What do you expect would have happened by now with Hillary victory

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Sonmi:
Snip

You can't plan for malfunctions. Any EC that willingly voted in Trump is out of its bloody little mind, full stop. You can go ahead and debate that if you like, but only with the understanding that that you would be dead wrong. No point trying to one-up me, Somni. You've got no ups to give.

Seanchaidh:
Snip

If you can't keep track of your own Democrat Hatedom, that's your fault. We don't have to treat it like it's meaningful discussion.

Honest question here, what is the point of going to ground for Hilary here? What does it accomplish?

FalloutJack:
You can't plan for malfunctions.

What the hell are you on about? Of course you can.

Do you seriously think opposition to the Electoral College and to FPTP only existed post-2016? Lack of proper representation in FPTP leading to gerrymandering and undemocratic representation are not unintended quirks of the system, they are features. Both Democrats and Republicans make full use of it, though Republicans are much more blatant and shameless about it.

FalloutJack:
Any EC that willingly voted in Trump is out of its bloody little mind, full stop.

Or, you know, carried on the will of the system as did every single Electoral College before them. You can't seriously be daft enough to think that Clinton thought she'd be saved by the EC, and planned accordingly, right?

FalloutJack:
No point trying to one-up me, Somni. You've got no ups to give.

I'm not trying to one-up you, I'm pointing out utterly misguided you are, and I'd let you know that you're sabotaging the Left. I'm glad we have few uneducated people of your kind over here in Canada.

Seanchaidh:
Large snipped list of posts

Well, that was... long. As if that proves a thing-- anybody posting a fair amount on here will have a long list of posts on unrelated topics. It's not as if I said that's all you post about.

I'll have a dig when my broadband is up and running (new place, new provider), if it's really necessary, but I'm quite sure you, me, and most others here already know what I'm talking about.

Have any other unwelcome, obnoxious, and frankly inaccurate criticisms of my posting habits?

Empty grandstanding.

Edit: why should anybody give a hoot if it's welcome or not? It's a criticism. Of course it's unwelcome.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:
Large snipped list of posts

Well, that was... long.

It could have been a great deal longer, too.

Silvanus:
As if that proves a thing-- anybody posting a fair amount on here will have a long list of posts on unrelated topics. It's not as if I said that's all you post about.

You said "This is a consistent and repetitive trend". That would require a fair amount of volume, no? A trend would have to have at least something recent, right?

But let's confine our search to more likely threads.

Ah, here on page 8:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1025668-100-Serious-Real-Talk-Time-Does-Donald-Trump-have-Alzheimers#24153328

Ah, Secretary Perry of the Energy Department. Great irony pick.

And on page 9:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1025127-First-charges-of-the-Mueller-investigation-have-just-been-approved?page=4#24152877

le batard de Melbourne asked about what could be considered racist in the Democratic Party platform. Opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement is a fair answer, would you not agree?

Page 10:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1025185-Is-The-GOP-Going-To-Recover-After-Trump?page=2#24150231

Is this what you're thinking of? This series of posts arose from a specific claim made about Democrats by someone else, which you then weighed in on-- in favor of my position! The whole thread naturally gives rise to comparison anyway, since electoral success is by its nature relative in a two-party system (especially given that the Republicans are doing about as well as they could possibly be doing at this point-- and even more so, then). Also, worth noting that we're not even in November anymore.
October 29:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1025185-Is-The-GOP-Going-To-Recover-After-Trump#24149604

Same thread, and of course I'm going to talk about the Democrats being impotent when we're talking about the survival of the GOP. It's very relevant. Especially considering that the success of the Republican party doesn't seem to actually be very contingent on their own performance. You need only look at Roy Moore (or Donald Trump) to be assured of that.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1025127-First-charges-of-the-Mueller-investigation-have-just-been-approved#24149606

Responding to the ridiculous claim about pro-BLM bias by the media causing the collusion story to die down with a more plausible explanation of media behavior that, indeed, briefly references the Clinton campaign. (I think the controversy about collusion was largely ginned up by the Clinton campaign and that CNN and MSNBC are still heavily influenced by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party as well as awful neoliberal centrists more generally.)

October 27: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1024842-Wealth-Gap-Between-Rich-and-Poor-now-at-an-all-time-high-since-the-Gilded-Age#24149038

Gotta say, I had ample opportunity to bring up Obama here and, if what you're saying is correct, I should have brought up Clintonian neoliberalism as a huge contributing factor, but for whatever reason I approvingly (if sarcastically) mentioned Stalin and then wrote of capitalism more generally. Consistent. Repetitive. Belligerent. Adversarial. Aggressive.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1024485-FBI-Uncovered-Russian-Bribery-Plot-Before-Obama-Administration-Approved-Controversial-Nuclear-Deal-W?page=4#24147780

In a thread about the Clinton scandal involving Uranium One, I wrote about (because someone had brought up)... who was responsible for the DNC leak? Well, there's an instance of arguable misdirection, though not perpetrated by me.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1024528-Lets-talk-about-what-Trump-is-doing-to-Obamacare#24144299
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1024528-Lets-talk-about-what-Trump-is-doing-to-Obamacare#24143788

"Remind me why this taint spider is president again" indeed. My blame for the election of Trump involves the inadequacy of the Democratic Party as well as Trump's GOP rivals, my response should hardly be surprising or regarded as unfair or misdirecting.

September 27: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1022221-Trump-Wants-Football-Players-to-Conform-or-be-Fired?page=6#24130455

A thread about Trump (and... sigh... the NFL) in which I write about Clinton the relatively unknown verses of the National Anthem.

September 25: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1022225-What-would-the-Founding-Fathers-have-done-differently?page=2#24128418

In which I direct the discussion away from the Founding Fathers of the United States and towards a defense of the Soviet Union?

September 24: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1022221-Trump-Wants-Football-Players-to-Conform-or-be-Fired#24127645

Clarifies the nature of the teams involved (we're capitalist and that's just the way it is), then in a later post responds to a 'nuanced opinion' with a terse and very pro-Kaepernick take. Somehow managed to avoid mentioning the 1994 Crime Bill and its role in causing the controversy. Nor noting that BLM and Kaepernick's kneeling began while Obama was president. Man, Silvanus, you're making me really regret not expounding on the evils of the Clinton administration and Democratic Party when it was relevant but easily missed.

Seriously, where is this supposed pattern? Is it earlier in September? How far back do we need to go to establish the existence of this consistent and repetitive phenomenon? Or are you confusing my posts with Falloutjack's accusations? Because frankly, I thought I'd find more evidence than this too (which is to say "any actual evidence at all"). Now, maybe I missed something, but I doubt it. If it were such a consistent and repetitive phenomenon, I should have found something. Unless it was a consistent and repetitive phenomenon more than a few months ago and isn't anymore. That's a possibility not yet ruled out by the evidence.

I should be talking about the shortcomings of Clinton and centrist Democrats more than I am.

Sonmi:
Snip

A misguided person cannot tell me what's up. You're projecting, shifting blame. Again.

Our tax policy debate probably wouldn't be precisely this, since the Democrats by and large don't publicly subscribe to the horse and sparrow theory of economics.

Seanchaidh:

It could have been a great deal longer, too.

[...]

Seriously, where is this supposed pattern? Is it earlier in September? How far back do we need to go to establish the existence of this consistent and repetitive phenomenon? Or are you confusing my posts with Falloutjack's accusations? Because frankly, I thought I'd find more evidence than this too (which is to say "any actual evidence at all"). Now, maybe I missed something, but I doubt it. If it were such a consistent and repetitive phenomenon, I should have found something. Unless it was a consistent and repetitive phenomenon more than a few months ago and isn't anymore. That's a possibility not yet ruled out by the evidence.

I should be talking about the shortcomings of Clinton and centrist Democrats more than I am.

As I said before: I do not currently have the resources to respond at length, owing to a new place and new provider. If even saying that elicits another bibliography, I don't know what I can post to avoid getting inundated.

Give me a while.

Silvanus:
Give me a while.

You could just admit you're wrong.

Seanchaidh:

You could just admit you're wrong.

Yes, if somebody isn't able to put everything aside and respond at great length on The Escapist forums, they must simply be wrong and too proud to admit it. It's not as if other shit goes on in people's lives.

Give me a fucking break.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

You could just admit you're wrong.

Yes, if somebody isn't able to put everything aside and respond at great length on The Escapist forums, they must simply be wrong and too proud to admit it. It's not as if other shit goes on in people's lives.

Give me a fucking break.

I went through it for you.

You said there was a "consistent and repetitive trend" and I went looking for it and didn't find even a single solid example anywhere within the past two months.

Unless you want to argue for some other proposition, or have some slick disagreement with the way I've characterized a post, you're just completely wrong. If you want to say it was a consistent and repetitive trend, then fine, I haven't looked back a year. But you implied it was something I'm doing-- something that's ongoing! I literally went through every single post in the last 3 pages of my history and then every vaguely Trump related thread in the past 11 or 12 pages or whatever it was. I think 11 (it'd probably be pushed back to 12 by now). At any rate, back all the way to September. And found a whole lot of nothing-- several entirely missed opportunities to go after Clinton, even.

And now "give me time". No, this isn't anywhere near important enough to give you time for such an irrelevant audit. This isn't some big important discussion, it's an inaccurate and badly founded criticism of my posting habits that would be a trifling, myopic, useless concern to have even if it were true.

I'm not concealing something, I wouldn't be embarrassed if I'd been going hardcore after Clinton at every single imaginable opportunity and ignoring Trump because going relentlessly after the Clinton style of politics is exactly what this country needs. Trump is a symptom of problems in America which have existed for decades and are bipartisan in nature. The GOP is only allowed to be as bad as it is because the Democrats are so uninspiring to begin with. Because the Democrats have all but surrendered on so many important issues, their base doesn't turn out enough. But the people running their campaigns still get paid and many candidates and Congresspersons go on to lucrative board memberships, lobbying, or speaking careers. Just like Republicans. The problem with the Democrats is that they are too much like Republicans. The left in general needs to stop putting its trust in candidates who rely on their ability to raise money from corporate interests and to work on grassroots organizing and coordination to get around the structural advantages of such candidates. The party should repudiate the compromised form of campaigning that is serving Wall Street to finance ad buys. Fixing this country has almost nothing to do directly with Trump. It's about electing a Congress and President that isn't GOP and that isn't corporate Democrat. Naturally, that means focusing on optimizing the strength and responsiveness of the Democrats-- and not relative to the GOP but in absolute terms.

Whenever people pretend that Trump is the whole of the problem or that he's uniquely terrible rather than just as terrible as the GOP has been allowed to be-- and people do this A LOT-- they are making a mistake which seriously imperils the future of this country. Populist anger is real and justified and it can either be channeled in constructive ways or in destructive ways or, if not represented by our politics at all, continue to grow ever more volatile. Disenchantment with Democrats is only going to get worse if we keep electing corporate shills on the reasoning that they're somewhat less destructive than the GOP. The situation where the 2016 strategy of the Dems wins seriously imperils our future. The fact that it also loses in the short-term to a buffoon like Trump is gratuitously awful.

When people say "we need to get these GOP bums out!", they're only half-right. We need to get the right people in. Democrats who jack off while in office as in 2009-10 are just going to lead us right back to where we are or an even worse position. And it's questionable whether they would even have much electoral success to begin with. The battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is literally what's going to shape probably the next few decades of world history, so it is very justified to focus on that above all else.

The thing is, I haven't even been doing that. But I should be. I object more to you lending credence to this asinine demand that I should devote equal time to directly criticizing Trump than the idea that I've actually not done so sufficiently to assuage your fatuous concerns over... whatever you think the problem is with not echoing one of the countless multitude yammering on about Trump. Are you under the impression that the anti-Trump view is underrepresented on this forum? You think criticism of that trainwreck needs more of my unique contribution? The premise of your criticism makes little sense and it isn't even tethered to reality. It's a criticism of a hypothetical universe where I'm doing what I should be doing: criticizing the shit out of neoliberalism and influence peddling in the Democratic Party at every opportunity no matter how tangential because the Democratic Party can be either the biggest obstacle to or the facilitator of the change this country needs. The GOP doesn't have a strong message, it's just not sufficiently challenged. Correcting and cleaning up the alternative is quite a bit more productive than idly criticizing President Rapist, Destroyer of Shame.

Seanchaidh:

I went through it for you.

You said there was a "consistent and repetitive trend" and I went looking for it and didn't find even a single solid example anywhere within the past two months.

Oh, that's settled, then!

Seanchaidh:

Unless you want to argue for some other proposition, or have some slick disagreement with the way I've characterized a post, you're just completely wrong. If you want to say it was a consistent and repetitive trend, then fine, I haven't looked back a year. But you implied it was something I'm doing-- something that's ongoing! I literally went through every single post in the last 3 pages of my history and then every vaguely Trump related thread in the past 11 or 12 pages or whatever it was. I think 11 (it'd probably be pushed back to 12 by now). At any rate, back all the way to September. And found a whole lot of nothing-- several entirely missed opportunities to go after Clinton, even.

Yes, I'm aware of what you did. It was difficult to miss: tedious essay-length responses to a line or two which did not warrant or elicit them.

Seanchaidh:

And now "give me time". No, this isn't anywhere near important enough to give you time for such an irrelevant audit. This isn't some big important discussion, it's an inaccurate and badly founded criticism of my posting habits that would be a trifling, myopic, useless concern to have even if it were true.

Wait, so you don't want me to go to the effort of digging out posts or providing links to support what I said about your posting habits?

I had thought-- given the numerous questions you asked about my claim-- that you wanted me to back up what I said. It was a pretty specific critical claim, after all. Now, you're saying you... don't want that? Is that right?

I've snipped the rest, because frankly, it boils down to retreading old ground with a few childish little insults peppered in for flavour.

Silvanus:
Oh, that's settled, then!

As far as I'm concerned it is. This asinine fixation on my posting habits would be ridiculous even if you had the facts right. That you don't makes it all the more stupid.

Now, to go and do what you thought I was doing already.

Seanchaidh:

As far as I'm concerned it is. This asinine fixation on my posting habits would be ridiculous even if you had the facts right. That you don't makes it all the more stupid.

In one post, you say I shouldn't gather posts for the "irrelevant audit", then pillory me for... not having done precisely that. Consistency of argument matters not a fig, apparently, in the pursuit of endless shoddy insult-throwing.

And yes, I'm fixated, despite the essay after tiresome essay you've typed out on that very topic, in response to... a line or two of mine. Hrrmmm, yeah, sure.

Now, to go and do what you thought I was doing already.

Masturbating?

My best friend's chance of going to grad school wouldn't be in jeapordy, that's another thing that wouldn't have happened if Clinton had won.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

As far as I'm concerned it is. This asinine fixation on my posting habits would be ridiculous even if you had the facts right. That you don't makes it all the more stupid.

In one post, you say I shouldn't gather posts for the "irrelevant audit",

You shouldn't do it anymore because I already did it for you. You shouldn't have made the accusation in the first place because it was false, personal, and irrelevant. You should go back and look for yourself so you can understand how wrong you are and then get off of this bullshit.

Silvanus:
then pillory me for... not having done precisely that. Consistency of argument matters not a fig, apparently, in the pursuit of endless shoddy insult-throwing.

I "pilloried" you (dramatic much?) for making an unfounded accusation. However, even if the accusation were true it would be petty and irrelevant. Both of those things can be true. Both of those things are true. Nothing whatsoever is inconsistent about holding those two views.

"No, I didn't have drugs, officer, also I think recreational drug use should be legal and is good." OH, the INCONSISTENCY!

Silvanus:
And yes, I'm fixated, despite the essay after tiresome essay you've typed out on that very topic, in response to... a line or two of mine. Hrrmmm, yeah, sure.

This is a comment worthy of youtube.

Attack someone's credibility, don't provide any evidence whatsoever, sit there making excuses as to why you can't provide evidence-- however truthful they might be (I do assume they're truthful, in which case you have some extremely poor timing)-- and then say LOL WHY YOU TYPING SO MUCH? when he responds with exactly the sort of audit you failed to provide and then an argument as to why the behavior you allege is actually good. Great job. You got me, I'm so sorry for responding to your blanket accusation/personal attack with refuting evidence and an argument concerning the merits of the behavior you allege.

And I'm also sorry for deviating from my usual (though certainly also quite inconstant) brevity while doing it. Because you're right about one thing, this is a huge waste of time.

Silvanus:
Masturbating?

Later. Want to watch?

Probably a few more suspiciously convenient deaths of people in oddly close proximity to her.

Or, her role in some shady events would have lead to her being impeached by now.

Hard to say really.

The Lunatic:
Probably a few more suspiciously convenient deaths of people in oddly close proximity to her.

Or, her role in some shady events would have lead to her being impeached by now.

Hard to say really.

Fuck me sideway. You people still believe the Seth Rich with no evidence whatsoever but a bunch of senior trump officials are admitting to Russian ties but Trump-Russia is still a "nothing burger". I'm sure you trust James O'Keefe too.

CheetoDust:
Fuck me sideway. You people still believe the Seth Rich with no evidence whatsoever but a bunch of senior trump officials are admitting to Russian ties but Trump-Russia is still a "nothing burger". I'm sure you trust James O'Keefe too.

Have you noticed that these same people have been oddly quiet about the Russia investigation the last few days? They don't seem to have a lot to say about Flynn's plea deal or Trump admitting to obstruction of justice on Twitter.

BeetleManiac:

CheetoDust:
Fuck me sideway. You people still believe the Seth Rich with no evidence whatsoever but a bunch of senior trump officials are admitting to Russian ties but Trump-Russia is still a "nothing burger". I'm sure you trust James O'Keefe too.

Have you noticed that these same people have been oddly quiet about the Russia investigation the last few days? They don't seem to have a lot to say about Flynn's plea deal or Trump admitting to obstruction of justice on Twitter.

At most I'm hearing " Well America has interfered in a bunch of elections" so now we've gone from "didn't do it" to "so what if he did it?"

Seanchaidh:

You shouldn't do it anymore because I already did it for you.

Ahh, of course-- that's how disputes are settled!

Seanchaidh:

I "pilloried" you (dramatic much?) [...]

On a related note, the failure of self-awareness on this forum truly never ceases to amaze me.

Seanchaidh:

[...] for making an unfounded accusation. However, even if the accusation were true it would be petty and irrelevant. Both of those things can be true. Both of those things are true. Nothing whatsoever is inconsistent about holding those two views.

"No, I didn't have drugs, officer, also I think recreational drug use should be legal and is good." OH, the INCONSISTENCY!

I... I didn't say that was inconsistent; you've seemingly just made that up. I said it was inconsistent to say I shouldn't dig for posts in one post, and then complain that I hadn't bothered to do so in the next. That is inconsistent

You seem to be describing an entirely unrelated line of argument, about pettiness and validity, which is of your own invention.

Seanchaidh:

Attack someone's credibility, don't provide any evidence whatsoever, sit there making excuses as to why you can't provide evidence-- however truthful they might be (I do assume they're truthful, in which case you have some extremely poor timing)-- and then say LOL WHY YOU TYPING SO MUCH? when he responds with exactly the sort of audit you failed to provide and then an argument as to why the behavior you allege is actually good. Great job.

Recall the context of that post. You called me "obsessed" and "fixated". That was your accusation first, on the basis of a post of mine which scarcely amounted to a paragraph. I only brought up your own extensive rumination in direct response to that, to point out the absurd lack of balance.

Seanchaidh:

Later. Want to watch?

My lack of a reliable internet connection becomes more tragic with each passing day!

Silvanus:
I... I didn't say that was inconsistent; you've seemingly just made that up. I said it was inconsistent to say I shouldn't dig for posts in one post, and then complain that I hadn't bothered to do so in the next. That is inconsistent

"You should put up or shut up."
-> Investigates, finds nothing
"Nevermind, just shut up."

is not inconsistent.

Seanchaidh:
Snipped

It's obviously been quite a while since this little spat; I got a reliable connection in the following week, I think, but didn't remember this whole kerfuffle until later. A new place will do that to my brain-- I find upheavals like moving pretty stressful.

Now, I don't actually have much interest in resurrecting the argument we were having, but at the same time, I don't like leaving the thread without the links I said I could get (and should have posted earlier). So, this is what I was referring to;

To be clear: I would consider these to be extremely valid criticisms, criticisms with a lot of truth to them. I would say that you and I actually have very similar ideas on what the Democratic Party and the DNC should be, were it to remove its head from the mire of financial lobbying, compromised priorities, and unwarranted self-assurance.

I was not criticising the content, as I hope I made clear back in... fucking hell, 27 November? -- but what I saw as an imbalance, or poor prioritisation. In each case above, strong and extensive criticism of Clinton or the Democrats crops up in some thread about Trump or the Republicans, and sometimes seems to me to serve as deflection (or perhaps an attempt to create an equivalence between the two). I don't believe this is matched anywhere by criticism of Trump or the Republicans.

Of course, there could be good reasons for that. Firstly, criticism of Trump can seem redundant, what with a dozen other posters creating threads just like those above. Secondly, we have investment in the direction of the Democratic Party, since it's courting our votes in a way that the Republican Party is not.

Still, that's the imbalance I saw and wanted to comment on. Originally, my point was not intended to turn into this ongoing rock-throwing match; it was just supposed to be a comment.

===

As I say, I do not really want to resurrect the argument at this late stage. I just don't like leaving my own argument standing on one leg.

Hmm, well I imagine the media would be more trusted than it is now, the investigation into the Hillary selling uranium would never have been known, and the handling of things like NK and the recent Iranian protests would be a lot different. Isis fighting strategy would have differed, though no clue if effectiveness of it would have been the same or not. Republicans would have continued their stonewalling like they did against Obama and likely nothing major would have changed domestically, though economy would likely be in a different state.

The world would be darker though, without the light of so many memes based on Trump.

Seanchaidh:

Silvanus:
Oh, that's settled, then!

As far as I'm concerned it is. This asinine fixation on my posting habits would be ridiculous even if you had the facts right. That you don't makes it all the more stupid.

Now, to go and do what you thought I was doing already.

Oh, you know, this is rather pleasing to see. These same folk complain about my posting length too. Don't prune it down though, I prefer the longer posts that break things down clearly.

runic knight:
Oh, you know, this is rather pleasing to see. These same folk complain about my posting length too. Don't prune it down though, I prefer the longer posts that break things down clearly.

The difference between arguing with Seanchaidh and arguing with you is that I enjoy arguing with Seanchaidh. Also, I can make sense of what he's saying. Also, he has successfully convinced me of things before.

Also, take this back to the thread where it belongs! No cross-thread grudge-migration! It's silly and it just makes the both of us look petty and smug.

For some reason my notifications have gotten permanently turned off and turning them back on doesn't do anything, so I missed this for a bit. Which is fine; might actually be better if other people get the last word in a bunch.

Silvanus:

As I say, I do not really want to resurrect the argument at this late stage. I just don't like leaving my own argument standing on one leg.

Fair enough. In retrospect, the only thing that really angered me was that I expect that sort of thing from FalloutJack, but you?! Et tu, Silvane?

I've never reacted well to people telling me what to do. ;)

Also, bringing some of those older posts to my attention was fun, thanks. I'd forgotten a few. Fiery!

runic knight:
Oh, you know, this is rather pleasing to see. These same folk complain about my posting length too. Don't prune it down though, I prefer the longer posts that break things down clearly.

Dude, I [sometimes hypocritically] complain about posting length.

I might have even caused someone to quit in frustration (in part) for unilaterally limiting the scope of a dialogue before. The posts were still of medium length-- more than the few lines I sometimes throw out there-- but they would have been ludicrous otherwise. 'Twas a thread about international humanitarian law and Israel and I had some rather general (and quite heterodox) criticisms of IHL (mainly about some unfortunate consequences I think arise from the principle of distinction as well as my prioritizing the reason for conflicts over the details of their conduct) which spun off into a million other issues, including a lot of very silly semantic arguments (that could have been avoided if he'd just accepted my clarifications, but I digress) as well as a number of evaluations of both real and hypothetical situations, that I ended up insisting on addressing one at a time even though there were literally about ten or twenty separate arguments going on, a few of which had bearing on each other. But I said nope; I decided we were going to examine one thing at a time unilaterally and just didn't respond to more than one issue at a time. Eventually he requested a thread lock and not long after (if I remember correctly) seemed to quit the forum entirely.

I felt better looking at one thing at a time and going into the depth that seemed to be demanded and writing posts that were sufficiently brief that they could be followed and that someone other than me and him might consider reading.

No, I have quite a lot of sympathy for people who value brevity. I value brevity. I like posts to be something that people actually want to read and not just because of the mild social obligation to respond to criticism (which I often just don't even do if I don't particularly feel like it.)

Length should be justified. Sometimes it can be, other times not so much.

bastardofmelbourne:
Also, he has successfully convinced me of things before.

image

For what it's worth, Bastard, Silvanus, Somni, Addendum and Sean among others are mostly why I come back here.

Seanchaidh:
For some reason my notifications have gotten permanently turned off and turning them back on doesn't do anything, so I missed this for a bit. Which is fine; might actually be better if other people get the last word in a bunch.

Normally it works for about a week, then turns itself back off again.

Thaluikhain:

Seanchaidh:
For some reason my notifications have gotten permanently turned off and turning them back on doesn't do anything, so I missed this for a bit. Which is fine; might actually be better if other people get the last word in a bunch.

Normally it works for about a week, then turns itself back off again.

They worked perfectly for me for about eight years, I think. Oh well.

Seanchaidh:

Thaluikhain:

Seanchaidh:
For some reason my notifications have gotten permanently turned off and turning them back on doesn't do anything, so I missed this for a bit. Which is fine; might actually be better if other people get the last word in a bunch.

Normally it works for about a week, then turns itself back off again.

They worked perfectly for me for about eight years, I think. Oh well.

So did the view count, though nobody seems to have missed that.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1028903-Quoting-Notifications-Are-Missing

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:
Oh, you know, this is rather pleasing to see. These same folk complain about my posting length too. Don't prune it down though, I prefer the longer posts that break things down clearly.

The difference between arguing with Seanchaidh and arguing with you is that I enjoy arguing with Seanchaidh. Also, I can make sense of what he's saying. Also, he has successfully convinced me of things before.

Also, take this back to the thread where it belongs! No cross-thread grudge-migration! It's silly and it just makes the both of us look petty and smug.

Well, I didn't address you and was largely making the comment to say "hey, this is funny, but no worries, I like the longer posts", so this is less a "grudge" on my part as it is you reading into something that it is not. Funny enough though, you made a longer post than my comment in reply.

Seanchaidh:
For some reason my notifications have gotten permanently turned off and turning them back on doesn't do anything, so I missed this for a bit. Which is fine; might actually be better if other people get the last word in a bunch.

I noticed that recently too. Sort of annoying, actually. Harder to keep up with some threads if you don't know they been replied to.

runic knight:
Oh, you know, this is rather pleasing to see. These same folk complain about my posting length too. Don't prune it down though, I prefer the longer posts that break things down clearly.

Dude, I [sometimes hypocritically] complain about posting length.

I might have even caused someone to quit in frustration (in part) for unilaterally limiting the scope of a dialogue before. The posts were still of medium length-- more than the few lines I sometimes throw out there-- but they would have been ludicrous otherwise. 'Twas a thread about international humanitarian law and Israel and I had some rather general (and quite heterodox) criticisms of IHL (mainly about some unfortunate consequences I think arise from the principle of distinction as well as my prioritizing the reason for conflicts over the details of their conduct) which spun off into a million other issues, including a lot of very silly semantic arguments (that could have been avoided if he'd just accepted my clarifications, but I digress) as well as a number of evaluations of both real and hypothetical situations, that I ended up insisting on addressing one at a time even though there were literally about ten or twenty separate arguments going on, a few of which had bearing on each other. But I said nope; I decided we were going to examine one thing at a time unilaterally and just didn't respond to more than one issue at a time. Eventually he requested a thread lock and not long after (if I remember correctly) seemed to quit the forum entirely.

I felt better looking at one thing at a time and going into the depth that seemed to be demanded and writing posts that were sufficiently brief that they could be followed and that someone other than me and him might consider reading.

No, I have quite a lot of sympathy for people who value brevity. I value brevity. I like posts to be something that people actually want to read and not just because of the mild social obligation to respond to criticism (which I often just don't even do if I don't particularly feel like it.)

Length should be justified. Sometimes it can be, other times not so much.

I still like length for posts with multiple moving parts. Being able to stagger posts with quotes just helps address key points and lets them being built toward a whole argument. While locking in to a single point at a time can be cleaner, I've tried that before myself, it can also be a way to ignore glaring flaws or to lead on to red herring or even thread derailment as drilling down that way can lose sight of the original connection to the topic at hand. Having the core argument, position, or just thought be reinforced as a whole with each reply seems to help keep it easier to see relative to it. "This thing ties back to this argument this way". Which is why I liked your replies even if they were longer.

Brevity is good, but not always the best case. Bumper-sticker sloganism is brief but it doesn't do a lot of good discussion-wise. People looking to misrepresent you or who complain when you don't have enough of what they wanted to see tend to invite length in reply. In a place where long-form discussion is possible and encouraged, I think I will always prefer to use it though.

She would go to London and not bitch about the embassy there. She also would not refer to Haiti or any African nation as a 'shithole country'.

Saelune:
She would go to London and not bitch about the embassy there. She also would not refer to Haiti or any African nation as a 'shithole country'.

Yes, she'd limit herself to bombing them.

Seanchaidh:
Yes, she'd limit herself to bombing them.

Now, now. She may just have settled for paying another country to bomb them.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
She would go to London and not bitch about the embassy there. She also would not refer to Haiti or any African nation as a 'shithole country'.

Yes, she'd limit herself to bombing them.

She would be bombing the same places every other President would be bombing, including Sanders, except maybe she would also go after Russia, instead of sucking Putin's dick, like Trump. And she'd be far more tactful with North Korea.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here