5 ms·

Your recurring "rebuttal" to somebody posting a reply to your argument is to say that your point is right, that he is 'deeply confused', that he is arguing from

by skore 14y ago

Your recurring "rebuttal" to somebody posting a reply to your argument is to say that your point is right, that he is 'deeply confused', that he is arguing from authority, ignoring mathematical principles, that he is hysterical, that he doesn't read his own links, that he is making a fool of himself by not understanding what he has linked to himself. Up to this point, you don't use a single word to actually provide any substance at all to your argument. Then, finally, you actually do address one of his points in the most dismissive and condescending way I have seen all day. Kudos, I guess. No substance and all hot air. Somewhere halfway through your silly dance, irony ate its own hat.

TheZenPsycho 14y ago
huh? Who are you? have you made me a project? ooh! that's so cute! Well I could just wave off your weird outburst here but I guess out of fairness I'll address you point for point. > Your recurring "rebuttal" to somebody posting a reply to your argument is to say that your point is right, that he is 'deeply confused' Recurring? Well I did say he was deeply confused. once, up thread. I suppose the part where I supposedly say "my point is right" is implied by the fact that this is an argument, and I am the person arguing my point- But I can't find where I say that explicitly, out loud. That would kind of be weird. Have I said this somewhere else? > that he is arguing from authority, ignoring mathematical principles, that he is hysterical. OH! Are you referring to where I was talking about mathematical principles? I suppose one way of looking at that was me saying something about his argument. From my point of view I was just talking about a subject though. > that he doesn't read his own links, it was my link, and it was him trying to make a point about me reading my own link. Of course I did read my own link. the problem we were having is that he skimmed it, found the one out of context quote that would support his own point, and pulled that out on display. This seems kind of ridiculous to me, because anyone can click in, and look to see that they're quotes pulled out of context in such a way as to reverse their intended meaning, and he's fooling nobody by doing that. Well, maybe he's fooled you. > that he is making a fool of himself by not understanding what he has linked to himself. it was my link and and trying to lie about a source that is RIGHT THERE, and anyone can look at is really kind of crazy. > Up to this point, you don't use a single word to actually provide any substance at all to your argument. Up until that point there was not a single word that seriously challenged my claims, either. > Then, finally, you actually do address one of his points in the most dismissive and condescending way I have seen all day. Well, because it came at the end of a back of forth involving me trying to get him to read something that addressed his point, and so at the end, well, it's condescending because you realise that the point he is making is at this point, not that SQL IS relational after all, but that the Relational model is so absurd and stupid to begin with so as to be useless. So, at this point I have to just accept that he is irredeemably ridiculous and let him just have that victory if he wants it. > Kudos, I guess. No substance and all hot air. Somewhere halfway through your silly dance, irony ate its own hat Why do you care so much?
- skore 14y ago
  > huh? Who are you? have you made me a project? ooh! that's so cute! Two (now three) replies are quite a low bar to call something "a project". But I get it, you're totally casual about it. > Well I could just wave off your weird outburst here but I guess out of fairness I'll address you point for point. That wasn't necessary and I don't care for reading it. You might want to have this discussion with the original user replying to your statement, I was merely reiterating his complaint. > Why do you care so much? Because I read a quite interesting discussion on an interesting subject and you wasted my time with a weird and somewhat self-indulgent tangent. I felt that you deserved to have a little of your time wasted in return. I think we're done here.

by skore 14y ago

TheZenPsycho 14y ago

huh? Who are you? have you made me a project? ooh! that's so cute! Well I could just wave off your weird outburst here but I guess out of fairness I'll address you point for point. > Your recurring "rebuttal" to somebody posting a reply to your argument is to say that your point is right, that he is 'deeply confused' Recurring? Well I did say he was deeply confused. once, up thread. I suppose the part where I supposedly say "my point is right" is implied by the fact that this is an argument, and I am the person arguing my point- But I can't find where I say that explicitly, out loud. That would kind of be weird. Have I said this somewhere else? > that he is arguing from authority, ignoring mathematical principles, that he is hysterical. OH! Are you referring to where I was talking about mathematical principles? I suppose one way of looking at that was me saying something about his argument. From my point of view I was just talking about a subject though. > that he doesn't read his own links, it was my link, and it was him trying to make a point about me reading my own link. Of course I did read my own link. the problem we were having is that he skimmed it, found the one out of context quote that would support his own point, and pulled that out on display. This seems kind of ridiculous to me, because anyone can click in, and look to see that they're quotes pulled out of context in such a way as to reverse their intended meaning, and he's fooling nobody by doing that. Well, maybe he's fooled you. > that he is making a fool of himself by not understanding what he has linked to himself. it was my link and and trying to lie about a source that is RIGHT THERE, and anyone can look at is really kind of crazy. > Up to this point, you don't use a single word to actually provide any substance at all to your argument. Up until that point there was not a single word that seriously challenged my claims, either. > Then, finally, you actually do address one of his points in the most dismissive and condescending way I have seen all day. Well, because it came at the end of a back of forth involving me trying to get him to read something that addressed his point, and so at the end, well, it's condescending because you realise that the point he is making is at this point, not that SQL IS relational after all, but that the Relational model is so absurd and stupid to begin with so as to be useless. So, at this point I have to just accept that he is irredeemably ridiculous and let him just have that victory if he wants it. > Kudos, I guess. No substance and all hot air. Somewhere halfway through your silly dance, irony ate its own hat Why do you care so much?

skore 14y ago
> huh? Who are you? have you made me a project? ooh! that's so cute! Two (now three) replies are quite a low bar to call something "a project". But I get it, you're totally casual about it. > Well I could just wave off your weird outburst here but I guess out of fairness I'll address you point for point. That wasn't necessary and I don't care for reading it. You might want to have this discussion with the original user replying to your statement, I was merely reiterating his complaint. > Why do you care so much? Because I read a quite interesting discussion on an interesting subject and you wasted my time with a weird and somewhat self-indulgent tangent. I felt that you deserved to have a little of your time wasted in return. I think we're done here.