Im not sure about the above but having reflected there is meaning transcendent to the typing but it can only be incorrect.

Im thinking about QP's constant claims about me calling him creepy when it was another poster who did that and he insisted on conflatoblobing our arguments.

It was nothing I ever actually typed.

I hope you get the jist of conflatoblobbing.

This admission that you are openly going about gaslighting people on this forum is stunning.

If by that you mean you still think that meaning is within the typing then maybe we understand each other and disagree. I suggest reading some philosophy of language. I'm struggling to parse the sentence so in addition to any problem with your meaning, there may be a problem that is down to the typing.

I get that jist. I was not in any way responding to any of that but Some stuff is gratuitous or stylistic. One thing I think i have gleaned from conversations with QP is that he likes to respond in kind. You did insult him (not necessarily by what you typed but definitely by what you meant) - I dont know who went first.

I remember when it felt like, seemingly overnight, people switched from using cellphones for calling to texting and I hated it for exactly this reason. Verbal communication is often so much easier and less error-prone at arriving at a mutual understanding of each party's position. Misunderstandings are less likely to take on a life of their own as they do in text as well.

Totally disagree and earnestly so.

My position is that sides that generally 'camp' together agree over many core premises and thus are forgiving of the people who may say things they might otherwise not with someone who is not perceived to be in their camp.

You see the exact same dynamic play out between rabid sports fans where a ridiculous thing lobbed at an 'enemy' team is over looked. A reasonable thing said in criticism about the home team can be attacked.

Thus Shuffle, as someone who was outside the 'camp' of that BFI thread, in pretty much all ways got the same treatment as you, I and others for very different reasons.

You seem to want to tie any push out of the camp, or acceptance in only to certain lines of dispute which IS NOT my argument.

What i say is echoed very much in the article upthread which goes into the phenomena of these type of internet camps.

SO i am saying genuinely that is what I believe and it is also what I have been saying.

I would usually jump to sight your 'weak gotcha, hypocrisy' comment as what I call the move to bad faith posting and just reply in kind. My view that you do not think you can knock me off my believed position and as such just start ridiculing it and or misrepresenting it, but instead I will allow you to read how I clarify above and give you the benefit of the doubt in that clearing it up.

None of that is meant to be insulting or condescending. And I am not saying you have to agree with my position, but it is my position. We can always agree to disagree.,

And yet uke did use creepy while also trying to tie my position to sexual assault all because the 3 of had 3 different approaches to the same issue.

Uke - there is a lot of public places absolutely fine to approach a girl to make an initial salutation or approach but not the street
QP - I think it is fine to do so on the street, but agree also there are a lot of places
O.A.F..K - I think it is fine to do so as you enter an elevator and a loan female is there but not the street


You guys have your views and you should absolutely let them govern you but you could not accept I have views that govern me without telling me I was absolutely wrong. Only your views (Carlin Meme) are applicable aas you have your reasons that make sense to why location X is fine but my location Y is not. I am 'creepy' and what I am saying is 'akin to sexual assault'.


Neither of you will explain why my approach is creepy and the ones you are ok with are not. Surely if a women is to feel anxiety or uncomfortable in a passing street salutation, that same women could feel that way and more, as you enter an elevator and she is locked in there with you.

But all that matters to you guys is what makes sense to you (Carlin Meme) and if what makes sense to another to you, you cannot simply agree to disagree and must tell them are in fact, wrong.

I think I've officially lost the capacity to be "stunned" by anything Cuepee says at this point.

We all need a break now and then from this place, including you, me and Cuepee. (Most of my "breaks" have been temp-bans. )

I'll agree to take a 14-day break from posting on P&S if Cuepee does the same.

Feel free to cite it, if it still exists. I know I grouped a bunch of you in a reply where I pointed out the tactics being used and all flung at me such as the use of 'creepy' , allusions to 'sexual assault' etc, all because I feel it is fine to offer a salutation or compliment to someone I am passing on the street, male or female.

The point being you guys left no room for anything but the one true opinion which was 'the places you deem ok are fine, the one I did was wrong' and I was told this was not a matter of opinion.

Yeah I troll the trolls too. :: SHOCK ::

When people are not arguing in good faith I absolutely believe in giving it back.

BTW what do you think of your view, that knowing that 'you love the action' and enjoy 'that you can always get action from the fish', that you provoke it purposely?

if you are opposed to my trolling the trolls or gaslighting people back you would think you would not purposely provoke me in ways you know that generate those types of replies???

Almost seems like you admit to doing it as it allows you to create 'bad people' that you can then wag your finger at while pretending at exasperation that 'he openly admits it'.

Hmm, I distinctly recall my objection was to commenting on the appearance of a random stranger walking past you. That thread has now been closed so I don't know why you keep bringing it up, but please try to correctly state my objection if you feel to disregard the implication of a closed thread that this isn't to be further talked about.

Well I would never gaslight someone on the internet. So the fact that you openly admit to regularly doing this is a pretty bad look on you. Particularly given how often you misconstrue what someone else's argument is and make endless false accusations of gaslighting.

I make it a bright line in the sand that I'm never going to gaslight someone on this forum, but clearly you have a different view.

Is QP gaslighting us right now? Am I being gaslit?

Clearly.

QFT.

Mods cant delete PMs, blows my mind that you cant remember sending me that accusation.

Ill repeat it again, for the umpteenth time, I made no claims about when you QP could or could not approach a women, that was other guys, the closest I got to that was expressing a worry that if every man acted all the time on his impulses to talk to women it would lead to a high volume of unsolicited approaches.

I cant believe you are so brazenly admitting to so lazily conflatoblobing and not being able to distinguish that different posters such as myself were disagreeing with you over different issues.

You seem incapable of cognitively moving beyond if disagree = then into the conflatoblob you go, the actual details and specifics of your argument dont matter in anyway.

AIDS.

That is correct.

You stated it was wrong, not as a matter of opinion and you associated it with physically assaulting a woman by touching her ass uninvited. And while you said the 'passing on the street' was wrong you refused to name any of the 'numerous places' you said it was fine to do it. ANd that is because you know they would all be subject to the same trap O.A.F.K fell into by saying 'an elevator is ok to do it'.

In any way logically one would say a simply passing in a public street is wrong, an elevator is worse if the woman is not comfortable there with that opening.

It came back up as O.A.F.K referenced it and I am clearing up the mistake in how he tried to represent it.

it is all subjective but you guys treated as if my view was the only one that was not and it was factually wrong.

Had you guys just agreed to disagree on the opinion of it we would have no issue but it was that you were unyielding that I was 'wrong' that we went pages because I was not wrong.

I am not talking about the PM exchange we had after. That was all just inflammatory nonsense and you were no angel in that. Happy to post the entire thing if you give permission if yu are going to pretend you have some high ground.

I was referring to the comment of "creepy" when it came up in the thread and you asking me in the thread where you had said and i pointed it the quote was referring to you all as a group and the comments made collectively between you.

If you meant the PM exchange I did not get that, but again nothing in that was productive.

This is very weird. OBVIOUSLY when I say something is wrong I am giving my opinion. Who else's opinion would I be giving? We were talking about what behaviour one ought to engage in, I don't even know what it means to be "factually wrong" in a situation like this. I think your behaviour is creepy and you should stop immediately, but I'm not claiming this is some integral property of the fabric of the universe.

Part of the problem I'm having - given this admission that you are regularly gaslighting people - is I can't tell if you actually believe the previous point was a good one or if you are just gaslighting me. This is why I'd strongly suggest doing what I do which is never gaslighting people, this way you can always know I'm being serious.

This is you trying to move to safer ground after being wrong as you always do. You pretend you were not saying what you were.

You were absolutely speaking to it being settled convention with regards to 'offering a salutation on the street'. That is was 'decided and known and settled' and "i was wrong'. You kept using language like that.

No, the word "settled" was never used in that thread. While it is true that far more than just I share the opinion that it is creepy af to be leering after women walking past you on the street commenting on their appearance, it obviously isn't "settled" as Gillette had to make a commercial explaining this to people, a commercial which was quite controversial.

Regardless, if you wish to continue a debate from a closed thread, I think you should message the mods and see if they are wiling to open the thread. I think it is quite poor behaviour to keep bringing this topic back up and in particular to be (very poorly) paraphrasing what my argument is. Personally, I think you should just let it go and not keep bringing it up. But if you really - really - REALLY - have to keep bringing it up, can you keep my name out of your mouth when you do so?

But wait, this is just you doing this, isn't it:

I love uke that once again you try to change what you were arguing against prior as you now know you were wrong and don't want to be associated with that position any more.

BUt anyone who read that mess of a thread knows you absolutely were telling me I was wrong 'full stop'. That is was 'a wrong'.

If your position ever resembled anything like 'i think these 10 places to offer a salutation is fine but I will never agree with the street being one' we would then simply agree to disagree. I know it is futile to tell a person what opinion they should have.

We argued because you insisted mine was WRONG. Not that you 'had a different opinion and we would not agree'.

But run away and pretend you never said that.

FYP.

It's an important distinction, because your track record of assessing other people's intent and understanding their positions is less than stellar, to be very charitable. That's often why many threads get derailed by hundred+ post (consisting of many, many thousands of words) repetitive arguments between you and others.

Lol, of course it was my opinion. Who else's would it be? I think your behaviour is creepy af, but this isn't "factually wrong" like some property of the universe, it is - completely obviously - my opinion about your behaviour. We are debating on an internet forum, people are giving their opinions. WTF else would it be?

You get yourself twisted up in the most bizarre of knots.

As I said, if at any point instead of saying 'you are simply wrong' or some version of that, as you always do, on topics of opinions, you instead said 'this is just not a topic we are going to agree on', you and I would have little issue as I accept and know people will not agree on opinion and it can be pointless to keep fighting.

But when someone insists they are 'right' and you 'wrong' in an opinion matter I first try hard to explain why that cannot be the case, as it is opinion, and then I throw the Carlin Meme which is a way of saying 'you are trying to assert your opinion in a way that you cannot', and then lastly, I will just resort to their game of 'no you are wrong... no you are'. When for instance you speak for ALL women insisting there is only one acceptable view of what they want (to be said hello to or complimented), that is when I will push back as that again is you asserting your opinion as if fact.


You may think you are only asserting your opinion but the language you use never does. It is always laced with 'right or wrong' and not 'agree or disagree'.

I hear ya and offer the same assessment back of your ability to assess my correctness on the matter.

Nope. I mean, you read it, but it has no effect. Even though many other people tell you the same.

For me and a lot of other people, hearing the same complaint about my posting again and again, from multiple people, would cause me to reflect on whether there could be some truth to the complaint. Alas, that kind of self-reflection doesn't seem to be something that you're capable of.

Hell, just the existence of this thread should give you pause. It's basically a thread for you to argue with other people about your arguments in other threads and forums. Do you know who else has or needs a thread like this? NO ONE.

Cool. Of course, I've experienced it first hand, having had both my intentions misinterpreted, and my positions misrepresented by you. Several times. So it goes beyond my observation of you doing it to other people.

Really, the only thing I'm not clear on is whether this is something you do without even realizing it because you get so caught up in your side of an argument, something you don't care about because hyperbole is a debate tactic and if it goes over the line to falsehoods so be it, or if it's something of a limited Dunning-Kruger effect for you. Not that it matters, I suppose.

Anyway, I've waded deeper into this than I intended, so I'll try to leave it at that for now. I still wonder if Covid, or Trump, or something else has shifted things emotionally for you, and not in a good way. If so, I hope you eventually come to terms with it. I don't think spewing out thousands of words a day in this forum is helping, but hopefully I'm wrong.