Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[sirkickyass]

You got me aint. I corrected myself after doing a complete review as opposed to my previous quick review. I admitted the error (because four is greater than three) and pointed out that this is still contrary to One Brow's claim that he has strings of five or more.

Are you done?

 

[Hopper]

I corrected myself after doing a complete review as opposed to my previous quick review. I admitted the error (because four is greater than three)...

Well, Kicky, first of all, kudos for fessin up.

But, you might do well to ask yourself why there was any need for that in the first place. Aint my bidnizz, and I aint tryin to tell ya what to do, but just a suggestion: If you didn't make unqualified assertions based on knowledge that you know to be incomplete at the time you make the claim, you could save yourself the trouble, ya know?

The unnecessary exaggeration which you are prone to (e.g. sumthin done once immediately becomes "repeatedly" on your re-tellin, just for example) does not enhance your argument or credibility in the long run, even though it may temporarily appear to do so. Maybe it would help if you focused less on convincing others that any claim you make must be right, and more on just gittin to the bottom of things--followin truth wherever it may lead, rather than straining to lead truth to where you are--and you would benefit more from the argumentation you're so fond of. Just sayin....

 

[sirkickyass]

I am glad you feel you are in a position to dispense personal advice about how I should conduct my life. I am sure you feel like a big man having won a major victory after I voluntarily did your work for you on the issue clearly most crucially relevant to the primary discussion. Especially given that fact that the "confession" was still false, although by a different margin. I will give your thoughts the consideration they are due.

Are you done?

 

[Hopper]

I voluntarily did your work for you on the issue clearly most crucially relevant to the primary discussion.

1. My work?

2. As you should be able to discern from my penultimate post, I don't view this as "the issue clearly most crucially relevant to the primary discussion." We can disagree on that, though, don't really matter.

 

[sirkickyass]

1. My work?

I did the leg-work on it. In essence, I proved myself wrong. I was really running away from that one, obviously.

2. As you should be able to discern from my penultimate post, I don't view this as "the issue clearly most crucially relevant to the primary discussion." We can disagree on that, though, don't really matter.

Sarcasm aint. Sarcasm.

And trust me, I wish that had been your penultimate post. Somehow I think you've got another couple of pages of whining (although given the analogies you're choosing, I'm sure you view it as "freedom fighting") in you.

 

[Hopper]

In essence, I proved myself wrong. I was really running away from that one, obviously.

Kicky, ya aint done nuthin to support this unqualified claim, eh?:

As stated above, no other posters are posting 5+ times consecutively in the same thread.

Don't git me wrong, I aint even asking you to. Feel free, however, to admit that you do not have an adequate factual basis to support that assertion, if you so choose.

 

[sirkickyass]

Kicky, ya aint done nuthin to support this unqualified claim, eh?:

Hopper, outside of reviewing every single thread every made on this board in an audited fashion where you can do so over my shoulder you know there is no way to universally prove the negative to your satisfaction. That audited framework is impossible given geographic separation and logistical circumstances.

I will extend to you the same offer I have repeatedly (as in, now at least the third time): If you can show me an instance where someone else posts 5+ times consecutively, we'll talk about it. One poster has alleged that they did so. I fully and painstakingly investigated it. They were wrong.

Until an example is brought up, I have no reason to believe that statement is incorrect. You see, conversely you have not proven that enforcement was selective. Feel free, again, to give me an example and then we'll address it.

As it stands, none of these issues have any real impact on our ultimate issue but appear to instead be instances where you're trying to score ancillary points. I have no problem conceding ancillary issues like "four is bigger than three" and "I have not done the impossible and proven a negative" because they don't affect the ultimate conclusion.

If you'll be happy with those points scored, feel free. I have not invested my ego in them. I hope you feel better.

For the third time, are you done?

 

[Hopper]

...there is no way to universally prove the negative to your satisfaction. I have no problem conceding [that] "I have not done the impossible and proven a negative"...

What "negative" could you possibly be talking about? You made a positive, unqualified assertion of fact, to wit:

As stated above, no other posters are posting 5+ times consecutively in the same thread.

You can admit that you did so without an adequate factual basis, or not--your choice. But trying to call an absolute assertion a "negative" aint gunna fly, sorry.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

What "negative" could you possibly be talking about? You made a positive, unqualified assertion of fact, to wit:



You can admit that you did so without an adequate factual basis, or not--your choice. But trying to call an absolute assertion a "negative" aint gunna fly, sorry.

I need a "lol" smilie for this one.

And it would be at you, ain't, not with you.

How argumentative can you get?

 

[TroutBum]

This.

 

[TroutBum]

Is.

 

[TroutBum]

Five.

 

[TroutBum]

In.

 

[TroutBum]

A row.


Suck on that, Tink.

 

[Gameface]

The discussion doesn't quite match up (it looks like you tried to do it in two post segments so it doesn't sound like a natural conversation, and doesn't capture replies to replies organically). However, I don't feel nearly so bad about being long-winded after watching that segment and seeing the long drone of aint's doppelganger prattle on for minutes on end.

Also, I really liked the way the voice intonates "I see, so it's a conspiracy."

Honestly, I chose the exchange between the two of you as a sort of experiment to see how that would work in general. It isn't a great way to make a video. The copy/paste part wasn't too bad. This took under 15min., easily.

What I found entertaining about it was that it truly illustrates the fact that the internet, and especially sports related forums, are serious business.

 

[One Brow]

I found one instance last month where you made four posts in a row.

I can believe four. Sorry that I thought it was five.

 

[moevillini]

nope, the ol' nag still aint dead....

but I do have just a bit more to say about this issue (of trolling, etc) - so I'm giving this warning so those who don't care to read it can skip this post...

... Not that anyone is asking,but here are my thoughts:
1. Hopper's down-on-the-corner posting style from the previous board was unreadable and I feel polluted the board....

overall, I'd say I share these feelings. I could tolerate it in small doses, and every once in a blue moon it was funny because it seemed somehow to be appropriate on certain occasions, but it got to be overused and used in situations where it seemed completely inappropriate and unacceptable to me. If it were used "too much" I think I'd consider it trolling according to this definition from the rules: "...trolling. These include (but are not limited to) comments made solely to provoke reactions, bizarre formatting of posts..." - I would consider it to fall into both of these categories. OF COURSE, the definition of "too much" is subjective and not easily defined, so there is no absolute answer I can give to to help anyone ascertain at what point it becomes "too much"

...On a related note, the seemingly sincere complaints about "off-topic" comments have always puzzled me. To me these thing just naturally meander, and that hurts no one. Everyone is free to compose any post they want and publish it. If they are interested in commenting about the topic indicated in the thread title nobody is "preventing" them from doing so, as they appear to think....

A couple comments here: Most everyone has made an occasional comment in a thread that is off-topic for that thread. Some of us do it more than others (wink, wink). It may be very annoying to those who are trying to take part in (or at least follow) the "serious" discussion taking place. I have been on some message boards where a single off-topic post results in a "warning" from a moderator. I think most folks around here are pretty tolerant - they may get annoyed, but they just skip over the off-topic post. But when the poster makes repeated, consecutive posts, it gets difficult to skip over those posts without perhaps missing something that is part of the discussion. So folks might consider that type of behavior to be trolling because it is "disrupting the readability" of the topic.

And even if the posts are on topic, I can see where it can get annoying if there are consecutive posts by one poster. For instance, many of us probably have other posters whose posts we tend to "skip" over (or perhaps put on a formal "ignore" list). There can be any number of reasons for this: we feel a poster has a particular agenda, we feel a poster has opinions we always disagree with, we feel a poster makes no sense, or we just plain don't like that poster. Whatever the reason, if we're hoping to save time by skipping over certain posts, but still keep to the topic under discussion, this is again a situation where repeated consecutive posts by one poster might disrupt the readability of the board.

OK, well at some point we may have to relabel this the "Dead Horse" topic, but I'm not completely certain it's been beaten enough quite yet.

(for someone who doesn't like to read long posts, I've certainly written enough of them lately...)

...moevillini's explanation of "not on ignore, but skipping" is a little more plausible, but even then, it does not take much simply to follow the avatars on the left-hand side.

Three things to add here:
1 - If you're quicking skimming through a thread, it can take a bit of effort to pay attention to the avatars, there are plenty of similar avatars that don't necessarily stand out from one another in a quick scan (for instance Archie Moses & Sirkickyass currently have avatars that I confuse easily) Plus, there are plenty of posters who don't have avatars at all.

2 - One computer and browser that I use does not display half the avatars at all. They show up as a box with a question mark. Not sure why it's like that, but that's how it is. Again, pretty difficult to discern on the basis of avatars in that situation.

3 - An entirely NEW THOUGHT (Holy Cow, Batman!!!!) - Posting consecutive posts can be considered trolling because it serves to bump threads to the top of the list. That disrupts the natural flow of topics. Topics that don't get responses drop down the list, that way readers of the boards can easily see what are the hot topics, or new topics without searching. That's part of the reason why there is a "Sticky" function - so the mods can keep topics that might not generate frequent responses near the top of the board where they can be easily found. Continuously bumping a thread by posting repeated new posts disrupts that natural flow of topics.

In fact, I have seen on other boards where mods publicly chastise posters who "Bump" merely to put a thread back in action without actually posting new information.

 

[Hopper]

Mo, I know before I even start to respond that you'll probably greatly resent my comments. But it aint personal, and I aint sayin nuthin just to piss you off, OK?

3 - An entirely NEW THOUGHT (Holy Cow, Batman!!!!) - Posting consecutive posts can be considered trolling because it serves to bump threads to the top of the list. That disrupts the natural flow of topics.

"...can be considered trolling..." Mo, if a guy feels likes it, cats "can be considered dogs," or black "can be considered white," I spoze. But what's the point? Is is to dream up *some* justification, of some kind, to justify mod actions, right or wrong?

Trolling is defined as (paraphrasing) "a deliberate attempt to disrupt the useability and readability of the board." Now you suggest that those words be turned into "disrupts the natural flow?" And then suggest that this new phraseology be used as a basis for giving infractions leading to banning because one guy, in one thread (that he may not yet have encountered because he was on vacation last week) may make a fresh comment in a thread that has slid toward the bottom of page 1? I just can't see it.

If a post had some interest yesterday (or this morning, or last week), why should it be of absolutely no interest today? Why should making a new post in a pre-existing thread be considered "disrupting the natural flow of the board?" Because some mod is merely looking, desperately, for some "reason" to issue an infraction, that it?

 

[moevillini]

Trolling is defined as (paraphrasing) "a deliberate attempt to disrupt the useability and readability of the board." Now you suggest that those words be turned into "disrupts the natural flow?" And then suggest that this new phraseology be used as a basis for giving infractions leading to banning because one guy, in one thread (that he may not yet have encountered because he was on vacation last week) may make a fresh comment in a thread that has slid toward the bottom of page 1? I just can't see it.

If a post had some interest yesterday (or this morning, or last week), why should it be of absolutely no interest today? Why should making a new post in a pre-existing thread be considered "disrupting the natural flow of the board?" Because some mod is merely looking, desperately, for some "reason" to issue an infraction, that it?

Aint, making a SINGLE post in a thread is NOT the issue here. The issue is CONSECUTIVE posts in a thread. Part of the issue (at least as it originally started out) had to do with the TIME FRAME of these consecutive posts. As has been said before, CONTEXT COUNTS. If a guy doesn't post for a week, and then revisits an older topic with a single new post, that is different than making continuous, consecutive posts in a topic that nobody else is responding to.

I'm going to suggest that the word DELIBERATE be REMOVED from the definition. I'm not sure if that will help any, but I think it's necessary. I don't think it should matter whether or not it was deliberate. And I realize that's not what you seem to be arguing about, but you may at some point, so I'll suggest we remove it before it can become a point of contention.

You object to my "phraseology" , too bad. I would venture to guess that many other readers might feel the context is pretty much the same regardless of the exact words that are used. I will NEVER be PRECISE enough for you, I will concede that point.

Or should I say, the RULES will NEVER be PRECISE enough to suit you. At some point, you either accept them as they are, or you continue making the same mistakes and find yourself with additional infractions. It's your choice.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Mo, if a guy feels likes it, cats "can be considered dogs," or black "can be considered white," I spoze. But what's the point? Is is to dream up *some* justification, of some kind, to justify mod actions, right or wrong?

Two or three laughing smilies are needed at this.