Enjoy.

[Zak S]

Caught in a lie and still won't admit to it.

I don't know which thing I said you think is a lie.

[Zak S]

In case anyone missed this:

\
Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "...I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications." ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

[HappyDaze]

Caught in a lie and still won't admit to it.

I don't know which thing I said you think is a lie.

I already covered it upthread. Your continued denials of understanding this are continued lies.

Just. Stop. Lying.

[HappyDaze]

In case anyone missed this:

\
Your statement (as quoted) appears to be intended to say that Mike recommends that you speak with a lawyer and then signs the papers.

Here's the exact quote from me, precisely:

Mike said he "recommended" you not sign them unless you've talked to a lawyer and understand it, etc. (The scope is also limited to affidavits and contracts not "any legal papers")

That doesn't match what you said at all.

Mike's quote ( "...I do not recommend anyone sign any affadavit [sic] or contract without first consulting legal representation to understand the full scope of what is written and any ramifications." ) also doesn't match what Tubesock said, which was (unmodified quote)

Mike Evans, has even told people in the comments NOT to sign any legal papers offered by Zak.

Point fully addressed.

You both should each talk to a therapist about your desire to lie and distort information on the internet and, if you understand the risks, undergo treatment.

No further claim from either of you can be trusted since you just had what you said disproved in the thread in black-and-white and aren't addressing it.  Since it's such a clear demonstration, this post demonstrating your dishonesty should be a helpful reference point in any further conversation where you attempt to present your ideas as relevant.

Don't change the subject, Zak. That's just an attempt to distract from your lies.

[Zak S]

I already covered it upthread. Your continued denials of understanding this are continued lies.

I don't know which thing you're referring to, you've made several assertions and I responded.

The good faith resolution to this would be to post the sentence I said that you think contains a lie.

Assuming that when I say I don't know I am secretly lying is assuming bad faith (ie without having proven it) and assuming bad faith is a bad faith act.

But anyone who understands the concept knew that, since you already explicitly refused to follow good faith rules-- twice.

You don't have to follow them, but it's important for anyone reading to know you can't be trusted.

[Rob Necronomicon]

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

If the object were to catch flies then your claims would make sense.

The object here is to go "Dear anyone lurking, don't believe these flies."

I see your point...

However, I don't think you will achieve your goal (to the extent you wish anyway) mainly because of the way you 'answer' people in either a passive-aggressive or hostile tone. Will it endear you to lurkers and is it just fanning the flames without ever reaching a conclusion?

In my opinion, I don't think it looks good for the optics. So I think Venger's approach is far better when it comes to dealing with people (YMMV).
I'd definitely like to have a beer with Venger and chew the fat, despite being polar opposites in terms of political viewpoints.

In fact, there are a couple of good dudes here that I'd like to hang out and game with despite them being on a different political spectrum.

[Rob Necronomicon]

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

Unfortunately for Zak, he's a douche.

Your summaries of peoples' posts are objectively, provably not reliable:

He's his own worst enemy from what I can see.

[Zak S]

However, I don't think you will achieve your goal (to the extent you wish anyway) mainly because of the way you 'answer' people in either a passive-aggressive or hostile tone.

There are people who--when faced with a fairly serious moral issue--are more persuaded by tone and "optics" than facts. A lot of people.

Experience has taught me those people are creepy and unreliable and not very bright and I do not want them on my side or near anyone close to me or to enable them to do any more harm than they already do by stumbling around spreading any piece of misinformation charismatic enough to ring their bell and voting for fascists.

----

It also pretty weird to complain someone is being manipulative and then complain that they aren't manipulating you enough. If you think about it. But I am pretty sure there is no force on earth that could force most of y'all to think about it.

[Rob Necronomicon]

those people are creepy and unreliable and not very bright and I do not want them on my side or near anyone close to me.

Interesting... Again, I don't think you're doing yourself any favors with that one either.

Also, most people are wired that way, due to evolution, our brains naturally take shortcuts for a reason. It's rarer that people feel the need or even the interest to dig deeper - of course, they should.

That's why there are so many anti-vaxers out there because people bought into the first bit of info they heard without checking its validity. Thing is... Some are very intelligent they are just not very good at critical thinking (or are just lazy).

[Zak S]

Some are very intelligent they are just not very good at critical thinking (or are just lazy).

I don't think it will help to argue over the definition of intelligent, here so I will say:

I don't want people who are "just not very good at critical thinking (or are just lazy)" and yet still feel a need to take action on a morally meaningful issue anywhere near my life and I don't want to enable them.

If failure to manipulate people who are not very good at critical thinking or failure to manipulate people who are lazy is why I die, then at least I die with clean hands and not playing the game the people who did this play.

It might help people in the future, in might not, but at least I won't have to watch it happen anymore.

[DocJones]

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

If the object were to catch flies then your claims would make sense.

The object here is to go "Dear anyone lurking, don't believe these flies."

False.  Liar liar pants on fire.

[Rob Necronomicon]

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (IMO).

If the object were to catch flies then your claims would make sense.

The object here is to go "Dear anyone lurking, don't believe these flies."

False.  Liar liar pants on fire.

Damn! 

[Rob Necronomicon]

It might help people in the future, in might not, but at least I won't have to watch it happen anymore.

I get that... And it sheds some light on why you do what you do (and the way you do it). If I were in your situation, I would certainly take legal action should that person affect my income and put out some rather unsavory allegations. It's the only logical step.

I'd have a different approach to dealing with trolls or piss-takers on forums. I always think it's better to go in slightly cooler and then ramp it up to 'hot' - Basically matching them only when they escalate the argument. That said it doesn't always go as planned. And some people are not worth speaking to at all...

I still think if you set out a very vigorously strict set of criteria (the bullet list) on how to communicate on a forum with you (especially like this) you're just poking the bull. Again YMMV.

[Zak S]

I'd have a different approach to dealing with trolls or pisstakers on forums. I always think it's better to go in slightly cooler and then ramp it up to 'hot' - Basically matching them only when they escalate the argument. That said it doesn't always as planned. And some people are not worth speaking to at all...

Long term, the way most ("reasonable") people talk on the RPG internet hasn't worked. Even when it sounds reasonable. Large-scale problems that trolls created haven't gotten better, problems haven't gotten solved. Many things got worse.

The way I handled things made some things better that I was concerned about in the neighborhood I was in for a few years--at least until my ex lost her grip on reality.

Whether it made them better or not, you still have to do the right thing even when it's unpopular.

If pointing out the bull is full of bullshit is poking the bull then I don't have an option where the bull doesn't get poked.

[deadDMwalking]

No points?  The point of talking is to make a point.  Now that doesn't mean that we have to keep SCORE.  But that's analogies - sometimes they work to a point and sometimes you have to belabor them far more than makes sense. 

So the point I came here to make; the point I BELIEVE I have made with your assistance OVER AND OVER again is that you're an asshole. 

You spamming a series of quotes without attribution and without clarity of what you THINK you're saying isn't winning over any 'neutral observers'.  Your ongoing melt-down and inability to disengage isn't showing you to be a 'nice chill guy who can relax'. 




Keep trying Charlie Brown!  You're bound to show us all if you take one more run at the football.