Cliffs of Dover, a Year Later

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

>>Read his posts. <<

I have. I'm still at a loss.

I know. That makes it even better.

David Hayward said:

>>I know. That makes it even better. <<

Of course it does, love.

[Chivas]

Falstaff you don't have enough common sense to make any knowledge you may or may not have worth while.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Taildragger...no, I think you're trying to be too clever and picking holes in an argument that isn't there. Ego? Like Hayward's?

No champion of natural justice or anything of the sort, nothing so grandiose.

Posters such as Hayward should get a little back of what they put out, it's as simple and silly as that.

Trying to impute anything more to it is wasted energy and isn't going to get the big argumentative response that perhaps you hope it will?

Ben

I absolutely loved this post, 'trying to be too clever'......classic, so who exactly is really 'trying to be clever'?

if you like I can actually 'quote' the part where you said you werent pretending to be a 'white knight' followed by your own justifications for defending 'natural justice'

here goes

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Actually taildragger, I did..check with the mods. I checked-in again on the off-chance that my IP cycle has ticked over, whcih it seems to have done. The only reason was to give back a taste to some posters what they have been dishing-out, which I dont like.

A ban is imminent (I hope) so you can carry on lionising such posters if you wish, and defend their right to attack people unopposed. I'm not pretending to be a white knight of righteousness, more just venting at some of the nastier idiots who seems to have this place in thrall.

Ben

Originally Posted by Falstaff

taildragger said:

>>2 wrongs don't make a right dear boy <<

No, they dont. But a little natural justice doesn't hurt occasionally, if it's kept in check, and if it's justified, as here.

Ben

your proclamation may not have been verbatim, but it is clear you are justifying your rants here for exactly that reason, therefore my point is very valid and I picked a hole in an argument very much present, no ego or sinister motives behind my post.......other than perhaps to highlight some hypocrisy on your behalf, I look forward to your most eloquent attemps to dig yourself out of another hole.

Taildaragger said:

>>I absolutely loved this post, 'trying to be too clever'......classic, so who exactly is really 'trying to be clever'?<<

Did you absolutely love it? Adore it? Or is this just the usual exaggeration for effect?

>>if you like I can actually 'quote' the part where you said you werent pretending to be a 'white knight' followed by your own justifications for defending 'natural justice'<<

Let me help. A white knight is a rather grandiose emblem (deliberately). I am not claiming any spear of valour or leading a charge, I am simply giving back a little to a couple of the nastier members here, hence the natural justice.

The two are not incompatible, and they are not the same.

It seems you are intent on dragging this down to semantic hair-splitting (where you are also mistaken) instead of going with the spirit of the thing. And in a sad kind of way, you are doing Hayward's work for him (if you are not him)

Your tone of sprightly success is a bit premature.

I'll boil it down for you. This place suffers because of the tone of those such as Hayward, Carguy, Ace of Aces et al.

And yes, you are trying to be clever by following this tack and trying to pick holes, rather than answer the main charge...which is the pure (veiled) spite of many of those posters named above. Fundamentally they get away with it because this forum is run in aid of the game, and they pretend to be doing a service by ridding it of pesky critics.

The end result is the exact opposite. They drag it down, confuse genuine critcism, and give a lop-sided view of the real state of play - which is still fairly atrocious.

>>your proclamation may not have been verbatim<<

Eh? No prooclamation...or edict...or dictat...or whatever word you choose.

>> but it is clear you are justifying your rants here for exactly that reason, therefore my point is very valid and I picked a hole in an argument very much present, no ego or sinister motives behind my post.......other than perhaps to highlight some hypocrisy on your behalf, I look forward to your most eloquent attemps to dig yourself out of another hole. <<

I am not ranting, not in the least

Look at the above sentence. Logically it does not follow whatsoever. (To paraphrase) ranting...therefore my point is correct? Run that by me again...? It is saturday therefore this Easter egg is blue...?

Yes, there is plenty of ego - why get involved in a spat that doesn't involve you, but Hayward? Why try and appear to win a debate by making spurious points and ignoring the main charge? And why make non-logical statements and then claim victory/hypocrisy on the back of them? Probably a bit of a fun for you, and ego. A bit like Hayward. 'Other than to highlight'...oh, righty ho....sure, sure....


That is a shame.

Chivas looked into the oracle and spaketh:

>>Falstaff you don't have enough common sense to make any knowledge you may or may not have worth while. <<

yes Yoda.

Sorry...Confucious

...I mean Socrates

[taildraggernut]

Did you absolutely love it? Adore it? Or is this just the usual exaggeration for effect?

'usual'?.....what do you know about me?.....no simply 'I loved it' as in the conventional exclamation widely used in modern english to convey a sense of genuine 'entertainment', nothing unique in my use of the well established expression.

Let me help. A white knight is a rather grandiose emblem (deliberately). I am not claiming any spear of valour or leading a charge, I am simply giving back a little to a couple of the nastier members here, hence the natural justice.

The two are not incompatible, and they are not the same

Let me help you, there is no convention on any actual need to 'actually' have a horse or sharpened stick to be labelled as a 'white knight', again you seem to fail at grasping the use of metaphor.

It seems you are intent on dragging this down to semantic hair-splitting (where you are also mistaken) instead of going with the spirit of the thing. And in a sad kind of way, you are doing Hayward's work for him (if you are not him)

indeed I am not him, nor do I act on his behalf, quite frankly he/she/whatever is irrelevant, simply I made a response to an astounding act of hypocrisy in my own 'white knight' style, any further discussion could just as easily be circumvented by your own absence from them.

Your tone of sprightly success is a bit premature.

I'll boil it down for you. This place suffers because of the tone of those such as Hayward, Carguy, Ace of Aces et al.

And yes, you are trying to be clever by following this tack and trying to pick holes, rather than answer the main charge...which is the pure (veiled) spite of many of those posters named above. Fundamentally they get away with it because this forum is run in aid of the game, and they pretend to be doing a service by ridding it of pesky critics.

The end result is the exact opposite. They drag it down, confuse genuine critcism, and give a lop-sided view of the real state of play - which is still fairly atrocious.

That is a shame.

and this is supposed to make me believe you aren't self righteous?

You could try answering the main point, for a start...

The main point and reason I posted is:

Hayward's posts tend be nasty, especially towards non-native English language speakers. Others are also very nasty, and a lot of this goes unchecked.

Chivas sets himself up as some sort of soothsayer and hasn't a bleedin' clue.

Those who attack the critics in general act disproportionately (broadly sanctioned by places such as this being pro-game by nature...idont have a problem with this), and mask the true state of things, usually with slavish devotion. Often to comic effect, but also plain bloody irritating.

No *common sense* to be found in any of it.

Instead of sparring, answer the main point/s. I couldn't care less whether the language is flowery, fancy, matey or street-speak. That's not the point.

So you're telling me posters such as Hayward should just post away unchecked, aloof, nasty, cynical and manipulative? It is dowdy and cowardly.

No hole to be dug out of. Stop trying to bounce it onto me. Whether I am being 6/10 or 7/10 or 2/10 self-righteous is neither here nor there and beside the point.

[taildraggernut]

I guess I will have to quote these separately as you don't seem to be able to complete the act of thinking before speaking therefore the overuse ov self edited posts.

Eh? No prooclamation...or edict...or dictat...or whatever word you choose.

You have a problem with a command of the english language?

I am not ranting, not in the least

Au contraire..

Look at the above sentence. Logically it does not follow whatsoever. (To paraphrase) ranting...therefore my point is correct? Run that by me again...? It is saturday therefore this Easter egg is blue...?

Whaaa?.......are you ok?

Yes, there is plenty of ego - why get involved in a spat that doesn't involve you, but Hayward? Why try and appear to win a debate by making spurious points and ignoring the main charge? And why make non-logical statements and then claim victory/hypocrisy on the back of them? Probably a bit of a fun for you, and ego. A bit like Hayward. 'Other than to highlight'...oh, righty ho....sure, sure....

and whose authority did you have to involve yourself in responding to posts made by anybody else? you came pracing in here as if reciting a Shakespearian play justifies everything you say.

[taildraggernut]

You could try answering the main point, for a start...

The main point and reason I posted is:

Hayward's posts tend be nasty, especially towards non-native English language speakers. Others are also very nasty, and a lot of this goes unchecked.

Interesting....yet when Philiped criticised Chivas for his spelling you made no such attempt to nobly defend him.....I don't know Chivas but there is a chance English is not his first language, but I guess you nobly decided to keep quiet about that because Philiped is 'on your side'.......sniff....sniff....you smell that?.......smells like hypocricy.