Quasi philosophic scrubs who ruin the fun...

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

What has happened to the quality of posters here on a2k?

Nothing much. Still the same collection of nitwits.

Cyracuz wrote:

One particular scrub even went so far as to put me on ignore after the fourth or fifth time I asked him to give an argumentation for his claims. Fair enough, but then he doesn't have the decency to stay away from threads I make.

Talking about NoOne phil? I already pointed out that he is spouting gibberish. But it was not much worse than the type of gibberish that non-dualists such as you have spouted on this forum in the past. It is, however, always entertaining to see a non-dualist baffled by someone else's arrant nonsense for a change. Shoe, meet other foot.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe
The one who put me on ignore wasn't noone phil. It was Fil Alberquerk, another one of those sprouting gibberish. And that isn't an opinion I had before this happened. It is an opinion I have come to embrace after repeatedly asking him to validate his statements, with every request for clarification promptly ignored.

You will never see me do that, and even though you may not agree with alot of what I post, you cannot claim that I use underhanded tactics and refuse to acknowledge the objections of other posters. That would undermine my reasons to post in the first place.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I spotted the babbling idiots in that thread. But where are those with superior intellectual capacity? There isn't a single person in that thread that has, as of now, given a clearly stated, reasonable explanation of why and how my ideas are incorrect. There are some who have made interesting comments, asked for clarifications and all in all helped make the thread interesting. But I do not believe that someone picking up the thread now will bother to sift those posts from all the meaningless arguing going in in there...

Ok, let me spell it for you.

You have an extremely suppressed rationallity, thus you can't recognize anything other that yay sayers as "intelligent".

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

Thank you Hex, for giving a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your personal opinion along with a "diagnose" of me without any explanation of why your opinion is worth the time it takes to write it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Thank you Hex, for giving a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your personal opinion along with a "diagnose" of me without any explanation of why your opinion is worth the time it takes to write it.

Thanks for confirming my diagnose.

Just reading the OP of "Truth is a choice", should be blatant evidence of my diagnose, or any of your other topics for that matter.

2 Replies

@HexHammer,

If this is confirmation to you, I am not overly worried if you question my intellect.

0 Replies

It would help if Hex had even a rudimentary command of English, and could, for example, distinguish between a noun and a verb form. However, based on what he writes which i have been able to decipher, i suspect that he'd still post drivel.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

Quote:

Just reading the OP of "Truth is a choice", should be blatant evidence of my diagnose, or any of your other topics for that matter.

See here.. more of the same crap. If you think that the statement expressed in the OP of that thread is incorrect, please give your argumentation for why you think so. Otherwise you are just a scrub, and your behaviour makes it impossible to engage in discussion with you, since you sit there like judge looking down, never offering your own ideas, just trying to shoot your mouth off at people you do not understand.

I think an ignore function has nothing to do on a philosophy forum, but now that there is such a function, I might just have to use it...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Joe
The one who put me on ignore wasn't noone phil. It was Fil Alberquerk, another one of those sprouting gibberish.

Yeah, he's another one.

Cyracuz wrote:

You will never see me do that, and even though you may not agree with alot of what I post, you cannot claim that I use underhanded tactics and refuse to acknowledge the objections of other posters. That would undermine my reasons to post in the first place.

I agree, you're pretty reasonable for someone who is consistently wrong.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Thank you.
It is because I am not here to confirm to myself how god-like my own intellect is. I am here to post ideas that I am not sure can hold their own, in the hopes that other intelligent people can have a crack at them, sharing insights I would otherwise be without. Some of the time, at least.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

What has happened to the quality of posters here on a2k?

Used to be you could post an idea, and people would make intelligent objections, creative suggestions and interesting conversation.

Now all I encounter are people out to validate their own sense of being intelligent and philosophic. They think a discussion is a battle. It is easy to spot them. They will misunderstand your statements, expand on the misunderstanding and proceed to argue against words they put in your mouth, as if they were your words.

One particular scrub even went so far as to put me on ignore after the fourth or fifth time I asked him to give an argumentation for his claims. Fair enough, but then he doesn't have the decency to stay away from threads I make.

Is this what a2k has become? If so my years of participation have come to an end.

A final question: If you are not prepared to entertain notions that may not be true, for the sake of thought experiments, just what the h... are you doing on a philosophy forum?

If you wish to see an example of what I am talking about, check out the thread named "Truth is a choice".

Yea it happens on any forum. Nothing really new.

I remember talking to Hex about a method I posted on correct philosophizing. Not a whole lot to be desired from the gentleman.

But I am not here to complain but simply to say that nothing really changes on these forums and youll get people who only talk drivel while spinnning metaphysicals webs in the air to stir an empty profoundity. Talk to people who are actually worth your time. To name a few: Ken, Owen, Fresco, Joe, and yours truly. Oh yea and anyone else I did not mention who you enjoy talking to (I am not on the forum a lot so I cannot remember a good number of people.)

To quote Aldo Raine, "Arrividerci".

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Re your "non-dualists sprouting gibberish" comment, I've just watched an hour long BBC TV programme called "The Atom: 3. The Illusion of Reality" one of several philosophical issues being "the measurement problem" in physics. This refers to the non-separability of the observer from the observed and is the "one way to strike fear into the eyes of physicists" (said the Oxford Prof Al-Khalili). Its nice to know that some of our "gibberish" has been taken on board by the BBC !

(You can try downloading this but there may be a block on non UK requests)
http://www.torrentz.com/6648a09095f9e4058653e210b264e4505b531860

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta's last bit of nonsense was that misspelled words rendered text incomprehensible.

Now, in this, his latest bit of nonsensical, he suggests that using a difference part of speech, apparently once be enough, makes a person's write indecipherable.

Odd that Cyracus seemed to be able to understand and engage Hex. I too, read and understood his posts.

Pretty damn lame, Setanta, coming from a guy who couldn't explain his way out of a wet paper bag in the Pet Peeves language thread.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

What has happened to the quality of posters here on a2k?

I always find the posts here abyssal.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

This refers to the non-separability of the observer from the observed and is the "one way to strike fear into the eyes of physicists" (said the Oxford Prof Al-Khalili).

Given that the separability of the observer from the observed is one of the fundamental assumptions of the "measurement problem" (including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), I can't imagine why the non-separability of the observed from the observer would strike fear into the eyes of physicists. Amusement, maybe, but not fear.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNmwuIUQ0qY

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

non-dualists such as you

...without trying too hard to draw upon other sympathetic sources on this forum, i have to say that it's odd, and mildly disappointing (of course), to read "non-dualistic" used as a pejorative 100 years after William James' death. As if pluralism were a new, or untested, idea...nice way to pigeon-hole one's detractors, i suppose...well done.

2 Replies

@Razzleg,

Joe is a highly skilled in traditional rhetoric. Alas these skills are inappropriate in areas in which "traditional logic" doesn't apply, which tends to make him adopt the posture of dismissing such areas. He has agreed however (elsewhere) to temper such posturing with comments similar to "at some levels things are weird", so perhaps we should give him a little lee-way with respect to some of his one-liners.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Thanks, Beth.
And does anyone know if the proposed external (to A2K) Philosophy Forum site (whatever it might be called) actually got off the ground?
(I'm not interested in site details, address, etc .. just interested to know if it actually happened & if the philosophy folk who appear to have vanished from this site moved on to there.)

(please excuse the interruption to your discussion.)

2 Replies

@msolga,

Would that they had vanished from the site. There's still a lot of them around. Given that most posted idiotic drivel, there are only two or three whose absence one might genuinely regret.

2 Replies

Quasi philosophic scrubs who ruin the fun...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know