An Eye for an Eye...

[otters~1]

Well, maybe you should have put it forward in a way that wasn't completely retarded.

Then talk to the "retards" over at Wikipedia...I was quoting them.

And yes, I know didn't put it in quotation marks. Oh dear, world-ending mistake.

When someone tells you that you're digging yourself a hole, why do you choose to make it deeper?

I think these words sort of apply to =w= too ... I thought most of us stopped using the "Wikipedia can be edited by anybody" argument in middle school.

[SlappyMcGee]

I think these words sort of apply to =w= too ... I thought most of us stopped using the "Wikipedia can be edited by anybody" argument in middle school.

I'm interested to hear why you think that this argument is invalid. People stop using it in middle school because people generally stop holding Wikipedia to be true in middle school.

Moreover, I am arguing that that fucking DICKPISS paragraph is poorly written. Are you arguing that because it came from Wikipedia, it could not be poorly written? Because that, my friend, is incredibly foolish.

[Mute Monk]

I think these words sort of apply to =w= too ... I thought most of us stopped using the "Wikipedia can be edited by anybody" argument in middle school.

I'm interested to hear why you think that this argument is invalid. People stop using it in middle school because people generally stop holding Wikipedia to be true in middle school.

Moreover, I am arguing that that fucking DICKPISS paragraph is poorly written. Are you arguing that because it came from Wikipedia, it could not be poorly written? Because that, my friend, is incredibly foolish.

No, I'm arguing that because it came from Wikipedia, it's not my fault that it's poorly written.

And yes, I am too lazy to re-word it.

[otters~1]

I think these words sort of apply to =w= too ... I thought most of us stopped using the "Wikipedia can be edited by anybody" argument in middle school.

I'm interested to hear why you think that this argument is invalid. People stop using it in middle school because people generally stop holding Wikipedia to be true in middle school.

Moreover, I am arguing that that fucking DICKPISS paragraph is poorly written. Are you arguing that because it came from Wikipedia, it could not be poorly written? Because that, my friend, is incredibly foolish.

I couldn't care less about the paragraph; I skimmed it. Wikipedia, is, however, worth quoting for reasons that I'm honestly surprised I have to go into. Have you ever changed Wikipedia? It changes back within the hour.

Furthermore, who do you think writes the articles? Take an obscure article, like this one. This was in all probability written by someone who has extensively studied Native American relationships with white missionaries, or else this Ames person's great-grandson. In short, an expert. Obviously this isn't true 100% of the time -- pick your spots. But attacking someone for quoting Wikipedia is pretty stupid, even if the quote itself is also stupid. Silly generalization.

[Tanner]

You plagiarized which means you don't respect the source enough to attribute to it.
You aren't sticking to your guns which means you don't respect the material enough to defend it.
You steal and self-deprecate in order to avoid actual interaction which means you don't respect yourself.

Aren't you just a piece of work.

[Mute Monk]

Yes, thank you for that summary of my flaws. Now, could this please be the end of it?

[SlappyMcGee]

I think these words sort of apply to =w= too ... I thought most of us stopped using the "Wikipedia can be edited by anybody" argument in middle school.

I'm interested to hear why you think that this argument is invalid. People stop using it in middle school because people generally stop holding Wikipedia to be true in middle school.

Moreover, I am arguing that that fucking DICKPISS paragraph is poorly written. Are you arguing that because it came from Wikipedia, it could not be poorly written? Because that, my friend, is incredibly foolish.

I couldn't care less about the paragraph; I skimmed it. Wikipedia, is, however, worth quoting for reasons that I'm honestly surprised I have to go into. Have you ever changed Wikipedia? It changes back within the hour.

Furthermore, who do you think writes the articles? Take an obscure article, like this one. This was in all probability written by someone who has extensively studied Native American relationships with white missionaries, or else this Ames person's great-grandson. In short, an expert. Obviously this isn't true 100% of the time -- pick your spots. But attacking someone for quoting Wikipedia is pretty stupid, even if the quote itself is also stupid. Silly generalization.

I was not attacking him for quoting from wikipedia, you idiot. If you read the previous page, we were attacking him for posting a meaningless bullshit paragraph that we did not even know was from anything, since he didn't even post it as a quotation. Moreover, his argument that it was a quality paragraph was because it was from Wikipedia. My argument was merely that the fact that it was written on an open encyclopedia certainly does not change my mind of its quality.

Please do not post without reading the topic in the future.

[scythe]

When someone tells you that you're digging yourself a hole, why do you choose to make it deeper?

I think these words sort of apply to =w= too ... I thought most of us stopped using the "Wikipedia can be edited by anybody" argument in middle school.

Slappy is a smart guy. I'm not worried about Slappy.

I'm worried about Mute Monk, because he's turning himself into an asshole, when he could have just said "yeah guys, that was stupid", he's instead continuing on in this pointless little debate with Slappy and I. I mean, he's past the point of defending what he said, and just decided to disclaim responsibility for it, which is even stupider, and now this shit:

No, I'm arguing that because it came from Wikipedia, it's not my fault that it's poorly written.

which is even fucking worse, because he's more determined to make us forget that he said something stupid that, in the long run, is pretty fucking unimportant, so now he's got to drag it into a huge argument here and make himself look like even more of an idiot.

Let it go, kid. You were wrong. You're like, fourteen. It's not exactly unheard of for someone who's fourteen to post some stupid, uninformed opinion they think is cool, to post that online, and make an ass out of himself. I think we've all done that about a hundred times.

And I'd like to point out, again, that disclaiming responsibility for the stupid shit you say just makes you look like more of an asshole. That applies to everybody.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

What the shit is wrong with you people? I've seen all of you be bigger assholes than Mute Monk has been here (and I'm still struggling to determine what exactly was wrong with the initial post in the first place, apart from failure to mention the source).
Hey everyone, let's make a HUGE DEAL about something trivial!

[SlappyMcGee]

What the shit is wrong with you people? I've seen all of you be bigger assholes than Mute Monk has been here (and I'm still struggling to determine what exactly was wrong with the initial post in the first place, apart from failure to mention the source).
Hey everyone, let's make a HUGE DEAL about something trivial!

All I said was it made no sense and was irrelevant. Apparently I am wrong because Wikipedia wrote it.

[Mute Monk]

Jesus Fucking Christ.

[smartalco]

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Jesus Fucking Christ is our Lord and Fucking Savior

[scythe]

What the shit is wrong with you people? I've seen all of you us be bigger assholes than Mute Monk has been here

It's what we do, give advice and shit.

[otters~1]

Oh for Christ's fucking sake. scythe and Slappy, hate to say it but you're the ones acting like 14-year-olds. Reread your aggressive and downright bizarre posts and then read Mute_Monk's.

[scythe]

Oh for Christ's fucking sake. scythe and Slappy, hate to say it but you're the ones acting like 14-year-olds. Reread your aggressive and downright bizarre posts and then read Mute_Monk's.

Didn't say he was acting like a fourteen-year-old. If you want to complain about reading comprehension, work on your own, first.

[SlappyMcGee]

Oh for Christ's fucking sake. scythe and Slappy, hate to say it but you're the ones acting like 14-year-olds. Reread your aggressive and downright bizarre posts and then read Mute_Monk's.

I'm responding to YOU and not him. I think you are the one worthy of agression. But you have serious comprehension problems.

[Tanner]

All I know is that I've got a lot of anger inside of me and I need to let it out but sometimes I forget that everyone else are humans too, you know, with feelings and emotions and that those can be hurt by me even though they never did anything wrong and it just... it just makes me so.... fucking angry!

[squibbles]

...what the fuck is up with you guys? Sure, his post may have been kinda retarded, but that certainly does not warrant the aggression that has been shown in this thread. It's actually somewhat disturbing the ease with which it was found to be so outrageously mean.

[scythe]

...what the fuck is up with you guys? Sure, his post may have been kinda retarded, but that certainly does not warrant the aggression that has been shown in this thread. It's actually somewhat disturbing the ease with which it was found to be so outrageously mean.

Dude. There was no aggression on my part. Ranting, sure, but solely in the aim of being helpful.

I didn't say "get the fuck out of my forum", I said "take responsibility for the shit you say".

[SlappyMcGee]

...what the fuck is up with you guys? Sure, his post may have been kinda retarded, but that certainly does not warrant the aggression that has been shown in this thread. It's actually somewhat disturbing the ease with which it was found to be so outrageously mean.

This is the internet. Not daycare.

[Rose]

...what the fuck is up with you guys? Sure, his post may have been kinda retarded, but that certainly does not warrant the aggression that has been shown in this thread. It's actually somewhat disturbing the ease with which it was found to be so outrageously mean.

This is the internet. Not daycare.

This is the stupidest thing I've read all week. Internet or not, this is a community, no? And a big aspect of a community is meaningful interaction among its members. MuteMonk makes one (very small and ultimately inconsequential, seeing as this is a forum and not a college paper) mistake, and you go batshit-insane on him.

And MuteMonk should at least actually show regret for failing to cite his source. I don't care what your stance is on Wikipedia's reliability; it's still a source and deserves to be credited as such. Sarcastically expressing your lack of concern with that doesn't help your case at all, and you have also been bitter to every response on this thread.

Both sides need to calm the fuck down and be civil again.

[scythe]

...what the fuck is up with you guys? Sure, his post may have been kinda retarded, but that certainly does not warrant the aggression that has been shown in this thread. It's actually somewhat disturbing the ease with which it was found to be so outrageously mean.

This is the internet. Not daycare.

This is the stupidest thing I've read all week. Internet or not, this is a community, no? And a big aspect of a community is meaningful interaction among its members.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Giving meaningful advice.

MuteMonk makes one (very small and ultimately inconsequential, seeing as this is a forum and not a college paper) mistake, and you go batshit-insane on him.

Read my fucking post. I didn't criticize him for his opinion, I criticized his reaction to criticism. The fact that you have completely missed this is astounding. I specifically said that what he said was not a big deal.

Both sides need to calm the fuck down and be civil again.

Dude, don't act like you're somehow above the debates that go on here, 'cuz you're not. You're cursing at Slappy, the administrator guy who fucking runs the place, and you're telling him to "calm the fuck down"? Where do you get off?

[SlappyMcGee]

...what the fuck is up with you guys? Sure, his post may have been kinda retarded, but that certainly does not warrant the aggression that has been shown in this thread. It's actually somewhat disturbing the ease with which it was found to be so outrageously mean.

This is the internet. Not daycare.

This is the stupidest thing I've read all week. Internet or not, this is a community, no? And a big aspect of a community is meaningful interaction among its members. MuteMonk makes one (very small and ultimately inconsequential, seeing as this is a forum and not a college paper) mistake, and you go batshit-insane on him.

And MuteMonk should at least actually show regret for failing to cite his source. I don't care what your stance is on Wikipedia's reliability; it's still a source and deserves to be credited as such. Sarcastically expressing your lack of concern with that doesn't help your case at all, and you have also been bitter to every response on this thread.

Both sides need to calm the fuck down and be civil again.

It's like all of you are incredibly unable to read the thread.


Let me boil it down to a summary for you. I'm leaving out scythe's posts, to simplify.

1) MuteMonk makes a post.
2) SlappyMcGee says: The content and wording of this post is retarded.
3)MuteMonk argues, "Yeah, sure, the retards at Wikipedia wrote it." He is trying to avoid credibility for what he posted while at the same time trying to loan validity to his original post.
4) I posit that, in fact, many things written on Wikipedia are retarded, implying that he should have a better social guidelines in realizing what, from that website, should be brought over to this one.
5) flagmyidol accuses me of using a middle school defense; his suggestion is that I am attacking the reliability of Wikipedia due to its open nature.
6) I rebut, pointing out that I was not attacking the reliability of Wikipedia, although I feel that that is also perfectly valid, and begin to suggest that he read the damn thread.
7) flagmyidol, in line MuteMonk, makes a post that simultaneously avoids credibility of his original argument as well as attempting to loan validity to his "I'm a dick" theory. He does this by accusing me of being overtly and continuously aggressive towards MuteMonk. \
8) I point out the falsehood of this argument, as I have been overtly and continuously aggressive towards flagmyidol and not MuteMonk. This is because, while I feel that MuteMonk made a terrible post, I believe flagmyidol made the larger mistake by trying to argue in a thread he did not read or comprehend properly.
9) squibbles suggests that we were being too mean to MuteMonk. Once again, I find this a little bit irrelevant because we're a whole page later and we've mostly ignored MuteMonk's Maulkmusian attempts at ironic disconnection.
10) I point out that we are on the internet, where meanness is commonplace. (Specifically in this area of the forums. I'm looking at you, LunchBreak.
11) You suggest that I was angry at him for posting without a citation. I once again refer you back to summaries 5 and 6, with a special emphasis on READ THE DAMN THREAD.
12) A summary is made, which you will mostly ignore, highlighting only one sentence out of context and attempt to thusly prove that I have a secret grudge against MuteMonk for his jewish heritage.

[Heartattack]

I have a secret grudge against MuteMonk for his jewish heritage.

And so the truth finally comes out.

[Tanner]

I like to view this thread as a microcosm of this argument. It's very meta.