Colbert Nails Author of The Purpose Driven Life

[Foster Zygote]

Correct that article or admit to forum disruption. :chores027:

What in the world are you on about?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I admit boring me is probably a lot more rewarding in your case than actually clearing the issue you are pretending to contest up, but it would be a lot more humorous to watch and I don't need to participate constructive.

Again, it is apparent that you have no intellectual response to the points I and others have made.

 

[articulett]

I suspect that Sir Phillip only makes sense to himself.

 

[arthwollipot]

This thread used to be interesting.

 

[SirPhilip]

Again, it is apparent that you have no intellectual response to the points I and others have made.

Like it's my fault you childishly and ineptly invalidate anything you don't like. Ok Foster, semen which contains an abundance of testosterone, can't possibly have any effect on mood and I, or anyone else, can't possibly know this somehow. That settled, now the world needs to know the truth about semen, and New Scientist, psychologists at universities, and the fools that wrote that Wikipedia entry, and various other articles as well as BLTC research who cited it and have no clue what science is about affirming such a correlation very likely exists need to be chastised before women really start using men.

You'd really rather just fight with me though rather than make the world a saner place, and make it seem it isn't for the hell of it, wouldn't you..

 

[SirPhilip]

I suspect that Sir Phillip only makes sense to himself.

My dear, you are not expected to understand this conversation, but Foster has ever so no excuse. You are expected to understand phonics on the other hand, and has it improved since last time?

 

[SirPhilip]

What in the world are you on about?

I know you don't want to chastise those psychologists and transhumanist biochemists and geneticists. You don't want to school those fools on Wikipedia, and nicely inform editorial writers about evidence and conclusive leaps of fancy. You don't want to make the world a more evidence affirming place. You just want to challenge the emperor's crown. And this type of flattery isn't supposed to elict visible arrogance?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Like it's my fault you childishly and ineptly invalidate anything you don't like.

The above tactic of striking out what you have written seems a bit childish, don't you think?

Ok Foster, semen which contains an abundance of testosterone, can't possibly have any effect on mood and I, or anyone else, can't possibly know this somehow.

Please cite the research that has measured the amount of increase of testosterone in the male blood stream as a result of the technique you practice.

That settled,...

Hardly.

...now the world needs to know the truth about semen, and New Scientist, psychologists at universities, and the fools that wrote that Wikipedia entry, and various other articles as well as BLTC research who cited it and have no clue what science is about affirming such a correlation very likely exists need to be chastised before women really start using men.

Which scientists at which universities? I'm sorry, but you just can't pad it out to make it look like more than it is. And I take it you have, at least for now, abandoned your claim that the matter lies beyond scientific inquiry. And what a terrible world it would be if women were constantly seeking men's semen.

You'd really rather just fight with me though rather than make the world a saner place, and make it seem it isn't for the hell of it, wouldn't you..

It is for the hell of it. This is an internet discussion forum. If it upsets you so much (and judging from your loss of any pretense of composure it upsets you very much) then perhaps you should consider avoiding such forums and stick to dazzling you ignorant peers with your knowledge that Irwin Schrödinger showed that they are both alive and dead at the same time.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I know you don't want to chastise those psychologists and transhumanist biochemists and geneticists. You don't want to school those fools on Wikipedia, and nicely inform editorial writers about evidence and conclusive leaps of fancy. You don't want to make the world a more evidence affirming place.

Just because I won't presently be bothered to clean up someone else's mess doesn't change the fact that it is a mess.

You just want to challenge the emperor's crown.

The Emperor? Are you referring to yourself? You can't possibly be that comically arrogant, can you?

And this type of flattery isn't supposed to elict visible arrogance?

What flattery? Do you know what "flattery" means?

 

[SirPhilip]

What flattery? Do you know what "flattery" means?

You are repeating medical science contradicts that levels could alter mood, pretending you are debunking a flawed argument I made, and making a total fool out of yourself in the process. I reserve the right to treat anyone who wastes my time rudely. Other people here aren't as rude, although I hope it becomes a trend.

 

[joobz]

Other people here aren't as rude, although I hope it becomes a trend.

This is a puzzling statement. What trend do you wish to create?

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is a puzzling statement. What trend do you wish to create?

I get the impression that he's in "last word mode". He seems to feel that if he can just keep denying that he could be wrong he can declare himself correct, despite the fact that he has presented no convincing evidence in his favor and has ignored evidence that contradicts his claim. I find what he chooses not to respond to far more telling than what he does respond to.

 

[articulett]

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

Very interesting. What is the source, or is that yours? I've observed that such types may begin by defending a pet idea, but after a while I often get the impression that the subject of the argument is less important than the act of argument itself (although is such cases "conflict" might be a more accurate term than "argument"). This also suggests a reason for the constant movement of the goalpost as a means of keeping the conflict in motion. I've previously discussed the idea that some people seem to debate in a very adversarial manner and view any admission of error as a sign of weakness. But in my experience the refusal to admit error, or even the possibility of error, in the face of strong evidence is the real sign of weakness.

 

[articulett]

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

I understand most people here just fine. I understand you, very well, FZ. And I've gotten into the same twilight zone conversations with SirPhillip. The people I think are the most coherent and eloquent seem to have the same conversational snafus with him that I have. I think pugilistic discussion syndrome explains it.

Some people are trying to win points in some game in their head by giving (what they feel) is a logical response to anything that negates what they are saying (usually, nobody but they are clear as to what their point is anyhow... but it usually has something to do with them being right about something and everyone else being full of crap.) These people have the compounding personality flaw of anosognosia--they are not able to realize that it's themselves who are responsible for their communication problems... not everyone else as they imagine.

They tend to be terribly rude and exhibit vigilantism while never really saying anything and becoming inordinately offended when the ad homs come back at them. I usually put them on ignore and think of formosa's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa's_law

When someone's favorite poster seems to be themselves... chances are they have the syndrome. And yes, they never admit error...

(I've noticed that these "types" are the least likely forum members to admit error, apologize, or applaud another poster... while pretending to be humble and calling everyone else arrogant.)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oh, now you're just being argumentative, Articulett.

Hey, when did you get to be a vixen? I want to be a vixen. Well, maybe not a vixen, but a roadwarrior on the information superhighway sort of thing, perhaps. Or a hedgehog in the furrows of the mind. Or, maybe, oh never mind.........

 

[articulett]

Oh, now you're just being argumentative, Articulett.

Hey, when did you get to be a vixen? I want to be a vixen. Well, maybe not a vixen, but a roadwarrior on the information superhighway sort of thing, perhaps. Or a hedgehog in the furrows of the mind. Or, maybe, oh never mind.........

You have to find the secret thread of the title pixies and ply them with flattery...

(Frankly, I've always been a vixen... it's just that jref has been slow in recognizing it. )

 

[articulett]

Oh, now you're just being argumentative, Articulett.

Hey, when did you get to be a vixen? I want to be a vixen. Well, maybe not a vixen, but a roadwarrior on the information superhighway sort of thing, perhaps. Or a hedgehog in the furrows of the mind. Or, maybe, oh never mind.........

You have to find the secret thread of the title pixies and ply them with flattery...

(Frankly, I've always been a vixen... it's just that jref has been slow in recognizing it. )

 

[zeusbheld]

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.

and probably doing a lot more harm than good by doing so.

 

[SirPhilip]

I get the impression..

If you can't write mature responses, I'll make an exhibition of it. So don't think that I don't bow immediately, it's a requirement. The constructive criticism isn't invalid at all. Debunking it makes no sense, however, as it is entirely reasonable to assume this probably happens. You reject this altogether for no reason and cannot explain yourself.

Want me to correct the Wikipedia article for you?