DiscussMormonism.com

Maksutov wrote:It's about egos now.

The funny thing is, it will always and only be about my ego. I'm not the one using the r-word. I'm not the one using the f-word. I'm not the one appealing to demonstrably false semantic smokescreens. I'm not the one repeatedly calling others "asswhipe." I'm not the one threatening to turn my comments "crappy." I'm not the one asserting an assumption as a fact and then insisting I never did it. And yet my refusal to kowtow to the dogpiling and the stereotyping here requires that all the responsibility for the bad attitudes and the bruised egos be hoisted on me. All the criticism for stubbornness and for egotism will be aimed exclusively at me. That doesn't raise a red flag for you?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
You know. At one point I thought you were just a dick with a thesaurus. Now I know you're just a brainwashed guy with a thesaurus. I almost feel bad for you because of your life's circumstances. Almost.

Good luck with your mental gymnastics; I give you 8/10 for the mental machinations thus far.

- Doc

None of this engages my concerns with your dishonesty, your demonstrable errors, and your petty rhetoric, it just uses silly stereotypes to try to insult me.

maklelan wrote:
I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy of the rhetoric here. It really wouldn't have been a big deal if so many people hadn't decided they were going to be dishonest and dogmatic about what is and isn't a fact in this issue.

Mak,

It's a big deal because social media (like this very thread) is making it a big deal.

Fence Sitter wrote:Mak,

It's a big deal because social media (like this very thread) is making it a big deal.

I'm referencing my concern with the assertions on this thread not being a big deal. If everyone hadn't immediately jumped on me with a bunch of completely false accusations and attempts to justify their unjustifiable assertions, this wouldn't have been all that controversial.

maklelan wrote:

Fence Sitter wrote:Mak,

It's a big deal because social media (like this very thread) is making it a big deal.

I'm referencing my concern with the assertions on this thread not being a big deal. If everyone hadn't immediately jumped on me with a bunch of completely false accusations and attempts to justify their unjustifiable assertions, this wouldn't have been all that controversial.

But by trying to respond to every single assertion, justifiable or not, you are also contributing to the very thing that is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I strongly suspect that Devin would just like this to all die down, by any means possible.

Fence Sitter wrote:But by trying to respond to every single assertion, justifiable or not, you are also contributing to the very thing that is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Yeah, I'll admit I'm contributing, because I'm not going to be shouted down, but everyone here is and will continue to treat me as if I am exclusively responsible. That kind of belligerent group think ought to raise some red flags.

maklelan wrote:

Fence Sitter wrote:But by trying to respond to every single assertion, justifiable or not, you are also contributing to the very thing that is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Yeah, I'll admit I'm contributing, because I'm not going to be shouted down, but everyone here is and will continue to treat me as if I am exclusively responsible. That kind of belligerent group think ought to raise some red flags.

#victimapologist

lostindc wrote:#victimapologist

Case in point.

maklelan wrote:

sock puppet wrote:If not for the word, he would not have been worried about the urls.

Yes, and if not for people who squat on domain names to take advantage of popular concepts and people, there would be no need to worry about the URLs.

Do you really believe he protected the urls because he thought that after his talk "ponderize" would become such a popular concept that cyber squatters would register those urls and use them for their own purposes? That's what business people do to protect their intellectual property. That behavior supports the theory that he was marketing "ponderize" during GC.

maklelan wrote:

lostindc wrote:#victimapologist

Case in point.

lol