The Canadian Front

[Susan Arendt]

*snip*

Oh, you misunderstand one key point. It's not your arguments I don't like - it's you. Or at least the persona you present in these forums. I've never actually met you, obviously, so my analysis is based solely on your forum posts, which naturally could be an inaccurate representation of the real you.

Go ahead and throw a thousand more words at me if you like, it won't matter. I don't like you, I don't like the way you treat people, and I don't have any interest in anything you have to say. Oh, just to be clear, none of that is based on your issues with typos or grammar - I'm not as much a stickler on that point as Grey is.

 

[The Wooster]

You've been posting in my comments section for years and I have never once seen you win an argument. You simply do the same song and dance every time until people give up in frustration.
[ul]
[li] Step 1: Ludicrous Assertion[/li]
[li] Step 2: Accusation of Liberal Bias Everything Ever That Conveniently Allows You To Ignore Historical Fact[/li]
[li] Step 3: Irrelevant Information Used To Prove How Clever You or to Draw a Useless Comparison[/li]
[li]Step 4: Dubious Anecdotal Evidence[/li][/ul]

It's the same thing every time, but spread out over a billion misused words. And despite the hours - HOURS - of effort you evidently put into your posts, you lack the time or wherewithal to proof read them or even run them through a spell checker.

Step 1: Ludicrous Assertion: "My horrible writing drives my enemies away, thus I win."

Actually, I type pretty bloody quickly. We could argue about my use of words at length, but I'll concede the spelling. In cases where I've done more serious writing I'd edited myself and know how bad I am with word structure, spelling, and english in general right off the cuff. Being various shades of tired or exhausted 100% of the time doesn't help much either, and to be honest it's gotten worse.

To be frank most arguements or discussions with me usually involve me making my point, attracting a bunch of people who don't want to accept it, and then me pretty much figuring everything that has been said can be said and deciding to nod out, having already "won", by any objective standard, usually pretty early on. Of course I suppose given the nature of these kinds of debates those on the other side or that support it prefer not to acknowlege the victory.

Step 2: Accusation of Liberal Bias Everything Ever That Conveniently Allows You To Ignore Historical Fact: I think this one is self explanatory.

Typically when I bring up liberal bias, it's more because someone is presenting a political position as a fact, with history being re-defined to fit with a modern point of view that oftentimes didn't even exist when the events took place.

Step 3: Irrelevant Information Used To Prove How Clever You or to Draw a Useless Comparison: "Now we're talking about gays! Are gays relevant? Not at all! But have I mentioned how much I hate them lately?"

In many cases the discussions I'm involved in here amount to a bunch of sheltered idealists who have been told how the world works, argueing with me, someone who has actually been out in the world, and seen how it works from a perspective most people won't ever have. Typically when I get involved and say something, whether it's on a social issue, or very specific areas of legality or history (the same ones which tend to come up again and again), I'm not expressing opinion, I am expressing pure fact as in "I've been right there and seen it" fact.

It's sort of like when I actually bother to argue gay rights nowadays, which I don't because there is nothing more to be said on the subject. Typically 99% of the people I argue with on this forum jump right in and talk about all these studies, and research, and facts, and claim that they disprove what I'm saying. The problem is of course that studies on the nessicary level are impossible to conduct since it would require unparalleled levels of secret surveillance of millions of people for a prolonged period of time. Pretty much the efforts of the combined US goverment, violating pretty much every law on suerveillance and search and seizure for decades, to ever compile the kind of information being stated as fact, and since that hasn't happened it means anyone claiming to have that kind of data is obviously lying. As a result when I, someone who had surveillance authority within a limited context, and happens to have formed a position based on things I saw in the course of my duties (which weren't directly related to snooping gays), I have more validity as a source than any study ever conducted due to the lack of awareness of who I was checking in on. Your only recourse is to basically say I'm a liar and never did this kind of thing to have noticed patterns while doing my job, or of course to produce someone in a similar position who disagrees with me, which to be honest is highly unlikely since pretty much anyone who does this kind of thing largely winds up having pretty much the same view of the world and most issues as a result. I'm just more vocal than most.

Step 4: Dubious Anecdotal Evidence: "Historians are biased but I am a Time Lord."

To put it into context of this discussion, I had one guy try and claim that being from New England and getting my information as close to first hand as posible, I'm actually less reliable than some textbook he's reading, which might be on the other side of the country, written by someone who claims to be an expert and to have visited these sites and done research, but amazingly contridicts anything he could have learned visiting the region.

When I talk about liberal bias, I do so largely when I'm aware that what someone is saying is a common perception, but where I have personally seen or run into things which show otherwise.

For the most part, there are actually very few areas that I claim to be an "expert" on, it's just that a lot of people like to argue with me about them, and typically it comes down to idealistic arguements based on what someone has been told is a proven fact, as opposed to someone who actually knows.

 

[lacktheknack]

snipped for the love of God

I have a challenge for you. I know you won't accept it.

See if you can sum up everything you need to say in twenty sentences or less.

I ask this because you are KING of saying nothing over the course of a paragraph. Everyone else gets their point across with something resembling brevity, and it doesn't drive people away through pure chronic verbal diarrhea. That's the ultimate half-win.

You should drive people away with your general attitude instead.

 

[Therumancer]

snipped for the love of God

I have a challenge for you. I know you won't accept it.

See if you can sum up everything you need to say in twenty sentences or less.

I ask this because you are KING of saying nothing over the course of a paragraph. Everyone else gets their point across with something resembling brevity, and it doesn't drive people away through pure chronic verbal diarrhea. That's the ultimate half-win.

You should drive people away with your general attitude instead.

Lol, the thing is that I tend to predict a lot of what people are going to say to begin with, and answer accordingly. I suppose that contributes to my attitude in discussions when I dismiss things I feel I already answered in the course of my rambling. That said, I do suppose I should work on condensing my posts a bit more.

As far as driving people away, I suppose I should try and reign it in a bit more. To be honest I never set out to win any popularity contests here (or on forums in general), and responses have been mixed. Some like Susan are quite blunt about not liking me, but at the same time I have actually received a fair amount of praise as well, there is a bit of that, with messages going back quite a while, still in my Inbox to be honest, and I've gotten more in E-mail. A common thread seems to be a lot of people who agree with me, being afraid to speak their mind on the forums the way I do, as it is a fairly hostile enviroment as I've mentioned myself. Heck it wasn't too long ago I got an E-mail from someone who saw me use my handle on another forum, and asked if I was the same guy from here, and told me what a fan of my posts they were. I suppose Susan's comments as one of the site admins ruined any real euphoria I got from that one though.

We'll see what happens in the long run, I have some things to think about at any rate.

 

[Starke]

" I have more validity as a source than any study ever conducted due to the lack of awareness of who I was checking in on"

Aaaaaand we're done. My brain just broke.

Your avatar seems hilariously appropriate for this post.

 

[Lyvric]

Ahaha, as a Canadian and coffee lover, I got a good laugh out of this. Great job!

 

[6SteW6]

Is this a reference to the Four eyes and beard podcast?!

Cause if it is, you have my love forever and always!

 

[6SteW6]

Wow. This is ripped off wholesale from the smodcast/nerdist podcast called FEAB. Episode is called Canadian Sniper. Please go back to telling an interesting and unique story with Erin and her illness. Seems when you try to do one shot joke strips they suck, and now you are resorting to theft.

Wow. This is ripped off wholesale from the smodcast/nerdist podcast called FEAB. Episode is called Canadian Sniper. Please go back to telling an interesting and unique story with Erin and her illness. Seems when you try to do one shot joke strips they suck, and now you are resorting to theft. Sad.

Yeah, I totally stole it from this obscure show I've never even heard of. It's not like it's a fairly obvious joke that plays on a well publicized stereotype or anything. Good job, detective Internet.

Whoops, guess it's not a reference then. To be fair though Grey, the joke in your strip and that episode of FEAB are very similar. I wouldn't call theft but I definitely thought they were somehow linked.

 

[TomWest]

To be fair, I heard a very similar joke (WWII based) about 25 years ago on the radio.

I chuckled then.

I laughed this time.

(I think it was the dialog box coming from the trees that really made it for me).

 

[Crazie_Guy]

Had to post for the Modest Mouse nod.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

True story of two Canadians:



Me: "Augh! Are you all right?"

Her: "I'M SORRY! I'M SORRY! I'll be OK..."

So yes, the stereotype is true.

There's also the classic "Canadian Shuffle" that happens the nation over several hundred times a day...

Two people walking in opposite directions start crossing eachothers path, they sort of "dance around" for a second, make eye contact, both say "Sorry!" in a surprised manner and then they'll both try to defer and let the other by.

Yup... sometimes there really is a sort of "politeness one-ups-man-ship" that goes on up here

I've done the "Canadian Shuffle" so many times it's not even funny... Well, okay maybe it is a little funny.

The same thing happens in England, but there's a little more muffled swearing.

 

[Compatriot Block]

snip

My body had a rough time transitioning between chuckling at your breakdown of his post and feeling physically ill that someone actually said all of that.