rigorousintuition.ca

MacCruiskeen wrote:Who's shouting whom down? Who's going off on wacky tangents? Who's wasting everyone's time, over and over and over again? Who thinks this thread is about finding a 100%-correct definition of a troll?

orz wrote:Shaft!

Hammer of Los wrote:Damn.

I now actually believe that the naked mole rat in Kim Possible is deliberately intended to represent the penis, in some sort of intentional recruiting/social engineering psyop style psycho-sexual steering.

I gotta stop reading this board.

barracuda wrote:A favorite orz moment, from the "In the land of believers" thread:

MacCruiskeen wrote:Who's shouting whom down? Who's going off on wacky tangents? Who's wasting everyone's time, over and over and over again? Who thinks this thread is about finding a 100%-correct definition of a troll?

orz wrote:Shaft!

Do butterflies know where they're going?

Sorry I'm not providing actual quotes here. I do intend to edit my posts to rectify that but I probably won't.

Thanks to Cuda for the Orz moment. That has to be one of the all time best comebacks I've seen on the board

brainpanhandler wrote:I did spend quite some time looking for the thread where Annie "totally fucked off" Nemo. Despite my best efforts I still have not been able to locate it, although I did find a thread where Annie pretty much trashed some of his opinions on punk.

Seamus OBlimey wrote:.....
Did anyone catch where Hugh told us he keeps lists on other posters? It wasn't really surprising but a bit funny and a bit scary.
.....

"No country, in the history of the earth, ever has or will send the largest part of it's armies outwith it's own borders (an act that demonstrates a complete freedom of fear from outside attack, btw) in order to ensure that girls can go to school in Helmand Province, and to guarantee that men in Kandahar market can sell rubbishy Betamax tapes of Only Fools and Horses to drunks, telling them they're pornos."

Barracuda wrote:

Endomorph wrote:Now, now. We have been reliably informed by our fellow forum posters that Obama is basically a fascist. The powers that be are not even a little bit threatened by him; he's on their side; he's one of them, not one of us. There's no way he's going to get assassinated; he's *totally* unlike JFK or RFK or MLK or Wellstone.

Of course, if he is assassinated I expect everybody on the board to forget everything they wrote and insist he was a hero who was facing down the Powers That Be and they had to take him down.

It's all an instance of Endomorph's Law: everything that actually happens is (at least to Rigint posters) ipso facto bad. If Obama wins, that proves he's bad. Otherwise how could he have won? If Obama loses or is assassinated, that proves he was good, and the people who defeated or killed him were bad.

It's really more like "most topics discussed on the forum deal with problems with the world." That is what sells newspapers and starts discussions unfortunately. Random acts of kindness and love are seldom headlines, or the source of heated arguments.

But actually, Chubby, I thought there was somewhat of a consensus around here that the so-called and phoney PTB are neither uniformly monolithic, nor always acting in their own best interests, nor extraordinarily coordinated in their actions, nor always very communicative amongst each other, nor always doing what you might consider totally bad things. In other words, the world of power is highly factional, just like you'd expect. I understand why this notion is somewhat repugnant to those who require an adversarial approach to the issues of the day, particularly political ones which are black/white framed for your comfort and pleasure, but a more organic understanding is necessarily more complex and and contingency based. I realize that calling anything on this forum a consensus is a allowing for a very loose definition of a consensus, but as above, so below, ya know.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Not true. You are mischaracterizing.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:There are only two usernames who have trolled me with ad hominems so many times over a few years that I had to save some of their 'product' to refute a refrain from one that I "just won't listen to honest criticism."

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:I could put that stuff up as a quote but I won't.

Seamus O'Blimey wrote:I feel creepy looking up "all posts by.." like I'm rummaging in someones underwear drawer, or something. Just my anglo catholic upbringing I'm sure. [cough]

FourthBase wrote:

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:

FourthBase wrote:Hugh...

Can you ever just use the subjunctive when the declarative is as of yet unwarranted? Why do you always switch from one premature declarative pronouncement to the next? Is it an aesthetic style, like we're supposed to imagine your declarations as might-as-well-be hypotheticals?

Well put. I'm doing deciphering and detecting and take an aggressive approach to problems. "This is what they've hidden!"

It focuses others on either confirming or debunking without waffling.

If others aren't interested or know better, that is indicated.

Errr...you might want to consider that strategy. I think it is backfiring, it has turned off most of the people who find you unbearable and has sometimes made you sound...well, insane. You're, um, sabotaging yourself and your theories with that approach.

You should try what I do and couch your statements in modifiers as precisely as you can to avoid understatements, overstatements, and misstatements. And use the freaking subjunctive, because that's all intuition and speculation gives you the intellectual right to use.

HMW wrote:The people advertising Cheetos know more about our brains than we do.
Politics is life and death advertising.

FourthBase wrote:

philipacentaur wrote:

He'd fuck a hamburger?