Why was JackTheRipa banned?

[ego]

Originally Posted by ctomie

I stated them simply because I wanted to, because, as your egomanaic friend (ego) says: I will do what I want.

But you have to be ego to be able to make such arrogant comments. And you are not.

Originally Posted by Joanna

looks like this thread should be in the rowdy room lol

I disagree. When in RR we tend to forget the point of the convo, we just consume our brains trying to find a good insult to post.

[perfectlyformed]

erm....de-caf anybody?

x

[touriquet2001]

me , i'll have one p/f . it's not 'real' coffee , but hey i'm getting it from you so ...

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by ego

I thought its simple, but it seems you like it with many words. Ok, i can do it this way also.
Since i responded, its obvious i have read it. Its also obvious that i didnt ignored it.
And since i responded to a negative way, its obvious i didnt like it.
So, i read it, i dont like it and i havent ignored it. Then you come to suggest the exactly opposite. Usually, suggestions come before the act. I mean you cant suggest about something that has already happened.
Actually, the timming is the main difference between suggestion and critisism.
Ok, i was wrong to speak about "telling", i should speak about "acting like a father who speaks to his underage child", but i thought you would be able to understand. My mistake.

That's right, you didn't like what I wrote, and you responded which meant that you did not ignore it. If I did not know about it, then why do you think that I suggested you to do the opposite (i.e. ignore it)? In other words, the reason why I was suggesting you to ignore it is because you chose not to do so in the first place, you **********. So what if something has happened? My suggestion is meant to ensure that it will not continue to happen. Your "usually suggestions come before the act" nonsense is ridiculous and you know it.

Originally Posted by ego

I dont care about what you think, i have my own methods. I dont mind people who have different opinions, but i will ask them to justify/support them, else i dont respect them.

If you don't mind people having different opinions then why do you feel the need to attack them, especially in an immature manner? Your "don't mind" part is questionable here.

There is no point in asking anyone to justify their opinions when you lack the logic to understand the justifications. You will only attack anything you don't like (whether they can be justified or not) and that's all you're capable of.

Originally Posted by ego

Unfortunatelly, i cant open your head and put some brains inside. So, i do my best. Btw, i am not the only one who "attacks" you for your posts, doesnt that makes you think that perhaps you should reconsider?
And yes, attacks do change some things. They lead stupid people away.

I never said or implied that you're the only one who attacked by merely saying that you attacked. What is there to reconsider?

I hate to say this, but I'm afraid that the gibberish that you've been writing will not lead anywhere. Even if it did lead somewhere, and lead stupid people (**********), it will only lead to you getting more and more foolish.

If an argument is leading somewhere, it means that it is progressing in a steady and rational manner, and perhaps it might reach closer to the truth. But it is clearly not progressing well due to your stupidity.

Originally Posted by ego

Nah, i wont bite that one. You understand your mistake, but you dont want to admit it. You know more things about Jack, but you wanted make another comment about christians. And you act like you know anyone who is christian (about 2,5B people!).

If I acted like I know anyone who is christian, then I wouldn't have used words like "possible" and "tendency" in the first place. So why do you think that I used them?

You said "i won't bite that one." So you think that I will give a crap what ignorant people like you think?

Originally Posted by ego

Unfortunatelly for you, i have some time today, so lets see to how many wrong conclusions your "logic" can conclude.
These two quotes pretty much describe your "logic".

But let me see.....you also know that he is a male. I believe you have seen many males insulting people. So a possible reason is that he is a male.
You also know he is an RB member. RB members do insult people. So, another possible reason.
As Clean said, he has a pc. You know that, dont you? People who have pc insult other people. Another possible reason.
Also, you know his name is Jack. If 2 out of the 3 Jacks you know tend to insult people, perhaps we have another possible reason.
For the "economy" of the conversation, i will jump to the conclusion that he acts like that because: he has 10 fingers, he can write english, he frequents asexuality.com, he likes cartoon, he is heterosexual, he have created 6 threads, he shares movies in rapidshare...............oh, the list is endless.
Actually, you know a lot of things about Jack, but you stick on only one: he is christian. And that is because your whole world rotates about that personal adhension of yours......

I havent saw it, it was you who said it:

You cannot see the obvious, this is a disability!!

Ok ******, I'll lay it out in a way that you might understand. If there is anything you disagree with, attack the premises (by "attack", I mean "refute with logic", not the kind of childish attack that is typical of you).

1. Many christians insult.
2. Jack is a christian.
This suggests that,
3. Jack insults.

Premise #1 can be backed by the various sources that I've mentioned. Premise #2 is an actual truth (Jack once admitted himself that he is a christian). The expression "This suggests that" indicates a possibility, and it is reasonable to conclude that as such because of the word "many" (clarification: it's not just "many", it is actually "most"). This is a reasonable inductive reasoning (many inductive arguments are in a form similar to that), so are you saying that all inductive arguments out there are wrong or unreasonable?

I could have said that Jack is a male, that Jack has a computer, that Jack has Internet access, etc. But are they even reasons, much less relevant ones? You're trying to compare relevant reasons with irrelevant ones and somehow say that there is a relation between them. That's complete bullshit.

You're right, if I were to state the following:
1. Most people with computer insult.
2. Jack owns a computer.
This suggests that,
3. Jack insults.

This is a totally unreasonable argument because I'm basing it on irrelevant (or ridiculous) assumptions/reasons. But my assumptions/reasons ARE relevant. Can you even tell the difference here?

The same goes for Jack being a RB member, a homosexual, or having 10 fingers, etc. they're either implicit or irrelevant, or even nonsensical (and anything that is nonsensical cannot be reasons).

When I said Jack being a christian is the only reason, I meant that it is the only RELEVANT reason. I've fucking mentioned the word "relevant" before, it's just that you failed to see it.

Oh and don't use pathetic lines like "well noone considers this to be relevant!". It's their problem for not believing in the sources that I provided, it's their problem for not understanding christians more than I do, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by ego

But you are right, i have reading disabilities. So, could Your Wisdom (please) explain me what you mean here:

" If I don't like what you read" ??
How the fuck i would know what you read?

I was rushing when I posted that message, so I'm bound to make mistakes. The word "read" should be changed to "write". Yes I admit that I've made a mistake, but at least it's much better than your shitty sentence that violates the rules of grammar: "How the fuck i would know what you read?".

Shouldn't that be "How the fuck would I know what you read?"?

Please quit acting like you're smart and logical, because you're nowhere close to reaching to that stage, *********!

After consultation with the head moderator this ban has been lifted due to the overlap in time of your warning notification and your ban. Simply put you did not have time to correct your actions. There was no fault in the banning, simply two mods working on the same issue at one time.

If this behavior is seen again YOU WILL BE BANNED!

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by ego

But you have to be ego to be able to make such arrogant comments. And you are not.

We all do what we want, so we're all arrogant?

* Looks forward to reading the, "Why was ctomie banned?" thread. *

[Vivienne]

*Looks 4ward 2 write the "Ctomie"-Memory Thread*

All through this all he has managed to really do is dig his reputation into a hole.

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by ego

Please AWD, let me add.
Even if you believe him, would you eat?

Be my guest.

Originally Posted by ctomie

If you don't find this talk to be acceptable, then it is also unacceptable for anyone to go to "war" with me by responding because this will keep the argument going. Once you're involved in the talk (by responding), then you're part of it, so you deserve the same blame that you've laid upon me. This is a simple idea that we all learned from primary school: If someone hits you, and you hit him back, then you're both guilty of fighting.

If you actually go into that forum and read the posts there, you'll see that most people there are unbiased and are being rational. It is NOT the case that everyone there is so biased like you said.

That forum is not the only (good) source that I have. My personal experience is another reliable source to me. However, in terms of external sources, I have many other forums about this

I doubt that statements like "shit tastes good.", "I'm an alien with magical powers.", "1+1=3", etc. will bear any resemblance to statements like "christians tend to insult.", "abortion is wrong", "winter is an excellent season", etc. You can't compare self-evident statements with controversial statements and say that if the former is true/false then it entails that the latter must also be true/false. Your analogy makes absolutely no sense!

Secondly, what if someone were to tell me that shit tasted really good? I would believe that he thinks that shit tastes good, but I would not have the same opinion about the taste of it myself. But what is your damn point here? I did not state my opinions in the hopes of having anyone believe me; I stated them simply because I wanted to, because, as your egomanaic friend (ego) says: I will do what I want.

Okay - so you're telling me that if someone breaks into your house with a weapon of some sort, rapes your real girlfriend, steals your money, jewelry, appliances etc etc, that you wouldn't defend yourself at all? Because as you've said returning fire means "you're both guilty of fighting". Even if you didn't fight him, would you feel that you have been wronged in any shape, way or form? If you don't fight him, you'd never be guilty of fighting with him, but you don't win by following this silly principle of yours.

Haha... I exaggerated when I said that but seriously, how credible can a website be when you have people talking about their experiences with a certain group of people and then making a conclusion based on those limited amount of people? If you run into two (or let's be generous - five) bad North American people in another country that you're in, does that mean that anybody from Canada and the US have to follow suit to be "bad people"? You're not too different from Hitler; he hated Jews because they were the ones that had to decide whether or not he was going to be in that Art School he liked. Just because of those few Jews, you'd feel comfortable slandering or assuming for the worst about people whom you've never met as a whole?

I can understand if you've met EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN on the face of this planet and still come to the conclusion that they aren't good people, but that's after the fact that you've met everyone, judged each and every one of them fairly, and then satisfactorily come to the conclusion that Christians are bad because of X, Y, and/or Z. Since that's not the case, I can't accept the fact that you've only met a handful of people at best and come to the conclusion that ALL of them are bad people. If you've seen all the swans in the world except Australia, you'd think that only swans in the colour of white exist, despite the fact that you've travelled almost all over to investigate. Australia, in reality, is the ONLY place where you'll see black swans.

Thus, at this moment in time, you are making a huge logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by ctomie

So blame yourself for being nosy.

I do. Funny i hold my hand up for being nosy and you say the above, what we are all noticing about your is you always have to have the last say no matter what is said.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by clan_hunter

I do. Funny i hold my hand up for being nosy and you say the above, what we are all noticing about your is you always have to have the last say no matter what is said.

1. It is not a crime to have the last say.

2. You admitted to being nosy, so based on that, I said you should blame yourself for being so (instead of blaming me). I wasn't "repeating" what you said; I was coming up with a conclusion based on what you said. The only funny matter here is that you can't distinguish the difference between a statement alone and a statement based on it. Yes, real funny.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by cleanfun4all

* Looks forward to reading the, "Why was ctomie banned?" thread. *

Of course you'd love to see me banned, because you can't handle arguing with me, or should I say, you can't handle being logical?

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by ctomie

Of course you'd love to see me banned, because you can't handle arguing with me, or should I say, you can't handle being logical?

I don't look forward to seeing you being banned. I think you're misguided more than anything else.

There are members on these forums that feel the need to use personal insults whenever they are attacked in any way (even if I write at the top of a message that "this following post isn't intended to be an insult"; you are not one of them, as at least you're willing to respond back maturely and that is what I respect about you.

Having said that, I think you're going to have a very tough time responding to post 52 in this thread.

Originally Posted by cleanfun4all

* Looks forward to reading the, "Why was ctomie banned?" thread. *

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by cleanfun4all

Hahaha. I think I have the reputation around these forums to dig issues like these up. I'm not that surprised if I'm the thread starter.

Originally Posted by ctomie

2. You admitted to being nosy, so based on that, I said you should blame yourself for being so (instead of blaming me).

Instead of blaming you?

Direct me to any part of this thread where it shows/implies/states etc etc i was blaming you for my being nosy.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by AWDracer

Okay - so you're telling me that if someone breaks into your house with a weapon of some sort, rapes your real girlfriend, steals your money, jewelry, appliances etc etc, that you wouldn't defend yourself at all? Because as you've said returning fire means "you're both guilty of fighting". Even if you didn't fight him, would you feel that you have been wronged in any shape, way or form? If you don't fight him, you'd never be guilty of fighting with him, but you don't win by following this silly principle of yours.

You kept coming up with these so-called "analogies", but you haven't made one attempt to stop and think if they have any similarities or relevance at all.

I will give two different versions of my response: In the first version, I will assume that your analogy is valid just for the sake of argument. In the second version, I will not assume that, and I'll tell you exactly why your analogy is weak.

First version: Our intuition often tells us that it is acceptable to "return the favour" whenever we're wronged. In your example (an extreme one, might I add), I would definitely do anything to defend myself, for example, by beating the crap out of him until he becomes unconscious. But will I "return the favour"? No. Returning the favour means doing exactly what he has done to me, meaning that I'll break into his house, rape his girlfriend, steal his money, etc. and in this case I'm guilty of all these crimes. There is a massive difference between defending yourself and returning the favour here: The former is defense and the latter is revenge.

If someone hits me and I hit him back (and you know damn well that I'm talking about hitting him back as revenge), are we both guilty of fighting? Yes, because it doesn't matter what the reason is, retaliation is unacceptable (if you find it acceptable, then you might as well change the law, e.g. propose a bill that says "if someone kills your family, then you're allowed to do the exact same thing to the perpetrator without getting jailed"). If someone were to tell me that the "christian" talk isn't acceptable here, then it makes no sense for them to engage in it themselves by responding, unless you're saying that they're the only exceptions to the rule.

Second version: I had to defend myself against someone breaking into my house, raping my gf, stealing my money, etc. because they were posing a threat to my safety and property. If I were to talk about christians (even if I talk about all of them) inside a forum, is that a threat to you or anyone else here? A bunch of text was threatening their safety to the point where they felt the need to defend themselves by responding?

That is where your analogy fails: There are no relevant similarities.

Originally Posted by AWDracer

Haha... I exaggerated when I said that but seriously, how credible can a website be when you have people talking about their experiences with a certain group of people and then making a conclusion based on those limited amount of people? If you run into two (or let's be generous - five) bad North American people in another country that you're in, does that mean that anybody from Canada and the US have to follow suit to be "bad people"? You're not too different from Hitler; he hated Jews because they were the ones that had to decide whether or not he was going to be in that Art School he liked. Just because of those few Jews, you'd feel comfortable slandering or assuming for the worst about people whom you've never met as a whole?

I can understand if you've met EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN on the face of this planet and still come to the conclusion that they aren't good people, but that's after the fact that you've met everyone, judged each and every one of them fairly, and then satisfactorily come to the conclusion that Christians are bad because of X, Y, and/or Z. Since that's not the case, I can't accept the fact that you've only met a handful of people at best and come to the conclusion that ALL of them are bad people. If you've seen all the swans in the world except Australia, you'd think that only swans in the colour of white exist, despite the fact that you've travelled almost all over to investigate. Australia, in reality, is the ONLY place where you'll see black swans.

Thus, at this moment in time, you are making a huge logical fallacy.

What you're essentially saying is that I should not make any generalizations about christians based on a small number of christians that I've met (from forums, chat rooms, my experience, etc.). But when the hell did I ever say, or hinted, that ALL christians are bad people? When did I even say anything like "Jack is a christian, and ALL christians insult, so Jack insults"? I did not make any fucking universally quantified claims (in case you don't know what that means, it means any statement of the form: "All A's are B's."). How many times do I need to remind you people that I've used key words like "most", "possible", "tendency", etc.? I've tried to point these out (by making these words bold or italic, or by enclosing them in quotation marks) over and over again but yet you continued to accuse me with lies and I'm sick of it. You tried to refute ideas that you have no clue about.

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by clan_hunter

Instead of blaming you?

Direct me to any part of this thread where it shows/implies/states etc etc i was blaming you for my being nosy.

You were blaming me for the responses that I've provoked by starting a topic, when it's really your pathetic nosiness that should be blamed for. I don't think I need to direct you to any part of this thread to prove this because you can see it for yourself. However, if you're too lazy to do it, just ask me to do it for you. I'll show you how wrong you are.

[touriquet2001]

Originally Posted by AWDracer

There are members on these forums that feel the need to use personal insults whenever they are attacked in any way (even if I write at the top of a message that "this following post isn't intended to be an insult"; you are not one of them, as at least you're willing to respond back maturely and that is what I respect about you.

so writing "this following post isn't intended to be an insult"; at the top of a personal insult means what to you ? that the person you attack can't respond ? that they have to respond in a non-personal way ? even when it is a unjustified attack ? and if they don't , they are immature ? if they bring up your shortcomings it's unfair ? and needs to stop ?

as for me following you around posting after you . how is it different from what you did to gaggirl ? it was ok for you , but i give you a taste of it and it's wrong ? btw this isn't one of those . haven't did one of those since you said it was over . you know before you brought it back up ? i'm responding to what i see as a dig at me .

[ctomie]

Originally Posted by AWDracer

I don't look forward to seeing you being banned. I think you're misguided more than anything else.

There are members on these forums that feel the need to use personal insults whenever they are attacked in any way (even if I write at the top of a message that "this following post isn't intended to be an insult"; you are not one of them, as at least you're willing to respond back maturely and that is what I respect about you.

Having said that, I think you're going to have a very tough time responding to post 52 in this thread.

I think you're even more misguided because the post that says "Of course you'd love to see me banned, because...." wasn't even directed to you (it was directed to cleanfun4all).

Response to post 52 has been posted.