The last one is my personal fave of them. Someone wants to know if some UFO type guy is for reals, and rather than get off his ass, he demands a cite for who the person is.
So–this is why I’m not playing the game with him. In addition to threadshitting everywhere, junior modding and in general being a socially-inept loser who can’t converse with adults, he’s a troll who plays the “Cite” game whenever he wants to disrupt a thread.
I asked you how I could have possibly responded correctly to your question, considering how you already felt about me. Is there an answer to that question?
He’s either a lazy stupid troll who won’t do homework and thinks that hitting the “Cite please” macro on his keyboard will disrupt the discussion and/or he’s a lazy, stupid troll that thinks that hitting the “Cite please” macro on his keyboard make him win the whole discussion forevers.
He can’t debate, he can’t research, he can’t communicate with normal humans. So he resorts to about 5 tactics, all of which are varieties of threadshitting. This one was the one with no moderator actions I could find so I picked this tactic of his to prove. Note that it won’t do anything. He made his retarded call for a cite*. I provided a bunch. He’ll say they’re off-topic, or that they don’t prove anything (probably in the form of a imbiclic socratic question like: “And what do you think these prove?”).
*There’s nothing wrong with a call for a cite now and then. But that’s Czarcasm’s constant (~2500 or so threads) opening gambit over and over. And a lot of the “cites” he wants aren’t for someone to prove a point, they’re for thread derailment or lazy-ass demands for basic info that normal humans would just look up.
I’m talking about your specific call out to Fenris on his past accusations in ATMB regarding your threadshitting:
Everything Fenris posted in the thread up to that point was on the topic of the OP. His first post was about the shittiness of anti-religion threadshitting in threads that are only tangentially about religion. That post didn’t mention you at all. In response to a follow-up question by Mangetout, he listed you as an example of a person who threadshits in this fashion and gets away with it.
You are the one who demanded that he go back and defend not just his assertion that you threadshit in the fictional character thread but the entirety past allegations of threadshitting. How is that relevant? If you didn’t threadshit in the fictional character thread, make the case. If you’re so butthurt about his past ATMB statements, why don’t you sack up and Pit him and stop shitting all over this thread?
Except that’s not what you asked me, you ball-less wonder. You said:
All those fake calls for “Cite please?” is off-topic threadshitting (including the one I just quoted from this thread) since you’re not actually looking for cites, but just trolling to derail the conversation. And there are ~2500 hits on Google to back me up. Looking at a few other prolific posters, I get results in the very low double digits. Their requests are legit. Yours (including this one) are threadshitting, trolling and generally bad-faith arguing from a scrofulous goat-fucker who couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper sack.
Ladies and gentlemen, can I call 'em or what? I provided cites, he lied and tried to convince himself that nobody could read what he actually demanded. This is why you don’t play the "Cite Please? game with Czarcasm.
Did we forget what we were asked to provide, namely all those cites where you said I crudely insert unwanted atheistic snark into unrelated threads ? Maybe if you wrote it down on a piece of paper first, you won’t get distracted and go looking for other unrelated things again.
Off you go.
Alright, I’m going to have to talk to you like a child.
What you should have said is something like “In no way did I mean to denigrate anybody’s religious beliefs, but because Zeldar’s OP asked for numbers, I thought the sheer number of videos on Youtube makes a point. I know, monkey, that you don’t buy the sheer numbers argument, but it’s the truth.”
Something like that would have been fine. It is possible to stand up for yourself and post a defense that addresses a possible misunderstanding without resorting to “why is everybody picking on me?”
[Moderating]
If you want to dig up links demonstrating that Czarcasm is a thread-shitting asshole, go ahead. Just justify why its a bad thing on your own terms, without reference to whether or not the post violated a board rule. Even if you post a neutral “cite” to the rules, you’re inviting the other party to explain why his behavior was not or should not be covered under that rule, and someone else jumps in to say why that poster is wrong about that rule, and someone else says the rule doesn’t make sense in the first place, and the next thing you know, North America is an irradiated wasteland populated by mutants fighting over expired cans of Fancy Feast.
In short:
“Here’s where you brought up nonsense that’s unrelated to the OP, which is why you’re an asshole,” is fine.
“Here’s where you brought up nonsense that’s unrelated to the OP, and here’s the warning you got for it, which is why you’re an asshole,” is what I’m trying to avoid here. And the converse applies, too - “There’s nothing wrong with that post because I didn’t get a warning,” is also out.
Basically, act as if whatever it is you’re accusing Czarcasm of is completely okay by the standards of the board, and you should be okay.
I don’t want you to tapdance. I want you to stop being a spineless asshole.
Own and explain what you say. If there is a misunderstanding, own the fact that you might have phrased something wrong. Then explain what your intent was, and be prepared to defend that without hiding behind invective.
Dear Mangetout, I think your OP is right on target and post # 15 is wonderful. And Novelty Bobbie is really right on in post 7. The rest of you offenderati have wandered off into a discussion about whether Czarcasm is a threadshitter of the worst kind. I have to say, none of you came off well, especially the monkey who is apparently only armed with insults. But, to summarize, there is nothing “bullying” about saying God is fictional. There is nothing insulting about it. There is no intent to “bully” or “insult” people who believe that their God is real (as opposed to all the fictional ones). This is not rocket science, folks. Get over yourselves!
So, yes. Your complaint was that I didn’t provide examples of off-topic threadshitting. I just provided a tiny fraction of the ~2500 hits that Google gave doing exactly what you demanded.
Again, ladies and gentlemen, the Amazing Fenrisi is always right! Czaar tried to distract from the topic, he lied about what he just now asked for proof of ("off topic threadshitting) and as I predicted in post 86, the Tardgasm resorts to his “stupid socratic-esque question” threadshit.