What are your top 3 most-despised SOPT (Same Old Putrid Tactics)?

Blindly quibbling over semantics: ......

True, but that doesn't invalidate the construct "The status quo has changed", nor does it make "the status quo will remain" redundant.

Remember it is the "present state". The "present state" can be different from the "past state" or the "future state".

No we'd be The Borg and those gits are always upto no good.

Right so, derailing a thread, taking a quote out of context, away goals count double, no mention of pie, I reckon I'm in for about seven points here.

On a serious note, in between the barrages of hatred and contempt I'm yet to see anyone who isn't actual helpful at some time. These forums do serve the purpose they were intended for, people do get their queries answered, the bickering, and heck I'm guilty of that more than most I guess but I'm on a vow of good behaviour, is just part of the whole package, the disparate parts make up the whole, the whole is good.

I disagree. The status quo is what is current. It would have to be a previous different status quo for it to have changed. Only if the status quo has not changed is it still the same status quo. Which does make "the status quo will remain" redundant.

ETA What Argent and Sling said.

Don't forget, the only thing worse than self-deprecating humor is when some rodent gets into a fight with his alt over whether he's a rodent or not.

It would be nice if those who routinely resort to these hackneyed insults would realize that their habit has been noted. And that this habit is less admired than they, mired in self-delusion, imagine.

But it's annoying when legitimate topics, topics that might be illuminated by logic, descend into the unhelpful darkness of personal insults.

It would be nice if those who routinely resort to these hackneyed insults would realize that their habit has been noted. And that this habit is less admired than they, mired in self-delusion, imagine.

QFT.

Another tactic that might qualify for the list is surely

#__) SOCK PUPPETRY: The most obvious use of alting is to a) insult the opponent under the guise of being a third party, and to b) praise one's self, again under the guise of being a third party. But there's also the 'attempt to fill the thread with dozens of posts on an unrelated topic or tangent from the original topic, posts which purport to be between two people but which are actually all coming from the same person using two accounts.'



Again, you have to picture (and pity) the emptiness and despair of a life in which this sort of thing seems like a good idea.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was a thread solely about the list that Ponsonby Low considers as "Putrid". I withdraw the remark.

I believe this demonstrates a failure of logic.

Your claim (in post #37---a response to my post #30) was (to paraphrase---interested readers should look at the posts) that if anyone posts a phrase, the use of which they believe to be a violation of forum etiquette, and then someone else posts that phrase, then that person has violated forum etiquette.

According to your claim, for example, if someone in this thread posts "I think that anyone who posts a word with more than three syllables has violated forum etiquette" and then I post a word that has more than three syllables, then I have violated forum etiquette.

But since I never agreed with the proposed rule (that posting a word with more than three syllables violates etiquette in the hypothetical example, or that posting the phrase 'fixed it for ya' violates etiquette in the actual example)----since I never agreed with that, then I never violated etiquette.



My response (in post #43), to which you responded with the above comment ["I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was a thread solely about the list that Ponsonby Low considers as "Putrid". I withdraw the remark"], was that since I hadn't agreed that posting the particular phrase was a violation, then I had committed no violation.

Anyone may post any rule they wish. They may post 'typing the letter X violates Forum etiquette.' But that doesn't make anyone who subsequently types an X a violator of Forum etiquette. Therefore your remarks on this topic in post #37 were lacking in logic and common sense (as were your remarks in post #43.)

It looks as though your goal was to put across the claim 'Ponsonby won't accept any of the rules proposed in this thread, other than her own' I'd guess that those who read my responses to others' ideas will realize that such a claim has no validity.

I believe this demonstrates a failure of logic.

Your claim (in post #37---a response to my post #30) was (to paraphrase---interested readers should look at the posts) that if anyone posts a phrase, the use of which they believe to be a violation of forum etiquette, and then someone else posts that phrase, then that person has violated forum etiquette.

According to your claim, for example, if someone in this thread posts "I think that anyone who posts a word with more than three syllables has violated forum etiquette" and then I post a word that has more than three syllables, then I have violated forum etiquette.

But since I never agreed with the proposed rule (that posting a word with more than three syllables violates etiquette in the hypothetical example, or that posting the phrase 'fixed it for ya' violates etiquette in the actual example)----since I never agreed with that, then I never violated etiquette.



My response (in post #43), to which you responded with the above comment ["I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was a thread solely about the list that Ponsonby Low considers as "Putrid". I withdraw the remark"], was that since I hadn't agreed that posting the particular phrase was a violation, then I had committed no violation.

Anyone may post any rule they wish. They may post 'typing the letter X violates Forum etiquette.' But that doesn't make anyone who subsequently types an X a violator of Forum etiquette. Therefore your remarks on this topic in post #37 were lacking in logic and common sense (as were your remarks in post #43.)

It looks as though your goal was to put across the claim 'Ponsonby won't accept any of the rules proposed in this thread, other than her own' I'd guess that those who read my responses to others' ideas will realize that such a claim has no validity.

What part of "I withdraw the remark" did you not understand?

You know, I really hate long running debates over definitions, even when I manage to get sucked into one.

What part of "I withdraw the remark" did you not understand?

After which the Judge usually says on TV "The jury should therefore disregard the defendant's admission of guilt".

That sounds similar to the "Missing 'In my opinion' ".

As in "In my opinion) the sun rises in the west".

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is clear that it is their opinion (not anyone else's) and that it is not necessarily accurate.

Only a Nazi would say something like that.

Godwin!

Hmm. Never seen that. I don't watch much in the way of TV, as it is usually too utterly vapid and far from representative of ANYthing in RL. Though, for some people, it *IS* their lives. Well, that, and talking about it on message boards.

If you genuinely withdrew the remark, you would have done exactly that, by using 'Edit'. (Surely you must realize that people can see that!)

Being a dragon in a virtual world (and talking about it on message boards) is much more relevant to rl than TV, of course.

Totally off topic personal attacks.