I didn’t bring it back to life – the user named geala brought it back to life: have you completely missed the point of the above, or did it go over your head?
It didn’t, obviously. You’re just being selective about the facts, because you’ve decided your support is for the provocateur, for whatever reasons.
I have no interest in these inane cyber fist fights – but it’s clear they’re part and parcel of today’s ‘fight logic with acid’ mentality when it comes to online forums of any kind.
I have only ever proposed ‘ideas’ for improving the game on these forums – I have literally done nothing else, if you examine the history of my exchanges here. Ideas are born to be dismantled – no one is ‘right’, no one is ‘wrong’. But I expect intelligent debate to be neutral, impersonal and objective. Makes sense, yeah?
I can appreciate a well-structured counterargument. But instead, when someone disagrees with you online, and they don’t have the wits to form an intelligent counterargument, they resort to vitriol – to slander, basically.
Thing about me is that I don’t back down from a fight. If someone’s too stupid to counter my arguments with grey matter, they’ll resort to insults and fists – the lowest levels of competitive interaction. I’m used to that, and I’ll meet stupid with stupid, if that’s how it has to be. I never lose. Fist fights – I always win. Stupid ass name-calling fights? I always win.
I don’t endorse this behaviour. I’d love for the world to be full of highly intelligent people, none of whom agree on anything whatsoever. To agree is too be the same – in other words, to be dull. I love listening to a clever counterargument. All of my best friends are great at telling me I’m wrong without being provocative in their lingo.
Your forums currently don’t encourage healthy counterarguments. Ban me if you like – I couldn’t give a fuck either way.
