@Huggy

Except those were replies to you and their sole purpose was not to taunt or insult you, the insults were in the context of making a point, whereas the quote in your signature is completely out of the context of this debate and is intended solely to humiliate the person quoted.

But of course, this will all fly over your head.

Oh, Buggy, your cluelessness is honestly the stuff of legend.

I just wish he was as charmingly nutty as professor, but he's just lucid enough to be as frustratingly dishonest as Drich.

(March 19, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Norman Humann Wrote: @Huggy

Except those were replies to you and their sole purpose was not to taunt or insult you, the insults were in the context of making a point, whereas the quote in your signature is completely out of the context of this debate and is intended solely to humiliate the person quoted.

But of course, this will all fly over your head.

it isn't out of context, faf stated I don't know science. My sig is in total relation to that statement, showing he's the one that doesn't know "science".

The above reply of course completely omits any input from the poster whereby they have repeatedly and consistently acted dishonestly with regards to the concepts they are talking about through the replies they are posting.

The point, which you miss Huggy, is that you've purposefully omitted the rest of the context where FaF admitted a mistake following clarification of the post/question you initially posited. Your signature seeks to posit that that's where the conversation began and ended, when in fact everyone, including you especially, knows that to be false. It misrepresents FaF's contribution to the conversation and indeed the conversation itself.

If you want to presume to lecture us on dishonesty, perhaps get your own house in order. Nobody has mentioned insults, and neither has anybody mentioned flaming. These are entirely separate subjects to the one at hand and everyone, including you, knows it.

(March 19, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: it isn't out of context, faf stated I don't know science. My sig is in total relation to that statement, showing he's the one that doesn't know "science".

And where is that context presented in the quote?!?

---

(March 19, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: The point, which you miss Huggy, is that you've purposefully omitted the rest of the context where FaF admitted a mistake following clarification of the post/question you initially posited.

Worse, he doesn't provide context within the text of the quote making it impossible for anyone who has not read the relevant threads to know what the context is.

(March 19, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: The above reply of course completely omits any input from the poster whereby they have repeatedly and consistently acted dishonestly with regards to the concepts they are talking about through the replies they are posting.

The point, which you miss Huggy, is that you've purposefully omitted the rest of the context where FaF admitted a mistake following clarification of the post/question you initially posited. Your signature seeks to posit that that's where the conversation began and ended, when in fact everyone, including you especially, knows that to be false. It misrepresents FaF's contribution to the conversation and indeed the conversation itself.

If you want to presume to lecture us on dishonesty, perhaps get your own house in order. Nobody has mentioned insults, and neither has anybody mentioned flaming. These are entirely separate subjects to the one at hand and everyone, including you, knows it.

He didn't admit a mistake, he made an excuse, big difference.

(August 13, 2014 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine. Yes, observation is the first step.

Even if he "thought" I meant immediately post-observation, he would still be wrong. Verifying the result would be the very last step.

(March 19, 2015 at 4:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Yes, clearly I'm the one trolling.
Isn't the a rule against flaming, but we know you'll turn a blind eye to that.

Yeah, hey, you'd definitely know more about the rules than the mods hired to enforce them.

It's like this:

Quote:No Flaming
Flaming is where a person makes a post that is either entirely or mostly made up of insulting language towards another member, and does not form part of a discussion between those members. Generally speaking, the occasional insult thrown at a person will not result in a violation of this rule, as discussions based around certain subjects tend to get heated for those involved and the use of insults is forgivable (and sometimes expected) in these situations. Additionally, staff will take into consideration the context surrounding the insult when making a decision. This rule is intended to prevent people from using the forum just to attack other members, or to bully opponents into submission. Members that have previously demonstrated that they are here to participate in civil conversation may be shown leniency if they run afoul of this rule. Punishments for violating this rule are verbal warnings, regular warnings, and varying lengths of bans, depending on the severity of the flaming and whether the member has violated the rule before.

Threats and threatening language are strictly forbidden, and any post that is considered a threat will only be exempt from punishment at staff discretion.

Insults are not flaming, where they come as part of a larger discussion, packaged with actual content. The identification of which is up to staff discretion, as this is a subjective thing that we need to take on a case by case basis.

All of the quotes you posted have additional content above and beyond the insult. Your sig is just the insult and nothing else, and you post it in multiple threads. You can't pretend they're remotely equivalent under the rules, and in fact I find it funny that you'll scour resources for single words that you think prove you right when it suits you, but ignore large swathes of what the rules actually say whenever it doesn't. You sure have a selective attention span there, Huggy.

Quote:You guys seem to be able to dish out the insults, but whine when YOUR OWN words are quoted back...pathetic.

When our own words are quoted back, out of context and with the intent to misrepresent, why wouldn't we get upset?

Huggy, no amount of twisting around can excuse the fact that the three sentences are taken out of context with the apparent intent of humiliating FaF.

Your signature does not provide any links to the posts mentioned or to the thread in which they were posted, nor does it contain the posts in their entirety. The lack of context is absolutely obvious to everyone.

Let alone the fact that you flaunting your "victory" around is terribly distasteful.

I don't even read Huggy's posts anymore.

I just skip ahead to where everyone else rips him a new asshole.