Author
|
Topic: virus: Entertaining Discussion (Read 1227 times) |
|
Kalkor
Magister
Gender: 
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.78
Rate Kalkor
Kneading the swollen donkey...
 
  
|
 |
virus: Entertaining Discussion
« on: 2003-10-22 01:18:18 » |
 |
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=chatlog2;channel=%23v
irus;date=2003-10-21;time=22:15;start=0;max=110
Thought those of you that missed this exchange last night might enjoy it. I
certainly did! Only a small part of my reason for posting this is to
ridicule; my primary reasoning is to provide some examples of contemporary,
local debates or arguments or whatever you want to call them, that we can
all learn from.
The URL in discussion was changed during the exchange, at timestamp
~22:43:39, in this way: the body of the message was placed in a 'quote' box.
Enjoy! ;-}
Kalkor
Had to fix the url so it would be clickable - Kalkor, 10/22/03 0820 PDT
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
metahuman
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 4.22
Rate metahuman
|
|
Re:virus: Entertaining Discussion
« Reply #1 on: 2003-10-22 02:48:56 » |
|
The reason why you'd promote this is not for the reasons you stated, but for the reason that you're an arrogant prick with Overconfidence Bias syndrome, and a case of perfectionism.
Ladies and gentlemen, Kalkor repeatedly insulted me long before I came in with the name-calling in this "discussion."
* 1. He inferred that I am a theist (which I find offensive) by referring to a section of the e-mail which thanked "God" and assuming (and attempting to force the issue) that I wrote it.
* 2. He called me a failure by constantly telling me that I failed to do what pleases him. I suppose in that context, I am a failure.
* 3. He inferred that I am hypocritical by comparing the statement of actuality made in the e-mail to the source footer (which I inserted after making sure there was a clear delineation between e-mail text and citation text with no more than SIX (6) paragraph returns).
* 4. He inferred that I am ignorant by lecturing me on, basically, how to appease him through his version of "proper" formatting.
Kalkor was at fault as he did the following:
* 1. failed to use creativity to understand.
<metahuman> if you fail to make the connection, further clarification isn't going to help
<KalGone> I see the connection you're trying to make, but you have not made it in rational terms.
... From then on, he obnoxiously insisted that I directly state the connection that he had agreed that he understood.
* 2. failed to see the document for what it is: humor.
<KalGone> further, no citation of source is given for ANY of the "quotes", and the document admits that the author is "unknown", and the name and even the town the "principle" lived in are not given
<metahuman> how does proof of its reality have any relevance to the humor aspect?
<KalGone> it's just, when you preface a message with "these really existed!" and then at the bottom say "I have no idea if they existed or not, nor do I have any way of verifying this fact"...
* 3. assumed that I wrote the document while passing judgment.
<metahuman> call him and ask him for the source if you feel so inclined
<KalGone> ah, pass the burden of proof onto the observer when it's YOU who posted the message claiming they were true
It should be noted that I did not claim the text to be true. In fact, since I included the citation of 'unknown', I claimed that there is a possibility that the document may or may not be true.
* 4. failed to keep in mind that I self-identify as an agnostic atheistic rationalist.
<KalGone> Posted: 21 Oct [08:17 pm]
<KalGone> Thank God for church ladies with typewriters.
<KalGone> These sentences actually appeared in church bulletins or were announced in church services:
<KalGone> these sentences actually appeared, you claim in your second sentence of the post
<metahuman> Do you really think that I would ever type "Thank God" except for this instance?
* 5. failed to realize his failure to comprehend.
<KalGone> your failure to delineate where the pasting started and your own text stopped is not my problem
<metahuman> then don't make it your problem
<KalGone> I'm pointing out that it's YOUR problem
<metahuman> it's not my problem
<metahuman> i didn't fail to delineate
* 6. failed to recognize the obvious delineation.
<metahuman> you failed to recognized my delineation
<KalGone> I failed to recognize what? point out your delineation to me so that I may rectify my lack of recognition
<metahuman> i double-spaced the e-mail text from the footer source text
* 7. failed to be imaginative again.
<KalGone> you still haven't explained the relevance of this information, all you've done is change from pulling numbers out of your ass to finding numbers
<metahuman> you've already made the connection
<metahuman> i don't need to make it
<KalGone> no, I'm pointing out that you signed your name to a document claiming that some quotes are true, wherein at the bottom you state explicitly that they are unverifiable, and now you're trying to place the burden of proof on me
It should be noted that this section of text occurred much later than point #1 and still Kalkor refused to accept the connection that he agreed to have made. In this, he persisted to assume I wrote the document and that I was somehow placing some burden or blame on him. He is wrong because I constantly alerted him to his errs yet he arrogantly denied ever erring and instead called me a failure over and over again.
* 8. failed to keep in mind the SIX (6) paragraph returns that delineate the e-mail text from the footer text that I had previously mentioned. He still failed to realize that I did not write the document and continued to assume I wrote this and that.
<KalGone> you did not, in any way, deliniate your text from the "footer" wherein you admit there is no way to verify it. the second line claims they were true and in context appears to be your own quote
<metahuman> http://bbs.metavirus.net/viewtopic.php?p=258#258
This is also where I put the e-mail text in a quote block.
* 9. insisted that I am hypocritical.
<KalGone> I have provided documentation to support my claim that you are hypocritical. I never made any such claim that you "thanked god"
* 10. denied he claimed that I thanked "God" and later retracted that denial.
<metahuman> you assumed i wrote the header
<metahuman> i authored the post not the message
<KalGone> ok, I guess I claimed you thanked god too
* 11. failed again to recognize the delineation even though I had placed the e-mail text in a quote block.
<metahuman> you failed to recognize the delineation
<KalGone> again, you're trying to place burden on me
<KalGone> tell me where your delineation is so I can rectify my failure
<metahuman> kalkor: i more than double-spaced the e-mail text from the footer text as I have previously said
* 12. arrogantly insisted that these perceived failures do not make them true.
<KalGone> your claims about my failures do not make them reality ;-}
They are my reality, Kalkor.
* 13. continued to insist that I erred.
<metahuman> 6. You failed to accept the article as humor and instead concentrated on the actuality of the document's claims.
<KalGone> no, I laughed at the entire document before I pointed out your errors ;-}
<metahuman> my errors? fuck off
<metahuman> i made no errors
<metahuman> you erred, i didn't
And that is when I finally placed Kalkor on my ignore list which, by the way, is permanent unless some odd happening convinces me to remove persons.
* Added *!*@12-231-184-125.client.attbi.com to ignore list
14. also ignored online article standards a bit earlier.
<KalGone> and what system of grammar is a double-spaced line a delineation from a quote and the quoter?
<metahuman> it is standard in all HTML articles, etc. that a source be at the bottom.
<metahuman> everything above that source is content.
<KalGone> so what you're saying, essentially, is that "in design formatting, a double-space is sufficient to serve as a delineation between the quoter and what is being quoted"?
<metahuman> it was more than a double space
<metahuman> it was this big
Paragraph return #1
Paragraph return #2
Paragraph return #3
Paragraph return #4
Paragraph return #5
Paragraph return #6
This IRC "discussion" is another convincing lesson on why forums are more effectively used for communication than IRC.
|
|
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.29
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
|
|
Re:virus: Entertaining Discussion
« Reply #2 on: 2003-10-22 05:54:59 » |
|
YAWN
[Metahuman - from IRC log]
so fuck off faggot
[the bricoleur]
 The year is 2003 Metahuman - time to play catch-up and delete those arrested prejudice memes.
the bricoleur
|
|
|
|
|
metahuman
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 4.22
Rate metahuman
|
|
Re:virus: Entertaining Discussion
« Reply #3 on: 2003-10-22 07:21:53 » |
|
[the bricoleur]
The year is 2003 Metahuman - time to play catch-up and delete those arrested prejudice memes.
[metahuman]
The term "faggot" is usually disparaging. I used it in this "discussion" in a more abstract sense because Kalkor is obviously trying to "fuck me" [over]. He's been trying to screw me over since I returned. Here's the latest of his quotes on that topic:
Tuesday [08:26pm GMT-8] Oct 21 / 2003
<KalGone> I thought you said you were leaving cov for good anyhow, metahuman
The comment above was made amidst the latest Tuesday Topic on the reputation system, Meridion. It was completely irrelevant to the discussion and there was absolutely no intelligent reason to make that comment. The inference here was, "Why do you care about Meridion? You're not supposed to be here anyway. Pfft."
You can find more instances of similar comments from him in the Virus 2003 archives.
|
|
|
|
|
kirksteele
Acolyte
Posts: 74
Reputation: 4.30
Rate kirksteele
I have never logged in.
|
|
Re: virus: Entertaining Discussion
« Reply #4 on: 2003-10-22 16:06:01 » |
|
Kalkor <kalkor@kalkor.com> wrote:
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=chatlog2;channel=%23v
irus;date=2003-10-21;time=22:15;start=0;max=110
Thought those of you that missed this exchange last night might enjoy it. I
certainly did! Only a small part of my reason for posting this is to
ridicule; my primary reasoning is to provide some examples of contemporary,
local debates or arguments or whatever you want to call them, that we can
all learn from.
The URL in discussion was changed during the exchange, at timestamp
~22:43:39, in this way: the body of the message was placed in a 'quote' box.
Enjoy! ;-}
Kalkor
[kirksteele] The "plink plink plink" of consistency once again sounds out on the Remington-Rand of dispassionate discourse above the din, din, din of irrationate (sic) blather from the current congregant trend of CoV. Small wonder, what with the inconsistencies and hypocrisies incipient in the lack of coherent direction now abounding in the “Halls of Justice.” What is popular is seldom right, and what is right is even less seldom popular.
The sandbox of the commons has been assigned the label of “experiment” by outside observers. If the progenitors of an experiment are in fact conducting an experiment, then through participation in the experiment without objective measures of control in place, the entire experiment is invalid. I assert that the title of “experiment” is invalid. I assert that the title of experiment is asserted by others to provide an air of objectivity around the “experiment.”
Experiments are conducted to collect data, to test hypothesis’ validity, or to refute. The forum of CoV has none of this. It is not an experiment. Other, outside agencies might conduct experiments upon the data contained within the forum. The chat logs are a good example. They may be parsed for content, context, and association. Wiki is a possibly good experiment in “Emergence” theory. But the mail group and chat forums by themselves are outside the purview of scientific inquiry. The assertion that CoV is an experiment is invalid. It is, what it is, is, depending upon “what you define is as,” (Clinton) a forum of people whom gather together to achieve affiliation of cognitive and emotive schema. Period. It is a water fountain around which groupd of people congregate to trade bits of their mind. There is an implicit pretext of ostensible objectivity which can be alluded from the assertions of the principles of CoV. But they, by and large within the forum, are ignored.
Kalkor you join the good fight. In the meta analysis, Kalkor is presenting examples of the predominant modalities within the forum of CoV. I have been presenting grist for the mill in the analysis of meta modalities. Others have tired of this. There is a commonality. The median typology or phenotype of present meme-plexes precludes objective recursion. Others that have attempted to illuminate this have done so at the cost of extensive temporal resource allocation. Once time is spent it can never be recovered.
To invite an extensive investment in time and psychic resources to the delineation of a process whereby a forum can be consistently civil and productive, only to disregard the efforts in the end is what has happened here as of late. Others whom have not participated or even less acknowledged the process have none the less invested extensive amounts of time and psychic blather to the disruption of this process. Their investment reaps the rewards of making the commons a true tragedy to behold.
DiP is a farce. Strike it from the books.
Cheers
kirksteele
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
attached: index.html
|
"Howdy pawdna. Yeee-freakin-haw!! We got us another good ole boy in da White Wash"
-just shoot me
|
|
|
|
Logged
