Me too. Very enjoyable indeed.
I however will just watch the joust from the sidelines.
Does anybody know what the record is? If anybody can break it I'm sure Some Dude will. He has already vanquished basilio on verbosity.
I see it as a fundamental principle that people do have a right to express their views regardless of what they may be.
We do however have a democratically elected government to make laws on our behalf. Provided that a business, any business, is operating within those laws then those opposed to it have no moral right to inflict harm upon it. By all means voice your opinion, but if the business is legal then its' operations ought not be interfered with in any way.
My personal observation of the environmental movement is that there has been a sharp move toward "radical" measures since Bob Brown ceased to be Greens leader. That applies both within and outside the actual party.
I don't agree with many of the Greens' policies (though I agree with some). But that doesn't mean I'll be chaining myself to Christine Milne's car or putting out false press releases trying to shut them down. I won't blow up any engines or produce scary reports that just happen to forget that the hazard referred to exists with or without the development proposal in question either.
Those familiar with the term "jump the shark" will likely recognise these actions for what they are. With the rivers flowing free, the Tas forestry industry dead, the WA gas infrastructure relocated, renewable energy actually being built and a carbon tax introduced etc the party and the movement generally is desperate to remain relevant.
Being a Green right now is akin to being a union leader after the bosses just handed the workers everything they wanted. It's hard to remain relevant as an activist (for anything) when the issues you represent have all been resolved and everyone is happy with your supposed opponent.
You were never,I'm unsure what you mean here. Do you mean with reference to my initial post where I combined your points because I felt they were of a similar nature and could be addressed with the same example? Or are you referring to my response where you seemed to imply some issue with my desire to focus on an issue at a time? Or that I was addressing your opinion "who cares"? You will have to help me out here, I'm really not sure what you are inviting us to infer?
Should I use google to find that help?
One can often dismiss an argument with the same level of effort placed into making it. If you are unwilling to explain why you perceive such, then I am unwilling to accept your criticism as valid.
Some Dude said:Again, I'm not really sure what you are inviting us to infer here? Perhaps you could be clearer by constructing an argument and utilise cliches less?
Some Dude said:Do you acknowledge that pixel did and that I excerpted pixel as well in my post with reference to the same example i.e. AGW? If so then I believe your objection has been nullified. If not then can you explain why you believe your objection should persist? Further, I offered in my last post to separate the points for you in future discussion as you seem to be having difficulty processing the similarities so I am unsure why this is still an issue for you.
Some Dude said:Have you heard of begging the question? You need to show your work if you want to be taken seriously. As I said earlier, one can often dismiss an argument with the same level of effort placed into making it. If you are unwilling to explain why you perceive such, then I am unwilling to accept your criticism as valid.
Some Dude said:As flattering as the title is from you, no need for formalities, just Some Dude or just plain Dude will suffice. Though business cards with Master Dude could be amusing. Thanks for the idea! I'll be able to add them to my official ordination papers of my actual religion by The Dude. But thank you for the respect, I worked hard for my education and it is nice when people notice
Your argument was understood the first time and I am unsure why you believe that I did not understand that argument. I'll try rephrasing my initial my response. As stipulated previously, I'll also help you out by separating pixel's point.
Wouldn't you worry about unintended consequences of such actions based on the premise (i)? If it is accepted that premise (ii) is sufficient then why would society stop with those that you find qualify under premise (i)? For example, there are concepts such as AGW (and others) that are considered by the relevant scientific community and the majority of society to be factual and people identified as qualified for premise (i). Further, those concepts I am referring to are often associated with the potential to do wide scale, large, or unjustifiable i.e. premise (ii). Therefore, why would socety not be justified in the prescription nominated in conclusion (iii) towards people that can be defined as qualifying under premise (i) and (ii) with those concepts?
You can compare if you like
Some Dude said:No, I find google searching for your opinion to be not reliable. I prefer to askAs for wiki, do you feel threatend by people who can reference wiki? I'm not understanding why you object to people utilising great tools to substantiate their discussion. Is that something you are not used too?.
Some Dude said:BTW, thanks for nominating as being elite, cool! I'll add that to my curriculum vitae.
Some Dude said:...You will have to help me out here, I'm really not sure what you are inviting us to infer?...
...Again, I'm not really sure what you are inviting us to infer here?...
How many dudes am I debating here? Are you perchance just a Master Dude with a team of some dude proteges acting as delegates, performing your wiki research and drafting your responses?
You were never,
ever,
eveerrrr
going to accept the validity of my criticism anyway!!!
It was placed solely for the benefit of other visitors to this thread whom are perfectly capable of making their own determination as to the validity (or lack thereof) of my statements.
(I'm a little surprised that you weren't already aware of this! I cannot help but wonder what other things you may have failed to notice!)
So you want clarity now!
I do wish you'd make up your mind!
My original post was very clear and cliche free!
Unfortunately, some dudes came along and made various lame attempts to distort, debunk and derail that post. Insertion of religious dogma, wiki quotes, and interpolation with other posters' comments were the techniques employed by the aforementioned dudes.
What on earth (you are from earth, aren't you?) made you think that I was seeking your acceptance? Acceptance of the validity of my criticisms is the very last thing I'd expect from your kind. Whilst I like to believe myself highly capable, I am simply not a practitioner of magic!
No thanks!
Yet again, you've attempted to distort my assertions by insertion of your personal religious dogma! I am simply not interested in debating AGW mythology on this thread!
Didn't Wiki explain it to you? Did your google search also fail?
Well, that all goes to show, cyberspace really does have its limitiations!
Virtually anyone is permitted to insert entries into wiki, create webpages etc. Substantiating arguments that are heavily reliant on the accuracy of such potentially erroneous information is simply another exercise in foolhardiness. It would seem that some have achieved "Mastery" in these foolish arts.
Us?... us??!
How many dudes am I debating here? Are you perchance just a Master Dude with a team of some dude proteges acting as delegates, performing your wiki research and drafting your responses?
It was placed solely for the benefit of other visitors to this thread whom are perfectly capable of making their own determination as to the validity (or lack thereof) of my statements.
Just when I thought the Some Dude team was going to set a new record for number of posts in one day they suddenly choked at 24. Very odd.:shake:
Sorry to disappoint my fan base
And what really fascinates me is how this poor thread got so totally and comprehensively hijacked from discussion on the Yes Men! (I don't think anyone to date has actually commented on any of their actions.)
Oh well backing to the drawing board.
Another one get's roasted!I am beginning to understand your dilemma. How does one explicate a criticism that consists of your opinions about their education, research skills, linking to sources, and what you perceive as their negative personal attributes. In that situation, I can only imagine that you would have no other option but to appeal to others that you believe are like minded.
Do you mean I posed a dilemma that I believe would be an unintended consequence of the principle you outlined? If so, then yes I did. Are you able to address that point, for which I invite disagreement about, or are you content to simply leave it for those of us reading this thread?
cynic said:What on earth (you are from earth, aren't you?) made you think that I was seeking your acceptance? Acceptance of the validity of my criticisms is the very last thing I'd expect from your kind...
cynic said:...Although based on what I can discern of your philosophy, I'm a little uncertain as to whether or not your agreeance is a good thing...
Clarke's third law of prediction postulates that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" but I assure you, I am a mere human with normal technology from this planet earth. While my dudely abilities to engage in a polite disagreement seeking an understanding about the nature of your objection may appear like magic to you, I believe that you are more than capable of engaging in a discussion about why you disagree with me if you wanted to.
I'm not in any way seeking to debate the science behind AGW, or your perception of AGW as a religion, in this thread. I am asking you to consider whether there would be unintended consequences when the principle you outlined could potentially be applied to other issues, citing AGW as an example.
If you believe that the example, or other issues, would not apply for some reason, then you could simply state why you believe they would not apply. I could respond and we would be engaged in a discussion. Magical!
Could you elaborate on this as I am not understanding the significance regarding why I would search google for your opinion, or the elaboration of said opinion? I did some searches regarding why some people get agitated towards educated people but when it comes to trying to engage you in a discussion about your opinion, who else am I going to ask but you?
As to your comment about wiki etc, the same can be said for people posting on forums but that doesn't automatically invalidate what they post. I will continue to post links and my sources for the readers benefit so that they can choose to read it, discuss it, disagree with it, or even ignore it if they find it objectionable
I have always been aware that there is an us, the audience.
Another one get's roasted!
(My, my you really have got it in for geese! I wonder what it was that those geese did to upset you so!)
Your ability to perceive the non existent is truly masterful.
Excerpts from two of my previous responses within this thread:
Been there! Done that! ... Still doing it! Hadn't you noticed?
The point has already been addressed in my previous posts. The bridge that needs building is now way behind schedule and long overdue!
You'll have to excuse me on this one because the dog ate the cheque and my homework's in the mail!
(You do believe me, don't you?)
Been there! Done that! ... Still doing it! Hadn't you noticed?
Some dudes walk with wiki, others walk on their own two legs. I fail to see how anything constructive can arise out of a wiki war. If I wanted to substantiate with wiki I would be perfectly capable of doing so, however, I fail to see anything productive arising from the overuse of wiki within the context of this or any other thread.
I prefer to hold discussions with those whom can reason for themselves. When I want wiki's opinion I'll look it up!
As you are already only too well aware, over dependence upon the use of wiki quotes, simply muddies the water and slows the pace of discussion. The target of the quotes usually becomes so overwhelmed by quote after quote (after quote ad nauseum) as to succumb to the "death by 1,000 wikis". Quite pointless really, because this practice only truly demonstrates ineptitude upon the part of the wiki abuser. The abuser then erroneously declares victory and fails to benefit from the direct confrontation with personal inadequacies that would otherwise have resulted.
Really!
Have you not noticed what's actually happening here?
Another one get's roasted!
(My, my you really have got it in for geese! I wonder what it was that those geese did to upset you so!)
Your ability to perceive the non existent is truly masterful.
Excerpts from two of my previous responses within this thread:
What on earth (you are from earth, aren't you?) made you think that I was seeking your acceptance? Acceptance of the validity of my criticisms is the very last thing I'd expect from your kind. Whilst I like to believe myself highly capable, I am simply not a practitioner of magic!
...Although based on what I can discern of your philosophy, I'm a little uncertain as to whether or not your agreeance is a good thing...
I'm not in any way seeking to debate the science behind AGW, or your perception of AGW as a religion, in this thread. I am asking you to consider whether there would be unintended consequences when the principle you outlined could potentially be applied to other issues, citing AGW as an example.
You'll have to excuse me on this one because the dog ate the cheque and my homework's in the mail!
(You do believe me, don't you?)
If the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?
So should society start giving "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility." for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a court of law to have the potential damages that have been predicted?
If you believe that the example, or other issues, would not apply for some reason, then you could simply state why you believe they would not apply. I could respond and we would be engaged in a discussion. Magical!
Been there! Done that! ... Still doing it! Hadn't you noticed?
Some dudes walk with wiki, others walk on their own two legs. I fail to see how anything constructive can arise out of a wiki war. If I wanted to substantiate with wiki I would be perfectly capable of doing so, however, I fail to see anything productive arising from the overuse of wiki within the context of this or any other thread.
I prefer to hold discussions with those whom can reason for themselves. When I want wiki's opinion I'll look it up!
As you are already only too well aware, over dependence upon the use of wiki quotes, simply muddies the water and slows the pace of discussion. The target of the quotes usually becomes so overwhelmed by quote after quote (after quote ad nauseum) as to succumb to the "death by 1,000 wikis". Quite pointless really, because this practice only truly demonstrates ineptitude upon the part of the wiki abuser. The abuser then erroneously declares victory and fails to benefit from the direct confrontation with personal inadequacies that would otherwise have resulted.
Have you not noticed what's actually happening here?
If I want to be informed about a company before I invest in it, I don't just reason it for myself, I search and find information about that company and then apply my reasoning process before deciding whether to invest.
Perhaps you could share your reasoning process and your successful selections with us . After all it is a Stock Forum.
Did you mean in this thread or more generally in the stock forums?
+1
See original cynic post for context in cynic's reply to Obfuscation Central.
gg
To those whom sincerely want to understand what was really happening in this debate:
I invite you to carefully read my original post within this thread and then note the way in which a certain poster repeatedly and unwittingly exemplified the behaviours aforesaid original post described.
The activists mentioned in this thread appear to be self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs.
The harmful and misguided actions of these self deluded individuals poses a definite threat to the fabric of our society. As such, I believe it is in our best interests to take protective measures against such activism. To this end, I am of the opinion that these activists require professional assistance/guidance in addressing their innermost fears and insecurities. Failing this, society will need to give serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility. Anything less will likely result in further atrocities being perpetrated against innocent entities (individual and corporate) courtesy of these mindless and self ingratiating psychopathic primates.
If the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?
So should society start giving "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility." for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a court of law to have the potential damages that have been predicted?
Jonathan Dyles hoax with Whitehaven Coal raises the question of how far should citizens go in challenging what they see as corrupt or illegal behaviors particularly by business interests.
i.e. "save the planet from industrial tyranny"
See original cynic post for context in cynic's reply to Obfuscation Central.
Merriam-Webster said:ob·fus·cat·edob·fus·cat·ing
Definition of OBFUSCATE
transitive verb
1
a : darken
b : to make obscure <obfuscate the issue>
2 : confuse <obfuscate the reader>
intransitive verb
: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
Examples of OBFUSCATE
Politicians keep obfuscating the issues.
Their explanations only serve to obfuscate and confuse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?