[quote]rainjack wrote:
You make assumptions that are just flat wrong. I misplaced a name. That is not replying without reading - much as you would like it to be. [/quote]
Ah yeah?
Let’s review. It started on page 1 when Hedo claimed the following,
[i]hedo wrote:
And no, based on the data, the war cannot be blamed for the rise[/i]
To which I replied,
[i]lixy wrote:
That is a bold statement. Iscariot’s analysis is better.[/i]
The “bold statement” being “war CANNOT be blamed for the rise”. Then you jump in an say;
[i]Rainjack wrote:
Only because it comes to the conclusion that agrees with you. [/i]
I still assume you made an honest mistake and courteously ask
[i]lixy wrote:
Did you even read Iscariot’s post?[/i]
To remove any ambiguity, I even state what Iscariot’s position was by writing,
[i]lixy wrote:
He argues that the present data is not enough to correlate the rise of the suicide rate with the war. [/i]
You remain impermeable to reason and reply:
[i]Rainjack wrote:
I’m sure vroom will be in here momentarily to give you a great big pat on the back. [/i]
Iscariot jumps in, not to back up my position, but merely to stress that his position is not what you think it is. He put it in these terms
[b][i]Iscariot wrote:
Eh? The only conclusion I came to was that it’s not possible, with the data presented so far, to come to any sort of conclusion other than the basic premises.
Also, I was unaware that listing a series of criteria under which a conclusion, that I’d be satisfied with, could be drawn denotes a fact-based analysis in the first place.
So please, don’t drag me into your little hate-fest, Rainjack.
[/b][/i]
You remain cramped on your position and reply to Iscariot’s polite post in the harshest terms,
[b][i]Rainjack wrote:
I don’t even know who the fuck you are, nor have I read any of your posts that I am aware of.
So run along. Come back when you have something coherent to babble about. [/b][/i]
At that point, Iscariot realizes that arguing with you is useless and calls you every name in the book.
How can you honestly say that it was just misplacing the name? This was a clear case of not paying any attention to what was written many many times. There was nothing ambiguous at any point.
Misplacing a name happens. But not budging an inch even after you were informed more than once (and by more than one person) of your mistake, shows that you have a pretty high view of yourself and infallibility. Surely anyone with an open mind would have considered the possibility that he might be wrong a lot earlier in the thread.
?
On this site, thread hit counts are computed by summing up the number of clicks on particular thread. There is no need to install anything on the server. A simple client-side script will do the trick.
I’m not talking about breaking any laws here. It would not even be considered spamming, because legally, I have every right to keep clicking on the thread to drive its hit count up.
There is a good reason no protection is implemented against this and I pointed it out earlier: Hit counts don’t matter here.
I see…so they actually have electrodes put in our brains to check that people are reading the thread before their server actualizes the hit counter.
I didn’t know folks in Virginia were that much ahead of us.
Yet, the janitor at Wal Mart can tell you that hit counts don’t affect the potential audience so much as they determine the past audience.
I don’t whine. I call it what it is: disruptive behavior that does nobody any good.
Full of shit? Definitely. That’s inevitable when on a bulk diet.
I don’t want everyone to “believe everything” I write, as that would again defeat the purpose of a forum. If I wanted that, I’d start a cult.
I don’t see any harm in trying to make everyone play nice. People are inherently good in my book, and I’ll aspire to make the world a more peaceful place as long as I’ll live.