Major forum issue

[DinoDoc]

Potential solutions:
- Fix the forum code to permit us to ignore the worthless admins
- Strip notyoueither's admin privs
- Permaban notyoueither

Or you could grow the **** up and ignore posts that piss you off on your own?

[Asher]

Or you could grow the **** up and ignore posts that piss you off on your own?

When I see people quoting **** I say and pretending like it says something else, or questioning my integrity, I feel compelled to respond to it.

Any man who has a sense of pride would feel compelled to. I do not expect you to understand.

[RGBVideo]

You are dishonest. You misrepresent people's words quoting out of context, and then claim they are being dishonest. It has become a favoured tactic for you.

Yeah, misrepresenting other in order to gain rhetorical gotchas.

Dishonest argumentation. The point is not to understand other persons opinion, reach consensus, or even to show the other person that their opinion is founded on ignorance ie. false understanding of reality. The point is to "win", to "pwn", to show everyone else that you are smart & right and the other guy is dumb & wrong. Even by strawmen and rhetorical tricks, if necessary.

Counter-productive and degenaritive. It gets worse when cliques of circle-jerkers of bully rings form in order to support each other in ritualistic shout-downs of naysayers. It starts to remind me of schoolyard bullying instead of honest debate.

For less pointless drama and more discussion, go to http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/

[DinoDoc]

When I see people quoting **** I say and pretending like it says something else, or questioning my integrity, I feel compelled to respond to it.

I get it. Someone on the internet is wrong.

[Asher]

I get it. Someone on the internet is wrong.

Do you not read posts?

It's not that he's wrong (which he almost always is), I cannot ignore him when he continually posts after I told him I have no longer any interest in continuing this discussion with him by personally attacking me and misrepresenting what I had said.

By the way, "FAIL" with that attachment.
Edit: I see on your third try, you pulled it off.

[Asher]

Yeah, misrepresenting other in order to gain rhetorical gotchas.

Dishonest argumentation. The point is not to understand other persons opinion, reach consensus, or even to show the other person that their opinion is founded on ignorance ie. false understanding of reality. The point is to "win", to "pwn", to show everyone else that you are smart & right and the other guy is dumb & wrong. Even by strawmen and rhetorical tricks, if necessary.

Counter-productive and degenaritive. It gets worse when cliques of circle-jerkers of bully rings form in order to support each other in ritualistic shout-downs of naysayers. It starts to remind me of schoolyard bullying instead of honest debate.

For less pointless drama and more discussion, go to http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/

The drama is still there, they just delete it and pretend like it's not.

Go create a thread even remotely critical of people who exploit Filipinas. I dare you.

[DinoDoc]

It's not that he's wrong (which he almost always is), I cannot ignore him when he continually posts after I told him I have no longer any interest in continuing this discussion ...

...you could grow the **** up and ignore posts that piss you off ... without whining about yet another poster as if the rest of the forum is required to give a ****.

[Asher]

...you could grow the **** up and ignore posts that piss you off ... without whining about yet another poster as if the rest of the forum is required to give a ****.

I don't expect you to give a **** about anything other than the harddrives that hold your kink pornography collection with hastily photoshopped Palin heads.

I do expect the admins to rectify the issue of not being to ignore certain posters who have no administrative roles.

[notyoueither]

Within a span of a dozen posts you went from 'The oil companies' claims that increased royalties would deter investments are bull****" to "I never claimed increased royalties would not deter investments".

The first claim was about oilsands projects being cancelled do to conditions that had zero to do with royalties.

The second claim was about the industry in general in Alberta, including conventional oil and gas.

You lying sack of dishonest ****.

You made wild claims like "Alberta has the lowest royalties in the world"

I said 'lowest,' and 'among them' within two posts of each other. I corrected myself, you lying sack of ****.

and when confronted on it, instead of admitting you were wrong and misleading people (dishonest?), you then tried to move the goalposts and talk about how Alberta has "one of the lowest percentages of total government take (taxes) in the world".

Unreal, it was.

All I find for sources, you know, facts and **** (oh wait, you don't know those, you make them up as you go) are discussions of government take.

Unreal is one word for it.

[Asher]

For less pointless drama and more discussion, go to http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/

I took your advice

http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?p=70952

[Asher]

The first claim was about oilsands projects being cancelled do to conditions that had zero to do with royalties.

The second claim was about the industry in general in Alberta, including conventional oil and gas.

You lying sack of dishonest ****.





I said 'lowest,' and 'among them' within two posts of each other. I corrected myself, you lying sack of ****.



All I find for sources, you know, facts and **** (oh wait, you don't know those, you make them up as you go) are discussions of government take.

Unreal is one word for it.

You can keep trying to spin this all you want, but it's quite clear what transpired in that thread.

I invite everyone to read it, or at least skim it and witness the inconsistencies, dishonesty, subtle subject changes, etc.

It's an enlightening thread, really. A small computer shop owner from Edmonton is seen arguing with the son of a project manager for one of the larger Alberta oil sands projects and a lawyer who works in the Alberta oil industry. The results are as you might expect.

[notyoueither]

it's quite clear what transpired in that thread

Yes. It very much is.

That much we can agree on.

[self biased]

[Asher]

it's quite clear what transpired in that thread

Yes. It very much is.

That much we can agree on.

So we are agreed.

Here's my favourite part that can easily be distilled:

Talk about dishonest. I have not said there would not be decreased investment.

But a few posts prior:

The noise [from oil companies] about the royalties and effects on investment were bull****. It's pretty easy to complain about new levels of taxation when you were planning to shut down for other reasons.

You've now one-upped this by trying to pretend like the context of the latter quote was not in oil sands projects. The only problem is, it was. Click on your name in that post to be taken to it. You are replying to my reply about your post about how oil sands projects are re-starting, not conventional oil. The context was clear. You said the oil companies' claims about how the renewed royalty rates would inhibit further development of the oil sands were bull****, then a few posts later you claimed to say no such thing. It's one of many examples of your behaviour in that thread. You still won't admit it.

[Guynemer]