Slashdot Mirror

ran out of steam 20 years ago.

Nice ad-hominem. I see you're a regular reader of the Conversational Terrorism handbook!

Everyone is free to have opinions. I have no issue with that at all. It's interesting to me how much energy people put into "name calling" (ghetto currency, true believer asocial cranks, parasitical Bitcoins) It's reminiscent of "Conversational Terrorism" of which you may or may not be aware that you are doing. You say you are not discrediting anything, but through using derogatory leaning words you are basically ad hominem attacking anyone associated with Bitcoin.

By all means, have an opinion. But when you exert so much energy in posting, it just feels like you are positioned to benefit from it.

The fix is just to go to Slashdot for all your discussion, ever.

FTFY. Slashdot is usually at least interesting w/r/t discussion. Strawman, Ad-hominem, Troll, Flamebait and other forms of Conversational Terrorism (ie, noise) are usually downrated, and many times I learn things here due to the up-rating of signal that's Informative or Insightful. I tried, I mean, really tried to spend more than 5 minutes on almost any other discussion thread... it's a worthless effort.

It's a shame that the moderation system from Slashdot (or some derivative) isn't used more widely.

I don't think there's any big difference between men and women on a biological level. That being said, our culture's climate creates conditions which encourages professional women to be headstrong, illogical, and ruthless. A higher percentile of them simply cannot hold a reasonable, objective discussion without resorting to bickering, circular/evasive arguments, and other "conversational terrorism" strategies (http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html). I finally understand why Nietzsche considered women "contemptuous of the truth." These beings - at least the ones who make it to the professions - simply cannot admit they are wrong when all the facts are against them.

Is this by necessity? Certainly not. I know lots of women who are reasonable and logical beings who are big enough to admit they're wrong. But more often than not, you come to them a whole and honest human being, and they, more often than not, come at you with n years of emotional baggage - the fruit of real or imagined gender discrimination - and drop all that shit on top of your head. This post is in some sense counterproductive, since they are simply passing on their own real or imagined mistreatment, but god damn, I just dread the next time some pushy-ass, powersuited broad tries to tell me that 2 + 2 = 5.

Interesting how you equate nothing beyond quoting two of the most famous passages of text of the last millenium with emotional hyperbole.

Now, I'd argue that any speech, to be worth speaking, should trigger a strong response but I wouldn't accuse either of those passages of being hyperbole.

As for what I wrote, interestingly enough, I didn't write anything - I let those passages speak for themselves. Perhaps it's like a rorschach test: the very absence of anything reveals more about the viewer in the emotions that actually come from within.

It perhaps raises more questions about your own bias that you'd manage to find emotional hyperbole even in silence if you felt the other person, behind that silence, held a view different to your own.

There are certainly many concepts that fall within the broad brush of "conversational terrorism". One of which, however, is the act of learning just enough of the buzz phrases to attempt to throw them around to belittle anyone one disagrees with.

Now, had I made stiring speaches about how generations of Americans have fought and died to hold dear the concepts enshrined... yada yada... then you might have had a point. To throw out a phrase like emotional hyperbole, when confronted by nothing more than two classic passages and silence, simply cheapens the term and reveals more of the person who'd try to do so.

People need to read this, especially if they're unfamiliar with what an MLM is.

You missed the point of the poster. He wasn't unhappy about the article being critical, but being very BIASED and critical. You know, it'd be like saying that Democrats/Liberals should listen to Bill O'Riley... as if he listens to the other side.

What I hate the worst is not those who are biased, but those who claim to be things like "Fair and Balanced" when it's clear they're not.

Take for example this nice strawman argument that Mr. Langa puts forth:

It's a very appealing concept, and has become part of computing's conventional wisdom: Non-Microsoft = More Secure.

Trouble is, that's a falsehood based on a common error: Failure to adjust for the effects of the installed base.

Do you really think I'm going to respond to an ad hominem attack?

Why don't you try posting something to support your position instead?

Is Excel still a Multi-Level-Marketing (Network Marketing) company?

BTW, since you mention ad hominem statements, I notice that most of your reply also qualifies as conversational terrorism. :)

How not to talk.

Your post is typical of the dishonest methods of pro gun advocates.