Shofercia wrote:Forsher wrote:You have constantly chosen to respond particularly on every point you deem irrelevant.
That would make your posts beyond irrelevant now, wouldn't it?
Only we were to judge you as an arbiter of relevance. However, as we shall see, you have given us no reason to believe that you recognise what is and isn't salient.
What our observation does tell us is that you're happy to write thousands of words, by this point, on something you don't think belongs in this thread. And, what is more, your primary reaction to a criticism of your attempt at humour was to go find a bunch of quotes and then fail to appropriately characterise them. These are different things.
“Except I specifically didn't say "every" because only the Sith, deal in absolutes, and I am not Sith, even though I supported a Sith Lord for Presidency of Ukraine.”
Actually Shof, it doesn’t matter whether or not you said “every”. To bring it up means you think it relevant. (Or, rather, it means this is a reasonable assumption, your rationality, I mean.) For it to be relevant, you are either catering to a select group of Generalites or you expect everyone to know it. Neither of these points is consistent with the forum as a whole. Threads are made for everyone (a related point to “there is no thread ownership”) and, as you say, there are problems with absolutes. That’s what I mean. That’s why I said things like “every Generalite coming across this thread.” And because I know I might be wrong, I chuck in a qualifier, i.e. “apparently”. Good job.
Even better is that you actually
said: "
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."
Newsflash Shof, that is an absolute statement.
Basically, your methodology was "let's assume everyone knows my views on media, how, then, can we characterise responses to the thread?" This is bonkers. It is what you wrote. Now, maybe you expressed yourself poorly (and this isn't what you meant to say) but that's on you: we can
only read the words you actually write (and this description
does characterise what you did as well as what you said you were going to do).
“Is there a point? “
I thought it obvious: you have a problem with “your” thread being criticised: that’s on you.
“I don't "ought to" do jack shit for someone whom I think is here to pollute my thread with some of the most boring material I have ever seen on NSG. “
Reading my posts has nothing to do with me. If you want to respond to anything, in any walk of life and in any context, you ought to understand it... which involves reading it.
(And note, if you follow, for instance, the thinking of historiography’s anthropological turn, everything is a text that can be read. That is a fairly convincing point of view.)
“Actually, in reality, the only viewpoint I didn't consider is yours, because I deem it too damn boring to consider. “
So, your thread doesn’t stem from the premise that there are no good reasons to dislike foxes? Your thread doesn’t ignore all views of foxes that don’t stem from a fairly particular socio-cultural tradition?
“You're actually expecting a tamper tantrum on an online forum? “
Um, no. If you’re going to pervert sentences into having meanings they can’t possess, at least you could avoid being repetitive in doing so. You have a meme. That’s cool, Shof, real cool. Mad respect.
“Not we, Forsher - just you. Stop projecting. It's pathetic. “
I’m not sure you know what projecting is. It’s what happens when someone takes a state of their own psychology and reads it in the behaviours of others. It has nothing to do with a fairly standard rhetorical technique. That is, personalising the description. I say we because I am describing features of the thread that exist in your posts. You can try and describe how, for instance, you have been reading what I’ve been writing but you literally just defended not doing that. Alternatively, you could argue that I am wrong and there is some kind of hysterical screaming in your posts, but I don’t see why you’d do that... mostly because, as I say, it is not true.
“Your ranting fits your facts. Stop projecting. “
If you think I am ranting that’s cool, but it doesn’t change anything about the accuracy of my summary.
Similarly, the intellectually honest point of view would be to explain why I am apparently projecting. You can’t do that though, Shof... I have not given you the material.
“Oh good, I can ignore it. “
No, you can’t. If you tried to comment on, say, a study and ignored the methodology you would not be taken seriously by any non-lay person. In fact, I dare say most lay people would find it odd that you ignore entirely how a study was operated, but I am not sure about this.
“The only one who's examining them is you, yourself, and... stop projecting... “
Again, it’s a common form of writing. I am involving the reader and guiding them on a post-modernist touchy feely journey of discovery. Or I am not, either way it is the reader who undertakes the journey... look up the death of the author.
“You do realize that by acting super-seriously in a fun thread, you are defaming yourself, right? “
I am not sure you know what defamation is. And I have already told you that the evidence doesn’t speak for itself.
(You may have noticed that I have largely abandoned my jovial jibes, whereas you have continued them (with an increasingly aggressive subtext)... if you are not going to recognise humour, or attempts at, where it is to be found, it will not be produced, you old sour puss you. That’s a joke. Laugh.)
“Then you'll be disappointed once again.”
I’m sorry, didn’t you literally just make a song and dance about defamation? Yes, yes you did. (See “you wouldn't want to defame your commoner status” aside from the misuse of the concept just above.)
“Ok, I considered them. I should've simply ignored your post. And I should ignore all posts you make in fun threads. “
If you really cared about your thread’s “fun-ness” you would never have gone to all the trouble of finding all those quotes to respond to 137 words, most of which were in response to a hashtag! #notallfoxes #nonaivearchives
“I just don't want to be bored to death by these "fights", I haven't the time! But if you think that things that happen on NSG in a thread about vulpes amount to a serious fight... Demean? Fights? You're taking this way too seriously. “
Observe how the terminology “fight” which is so unproblematic when Shof suggests I am here for a fight becomes a grossly misused word when it is suggested that Shof has created a fight. Not even that he was looking for one, just that he has created one.
By the by, I’m pretty sure most fights are trivial. Not everything can be an invasion of the Crimea, Shof.
“I already explained why that's not the case. You chose to ignore it. “
Show it.
If that is true, show me ignoring it. Show where you have explained it, show me responding to the post it is in, and show me not talking about your explanation.
I repeat: if I made a thread called “News About Donald Trump” tomorrow and then tried to talk about the Covfefe Tweet in the context of “so, Trump just made an hilarious typo in a Tweet” I haven’t made a thread about Donald Trump news, I have made a thread about Donald Trump olds. You made a thread about fox olds. In fact, not really, because you didn’t even ground your discussion, you just talked about the concept. You made a thread about foxes. You didn’t make a thread about news about foxes, you didn’t make a thread about Fox News and thus your thread title is completely and utterly misleading. And, as I said before, if your “pun” argument is that “the word fox is in it” then that’s like 12% of a plan being better than 11% of a plan.
“We weren't talking; I was pointing out that you're taking this thread way too seriously. You are the only person I know that would defend their reputation in a thread about vulpes. As a result, I have not been taking you seriously. At all. Since you apparently were serious, there was no conversation; rather, it was one side acting like it's a Courtroom, and the other side cracking jokes. “
I’ve been cracking many jokes Shof. I guess that makes you the courtroom.
And, by the way, so proud you know vulpes is a word. Shame you can’t use it properly. It’s Vulpes vulpes (preferably italicised) and if you want just the genus it’s always (and only) Vulpes, with a capital.
But, still, even if you think we weren’t talking (and talking is a way lower standard than having a conversation), you still didn’t manage to riff off something in a way that understood what you’re riffing off. Observational humour captures truth, Shof... and you haven’t found it. (Good observational humour is also funny, but not everyone is... and your thread isn’t Shof, even if you are.)
“I have no idea, because I don't know your search history, nor do I want to know it; not even remotely. Instead of writing "Forsher, quoting Wikipedia, posted XYZ", I stated that "Forsher wrote XYZ", even though you were agreeing with the Wikipedia source.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if all members of Fox have said genus. You have to adjust Google Searches that don't work. For instance, when I Googled "news about fox, the animal" 3/4 of my top hits, on my calibrated search engine, were about Fox Insider. Perhaps Google considers Fox Insider an animal, but because said search is "broken" - hence the joke that just went over your head, the researcher needed to start entering genus, irrespective of whether it's the only one or not. This is like Online Research 101. “
I
wasn’t agreeing with the Wikipedia source. I was quoting the Wikipedia source to show you examples of people thinking “the fox”is not an entirely negative concept. It is not the same thing, not even remotely. See,
that’s funny.
I already offered you a Google search term that worked, Shof. I’m not sure why you had to find another one that, apparently, doesn’t. Seems kind of silly to me.
(If you're confused, agreeing would look like, "Yep, those are accurate definitions" whereas what I was doing is "Look, here are people who think outfoxed has positive connotations, therefore it is weird to find an OP about attitudes to foxes which has absolutely nothing to say about these positive connotations." It's a bit like how I might quote Bull Connors to say that racist people exist: that doesn't mean I agree with the quote.)
“I quoted from Google in the previous post. Also, when I go for definition, I either use a cited Wikipedia link, or a Google link. I don't use an uncited Wikipedia link. You're just grasping here. I've changed the quote from "Forsher wrote" to "Forsher, quoting Wikipedia, posted" - not exactly seeing how that makes a huge difference, considering that you were agreeing with said Wikipedia quote! “
No, you didn’t. What you wrote was: “The very first definition I get on Google talks about deception, but hey, what does Google know compared to Forsher? “ That not a quote. That is barely paraphrasing. It is telling me an apparently salient point (it isn’t on account of how I said something like, what was it, “the fox has always been a nuanced animal”). Still not a quote. Maybe you mean your link to a Bear News search? Not the same thing, Shof, not the same thing at all.
And as for an uncited Wikipedia link? I think you’ll find I
did cite it. Not where I meant to, but it's the first this. If you're not properly reading posts, you're in no position to judge whether or not things are cited.
Similarly, I have explained how I wasn’t agreeing.
Incidentally, I have also explained why it is different. One way makes it look like I wrote up some random definitions for “outfoxed” whereas the other makes it clear that you’re pitting a Google definition against a Wikipedia definition. It is an enormous difference, Shof. Huuge.
“That happens when you're guessing; if you knew how search engines worked, you wouldn't have to guess. But even if you didn't know, when I clearly said that my search showed the word "deception" - why the fuck would you assume otherwise? If X says "look, Y is showing on my screen" - why would you assume that it's Z that's actually on X's screen. And then you accuse others of intellectual bankruptcy, while accusing them of defaming you... “
I don’t know, Shof, maybe I’d believe you if you hadn’t responded to 137 words with a bunch of quotes and some contextual spiel that I deemed wrong? Maybe I’d believe you if you hadn’t been misrepresenting probably most of what I’ve written? Maybe I’d believe you if you acknowledged that I have inserted a great many jokes in my posts rather than trying to portray me as some kind of German!?
Or maybe it has nothing to do with belief? Maybe it is just how things ought to be done, that things ought to be read. Since you’re apparently keen on digging up references to threads you were never posting in at the time, perhaps you’d like to read TCT/ECG on the battle of the sources? Perhaps you’d like to find an FST thread where most people, including my naive younger self, assumed he’d managed to understand the source, but where it turned out he hadn’t? Perhaps you’d like to note that my argument was that FST had shown no prior signs of being someone whose interpretation couldn’t be trusted? Nah. Can’t be that. Shof’s a Factinista. He knows all this stuff. Which begs the question, why is he writing like he doesn’t????
But, again, let us also remember, you appear to believe that it is relevant that deception is there. It’s not.
“I told you exactly what was on my screen. You chose to assume that wasn't the case, in a fit of intellectual bankruptcy, and now you're backpedaling. Now you're demanding a change from "Forsher wrote" to "Forsher, quoting Wikipedia, posted" - as if that makes a huge difference. “
You did not say exactly what you had on your screen. Not when you first wanted to talk about it, that is. And if you did, I apologise, because I never saw it written anywhere. And I read your posts.
How am I backpedalling? Why do you think I wrote assumption there? Give me a better explanation than the one I just gave you. (You can’t.)
And there’s no “now” about it. I have been asking you to do that since you committed the error.
Importantly, it remains the case that deception was not an accurate characterisation of the hit I got.
“Which one? The one about the search? The one about assuming where facts exist? The one about being serious in a thread about furry vulpes? “
There is only one thing that that this could be referring to. Again you break up a paragraph in order to set up a strawman. That is basically the definition of intellectual bankruptcy.
Also, there are some post-modernists who would have words with thee. Now, come on, I know you’ll get that. Right, Shof? (This is in reference to the stuff about facts... although why you’re talking about this, I don’t know.)
“My point is that my search showed the word "deception". I told you that my search showed said word. You decided that my search didn't show it, and argued against it. When I pointed this out, you accused me of intellectual bankruptcy and ranting. And now you're going to claim that I'm defaming you... “
Go back and read my posts. I have been suggesting your means of engaging with my posts in this thread has bee intellectually bankrupt for a long time.
You also haven’t answered the question. Rookie mistake. Oh, damn, I’ve gone back to the jokes.
Also, it occurs to me, now, that deception could have been incorporated in a number of ways, e.g. “deceiving someone in order to defeat them”. That’s a positive vibe.
“So you thought that my screen said something different from what I said it said because I broke up your paragraphs? “
Not even close.
I am sure that’s a reference. Oh well. Let’s try Pulp Fiction:
English, [Shof] do you speak it?
(Terrible movie. Well, over-rated. Also, it is possible to break up paragraphs fairly, but to do that you have to treat the broken up parts as part of the same thing, which you don't do.)
“Yes, we are getting definitions from different sources. Good on you to finally arrive at the conclusion that different people with different algorithms get different definition from different sources, after several posts! “
This is just plain wrong, I’ll draw the thread’s attention to “assuming you got the same first hit [...] Or, and this actually worse, you didn't “.
Fake!
“Outfox has a negative connotation, and a positive one. Hence why I like the definition that I got. Since it already exists, I don't need it. Since I don't need it, then I don't desperately need it. “
Just stop with the breaking up of the paragraphs. It’s annoying, intellectually bankrupt and makes posts so much longer than they need to be.
But if your point is that the view of foxes is nuanced? Why are you disagreeing with me? You decided that the...
“ the least boring point that you raised. In my subjective opinion.
Was the exact same point (bold) that you were making! So you needed to find sources on top of the ones I just used to make that point??? Help me out here, Shof, because it doesn’t make sense... especially considering in the OP it's all so "we're real meanies when it comes to the poor quite foxies". And why did you write "The very first definition I get on Google talks about deception, but hey, what does Google know compared to Forsher?" without the defeat or outwit bits that give it the positive meaning?! Please explain. You're asking me to believe that you're an irrational poster, that is, someone who leaves out the bits that back up your points.
More to my original response’s point (that is, the one made in response to Shof’s ridiculously out of proportion “reply”) this is exactly the problem with mindreading Shof, it doesn’t work! Although, at least it makes sense that you’d disagree with me if you desperately needed outfoxed to also be about deception. Your quotes often had no logical connection with how you described them!
“Hmm, so you have a poster, whom you're claiming is defaming you, whom you're pretending desperately needs something, and who, in your mind, and your mind only, needs your help, and yet, when said poster rejects your "help", you continue to respond to said poster. What does that say about you?”
I know this one!
The correct answer is: I can avoid answering the question too.
What happened to that Zootopia trailer Shof?
Oh, and since you're so keen on facts, maybe it would help if you learnt how to handle them.