SL Sex, Lies, and Mind Games

and now the hysterical confusion....waving hands in the air....stomping feet....frantically running from thread to thread.....wailing....

Ladies....let's remember.....



Be Gentle.

Mickey (searches for a cartoon character that portrays pity)

Pep, I am (quite seriously) a little worried about you. While I will admit that your ready wit still seems very much in evidence in these replies, and those in other threads, I am seeing some disturbing signs of a degradation of your ability to engage in an actual discussion, employing logical arguments and evidentiary content.

Frankly, Pep, you are on the run in this thread: you are like some once proud army that has been broken, and reduced to night time raids on the enemy's baggage camp. Your witticisms no longer threaten: they are as gnat bites that merely annoy.

Your main tactics, aside from (as always) your rather nasty ad hominem attacks, seem to be indirection and avoidance, not to mention a kind of distorting periphrasis of your opponent's argument that so misrepresents the original that it resembles burlesque rather than satire. It's as though, unable to confront the actual points arrayed against you, you must distort them into something that your apparently enfeebled argumentative skills can actually handle.

Let me endeavour to assist you by reminding you of the actual arguments arrayed against you.

To begin with, we require no help in locating the original posts that you have distorted. Nor are we at all taken in by your ridiculous suggestion that you have extracted the essence of those posts: you have quite deliberately distorted them instead. This is why I employed the term dysphemism, which involves the substitution of a pejorative for the original term, rather than (as you suggest) cacophemism which is merely a more general use of nasty language. Your essential methodology, here and elsewhere, is to use such crude substitutions in place of real argument, implying that our discussion of emotions (for instance) is really an admission of "over emotionalism." And yet you PROVE no such thing: you merely assert it through the substitution. Very sloppy logic indeed, Pep.

I mentioned the strategy of avoidance, another characteristic strategy. You clamp on to those parts of an argument that seem to you most vulnerable to "witty" riposte, while simply passing over in silence those elements that might require real reason and argumentation.

As this strategy is, frankly, damaging your reputation as a rational and logical thinker, let me assist you by providing you again with the opportunity to respond to my earlier questions (no, I have not forgotten that I asked them):


Come on, Pep. Shake off the cobwebs, and put the ruins of what I imagine must once have been a proudly formidable intellect to proper use. Show us that you can apply your own much vaunted "reason" to good effect.

Answer the questions, Pep.

Are you really that confused? Your typing has started to fall apart even more than usual I suppose. Perhaps you should sit down at the keyboard rather than doing all that hysterical running around.
Don't you have your own avatar pic for that?

Pep (wins another £1 - that's about $1.5 - for his contention that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

You might want to add an L to "should" when you are discussing typing starting to fall apart.

<-----------cartoon interpretation for the over-emotional who cannot type when they become hysterical

If I had to face any rational argument I might be inclined to take this thread seriously. But I don't, so I won't.

Please carry on - I love it when people have to prop up their lack of argument by reinforcing them with unsubstantiated personal reflections on how they think the thread looks. "So, Mr Obama, do you think your policies are any good?"

Luckily I don't have to distort the sexist nonsense that you and your cohorts are peddling. They are evident for all to see. If you choose to interpret any of my comments as ad hominem attacks then the accuracy of my points has been made; my evidence for my views is constructed on experience of your behaviour and that of other over-emotional "females" who occasionally, under pressure, over-react hysterically without actually reading the rational posts of others. You have acknowledged and admitted your failings yourself several times in this respect, but seem to wish to disregard these as exceptional and atypical because they do not accord with how you would like your argument to be perceived. Each time you protest at my pointing out these inadequacies my argument is reinforced.
Your posts and those of others who have displayed inappropriately over-emotional reactions are a matter of record and are all the proof necessary for my contentions. I simplify them, not distort them.
It is true that I ignore the emotional arguments you attempt to offer; why should I allow you to drag me down to your level?
My reputation is unsullied. I refuse to be distracted from my principal point, which demonstrates that point effectively.
My response to your questions is, in the words of the great Satch'mo' "If you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer".

Pep (It's a little unfortunate for you, I suppose, that you have to attempt a rational post in the midst of Mickey's ravings, which are a much more effective argument for my standpoint than anything I might say.)

Scylla....it appears that there might be some difficulty in him interpreting your post, without the appropriate cartoon characters.....particularly at this stage.

ETA: ah, yes....glancing up....that seems to be the case, here

oh geez....we've reached the delusional phase. Hate when that happens.

Mickey (puts her cartoon characters away, realizing that even those cute little faces can no longer help the poor man out)

That's most reassuring!

Pep (If a mad person says I'm delusional then I must be getting something right. )

My apologies for the distraction, Twilight. Just wanted to demonstrate that there was a wee bit of hypocrisy with someone who is "supposedly" male, pointing out some characteristics negatively, and assigning those to females.....when in fact, the "supposed" male often demonstrates those very same characteristics repeatedly and predictably.....and might I add rather hilariously.

And my apologies for continuing to exploit his foolishness and frail state....but it was necessary to prove the "repeatedly" theory. Generally we have to prove this theory, by jumping around from thread to thread....but today's case suggests that his frantic behavior of repeating the hysterical confusion, over and over again....can occur within just a few pages.....perhaps the "supposed" male is getting in touch with his feminine side.....or perhaps just delusional....as verified....who knows.

A project for another day.

Wow! Boys and girls, girls and boys! Let's reconcile our differences in gentle intercourse. All of this emotional, sexist, pragmatic, dogmatic, winding merry-go-round, never-ending kaliedoscope of wonderfully linguistic foreplay has me all worked-up, almost like a dog in heat. The solution for ultimate truth lies somewhere in the realm of the Third Sex...

It's ok, Twilight. He/she has gone back through the hysterical ravings and corrected all spelling errors....so he/she seems to have calmed down a bit. You can proceed.

Sift through this response as carefully as I can, I still fail to see any evidence of actual substance here. I applaud you for your wit, Pep, but when we penetrate the smoke, there is remarkably little actual fire to be seen here.


Characteristically, you again assert an opinion as though it were a fact, without providing proof or support. Stare into my cold, hard green eyes, Pep: I am not being emotional here. I am requesting (over and over again) that you, who have made a tendentious statement with regard to women, emotion, and reason, provide a logical proof of that contention.

Mere name calling and evasion isn't fooling anyone: prove that this isn't a rational argument, or provide a rational response to it.


Well, as you are a proven master of the "unsubstantiated personal reflection," I must bow to your conviction that this is so. And yet, I suspect that I could easily muster support for this opinion; indeed, I could quote, now, other posts, even in other threads, that back up my judgement that your usual evasions and misdirections here are not working. You are fooling no one, Pep: we have all come to know you too well.


Oh, but they are demonstrably distortions, Pep, or, at the very least, unproven allegations. The terms "hysteria" and "over emotional" appear in none of the posts that you pretend to have summarized, yet these are value-laden judgments that are the very lynch pin of your so-called "precis." If you cannot, or will not, justify their use, then it is incumbent upon you to stop using them. And it is this, in fact, that I have been asking you, repeatedly but to no apparent effect, to do.


Our posts are indeed a matter of record; I invite others to examine them and come to their own conclusions about the degree of inappropriate "over emotionalism" that they exhibit. I am absolutely confident that, were we to put this to the test with a systematic poll or survey, we would put to rest for good your allegation that any of your contentions are "evident for all to see."

Pep, you are employing the tactics of a primary school debater here. Both of your contentions here, that women are over emotional and irrational, and that our responses to you exhibit "sexism" and are "nonsense," remain unproven assertions that you are endeavouring to foist upon us in lieu of rational proof because you lack the ability to demonstrate them. Abandon fallacious tautology ("Look! Women are irrational, because all of their posts here are irrational", and provide us with some proof, please.


If you wish to discredit my arguments, you would do better to DEMONSTRATE that my arguments are "emotional" rather than rational. Your ostrich-like response, by choosing to "ignore" them, may reassure you, but all the rest of us see is you with your head in the sand.


In some regards, I would agree that your reputation remains safe. Where we would differ is as to the nature of that reputation. I submit that you are doing nothing more here in this thread than solidifying the impression we already have of you, as someone who characteristically employs a certain facile aptitude with language to disguise a poverty of real understanding and logic.


Louis Armstrong was a wonderful musician, but would, I rather suspect, not fare as well on a debating platform as he did on a music stage.

Really, it's quite astonishing how many different ways, in this one post, you have found to evade any responsibility for your contentions. It's all very impressive in its own way, Pep, but an easy wit and ability to duck when the hard questions come your way is no substitute, in rational argument, for proof and logic. And of these your response provides not so much as a glimmer.


Mickey has chosen to tackle you on your own ground; that of witty banter. I think she is doing quite well, actually.

PMSLROFLMAO.

Pep (Please keep posting; you must be antagonising Scylla - cue for a hypocritical "no she isn't"? - as much as you are amusing me and all the neutrals here with your addled thoughts which are conclusively demonstrating the accuracy of my perceptions.)

ETA While I was posting this, Scylla was posting the unmpteenth chapter of her thesis, and, as I anticipated, trying to excuse Mickey's braindumps as "witty banter", ("Witty"? I'm sorry, I must be missing something.) rather than the ideal content-free exposition of my argument.

Of course there is little of substance. I am attempting to leave you with a little dignity, rather than put your hyperemotional sexism under the microscope.
You may not be showing emotion at the moment, but you have done so in the past. Excessively, as have a long list of other "females" who have lost their rational thought and posted without engaging their brains. I'm not talking about the run-of-the-mill "there's a sale of pretty shoes" or "look at my new hairstyle" posts which are in the majority; I am talking about the minority of posts where you demonstrably lose it.
If anyone wants an example of "female" irrationality, then all they have to do is search for "clovering" to read my bowdlerised version of a hysterical post.
However many rational posts you can cite, from the more reasonable "female" members of the forum community, you are unable to deny the existence of any number of posts which exemplify the hysterical over-reactions by you and your cadre, usually because blind emotion seems to have prevented you from actually reading what has been written.
You can ask as much as you like. I will continue to point out the accuracy of my summary and invite those without a jaundiced view to form their own opinions.
If you want to poll the audience on how reasonable the "clovering" post was please feel free to do so.
But *you* are employing Bart Simpson's tactics of repeating yourself over and over, presumably in the same hope as he evinces, that I will change my position. No chance. In fact, I am going to stop responding to your extended posts on a point by point basis because you are boring me and I have better things to do than write the counterpoint to your redundant feminist dissertation.
I'll finish by pointing out again that all of your supposed arguments have been destroyed by Mickey's interventions here. "Banter"? They are the semi-literate witterings of a deranged "female". And you are trying to contradict my perception of some of the "females" here as irrational. I challenge you to find one male that posts in such a demented manner.

Pep (And I could quote you names in double figures of "females" whose posts reflect my opinions on their lack of connection between brain and fingers.)

This is very sweet of you, Pep, but please, don't do me any special favours. I INVITE you to put my "hyperemotional sexism under the microscope." It would at least give something like substance to the phantasms you keep erroneously referring to as "your argument" or "your point." By all means, dissect my behaviour here. Let's see you attempt a REAL argument, rather than the exercise in smoke and mirrors you have been entertaining us with here.

It would take some time to ennumerate properly all of the rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies that you have been employing here.

As it is you who have made a contentious assertion about women, emotion, and illogic, the burden of proof is yours. And yet you continue to offer nothing in the way of actual evidence.

Such evidence as you darkly hint might be in the offing is a clear case of cherry picking and generalization based upon an insufficient sample.

-- Can you find isolated instances of "emotional" responses from me, or other women here? None of us would deny it. But pulling these up without placing them within the larger context of other utterances by the same women proves nothing beyond that, on such-and-such an occasion, such a woman was "emotional."

-- Your apparent "inability" to find similar instances of emotional responses by men is at best an indication of your unwillingness to see behaviour that, were it to be exhibited by a female, you would condemn as "over emotionalism." More seriously, I suspect, it constitutes a kind of negative pleading: the fact that you are unwilling or unable to produce such evidence does not establish that it is not there to be found.

-- Your entire argument is rendered rather pointless by your continued refusal to define your terms. What do you mean by "over emotional"? Or, indeed, by "emotion" at all? In practice, virtually any argument with which you disagree seems to come under this heading for you.

-- You continue to use dysphemism as a means of distorting the putative "evidence": an argument with which you disagree becomes "hysterical," and any evidence of emotion becomes "over emotionalism." This represents, in one form, your overall strategy of making assertions for which you offer no proof whatsoever.

Respond or not, Pep: it makes no difference, as it seems pretty clear at this stage that you are unwilling or (as I believe) incapable of providing concrete proof of your claims: you have been reduced at last to rather pathetic attempts to justify WHY you won't provide proof.

Your race is run, Pep. I don't think there is anyone reading this thread who can still imagine that your failure to provide proof here represents anything other than an inability to do so. Moreover, I suspect that even those who were before dazzled by your admitted wit now see that this is at best but airy and insubstantial.

It's like gossamer, Pep. Very pretty, but with a mere breath of wind . . .

Pep, why do you keep putting female in quotes? If they are men pretending to be girls, how does that support your argument?

It doesn't. Pep is trying to have his cake and eat it too, by pretending that he is basing his assertions merely on the evidence in this forum (where it is not clear that all "females" are in fact women in RL), while simultaneously using that evidence to generalize about RL women.

Pointing out that some of the "women" here against whom he is railing might actually be men doesn't do much for his "argument" that the female posters here provide evidence of the real over-emotionalism and hysterical behaviour of biological women, does it?

I prefer to have my Kate and Edith too.

LOL

But are they aware of each other?

More importantly, is FELINE aware of them???

Ooooooh . . . . !

Don't you enjoy a really juicy public indiscretion??

I am sure that Chris can produce a reasonable explanation . . . given enough time . . .

She knows I am a shameless flirt and she knows where my heart is.

Awwwwwwwwwww

MmmHmm, nice...we who are your friends, get that...make sure that Kate and Edith get it too....

I've begun putting "Pep" in quotes, since this whole forum schtick is really just a roleplay for him. We really only know one thing about "Pep" 's typist: he's horribly bored.