Matthew, BigKaboom2 and friends:An NLSC Love Story

Discussion of what! Why you edited a post? lmao you can't be serious. Nobody cares why you edited your post. Get over it.

I'm just going to requote the entire thing for you since you seem to be unaware of its existence at this point. I'm not asking you to discuss the editing of my post; I'm asking you to discuss the points I brought up here before you successfully sidetracked the conversation to focus on my posting style instead of my arguments:

So, thick, delusional, brainwashed, goon, aren't to be taken as insults? Oh, wait, they aren't insults if true right?

They shouldn't be. If you think they are offensive, especially if they are the truth, maybe that person should do something to address that problem rather then get offended.

Holy cow. What constitutes an insult to you? I think you define a lot of words much differently than I do.

Right. So when I go after you its insane. You go after anybody who doesn't back up their opinions. Does that not make you more insane? Of course not! Because you're Ben Bailey...

Do you think ranting about people is a sufficient way of addressing their arguments? It doesn't seem like you differentiate between criticizing individuals and criticizing their opinions.

Predictions are not respectable opinions, they're simply pointless shots in the dark, especially when people don't even explain why they actually made the prediction. If people do explain why, and the reasoning is in some way faulty, I don't see why someone has to post their own inane prediction in order to question someone about their reasoning.

As I said before, you whinged and whined about me questioning Ben's stats saying "well I dont see you offering an alternative", but when it comes to Ben's criticism of other people's predictions, thats fair game to you even though Ben refused to offer his own prediction.

If you can't see the double standard then I'm sorry, you are thick.

Did you read the post you're responding to here? You didn't even address it; you simply reposted what I responded to as if it's a new argument. I explained exactly why it isn't a "double standard".

I already responded to that. Get over it.

Quote it for me then. I don't see it.

This thread should be renamed.
"The Matthew vs BigKaboom2 thread"

Stop it gay guys.

I like the title of this thread.
It gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

To the mods and those who request that this be locked, don't lock this thread yet, it's been a long time since I've seen a "heated discussion". I want to see this come to an acceptable end rather than be locked without having a clear conclusion or end of the arguments presented by the arguing parties.

Cool beans to the mod who made the title. Warm and fuzzy (hugs self).

Is it not against the forum rules to call people "gay" as an insult either? Seems like something that should be acted upon to me, but of course I've already been cautioned once for "backseat moderating" in the past.

I don't understand why this was split from the other topic. The first page is totally relevant to it and the rest is a result of Matthew's ad hominem hell and refusal to discuss the actual topic as you can see at the top of the second page.

My intention was to get people to hopefully post on-topic instead of criticizing forum members, and this being split has pretty much ruined that, as on-topic posting in here is now an undesirable goal.

For someone that is aware of being warned for armchair moderating, you pretty much still do it.

Backseat moderating, hehe.

Warned for backseat moderating not armchair moderating. Get your facts straight Jackal. An armchair is different from a backseat. Sheesh.

Don't worry about MANIPON, he's already gone. Besides, you could have just clicked the report post icon.

The topic was split early because it gradually moved off topic. I didn't want the new topic to be just a spawning of arguments. I wanted readers to see how it got there. It was alot easier to keep people on topic by splitting the off topic discussion. You can still post about the MVP award in the other thread.

Backseat moderating, hehe.

Great, another semantics argument. Maybe just read the post and respond to it normally instead of being taken aback when I fail to use the term you would use to describe something? Backseat and armchair mean exactly the same thing in that context; it's really not worth picking apart. Jackal's post is precisely what I was hoping to avoid, but suddenly it's on-topic to childishly insult me and ignore my post.

This thread will likely now fill up with the usual suspects who believe that "debating" and "fighting" are one and the same. In fact, there are only three or four NLSC members I can think of that I'm sure know the difference...

I used to love playing Street Debater 2 on my SNES...

Wait, was that what it was called? Ah, no matter. I don't know the difference.

Is it not against the forum rules to call people "gay" as an insult either? Seems like something that should be acted upon to me, but of course I've already been cautioned once for "backseat moderating" in the past.

I don't understand why this was split from the other topic. The first page is totally relevant to it and the rest is a result of Matthew's ad hominem hell and refusal to discuss the actual topic as you can see at the top of the second page.

My intention was to get people to hopefully post on-topic instead of criticizing forum members, and this being split has pretty much ruined that, as on-topic posting in here is now an undesirable goal.

Haha!! "I WAS JUST TRYING TO HELP! SCREW YOU GUYS!"

Great, another semantics argument. Maybe just read the post and respond to it normally instead of being taken aback when I fail to use the term you would use to describe something? Backseat and armchair mean exactly the same thing in that context; it's really not worth picking apart. Jackal's post is precisely what I was hoping to avoid, but suddenly it's on-topic to childishly insult me and ignore my post.

lol.. this is too funny. Nobody picked anything apart, they just laughed at you. ZOMG INSULT!

I think this may have run its course now that you've admitted you don't read posts/threads before replying to them, and that you don't see a difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing the person who made the argument.

I still don't understand what purpose these sarcasm-laden posts are intended to serve. I assure you that I don't feel bad about myself when you call me an idiot, so you can probably safely drop that tactic as well, as it isn't proving itself useful for the goal I perceive you trying to work toward.

EDIT: And when are you going to quote your answer to that post? I don't believe it exists.

I used to love playing Street Debater 2 on my SNES...

I'm a masterdebater.

Is Master Bates a hidden boss character?

I think this may have run its course now that you've admitted you don't read posts/threads before replying to them, and that you don't see a difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing the person who made the argument.

I still don't understand what purpose these sarcasm-laden posts are intended to serve. I assure you that I don't feel bad about myself when you call me an idiot, so you can probably safely drop that tactic as well, as it isn't proving itself useful for the goal I perceive you trying to work toward.

EDIT: And when are you going to quote your answer to that post? I don't believe it exists.

I've never seen someone cry like you do on a message forum.

Great, another semantics argument. Maybe just read the post and respond to it normally instead of being taken aback when I fail to use the term you would use to describe something? Backseat and armchair mean exactly the same thing in that context; it's really not worth picking apart. Jackal's post is precisely what I was hoping to avoid, but suddenly it's on-topic to childishly insult me and ignore my post.

Damn, do you whine like a bitch all the time or is it just something you do part-time?

Semantics argument? The fuck did I say you should use "armchair" instead of "backseat"? You were armchair moderating, again...and I pointed that out. Then proceeded to laugh at your moronic usage of the whole term.

You respond by a whiney post about boo fucking hoo, why do you make fun of my "backseat moderating", you aren't being on topic, I was hoping to avoid a post like that yada yada yada. I didn't pick apart anything, I just told you you were arm chair moderating in a post where you said you've been warned for it before. Learn. To. Read.

You got your panties in a bunch because some other people besides myself laughed at you. It wasn't off topic (???), you just twisted it that way so that you seemed like you were "on topic".

Nobody insulted you, nobody ignored your post. Stop playing the victim. It's age old and not amusing.

In fact, there are only three or four NLSC members I can think of that I'm sure know the difference...

Well congratulations to you and those four members. You may now proceed to go have yourself a merry little gangbang with them.

I've never seen someone cry like you do on a message forum.

That's great. If you won't read or respond to the post in question (instead claiming that you already did when you clearly did not), I guess there's nothing left to do here.

Damn, do you whine like a bitch all the time or is it just something you do part-time?

All the time. I find it bothersome when people think they're too good to read other people's posts before posting in a topic, and then it just becomes a long string of mindless blog entries instead of a discussion.

Semantics argument? The fuck did I say you should use "armchair" instead of "backseat"? You were armchair moderating, again...and I pointed that out. Then proceeded to laugh at your moronic usage of the whole term.

I already responded to this in the post you quoted - did you even read it? Good to know I'm a "moron"; there's a solid debate tactic right there.

You respond by a whiney post about boo fucking hoo, why do you make fun of my "backseat moderating", you aren't being on topic, I was hoping to avoid a post like that yada yada yada. I didn't pick apart anything, I just told you you were arm chair moderating in a post where you said you've been warned for it before. Learn. To. Read.

I don't understand where people who I point out are not reading posts get the idea to accuse me of not knowing how to read. It's like you're just taking my argument and trying to fling it back in my face. Let's take a look at what transpired here:

Seems like something that should be acted upon to me, but of course I've already been cautioned once for "backseat moderating" in the past.

or someone that is aware of being warned for armchair moderating, you pretty much still do it.

Does it sound like I care about people warning me for "armchair moderating"? Is that the main point of the post to you? I was clearly looking to point out that MANIPON was trolling the thread, and then make a comment about the thread split. You responded to none of this - instead choosing to isolate a subordinate clause that was totally irrelevant to the discussion. I didn't expect anything more, but it is what it is.

You got your panties in a bunch because some other people besides myself laughed at you. It wasn't off topic (???), you just twisted it that way so that you seemed like you were "on topic".

I already addressed this too.

...suddenly it's on-topic to childishly insult me and ignore my post.

I never said your post was off-topic. I said that the moderators' decision to split the thread made such posts on-topic where they previously where not, therefore you were arguing against a straw man.

Nobody insulted you, nobody ignored your post. Stop playing the victim. It's age old and not amusing.

The first two are completely incorrect, as Matthew hasn't yet responded to the post and has admitted to not reading my posts at all in certain situations. If you'd like to take a poll, that can be arranged - but I believe "idiot" "goon" and "delusional" are commonly held as insults.

Well congratulations to you and those four members. You may now proceed to go have yourself a merry little gangbang with them.

Do you understand that responding to my posts by calling me "whiney" (sic) is not a valid counter-argument?

I already responded to this in the post you quoted - did you even read it? Good to know I'm a "moron"; there's a solid debate tactic right there.

There you go insulting yourself again, playing the victim to the T. You're calling yourself a moron. I said your usage of the term was moronic. Learn to spot the difference.

Does it sound like I care about people warning me for "armchair moderating"? Is that the main point of the post to you? I was clearly looking to point out that MANIPON was trolling the thread, and then make a comment about the thread split. You responded to none of this - instead choosing to isolate a subordinate clause that was totally irrelevant to the discussion. I didn't expect anything more, but it is what it is.

Wait, you're telling me what I can, and can't respond to? I didn't feel the need to comment about you rambling about the MANIPON's trolling nor about the thread being split. I chose to respond to you being aware of armchair moderating...then proceeding to do it again.

So in short, I don't really give a shit what you "care" about, I'm free to choose what I respond to...given you weren't even remotely on topic as it is.

...suddenly it's on-topic to childishly insult me and ignore my post.

Again, I don't see how this is in relation to my post directed towards you. In my initial post, I didn't "childishly insult you" nor did I ignore your post. How can you be so dense to hammer away and use this argument when I clearly did neither of the two. I didn't ignore your post, I didn't insult you. I laughed at you. There's a difference.

I never said your post was off-topic. I said that the moderators' decision to split the thread made such posts on-topic where they previously where not, therefore you were arguing against a straw man.

In other words, you were telling the moderators what to do. Again. (That's what my initial post was all about. Then I laughed at you. That's where my involvement ended.)

The first two are completely incorrect, as Matthew hasn't yet responded to the post and has admitted to not reading my posts at all in certain situations. If you'd like to take a poll, that can be arranged - but I believe "idiot" "goon" and "delusional" are commonly held as insults.

How am I supposed to smell your post about being "ignored" and "insulted" was directed towards Matthew when the rest of the post, you've directly used my username in your response?

Do you understand that responding to my posts by calling me "whiney" (sic) is not a valid counter-argument?

I understand that I called you a whining little bitch not as an argument, I understand that you just are a whining little bitch. See, that's not an argument, it's written in a pretty much "matter of fact" fashion. You aren't giving any arguments, you're just jumping to your own conclusions and then get upset when I don't "counter-argue" you in your own delusions. You could have a fight with a wall.

Now that I've insulted you, I'll proceed to ignore you. I'm getting too old to be clacking away at the keyboard with dense cunts such as yourself who feel the world is out to get them.

There you go insulting yourself again, playing the victim to the T. You're calling yourself a moron. I said your usage of the term was moronic. Learn to spot the difference.

I don't believe I've insulted myself in the past, nor did I do so there. It was sarcasm intended to point out the childish nature of ignoring my post just to call me moronic.

Wait, you're telling me what I can, and can't respond to? I didn't feel the need to comment about you rambling about the MANIPON's trolling nor about the thread being split. I chose to respond to you being aware of armchair moderating...then proceeding to do it again.

So in short, I don't really give a shit what you "care" about, I'm free to choose what I respond to...given you weren't even remotely on topic as it is.

No, I never told you what you can and can't respond to - that's a straw man as well. If you use this sort of backwards logic, then by stating that "backseat moderating" is an illegitimate term (which it isn't; have you ever heard of a "backseat driver" before?), you were somehow telling me I'm not allowed to post "backseat moderator." I don't believe this was the case and you probably don't either, so why apply it to another situation in exactly the same way?

Again, I don't see how this is in relation to my post directed towards you. In my initial post, I didn't "childishly insult you" nor did I ignore your post. How can you be so dense to hammer away and use this argument when I clearly did neither of the two. I didn't ignore your post, I didn't insult you. I laughed at you. There's a difference.

If people don't respond to the main point of my post and instead pick something out and use it to score a pointless cheap shot, I'll usually classify that as ignorance and trolling. Such a post obviously leads into a petty semantics argument which is largely tangential to the original discussion, and is far from necessary.

In other words, you were telling the moderators what to do. Again. (That's what my initial post was all about. Then I laughed at you. That's where my involvement ended.)

I don't think that's an accurate rewording of what I said at all. However, I really don't see much legitimacy in moderator warnings when several of them haven't posted on the forum in months much less moderated anything, and several others spam memes and various useless posts all over the forum while neglecting to take care of something as simple as a double post or a thread with a bank account number in it. "Armchair moderating" is very low on my list of concerns.

How am I supposed to smell your post about being "ignored" and "insulted" was directed towards Matthew when the rest of the post, you've directly used my username in your response?

Huh? When you said "Nobody insulted you, nobody ignored your post," I was supposed to interpret that as "I never insulted you, I never ignored your post"?

I understand that I called you a whining little bitch not as an argument, I understand that you just are a whining little bitch. See, that's not an argument, it's written in a pretty much "matter of fact" fashion. You aren't giving any arguments, you're just jumping to your own conclusions and then get upset when I don't "counter-argue" you in your own delusions. You could have a fight with a wall.

Now that I've insulted you, I'll proceed to ignore you. I'm getting too old to be clacking away at the keyboard with dense cunts such as yourself who feel the world is out to get them.

This is exactly the problem. Both you and Matthew feel that insults are fact rather than opinion, but neither of you can explain why you think this is true, and I certainly don't agree. You think by calling me an "idiot" you're using facts to dispute my argument, but in reality it's nothing more than argumentum ad hominem.

Don't you guys know? Every time people argue on a messageboard, an angel gets bitten by a mosquito, infected by west nile, develops incurable encephalitis, suffers a terrible second "angel" death, and then has their winged corpse raped by 20 powerfully thrusting ogres with penises made of spiked flaming poisonous biting cobras taking steroids for added intensity.

So cut it out.

Or you could just offer them to do some "backseat moderating" with you.

Don't laugh at him, it's off topic.

Just stop already.