Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718
Results 171 to 179 of 179
  1. #171
    martyr3810's Avatar
    martyr3810 is offline Banned Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An Unmarked Grave
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Bah, I was ignoring this thread because I thought the arguement was finished. Stealthmoose I find you to be trolling. Politely trolling, but trolling nonetheless. When you argue for arguements sake against one mod, its possible you just have a good point or truely believe your arguement. When you make snide comments and immediately choose another person to argue with (a mod as well nonetheless, stupid much?).. its pretty obvious you need to grow up (knowing when to shut up and take your losses is part of growing up).

    Accredited scientific findings my ass. Is that why every big scientific organization has ignored said findings? Would that be why only small, yet-to-make-a-name for themselves scientists are using it? Bred for your skill with analogies? Your intellect is more akin to a donkey than any thouroughbred. Your study was found to be profoundly flawed, acting like a sore loser only compounds your error of using the study to base your arguements off to begin with.

    To you I say, Vae Victo.

  2. #172
    I_am_StealthMoose is offline Banned Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Jakko - At first I thought you were just light-heartedly dissecting the idiom, which, given its nature, doesn’t take much work. However it would appear I was wrong; what exactly is your problem here? The scientists aren’t my scientists. They are just scientists, simple as that. Have you even read the damn paper? Aside from the fact that the paper does explicitly state they have no competing interests, what agenda would they have? A conspiracy against circumcision? Or more likely, they are just carrying out research to further the body of knowledge about how we bloody work. It’s not even like they’ve posted these findings to propagate some ulterior motive (which they could have easily done), they simply stated what they found. This is exasperating beyond belief. Yes, I am uncircumcised. But I would be just as happy with the paper had it found the opposite; that Langerhans do solely work to facilitate HIV-1 infection. In such a circumstance I would have no problem stating that circumcision may be more beneficial. However that is not what the paper happened to find and I thought it important to state as such. To be honest the insinuations by Martyr and you (particularly you being that you appear to have chipped in with the sole intention of being a dick) that I’ve some personal stake in their findings being proved right is plain insulting.

    Quote Originally Posted by martyr3810 View Post
    Bah, I was ignoring this thread because I thought the arguement was finished. Stealthmoose I find you to be trolling. Politely trolling, but trolling nonetheless. When you argue for arguements sake against one mod, its possible you just have a good point or truely believe your arguement. When you make snide comments and immediately choose another person to argue with (a mod as well nonetheless, stupid much?).. its pretty obvious you need to grow up (knowing when to shut up and take your losses is part of growing up).

    Accredited scientific findings my ass. Is that why every big scientific organization has ignored said findings? Would that be why only small, yet-to-make-a-name for themselves scientists are using it? Bred for your skill with analogies? Your intellect is more akin to a donkey than any thouroughbred. Your study was found to be profoundly flawed, acting like a sore loser only compounds your error of using the study to base your arguements off to begin with.

    To you I say, Vae Victo.
    I’ll be honest, I’m not really surprised you resorted to this (it wouldn’t be the first time you just banned someone for effectively countering your arguments would it? *cough flagrant abuse of power cough*), but first;

    Can please point me to where I’d made snide comments? Is it possible that once again you’ve misunderstood and interpreted the damn IDIOM as a bitchy comment? I gave you information that upset your contented view on an issue, I further went on to clarify any issues you had with the information, yet you obstinately refused to take it on board, for no other reason than your apparent arrogance; the idiom applies.

    Also I was unaware that Jakko and I were even arguing. Prior to seeing the last post he made (which incidentally I only saw after you banned me), as stated above, I thought he was just turning the idiom for the sake of it, seeing that the argument was over.

    They are accredited (see dictionary.com) because this paper meets the required standards (hence why it is published in Nature, which if you don’t recognise, is your fault, not theirs). Once again I will ask you seeing how you remained conspicuously bloody silent on the issue last time, just where the shit are you getting it from that they are some outcasts that are spurned by the rest of the community? Could it by any small change be the cavity nestled between your legs? Why I think so. You just saying something is so doesn’t, I am afraid to inform you, make it so. And once again God Damn; to dumb this down for you, ‘I was bred for my skills in analogies’ is an obviously self-deprecating remark as I couldn’t find a sufficient analogy to retort Jakko’s so I’d had to resort to simply stating it. You’re quite frustrating in your lack of understanding sometimes. And so either because you now think you’ve got your excuse, or you really misunderstood that simple comment quite badly, you resort to a subpar insult, touché [Protip: that last word was Sarcastic].

    Once again, but slower this time: It. Was. Not. Profoundly. Flawed. I explained to you why before, so just click back a few pages. Your last sentence in this paragraph makes no sense; my argument was simply that this study showed evidence contrary to the bandwagon belief. Not using it would not have been possible, see? I would also argue that I haven’t acted like a sore loser. If anything quite the contrary, I’ve been pretty relaxed about your persistent misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the study.

    To be completely honest with you dude, you’re an utter hypocrite. Say for example the roles had been reversed and it was you arguing from my position. That it had in fact been I who had made ungrounded assumptions, approached the findings of the study with total bias – and if you claim you didn’t you are a liar as well- and constructed absolute falsehoods, that you would have continued the argument in the reasoned manner I did, and not simply banned me from the off?

    Also here’s something; perhaps if you can’t respond to comments in general chit chat without getting your knickers in a twist and banning people who pose contrary opinions (and if you say that its rather that they are either rude or offensive, then again I call you a hypocrite because you are as aggressive and condescending as they come), then perhaps you shouldn’t post in there .

    I am well aware that the above aside, this second account shall more than likely see me (and with the above included, my IP) perma-banned, and this post deleted. However you didn’t really leave me much choice being that you so very conveniently, and gentlemanly [Protip: Sarcasm again !!], left your comment after I was unable to legitimately respond. So goodbye all.

    I think there was more (chiefly expounding on your childish character flaws), but this shall suffice.

    Qui habet aures audiendi audiat

    Enjoy your victor’s justice.

    Tl;dr – BAWWWWWWW, Martyr is a pigheaded hypocrite.

  3. #173
    AtrumIncendia is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,896

    Default

    Bandodging? Not a good idea...

  4. #174
    Volvogga's Avatar
    Volvogga is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    MI, USA
    Posts
    2,076

    Default

    I was told I should read this thread for reasons beyond the general concern of the populous here, however I'm just going to take a moment to clarify my generally laid back view of this entire shitball.

    First off, Ziggy ol buddy... you got trolled. Although, I'd wager to say not so much in the way that you may think. You had this... seriously, I know you knew it... and everyone who reads this with an unbiased opinion and half a fuck'n brain knows it. Then came a little quip from Moosey, followed by Jakko basically saying 'Ah haha, no... just stop...', to which followed a personal attack with a particularly heavy side of arrogance and general conceit (in my opinion of course, but seriously... look, just... look). Then hook, line, line and sinker, the barracuda is landed, it comes into the boat, and it bites your fuck'n dick off (appropriate analogy for this thread I think). Well no shit! Of course he did! So I think we can all agree that, while unusual, that was a pretty effective troll, leaving ol Ziggy a little more than technically in the right here.

    But then we have another account made, and a cry of 'Waaaaaaaa he bit my dick off!' (I'm milking that joke for all it's worth, get off my nuts), leaving everyone going 'aww hell, here it comes.' But no... no, we're nipping this right off, right now. This amount of potential shit is not worth the one week (yes... 7 days... that's it) ban that our dickless one received. So lets just take a, dare I say, analytical look at this argument here.

    We have a published study, and then counters to the published study. The argument in general encompasses on the basis of scientific study, that everyone learns within their fundamental schooling providing they can take their lessons and apply them together. Math and science are pretty much indispensable to one another, and thus if you can't put two and two together, your going to be pretty screwed in reading these arguments. When you can put two and two together, you then are a logical person, and that's what this comes down to... memorization versus logic.

    Ok, now that I think about it, statistics is a big argument here and upper level stats isn't generally taught all that well, at least in most US high schools, so here is Vol's quick run down of upper level stats:

    The old saying 'Liars can figure and figures can lie' is absolutely true. This class teaches you how to manipulate data and how to show it in the way that is what you are looking for. The amount that the class will piss you off is second only to 'imaginary numbers' (which has all of two or so real applications... one I think has to do with maximum structural integrity and the other is rate of electrical pulses through a wire or some shit, so basically if your not a master engineer, you probably won't ever use it). [/lesson]

    So we have some special method mentioned called one way ANOVA, which for those of you that care is a model for the F-Test and sometimes the T-Test to fit into having to do with squares and shit... personally, I don't care. To me that says 'this is how I manipulated the data', and in this case what it means is 'this is how I measured the response and called it what I want based on my standards of variability' to be frank. The point is that it's still a statistical method, and also, one that's best used for three or more outcomes. So you take your particular range of error and you test within it. Now logic and basic probability tells us that the more subjects you use with more variance, the more accurate the conclusion. Problem with this in statistics is it plays holly hell with your ranges and shit might fall out. Yes, I'm implying that the research was shooting for an outcome here, to be clear.

    Putting aside bias in the part of the research, what other reason would one use such a low number of subjects? Well that's one thing stats is good at is applying a small study to a big population to *predict* how it applies. Thing is the smaller the sample, the more error prone it is on the larger scale, so again... why? Well, research costs money. That's logical and everyone knows that. A large scale has a large scale price tag.

    So how does this fit together? Well it's baby steps... you get some cash, do some research, produce an outcome, and then show it off. Yes, this was reported in a journal... that does not mean that it should be taken on the same level as research on kidney transplants. This also does not mean it's not as good a read as the large scale kidney transplant paper either. It's thought provoking, and gets exposure. Exposure leads to people reading it, saying 'I like where this is going... suits my arguments', and then going to the researchers and saying 'here's a couple a million bucks, you did this right on the small scale, now do it right on the large scale so that other scientists can't shoot holes in the theory all day long, let alone some dude on an internet forum.' And that's what it's all about folks... honestly, you think this is 100% about some random cell? Hell no! Come on, think about it... so what if that cell does prevent HIV? What are you going to do with it? Are you going to grow it somehow and harvest it to put in lube? Make a new HIV-preventing fuck paste? Shit please.

    If you question this, you may take it from a scientist's mouth. I'm sure many of you have heard about the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' about global warming, however not nearly as many have heard of the counter program 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. If you can, go check that out, along with 'An Inconvenient Truth' if you haven't seen it. It's very interesting seeing them one after the other, and allows you to make a much better decision for yourself on the issue. Err... anyway, point I was getting at is in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' a scientists states that during the 90s, I believe, if you wanted funding for your research, you just related it to global warming somehow. I believe the example he used was to the effect of, and I don't directly quote here, 'if you wanted to research frog populations, when you made your pitch, you said that you would also show how the population fluctuations relate to and show correlation to a rise in temperatures do to global warming.' It's all politics, everything is. ><

    So while it may not have been apparent to our dickless one, I think we can all look back on this and see that it was quite the uphill battle for him to try to win such a debate. In the end, he attempted to gracefully bow out by going from this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Moosey
    So anyway, I'm going to say it again because it seeems like it might have gone overlooked; quite recent (as of May 2007 I think) evidence has shown the cells contained within the foreskin (Langerhans) to play active role in preventing HIV transmission, by sequestering and degrading the virus. This implies that perhaps circumcision is actually exacerbating the problem.
    to this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Moosey
    *some BS about possible gene therapy*
    Eitherway, when you get down to it, we both agree that this study needs to be repeated and furthered.
    So that, along with the first horse statement, is an agreement to disagree... even though it's a bit snoddy to use the old horse analogy. Now when called on such snoddy remarks, there's a bigger slight in the form of 'your an stubborn/pigheaded/idiotic/etc person for not listening to said research' *after* ending the argument... well those be fight'n words, sons.

    There is my thinking, about the previous debate. So when I read it, and I see several pages ignoring what to me is basic logic in favor of specifics from an advertisement for 'scientific guns for hire', I am not at all surprised to see such a slight made. A childish stubborn defense followed by a childish quip when the planks to stand on become few and far between.

    Of course the great thing about that approach is you get to act like the victim when you are called to take responsibility for your actions. Not only that, but you can say that the nature of the section deems nothing said should be taken seriously, even in the context of a serious debate, to further distance yourself from any responsibility. Then you state you don't really care to come out looking like a martyr (*snicker*) as opposed to the sore loser you are.

    The definition of idiom is that a group of words has meaning seemingly unrelated, and when you twist it so bluntly, the intentions behind become even more apparent. Also, Chit Chat (or Cest-pit Corner as I refer to it now-a-days) was once a place where you posted on topic, in a well thought out manner (or at least you had to be extremely funny), or you were chastised. The mindset of posting for the sake of posting, and arguing with no real evidence to back it up just to see what the responses would be like would not have flown. They'd have been considered what they are... and that is spam and/or trolling. Fortunately for most of you, those more benevolent than I sought to change that. That said, don't anyone ever criticize someone else for wanting to discuss a topic seriously here. That is disrespectful as all hell to your peers.

    That all said, if anyone really, truly, deep down in their soul feels that they absolutely, positively, must post now, I want you to reeeeaaaally analyze everything... reeeeaaaally think it through... and put up a detailed, thoughtful, specific post with accreditations to ideas not your own and explanations of those that belong to you. If you, however, have something to say to me, then don't post... just PM me. I don't want to see a whole flurry of more crap because everyone wants to render their opinion of what I've said. If you have something to say to me, then say it to me.

    As for our dickless one, I'm taking out the duplicate account, and I hold you, Moosey, to your words... goodbye.
    Vol~

    thanks to Silverwmoon!

  5. #175
    martyr3810's Avatar
    martyr3810 is offline Banned Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An Unmarked Grave
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    What Vol says. On top of that, any of you giving me this whole "Its not your section, wtf gtfo we can spam if we want to kinda crap..."

    Moderator Rules:

    4. Moderators should not moderate another moderator's sub-forum, except when the section's mod has asked them to do so, does not mind, or if it is absolutely necessary (see: exceptions to rule 4).

    Exceptions to rule 4:
    Notable exceptions where a mod may and should ban a member in a section not of their own, include:
    -- a member who is trolling (i.e. openly and deliberately abusing/accusing another member);
    -- a member who is actively creating a disturbance;
    -- a member using an alternate account (including ban dodgers).

    (There are other exceptions but those more than validate any actions taken). I allowed the trolling as long as I was the target but as soon as it moved onto other members (Jakko/anyone else that joined the thread apparently). It comes within other mods purview - and of course any mod in this forum that feels otherwise may appeal the ban, I have made no secret of it.

    So yeah, you can spam all you want to - but its your ass if you make a scene or are rude or ban dodge to make a reply. (And some of you have been pushing the 'rude' thing, just for the record). You all can be as complacent as you want because the mods in this particular subforum are the most lenient ones in the entire forum... but don't be surprised if - not when - your lack of common courtesy and common sense get you a kick in the ass.

    I could care less about Moose. Just one in a long line or people I won't miss here on the forums. You break the rules and/or are disrespectful to your fellow members and mods, its your ass, end of story.

    That all said, if anyone really, truly, deep down in their soul feels that they absolutely, positively, must post now, I want you to reeeeaaaally analyze everything... reeeeaaaally think it through... and put up a detailed, thoughtful, specific post with accreditations to ideas not your own and explanations of those that belong to you. If you, however, have something to say to me, then don't post... just PM me. I don't want to see a whole flurry of more crap because everyone wants to render their opinion of what I've said. If you have something to say to me, then say it to me.
    Seconded. (As in, you have something to say about my posts/actions say it to me :P) The fact that someone felt the need to bring this to Vol's attention as a fellow mod is pretty sad in the first place.

  6. #176
    pulp_chicken is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    473

    Default

    ^ Well, this thread lost track quite a while ago (penis in ketchup bottle > discussion about circumsation) And you took part of it. Reading thru Stealth Moose wasn't the only troll. It's nice that you explain why you banned him, because it looks very much like you lost the discussion and couldn'T handle that. If you misuse your authority as a mod, you shouldn't be a mod anymore. It's obvious that you devalue posters and are unfair to those who disagree with you.
    Your not the only mod of ST that isn't balanced enough to cope with critizism, and that is one weakness of this forum. I don't know any other forum that has so many mods with "god complex syndrom".
    Because of that evident case that you ban people because your feelings get hurt, you should reflect about your own misjudgement. You could ignore trollers or just shut down this thread, but you shouldn't misuse your power as a mod because "you can".

  7. #177
    martyr3810's Avatar
    martyr3810 is offline Banned Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An Unmarked Grave
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Oh boy. Well, wave anyway, should've bothered to read Vol's OR my post. Parts of interest for those that don't feel like reading everything above...

    That all said, if anyone really, truly, deep down in their soul feels that they absolutely, positively, must post now, I want you to reeeeaaaally analyze everything... reeeeaaaally think it through... and put up a detailed, thoughtful, specific post with accreditations to ideas not your own and explanations of those that belong to you. If you, however, have something to say to me, then don't post... just PM me. I don't want to see a whole flurry of more crap because everyone wants to render their opinion of what I've said. If you have something to say to me, then say it to me.
    That all said, if anyone really, truly, deep down in their soul feels that they absolutely, positively, must post now, I want you to reeeeaaaally analyze everything... reeeeaaaally think it through... and put up a detailed, thoughtful, specific post with accreditations to ideas not your own and explanations of those that belong to you. If you, however, have something to say to me, then don't post... just PM me. I don't want to see a whole flurry of more crap because everyone wants to render their opinion of what I've said. If you have something to say to me, then say it to me.
    Seconded. (As in, you have something to say about my posts/actions say it to me :P) The fact that someone felt the need to bring this to Vol's attention as a fellow mod is pretty sad in the first place.
    So yeah, you can spam all you want to - but its your ass if you make a scene or are rude or ban dodge to make a reply. (And some of you have been pushing the 'rude' thing, just for the record).
    Just one in a long line or people I won't miss here on the forums. You break the rules and/or are disrespectful to your fellow members and mods, its your ass, end of story.

  8. #178
    cpr's Avatar
    cpr
    cpr is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,952

    Default

    Wow, I can't believe I let this argument go for this long in "my own backyard" for so long.

    Usually I just read the first post, deem it worthy to stay, and then trust the regulars that it will still be in good hands. Garrrr.

    (cpr is not happy about the outcome of this event. It just makes me wonder why the fuck I stay on ST for so long...)

  9. #179
    martyr3810's Avatar
    martyr3810 is offline Banned Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An Unmarked Grave
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    You never bother reading half the shit that gets posted anyway CPR... you remember the whole thing with you defending people who you took their word when they said they never insulted Jyuu? And I had to post screenshots? Your not allowed to get bitter when your absentee.

 

 
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162