Conquer Club

Omg saxi broke the BBS.

And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.

nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.

And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.

huh? How? Sax provided nothing of substantive content and has resorted to irrationality. That's begging for a good trolling, which he has yet to get over.

nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.

And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.

This whole thing is a clusterfuck. BBS raised some good questions about saxi's oil glut hypothesis and a good discussion could have commenced, where we all learned a little bit more about what happened to the Soviet Union. Instead, saxi refused to participate because BBS posted a link from The Blaze a few pages back. Sigh. This is the opposite of constructive discussion.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.

And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.

huh? How? Sax provided nothing of substantive content and has resorted to irrationality. That's begging for a good trolling, which he has yet to get over.

Yeah, I know. Your fit was actually all part of your master plan you've been concocting for "centuries through time immemorial" or whatever it was. Don't you and Mets have a Twilight LARP you need to be at?

So strange. Just so, so bizarre.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.

And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.

huh? How? Sax provided nothing of substantive content and has resorted to irrationality. That's begging for a good trolling, which he has yet to get over.

Yeah, I know. Your fit was actually all part of your master plan you've been concocting for "centuries through time immemorial" or whatever it was. Don't you and Mets have a Twilight LARP you need to be at?

So strange. Just so, so bizarre.

When you've emotionally exhausted yourself, would you care to address any problems with your stance?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Omg saxi broke the BBS.

And Mets doesn't have an opinion of the breaking.

huh? How? Sax provided nothing of substantive content and has resorted to irrationality. That's begging for a good trolling, which he has yet to get over.

Yeah, I know. Your fit was actually all part of your master plan you've been concocting for "centuries through time immemorial" or whatever it was. Don't you and Mets have a Twilight LARP you need to be at?

So strange. Just so, so bizarre.

When you've emotionally exhausted yourself, would you care to address any problems with your stance?

Nope.

see: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=207035&start=225#p4560804

Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.

Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.

Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.

once again, responding without checking to see to what you're responding

this is quite the M.O.

carry on with your carrying on

saxitoxin wrote:carry on with your carrying on

--Andy

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.

Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.

once again, responding without checking to see to what you're responding

this is quite the M.O.

carry on with your carrying on

If your goal is to have a e-penis measuring contest rather than an actual discussion, carry on.

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.

Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.

once again, responding without checking to see to what you're responding

this is quite the M.O.

carry on with your carrying on

yap yap yap

What's that sound? Oh, it's BBS' Shar Pei here to remind us that he's a scientist and above the fray ...

Remember everyone, he's not actually interested in this thread, his paw just keeps having a spasm while it's sitting on the keyboard.

saxitoxin wrote:he's not actually interested in this thread

But you are? Interesting.

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:he's not actually interested in this thread

But you are?

yup - I said so two pages back ... the page before you made a ¡point! of very loudly making sure everyone knew that you had no interest in it

you two really need to slow down, catch your breath, and try reading before you pound out these scripts you're working through ... it's embarrassing enough that you've thrown your lot in with a grade-A nutcase and his "millenia-old omens of deceit" or whatever his latest weird-ass expository was, aping his M.O. just marginalizes you even more

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:he's not actually interested in this thread

But you are?

yup - I said so two pages back ... the page before you made a ¡point! of very loudly making sure everyone knew that you had no interest in it

I know my reading skills aren't that great but which part of that post says that you actually care about having a discussion on this topic? Pretty sure it's just a post about how much you have a hardon for Leo DiCaprio.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.

Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.

"But, BBS, does this pattern actually hold?"

Yes, it does.

After the trolling punishment against sax for engaging in his typical pattern, I offer this serious rebuttal of his stance, whatever it has/will change into. Unsurprisingly, saxi again rejects, inserts his logical fallacies, and then repeats his position*. That last repetition actually is a repetition of his logical fallacies. Saxi then doubles-down on his nonsense here and here.

*Admittedly, he repeated his logical fallacy, which may suggest that my prediction doesn't cover his pattern, but it still does. Saxi is still running the circles of his logical fallacy stage. However, after perusing pages 8-10, the saxi-pattern holds: rejection, logical fallacy, repetition.

It all began with me pointing out that saxi's conclusion about Assad and Obama was poorly grounded and oblivious of other factors that were ocurring beyond saxi's imagination.. Saxi ignores this and provides another onslaught of cognitive bias. Further ignoring evidence to the contrary, saxi repeats his nonsense from the first post.

At this stage, I have not trolled sax. I then bear with his nonsense, and ask him about his additional claims. Saxi magically changes his initial stance and "explains" how he is still correct.

After seeing saxi repeatedly act the fool, I decide that saxi deserves to be treated with the respect he gives to anyone posing serious questions. Thus, the the US-oil price debate begins, where I subtly insert my charge of saxi being a conspiracy theorist. He takes the bait, emotions get heated, he finds the first study that vaguely supports his stance--which still fails to address my reasonable qualms. Saxi doubles-down on his nonsense, I push harder, and then break the news that he's been trolled.

What we see now is saxi refusing to admit that he's been trolled. He's still stuck in his logical fallacy stage while intermittently admitting that he's right on whatever nonsense he said earlier. Let's see what happens next.

Saxi will reject that I've been planning to troll him when he acted like an ass, but it's pretty clear that I knew what I was doing the entire time. Eventually, he'll calm down after a few months. Hopefully, he'll never return, but if he did, that would be unfortunate because he'd be spreading his intellectual dishonesty on other victims.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, I've already explained how that interpretation was incorrect, but that doesn't prevent you from repeating the same position without modification. This is similar to how you address criticism against your geopolitical hypotheses: reject, insert logical fallacies, repeat initial argument.

Since we should not expect you to provide further explanations of your flawed arguments, then at best we can only remain satisfied with your rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.

"But, BBS, does this pattern actually hold?"

Yes, it does.

After the trolling punishment against sax for engaging in his typical pattern, I offer this serious rebuttal of his stance, whatever it has/will change into. Unsurprisingly, saxi again rejects, inserts his logical fallacies, and then repeats his position*. That last repetition actually is a repetition of his logical fallacies. Saxi then doubles-down on his nonsense here and here.

*Admittedly, he repeated his logical fallacy, which may suggest that my prediction doesn't cover his pattern, but it still does. Saxi is still running the circles of his logical fallacy stage. However, after perusing pages 8-10, the saxi-pattern holds: rejection, logical fallacy, repetition.

It all began with me pointing out that saxi's conclusion about Assad and Obama was poorly grounded and oblivious of other factors that were ocurring beyond saxi's imagination.. Saxi ignores this and provides another onslaught of cognitive bias. Further ignoring evidence to the contrary, saxi repeats his nonsense from the first post.

At this stage, I have not trolled sax. I then bear with his nonsense, and ask him about his additional claims. Saxi magically changes his initial stance and "explains" how he is still correct.

After seeing saxi repeatedly act the fool, I decide that saxi deserves to be treated with the respect he gives to anyone posing serious questions. Thus, the the US-oil price debate begins, where I subtly insert my charge of saxi being a conspiracy theorist. He takes the bait, emotions get heated, he finds the first study that vaguely supports his stance--which still fails to address my reasonable qualms. Saxi doubles-down on his nonsense, I push harder, and then break the news that he's been trolled.

What we see now is saxi refusing to admit that he's been trolled. He's still stuck in his logical fallacy stage while intermittently admitting that he's right on whatever nonsense he said earlier. Let's see what happens next.

Uh huh. Again with "it was all part of my master plan!" You made an utter fool out of yourself and now are waving your hands in the air saying "I didn't actually mean anything I said!" Pro tip ... it doesn't take 500 words and ten posts to explain a punchline.

punishment against sax for engaging

Do you have any clue how full on weird you sound? Just bizarre.

Maybe the question should not be "Who da f*ck are you?" but "Who made you and why?".

GoranZ wrote:

Maybe the question should not be "Who da f*ck are you?" but "Who made you and why?".

Can we say, "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose."?

apparently, they recreate on CC...

Subject: Name Abuse: "Free Syrian Army"

the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:apparently, they recreate on CC...

Subject: Name Abuse: "Free Syrian Army"

the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Except that profile predates ISIS by 3-4 years and the guy is in Switzerland...

muy_thaiguy wrote:

owenshooter wrote:apparently, they recreate on CC...

Subject: Name Abuse: "Free Syrian Army"

the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Except that profile predates ISIS by 3-4 years and the guy is in Switzerland...

Wow, you got him good.

http://rt.com/news/203587-isis-convoy-us-airstrike/

If their leader dies ISIS will turn into chaos and probably disappear with the speed it show up.

GoranZ wrote:http://rt.com/news/203587-isis-convoy-us-airstrike/

If their leader dies ISIS will turn into chaos and probably disappear with the speed it show up.

Yeah, like Al-Qaeda. Oh wait...

You'd need to bomb a number of their head honchos in order for it to work. Then again, maybe not--if they can't be pushed out from the cities/towns which they govern.