How many countries have not been invaded by the British?

[Symmetry]

Oh, I see. So when we say 'invade' in this thread we're not actually using the word in any meaningful sense? Drivel like this is why I also have Symmetry foed.

It's not Sym's fault that the author of the study used a loose definition of invasion.

And it's not my fault if some countries were only loosely invaded by the British. Hell- Hawaii was kind of a walk over invasion that surprised me. Jones was surprised that Brits invaded Mexico.

I do like the idea that Brits only loosely invaded a bunch of countries. That's a great lawyerly way to put it.

I think it's fascinating (the countries invaded or militarily bullied) by the Brits.

I also am fascinated by how many people have you foed.

How many am I up to now?

[thegreekdog]

Two today. That's gotta be a record for forum foes in one day.

[Symmetry]

Two today. That's gotta be a record for forum foes in one day.

If the previous record was one, then I guess so.

[thegreekdog]

Two today. That's gotta be a record for forum foes in one day.

If the previous record was one, then I guess so.

As soon as I typed "that's gotta be a record..." and then hit submit, I thought "Symmetry's going to give me shit on the "two" being a record thing."

[Symmetry]

Two today. That's gotta be a record for forum foes in one day.

If the previous record was one, then I guess so.

As soon as I typed "that's gotta be a record..." and then hit submit, I thought "Symmetry's going to give me shit on the "two" being a record thing."

I have taught you well, but perhaps not well enough.

[_sabotage_]

TGD, you still have time left to make it three.

[Symmetry]

TGD, you still have time left to make it three.

I've never really understood how being foed should be considered as a bad thing. Being foed doesn't really affect me, it's just saying that you're making my posts more difficult to read for yourself, isn't it?

[jonesthecurl]

I only ever foed one person cos I didnt want to see what they said. I foed a bunch who didnt take their turns.

[thegreekdog]

TGD, you still have time left to make it three.

I've never really understood how being foed should be considered as a bad thing. Being foed doesn't really affect me, it's just saying that you're making my posts more difficult to read for yourself, isn't it?

I only ever foed one person cos I didnt want to see what they said. I foed a bunch who didnt take their turns.

I don't think I've ever foed anyone. Typically, when I don't want to read someone's posts, I don't read them. If someone is getting on my nerves, I have a lot of options, but typically I do want to read that user's post. As an example, Player was really getting on my nerves. I could have foed her, I suppose, but I just ended up skipping over her posts (it helped that they were typically very long).

[_sabotage_]

It's less about reading his posts than discouraging him from asking stupid questions that lead nowhere.

I'd told him where I sourced the image. Told him it was as arbitrary as his, told him it should be taken as such and then he demands evidence that I had already told him would be arbitrary, equally arbitrary to that used for his image.

He has double standards. He is annoying and I don't feel like he should expect me to respond to such nonsense.

As for player, I responded to her by quoting empty posts to say she was saying nothing. The difference is that she didn't make unreasonable demands and pursue them to the ends of earth. She didn't demand me to prove what I had already stated to be arbitrary.

I have a long tradition of not responding to the finer points because they tend to bog a discussion down, in no way add to the discussion and are tools of wannabe debaters who have nothing to say (BBS).

As Sun Tzu says, the easiest way to defeat your enemy is to frustrate him. I have no intention of getting myself into a quagmire to nowhere.

[thegreekdog]

wannabe debaters who have nothing to say (BBS).

Wow. Okay.

[Symmetry]

It's less about reading his posts than discouraging him from asking stupid questions that lead nowhere.

I'd told him where I sourced the image. Told him it was as arbitrary as his, told him it should be taken as such and then he demands evidence that I had already told him would be arbitrary, equally arbitrary to that used for his image.

He has double standards. He is annoying and I don't feel like he should expect me to respond to such nonsense.

As for player, I responded to her by quoting empty posts to say she was saying nothing. The difference is that she didn't make unreasonable demands and pursue them to the ends of earth. She didn't demand me to prove what I had already stated to be arbitrary.

I have a long tradition of not responding to the finer points because they tend to bog a discussion down, in no way add to the discussion and are tools of wannabe debaters who have nothing to say (BBS).

As Sun Tzu says, the easiest way to defeat your enemy is to frustrate him. I have no intention of getting myself into a quagmire to nowhere.

So your approach is to be as frustrating as possible?

[_sabotage_]

BBS has chased me for pages asking for a definition. The reason he needs to chase me for pages is: every time I have provided a definition, he goes nitpicking into the most minute details which are not pertinent to the greater point I'm making, refuses to discuss the greater point itself and the best possible outcome is that after pages of of fruitless discussion, I'm back to where I started.

He sends people on wild goose chases and once the goose chase has been general agreed to be over, refuses to discuss the initial point.

This is not a debate, but the technique used to muddle a debate.

Each time, I tell him the same thing I tell you, any definition you like. This is to avoid the needless pages, or nullify his intention of muddling the dialogue and then bouncing.

You responded with the definition you liked and then we proceeded quickly from there. BBS has never provided his own definition because it would nullify the entire purpose of asking for it: turning the dialogue into a quagmire.

My adoptive mother drafts laws and writes legal contracts for the World Bank. I'm pretty aware how a discussion can be co-opted.

[Symmetry]

It seems that you're pretty keen on derailing this thread. I think you succeeded.

[thegreekdog]

BBS has chased me for pages asking for a definition. The reason he needs to chase me for pages is: every time I have provided a definition, he goes nitpicking into the most minute details which are not pertinent to the greater point I'm making, refuses to discuss the greater point itself and the best possible outcome is that after pages of of fruitless discussion, I'm back to where I started.

He sends people on wild goose chases and once the goose chase has been general agreed to be over, refuses to discuss the initial point.

This is not a debate, but the technique used to muddle a debate.

Each time, I tell him the same thing I tell you, any definition you like. This is to avoid the needless pages, or nullify his intention of muddling the dialogue and then bouncing.

You responded with the definition you liked and then we proceeded quickly from there. BBS has never provided his own definition because it would nullify the entire purpose of asking for it: turning the dialogue into a quagmire.

My adoptive mother drafts laws and writes legal contracts for the World Bank. I'm pretty aware how a discussion can be co-opted.

I've discussed things with BBS many times (and once or twice disagreed with him). I've never found his requests for support to be unreasonable. Someone I disagree with continuously (e.g. Mets or Sym) also do not provide unreasonale requests for information.

There comes a point when you should think about whether people who are asking you for defintions or support are the problem or whether you are the problem. In other words, you have a point of view about debate that you believe is correct. However, many of the people you interact with have a view about debate that they also believe is correct. When there are more people who have the latter point of view, when does it become evident that you are the one doing something wrong?

[mrswdk]

It's always good to check that the foundations of your tower block are structurally sound, rather than just throwing up the building and marvelling at how shiny it is.

[mrswdk]

Construction nong: no no, it's fine. You guys can move in now.

10 years later: 'building scheduled for demolition'.

Oh, for some scrutiny.

[_sabotage_]

Sorry, TGD, but consensus means nothing.

If had any intention of building a shiny building, he can provide his own meaning. We did this with "control". He asked me to define it. I asked him to choose whichever definition he likes. He refused and asked me to define it. I did, taking the first definition that google spewed out. He then went on for several posts nitpicking at my definition. I repeatedly said I'm ok with however he'd like to define it and then he never addressed my initial post.

What is the point of going through all that? I'm not building a foundation for a shiny building, I'm just being attacked for no reason except to prevent productive discussion.

Because you maintain the same biased opinion as BBS in my threads doesn't make them right. Because we spent several pages getting no where doesn't lead to a conclusion.

[AndyDufresne]

Sorry, TGD, but consensus means nothing.

I agree. I long ago threw everything out of the window that was based on consensus -- science, economics, you name it.


--Andy

[_sabotage_]

Science isn't based on consensus, it's based on theories which can't be challenged.

As Einstein said: libraries were written trying to prove me wrong, but a single paper would suffice.

[thegreekdog]

Sorry, TGD, but consensus means nothing.

Because you maintain the same biased opinion as BBS in my threads doesn't make them right. Because we spent several pages getting no where doesn't lead to a conclusion.

If your goal is to prove a position to people (which, I believe, is the only reason to post these kinds of topics in off-topics), then consensus does matter. And even if consense doesn't matter, mutual respect does matter. Again, it only matters if you are trying to convince people of your point of view.

So, I will read the posts of certain users and may be swayed by their points of view if, by previous posts, they have demonstrated the ability to think critically and provide relevant evidence. Obviously, there are some users I enjoy for pure entertainment purposes.

So, your discussion is not productive if your audience is not convinced you are playing the same game as everyone else. I'm sure your adoptive mother would tell you the same thing. She can't go into a discussion or debate without relevant evidence and she needs to play the same game as the people she's trying to convince, otherwise she's not going to convince them.

And as I stated previously, I have respect for Symmetry and Metsfanmax even though I rarely agree with either of their points of view. This is because they post in a way I find acceptable. Now, I'm cool with you saying "f*ck you TGD, I don't need to placate you." But I'm really trying to help you here. If no one is reading your posts, for whatever reason, there won't be productive discussion.

In any event, we're way off topic at this point. And I still am not satisfied with this study and its definition of "invasion."

[_sabotage_]

You are not trying to help, you are encouraging me to pursue wild goose chases.

If someone requires a definition and I feel the definition should be sufficiently clear, then I will ask them to choose their own. If they decide not to, and persist with it when it can add little to the discussion, I won't provide one.

To suggest otherwise is to ask children to talk with strangers. If you say well we all agree on this so you have to conform, then my answer is that you all agree on it not because it's right but because you have conformed.

Unfortunately, there is excessive amounts of information on what can happen when people follow policies just to conform. As such, demanding I confirm just to conform when there is widely known potential dangers from doing just that is asking me to put myself in a worse position for no good reason.

[AndyDufresne]

Science isn't based on consensus, it's based on theories which can't be challenged.

As Einstein said: libraries were written trying to prove me wrong, but a single paper would suffice.

Scientific consensus is a human creation, silly sabotage. Stop trying to sabotage your posts!


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

then my answer is that you all agree on it not because it's right but because you have conformed.

Unfortunately, there is excessive amounts of information on what can happen when people follow policies just to conform. As such, demanding I confirm just to conform when there is widely known potential dangers from doing just that is asking me to put myself in a worse position for no good reason.

Wow... okay.

[_sabotage_]

Scientific consensus is a human creation which says opinion is an invalid indicator of truth.

We all like Newton, but if apples stop falling at 9.806 m/s^2, we're not keeping his gravitational constant.