1) intellectual dishonesty.
Examples:
Fur-balling: you deliberately do not address the content of the post you are replying to and instead post a few inches of waffle which is quite difficult to follow as it contains numerous grammatical errors logical fallacies and circular reasoning.
Counter Measures: you answer a direct question with another question(s) with the intention of streering the laser-beamed question aimed at you...away from you and onto something sort of related but not as awkward.
Defective mirroring: you accuse someone of something they have never done. E.g. you are being accused of “intellectual dishonesty” in debate, and you counter by saying something like “so every time someone disagrees with you they are being dishonest?”
Hairdriering: you are in a pinch and desperate to deflect from a great question put to you. You have tried using the tactics above and now another poster has also noticed you squirming. Use the “hairdryer” tactic: you write several very long posts full of loads of html italics, bolds, capitalisations, quotes of quotes of quotes etc then spam dump all the posts in one hit. One of the posts contains the answer to the laser question but in the confusion no one notices. Later you claim to have “answered the question” and can smugly accuse your interrogator of poor reading comprehension.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@divegeester saidHilarious!
1) intellectual dishonesty.
Examples:
Fur-balling: you deliberately do not address the content of the post you are replying to and instead post a few inches of waffle which is quite difficult to follow as it contains numerous grammatical errors logical fallacies and circular reasoning.
Counter Measures: you answer a direct question with another que ...[text shortened]... have “answered the question” and can smugly accuse your interrogator of poor reading comprehension.
I would have finished reading your missive: But, I've gotta go dry my hair.
Somewhat Dementedly Disproportionate Response [SDDR]: in the face of robust or unyielding dissent by a poster, liken them to a leper, or cockroach, or a snake or rat, or an unclean pig or dog, or a smelly drunk, or accuse them of being diseased or causing suicides or spreading germs or eating feces or causing "God" to torture people etc. etc. Linked to...
Somewhat Dementedly Deluded Justification [SDDJ]: the purveyor of SDDR later claims he or she "was provoked" without being able to show where or by what.
@divegeester saidInteresting so when you use these terms your calling people intellectually dishonest?
1) intellectual dishonesty.
Examples:
Fur-balling: you deliberately do not address the content of the post you are replying to and instead post a few inches of waffle which is quite difficult to follow as it contains numerous grammatical errors logical fallacies and circular reasoning.
Counter Measures: you answer a direct question with another que ...[text shortened]... have “answered the question” and can smugly accuse your interrogator of poor reading comprehension.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28784
Sonship recently introduced me to a new term:
Graduation - In a thread where he had been thoroughly out-argued and his views highlighted as judgemental and poorly-considered he announced his pending exit from the thread by saying his was 'graduating' on to a new topic. (In lower circles we describe this as escaping with one's tail between one's legs).
Total Website Annihilation Theory
Total Website Annihilation Theory, or TW*T is a concept held by relatively few posters but one which manifests frequently within that group. The core belief structure is built upon the notion that posters in these various forums, by the act of posting and the content therein, will have a lasting inpact on the commercial wellbeing of Red Hot Pawn.
The two sects of this belief system are:
1) Verbose Always Gains, or VAGs
This group believe that the frequency of their posts, the more threads they start and the more grandiose in style their contributions are, the more site benefits through some sort of (completely unknown and unproven) $-for-clicks mechanism. The psychology associated with this belief permits the VAG to deflect any criticism of their posting by being a total TW*T and insisting that their expertise in TW*Tishness is somehow financially benefiting “Russ”, the website owner and forum overload.
2) Protector of Ordinary Posters, or POOPs
This group harbour a vehement belief that when one of their forum allies finds themselves under pressure, that is their absolute duty to step in and break up the discourse by firing aggressive barrages of righteous indignation at those “attacking” “persecuting” “destroying” those they see as their allies, and thereby protecting the website from complete and total collapse.
POOPs are extremely, but misguidedly loyal to their targeted allies and it is unclear to observers how this catastrophic website collapse would occur; but interestingly POOPs will rarely alert the posts which their POOPAS (protection of ordinary posters alert system) have detected.
Sarcschism
The incorrect use of sarcasm or humorous quip whereby the word or phrase does not mean what the author intended.
E.g. “sook” : Australian slang for a person lacking in spirit or self confidence.
Not to be confused with Sarchasm which is commonly understood to be the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.