seebs sure is sure ...

[Brimshack]

No Mick, you're not looking to communicate with anyone who values truth more than loyalty to Seebs. Nor are you interested in any other form of constructive dialogue. You consistently seek out the drama, confront those you find fault with, and here is the point, you absolutely ignore the larger discussions occurring around you. Given the choice between discussing the subject and goading someone on a personal issue, you consistently choose the latter.

The fact is Mick that you are here for the bickering.

No more and no less.

[Naru]

For what it's worth, mick, I still think you are entertaining. Is that the ultimate pomo compliment?

[Ensign Steve]

I think the ultimate pomo compliment would be, "That's a nice compliment!"

[Brimshack]

My ultimate Pomo compliment is "3."

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Naruto

For what it's worth, mick, I still think you are entertaining. Is that the ultimate pomo compliment?

mick is entertaining actually, but the manner in which he entertains isn't particularly a good thing for him.

[Dingfod]

I don't find mick nearly as entertaining as the fact that there are so many that choose to interact with someone who is clearly unable to interact with people in any meaningful way. In other words, as his primary school teacher wrote on his marks report card, "Doesn't play well with others."

[Doctor X]

I wish to state, as this point, Me Sis [PBUH--Ed.] was horribly wrong about a decade or so ago.

A reader of Victorian literature, Proust in the Original Klingon, and lover of Henry James, Edith Warton, and other practitioners of paeans to the pointless problems of the penultimately privileged, she stared sneeringly down her aquiline proboscis upon mine copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as "mere science fiction."

Challenge her, I did, to read the first page and give the volume back.

She quickly snatch'd the tome--more of a codex in that it was paperback stitched in quires rather than a leather-bound volume, though I wish to reassure the sensibilities and delicate constitutions of the Noble Readership that I do, indeed, have many leather-bound books--and commenced detached perusal of the contents spread upon the non-acid free reprocessed wood pulp--a cruel and ironic testament to the Progress of the Common Man .

I saw a faint smile crack across her visage then scurry away behind her left ear in fear of the advancing visage of frustration engender'd by the realization that I was right and was, therefore, entitled to exercise my right to commence with The "I-Told-You-So" Dance with full accordion, followed by frequent reminders at family gatherings and Senate Confirmation Hearings.

Her face grew stern and cold, I saw her muscles strain,
But I know Me Mighty Sis would not let the book come back again.

And so she read said tome of what she imagined should be forgotten lore. Further, I discovered her in a disheveled state soon after giggling most unimmaculately with a Scrabble [Tm.--Ed.] board as she demonstrated the True Meaning of "42" and "Slartibartfast."

She was wrong.






I was right.






I feel it very important that everyone knows this.

--J.D.

[Dingfod]

I really do learn something new every day.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Your "I've never, ever, seen mick admit to errors" is not a 'generalisation' with a few counterexamples, dude. It's a nasty, character-assassinating falsehood - a spurious foundation for your increasingly arrogant pronouncements on my mental health.

Supposing it was "mick almost never admits to errors", and similar transformations of the other claims.

Given that you've shown us only one counterexample for each of those claims (which is indeed all you need to disprove a categorical statement)... can you find a number of other examples? Can you show that it's not a strong general tendency of yours? You realize that you need many more than one to disprove a claim of a strong tendency.

We can even make it relatively easy. Find 10 examples of you admitting to non-trivial mistakes (trivial here meaning something like an improper phrasing or word, spelling, etc. or an improperly attributed quote, things of that nature)... 10 is by no means a high number, it could still be the case that seebs's generalization is still true even with that many examples. But I think you ought to be able to find at least that many before you can characterize seebs's generalization as "a nasty, character-assassinating falsehood" with a straight face.

Or are we supposed to see that one person thought some of your arguments were persuasive, and thus conclude that people generally find you reasonable?

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

You ... confront those you find fault with ...

You make it sound as if I have broken some code of conduct here, Brimmo. LOL Is that really how you feel? I think if we have valid criticism, we have the right to confront people with it. There's nobody here who sets themselves up as above criticism.

... you absolutely ignore the larger discussions occurring around you.
OMG somebody call the marines!

See, the thing is that for me, the pervasive low-level dishonesty in communities like this, and the licence that seems to be granted to the in-crowd to bullshit their way through arguments, a licence that is denied to the outsiders, is a larger issue than most of the other discussions going on around here.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by erimir

Supposing it was "mick almost never admits to errors", and similar transformations of the other claims.

"mick almost never admits to errors" is an admission that I admit to errors. It wouldn't have had the clear implication carried by seebs's "I've never, ever, seen mick admit to errors" that I was somehow incapable of admitting it when I've made a mistake. It is the implication that I am blind to my fallibility or dishonest about it, that is the nasty, character-assassinating falsehood.

How many "nevers" and "evers" would seebs have had to use in order for you and Teh Man to recognise his "hyperbole" as a deliberate misrepresentation?

[erimir]

In that case, are you saying that you would not take issue with the statement "mick almost never admits to errors"?

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by erimir

In that case, are you saying that you would not take issue with the statement "mick almost never admits to errors"?

Sure! Provided it wasn't used as the basis of a claim that I was somehow deficient in that respect, no, I wouldn't take issue with it. Most people admit to errors infrequently. I reckon my error-admission rate is no worse than the average here.

[Brimshack]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You make it sound as if...[RedHerring].

Speaking of Dishonesty.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

Speaking of Dishonesty.

Ah, the classic tu quoque. Another pomo tactic - "We don't like talk of dishonesty. We punish those who raise the issue by flinging the accusation of dishonesty at them". LOL

[Kael]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

the pervasive low-level dishonesty in communities like this, and the licence that seems to be granted to the in-crowd to bullshit their way through arguments

Clever dodging, but in order for these things to reasonably considered as serious or larger issues you still have to reasonably show that they actually exist in this community, not that they seem to exist in communities like this.

Otherwise, enjoy the continuation of your Grand Crusade Against Dishonesty on this forum.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Sure! Provided it wasn't used as the basis of a claim that I was somehow deficient in that respect, no, I wouldn't take issue with it. Most people admit to errors infrequently. I reckon my error-admission rate is no worse than the average here.

Let me clarify by rephrasing the question.

Are you saying that you would not take issue with the statement "mick almost never admits to errors, to the extent that his error admission rate is significantly lower than the average person's"?

[rigorist]

Is this about vm's lack of leadership again?

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Ah, the classic tu quoque. Another pomo tactic - "We don't like talk of dishonesty. We punish those who raise the issue by flinging the accusation of dishonesty at them". LOL

[Brimshack]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Ah, the classic tu quoque. Another pomo tactic - "We don't like talk of dishonesty. We punish those who raise the issue by flinging the accusation of dishonesty at them". LOL

No.

and

No, Mick.

Self Serving errors on your part, and that is simply par for the course.

[Brimshack]

Originally Posted by rigorist

Is this about vm's lack of leadership again?

Goddam that VM anyhow. He's probably been using definite articles again.

[Demimonde]

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

Goddam that VM anyhow. He's probably been using definite articles again.

I blame the skunk. . . .

--J.D.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Kael

Clever dodging, ...

You make it sound as if I've been dishonest there, Kael. Was that your intention?

... but in order for these things to reasonably considered as serious or larger issues you still have to reasonably show that they actually exist in this community, ...
I think I can, if I am allowed to discuss it without being drowned out by the hoots and catcalls and counter-accusations of the Chuckle Club.

Otherwise, enjoy the continuation of your Grand Crusade Against Dishonesty on this forum.
Thanks, but of course it isn't a grand crusade. I think of it more as an attempt at peaceful revolution.

[Leesifer]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I blame the skunk. . . .

--J.D.

or