Matthew, BigKaboom2 and friends:An NLSC Love Story

[Andreas Dahl]

Uhm...thanks for letting us know? We were just dying to know. Really.

There was something wrong with posting ones thoughts? Or does one need to be asked first?
Then what comes first? The chicken or the egg? (Chicken)

Another example of a "useful" post right there.

Same thing could be said about that post (as well as trolling, spaming and backseat moderating.)

[BIG GREEN]

I was wondering when someone was going to notice that.

Talk about digging your own grave...lol.

[benji]

While waiting for a package (take that and run with it as you see fit) I did some a couple seconds of slight pondering on this, and considered that I did not do as I should and merely explained.

Implicit in every post is an opinion or argument. No post is made without some underlying argument.

This is quite tiresome, and to the point where I'm making such obvious statements as the above in hopes of understanding. But yet, at the same time, it is amazingly fascinating as Matthew slowly devolves into such incoherent and intellectually dishonest positions.

Matthew says he doesn’t like people who don't post opinions, and has said before that I don't. But since every post, and especially every post of mine contains an argument, or in his vernacular, an opinion, the statement of dislike is meaningless. Matthew also says he dislikes those who "criticize other people’s opinions" which is merely a dysphemistic way of saying "disagree." I'm afraid I have to disagree or "criticize his opinion" on the matter of this being illegitimate. Indeed, it is the catalyst for discussion. If everyone agrees, discussion does not exist, it is merely, to use crude but exacting language, a "circle jerk" then.

I hardly take it personally or go insane if someone says I'm wrong. I just don't automatically accept that they're right, and ask for them to explain why they're right or why I'm wrong. I don't understand how it became wrong to request (again, Matthew applies what he's decided is my intent and declared it "demand" when indeed it is no skin off my back if they refuse) someone to actually support their argument that runs counter to yours or explain to you why it is superior. This seems the antithesis of arrogant to me, a pursuit of understanding. What seems far more arrogant to me is to expect someone to merely accept your argument, because, well, you said it. The demands I see, are those who wish one to say believe player X is Y because that's what they believe and "anyone who actually understands basketball would see this" or something similar.

I'm thinking, I suppose, of two ongoing examples, my discussion in Pistons/Melo with Laxation, and Obama/McCain with el_badman. In both cases we have disagreed (or "CRITICIZED OTHERS OPINIONS") but instead of just leaving it at that, we have explained ourselves. I think, and hope, that el_badman understands my position much better now and no longer considers it "I'll deny anything that says there were problems in 2000!" In the Pistons case, me and Laxation have explained and outlined our positions, and provided support for our arguments, and have moved onto further aspects of analysis and discussion.

"Ego driven." What does this mean? "You do things to make yourself feel better" perhaps? So, what's wrong with that? Are you supposed to do things to make yourself feel worse (and be a sadomasochist like shadowgrin) or just do things randomly? Yes, I post on the NLSC to "make myself feel better" I suppose, as I enjoy discussing the NBA, and a few other topics that pop up on here. Especially with people I am somewhat familiar with. Since I enjoy it, I would obviously derive pleasure, and pleasure makes one feel better. This is again assuming no malicious intent, since I'm not allowed to examine context of statements.

It has been said it is "hypocritical" to disagree with opinions while posting your own. I suppose some would consider me open to a charge of "hypocriticism" regarding my desire for Matthew to stop posting about me, and start posting about the ideas/concepts at hand. But this is not hypocritical, merely a failure to meet a standard. I often set lofty standards, and endlessly fail to meet them. If Kevin Garnett says "I want to win the NBA Finals" and does not, he is not hypocritical. Hypocritical would be to advocate two opposite viewpoints. For example, advocating that people should post opinions ("not post opinions") while also advocating that people should not post opinions ("criticize other people’s opinions"). One could quibble I suppose that that's actually advocating people should post opinions, while actually advocating that people should not post opinions that disagree.

The reason I have pursued this is because I feel I must be missing some obvious point. That Matthew is not continuing this merely to fail at insulting mocking me. That he actually has some higher ideal of perfect discussion in mind when he trolls and attacks people instead of their arguments. But as the incoherence builds, I can only wonder. It is not alright to "not post opinions" but he states he posts things that have no underlying opinion ("Wow", Glenn Robinson/Isaiah Rider comment, or "But by all means, keep editing your posts" for example.) Says to post opinions but not ones that disagree (or "criticize other people’s opinions.") Doesn't want anyone to take it personally if they're told their wrong, but throws a fit if someone "assumes", trolls people who said he was wrong and thinks it's a valid form of argument to insult (or "accurately point out character flaws") them.

But the longer it goes, the more incoherent it becomes and the more dishonest it seems. I guess he was right when he said there's no point to his posts. Therefore I shall accede to the strong wishes of others and forego this unless someone makes an honest response. (Or says something about me wanting a big package.)

[Jackal]

There was something wrong with posting ones thoughts? Or does one need to be asked first?

I could ask the same in regard to my post. I was posting my thoughts, even thanking him for sharing his. So...what's your point?

Same thing could be said about that post (as well as trolling, spaming and backseat moderating.)

A bit of an ignorant one, no? Perhaps you were too busy cleaning up errors in the PHPBB of the forum...errors you created to begin with. The "useful" post bit is a dig at "Thug's" response to a not so useful post of mine, I was merely pointing out that if you're going to take a dig at my posts about "usefulness"...make sure your posts are "useful" in the first place.

Trolling? I've been posting in this thread from the get go, a random "oh I ignore other people but I'm not saying much in regard to the topic [at hand]" is seen as useful? Thanks. Now I know. Spamming? "Posting one's thoughts are considered spamming? Or does one need to be asked first?"

Backseat moderating? Do you even comprehend the term or did it just seem cool to throw that one in? Did I tell him not to post? Did I say his post was not useful? (Directly?) Did I warn him about it? Go back to fixing bugs Andreas.

I was wondering when someone was going to notice that.

Talk about digging your own grave...lol.

You were waiting for something online? Omfg lol wtf!oen!11one!! you don't have a real life, I don't respect you so I'll ignore you wtf lol I got a wife and now I'll go hump!!!!one!!1

[el badman]

I think, and hope, that el_badman understands my position much better now and no longer considers it "I'll deny anything that says there were problems in 2000!"

I do understand your position, I tend to go overboard sometimes because I just happen to disagree with you most of the time, based on the information that I review, as well as my convictions. But I'll be the first one to admit that you never actually close the discussion, and you do explain thoroughly why you're saying what you're saying, which is very much appreciated.

[Andreas Dahl]

Uhm...thanks for letting us know? We were just dying to know. Really.

Another example of a "useful" post right there.

There was something wrong with posting ones thoughts? Or does one need to be asked first?

I could ask the same in regard to my post. I was posting my thoughts, even thanking him for sharing his. So...what's your point?

From what it looked like to me, it was just a sarcastic reply which insinuated that he was spaming.
But if you were indeed simply thanking Yohance for his opinion (which I doubt), then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

What I meant by trolling and spaming is that you seem to have something out for Yohance and has made several personal snipes at him, out of the blue.
And when someone takes it upon him/herself to criticize someone else's posts and (indirectly) call it spaming several times. I think it could be considered backseat moderating (and spaming and trolling?). But as you mentioned, my understanding of the phrase might differ.

In PM's is where I will continue discussing if you want to.
(Also, feel free to include what forum bugs you're referring to)

[Matthew]

I've tried to avoid these useless and boring posts. Ben, nobody asked you specifically why you post here at NLSC. I avoided this thread to avoid this kind of pathetic "oh Ben's such a bad person" "no he's not, matthew is a bastard" kind of thing.

But I do have to respond to what you've said because most people won't have read the previous posts in this thread let alone elsewhere (eg Nick) so I have to clear some things up.

A good thing thie only thing I am from that list is an idiot. Primarily for keeping you fed. (I'm just afraid the poor boy is going to waste away.)

What? See you call me juvenile but all you can do is contradict yourself. Yes, Ben, you sure do keep me fed.

Unbelievable.

Sorry, my apologies. I like explanations instead of just declarations. When I'm wrong, I like to know why I'm wrong or what's right. (I know it's strange.) Something you don't seem interested in letting much anyone know. I see now it's because you "don't respect [me or them]" and refuse to discuss with those who you don't. I suppose that also requires you to follow them around posting after almost every single one of theirs, for periods, with a witty repose in a manner that would get a man of lesser stature quite gone. Just another of the great "opinions and discussion" you bring to the table, benefiting us all.

I don't care what you like, and I probably never will. As I've said before, people don't post here to make you happy. You are not in a position to demand anything off anyone. That's why I have no respect for you and refuse to elaborate for you.

Look at the Carmelo thread for example. All I said was "wow" and look at your response to it. Oh wait, you probably won't even acknowledge anything to be wrong with it. So, despite me being the childish one (as you and BigKaboom have come to the conclusion of, thus must be true) you won't even recognise something unless its pointed out to you, so here it is:

"Abstract: Wow.

So with "wow", you were not implying something similar to what Oskar said? (Especially with the declarations re: Glenn Robinson, implying that by comparing Anthony to Robinson, along with the preference for J.R. Smith, I was making a claim of neither being a good player...something Oskar took the preference of one player over another to mean.) Was it more of an agreeing "wow, benji is all wise what with his realization it would be easier to get J.R. Smith without gutting the Pistons' backcourt"? What was the purpose of your "wow" statement then? Was it not an implied criticism of my statement without any substance or actual stated argument?

And I removed your statement from the context you were using? You were not comparing a statement of prefering Isaiah Rider over Glenn Robinson to my removed from context statement of prefering J.R. Smith over Carmelo Anthony? While also drawing comparisons between Glenn Robinson and Carmelo Anthony, implying an inherent comparison between Isaiah Rider and J.R. Smith, while blatantly implying I would for whatever reason also prefer Isaiah Rider? For your statement to have any apparent value, would it not require a similarity between Rider and Smith, which I was addressing in my claim of their great differences?

My questioning of why that would be guessed was ignored, likely and hopefully because I addressed it by answering it myself in the negative.

But I guess you'd rather imply that your posts have no inherent argument and are just meaningless and exacting statements with no underlying reason for existance..."

That was a response to me saying "wow" to a comment you made. If you don't think that's over the top and compulsive you're even more delusional then I first thought.

Right, sure. There was absolutely no reason you pointed this out (this time and often before)? You just felt like we might not notice it. Kinda like McDwayne thought we wouldn't notice all that valuable information he came across on the internet right? It should just be seen to expand our minds, not to actually mean anything

There was a reason. And just because you assumed doesn't mean I have to clarify.

No, you don't. But you seem so deeply concerned about me and my mental well being. Even making more clinical diagnoses. Since I didn't demand anything of you (or anyone for that matter), instead simply asked what the meanings of your statements were. I had hoped you'd take pity on this crushed and broken soul to show me the path of enlightenment.

You can twist it and put any spin you like on it. It doesn't matter to me. And once again, if I'm sarcistic, I'm "juvenile" but yet here you are being a smart arse too. Contradiction? Of course not, because you've developed an a character of being superior to everyone else. Some people may love you for it, like BigKaboom, but some people will hate you for it because it's a superiority issue.

The thing is, and you have to come to terms with this, is everyone has an opinion on things. Alot of people like to keep their opinion to themselves. Just because you like to rant and rave and pretend to sound intelleigent does not make you smarter then them. And just because someone does not like to talk about how they got their opinions does not make them inferior. We don't know if it's a random thought or theres a science to how they came to that conclusion. You can't assume, then, just because there is no explanation to those thoughts simply because you can't see it.

Deal with it.

I can see now that the help is not forthcoming. Crushing and breaking me ever more. I am cast out into the streets of the NLSC babbling to myself as the insanity engulfs me. For there is no pennance in this church, once sinned, they cannot be washed away. There is no reform available for the disrespected. I can only hope that a man from the future misses his straw cart and ends this madness-filled existance.

See what I mean? You call it insanity just because it's different to the way you are. That's something you'll have to come to terms with.

However. Endlessly whining about how the first person does the above as well as following them about, that is not "taking things personally" and "going insane."

I'm not whining. I was asked a question. I answered it and said what I like about NLSC and also what I don't like. You're the one who is horrified if people even dare question anything you say. Look at your response to me saying wow or saying your stats can't be the be all and end all of determining defensive players. Oh wait, do I have to show that again too? Unbelievable.

Matthew says he doesn’t like people who don't post opinions, and has said before that I don't. But since every post, and especially every post of mine contains an argument, or in his vernacular, an opinion, the statement of dislike is meaningless. Matthew also says he dislikes those who "criticize other people’s opinions" which is merely a dysphemistic way of saying "disagree." I'm afraid I have to disagree or "criticize his opinion" on the matter of this being illegitimate. Indeed, it is the catalyst for discussion. If everyone agrees, discussion does not exist, it is merely, to use crude but exacting language, a "circle jerk" then.

In alot of cases you don't. The prediction thread you didn't. The All Defensive team award thread you didn't until the very end and by that time I had lost all respect for you so there was no way I was going to engage in a discussion with you.

You can try to manipulate what you've said to people before, but I know what you've said. I've spent too much time on this reply already. I had no idea you would be so demanding (oh lulz!! hahah edit imo hahaha) that you couldn't wait for my reply.

And I've never had a problem with people discussing things. You try to paint this picture of me being compulsive, things having to be done my way. That's bullshit. Look at your behavior in the prediction thread. You jumped all over someone for making a prediction, and then when he asked you what was your opinion you flat out said no.

Who is anti discussion now? Oh thats, right, me. For not wanting to exchange views with you.

So for the record, if I don't want to talk with you, I'm anti discussion. Ben = everyone? I don't think so, buddy.

I hardly take it personally or go insane if someone says I'm wrong. I just don't automatically accept that they're right, and ask for them to explain why they're right or why I'm wrong. I don't understand how it became wrong to request (again, Matthew applies what he's decided is my intent and declared it "demand" when indeed it is no skin off my back if they refuse) someone to actually support their argument that runs counter to yours or explain to you why it is superior. This seems the antithesis of arrogant to me, a pursuit of understanding. What seems far more arrogant to me is to expect someone to merely accept your argument, because, well, you said it. The demands I see, are those who wish one to say believe player X is Y because that's what they believe and "anyone who actually understands basketball would see this" or something similar.

I never said you were wrong. I said you take it personally if someone questions you. And you can't demand (and expect!) people to open up to your their ways of thinking and coming to conclusions if you consistently talk to them as if you're their fucking superior.

I'm thinking, I suppose, of two ongoing examples, my discussion in Pistons/Melo with Laxation, and Obama/McCain with el_badman. In both cases we have disagreed (or "CRITICIZED OTHERS OPINIONS") but instead of just leaving it at that, we have explained ourselves. I think, and hope, that el_badman understands my position much better now and no longer considers it "I'll deny anything that says there were problems in 2000!" In the Pistons case, me and Laxation have explained and outlined our positions, and provided support for our arguments, and have moved onto further aspects of analysis and discussion.

Oh whoop de do dah. You list two discussions that you've had. I have had discussions with Air Gordon about the Doug Collins "hiring", Andrew about the referee scandal, Yohance about Mayweather, The x about Gilbert Arenas and team usa. It means nothing! I think you're desperate if you have to draw upon two examples on how you like to discuss things

"Ego driven." What does this mean? "You do things to make yourself feel better" perhaps? So, what's wrong with that? Are you supposed to do things to make yourself feel worse (and be a sadomasochist like shadowgrin) or just do things randomly? Yes, I post on the NLSC to "make myself feel better" I suppose, as I enjoy discussing the NBA, and a few other topics that pop up on here. Especially with people I am somewhat familiar with. Since I enjoy it, I would obviously derive pleasure, and pleasure makes one feel better. This is again assuming no malicious intent, since I'm not allowed to examine context of statements.

It's bad because you think you're some kind of genius and superior to anyone who posts anything contradictory to what you say without going through a pointless exercise to prove their worthiness to you.

It has been said it is "hypocritical" to disagree with opinions while posting your own. I suppose some would consider me open to a charge of "hypocriticism" regarding my desire for Matthew to stop posting about me, and start posting about the ideas/concepts at hand. But this is not hypocritical, merely a failure to meet a standard. I often set lofty standards, and endlessly fail to meet them. If Kevin Garnett says "I want to win the NBA Finals" and does not, he is not hypocritical. Hypocritical would be to advocate two opposite viewpoints. For example, advocating that people should post opinions ("not post opinions") while also advocating that people should not post opinions ("criticize other people’s opinions"). One could quibble I suppose that that's actually advocating people should post opinions, while actually advocating that people should not post opinions that disagree.

But it would be hypocritical of Garnett to then criticise Steve Nash for not making the finals.

The reason I have pursued this is because I feel I must be missing some obvious point. That Matthew is not continuing this merely to fail at insulting mocking me. That he actually has some higher ideal of perfect discussion in mind when he trolls and attacks people instead of their arguments. But as the incoherence builds, I can only wonder. It is not alright to "not post opinions" but he states he posts things that have no underlying opinion ("Wow", Glenn Robinson/Isaiah Rider comment, or "But by all means, keep editing your posts" for example.) Says to post opinions but not ones that disagree (or "criticize other people’s opinions.") Doesn't want anyone to take it personally if they're told their wrong, but throws a fit if someone "assumes", trolls people who said he was wrong and thinks it's a valid form of argument to insult (or "accurately point out character flaws") them.

I'm not mocking you you fagot. I'm pointing out your contradictions and double standards.

[benji]

Ben, nobody asked you specifically why you post here at NLSC.

Well, this is a forum, not an instant message session. Anyone can respond to anything.

You are not in a position to demand anything off anyone

And I don't.

Look at the Carmelo thread for example. All I said was "wow" and look at your response to it. Oh wait, you probably won't even acknowledge anything to be wrong with it....That was a response to me saying "wow" to a comment you made. If you don't think that's over the top and compulsive you're even more delusional then I first thought.

No, it's not the response to you saying "wow." It's the response to you saying that I had completely and utterly misrepresented the intention, argument and point of your original post that included far more than just "wow."

And just because you assumed doesn't mean I have to clarify.

And I never said you did, but you keep whining "assuming" but you never help me understand what you really mean.

The thing is, and you have to come to terms with this, is everyone has an opinion on things.

Hmm, I would've thought,

Implicit in every post is an opinion or argument. No post is made without some underlying argument.

is something only someone who has "come to terms with this" would say.

Just because you like to rant and rave and pretend to sound intelleigent does not make you smarter then them. And just because someone does not like to talk about how they got their opinions does not make them inferior.

Who said it did?

I'm not whining. I was asked a question. I answered it and said what I like about NLSC and also what I don't like.

Not the only placed you've whined about the same things.

You can't assume, then, just because there is no explanation to those thoughts simply because you can't see it.

But there is an explanation, there is no such thing as a "random opinion." I can't just suddenly decide Kobe is the best player ever without having done any reasoning to conclude this. Claims are meaningless. The argument underlying these claims is what discussion is based around.

See what I mean? You call it insanity just because it's different to the way you are. That's something you'll have to come to terms with.

I don't see what you mean. I didn't call anything insanity, you're the one who said I was.

You're the one who is horrified if people even dare question anything you say.

You really need to stop projecting. Because I'm hardly horrified from people questioning me. I want people to question me. I don't hunt people I disrespect if they question me.

The prediction thread you didn't. The All Defensive team award thread you didn't until the very end and by that time I had lost all respect for you so there was no way I was going to engage in a discussion with you.

Um, nope. In both those threads I had posted plenty of opinions. And that's when you lost all respect for me? When did and why would you ever respect me?

Look at your behavior in the prediction thread. You jumped all over someone for making a prediction, and then when he asked you what was your opinion you flat out said no.

Except, that's not what happened. A number of people were raising the "Celtics can't win on the road" meme all over the world, one person in that thread said they can't and that's why a series would go such-and-such, and I merely questioned using that person's post as a reference on why this pattern was absolutely determined to continued. I posted an opinion that, because a pattern has happened before, it is not automatically destined to continue unabated. He then asked what my guess for the series result was, I said I didn't have one because I didn't care who won, and you "jumped all over" me for it, and then Sauru joined in. (Or perhaps this was reversed.) Forcing me to once again explain why making guesses as to the outcome of a seven game series is not something I could care about because I don't need the self-gratification from guessing correctly.

You try to paint this picture of me being compulsive, things having to be done my way.

I never tried to paint any sort of picture of you as compulsive or demanding things having to be done your way. You seem to be projecting again.

Who is anti discussion now? Oh thats, right, me. For not wanting to exchange views with you.

So for the record, if I don't want to talk with you, I'm anti discussion. Ben = everyone? I don't think so, buddy.

I never said you were anti-discussion.

I said you take it personally if someone questions you. And you can't demand (and expect!) people to open up to your their ways of thinking and coming to conclusions if you consistently talk to them as if you're their fucking superior.

I don't do either.

I think you're desperate if you have to draw upon two examples on how you like to discuss things

And I think you missed the point.

you think you're some kind of genius and superior to anyone who posts anything contradictory to what you say without going through a pointless exercise to prove their worthiness to you.

No, I don't.

you've developed an a character of being superior to everyone else

Nope.

But it would be hypocritical of Garnett to then criticise Steve Nash for not making the finals.

No, it wouldn't. I better hope you never criticize anyone for not winning the Finals, since you never will. You'd be a major hypocrite then, right? There is nothing hypocritical about Kevin Garnett wanting to win the Finals, failing at this task, and criticizing Steve Nash for not making the Finals.

I'm not mocking you you fagot.

Now...would that one be an insult? The definition of that word is still kinda up in the air around here.

I'm pointing out your contradictions and double standards.

Oh, that's what "oh lulz!! hahah edit imo hahaha" and "SPURS IN THRE LOLOLOLOL EDIT: IMO" is?

So. What's your goal here, Matthew? To yet again save the state of the community? What do I need to do? Stop posting or just stop disagreeing with people?

You know what, I'll do you a favor. Since I am one of the biggest ills you have with the forum, I will give you the opportunity to cure it. If you can find ten examples from May in NBA Talk on a NBA topic, where I explicitly demanded people do something, acted blatantly arrogant and superior while being horrified when my opinions were questioned and actually did not post an opinion. I will leave the community forever, making you hero to hundreds.

[Matthew]

I don't care if you stay or go. That's upto you.

[Nick]

So nice of you to use your one post a month quota on me.

I post here to share opinions and discuss things. Will I do that with people I don't respect? No. Which is exactly the same in real life.

But I question why did you ask that question? I stopped coming to this thread because I know exactly why this started and why it continued. Did you read the whole thing? Did you see the exact same pointless argument Kaboom had with Jackal as he had with me. Why not question me? Because I don't care? Cool. You're right. Deep down I don't care if people question me. But what I do care about is double standards.

I don't like people who demand answers off other people. I don't like people who criticise other peoples opinions and not offer one themselves. I don't like people who think they so intertwined in their own ego and image that the moment anyone dare says "hey this is wrong" they take it so personally that they go insane.

Is all of NLSC like this? No, there's just a small percentage here that do that. That's why I post here and I try to avoid discussions with people I don't respect.

I know what i'm about to say doesn't have much validity, since i haven't read any other threads apart from this one. I know this much. I'm aware. But take what you will from an outsider's point of view. I thought it might be worth documenting an observation (which is, unfortunately, ridiculously off-topic. But this discussion wandered off long ago anyway)

Having read through the thread, i couldn't come to understand your intention. I don't understand you, and i'm genuinely curious. People are constantly throwing valid discussion at you, in which it would seem you don't have the upper hand (up to reader interpretation though i guess), but you make the decisions to ignore it and attack the people instead of their arguments. Which is fine. Whatever. Do what you want. But being the analytical (and bored) man that i am, i couldn't help but wonder about it. As i was browsing through your various posts, i couldn't help but think 'what's the point in that?' and 'Why post at a forum and dance around genuine discussion with snide remarks at everyone?' Seems pointless to me. Kinda defeats the purpose of a forum. So I thought i'd ask first rather than springing to make a claim. Maybe there was an intention that i'm missing?

But admittedly, i DID already come to a conclusion myself before your response. Which is a bit naughty, as i prefer not to judge before given a chance. Oh well.

I came to the conclusion that you post at NLSC because you want to feel good about yourself. You enjoy the role you play at NLSC. You like the feeling of winning arguments. It makes you feel good, so you subconsciously seek out conflict. If this sounds like an attack, it's not intended that way. I really think it's true though.

However in your response, you've made your intention for posting clear. So i guess i'm wrong. But am i?

I haven't read any other threads, i know. So my perception may be skewed? I dunno, whatever. But there's my opinion and i think you'll appreciate that i'm sharing it.

(Now i'm curious to see what decisions you will make in response to this (that is not a demand for a response))

[Matthew]

You admit to being ignorant and even arrogant in this situation, and expect me to take you seriously?

EDIT: I pressed the submit button without finishing.

You question and assume why I post based on an issue that I won't even respond to anymore. Why do you post here, Nick? I contribute to other threads, have discussions with other people.

So why do you post here? Or need not I ask, should I just assume as you've done with me?

[Jackal]

I <3 Dr. Phil.

Do you feel good about yourself Matthew? Going back and fourth in a meaningless debate that no one really gives a shit about...that makes you feel better doesn't it? I have that feeling. Yes, the beavers tell me you feel good about yourself because that is what I think but I dunno...whatever, I just think you feel better about it, so that's why you post although I dont know why I post. I'm not attacking you, I'm just sharing my opinion, because that's what I feel good about doing. So I did it. Okay, do you feel good too? I feel good.

Let's get together and feel eachother and make eachother feel good.

This topic is an all time classic.

[Axel]

Sometimes when one isn't able to add cognitive substance to a discussion the only alternative is to make a dramatized emotional claim.

I stopped paying mind to Matthew a long time ago when he started making derogatory comments about me. Homophobia is one of those highly irrational fears, which is something I can't deal with just like racism. I also don't deal with irrational people.

This argument is pretty nonsensical to me. I can't even understand where Matthew is coming from because all his arguments aren't rational. I suppose that's why I've always respected benji as a poster. Simple, concise, rational points. There is never a need for this kind of petty argumentation. The facts speak for themselves.

[Matthew]

I <3 Dr. Phil.

Do you feel good about yourself Matthew? Going back and fourth in a meaningless debate that no one really gives a shit about...that makes you feel better doesn't it? I have that feeling. Yes, the beavers tell me you feel good about yourself because that is what I think but I dunno...whatever, I just think you feel better about it, so that's why you post although I dont know why I post. I'm not attacking you, I'm just sharing my opinion, because that's what I feel good about doing. So I did it. Okay, do you feel good too? I feel good.

Let's get together and feel eachother and make eachother feel good.

This topic is an all time classic.

The annoying thing is, if I stand there and argue, I'm causing trouble. If I refuse to argue in pointless arguments, I'm irrational?

Sometimes when one isn't able to add cognitive substance to a discussion the only alternative is to make a dramatized emotional claim.

I stopped paying mind to Matthew a long time ago when he started making derogatory comments about me. Homophobia is one of those highly irrational fears, which is something I can't deal with just like racism. I also don't deal with irrational people.

Hmm... or "mmm, chris brown"

[shadowgrin]

But being the analytical (and bored) man that i am

lol silly Nick.

[Wall St. Peon]

I was bored this evening and read this whole thing...quite entertaining. This whole discussion (if one could call it that) is quite circular in nature and could quite possibly never end, especially since only one side of the discussion is making legitimate points about anything while the other is, well, doing as usual.

I've always enjoyed the "beat up the "nerd" 'cause we don't understand him" mentality that seems to spring up around Ben. He's self-deprecating, very clear, and grounded firmly in logic and statistics; his detractors either don't understand what he's saying or his intentions, or they are upset that they can't express their thoughts in a way to support their own opinion. He doesn't claim to be "intelligent," nor does he really come off as an intellectual - he likes statistics, facts, and he, like anyone who enjoys good discussion, wants someone to use those things to back up their point of view, which he is more than happy to entertain.

Nick, I've said the same thing regarding Matthew (that he posts to make himself feel good about himself), and I've heard the exact same things that he's been saying throughout this post...that I think I'm smarter than everyone else, that I don't respect others' opinions, etc. etc, and I fully expect those exact same things to be said about me. I may be wrong, but I have yet seen a post by Matthew to make me think otherwise, and, like all of his arguments, they revolve around insulting, nitpicking small errors in prose, and baseless assumptions.

What I find strange about the whole thing is that Matthew (the same can be said for Psycho_Jackal as well), when he was much, much younger (say, 7, 8 years younger) actually contributed to discussions instead of attempting to derail them; he writes well and has well formulated thoughts, yet he chooses to degrade others instead of discussing intelligently, which he is more than capable of doing. Interestingly enough, this thread would have ended 5 pages ago if it wasn't for the simple fact that Matthew never really discussed anything - he did enough to simply keep the thread going. When he finally did give an explanation, it didn't make sense; there was dissonance between his stated purpose for posting and his actual posts.

The response to this should be quite entertaining, and perhaps even enlightening.