|
On January 06 2019 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Hey, remember that time you claimed to live in UK, Russia and USA all at the same time, depending on which thread you were posting at the time? 10/10 You helped me understand how a lot of people here see me. I thought all you did was stir shit but when I checked realized you contribute other not shit stirring posts too, I just mostly see/remember the shit stirring.
It's just a matter of frequency and proportion. Your contribution is mostly shit stirring. See it's easy to out LL and you out as a troll/shitstirrer when 90%+ of the posts are stupid shit like "electability, electability, electability" even 2 years after the election or "Russia did not invade Crimea" "Instanbul is Constantinople" or" abolish the police!" or "fuck the dems/ neo/ libs!", but when it's me and the only 5% shitstirring I do is to point out the shit stirring, no one particularily cares but the usual suspects who are jealous of the pot I am using. It's non stick for easy cleaning.
|
On January 07 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2019 06:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Hey, remember that time you claimed to live in UK, Russia and USA all at the same time, depending on which thread you were posting at the time? 10/10 You helped me understand how a lot of people here see me. I thought all you did was stir shit but when I checked realized you contribute other not shit stirring posts too, I just mostly see/remember the shit stirring. It's just a matter of frequency and proportion. Your contribution is mostly shit stirring. See it's easy to out LL and you out as a troll/shitstirrer when 90%+ of the posts are stupid shit like "electability, electability, electability" even 2 years after the election or "Russia did not invade Crimea" "Instanbul is Constantinople" or" abolish the police!" or "fuck the dems/ neo/ libs!", but when it's me and the only 5% shitstirring I do is to point out the shit stirring, no one particularily cares but the usual suspects who are jealous of the pot I am using. It's non stick for easy cleaning.
When I went through your last several posts (when I posted that) it was mostly shit stirring. Your shit stirring doesn't seem to have an objective either other than to try to rile people up without any substantive argument to go with it.
My shit stirring is intended to generate productive (albeit sometimes heated) conversation, where yours is vacuous and sorta malicious.
But prior to looking I had only seen the vacuous shit stirring.
For example:
On January 07 2019 21:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Mod note now makes it clear that the intention of the thread is to piss on banned users.
Is totally just to stir shit when you know you're wrong.
Discussion is a word with a meaning, they don't want a discussion. It's not complicated lol.
compared to this which is an actual comment with the intention of spurring more discussion or finding genuine resolution.
On January 07 2019 22:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2019 02:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
This reminds of the time this black guy was assaulted by 2 black women who went over the counter in McDonalds and defended himself. He got fired and no one cared. No PR problem at all. There are a lot of fights at McDonald's could you be more specific? McDonald's definitely needs better worker protections though, that much is clear. It was a long time ago. In fact I think it was you that posted it. At the time everyone was arguing whether it was right or wrong for the man to defend himself in that manner, but no one thought it was wrong for McDonalds to fire him but I. The point I am making is that the culture of USA is that a person working in a lower class job is normally expected to not defend themselves, and the only thing that creates support and protecting this woman from being fired is the optics of her and the assailant's physical looks and stature.
So I know you can do better, and are trolling when you do stuff like the first example or your comment here.
|
Perhaps I am being too subtle in my kindness. Or offbeat humour. Take your pick.
The perception of which you beleive yourself is viewed is not comparable to the way you beleive I am viewed. What I intended to write writing is that our quality of posting is in no way comparable. It is true, the posts we both write may cause activity, but both the proportion and the quality are different.
|
On January 08 2019 02:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Perhaps I am being too subtle in my kindness. Or offbeat humour. Take your pick.
The perception of which you beleive yourself is viewed is not comparable to the way you beleive I am viewed. What I am writing is that our quality of posting is in no way comparable. It is true, the posts we both write may cause activity, but both the proportion and the quality are different.
I didn't mean that we are seen the same, just that it helped me understand how others see me. I feel like I've already made clear I agree with the sentiment that our posts are not of the same quality.
|
Jesus christ Danger you can't seriously believe that your posts have that much quality or value behind them? You're literally the premiere british winger on the forum. I'm seriously convinced that kwark posts less now that theres someone filling that role for him. Bitching at people and pointing out the painfully obvious over and over again isn't quality its just being a wanker.
And I specifically use british terms for that because its very british focused of not being explicit but still being shitty. Its worse beacuse you constantly do this in a politics thread that you reinforce is not something you participate in. All you do is throw shit at the US like the dutch.
|
I have no idea what you mean by "british winger", but thanks I guess? I always wanted to fly in the air. I know exactly how I am viewed from the times I've deliberately asked. Here is the run down:
1) Posters who dont get frequently banned: You are fine. Could be better.
2) Posters who get frequently banned: You are a shit-tier poster who should be banned, and don't see why he is not banned, when I always am.
Guess which one you are Sermakola?
___________
Btw, what have you got against the Dutch? They are lovely people. Very open, very friendly, very welcoming, very hospitable. Spent a lovely time abroad in the Netherlands recently.
Also what's your problem against Kwark? That's he is British?
|
United States43581 Posts
I post less now because public accounting is a bitch. My old job let me shitpost all day.
|
Norway28739 Posts
As a moderator I actually have to state that while there is a relationship between ban frequency and quality of posting, people who are less frequently banned should not conclude that they are better posters than other posters who are more frequently banned. I've seen people make this argument (that they are a better poster than someone else and that this is 'proven' by ban frequencies) twice in the past week now, and both times, the person making that argument was in my opinion totally wrong.
|
Moderator Drone! How many times have I been banned/ warned?*
Just curious.
*This is not to state that I am better posters than other posters who are more frequently banned.
I just want to make the point that the posters who are frequently banned are the ones who claim that I am as terrible as they are, to the point that they would single me out as a sign for partisan bias in the moderators. They appear to be obscenely jealous that I don't get banned. I think they should ask me for tips on how not to get banned instead.
|
Norway28739 Posts
You've been warned 4 times.
|
Thanks. I should try harder.
|
On January 08 2019 02:43 Sermokala wrote:
Jesus christ Danger you can't seriously believe that your posts have that much quality or value behind them? You're literally the premiere british winger on the forum. I'm seriously convinced that kwark posts less now that theres someone filling that role for him. Bitching at people and pointing out the painfully obvious over and over again isn't quality its just being a wanker.
And I specifically use british terms for that because its very british focused of not being explicit but still being shitty. Its worse beacuse you constantly do this in a politics thread that you reinforce is not something you participate in. All you do is throw shit at the US like the dutch.
They are good posts, bront.
|
The Premiere British winger is a new one on me.
|
makes him sound like a cricket player or something. note, i know nothing about cricket.
|
A winger is a player that plays on the flanks of a formation in soccer (or football for the unexceptional). They tend to be the least skilled players on the field but they skew the statistics of their value by covering a lot of ground that is unthreatening to goal scoring. They can run really fast but they can't tackle as well as fullbacks, score like strikers, or pass as well as midfielders. British ones tend to provide width and penetration (two of the five fundamentals to soccer/football) by their existence rather than skill size or speed.
Trust me I have thousands of hours in football manager I understand put ball in net no ball in own net.
|
On January 09 2019 04:58 Sermokala wrote:
A winger is a player that plays on the flanks of a formation in soccer (or football for the unexceptional). They tend to be the least skilled players on the field but they skew the statistics of their value by covering a lot of ground that is unthreatening to goal scoring. They can run really fast but they can't tackle as well as fullbacks, score like strikers, or pass as well as midfielders. British ones tend to provide width and penetration (two of the five fundamentals to soccer/football) by their existence rather than skill size or speed.
Trust me I have thousands of hours in football manager I understand put ball in net no ball in own net.
I thought it was very on theme for the whole thing for what it's worth.
|
Well if you're going to start getting British cricket has to come into it sooner or later.
I've no idea how I'm viewed or not viewed. My guess would be 'mostly inoffensive' in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy kind of way, occasionally siding into 'woefully under informed' depending on the topic at hand with occasional spikes of 'good egg, knows his stuff' on others. I believe I've had one warning so I'm at least not too egregious on my brief occasions of FORUM RAEG.
From my perspective, as I've said several times, a lot of the problems in the thread come down to long term relationships. Most posters there have been posting for aaaaaaaaages. It's a microcosm of the larger US landscape; old disagreements were inflamed by the 2016 election and the atmosphere surrounding Trump's presidency have crystallised those disageements into unbridgeable divisions.
See: P6's comment about discussions with GH.
|
On January 09 2019 04:58 Sermokala wrote:
A winger is a player that plays on the flanks of a formation in soccer (or football for the unexceptional). They tend to be the least skilled players on the field but they skew the statistics of their value by covering a lot of ground that is unthreatening to goal scoring. They can run really fast but they can't tackle as well as fullbacks, score like strikers, or pass as well as midfielders. British ones tend to provide width and penetration (two of the five fundamentals to soccer/football) by their existence rather than skill size or speed.
Trust me I have thousands of hours in football manager I understand put ball in net no ball in own net.
British people don't tend to use sporting idioms as often as Americans do.
So what you are saying is that I am unappreciated by those who are confident in their opinion in a domain they know little about, who are easily distracted by the loudest, and are unable to comprehend the finer details.
I think I can handle that criticism.
|
On January 10 2019 08:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2019 04:58 Sermokala wrote:
A winger is a player that plays on the flanks of a formation in soccer (or football for the unexceptional). They tend to be the least skilled players on the field but they skew the statistics of their value by covering a lot of ground that is unthreatening to goal scoring. They can run really fast but they can't tackle as well as fullbacks, score like strikers, or pass as well as midfielders. British ones tend to provide width and penetration (two of the five fundamentals to soccer/football) by their existence rather than skill size or speed.
Trust me I have thousands of hours in football manager I understand put ball in net no ball in own net. British people don't tend to use sporting idioms as often as Americans do. So what you are saying is that I am unappreciated by those who are confident in their opinion in a domain they know little about, who are easily distracted by the loudest, and are unable to comprehend the finer details. I think I can handle that criticism.
None of that was in my post yet was a good example of what was I described in my post. Congrats you've provided an example of Schrodinger's shitpost.
|
Australia2849 Posts
On January 10 2019 11:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2019 08:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 09 2019 04:58 Sermokala wrote:
A winger is a player that plays on the flanks of a formation in soccer (or football for the unexceptional). They tend to be the least skilled players on the field but they skew the statistics of their value by covering a lot of ground that is unthreatening to goal scoring. They can run really fast but they can't tackle as well as fullbacks, score like strikers, or pass as well as midfielders. British ones tend to provide width and penetration (two of the five fundamentals to soccer/football) by their existence rather than skill size or speed.
Trust me I have thousands of hours in football manager I understand put ball in net no ball in own net. British people don't tend to use sporting idioms as often as Americans do. So what you are saying is that I am unappreciated by those who are confident in their opinion in a domain they know little about, who are easily distracted by the loudest, and are unable to comprehend the finer details. I think I can handle that criticism. None of that was in my post yet was a good example of what was I described in my post. Congrats you've provided an example of Schrodinger's shitpost.
You're really not coming out of this looking like a quality poster yourself. I'm struggling to see much value in the current conversation. Perhaps it should stop, unless somebody has a constructive contribution to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
