=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
hooray
Log In to post a reply
50 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

To manao
Aug 13, 2005, 14:11
manao, you are clearly 'lemon'.

I'm aware that lemon was banned from the site but only because I'm a friend of the admins here. I know nothing about the banning (was informed about it after the fact) and am actually completely ambivalent about it.

However, it was never announced publicly on this site (apologies to anyone if that was intentional and supposed to be kept quiet), so to know about it (as people like PMM and others *don't*) you would either have to be one of those banned, one of the admins, or a friend of one of them.

You're not the second or third of those. I've checked.

Also, arriving a few days after the banning, using a nick that means the same as one of those banned, using identical writing styles and phraseology as well as having a bee in your bonnet about bans that weren't made public and the "self-righteousness" of others, are all fairly obvious clues.

I assume they were deliberate. If they weren't then you're not very smart.

Now, it's of no interest to me whether or not you use this forum, either as lemon or manao or whatever else you want to call yourself. I made a decision a good while ago NOT to respond to any of your posts. It was when you called me a "self-important twat" if you're interested in the exact moment. That particular insult is what my old discourse lecturer (yes, I've actually studied "discourse" and "conversation theory" as part of a philosophy post-grad thang) would describe as an example of "aggressively terminating rational discourse". Insulting a person you are debating with always damages the efficacy of discourse. However there are certain insults which actually make discourse impossible.

Those include calling someone a "pathological liar" (you make it impossible for yourself to respond to any point being made as you have admitted the source is unreliable). But they also include telling someone that they are "self-important" as that makes response impossible ("I am not self-important" only reinforces the insult, but without countering it, a person places everything they say consequently in the debate within an unreliable framework - anything I say will be judged by you based not upon it's worth, but upon the fact that you distrust my motives).

So for this reason, I made the decision to cease responding to you. You rarely said anything *worth* responding to, of course, and when you did it was often counched in so much unpleasant aggression and delivered with such an obvious chip on your shoulder, that it was a difficult process at the best of times. Your habit of ignoring counters to your arguments and announcing that you'd somehow refuted the arguments of others by repeating the same unrelated and unsupported assertions was also quite silly.

As I say, I couldn't give a rat's arse whether you stay here lemon / manao. Really. I probably shan't be responding to anything further you say, but I was getting increasingly fed up with your cryptic remarks about people being banned and your claims that you aren't lemon. I mean, if you're lying about that... how do we know everything else you say isn't just bullshit too?

Now, feel free to have fun with your insults. I'm self-important and self-righteous and whatever else you want to call me. Go for it manao! Call a stranger some bad names. It must make you feel like such a big man.
In reply to:
Re: hooray (manao)		 Replies:
Re: To manao (Lawrence)
Re: To manao (manao)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index