Advertisement
by Des-Bal » Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:32 am
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:56 am
Des-Bal wrote:Grew up on a farm, fuck foxes.
by Shofercia » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:49 am
Forsher wrote:Sovaal wrote:It gotcha to click, didn't it?
[*]The premise is wildly flawed... there are very, very good reasons to not like foxes:
#notallfoxes
That's even worse... if it's not meant to be a pun as we've seen with other "deceit threads" then it's just plain clickbait. I suppose it could be a clever commentary on the clickbait phenomenon, but Shof loses points for not having managed to get enough posts in the thread to reach a point where he can reveal this. I suggest that the main reason for this is the absent pun.
Yes, you're right, not all foxes. Just red/silver foxes and arctic foxes. So... the ones people care about.
Uinted Communist of Africa wrote:god damn click bait......
The United Artherian Federation wrote:CLICK BAIT!!!!!
Cannot think of a name wrote:You got me.
Thermodolia wrote:Huh. This isn't going where I thought it would
Genivaria wrote:Well done OP.
And I hate foxes because of that STUPID FUCKING SONG.
You all know the one.
Geilinor wrote:You got me. I didn't expect a thread about rights for vulpes.
Major-Tom wrote:Credit where credit is due, nice job there Shof.
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:They make Melee tournaments look like this
Risottia wrote:Shofercia wrote:How can we be so mean to these guys?
How? Well, you start by rounding up some British gentlemen, hounds and horses. Serve some light refreshment, something apt for a morning, like anything consisting of gin for at least half of its mass. Then someone blows a horn, the hounds are unleashed, and there's a general trampling of crops at the hooves of noble steeds. Someone else yells "tally ho!".
Litorea wrote:While we're at it, can we address the unfair complaints against CNN (the Cassowary News Network)?
The Serbian Empire wrote:ABC (Aardvark Broadcasting Corporation) and NBC (Narwhal Broadcasting Company).
The Blaatschapen wrote:I'm against fox news because I think that the Tories have more important things to do than hunting. Also, foxes eat sheep.
Neanderthaland wrote:Not to mention MSNBC (Millions of Spiders News Broadcasting Corp.)
Arctica-Aleutia wrote:Not entirely sure what's going on here, but I'm going to weigh in. Foxes don't always live up to their reputation as sly, deceitful hunters. Take a look at this footage recovered from Alaska: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSEd6O0bBFs
It's getting along fine with two cats.
Sovaal wrote:I hate it when foxes steal my chickens, but I would rather put up a fence then kill one. Wasn't there Soviet/Russian project to domesticate gray foxes to see how domestication affected animals?
Aclion wrote:Yes, they become adorable hyper doggos.
De Almerland wrote:My main problem with foxes are they are overpopulated in cities, and they create messes by tipping over bins.
Kenmoria wrote:To be honest, I've knever really thought about why foxes are always considered to be "evil" animals. My guess would be that the tradition comes from foxes hunting various farm animals and causing the farmers much annoyance. As well as them being unable to be farmed themselves. Given the rather utilitarian outlook on life back then this might mean that foxes were regarded as evil animals. This general dissatisfaction would later make its way into stories.
In modern days we probably still regard foxes as "evil" out of force of habit and the sheer volume of stories that label them as such. This creates a self-perpetuating belief in the evilness of foxes as each generation reads the stories of the last and writes new ones for the future. Like any things this hatred is highly unlikely to be undone within one century and will take hundreds of years to dissipate completely. Then maybe sheep might become the cunning, sly villains.
Forsher wrote:This thread is moronic.Go think about what you've done.
- The title's pun doesn't work, i.e. doesn't exist.
- The premise is wildly flawed... there are very, very good reasons to not like foxes: consider the company they keep.
Forsher wrote:Shof loses points for not having managed to get enough posts in the thread to reach a point where he can reveal this.
by Shofercia » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:53 am
Summertimequestionswine wrote:Do you often find the sexual characteristics of non-human animals worth noting?
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Because they're a fear-mongering, bullshit pandering, faux news network.
by Shofercia » Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:03 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Just going to leave that here
And with that, let's get back on topic - so how would a pro-vulpes fairy tale look like?
It would end with the words "Mishon Compreet"
Also, and I can't believe that I didn't say this earlier, Fox and buns can indeed be frends.
Litorea wrote:While we're at it, can we address the unfair complaints against CNN (the Cassowary News Network)?
Liriena wrote:I don't hate foxes. I love foxes. They are adorable and fun. I'd even consider raising one, if I didn't know how difficult they can be to care of.
Des-Bal wrote:Grew up on a farm, fuck foxes.
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:05 pm
Shofercia wrote:Summertimequestionswine wrote:Do you often find the sexual characteristics of non-human animals worth noting?
No. Do you often find questions about the sexual characteristics of non-human animals worth asking about?Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Because they're a fear-mongering, bullshit pandering, faux news network.
Quick reminder of what's on topic:
Discussion of the Rights of Vulpes, treatment of Vulpes, Fairy Tales of Vulpes, video games of Vulpes, (since Herp made that on topic,) and puns of Vulpes. Discussion that relates to those issues.
Discussion that's not on topic: the actual Fox News channel, CNN, MSNBC, other news channels. Saying that CNN = Cassowary News Network is a pun, so that's fine. Saying "CNN sucks because they think black holes coexist within planet Earth" isn't on topic, even if it's true.
This is a fun thread, let's keep it that way
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by Shofercia » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:38 pm
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Don't engage in click bait, Shof.
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:25 pm
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by Zurkerx » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:26 pm
by Khalisako » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:37 pm
Hurdergaryp wrote:Oh, Khalisako... my dear, precious little Khalisako...
sometimes I just want to grab you by the throat and choke you for a while,
but that would not be proper behaviour. It just wouldn't do.
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:38 pm
Khalisako wrote:I think foxes are very cute and I'd love to own a doemsticated fox. Even better if domestic fox became common.
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by Destructive Government Economic System » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:40 pm
Keshiland literally wrote:I would give it a no. A country that lies about how free, or how great, or how humanitarian it is can never be developed. Example, NK lies and says they are democratic and are not, the US lies and says we are free yet we incarcerate millions for a medical plant. See we are basically a larger more populated North Korea.
by Singularity Multiversal Travel Empire » Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:47 pm
"Sapient self-governance is overrated. It all fails eventually. Have fun while you can."Officially an A-class civilization,The Singularity Multiversal Travel Empire (SMTE) doesn't care!but really a J-class civilization.
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:20 am
Neanderthaland wrote:Because the fucker won't let me cross the bridge.
by Liberalter » Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:38 am
by Forsher » Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:44 pm
Shofercia wrote:Considering my opinion of mass media in general, and Fox News (or MSNBC, my opinion of CNN is even worse,) in particular, no sane NSGer
would actually think that I would start a thread saying that NSGers are too mean to Fox News. As thus, the people who clicked on it can be grouped into several groups. First group is the group that doesn't read who the OP is - and just clicks on the thread. Their responses are as follows:
The second group of people are those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News, but were just really curious where the thread would go. Maybe they thought it was going to be a parody, or where I'd play the Devil's Advocate, or about uniting America in spite of the ever growing confrontation on both sides of the extreme. They didn't expect vulpes, but were able to quickly adapt, because of their curiosity. Here is a sample of said responses:
A second part of said group decided to have a bit of fun:
And some made serious posts:
That second group pretty much forms the majority of intelligent and on topic discussion of the thread. And then there's the third group. That group's just here to argue over anything. They make posts like these:
Except not many posters are making those posts. So far I've seen just one, and, by the way, the pun works just fine.
There was a punny movie about it - Outfoxed. Oh wow, I guess bringing that up makes me mean to Fox News... except the thread's about Vulpes.
Now as for that other thing you said:Forsher wrote:Shof loses points for not having managed to get enough posts in the thread to reach a point where he can reveal this.
I should point out that losing points on the Forsher point scale is an Honor for me, but, alas, I cannot thank you for the compliment, because I did get enough posts to reveal this:Shofercia wrote:
Just going to leave that here
Whoops, I guess in your anger you missed it. As a wise man once said: Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I do not wish for you to suffer on NSG, so please Forsher, let's just have fun in this thread, eh?
The term "foxy" in English ("having the qualities of a fox") can also connote attractiveness, sexiness or being red-haired. The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".
[...]
The Medieval Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard was nicknamed "Robert the Fox" as well as the Resourceful, the Cunning, the Wily - underlining the identification of such qualities with foxes.
[...]
During World War II, the German commander in North Africa, Erwin Rommel, was grudgingly nicknamed the "Desert Fox" by his British adversaries, as a tribute to his cunning and skill in operational art.
I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.
by Shofercia » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:10 pm
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:Considering my opinion of mass media in general, and Fox News (or MSNBC, my opinion of CNN is even worse,) in particular, no sane NSGer
Seriously dude? You think every NSGer knows your opinions of mass media generally? That's... um.... a headscratcher.would actually think that I would start a thread saying that NSGers are too mean to Fox News. As thus, the people who clicked on it can be grouped into several groups. First group is the group that doesn't read who the OP is - and just clicks on the thread. Their responses are as follows:
Your seriously flawed premises aside, yes, you could reasonably infer complaints about clickbait are motivated by feelings about clickbait. To remember the flawed premise, it is nuts to think it's reasonable to infer they didn't read who the OP is.The second group of people are those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News, but were just really curious where the thread would go. Maybe they thought it was going to be a parody, or where I'd play the Devil's Advocate, or about uniting America in spite of the ever growing confrontation on both sides of the extreme. They didn't expect vulpes, but were able to quickly adapt, because of their curiosity. Here is a sample of said responses:
A second part of said group decided to have a bit of fun:
Regardless of one's views about the premise (and note there is actually only one class of correct view): dat mindreading, though.
It would be reasonable to suppose, for instance, that the first group of these posters were motivated by some desire to express their views. After all, notice the level of personal pronouns or by some desire to reward something they found wry/amusing/whatever because, you know, this is broadly how English speakers are raised. If we want to start doing some pop psychology on these posters, then, are sometimes talking to themselves and sometimes saying "good dog"... mechanical beings processing everyday experience, with suitable modification for the circumstances, i.e. the internet. From here we might bother with some mindreading, but, of course, Shof has kindly already done that for us.
On the other hand, Shof is also asking us to believe "you got me" is sarcastic, that he should be given credit for some reason other than the deception or whatever as otherwise "those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News" wouldn't accurately classify these posters. But I repeat myself.
We could extend the pop psychology to the funny posters, because it's almost the epitome of pop psychology to say stuff about "humour is a way of releasing tension" or "humour deflects from personal failings, such as being conned". Both of these particular hypothetical pop psychology interpretations also happen to imply Shof is wrong, but that's just a coincidence. Certainly, we might imagine some other pop psychology interpretations. I won't, though, because I am not a pop psychologist, so I'll just stick with the trite.
Another way of looking at these posts is through the lens of "improv". Basically the first lesson in improvisation is "accept the offer". And, lo, the offer was accepted, many times. Basically, this theory asks one to believe that people read Shof's OP, inferred it was meant to be funny and then decided to use the prompt to be funny. Naturally, one isn't surprised to find the general rule of improv holds true here: it gets funnier. However, I should mention I am very definitely not suggesting that the original offer wasn't, in fact, funny. I repeat: definitely not. Far be it from me to act as the final arbiter of humourTM.And some made serious posts:
At this point one might wonder why it is reasonable to infer that this lot also decided that the thread wasn't going to be about Fox News, given that we haven't explicitly stated any mechanism which allows this lot to be part of the same umbrella group as the two previous member classes. However, I suggest one doesn't wonder if this might possibly have been by design. So we're all absolutely clear, I will repeat my earlier assurance that pop psychology only had those implications for want of imagination. I mean, this lot could just all be playing the straight man role to Shof's, um, funny guy. Who knows?
Whatever we happen to decide, we'll definitely agree that none of these posters are motivated by a sense of sharing their opinion and that seriously considering the implications of the thread's proposition can only happen in the above manners. For example, it definitely isn't allowable to wonder if perhaps the OP was constrained by a certain ethnocentrism, and that it would be useful to step into another experience. No, that definitely isn't allowed.That second group pretty much forms the majority of intelligent and on topic discussion of the thread. And then there's the third group. That group's just here to argue over anything. They make posts like these:
Actually, I rather think they make long posts which make a big deal out of, apparently, one singular criticism of their attempts at humour and artificially limited perspective of the issue (i.e. foxes and their reputation). I say this because I recently read such post and it made several pointed remarks which are difficult to explain otherwise. Certainly, I felt, in this post I recently read, the poster seemed rather too sincere to be having a laugh that no-one else happened to get. Such posts are generally completely unwilling to contemplate the deeper implications and might well impose impossible contexts.Except not many posters are making those posts. So far I've seen just one, and, by the way, the pun works just fine.
What pun?
Fox: why so mean?
Pun. Is it Fox News being shortened to Fox as is fair enough? Is it a Fox being interviewed and quoted, e.g. like is common in news headlines? Dunno. Hence, pun.
Why Are We So Mean to Fox News?
What news about foxes? Is it some further comment on how the news is often just the olds in clickbait? Maybe it's some kind of news about Edward Fox? It wasn't and there's still no news, either...
There is only the literal meaning... unless we want to believe it is a clever comment on the superificiality of Fox News, i.e. the title has only a superficial meaning which is, in reality, completely irrelevant to the Truth of the thread. I doubt this: it is difficult to coherently explain.
Hence, what pun? But I really do repeat myself.There was a punny movie about it - Outfoxed. Oh wow, I guess bringing that up makes me mean to Fox News... except the thread's about Vulpes.
By which Shoft means there was a limited released documentary movie which riffed on the Fox part of the Fox News (rather than being a pun per se), that was released in 2004, that he expects a forum where the majority of members are (a) not American and (b) too young to remember the Bush administration (even as a foreign government) to be aware of. Now, that's just ridiculous... much like suggesting all word play is punny.Now as for that other thing you said:
I should point out that losing points on the Forsher point scale is an Honor for me, but, alas, I cannot thank you for the compliment, because I did get enough posts to reveal this:
Oh, hilarious. That is a real laugh.*
However, I missed the bit where that had anything to do with revealing your deep seated belief that you posted an arcane commentary about the clickbait phenomenon. But, hey, I apparently also missed a pun, so are you really surprised?
*And this was an actual pun (and also actual word play). To explain... it is a "real laugh" i.e. a complete joke that Shof thinks this is at all relevant to what was a really specific possible explanation, but it is also the video.Whoops, I guess in your anger you missed it. As a wise man once said: Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I do not wish for you to suffer on NSG, so please Forsher, let's just have fun in this thread, eh?
I'm having plenty of fun. But the thread is still moronic. It is based around a non-existent pun (that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country. It is also limited in the extent that the depiction of the fox is not even entirely negative in Northern Hemisphere traditions:The term "foxy" in English ("having the qualities of a fox") can also connote attractiveness, sexiness or being red-haired. The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".
[...]
The Medieval Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard was nicknamed "Robert the Fox" as well as the Resourceful, the Cunning, the Wily - underlining the identification of such qualities with foxes.
[...]
During World War II, the German commander in North Africa, Erwin Rommel, was grudgingly nicknamed the "Desert Fox" by his British adversaries, as a tribute to his cunning and skill in operational art.
And then there's this, this, this and this.
So...I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.
Done and done. (And it was always a nuanced animal... that last link is great for this point.)
Your point, sir?
by Forsher » Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:05 pm
Shofercia wrote:Forsher wrote:
Seriously dude? You think every NSGer knows your opinions of mass media generally? That's... um.... a headscratcher.
Your seriously flawed premises aside, yes, you could reasonably infer complaints about clickbait are motivated by feelings about clickbait. To remember the flawed premise, it is nuts to think it's reasonable to infer they didn't read who the OP is.
Regardless of one's views about the premise (and note there is actually only one class of correct view): dat mindreading, though.
It would be reasonable to suppose, for instance, that the first group of these posters were motivated by some desire to express their views. After all, notice the level of personal pronouns or by some desire to reward something they found wry/amusing/whatever because, you know, this is broadly how English speakers are raised. If we want to start doing some pop psychology on these posters, then, are sometimes talking to themselves and sometimes saying "good dog"... mechanical beings processing everyday experience, with suitable modification for the circumstances, i.e. the internet. From here we might bother with some mindreading, but, of course, Shof has kindly already done that for us.
On the other hand, Shof is also asking us to believe "you got me" is sarcastic, that he should be given credit for some reason other than the deception or whatever as otherwise "those who realized that it won't be about being nice to Fox News" wouldn't accurately classify these posters. But I repeat myself.
We could extend the pop psychology to the funny posters, because it's almost the epitome of pop psychology to say stuff about "humour is a way of releasing tension" or "humour deflects from personal failings, such as being conned". Both of these particular hypothetical pop psychology interpretations also happen to imply Shof is wrong, but that's just a coincidence. Certainly, we might imagine some other pop psychology interpretations. I won't, though, because I am not a pop psychologist, so I'll just stick with the trite.
Another way of looking at these posts is through the lens of "improv". Basically the first lesson in improvisation is "accept the offer". And, lo, the offer was accepted, many times. Basically, this theory asks one to believe that people read Shof's OP, inferred it was meant to be funny and then decided to use the prompt to be funny. Naturally, one isn't surprised to find the general rule of improv holds true here: it gets funnier. However, I should mention I am very definitely not suggesting that the original offer wasn't, in fact, funny. I repeat: definitely not. Far be it from me to act as the final arbiter of humourTM.
At this point one might wonder why it is reasonable to infer that this lot also decided that the thread wasn't going to be about Fox News, given that we haven't explicitly stated any mechanism which allows this lot to be part of the same umbrella group as the two previous member classes. However, I suggest one doesn't wonder if this might possibly have been by design. So we're all absolutely clear, I will repeat my earlier assurance that pop psychology only had those implications for want of imagination. I mean, this lot could just all be playing the straight man role to Shof's, um, funny guy. Who knows?
Whatever we happen to decide, we'll definitely agree that none of these posters are motivated by a sense of sharing their opinion and that seriously considering the implications of the thread's proposition can only happen in the above manners. For example, it definitely isn't allowable to wonder if perhaps the OP was constrained by a certain ethnocentrism, and that it would be useful to step into another experience. No, that definitely isn't allowed.
Actually, I rather think they make long posts which make a big deal out of, apparently, one singular criticism of their attempts at humour and artificially limited perspective of the issue (i.e. foxes and their reputation). I say this because I recently read such post and it made several pointed remarks which are difficult to explain otherwise. Certainly, I felt, in this post I recently read, the poster seemed rather too sincere to be having a laugh that no-one else happened to get. Such posts are generally completely unwilling to contemplate the deeper implications and might well impose impossible contexts.
What pun?
Fox: why so mean?
Pun. Is it Fox News being shortened to Fox as is fair enough? Is it a Fox being interviewed and quoted, e.g. like is common in news headlines? Dunno. Hence, pun.
Why Are We So Mean to Fox News?
What news about foxes? Is it some further comment on how the news is often just the olds in clickbait? Maybe it's some kind of news about Edward Fox? It wasn't and there's still no news, either...
There is only the literal meaning... unless we want to believe it is a clever comment on the superificiality of Fox News, i.e. the title has only a superficial meaning which is, in reality, completely irrelevant to the Truth of the thread. I doubt this: it is difficult to coherently explain.
Hence, what pun? But I really do repeat myself.
By which Shoft means there was a limited released documentary movie which riffed on the Fox part of the Fox News (rather than being a pun per se), that was released in 2004, that he expects a forum where the majority of members are (a) not American and (b) too young to remember the Bush administration (even as a foreign government) to be aware of. Now, that's just ridiculous... much like suggesting all word play is punny.
Oh, hilarious. That is a real laugh.*
However, I missed the bit where that had anything to do with revealing your deep seated belief that you posted an arcane commentary about the clickbait phenomenon. But, hey, I apparently also missed a pun, so are you really surprised?
*And this was an actual pun (and also actual word play). To explain... it is a "real laugh" i.e. a complete joke that Shof thinks this is at all relevant to what was a really specific possible explanation, but it is also the video.
I'm having plenty of fun. But the thread is still moronic. It is based around a non-existent pun (that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country. It is also limited in the extent that the depiction of the fox is not even entirely negative in Northern Hemisphere traditions:
And then there's this, this, this and this.
So...
Done and done. (And it was always a nuanced animal... that last link is great for this point.)
Your point, sir?
Is there a way you can shorten that term paper? Because if you think that I am going to waste my time reading of all that, you are very much mistaken. Someone very wise once said: "brevity is the Soul of Wit" - and I appreciate said knowledge, now more than ever. Oh yeah, that was Shakespeare. He was witty and punny, i.e. "you will find me a grave man". College Humor time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtlm9sJFVEk
by The Federation of Kendor » Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:27 pm
Shofercia wrote:Vulpes are majestic creatures, and yet the news about vulpes has been mostly negative. Just look at this charming fellow:
(Image)
And yet, we have such bad images of the fox. In fairy tales, the fox steals the crow's cheese, comes off as arrogant in the "Fox and the Cat"... The fox is generally viewed as a trickster, and we better watch out for the fox.
However, the fox forms an integral part of the ecosystem. Even the fox's sexual characteristics are worth noting: The male fox's scrotum is held up close to the body with the testes inside even after they descend. Like other canines, the male fox has a baculum, or penile bone. The testes of red foxes are smaller than those of Arctic foxes. Sperm formation in red foxes begins in August–September, with the testicles attaining their greatest weight in December–February.
How can we be so mean to these guys? What did they ever do to the Grimm Brothers?
I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.
What does NSG say about vulpes? Or about Cerdocyon? Or Dusicyon? Or Lycalopex? Or Otocyon? Or Urocyon?
North Korean Russia wrote:"I am God! You are powerless against me! I am so awesome that when I play basketball I always get four points per shot!" -Kim Jong-Putin.
Independant Nations and Guilds wrote:Their founder turned into an eagle and flew into the sun before being burned to death. This is what their flag really means, and any other attempt at explanation of its meaning is ignored in favor of this explanation.
by Shofercia » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:36 pm
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Is there a way you can shorten that term paper? Because if you think that I am going to waste my time reading of all that, you are very much mistaken. Someone very wise once said: "brevity is the Soul of Wit" - and I appreciate said knowledge, now more than ever. Oh yeah, that was Shakespeare. He was witty and punny, i.e. "you will find me a grave man". College Humor time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtlm9sJFVEk
u wot m8
Hey, look, it summarises the previous post and remarks on the absurdity of someone who writes something rather long (as far as I can tell the same length give or take a little screen space) demanding a shorter response. Laziness unbounded... I should have seen it coming.
The Federation of Kendor wrote:Shofercia wrote:Vulpes are majestic creatures, and yet the news about vulpes has been mostly negative. Just look at this charming fellow:
(Image)
And yet, we have such bad images of the fox. In fairy tales, the fox steals the crow's cheese, comes off as arrogant in the "Fox and the Cat"... The fox is generally viewed as a trickster, and we better watch out for the fox.
However, the fox forms an integral part of the ecosystem. Even the fox's sexual characteristics are worth noting: The male fox's scrotum is held up close to the body with the testes inside even after they descend. Like other canines, the male fox has a baculum, or penile bone. The testes of red foxes are smaller than those of Arctic foxes. Sperm formation in red foxes begins in August–September, with the testicles attaining their greatest weight in December–February.
How can we be so mean to these guys? What did they ever do to the Grimm Brothers?
I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.
What does NSG say about vulpes? Or about Cerdocyon? Or Dusicyon? Or Lycalopex? Or Otocyon? Or Urocyon?
Can you edit the title. It sounds clickbaiting?
by Forsher » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:49 am
Shofercia wrote:Forsher wrote:
u wot m8
Hey, look, it summarises the previous post and remarks on the absurdity of someone who writes something rather long (as far as I can tell the same length give or take a little screen space) demanding a shorter response. Laziness unbounded... I should have seen it coming.
I provided a ton of sources to prove my point by directly quoting numerous posters. You wrote an essay. Are you really saying that's the same thing, because they take up roughly the same screen space? Oh, and you mean you didn't see laziness on an online forum?
by Shofercia » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:19 pm
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:
I provided a ton of sources to prove my point by directly quoting numerous posters. You wrote an essay. Are you really saying that's the same thing, because they take up roughly the same screen space? Oh, and you mean you didn't see laziness on an online forum?
If by "provided a ton of sources" you mean you mischaracterised and misinterpreted a bunch of posts, yes, you did that. And in doing that you created a burden to respond to your sources. This is obvious Shof. You see, the thing about sources, and here I'll let you in on a little secret, they don't speak for themselves. Hence, they need to be examined. What if you're playing fast and loose with the sources? What if you're not? How does that affect any potential response? And do you really examine the evidence if you don't show the working? No, no you don't. And if anyone reads the evidence they'll notice that, despite all the insincere and facetious commentary I wrapped that working in, you, Shof, did play fast and loose with those quotes.
But noting that there is a reason why length begets length does beg the question of what is unreasonably long to read. Essays don't need to be long, and just because they are "long" doesn't mean that they feel like a long experience. Similarly, it seems completely absurd to believe that you imagine including a bunch of quotes doesn't create reading length. By Word, my post was 1697 words long whereas yours was 1072. Does that 625 word difference really matter that much? It's in plain, even colloquial, English. It's in short paragraphs. It's not written in academic English. There is a distinct absence of referencing (footnotes/APA/whatever). In short, it shares no meaningful features with a "term paper"...
One wonders, indeed, why it would be particularly burdensome to read.
Of course, though, I actually know the answer. It is because Shof has no interest in the conversation. Shof isn't here to discuss social attitudes to foxes (or even just read foxes). If he was, Shof would ignore the comments about the jokes and engage with the original source I provided, i.e. a piece of legislation specifically banning all "big name" fox species from NZ. If he was, Shof would scan through the "too long" post and notice that, at the end, it criticises the central premise of the thread, i.e. that the Northern Hemisphere English speaking tradition is anti-fox or suffers from a failure to rehabilitate the fox. And we might also notice that a world where Shof is here for the superficial purpose of the thread would not be one where he defends a clickbait title that has resulted in (as he has so exhaustively quoted) a swamping of that discussion of attitudes with random "props to Shof" comments or "oh you" posts. The superficial Shof definitely wouldn't sidetrack the discussion further by making intellectually bankrupt remarks about how to post in NSG threads, preferring to just ignore the posts and let them die, lonely and ignored. Hell, even the lower burden of a Shof interested in having a conversation wouldn't post the way Shof has been. That Shof would recognise that remarks like "laziness unbounded" are rhetorical flourishes (whether appropriately deployed or not) rather than taking them literally as some illiterate would be wont to do.
Which is to say...
Come back when you have a defensible position that you're actually willing to defend. On past experience, though, you're just going to double down even further, so I'll give you a hint... if it's easy to stay on point, it's a good sign you've got a defensible position, and if you're tempted to talk about everything but you probably don't. And if you do talk about everything but, the logical inference is that you don't actually have anything else to say... which implies that you, too, recognise your position is indefensible. As a point of practical advice that might be written: it's better to fly by than talk about anything else.
tl;dr -- intellectual bankruptcy begets intellectual bankruptcy
by Forsher » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:31 pm
Shofercia wrote:Forsher wrote:
If by "provided a ton of sources" you mean you mischaracterised and misinterpreted a bunch of posts, yes, you did that. And in doing that you created a burden to respond to your sources. This is obvious Shof. You see, the thing about sources, and here I'll let you in on a little secret, they don't speak for themselves. Hence, they need to be examined. What if you're playing fast and loose with the sources? What if you're not? How does that affect any potential response? And do you really examine the evidence if you don't show the working? No, no you don't. And if anyone reads the evidence they'll notice that, despite all the insincere and facetious commentary I wrapped that working in, you, Shof, did play fast and loose with those quotes.
But noting that there is a reason why length begets length does beg the question of what is unreasonably long to read. Essays don't need to be long, and just because they are "long" doesn't mean that they feel like a long experience. Similarly, it seems completely absurd to believe that you imagine including a bunch of quotes doesn't create reading length. By Word, my post was 1697 words long whereas yours was 1072. Does that 625 word difference really matter that much? It's in plain, even colloquial, English. It's in short paragraphs. It's not written in academic English. There is a distinct absence of referencing (footnotes/APA/whatever). In short, it shares no meaningful features with a "term paper"...
One wonders, indeed, why it would be particularly burdensome to read.
Of course, though, I actually know the answer. It is because Shof has no interest in the conversation. Shof isn't here to discuss social attitudes to foxes (or even just read foxes). If he was, Shof would ignore the comments about the jokes and engage with the original source I provided, i.e. a piece of legislation specifically banning all "big name" fox species from NZ. If he was, Shof would scan through the "too long" post and notice that, at the end, it criticises the central premise of the thread, i.e. that the Northern Hemisphere English speaking tradition is anti-fox or suffers from a failure to rehabilitate the fox. And we might also notice that a world where Shof is here for the superficial purpose of the thread would not be one where he defends a clickbait title that has resulted in (as he has so exhaustively quoted) a swamping of that discussion of attitudes with random "props to Shof" comments or "oh you" posts. The superficial Shof definitely wouldn't sidetrack the discussion further by making intellectually bankrupt remarks about how to post in NSG threads, preferring to just ignore the posts and let them die, lonely and ignored. Hell, even the lower burden of a Shof interested in having a conversation wouldn't post the way Shof has been. That Shof would recognise that remarks like "laziness unbounded" are rhetorical flourishes (whether appropriately deployed or not) rather than taking them literally as some illiterate would be wont to do.
Which is to say...
Come back when you have a defensible position that you're actually willing to defend. On past experience, though, you're just going to double down even further, so I'll give you a hint... if it's easy to stay on point, it's a good sign you've got a defensible position, and if you're tempted to talk about everything but you probably don't. And if you do talk about everything but, the logical inference is that you don't actually have anything else to say... which implies that you, too, recognise your position is indefensible. As a point of practical advice that might be written: it's better to fly by than talk about anything else.
tl;dr -- intellectual bankruptcy begets intellectual bankruptcy
Another essay? C'mon now Forsher, we've been over this: "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" - you should try to be brief. Not to mention your posts haven't said anything about the topic at hand. This is like the worse mix of a serious professor and a hipster - it's hipster to go off topic and make it about yourself or someone you believe have gravely harmed you intellectually, and it's a very professorial way to write it up in an essay form. The worse mix. Ever.
Forsher wrote:consider the company they keep.
Forsher wrote:I'm having plenty of fun. But the thread is still moronic. It is based around a non-existent pun (that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country. It is also limited in the extent that the depiction of the fox is not even entirely negative in Northern Hemisphere traditions:The term "foxy" in English ("having the qualities of a fox") can also connote attractiveness, sexiness or being red-haired. The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".
[...]
The Medieval Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard was nicknamed "Robert the Fox" as well as the Resourceful, the Cunning, the Wily - underlining the identification of such qualities with foxes.
[...]
During World War II, the German commander in North Africa, Erwin Rommel, was grudgingly nicknamed the "Desert Fox" by his British adversaries, as a tribute to his cunning and skill in operational art.
And then there's this, this, this and this.
So...I think that we should rehabilitate vulpes, and stop scaring our kids with news of the Vulpes Scare.
Done and done. (And it was always a nuanced animal... that last link is great for this point.)
Your point, sir?
by Shofercia » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:49 pm
Forsher wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Another essay? C'mon now Forsher, we've been over this: "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" - you should try to be brief. Not to mention your posts haven't said anything about the topic at hand. This is like the worse mix of a serious professor and a hipster - it's hipster to go off topic and make it about yourself or someone you believe have gravely harmed you intellectually, and it's a very professorial way to write it up in an essay form. The worse mix. Ever.
You're making yourself into a joke here...Forsher wrote:consider the company they keep.
Forsher wrote:I'm having plenty of fun.
Forsher wrote:But the thread is still moronic.
Forsher wrote:It is based around a non-existent pun
Forsher wrote:(that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country.
Forsher, quoting Wikipedia, wrote:
The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".
Forsher wrote:This is just pathetic.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, La Cocina del Bodhi, Shrillland, The Xenopolis Confederation, Unmet Player
Advertisement