What "side" is hooksaw on, and what is the opposing side?

1/14/2010 3:47:59 PM

^^ it took me a minute to get through that, but yes, you're on the right track.

^ doesn't matter

1/14/2010 3:54:10 PM

Quote :

"Doesn't logical debate say that anyone wishing to continue arguing that the other side is doing this needs to prove this in some way in order to continue arguing that point?"

no, because there can be no proof for either claim until we agree on a definition of the offending behavior and agree on a methodology for classifying a post as meeting that definition. This is known as "coding" in linguistic/psychology fields and is a notoriously thorny problem that level-headed PhDs struggle to solve. There is no way that hot headed internet users will solve it.

But then, assuming we did, one would still have to go through the thousands of posts or at least a random sampling of the posts of hooksaw as well as other candidate users to establish a true determination of how hooksaw's behavior compares.

In short, your ignorant question about "logical debate" pretty much confirms Lokken's original point:

Quote :

"The Soap Box is a cesspool. Interesting and legitimate debate threads are a rarity but hooksaw is not the reason for this. There are a plethora of other users who exhibit the same behavior that he does, but they fall more in line with the political stance of the majority thus you don't see dozens of 'ban xxx' threads for the same reason. What Soap Box really is, is a location for the majority of its users to come circle jerk each other while fooling themselves into believing they are having actual discussion/debate."

1/14/2010 3:58:37 PM

Perhaps the issue isn't so black and white as you are trying to put it. I think it is probably fairly obvious to the majority of users that even though I may not have the textbook definition of "burden of proof" down to a science, what I've said is nowhere near as bad or even in the same ballpark as the kind of debating that the users are arguing that Hooksaw uses.

^^^ Hooksaw's side doesn't matter as Synapse said. Side A says that X exists. Side B says that X does not exist. Unless you want to have 10 pages of the same conversation, Side A needs to show some proof, or else how exactly does this argument progress?

[Edited on January 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM. Reason : s]

1/14/2010 4:10:54 PM

Quote :

"A lot of posts ITT about the other side using the same tactics and a lot saying they don't. Doesn't logical debate say that anyone wishing to continue arguing that the other side is doing this needs to prove this in some way in order to continue arguing that point?"

That made my brain hurt.

1/14/2010 4:15:22 PM

FF is not CC#2
FF is not TSB #2

1/14/2010 4:15:56 PM

yet you're intent on making it seem that way.

nice contribution, btw.

1/14/2010 5:18:06 PM

You can't ban somebody just because they don't agree with what you think. Hooksaw actually makes alot of good points compared to the loons that frequent the soap box. I even bet Hooksaw could pass MA 141 if he tried, without a tutor.

1/17/2010 3:00:09 PM

No, no he doesn't. He makes no good points.

Here, this is 99% of hooksaw posts:

bold

Quote :

"quote"

link

1/18/2010 9:54:14 AM

Quote :

"GOP: 'We hate fags more than we support troops.' message_topic.aspx?topic=578542 God GOP: We defend the right for workers to gang rape message_topic.aspx?topic=578986 God"

1/18/2010 10:10:31 AM

Oh, look, he's trying the age old "derail the thread with something irrelevant" tactic.

1/18/2010 2:21:01 PM

actually he is calling out God for being a hypocrite

1/18/2010 2:31:30 PM

are you guys serious? You spend 3/4 of the thread begging for examples from the "other side" and then when hooksaw posts them you say he's derailing the thread? WTF.

1/18/2010 2:32:46 PM

^^...which is irrelevant to this thread. God is a prick, but this isn't the "Seriously ban God" thread.

1/19/2010 2:05:31 AM

^ You're right--it should be a "Serously ban God" thread.

1/19/2010 5:41:25 AM

Quote :

"actually he is calling out God for being a hypocrite"

Quote :

"are you guys serious? You spend 3/4 of the thread begging for examples from the "other side" and then when hooksaw posts them you say he's derailing the thread? WTF."

Mind telling me how those are examples of me being a hypocrite? They may be partisan posts, and they may be inflammatory (to you), but they're certainty contributions. They aren't simply "BOLD/QUOTE/LINK/ROLLEYES." I actually post something along with them.

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2010 4:39:42 PM

whats so bad about boldfacing a headline, quoting part of a story, and posting a link to that story?

some would say thats actually a good thing

usually people get flamed for NOT posting sources

and yes, I get what you're saying...he should post links, etc, then post his own opinion or thoughts on the matter

so then you could flame him for his opinions

1/19/2010 4:59:51 PM

you answered your own question

1/19/2010 5:29:44 PM

I mainly love hooksaw because of how upset he makes God. also, he isnt as crazy as some people would lead you to believe.

1/19/2010 7:51:57 PM

Check here for some of God's illuminating "contributions":

message_topic.aspx?topic=586530

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 1:34 PM. Reason : ^ ]

1/20/2010 1:34:22 PM

Quote :

"^^ Shut the fuck up, you pissy little cunt. Answer my simple question or get the fuck out and stay out, goddammit. So you don't have a top Republican pick--is that what you're saying? Yes or no. I don't give a fuck about "strong." I want your top pick--it's real simple, asshole. "

1/20/2010 2:39:05 PM

Quote :

"Do you find Scott Brown's nude body refreshing?"

God

message_topic.aspx?topic=586530

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 3:16:06 PM

^still trying to derail this thread

^^for some reason, allowing the thread to be derailed by being pissy

1/20/2010 3:55:57 PM

hooksaw is an idiot, but so is God really

1/20/2010 4:18:41 PM

I'll fall on my sword.

I'll never post in The Soap Box again if hooksaw promises to do the same.

1/20/2010 4:27:50 PM

^^ Incorrect.

^ How many aliases do you have? I have one username.

1/20/2010 4:33:45 PM

^ damn, ftw

1/20/2010 6:42:28 PM

^^ Oh no sir, quite correct.





















(see, I can make baseless assertions too!)

1/20/2010 9:22:07 PM

^ Incorrect.

1/22/2010 11:24:27 PM

bump

8/5/2010 4:48:00 PM

Quote :

"Show me one coherent response that he's made that isn't a copy/pasted article. One."

oh me

8/5/2010 5:01:22 PM

Make it so.

8/5/2010 5:02:38 PM

Quote :

"Show me one coherent response that he's made that isn't a copy/pasted article. One."

please tell me that God is the one who wrote these words

8/5/2010 5:06:49 PM

No complaints about this tirade directed at me just a couple of weeks ago?

Quote :

"Go fuck yourself. But before you do, make sure you say something sassy to me."

Quote :

"Alright, you've got the sassy part down. Can I assume that you're fucking yourself now?"

Quote :

"Are you or are you not fucking yourself?"

BridgetSPK

message_topic.aspx?topic=598428&page=3

Hmm.

8/5/2010 5:31:44 PM

Admittedly his posting template gets old, but he does occasionally stray outside of it to actually discuss things. Not as often as I'd like, but still.

And he's not more predictable than half the posters.

And he's gotten better about the silly insults. I don't think he's called me "FrumpyGOP" in more than a year.

So I see no reason to ban him.

8/5/2010 5:37:19 PM

^^^He is.



[Edited on August 5, 2010 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2010 5:37:38 PM

Every three months, I curl up with a 2 liter of Mountain Dew and a giant bag of Cheetos, do a search for all of hooksaw's threads, and reread them all in their entirety. I call it Hooksawturday.

8/5/2010 6:02:37 PM

that's the most awesome thing I've ever read...

8/5/2010 6:08:24 PM

he just needs salsiburyboy-like posting restrictions. a ban isn't necessary, but something is.

8/5/2010 6:19:07 PM

i'm in favor of severely limiting the posting abilities of all soap box regulars

8/5/2010 6:29:42 PM

Checking out of TSB. Bye, y'all.

8/5/2010 7:21:30 PM

No complaints about this tirade directed at me just a couple of weeks ago?

Quote :

"Go fuck yourself. But before you do, make sure you say something sassy to me."

Quote :

"Alright, you've got the sassy part down. Can I assume that you're fucking yourself now?"

Quote :

"Are you or are you not fucking yourself?"

BridgetSPK

message_topic.aspx?topic=598428&page=3

Hmm.






You forgot the bold. I fixed it for you.


[Edited on August 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2010 7:27:06 PM

this is ridiculous, triple posting across three threads?
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=528301&page=11#14214357

this is nearing cheese revolution status

8/16/2010 11:13:29 PM

no, its nowhere close to cheese revolution status.

for one thing, hooksaw largely has the support of the conservatives in soapbox. Salisburyboy had zero support from anyone in soapbox.

second, hooksaw posts articles from mainstream publications and I don't think he's ever posted an article from prisonplanet.com.

Third, you're just a typical whining liberal - face facts that your precious chosen-one president is an abject fucking failure.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 11:52 PM. Reason : deal with it - quit your fucking crying you pathetic whiner]

8/16/2010 11:51:35 PM

^I hate that I agree with you on some things politically, because you are the worst kind of poster who actually wants to be taken somewhat seriously. even here in the feedback forum you have to resort to partisan attacks to defend the indefensible that is hooksaw

8/17/2010 12:01:08 AM

I honestly don't care too much if I'm taken seriously

I post incisive observations but put very little effort into persuasion or describing the thought process behind my ideas. That would be wasted effort because the only response to any soapbox post is nit picking and tangential arguments.

8/17/2010 12:06:32 AM

how the hell is pointing out that he posted the same thing in three different threads, one of them not even relevant, a partisan attack? how is criticizing repeated cut-and-paste news article multi-posts a partisan attack? they are not. the fact here is that solinari is one of the worst trolls in the soap box and i don't think you would find anyone to say different.

there are a lot of people who i disagree with, am i posting in the feedback forum against them?

8/17/2010 12:46:48 AM

i think you miscounted the ^'s...it wasn't directed at you

unless you used "partisan attack" from my post and directed that line of thought at solinari. in any case, I agree with getting rid of people like indy, smc, and hooksaw. not because of what their beliefs may be, but because they are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to destroying what could be legitimate discussion

it's sad that moderators don't crack down more on users that clearly have no other objective than to just shit all over a thread, ideology, etc

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 1:52 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2010 1:46:15 AM

liberals get mad when reality doesn't conform to their demands and they'd really rather not read any news articles that point this out and shatter their bubble

8/17/2010 7:43:54 AM

I don't really want hooksaw "banned", but he needs some proper scoldin for these recent shenanigans. This "make the exact same post in multiple threads simultaneously" shit is ridiculous.

Example:
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=574651&page=1#14214077
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=528301&page=11#14214080
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=595066&page=12#14214068

and

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=556098&page=68#14212707
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=528301&page=11#14212705

There have even been times where he's had dead threads bumped so he would have more places to make the same post.

Its like this:

News Article: "Harry Reid makes a doody"
threads bumped:
"Harry Reid Sucks"
"Official Democrats Suck thread"
"Official Government Scat thread"
"Official Senate Credibility thread"
"Public sewage is a failure - privatize!"

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 9:57 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2010 9:50:18 AM