FCC Throttled By NeoCities In Net Neutrality Protest

[Something Amyss]

I don't how you can complain about people not getting on people's rears for being pessimistic and not for being hopeful, I explain why hope is seen as preferable to despair

You mean, exactly what I was talking about. Cool, so where's the problem?

and then you move onto criticizing me for assuming those were the only two options.

I think you're inferring more again than was actually there. Unless you mean criticism in the loosest sense, but in my personal experience both in the internet and with you personally, I don't believe you do.

Also, could you please not talk about what I have included in private messages?

That would be difficult for me TO talk about. I never read them. I'm pretty sure you even have the power to verify, unless they delete from your sent box when I delete them from my inbox. All I did was touch upon the subject. But at the same time, you're accusing me of behaviour you've apologised for in the past, expect relevant data to come up. All I'm asking is you not repeat your previous misrepresentation of me, especially since it's clearly been an issue before. That's the problem with both the people you're talking about, too. Jack and Dyre have both lied about or misrepresented me, including editing out relevant data and responding to arguments or points I'm not making. It's probably natural that I come off as hostile, though the fact is I just don't appreciate dishonesty. I'm not angry or hostile, though as I've said before your repeated assertions can change that.

If you were sincere in your apologies, then don't repeat said behaviour. Otherwise, apologies are meaningless.

EDIT: moved quote to right spot to so the response made sense.

 

[Something Amyss]

snip

Of course, this could all be solved by simply not dishonestly editing away my posts, putting words in my mouth, and then responding to those statements.

Is that really so difficult? Is it hard to address me on the merits or faults of my own, actual arguments? For example, can you demonstrate any of the claims I asked you for, such as the positive changes you're asserting?

 

[Kyogissun]

I'll throw in my vote for The Escapist enacting the Ferengi Plan. Do whatever it takes I say...

 

[FalloutJack]

Poit

Probably, but you'd never believe me. Hence, why I decided to ask others. Gonna have to wait on that, so be patient.

 

[Something Amyss]

poof

You don't need to make excuses. If you can't come up with evidence, just admit it. If you can, provide it. And most of all, don't make a claim in bad faith.

 

[FalloutJack]

poof

You don't need to make excuses. If you can't come up with evidence, just admit it. If you can, provide it. And most of all, don't make a claim in bad faith.

*Cites Evidence*

There's one right there. Rather, that's the latest in a long series of ignoring what is said and acting victimized. You do this frequently, and NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU. Drop the tone, stop being so defensive about it, and lighten up!

 

[Something Amyss]

*Cites Evidence*

There's one right there. Rather, that's the latest in a long series of ignoring what is said and acting victimized. You do this frequently, and NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU. Drop the tone, stop being so defensive about it, and lighten up!

Wait, what? You just literally posted "cites evidence." What is that supposed to prove?

And stop with the dishonest claims. I have no attitude, note am I "acting victimised."

Shall I just assume you can't back up your argument?

 

[Erttheking]

I don't how you can complain about people not getting on people's rears for being pessimistic and not for being hopeful, I explain why hope is seen as preferable to despair

You mean, exactly what I was talking about. Cool, so where's the problem?

and then you move onto criticizing me for assuming those were the only two options.

I think you're inferring more again than was actually there. Unless you mean criticism in the loosest sense, but in my personal experience both in the internet and with you personally, I don't believe you do.

Also, could you please not talk about what I have included in private messages?

That would be difficult for me TO talk about. I never read them. I'm pretty sure you even have the power to verify, unless they delete from your sent box when I delete them from my inbox. All I did was touch upon the subject. But at the same time, you're accusing me of behaviour you've apologised for in the past, expect relevant data to come up. All I'm asking is you not repeat your previous misrepresentation of me, especially since it's clearly been an issue before. That's the problem with both the people you're talking about, too. Jack and Dyre have both lied about or misrepresented me, including editing out relevant data and responding to arguments or points I'm not making. It's probably natural that I come off as hostile, though the fact is I just don't appreciate dishonesty. I'm not angry or hostile, though as I've said before your repeated assertions can change that.

If you were sincere in your apologies, then don't repeat said behaviour. Otherwise, apologies are meaningless.

EDIT: moved quote to right spot to so the response made sense.

I'm fairly certain that we're thinking of two different conversations here. When someone said "There's no reason to start waving the white flag yet" you replied "There's no reason to start celebrating yet either, but I bet you won't chastise people for doing that" I responded to you, trying to explain why he would most likely not chastise them, whereupon for some reason you remarked that you weren't aware that completely giving up or assuming victory were the only two options, where upon I said that I had never said that, only that overwhelming hope was better than overwhelming disrepair, and now you say that's exactly what you were talking about?...no...no you weren't. That or you were and you didn't do a very good job of making it clear, because right now I'm kinda lost.

I didn't mean to imply that you were lashing out at me, I meant criticism in a rather causal sense, as in "hey, that's not right."

It doesn't matter, please do not bring them up. They are private messages, as in, not meant for anyone but the sender and receiver. Ok, I'm accusing you of being less than friendly and rather passive aggressive, what I apologized for was being a bit Holier than thou and saying you should calm down when you weren't angry. Not exactly the same field, and I'm not 100% sure what it has to do with the current situation.

And really, here's the thing. FalloutJack, Dyver and I did not PM each other and conspire to all accuse you of the same behavior in the same thread just to mess with you. If three different people all say that you are acting in a certain way, I'm pretty sure it's not because they're twisting your words and trying to slander you, I'm pretty sure it's because the genuinely think that way.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, when we type out conversations on the internet things just come off as more hostile than we meant them to, it happens, but I have noticed this being a recurring thing with you. Like way back when when you said that I was "part of the problem" with the gaming industry when I said I pre-ordered games. You can be less than friendly at times and clearly several people agree with me. It might benefit everyone if you pulled back a bit. I am NOT trying to misrepresent you. Please, just consider what I'm saying.

 

[Erttheking]

*Cites Evidence*

There's one right there. Rather, that's the latest in a long series of ignoring what is said and acting victimized. You do this frequently, and NOBODY IS ATTACKING YOU. Drop the tone, stop being so defensive about it, and lighten up!

Wait, what? You just literally posted "cites evidence." What is that supposed to prove?

And stop with the dishonest claims. I have no attitude, note am I "acting victimised."

Shall I just assume you can't back up your argument?

And you know, when you are trying to argue that you aren't being passive aggressive, saying things like "Shall I just assume you can't back up your argument" is not what I would call making a very good case for yourself.

 

[Something Amyss]

And really, here's the thing. FalloutJack, Dyver and I did not PM each other and conspire to all accuse you of the same behavior in the same thread just to mess with you.

Well, nobody said you did, but you have two people quote mining me and then accusing me of hostility and you jumping on the bandwagon with a history of false inference and apology. It's not conspired, but it's not particularly shocking, either.

 

[Cobelo]

[insert text here]

[And here]

Gentlemen (or ladies, i don't know), I know i don't post very often, and I don't mean to interrupt, but.. I would ask that you please take your personal disputes outside of the thread, if you would.

 

[FalloutJack]

no attitude

Shall I just assume you can't back up your argument?

Zach, I urge you to read through your past posts carefully. You may just be overlooking something. I'm saying that ALOT of your replies to people could be construed as condescending, harassing, nit-pickery, and so on. I am asking you to look yourself over, read the posts you have made out-loud like it's a comic from XKCD, and think about it. There's alot of posts to your name and I don't have the time to sift through them all. You DO this. It HAS happened. I'm not just shootin' the breeze here.

 

[Something Amyss]

And you know, when you are trying to argue that you aren't being passive aggressive, saying things like "Shall I just assume you can't back up your argument" is not what I would call making a very good case for yourself.

That's not passive-aggressive. I've asked for evidence numerous times. He's shifted the topic, accused me of being TEH BIAS, and now he's opting out entirely by shifting his burden to other people. As such, I'm asking if he's just abandoning his claim as he appears to be.

Also, it's exactly what he did to me in the thread he was earlier demanding an apology for. I'm sorry, but if your argument is he's accusing me of hostility for saying the same things he does, isn't that a fairly large double standard?

 

[Dragonbums]

[insert text here]

[And here]

Gentlemen (or ladies, i don't know), I know i don't post very often, and I don't mean to interrupt, but.. I would ask that you please take your personal disputes outside of the thread, if you would.

To be honest, I think this thread is done in terms of contribution anyway. Not much I can personally say on it that dozens of people have already stated.

 

[Something Amyss]

Gentlemen (or ladies, i don't know), I know i don't post very often, and I don't mean to interrupt, but.. I would ask that you please take your personal disputes outside of the thread, if you would.

I want evidence germane to this thread.

Cut

This is a distraction from the fact that you cannot argue on the merits of consumer outrage having any positive impact on ISP policy. And if you can't address that, why even engage me?

I can say that fairly confidently because there are thus far no merits to consumer outrage.

Of course, you could prove me wrong by simply demonstrating otherwise.

EDIT: I will address one thing, though. Reading my own posts aloud will lead me to reading them in the tone of the author, and as such will not have the effect you would assert.

 

[Erttheking]

And you know, when you are trying to argue that you aren't being passive aggressive, saying things like "Shall I just assume you can't back up your argument" is not what I would call making a very good case for yourself.

That's not passive-aggressive. I've asked for evidence numerous times. He's shifted the topic, accused me of being TEH BIAS, and now he's opting out entirely by shifting his burden to other people. As such, I'm asking if he's just abandoning his claim as he appears to be.

Also, it's exactly what he did to me in the thread he was earlier demanding an apology for. I'm sorry, but if your argument is he's accusing me of hostility for saying the same things he does, isn't that a fairly large double standard?

No, it is passive aggressive, it is very passive aggressive. You could have simply said "Your arguments seem to be avoiding the topic" instead you said "shall I just assume you can't back up your argument" which has a very snide tone to it, subtly implying that he is incapable of making an argument.

That would only be the case if I had ever said that Jack wasn't being passive aggressive as well, and he is to a certain degree. I was simply attempting to point out that you have a history of doing so, one that you are continuing in this thread. I don't know Fallout enough to say the same about him. Not to mention, looking back it looks like you were the first one to take this tone with him, as a result, I can't really blame Fallout for fighting fire with fire.

 

[Erttheking]

And really, here's the thing. FalloutJack, Dyver and I did not PM each other and conspire to all accuse you of the same behavior in the same thread just to mess with you.

Well, nobody said you did, but you have two people quote mining me and then accusing me of hostility and you jumping on the bandwagon with a history of false inference and apology. It's not conspired, but it's not particularly shocking, either.

I did not mean to imply that you were, but I was trying to make a point. I seriously doubt that two people would randomly accuse you of being hostile so close to each other with me then backing them up unless they thought that they were making an honest point. I don't see what me making incorrect claims about you in the past and then apologizing has to do with this. I make a mistake, I apologized, I put it behind me. And you see that right there? "It's not conspired, but it's not particularly shocking either" that is exactly what I'm talking about. Constant little snarky comments that add little to your argument and serve mainly to insult the person that you are talking to. From the way that you worded it, and with the way that you said that we were lying and misrepresenting you, it's almost like you're saying that it's expected for us to be a bunch of liars. I don't know if that's what you were trying to say, but this is what happens when you word your arguments the way they do. They come off as rude and condescending.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, it is passive aggressive, it is very passive aggressive.

You're doing it again. The stuff you apologised for before. You're inferring things and insisting that's my state of mind.

subtly implying that he is incapable of making an argument.

I don't need to subtly imply it. I've overtly stated he cannot make this argument. Ergo, that would be redundant and a little silly.

I was simply attempting to point out that you have a history of doing so, one that you are continuing in this thread.

NO, you have a history of taking my posts however you want and to hell with what I say or mean. And you're literally perpetuating the cycle if what you say is true.

I seriously doubt that two people would randomly accuse you of being hostile so close to each other with me then backing them up unless they thought that they were making an honest point.

Assuming we didn't get there from the same two people lying in the first place. Both are fine misrepresenting me, but seem to be bothered when they're caught.

 

[Erttheking]

No, it is passive aggressive, it is very passive aggressive.

You're doing it again. The stuff you apologised for before. You're inferring things and insisting that's my state of mind.

subtly implying that he is incapable of making an argument.

I don't need to subtly imply it. I've overtly stated he cannot make this argument. Ergo, that would be redundant and a little silly.

I was simply attempting to point out that you have a history of doing so, one that you are continuing in this thread.

NO, you have a history of taking my posts however you want and to hell with what I say or mean. And you're literally perpetuating the cycle if what you say is true.

No I am not. I would be commenting on your state of mind if I was to say that you were happy or sad or angry. I am commenting on the tone of your phrase. I even flat out said in an earlier post " when we type out conversations on the internet things just come off as more hostile than we meant them to," saying that what you were saying and what I was analyzing was not an accurate statement of your mind. I am not saying that you are passive aggressive, I am saying what you type out is passive aggressive. There is a difference. I cannot read your mind, but I can read what you typed out.

Not implying that he couldn't make his argument, implying that he couldn't make any argument period. That's what I said.

Look, I've read a lot of posts by you, and the tone has been consistent in a lot of them. I am not making a comment on the arguments that you were making, what you mean, or how you do it, I am saying that you have a consistent, less than friendly tone, and a way of wording your statements that comes off as condescending. That's all.

I'm making the exact same arguments that they are, and I am not lying.

 

[Something Amyss]

Look, I've read a lot of posts by you, and the tone has been consistent in a lot of them.

The tone you're inferring. Insisting anything else is insisting on my state of mind.

Look, believe whatever you want. I can't stop you.