Member
Whimsey
FetzenOver/under on one allegedly corrupt western politician getting more comments than four volcanic eruptions and one of the largest terrorist attacks in history?
Status
Recent Statuses
7 yrs ago
Current
The original 'Throw it on the ground.'
4
likes
7 yrs ago
Good luck Tuck.
2
likes
7 yrs ago
When a thread gets locked while I'm in the midst of typing my retort: 3.bp.blogspot.com/-rwro8doo…
3
likes
7 yrs ago
Stone Dragon: Kult of Athena's selection is as good as their website is bad. You can even get an Albion from them though you'll have to wait a year or so.
1
like
7 yrs ago
A Pepsi huh. Have you considered bringing peace to the middle east?
1
like
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
There does need to be some delineation in regards to the sexual harassment and assault allegations that are currently going around. There is a tremendous difference between an inappropriate behavior and forcible rape.
<Snipped quote by Kratesis>
I'm not trying to prove anything, though.
Indeed and that is the problem. Andre has made a claim, that he was present at a place and time in which many other people were present. This is a believable claim given our knowledge of Andre; he lives in that part of the world, is interested in politics and so forth.
Now you arrive with the charge that Andre was not, in fact, present. Well, semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. You have laid the charge, now you must provide evidence.
TLDR: Why should I believe that Andreyich was there, if he won't prove it?
Isolated demand for rigor. Burden of proof falls upon you in this case Catchamber.
In
Warhammer 40k: Enemy Without, Enemy Within - an 'Ecclesiarchal' RP [Mature][High Casual/Low Advanced]
→
7 yrs ago
Forum: Advanced Roleplay
@Jbcool Present and ready to go.
So, denizens of the Guild, which section(s) would you say that you are most likely to Roleplay within and why?
Probably the advanced section. I do a lot of 1x1 in PM but I never post to that section. As to the whys I generally prefer the pacing of the advanced section and I have friends from other sites who come here to 1x1 because RPGuild's PM system has features that we like.
Do you feel that you are "welcomed" as a "member" within this section and/or sections?
Sure. I've never felt unwelcome in any roleplaying section here. Everyone has always been friendly. Even the most combative section, Arena, welcomed me with open arms when I stuck my head in there.
Would you feel comfortable writing in the other sections? Why or why not?
I imagine I would feel comfortable writing in any section.
In
Warhammer 40k: Enemy Without, Enemy Within - an 'Ecclesiarchal' RP [Mature][High Casual/Low Advanced]
→
7 yrs ago
Forum: Advanced Roleplay
@Jbcool Awesome. Looking forward to it!
@Dynamo Frokane
You know what? You're right, I did assume Poohead was in his early twenties or perhaps late teens because I glanced at a picture of him on another thread and formed an incorrect impression without all the facts.
Also, as I re-read my message I can see that it might have implied Poohead is young and thus immature. I wasn't precise with my language so let me apologize to Poohead if I came across that way. That wasn't my intent. I remember my late teens and early twenties and based on my memory of that time I can easily imagine a situation where the typical social roles of male pursuer and female perused didn't always apply due to hormones and so forth.
Essentially I gave (and give) Poohead the benefit of the doubt. Even if I didn't his romantic life is absolutely none of my business. Or yours. Which is why it boggles my mind that you would wait until Poohead made a comment that you saw as an opening and then jump in with quotes from so long ago. How long did you spend hunting those quotes down? Or did you bookmark the page in case you had the chance to make fun of him later?
And I replied something along the lines of how I still hold that view. But why? Perhaps I have a reason for that position. Perhaps there is a line of thought behind it, a worldview or way of using language to describe the world that explains why I differ on that score? But you don't care about any of that; you are (and were) clearly not looking for a discussion or even a debate-- you were scanning for anything you could mock or criticize without fully engaging in the conversation. You don't want to talk about a position you want to talk about the person.
*you're
Whoa there. How do you know my intent wasn't, how did you put it, "playful?" It seems to me that you use one standard to judge your own actions and another standard for everyone else. Anything you say is to be seen in the best possible light and anything someone else says is to be seen in the worst possible light.
And let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Dynamo Frokane doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. (There's your political reference ~_^)
If you did not think that your comment wouldn't sting you would not have bothered to make it. That is one of the purposes of your little jabs. You want to make your target uncomfortable, you want to stick a negative label on them and you want to stir up a little bit of conflict.
Do you recall how this whole thing started? You were talking to Penny about the political center and at the end of the post you tacked on an ad hominem against me. But that wasn't enough; you had to be sure I saw your little jab so you @mentioned me. You wanted to get in a little sniping remark and you wanted to make certain I saw it.
I looked up the pages mdk referenced and it was yet another example of this sort of behavior. You get in a personal shot, you try to pin a label on him and you try to stir up conflict but you try to do so obliquely so you can deny it if you are ever called out.
The severity and subtlety of this behavior varies. Sometimes you are careful but other times you go way too far. But regardless all of these events are joined by a number of common elements:
1. You target the person, not the position
2. You do so with the intent to mock or belittle that person and/or to damage their reputation
3. You avoid taking a position that can be criticized
4. You hide behind humor or subtlety so that you can deny your actions when/if called out on it
The rest of us manage to discuss politics without sinking to those depths despite the fact that we often vehemently disagree and may at times discuss emotionally evocative issues that we feel strongly about. We are certainly not perfect-- but we don't sink this low. Your behavior is completely uncalled for.
Youre ASSUMING that Poohead is this 'hormonal young person' and that what cause him to state that girls chase him. Well here is news for you, he's an adult in his late 20s and I'm actually the exact same age as him.
You know what? You're right, I did assume Poohead was in his early twenties or perhaps late teens because I glanced at a picture of him on another thread and formed an incorrect impression without all the facts.
Also, as I re-read my message I can see that it might have implied Poohead is young and thus immature. I wasn't precise with my language so let me apologize to Poohead if I came across that way. That wasn't my intent. I remember my late teens and early twenties and based on my memory of that time I can easily imagine a situation where the typical social roles of male pursuer and female perused didn't always apply due to hormones and so forth.
Essentially I gave (and give) Poohead the benefit of the doubt. Even if I didn't his romantic life is absolutely none of my business. Or yours. Which is why it boggles my mind that you would wait until Poohead made a comment that you saw as an opening and then jump in with quotes from so long ago. How long did you spend hunting those quotes down? Or did you bookmark the page in case you had the chance to make fun of him later?
Oh and how did we get this tidbit about Ben Shapiro being alt-right if I never asked you about it???
And I replied something along the lines of how I still hold that view. But why? Perhaps I have a reason for that position. Perhaps there is a line of thought behind it, a worldview or way of using language to describe the world that explains why I differ on that score? But you don't care about any of that; you are (and were) clearly not looking for a discussion or even a debate-- you were scanning for anything you could mock or criticize without fully engaging in the conversation. You don't want to talk about a position you want to talk about the person.
I'm sorry but youre
*you're
you just turn into a hypocrite by calling me ugly
Whoa there. How do you know my intent wasn't, how did you put it, "playful?" It seems to me that you use one standard to judge your own actions and another standard for everyone else. Anything you say is to be seen in the best possible light and anything someone else says is to be seen in the worst possible light.
If Poohead takes issue with my playful memes and jabs, I will absolutely apologise with no hesitation
And let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Dynamo Frokane doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. (There's your political reference ~_^)
If you did not think that your comment wouldn't sting you would not have bothered to make it. That is one of the purposes of your little jabs. You want to make your target uncomfortable, you want to stick a negative label on them and you want to stir up a little bit of conflict.
Do you recall how this whole thing started? You were talking to Penny about the political center and at the end of the post you tacked on an ad hominem against me. But that wasn't enough; you had to be sure I saw your little jab so you @mentioned me. You wanted to get in a little sniping remark and you wanted to make certain I saw it.
I looked up the pages mdk referenced and it was yet another example of this sort of behavior. You get in a personal shot, you try to pin a label on him and you try to stir up conflict but you try to do so obliquely so you can deny it if you are ever called out.
The severity and subtlety of this behavior varies. Sometimes you are careful but other times you go way too far. But regardless all of these events are joined by a number of common elements:
1. You target the person, not the position
2. You do so with the intent to mock or belittle that person and/or to damage their reputation
3. You avoid taking a position that can be criticized
4. You hide behind humor or subtlety so that you can deny your actions when/if called out on it
The rest of us manage to discuss politics without sinking to those depths despite the fact that we often vehemently disagree and may at times discuss emotionally evocative issues that we feel strongly about. We are certainly not perfect-- but we don't sink this low. Your behavior is completely uncalled for.
<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>
Haha you forgot to say M'lady.
You just can't help yourself Dynamo.
So the idea that I use ad homenims to make up for a lack of argument begs the question: 'What argument in the first place?'
That's what we're wondering. Aside from "Hahaa, you suck" what exactly is your argument for.. you know.. anything? Everyone here talks about the issues, takes a stand, provides evidence for their claims and crafts an argument. You find one little thing about someone as a person and hammer on it for months. Months. Think about that.
I'm not attacking the dude's romantic life, I'm attacking his humblebrag quotes about how girls run to him and he doesnt chase them.
Young person says something that doesn't come off perfectly on the internet. Good golly. That's never happened before! Better get Dynamo Frokane, righter of internet wrongs, defender of women's virtue and slayer of cringe on the case!
How Poohead sees his romantic life is no business of yours Dynamo. You don't even care except that it gives you someone to mock and feel superior too.
(Also, has it occurred to you that Poohead is young and surrounded by other young people who are filled to the brim with hormones and questionable judgement? A touch of good genetics and some exercise and you have a situation in which a young man may be approached by girls who are interested.)
When its very obvious that while obviously a smart and or charming guy of course he chases girls he likes, just like damn near every non-celebrity straight male, including me in the world does.
Maybe you're ugly and he's hot.
But your point about attack character is a load of crap, every serious debate I've had has kept the focus strictly on the argument, and very respectful.
Given the response of the other posters in this thread after you posted I'm going to have to say the evidence isn't looking good Dynamo.
I'll happily debate you on a subject without resorting to any sort of attacks
Ohhhh now you want to have a debate without ad hominems.
Which is incidentally why I find it quite frustrating when your new right-wing waifu Kratesis says that he's Alt-Right but wont give me one good reason apart from a ridiculous "No true scotsman, he's either every label or none of them".
You never asked me Dynamo. You literally never asked. You have absolutely no idea what I believe on the subject. You just jumped straight into personal jabs.
The intent is playful
No it isn't. The intent is never playful. You just hide behind that to excuse your behavior. You jab and poke and mock and belittle and then deny everything or claim it was "just a prank bro." And you expect us to believe that, like we're developmentally delayed tenth graders or something.
© 2007-2024