Thread "Have YOU tried to save the internet today?" in forum "Comic Talk and General Discussion *"

Posted at 9:01AM, Jan. 21, 2012

Uh, what? You do realize that in my second post of this thread, the very first thing I said was piracy is bad and steps should be taken to stop it? Where are you getting all of this other nonsense? You're really grasping at straws here to justify your ad hominems now.

Funny that you bring up peoples' "true colors," though. You've been launching increasingly blatant personal attacks in this thread from the moment you got here; starting with "you're delusional," and ending with "you're the dumbest person I know." At first glance, I would have thought it was just this occasion. But then you decided to throw Tantz and Pit under the bus in your little hissyfit, and that's where it all makes sense. Because, a quick glance through a certain locked thread about a certain WW-II comic's review revealed that this is all standard practice for you.

You might use an educated man's vocabulary and sentence structure. But, you're still a little boy if you're unable to articulate your ideas without demeaning every individual who shares the misfortune of disagreeing with you.

I might be a lot of things, good and bad, to a lot of people. But I'm capable of admitting I'm wrong, and altering my position on a given stance. I'm capable of challenging someones thoughts without challenging their character, and acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Of these things, you've demonstrated you can do none. You're a wellspoken thug who employs pseudo-intellectual mud-slinging tactics the moment you're forced to consider a position contradictory to yours.

I'm no longer having this discussion with you, as frankly I'm no longer able to take you seriously. Have a nice day.

Posted at 10:01AM, Jan. 21, 2012

NickyP wrote:
Uh, what? You do realize that in my second post of this thread, the very first thing I said was piracy is bad and steps should be taken to stop it?

You did say that. People say a lot of things. Your subsequent statements made it clear you do not mean a word of it.

Funny that you bring up peoples' "true colors," though. You've been launching increasingly blatant personal attacks in this thread from the moment you got here; starting with "you're delusional," and ending with "you're the dumbest person I know."

None of those were personal attacks. The statement you made WAS delusional, and I'd be remiss not to point that out. You did not attempt to support it, because you couldn't. And the point of that "dumbest person I've ever met" statement is that you're obviously not dumb, but being facetious with us. I do not expect you to agree with me on whether Google's practices are good or bad, but for you to pretend it's not going on when anyone with internet access knows it is, is a joke.

You might use an educated man's vocabulary and sentence structure. But, you're still a little boy if you're unable to articulate your ideas without demeaning every individual who shares the misfortune of disagreeing with you.

Ha! And calling someone a "little boy" isn't the least bit demeaning, is it! I am educated, but I don't use an educated man's vocabulary. I make a concerted effort to speak plainly so I am understood.

Interestingly enough, I've disagreed with everybody who's posted in this thread, and yet you're the only one I've accused of being dishonest. Because you ARE being dishonest, and that's the problem. I've given you every opportunity to have an honest and straightforward discussion, and you've decided instead to keep spewing out cheap empty rhetoric and innuendo. I am not here to discredit you; you've discredited yourself and it's all here in black-and-white.

I might be a lot of things, good and bad, to a lot of people. But I'm capable of admitting I'm wrong, and altering my position on a given stance. I'm capable of challenging someones thoughts without challenging their character, and acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

And yet, you've not exhibited any of that here in this thread! I suppose I'll have to take your word for it!

I'm no longer having this discussion with you, as frankly I'm no longer able to take you seriously. Have a nice day.

I stopped taking you seriously a long time ago, Nicky. Again, I gave you every chance to be straight-up. I tried to let you off the hook, but you're incorrigible. Maybe it is for the best that you just stop now.

Posted at 10:01AM, Jan. 21, 2012

Come on guys, keep it clean.
Healthy disagreement is great, but don't get personal.

I know how hard that can be, I'm the worst at it, but it doesn't mean you two have to be. This is a really interesting debate, I'd love to se you keep going at it, as long as you don't get mean.

I will base this week's Quackcast on SOPA, copyright and how it affects webcomics and webcomic hosting sites like DD.

Posted at 3:01PM, Jan. 21, 2012

The only thing I have to say- because I know exactly what sort of an interlocutor Cid is- is that if you want to involve me in your …expose, El Cid, you'd do well to first answer the points I raised, rather than take pot shots at me WITHOUT any attempt at refuting (or even just discussing) MY points, because you are angry at Nicky for HIS points.

It doesn't do you credit to try and throw ad hominems when you have no alternative than repeat the same (refuted) argument, and it does you even less credit to throw ad hominems to people that have not addressed you or bothered themselves with you in some effort of yours to… I suppose add more effect to your ad hominems ;)

Ozone, past experience tells me that in order to stop this from becoming exponentially abrasive, you will need to lock the thread, unfortunately.

Posted at 5:01PM, Jan. 21, 2012

@Tantz: I haven't taken any pot shots at you. The only reason your name came up was because I was looking to take an OBJECTIVE pulse to get an idea what other people think, which means excluding those who might potentially have ulterior motives for causing trouble here. No offense, but obviously that's not you. Not saying that to be a prick, but you do understand why I would think that, right or wrong. I agree with a lot of the contributions you made to this thread, with some reservations, but obviously with the bill now being rewritten any further discussion is somewhat moot.

@Ozone, and everyone else following this thread: I apologize if I came off as unduly belligerent. I invite you to ignore mean old me and continue discussing if you'd like, though again, there really is no bill to discuss now so it's almost pointless!

Posted at 1:01AM, Jan. 22, 2012

@EL CID, Actually I didn't think you came off sounding too bad, I've read through the entire thread this morning and for the most part your posts are no worse than nickys. I did find it interesting because of your posts, otherwise it's just "SOPA IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Overall though I think it's a good thing that it has been sent back to the drawing board as what comes back will hopefully be a better bill that will be harder for people to oppose and more effective at combating the actual problem.

Posted at 5:01AM, Jan. 22, 2012

I agree, but I think the main hurtle they need to get over is going to be doing a better job of informing people. Otherwise, no matter how reasonable the new bill is, shrieking demagogues will be able to work people into a panic over it. Not sure how or even if that can be done. I've been dangling a direct link to the bill under everybody's nose for the duration of this thread, and I'm curious how many people read that, and how many people read scary articles and blog posts telling them the Internet is going to die?

Posted at 7:01AM, Jan. 22, 2012

Nope! you know what Cid? you DONT get to chose who replies to you and who doesnt. seeing as how this thread is probably about to become locked anyways, im gonna take the gloves off and tell you JUST what i think of you.
this is all the same old song and dance as before. you pick and chose points made by your opponet then ignore their other points, and then you dont even actually think about the rebuttle. you twist it to mean just what you want it to and fuck everybody else. do you try to be slick about it? oh yeah, you try to but maby the actual reason you tell me and Tantz to sit this one out is because we've witnessed this before already. you're right. you're right, you're always fucking right and no one else has sense like you do huh? well thank GOD for that because your eletist bull headed attitude makes me sick.
am i "beating my chest"? do i have an opinion of you already, the very reason you dont want me to respond? yeah i do, there it is for you to keep. im done caring about your damn opinion.

Posted at 7:01AM, Jan. 22, 2012

Genejoke wrote:
@EL CID, Actually I didn't think you came off sounding too bad, I've read through the entire thread this morning and for the most part your posts are no worse than nickys. I did find it interesting because of your posts, otherwise it's just "SOPA IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Overall though I think it's a good thing that it has been sent back to the drawing board as what comes back will hopefully be a better bill that will be harder for people to oppose and more effective at combating the actual problem.

Gene I feel I would be doing you a disservice if I don't address this post of yours: the entire thread's theme (including Nicky's posts) has been : "Yes we SHOULD fight piracy, but SOPA does NOT fight piracy as it claims it does". Nobody has been raging against it like it's the antichrist's first essay, like El Cid probably feels. It is just an objective evaluation of the bill (which by the way I have read VERY carefully), and it is because of this objective evaluation that it was taken 'back to formula'. If a reasonable bill is yielded from the rewrite, then people will not oppose it, as has been done many times over for many bills in the past. Nicky's posts have been emotionally charged at times BUT they have not been sensationalist.


El Cid:
  The only reason your name came up was because I was looking to take an OBJECTIVE pulse to get an idea what other people think, which means excluding those who might potentially have ulterior motives for causing trouble here. No offense, but obviously that's not you. Not saying that to be a prick, but you do understand why I would think that, right or wrong.

Please enlighten me as to why you feel that I need to be excluded from those bringing objective feedback to the table, El Cid, and why you would feel on top of that, that this would be obvious.

Do you think that I would forego objectivity just to attack or ennervate you? Have you any OBJECTIVE proof of me ever doing that?

Should I take it that this is what you feel YOU would do, in such a context? I have seen you do it (with objective proof) but I didn't think you do it consciously…

And you do understand, of course, why your insinuations DO make me take offense, and I would like you to apologise IMMEDIATELY, because you are insulting me without any reason to do so, and I don't accept that from anyone.

Posted at 8:01AM, Jan. 22, 2012

Seems people have gotten a bit angrier if anything.
Tantz, your advice to lock thins thread was sensible.

It's been a great long talk and it's lovely to have an active discussion like this here, but this is now too angry to be recovered.
With regret and blather I will lock this. Maybe you can start over? :)