it pretentious and annoying.

Almost true - some of you find it pretentious and annoying. Most of those who do are being petty.

You attach the signature as part of your message, preventing us from filtering it out.

Also almost true - I attach it to my posts for reasons of my own, without any consideration for what you want to see.

You’re doing it strictly for the reaction, and you fucking well know it, punkin.

And here you are completely wrong.

People who claim to know what I am thinking better than I do tend to be people who get annoyed when I laugh at them. That’s OK too.

Put it this way - the apostrophe at the end of your user name annoys me. Change it at once.

Regards,
Shodan

[Borborygmi]

@me

[…] I actually rather like the one- or two-line simple signoffs that some posters include. […] I had not weighed in on this before, but I am doing so now on the chance, no matter how negligable, that this is coming up time and time again because I had not yet offered my opinion on the subject.

Guess that wasn’t it. Oh, well… I knew it was a longshot.

Domo arigato Mr. Roboto,
Borborygmi

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Yookeroo

He may be “precociously thoughtful”, but he’s apparently got the emotional maturity of a 4-year-old.

You base this diagnosis on the fact that he uses a two line sign-off at the end of his posts?