STRIKE - Scab bastards

[Marmalade]

Ever thought that your steadfast belief in rigid personality types (please spare us the Myers-Briggs codswallop) may have compromised your ability (or inclination) to consider 'hard facts and logic'?

If we must court the M-B dogma though, then you certainly come across as more of a 'feeler' than the majority of posters here, based on the (ahem) hard evidence of the emotive content in your posts.

Just a thought...

those tests are only useful internally to the individual who took them for internal use. ie: reflecting on possible weaknesses, and problematic behaviours, and how they can be rectified and developed

anyone using them for reasons ESPECIALLY to explain the differences between people, ESPECIALLY to explain the difference between them and people they don't even have a relationship with, is frankly, veering towards sociopath. lawdy

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Ever thought that your steadfast belief in rigid personality types (please spare us the Myers-Briggs codswallop) may have compromised your ability (or inclination) to consider 'hard facts and logic'?

If we must court the M-B dogma though, then you certainly come across as more of a 'feeler' than the majority of posters here, based on the (ahem) hard evidence of the emotive content in your posts.

Just a thought...

My steadfast belief in personality types (not that I think they are 100% rigid, because as you grow up you develop your secondary and third, and eventually fourth functions) comes from the scientific studies into it, and how it widely conforms with the way people are. I don't see how my posts are emotive, I don't run around saying 'think what that person is feeling', and I regularly post figures and facts to support what I say. You will notice when you look at the Poppy thread where we were debating the Iraq death toll, and whose fault that was, that when you finally brought in evidence that showed Iraq body count's reporting wasn't as adequate as it should be I moved my position closer to yours. I cannot however think of one example of when you have had facts, figures, or logic, laid at your feet and you have conceded even slightly. If you could highlight where emotion has come into my opinions or stance stated on this forum I would appreciate it? And by that I do not mean when I have become frustrated and resorted to insulting people back.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

urge. I meant the jungian ENxx you. sigh

I'm sorry you need me to point everything out in diagrams. I could do it correctly, in a worthwhile way ... and break each point, explain the motivation, intent, what youre ignoring. esp the feminism point, lawd, you make assumptions about why people decide to not respond to others [very poor assumptions]. you are crippled in this way. but this is pages worth of words. and I'm not your shrink.

best/simpliest demonstration ive got as an all round analogy for our main differences, is go back and check out the comment you responded to when I made the 'You're posts make me want to be slain'.

Can you see anything obvious that you overlooked when replying? anything obvious that you missed when you made that post?

it's all there

You are chatting incoherent shit, you do realise that don't you? You aren't even using capital letters or grammar correctly ffs. You are right though, your post about wanting to be slain is a good example of our differences. I make a point, and you run into the thread; Not to to contend that point with a point back that argues against it, but to state that you took offence to my point. You consistently expect me to come around to your way of thinking when it is so poorly explained. If you keep alluding to the fact you can't or won't be able to do your point justice, then do me a favour and stop expecting me to take your word for it and shut your mouth. Your bleeting about being older and wiser, and how your opinions are ever so well thought out, when you won't explain them one iota isn't going to wash with me.

 

[Myshkin]

I don't wish to get into dissecting our previous disagreements. All I'm saying is that making assumptions about other people's character and /or motivations has led you down a few blind alleys in the past. I'm sure you can find instances in which I and others have been guilty of this, but the post above referring to personality types and drawing inferences therefrom was at odds with your claim to base arguments solely on hard fact. That's all.

Oh, and please turn the vitriol down a notch. It's getting close to ad hominem territory and none of us need it on the first day of December. I say that not just because you're arguing with my mate Marmalade by the way.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

those tests are only useful internally to the individual who took them for internal use. ie: reflecting on possible weaknesses, and problematic behaviours, and how they can be rectified and developed

anyone using them for reasons ESPECIALLY to explain the differences between people, ESPECIALLY to explain the difference between them and people they don't even have a relationship with, is frankly, veering towards sociopath. lawdy

An easy and convenient way of totally ignoring something you don't want to hear perhaps? And this from a person who has made judgement after judgement about how another person they've never met lacks humanity. There really is little hope

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

aww, you took the 'Don't Care' option. that's a cop out, you know that right? ooo ooo .... but, is this what I can class as empirical evidence to prove my initial point about you having disdain for humans? ... well, it possibly is given your preferred modus operandi, so there you have it.

point proved. took me a little longer than I'd normally like to give it, but you were worth it.
/lawl

No, I don't care what you think. You do not equate to the whole of humanity i'm afraid. You said likewise to me, so if you think that proves something about me, maybe you're just as evil and misanthropic as I?

 

[Jabberwocky]

I think you're the only person who suspects some sort of alter ego/love-tryst between the pair of them, not "some people" as you stated.

YPDH apparently said that she thought Marmalade was SGs gf in BDD. i certainly thought they knew each other irl on friendly terms when she started posting.

anyway, come on guys. this argument is going no where. a lot of whats being said now is too vague to be responded to in a meaningful manner. i have sympathy with each party here and understand that reasoned debate about highly emotive topics, such as there even being a possibility of one aspect of some of ours future going totally down the pan, are difficult to discuss productively.

in an attempt to put us back on track, and its relevant given EADDs recent foray into free speech debates, and touches on the freedom of the press, who thinks Jeremy Clarkson should be sacked? i totally disagree with his comments, and his politics in general, but think people shouldn't be sacked over one comment.

The only thing that does piss me off is the regular ganging up that occurs on here. And not ganging up insofar as lots of people disagreeing with me. Ganging up, as in, people grouping together to be deliberately offensive, and to act like took a shit on their carpet cus I don't agree. You only have to look in the racism thread to see that I made identical points to about half a dozen other people, but who did everyone cry about and have a go at?

i think this is a bit shit too. i think its cos you're the only open conservative, but i don't think that not allowing other people to hold opposing political views is very 'liberal,' i mean who needs freedom if we all think, and hence act, the same anyway? i'm just glad you don't (at least seem to) take it to heart.

 

[Marmalade]

O right, so now you do care what I think? That's an amazing reversal from half an hour ago

eh?


also, you had at some point intended to pull the 'i was only trolling card'. what changed your mind?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I think I love you. Daily Mail Stats for the win


what are my stats now?

oh, and does the above love you comment count as lame banter, flirting or flaming?

I NEED TO KNOW!

this is getting very exciting. like when terry wogan used to get the eurovision scores

lol, you seriously think this is getting to me don't you? I could keep this up until I have recovered from my next operation, all you're doing is entertaining me.

 

[Myshkin]

It shows a few dozen instances of you talking about the sex in one way or another with sam.

Come on, everybody's post history contains some instances of that!

Re: Clarkson - I think if you invite Jeremy Clarkson on live television you get what you pay for. I'm no massive fan of Clarkson (don't intensely dislike the guy either) but his whole schtick is acting like an arsehole in the name of entertainment. They paid for an arsehole and got an arsehole. It's akin to sacking Bill Turnbull for being corny.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

eh?


also, you had at some point intended to pull the 'i was only trolling card'. what changed your mind?

You said that my saying "I don't care what you think", is proof that I am misanthropic. You said that to me. So why aren't you misanthropic?

And I didn't pull the 'I was only trolling card', I said 'I go in and out of being serious and being a troll, you would have to actually know me to tell the difference'. My wife and some of my friends read and use these boards, and they can see right through it all.

 

[Marmalade]

who thinks Jeremy Clarkson should be sacked? i totally disagree with his comments, and his politics in general, but think people shouldn't be sacked over one comment.

he makes lots of comments tho, but over a range of different topics, not just this one.

I don't think he should be sacked. sacking wont really change his extreme attention seeking, he'll just find another medium

 

[Jabberwocky]

yes, he makes a lot of incredibly offensive comments on a wide range of things and you're right it is attention seeking. Unison are urging for him to be sacked on this one comment though. i suspect they wouldn't want anyone saying 'anyone who opposes the strikes should be shot' to be sacked though, and if thats the case they can't make a coherent justification of their position.

 

[Mailmonkey]

I think anyone who thinks the TV character Jeremy Clarkson should be sacked is an idiot.

Clarkson too, is an idiot. If anyone took his statements seriously he'd have been sacked years ago.

He's just a TV character, he's not real, nor intended to be.

I don't find him funny, I don't like him, but he's just playing his part in character.

 

[Myshkin]

He seems to be angling for a position as the British Howard Stern or something. Which is not always appealing but it's better than being the British Rush Limbaugh.

I don't find him funny, I don't like him, but he's just playing his part in character.

I'm sure many of us could identify with that...

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

YPDH apparently said that she thought Marmalade was SGs gf in BDD. i certainly thought they knew each other irl on friendly terms when she started posting.

anyway, come on guys. this argument is going no where. a lot of whats being said now is too vague to be responded to in a meaningful manner. i have sympathy with each party here and understand that reasoned debate about highly emotive topics, such as there even being a possibility of one aspect of some of ours future going totally down the pan, are difficult to discuss productively.

in an attempt to put us back on track, and its relevant given EADDs recent foray into free speech debates, and touches on the freedom of the press, who thinks Jeremy Clarkson should be sacked? i totally disagree with his comments, and his politics in general, but think people shouldn't be sacked over one comment.



i think this is a bit shit too. i think its cos you're the only open conservative, but i don't think that not allowing other people to hold opposing political views is very 'liberal,' i mean who needs freedom if we all think, and hence act, the same anyway? i'm just glad you don't (at least seem to) take it to heart.

Thank you chinup. MM had actually made me think I was making it all up in my head a bit there lol. I agree that was going no where. I was just trying to see if, whether pushing and pushing and pushing, would ever get Marmalade to post something to do with the thread she was posting in or not. Alas we have our answer. I shall not be opening that can of worms again. I believe we were doing reasonably well debating unemotively between ourselves before once again she turned up, like a big storm cloud on a sunny afternoon.

Jeremy Clarkson definitely shouldn't be sacked. The democracy of TV is viewing figures. If people don't like him or take genuine offence to stuff that he says, they should switch over. Then he'll be sacked. But I think, and hope, that most people know that he is being over the top to cause controversy for laughs. I have actually lost count of the amount of people who have said bankers should be shot, so what is the difference? Is it advocating murder we disagree with, or just advocating murder for people we like?

 

[Mailmonkey]

sacking wont really change his extreme attention seeking, he'll just find another medium

itv

 

[Mailmonkey]

Thank you chinup. I agree that was going no where. I was just trying to see if, whether pushing and pushing and pushing, would ever get Marmalade to post something to do with the thread she was posting in or not. Alas we have our answer. I shall not be opening that can of worms again. I believe we were doing reasonably well debating unemotively between ourselves before once again she turned up, like a big storm cloud on a sunny afternoon.

Look, just stop!

I do agree with your statements re:Clarkson though. :D

 

[knock]

To be fair Clarkson is paid for his "persona" so it's no surprise when he says things in line with it... and I think it was made in the context of a joke.

EDIT Mailmonkey beat me to it.

On the ganging up thing, I don't think people are actually ganging up in an organised fashion, though I was starting to think the thread was taking on that appearance. MSB I certainly don't want to gang up on you.

@chinup when it comes to how we organise society I think we have at some point to come to a (majority) view that the majority (workers) will take the decisions which affect them and distribute wealth in a (properly) democratic fashion, I do not feel bad about fighting against someone's freedom to hold a politically opposing view there!

 

[Mailmonkey]

I'm sure many of us could identify with that...

*audience* "He's BEHIIIND YOUUUUUU!!"