On Being An Idiot
by John Walker on Apr.11, 2006, under Rants
Right, get your notebooks out everyone. It’s time for another lesson in being not an idiot.
Reading through this nonsensical thread over on EG, Stuart Campbell steps in to explain something that had been misunderstood from his own article and referenced inaccurately. Someone else doesn’t understand and pompously criticises, Stu mockingly points this out, and as per usual in all forum-style conversations, the entire thing descends into tiresome gibberish.
However, it reminds me of a couple of important things to note.
The first thing is: the difference between someone’s being an idiot and someone’s being unintelligent is an idiot has no idea he’s unintelligent. And this leads to all sorts of problems. The person being unintelligent hears something that contradicts their own incorrect understanding on a matter and either learns, or retreats. The idiot takes loud offense. This is problematic, as it means the person being an idiot will only ever shout angrily, no matter the debate.
Let’s create a hypothetical example. Let’s say someone is angrily stating that a well-received and award winning film is actually terrible, and everyone who likes it is wrong. Others reply saying, “I agree! It’s rubbish! Thank goodness you said that!”. I, thinking that the film is rather splendid, and having detailed reasons why, reply saying why I think it is good.
Now, the person hating the film has two choices. They can listen, and make arguments against to defend their position should they maintain it. Or they can make an irrelevant point that ignores anything that might challenge their position. The idiotic response is to choose the latter. So he says, “Everyone else thinks it’s rubbish. You’re the only one defending it. So that proves something, eh?”
Despite this being a frustrating nonsense, and certainly not addressing any of the points made, you have no choice but to respond to it. A simple solution would be, “Well, the most respected critics all defend it with their well-reasoned reviews. Now, can we get back to the points I made?”
“So now you’re saying only journalists are allowed opinions?”
There’s little hope in such a situation. The problem is, the person is refusing to listen, and refusing to accept the possibility that they’re being an idiot. So nevermind that their ‘point’ was succinctly proven wrong – instead they pretend that a totally different conversation took place, and respond angrily to that fiction. I am left in an ever-more confusing and frustrating position, as now if I wish to continue I have to defend the point – that I certainly don’t believe only employed film critics are allowed opinions, never have thought that, never would think it, wouldn’t say it, and perhaps most pertinently, didn’t say it. But the idiotic response has already won, as now I’m desperately defending myself against this most irrelevant of points, and any reasoned logic I once employed is lost in the bottom-wind.
The second thing is: no one seems to be able to recognise the difference between a particular behaviour described, and an assault on their entire character.
In the EG thread, Stu is impolite to some of the people who are rudely dismissing his words, ignoring what he’s saying, and instead pretending he’s making the arguments they want him to have said. They want those responses because those are the ones for which they have practised replies. They neatly fit into categories they recognise. So, as an example, it’s assumed that Stu is slagging off the game Geometry Wars 2. He’s not, and indeed he has very clearly stated that he likes the game. But now the above behaviour appears, and Stu is left having to defend himself against things he hasn’t said, and arguments he wasn’t making. And oddly enough, becomes frustrated and annoyed at having to do this. So he labels the behaviour – he calls it stupid, idiotic, childish, naive, etc. And here is the crux of this point: the idiotic response is to believe this is a description of their character.
Of course it’s a description of their current behaviour. This isn’t a difficult conclusion – it’s impossible for it to be anything else. Stu doesn’t know these people, has never spoken to them before. They write under nicknames, they are an anonymous blue name writing something stupid. However, “You are being a moron”, which is patently true in the above examples, is interpreted as “You are always, and have always been, a moron,” and the person indignantly hollers at this grotesque injustice. (For someone like Stu, who has a public profile, the idiot’s response goes a stage further as they attempt to exact revenge for their own imagined affront, and use the personal information they have on him to insult him personally. They become the perpetrators of the crime they so condemn, in what I shall now label the Idiot’s Irony).
And why? Because in both cases, the alternative is allowing the possibility of being wrong. And god forbid that we should ever be wrong! In fact, in a gross distortion of reality, it is being wrong that is understood as being idiotic by today’s arguing masses. This is such a horrendous mistake, and it breaks my heart. Recognising that one is wrong is so FAR from being idiotic. It’s the very opposite! It’s admitting that one has learned! Being wrong is a joy – it’s a time when you learned something new, gained knowledge, improved your intellect. And yet it’s so fiercely hated that both the above situations are the absolute norm. Idiotic behaviour with the inability to recognise itself. That way, you never have to be wrong. You never have to learn a new thing. You never have to think.
April 12th, 2006 on 21:47
Every reply you make is so utterly missing the point that I have to assume it’s deliberate.
Every question you ask has been answered twenty times, so there’s little point in repeating anything.
Your comments regarding Frosty, quoting something random, out of context (despite my linking to the last such discussion, but god forbid you should actually read anything anyone’s written), make no sense at all. I have no idea who he is, if it helps. He seems a decent chap.
The ‘envelope’ was a joke, mocking you for being so predictable.
You didn’t elbow-nudgingly call me a hack. You described my work as that of a below-average hack. It was a deliberate insult. You know that.
Stu’s Grid Wars article is excellent. Have you read it? Do you disagree?
You have repeatedly criticised my work as a games journalist, and used this job to imply many negative things.
It’s not fun. You’re a cruel person, who is entirely unable to recognise the difference between saying something hateful like “Due to Stuart having his entire self worth bound to one of the most garish webbys I have ever seen”, and being called a moron. It blows my mind that you cannot see the difference, and it fills me with fear.
Your comments about me and my nature as a human, based on my job, demonstrate a grotesque part of you. I am not going to defend myself to you, but I feel very offended by what you’ve said, and am in the position of having to just take it, and walk away.
I have no desire to communicate with someone as cruel as you, and find your flippant disinterest in recognising your effects disgusting. Please go away forever.
April 12th, 2006 on 22:26
Good lord.
“You didn’t elbow-nudgingly call me a hack. You described my work as that of a below-average hack. It was a deliberate insult. You know that.”
I said ‘bog-standard’, which infact implies completely average. I then of course deleted and explained the comment (something you and Stuart have not done at any stage whatsoever), never mind.
You did link, apologies, it was a long way back now.
“The envelope was a joke, mocking you for being so predictable.” Got me there then.
As to the rest of it, utterly pitiful. Do you really think that anyone reading the entirety of my comments on this over the past 2 days could get anywhere near ‘cruel’ or ‘grotesque’? You take it upon yourself to wite an article about me and others, without considering the effect it might have (none on me but that may not apply to others) and yet 24 hours later are reduced to the drivel of your last few paragraphs. Whiny? Ring any bells? If you did think about it, did you consider whether it might be offensive atall?
For what is probably, alas, the final time, I made no comments whatsoever about your job, other than to mention it at all, and to point out it is no better or worse than mine. That’s it. You can’t take that, then the diffence between your ability to attempt to try to cause offence, and to take it, is utterly unbelieveable.
To retierate, following yesterdays thread, I didn’t write an article about idiocy, the idiotic, and idiots generally, and point to you as an example. You did. ‘Cruel’ ‘grotesque’ – remember?
Perhaps you should consider withdrawing the article if this upsets you so much. I wouldn’t have dreamed of writing it about you in the first place.
April 13th, 2006 on 01:16
Please go away.
April 13th, 2006 on 03:42
And I always thought Stu’s belligerance was what caused these endless diatribes. Seems it just cuts out the waffle and gets straight down to the name calling…
April 13th, 2006 on 07:18
Yeah I suppose it does cut out the tedious process of listening to and respecting the other’s viewpoint :) It was exactly why it went wrong this time. I’ve no problem with Stu, his articles or his arguments (in candour not that intererested).
Stu came back to the thread fighting but had the good grace in the morning to realise he went off on one and said sorry. Unlike Mr Walker himself, whose level of bile I can only account for by cocaine and/or drink.
Stu’s manner irked me a tad at the time, and whoever started it and for whatever reason, he was needlessly rude and patonising – something of a pet hate for me, especially when his arguments degenerated into mocking grammar and spelling and the education of people he was talking to. Just a spot of arrogant nonsense, I’m sure he regrets a little now. After all he’s just pissing off potential readers, whether they’re “prats” (sic) or not.
And John – Since I’m only interested in the first paragraph of the immensely *cough* insightful *cough* essay and the thread I came to it from (which I believe to be a valid post here, because of the circumstances) most of your comments are irrelvant waffle to me. We’ve established that you agreed Stu was rude, the other part of the argument was whether it was justified – a matter clearly open to interpretation, a point dismissed by “lies” in the first response sprayed at theGames and myself. This is something that is important, but not central, to my point, so again valid (and I’m prepared to admit he might have had due provocation.)
So you didn’t take the time to properly read or understand my post. You were too busy with your thesis and the sound of your own voice. You provided me with great amusement, as you continually made the same errors you were so happy to point out in others, while making yourself appear like an nasty man with a large but brittle ego. Even my fustian was a gentle dig at your own inflated sense of intellect.
I am, laughing at the thought of a neutral observer’s reaction to all this (should anyone bother to read it) and how it can only damage other’s opinion’s on you. Get a grip. You pride yourself in your work – well try to be professional about it. Whatever the provocation. You’re an idiot, and I’ve had fun.
April 13th, 2006 on 07:35
Nick -
Stuart came back and apologised? Not overly conerned but I really must have missed that, his post of 9.28 was I think just continuing the theme, at InfiniteFury at that stage. Something else?
John -
Remove your article, I wont return, whilst the there is an article on here referring to idiots arguing with Stuart as an example, and being one of the 2 main protagonists in that discussion, of course I will return and stand up for myself, something you are increasingly incapable of having produced such a laughable piece.
By the way
“…it fills me with fear.”
Let’s hope the following is never turned on you -
“shut the fuck up about it.”
“That’s the point, though, dimwit
“I treat people with the level of respect and courtesy they deserve. Fuckwits can fuck off. ”
“Are you drunk?”
“… dickhead fanboys… ”
“Seriously, get a fucking grip on yourself. … If you’re too pig-headed and stupid to observe that simple truth, I really, really won’t be wasting another second of my time listening to your boneheaded opinions on the subject. ”
“(See, the joke was that they were dim.) ”
“When twats then start attacking me … it pisses me off, and I reserve the right to tell those people to go fuck themselves. If you don’t like THAT, then you can go fuck yourself too.”
“Your opinion is supported by fuck-all in the way of argument or reasoning, so you can wank yourself blind for all I care. ”
“… slightly more belligerent tone [note from Ed – Ha] did , so why bother being polite with morons who think that just because they say something hiding in darkness behind a wall, anyone on the face of the planet gives a flying fuck?
… this retarded playground bullshit deserves exactly as much respect as I give it. ”
“the poster concerned was a bit thick ”
(Just a few examples, leaves out most of the condescending obvious trolls, which you and Stuart so amusingly carried over into comments about your own Snowboard Kids review yesterday – I didn’t rise to it and spoil your comments any more than you already had, maybe it should be the respected journalists being the bigger men? Please note, the above is pretty much the sum total of my personal dealings with Stuart, can you possibly see why I hold the opinion of him I do? – your claim that Stuart is attacking opinions, not people, is as unconvincing as it ever was, making half of your article entirely redundant anyway)
As and when the searing intellect demonstrated above is turned on you, and then Stuart writes an article about idiots using you as an example, imagine how utterly terrified you will be then. You presumably know enough about the human psyche to know you can’t have any sort of friendship at all under these circumstances, merely master and servant, at best.
You have the moral cowardice to write your article in the first place, and then the complete lack of any backbone whatsoever to back it up, because you’ve been called a hack (withdrawn immediately after once the point about offence was made, covered many times above) and as such are mortally offended. You are in the wrong. If you had perhaps decided not to link to the article in the original thread, your article would have remained unquestioned, but unable to help yourself, you invite response from the ‘idiots’. A short time thereafter you get all the way to ‘filled with fear’ when you are completely unable to back it up.
Please note once again, the relative lack of melodrama herein, the utter lack of ‘turd’, ‘fuckwit’, ‘twat’, ‘dimwit’, ‘moron’ words you have happily justified using , or being used, about me.
Of course, if I were Stuart, you could replace this entire post with:
“You snivelling little wretch, fuckers like you go around insulting people in print, spread the link for all to see, then run away scared, you’ve never grown up and you clearly never will, I’m not going to bother conversing with a fucking child like you any more, you are pretty much the most cowardly fucking pond-life I’ve ever come across”
Happily, I’m not, for which I am profoundly grateful. The above is just an example, used in the abstract, which seems to be the way it is done around here.
Remove your article, or back it up, i.e. either way, try to be an adult. Then pick you’re the targets for your clever blog more carefully in future. Read this last paragraph to yourself several times before you act.
April 13th, 2006 on 08:42
The link was not meant as either insult or support – just thought it might add something amusing.
April 13th, 2006 on 08:56
Amusing – and I considered relevant.
On reflection I feel my last paragraph is an overly forceful expression of my views, so please disregard, if you can. It doesn’t add to the “debate”. I can’t bring myself to take much of this seriously, but it has been a fascinating insight.
April 13th, 2006 on 09:02
@tgt: please go away
April 13th, 2006 on 09:08
@admin – certainly, once the ‘doodle’ relating to me has disappeared.
“… you are so fundamentally ignoring every detail of my entire argument that I have no clue as to how to communicate with you.” Bells, ring, etc
April 13th, 2006 on 09:10
@ admin too – I fully recognise this is now you being polite, shame you couldn’t have managed that before you started all this – nonetheless:
“Remove your article, or back it up, i.e. either way, try to be an adult. Then pick you’re the targets for your clever blog more carefully in future. Read this last paragraph to yourself several times before you act. “
April 13th, 2006 on 09:12
“Just a spot of arrogant nonsense, I’m sure he regrets a little now.”
Not the least little bit, I’m afraid.
As SuperNashwan partly observes, I’ve been encountering idiot cognitive dissonance for a decade and a half now, and I can spot it a long way off. When I do, I tend to save time and get straight to the point, which is generally “Fuck off you moron”. Poor John, who hasn’t been around as long as I have, is only starting to learn that lesson now. He still gives people the benefit of the doubt sometimes, and look where it’s got him.
If people want to criticise stuff I’ve written, I’m happy to hear it and take it constructively. Sometimes I do get stuff wrong. (The point, TGTG, is that I haven’t admitted any wrongdoing here because I *haven’t* done anything wrong. The people I was patronising to, I entirely *meant* to be patronising to.) But people who determinedly – and even after being told – start insulting me because THEY’VE misunderstood perfectly straightforward English, or because THEY’VE taken something completely out of context because they couldn’t be bothered to read it properly… those people are just rude, ignorant, arrogant dickheads and deserve no better than to be treated as such. I’d rather have no readers than stupid ones, 105 times out of 100. Seriously.
April 13th, 2006 on 09:22
tgtg – You have been told, literally about twenty times, that the blog post here is not all about the comments thread, but merely using it as an illustration of a behaviour I have seen very many times. You insist on your crazed belief that this post is about you. It is not. I don’t care who you are, now think you to be a really, deeply awful person, and really wish that you would go away and never communicate with me again.
You are incapable of telling the difference between being called a generic name in response to an immediate behaviour, and the loathsome, spiteful remarks you’ve made. I think this means you are sociopathic, and hence there’s no point in this, or any other response to you.
So please, go away. The post is not about you, never will be, and will not be taken down, as you so astonishingly demand. Simply go away, never post here again, and never have any further communication with me.
April 13th, 2006 on 09:36
Oh sorry – guess he didn’t apologise, I was being stupid and misinterpreted the phrase
“Sorry, everyone. Sorry.
I’m going to go away now and have a long hard think about what I’ve done.”
on that thread. But I can accept that you may have meant something different (or opposite even). No big deal.
I think SuperNashwan simply observed that if you wade in belligerently, no wonder we get all this crap. “idiot cognitive dissonance?” – you’ve got to laugh. However I guess you’ve had a lot of hassle across the years – something I can’t empathise with, so I can understand why you might see things in your terms. Understand, not agree, mind you.
@tgt – I think you’ve been reasonable in the face of a series of egotistical tirades. Whether you were right or wrong initially, you’ve been more mature and pleasant than your detractors. And I wonder if it will ever occur to these people to realise that they are not 105% right all the time and read that last paragraph of the essay and see a glimmer of irony. I guess not, from what I’ve read.
April 13th, 2006 on 09:43
Nope – it is very, very clear:
Your article links to the thread in which there are ‘idiots’. It makes very clear the idiots aren’t you and Stuart (well how could they be), describes my (and other) behaviour as idiotic, and thus us as idiots (I’m not really interested in the distinction that you draw, Stuarts comments admirably demonstrate he isnt, your behaviour since has merely reaffirmed this), and continues in that way (breaking off briefly for a hypothetical), all the way down to:
“(For someone like Stu, who has a public profile, the idiot’s [idiot, not idiotic] response goes a stage further as they attempt to exact revenge for their own imagined [your distinction] affront, and use the personal information they have on him to insult him personally. They become the perpetrators of the crime they so condemn, in what I shall now label the Idiot’s Irony).”
where I get my own capitalised descriptive.
You have been completely unable to respond to my last few posts (one of which gives several examples of who the sociopath is, if you have any understanding of the term), yet you won’t remove you original drivel about me.
Is ‘On Being an Idiot’ a huge typo, it should been ‘On Being Idiotic’? Oops. Your entire ridiculous argument is invalidated by the title alone, along with Stuarts behaviour in the example you point to.
You use the ‘darkness’ of the internet to use me an example of what you feel is so wrong, so idiotic, it ‘breaks your heart’ and spam the link to show Stuart et al how clever you have been, but are too craven to continue. I will now, finally, call you a well deseved name. Hypocrite. Would it be OK if I spammed this link elsewhere to demonstrate precisely what I think ‘On Being an Idiot’ involves?
Remove your article, or back it up, i.e. either way, try to be an adult.
April 13th, 2006 on 09:47
You’re the biggest idiot I’ve ever encountered. Does that help?
It really is hard to imagine how much more I could “back it up” than I already have. Your non-stop insistance on performing each and every aspect of my post in response to it backs it up more than I believe I ever could.
Here’s what’s going to shock you – when I wrote the piece, I had no idea to whom I was making vague reference in describing actions. I had no idea it was you who had so idiotically misunderstood Stu’s post (and continue to do so). It was just someone in that thread, and an event I wanted to analyse. But congratulations on presenting yourself as the inspiration for my analysis. You insist that my post in no way offends you, and that it’s all about you, but you demand that it be censored. How odd. And yes, please, link to this as much as you wish – I’m confident that anyone with a modicum of intelligence will recognise what my point has always been. Also anyone with a modicum of intelligence will look at me in despair that I was so stupid as to engage you, and so idiotic as to carry on this discussion for so very long.
You want to believe that my refusing to respond to anything more you have to say means you’ve won? Fine, you’ve won. You want to believe that wishing to have no further contact with someone as unpleasant as you is my chickening out of the argument. Fine, I’m chickening out. You want to believe that I can’t counter your points, and that you’ve intellectually outwitted me? Fine, I can’t counter your points and you’ve intellectually outwitted me.
Now go away please.
April 13th, 2006 on 09:51
@admin
Not until you remove your article. Take it away, expunge it, delete it, get rid of it, have the good sense to admit you made a mistake and remove it. A journalist with any integrity atall should be quite capable of doing so.
@ Nick
Thank you. I will simply keep trying.
April 13th, 2006 on 10:02
“I had no idea it was you …”
Why are you so obtuse? It was me, it continues to be me, which is why I still object to the article, you now happily admit it was about me, but that’s ok because you didn’t know me. If I wanted to create an article about idiots and I linked any of your writing under ‘botherer’, wouldn’t it still be you? Your use of those you encounter on the internet to back up points you have infact completely failed to make is cowardly beyond belief. Pop into your local pub and having identified the biggest ‘idiot’ (in your terms) in there, loudly tell everyone what you think and ‘idiot’ is and point to him as an example. Please.
April 13th, 2006 on 10:15
@tgt “Fine, you’ve won… you’ve intellectually outwitted me”
Perhaps time to let it lie, even if it the season for a crucifiction ;)
April 13th, 2006 on 10:24
@ Nick. Well yeah, though it’s rather clear he doesnt mean it:). Nonetheless an article on ‘idiots’ remains, with me (and others) as an example, posted very ironically by someone who isn’t anywhere as bright as he thinks is, (as oppose to not being bright – John, try and understand the difference). So I’ll keep at it. It’s quiet though, perhaps he’s gone down the pub.
@Stuart – “rude, ignorant, arrogant dickheads”. is it absolutely impossible that you will ever be able to read the original thread, pretending you weren’t a part of it, and see who that might apply to?
April 13th, 2006 on 10:29
@ tgtt – fair enough. It’s not me that has been written about as an idiot (although I assuredly am at times ;)). You’re entitled to continue to feel aggrieved – apologies.
April 13th, 2006 on 10:49
I’m an idiot too, who isn’t (well of course if you believe the original article, John and Stuart assuredly aren’t), but being held up as example of such by someone who is at the very least as idiotic as I am, rankles a bit. I think it is the utter arrogance that allows someone to go around saying you’re an idiot whilst behaving so idiotically, that ultimately gets up my nose. Continue I shall :)
April 13th, 2006 on 11:18
Well, I’m very sorry guys, it’s all my fault. I’m afraid I didn’t read much after “‘jamesphilp’, who assures everyone he’s not using a pseudonym, and therefore surely can’t spell his own name, is a man so stubbornly stupid that the paintings fell off my walls. ”
My foray into the arguament was perhaps uninformed, as I mainly took issue with the way Stu reacted to people’s misinterpretation of his article. He came over (to me anyway) as incredibly condescending and self-righteous, which was really my only beef. He assumed that I was really having issue with his article, when in fact, I really didn’t. o apologise and admit my error there.
And FYI, my name is James Philp, so no, I’m not spelling my name worng.
April 13th, 2006 on 11:21
Apologies James – my comment on your name was uncalled for, and I was plainly wrong.
April 13th, 2006 on 11:22
Assuming my name is Philip, and thereby saying that a man can’t even spell his own name. Now there’s some pure ignorance, in the true meaning of the word.
/irony
April 13th, 2006 on 11:23
…and this has WHAT to do with Art Attack series 4?
April 13th, 2006 on 11:25
Guys – who’s in London? Maybe we should all go out for some beers one night – I think we’d find out we’re pretty much all the same person!
Arrange a place/time, and whoever turns up, turns up?
Just an idea!
XBL Tag: “Flip 45″ (and I have no idea why so don’t ask!)
It’s been emotional! (Thinking about a forum in the shower in the morning is well ott!)
April 13th, 2006 on 11:26
Bezzy, your ignorance on the matter is beyond belief – it’s plainly evident that The Adventure Game wasn’t nearly as good as everyone remembers, and in fact just repeated the same boring puzzles every week.
April 13th, 2006 on 11:28
“I think we’d find out we’re pretty much all the same person!”
That would be the scariest thing ever.
April 13th, 2006 on 11:32
Scary, but probably true.
I like games. Me too.
I like games enough to have huge internet-based arguaments. Me too.
I’m stubborn. Hey, Me too!
I like beer. You know what, me too, let’s have another!
Happy easter everyone. Hey, it’s only a game (who’d have thought GW could spark a debate like this! – but that’s why it’s “fun” right. It’s what man was designed to do with his ridiculously analytical mind).
PS no mor spelling/grammar police please!
Peace-out. GOSH.
April 13th, 2006 on 12:22
[Bob - the formatting on your post was all screwy - I've tidied it as best I can]
“PC version, if it runs acceptably on a £280 PC (and it’s an action game, needs to be smooth and pretty to at least a certain degree), I’ll eat my mouse”
TGT. Can someone proove this? I have no idea why a 2d game should struggle on something with a good processor and reasonable RAM, and if you go to PC World the cheap PCs are fine for those 2. 2.5ghz, 512MB odd I think. It’s 3D cards that don’t come with cheap PCs.
“prats” (sic)
Nick – ??? I don’t get it. That’s right for the plural of prat, surely…
“Sorry, everyone. Sorry. I’m going to go away now and have a long hard think about what I’ve done.”
Nick – That was sarcasm methinks…
“Is ‘On Being an Idiot’ a huge typo, it should been ‘On Being Idiotic’”
TGT – Surely the same. I can’t see you point here.
“If I wanted to create an article about idiots and I linked any of your writing under ‘botherer’, wouldn’t it still be you?”
TGT – He didn’t specifically link to anything specifically about you. JW meant he didn’t know the exact names and identities of all involved, he just scanned content and posted his overall summary of the discussion. Whereas linking to Botherer Blog is a direct link to John. As it is, his article is open to interpretation a bit more.
TGT can you admit though, ignoring everything after it, that you misinterpreted Stu’s comment about how if you are reading this online article, 90% chance you have a fair PC for this not very demanding game (Why you think it’s demanding of performance I have no idea at all…), it would be better to download this free game and play it, than spend £X hundred and £4 on Geometry Wars and an Xbox360?
That is straightforward, no?
April 13th, 2006 on 12:33
Nice post James
Well, I’m in London (Camden), if I can prise myself off oblivion at some point, would be more than happy to meet some of the faces behind the names…
Happy Easter to you all too.
April 13th, 2006 on 12:33
John, I will ask you again to remove the article.
April 13th, 2006 on 13:32
No.
Since I’ve not mentioned you, but only described behaviours you deny having exhibited, it cannot be about you. So I don’t understand why you feel the need to have a private blog entry removed at your behest.
If you’re admitting that you are indeed the perpetrator of the behaviours described, then on what grounds do you wish to have the descriptions removed? You are against free speech? You wish to tidy the internet of anything that accurately describes you in a negative light? But this is all irrelevant, since you did not do anything wrong, and so the entry can be in no way about you.
Nevermind that you’ve already stated that it doesn’t bother you.
April 13th, 2006 on 13:37
Oh do shush.
John’s first paragraph:
“Reading through this nonsensical thread over on EG, Stuart Campbell steps in to explain something that had been misunderstood from his own article and referenced inaccurately”
This is in fact true.
“Someone else doesn’t understand and pompously criticises”
Also true.
“Stu mockingly points this out”
Also also true.
“and as per usual in all forum-style conversations, the entire thing descends into tiresome gibberish.”
I don’t think anyone can argue with that one.
From this leaping off point, he composes an interesting blog essay which in part is concerned with this type of forum discussion, rather than the actual specific discussion referenced, as well as other thoughts sloshing about in that mad head of his. No matter your issue with who said what and when in the original forum, this is quite clear to all. When he does deal specifically, briefly, with the original discussion which sparked all this, he acknowledges that Stu was impolite in response, at the same time as acknowledging that it all occurred due to a misunderstanding of his original words by some who were too proud to admit their error and were complicit in letting the whole thing spiral out of control.
As an impartial observer, I see nothing in this entry for you to get so pissed off about. To think otherwise smacks of narcissism.
April 13th, 2006 on 13:41
Yeah, you guys don’t know how much I could exspunge this whole sorry episode from record/memory – I could have got so much work done in the time it took to read this page through alone!
I don’t want to rekindle anything here but I do think it’s pretty obvious that this whole article/comments thing is just an extension of the original EG debacle, that seems to have attracted those of us from that forum that have to “go the distance”!
Rev. – I’m sorry my original post was badly aimed/worded. I only had issue with your reaction to others’ comments. The rest was crap – I am prepared to admit. However I do still see your reactionary comments as over-reactions. I’m sure you wouldn’t wade in with “fuckwit” and a condescending tone in a face-to-face arguament.
admin (John?) – “Doesn’t understand at all what is going in there” I can live with and (as said above) to a certain extent is correct. “is a man so stubbornly stupid” I find very offensive. But at the same time I’m sure I’ve offended other people. No-one likes to be called stupid, but I’m sure I have exhibited some stupidity the last couple of days (not least by getting involved with the whole thing!).
tgtt – at least you got an acronym out of it eh? I do agree though that I think as much evidence of this entire thing, which I think is now on the edge of embarassing for all parties involved, should be destroyed!
Nick – Thanks, and I’ll be fine with the drink, as long as it’s booked far enough in advance!
April 13th, 2006 on 13:42
What’s most hilarious to me is that the entire essay is about the idiotic arguing on RAM Raider’s blog, and not the EG thread at all. But tgtt wants to be the centre of the universe, and have all things be about him.
April 13th, 2006 on 13:49
Oh come on:
“In the EG thread, Stu is impolite to some of the people who are rudely dismissing his words, ignoring what he’s saying, and instead pretending he’s making the arguments they want him to have said. They want those responses because those are the ones for which they have practised replies. They neatly fit into categories they recognise. So, as an example, it’s assumed that Stu is slagging off the game Geometry Wars 2. He’s not, and indeed he has very clearly stated that he likes the game. But now the above behaviour appears, and Stu is left having to defend himself against things he hasn’t said, and arguments he wasn’t making. And oddly enough, becomes frustrated and annoyed at having to do this. So he labels the behaviour – he calls it stupid, idiotic, childish, naive, etc. And here is the crux of this point: the idiotic response is to believe this is a description of their character.”
April 13th, 2006 on 13:50
James – I took a jibe at you because your replies on the EG thread bewildered me in their ever-increasing capacity to miss the point of anything said, like a snowball of madness rolling down a hill. I’m sorry that you were offended, and understand why.
And yes, that entire paragraph, while referencing the immediate event, was allegorical for something quite separate. As I keep saying, it was merely a convenient illustration of a common behaviour exhibited very frequently.
April 13th, 2006 on 13:51
Thanks impartial observer, lots of original input there. Nope, Yep, Yep, Yep, mainly but not entirely Nope
@admin
A better answer would have been ‘Go on then’.
It’s clear you won’t remove it, it is clear you won’t repsond to my comments, it is clear you are an utter coward, and it is clear I have no recourse whatsoever. Nice work, you dad must be very proud of the spineless wonder he has bred.
It really was fun in parts, honest, and it must look good on your blog stats.
Watch out for Stuart – when he turns, run for your life :)
April 13th, 2006 on 13:53
james, I had an acronym anyway, but thanks:)
April 13th, 2006 on 13:53
And I think with that, even bouncy-cheerful Nick will have to concede that tgtt is quite repellent.
Dad, have you bothered reading through all this? Are you proud of the spineless wonder you’ve bred?
April 13th, 2006 on 13:54
Proverbs 26 v 4,5 :
“Do not answer a fool acording to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes”
Conclusion: any discussion on the internet is lose-lose. QED
April 13th, 2006 on 13:55
” it was merely a convenient illustration of a common behaviour exhibited very frequently. ”
A convenient illustration at a convenient time linked to a convenient foum eh?
How convenient! :P
April 13th, 2006 on 13:55
Nice last word dude – perhaps an article on repellant behaviour next, referencing this as an example :)
April 13th, 2006 on 14:05
“prats” (sic)
Nick – ??? I don’t get it. That’s right for the plural of prat, surely…
Yep you’re right there. From dictionary.com -
“Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.”
I don’t think they were prats basically. Understand now? ;)
April 13th, 2006 on 14:11
Oh and:
“And yes, that entire paragraph, while referencing the immediate event, was allegorical for something quite separate.”
It is not an allegory. It is an example, pulled from real life.
If this thing happens to go on so frequently, would it not have been possible to actually produce an allegory (story, fable, tale – generally fictitious in nature) so that this article did not go on to further extend the original and offend those involved?
I know it is easier to use an example of something that has recently happened (it is fresh in the mind) but it is clear to me that it was the example you used as the demonstation of this “behaivor” that clearly motivated you to write the thing – it’s not like you had it half-written already?!
You were clearly motivated due to the comments posted by myself and others. That’s fine, but if it’s true that this was written to point out a general behavior among forum posters, then it was surely unnecessary to list specific examples and names?
April 13th, 2006 on 14:15
“Thanks impartial observer, lots of original input there. Nope, Yep, Yep, Yep, mainly but not entirely Nope.”
Astonishingly well-Fisked. Well done that man. If you truly desire the removal of the original blog post, I suggest a deconstruction, line by line, pointing out specifically the passages you object to, claim discredit your character or whatever the Hell it is you’re on about. Or not. I suspect that would be most people’s preference by now.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have met John twice, though we are not Friends. Indeed, from what little I know of at least some of his actual friends, they would be more likely than anyone to pull him up on anything idiotic/wrong he says here or elsewhere.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:17
No, it was allegorical for something else. That’s generally how allegory works.
And yes, I did have it ‘half-written’. I’ve been planning to write it for a while, and this most recent example was the push to get it done.
If someone is insulted for having their actions reported, then perhaps their actions were at fault? (And no, I didn’t just say “If someone is insulted, then they are at fault”).
But most of all, I didn’t mention any names other than Stu’s! So what on earth are you talking about?
April 13th, 2006 on 14:18
And then to link your article in the original thread, whilst the debate was still continuing, thus making it as clear as possible to all at EG, that you aren’t an idiot, but everyone else is (except Stu. And your dad) and it must be true because theres an article about it :)
No, can’t be it.