farla | Trainwreck

So Anoh mentions to me that a friend of his is going to debate with me over "global warming, Bush, and the sports-crazy world setting the stage for fascism", otherwise known as "basically everything I mentioned on the forum".

I find something unsettling about it because it's always a bad sign if someone disagrees with all of what I say - usually it means they hate me personally and are just looking for an excuse. But, I rationalize, my opinions do tend to tie together and they're generally along liberal lines, meaning that he could just be Republican.

Anyway, this was on January 4th. Anoh says his friend will start a thread tomorrow or so.

He doesn't give the account name, and I wonder if that means his friend is starting an account just to argue with me, but I figure I'm just being paranoid. I avoid names a lot too when it's easier, and besides, if you want to stay out of drama, and your friend hasn't actually moved yet, maybe he's not naming the friend in case his friend wants to back out and doesn't want me to have grudge over it.

Interestingly, at least one of Anoh's already-on-FFN friends hates me, meaning if this is that person or a mutual friend, my mostly unfounded suspicion about this being over something personal becomes less unfounded.

By the time I email back, it's January 6th, and the friend hasn't shown up. Eh. I mention this, wondering if the friend has backed out (as being convinced of my rightness after rereading the threads seems mildly implausible).

I'm told he's preparing something.

Whenever I hear this, it's a bad sign. I don't "prepare something" when dealing with a random person I want a discussion with. I lay out my basic side and wait to see what they say. I wouldn't prepare something that takes days and days of work unless I had a massive grudge against them and was trying to cause problems.

Anoh adds he doesn't know the friend's penname, just his real name, meaning a) Yes, the guy is getting an account just to bother me and b) there is a really, really good chance he's a mutual friend of the other one that hates me.

It is really creepy when the world justifies your paranoia.

Anoh says the guy should put up a thread Monday, which will be the 8th.

I email back, asking if the guy has a grudge against me - if I know in advance, it's easier to decide how to respond. (People with grudges will not accept any fact you say because they don't care and it's you speaking. It's best to confront them immediately about this, politely, and work it out. However, doing the same thing to someone acting similar, but without a grudge, makes them understandably touchy because you're acting like the only reason anyone could disagree is personal issues.)

I'm told there's no grudge, which so far is the first time I hear something positive. So okay, this guy wants to argue with me about everything I've said, particularly topics I don't consider debatable AND am tired of arguing, and okay, he's gotten an account just to bother me, but hey, he's not doing it out of a grudge. I can deal with this.

Monday comes and goes. Still no thread. I again hope it'll just be dropped, because the alternative is the friend is still preparing and as I explained, that is ominous.

Finally, on the 10th (Wednesday, two days after the the latest time), a thread shows up.

The poster is Whitetip. Who joined January 4th, as in, the same day Anoh told me about this whole thing.

Whitetip doesn't lay out his argument. Instead he asks for mine. The way he frames it is pretty polite. I feel a bit iffy about "I also took note that the main way that you defeat someone in a duel of intellect is by baffling them by a verbose argument which they cannot understand, so they feel as if it is necessary to believe you." because I really do argue these things as a pastime, and he seems to be bringing this to me personally rather than just for the sake of debating. But it's pretty reasonable, and if he sees me dealing with his friend this way, especially if he doesn't agree with my points and thinks I'm just confusing people, it's completely within reason for him to dislike that.

Now, like I said, I really don't want to argue this. It's like arguing if fire is hot as far as I'm concerned. I'm willing to because I feel obligated, but if you come to me to argue, lay out your own damn argument. Especially if YOU object to MY argument, because I have no clue what you object to. Global warming is the centrist position, okay? There are a good half-dozen other positions. Some people think it's getting colder. Some people think it's staying the same temperature. Some people think it's getting warmer but global warming is still wrong, and even there, they're divided into different camps, with some saying it's part of a natural cycle, some saying it's about to get colder, some admitting global warming but saying it's not human caused.

Also, if you spend as much time reading debates and arguing, you notice that the junk science people always want to poke holes in your argument but can't present anything on their own.

But he hasn't done anything wrong yet, and he claims to have done research, which is a treasured rarity, and, well, if he's Anoh's friend he's probably a lot younger than me and might just be repeating what his parents say and there's no reason to jump someone for that.

So I'm polite. I just ask for his argument. I can figure out what camp he's in and if (okay, how much) he's working with bad information, and respond accordingly. It's a lot cleaner that way.

Three days go by. It's now the 14th. Whitetip posts just to say he's really busy and can't reply right now, but he will soon.

This is plausible but not really likely. I let it slide.

Nowehre appears and asks me if I think global warming has any solutions. (Silly Nowehre, believing a topic titled "Global Warming and Whatnot" was about global warming in general)

Damn, I think. If I reply Whitetip will be able to argue with that and put off actually thinking up his own argument.

No, I think. I'm just being paranoid. Whitetip's been perfectly reasonable and it's not fair to hold it against him that he wanted to go after my argument first. That's normal online and it is a lot easier, and he hasn't done anything wrong. Besides, I'll just reply directly to Nowehre, it won't be about how global warming is happening, and I already asked for his actual argument.

I throw some stuff out - I'm feeling cautiously optimistic about our ability even if I'm not sure about our decision-making, and I mention actual projects, some internet suggestions and my own random ideas.

Kazundo's Advocate shows up to call the discussion political. This depresses me a bit.

Then Whitetip reappears to show how foolish it is to be bothered just by someone calling global warming science political.

Also, to once again prove that you can't go wrong by assuming the worst of people.

I discover I was incorrect to be paranoid. Whitetip didn't just attack my non-argument comments to Nowehre.

For that matter, Whitetip didn't just appear within a few hours, despite the previous delays, the moment there was something to attack, as if he was waiting for a chance like that.

Nor did he just open with "And, to think..I was actually beginning to think that you were a sane person, Farla.." proving that yes, this was some sort of grudge, yes, he was never intending to be civil, yes, I shouldn't have tried to think he was a perfectly nice person who was just mistaken because god forbid he give anyone that courtesy, yes, I shouldn't have tried to assume the best of him...

But his actual responses...

This is the point I'd like to say something about wanting to cry, but I really don't. There's this sort of dead feeling that there's no point in anything. I tried to be mad about how his teachers could have let him be this ignorant, and I just thought calmly, huh, the world would be better off with them dead. There are probably other people like that too. The world would be better off with them dead. I tried to find it funny, even just in a hysterical kind of way, that he never even realized that asphalt gets hot in the summer, and I just thought, he's human. He's human and you're supposed to recognize humans by being intelligent, that's why we like dolphins and monkeys and raccoons because we see them as being like us, and we're supposed to be clever and observant and smart.

We're supposed to be able to figure these things out. God, I was this observant as a little kid. I was able to understand hot and cold when I was barely old enough to speak. I did this whole thing with blocks and explained to my parents back when my vocabulary was too limited to even make a complete sentence.

Asphalt gets hot. The white lines of paint are cooler.

Hot. Cold.

How can people be like this? How can they be people?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Okay, again, to be as clear as possible: You keep saying it's not a grudge or personal and then describing something I consider covered under "grudge" and "personal".

As I said, he can act like that every time someone disagrees with him. This doesn't mean he isn't taking someone's difference of opinion personally, or attacking them personally, or otherwise making it very, very obvious this isn't a friendly discussion. If you have another word you'd like to use in place of "grudge" that also covers these things, you're going to have to suggest it.

And yes, there was distinction. I referred to a particular forest that was "expanding", "up north" and going "into new territory". These things apply to very few forests. I also mention the feedback loop issue. In other words, I make it clear I'm talking about a very specific, unusual kind of forest, ie, "[describing] the forests as being two of any real difference". Frankly, listing things that apply in on almost nowhere on the planet can be seen as a difference between that forest and all the other ones.

Now, you, he and many other people may not know quite what I'm referring to, but there's enough contextual clues that I'm talking about something in particular when I mention it. And if the things I'm pointing out don't make sense to you, odds are they're the ones that explain perceived discrepancies. That's generally how these things work.

And I'm just amused by the idea I would ever try to portray myself as innocent, frightened, or, for that matter, little. I mean, really.

From: (Anonymous)

Okay, again, to be as clear as possible: You keep saying it's not a grudge or personal and then describing something I consider covered under "grudge" and "personal".

And again, I wonder as to why in the world you consider it personal. He's not responding to you this way just because you're Farla.

If you have another word you'd like to use in place of "grudge" that also covers these things, you're going to have to suggest it.

Why yes, how about "ignorant habitual behavior"?

And yes, there was distinction. I referred to a particular forest that was "expanding", "up north" and going "into new territory". These things apply to very few forests.

But how does it distinguish between the two particular forests you were speaking of?

And I'm just amused by the idea I would ever try to portray myself as innocent, frightened, or, for that matter, little. I mean, really.

Well let's take a look back, shall we?

"I find something unsettling about it because it's always a bad sign if someone disagrees with all of what I say - usually it means they hate me personally and are just looking for an excuse."

"Whenever I hear this, it's a bad sign."

"It is really creepy when the world justifies your paranoia."

"I again hope it'll just be dropped, because the alternative is the friend is still preparing and as I explained, that is ominous."

And finally,

"This is the point I'd like to say something about wanting to cry, but I really don't."

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Anoh, "ignorant habitual behavior" does not at all describe what the behavior is. He's not arguing posts, he's attacking me. If he's attacking me, he has something against me. If he has something against me, I call it a grudge. You may not like my word choice, but it is a valid use. Unless you have an alternative word that actually covers this instead of trying to brush it away, I'm going to continue.

But how does it distinguish between the two particular forests you were speaking of?
I am trying to be somewhat civil here, and I'm starting to question why. There were no two particular forests. I never said that here nor implied that in the original post. There was a forest and there was absolutely every other forest on the entire surface of the earth, referred to as "forests". As in, there is exactly one area where the forest in the north and expanding into new land, and there is everywhere else.

If you don't know what I'm speaking of, which you obviously don't, just ask. I would have been happy to explain.

And yes, I described how I had the distinct impression this was going to turn out badly based on past experience...and lo and behold, it turns out the nice friend you described as "sane" is someone you're now telling me habitually acts like a jackass to anyone who doesn't agree with him. Previously I hadn't ascribed any blame for this to you, but I'm starting to wonder if you deserve it.

Then I described how I was horrified to find out that your friend, who I was assuming is about your age and should therefore be around high school age, does not know anything regarding science, and worse, is under the delusion he does. This upset me, yes. It didn't frighten me, it profoundly depressed me in the dead, "we're all fucked and all of you are doing to deserve it" sort of way I get in place of anger these days.

From: (Anonymous)

Anoh, "ignorant habitual behavior" does not at all describe what the behavior is.

I was somewhat referring to the "I don't understand, so you're wrong," complaint of yours. And it does very much describe it.

He's not arguing posts, he's attacking me.

Oh please, saying one rude comment is 'attacking' you. Like people don't say rude things very often without having a grudge.

If he has something against me, I call it a grudge.

He said one thing to you. He says stuff like that to me all the time. It's really nothing all that personal. It's kind of an argument tactic of his.

I am trying to be somewhat civil here, and I'm starting to question why.

At this point, both sides are fighting to stay on their civil sides. Honestly, I'm not sure as to why I'm try to remain civil. You do nothing but insult everyone. I've been trying to stay on your good side, as I'm admittedly somewhat afraid of your bad side, but I'm starting to see you have no good side and there is absolutely no reason to be afraid of you.

In addition, I'm so lost about the forests I don't even want to argue those anymore.

and lo and behold, it turns out the nice friend you described as "sane" is someone you're now telling me habitually acts like a jackass to anyone who doesn't agree with him.

He's sane, without a doubt. He's not being a jackass, what he said to you shouldn't offend you at all. I mean, I'm sure you of all people has been called much worse. And he didn't say it to attack you.

Previously I hadn't ascribed any blame for this to you, but I'm starting to wonder if you deserve it.

Fine, blame me. I don't care anymore. I'm not afraid of you or what you have to say. My friend is sane. I'll take responsibility for saying it.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

I was somewhat referring to the "I don't understand, so you're wrong," complaint of yours. And it does very much describe it.

In that case, not only does it not cover "grudge" - begging the question of why you said it in response, I might add - but it's again a vague statement that means nothing. My description actually described what I was talking about - someone using their ignorance to argue they were right. Yours translates to mean "repeated stupid actions". For all anyone knows, that could mean he trips constantly.

Oh please, saying one rude comment is 'attacking' you. Like people don't say rude things very often without having a grudge

Anoh, you jumped someone on the forum for perceived insults. No, people don't normally, after getting completely polite, neutral posts, insult the person moment they get half a chance. It's considered bad form.

He said one thing to you. He says stuff like that to me all the time. It's really nothing all that personal. It's kind of an argument tactic of his.
That argument tactic would be known as "being a jackass", Anoh. Ad hominem attacks are by definition personal.

You do nothing but insult everyone. I've been trying to stay on your good side, as I'm admittedly somewhat afraid of your bad side, but I'm starting to see you have no good side and there is absolutely no reason to be afraid of you.
Obviously, not afraid enough.

Anoh, I am not a nice person. I am civil until provoked.

I'm being far more polite than I could be here. You may not understand what your friend said, a concept that profoundly depresses me but seems more and more plausible. I do. And I do not suffer fools gladly.

You also seem not to understand the crux of the issue, which is not that I feel insulted. Your friend opened by insulting me, then made a response where it was clear he did not have any interest in discussion but just wanted to attack anything in the argument he could for the sake of it. More, you seem to be saying you knew full well he would behave this way.

And no, Anoh, he really isn't. My mother teaches elementary school kids. They have a better grasp of science than he does. I really wish I was exaggerating here.

From: (Anonymous)

In that case, not only does it not cover "grudge" - begging the question of why you said it in response

Actually, I find it's all connected. His being ignorant from assuming what he doesn't understand is wrong may be why he insults people.

Yours translates to mean "repeated stupid actions".

Nope. Ignorant does not mean stupid. Go look it up.

For all anyone knows, that could mean he trips constantly.

And for all anyone knows, his so-called 'grudge' and 'attacks' could be physical. Yours isn't any better than mine.

Anoh, you jumped someone on the forum for perceived insults.

Jumped? JUMPED? That's hilarious. Sure, I was insulted by his rude remark. I did not (a) call it an attack, (b) bitch about it somewhere where I didn't think he'd see it, or (c) assume he was begrudged against me.

Oh, and what I said was surely brutal. I was such a jackass for even saying such a thing. Please.

No, people don't normally, after getting completely polite, neutral posts, insult the person moment they get half a chance.

Hmmm... So I have a grudge with everyone I've ever insulted? And everyone who's ever insulted me has a grudge against me? Everyone's either neutral or completely begrudged and out to get each other? I'm bewildered at even the thought of that.

Anoh, I am not a nice person. I am civil until provoked.

Awe, you're threatening me and I'm laughing hysterically. What are you going to do, call me incompetent and use dictionary.com to dredge up every word you can possibly call me?

And no, Anoh, he really isn't. My mother teaches elementary school kids. They have a better grasp of science than he does. I really wish I was exaggerating here.

Okay, so now sane and scientifically correct mean the same thing.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Your analysis may well be correct, but the underlying reason for the behavior doesn't negate the behavior, and you've yet to convince me it doesn't fall under the category of "bear ill will" or supply a more accurate word.

Additionally, although a stupid person won't commit ignorant acts, an ignorant person likely will commit stupid acts. Also, all dogs are not poodles. My usage again remains valid, and your own comments further beg the question of why you object - your argument here, even were it correct, boils down to "they're both vague" which doesn't really give any reason why mine should be wrong, now does it?

And yes, you jumped and caused the situation to escalate, rather than backing off and considering the context, in a situation where it was possible it wasn't meant insultingly, and it was certain it wasn't aimed at you by name. I point out this mostly because your current position is simply so ironic.

(Also, Anoh, you do realize I could very easily have locked this post if I were trying to keep things hidden?)

At any rate, yes, if you insulted someone who hadn't insulted you first or given you other direct offense, you likely did have some form of a grudge against them. People generally aren't hostile without any reason. If you're claiming your friend is just a dick to everyone constantly without thinking of it, then I'll withdraw my claims of a grudge but point out that's not an improvement.

And no, I wasn't threatening you. I was pointing out you really shouldn't have expected anything better than this. I don't hide the fact I hold these opinions, you've clearly aware I can viciously attack things I disagree with, and I've made it clear I go after people I think are stupid. Whitetip's claimed he was pressured into this, which only makes you look worse. Did you really expect I'd be nice to him?

In my opinion, yes. Science is the study and awareness of the world. Complex things can be misunderstood. What he said was along the lines of someone who'd failed to realize water is wet. Whether it's ignorance or denial, it's not a view I can really recognize as human.

From: (Anonymous)

First off, I forgot to mention last post that yes, Whitetip is my age. He's not older. Second, I didn't think he would flat out say something like "And to think... I was beginning to think you were a sane person." I did consider that he may try to "attack" you later on in the argument if he started to lose. And I thought you, being used to that, wouldn't care at all. I was wrong.

and you've yet to convince me it doesn't fall under the category of "bear ill will"

Fine, maybe it does. Grudge, however, now that I think about it, does not. Not all insults stem from grudges. Grudges are personal resentments made from people that tend to know each other. You insult the majority of the authors you review. Are you begrudged against every one of them?

Additionally, although a stupid person won't commit ignorant acts, an ignorant person likely will commit stupid acts.

Not necessarily, you don't seem to realize that ignorant means impolite or inconsiderate. That's linked to personality, not intelligence. An ignorant person is no more likely to do stupid things than a polite one.

And yes, you jumped and caused the situation to escalate, rather than backing off and considering the context, in a situation where it was possible it wasn't meant insultingly, and it was certain it wasn't aimed at you by name.

Must my name be said for it to be an insult?

And going back, here's what I said:

"Is that supposed to be an insult? Or are you just going for a really condescending statement? Either way, you're no higher than anyone else associated with Farla. And seeing as you're here, are you not part of this 'fan club'?"

"I'm pleased to report that there's a major suck up trying to relate to Farla by trying to place himself on a higher level than other writers and trying to point out that he agrees with her as much as possible."

The only thing I could really see as bad was my calling him a suck-up, and that had plenty of backup just from that way he was speaking.

People generally aren't hostile without any reason.

That's just it. Right there. Grudges are formed for reasons. Without reasons, maybe it is just being a jackass, but grudge is wrong.

If you're claiming your friend is just a dick to everyone constantly without thinking of it, then I'll withdraw my claims of a grudge but point out that's not an improvement.

In an argument where people disagree with him, yes. He can get that way.

And no, I wasn't threatening you.

So telling me you're about to drop civil behavior isn't a threat.

Whitetip's claimed he was pressured into this, which only makes you look worse.

Where has he claimed that? The thread?

He was a bit hesitant about arguing with you, despite that he made it very apparent he thought you we wrong. I said that you wouldn't be easy to out-argue, and it would be an interesting debate between two people who know a lot about what they believe in, and he agreed.

Did you really expect I'd be nice to him?

I hadn't an idea of how this would turn out, but I certainly was expecting you to bitch about him, GryffindorGoddess and myself on an entry in your livejournal.

In my opinion, yes. Science is the study and awareness of the world. Complex things can be misunderstood. What he said was along the lines of someone who'd failed to realize water is wet. Whether it's ignorance or denial, it's not a view I can really recognize as human.

Wow, so now scientifically incorrect = insane = inhuman. It's quite apparent you have no idea what you're saying here. If he wasn't sane... It's so ridiculous, I don't even want to get into it.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

There's a difference between care in the sense of "oh! someone is being mean to me :(" and care in the sense of it pisses me off.

And as I pointed out six of my posts back, one of the definitions of grudge means to harbor ill will. A number of posts back, you were harping on my apparent inability to admit I'm wrong, yet have continued to insist my definition is arbitrarily wrong because, basically, you say so.

(As I believe I explained, I don't insult authors directly, and were my reviews to consist of "you're a fag", yes, I would probably have a grudge against the authors. I don't, so I discuss instead what's wrong with the story. I don't know why you seem so baffled by this. It's a fundamental part of human behavior.)

Additionally, no, ignorant does not mean that. Not even close. Dictionary.com, it's there for a reason. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant) You're clearly ignorant of the definition, and it was stupid of you to misuse it in a frankly moronic attempt to argue semantics. Someone ignorant of politeness might be impolite, but someone could be ignorant and polite (again, dogs =/= poodles). Alternatively, someone intelligent could be well aware it's impolite to refer to someone as ignorant, stupid and moronic, yet choose to do so.

Or in sum, you really don't want to argue word use with me. I not only have a pretty good grasp of what words mean, but I make up justifications for unorthodox uses as a game.

And yes, you escalated it. Your actions are understandable, but contradict your "why are you being mean to my friend just because he insulted you? Doesn't everyone just brush that off and ignore it? It's no big deal!" attitude here. It's especially contradictory given I was far more polite then than you would have likely been in my place.

For hopefully the final time:

If your friend dislikes me as a person because of opinions I hold, he holds something against me as a person, ie, me personally. If he has something against me personally, he bears ill will toward me. If he bears ill will toward me, he has a grudge against me.

Again, weren't you the one whining about me refusing to admit I'm wrong? Shouldn't you, if you value that so much, make at least a token effort toward it yourself?

(Also, let me just reiterate that you are incredibly insulting when you're defending someone.)

And Anoh, I was referring to what already happened. Unless you really think my reference to being a sped teacher was civil. Given you apparently expect your friend to act like a jackass when confronted with differing views, or when he's losing - I have to ask, again, why on earth you thought this would be a good idea - you shouldn't be at all surprised that the outcome is I write a post like this. The most you could justifiably be surprised about is that I didn't attempt to tear him apart there the moment he gave me reason.

(Ironically, the post was not bitching about you or her. Until you arrived to act stupidly and indicate you really, really should have known better, your part in this was simply the cause, no blame attached, and her part was an unnamed side reference with no judgment attached. It's only now I realize I should have given you due blame, and I still have nothing to bitch about regarding her. She was, in fact, completely unnamed until you mentioned her just now.

(This does, however, put your defense in a new light if you're doing it because you feel you were attacked too rather than loyalty to your friend. Not a more positive light, admittedly, but...)

And no, scientifically incorrect does not mean insane. For example, many perfectly sane children don't understand _why_ black things heat in the sun. But your friend, and possibly you, manage to be oblivious to basic, observable reality.

(Amusingly, given your friend called me insane for holding what he felt were absurd scientific views, it appears he shares my definition.)

Besides, if you actually read the post, you'd see that was exactly what I said at the bottom. I'd even venture so far as to say that's my major point. Repeating it here shouldn't be any surprise at all.

From: (Anonymous)

There's a difference between care in the sense of "oh! someone is being mean to me :(" and care in the sense of it pisses me off.

You seem to be the type of person who would be amused by someone attempting to insult you.

And as I pointed out six of my posts back, one of the definitions of grudge means to harbor ill will. A number of posts back, you were harping on my apparent inability to admit I'm wrong, yet have continued to insist my definition is arbitrarily wrong because, basically, you say so.

I've explained, you can't say my argument is simply 'because I say so'.

(As I believe I explained, I don't insult authors directly, and were my reviews to consist of "you're a fag", yes, I would probably have a grudge against the authors.

Yes, you do insult authors directly. You critique the story too, but you always slip in some insults, which must mean you hold a grudge against each and every author you've reviewed badly.

Additionally, no, ignorant does not mean that. Not even close. Dictionary.com, it's there for a reason.

Yes, it does. While dictionary.com matches what you're saying, I'd stopped using dictionary.com a while ago, as my teachers had taken off points when I'd defined words wrong on vocabulary tests as a result of the site. (And by the way, dictionary.com also says in one definition that ignorant is lack of education.)

In addition, microsoft word, my thesaurus, and even the contextual clues of the word match what I'm saying. Microsoft word makes note of impolite, and my thesaurus says inconsiderate. The root of "ignorant" is "ignore", and to ignore does not necessarily mean to lack knowledge in.

Alternatively, someone intelligent could be well aware it's impolite to refer to someone as ignorant, stupid and moronic, yet choose to do so.

Exactly. Are you trying to make my point yours? I'm the one who said it wasn't linked to intelligence, while you said it meant stupid.

So I think you need to play your game more often.

And yes, you escalated it. Your actions are understandable, but contradict your "why are you being mean to my friend just because he insulted you? Doesn't everyone just brush that off and ignore it? It's no big deal!" attitude here. It's especially contradictory given I was far more polite then than you would have likely been in my place.

Okay, I escalated it. I didn't do any of the 3 things I listed in one of my most previous posts. And at least I didn't try to hide I was insulted. I confronted him, while you wrote a long entry here.

Also, you and I are two very different people. You seem amused when insulted, I've never made an indication that I'm that way.

More polite? Directly to him, perhaps, but not here on your livejournal. Certainly not.

Again, weren't you the one whining about me refusing to admit I'm wrong? Shouldn't you, if you value that so much, make at least a token effort toward it yourself?

Have I not admitted to being wrong and apologized at least a few times over the duration of our argument? So isn't that making at least a token effor toward it myself?

Unless you really think my reference to being a sped teacher was civil.

Actually, yes, I did.

you shouldn't be at all surprised that the outcome is I write a post like this. The most you could justifiably be surprised about is that I didn't attempt to tear him apart there the moment he gave me reason.

I was hoping you'd show him the proper way to argue. I was hoping you'd prove to him that boring everyone in the class until they no longer have the will to argue does not make him right, especially considering most of his audience.

Now, my post is too long, so I'm going to seperate it in two.

From: (Anonymous)

Here's the second:

(Ironically, the post was not bitching about you or her. Until you arrived to act stupidly and indicate you really, really should have known better, your part in this was simply the cause, no blame attached,

You expect me to believe you didn't at all blame the cause of all this? And you did try to tie GryffindorGoddess to Whitetip as if they were some sort of alliance against you. Or else... You really wouldn't have mentioned her at all, never mind providing a link to my forum.

And no, this wasn't because I felt attacked. Originally, I just wanted to apologize. You then responded somewhat angrily, and then I figured it wasn't worth apologizing and you really need to stop all of your bitching.

And no, scientifically incorrect does not mean insane.

Which does flat out contradict your previous post, and go along with what I said about them not being equal, but now I have no idea what you're planning. Is this the post where you try to take some of my points and act as if they were yours from the start?

(Amusingly, given your friend called me insane for holding what he felt were absurd scientific views, it appears he shares my definition.)

Did I say he was right? Does apology usually indicate that?

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Yes, I can say that. Your idea of "explaining" why I was wrong consisted of making up a (crappy) phrase to describe your friend's actions, and denying that a grudge could mean ill will. Although I am amused that you've confirmed my wondering about your teacher's qualifications - dictionary.com cites real dictionaries, the root of "ignorance" is "gno", knowledge, no, ignorant =/= impolite, AND, the best part, even if it did, that doesn't change the fact it would still mean being unaware of information, which was my usage. You suck at this. Seriously.

And no, Anoh, if you took the time to read my post, you'd see I explained that a person who is ignorant would wind up committing stupid actions but not vice versa, meaning they're not direct synonyms but merely very closely related. You were pulling something out of your ass about it only referring to politeness. I was saying it means lack of knowledge. One doesn't have to be ignorant to be impolite, one who is ignorant can be polite. Your mistake here, by the way, is stupid, not ignorant.

Also, no, you haven't admitted you were wrong except to say you don't want to talk about forests, and to say that maybe "ill will" might be correct, while still objecting to "grudge".

I confronted him, while you wrote a long entry here...More polite? Directly to him, perhaps, but not here on your livejournal. Certainly not.
Yes. I vented in my livejournal instead of blowing up at him, shredding him in a far more public area, and mocking everything he said.

If I'd attacked him in public, I'd be criticized for being cruel. If I'd locked his entry, I'd be criticized for "going behind his back". This was more polite than I could have been or am obligated to be, and it was mainly about hints and omens and guesses about the leadup, not him.

I was hoping you'd show him the proper way to argue. I was hoping you'd prove to him that boring everyone in the class until they no longer have the will to argue does not make him right, especially considering most of his audience.
In other words, deal with your problem for you.

I've done the whole "play with the maniac because everyone else is sick of it" thing already, and I think I've done my community service. Also, if you were setting him up like that, you're a shitty friend. You siccing someone like that on me without warning was irritating, but you don't owe me anything and I can take care of myself.

You expect me to believe you didn't at all blame the cause of all this? And you did try to tie GryffindorGoddess to Whitetip as if they were some sort of alliance against you. Or else... You really wouldn't have mentioned her at all, never mind providing a link to my forum.
Anoh.

Take a deep breath. Scroll upward. My post is about hints something is going to go wrong. Not a conspiracy. That's why it's titled "Trainwreck". I'm watching events pile up that are going to lead to disaster, but I don't believe any of it was intentional. If I thought this was premeditated or someone was to blame, I'd have been clear about blaming them.

I can see I was wrong and you played a much greater hand in this than just innocently showing your friend something, but at the time, I didn't think so.

And no, to repeat: scientifically incorrect does not mean insane. Ignorance of basic reality does. Reread what I wrote, because I just explained my position.

From: (Anonymous)

You suck at this. Seriously.

And that's your brilliant argument, right? Seriously.

And no, Anoh, if you took the time to read my post, you'd see I explained that a person who is ignorant would wind up committing stupid actions but not vice versa, meaning they're not direct synonyms but merely very closely related. You were pulling something out of your ass about it only referring to politeness. I was saying it means lack of knowledge.

I'm pulling things out of my ass? You went on about some shitty analogy that didn't apply to the situtation.

Now you are right about ignorant coming from 'gno', I'll admit, which relates to knowledge. You're right. However, rather than giving me "dogs =/= poodles", couldn't you have just ended it right away and told me that it came from 'gno' in the beginning? Though you were right, you were STILL coming up with something completely stupid to, as Whitetip said, confuse me and make me feel as if it is necessary to believe you.

So now I'm thinking even when you are right, your points are still partially invalid.

Your mistake here, by the way, is stupid, not ignorant.

You first called it ignorant, now you call it stupid. Also, you keep telling me what my argument is, but every post you tell me something completely different, except that I'm wrong every time.

Also, no, you haven't admitted you were wrong except to say you don't want to talk about forests, and to say that maybe "ill will" might be correct, while still objecting to "grudge".

No Farla, I did say "I'm wrong" and "I'm sorry" numerous times. I know I did, and I can go back and show you each time I did if you want. Don't tell me I didn't say them, I know I did. You're just using propaganda to make me seem insane. I know I've apologized, and I know I've admited to being wrong.

And by the way, even the things you listed is a step up from you.

Yes. I vented in my livejournal instead of blowing up at him, shredding him in a far more public area, and mocking everything he said.

You complained here, where you knew Keleri and Negrek would be by your side so the 3 of you could tear him apart without him even knowing. And by the way, you did the exact same thing to godblessmaryoloughlin. I read the entry, and you complained about him a lot more than I.

In other words, deal with your problem for you.

Yes, I realize it seems very bad on my part, but it's true. I knew you could do it, not to mention I thought you'd happily do it.

Also, if you were setting him up like that, you're a shitty friend.

You could call me that, but it's not like I led him to believe you were easy, or even on his level. I showed him your opinions, your writing style, and I mentioned you would never back down, and you were incredibly skilled at arguing. Why do you think he was hesitant at all? And why do you think he wanted to prepare something? Not because of a grudge, but because he knew you weren't going to be easy to out-argue.

You siccing someone like that on me without warning was irritating, but you don't owe me anything and I can take care of myself.

Time and time again I keep apologizing for that, and you don't remark on it. But you still keep shoving it in my face. I'M SORRY.

By the way, how in the world COULD I owe you anything? We merely know each other over fan fiction, and you don't seem to be a person who wants help from 14-year olds. It's not like I could do you any real favors, or at least none that I can think of.

But yes, I do very much believe that you can take care of yourself.

See, you both reminded me of the other. You both destroyed anyone that disagreed with you. I figured you both could use a challenge. I thought you'd definitely enjoy it, and he would do upon getting into it. That's how I think debates work. I wasn't exactly conspiring against him either. I just wanted him too lose some ego. I was all wrong and I never should have even shown him anything. I should've kept my life on fan fiction to myself.

You first mentioned that scientifically incorrect did mean insane, and supported it (I can go back and quote if you want), but for the last two posts you've denied ever having said so.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

No, my brilliant argument directly proceeded it. "You suck at this" was merely a closing remark.

Yes, I could have broken down the word and explained. However, I did tell you the definition, and link it, and I really can't be expected to know exactly what nonsense you believe beforehand. Additionally, given I was right, I have no need to try to make you believe me through confusion. What with the being completely right the whole time thing.

You, for your part, were perfectly capable of checking the cute little link and looking it up yourself. You chose to remain ignorant, which was a rather stupid decision. Similarly, you were quite capable of reading more calmly, and of not making last ditch attempts at semantics, especially after I explicitly warned you it wouldn't work.

And no, Anoh, I said your lack of knowledge was ignorant, and your misuse stupid, remember? You're clearly ignorant of the definition, and it was stupid of you to misuse it...? Again, reading comprehension.

And no, Anoh, you're obviously not sorry for anything more than getting caught in this. And as I said, you didn't owe me anything and I can take care of myself. I'm not the one you should be sorry for involving.

You're just using propaganda to make me seem insane.

No, I'm increasingly bored and you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. I'm right. I generally am. Why would I need to use propaganda when I can just use facts?

Yes, I realize it seems very bad on my part, but it's true. I knew you could do it, not to mention I thought you'd happily do it.

This will probably be hard for you to understand.

I don't like people attempting to manipulate others. I don't like people attempting to manipulate me.

You were trying to set up your friend to get ripped apart. You told me he was sane and reasonable, not that he was someone with issues about debating who would lash out at any disagreement. You deliberately showed the argument to him, then actively convinced him to bother me, knowing he'd not only lose, but badly. I can take care of myself. He obviously couldn't, and you knew it, and for that matter, that's why you did it. Anoh, did it for the slightest instant occur to you that this was a fucking horrible idea?

And you said this was your friend.

From: (Anonymous)

Yeah, and "You suck at this" is such a valid point.

I did look it up. It may be wrong, but Microsoft Word does say impolite, and my thesaurus does say inconsiderate.

And no, Anoh, I said your lack of knowledge was ignorant, and your misuse stupid, remember? You're clearly ignorant of the definition, and it was stupid of you to misuse it...? Again, reading comprehension.

They're linked. If someone doesn't know the correct definition, then they're probably going to misuse it.

No, I'm increasingly bored and you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.

I apologized. I know I did.

You were trying to set up your friend to get ripped apart.

I thought he'd have a decent argument. I didn't think he would just throw something like "black absorbs heat" out, and you'd find everything wrong with that statement and write about it somewhere.

You told me he was sane and reasonable, not that he was someone with issues about debating who would lash out at any disagreement.

Regardless of the meanings of sane or grudge, I believe he is sane and he does not hold a grudge against you. If I didn't, I would definitely tell you.

I don't consider what the occasional direct insult he says in an argument such a horrible thing. It actually seems somewhat normal, as there are plenty of people that would to that in an argument to compensate for their losses. And I didn't think you'd get so pissed either. Really, I didn't think it would escalate to this at all, nor were those my intentions.

I also wanted to see the two of you argue because... In school, he's unbeatable and online, you're unbeatable. So taking two people who won't easily back down and having a true argument didn't seem so bad. I knew he'd lose, and I told him I believed so, mentioning how unbeatable you are many times. I didn't think he'd be beaten to shreds, nor has he been yet. That's only because he doesn't have an argument, but his argument does sound reasonable to me, even though I still disagree.

And going back, now... I remember exactly how this started. We had a global warming debate in marine biology class, and Whitetip won, the people who were actually debating him couldn't summon up the facts to win the debate. So, in homeroom, I showed him that there was scientific backup, and showed him your opinion. He smirked at this.

A while later, without you or Whitetip in mind, another friend of mine and I were arguing about global warming. My friend, in opposition of the existence of global warming, and I, in favor. I was pretty much out-arguing my friend, seeing as his argument consisted solely of "but we don't need the icecaps", so he decides he wanted to bring Whitetip into the argument. Whitetip joined in right away. I was annoyed that my other friend couldn't argue with me without calling for help, so I said I knew someone who could definitely out-argue Whiteip, you.

Honest to god, that's how it began.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Jesus, a thesaurus is not a dictionary. That's what you were using? Never do that again.

If someone doesn't know the correct definition, then they're probably going to misuse it.

Yes. That's what links ignorance and stupidity.

Someone can be ignorant of a subject. At this point, they can accept they don't know much and not try to argue it, or they can do research to remedy their ignorance. Or they can be stupid and pick the third choice.

And no, Anoh, his argument is not reasonable, or anything close.

I don't think you really understand why I'm saying this, but it's not a good idea to shepherd someone into a public argument with me, especially if you don't think they have a chance of winning. It isn't a fair fight.

If you felt he was wrong but that you were unable to refute him, you could have told him to email me, keeping it private, and told me what you were doing, so I knew why he was appearing.

From: (Anonymous)

A sin, isn't it? A thesaurus doesn't give meanings to words, only synonyms. And we all know synonyms have nothing in common...

Yes. That's what links ignorance and stupidity.

If you're calling me stupid, I really don't care. I was expecting more along the lines of 'incompetent' though.

And no, Anoh, his argument is not reasonable, or anything close.

I find it likely you've seen the chart of the average temperatures of every year over the last century. It was also in "An Inconvenient Truth". Whitetip claims that the preceding years were reasonably under the 'regular' temperature, and although it's getting hotter now, it will probably go back down naturally eventually.

Additionally, compared to how long humans have existed on earth, a mere century might not be enough to draw conclusions yet.

If you mind, could you tell me why that's so far from reasonable? Otherwise, you're just exaggerating as much as your little remark about your mother's students knowing science better than Whitetip.

(By the way, bolding and italicizing things does not make you right.)

I don't think you really understand why I'm saying this, but it's not a good idea to shepherd someone into a public argument with me, especially if you don't think they have a chance of winning. It isn't a fair fight.

You're forgetting something. My intentions still had much to do with global warming. The arguement wasn't supposed to become a 'trainwreck'.

Even though he could make attempts to insult you, I didn't figure you'd mind, nor consider it a fight. I still intended for the majority of this to be about global warming.

Also, why would you even get mad at such insults, if here in this arguement you've been saying things like "You suck at this" the whole time?

If you felt he was wrong but that you were unable to refute him, you could have told him to email me, keeping it private, and told me what you were doing, so I knew why he was appearing.

I guess it was foolish of me to believe that the forum would stay private, without intervention from another writer. I pretty much thought so because 'U Suc Continuation' and 'Pokemon Revolution Discussion' didn't have many people on them at all (mostly just you and I), or for a long time anyway. They pretty much both died out before new posters entered.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Anoh, yes, a synonym is nothing like a definition. One might speak of shadows or darkness in the same sentence, but that does not mean the words are identical. Nor are orbs the same as optics the same as eyes. Again, never, ever confuse the two again.

If you mind, could you tell me why that's so far from reasonable?

I do mind, as this greatly disturbs me, but even so.

Black things are black because they do not reflect light. Since energy can be neither created nor destroyed, this means that the light has been shifted into heat. Therefore, the darker something is, the more light it turns into heat. Shiny things stay cool in the sun. Black things get hot.

The wonder of biofeedback means that as forest grows into northern areas that were formerly tundra, it further heats up the land, making it warmer, allowing the forest to grow further north, which makes it warmer, which allows the forest to grow further north. However, forests existing in their natural range do not have this issue. Their growth serves to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

The Siberian permafrost melting, which Whitetip skated so blithely over, holds methane that has been under there for at least forty thousand years. Right now is the warmest it has been in forty thousand years. We are not going on temperature data just for the last hundred years. Permafrost is an area that is supposed to remain permanently frozen. When it melts, that means something is very fucking wrong.

Cows produce roughly six million tons of methane - and no, not through flatulence. Overall, all livestock put together produce around eighty million tons. The western Siberian permafrost alone holds around seventy billion tons.

CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. There is supposed to be a certain amount in the air. If there was less than that, then the earth would cool and freeze over, just as if there's too much, the earth heats up. Therefore, saying it's okay we're adding CO2 because there are natural sources of CO2 is like saying that because there is salt in your body, you'll be fine if I forcefeed you an extra three pounds. If you don't understand the analogy, go eat three pounds of salt and get back to me.

All of this could have been uncovered with a few minutes of your time. (http://fuckinggoogleit.com/)

From: (Anonymous)

I was referring to the part of Whitetip's arguement that I told you about, involving that a century isn't enough time. It was clear as day, seeing as I fucking re-explained part of it right above.

All of this could have been uncovered with a few minutes of your time.

You obviously have a lot of time and a very bad sense of humor.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Any of it is enough to completely discredit all of it.

And no, you really could have plugged a few words into google and found this out for yourself.

From: (Anonymous)

Any of it is enough to completely discredit all of it.

That's just like you always call everyone who disagrees with you incompetent, it's completely general.

And no, you really could have plugged a few words into google and found this out for yourself.

That doesn't argue what I said.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

No, it's just that so many times the people who disagree with me happen to also be complete idiots. Is this a return to the "you aren't admitting you're wrong right now, therefore you never admit you're wrong, and even though you're not actually wrong I'm going to whine about this" kind of argument?

I'm calling him incompetent because he is. If you'd like to argue he's not, then you can, but I'm going to laugh at you. A lot.

From: (Anonymous)

Is this a return to the "you aren't admitting you're wrong right now, therefore you never admit you're wrong, and even though you're not actually wrong I'm going to whine about this" kind of argument?

(A) You were wrong to bitch about him here, rather than being honest and saying the argument was about global warming, not random insults.

(B) It's not just here. In all the times I've argued with you, and read other arguments other people had with you on forums and such, you've never admitted to being wrong. You have been, but you drag it out to be annoying.

I'm calling him incompetent because he is.

You say that about EVERYBODY, except for your two or so friends.

If you'd like to argue he's not, then you can, but I'm going to laugh at you. A lot.

Laugh. Sure. I've laughed enough at you throughout this.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

No, I wasn't wrong to bitch about him here, and no, the random insult was a good part of why I was annoyed.

And telling me I've been wrong, at some unspecified point, and therefore you're right (especially when the original bitching still stems from your whine about why I'm not admitting I'm wrong here and really just seems to be you upset with that) is, I'm afraid to say, not the strongest of arguments.

Actually, until you did idiotic things like thinking it was a good idea to use a thesaurus in place of a dictionary, I wasn't saying you were incompetent, although I'm happy to do so by this point, and happy to use stronger words than just "incompetent" for that matter. But if you'd like to soothe your ego by saying that it's not that you or he acted like a moron, but I'm just mean and say that to everyone, then I can't stop you, little hypocrite.

From: (Anonymous)

You misintepreted what I wrote. I meant that you should've told him that the argument was about global warming, not insults, instead of coming here and bitching. It's a much better solution, so yes, you are wrong.

Stronger words? You just dredge up words from dictionary.com. Anyone can do that. (And yes, I know you do that. I read through your live journal, and you've cited it.)

We're all hypocrites. Everyone.