I'm sure it's a temporary but, thoughts? 5042

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedsaid
Google is a brand name. But it's also a verb. I'd be okay if someone put Google in their eBay listing, if it made sense. Similarly, CGC is a short-and-sweet synonym for "graded comic book." So that works for me. I'm sorry it doesn't work for you.

It has nothing to do with me. It's eBay that your issue is with, not me.

"CGC" is not a "synonym for "graded comic book." "CGC" is a brand name. And I suspect the folks at CBCS would not take kindly to having CGC be synonymous with "graded comic book."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedsaid
But you know ... most people do it, and it is useful. So I'll probably do it too. Anyway, the rule is, you can break rules on eBay until you get caught. So that's okay then.

Most people DO NOT do it, so no.

And people wonder why our civilization is getting worse...but hey, at least you have the intellectual honesty to say "eff your rules! I'll do what I want! Try and stop me!"

There's something to be said for that.

These conversations are verrrrrrrrrry useful for revealing character. Don't imagine that people don't watch, and aren't taking notes. Would these people want to do business with those who say "rules are for SUCKERS!!"...?

Some would...but I'd wager most would not.

Remember this, though: no one gets away with anything forever. What we sow...we reap. It's karma, on a universal scale.

6 years ago

Collector 14.74K	14.74K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 5
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by Nuffsaid111 @Tedsaid .... and make sure you drive no faster than 54.9 mph in a 55 mph zone. It's the law y'know ... lolol Yes, mockery is the way to make a rational, legitimate argument. Perhaps you didn't get enough sleep. Actually, it is a VERY effective way to make a rational and effective point. It sets up an analogy and shows someone the potential hypocrisy in their words. It's far more effective than expressing contempt. That doesn't mean @Tedsaid should break the rules or proudly refuse to break the rules, but it does put an outside perspective upon his ultimate decision.
	6 years ago	Post 102 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by Nuffsaid111 @Tedsaid .... and make sure you drive no faster than 54.9 mph in a 55 mph zone. It's the law y'know ... lolol Yes, mockery is the way to make a rational, legitimate argument. Perhaps you didn't get enough sleep. Actually, it is a VERY effective way to make a rational and effective point. It sets up an analogy and shows someone the potential hypocrisy in their words. It's far more effective than expressing contempt. That doesn't mean @Tedsaid should break the rules or proudly refuse to break the rules, but it does put an outside perspective upon his ultimate decision. It depends entirely on the type of mockery, and where and how it's directed. In this case, there is no exposition of hypocrisy, there's only a rigid adherence to the technicality of the law to "make a point" that no one else was making. Whereas I'm arguing the SPIRIT of the eBay rule, "Nuffsaid111" (and 00slim before him, and Tedsaid after him) is arguing the TECHNICALITY of it, and using the technicality of the speed limit as a means of mockery, which is why it fails. You know that. So, no, in this case...not an effective way to make a rational, legitimate argument.
	6 years ago	Post 103 • IP flag post

Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock 7.34K	7.34K Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 7
	Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Actually, it is a VERY effective way to make a rational and effective point. I agree, it can be effective. And probably better, DocBrown, than the hyperbole and insults that you seem to favor. Not to mention the arguments Ad nauseam ... those aren't really working either. Just FYI.
	6 years ago	Post 104 • IP flag post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedsaid
Quote:
Originally Posted by X51
Actually, it is a VERY effective way to make a rational and effective point.

I agree, it can be effective.

Can be. Not in this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedsaid
And probably better, DocBrown, than the hyperbole and insults that you seem to favor. Not to mention the arguments Ad nauseam ... those aren't really working either. Just FYI.

Would you be so kind as to point out the insults I have made in this discussion?

As far as "arguments ad nauseum"...some people here keep saying this, utterly oblivious to the fact that they keep arguing themselves.

If you don't want an argument...stop arguing.

It's very simple...and yet, some of you are terribly offended that I point out that incredibly obvious fact. What you WANT is to be able to make YOUR point, and then cow people from responding by then saying "all you do is argue!"

Tedsaid: if you want to make an argument, make an argument. If you want to engage in ad hominem, then admit defeat already and move on.

Just FYI.

6 years ago

Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock 7.34K	7.34K Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	"If you weren't so quick to be contemptuous, you might be able to format your quotes correctly." Heh. Ouch.
	6 years ago	Post 106 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by Tedsaid "If you weren't so quick to be contemptuous, you might be able to format your quotes correctly." Heh. Ouch. No one is being contemptuous with you. If you don't want an argument...stop arguing.
	6 years ago	Post 107 • IP flag post

Collector 14.74K	14.74K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	@DocBrown , I think people are offended because you seemingly reject any outside opinion or perspective that you didn't think of on your own. Obviously that's not true, because we are all an accumulation of past experience. I'm a little more arrogant than you are, so I don't really care whether you agree with me or not. Others do like to know that their opinions are respected and heard even if you vehemently disagree.
	6 years ago	Post 108 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by Tedsaid "If you weren't so quick to be contemptuous, you might be able to format your quotes correctly." Heh. Ouch. No one is being contemptuous with you. If you don't want an argument...stop arguing. Not that it needs to be belabored, but there's also a difference between a contemptuous one-liner that one flubs, and a format error in a much longer post. If you're going to be intellectually dishonest, Tedsaid, I'm going to point that out. And that's not an insult. An insult is "You have an uncanny ability to put me to sleep. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
	6 years ago	Post 109 • IP flag post

Collector 14.74K	14.74K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by Tedsaid "If you weren't so quick to be contemptuous, you might be able to format your quotes correctly." Heh. Ouch. No one is being contemptuous with you. If you don't want an argument...stop arguing. Not that it needs to be belabored, but there's also a difference between a contemptuous one-liner that one flubs, and a format error in a much longer post. If you're going to be intellectually dishonest, Tedsaid, I'm going to point that out. And that's not an insult. An insult is "You have an uncanny ability to put me to sleep. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" Would you say this web page describes your personality? http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html
	6 years ago	Post 110 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by X51 @DocBrown , I think people are offended because you seemingly reject any outside opinion or perspective that you didn't think of on your own. Obviously that's not true, because we are all an accumulation of past experience. I'm a little more arrogant than you are, so I don't really care whether you agree with me or not. Others do like to know that their opinions are respected and heard even if you vehemently disagree. X51...I think you are allowing your opinion of me to be influenced by other people's opinions of me, rather than basing it on an actual analysis of what I say, and how I say it. That's the brilliance and deviousness of propaganda: it is effective even with the most self-aware, self-assured people. I'm sure you'll certainly disagree, but you're not going to find "rejection of any outside opinion or perspective that I didn't think of on my own" in my statements, because life isn't a vacuum. The things I know, the things I learned, I did not teach myself. What you have seen, therefore, is a reflection in a warped mirror, a funhouse parody, and you are accepting that image as "the real thing." It's not. I would be happy to be wrong about your conclusion, but I don't think I am. It's the essence of confirmation bias: we see what we want to see. What I find a little off-putting is the notion you imply here that other people's opinions aren't respected and heard. Quite the contrary. If someone doesn't care about other people's opinions, doesn't respect them, doesn't hear them...they're not going to waste time trying to persuade them differently. That said, all opinions are not created equal, and...contrary to your assertion above...not all opinions are worthy of respect. If someone believes that 2 + 2 = 5, telling them that it equals 4 is not disrespecting them...quite the contrary. Telling someone the truth is the ultimate expression of respect. If someone believes that the earth is flat, and the moon is made of cheese, that opinion is not worthy of respect. And if you DO respect that person, you'll say something, even at the risk of social stigmatization. If you, X51, want to be popular, the answer is simple: you tell people what they want to hear. People are offended not because of some seeming unwillingness to consider their opinions, but because they don't want their opinions challenged. That's the very heart of these matters.
	6 years ago	Post 111 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Would you say this web page describes your personality? http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html No. And I don't put much stock in personality "types", interesting though they may be. The very fact that this discussion has become about a PERSON, rather than the SUBJECT, proves my point. Too many people are incapable of being disagreed with without taking it personally, so they lash out and make the discussion about the people involved, rather than the subject itself. That's regressivism.
	6 years ago	Post 112 • IP flag post

Collector 14.74K	14.74K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Would you say this web page describes your personality? http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html No. And I don't put much stock in personality "types", interesting though they may be. Well, the personality types merely describe preferences. You choose your preferences and they merely summarize your inclinations. I'm pretty sure we've exchanged opinions elsewhere. That page is actually a handbook for my personality type. It's an instruction manual of what to expect from me. That does not mean that two people with similar personality types won't clash or disagree.
	6 years ago	Post 113 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Would you say this web page describes your personality? http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html No. And I don't put much stock in personality "types", interesting though they may be. Well, the personality types merely describe preferences. You choose your preferences and they merely summarize your inclinations. I'm pretty sure we've exchanged opinions elsewhere. That page is actually a handbook for my personality type. It's an instruction manual of what to expect from me. That does not mean that two people with similar personality types won't clash or disagree. While it's interesting, it's not something I put stock in, nor would I take my cues from it. This is a comic book message board, not a support group. People don't come here to have their personalities analyzed. If they ask, that's one thing, but invariably in these discussions, too many people can't handle having their opinions challenged, and, especially if their position is weak, or they're incapable of making an argument on the merits, they'll simply turn to making personal comments about the people involved in the discussion. This is the heart of "argumentum ad hominem", and it is not a legitimate form of debate or discussion, in any context, for any reason. Everyone here has personality flaws. Everyone! And the observant see them quite clearly...but it is a measure of disrespect to resort to pointing those flaws...or perceived flaws...out in the midst of a debate on any particular topic. NO topic or debate should EVER become a discussion about one or more of the personalities involved and yet, like a high school drama class (and there will be those offended at the analogy "high school drama class" ), it happens on a regular basis. It's not the foundation of reasoned debate. It's the foundation for high school. I expect that most of us left high school behind us a couple of decades or more ago...it's time to leave behind its spirit, too.
	6 years ago	Post 114 • IP flag post

Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock 7.34K	7.34K Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 8
	A few observations, DocBrown. The 'ad nauseum' charge was due to your 'essays as replies' strategy. As well as the repetitive nature of your arguments. If people keep pointing it out to you, perhaps you should pay attention? Also, insinuations can be just as much of an insult as direct statements. So when you say things like, I'm the reason society is getting worse, or imply I have low morals, that's not just hyperbole. (FYI - it's hyperbole because there's really very little in this world that is less important than someone putting "Not CGC" in an eBay posting. And yet you seem to think it heralds the end of civilization as we know it. And you've been arguing for most of a day trying to put a stop to it. That's a bit overblown, Doc.) Also, also ... putting words into my mouth, such as "eff your rules! I'll do what I want! Try and stop me!" is not only insulting and hyperbolic, but also (to use your words) intellectually dishonest. IMO. But I'm glad that you're glad I point that out for you. Happy to help. Also, also also ... you probably shouldn't assume we are offended when we tell you your arguments are exercises in 'ad nauseum.' It's just an observation, about how weak your style of argument is. That is, you really aren't convincing anyone. You know ... if that's what you're trying to do. Is it? Cheers, -Ted
	6 years ago	Post 115 • IP flag post

Collector 14.74K	14.74K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 5
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by X51 @DocBrown , I think people are offended because you seemingly reject any outside opinion or perspective that you didn't think of on your own. Obviously that's not true, because we are all an accumulation of past experience. I'm a little more arrogant than you are, so I don't really care whether you agree with me or not. Others do like to know that their opinions are respected and heard even if you vehemently disagree. X51...I think you are allowing your opinion of me to be influenced by other people's opinions of me, rather than basing it on an actual analysis of what I say, and how I say it. That's the brilliance and deviousness of propaganda: it is effective even with the most self-aware, self-assured people. I'm sure you'll certainly disagree, but you're not going to find "rejection of any outside opinion or perspective that I didn't think of on my own" in my statements, because life isn't a vacuum. The things I know, the things I learned, I did not teach myself. What you have seen, therefore, is a reflection in a warped mirror, a funhouse parody, and you are accepting that image as "the real thing." It's not. I would be happy to be wrong about your conclusion, but I don't think I am. It's the essence of confirmation bias: we see what we want to see. What I find a little off-putting is the notion you imply here that other people's opinions aren't respected and heard. Quite the contrary. If someone doesn't care about other people's opinions, doesn't respect them, doesn't hear them...they're not going to waste time trying to persuade them differently. That said, all opinions are not created equal, and...contrary to your assertion above...not all opinions are worthy of respect. If someone believes that 2 + 2 = 5, telling them that it equals 4 is not disrespecting them...quite the contrary. Telling someone the truth is the ultimate expression of respect. If someone believes that the earth is flat, and the moon is made of cheese, that opinion is not worthy of respect. And if you DO respect that person, you'll say something, even at the risk of social stigmatization. If you, X51, want to be popular, the answer is simple: you tell people what they want to hear. People are offended not because of some seeming unwillingness to consider their opinions, but because they don't want their opinions challenged. That's the very heart of these matters. I think we are in agreement that people hear what they want to hear 100% of the time. I don't particularly want to be popular, but people do remember me. I have a usenet newsgroup named after me. Someone auctioned me off on eBay in the early years. Quite often, people know me before I know them. My opinion of you hasn't changed or altered. I think you should work on condensing your responses. Breaking up a post into sectional quotes and responding to each point separately is actually a technique that trolls use intentionally. I stumbled across a message board where internet trolls shared ideas and suggestions to annoy people, and your method of replying was taught as a tactic to annoy. I don't think you are here as a troll, so I don't call you one. I do laugh when I see you break up people posts and respond section by section. It wears people down and get tired of keeping the quote tags paired while trying to respond. Sometimes your point is 100% valid, but the tone sounds condescending to others. I say things that horrify others, so I know that I can sound very harsh and angry when I'm actually laughing and having fun. I know people that were scared to meet me after reading emails at work, but now they smile instantly if they see me. Just be aware that how you write may not be 100% aligned with how you feel or think about something.
	6 years ago	Post 116 • IP flag post

Collector 14.74K	14.74K X51 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 4
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Would you say this web page describes your personality? http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html No. And I don't put much stock in personality "types", interesting though they may be. Well, the personality types merely describe preferences. You choose your preferences and they merely summarize your inclinations. I'm pretty sure we've exchanged opinions elsewhere. That page is actually a handbook for my personality type. It's an instruction manual of what to expect from me. That does not mean that two people with similar personality types won't clash or disagree. While it's interesting, it's not something I put stock in, nor would I take my cues from it. This is a comic book message board, not a support group. People don't come here to have their personalities analyzed. If they ask, that's one thing, but invariably in these discussions, too many people can't handle having their opinions challenged, and, especially if their position is weak, or they're incapable of making an argument on the merits, they'll simply turn to making personal comments about the people involved in the discussion. This is the heart of "argumentum ad hominem", and it is not a legitimate form of debate or discussion, in any context, for any reason. Everyone here has personality flaws. Everyone! And the observant see them quite clearly...but it is a measure of disrespect to resort to pointing those flaws...or perceived flaws...out in the midst of a debate on any particular topic. NO topic or debate should EVER become a discussion about one or more of the personalities involved and yet, like a high school drama class (and there will be those offended at the analogy "high school drama class" ), it happens on a regular basis. It's not the foundation of reasoned debate. It's the foundation for high school. I expect that most of us left high school behind us a couple of decades or more ago...it's time to leave behind its spirit, too. The irony is that people have dedicated their life and thousand of hours of scientific research into understanding personality types and you reduce it all to high school drama.
	6 years ago	Post 117 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 11.29K	11.29K conditionfreak private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 5
	Quote: Originally Posted by Tedsaid A few observations, DocBrown. The 'ad nauseum' charge was due to your 'essays as replies' strategy. As well as the repetitive nature of your arguments. If people keep pointing it out to you, perhaps you should pay attention? Also, insinuations can be just as much of an insult as direct statements. So when you say things like, I'm the reason society is getting worse, or imply I have low morals, that's not just hyperbole. (FYI - it's hyperbole because there's really very little in this world that is less important than someone putting "Not CGC" in an eBay posting. And yet you seem to think it heralds the end of civilization as we know it. And you've been arguing for most of a day trying to put a stop to it. That's a bit overblown, Doc.) Also, also ... putting words into my mouth, such as "eff your rules! I'll do what I want! Try and stop me!" is not only insulting and hyperbolic, but also (to use your words) intellectually dishonest. IMO. But I'm glad that you're glad I point that out for you. Happy to help. Also, also also ... you probably shouldn't assume we are offended when we tell you your arguments are exercises in 'ad nauseum.' It's just an observation, about how weak your style of argument is. That is, you really aren't convincing anyone. You know ... if that's what you're trying to do. Is it? Cheers, -Ted Is there someway to give an "ouch" instead of a thumbs up, vote or like?
	6 years ago	Post 118 • IP flag post

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedsaid
A few observations, DocBrown.

The 'ad nauseum' charge was due to your 'essays as replies' strategy. As well as the repetitive nature of your arguments. If people keep pointing it out to you, perhaps you should pay attention?

I'm going to treat your comments here as serious, and respond to them seriously. First, there is no "essays as replies" "strategy." Why not?

1. The average length of my posts is less than a typical sports article in the newspaper. These are hardly "essays." If reading is something people don't wish to do, why would they bother attempting to interact on a written platform?

Here's an article on the degradation of society via the unwillingness of people to read:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/07/the-long-steady-decline-of-literary-reading/?utm_term=.81f5e5858fd7

2. My arguments are repetitive because arguments in response are repetitive. If people keep saying the same erroneous things...being repetitive...then it takes repetition to counter it.

I've said this before, and I'll repeat it here: if people didn't look for ways to purposely misconstrue, misinterpret, misunderstand, and misrepresent what others say, there wouldn't be the need to "lawyer up" every post, to cut off as much potential for "misinterpretation" as possible. Human nature is the reason why we have 39 pages of "legalese" in every contract.

As far as "if people keep pointing it out to you, perhaps you should pay attention?"...that depends entirely on both the people and the validity of their complaints.

If 10,000, say, Communists tell me that "Capeetahleesm is decadent", should I pay attention to that...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
Also, insinuations can be just as much of an insult as direct statements. So when you say things like, I'm the reason society is getting worse, or imply I have low morals, that's not just hyperbole.

It's not hyperbole. You're openly and willingly espousing breaking eBay rule, a rule that has a legitimate reason to exist. You say, openly, "most people do it, and it is useful. So I'll probably do it too. Anyway, the rule is, you can break rules on eBay until you get caught. So that's okay then." You don't care that it hurts people; it's perfectly fine by you.

I have no doubt that you find people pointing out that those comments are an indication of "low morals" to be "insulting." But that doesn't make them so.

I didn't condemn you; you condemned yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts

(FYI - it's hyperbole because there's really very little in this world that is less important than someone putting "Not CGC" in an eBay posting. And yet you seem to think it heralds the end of civilization as we know it. And you've been arguing for most of a day trying to put a stop to it. That's a bit overblown, Doc.)

Here's an example of an erroneous statement by you...propaganda...which has already been addressed by me, but which I will...at the risk of being accused of making "repetitive arguments"...post here again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by db

Is it the greatest problem facing eBay buyers and sellers? Of course not. Not by a long shot. But is it a problem that is easily solved simply by everyone choosing to play fairly? Hell yes.

(From post #74 in this thread; emphasis added.}

And that, right there, is a perfect example of someone who either 1. didn't read what I had already written hours ago, or 2. read it, and ignored it. As a result, you've made a claim against me that I explicitly debunked before you even got involved in the discussion.

So, I'll say it again: this issue is of relatively low (but NOT NO) importance in the grand scheme of things.

The larger issue...the REALLY important issue here...is the willingness to disregard rules because we don't like them, we don't agree with them, we think they don't apply to us, whatever justification one wishes to use to disregard the rules.

And if one is willing to disregard the "low importance" issues, there's nothing whatsoever stopping them from disregarding the rules on far greater issues. Someone once said "those who can be trusted with little, can be trusted with much. Those who cannot be trusted with little cannot be trusted with much."

I didn't make it up. Not my saying. Just recognizing it as fact.

I'm not "trying to stop" anything. If you imagined that was the case, you are, again, quite mistaken (are you offended that I speak in absolutes? Most people are, primarily because they lack absolutes in their life upon which to stand.) I'm only pointing out what is. If I were "trying to stop" it, why would I be wasting my time here, trying to PERSUADE others to not do OF THEIR OWN ACCORD?

I'd just be reporting listings. I haven't reported any listings today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts

Also, also ... putting words into my mouth, such as "eff your rules! I'll do what I want! Try and stop me!" is not only insulting and hyperbolic, but also (to use your words) intellectually dishonest. IMO.

Your opinion is incorrect.

You said...and I quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
most people do it, and it is useful. So I'll probably do it too. Anyway, the rule is, you can break rules on eBay until you get caught. So that's okay then.

Unless you were being sarcastic...and there's scant indication you were...then my statement, while certainly hyperbole to an extent, was COMPLETELY in line with the SPIRIT of what you said here.

"You can break rules on eBay until you get caught. So that's okay then." is different from "eff the rules! I'll do what I want! Try and stop me!"...how, exactly...?

It's the same thing, just paraphrased.

Again, unless you were being sarcastic.

So.

Were you being sarcastic?

And if you were, why have you decided to not say that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
But I'm glad that you're glad I point that out for you. Happy to help. Also, also also ... you probably shouldn't assume we are offended when we tell you your arguments are exercises in 'ad nauseum.' It's just an observation, about how weak your style of argument is. That is, you really aren't convincing anyone. You know ... if that's what you're trying to do.

Is it?

Who is "we"...? Are you the CBCS board spokesman?

"We" is another logical fallacy, "argumentum ad populum"...argument to the people...invoking "we", whether or not that "we" actually exists...to bolster your own argument.

You don't speak for anyone but tedsaid. Everyone else is perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

Try not to disrespect them by assuming you speak for them. You don't. Neither do I.

As far as you being offended: as I said before, if you weren't offended, you wouldn't make the discussion personal. You are offended by the fact that I told you that ignoring eBay rules, trying to justify breaking them, was wrong. Granted. So you express that offense by taking this entirely irrelevant personal tangent into an analysis of me and my "posting style."

If you were not offended, you would simply argue your point...as 00slim did...and then move on. The fact that we are discussing me at all proves my point.

Now, feel free to argue some more, and then complain about arguing, and pretend that offense is not at the root of this tangent...but it is, and I'm fairly certain everyone reading this understands that. I don't, however, speak for anyone but me, so I'll leave that to them to decide.

Will any of this matter to you, other than cementing your enmity towards me...? Probably not. But, no one can accuse me of disrespecting you by brushing off your complaints and concerns without a response. I showed you the courtesy and dignity of taking your comments seriously and giving you my time to answer them.

What you do with this is up to you.

6 years ago

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by X51 Would you say this web page describes your personality? http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html No. And I don't put much stock in personality "types", interesting though they may be. Well, the personality types merely describe preferences. You choose your preferences and they merely summarize your inclinations. I'm pretty sure we've exchanged opinions elsewhere. That page is actually a handbook for my personality type. It's an instruction manual of what to expect from me. That does not mean that two people with similar personality types won't clash or disagree. While it's interesting, it's not something I put stock in, nor would I take my cues from it. This is a comic book message board, not a support group. People don't come here to have their personalities analyzed. If they ask, that's one thing, but invariably in these discussions, too many people can't handle having their opinions challenged, and, especially if their position is weak, or they're incapable of making an argument on the merits, they'll simply turn to making personal comments about the people involved in the discussion. This is the heart of "argumentum ad hominem", and it is not a legitimate form of debate or discussion, in any context, for any reason. Everyone here has personality flaws. Everyone! And the observant see them quite clearly...but it is a measure of disrespect to resort to pointing those flaws...or perceived flaws...out in the midst of a debate on any particular topic. NO topic or debate should EVER become a discussion about one or more of the personalities involved and yet, like a high school drama class (and there will be those offended at the analogy "high school drama class" ), it happens on a regular basis. It's not the foundation of reasoned debate. It's the foundation for high school. I expect that most of us left high school behind us a couple of decades or more ago...it's time to leave behind its spirit, too. The irony is that people have dedicated their life and thousand of hours of scientific research into understanding personality types and you reduce it all to high school drama. This is a complete misrepresentation of my comments above. I never said, nor implied, anything of the sort. Tell me: are you interested in a serious discussion, or just "scoring rhetorical points"...?
	6 years ago	Post 120 • IP flag post

Quote:

Originally Posted by X51

I think we are in agreement that people hear what they want to hear 100% of the time.
I don't particularly want to be popular, but people do remember me. I have a usenet newsgroup named after me. Someone auctioned me off on eBay in the early years. Quite often, people know me before I know them.

You say things like this frequently. It's very off-putting. The other day, you reported that someone called you a "messiah." Even if that's true...why would you repeat something like that?

If someone is to say nice things about you, you should let them, and only them, say it. It is not the mark of a healthy mind to be repeating these sorts of things to people, regardless of who said or thought it initially.

It's creepy, to say the least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x51
My opinion of you hasn't changed or altered. I think you should work on condensing your responses. Breaking up a post into sectional quotes and responding to each point separately is actually a technique that trolls use intentionally. I stumbled across a message board where internet trolls shared ideas and suggestions to annoy people, and your method of replying was taught as a tactic to annoy. I don't think you are here as a troll, so I don't call you one. I do laugh when I see you break up people posts and respond section by section. It wears people down and get tired of keeping the quote tags paired while trying to respond.

This may be shocking to you, but I don't care what your opinion is of me. Just as you say you don't care what my opinion is of you.

And that's how it should be.

You have used the clever rhetorical device of accusation by implication. "I'm sure you're not a troll", while going on at some length to state that the way I post is "like a troll." If it's unintentional, you should be aware that you're doing it. I suspect it's intentional, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In any event, I don't expect, and certainly don't demand, that people conform to my ideas of how one should post; it's not unreasonable to expect the same courtesy from others. I could not possibly care less if you believe that that's "how trolls post intentionally." They aren't related, and I'll tell you why: trolls...people posting deliberately and solely to annoy others...are almost universally not interested in the actual topic, whatever topic it may be, but in simply annoying people.

You know, someone who would say this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymous
and there have certainly been times when I've simply taken the opposing view just to piss him off and watch the walls of text explode.

That is an actual quote from an actual member of the CBCS forum, and that is the confession of an actual troll. He/she knows who he/she is, but I'll leave it anonymous here.

Context IS EVERYTHING. Always is, always has been, always will be.

I've already explained this, but I'll explain it again: when people have a discussion, they do not wait for someone to make an entire speech, and then respond.

That is how SOME formal debate works; but this is not formal debate. It is casual conversation.

And in casual conversation, someone makes a point, another person makes a counterpoint, and it goes back and forth. That is the manner which I have adopted, because it best reflects actual real life conversation, rather than strict, formal debate.

Each point is responded to as it comes, rather than in a messy jumble at the end, at which time, certain points may have become lost in the clutter.

Just because it's a "tactic" that "trolls use" doesn't mean it's a trollish tactic. After all...all trolls eat, but not all people who eat are trolls.

So, if you feel the need to laugh at the way I post, by all means, guffaw to your heart's content. Let rivers of mirth spring from you.

I will, however, do you the courtesy of not accusing you by implication, nor suggesting to you how you should post.

Can you do the same...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by x51

Sometimes your point is 100% valid, but the tone sounds condescending to others. I say things that horrify others, so I know that I can sound very harsh and angry when I'm actually laughing and having fun. I know people that were scared to meet me after reading emails at work, but now they smile instantly if they see me. Just be aware that how you write may not be 100% aligned with how you feel or think about something.

I say the same thing to you, especially when it comes to saying weird things like "people call me a messiah" and "I have a usenet newsgroup named after me." You may think it's harmless to say those things, but you should be aware that it comes across as slightly delusional. I'm sure that's not the case, but I mention it for your sake.

I am not concerned with how I "come across" to others. And here's the dirty truth: no one should be. Im not suggesting people be heartless jerks. However, being overly concerned with "what people think of you" is destructive, as the parents of teenage children can readily attest. And, as someone who has written extensively on the internet for coming on 25 years, I'm not only very much aware of how I write...as should everyone...but I take care to write only what I actually mean, rather than making off-the-cuff responses.

I stand by everything I've written. I don't think that's a claim many people are willing to make. How about you?

Again...this entire conversation is wildly inappropriate. It really needs to end. Like I said, this is not a support group, and discussing these personal matters has no place on a comic book message forum. If you think you have more advice for me, and are genuinely concerned with my well-being, this conversation can be continued in private messages; otherwise, it really has no place here.

6 years ago

Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock 7.34K	7.34K Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 6
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Who is "we"...? Are you the CBCS board spokesman? "We" is another logical fallacy, "argumentum ad populum"...argument to the people...invoking "we", whether or not that "we" actually exists...to bolster your own argument. Hmm ... I think you don't really understand how logical fallacies work. I didn't say all the people think you are wrong. If I did, that would be "argumentum ad populum." What I did instead was mention that you should probably pay attention to lots of people telling you your arguments are too long. But "lots of people telling you your arguments are too long" came from you, not from me. And that's not "argumentum ad populum" either. It's just evidence in support of a thesis. Besides, your arguments are too long. Everyone says so. :-) Anyway, you said "If you don't want an argument...stop arguing. It's very simple...and yet, some of you are terribly offended that I point out that incredibly obvious fact." So, you claimed that I and other people are offended, simply because we accurately labeled your debating style? Yeah, that's not really offensive. It's just poor debating skills. So, you got that wrong with me; therefore I assumed you also got it wrong with other people. It was a guess, extrapolating based on judgement and experience, nothing more. Maybe my guess was wrong, and you never incorrectly said anyone else was offended. Okay, fine ... but I did say "probably." The post I'm responding to, by the way, was over 1300 words. And sure, a magazine article might run 5,000 words, or 8,000 words, or something like that. But that's just one of your posts here among dozens today. That's more evidence for you. You're gonna keep thinking you are "winning" arguments simply because other people can't be bothered to continue, after awhile. But here's the thing: the point of a debate is not to "win." If you think it is, or get trapped in that mindset, you're doing it wrong. I think it was Mark Twain who once said, "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead." You should take more time with your posts, I think. A lot more. In my opinion. Later you said, "Context IS EVERYTHING." Actually, it's not here. But it is in some places, I'll grant you that. You also said, "my statement, while certainly hyperbole..." Well, I'm glad we finally agree! Cheers. -t
	6 years ago	Post 122 • IP flag post

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedsaid
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBrown
Who is "we"...? Are you the CBCS board spokesman? "We" is another logical fallacy, "argumentum ad populum"...argument to the people...invoking "we", whether or not that "we" actually exists...to bolster your own argument.

Hmm ... I think you don't really understand how logical fallacies work. I didn't say all the people think you are wrong. If I did, that would be "argumentum ad populum."

Nope, I'm pretty sure the one who doesn't understand the logical fallacy is you. "Argumentum ad populum" doesn't have to do with EVERYONE...it only has to do with many or most.

And invoking "we", as if there are multiple people who agree with you, is the fallacy: first, you don't speak for "we", you only speak for YOU, and second, it's an attempt at communal reinforcement, which is "a social phenomenon in which a concept or idea is repeatedly asserted in a community, regardless of whether sufficient empirical evidence has been presented to support it."

That's what anyone is attempting whenever they invoke "we", while not being duly elected/appointed spokespersons of that group.

It's all fascinating social science; you might want to look into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts

What I did instead was mention that you should probably pay attention to lots of people telling you your arguments are too long. But "lots of people telling you your arguments are too long" came from you, not from me. And that's not "argumentum ad populum" either. It's just evidence in support of a thesis.

You're inventing things out of thin air, and then attributing them to me. I never said "lots of people (are) telling me my arguments are too long."

That was you...here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
Not to mention the arguments Ad nauseam

...from post #104.

And my response to it was this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by db
As far as "arguments ad nauseum"...some people here keep saying this, utterly oblivious to the fact that they keep arguing themselves.

(Emphasis added.)

Note the word "some." It does not mean "a lot." And I didn't say "too long." I said "ad nauseum", which means "repeatedly", not "too long", which the context..."that they keep arguing themselves"...makes clear.

Therefore, your entire "thesis" rests on an idea that you invented, and then attributed to me.

I think there's a term for that kind of logical fallacy, too...something about straw...it escapes me at the moment. I'm sure I'll think of it in a bit. And, of course, you conveniently ignore the actual point, which is that people whine about "arguing" when they, themselves, KEEP ARGUING.

The answer to ending an argument is simple...stop arguing.

That said, if you can't keep the details of the conversation straight, there's really no point in carrying it on. Not an insult, just a statement of fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts

Besides, your arguments are too long. Everyone says so. :-)

Anyway, you said "If you don't want an argument...stop arguing. It's very simple...and yet, some of you are terribly offended that I point out that incredibly obvious fact." So, you claimed that I and other people are offended, simply because we accurately labeled your debating style?

Who is "we"...? Did we have a board spokesman election that I wasn't aware of...?

If you keep invoking "we" to bolster your "arguments", I'm going to continue to point out that you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

But since you raised the question: some of you are terribly offended that I say it's very simple. You think it's "condescending", and "talking down." The reality, however, is that it IS very simple: if you don't want to keep arguing...

...then STOP...ARGUING.

It's not rocket science!

And yet, some of you are offended when I point out that it's not rocket science!

Are you following me here, Ted...? It has nothing to do with "accurately labeling my debating style" (whatever you imagine that to be...you haven't bothered to explain just what you believe it is.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
Yeah, that's not really offensive.

Agreed, because that's not what I was talking about. See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
It's just poor debating skills. So, you got that wrong with me; therefore I assumed you also got it wrong with other people.

No, you didn't understand to what I was referring. Therefore, the conclusion is based on a faulty premise, which renders it invalid.

Sorry, old chap!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts

It was a guess, extrapolating based on judgement and experience, nothing more. Maybe my guess was wrong, and you never incorrectly said anyone else was offended. Okay, fine ... but I did say "probably."

The post I'm responding to, by the way, was over 1300 words. And sure, a magazine article might run 5,000 words, or 8,000 words, or something like that. But that's just one of your posts here among dozens today. That's more evidence for you.

So? If someone has a problem with the length of someone else's posts...and, at the risk of again being TERRRRRRIBLY condescending...the answer is frighteningly simple: don't read them.

Scroll right on past them.

As Steve Ricketts said a couple of months ago, stop complaining about long posts...just don't read them.

No one's holding a gun to your head to read them, are they?

My God, what if they are??

EEK!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
You're gonna keep thinking you are "winning" arguments simply because other people can't be bothered to continue, after awhile.

You don't know what I think. How arrogant, to imagine you do!

You are very condescending, Ted. And people call ME condescending. Too funny. AND you're projecting.

Let me clue you in: I make my points. People are going to take from them whatever they take from them. There are a handful of people here who (and you're rapidly joining their number), if I said CBCS is a comic book grading company, would argue with me that it wasn't.

I don't need to "win" anything. I need to make my case, and be as persuasive as I need to be. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, so what? We'll all be held responsible for what we knew, and that's all that matters. If you make a valid point, and I blow you off, guess what? I'm responsible for that. If I make a valid point, and you blow me off, guess what? You're responsible for that.

If NO ONE is convinced...and I KNOW that's not the case...so what? Does that change the truth of the matter? Nope.

Some (note the word there, ted) of the people here project their own opinions, positions, and feelings onto others, and are surprised to discover that other people don't think, act, and speak the way they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
But here's the thing: the point of a debate is not to "win." If you think it is, or get trapped in that mindset, you're doing it wrong.

Huh.

Interesting.

I said THE EXACT SAME THING earlier last week in another thread on this board. Nearly the exact same words, too.

It's like you're reading my mind! Maybe you DO know what I'm thinking after all!

/sarcasm

You are 100% correct here: the point of a debate is not to win. And if you think it is, you're doing it wrong.

We agree. Great!

It amazes me how incredibly condescending people are who complain about people "being condescending." Just amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
I think it was Mark Twain who once said, "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead." You should take more time with your posts, I think. A lot more. In my opinion.

Your opinions, as has been shown already, need some work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
Later you said, "Context IS EVERYTHING." Actually, it's not here. But it is in some places, I'll grant you that.

Actually, it is. Context is everything, everywhere, all the time.

See, that's what I'm talking about when I say your opinions need some work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ts
You also said, "my statement, while certainly hyperbole..." Well, I'm glad we finally agree!

Cheers. -t

Great! I'm glad you got that off your chest.

Now...are we done discussing each other's personality and character flaws? I'd sure like to be. Comic book message boards aren't "support" groups (though this place is far more likely to be a non-support group.)

Let's get back to discussing TOPICS, rather than EACH OTHER. Because if we keep talking about EACH OTHER, this thread is going to be locked, and the blame for that ultimately rests on the people who took the conversation to the personal level.

6 years ago

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Nuffsaid, tedsaid, whosaid, Rightsaidfred...there's a lot of saying going on!
	6 years ago	Post 124 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 13.24K	13.24K shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 4
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown CGC" is not a "synonym for "graded comic book." "CGC" is a brand name. And I suspect the folks at CBCS would not take kindly to having CGC be synonymous with "graded comic book. Sorry but this is no longer true. “CGC it” is now a common term among collectors. As is “CGC’d” among artists and creators when charging more for a witnessed book. CGC has successfully trancended the noun into verbs and adjectives. Congrats to them, it’s the best advertising one can have (and free!). And no, I’m not saying this just to piss you off. While I very much appreciate the anonymous gesture, and though theres missing context, I’ll own it.
	6 years ago	Post 125 • IP flag post

I'm good with splotches. 18.44K	18.44K Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 2
	@Tedsaid @X51 You guys get my vote if you run for president. Bravo! Well done indeed!
	6 years ago	Post 126 • IP flag post