ExistEnce.....

[nightmare975]

Though you have made many good points, Lord J, I didn't see a need to waste time in typing a book to state that poor grammar is not a good habit.
You all could've just said, "Take the time to correct grammatical errors. If you are unsure of something, read a dictionary, or WIKI it.

Corey, that's what liberals do, make long speeches on something so simple to say.

[Corey Taylor]

guvermint edit: liburuls downt doo that. wee simplee wawnt to wayst time on a speche ubowt nutheng lol.

Lord J is liberal...  . Liberals suck. It all makes sense now. Massive posts made by Lord J = the same as a very simple statement.

Who editted my post? 





<<Last Edit: at 12:20:43 AM by The U.S. Government>>
                                                 

[Lord J Esq]

Writing at length has the added virtue of supporting a premise with reasoning. Anything less is idle opination--the pastime of fools.

[Daniel Krispin]

Though you have made many good points, Lord J, I didn't see a need to waste time in typing a book to state that poor grammar is not a good habit.
You all could've just said, "Take the time to correct grammatical errors. If you are unsure of something, read a dictionary, or WIKI it.

On the contrary, simply stating an opinion has no real power. I ran into a problem with my post in that I couldn't come up with any convincing argument as to why. I certainly said my opinion, but opinion hardly matters if you can't back it up. That's why I called out for help (and, as I expected, Lord J took up that call - I wasn't feeling particularly intelligent at that moment, nor am I now, for that matter.)

Oh, and by the way, it's not a Liberal tendancy. I'm more of a conservative, and heck, when I get going, and if I'm in the mood... I'll do just what Lord J did.

PS If you're unsure of something DON'T bloody Wiki it. Pick up an encyclopedia or dictionary, or look it up in a peer reviewed journal article or something of a similar nature. Don't just trust Wikipedia, it leads to the Dark Side. Of course, Wikipedia is often correct, but things can slip past their moderation. I know someone who told me he was able to write on an article about the Samurai that the last one was called Tomachiro Cruise - as well as putting up a picture from the movie - and it got past their moderation. He was trying to make a point on the fallibility of their system. Plus, the problem with Wiki is, everyone begins to think they're an expert on everything because they can look it up on Wiki. For me, save for certain topics (ie. Star Wars stuff) it's a last resort.

Okay, okay, so I'm just a Wiki hater. But there's something about that mass-information system that doesn't sit right with me. Maybe because it is just information. It just teaches bits and factoids, without really making you think and learn the topics. What I went through regarding the grammar there isn't something that could be learned via Wikipedia. It came from what I've been taught regarding languages in various languages courses (chiefly Greek), and from researching it in the dictionary. I looked at the word, a hypothesis struck me, and I sought to prove it. Knowing a whole lot of facts isn't a substitute for being able to think through something - I'd rather know a tenth of the facts and have a reasoning mind, than know everything there is to know, and not be able to reason through it myself. That limitation must be remembered. Wikipedia cannot give you knowledge or understanding, only facts - and even that's shaky, sometimes.

PPS Funny thing that you just said that about opinion and reasoning, Lord J. Everything that follows before this PPS I wrote as you were writing that.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Writing at length has the added virtue of supporting a premise with reasoning. Anything less is idle opination--the pastime of fools.

I was going to post a similar response myself. It was going to be longer, however. I'm hardly what most people would consider a conservative in the general sense, but it's not a tough case to argue that I'm more conservative than Lord J.

[ZeaLitY]

I find Wikipedia is good for things that wouldn't normally have a fanmade Compendium to back them up. An obscure game might have reviews across the internet, but the Wikipedia entry might be the only place of centralized information. Same for ibuprofen; I'd probably find sites selling it in a search or some kind of scattered information. Or, if I used EBSCO or something, I'd find relevant current issues.

[Corey Taylor]

On the contrary, simply stating an opinion has no real power. I ran into a problem with my post in that I couldn't come up with any convincing argument as to why. I certainly said my opinion, but opinion hardly matters if you can't back it up. That's why I called out for help (and, as I expected, Lord J took up that call - I wasn't feeling particularly intelligent at that moment, nor am I now, for that matter.)

A simple statement is all that is needed until someone dissagrees. Then, if you can support your opinion with facts and what not. I may not be the smartest of people but I know when enough is enough. I see it as wasted time and effort posting the origin of the subject argued over which has the same effect as a simple statement.

I find Wikipedia is good for things that wouldn't normally have a fanmade Compendium to back them up. An obscure game might have reviews across the internet, but the Wikipedia entry might be the only place of centralized information. Same for ibuprofen; I'd probably find sites selling it in a search or some kind of scattered information. Or, if I used EBSCO or something, I'd find relevant current issues.

I agree with ZeaLitY on that. Wikipedia is an excellent reference source.

[Lord J Esq]

On the contrary, simply stating an opinion has no real power. I ran into a problem with my post in that I couldn't come up with any convincing argument as to why. I certainly said my opinion, but opinion hardly matters if you can't back it up. That's why I called out for help (and, as I expected, Lord J took up that call - I wasn't feeling particularly intelligent at that moment, nor am I now, for that matter.)

A simple statement is all that is needed until someone dissagrees. Then, if you can support your opinion with facts and what not. I may not be the smartest of people but I know when enough is enough. I see it as wasted time and effort posting the origin of the subject argued over which has the same effect as a simple statement.

It is a logical fallacy to grant a given premise as true until someone disagrees with it. It is a form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you actually believe what you wrote, you are preventing yourself from considerable intellectual development.

I find Wikipedia is good for things that wouldn't normally have a fanmade Compendium to back them up. An obscure game might have reviews across the internet, but the Wikipedia entry might be the only place of centralized information. Same for ibuprofen; I'd probably find sites selling it in a search or some kind of scattered information. Or, if I used EBSCO or something, I'd find relevant current issues.

I feel somewhat between Daniel and ZeaLitY on this. Wikipedia rubs me the wrong way, because it relies upon the consensus of some very pretentious and not necessarily intelligent people, almost none of whom truly value objectivity. (This is evident in the angling of almost any Wikipedia entry.) But Wikipedia is nevertheless an excellent general reference. Being naturally skeptical and more than a little intelligent, I have never to my knowledge been duped by it, nor have I found its information an impediment to my original goal of learning more about a given topic.

Sometimes veracity is not as important as assembling enough preliminary information as to be able to proceed with a more thorough investigation elsewhere. How many times have I been googling for something, only to find a Wikipedia entry in the results?

[Corey Taylor]

It is a logical fallacy to grant a given premise as true until someone disagrees with it. It is a form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you actually believe what you wrote, you are preventing yourself from considerable intellectual development.

That may be true but I am not one to express my knowledge. Though I am extremely smart according to a recent PROFESSIONAL IQ test. Four hours of some lady asking the simplest of questions! My IQ is somewhere within 124-129. But that's not the point. IQ has nothing to do with this conversation nor does it affect the quality of my posts. I feel it is not neccessary to spend time looking up as many facts possible just to prove a simple statement. 'Tis not needed.

Sometimes veracity is not as important as assembling enough preliminary information as to be able to proceed with a more thorough investigation elsewhere. How many times have I been googling for something, only to find a Wikipedia entry in the results?

Lawrd J juss mayd mee smawrt! 

[Radical_Dreamer]

I feel it is not neccessary to spend time looking up as many facts possible just to prove a simple statement. 'Tis not needed.

If it is not with facts, how then, do you prove something?

[Lord J Esq]

It is a logical fallacy to grant a given premise as true until someone disagrees with it. It is a form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you actually believe what you wrote, you are preventing yourself from considerable intellectual development.

That may be true but I am not one to express my knowledge. Though I am extremely smart according to a recent PROFESSIONAL IQ test. Four hours of some lady asking the simplest of questions! My IQ is somewhere within 124-129. But that's not the point. IQ has nothing to do with this conversation nor does it affect the quality of my posts. I feel it is not neccessary to spend time looking up as many facts possible just to prove a simple statement. 'Tis not needed.

That's enough of this...

You're all ego and no depth. You offend reason, sir. You're either putting us on with this "Corey Taylor" schtick, or you are deluded. I don't know which, but I know this: You are banned from the Compendium for ten days--and I suggest you use it to contemplate the meaning of foolery.

[Burning Zeppelin]

It is a logical fallacy to grant a given premise as true until someone disagrees with it. It is a form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you actually believe what you wrote, you are preventing yourself from considerable intellectual development.

That may be true but I am not one to express my knowledge. Though I am extremely smart according to a recent PROFESSIONAL IQ test. Four hours of some lady asking the simplest of questions! My IQ is somewhere within 124-129. But that's not the point. IQ has nothing to do with this conversation nor does it affect the quality of my posts. I feel it is not neccessary to spend time looking up as many facts possible just to prove a simple statement. 'Tis not needed.

That's enough of this...

You're all ego and no depth. You offend reason, sir. You're either putting us on with this "Corey Taylor" schtick, or you are deluded. I don't know which, but I know this: You are banned from the Compendium for ten days--and I suggest you use it to contemplate the meaning of foolery.

If what you say is true, I have lost all respect for you.

[Lord J Esq]

That kid has been a strain on the community. He's been trouble since day one, and I've had my eye on him almost as long. His last statement wasn't enough for a temporary ban in itself, but with respect to his posting history--which you are free to read--it is a good place to draw a line in the sand and say "no more."

If you are upset for his free speech rights, take it up with ZeaLitY. His authority outranks mine, and I'll defer to his judgment. But, other than the so-called "retard crew," this is the first ban I've ever done, and I'm pretty comfortable with it.

As for your lost respect, Zeppy...oh well. I can't say I'm sorry to see it go. If that's the worst you want to do to me, I'll count myself lucky. I probably never deserved your genuine respect anyway.

[Exodus]

My hat goes off to you, Josh.

Though your ban has done nothing; he's just posting on an alternate account now.

[Lord J Esq]

Though your ban has done nothing; he's just posting on an alternate account now.

That would be grounds for a more serious violation of the forum rules. You are free to report such messages to the moderators.