Public Service Announcement to Paranoid Fi doms

[Udog]

I was just wondering, if your pants fit, are you in prison?

Yeah, I know, imperfect analogy, because, hey, who wouldn't like to run around without pants, srsly, we should all escape that confinement, but lets' just say pants are useful things, helpful in times of crisis, like say, an erection outside a kindergarten, then pants would keep you out of prison, right?

So, if the type fits, stay away from small children.

If the type fits, wouldn't that mean you are wearing the pants? In which case, I doubt prison would be much of a concern. Although, you'd still have the issue of sporting a boner outside of a kindergarten.

That's it. I'm chaging my type to LEVI.

EDIT: Nevermind. The pants didn't fit.

 

[Little Linguist]

Who's going to join me in egging these people on to

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!!



Oh, man, this is so crazayyyyyyyyyyy.

Group hug everyone.

 

[PeaceBaby]

He didn't and he's not. That's us INTPs.

Well, yes he has. sim has made judgements throughout these recent threads on what statements are "reasonable" and what ones are "bat shit crazy".

ar⋅bi⋅ter  [ahr-bi-ter]
–noun
1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.

Who says it is for him to decide? Why should anyone have to tolerate sim playing judge and jury? Why all this wasted energy on Tater playing his game and sim jumping on the bandwagon?

There never was any serious intention in either thread to understand an opposing POV. Just to stir up trouble.

 

[Little Linguist]

My metaphor for this thread:

Huggy wuggy was a hare
Huggy wuggy fought a bear
Huggy wuggy was very funny
Wa'nit he?

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ENFP

 

[Little Linguist]

*suppresses giggly laughter*

*can't hold it back anymore*

*bursts out laughing while others stare in disgruntlement and dismay*

Sowwwwy....*laughs*

 

[Udog]

My metaphor for this thread:

Huggy wuggy was a hare
Huggy wuggy fought a bear
Huggy wuggy was very funny
Wa'nit he?

Ooey Gooey was a worm
A mighty worm was he
Sat upon the rail road tracks
The train he did not see.

OOOOOEY GOOOOOEY.

 

[PeaceBaby]

*suppresses giggly laughter*

^ we luv ya still (ENFP)

You too Udog. even with that disturbing worm visual.

 

[Little Linguist]

Ooey Gooey was a worm
A mighty worm was he
Sat upon the rail road tracks
The train he did not see.

OOOOOEY GOOOOOEY.

DUDEEEEEEEEE We should make a thread like that!!!!!!!!!!

 

[simulatedworld]

I am not sure how you have designated yourself as the arbiter of what is "reasonable and balanced".

I don't agree with the opinion of Victor or Tater on this matter; however, they do have the right to their POV and just because you don't happen to like it does not mean they can't express it.

Just as you have expressed yours.

Although this has just been a game to you and to Tater, I think.

Anyone is free to express any opinion he likes. I won't even whine to mods that my thread is being "derailed", because I think that's kind of dumb.

Way to assume a bunch of dumb bullshit that I didn't even say.

Exercising my right to criticize the posts of others doesn't imply that I don't think they have the right to be posting.

Try to work on that reading comprehension a bit, hm?

 

[ajblaise]

Well, yes he has. sim has made judgements throughout these recent threads on what statements are "reasonable" and what ones are "bat shit crazy".

ar⋅bi⋅ter  [ahr-bi-ter]
–noun
1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.

Who says it is for him to decide? Why should anyone have to tolerate sim playing judge and jury? Why all this wasted energy on Tater playing his game and sim jumping on the bandwagon?

There never was any serious intention in either thread to understand an opposing POV. Just to stir up trouble.

I haven't seen those instances with sim you're talking about, but ENTPs like to bullshit to people. So you can make fun of them when it happens, or argue with them, or ignore it.

The trick is to make it tongue-and-cheek, so if anyone calls you on it, you can claim it wasn't serious. Like this thread. I do it too sometimes, but not as much.

 

[simulatedworld]

Well, yes he has. sim has made judgements throughout these recent threads on what statements are "reasonable" and what ones are "bat shit crazy".

ar⋅bi⋅ter  [ahr-bi-ter]
–noun
1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.

Who says it is for him to decide? Why should anyone have to tolerate sim playing judge and jury? Why all this wasted energy on Tater playing his game and sim jumping on the bandwagon?

There never was any serious intention in either thread to understand an opposing POV. Just to stir up trouble.

Yes, and if I think your opinion is poorly informed then I have just as much right to point that out as you do to state your opinion in the first place.

Also, HINT: Telling someone that his opinion is reasonable/unreasonable obviously implies that I'm giving my opinion. Pointing out that my opinion isn't fact seems trivially unnecessary. I mean, duh...who else's opinion would it be?

Let me get this straight: You're simultaneously:

1) Ranting about how everyone has the right share his opinion, and
2) Asking why "anyone should have to tolerate" me sharing mine?

Gosh I dunno, maybe because I have just as much right to share my opinion as you do, you hypocritical dolt?

 

[PeaceBaby]

Sure sweetie.

But let's be reasonable - when you tell someone you think they are writing "bat shit crazy" stuff you are, by force of words, trying to shut them up, aren't you? Trying to discredit their POV? I am not sure why you can't use reasonable language instead of using words that have added baggage.

That's not so huge a leap that you can't see that sim.

It's got nothing to do with my reading comprehension - I think most people here get your point just fine. I know I do.

I only object to you playing arbiter, but I will not descend to name-calling as you have just done.

 

[simulatedworld]

Sure sweetie.

But let's be reasonable - when you tell someone you think they are writing "bat shit crazy" stuff you are, by force of words, trying to shut them up, aren't you? Trying to discredit their POV? I am not sure why you can't just use reasonable language instead of using words that have added baggage.

That's not so huge a leap that you can't see that sim.

It's got nothing to do with my reading comprehension - I think most people here get your point just fine. I know I do.

Trying to discredit someone's POV is not the same thing as trying to remove their right to express it.

I've stated on numerous occasions that I'm highly opposed to all forms of censorship and find the forum rather overmoderated.

I would never want to remove anyone's right to post what he wants to--and that includes my own right to tell them when I think their posts are stupid or poorly informed.

It also includes your right to complain about that--but let's get one thing straight. Nobody here is trying to remove anyone else's right to post his opinion. That's quite another thing from trying to discredit someone's position.

I only object to you playing arbiter, but I will not descend to name-calling as you have just done.

Don't worry; you've already descended lower by scolding me for supposedly trying to censor the posts of others (which I never actually did) and then suggesting that my posts should be censored.

 

[Kasper]

Some of the more noticeably irrelevant stuff has been moved downunder, some of the other irreverent stuff hasn't. I don't claim to be consistent.

You may continue talking about paranoid Fi.

 

[Ginkgo]

Well, yes he has. sim has made judgements throughout these recent threads on what statements are "reasonable" and what ones are "bat shit crazy".

ar⋅bi⋅ter  [ahr-bi-ter]
–noun
1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.

Who says it is for him to decide? Why should anyone have to tolerate sim playing judge and jury? Why all this wasted energy on Tater playing his game and sim jumping on the bandwagon?

There never was any serious intention in either thread to understand an opposing POV. Just to stir up trouble.

The Arbiter died, remember?

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfrOAqPdrrQ"]He Ded[/YOUTUBE]

 

[PeaceBaby]

Trying to discredit someone's POV is not the same thing as trying to remove their right to express it.

True. The distinction is important.

Nobody here is trying to remove anyone else's right to post his opinion. That's quite another thing from trying to discredit someone's position.

Don't worry; you've already descended lower by scolding me for supposedly trying to censor the posts of others and then suggesting that my posts should be censored.

I can understand your extrapolation from my initial expression of distaste (as acknowledged above) although I did not say your posts should be censored nor was that my intention. I do object to you playing judge and jury. But you've got as much a right as anyone to your POV.

I do object to being called a dolt. But then, that seems to be the weight you swing around here, and you know this is the kind of thing that has potential to hurt, so you use it. Nice try. But I'm a big girl, and you'll have to do a lot better than that to get to me.

TO ME, it seems that you try to shut someone up by using words designed to cultivate the very emotional reaction you claim to despise.

TO ME, that means you are actively trying to ensure people who don't share your POV shut the f*** up.

TO ME, that is an attempt to ensure another form of censorship.

 

[BlackCat]

Those elites were weak.

 

[Totenkindly]

He didn't and he's not. That's us INTPs.

Thank you for setting everyone straight, it saves me the trouble.

... although really, I thought Sim was making that comment as an act of kindness to uDog, who had sort of understated his own value on the forum. So I think the potshot criticism that followed for that particular comment (unless it was in mind of other things SimW has said) was uncalled for.

(I'm sure there are a lot of OTHER comments to bust on him for, though, if I know my Sim, lol.)

(... hmmmm... skimming the rest.... looks like Peace and Sim are into things... but I'm supposed to be finishing a job application, I think Trinity can handle this just fine!)

 

[PeaceBaby]

... although really, I thought Sim was making that comment as an act of kindness to uDog

How "kind" of sim to proclaim Udog reasonable. So good to know he's not lumped in with "Paranoid Fi doms".

I'm pretty sure Udog doesn't need that kind of validation or charity.

Since sim was making a thread to complain about two people, Mystic Tater and Victor, perhaps this whole debacle would have been best addressed in PM.

"Paranoid Fi doms" ... Tater was pulling a stunt and sim has admitted to playing along, knowing the OP had trolling written all over it. And this thread - what of value has been gained from it?

And here I am, trying to make sure all the kiddies play nice.