Margie always has good points but often buries them himself, being a most parenthetical lad wont to rant and ramble. However, he never calls in the troops.
He actually values you guys, or he would not care. Marchigiano has a history of doing some pretty spectacular things as an inventor. He is a very bright guy... Alas, we all have our quirks, our ways, I would never ask anyone to accept such quirks from others, but I do feel that to make this information known is ok with the rest of the gang!
He had the gall to accuse me of making threads to reaffirm a confirmation bias he had, somehow, established I held. Then invented some conspiracy theory that the recent spate of Lennox Lewis threads were somehow passive-aggressively aimed at him. The guy's ego is off the charts, he was not remotely in my mind when I was investigating the Lewis/WBA situation, it's just something I am interested in establishing stronger facts about.
Rather than maturely accept this and move on, he decided to double down with those lengthy, poorly constructed, emotionally immature, self-regarding posts which he is known for. Then, in the typical style of the internet polemicist, insists people are getting angry with him. He is nothing more than a nuisance, as with Queenie I skim over most of his stuff.
He had the gall to accuse me of making threads to reaffirm a confirmation bias he had, somehow, established I held. Then invented some conspiracy theory that the recent spate of Lennox Lewis threads were somehow passive-aggressively aimed at him. The guy's ego is off the charts, he was not remotely in my mind when I was investigating the Lewis/WBA situation, it's just something I am interested in establishing stronger facts about.
Rather than maturely accept this and move on, he decided to double down with those lengthy, poorly constructed, emotionally immature, self-regarding posts which he is known for. Then, in the typical style of the internet polemicist, insists people are getting angry with him. He is nothing more than a nuisance, as with Queenie I skim over most of his stuff.
He posted ,that I was forced to admit smaller equates to more stamina,I did no such thing.His interpretation of debates is off the wall and bears no resemblance to reality.
He claims non existent victories,and accuses posters who have had no inter- action with a thread ,of betraying him,he is one seriously deluded individual.
Queenie .I just let wash over me,he says things he knows to be made up nonsense ,just to get a reaction and ,when he does ,that is enough gratification for him,even when he is being held up to ridicule,harmless.
He posted ,that I was forced to admit smaller equates to more stamina,I did no such thing.His interpretation of debates is off the wall and bears no resemblance to reality.
He claims no existent victories,and accuses posters who have had no inter- action with a thread ,of betraying him,he is one seriously deluded individual.
Queenie I just let wash over me,he says things he knows to be made up nonsense ,just to get a reaction and ,when he does ,that is enough gratification for him,even when he is being held up to ridicule,harmless.
He engages in what's known as ******* argumentation where he posts walls of text containing weak and unstructured arguments. To properly respond to his large posts would require an essay where one first dispels the many faulty premises, explaining why each is irrelevant before moving on to any substantive arguments. This is not feasible or reasonable to expect of anyone on an unimportant forum and he knows this, which allows him to keep up his delusion of superiority.
He will resent the comparison, but I was introduced to these types of people around 2009 when in my youthful naivety I attempted to engage with 9/11 Truthers on YouTube and other areas of the internet. I would, for example, try to explain why molten liquid pouring out of the towers didn't necessarily mean what they were implying it did. Rather than concede this or, less, at least say they would think about it you would get copied and pasted non-sequitur walls of text. The requirements to respond comprehensively would increase exponentially to the point of impossibility.
They would presumably chalk this up as a psychological victory rather than the deranged outpourings of an unthinking lunatic.
He engages in what's known as ******* argumentation where he posts walls of text containing weak and unstructured arguments. To properly respond to his large posts would require an essay where one first dispels the many faulty premises, explaining why each is irrelevant before moving on to any substantive arguments. This is not feasible or reasonable to expect of anyone on an unimportant forum and he knows this, which allows him to keep up his delusion of superiority.
He will resent the comparison, but I was introduced to these types of people around 2009 when in my youthful naivety I attempted to engage with 9/11 Truthers on YouTube and other areas of the internet. I would, for example, try to explain why molten liquid pouring out of the towers didn't necessarily mean what they were implying it did. Rather than concede this or, less, at least say they would think about it you would get copied and pasted non-sequitur walls of text. The requirements to respond comprehensively would increase exponentially to the point of impossibility.
They would presumably chalk this up as a psychological victory rather than the deranged outpourings of an unthinking lunatic.
I've known (and been on friendly terms with) March for a long time now, dating back to my original incarnation: He's sh itposting and taking the piss out of people.
I've known (and been on friendly terms with) March for a long time now, dating back to my original incarnation: He's sh itposting and taking the piss out of people.
Comment