(luv2increase)
It has become obvious that since I've successfully proven maxwatt, Lazarus Long, and niner wrong on various occasions that they are not happy with me. They never ever can substantiate any of their claims against me and can't counter any of my arguments. It is ok guys; I still like ya'll.
What you have done is continuous prove that you are a legend in your own mind. You have *proven* nothing about others because you have routinely failed to back up your claims except through cherry picking sources and denying that anything those opposed to your point of view offer has credibility. So let's de-construct your last reply to me together son.
You need to stop trolling every thread against Obama!!! It is getting quite ridiculous.
QUOTE ( @ 8-Oct 2008, 11:44 AM) *
First, you are not in leadership here and not in a position to give orders to any other poster.
It wasn't an imperative sentence. It was a suggestion, hence the keyword you've seemed to have missed "need".
The use of the word "need" as an auxiliary verb, as in the example you provide, is consistent with a demand for *requisite or obligatory compliance.* You may have meant a suggestive use but you failed to phrase the comment that way. Perhaps your command of English is subject to remedial work. I suggest you *may need* a dictionary or additional classes.
http://www.perfectyo...rammar/need.htm
Need
Need is used both as an ordinary verb and as an auxiliary verb.
As an ordinary verb
As an ordinary verb need is used in the sense of ‘require’. It has the usual forms needs and needed. Ordinary need is followed by an infinitive with to.
Note that the auxiliary form of need is rare in American English.
The auxiliary need is mainly used to ask for or give permission. It is not used to talk about habitual or general things.
* You need not work today. (Auxiliary - Particular occasion)
* You don't need to work on Sundays. (Ordinary - habitual thing)
* You need not pay for this call. (Auxiliary - Particular occasion)
* In most countries, you don't need to pay for emergency calls. (Ordinary - general thing)
BTW an alternative to a demand for the compliance interpretation with your vague use of language, is the implication of a threat when you add the multiple exclamatory punctuation.
You need to stop trolling every thread against Obama!!!
As in you *need* to comply (or else)!!!
I do not presume you were making a threat and understand your claim to mistakenly have applied the command form instead of a suggestive form that uses a more passive voice. I will assume you now understand the problem and can address your less than perfect command of English in the future.
One suggestion is the use of a modifier (like may or perhaps etc) and not to use an exclamation.
They continue to post statements that are irrelevant to the thread or what other people post. It is a matter of decency rather than violation, hence the reason I am pointing it out rather than the moderators.
Your interpretation of relevance and irrelevance is subjective to your opinion, the contrary content they provide is not objectively irrelevant. Hence if you have a problem with what is irrelevant in your mind then you must learn to prove it to be so and make a formal complaint. Your *proof* will be examined and if it holds water will be acted on. If it is not objectively certain then it will have no result.
In fact posting irrelevancies can be interpreted to violate our rules if it is determined to be intentionally disruptive. However most examples you insinuate to be irrelevant are simply your denial of validity, that is not irrelevant but instead directly relevant to a topic. Topics are subject to debate as you are well aware so do not expect to post any content that is not subject to being evaluated and challenged for credibility by subsequent posters and attacking their commentary by attempting to attack the poster's intelligence, education etc is actually a form of ad hominem and is itself a violation of our rules, subject to being penalized.
Trust me; they have trolled my threads on numerous occasions in the same manner. It is disrespectful. I'm positive Connor doesn't like it either.
Why should I trust you?
Son, I do not even know you.
Trust is irrelevant to the issue and your standards of decency are also irrelevant except as they coincide with the rules of conduct for this organization and the law of the land. As neither is inherently violated by any examples you have provided then whether you (and others) *like it or not* is also irrelevant.
I'd say posting 100% irrelevant links and posts unrelated to the thread title and/or discussions is trolling.
The issue of relevancy is important but is neither subject to an absolute standard or your personal dictates.
Hence you may have an argument if a post or link is so tangentially relevant that an objective analysis might ascertain a 1% association on topic. However if the relevance were determined to be say 30% by one viewer and 60% by another it would none the less still be relevant.
Your lack of understanding or appreciation of relevance is not in itself validation of the claim. You have often demonstrated an inability to understand complex issues, though I do agree son, that is simply my opinion.
Prove it.
I just did.
Oh I realize that you are more interested in my wasting considerable time to dissect the numerous times that you went into other people's threads with tenuous material to contradict their claims but as I pointed out above it is irrelevant. It is however an example of the *pot calling the kettle black*, hence son I respectfully suggest that you learn to *do on to others as you would have them do on to you* and not complain when they *do on to you exactly as they have been done to.*
Either way you would agree that two wrongs do not make a right; correct?
So in closing if someone violates the rules please communicate with a nav to address the issue and there will be a follow up but stop trying to routinely push the limits of civil discourse through the use of suggestive ad hominem and innuendo.
Also since you appear to fail to understand it, ad hominem is a fallacious form of argument and the definition is:
http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.htmlTranslated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the folhttp://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=24826#
Complete Editlowing form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Even a cursory review of your arguments and rebuttals can demonstrate your consistent application of this fallacy.
As I have advised others son, please refrain from making any personal commentary when attempting to challenge their positions. It may require a more educated and professional caliber of response than you are used to but I am confident you can get it.