Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It is not legally mandatory, many many kids drop out of high-school let alone going to college. Our undergrad degrees are kind of paralell to your 'A-levels' but with dumbed down testing, churn down lots of idiots with pieces of paper who think they got an education.

It is often a criteria to be allowed to qualify for many jobs though. That's where the community colleges and trade schools come from/ They give you the piece of paper you need and that's about it.

I have to say that I think a secondary education being mandatory is a very good idea indeed.

I think allowing people to do what they can do without having to jump through hoops in dumbed down 'college level' classes, learning nothing, and racking up debt for a dumb piece of paper to qualify for the job is a better idea. I didn't learn a single thing in school that I didn't already know going in, I just had to go through the class to prove I knew it. Waste of time, money, and effort. But evidently a necessary waste of time, money and effort.

I wouldn't employ a 15 year-old plumber that didn't have a high-school education. It just doesn't scream 'dilligence'.

I didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, I just said that I didn't want to talk about race issues with anyone who hadn't taken at least a college level course on the issue.

No?

Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.

If you say so.

Seriously dude, your actions have consequences. Stop blaming dogma for your inability to converse respectfully with people, for your own limitless hypocrisy, and for the myriad other social disfunctions you're perpetually inflicting on this forum.

YOU did it.

Be polite, respectful, and gracious for a while, and see if dogma doesn't back off you. Earn respect, don't assume you're entitled.

Oh, and for your reference, I attended a small liberal arts college that is consistently ranked in the top 20 nationwide. I'd tell you which one, but unlike you, I have at least a vague clue of how to protect my online anonymity.

Regardless, it's a pretty highly regarded liberal arts college. With the emphasis on LIBERAL. So that's where your online jackbooted thug conservatives got their brownshirt training, dude.

Also, while it wasn't my chosen major, I had sufficient credits to major in American Studies which was a very left-leaning courseload with considerable content focused on race relations in America.

All that said, I have very minimal respect for the importance of a degree. It doesn't make one's words worth more than anybody else's. I actually loathe credentialism. But as long as you're going to come here, playing credentialist with people, here's the score: I win. Now let's not play anymore, because it's a stupid game.

Seriously dude, you aren't as worldly wise as you think you are. Have some humility and start treating people with some respect. Like I said, see if the "conservative thugs" don't suddenly vanish.

what if he really knew what he was doing? (the 15 year old hypothetical plumber I mean)

my guess is that Phyrexis went to Evergreen or Reed or maybe Berkley... but like he said, anonymity. Just a hunch.

Guitardian wrote:what if he really knew what he was doing?

How would I know that? He's not going to tell me he's useless, is he?

The idea behind qualifications is that they are proof of a certain level of proficiency and training in a given subject. They also serve as an indicator of commitment and application.

If I'm going to pay someone to fix my sink, or re-wire my house, then I want to know what qualifies them to do the job. Now, I'll agree that an illiterate plumber is not necessarily a BAD plumber - but I think that a general level of literacy and numeracy is desirable amongst the young people of a given country. Certainly desirable enough to make it mandatory for under-16s.

What else are they going to do? They can't legally get a job.

wrong. I have worked for guys with 'credentials' before and often had to fix their mess ups, or lack of attention to detail. I know a ten year old I would trust to help me fix my drywall more than a contracted union 'credendials' worker. The problem with this culture is the emphasis on credentials over ability. That same ten year old could tutor a college kid at math, but hey he doessn't qualify so he is stuck playing video games. Credentials are for people who CAN'T show that they know what they are doing, so they just show a piece of paper with a signiature at the bottom that they payed for in exchange for the chance to learn the job ON the job, like any less 'qualified' person could also do.

Albatross wrote:Is secondary education not mandatory in the USA, like?

It's mandatory to attend school until a certain age in most states (usually 16 or 18), but completing secondary education is not mandatory.

Guitardian wrote:wrong. I have worked for guys with 'credentials' before and often had to fix their mess ups, or lack of attention to detail. I know a ten year old I would trust to help me fix my drywall more than a contracted union 'credendials' worker. The problem with this culture is the emphasis on credentials over ability. That same ten year old could tutor a college kid at math, but hey he doessn't qualify so he is stuck playing video games. Credentials are for people who CAN'T show that they know what they are doing, so they just show a piece of paper with a signiature at the bottom that they payed for in exchange for the chance to learn the job ON the job, like any less 'qualified' person could also do.

That's fine for hiring people that you know personally, but how do you judge whether or not to hire someone that you have no prior experience with?

That's where credentials come in handy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
it is not mandatory on an official level, it is often 'mandatory' to have your credentials though in order to just be considered for jobs in most positions where their abilities could actually be put to use with or without the stupid paper. So if you dont want to to be poor and jobless and wont work shovelling gak for a living or flipping burgers for arrogant gak talking yuppies, yeah you kind of have to submit to the slowed college requirement, pay them their dues, and get your pass to the cushy pussy jobs..

edit:(sorry I double clicked)

Phryxis wrote:

I didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, I just said that I didn't want to talk about race issues with anyone who hadn't taken at least a college level course on the issue.

No?

Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.

If you say so.

Thanks for proving my point.

Oh, and for your reference, I attended a small liberal arts college that is consistently ranked in the top 20 nationwide. I'd tell you which one, but unlike you, I have at least a vague clue of how to protect my online anonymity.

No, you mean unlike me you hide behind anonymity so that you can attack people in a personal manner without fear of reprisal. You're basically a coward, sniping from shadows. Just like dogma, and most other condescending, disingenuous jerks on the internet. I know how to hide who I am, I just don't, because I'd rather be honest about where I'm coming from than try to pretend I'm someone I'm not.

I mean, you can make all kinds of claims about where you went to school, and who you are. Same as dogma. But none of it means anything. You're nobody. You're a big nothing. Just a bunch of opinions, coming from nowhere, amounting to nothing. Until you're willing to own who you are, then you are no one.

Seriously dude, you aren't as worldly wise as you think you are. Have some humility and start treating people with some respect. Like I said, see if the "conservative thugs" don't suddenly vanish.

And you are not as benevolent and superior as you think you are. You're just a condescending, judgmental jerk who can't make a real argument. A snipe who hides his inability to offer anything cognizant to conversation behind heaps of sarcasm and elitism.

And you project. A lot.

You two need to put yer dicks on the table and just hash it out and speak your minds. I respect and question everything both of you have posted, which is a good thing. If you want to play with big dogs, dont be afraid to bark. No reason to trash each other in public or accuse each other of cowardice. Just speak your mind! that's what we are all here to read. Try to be civil, but feel free to be ornary in the points you make guys... we can all hate each others opinions without hating each other, if that makes sense.

I guess I'm just playing devils advocate about your arguement but it is something to think about. When we converse, we argue, when we argue we get opinionated, etc etc. dude we're all one community of rude, opinionated, nerdy, intelligent bastards. Act like it, not like a 8 year old who is bigger than all the other kids in the line for the slide on the playground.

Guitardian wrote:You two need to put yer dicks on the table and just hash it out and speak your minds. I respect and question everything both of you have posted, which is a good thing. If you want to play with big dogs, dont be afraid to bark. No reason to trash each other in public or accuse each other of cowardice. Just speak your mind! that's what we are all here to read. Try to be civil, but feel free to be ornary in the points you make guys... we can all hate each others opinions without hating each other, if that makes sense.

I guess I'm just playing devils advocate about your arguement but it is something to think about. When we converse, we argue, when we argue we get opinionated, etc etc. dude we're all one community of rude, opinionated, nerdy, intelligent bastards. Act like it, not like a 8 year old who is bigger than all the other kids in the line for the slide on the playground.

Won't that leave dogma feeling left out?

Gailbraithe wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

I didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, I just said that I didn't want to talk about race issues with anyone who hadn't taken at least a college level course on the issue.

No?

Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.

If you say so.

Thanks for proving my point.

You didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, but you did demand credentials. And all I claimed was that you chose to demand credentials.

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, you mean unlike me you hide behind anonymity so that you can attack people in a personal manner without fear of reprisal. You're basically a coward, sniping from shadows. Just like dogma, and most other condescending, disingenuous jerks on the internet. I know how to hide who I am, I just don't, because I'd rather be honest about where I'm coming from than try to pretend I'm someone I'm not.

I mean, you can make all kinds of claims about where you went to school, and who you are. Same as dogma. But none of it means anything. You're nobody. You're a big nothing. Just a bunch of opinions, coming from nowhere, amounting to nothing. Until you're willing to own who you are, then you are no one.

Didn't you call Phyxis a stalker for looking through the links in your signature?

If you're so keen on 'owning' yourself, then that hardly seems like an appropriate response.

Regardless, the origin of opinion has not bearing on the merit of an opinion. A well supported, respectful opinion is well supported and respectful regardless of its origin. You may not realize, but by assuming that identity governs what someone can, and cannot know you are necessarily marking yourself as a credentialist.

Gailbraithe wrote:
And you are not as benevolent and superior as you think you are. You're just a condescending, judgmental jerk who can't make a real argument. A snipe who hides his inability to offer anything cognizant to conversation behind heaps of sarcasm and elitism.

And you project. A lot.

At this point I think its pretty clear that the only one projecting is you. I've never seen someone behave as condescendingly as you do on a consistent basis. You even go so far as to accuse people of lying simply because they don't agree with your perspective on an issue. Its tired, self-important nonsense that has seen every person you've interacted with on this forum come away with a negative perspective of your online persona.

I won't lie, I can come off as being arrogant, but I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong, and I don't assume people are evil, immoral liars because they disagree with me. Just those two things alone seem to have elicited more positive than negative reactions to my posting, and I've been here a lot longer than you have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote: I used majority exactly as the word is used by most people everyday, and you made this smart-alecky, condescending comment about community colleges because according to some really pedantic, nonstandard definition of majority that didn't fit my context you claim I was wrong. Or something. You didn't really claim anything, you were just being a condescending jerk. Like always.

I claimed that you were wrong because polling data didn't support your claim.

But anyway, you don't get to determine what constitutes the standard definition of majority. You can determine what definition of the word majority that you are using a given context, but that's all. I could have given you the benefit of the doubt regarding what the intent of your comment is, but I've not seen much reason to do that. Strange, considering I'm usually willing to do the same for other posters.

Gailbraithe wrote:
A year from now are you still going to be nitpicking and making these cockamamie arguments because I once got frustrated and petulantly demanded that if anyone was going to argue with me on a subject, I wanted them to at least present an informed argument?

No, you wanted them to present credentials. Credentials do not necessarily translate into informed arguments.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Grow the feth up, dogma. You are such a hypocrite.

So my petulant remarks make me a hypocrite, but yours do not?

That's just about the best example of your nominal double standard that I've seen thus far. And, lets be honest, its not simply a matter of that one instance. Our first argument ended with you calling me a disingenuous, racist, liar.

are any of us that post our opinions not arrogant in just that act? Dogma has good wisdom, not just stupid dogma. I assume the name is a work of sarcasm.

Wanna talk about commie-ism? here we have all been around a virtual campfire swapping quips and rebuttals and trying to get insight, which all of us have to offer. It is very sophomoric to trounce another's post because of misunderstandings, or rude language, if the origional idea is to view, as a communistic group where everyone is equal, our own thread as a form of people attacking each other's freedom to speak.

You're basically a coward, sniping from shadows.

Just so you can't say I didn't tell you: you can't hurt my feelings. You can try to think of words you think will upset me, but I can see you trying to play Psych 101 with the imaginary Neocon Thug you think I am, and it just makes me an even bigger fan of your work.

Until you're willing to own who you are, then you are no one.

So now you're an existentialist? Let me guess: you're in the midst of a correspondence course on Sartre?

And you are not as benevolent and superior as you think you are.

I don't think I'm benevolent. I'm telling you how reality works. I'm FULLY congizent that you will ignore me, and I have no real desire to help you. It's just that you're fascinatingly, fantastically broken. It's interesting to try to fix you. I'm sure I'll fail. It's still interesting.

And YES, before you think I didn't know it, that previous paragraph was PHENOMENALLY arrogant. But it's just for you, G-baby. I can picture you reading this, feeling SO victimized by my awfulness, and I can see it feeding your whole worldview. Honestly, in doing you that service, I feel like I'm the good guy here.

And you project. A lot.

Really? How so?

You didn't demand credentials from anyone in particular, but you did demand credentials.

Well, he did demand credentials from anybody daring to challenge his wisdom. That's pretty particular. Well, who knows, maybe it's not, given how many people probably want to challenge his presumed wisdom on a daily basis. Never mind, you're right.

Honestly, this is so totally awesome, and the Mods are gonna shut it down...

Post fast G-baby!

Kragura wrote:Yes in that case I will agree that the German revolution was not a communist one and no I cannot think of another example of a communist revolution in industrial Europe, (unless you count Hungary) however I still hold that the Russian revolution is an example of workers leading a revolution.

Cool. Thing is, though, once you start looking at the Russian revolution you start to notice how little it had to do with Marx' predictions. It was not a mature capitalist society, where the imbalances inherent in capitalism finally forced a revolution. It was still a largely agricultural society in the process of beginning to industrialise. "Peace, Bread, Land" is the rallying cry of a feudal economy in the wake of a war, not a mature capitalist economy moving to the next stage of human society.

What Marx didn't predict was that in mature capitalist economies other factors would come in to adjust for the imbalances inherent in capitalism. As I've mentioned before, unions, minimum wages, worker's rights and all that. I think it is reasonable that Marx would miss those factors, they would have been very hard to predict in the mid-19th C, but I don't think people today have any excuse for missing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:The picture painted here is that Communist countries seek to implrison and enslave everyone in their population. This seems silly. I'm sure there were plenty of compliant hard working 'good' citizens in the U.S.S.R. who may not have been overjoyed by their system, but happy enough to live within it. You can't have a whole country populated by criminals. In the U.S.A. if you are a dissident, the law cracks down on you. You asked for it. The law dictates that you have to pay your taxes. If you don't you are a criminal. Criminals pay the consequences for breaking the law, no matter what the specific law is. Over here I cannot say "I want to kill the president" without getting into trouble. I cannot burn an American flag either. Dissidents are punished by governments who try to keep the population in line, and that has nothing to do with economic practice.

Dude, just no. It would be fair to say that the horrors of life in post-Stalin Russia have been exaggerated. It would be fair to say we are often blind to hardships here.

But it is absolutely ludicrous to make a claim that life in Soviet Russia, at any point, was ever preferable to life in the US or any other liberal democracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:The paris commune. 1870s.
Just out of curiosity.... marx predicted that the revolution would start in industrialized countries like germany and the u.s. infact it happened in very agrarian countries like china and russia. how do you account for that? IMO communism in the 20th century has alot more to do with rebellion against feudalism than it does with rebellion against capitalism; as an international phenomena its more concerned with opposition to western imperialism than it is to the redistribution of goods within a state. north vietnam is a good example of how the 1st concern totally overrode the 2nd. How could Ho Chi Minh get russian support against the west except by embracing communism? If we'd kept our promise early on to help them gain their independence, we never would have had to fight there. AF

Yeah, the Paris communes were mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't think a revolution lasting a month or two were really what Marx had in mind. To matter, it needs to actually form a new government with some semblance of permanancy.

The second point you make is the one I've been arguing as well, that Marx' theories predicted communism would rise out of mature capitalist economies as the imbalances inherent in capitalism became greater and greater. That this hasn't happened, and that the only communist revolutions we've seen have been in largely feudal, agrarian societies is a big cross against Marx' theories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:Who pays for these unpaid loans? See we have our social policies here too, regardless of whether it's a totaltarian fascist government or a capitalist democracy we still pay taxes. We just disguise our slavery with democracy, and the fact that dumbass-johnny the lawn-mowing guy or Joe-the-plumber can go get an edumacation he will never understand or use, so he can get a piece of paper in order to plug back into the system and work.

There's an interesting conversation to be had challenging the idea that higher and higher levels of education are necessary for everyone. I really don't see how that conversation relates in any way to some grand notion that we're all oppressed or whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:If I'm going to pay someone to fix my sink, or re-wire my house, then I want to know what qualifies them to do the job. Now, I'll agree that an illiterate plumber is not necessarily a BAD plumber - but I think that a general level of literacy and numeracy is desirable amongst the young people of a given country. Certainly desirable enough to make it mandatory for under-16s.

What else are they going to do? They can't legally get a job.

But you don't hire a 16 year old plumber. You hire a credentialed plumber, and he brings with him his 16 year old apprentice. That apprentice can learn on the job, and then go on to gain his own plumbing licence. If he doesn't care about the symoblism in Lord of the Flies, I don't see how it benefits anyone to have him sit in class for the last two years of school before going out to get a job.

dogma wrote:Didn't you call Phyxis a stalker for looking through the links in your signature?

If you're so keen on 'owning' yourself, then that hardly seems like an appropriate response.

Don't be ridiculous. Just because I don't hide my identity doesn't mean I am granting people blanket permission to look into my life for ways to hurt me. I make that information available because I trust people to use it responsibly. You and Phyxis both sought after that information with ill intent, and that's stalking. Worse, and I think a real sign of your character, you used that information to make ridiculous and baseless attacks (hint: I had nothing to do with the design of my employer's website) in private while affecting a polite and reasoned facade in public. And then you had the nerve to pick a fight with me and report me to the moderator when I took you up on it. It is behavior I can only describe as "weaselly."

I won't lie, I can come off as being arrogant, but I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong, and I don't assume people are evil, immoral liars because they disagree with me. Just those two things alone seem to have elicited more positive than negative reactions to my posting, and I've been here a lot longer than you have.

Yeah, and all the mods tell me they hate you. So nyah.

Gailbraithe wrote: I used majority exactly as the word is used by most people everyday, and you made this smart-alecky, condescending comment about community colleges because according to some really pedantic, nonstandard definition of majority that didn't fit my context you claim I was wrong. Or something. You didn't really claim anything, you were just being a condescending jerk. Like always.

I claimed that you were wrong because polling data didn't support your claim.

Actually, it does. Because -- duh -- 40% is not the majority of Americans. 40% if a minority of Americans.

See, I've had some time to think about it, and I was wrong to cede any kind of point to you. I granted that you might have some very niggling, pedantic point, but you really didn't. You're just wrong. Because 40% is never the greater part of 100%, and while 40% is greater than 35% or 20%, being the greatest part in a collection of parts is not the same thing as being the greatest part of a thing. In fact there is a word for being the largest of a group of minority parts: a plurality. Amazing what you remember a day or so after an argument. Which, again, is why Bill Clinton, who got a plurality of votes, won the '92 election despite lacking a majority. And so conservatives -- at 40% of the total population -- have a plurality, but not a majority.

But anyway, you don't get to determine what constitutes the standard definition of majority. You can determine what definition of the word majority that you are using a given context, but that's all. I could have given you the benefit of the doubt regarding what the intent of your comment is, but I've not seen much reason to do that. Strange, considering I'm usually willing to do the same for other posters.

The dictionary is the generally agreed upon authority on the used definitions of words, and the first definition given is the standard definition used most commonly. We can check a multitude of dictionaries, and you will see that all of them given "more than half" as the standard definition of majority. Even the dictionary you cited gave "more than half" as the standard definition.

Gailbraithe wrote:A year from now are you still going to be nitpicking and making these cockamamie arguments because I once got frustrated and petulantly demanded that if anyone was going to argue with me on a subject, I wanted them to at least present an informed argument?

No, you wanted them to present credentials. Credentials do not necessarily translate into informed arguments.

Way to completely dodge the question there.

You're right dogma, credentials do not necessarily translate into informed arguments. But having credentials indicates that some attempt was made at educating one's self, and it is reasonable to assume that those with credentials are more likely to provide informed arguments than those without.

Now you want to actually answer the question, or should I just expect the same disingenuous shifting of topic and changing the subject that is typical of Mustela forumus.

So my petulant remarks make me a hypocrite, but yours do not?

I'm not the one using someone else's petulant remarks to justify my own. You've claimed you are justified in being a dick to me because I am a dick to others, but you have no authority. You're not a moderator here. You don't actually have any power to persecute me for my bad behavior. You're just a vigilante, which is Italian for " hypocritical criminal."*

I don't actually have a problem with you being a dick to me. I have a problem with the mod's letting you be a dick to me and then preventing me from kicking you in your e-balls like you deserve, and I have a problem with you pretending you have a right to be a dick to me, but the sole reason I want you to stop being a dick to me is because I'm tired of getting banned when I respond in kind.

That's just about the best example of your nominal double standard that I've seen thus far. And, lets be honest, its not simply a matter of that one instance. Our first argument ended with you calling me a disingenuous, racist, liar.

I stand by that claim. You're an apologist in favor of a white supremacist position, you give tacit endorsement to white supremacy through your arguments, you make deliberately erroneous claims to support your arguments, and you frequently use weasel arguments -- like changing the subject, shifting goalpost, refuge in absurdity, etc. The only reason I have stopped calling you those things is because the moderators said it's not polite.

And so allow me to apologize for any rudeness in this comment. My intention is only to honestly and accurately say what I think and what I perceive the situation to be. If my perception offends, that is not the intent. However I think the bluntness with which you have chosen to address me invites a blunt reply.

*PS: I know that's not what vigilante actually means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:Just so you can't say I didn't tell you: you can't hurt my feelings. You can try to think of words you think will upset me, but I can see you trying to play Psych 101 with the imaginary Neocon Thug you think I am, and it just makes me an even bigger fan of your work.

I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm assassinating your character in public to influence other people's perception of you.

But clearly I've hurt your feelings. I'm sorry.

So now you're an existentialist? Let me guess: you're in the midst of a correspondence course on Sartre?

I read Sarte when I was 15.

I don't think I'm benevolent. I'm telling you how reality works. I'm FULLY congizent that you will ignore me, and I have no real desire to help you. It's just that you're fascinatingly, fantastically broken. It's interesting to try to fix you. I'm sure I'll fail. It's still interesting.

And YES, before you think I didn't know it, that previous paragraph was PHENOMENALLY arrogant. But it's just for you, G-baby. I can picture you reading this, feeling SO victimized by my awfulness, and I can see it feeding your whole worldview. Honestly, in doing you that service, I feel like I'm the good guy here.

No, I just think its funny how completely delusional, self-important and ridiculous you're being, and I'm hoping everyone else can see what a dork you clearly are.

And you project. A lot.

Really? How so?

Well, for one, I'm not a particularly arrogant person. But you clearly are, and you project your arrogance on me.

I stand by that claim. You're an apologist in favor of a white supremacist position, you give tacit endorsement to white supremacy through your arguments, you make deliberately erroneous claims to support your arguments, and you frequently use weasel arguments -- like changing the subject, shifting goalpost, refuge in absurdity, etc. The only reason I have stopped calling you those things is because the moderators said it's not polite.

It isn't polite, nor is it based on reason. I would elaborate... yeah, probably shouldn't.

This is a strange dip in the intent of this thread and my reaction is Lolwut.

You see? I put on some Rage Against The Machine to celebrate G-baby and he rewards me with a moutainous CRAZY CAKE! Thank you Zack and thank you G!

You and Phyxis both sought after that information with ill intent

What ill intentions were those, G-bizzle? What malevolent plan do you think I have in store for you? Did I not send you a "threatening" PM in which I specifically told you "I'm not going to come and get you" ? Indeed, did I not say that "Nobody is going to come and get you" ?

I did. I now regret sending you that, because I feel like it probably is slightly undermining your fantasy world, and that makes me less of a nurturing provider of loon fodder than I have it in me to be.

But, seriously, I'm not going to come get you. I'm sorry if that kills your wood, but I'm just not. Sorry.

I had nothing to do with the design of my employer's website

Are you gonna tell me that you didn't paint the stuff on your site either? Because then I won't know what to believe anymore.

It is behavior I can only describe as "weaselly."

That, sir, is a LIE. You, sirrah, are a lieur, sieur. To suggeste that you are constrainede in this manneur is an outrighte falsehoode of the most base and viele sorte, sieur. I have verilee witnessed you, with mine owne eyes, also reffere to my personne as "cowardeley." A LIEUR SIR! THOU ART! AND I MIGHT VENTURE TO SAY, THOU ART NOTHINGE MORE THAN SUCHE!

Zack De La Rocha agrees, he says: "No more lies." Take the Power Back, G-baby.

I'm assassinating your character in public to influence other people's perception of you.

First off, this is a PERFECT place for flowery metaphor, and you TOTALLY didn't do it. Assassination? Dude, USE IT.

Also, dude, seriously, nobody here likes you. Nobody. You can't influence their perception of me. I probably am making them think I'm an idiot by responding to you in such a juvenile fashion, but that's really me assassinating my own character.

But I'm ok with that. I want you to know that for you, for the health and wellbeing of your fantasy world, I'm ok with it.

Well, for one, I'm not a particularly arrogant person. But you clearly are, and you project your arrogance on me.

Dude, you're an ARTIST of arrogance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty arrogant, but you do it with such a relentless vigor... It's captivating.

You've crafted this crazy fantasy world, and you're just FURIOUS and totally DISAPPOINTED with anybody who isn't sharing it with you 24/7. UGH! Why won't people stop WASTING YOUR TIME with their delusional refusal to recognize that the Republicans REALLY ARE NAZIS? UGH!

It just makes me want to ball up my fists and literally SPRAY boohoo out my crycry.

Yeah, somebody get a dropcloth, it's on...

Phryxis wrote:What ill intentions were those, G-bizzle

To find things about which to make personal attacks. Specifically, these personal attacks, from a PM you sent me:

Phryxis wrote:1) Why are you so awesome?

2) Are you actually Keith Olbermann? If not, how much do you love him? Wouldn't life be cool if you just had him playing on loop into an earbud all the time, even when you were sleeping or bathing?

3) Do you suffer from Asperger's syndrome?

4) What's the deal with the Art Institute of Seattle that they couldn't teach you better design sense than this: [employer's website address removed]?

5) Why do you run a comission painting service when your skill level is a 5 on CMON at best? You consider simple color blocking to be "high quality?" If that's "high quality" than what does that make this: http://coolminiornot.com/257412 ?

6) You should probably shave, and get smaller glasses.

7) Was that last thing even a question?

Classy stuff. And so very original and witty.

Dude, you're an ARTIST of arrogance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty arrogant, but you do it with such a relentless vigor... It's captivating.

You've crafted this crazy fantasy world, and you're just FURIOUS and totally DISAPPOINTED with anybody who isn't sharing it with you 24/7. UGH! Why won't people stop WASTING YOUR TIME with their delusional refusal to recognize that the Republicans REALLY ARE NAZIS? UGH!

That would make me, at worst, delusional.

It seems obvious to me (and many others) that the Republicans are fascists. I am bewildered that other people don't see it, and I am frustrated by my inability to get (some) people to see it. But that doesn't make me arrogant. I do not believe that I am the only person who has noted this, nor do I think I have noted this because I am especially brilliant, well-educated, or insightful. In fact, I am bewildered that more people don't see it precisely because I don't think I am significantly smarter or more observant than the average person.

However, you are clearly quite arrogant. Who else would send someone a PM like this:

Phryxis wrote:Honestly, you've already made a fool of yourself, and everyone in this forum thinks you're an idiot. I'm getting PMs asking me "what's with this guy, is he crazy?" That's why I took it offline. Anything I say against you in the forums, I'll have everyone in there getting may back, ganging up on you. I don't want that, and I don't need it. I want you to understand that I'm telling you what's up for YOUR benefit. Just between you and me. Not for onlookers who might think I'm "cool" for beating up on the crazy kid.

Amazing.

Did the rest of you know that if Phryxis attacks someone on the forums, the rest of you will simply follow along like lemmings? Because you'll all be so impressed with how "cool" he is. But Phryxis is a noble dude, he doesn't want to take advantage of your sheep-like tendencies.

Guess I'll try to slip in here before this gets locked due to OT bickering. Communism, while in THEORY desirable, will never work with human society. Someone needs to be the one signing checks and driving the Ferrari, and someone needs to be asking if you want fries with that. It's how our society functions, the poor actually fill an important role, as seen in fight club (can't find a forum-appropriate clip )

EDIT: removed clip, inappropriate

Gailbraithe wrote:
Don't be ridiculous. Just because I don't hide my identity doesn't mean I am granting people blanket permission to look into my life for ways to hurt me. I make that information available because I trust people to use it responsibly.

By making information publicly available you are granting permission to fair use. That's really all that matters here, as no one has done anything that jeopardizes your safety, or in any way injured you. Not any more than occurs in the course of normal conversation.

Gailbraithe wrote:
You and Phyxis both sought after that information with ill intent, and that's stalking.

I never went looking for anything. All the information that I've used to criticize you was posted by you, or by someone else. The community college bit came when you asked for credentials, the art school bit is something that Phyxis posted.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Worse, and I think a real sign of your character, you used that information to make ridiculous and baseless attacks (hint: I had nothing to do with the design of my employer's website) in private while affecting a polite and reasoned facade in public. And then you had the nerve to pick a fight with me and report me to the moderator when I took you up on it. It is behavior I can only describe as "weaselly."

I didn't pick a fight with you.. I made an attempt to carry on a conversation about a tangent from another thread. I presented myself civilly, and you told me to stab myself in the head..

Gailbraithe wrote:
Actually, it does. Because -- duh -- 40% is not the majority of Americans. 40% if a minority of Americans.

See, I've had some time to think about it, and I was wrong to cede any kind of point to you. I granted that you might have some very niggling, pedantic point, but you really didn't. You're just wrong. Because 40% is never the greater part of 100%, and while 40% is greater than 35% or 20%, being the greatest part in a collection of parts is not the same thing as being the greatest part of a thing.

No, it actually is. To be the greatest part of a thing implies that there is more than one part of that thing. If there are only two parts, then the greatest part of the thing must be more than 51% of that thing (also called an absolute majority). If there are 3 or more parts, then the greatest part of the thing can be any share of thing insofar as its larger than either one of the other two parts.

Gailbraithe wrote:
In fact there is a word for being the largest of a group of minority parts: a plurality. Amazing what you remember a day or so after an argument. Which, again, is why Bill Clinton, who got a plurality of votes, won the '92 election despite lacking a majority. And so conservatives -- at 40% of the total population -- have a plurality, but not a majority.

Plurality and majority are often regarded as synonymous. I could have given you the benefit of the doubt, as I have already said, but I chose not to.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The dictionary is the generally agreed upon authority on the used definitions of words, and the first definition given is the standard definition used most commonly.

That depends on the dictionary. Some list words in order of commonality of use, others list them by historical order, and still others list definitions in order of minimalism.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Now you want to actually answer the question, or should I just expect the same disingenuous shifting of topic and changing the subject that is typical of Mustela forumus.

Why should I answer a question that requires me to refer to my arguments as cockamamie?

Here's the thing, I've tried to argue with you on a reasonable level, and every time you have called me a liar for my efforts. If you can keep yourself from going that route, then I will happily engage with you in a more serious manner. If not, then expect me to keep pointing out when you're making invalid assumptions.

Gailbraithe wrote:
You've claimed you are justified in being a dick to me because I am a dick to others, but you have no authority. You're not a moderator here. You don't actually have any power to persecute me for my bad behavior. You're just a vigilante, which is Italian for " hypocritical criminal."*

I haven't claimed that my behavior is justified. I explained why I react this way to you.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I stand by that claim. You're an apologist in favor of a white supremacist position, you give tacit endorsement to white supremacy through your arguments, you make deliberately erroneous claims to support your arguments, and you frequently use weasel arguments -- like changing the subject, shifting goalpost, refuge in absurdity, etc. The only reason I have stopped calling you those things is because the moderators said it's not polite.

Here's the thing, I don't care what you call me insofar as you present a case for doing so. You have never, ever, made a case which supported your allegations that I'm presenting disingenuous arguments. You've presented once claim, and I've presented a different take on that claim, and then you said that I was lying. When people don't agree with you regarding what is, or is not, relevant information it does not follow that they are lying.

As for the white supremacy: you made an argument to support your claim which I felt was based on inaccurate information. I never claimed that you were lying, I think that you really believe what you say, but when I mounted a defense of myself by presenting a different version of the history of the word 'racism' you again called me a liar. All this was, of course, predicated on the idea that because one given body of people use an argument anyone else who uses a similar argument must support all things claimed by those people.

Gailbraithe wrote:Did the rest of you know that if Phryxis attacks someone on the forums, the rest of you will simply follow along like lemmings? Because you'll all be so impressed with how "cool" he is. But Phryxis is a noble dude, he doesn't want to take advantage of your sheep-like tendencies.

Dude, Phryxis and I argue about a lot of stuff on this site. Like, a lot. Despite this, we haven't ever gotten in a flamewar with him (that I can remember...) because I think we both put the effort in to make our arguments reasonable.

Thing is, I actually agree with a number of your points in general. I think the Republicans have really lost their way in the last couple of decades. But I wouldn't call them fascist because that word actually means something, and what is wrong with the Republicans has nothing to do with that word. It just makes you sound silly.

And that's really the problem here, you sound off whatever comes into your head, whatever you think helps in the next line in the argument, without ever stopping to think if what you're saying is reasonable. The claim above is the classic example, this site really isn't noted for having any real leaders, that others sheepishly follow. To the extent that might even be happening, we sure aren't following Phryxis (sorry Phryxis... ). But you make the claim, because it's first thing that comes in to your head to counter Phyrxis' point.

Just... don't do that. It keeps leading you to make ludicrous claims. Debate isn't just denying what the other guy claimed, it's forming a reasonable argument of your own.

Guitardian wrote:what if he really knew what he was doing? (the 15 year old hypothetical plumber I mean)

my guess is that Phyrexis went to Evergreen or Reed or maybe Berkley... but like he said, anonymity. Just a hunch.

I recruit people for my department.

Every year I have 20-30 CVs presented, and I only want to interview about eight people, so I want to eliminate at least half the CVs. An easy way to do so is to reject anyone who can't write a proper letter, and/or doesn't follow the instruction to include a portfolio.

These guys could be a whizz at the practicalities of the job, but I'll never know.

BTW you can burn a US national flag in the USA. It is protected free speech.

sebster wrote:Dude, Phryxis and I argue about a lot of stuff on this site. Like, a lot. Despite this, we haven't ever gotten in a flamewar with him (that I can remember...) because I think we both put the effort in to make our arguments reasonable.

Thing is, I actually agree with a number of your points in general. I think the Republicans have really lost their way in the last couple of decades. But I wouldn't call them fascist because that word actually means something, and what is wrong with the Republicans has nothing to do with that word. It just makes you sound silly.

I think my arguments (qua the conservative movement as a nascent fascist movement) are actually very reasonable, if one is willing to hear me out. But most people aren't willing to hear me out (due in large part to social conditioning to discount any claims that anyone is a fascist, an inadvertent side effect of a joke Mike Godwin once made), and right-wingers in particular go on the warpath (incidentaly this is exactly what my theory about movement conservatives predicts) when I make the claim.

Honestly, I think a lot of people know its true but simply don't want to believe it, because if it's true it raises the question "Yeah, but what do we do about it?" and that way leads to a real bind. But I really do believe, especially for Americans, this issue has become the "elephant in the room" that everyone is desperately trying to avoid acknowledging. Pursuing a policy of appeasement, as it were.

I will grant that there is a possibility that I am being alarmist, but I really don't believe I'm being unreasonable. Only impolitic. And having people like Phryxis and his ilk become obsessed with silencing and discrediting me by any means necessary (except the one acceptable means: reasoned argument) does not do anything to convince me I'm wrong, conversely it only convinces me that I am, in fact, on to something.

Gailbraithe wrote:Did the rest of you know that if Phryxis attacks someone on the forums, the rest of you will simply follow along like lemmings? Because you'll all be so impressed with how "cool" he is. But Phryxis is a noble dude, he doesn't want to take advantage of your sheep-like tendencies.

And that's really the problem here, you sound off whatever comes into your head, whatever you think helps in the next line in the argument, without ever stopping to think if what you're saying is reasonable. The claim above is the classic example, this site really isn't noted for having any real leaders, that others sheepishly follow. To the extent that might even be happening, we sure aren't following Phryxis (sorry Phryxis... ). But you make the claim, because it's first thing that comes in to your head to counter Phyrxis' point.

Obviously this site doesn't have any real leaders, no gaming/geek forum of any size does. There may be cliques, but there will always be way too many iconoclasts and dedicated individualists on a board like this for one user to have the sort of power Phryxis claims. And that's the point: Phyrxis claims to have that kind of power. I was being facetious and mocking Phryxis's self-importance, knowing that if I told y'all that you would follow Phyrxis lead it wouldn't be long before y'all started debunking that little notion.

Gailbraithe wrote:Honestly, I think a lot of people know its true but simply don't want to believe it, because if it's true it raises the question "Yeah, but what do we do about it?" and that way leads to a real bind. But I really do believe, especially for Americans, this issue has become the "elephant in the room" that everyone is desperately trying to avoid acknowledging. Pursuing a policy of appeasement, as it were.

Let's be entirely clear here. You have suggested a great deal of things. It seems a bit worthless to target specific arguments on your part, as you have made your intentions clear to most everyone.

I stand by that claim. You're an apologist in favor of a white supremacist position, you give tacit endorsement to white supremacy through your arguments, you make deliberately erroneous claims to support your arguments, and you frequently use weasel arguments -- like changing the subject, shifting goalpost, refuge in absurdity, etc. The only reason I have stopped calling you those things is because the moderators said it's not polite.

This is bloody nonsense. You can call my opinion of your position whatever the hell you like, but that is capital P, preposterous. It's absurd. I can throw out many more suggestions.

I will grant that there is a possibility that I am being alarmist, but I really don't believe I'm being unreasonable. Only impolitic. And having people like Phryxis and his ilk become obsessed with silencing and discrediting me by any means necessary (except the one acceptable means: reasoned argument) does not do anything to convince me I'm wrong, conversely it only convinces me that I am, in fact, on to something.

While I agree that you have faced the hammer more than once, from many perspectives, it doesn't strike me as a particularly mystical result to your actions.

Phryxis and his ilk. That just about sums what you are attempting to convey. You're wrong on that point and choose not to take much else into consideration, as you are clearly with intention. This is one of the strangest conversations I have read in the OT, I mean fething honestly, what in holy hell is this? What brought such wrath upon us?

In a thread about communism, that has to mean something important.

Obviously this site doesn't have any real leaders, no gaming/geek forum of any size does. There may be cliques, but there will always be way too many iconoclasts and dedicated individualists on a board like this for one user to have the sort of power Phryxis claims. And that's the point: Phyrxis claims to have that kind of power. I was being facetious and mocking Phryxis's self-importance, knowing that if I told y'all that you would follow Phyrxis lead it wouldn't be long before y'all started debunking that little notion.

It is obvious, isn't it.

Phryxis does not claim to have much of anything, as far as I am concerned. He has made a few statements that could be considered untrue, but for the most part I happen to agree with what he says. This conversation was taken off track, a mile underground and you appear to be a very significant contributor to that fact.

I don't hate you mate. You're at least mildly amusing and in most cases well written. You come across (so far as the internet would allow) as attention hoarding and mildly egocentric. Through what limited lens I can offer, this is ridiculous and you are a very noticeable factor in all of it. I wish you well on these forums and hope that you can work at least some understanding out with those that are involved in the dispute.

I am frustrated by my inability to get (some) people to see it.

Have you considered insulting them at length when they fail to do so?

Did the rest of you know that if Phryxis attacks someone on the forums, the rest of you will simply follow along like lemmings?

Ugh, dude WHY are you doing this to yourself?

They don't follow me because I'm awesome, they gang up on you because you do things EXACTLY LIKE THIS.

I told you, I took it to PM to AVOID embarassing you. I guess you think I was lying? Now you're posting in here for everyone to see that I tried to talk sense to you, and in response you told me you hoped I would get testicular cancer and die.

Which is actually the exact same thing you told dogma.

Why are you doing this to yourself? And what, exactly, do you have against testiculars?

I think my arguments (qua the conservative movement as a nascent fascist movement) are actually very reasonable, if one is willing to hear me out.

Obviously you think that.

Let me assure you, THEY'RE NOT. And even if they were, they're presented with such haze of obvious lunacy that they immediately become unreasonable on that basis alone.

You don't seem to be able to grasp a basic concept... why are all these people siding against you? I'm OBVIOUSLY a douchebag, and they're still taking my side against you. Why would they do that?

I'll tell you why: you're intolerable.

Now FIX IT, or accept the consequences, but please stop whining about it.

I was being facetious and mocking Phryxis's self-importance, knowing that if I told y'all that you would follow Phyrxis lead it wouldn't be long before y'all started debunking that little notion.

Oh, god, dude, STOP.

PLEASE, PLEASE STOP.

Do you even read the thread? You post a PM I sent you, suggesting that people will side with me over you, expecting it to make everyone side with you. What happens? Immediately sebster sides with me, or more accurately against you, because you're intolerable.

What is your response? You pat yourself on the back your brilliant plan to turn everyone against me. And then Wrex sides against you. When will it end, dude?

They're not going to turn against me, G-biz. They don't give a crap about me. They just find you intolerable.

Well, except for Shuma. He loves me.