SPOOFE wrote:
-His method of operation follows the simple dictum of "If it hurts SW, hold to it at all costs." He has a near-religious zeal to tear down SW's strengths...
No, I just stand by the evidence, and arguments which are not proven false. I question all statements, including my own, to be sure that they hold weight. If they do not, I will not support them.
Quote:
-He likes being contradictory for the sake of being contradictory.
Cute . . . I can't say "No, I don't" without then
being contradictory.
Quote:
Beyond that, he follows the rule of argumentum ad infinitum... he just keeps repeating his assertions, ignoring evidence that counters his assertions, and responds with the same assertions to people who make different assertions.
I repeat myself because (A.) people craft stupid straw men of my argument or (B.) people ignore basic parts of my argument or basic facts of the evidence. This is most notable on occasions where, as you put it, I respond with the same assertions . . . assertions to the contrary are responded to in that way because the basic facts are being ignored by whoever has made the assertion to the contrary. In cases where they are not, I reply with a counterargument.
The only 'evidence' which I ignore is the EU, but that's hardly evidence, except in a discussion on an EU topic, such as the neutronium thing . . . in those cases, I do not ignore it.
Quote:
"Because everyone's against me, I must be right" (a Galileo complex, if you will).
If you'll recall, I've had to tell Ossus on several prior occasions that having people agree with me is irrelevant. The reverse, that having people disagree with me is irrelevant, is also true. While I do find Warsie Groupthink an amusing phenomenon, it has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of my statements.
Quote:
And while I usually have no qualms with hijacks in general, I find it quite rude of him to consistenly steer a discussion towards his own tired arguments.
This I find most amusing, especially in reference to Wong's whine in this thread about how his "Database" thread was 'hijacked'. Should you deign to actually look at that thread, you'll note that I pointed out a precisely on-topic piece of data . . . and then the Warsies started talking about stupid ideas like the Roman Empire defeating the Borg.
And yet, I am to be blamed for the thread going off-topic.
Riiiiiight.
Hell, I often become a topic in threads even when I'm not participating in them.
In my estimation, my departure would leave this little enclave of the Warsie Support Group phenomenon weakened. I am the great evil, the Pro-Trek Debater, the glue that binds. I'm the horrible, horrible person who waltzes in here and questions the support group's carefully guarded, remarkably delicate, intellectually dishonest beliefs, ranging from the belief that everyone including Lucas accepts the EU as fact ('Movie Purist' pro-canon Star Wars fans and Lucas disagree), to the belief that there really isn't much difference between the Alderaan scene in the Original or the SE (as incorrectly stated on Wong's site). By attacking the support group's beliefs, I become the favorite whipping-boy for any retard who wants to try to earn cool points in the eyes of his fellow Warsies. Naturally, this being a support group, any attack on me, no matter how full of distortions, misrepresentations, or out-right lies, is regaled as fact by the 'yes-man' groupthink. No one dares actually read what I say, and no one dares agree with me, lest the threat (as expressed by Ossus) of having "Village Idiot" stamped under their name come to pass.
But, psychological observations aside, the fact is that all of these Warsie shenanigans are irrelevant. I accept the BS, and move on, because I'm using you. My purpose is to put my arguments to a trial by fire . . . though this often simply becomes trial by flame . . . and see how they hold up. If (or, more commonly, when) none of you can make a decent counterargument, I know the argument is strong . . . if, as is more common, a clever Warsie deceit appears to counteract some element of my argument, I will know that I need to make the argument more idiot-proof.
Naturally, with the high correlation of 'Warsie' and 'idiot', many of you seem to think that the clever sophistries of your comrades constitute devastating disproof of this or that. Alternately, it might be the Warsie Groupthink . . . you barely read what I say, but pay careful attention to the counterarguments, and assume that they must be accurate, no matter whether they are based on straw men, outright falsehood, or what-have-you.
Whatever the case, your opinions are irrelevant. Only fiction requires the support of believers . . . facts stand on their own.