Why does Brian rarely post follow-up posts in the discussions he starts ?
I’ve fulfilled my lifetime quota of responding to trolls. That’s done. A more empty time-waster has never been invented.
Speaking of time-wasting, isn’t it time for some QT3 stats?
On the subject of political correctness I’d just like to add
I think that if the public-at-large would cease to use the cliche’ term “politically correct” and replace it with the conservative equivalents - Tact, Grace, and perhaps Class - we could all concentrate on having those, which would be considered “admirable qualities” rather that the liberal whine-fest manifesto that is bred by saying “P.C.”
“I care not if ye be correct, but ye prove crass, tactless, or lacking discretion in word or action - surely I shall dissociate myself from your company with utmost haste.”
~ Me
I wore my monocle when I wrote that. Haven’t had it out for a while.
I’ve fulfilled my lifetime quota of responding to trolls. That’s done. A more empty time-waster has never been invented.[/quote]
When a point is clearly stated and rationally defended, that ain’t trolling, Brian. That’s called a disagreement. If non-rational insults are thrown in with the disagreement, it still isn’t trolling… it’s just a very rude disagreement. However, your equation of almost everyone who disagrees with you as “trolls” explains quite a lot. Oh wait… no it doesn’t. We already knew that you’re unable to deal with opposing viewpoints, so you have to rationalize it somehow. I suppose thinking of us… all of us… as trolls is as good a rationale as any.
Talk to yourself a lot, dontcha Brian?
I’ve fulfilled my lifetime quota of responding to trolls. That’s done. A more empty time-waster has never been invented.[/quote]
Yes it has, and it’s called Brian Koontz Thread Topics. We all have to wade through your tortuous thought processes and monkey muffin half-assed hypotheses, you’d better be prepared to wade through some motherfuckers and bullshits on our end. Quid pro quo, and all that. Although it’s nice (no, actually, it isn’t) to see you’ve gone from simply implying we’re all stupid and below your level of thinking to accusing us of being trolls and n00bz and beneath your audience.
Anyway, this just further proves you post simply to feed your own flagging ego, to try to get a rise out of us our feel superior or God knows what the hell for. Calling troll and ignoring well-thought-out, well-supported counter-arguments is fucking sad. Calling STFU n00b is beyond reprehensible, O He Of Amazing And Deep Thought. I recall you also claiming to be a master of conversation. I hate to burst your bubble, Bubba, but you fucking flat-out suck in conversing on the internet. How about I repost my prior one minus the tomchickfoolery and let’s see what you can do with it? About your poor grasp of neoconservativism, Victorian and Puritan thought, and all that pointless shit about The Newlywed Game. You wouldn’t do a thing with it Brian, you couldn’t, because you’re ill-informed, ignorant, narrow-minded, and incompetent at discourse. You’re calling us trolls? Trolls typically make one stupid thread post in attempts to annoy the forumites and rarely respond when they attack. Who’s the fucking troll, Brian? And nobody gives you more shit than DrCrypt, and you respond to him all the time. Try another dodge, B-Koo.
And nobody gives you more shit than DrCrypt, and you respond to him all the time.
Game, set, and match.
I know it’s hip and cool and part of the ongoing QT3 street cred to make fun of Koontz in any fashion possible, so at the risk of stepping into an area where I can clearly see “Danger: Land Mines” written on a sign right outside the barbed-wire fence:
What exactly is ridiculous about arguing that whites are discriminated against with affirmative action? I’ve never gotten the whole concept of de-facto discrimination by economic circumstance, and how mandated viewing of someone as having “more inherent worth” simply because their particular skin-color, ethnicity, religion, or XY chromosome pairing is underrepresented isn’t somehow institutionalized discrimination anyway. I understand the concept that it’s supposed to somehow “correct” the horribly bigoted state that we constantly impose upon minorities, but I’m just having trouble reconciling the idea of “equality based on personal accomplishment and merit” with the idea of “Sorry, that job’s not for you, we need to meet our quota of under-represented minorities.”
I despise PCness for the same sense of inherent hypocrisy that Koontz seems to be railing against. The idea that you can combat narrowmindedness and bigotry by, effectively, institutionalizing it is utterly fucking insane.
“Roger?” Oh yeah, that movie was made by everyone’s favorite political pundit, Roger Moore. Some of his best work.
Affirmative action is clearly racial discrimination, for the reasons you indicate. Its not clear that it shouldn’t occur, however, also for the reasons you indicate. It might be a “necessary evil”, to correct against a “greater evil”.
I don’t understand why you are drawing a link between affirmative action and political correctness. Both are social engineering, but that’s about the end of the link.
Affirmative action cannot be part of a society that is not racist. Any favoritism I have toward it is based on the idea that it contributes to a movement toward a non-racist society.
The idea for this is based on segregation being the cause for racial intolerance and racism. If this is true, affirmative action, which forces minorites into peer interaction with whites, will cause non-racism.
The problematic element is that if whites see minorities as non-legitimate because of affirmative action’s role in their peer integration, affirmative action will actually lead to an increase in racism.
Affirmative action’s noble value thus is entirely dependent on the attitude of whites toward it.
What I’m unhappy about is the idea that the reason for affirmative action is to achieve economic parity for the various races. One of the ways to ensure affirmative action never achieves its noble goal is to subvert that goal. Beware references to “women make 60% of what men make”.
If Affirmative Action fails, it will be a dark day indeed.
I was going to say this a day or so ago (with about 70% more scathing subtext), but I’m happy I held off, since it’s funnier and more appropriate to have the guy you were trying to defend argue with you. Still wondering why the He-Man Koontz-Haters Club has such a large charter, mouselock?
:? <–I’ve always wondered what this emoticon means. Does it mean “No shit, we already knew that. Why the hell are you belaboring the obvious at us in such a patronizing tone?” Because that would work for me right about now.
What about the minorities it serves? Don’t they get a say? Plus, you’re wrong. The attitude of whites towards Affirmative Action was at its all-time low during its inception, when it was (arguably, but certainly by comparison to today) doing its most good.
Economic parity is a crass measuring tool for education and opportunity perhaps, but it’s the easiest one to use. I don’t know what the hell you mean by that bolded sentence. Don’t hire a black guy due to his skin color? Okay. I’ll throw in with you on the statement after that, but probably not for whatever reason you’re suggesting it for, since you never agree with anyone here as part of your obnoxious modus operandi. With a far greater percentage of women still being housewives with little to no personal income, that figure will always be skewed. People try to use it imply that a female working in occupation X of corporation A will make less than a male X in the same corporation, which isn’t true. No corporation is that dumb. It’s similar to the idea of charging men more for their car insurance premium, because statistically men are involved in more accidents. Of course, men tend to drive more, since couples and families typically have the man driving.
Cue spooky music. Hey, did the sun just go behind the clouds or something?
I never respond to Crypt’s trolling, but he doesn’t troll 100% of the time. I often don’t have the patience to wade through it.
However much DrCrypt would like Qt3ers to believe that his primary identity is trolling me, he has some interesting traits outside of that, mainly his style. Also, I feel a sense of responsibility toward him as previously discussed which encourages our relationship.
Also, DrCrypt is not dependent upon me for his reputation. Therefore, his trolling of me outside of entertainment value shows respect, that he sacrifices other avenues of posting to focus on me.
The trolling, for DrCrypt, is a way of defending himself against me. He can live in a world of his trolls which act as positive feedback.
You, on the other hand, troll me as a calculated method of gaining Qt3 popularity. I mean nothing to you except as far as that can serve you. You have managed to confuse a similarity between DrCrypt and yourself based on both being Koontz trolls. Perhaps you now see otherwise.
Dictionary.com tells me a troll is:
“An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other
(electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect,
but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the
act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an
emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply
key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their
minds.”
I’m confused now Brian - enlighten me: who is trolling?
The salient fact that you fail to miss here Brian, is neither Crypt (nor I, nor anyone here, for the most part) troll you. Oh, a few silly euphemisms and harmless invective here and there, but the meat of the replying posts to you are straight discourse. You’re always lording your self-proclaimed greater intelligence, knowledge, profound thinking, and conversational deftness over us at every opportunity. I suppose you refuse to let it sink in how obnoxious that is. You get similar in kind, is what I’m saying. You make fun of my brain, and I will make fun of your penis. What the hell do you expect? You have the people skills of a 6-year-old.
I respond to some of your posts because you’re so often wrong, and it’s hard to hold it in. Additionally, you’re a real jerk to people here when they try to engage you politely. Screw that. If you’re going to insist on being boorish, overbearing and, my favorite, dead-ass wrong and pathetically uninformed on nearly every topic you broach, don’t single me out amidst your sea of detractors. You’re a silly person and I’m going to make fun of you, Brian. Certainly, for the entertainment of the rest of the gang. Why the hell not? Someone has to light a match when you fart yet another pointless, meandering, incomprehensible screed against whatever binds your jockey shorts that day. I doubt you’ve ever bothered, but every time I respond to you, I’m trying to argue with you. You stick your head in the sand and call me a troll, just like you stuck your head in the sand and called another guy n00b because he leveled you. It’s a classic move, Brian, but no one’s falling for it.
Let me put down my Mt. Dew, I just did a spit-take. Was that supposed to be scathing and lucid? Doesn’t matter, because whatever my motives for calling you out on a occasional basis, I wonder what we all mean to you. When you post one of your typical pretentious mishmash posts with the obligatory condescending follow-ups, I wonder what the hell you’re up to, and how you keep on keepin’ on in spite of the fact that you’re wrong 99% of the time.
I see no relationship between Crypt and I that is any different than any relationship I have with anyone else here, or he with anyone, beyond we like to write colorful posts to liven things up around here. I would never impinge upon Crypt’s turf in dealing with you Brian, because he motherfucking owns you, sir, and he’s entertaining as hell when he goes about it. Myself, I just hate assholes, bullies, and people stuffed to the teeth with themselves. Finding you a buffoon and commenting on it does not a conspiracy make, despite that paranoid nonsense you posted to Crypt the other day.
If you can’t handle being called on every dumb statement you make, that’s your problem, but you can try looking down your nose at someone else, because I really don’t care, beyond the fact that it’s amusing as hell to watch you play your little smoke and mirrors game to cover up the fact that you have nothing to say in response to me. Similarly, I should wonder why I ever bother with you, since it’s become clear to me that you are either barely out of your teens and trying to sound smarter than you are, or a fairly dumb, uninformed adult with a superiority complex. Lose-lose.
Trolling has nothing necessarily to do with being incorrect, intentionally or otherwise.
For example, someone going to alt.christianity and posting “Christianity sucks!” may well be professing his honest belief, and is not “incorrect”. However, its clearly a troll (a weak one).
Here’s an example of me trolling Chet…
[quote=“Chet”]
Considering Sum Total of Humanity - 1 (Chet) = Sum Total of Idiots in your world, that’s really not much of an insult. Or perhaps that’s too “smarty guy” for you (dealing with subtraction and all)… I can do hand signs if that’s what you prefer.
You can put away the towel and timber… I don’t do smoke signals.[/quote]
Clearly a troll, yet it served the larger purpose of the post (what DrCrypt can argue his do) and it wasn’t incorrect as much as exaggerated (Chet has an instinctive reaction that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is an idiot).
Was my post entertaining? Yes. Are DrCrypt’s posts entertaining? Yes. Did my post throw Chet into a rage? No. Do DrCrypt’s posts throw me into a rage? No. Yet trolls they are.
I didn’t expect Chet to take my troll seriously, or at least straightforwardly. The point was greater context, humor, and insult.
Whenever Chet does respond to one of my trolls, its with a counter-troll. Which is the correct reaction, if he deems a reaction necessary.
Chet’s the only person I’ve had troll contests with. The guy is a lot of fun. I respect Chet.
Chet is not mean-spirited, which is absolutely necessary for good troll application.
Responding to a troll with a non-troll is insane.
I enjoy arguing with people who are arrogant. Far from objecting to it, I look at it as a more pleasurable war. Its a rather stupid argument to say that the best way to deal with arrogance is to troll. You can argue 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of whether the man saying it is arrogant.
I don’t quite think Chet sees it the same way. At all.
No, but they did cause your mind - a cerebral sloppy joe that some cosmic lunch lady ladled into your skull with a contemptuous sneer - to totally fucking snap. Your latest posts (in which you unblinkingly rave about a murky network of agents which shift around all the scenery of your life at my insidious command) read like fan fiction postscripts to Robert Heinlein’s sci-fi paranoia classic, “They”. Bill said it well, but the point deserves reiteration: the vast constabulary of people who inherently think you’re a total dingbat requires no orchestration. It is the music of the spheres.
I think it’s because in my mind they both boil down to a question of legitimacy. Is a minority getting that job because they’re the most qualified person, or because they’re the most qualified minority? Is an African American afforded the more (presumably) respectful title because they deserve that respect, or simply because it looks bad if you use the phrase “Black” these days?
One is inherent value, the other is legislated. I’m rather unfond of any attempt to measure people by externally imposed standards. Yes, this means that to someone for whom “Black” has less inherent value than “White”, they’ll be judged by that person as such. But then, if you call them “African American”, I doubt the true bigot is suddenly going to be swayed by the difference in title. Similarly, if a caucasian male gets a 4.0 GPA on his Harvard MBA, and an ethnic female gets a 3.8, no amount of legislating that the ethnic female meets a quota, is underrepresented, and therefore has presumably worked just as hard as the caucasian male to get her 3.8 GPA (and the job she’s applying for with it) is going to change the fact that the objective standards by which such things are measured dictates that the caucasian male has more knowledge than the ethnic female.
(Let’s beg off side discussions of such measurement standards, unless you’re going to argue that the measurement standard is prejudicial and skewed on the face of it, rather than due to lack of opportunity before entering the Harvard MBA program.)
I wasn’t so much defending him as saying “Hey, if you step off the hate bandwagon for a second, what about his point?”
And I’m all for healthy debate. I don’t agree with him it seems, which is fine. As long as he continues to give rational basis for what he’s saying, I’m all for it. It seems he’s long since crossed the line with a lot of folks, and I neither care nor really want to know why/how/when. It’s just kind of silly to me when someone does make a valid point/argument to take them to task for all the previous invalid ones they have made. If I’m a monkey typing random logical constructs on a typewriter, no matter how many stupid sentences I type before, when I type A=A, it’s still proper logic, y’know?
(Erm… hmm… not to imply Koontz is a monkey, or even an infinite monkey collective.)
It’s just kind of silly to me when someone does make a valid point/argument to take them to task for all the previous invalid ones they have made. If I’m a monkey typing random logical constructs on a typewriter, no matter how many stupid sentences I type before, when I type A=A, it’s still proper logic, y’know?
Especially on a message board, with its ability to record your previous words for posterity, a personality really is his or her history.
We’ve all said some dumb and baffling stuff, and responded in a hypocritical fashion when provoked.
However, Koontz has had very few lucid moments amid the gibberish he regularly pushes out to us. At this point, he’s created such a legacy for conceited chicanery that we’ve come to PRE-EMPTIVELY SUSPECT anything he types, and when he DOES actually make sense, we attribute it to coincidence. Much like the monkey in your example, if every previous line typed by it is uncovered to be random garbage, “A=A”, no matter the logical relevance, is dumped on the trash heap simply due to the context under which we reasonably suspect it was created.