...and another thing, Pundit. I've always found the concept IL pretty lame. If you don't want to respond to someone...just don't. If James is going to derail the thread, either folks will find his points worth addressing or they won't. Or folks will start telling him, to shut the fuck up. Messy I know, but on the whole, James is not really a disruptive member of the community. So he's got a hard on for you. Big deal.

I mean either ban him - really dumb thing to do, considering he does contribute productively to the board - or you can just ignore him. I mean I doubt we will see any bannings any time soon. A certain poster here has set the bar pretty high...

Regards,
David R

He can't IL me. You see, despite saying he wants a site that's policed by the community, he won't IL me because it means he's no longer in the driver's seat as far as policing me is concerned. He's good at saying he doesn't want power, but very bad at actually giving it up.

He's even told me I was "intentionally trying to destabilze the forum." Can you really expect him to take his finger off the button when there's such insidious evil floating around, striving constantly to destroy his empire.

Besides, he's been daydreaming about me as a prety girl ever since the last time he flared up over my "persecution" (or is it called stalking this time around?). He finally found himself in a position where he felt justified in bringing that dream one step closer to reality. :lol:

Quote from: James McMurrayThat would be true, if his quote and the actual words meant the same thing. But when you quote somebody as agreeing with you, especially someone as respected as Franklin, you should probably make sure he actually agrees with you. Especially if you're proud of being a history scholar.

So this isn't about the substance of the argument, it's about whether or not he can make an argument from authority; "this famous guy said it, so it must be true!"

If you wish to engage in a logical debate, then the proper response to an argument from authority is not to challenge whether that authority actually said what's been quoted, but to challenge what was actually said. "I believe X, and this famous guy did, too!" Contend with X, because if you talk about the famous guy, then you're buying into the logical fallacy of argument from authority, that the guy's fame makes what he said more true than if he weren't famous.

The truth of things said are unrelated to who said them. That's why we call the "argument from authority" a "logical fallacy." That's fancy-talk for "bullshit."

Deal with people's real argument, not the frilly bits they put around them to make them look pretty. If you deal with the frilly bits, if you take the logical fallacies as being actually true, well you may as well just give in and concede defeat. You're then saying that you can't argue with what they're actually saying, just how they're saying it. You're saying that you're too stupid to be able to challenge what they're actually saying. I don't believe you're that stupid, McMurray. You're just getting caught up in the frilly bits people put on their arguments to make them pretty.

Quote from: James McMurraySure, anyone else I probably would have just said "dude, this is what he really said" but it was a person with a Master's Degree in history, so I asked for a source, assuming that he knew more about the subject than I did.

So, what we have here is that you were doing the personal attack logical fallacy. You knew that Pundit was talking bollocks when he misquoted Franklin, you were just hoping to catch him out in public to make him look bad. You were hoing to take him down a notch. "See, this guy says he has a master's in history, and look, he can't even quote people properly! Are you gonna listen to this guy?" But of course, his having a degree or not, his quoting correctly or not, have exactly fuck-all to do with the truth of what he says. You were adding your own frilly bits to make your own weak argument look pretty.

Quote from: James McMurrayAt that point he went off on a rant about how name dropping doesn't matter, despite having just done it.

That was your chance, then, to point out his logical fallacy of argument from authority. You could say, "So what Franklin said or didn't say doesn't matter. Right, then - what you said was right/wrong because -" You had your chance to make actual logical points in that debate and discussion, and pissed it away on more logical fallacies of your own, more personal attacks.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'll have to disagree with you on that. If you drop someone's name to try and lend some credibility to your claim, you should be sure you're not full of shit, even accidentally.

Irrelevant. As I said, it's a logical fallacy, to argue that because some famous guy said something, it must be true. You should have pointed that out, then contended with the actual substance of the argument, if any. You were distracted by the frilly bits.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf he [Dominus Nox] were an unbigoted guy who always posted interesting things on-topic, and at the same time took every opportunity to insult me, I would think him a fine and useful member of our little community.

Quote from: James McMurraySo then if he were me?

You don't appear to be at all bigoted, or you haven't shown it, which comes to the same thing in practical terms. However, you do not always post interesting things, mainly because they are not always on-topic. You're distracted from the actual point by your little war against RPGPundit. You're less interested in discussing things than in attacking RPGPundit.

QuoteIf you wish to engage in a logical debate, then the proper response to an argument from authority is not to challenge whether that authority actually said what's been quoted, but to challenge what was actually said.

I wasn't looking for a logical debate, I'll leave that for the philosophers who've popped up lately. I was merely calling bullshit.

QuoteSo, what we have here is that you were doing the personal attack logical fallacy.

Again, not looking for a logical debate. And how is "he has a master's degree, so I thought he might know more than me" a personal attack?

QuoteYou knew that Pundit was talking bollocks when he misquoted Franklin, you were just hoping to catch him out in public to make him look bad.

You're of course free to assign motives as you see fit, but that doesn't make them right. I was pretty sure he was wrong, but rather than flat out call him on it, I tried to defer to his greater education on the subject. Guess that's the last time I'll do that. It's way more trouble than it's worth.

QuoteThat was your chance, then, to point out his logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Again, welll.. nevermind. If you don't know what I was going to say by now, it doesn't really matter.

QuoteIrrelevant. As I said, it's a logical fallacy,

It'sa logical fallacy, but it gets used a lot because it works. I can dig in for another logic debate like on the atheism thread* and watch everyone's (mine included) eyes glaze over, or I can ask for a source and call bullshit when it doesn't arrive.

QuoteYou don't appear to be at all bigoted, or you haven't shown it, which comes to the same thing in practical terms. However, you do not always post interesting things, mainly because they are not always on-topic. You're distracted from the actual point by your little war against RPGPundit. You're less interested in discussing things than in attacking RPGPundit.

Winkies man! Watch for the winkies!

* A thread in which I agreed completely with Pundit and said so, something your typical stalker doesn't do. But Pundit's view of posting histories are clouded by what he's seen that day. It's far from the first time we've agreed, or that I've answered his questions as helpfully as possible.

See, there's no hardon for Pundit, there's a hardon for fonts of bullshit. He and Nox fit that bill, and both of them get the repercussions of it in the responses to their posts (and not just from me). At least Nox handles it well, admitting that he's wrong and bulling forward anyway. Or giving back as much as he gets instead of lashing out in a power trip frenzy of combined retreat and assault.

Quote from: James McMurrayI wasn't looking for a logical debate [...] I was merely calling bullshit.

So you don't want to express yourself in a clear and logical fashion, or to actually have a point.

That explains a lot of your posts, and also explains why RPGPundit compares you to Dominus Nox; just madly ranting with aggression and no real point.

No thanks for your contributions. At least Nox makes us laugh sometimes.

Quote from: James McMurrayHe can't IL me. You see, despite saying he wants a site that's policed by the community, he won't IL me because it means he's no longer in the driver's seat as far as policing me is concerned. He's good at saying he doesn't want power, but very bad at actually giving it up.

Congrats you just proved Pundit correct.  You are simply in a Alpha Male wankfest type arguement.  Simply pushing buttons trying to get him to ban you or put you on ignore just so you can feel... special.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo you don't want to express yourself in a clear and logical fashion, or to actually have a point.

My point was that Franklin didn't say what Pundit thought he'd said. It was pretty clear.

QuoteCongrats you just proved Pundit correct. You are simply in a Alpha Male wankfest type arguement. Simply pushing buttons trying to get him to ban you or put you on ignore just so you can feel... special.

How does saying Pundit won't IL me equate to me wanting to be banned?

well, I'm glad a few of you here get it; that the constant thread derailment is the real issue here, and for no good reason other than a pissing contest.

I mean fuck, the Franklin thing is a perfect example. If his deal had somehow been relevant, if what I'd quoted was actually the OPPOSITE of what Franklin said, or James had something to add that would have changed the nature of the debate, but no, the whole thing was an excuse to force me to either waste my time responding to his absurd statements or try to ignore him and having him derail the thread further by making irrelevant attacks on my academic credentials.

RPGPundit

Who's Franklin?

Quote from: StumpydaveWho's Franklin?

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but can someone please explain in what way the meaning (note emphasis) of these two sentences is different?

QuoteAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

QuoteThey that sacrifice liberty for security will lose both, and deserve neither

James, I am Pundit's friend but I will not hesitate to admit that sometimes he needs his nose tweaked.  From where I sit you are way beyond that.  Somehow you have managed to both bore the crap out of me with this AND creep me the hell out.  I'd give you a shiny star for managing that seemingly impossible combination, but my friends will tell you that nearly half the internet creeps me out, so it may not be as big a feat as I imagine.  Either way, I wish I could put you on my IL, but as an admin I'm not supposed to have an IL list.

Pundit, this "pretty, pretty girl" stuff is both misogynistic and petty.  Please reconsider your action.

Given that "pack hierarchy" has now been clearly established, and James has received the appropriate psychological emasculation to drive his "beta male complex" up the wall, I suppose it doesn't matter if I change it back now or not.

RPGPundit

Well it matters to me.  I worry about how female members in particular view your use of "pretty girl" as a slur.  This joint already has a bit of the smell of the boys locker room about it, let's not dig ourselves in further in that regard.

Quote from: jrientsWell it matters to me.  I worry about how female members in particular view your use of "pretty girl" as a slur.  This joint already has a bit of the smell of the boys locker room about it, let's not dig ourselves in further in that regard.

I think that any sufficiently intelligent female member of the forum would understand that my choice of insult to James has to do with James' own obvious beta-male complex, the fact that he's clearly trying to attack me in some utterly misguided effort to "prove his manhood" or something; and that in turn for someone with this complex being made someone else's "bitch" is about the worst thing that could happen to them; and that it has nothing to do with inherent misogyny.

I mean hell, I like REAL "pretty girls".

RPGPundit