Bisjac is destroying the forum? :(

[Iban]

holy stuff typing "/me" automagically turns your text into an emote.

[Ad Bot]

[Ronin]

your $3 words are tasty

[Thorax]

That's all assuming that how we act on the internet is exactly how like we act in real life.

I know I am more serious on the internet than I am in real life, but I don't change the basics of how I interact with people.

inb4ban for too cool for the internet

When did that become a ban?

hey i've dated a blind chick

do i win

Yes you do.

holy stuff typing "/me" automagically turns your text into an emote.

Old news is old lol.

[Nickelob Ultra]

When did that become a ban?

A long while ago.  It's an unwritten rule.

It'll probably be a week if you haven't been banned for anything else major or it's your first time being banned for that offense.  Otherwise, if you did get banned for something else or other, expect worse.  See you soon, I guess.

[rkynick]

Your petty argument is that both my rebuttal to Iban calling Nickel "creepy" is that it was a joke, and that my counter-claim that Iban has proved himself to be far creepier than could even be argued for Nick are both invalid for whatever reason. You didn't explain why I was wrong, you came in here and flat-out said my arguments were invalid and you're trying to perpetuate some kind of guise that you're some kind of debate-referee; that's no fun.

I also find it kind of funny that Iban would have the gall to call someone else "creepy and socially inept".

You want me to justify my actions? Do you even know what you're saying?

I explained why it was invalid;

The creep has the right to call someone creepy.
If you are that disturbed by it, I can reiterate what he said, and, try as you will to prove otherwise, I am not creepy.

The example is meant to prove the point, you can't base the legitimacy of what someone says on what kind of person they are, and if that was your sole argument against the legitimacy of what he said, someone else with more legitimacy could easily repeat it verbatim and render your argument irrelevant.

When you claimed that all arguments here were pointless stuffstorms, that was what I meant when I said I explained how you were wrong, because my explanation of that was much more in the open than my explanation of how your initial argument was wrong.

In any case, I flat out said your arguments were invalid because they were, and still are. To say I haven't explained this is to be spectacularly horrible at connecting the dots. You can't say his opinion on whether or not someone is a creep is invalid because he himself is a creep. You can't dismiss my argument because 'the entire forum is about discrediting users'. The only legitimate argument you've presented has been based on a severe exaggeration of my accusation, and I didn't (or now don't) think you understood(stand) me, or what my concept of a 'valid point' is. I have tried to convey the message that my idea of a valid point is one that does not have any logical fallacies within it, but that was right before you started ignoring me.

In any case,

Justify - to show to be just or right (Webster's New World Dictionary)

I want to explain why your argument is right. So, yes, I know what I'm saying.

[Stocking]

-snip-

It's not egotistical at all, I'm talking about the fact that he's criticizing Nickel for "creeping out" Miika (even though for all we know she could've shared the log with Iban because she thought it was funny) when Iban himself pretty much takes the cake when it comes to weirding-out underage girls.

In case you weren't paying attention (and in which case you're a bad drama referee), I pretty explicitly challenged the validity of Iban's claim, seeing as how there's no proof either way and that Iban's accusations are complete hearsay.

[rkynick]

In case you weren't paying attention (and in which case you're a bad drama referee), I pretty explicitly challenged the validity of Iban's claim, seeing as how there's no proof either way and that Iban's accusations are complete hearsay.

That was never and still is not what I am bothering you about.

I am bothering you about saying his argument lacks legitimacy because he is a creep. (you have noticed I don't care about which one of you is right or wrong, as you keep claiming I'm a 'drama referee')

Additionally, it is interesting that you can call all arguments petty and then claim that you've made non-petty arguments. Which is it?

[Stocking]

That was never and still is not what I am bothering you about.

I am bothering you about saying his argument lacks legitimacy because he is a creep. (you have noticed I don't care about which one of you is right or wrong, as you keep claiming I'm a 'drama referee')

I told him not to carry on an argument that Nickel is creepy because Iban had done worse and he would be called on it.

You completely misunderstood it because you're handicapped, good job.

Additionally, it is interesting that you can call all arguments petty and then claim that you've made non-petty arguments. Which is it?

The former, ref. All drama arguments are petty, but not all of them are wrong.

[rkynick]

I told him not to carry on an argument that Nickel is creepy because Iban had done worse and he would be called on it.

You completely misunderstood it because you're handicapped, good job.

I understood it perfectly.

It is, as I have said at least three times now, not correct to base anything on a "he's done worse" argument.

I'll quote for you.

I am bothering you about saying his argument lacks legitimacy because he is a creep.Which is it?

I explained why it was invalid; The example is meant to prove the point, you can't base the legitimacy of what someone says on what kind of person they are, and if that was your sole argument against the legitimacy of what he said, someone else with more legitimacy could easily repeat it verbatim and render your argument irrelevant.

You can't say his opinion on whether or not someone is a creep is invalid because he himself is a creep.

The creep has the right to call someone creepy.
If you are that disturbed by it, I can reiterate what he said, and, try as you will to prove otherwise, I am not creepy.

I have tried as hard as I could to stay on topic. My topic has always obviously been this matter. Now of course you dismiss what I have said because I'm "handicapped", when you are the one who has misunderstood me...

[Stocking]

I understood it perfectly.

It is, as I have said at least three times now, not correct to base anything on a "he's done worse" argument.

I'll quote for you.

I have tried as hard as I could to stay on topic. My topic has always obviously been this matter. Now of course you dismiss what I have said because I'm "handicapped", when you are the one who has misunderstood me...

http://forum.blockland.us/index.php?topic=156068.msg3735388#msg3735388

Reread that about a hundred times until you understand it's relevancy.

[rkynick]

That was never and still is not what I am bothering you about.

Keep in mind I'm concerned with

I'll quote for you.
Quote from: rkynick on Today at 08:50:15 PM
I am bothering you about saying his argument lacks legitimacy because he is a creep.Which is it?
Quote from: rkynick on Today at 08:42:48 PM
I explained why it was invalid; The example is meant to prove the point, you can't base the legitimacy of what someone says on what kind of person they are, and if that was your sole argument against the legitimacy of what he said, someone else with more legitimacy could easily repeat it verbatim and render your argument irrelevant.
Quote from: rkynick on Today at 08:42:48 PM
You can't say his opinion on whether or not someone is a creep is invalid because he himself is a creep.
Quote from: rkynick on Today at 08:04:01 PM
The creep has the right to call someone creepy.
If you are that disturbed by it, I can reiterate what he said, and, try as you will to prove otherwise, I am not creepy.

than

I pretty explicitly challenged the validity of Iban's claim

I'm more concerned with how you challenged it than the act of challenging it.

It is, as you say, necessary to read my four quotes a hundred times to understand what I am arguing with you over, apparently.

[Stocking]

I'm more concerned with how you challenged it than the act of challenging it.

It is, as you say, necessary to read my four quotes a hundred times to understand what I am arguing with you over, apparently.

Your points are complete moot: you're saying that my argument was that since Iban was a creep, that Nickel wasn't a creep when I pretty much explicitly challenged Iban's evidence by calling it hearsay. Again, I said that Iban's point was hearsay. Again, I said that Iban's point was hearsay. You're a bad, bad referee and you should be ashamed of yourself. Me calling Iban creepy was a counter-claim, not a rebuttal.

[Kovita]

holy stuff typing "/me" automagically turns your text into an emote.

/me laughs

[Kovita]

Agh forgetyou.

[captain blue]

* captain blue laughs

nice