Not where I've seen it. The embassy thing and the latest one with Purpledawn, you were wrong about what they meant and have yet to admit it.
Probably nobody at EvC has admitted to being wrong more than I have.
You also have more posts that almost everybody.
Of course, nobody believes that, because it doesn't fit in with the established popular conception of Crashfrog as an arrogant jerkoff, but it's true.
You're also just mean. But having admitted that you were wrong before doesn't mean that you're not arrogant and not a jerkoff, nor does it mean that for some situations you are unable to admit you were wrong.
Hell, we could have a YEC that admits it every time they've spelled a word wrong be making the same claims as you are and going all: "See, I do admit when I'm wrong a lot!"
The problem, here, is that you're taking Dronester and PurpleDawn at face-value when they say I've misinterpreted them, but its wrong to do so.
I don't think so. For one, its implied in the rules here. Too, all we have is the words they type and in this limited medium, you're just gonna have to take people at face-value.
The problem I have with you, and Rrhain and Holmes, is that you think that you can better understand what somebody meant from a few lines of text they've pecked out onto a forum better than they can know what they meant themselves.
Since you can't read minds, what you think you're capable of is impossible.
There's no reason to privilege their own explanations about their own words over anybody else's.
The reason is that they are the ones who wrote them and they are the only person that could possibly know what was going through their mind when they typed it and know what the really meant.
People say things that they later regret, and one way to try to avoid the embarrassment of having done so is to pretend that it's everybody else who made a mistake.
That's what I see you doing.
But why should we allow them to do that?
The medium is limited. You can't read minds. If they say that what you thought they meant is not really what they did mean, then you just have to accept that because there's no way for anybody else to know otherwise.
Especially since the forum guidelines disallow "any form of misrepresentation"?
You're also supposed to argue the position and not the person. When you start talking about what people really meant when they typed something, then you're arguing the person.
I've never refused to correct myself when I was actually wrong. Not even once.
You have with the embassy issue and with the latest one with Purpledawn. In these cases, we actually have the people who wrote the text telling you that what you thought they meant is not what they meant, and we also have other people uninolved in the discussion going back and rereading it all and see where you've made your mistake and how you misinterpreted it, and you still refuse to admit it.
You can' t get much more adamant about refusing to admit error than that.
Re: Infinite brickbats and targets tempt the tosser
The essential problem with the Cheers/Jeers system is that each member has an infinite supply.
But don't all of my votes for you get averaged into just one vote? I can't just Jeer at every message you've written and bring you down to a 1. All those count as one negetive mark to be calculated with all the other individuals who vote.
Re: Infinite brickbats and targets tempt the tosser
So...if I post one negative reaction to one of your posts, that's my eternal vote on you as a poster?
Yes, but not forever. I think there's a timeframe/postcount that it caculates back to... so after a while it'd be reset to zero (if you didn't react anymore). But if, within that timeframe, you gave me a positive vote, then they'd be calculated together.
quote:Some may already have noticed that the old message rating system of 1 to 5 has been replaced with a like/dislike system. Here are a few details:
On the "Like/Dislike" line, click on the maroon thumbs-up icon to indicate you like, approve or agree with a post. It will change to a lighter color to indicate you've voted. Click again to remove your vote.
On the "Like/Dislike" line, click on the maroon thumbs-down icon to indicate you dislike, disapprove or disagree with a post. It will change to a lighter color to indicate you've voted. Click again to remove your vote.
Each vote of approval causes a lighter thumbs-up icon to be displayed with the message. Messages may accumulate any number of thumbs-up votes.
Each vote of disapproval causes a lighter thumbs-down icon to be displayed with the message. Messages may accumulate any number of thumbs-down votes.
Hovering over the thumbs-up or thumbs-down icon will list the members who voted that way.
Old ratings greater than 3 became a thumbs-up rating.
Old ratings less than 3 became a thumbs-down rating.
Member ratings were reset. They will be recalculated the first time someone votes for one of your messages.
Your messages must receive votes from at least five different members before you are given a member rating.
Only your most recent messages count for your member rating, up to 90 days old. If you posted more than 500 messages over the past 90 days then only your most recent 500 messages are considered.
There is a new member rating equation. The total number of members with a net approval of your messages minus the total number of members with a net disapproval of your messages is divided by the number of messages receiving votes. Member rating values can range between plus and minus 100.
The second part of this feature, which should be released sometime next month, will connect the message ratings to an automated Post of the Month system. Comments about messages will be part of the system. On the webpage listing the top posts, comments in a blog comment sort of style will follow each message.
quote:But alas, you provide no evidence. You claim there is some evidence, would you care to share it with us so we can decide whether it is meaningful evidence or not.
CS and AE would say there is no need for you to provide evidence, but you say there is evidence so I would like to see it.
ABE I decided to put
"Wait for it" at the end of the post
But I see CS gave me a downgrade before I could come back and edit. Nice to see him living up to his potential.
I don't appreciate being mentioned personally, nor being lied about, nor being baited. I'm putting this here as a complaint, instead of telling Theo how much of a worthless bitch that cannot contribute to discussions that he is, as I have been instructed to do so.
You might be on to something, I didn't make the connection until I went back for a reread and noticed ALL THE CAPS. And it makes sense that he'd stop threating people since that's what he got arrested for.
Ah well, at least Pink Floyd is better than Depeche Mode!