Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fool_on_the_hill

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:31:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Banned??
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:37:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:35:21 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
Lol, whenever I read his posts I had no idea what he was trying to say.

I know, but he's awesome!
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:37:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:35:21 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
Lol, whenever I read his posts I had no idea what he was trying to say.

Not true! I think he put together a coherent thought once.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:42:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:41:53 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is being temporarily banned, his account will be reactivated on Wednesday.

What did he do?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:50:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:42:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:41:53 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is being temporarily banned, his account will be reactivated on Wednesday.

What did he do?

Member harassment.
Debate.org Moderator
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 6:56:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:35:21 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
Lol, whenever I read his posts I had no idea what he was trying to say.

My current theory is that he is employing some crude form of stenography where his actual thoughts are contained, in plain sight, in the messages he posts, but obfuscated with noise and gibberish, like some bizarre acrostic.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 4:38:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 6:56:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:35:21 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
Lol, whenever I read his posts I had no idea what he was trying to say.

My current theory is that he is employing some crude form of stenography where his actual thoughts are contained, in plain sight, in the messages he posts, but obfuscated with noise and gibberish, like some bizarre acrostic.

Sounds about right.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 4:39:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 6:56:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:35:21 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
Lol, whenever I read his posts I had no idea what he was trying to say.

My current theory is that he is employing some crude form of stenography where his actual thoughts are contained, in plain sight, in the messages he posts, but obfuscated with noise and gibberish, like some bizarre acrostic.

Beautiful theory, perhaps only filtered with an appropriate mindset or state of understanding. ;)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 4:43:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 6:56:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:35:21 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
Lol, whenever I read his posts I had no idea what he was trying to say.

My current theory is that he is employing some crude form of stenography where his actual thoughts are contained, in plain sight, in the messages he posts, but obfuscated with noise and gibberish, like some bizarre acrostic.

Or he's actually really terrible at English. Requires fewer assumptions.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 5:27:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fool is really more of a sophisticated troll.

It's not easy to catch unless you've the luxury of some philosophical training, but what appears to be a coherent worldview he proposes across threads, he has this basic schtick that forms the basis of all his attacks, namely constant appeals to solipsism and anti-realism under the guise of "questioning" someone's usage of words. He purposefully obfuscates his "proofs" so that at the end he can proceeds to claim, in the same post, something like "QED solipsism is dead."

He also may have some form of OCD which forces you to make up a philosophical principle, name it some ridiculous, and chide everyone for not following it to a T.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 10:31:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 5:27:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
Fool is really more of a sophisticated troll.

It's not easy to catch unless you've the luxury of some philosophical training, but what appears to be a coherent worldview he proposes across threads, he has this basic schtick that forms the basis of all his attacks, namely constant appeals to solipsism and anti-realism under the guise of "questioning" someone's usage of words. He purposefully obfuscates his "proofs" so that at the end he can proceeds to claim, in the same post, something like "QED solipsism is dead."

He also may have some form of OCD which forces you to make up a philosophical principle, name it some ridiculous, and chide everyone for not following it to a T.

In my first encounter with The Fool On The Hill, I was taken aback. He's quite fond of -and well read in- linguistics, philosophy of language and a host of other things only a Ph. D. or grad student of philosophy would know.

Initially, I took him to be an abrasive -and rather difficult- person to deal with but my opinion changed as he and I had an incredibly long discussion ripping apart Wittgenstein. It was intellectually stimulating, to say the very least (which was a pleasant change from the typical nonsense).

Of the Fool though, he's quite intelligent, and worth having around. His english is forgivable and he is interesting to hear from. His is a unique perspective, for sure.

I don't know what happened (or really care for that matter), but I have enjoyed my correspondence with him. Banning (temporary or not) shouldn't occur for light or transient causes, and should be sparingly used.

And with that, adieu.
Tsar of DDO
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 11:34:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 6:56:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:35:21 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
Lol, whenever I read his posts I had no idea what he was trying to say.

My current theory is that he is employing some crude form of stenography where his actual thoughts are contained, in plain sight, in the messages he posts, but obfuscated with noise and gibberish, like some bizarre acrostic.

inferno?
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 1:51:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 10:31:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2012 5:27:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
Fool is really more of a sophisticated troll.

It's not easy to catch unless you've the luxury of some philosophical training, but what appears to be a coherent worldview he proposes across threads, he has this basic schtick that forms the basis of all his attacks, namely constant appeals to solipsism and anti-realism under the guise of "questioning" someone's usage of words. He purposefully obfuscates his "proofs" so that at the end he can proceeds to claim, in the same post, something like "QED solipsism is dead."

He also may have some form of OCD which forces you to make up a philosophical principle, name it some ridiculous, and chide everyone for not following it to a T.

In my first encounter with The Fool On The Hill, I was taken aback. He's quite fond of -and well read in- linguistics, philosophy of language and a host of other things only a Ph. D. or grad student of philosophy would know.

False. I brought up in a single post about 15 factual errors. Strangely, his response was to private message me, start spamming me private messages after I said to stop, and only stopped after blocking.

Initially, I took him to be an abrasive -and rather difficult- person to deal with but my opinion changed as he and I had an incredibly long discussion ripping apart Wittgenstein. It was intellectually stimulating, to say the very least (which was a pleasant change from the typical nonsense).

Of the Fool though, he's quite intelligent, and worth having around. His english is forgivable and he is interesting to hear from. His is a unique perspective, for sure.

I don't know what happened (or really care for that matter), but I have enjoyed my correspondence with him. Banning (temporary or not) shouldn't occur for light or transient causes, and should be sparingly used.

And with that, adieu.

The problem is, he harrasses those who don't agree with him on each point, and when you disagree with something that he thinks is "obvious", "true", or even "debatable", then he starts going rage mode. If you want, try and find one of his posts and I'll point out each flaw. I'll try and go through each factual error as well.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 8:02:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 1:51:36 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2012 10:31:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2012 5:27:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
Fool is really more of a sophisticated troll.

It's not easy to catch unless you've the luxury of some philosophical training, but what appears to be a coherent worldview he proposes across threads, he has this basic schtick that forms the basis of all his attacks, namely constant appeals to solipsism and anti-realism under the guise of "questioning" someone's usage of words. He purposefully obfuscates his "proofs" so that at the end he can proceeds to claim, in the same post, something like "QED solipsism is dead."

He also may have some form of OCD which forces you to make up a philosophical principle, name it some ridiculous, and chide everyone for not following it to a T.

In my first encounter with The Fool On The Hill, I was taken aback. He's quite fond of -and well read in- linguistics, philosophy of language and a host of other things only a Ph. D. or grad student of philosophy would know.

False. I brought up in a single post about 15 factual errors. Strangely, his response was to private message me, start spamming me private messages after I said to stop, and only stopped after blocking.

Lol... that would have been amusing to read.

Initially, I took him to be an abrasive -and rather difficult- person to deal with but my opinion changed as he and I had an incredibly long discussion ripping apart Wittgenstein. It was intellectually stimulating, to say the very least (which was a pleasant change from the typical nonsense).

Of the Fool though, he's quite intelligent, and worth having around. His english is forgivable and he is interesting to hear from. His is a unique perspective, for sure.

I don't know what happened (or really care for that matter), but I have enjoyed my correspondence with him. Banning (temporary or not) shouldn't occur for light or transient causes, and should be sparingly used.

And with that, adieu.

The problem is, he harrasses those who don't agree with him on each point, and when you disagree with something that he thinks is "obvious", "true", or even "debatable", then he starts going rage mode. If you want, try and find one of his posts and I'll point out each flaw. I'll try and go through each factual error as well.

I don't take issue with his specific methods described. Stupidity is frustrating, but rigidity is also frustrating. But even more frustrating then that is when people read and misinterpret what they have read.

Stephen, sometimes you're spot on. Sometimes the Fool is spot on. No one is perfect.
In most cases, the Fool has been misunderstood. It takes a background in philosophy to understand what he's saying. One might suggest that is by design, although the only other person I have ever known who typed like him was addicted to amphetamines. Who knows, in the end. In every case, the informed perspective of anyone is interesting (although how well a person is informed in any given subject is often reflected in their perspective).

I get that most people don't like him, and I understand why that is invariably the case. It is what it is. The thing I like about The Fool is that he demands that you defend what you choose to believe. There is a remarkable problem among students of philosophy where the (published and noteworthy) arguments and perspectives of others and their respective conclusions are taken for granted, described as "given" or just outrightly assumed to be the case. Aside from being patent bullish!t, that is the primary reason I think he gets frustrated with others (which I sympathize with). They assume things that cannot be assumed. (I could be wrong about this, but this is just my guess from my experience.)
Tsar of DDO
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:44:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 8:02:06 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/6/2012 1:51:36 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2012 10:31:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2012 5:27:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
Fool is really more of a sophisticated troll.

It's not easy to catch unless you've the luxury of some philosophical training, but what appears to be a coherent worldview he proposes across threads, he has this basic schtick that forms the basis of all his attacks, namely constant appeals to solipsism and anti-realism under the guise of "questioning" someone's usage of words. He purposefully obfuscates his "proofs" so that at the end he can proceeds to claim, in the same post, something like "QED solipsism is dead."

He also may have some form of OCD which forces you to make up a philosophical principle, name it some ridiculous, and chide everyone for not following it to a T.

In my first encounter with The Fool On The Hill, I was taken aback. He's quite fond of -and well read in- linguistics, philosophy of language and a host of other things only a Ph. D. or grad student of philosophy would know.

False. I brought up in a single post about 15 factual errors. Strangely, his response was to private message me, start spamming me private messages after I said to stop, and only stopped after blocking.

Lol... that would have been amusing to read.

Initially, I took him to be an abrasive -and rather difficult- person to deal with but my opinion changed as he and I had an incredibly long discussion ripping apart Wittgenstein. It was intellectually stimulating, to say the very least (which was a pleasant change from the typical nonsense).

Of the Fool though, he's quite intelligent, and worth having around. His english is forgivable and he is interesting to hear from. His is a unique perspective, for sure.

I don't know what happened (or really care for that matter), but I have enjoyed my correspondence with him. Banning (temporary or not) shouldn't occur for light or transient causes, and should be sparingly used.

And with that, adieu.

The problem is, he harrasses those who don't agree with him on each point, and when you disagree with something that he thinks is "obvious", "true", or even "debatable", then he starts going rage mode. If you want, try and find one of his posts and I'll point out each flaw. I'll try and go through each factual error as well.

I don't take issue with his specific methods described. Stupidity is frustrating, but rigidity is also frustrating. But even more frustrating then that is when people read and misinterpret what they have read.

Stephen, sometimes you're spot on. Sometimes the Fool is spot on. No one is perfect.
In most cases, the Fool has been misunderstood. It takes a background in philosophy to understand what he's saying. One might suggest that is by design, although the only other person I have ever known who typed like him was addicted to amphetamines. Who knows, in the end. In every case, the informed perspective of anyone is interesting (although how well a person is informed in any given subject is often reflected in their perspective).

I get that most people don't like him, and I understand why that is invariably the case. It is what it is. The thing I like about The Fool is that he demands that you defend what you choose to believe. There is a remarkable problem among students of philosophy where the (published and noteworthy) arguments and perspectives of others and their respective conclusions are taken for granted, described as "given" or just outrightly assumed to be the case. Aside from being patent bullish!t, that is the primary reason I think he gets frustrated with others (which I sympathize with). They assume things that cannot be assumed. (I could be wrong about this, but this is just my guess from my experience.)

Izbo made very good arguments against the existence of god but his harassment of DDO members wasn't tolerated either. In fact, askbob even sent recipes to a friend on DDO. How nice of him, right? Meanwhile, he was an absolutely relentless jerk to others. The fool seems to be making his own name in this way. Making good arguments every now and then didn't work for izbo or askbob. If the fool is harassing members in a way which is worthy of banning, he will not be excused due to good arguments every now and then either. As you seem to have implied, everyone has their moments of being "spot on." But having good arguments sometimes is not a free ticket to harass people. If it were, then everyone could harass everyone and askbob and izbo should be allowed to return.


"The thing I like about The Fool is that he demands that you defend what you choose to believe."


That's what this site is about. But 99% of people seem to manage this without harassing others. There is a big difference between demanding intellectual integrity from somebody and "demanding" they do something to the point of harassment and, funny enough, to the detriment of one's own intellectual integrity.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:20:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:44:41 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 7/6/2012 8:02:06 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/6/2012 1:51:36 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2012 10:31:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2012 5:27:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
Fool is really more of a sophisticated troll.

It's not easy to catch unless you've the luxury of some philosophical training, but what appears to be a coherent worldview he proposes across threads, he has this basic schtick that forms the basis of all his attacks, namely constant appeals to solipsism and anti-realism under the guise of "questioning" someone's usage of words. He purposefully obfuscates his "proofs" so that at the end he can proceeds to claim, in the same post, something like "QED solipsism is dead."

He also may have some form of OCD which forces you to make up a philosophical principle, name it some ridiculous, and chide everyone for not following it to a T.

In my first encounter with The Fool On The Hill, I was taken aback. He's quite fond of -and well read in- linguistics, philosophy of language and a host of other things only a Ph. D. or grad student of philosophy would know.

False. I brought up in a single post about 15 factual errors. Strangely, his response was to private message me, start spamming me private messages after I said to stop, and only stopped after blocking.

Lol... that would have been amusing to read.

Initially, I took him to be an abrasive -and rather difficult- person to deal with but my opinion changed as he and I had an incredibly long discussion ripping apart Wittgenstein. It was intellectually stimulating, to say the very least (which was a pleasant change from the typical nonsense).

Of the Fool though, he's quite intelligent, and worth having around. His english is forgivable and he is interesting to hear from. His is a unique perspective, for sure.

I don't know what happened (or really care for that matter), but I have enjoyed my correspondence with him. Banning (temporary or not) shouldn't occur for light or transient causes, and should be sparingly used.

And with that, adieu.

The problem is, he harrasses those who don't agree with him on each point, and when you disagree with something that he thinks is "obvious", "true", or even "debatable", then he starts going rage mode. If you want, try and find one of his posts and I'll point out each flaw. I'll try and go through each factual error as well.

I don't take issue with his specific methods described. Stupidity is frustrating, but rigidity is also frustrating. But even more frustrating then that is when people read and misinterpret what they have read.

Stephen, sometimes you're spot on. Sometimes the Fool is spot on. No one is perfect.
In most cases, the Fool has been misunderstood. It takes a background in philosophy to understand what he's saying. One might suggest that is by design, although the only other person I have ever known who typed like him was addicted to amphetamines. Who knows, in the end. In every case, the informed perspective of anyone is interesting (although how well a person is informed in any given subject is often reflected in their perspective).

I get that most people don't like him, and I understand why that is invariably the case. It is what it is. The thing I like about The Fool is that he demands that you defend what you choose to believe. There is a remarkable problem among students of philosophy where the (published and noteworthy) arguments and perspectives of others and their respective conclusions are taken for granted, described as "given" or just outrightly assumed to be the case. Aside from being patent bullish!t, that is the primary reason I think he gets frustrated with others (which I sympathize with). They assume things that cannot be assumed. (I could be wrong about this, but this is just my guess from my experience.)

Izbo made very good arguments against the existence of god but his harassment of DDO members wasn't tolerated either. In fact, askbob even sent recipes to a friend on DDO. How nice of him, right? Meanwhile, he was an absolutely relentless jerk to others. The fool seems to be making his own name in this way. Making good arguments every now and then didn't work for izbo or askbob. If the fool is harassing members in a way which is worthy of banning, he will not be excused due to good arguments every now and then either. As you seem to have implied, everyone has their moments of being "spot on." But having good arguments sometimes is not a free ticket to harass people. If it were, then everyone could harass everyone and askbob and izbo should be allowed to return.


"The thing I like about The Fool is that he demands that you defend what you choose to believe."


That's what this site is about. But 99% of people seem to manage this without harassing others. There is a big difference between demanding intellectual integrity from somebody and "demanding" they do something to the point of harassment and, funny enough, to the detriment of one's own intellectual integrity.

Izbo made good arguments? I was under the impression that despite the fact he had a capacity to be a good debater, his arrogance and other flaws stunted such growth.:(
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:25:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
THE Fool may certainly be astute in philosophy and be spot in his judgements but his past behavior isn't justifiable.

Of course, productivity in terms of contributions to the site, even across input of philosophy, doesn't require harassment and supposed vote-bombing as a simple off-set.....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:04:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:25:52 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
THE Fool may certainly be astute in philosophy and be spot in his judgements but his past behavior isn't justifiable.

Of course, productivity in terms of contributions to the site, even across input of philosophy, doesn't require harassment and supposed vote-bombing as a simple off-set.....

What is the nature of his past behavior? Enlighten me.
Tsar of DDO
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:09:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:04:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:25:52 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
THE Fool may certainly be astute in philosophy and be spot in his judgements but his past behavior isn't justifiable.

Of course, productivity in terms of contributions to the site, even across input of philosophy, doesn't require harassment and supposed vote-bombing as a simple off-set.....

What is the nature of his past behavior? Enlighten me.

Surely, you haven't heard of the harassment or the alleged vote-bombing, sir.

That itself, by nature, is not very constructive, sir. :P
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:10:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:04:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:25:52 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
THE Fool may certainly be astute in philosophy and be spot in his judgements but his past behavior isn't justifiable.

Of course, productivity in terms of contributions to the site, even across input of philosophy, doesn't require harassment and supposed vote-bombing as a simple off-set.....

What is the nature of his past behavior? Enlighten me.

Don't bother asking,...MIG's hobby is to chastise people for every little thing whenever he's bored.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:11:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But then again, I haven't come upon onto his attacks but I wouldn't necessarily cast away those who do allege of his harassment. :)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:19:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:10:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Don't bother asking,...MIG's hobby is to chastise people for every little thing whenever he's bored.

I was only offering my opinion of the matter. You may also want to look at the fact that I answered his question.

Please do not characterize me based on past matters especially since our interactions and clashes have become relatively few and far between....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:21:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:11:05 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
But then again, I haven't come upon onto his attacks but I wouldn't necessarily cast away those who do allege of his harassment. :)

I personally recieved endless spam when he kept messaging me about him being "right" on certain issues. I've since deleted the messages and blocked him, though.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:23:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:21:15 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/7/2012 5:11:05 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
But then again, I haven't come upon onto his attacks but I wouldn't necessarily cast away those who do allege of his harassment. :)

I personally recieved endless spam when he kept messaging me about him being "right" on certain issues. I've since deleted the messages and blocked him, though.

Hmm....I see. Again, I will not simply just cast away Fool_on_the_hill as a spammer but would admit that he has a vicious side to him, other than his supposedly philosophical self...:-)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau