@jedixman: Absolutely. I certainly respect your advice, moderator, and I recognize you as true authority here, so I will address you. Before I abandon the argument altogether I will post the original response from @shootingnova to my response, because I strongly feel that failing to do so casts a false impression on my behalf - as if I'm responding to something totally different than I intended to. It takes my character unfairly out of context. Although I cannot help that he edited his response, I feel like I have a right to represent myself correctly by re-posting what I originally responded to. I know you will agree with me when I say that contributors on Comicvine should never be afraid of being helpless when their posts are manipulated out of context, whether it be intentional or not.
Here is the original quote. My quote that he responded to is intentionally included before, for context.
@bamapecan said:
@shootingnova said:
...isn't your way of saying you are done and completely opposed at the thought of resuming.
What do you mean "isn't my way"?
You have a signature way of leaving arguments based on posts I've seen. Very consistent. You will eventually post a long-winded response (much like you did on here) and give an analysis about the supposed flaws and loopholes in your opponent's arguments, and attempt to discount and dismiss their points as best you can. All the while, you will try to establish what you personally believe is proper form and decorum, and claim it as gospel for debating. If they somehow offend you with their tone, use of sarcasm, choice of phrasing, answering questions with questions, etc. you will immediately try to write it off as being deflective and ultimately undermining their own credibility - a good cop-out. However, they are apparently supposed to tolerate your extremely pseudo-intellectual tone and somehow buy into the idea that you are judge and jury of how a debate should function. Then you will ALWAYS claim that they didn't concede to your points, that they cite irrelevant examples (which is nearly always subjective even though you set a premium on your own opinion), that they violate some code of "respect", etc. - basically that they are not providing you with your personal demands in order to dignify further rebuttal from you. Ha, an extreme sense of entitlement. So finally, you avoid the act of "quitting" by instead proposing an ultimatum that must be met to continue. If your opponent does respond but you find it unsatisfactory, you will instead indirectly address the post to the audience just to save face. Like that somehow doesn't give your opponent the satisfaction of your continued attention.
I really am not trying to stereotype, but you have proven to be very formulaic in your strategies when faced with someone who is willing to go toe-to-toe with you.
I'm sorry, you asked.
@shootingnova said:
In other words, you decided to point out my character flaws (and make up false information) which has absolutely no pertinence to this thread. Considering that flaws are an essential part of a human, I have no reason to be ashamed or afraid of any of this. In fact, I can list almost all of my flaws right here and now:
- I have a tendency to project impressions of myself that I don't intend to.
- I have a tendency to laugh at things I find ridiculous, and at times, I take that too far.
- I have a tendency to feel emotions too strongly or weakly.
- I have a tendency to be tempted into responding despite the fact that I make several claims to not respond.
- I have a tendency to be sarcastic which at certain times may evolve into sardonicism.
- I have a tendency to be meticulous with other people's points.
- I have a tendency to utilize indirect force in my arguments.
And so on and so on. I can recognize my mistakes which I strive to improve upon, but as a human, I must always suffer from some forms of flaws in my characteristics. Yes, I have a routine with the way I respond to others, but so what? Virtually everybody does, and most users give me the same type of response, hence why I tend to give them the same type of response as I do with others. I confess that I often make claims of "not responding" anymore and that I tend to be tempted into making additional responses. I don't see any harm in that. Whether my opponent receives satisfaction or not is not what I care about. Considering that I have to have a routine in the way I respond because I receive the same type of posts from users almost all the time, I think I'm perfectly entitled to having such routines. I find it amusing that you consider an attempt to verify something I find offensive to a "cop-out", but I suppose that you're entitled to your own comments and opinions.
And though I don't track you down as you track me, I can already tell you your own characteristic flaws, and I can elucidate on how half of what you claim is either exaggerated or completely false. The only difference is that I won't do so, simply because none of this is relevant to the fight that is presented by the OP.
You can make as many ad hominems as you want and direct as much of your points to me rather than my post as you want. What I will say, though, is that the irony is overwhelming in some ways. You bring up how I always try to "save face", and yet you are trying to save face right now by making these ad hominems instead of conceding to the fact that you made a rude baiting post that began all of this, that you pretend to be an expert on me and know my intentions more than I know myself, and how much I try to cop-out and what not, which you're doing right now for reasons known only to yourself.
Here's a better suggestion - why don't you debate my points instead of the cracks in my personality and traits? I won't bear any grudges against you, but you can keep pointing out how often I do this and how I look bad when I do that, but I can tell you right now that you look bad by trying to make me look bad right now. So yes, I will present an "ultimatum", that you should debate the points being presented in the thread, rather than the people in the thread, because anymore of such comments will be flagged for trolling. You can threaten to direct the mods to my past posts here and there, but I can threaten to direct the mods to you right now, to the posts that you are making in this very thread.
So, let's make it easy. Instead of nitpicking about my routines, which, in my opinion, at least, should be attributed to the opposition rather than me most of the time, I suggest you debate the points that I and other users have raised in this thread. After all, we're here to debate why these characters would win or not and so on, not discuss why other people should be ashamed or what they do or so on.
This was later changed to:
I might have addressed that properly had it not been that your initial post was a rude, baiting call-out. You can say whatever you want about me, to be honest. They'll just be flagged for going off-topic.
Also, I have noticed that ShootingNova has claimed that I "hate" him. I do not at all hate him, and the idea that these distortions I am attempting to clear up are somehow out of assumed prejudice or spite is disappointing. I actually recognize ShootingNova as one of the most, if not the most articulate, thorough, prepared intellectual contributors on Vine, specifically to all the Star Wars. But I also recognize his pseudo-intellectual tone very often too, as do many others. He has been quoted as saying "aggression being evident in my post is not a sign that I have any emotion behind it." Well that certainly applies for my posts in this thread, too. I only want fairness and a sense of understanding, and that is why I am appealing to you @jedixman.
I only ask to let the record show what I was originally responding to, so that my context is not misconstrued and ultimately misrepresented. Thank you, moderator, for your attention and time.
Log in to comment