Open letter to Buccaneer

[Cossack]

You know I cant lie, I've suspected Bucc of being Grifter  a few times (sorry if that offends you Bucc, its just my inner skeptic), but there are some facts that Rapid presents that are false. Bucc dosent talk like Grifter. I was there when Grifter said, "WOMAN GET IN THE KITCHEN AND MAKE ME SOME PIE!" I have voice chated with Grifter a few times, he dosent sound like Bucc who I am on netfone as I type this. About the baby issue, Bucc's kid was born a few weeks ago, Grifter's kid was allegedly born a few weeks after his death. For anyone that thinks like Rapid, maybe some physical evidence should be presented.
Almost forgot, Bucc announced he knocked his old lady up way more than three months ago. I think I remember talking to him about it during September or October about nine months ago.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Before this goes completely off subject and dies -

Bucc, you've refused a peace offering, and contemptuously at that.  I guess it's your loss - don't expect any change in my attitude.  I'll sure look forward to more of your "dumbfucking."

Get it right Loudass, I refused a half assed peace offering that sounded more like a fucking ultimatum to me (stop picking on Bondo).  And I refused it because instead of discussing my issues, you fucking didn't address them at all, just kept giving me your conditions.  Well fuck you, I don't need that disrespect, and I sure as hell wont offer what you want when you are acting that way.  Asshole.


Cossack, I don't mind talking to friends about stuff like this.  The big difference is that Rapid, like Bondo, chooses to be disrespectful to his memory.

To fill in the blanks for some of the other friends of his here that I don't talk to often: yes, I only told the people I am friendly with that my girlfriend was pregnant last summer.  First rule is you don't tell anyone until after 3 months in case there is a miscarriage. So I started telling people like Ace and Cossack in October.  Grifter's son Michael was born in September, two months after his death.

But, more important, any of Grifter's old friends should know better than to listen to the asshole known as Rapid.  All he has is a mouth and an attitude, which is why I don't bother responding to his bullshit.  You can use all the logic and reason in the world.  You can show all the proof, it doesn't matter, because he doesn't want it to.  He just wants to spread his hate and rumors.  That's all.  So I thank you guys for defending his memory, but Rapid isn't worth the time.  Fuck him.  He should be grateful that I'm not Grifter, or his system would have failed him long ago, but I'm not even in Grifter's league when it came to that stuff.

[AK_Rap1d]

Sounds good and all, but the only dumbshit is yourself Bucc.  You wanted war, and you got it.  I have always respected Grifter's memory, hell, even made him a memorial page with collected quotes from all present RS players, but no, I'm the disrespectful one...  You see, I came to these conclusions later on.  When you "appeared" after Grifter "died".  You came in, and treated me disrespectfully, as if you had personal problems with me.  As if we had talked before.  But by looking at the name, I knew I never talked to you.  But after seeing the way you typed, the facts that you were using Grifter's computer and was playing his Video Games in the same matter as him.   Had same IP, was going to run his business.  Then you talked to me with such disrespect, that I knew something was wrong with this picture.  The minute I brought out the truth, you immediately attacked me in hope that nobody would believe me.  But you see, they don't have to believe me.  They just have to look at the facts.  

Anyways, you claimed you retired these forums, yet you come back to talk out of your ass.  You come here to fulfill your empty social life.  It's ok, because your display, shows the human waste behind it.  Keep up your BS, guess it's all you can do since it's all you know how to do...

[NiXon]

Who the fuck is Bucc?

And how can u say that is Grifter ??

This fourm has turned into a nut farm, full of alot of NEW nuts!

I thought i would strole by and see who is still left from people I know! I find very few, but what I found was a pile of nonsence  

Mod Man I have not seen you in a longtime buddy show yourself !

But I am not on alot either,  Keep it clean here buddy!

[tasty]

Haha, well said NiX. You're the greatest .

[jn.loudnotes]

Yeah. . .I know Nix.  Nonsense it is.  This is all I ever do with R6 anymore. . .debating political bullshit with people who mostly aren't interested in hearing my opinion.

Long time no see, anyway.  This is what's left of modman. . .sigh.  I don't think I've even been on GR for a couple months. . .and the only game I have any more is Ghost Recon.  And it doesn't work for me in multi-player.  So here I am.

Auch lerne ich immmer viel mehr Deutsch.  Vielleicht k?nnte ich nochmal mit dir reden.  Die sp?te Nachte mit R6 und schlechte Grammatik vermisse ich sehr!

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Hmm, since you don't like Loud getting in between the two of us, how about we try our own deals, that way Loud doesn't need to include me in it.

Here are our differences:
A. I believe in civil disagreement while you believe in hostile disagreement (Civility can extend even when someone makes a factual error)

You admit as much that you don't try to be nice when you are critical of someone.  There are nicer ways you could go about things than you do.  I simply think these nicer ways are the best for getting along.  And I think getting along is something to shoot for because open hostility does nobody any good.

B. I state and defend my argument while largely ignoring the structure or quality of opposing arguments while you criticize my argument while largely ignoring building one of your own (seperate from mine).

I don't get heavy into analyzing other people's arguments for possible errors, I state my views and if someone brings up a question as to if my view has errors, I try to clarify my stance.  You tend not to have posts in threads where you just state your own view without commenting on others, most of your posts are specifically replying to another person's argument, often pointing out alleged error with that lack of tact as was discussed in the point above.

C. I use arguments based on theory, hypothetical, idealism just to present a point while you demand and present arguments strictly of a factual nature.

You don't take my arguments as you intend them, in essance you don't try to understand my arguments.  Think of the "till you walk a mile in his shoes".  You need to understand that my style of arguing is different than yours and isn't really subject to the same analysis.  Sure, my Gran Turismo argument would be a lousy factual base for giving a defined nationality for Mazda.  But my argument was not of factual but of perceptual base.  Gran Turismo as a part of pop culture is a good sign of the cultural (not the actual) nationality of Mazda.  For the argument I was making, it is a capable example.  Our arguments came to different conclusions because they were based on different approaches to the question.  They can't be directly compared on a right/wrong scale.

D. I consider the arguments to be subjective with no right or wrong while you consider the arguments to be either right or wrong (mostly based on style of the argument rather than conclusion)

This is mostly a result of the above point, due to completely different methods and goals of the argument, my style of argument and yours cannot be compared directly as right or wrong.  They could only be compared against a similar argument or against itself (for example, if Mazda was in fact listed as an American car in GT, then my argument would be wrong).

This is what I was talking about with the two types of logic.  The difference between structural logic (premises based on a hypothetical situation, and thus not subject to being either right or wrong, but maintaining the flow of logic in reaching a valid conclusion, that simply the premises must lead to the conclusion that is made) and factual logic (which has premises based in a factual proof and thus has well defined premises to have the soundness debated more surely as right or wrong).

I'm sure there are more but this is a good general starting point.

I would like to mention that I agree with your criticism of Loud's moderation, there are no defined rules and so there was little precedent for that moderation action.  However, as per one of your recommendations, I feel we should establish rules so that moderators can edit out things such as he did.  But I have a feeling you wouldn't like the rules I would suggest be set up.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo, if you actually read all that what it says is you don't argue or debate, you just give your opinion.  See another thread for the meat of that analysis, but you point it out here beautifully.  You don't debate.  

Debate (arguments) is a point, counterpoint, work on the points, bring in the facts that form and support that conclusion.

You give your opinion, don't really listen to others, or facts that point out where your conclusion is lacking, keep giving your opinion, say how your opinion can't be wrong, say how it can be both ways, etc etc etc.

It's not a subjective world out there.  You are living in a dream.  Why bother to try to debate a point when you never look at the other side?  Never consider the merits or shortcomings of it?  Because it's not debate, it's just giving your opinion over and over, without ever considering anything else.  And people say I'm arrogant?  Now that is arrogance.  To think that your opinion can never be wrong, and to never hold it's basis up to the light for inspection.

So all of your points just point to the fact that yes, I use logic and you don't.  Something established long ago.  That and you don't like my form of disrespect and still disavow any knowledge that you can be just as disrespectful while still being civil.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

But I do use logic Bucc, a pity you won't get out of your own head enough to accept that.

And Bucc, I read other people's opinions and they influence my own, but the big problem is, your usual critiques of my opinions (when did I state they weren't opinions?  Opinions can be arguments and arguments can be opinions) don't actually disprove them, they just disagree with them, typically on semantic, value, or other similar differences that are disputable.

You criticize me of falsely believing that everything is subjective and not accepting that I'm wrong, well you falsely seem to believe that nothing is subjective and also don't accept that you could be wrong (certainly as much as me).  Only you do it in a hostile way, I don't.  You are no better than me, no more correct than me, but at least I tolerate the other views (what I don't tolerate is intolerance) and don't respond in an offensive manner.  Now, you can go on about how disrespect isn't always done in a hostile manner, but my posts to you have nothing to do with my disrespect (although I have no reason to respect you), they have to do with civil disgust about incivility.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

But I do use logic Bucc, a pity you won't get out of your own head enough to accept that.

Now that's a fucking joke.  I'm still waiting for the name of that other logic you learned in college.  You know, I asked for the name of the text, so I could look it up.  The one you told me about.  Where you learned your form of logic.  Bullshit.  You make it up.  We've been all over that.  

Opinions can be arguments and arguments can be opinions)

The opinions are the conclusions dumbass.  Logic is the argument used to form those conclusions (opinions).  Opinions are not arguments.  Where in the hell did you learn that bullshit?

Conclusions are formed, not at the beginning, but at the end.  After facts have been analyzed.  

You criticize me of falsely believing that everything is subjective and not accepting that I'm wrong, well you falsely seem to believe that nothing is subjective and also don't accept that you could be wrong (certainly as much as me).  

First, nope, I admit where I am wrong.  And I surely consider any facts that point in either direction.  Second, nope, I believe that some things are subjective, but much of the world isn't (our universe is ruled by laws of chemistry and physics).  

(what I don't tolerate is intolerance)

Anyone else want to mock that one.  It's too bush league for me to hit.  (it did make me laugh at his bullshit though)

Now, you can go on about how disrespect isn't always done in a hostile manner, but my posts to you have nothing to do with my disrespect (although I have no reason to respect you), they have to do with civil disgust about incivility.

Bullshit.  Plain and simple bullshit.  You and Loudass have disrespected me often.  And I don't care that it's not as important to you or him as being civil.  Because to me, it all boils down to it.  And I have no reason to not show my complete lack of respect for either of your asses.  Neither of you has given me a reason (I repeat once again, because you try to be civil is of no concern to me, and therefore not a reason.  That's your wish, not mine.)  You just don't seem capable of getting it, you haven't so far.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, now you are the one who seems not to be reading.  I told you, I use structural logic while you use factual logic.  Like I said, my premises tend to be such that you can certainly disagree with it and thus claim it isn't a sound argument, but you can't actually prove it wrong...nor can I prove it right.  Thus you build up these premises and have a valid conclusion.  Since you can't absolutely prove the premises right or wrong due to their nature, soundness doesn't apply.

Compared to factual logic where the premises are directly factual and thus are either right or wrong and thus it is possible to judge the soundness.

It is essentially the same type of logic process, one just is theoretical and not subject to the critique of soundness.

As paradoxical as saying I'm only intolerant of intolerance is, that doesn't make it completely ridiculous.  It is sort of like the Mean People Suck thing.  I'm well aware of the inherent problem with the statement, but if you think about it and understand what is meant by it like I'm sure you did, it isn't "bullshit".

[jn.loudnotes]

I think I've figured out what really bothers me, Buccaneer.  It's not the disrespect - I really don't care what you think of me or anyone else.  I think it's just the complete lack of self-control you show in it.  I think most people have no problem with disrespect shown through carefully worded counterpoints or suggestions - it's even questionable whether it's disrespect (since in our case I meant no disrespect, but you interpreted it as such)

However, you leave no room for doubt.  It's offensive to call people a fuckass.  It really isn't nearly as offensive to most normal people to face criticism, constructive or mean-spirited (however it's seen)

Why, as a society, do we have rules for politeness and civility?  Don't you think they serve any purpose?  Where would we be if people rampantly cursed each other at the slightest provocation (or none at all)  I'm not against well-said insults when called for.  But if you really believe yours have been justified, you're sick.

This board isn't any different from a public street, or a public presidential debate.  Just as you would no more tell a candidate to fuck himself because his policies are retarded, you really have no right to do the same here.

I can see that immediately you'll pull some half-assed response about how this board isn't the same because we're not actually running for office here, or some such reason.  For once, I think you should look at this post as an analogy - not pure facts - opinion-laden, but correct from my perspective as a moderator - I want this to be a civil place.  I don't care how "honest" you like to be - your honesty isn't appropriate.

I realize I've been awfully sanctimonious, and I really don't like it.  It's haughty and stupid.  But I'm sick of seeing you and Bondo at it, and having you always against me as well.  I've made it clear I'm willing to drop the criticism - if you'll show the respect to me to at least conceal your insults behind a veil of self-restraint.

Finally, have you taken a second, as I've done to realize my own hubris - to step aside and try to look at your posts objectively?  Whatever Bondo may of said about being logical - do you realize you just told him that he's not using "logic" unless it came from a textbook?  Logic is reason.  Bondo's reasoning you may disagree with, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You asked for a reason for you to be civil - don't do it for me.  Do it for the community, for this board, and for the debates.  And for god's sake, do it to stop all this bullshit.  That power is fully in your hands.  You've told me I simply can ignore you, but you must realize how impossible that is here when you're one of the only ones posting.  I've been frustrated a number of times.  Still, I frankly can't make you be civil ("respectful" in the words I've used earlier) without continuing to pester for it.