Why Are We So Mean to Fox News?

[Forsher]

Oh wow, an entire link followed with all of 5 words. Nice and brief. Followed by pages of boring, infantile, and quite absurd essays. You claim the thread to be moronic, yet you're the only one writing massive essays in it, so Forsher - do you often waste your time on moronic threads? Did you come here looking for a fight because of something else?

Correction, a short post noting that (a) you failed to create a working thread title and (b) you failed to note that there are real reasons to not like foxes, followed by pages of responses to Shof's hissy fits... which were prompted by these five words which you failed to acknowledge in the first place.

Grow up.

(Also, I am hardly the only one with complaints about the thread. You're just choosing to respond to me... and at some quite considerable length on any and all points which have nothing to do with the thread's substance.)

I'm having plenty of fun.

If by fun you mean writing extraordinarily boring essays...

You persist in believing that (a) quote mining is an acceptable behaviour and (b) essays must be boring. Wow. That's just incredible. Go (back?) to Twitter, Shof, it suits your style better.

But the thread is still moronic.

It will slowly become that, unless you actually lighten up for a change.

You literally just asked me if I was looking for a fight. Is it so hard to believe that you created the problem Shof? (Yes it is, because it is pretty obvious you think yourself God, hence the aforenoted mindreading.)

It is based around a non-existent pun

Not according to the OP, but you're not here to respond the OP; you're annoyed that you think you were clickbaited, and perhaps for some unrelated reason, and you're here looking for a fight, but Forsher, NSG isn't ED. There are moderators here.

Hey, Shof, ever considered that maybe you're wrong? Let's consider a few points:

• You said I hadn't responded to the thread's "substance". I did. In my first post. Which you apparently read.
• You claimed that it wasn't based on a pun. You dug up a four year old thread, found a post in it and then used it to claim that you were trying to make some kind of play on words.
• I have never claimed that I was clickbaited. I did say the word "clickbait" though, so I understand how this might be confusing for you Shof. (If it's not clear, I posted here to express my disappointment that this thread was not a well executed "deceit" thread. This is clear from my first two posts.)
• And while there are moderators here, Shof, your thread is moronic, not against the rules.

(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.

So when I'm talking about Bear News, I'm not talking about news about bears? Let's Google that:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bear+ne ... e&ie=UTF-8

Oh wow, Bear News actually provides news about bears. Who knew? Oh yeah, anyone who knows how to use Google. Now just substitute Bear News for Fox News and... nah, you probably still don't get it.

Remarkably, I did consider this. Apparently, though, considering all the angles makes a post into an essay and therefore too great a burden for I AM ALWAYS RIGHT (AND SHOUTING) SHOF:

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.

Wanna try again hot stuff?

(Please don't, I fear my brain will melt if I ever read another post so wrong and yet so self-righteous. Hey, look! Fun! Naw, Shof probably doesn't get it... he didn't the first time. Clue: those results in that search of yours, provide news about bears, while this thread doesn't provide news about foxes, and nor is it intended to.)

The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".

The very first definition I get on Google talks about deception, but hey, what does Google know compared to Forsher?

Yeah, no, that's Wikipedia you just quoted. This sort of misattribution is against the rules, so please change it.

Similarly, assuming you got the same first hit as me, "defeat (someone) by being more clever or cunning than them" is clearly a positively minded sentiment, so, once again, you have been found misrepresenting evidence. Or, and this actually worse, you didn't but no one can ever know because you haven't actually quoted yourself. (The first dictionary website, Merriam Webster, just uses plain old outsmart, just like Wikipedia. This definition is from the Dictionary box Google sticks at the top of the search results.)

This is just pathetic.

Writing long essays in a fun thread? Yeah, I agree with that.

You're allowed your opinions, Shof and I can't help you not be wrong if you're unwilling to actually read what I wrote. Even worse, I will rapidly lose the will to help you, and by God you need the help, if you persist in the selective quoting too... what happened to, for instance, my link to several Zootopia trailers?

[Shofercia]

Oh wow, an entire link followed with all of 5 words. Nice and brief. Followed by pages of boring, infantile, and quite absurd essays. You claim the thread to be moronic, yet you're the only one writing massive essays in it, so Forsher - do you often waste your time on moronic threads? Did you come here looking for a fight because of something else?

Correction, a short post noting that (a) you failed to create a working thread title and (b) you failed to note that there are real reasons to not like foxes, followed by pages of responses to Shof's hissy fits... which were prompted by these five words which you failed to acknowledge in the first place.

My hissy fit? You're the one writing essays. Project much?

Grow up.

This coming from someone who whines about a thread he doesn't like...

(Also, I am hardly the only one with complaints about the thread. You're just choosing to respond to me... and at some quite considerable length on any and all points which have nothing to do with the thread's substance.)

Just got annoyed of you hijacking my thread.

If by fun you mean writing extraordinarily boring essays...

You persist in believing that (a) quote mining is an acceptable behaviour and (b) essays must be boring. Wow. That's just incredible. Go (back?) to Twitter, Shof, it suits your style better.

No, I believe that in a fun thread, and it was a fun thread until you came along and heroically ruined it for everyone, essays have no place. In an actual debate thread, such as the Middle East thread, you can have long essays. But that would require actual analysis, rather than pointlessly killing threads that you feel have personally wronged you.

It will slowly become that, unless you actually lighten up for a change.

You literally just asked me if I was looking for a fight.

A simple question that you failed to answer.

Not according to the OP, but you're not here to respond the OP; you're annoyed that you think you were clickbaited, and perhaps for some unrelated reason, and you're here looking for a fight, but Forsher, NSG isn't ED. There are moderators here.

Hey, Shof, ever considered that maybe you're wrong?

Oh, I've been wrong before. But if you think that I'm going to engage in an intellectual debate with you because you polluted a fun thread, you think way toooo highly of yourself.

Let's consider a few points

You can consider them all on your own. Have you considered them? Good. Nobody cares.

So when I'm talking about Bear News, I'm not talking about news about bears? Let's Google that:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bear+ne ... e&ie=UTF-8

Oh wow, Bear News actually provides news about bears. Who knew? Oh yeah, anyone who knows how to use Google. Now just substitute Bear News for Fox News and... nah, you probably still don't get it.

Remarkably, I did consider this.

It is indeed remarkable for you to consider that.

Apparently, though, considering all the angles makes a post into an essay and therefore too great a burden for I AM ALWAYS RIGHT (AND SHOUTING) SHOF

*pats* of course you are always right. Even when you are wrong you are right. Can I go back to enjoying my thread now, Forsher?

Wanna try again hot stuff?

Again? I don't recall agreeing the first time.

Please don't, I fear my brain will melt if I ever read another post so wrong and yet so self-righteous.

Project much?

Hey, look! Fun! Naw, Shof probably doesn't get it... he didn't the first time. Clue: those results in that search of yours, provide news about bears, while this thread doesn't provide news about foxes, and nor is it intended to.

When you don't get a Google result you're searching, you *gasps* modify the search. Complex stuff. Not hot stuff. Complex stuff. So if you don't get any news about foxes that you want, you can place "vulpes" in the search engine.

The very first definition I get on Google talks about deception, but hey, what does Google know compared to Forsher?

Yeah, no, that's Wikipedia you just quoted.

No, I quoted Google. When I entered "outfoxed definition" - that's the first Google hit I got.

This sort of misattribution is against the rules, so please change it.

And just when I thought this thread couldn't get anymore boring, you're quoting an ancient rule, that doesn't even apply here. If you think that I have brazenly violated the rules by quoting Google when it was the first hit on Google - report me.

Similarly, assuming you got the same first hit as me

When you assume, you make an ass out of yourself, ass-u-me. Here's the first hit I got from Google, not Wikipedia: defeat or deceive (someone) by being more clever or cunning than they are; outwit.

"defeat (someone) by being more clever or cunning than them"

Yours is missing the "or deceived" part, the very part that my definition contains. Because I do actual analysis, rather than mindless rule memorization, my Google Search Algorithms, at least insofar as vulpes are concerned, are superior to yours.

is clearly a positively minded sentiment, so, once again, you have been found misrepresenting evidence.

Not really, it's just that it never occurred to you that different Google Algorithms are applied to different search patterns. That's complex stuff. Memorizing obscure rules is much easier.

Or, and this actually worse, you didn't but no one can ever know because you haven't actually quoted yourself. (The first dictionary website, Merriam Webster, just uses plain old outsmart, just like Wikipedia. This definition is from the Dictionary box Google sticks at the top of the search results.)

Wrong and boring. *yawns*

If I cared about your opinion, I would've simply taken a screenshot. I don't.

Writing long essays in a fun thread? Yeah, I agree with that.

You're allowed your opinions, Shof and I can't help you not be wrong if you're unwilling to actually read what I wrote. Even worse, I will rapidly lose the will to help you, and by God you need the help, if you persist in the selective quoting too... what happened to, for instance, my link to several Zootopia trailers?

Please, please, please, lose the "will" to "help" me, so that I can have fun in a fun thread. Please, please, please - do so!

[Aellex]

Fox are gud, cute, fluffy little creatures. They deserve our love.

[Shofercia]

Fox are gud, cute, fluffy little creatures. They deserve our love.

Exactly, mon ami!

[Aellex]

Exactly, mon ami!

;D
Also, got me good on that title!

[Shofercia]

Exactly, mon ami!

;D
Also, got me good on that title!

It's my secret way of finding out which NSGers have a sense of humor

[Forsher]

My hissy fit? You're the one writing essays. Project much?

You have constantly chosen to respond particularly on every point you deem irrelevant. You have written multiple posts* of more than 1000 words, including one in response to a post that was 137 words long. In the first of your long responses, you even made the assumption that every Generalite coming across this thread knows an apparently vital context of your specific views on "mass media". You didn't respond at anywhere near the same length to the variety of posts giving you kudos. You have actively avoided reading what I have written and have rejected (on several occasions) the very notion that you ought to. You have failed to consider any view but your own. The only part of the standard "hissy fit" that you haven't actually covered is the hysterical screaming/yelling tantrum bit. To be clear, we have the ego-centrism, we have the making mountains out of molehills and we have the "you don't understand me" stuff as well. Huh... I'm sorry, clearly I shouldn't have said hissy fit. Ego-maniacal ranting does fit the facts though.

I think that covers the over-personalising screed, shows that it was you who hijacked this thread and brings us to...

*Methodological note. This includes quoted material, which in the case of your most recent post I had mostly written, so it's somewhat unfair to include it. On the other hand, excluding it would imply that no-one is meant to read sources and also requires much more effort.

that would require actual analysis, rather than pointlessly killing threads that you feel have personally wronged you.

I claimed you tried and failed to make a clever thread. Both times I did this, I offered substantive opinions that, indeed, being mean to foxes is justified. Both times you ignored this, although you only quoted one instance so I can't be sure you read that. Subsequently, I have offered several opinions on the topic at hand, including with sources, which you have generally ignored or erroneously interpreted. Let us examine a bunch of those erroneous interpretations.

A simple question that you failed to answer.

Er, no, I think you are. More specifically I think you have failed to grasp the notion that I won't let myself be defamed. (Yes, I'm expecting you to make some song and dance about defamation now. Please don't because that would be a threadjack.)

you because you polluted a fun thread, you think way toooo highly of yourself.

Again, consider your own actions.

Let's consider a few points

You can consider them all on your own. Have you considered them? Good. Nobody cares.

You care enough to try and demean them. Sure, it was very childishly done, but isn't all demeaning?

Can I go back to enjoying my thread now, Forsher?

Again, you made the thread this way. Don't pick fights you aren't prepared to have.

Wanna try again hot stuff?

Again? I don't recall agreeing the first time.

And what was I suggesting you agreed with? Nothing. At no point in that section did I suggest you agree with me. I suggested that I had already accounted for this thread being an analogue of "Bear News" as in "news about bears" as in "the kinds of results you get from searching 'bear news' on Google", and dismissed that as a possibility. There is nothing newsy about the revelation people are mean to foxes. There is nothing current about suggesting a call to rehabilitate them. There is no discussion of things like "Fox feeders beware: Fines coming in Charlottetown" prompted by the OP. It is, in short, nothing to do with the news. Thus, it cannot be the basis of a pun/word play because it has no connection with the substance of the thread as you created it.

Please don't, I fear my brain will melt if I ever read another post so wrong and yet so self-righteous.

Project much?

As I said, you probably wouldn't get the fun and, well, you didn't.

Hey, look! Fun! Naw, Shof probably doesn't get it... he didn't the first time. Clue: those results in that search of yours, provide news about bears, while this thread doesn't provide news about foxes, and nor is it intended to.

When you don't get a Google result you're searching, you *gasps* modify the search. Complex stuff. Not hot stuff. Complex stuff. So if you don't get any news about foxes that you want, you can place "vulpes" in the search engine.

Is that really, honestly, what you think we were just talking about? I hope not, because I don't see how you think it can be (and, also, you seem to have fundamentally misread the context here: see above). Specifically, why do you think when I say "this thread doesn't provide news about foxes" I am talking about the kind of results "fox news" gives me from a Google search?

And, no, putting "vulpes" in the engine would be a silly idea. Firstly, not all foxes are members of the genus Vulpes. Secondly, it would bias results towards discussions of science related news results, on account of how fox is the lay term. Thirdly, I tried it and did not get actual example on the first page of results. What one should do is use "news about foxes" for my result, with my search history.

Yeah, no, that's Wikipedia you just quoted.

No, I quoted Google. When I entered "outfoxed definition" - that's the first Google hit I got.

Again, not what I was talking about. You previously wrote, and notice the bit where it says "Forsher wrote":

The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".

The very first definition I get on Google talks about deception, but hey, what does Google know compared to Forsher?

I didn't write that stuff. Wikipedia did. It is one thing to suggest Google knows better than Wikipedia, and therefore that I shouldn't quote Wikipedia, but it is quite another to say that I wrote the stuff on Wikipedia. I didn't. You should have grasped this before (you didn't quote anything from Google, you paraphrased), and there's no excuses now, so please change it.

This sort of misattribution is against the rules, so please change it.

And just when I thought this thread couldn't get anymore boring, you're quoting an ancient rule, that doesn't even apply here. If you think that I have brazenly violated the rules by quoting Google when it was the first hit on Google - report me.

I don't and never wrote anything that suggested that I do. I want you to change it because you should do so according to standard ethics, but if you don't now I've asked and made it stupidly clear where exactly the problem lies, then (and only then) would I have any recourse to moderation. And I don't want to go there if there's no need.

Similarly, assuming you got the same first hit as me

When you assume, you make an ass out of yourself, ass-u-me. Here's the first hit I got from Google, not Wikipedia: defeat or deceive (someone) by being more clever or cunning than they are; outwit.

Firstly, that's just stupid. Assumptions are an important part of the academic process in most, if not all, fields. Look up the spherical cow.

Secondly, the reason we're making the assumption is that Google searches reflect a user's past search history. I know you know this, so you should be able to consider that this is why I pointed out there was an assumption. But let's go on and ignore this intellectual bankruptcy.

"defeat (someone) by being more clever or cunning than them"

Yours is missing the "or deceived" part, the very part that my definition contains. Because I do actual analysis, rather than mindless rule memorization, my Google Search Algorithms, at least insofar as vulpes are concerned, are superior to yours.

I'm not sure why you're talking about analysis and memorisation, but good for you. But we're back in quasi-aggressive ranting territory so let us continue...

is clearly a positively minded sentiment, so, once again, you have been found misrepresenting evidence.

Not really, it's just that it never occurred to you that different Google Algorithms are applied to different search patterns. That's complex stuff. Memorizing obscure rules is much easier.

Strangely, when you break paragraphs up, you can misrepresent what they say. This is, of course, exactly what has happened here. Great analysis Shof... you have created a strawman.

Or, and this actually worse, you didn't but no one can ever know because you haven't actually quoted yourself. (The first dictionary website, Merriam Webster, just uses plain old outsmart, just like Wikipedia. This definition is from the Dictionary box Google sticks at the top of the search results.)

Wrong and boring. *yawns*

If I cared about your opinion, I would've simply taken a screenshot. I don't.

It should be clear that we're getting definitions from different sources. In fact, you're getting a very niche definition.

If we put your definition into Google in quotes, i.e. so the engine finds an exactly result, we're directed towards Oxford Dictionaries Online. Or are we? No, we're directed to the US version of it. You know, the one that has Dictionary (US) in the drop down menu, not just Dictionary. World English, what I speak, has:

Defeat (someone) by being more clever or cunning than them.

Which is to be contrasted with:

Defeat or deceive (someone) by being more clever or cunning than they are; outwit.

And why are we talking about this? Because Shof so desperately needs outfox to have negative connotations? No, because it was easier than talking about any of the other points I raised, because it was easy to pretend that I came up with some definitions rather than Wikipedia and because it was easier to ignore that the definition, as it is defined for most* (or many) English speakers, where it lacks the negative connotations. We might recall that I have suggested a nuanced interpretation of the fox... a notion captured in microcosm by the American definition.

(If you're wondering, the OED has a neutral definition that is simply "To outdo in cunning; to outwit.")

*Assuming that we're still teaching, outside of East Asia, World English not American English.

Please, please, please, lose the "will" to "help" me, so that I can have fun in a fun thread. Please, please, please - do so!

And, again, for instance, Shof avoids talking about substance. What happened to your interpretation of the Zootopia trailers?

[Shofercia]

My hissy fit? You're the one writing essays. Project much?

You have constantly chosen to respond particularly on every point you deem irrelevant.

That would make your posts beyond irrelevant now, wouldn't it?

You have written multiple posts* of more than 1000 words, including one in response to a post that was 137 words long.

Would you like to make a chart?

In the first of your long responses, you even made the assumption that every Generalite coming across this thread knows an apparently vital context of your specific views on "mass media".

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.

You didn't respond at anywhere near the same length to the variety of posts giving you kudos.

Is there a point?

You have actively avoided reading what I have written and have rejected (on several occasions) the very notion that you ought to.

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.

You have failed to consider any view but your own.

Actually, in reality, the only viewpoint I didn't consider is yours, because I deem it too damn boring to consider.

The only part of the standard "hissy fit" that you haven't actually covered is the hysterical screaming/yelling tantrum bit.

You're actually expecting a tamper tantrum on an online forum?

Then again, you'd probably do a chart on when that happens, Forsher.

To be clear, we have the ego-centrism, we have the making mountains out of molehills and we have the "you don't understand me" stuff as well.

Not we, Forsher - just you. Stop projecting. It's pathetic.

Huh... I'm sorry, clearly I shouldn't have said hissy fit. Ego-maniacal ranting does fit the facts though.

Your ranting fits your facts. Stop projecting.

Methodological note.

Oh good, I can ignore it.

I claimed you tried and failed to make a clever thread. Both times I did this, I offered substantive opinions

Good for you.

Let us examine a bunch of those erroneous interpretations.

The only one who's examining them is you, yourself, and... stop projecting...

Er, no, I think you are. More specifically I think you have failed to grasp the notion that I won't let myself be defamed.

You do realize that by acting super-seriously in a fun thread, you are defaming yourself, right?

Yes, I'm expecting you...

Then you'll be disappointed once again.

you because you polluted a fun thread, you think way toooo highly of yourself.

Again, consider your own actions.

Ok, I considered them. I should've simply ignored your post. And I should ignore all posts you make in fun threads.

You can consider them all on your own. Have you considered them? Good. Nobody cares.

You care enough to try and demean them. Sure, it was very childishly done, but isn't all demeaning?

Demean? I have apparently caused a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for some of Forsher's points on an online forum, in a fun thread about vulpes. My goodness - the humanities!

Can I go back to enjoying my thread now, Forsher?

Again, you made the thread this way. Don't pick fights you aren't prepared to have.

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.

Thus, it cannot be the basis of a pun/word play because it has no connection with the substance of the thread as you created it.

I already explained why that's not the case. You chose to ignore it.

Project much?

As I said, you probably wouldn't get the fun and, well, you didn't.

Brevity is the Soul of Wit. Brevity Forsher, brevity.

When you don't get a Google result you're searching, you *gasps* modify the search. Complex stuff. Not hot stuff. Complex stuff. So if you don't get any news about foxes that you want, you can place "vulpes" in the search engine.

Is that really, honestly, what you think we were just talking about?

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 hope not, because I don't see how you think it can be (and, also, you seem to have fundamentally misread the context here: see above). Specifically, why do you think when I say "this thread doesn't provide news about foxes" I am talking about the kind of results "fox news" gives me from a Google search?

The joke is lost on you. Lost. Forever.

And, no, putting "vulpes" in the engine would be a silly idea. Firstly, not all foxes are members of the genus Vulpes. Secondly, it would bias results towards discussions of science related news results, on account of how fox is the lay term. Thirdly, I tried it and did not get actual example on the first page of results. What one should do is use "news about foxes" for my result, with my search history.

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.

The very first definition I get on Google talks about deception, but hey, what does Google know compared to Forsher?

I didn't write that stuff. Wikipedia did. It is one thing to suggest Google knows better than Wikipedia, and therefore that I shouldn't quote Wikipedia, but it is quite another to say that I wrote the stuff on Wikipedia. I didn't. You should have grasped this before (you didn't quote anything from Google, you paraphrased), and there's no excuses now, so please change it.

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!

When you assume, you make an ass out of yourself, ass-u-me. Here's the first hit I got from Google, not Wikipedia: defeat or deceive (someone) by being more clever or cunning than they are; outwit.

Firstly, that's just stupid. Assumptions are an important part of the academic process in most, if not all, fields. Look up the spherical cow.

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...

Secondly, the reason we're making the assumption is that Google searches reflect a user's past search history. I know you know this, so you should be able to consider that this is why I pointed out there was an assumption.

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.

But let's go on and ignore this intellectual bankruptcy.

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?

Yours is missing the "or deceived" part, the very part that my definition contains. Because I do actual analysis, rather than mindless rule memorization, my Google Search Algorithms, at least insofar as vulpes are concerned, are superior to yours.

I'm not sure why you're talking about analysis and memorisation, but good for you. But we're back in quasi-aggressive ranting territory so let us continue...

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...

Not really, it's just that it never occurred to you that different Google Algorithms are applied to different search patterns. That's complex stuff. Memorizing obscure rules is much easier.

Strangely, when you break paragraphs up, you can misrepresent what they say. This is, of course, exactly what has happened here. Great analysis Shof... you have created a strawman.

So you thought that my screen said something different from what I said it said because I broke up your paragraphs?

Wrong and boring. *yawns*

If I cared about your opinion, I would've simply taken a screenshot. I don't.

It should be clear that we're getting definitions from different sources.

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!

If we put your definition into Google in quotes, i.e. so the engine finds an exactly result, we're directed towards Oxford Dictionaries Online. Or are we?

Unless you are royalty, you should probably stop using the royal "we", you wouldn't want to defame your commoner status with such use of the royal "we".

And why are we talking about this? Because Shof so desperately needs outfox to have negative connotations?

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.

No, because it was easier than talking about any of the other points I raised

Easier? Nah. I just chose the least boring point that you raised. In my subjective opinion.

Please, please, please, lose the "will" to "help" me, so that I can have fun in a fun thread. Please, please, please - do so!

And, again, for instance, Shof avoids talking about substance. What happened to your interpretation of the Zootopia trailers?

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?

[USHALLNOTPASS]

Foxes are b@stards. They eat the fowl that deserve to be in my stomach.

[The Foxes Swamp]

Foxes rock especially the historical Swamp Fox and you gotta love Basil Brush.

[Forsher]

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.

[Shofercia]

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.

Thing is Forsher, I'm not going to read anymore of your posts, and I didn't read that one after seeing the sheer size of it, because, quite frankly, it's not worth my time. You can pretend that it's really about winning an amazing "fight" in a fun thread by being supremely boring, or something else, but Shakespeare said "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" - and I'm sticking with Shakespeare. So you like "won" or whatevs, mission accomplished!

[Shofercia]

Foxes are b@stards. They eat the fowl that deserve to be in my stomach.

Would you call Starfox a bastard?

Foxes rock especially the historical Swamp Fox and you gotta love Basil Brush.

I do!

[Forsher]

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.


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).


I thought it obvious: you have a problem with “your” thread being criticised: that’s on you.



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.)


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?


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.



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.


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.


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.



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.



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.)


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.)



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



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.



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.



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 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.)



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.



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.


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.



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.)


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.



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.)



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!


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...



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!



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.

Thing is Forsher, I'm not going to read anymore of your posts, and I didn't read that one after seeing the sheer size of it, because, quite frankly, it's not worth my time. You can pretend that it's really about winning an amazing "fight" in a fun thread by being supremely boring, or something else, but Shakespeare said "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" - and I'm sticking with Shakespeare. So you like "won" or whatevs, mission accomplished!

You weren't reading them to start with.

[Shofercia]

Thing is Forsher, I'm not going to read anymore of your posts, and I didn't read that one after seeing the sheer size of it, because, quite frankly, it's not worth my time. You can pretend that it's really about winning an amazing "fight" in a fun thread by being supremely boring, or something else, but Shakespeare said "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" - and I'm sticking with Shakespeare. So you like "won" or whatevs, mission accomplished!

You weren't reading them to start with.

Unfortunately, I read the first post.

[Forsher]

You weren't reading them to start with.

Unfortunately, I read the first post.

No, you didn't.

#notallShofs

[Shofercia]

Unfortunately, I read the first post.

No, you didn't.

#notallShofs

You are, of course, entitled to your rather incorrect opinion. Are you one of those people who always have to have the last post so that they can "win" in their mind?

[Forsher]

No, you didn't.

#notallShofs

You are, of course, entitled to your rather incorrect opinion. Are you one of those people who always have to have the last post so that they can "win" in their mind?

To be honest, I have no idea if you read my first post. I do know that you didn't read the first post of mine that you quoted. In particular you ignored the discussion of #notallfoxes.

[Tokora]

Because it constantly spews out right-wing propaganda demonizing the poor and minorities for the sake of ratings and profit.

[Shofercia]

You are, of course, entitled to your rather incorrect opinion. Are you one of those people who always have to have the last post so that they can "win" in their mind?

To be honest, I have no idea if you read my first post. I do know that you didn't read the first post of mine that you quoted. In particular you ignored the discussion of #notallfoxes.

That answers my question.

[Forsher]

To be honest, I have no idea if you read my first post. I do know that you didn't read the first post of mine that you quoted. In particular you ignored the discussion of #notallfoxes.

That answers my question.

See, this is a bind. If I respond you're going to think "Ah, he has to have the last word". If I don't respond I let you get away with twisting sentences into meanings they just don't have...

To be clear, I was making a joke about how you ignored that I was talking about #notallfoxes in the first post of mine that you responded to. Sadly, you're seemingly unable to fairly represent anything I say, thus necessitating a second explanation of this joke. On the bright side, I really can't imagine anything that you could say in response to this post, which would require another response.

Or, put another way, if you avoided the passive aggressive posturing and had just written something like "Whatever" I would not have had to explain the joke, twice.

(Okay, edit, I was wrong. He decides to go passive aggressive with a brevity thing. OMG, seriously, dude? You realise that what you wrote does not accomplish the same meaning as what I wanted to convey? "Sneaky" edit response this.)

[Shofercia]

That answers my question.

See, this is a bind. If I respond you're going to think "Ah, he has to have the last word". If I don't respond I let you get away with twisting sentences into meanings they just don't have...

To be clear, I was making a joke about how you ignored that I was talking about #notallfoxes in the first post of mine that you responded to. Sadly, you're seemingly unable to fairly represent anything I say, thus necessitating a second explanation of this joke. On the bright side, I really can't imagine anything that you could say in response to this post, which would require another response.

Or, put another way, if you avoided the passive aggressive posturing and had just written something like "Whatever" I would not have had to explain the joke, twice.

You mean you would not have to explain yourself twice? (See how brief my responses are, Forsher? You should work on that.)