Nothing really changes :)

[Blush Bravin]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Poor Phil, I really think he was just expressing a kind of platitude, something along the line of "the more things change, the more they remain the same".

And now all this..lol

If that's what he really wanted to do he could have quoted any number of threads other than an argument about copy vs no copy. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Blush Bravin
See what you did? You made me respond again.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

the more things change, the more they remain the same

Darwin would be spinning..

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Blush Bravin said:

If that's what he really wanted to do he could have quoted any number of threads other than an argument about copy vs no copy. 

True, but before this post there was a lot of back-and-forth about the “old forums” (somewhere) - maybe a trigger for nostalgia, when he won arguments more often in his own mind?

[KanryDrago]

hmmm so Phil was so put out at not getting the last word on the previous thread as it was locked he went all the way back to the old forums to find a thread to necro.....got to admire his stubborness

[Love Zhaoying]

16 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

hmmm so Phil was so put out at not getting the last word on the previous thread as it was locked he went all the way back to the old forums to find a thread to necro.....got to admire his stubborness

“..we shall never surrender..” - Winston Churchill.

Meanwhile, the plan continues to craft the ultimate “last word” reply.

 

[Callum Meriman]

9 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

You are simply wrong. I still steadfastly hold the same views. Views which you have studiously ignored so that you could spread falsehoods about me for some reason.

That's a pity in a way. I am not sure that being so stubborn for a decade is an admirable trait.

OK, I will appologise, I am sorry for thinking you had changed. I will accept you are just as intransigent on this issue now as you were a decade ago.

So, the thread subject is proven, the arguments - and your position - are exactly the same as a decade ago.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Callum Meriman

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

TL;DR. So, what's the end verdict of this 11 year-long debate? Apple, or PC? Is SL a game or not?

Edited October 5, 2018 by Arduenn Schwartzman

[Phil Deakins]

15 hours ago, Blush Bravin said:

Isn't there some kind of taboo about resurrecting a closed thread topic? I mean he can say he's not doing that and that he's quoting from the old forums, but it's still the same topic as the one that got closed. Isn't it?

Who can say that he's quoting from old forums? If you mean me, you haven't even read the thread.

And no, there is no taboo about resurrecting old topics, but even if there is, this thrread doesn't do it. All this thread does is point out that the arguments/points that are put forward these days are no different to those that were put forward years ago, showing that nothing changes.

I hope that helps to clear up your confusion.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

15 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Poor Phil, I really think he was just expressing a kind of platitude, something along the line of "the more things change, the more they remain the same".

And now all this..lol

That was nasty. I really did think it was amusing that nothing had changed in all those years.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

15 hours ago, Blush Bravin said:

If that's what he really wanted to do he could have quoted any number of threads other than an argument about copy vs no copy. 

It was all that I did - actually did, not wanted to do. And it was the topic that made me want to do it, so any other topic wouldn't have suited, unless it had recently been discussed. It's not my fault that there are too many people here who always seem want to cause friction and such. You being one of them, of course. Did you ever consider sticking to the topic, or doesn't that suit your natural negativity.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

11 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

That's a pity in a way. I am not sure that being so stubborn for a decade is an admirable trait.

OK, I will appologise, I am sorry for thinking you had changed. I will accept you are just as intransigent on this issue now as you were a decade ago.

So, the thread subject is proven, the arguments - and your position - are exactly the same as a decade ago.

Stubborn for a decade? About what exactly? About thinking that selling no-copy furniture is ok? You're choice of wording does not do you any favours, Callum. Stubborn usually means that the person steadfastly refuses to see the light, but the light I saw allowed me to laugh all to the bank for a long time

There's nothing intransigent about it. Everyone makes their own choices, and everyone is right for themselves. Where does the word 'intransigent' come into it? If you really think it's a useful word for this, then I accept that you are just as intransigent now as you were previously.

Incidentally, your apology should have been for effectively calling me a liar, and not for thinking that I had changed. You were offensive. That's what you need to apologise for.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Callum Meriman]

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

There's nothing intransigent about it. Everyone makes their own choices, and everyone is right for themselves. Where does the word 'intransigent' come into it? If you really think it's a useful word for this, then I accept that you are just as intransigent now as you were previously.

Incidentally, your apology should have been for effectively calling me a liar, and not for thinking that I had changed. You were offensive. That's what you need to apologise for.

Then I appologise for effectively calling you a liar too, sorry it hurt your feelings.

[Phil Deakins]

There's been some real nastiness posted in this thread since I turned in last night.

15 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

True, but before this post there was a lot of back-and-forth about the “old forums” (somewhere) - maybe a trigger for nostalgia, when he won arguments more often in his own mind?

You weren't there and you have no idea what happened in that forum. Why are you being so nasty?

15 hours ago, KanryDrago said:

hmmm so Phil was so put out at not getting the last word on the previous thread as it was locked he went all the way back to the old forums to find a thread to necro.....got to admire his stubborness

That's just plain nasty. Totally untrue, and nasty.

[Phorumities]

15 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well I'm glad you're willing to talk more about your views. Often you just make some snarky comment about the "leftist sycophant" or when someone tries to discuss with you then you end up referencing a Karl Marx book or calling them a communist (more recently changed to calling them a socialist).

Your Libertarian philosophy as you described above sounds good, in fact I think I even agree with it. But what about when another day you said it was wrong to take power from anyone, and wrong to expect wealthy people to be forced to pay more taxes? See the problem is that while it sounds good for us to "allow an individual to follow their own path as long as it doesn't harm anyone else while doing it", the reality is that those in power either don't see or care what their excesses are doing to those less fortunate -- some of them even think it's perfectly fine to have a stratified world where those who climb to the top oppress others. Hence, the laws and control that you seem to hate, finally taking into account the disadvantaged people, that must be a factor in a better society.

I am not too obsessed with groups - I am concerned about the pain and suffering of indivduals that belong to various groups. All individuals fall into various groups, and in Social Work we learned about the specific problems these individuals in groups experience(d) so we can assist them easier. For example, people who are financial poor and people of color encounter problems that are SPECIFIC to the group they belong to -- however some groups overlap, and in this case we can see how people of color could be poor too. If in this latter group one of the members (poor and of color) was also female they would have an additional burden of descrimination as they are part of yet another third group with it's specific challenges.
In other words, by identifying the groups individuals belong to we can more easily see the unique challenges each group faces.

This ackowledgemnt of groups is not a way to, as you say, create class warfare, nor is it a way to divide and conquer. It is a way to identify and present their problems clearly -- if we can't see the problems they face we can't remedy the injustice. It is also a way for people who have been oppressed to come together and receive support for the problems they've encountered, gather strength, and attempt to do something about it with the power that a group of people vs only one individual can afford.
There's a strong tendency for those who have been the default and the ruler (typcially the straight, white, male in the USA) NOT to be able to see the reality of those outside their OWN group.
The problem is the "straight, white, male" who feels threatened and wants to keep society as it always was, and they don't like these other groups that have been historically disadvantaged to gain the status only they had in the past. They want to keep them down...keep their position as the 'default'....they want a stratified society where some have more power than others...and they enact laws that favor themselves.
In other words, it is the people in power who do not acknowledge the rights of those with less power who create the class warfare.

I don't deny that there are crazy people online who just want to fight, and are using the social injustice issues in society to feel morally superior...but they are in the minority and mostly exist on forums. I wish you could meet my Social Work friends in the field -- see some reality outside 4channel forums or wherever it is you are getting your ideas from.

what are these 4channel forums of which you speak?

I get my ideas out of my own head, because gees, I have a brain and I  can think. I don't just open my mind and let socialists pour their failed ideas into my brain like so much mush.

And, omg no one is oppressing anyone. Did Henry ford oppress his workers by paying them 5 dollars a day (the highest industrial rate at the time) in part so that they could buy his cars. All innovation and improvement in this country has been the result of brilliant individual effort. Every time the government tries to "improve" something it just makes a giant mess. Of course then it can shift the blame on business and try even harder next time., which will of course lead to an even bigger failure.

As John Galt said to the leaders when they begged him to help them out of the mess they had created, his simple reply was "Get out of my way"

So please get out of people's way, and let them lead their lives as they see fit.

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

10 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

Then I appologise for effectively calling you a liar too, sorry it hurt your feelings.

It did. And not only that, but it was you who started all the nastiness in this thread, by changing the topic. The thread was mild humour, as the Title clearly shows, but you just saw an opportunity to have a go, and look what happened - all the nasty little minds drag themselves out of their dirty little holes to have a go themselves. To be honest, I expect that sort of thing from some of them, but I wouldn't have expected it from you, Callum. You always seemed to me to be a straight enough person.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

You weren't there and you have no idea what happened in that forum. Why are you being so nasty?

“Methinks the lady doth protest too much.” - Wm.Shakespeare

[Callum Meriman]

Phil, it seems you are not happy with being appologised to? Most people would accept an appology with grace.

So, you and I are done, for good. We'll leave it there.

 

[Phil Deakins]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

“Methinks the lady doth protest too much.” - Wm.Shakespeare

I got up today to find a fair number of little posts that contained little nastinesses towards me. The nastinesses were snide suggestions, and snide speculations, about me. In the face of that, all at the same time, yes I protest.

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I got up today to find a fair number of little posts that contained little nastinesses towards me. The nastinesses were snide suggestions, and snide speculations, about me. In the face of that, all at the same time, yes I protest.

Deserved.

[Phil Deakins]

4 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

Phil, it seems you are not happy with being appologised to? Most people would accept an appology with grace.

You are not most people, and you don't speak for most people. Apologies are often accepted, but not necessarily with grace.

I prefer a person to be sorry, and show some regret that they did something. Apologies are just cold sentences, that show nothing other than apeasement.

[Love Zhaoying]

I’m sure you’ll do everything possible to get the last word. And not admit you lost all arguments, once again, when you overreacted and used insults.

[Phil Deakins]

What insults?

And what arguments? There aren't any, are there?

Don't you have anything better to do than stir things up just for the sake of it?

Edited October 5, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

When you called Callum a liar.

I refuse to answer all your questions. You don’t deserve answers.

Main reason: you’re a bully who poses as a teddy bear.

[Phil Deakins]

 

35 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

When you called Callum a liar.

You mean when I asked Callum why he posted lie about me after I'd told him it was untrue? At that point he knew that I'd said it was untrue, but he still posted it. It was therefore a lie. Is that what you mean? lol. When someone says something that they know to be untrue, it's a lie, and saying that they are a liar in not an insult. It's only an insult if it isn't true. I thought everyone knew that.

I refuse to answer all your questions. You don’t deserve answers.

The only unanswered question is, "What arguments?" You said there are arguments and I merely asked what they are because I haven't seen any. The only reason you can't answer is because you don't have any answers. In this case, you're just here to stir things up a bit and hope that other people can come up with answers.

Main reason: you’re a bully who poses as a teddy bear.

LOL. I've never been called a bully before. I'm not sure if I like it or not, but thankyou for the entertainment. It's much appreciated in this little flurry of nastiness that greeted my day today

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

16 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Poor Phil, I really think he was just expressing a kind of platitude, something along the line of "the more things change, the more they remain the same".

And now all this..lol

That was nasty. I really did think it was amusing that nothing had changed in all those years.

Phil, I honestly think you were just commenting on something you found amusing -- that you happened to see a correlation between two postings on the same topic 10 years apart. You expressed this in a platitude sort of way, expressing that things never change. I express platitudes all the time and don't find anything wrong with them btw.
Humor for me is often a constrast between extremes, and so it seemed funny that you were just posting a light little comment and it devolved into utter chaos. It's both sad and funny really, what ensued -- my motive in posting at that time was actually to diffuse the gang-up forming against you with a joke.

Apparently some believe you wanted to revisit this topic to argue it again and prove you are right. I saw no evidence you wanted to discuss it again, and in fact I witnessed you not wanting to talk about it.  While I have been frustrated with your reluctance to drop things and attempts to weasel your way into being right, and even confronted you once on it when we were debating, I do not think you were attempting to do it in this instance. I can't blame them for thinking you are doing this though -- it sounds like you and others have had some contentious arguments on this topic and they felt like you were trying to be 'always right' in those debates.
You're playing with fire when you mention these kinds of topics again. It's probably best for all concerned not to reference topics where such bitterness occurred, as it will bring up all the frustrated feelings yet again.