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 11th, 2006 on 18:37
You’ll find from my latest post that I am happy to back down when clearly in the wrong, something yourself and Stuart have singly failed to do. It’s called being adult about these things. If you can’t see Stuart’s comments for what they are (and are incapable of imagining they are levelled at you), you are guilty of idiotic behaviour of own.
I will wait and see if Stuart withdraws any of his offensive remarks.
April 11th, 2006 on 19:07
Having read your comments above in more detail, you can pull it around any way you like (though in using the word ‘pompously’ you could perhaps look up ‘hypocrisy’ at the same time). The fact remains Stuart resorted to playground name calling long before I did (to reiterate – illiterate, idiotic, dickhead, twat, fuckwit, some more than once), not the actions of a particularly professional journalist. Infact utterly moronic behaviour, and given how often he did this and to how many people other than myself, we might even conclude that he is infact a moron.
Certainly no-one else who contributed to the thread agreed with you, or him.
In response to some other comments, II make no apologies for my syntax or spelling. Granted I’m not a professional, but if you and Stuart are nothing but games journalists, good luck to you and I’m sure it’s a great job, but I guarantee I use my limited grammatical ability to a more postive effect on society than you have managed, and I certainly don’t revert to stroppy teenage behaviour as easily in my professional life as your friend does. I only do com-poo-tahs, in legal circles, keeping our not-very-good-but-slightly-better-than-nothing justice system turning. Waste of time? Maybe, but perhaps not as much as talking about games all day.
I’ll say again, I’ve withdrawn my ‘hack’ comment, which was used only as an example. Most of Fleet Street are called just that in Private Eye every other fortnight and seem to survive, I will assume you have a more delicate condition.
April 11th, 2006 on 19:15
And finally :)
The issue in question ceased to be relevant after the second response from Stuart to my posts. Having claimed the 360 was £300, he then went on to say that when referring to a PC of the same price and it’s capabilites, he didn’t necessarily mean the game in question. Right.
Again I feel it’s important to present my credentials at this point – I do have a 360, but also a PS2, an aging but still usable games PC, GC (broken at the moment) and GBASP (currently my favourite). My criticism of Stuart comments were aimed at the comments themselves (which at the very least were heavily weighted) but I’m no 360 fanboy as such, any more than anyone else who has bought one necessarily is.
April 11th, 2006 on 19:32
I came to this article from the link you posted on that particular thread.
I was a participant and observer (chavatar) of the drama that played out, as the conversation became ever more vitriolic and dogmatic. My position is one of a neutral observer and from this position, I would have to say the above is only one side of the story.
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the argument, read the first page of posts. This started as an insulting and patronising response by Stuart to some mild sarcasm – at least it seemed to me. Veterans of the industry and the blogosphere should know better. And you should know better than to patronise people you do not know, or criticise their spelling and grammar in an environment and via a medium designed to exacerbate errors and miscommunication. There is a hint of arrogance in your post and in Stuart’s comments stemming from your pride and your failure to realise that a lot of it is just opinion and the people you simplistically place into category “right” and category “idiot” actually compromise a whole range of individuals in different situations and varying abilities (and the chances are, even the ones you call idiots have a higher than average IQ).
Where subjectivity and opinion reign, you can help define yourself by demeanour as much as factual superiority. In short, he could have handled it better and been above any perceived idiocy.
Now read your last paragraph again. But that’s just my opinion.
April 11th, 2006 on 20:44
thegamesthing: First of all, I made no comment about your spelling or grammar in that thread, and nor did I make reference to such things in my post – this is an example of part 1 of my post – deliberately obfuscating the debate, attempting to put me on the defensive for something I have not done. I don’t care that Stuart did – he explained the appropriate context for his jibe, which was very specific – it has nothing to do with anything, and clearly demonstrates that my post is all-too accurate.
Secondly, you then go on to make the “You were the only one defending him,” comment, which *again* I raised, and *again* has nothing to do with anything at all. I am left to conclude that from your seemingly unwittingly performing the exact rituals I analysed in response to the post, that you are continuing to choose not to think.
Thirdly, withdrawing an insult is not traditionally followed by a series of jibes based on said insult, including those that suggest I am being weak or pathetic to complain. Private Eye uses the term “hack” as an insult. Oddly enough, PE is a fortnightly paper-based publication with a small letters page, which might go some way to explaining why you don’t immediately see the journalists replying while you read. It’s hard to avoid being sarcastic at this juncture, since your logic is quite so idiotic. Further, I don’t mind the term “hack” used as a jovial description of me, and frequently use it. You, however, used it in context as an insult to insinuate that I am poor at my job. This distinction is very clear.
Nick: Stuart’s first post was to query an error Tom made regarding one of the enemies in the game, and his second was to politely correct some mistakes someone made in referencing something he had written. Anything rude came in response to people’s rude, lazy replies accusing him of having done things that he had not. Please don’t make things up so your argument works – it’s especially stupid when the posts are there for anyone to read, proving your claims as either obvious mistakes or simple lies.
More importantly, I couldn’t give a toss about the thread. Comment threads are a bane to good journalism, and I would sooner see them removed and replaced by an edited letters page. Again, the only reference to grammar I made was an *astonishingly* clearly signposted jibe AIMED AT STU, correcting his grammar in his sentence commenting on someone’s writing skills. You are very deliberately performing part 1 of my post, firstly accusing me of having done something that I have not, and secondly attempting to obfuscate away from the matter in hand.
The point of my post was not that thread – it was merely illustrative of some behaviour I wished to write about. It is not my long-winded attempt to defend Stu, or any such other rubbish – Stu needs no defending, and I would far rather expend my energy arguing with him.
Please don’t bother with rubbish like “just opinion”. That’s a fundamental irrelevance, and the most heinous of all deliberate attempts to hijack the reality of the matter in hand. The matter is exactly what I wrote about in my post, which is people’s behaviour in response to situations, and nothing to do with “opinion” – the magical phrase that means all debate flitters away and you get to not have to think. Please read this for further elucidation on the matter.
That you say “and the chances are, even the ones you call idiots have a higher than average IQ” demonstrates that you have in no way taken on board anything I said in part 2 of my post – I see no need to repeat it all again, and only shake my head in despair.
I think my points have been perfectly illustrated by both respondants, each neatly and obligingly performing exactly the fallacies I wrote about, in order, with no sense of irony.
April 11th, 2006 on 21:03
I don’t think you did yourself any favours there. The irony is tragic/I’m a complete category a) idiot. I’ll let your readership decide. Caught between the charybdis and scylla of being drawn into a pointless argument and looking like your rebuttal has been utter and damning and is indeed a FACT.
Readers enjoy ;)
April 11th, 2006 on 21:09
Nick, you are so fundamentally ignoring every detail of my entire argument that I have no clue as to how to communicate with you.
I hesitate to so agonisingly repeat myself, but the very point of half of my entire post is to explore the difference between calling someone’s behaviour idiotic, and calling someone an idiot. That you persist in refusing my entire thesis because you so desperately want to pretend I’m calling you an idiot makes it impossible to reply, nor indeed want to bother.
April 11th, 2006 on 21:12
Saw this and thought of you:
Why smart people defend bad ideas
April 11th, 2006 on 21:16
David, I can’t work out if I’m being insulted or supported. I’ll assume insulted. You cad!
April 11th, 2006 on 21:34
Oh go on then ;)
Well I couldn’t spoil your thesis now could I? Sorry. I just couldn’t be bothered to write “/spasm of stupitidy”. But, yes, I do think you are calling me an idiot / being idiotic because you wrote
“I think my points have been perfectly illustrated by both respondants, each neatly and obligingly performing exactly the fallacies I wrote about, in order, with no sense of irony.”
And I contest either interpretation. But it is irrelevant because I think it is you that has confused a critique of your professional knowledge, which you both hold so dear, and which I haven’t commented on, and my observation that it simply seemed Stu seemed to get stuck in first – not that I’ve got any knowledge of any history. But you seem to be saying that’s a fact [that thegames started jt], yes? Didn’t seeem that way to me – guess I’m being idiotic? The fact is, the issue was about how you chose to interpret remarks – a matter of opinion. How you responded.
I love those quivering italics and I’m looking forward to the next expansion of the thesis, but remember you might have to die before your genius is recognised. (A joke, not a death threat)
Oh and never mind the content, but it reads like more like an undergraduate essay than good web copy. If I had to criticise anythiing on that front – sorry.
April 11th, 2006 on 21:38
David – great link thanks ;) I enjoyed reading that. I regret my last comment now
April 11th, 2006 on 21:39
Oh, you tv-games kiddies and your little squabbles. I guess this is it for western civilisation.
April 11th, 2006 on 21:47
Heh, I’d given up hope long ago. No I’m just bored and the tv is on the blink. I’ve definitely not reached squabble stage yet, just mooching around. Feel free to drop in some more jaded ennui ;)
April 11th, 2006 on 21:48
I wish you would take on board that my post here is not about the thread there – it was simply an illustration of a general behaviour.
Secondly, I’m only interested in the truth of what happened in order to best use that illustration, and that truth is that people were rude and lazy by ignoring what Stu wrote, and he responded angrily to that. I don’t care who came first in some name-calling contest. I’m merely observing the evidence, because I’m not interested in lying to twist arguments. I think Stu’s behaviour in the thread was silly, and unhelpful. I only stepped in when people used personal information they had on Stu, based on his public profile, from their cowardly veil of anonymity – something that makes me furious. My next comment was to say how I wish people WOULD ignore him, rather than continue their idiotic bleating. But this is all an aside, as it’s nothing to do with my blog entry.
It’s interesting that the line you quote of me really in no way calls you an idiot at all. It observes your willingness to perform fallacies rather than engage in debate. I’ve said that this is behaviour that deliberately prevents the possibility of being wrong, and prevents learning. I think these are idiotic things to do. I have not called you an idiot.
Yesterday, when I tried to put a dropped piece of pepper into my mouth while filling a plastic tray at the Waitrose salad counter, and instead slammed both it and my mouth into either side of the perspex barrier above it, I did a deeply idiotic thing. I was, in that moment, an idiot. This does not therefore mean I am the world’s stupidest moron, incapable of any intelligent thought or behaviour on any level in any instance. It means I did an idiotic thing.
This distinction is so brain-achingly obvious, but it’s ignored because of people’s desire to cast themselves as the victim, in order to obfuscate from the debate. If you are the victim, then I’m the horrid bully calling you mean names, and the core of the discussion disappears away.
April 11th, 2006 on 22:01
It also seems rather relevant that I have not contested anything to do with my professional knowledge, and as I said in that damned thread, I think the debate is pointless since both games are excellent at achieving quite different aims.
But whatever. You will keep accusing me of things I have neither said nor done, I’ll keep pointing out how that’s precisely what I was discussing in my post, and you’ll keep deciding that my observing this is tantamount to calling you a retard, and then put on the “I’m just filling a half hour for the simple fun of it (I’m really clever really and want to make sure that’s clear), so you know, whatever!”
Also, I’m not quite sure what your thoughts on the quality of my prose have to do with much. I take your criticisms on board, but also remind you that this is my blog, and neither an attempt to publish my thesis, nor write a punchy web piece, but simply a post of my doodled thoughts.
April 11th, 2006 on 22:22
Heh all I said was that it seemed to me that Stu came across as a tad patronising and rude without great provocation – as an outsider – and readily admitted an opinion. The rest are straw men arguments, as you know – and wha tI meant by “pointless arguments”. I just thought, if Stu is a “public” figure praps he shouldn’t get so easily riled when he knows what it’s like.
But really relax, in the morning have a read and some joy :D
April 11th, 2006 on 22:30
Nick, stop it, it’s not working.
I’m very relaxed, thank you. What on earth does Stu’s behaviour have to do with anything I’ve written in this post? You’ve deliberately not addressed anything I’ve said, at any point this evening, each time replying with something deeper into “Stu was rude”, which was never in contention. And ffs, it’s not an opinion – he was rude. You call someone a “fuckwit”, and you’re being rude. Really, this relativistic gibberish!
April 11th, 2006 on 22:31
Traditionally it’s Scylla and Charybdis, that order. Not that that matters, just thought I’d point it out. Like bacon and eggs, rather than eggs and bacon. Sorry, education in Classics getting to me.
Anyway, er, more to the point. Though it seems slightly redundant on the writer’s own site (and would, perhaps, find more purpose in the original Eurogamer comments-thread maelstrom, which I am avoiding as I would a rowdy argument in a bar), I feel I should come out in favour of the ‘hacks’ in this case.
Yes, Stu was a little aggressive in his responses, as he generally is, and yes this has rubbed people the wrong way. But, as mr Walker so points out, the fact that they allow themselves to get worked up over Stu’s comments /on their somewhat flawed responses/ shows an understandable but regrettable reaction on their part. What makes things worse is that they go on to willfully ignore what pertinent points Stu might have had /in their entirety/, preferring to concentrate on his aggressive manner, and worse, on their own misinterpretation of prior events and statements.
An example of my own:
This is someone commenting on the benefits of playing Grid Wars 2
“[Grid Wars 2 is interesting] particularly for anyone who didn’t want to fork out £300 for a state-of-the-art, all-singing, all-dancing Xbox 360 in order to play a vector-graphics Robotron game”.
Saying that, if you have a PC (that’s Personal Computer, by the way, I seem to recall Apple and IBM compatible machines falling under that category) – which is pretty likely if you’re reading said article, unless you’re using a Dreamcast or mobile phone – and you want to play a game of this style, then thanks to the efforts of a kindly programmer you can do it for free! Without buying an Xbox 360! Yay! It is safe to say that the writer assumes it as understood that for someone who already owns an Xbox 360 because they wanted one (perhaps to play Oblivion as it was cheaper than upgrading?) this is not an issue.
Now, here is someone misinterpreting this comment as writing off the Xbox 360 unfairly:
“Yeah yeah, presumably he’s playing it on a free PC? But you can use the PC for other things. But you can play other games on the 360. etc.”
Okay, so takes mild offense at this perceived attack on the 360, and then goes through more traditional console/PC arguments as one might see in the simpler online arguments of such things. A simple mistake to make.
Here is the original writer of the piece being irritated at this misunderstanding, and, in their own inimitable style, choosing to join in on the mistakenly perceived arguments:
“But would you WANT to play any of them? And there’s the difference, so far. You can buy a new PC for the same price as a 360 these days, and the stuff it can do justifies the cost a LOT better than Project Gotham Slightly Prettier Edition.”
This is, perhaps, the turning point. Unfortunately, the original writer has now turned away from simply pointing out the flaw in the hurt Xbox 360 owner’s logic – that he was not attacking the Xbox 360 – and instead attacks them in the way initially perceived, by actively championing the PC over the Xbox 360.
Further misunderstandings and aggravated responses follow, but it’s here that everything really came to a head. An misinterpreted point leads to an aggravated writer, leads to a complete forum-brawl – the misinterpreter taking more and more offense and failing to ever recognise the initial error, and the aggravated becoming ever moreso – and visiting this aggravation back upon the mininterpreter – because of this refusal to recognise error on the original’s part.
In the end, the aggravated writer acts in a way which only aggravates more, but is, essentially, correct – apart from his decision to join in the initially non-existant argument. The misinterpreting reader continues to get more annoyed, suffering more and more from a feeling of righteous fury – and yet consistently refuses to aknowledge any error on his part, thus remaining wrong.
And, of course, others join in, adding fuel to the fire. Some side with the ‘wrong’ person, either because they too misunderstand the initial comments, or simply out of sympathy due to the aggravation caused by the other. Some side with the ‘right’ person, trying to point out that, even if said writer is somewhat coarse, he was originally correct, and that as that was the root of the argument, he is the necessary ‘winner’ of the argument.
Essentially, one is wrong, one is right, but both bring each other down to base, vindictive levels, with aggravation preventing the one from admitting error, and repeated error preventing the other from dropping his aggravation.
But yes, in the end, Stu is essentially right, and TGTT is essentially wrong.
Human nature. Isn’t it wonderful?
April 11th, 2006 on 22:37
Gosh, a whole lot of other comments happened while I was writing that
I could take them on board now, or… nah, I think my initial diatribe (which, looking back at it, seems to lack any real purpose. In fact, most all of the pertinent points were brought up by Kieron in the comments thread in a much more refined form. Yeah, I’m a great writer, me) is enough silliness for one night. I have a gum infection to be moaning about. Sodding flu’s bad alright, but at least you didn’t need your gums pulled back so that a dentist can can clean your impacted wisdom tooth, meaning you’re missing your much-looked-forward-to visit to see your sister in Scotland >:(
April 11th, 2006 on 22:43
Of course I have, you just cant see it – hence David’s link. Look it’s late, I guess you’ve won by submission ;) – I guess I was /am a bit of a tease, sorry. Read your article the thread and my first post again in the morning – it’ll make sense I promise. I’ve really had fun, cheers ;)
April 11th, 2006 on 22:47
Oh and Wiper thanks and kudos. Why would I say eggs and bacon? ;) Well spotted, night
April 12th, 2006 on 10:14
BEMLi Walker circa 2003. It’s making me go all mysty eyed.
April 12th, 2006 on 10:43
“Yesterday, when I tried to put a dropped piece of pepper into my mouth while filling a plastic tray at the Waitrose salad counter, and instead slammed both it and my mouth into either side of the perspex barrier above it, I did a deeply idiotic thing.”
Idiocy, or karma? Did that perspex to SAVE YOUR SOUL FROM DAMNATION, you potential pepper-from-Waitrose-salad-counter pilferer, you.
Apologies if you were simply using your mouth as a convenient carrier for said pepper, and intended to, say, regurgitate it into your salad bowl before reaching the checkout. I know I’m tempted to use the cheek pouches when my hands are full.
April 12th, 2006 on 10:54
I was going to lean over the scanner at the check-out, and just let it plop out of my mouth.
April 12th, 2006 on 12:08
Officer.
April 12th, 2006 on 13:00
“I was going to lean over the scanner at the check-out, and just let it plop out of my mouth”
Not a comment you want attributed to you in isolation, that.
April 12th, 2006 on 15:33
sshh. Your mum and I are trying to watch tv.
April 12th, 2006 on 15:45
Well. The question I have is:
What are the specifications of personal computer required for Grid Wars?
Because I assumed, being 2D and all, a £300 computer, which would have no 3D card (needed?) but lots of processor, I dunno, 2.5ghz or something, and a fair bit of RAM, 512MB…
That would suffice, surely.
And that factual information is useful to have in reading that argument.
Wiper: Nice summary. I see exactly what you mean, Stuart just said the wrong thing, red flag to a bull, when he should have been more… he should have chosen his words better. I am lacking an adjective.
April 12th, 2006 on 15:46
Also:
“jamesphilp” does a wonderful missing of point with:
“I don’t care about your artice or anything. I don’t even own a ‘PC’ as you call it, I own a Mac. I therefore have chosen to fill my gaming life with consoles.
I really don’t know where to start. Having lots of videos/music – why do I care about that, and how do I prove it means anything? ”
Love it. Doesn’t understand at all what is going in there.
April 12th, 2006 on 15:58
‘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.
April 12th, 2006 on 16:20
Well thats that wrapped up then.
“That way, you never have to be wrong. You never have to learn a new thing. You never have to think.”
You’re right, I dont think I’m up to this (I was gracious enough to complement Stuart on his reviews and previous contributions to gaming, but I guess that doesn’t count, particularly to someone who wouldn’t know graciousness if it bit him). Please point me to the elements of this discussion, or your essay, or the original thread, where you or Stuart applied this. I will attempt to learn from you.
April 12th, 2006 on 16:31
Is it a performance piece?
What on the shiny surface of the Earth does your having complimented Stu’s resume have to do with ANYTHING?
I *painstakingly* went through your reply, and my essay, responding to your comment. I really don’t think that pretending that didn’t happen, and then demanding that I do it, is a helpful move.
We at least agree on one thing: you’re not prepared to engage with this.
April 12th, 2006 on 16:41
“Stuart just said the wrong thing, red flag to a bull, when he should have been more… he should have chosen his words better. I am lacking an adjective.”
Mature? Civil? Sensible?
Oh and Philp (apparently) is a name of Scottish origin and means lover of horses.
April 12th, 2006 on 16:43
I am attempting to engage with your incredibly patronising advice, whereby you urge me and others to think, without showing any signs whatsoever of doing so yourself.
Please read back through yesterdays thread again. Imagine whilst doing so that you have no vested interest, ie neither party is a friend of yours. Decide who you would criticise first for insulting behaviour. Myself? Stuart? Both of us? Think for a moment before replying.
Incidentally I mentioned my complements because I thought perhaps it might be construed by Stuart as an attempt to calm the thread down, despite the mass of insults prior to that, a recognition that we were both in the wrong to a certain extent and all the vitriol gets no-one anywhere and maybe calming down would help. Stuart of course continued unabated.
April 12th, 2006 on 17:03
You’ll all be sent to bed with no tea if you don’t start being quiet. Oh, and do any of you want these toys now lying densely on the floor around your prams? If not I’ll pop into e-bay in the morning and buy your mum some nice flowers with the proceeds.
April 12th, 2006 on 17:03
I’m thinking a great deal. How ridiculous to suggest I’m not. I wrote my thoughts out at great length. Please explain in detail how it is patronising of me to have spent time writing out my analysis of a behaviour pattern, and my conclusions as to the reasons why people might behave in those ways. What’s *patronising* about it – specifically that word, since it’s the one you choose.
What you are refusing to acknowledge is that someone’s disagreeing with you does not equate to their not thinking. That’s very lazy and rude of you.
But more than anything, please, please, please stop banging on about who insulted who. I couldn’t give a flying fuck at the rings of Saturn who was insulted. But for the love of God, how many times: rather than just pretending the version of events I’d prefer occurred, I *did* read through the original comments, and as I’ve said many times now, recognised that people were rude and lazy by ignoring Stu’s words and sneering at him for the words they imagined he said. He was rude in response. So, there you go. Should I type it out again, or will this time do? And gosh, I thought for a moment before replying, just like you asked.
I couldn’t care less whether you were rude first or not – I don’t know or care who you are. You’re a dumb nickname posting on a forum – that’s it. And NO! That’s not an insult. It’s a description. You don’t link to your own site, or hint to your real life persona. You *are* nothing but a blue nickname. How could I possible invest care into such a thing?
So, once again, this isn’t about who insulted who on some bloody comments thread. Got it? I’ve said this ten billion times, so yes, now I’m being patronising – I’ve run out of options. Not about the comments thread. Not about insults. Not about who was mean to who. NOT about those things. Not. Notnotnot. Not.
April 12th, 2006 on 17:06
hardbutnot – Nothing personal (I love when people say that, because it means it’s absolutely and unmistakably personal) but the only person worse than the refuse-to-thinkers are the people who tell those having discussions to stop.
Actually, there’s one worse category, and I do plan to write these up officially soon: the person who steps in to declare that “both sides are right” and that “you should agree to disagree”. Having their penises/vaginas set on fire before being pushed off a cliff onto twelve foot rusting spikes smeared in catshit is too good for those people.
April 12th, 2006 on 17:20
Today
“But more than anything, please, please, please stop banging on about who insulted who. I couldn’t give a flying fuck at the rings of Saturn who was insulted. But for the love of God, how many times:”
Yesterday
“All I’m interested in is that you resorted to personal comments, rather than the more regular anonymous name calling, which is something that pisses me off a great deal.”
Odd. If those 2 posts were made by the same person I might conclude they will say anything to continue to point-score.
And leave out the flowery ‘shiny surface’ ‘rings of Saturn’ stuff. It really doesn’t add anything to the debate.
@hardbutnot – John is bang on, why comment if you aren’t interested? Nothing better to do? Or secretly want to join in?
April 12th, 2006 on 17:31
Oh my goodness – there’s no limit to your capacity for being utterly idiotic in this debate.
I said that BEFORE ANY OF THIS STARTED, you utter, utter moron. It has NOTHING to do with this post – it was a comment I made in that thread, about my disgust for cowardly cretins who use personal info about public figures to score unfair, spiteful points from behind their chicken-ass anonymous pseudonyms.
It blows my mind that, even now, you’re referencing the thread that I might have hinted, just a tiny bit, IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS BLOG POST.
Oh my GOD, it’s like trying to communicate with a door frame.
And please don’t piggyback your beligerant tone onto my comments directed at others. My comment to hardbutnot – a regular around these parts – was a jestful rib. It was not for you to poke your head out from behind and shout “YEAH!”
April 12th, 2006 on 17:39
And we are back to name calling, well done indeed, I think perhaps you are allowing yourself to get a bit worked up. I’m a moron but youve devoted your intellect to scribbling about games. OK.
And I’ll post to who like, kick me off your site if you feel so strongly otherwise. That would be a really adult way to end this.
April 12th, 2006 on 17:42
Perfect. Pretend this is about name calling, and once more, refuse to think.
I would never kick anyone off anything. I am merely trying, in increasingly desperate ways, to communicate to you that my post was not, and never will be, about who insulted who in a comments thread. I say that, and you reply with, “But you said that such and such insulted such and such yesterday! HA!” It’s hard to know what to do with that. It’s like going to the post office, asking for a book of first class stamps, and their throwing a bucket of octopuses in your face, and then sitting there looking at you as if they can’t possibly imagine what might be up.
But your capacity for repeating the very action being discussed through all your responses makes me wonder if you are in fact a maverick genius. I spend lots of words explaining how much it disgusts me when someone uses personal information about a public figure to score spiteful points in debate, AND I dedicate sentences to pointing out how you are an anonymous nickname to me, and your reply is:
Slag me off for being a games journalist!
Ta-da!
It’s incredible. You complete turd.
April 12th, 2006 on 18:07
Anyone know what the min specs for Grid Wars 2 are?
I’m guessing pretty low. Low enough for a £300 PC. Which I still think is important. Being a fact, considering how people propped up their arguments assuming GW2 wouldn’t run on a low end PC.
April 12th, 2006 on 18:37
You and both Stuart display very brittle egos when it comes to your chosen profession. I have no problem with it as such, and I haven’t called you a moron or a turd. Was just wondering if it would occur to you to calm down just a fraction, on the basis that none of us here are any more valid in what we say than anyone else. If there were any intellectual high ground in this debate you couldn’t reach it with Fred Dibnahs ladders. Oooh look I can do flowery too :) – it’s easy isn’t it.
As to the anonymous thing, you and Stuart have both been blathering on about that since yesterday, I don’t see the issue. I told you a great deal about myself above, names are irrelevant. Is it the anonymous thing that is actually at the root of all this, because I know you are called John Walker? (assuming you are of course – I don’t really know that either, but will take it on trust). Would you like to take a rough guess at how many people that applies to in this country? Do you feel vulnerable because I can probably narrow you down to one of about 500 people? If its such an issue for you, don’t have blog, I haven’t. I’m not insecure, but I do have far too full a life to faff around with such a thing. It is merely the wife and kids being away at my in-laws for a day or two, and the fact that Oblivion continues to fail to grab me, and my mates seemingly ganging up to all bugger off at once, that allows me to spend this quality time with you.
Little more info there, and a nice way in for a further nasty – ‘Ha. They allowed you to breed?’ etc.
April 12th, 2006 on 19:30
From a brief read of the ongoing, I conclude that “thegamesthing” is either (A) being deliberately obtuse by purposely missing the points being made by John or (B) really, really broken in the head, to the point of not being able to follow said points.
Having been in similar arguments of the spoken variety, I find his behaviour to be more consistent with (B), that is, he takes a misunderstood point and adds on all sorts of bonkers completely unconnected to it, invents things that weren’t said and follows downright mysterious pathways through his own rants to points that nobody else seems able to perceive.
In (A)’s favour is the fact that he seems to be rooting around the site for things that John has already said annoy him. This was, however, addressed in John’s original posting and was referred to there as idiocy, so (B) it is.
In an attempt to solve this admittedly entertaining dilemma, I offer the following:
thegamesthing: Back in the mists of time, a point was made by some chap named Stuart. You misinterpreted this point. He called you a prat for misinterpreting this point. For misinterpreting this point, you were a prat. For all other “fors”, I offer no judgement whatsoever, assuming you equally capable of idiocy or intelligence as the situation permits. You may now get on with your life, safe in the knowledge that you were once wrong about something and that you stated your misunderstanding publically, that you had this single act pointed out to you in a direct and frank manner, and that nothing more of any significance occurred thereafter.
April 12th, 2006 on 19:52
You’ve got a knack for getting into stuff like this, John. Glad you’re feeling better.
RR.
April 12th, 2006 on 20:11
Well said Frosty! Amen.
tgt: “on the basis that none of us here are any more valid in what we say than anyone else.”
No. That’s simply not the case. What you’re saying is complete gibberish, based on your refusal/inability to track a debate, and is therefore of far less validity than what I’m saying. Were you to have proven me wrong by confronting what I’d written, and demonstrated why I was incorrect, what you said would be of more validity than what I’d said. (Whether that would have been the case is lost to the mists of mystery, since you have refused/been unable).
I note that you’ve in no way attempted to respond to my request for an explanation of how I had been “patronising”, but instead chose to try and make it a debate about anonymous posting.
And no, I would not make a comment about your being a father, because that would be *exactly* the action I was condemning in the post to which you so consistently insist on refering, despite my protestations that it has nothing to do with the matter in hand. See: I wouldn’t make insulting reference to the elements of your private life of which I’m aware. I think that’s horrific behaviour. It very clearly demonstrates how much you’re not listening to a word I’m saying that you would insinuate that I might. Which again proves my blog post accurate.
April 12th, 2006 on 20:39
You have been patronising, because (leaving aside the urgent apeal for meI/we think), we should consider where we are wrong, and admit our mistakes, whilst you will do no such thing. This suggests (as you admirably confirm above) you believe you are right, I am wrong, that’s it. If so, why are you even having this discussion?
You have a very fine line to what is insulting behaviour and what isn’t. Essentially, if you or anyone known to you says something, it isn’t insulting, and you will draw a line for yourself beyond ‘moron’ and ‘turd’ but no further. Thus if person A says person B has nothing in their lives but interactive entertainment, that is much worse than fuckwit, etc etc, listed above. This does to some degree explain your actions yesterday, and your immature approach to much of this discussion. At any time in your education, did you ever deal with the immaturity displayed by one who tries to talk down the opponent in discussion (ie plays the man not the ball, just as Stuart did), and then insults them when that fails? Perhaps you missed that day.
Is the above patronising in any way?
If the anonymous thing is a side issue, why refer to it so often? As you have done with other issues, as soon as things that you raised are addressed, you move the goalposts. It is clearly an issue to you, until I refer to it.
Frosty. Yup, John says my behaviour is idiotic, so it is. Thank you for your impartial input, I think it can be cheerfully ignored. Nonetheless :) … all I did yesterday was point out the relatively incomplete nature of Stuarts comment (ie it costs £££ to do this on this system…. nothing about the alternative) – thats it – no more, no less. I haven’t at any stage expressed a preference for either game, though having downloaded the also lovely 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. Due to Stuart having his entire self worth bound to one of the most garish webbys I have ever seen, he went off on one. He attempted to justify the PC cost thing, and having failed there went straight for patronising / insulting mode (man, ball etc). The vast majority of the correspondents on there agreed that Stuart was infact far more guilty of unpleasant behaviour than myself. Of course they could also be fuckwits, who can thus fuck off, and at the very least just plain wrong (though of course they are a decent cross-section of the readership of the 2 journalists in question).
However, if you are just right, and I am just wrong, as you say, I will try to argue like my 7 year old with his friends. It is one of their favourites :)
April 12th, 2006 on 20:45
It really is Celebrity Big Blogger. A classic :D
April 12th, 2006 on 20:55
Yeah, you didn’t explain how it was patronising. You just repeated that it was. Shocking. But what’s this prediction I have written in an envelope…
Right, so you know how I keep saying how you keep performing every fallacy my post describes. You’d missed one. But now you’ve done it! You’ve perfectly enacted the entire second half of the post, where I talk about how people cannot tell the difference between their immediate behaviour being insulted, and their person being insulted. And gosh, look what your whiny reply is saying! I have insulted your idiotic replies – yes. I have not personally insulted you. I actually can’t, because I don’t know you. You’ve given me some snippets to try and tempt me, but oddly as I believe in what I preach, I’m not going to. I’ll continue to insult your ridiculous posts, however. The “You complete turd” was perhaps my failing, and easily accepted as a personal insult. It was in direct response to your being a complete turd, since you’d made yet another spiteful, personal remark about me, astonishingly in response to my pointing out why this offended me so much. It was a fairly turdish move on your part.
Do you recognise the irony of your constant bitching about people insulting you, and your outrage at my fragility every time I complain when you personally insult be outside the boundaries of the debate? Please at least acknowledge you recognise this irony, even if you insist on refusing all the others.
See how you announce that Frosty’s argument can “cheerfully ignored”. Do you recognise this one? That you’re BOASTING that you ignore anyone who opposes you? You see, I’ve directly responded to each and every thing you’ve said, way past the point of reason. I’ve addressed your every comment, contradicting it with what I believe to be true, or more accurate. You, meanwhile, have changed the subject in each and every reply, and proudly announced that you’ll ignore anyone who says you’re wrong. I daren’t ask you to recognise this irony.
About a dozen people have now pointed out that there was nothing incomplete about Stu’s statement, and that you simply didn’t understand it. And yet in the face of the dozenth, you still don’t stop and consider if this might be true. They could well all be wrong, but you haven’t considered. I know, because you’ve just replied with the same response as every other time. You’ve not given it a moment’s thought. I think this is relevant to the debate I’ve been trying to have. (Which isn’t about who insulted who first, just in case you’ve defaulted back again).
And then off you go again with your foul, snide remarks about Stu’s private life. Your really do behave abysmally, and that you are apparently oblivious to it is only more wretched. I feel disgust for you.
April 12th, 2006 on 21:40
Whiny. Any impartial observer would I’m sure say that if anything, at this point we are whining at each other.
Patronising – condescending, talking down to some, adopting a postion that you yourself percieve as superior in some way, without backing it up.
Scanning back through your blog in an effort to find some of the other discussions of this nature (and I haven’t yet, but I’m only as far as January), I’ve have read some of Frostys posts. This sort of sums it up
“This may have been the most important thing I’ve ever read.” (sniff)
Is there anyone on here who is going to do anything other than agree with you in a discussion of this nature? Despite his obvious bias, I dealt with his post – you havent dealt with my response, other than to say others disagreed with me. You’ve hugely over estimated how many, but no matter.
“where I talk about how people cannot tell the difference between their immediate behaviour being insulted, and their person being insulted”
Would you care to read back, just for a moment. You’ve dealt with ‘You complete turd’ by saying ‘easily accepted as a personal insult’. You think? It’s interesting that you continue to claim the high ground despite adopting a ‘you said it first’ defence, but you’ve ignored ‘you utter, utter moron.’ To be honest, I’d have to come down on the side of personal insult on that one too:)
Foul snide remarks.You really do get histrionic over the mildest comments on my part whilst giving yourself pretty much complete freedom. Stuart fully demonstrated yesterday the lengths he is prepared to go to defend even the slightest perceived slight on his work (amusing behaviour in a critic), I draw the obvious conclusions. Just to clarify though, I have referred to you several times being a games journalist, I have never critised it as such – I only raise it at all because you seem to think that your have huge intellectual superiority in this discussion. Your chosen career suggests many things, but a brighter-than-the-sun ability to judge others isn’t one of them, any more than my career is. To be honest though, I and my colleagues dont spend that much time rushing around telling each other how brilliant we are – I can see that your career-related-ego is going to take a boost from that. “In response to Stu’s excellent new feature on Grid Wars 2….” might just sum up where you are coming from in this entire discussion.
Irony. Do you recognise the irony of being insulted by the word ‘hack’. I have 2 journalist friends who couldn’t work up any umbrage at this with a good run up, as with the some doctors I know who would take no offence at ‘quack’. You say I have fulfilled your second issue, by assuming insults aimed at my posts are aimed at me (see above), yet you percieve insults where there are none at all.
Oh and can you link the other discussions that may be in some way similar, I am geniunely interested.
As to your envelope, it doesnt exist beyond your head and even it did could say whatever you want it to in your next post. Cheap debating trick #14. You also are steadily crossing items off a list.
Your go (this is fun :) )
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.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:20
Thanks not quite impartial observer. Do you think that any of that would get a single word of the article withdrawn? Me neither.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:22
I know how allegory works. But if a story is about a real event it is more of an example than an allegory. I mean you even linked to the “allegory” you used! Are we going to disagree about this too?
The paragraph I quoted is an exaple of the behavior you are describing. It is not an allegory for the bahavior.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:24
“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 14:25
“I mean you even linked to the “allegory” you used!”
THE EXAMPLE WAS AN ALLEGORY FOR SOMETHING ELSE!
Oh good grief.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:25
“Thanks not quite impartial observer.”
Trust me; he’s called me worse things than ‘idiot’ on a forum before. So no.
“Do you think that any of that would get a single word of the article withdrawn? Me neither.”
It would be the genesis of a mature debate, rather than…this. I dare you to do as I suggest.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:29
Because you used only one name you make it clear to the reader who is not at fault, while simultaneously implying who is (which the reader can easily discover by simply going to the link privided not a page previously). I know you know this.
You start the blog with “Reading through this nonsensical thread over on EG” and link to that page at the very same time. If that is not an extension to a specific item I don’t know what is.
Simply re-wording and removing the link would go a long way.
And I really am not meaning to offend in any way. I hope my comments are more con than de.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:30
“THE EXAMPLE WAS AN ALLEGORY FOR SOMETHING ELSE!”
For what?
April 13th, 2006 on 14:31
Gosh, let’s see…
“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.”
Nope, that was way too subtle.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:35
I don’t know what that is, sorry. But I’m not entirely sure still how an example of certain behavior is an allegory for another example of the same behavior?
April 13th, 2006 on 14:36
“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.”
And the link to and from. Hmm, mentions of RAM Raider’s blog in the essay – none. Subtle, indeed!
Oh and apologies for my “bounciness” ;)
April 13th, 2006 on 14:42
I think we’re way beyond the original point now, and bitching about minutiae really isn’t going to get us anywhere.
admin – you know why youo have written this, you know why you linked to the original and you know why you wrote in specifics about a certain case. (I noticed that the actual description of it goes well into the next paragraph). If you want to argue that it’s a allegory then go ahead – we may just be interpreting that word differently, but I think you know we know you know.
I’d rather make friends than enemies, so from now on I shall be more considered and careful about what I post to the internet – i.e. sorry Rev. (well, mostly ;)).
If you want to argue that it’s not about the EG forum at all go right ahead, but I think the last 50 posts on here probably serve as argument enough that we all know it isn’t.
Happy easter aeveryone! :)
April 13th, 2006 on 14:57
*weeps for John’s lovely little corner of the internet*
I thought it was safe here
“I don’t know what that is, sorry. But I’m not entirely sure still how an example of certain behavior is an allegory for another example of the same behavior?”
OED says
“Allegory
1. Description of a subject under the guise of some other subject of aptly suggestive resemblance.
2. An instance of such description; a figurative sentence, discourse, or narrative, in which properties and circumstances attributed to the apparent subject really refer to the subject they are meant to suggest; an extended or continued metaphor.”
April 13th, 2006 on 15:01
Yawn.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:08
Oh the language police are back.
And I didn’t know what RAM Raider’s blog is. Not an allegory. Thanks for the OED dictionary definition. It was fun :)
April 13th, 2006 on 15:12
Wow, things can’t be an allegorical reference unless you’ve heard of them!
April 13th, 2006 on 15:14
” An instance of such description; a figurative sentence, discourse, or narrative”
Figurative, you may find, means not literal, i.e. fictitious. The example was taken from real life.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:17
It’s difficult to know what you’re saying the thing is an allegory for, if you do not mention it in the original text, as I believe Nick has already said.
I think you want it to be an allegory of the behvior of some posters on the internet – no?
All I’m saying is that it isn’t an allegory as such, it’s a description of an example of such behior – like any of this MATTERS!
April 13th, 2006 on 15:24
Oh, and I Luurrve horses! (Just noticed that post!) ;)
April 13th, 2006 on 15:34
FFS!
Some people haven’t noticed that there are still HAM AND MUSTARD SANDWICHES in the world that [i]need to be eaten[/i]. And they aren’t being. You’re committing great evil.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:39
@SuperNashwan
“*weeps for John’s lovely little corner of the internet*
I thought it was safe here”
Nope, you might get called a complete turd. Are you a complete turd? I am.
@(sigh) admin
There is no montion anywhere in your article of RAM Raider (whoever he is) or his blog, even for you this is blatant goalpost moving. Unless you were cleverly referring to it, by not referring to it? Bet that’s it huh? Though I suppose there might be soon, as admin you have power of edit after all.
@Steve
The whole article, other than the hypothetical which constitutes part of the first issue, and about a quarter of the whole thing, is explicitly about Stuarts antagonist, me (yes and others but initially, and in all the events specifically referred to, me). No-one else is mentioned atall, least of all the possibly mythical RAM Raider. The intro is all about the EG thing, and some of the first issue (though its not entirely clear, beacuse the hypothetical starts half way down). However, if you can read the first paragraph of the first issue, and not link it to the intro, I not sure to what you would link it, as nothing else is mentioned.
The whole second issue begins from “In the EG thread, Stu is impolite to some of the people ….” and continues from there, never expressly leaving the specific of the EG issue, agan it reamins clear exactly who the idiots are. Pretty obvious all the way down, in the same high-handed tone.
Once penned, he then links to his article, in the ongoing argument in which he is taking part, using it to back up his theory that he and Stuart aren’t idiots, but everyone else is. He has written an article, alleging (for the most part) that those he is arguing with are idiots, and linked the article to the argument, so all who visit his blog can see who are idiots too. Repellant behaviour in a journalist? Probably worth a job on the Daily Mail
@Dad
Yes, what do you think?
@Grammar police
There is party being held for you next door on Snowbaord Kids
April 13th, 2006 on 15:44
Speaking as the wished-for casual observer proposed earlier in the debate, I would have to say that John is mostly right, certainly in his original thesis that tgtt misinterpreted Stuart’s initial words and then overreacted.
Most of John’s points are spot on. He is the clear winner, in that he sets out the debate, invites the debate and then despairs when the debate is ignored in favour of tangents and cheap scoring of points.
Where he loses a bit, and invites blows to be struck back at him, is in (understandably) losing his cool and trading insults. There *is* a difference between personal insults about someone’s public persona and general insults made in the moment attacking an idiot instance of behaviour, the chasm isn’t as large as he would like to be totally in the clear.
Thus, in calling tgtt a moron – and he is a moron, totally and utterly a stranger to reasoned debate in general and in the specific – he lets himself down, and opens himself up to being insulted back.
Let me clear something myself; in calling tgtt (and indeed the similarly odious nick) a moron, i do not invalidate my point. John is still right, and you *are* morons for not seeing that. I merely suggest that he surrenders somewhat his moral high-ground for pointing this out, instead of sticking purely to the argument at hand. But I can forgive him for this, as you lot have collectively the wits of a fuck, and a small one at that.
On a side note, whichever peabrains are debating the meanings of words are comiting logical fallacy. So what if he used allegory rightly or wrongly? You know what he means by it, and though there *may* be a better word for it, there may not be. This is a bit of a linguistic grey area, English is not a perfect tool, and to bring him up on pedantries only serves to further the descent of this stupid debate into spuriousness or spuricity or spurosis or whatever.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:44
If sandwiches could weep, they would.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:50
Mr Walker – can you not just prevent these irritating, odious little morons from posting here? Normally I’m fully in favour of free speech and all that, but there’s clearly nothing to be gained in the way of reasoned debate with them, and so all that remains is something rather unpleasant and squalid, which the world would be a lot better off without.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:58
I can, but I won’t. Oddly, my spam filter is supposed to allow comments through after their first approval, but for both Nick and tgtt, it keeps refusing. I have to hand-approve 80% of their responses.
Instead, I asked tgtt to stop posting, hoping he would have the tiniest amount of respect, and just go away. Sadly, he keeps posting, and so long as he does, I’ll keep approving them through.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:02
Goodness. Actually pre-approving a large number of posts that are frustrating and insulting you on your own blog? You’re a bigger man than I am. I’d have just blocked the whole lot.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:06
Bob, I missed you update earlier. I think. Anyway
““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.”
I would say so, but it is John’s contention that you can repeatedly call someone any number of unpleasant things (John says Stuart does so ‘mockingly’, pretty generous regards someone had already used fuckwit, moron, twat and a few other by that stage. How any journalist can see that as mocking behavoiur, well, it’s almost as if he is friends with the guy, or scared of him. Or both)
““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.”
He was part of the discussion, and infact the only person agreeing with Stuart to any extent, he didn’t just scan the content. He was arguing with people (I’ve pointed out above how irrelevant names are), and whilst still arguing with them added a link to the argument, in which he used them as examples of idiots, idiocy, etc. YOu can see this isn’t quite the same as just disinterestedly coming across the discussion and deciding to write about it presuambly?
“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?”
Stuart said
“In itself that’d be passingly interesting – particularly for anyone who didn’t want to fork out £300 for a state-of-the-art, all-singing, all-dancing Xbox 360 in order to play a vector-graphics Robotron game”. All the 90% chance, fair PC etc stuff, you added. If he had said that, you would be absolutely right . But as I think should pretty clear, the initial row hasnt been the point for a long, just the nasty depths that John and Stuart are willing to sink to, pretty much immediately, when their work is criticised in any way. Once again, ironic behaviour for critics. I’m now sinking ever closer to their level, but John is so myopic where insults are concerned (dependent entirely on their direction) I have nowhere else to go :(
@admin
“I have to hand-approve 80% of their responses.”
LOL, I love that. The nastiest words I have used, anywhere on your blog, are ‘turd’ and ‘fuckwit’, quoting you and Stuart respectively. You are hand-approvng yourself, I imagine the sensation is familair.
Decided who RAM Raider is yet?
April 13th, 2006 on 16:12
Aaaaah – RAM Raider contributed this
“You’ve got a knack for getting into stuff like this, John. Glad you’re feeling better.”
So your article was about him then?
I’ve checked back pretty thotoughly, cant see a single oath from myself or Nick, other than where quoting yourself and Stuart. You are 80% very rude indeed.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:13
I think we’re all missing the real point here.
“Please stop banging on about who insulted who” should clearly end with “whom”.
Won’t somebody please think of the children?
April 13th, 2006 on 16:15
Mr Chris – do you write articles about idiots, using others as examples, then block them from responding? You said odious, I think.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:23
BLOCK THEM FROM RESPONDING!
How dare you, you spiteful wretch. As per usual, you’ve managed to completely fail to understand what I said before: your posts, no matter their content, are being kept back by my comment filter due to an error. Or some sort of futuristic AI with excellent taste being born in the code. And as such I have to go through the damn thing and tell it to publish your posts about 4/5 of the time.
And now I’m blocking you from responding? You really are a fool.
Oh, and please go through the EG thread and quote all those offensive things I wrote there. You keep refering to them, but weirdly, I remember barely being involved, and only stepping in when I saw the lowest behaviour from others.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:24
Good lord, I can see why admin is so frustrated with you. You are the literally living embodiment of everything he is saying when he talks about people missing the point by ignoring it.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:38
@admin
I didn’t say you had blocked me from responding. You havent. At all. Ever. So I didn’t say it. At all. Ever. I was responding to Mr Chris, which is why the post begins ‘Mr Chris-‘. Of course ‘spiteful wretch’ is no doubt still fully justified?
I merely said, to you, that the hand-approvals that you so gleefully alluded to, are only necessary when quoting you, I have not sworn once myself this whole time, expect to quote you and Stuart. That really is pretty clear.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:53
Yes, and it still makes no sense, because it’s entirely untrue. Your posts require random approval, four out of five times, or thereabouts, no matter their content. I feel like I already said this, it’s weird. I don’t have a swear filter, and haven’t said I do. You’ve made that up, and then started building arguments around it, and making absolute statements based on it such as, “that the hand-approvals that you so gleefully alluded to, are only necessary when quoting you,” as if it were a fact. When it’s complete nonsense.
What a strangely familiar pattern.
And ha ha, good try on the “it was aimed at Mr Chris”. Why did you feel the need to accuse Mr Chris of being the type of person who would prevent your replying?
April 13th, 2006 on 16:57
“odious”?
“moron”?
/wipes tears of laughter from eyes.
@John – well respect that you’re hand posting opinions contrary to your own, however idiotic you consider them. Have a good Easter.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:58
Oh my God, it’s all happening again! I tried. I tried to warn them. But it all happened…just the way I remember it.
April 13th, 2006 on 17:33
“Mr Chris – do you write articles about idiots, using others as examples, then block them from responding? You said odious, I think.”
John, are you really suggesting that it is not clear who the above post is replying to? The name at the start isn’t a give away?
Your filter is refusing posts from myself and Nick, but nobody else, but not for langauge. OK John, I think perhaps you really are losing it now. Why is it rejecting our posts? Does is hightlight the text in question? Could you provide examples? Or are you making this up to divert attention for a dozen other posts, as with the article being about RAM Raider (still not addressed)? Maybe.
April 13th, 2006 on 19:38
Is this thread some kind of attempt for the world record in stupidity?
April 13th, 2006 on 19:40
OK thanks all, away on holiday for a bit now, back in a few days, perhaps catch up with you then. RAM Raider, I look forward to finding out all about your blog chats, certainly there’s not been a great deal of information so far :).
April 13th, 2006 on 19:41
You’re displaying the exact type of behaviour that the original post was about!
Any idiot (and I use the word advisedly) can see that your original comment, while directed at Mr Chris, contained the accusation that John was deliberately blocking your posts.
And you expect him not to respond to that, to leave it unchallenged? Especially when you subsequently deny doing this?
Then you’re not an idiot; you’re nothing but a pathetic troll and should be ignored accordingly.
April 13th, 2006 on 19:41
Oh hi Stu – let me guess, that would be entirely one sided stupidity, am I right?
April 13th, 2006 on 20:16
Is RAM Raider the guy who posted in this comments section, calling himself “RAM Raider” with a link to “http://ramraider.blogspot.com/” under his name?
Is that reaching too far?
April 13th, 2006 on 21:20
“Is this thread some kind of attempt for the world record in stupidity? ”
Could be. I suggest we assign everyone a idiocy percentage, based on the quantity, not quality of their contribution. The only fair way ;)
Guess I would have to say you’d score highly on any scale ttgt. Sorry – but you’ve definitely got the wrong end of the stick on more than a few occasions (e.g. above).
Not that it matters to me. My points have been my own, and I appreciate the comparatively civilised way you made yours – wrong though they sometimes were. Not surprising really as my point was about demeanour.
Seeing how it appears that 90% here like call people a “fucktard” when those people make a mistake, I can tell this argument won’t gain much currency. But it is the reason for my “bounciness”, because resulting to name-calling would invalidate my argument. Even when random jaded blogospherites swoop in to pronounce “odious moron” with no “reasoned debate”. (But it did make me laugh).
Haven’t seen a lot of that coming my way, actually. Don’t muddle my points (such as they were) with ttgt’s. If I learn something – I will be grateful, as per the essay. If I teach you something in return, well, I won’t post an allegory in return, or continue ripping shreds out of you when/if you back down. I would consider that being a bully.
“Is that reaching too far?”
Perhaps that shiny nugget of information was lost in the goldmine of wisdom surrounding it?
April 13th, 2006 on 21:25
“Your filter is refusing posts from myself and Nick, but nobody else, but not for langauge. OK John, I think perhaps you really are losing it now. Why is it rejecting our posts?”
It’s probably something to do with your IP, I would imagine. Goodness me, you really think I’d make this up? To what end? It does the same to a couple of other people, always has.
Do you see how you invented the swear filter thing, based your argument on it, stated it as fact, and then when you were told by the source of the information that it wasn’t true, you accused that person of lying!
And because you don’t understand the RR reference, you’ll maintain it’s not true. Fair enough then. If you cared in the least either way, you’d have Googled the name by now. But instead you think you’ve found some incredible weakness in my argument, and will keep hammering at it, no matter how idiotic it may be. RR and I have had vicious public fights, which we’ve apologised to each other for privately. But it’s not him I’m talking about – it was the very many people who post as “anonymous” on his blog, using personal information about public figures to score spiteful points in arguments, and deliberately respond to arguments that weren’t made… For instance, one such cowardly shit who decided that mocking me for being a Christian was an appropriate response to my defending a game he didn’t like. Shocking! What my essay was about! As if I wasn’t lying or making it up! Oops! All those accusations of my lying, and you were wrong every time. I look forward to your apology.
Frosty – you must be some sort of witch, figuring that out!
April 13th, 2006 on 21:34
Nick – I think I would prefer name calling than the passive-aggressive fake cheeriness. It’s a calculated move on your part, designed to be a sort of Trojan disarming, deliberately insiduous and artificial. I’d much rather you called me a shit, which is far more honest.
April 13th, 2006 on 21:36
143 posts! Gosh! ….er….. Is it just me?
April 13th, 2006 on 21:47
Hi dad – I think thegamesthething was very keen for you to reply to this:
“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.”
April 13th, 2006 on 22:32
the crux of the ‘reasoned debate’, nick, was not that you were a moron. i said tgtt was a moron because he seems incapable of reasoned debate.
April 13th, 2006 on 23:14
John – excellent angle of attack, if I think cynically, but sorry generally trying to be a least a bit civil and not get too worked up. Sense of humour always important in life and all that, though guess I lost it at times, which I regret a little.
“the crux of the ‘reasoned debate’, nick, was not that you were a moron”
I agree with this. I didn’t see reasoned debate come anywhere near me when you called me an odious moron ;) My point about rudeness.
Surrounded a by regulars, and family, this is where it goes no further for me. Been a nice one…
April 14th, 2006 on 22:04
I conclude that “thegameisthething” is a stooge set up to illustrate the ironies cited in your opening premise.
There is no other rational explanation.
April 15th, 2006 on 21:11
… and for the record, I am immensely proud of my son.
April 16th, 2006 on 00:38
To back up John, his original post was definitely talking about arguments on my blog as well as the linked discussion. I recognised his arguments straight away from the e-mail conversation we’d had, and my comment above subtly acknowledged that.
The arguments he’s talking about are here:
Happy Easter everyone!
RR.
April 16th, 2006 on 00:40
Link didn’t show: http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2006/03/introversions-new-clothes.html
RR.
April 16th, 2006 on 05:52
Happy Easter …. and the Blessing of Traidcraft (Fairtrade) Organic Chocolate (or Inorganic) to you all.
April 16th, 2006 on 12:37
Tedi, your son writes small minded articles about others for his own fulfilment (seems rather un-Christian to me to be honest). My son doesn’t, imagine how proud I am.
Oh well, guess we are done here. Perhaps next time an article like this appears, God will decide to balance things up a bit, such that the ‘example’ decides to forgo the above argument and instead pops down to Bath to discuss it with John personally.
Repellant, yeah. I will return to my repellant world in which the number of judgemental essays I have penned continues to be zero.
Happy Easter :)
April 16th, 2006 on 22:33
John:”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”
John:”using personal information about public figures to score spiteful points in arguments, and deliberately respond to arguments that weren’t made… For instance, one such cowardly shit who decided that mocking me for being a Christian was an appropriate response to my defending a game he didn’t like. Shocking!”
Thegamesthething:”Tedi, your son writes small minded articles about others for his own fulfilment (seems rather un-Christian to me to be honest).”
Anyone spot anything odd there? Almost like he was trying to confirm the original post?
April 19th, 2006 on 07:15
I’d say I’ve spotted something odd … and the kindest adfvice I can offer to “Thegamesthething” is Step away from the shovel