[avianmosquito] Headshots: a lesson in Stupidity

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh, and avianmosquito - stop running away, you cowardly piece of stupidity-dipped shit!
We have crushed your every word - propably without the least bit of actual effort.
So stop running away and then starting a new thread - you are not going to impress anyone by increasing your volume of brainshit.
Admit it that you do not know anything - that's the first step to learning something.
Otherwise, piss of and wank on somewhere else.

In all fairness, he hasn't posted on the forums since Friday, and his last post WAS in this thread. Stupid though he may be, I don't think there is any evidence of him "running away."

EDIT: Though his profile does note that he was "active" on Saturday, but that doesn't really mean anything. Anyway, I think it's a bit premature to call him anything other than a worthless moron. We can throw on "cowardly" later in the week.

[Serafina]

He's done it before. Or rather, after initially defending his thread he seems to have developed this pattern.

[Norade]

Indeed, he has abandoned three threads now after we tried to force him to concede his points, I would call that running away.

[higbvuyb]

I'm a little confused as well, as to the direction of the argument. From where I sit, and correct me if I'm wrong, the argument is; 1) shooting someone in the heart/center mass kills them faster/more efficient than a similar shot to the head, thus being more effective means of death. 2) by shooting someone in the heart, the act of stopping the heart and/or bleeding out the person from massive arterial damage, provides brain death quicker than brain death from tissue damage in the brain. 3) damage to the brain with increased intracranial pressure that incapacitates a person and later dies is less efficient than bleeding them out with lack of blood pressure with torso gun shot wounds.

The point is that the OP was arguing in reference to his context of trying to kill someone as fast as possible. Absurd, yes, but if you're going to argue against what he's saying, you have to be working in the same context. What I'm saying is that you've mentioned inflammation in your argument. Including where you've quoted him talking about 'one minute after' or something. However, inflammation is something that happens later, hence it isn't likely to be relevant.

Brain isn't necessary? WTF? It's one thing to say that a non-instantly fatal hit to the head would allow the person in question to operate briefly afterwards, before critical functions are fully terminated. It's another to say the most fundamentally important organ in the body is useless.

You should already know that things tend to make more sense in context than they do out of context. If you hadn't been taking things out of context, you'd understand that the brain isn't directly necessary for the short-term maintenance of heartbeat because the SA node is responsible for spontaneously generating a pacemaker potential. It isn't just going to stop because your brain has stopped. Obviously the limiting factor is when the lack of breathing means you don't have enough oxygen anymore.

[Simon_Jester]

If your brain has stopped, you are dead whether your heart is still beating or not. Therefore, the brain is essential to life, even if it is not essentialy to heartbeat.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Indeed, he has abandoned three threads now after we tried to force him to concede his points, I would call that running away.

Meh, I've never heard of this guy before this thread, I didn't realize he had done this before.

[Norade]

Indeed, he has abandoned three threads now after we tried to force him to concede his points, I would call that running away.

Meh, I've never heard of this guy before this thread, I didn't realize he had done this before.

For those that like to torture themselves here are all his stupid topics.

Retarded Energy Weapons
Bio-wank & to Too Stupid to Live Aliens
Surprisingly Half Realistic Assault Rifles
Ficton Containing a Masturbating Fetus

[avianmosquito]

Indeed, he has abandoned three threads now after we tried to force him to concede his points, I would call that running away.

Meh, I've never heard of this guy before this thread, I didn't realize he had done this before.

For those that like to torture themselves here are all his stupid topics.

Retarded Energy Weapons
Bio-wank & to Too Stupid to Live Aliens
Surprisingly Half Realistic Assault Rifles
Ficton Containing a Masturbating Fetus

This is irrelevent, and you are in direct violation of board rules. The staff has been notified.

PS. If you insist on behaving the way you have been, expect to see this message a lot, you worthless troll.

[Sea Skimmer]

You got a lot to learn if you think a list of your stupid threads in the hall of shame is a rules violation, which you have failed to cite anyway. But somehow I don't think you'll be lasting long enough to learn anything here.

[Coyote]

For those that like to torture themselves here are all his stupid topics.

Retarded Energy Weapons
Bio-wank & to Too Stupid to Live Aliens
Surprisingly Half Realistic Assault Rifles
Ficton Containing a Masturbating Fetus

This is irrelevent, and you are in direct violation of board rules. The staff has been notified.

PS. If you insist on behaving the way you have been, expect to see this message a lot, you worthless troll.

ZOMFG you're hilarious. I can't wait to see how this pans out. Notified the staff, have you? Fuckin' awesome, Mr. sand-in-the-mangina dude.

[NecronLord]

Report closed, no action.

[avianmosquito]

Alright, to all of you, I would like to concede this point, not because my viewpoint has changed, but because my original post was overexaggerated, due to rage resulting from an issue in my life that I'm not sure if I have permission to tell you, (which I shouldn't be taking out on you guys anyway) and extremely heavy bias.

Now, filtering out the bias and exaggeration, I'll try to make a more universal essay regarding shot placement:

First, I would like to say that headhsots are just as effective as heartshots in a situation where you cannot possibly miss, (read: contact shot) they are less effective in every other circumstance because if you're a centimetre off when shooting the heart, your shots hit the aorta, or at least a lung. If you're a centimetre off when shooting the brain, you hit... air. No matter how good at it you are or what weapon you are using, you can't miss well enough to win a firefight.

Further, if you shoot the heart the brain dies immediately, if you shoot the brain the heart keeps beating for a while. I understand this is completely irrelevent in a firefight, but the point still stands.

As for what happens when you miss the main target:

If you miss the heart, around it are the aorta, spinal coloumn and lungs. Around the brain is the face, the skull and air.

If you hit the aorta, the target hits the ground in a second, is unconscious in less than ten and dead in 30.

If you hit the face, you disfigure the target, cause bleeding, and may or may not kill, depending on the part of the face hit and the weapon used. In any case, it will not be a swift death, and will be extremely painful.

If you hit the spinal coloumn, you may paralyze the target, but modern medical attention will be more than enough to ensure their survival. This kind of shot, as it is generally non-lethal but leaves the target crippled for life, is against my morals, but is generally accidental.

If you hit the skull, you may or may not cause spalling inside it, depending on the bullet's power, angle, age of target and the part of the skull hit. As it is unreliable in causing death, but generally disfigures the target and frequently cripples them, this shot is also against my morals.

If you hit the lungs, the target looses some of their ability to oxygenate blood immediately, causing swift hypoxia, as well as slowly filling the lungs with blood, causing asphixiation, which results in, you guessed it, further hypoxia.

If you hit the air... it comes back. Once again, you can't miss well enough to win a firefight.

Finally, as far as lethality of the shots... the brain is, strictly speaking, less lethal than the heart, but it doesn't matter because all but the msot underpowered of weapons will simply do so much damage that the target will be dead instantaneously anyway, if not because of the hole in the head (which are frequently survived, for a good example see: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/828580-drum ... n-railings) than because of the shockwave caused by the bullet's passing (which is essentially blunt force, but I digress) but this is beside the point. A bullet through the heart will kill them equally dead, with slightly greater reliability and an underpowered hit will never leave them cruelly crippled for life. (Which is considered a-moral in my mind.)

Looking in these contexts, it's easy to understand why I do not subscribe to headshots.

[Simon_Jester]

First, I would like to say that headhsots are just as effective as heartshots in a situation where you cannot possibly miss, (read: contact shot) they are less effective in every other circumstance because if you're a centimetre off when shooting the heart, your shots hit the aorta, or at least a lung. If you're a centimetre off when shooting the brain, you hit... air. No matter how good at it you are or what weapon you are using, you can't miss well enough to win a firefight.

My brain is more than a centimeter wide; I'm reasonably confident yours is too. Now, for a sufficient miss distance, yes the chest is a bigger target than the head. So what?

I mean, what's the point of the essay?

If you hit the aorta, the target hits the ground in a second, is unconscious in less than ten and dead in 30.

If you hit the face, you disfigure the target, cause bleeding, and may or may not kill, depending on the part of the face hit and the weapon used. In any case, it will not be a swift death, and will be extremely painful.

If you hit the spinal coloumn, you may paralyze the target, but modern medical attention will be more than enough to ensure their survival. This kind of shot, as it is generally non-lethal but leaves the target crippled for life, is against my morals, but is generally accidental.

If you hit the skull, you may or may not cause spalling inside it, depending on the bullet's power, angle, age of target and the part of the skull hit. As it is unreliable in causing death, but generally disfigures the target and frequently cripples them, this shot is also against my morals.

The ethics of whether it is "honorable" to cause a certain type of wound are rarely, if ever, considered in serious combat. No one goes charging into a gunfight shouting "NOT THE FACE! NOT THE FACE!"

If you hit the lungs, the target looses some of their ability to oxygenate blood immediately, causing swift hypoxia, as well as slowly filling the lungs with blood, causing asphixiation, which results in, you guessed it, further hypoxia.

And yet men can and have fought on despite serious wounds to the lung.

Finally, as far as lethality of the shots... the brain is, strictly speaking, less lethal than the heart, but it doesn't matter because all but the msot underpowered of weapons will simply do so much damage that the target will be dead instantaneously anyway...

Can a bullet be small enough to not cause massive damage on a hit to the head, while still being large enough to reliably cause massive damage to the heart? Can you document this, or is this just, like, your opinion?

Looking in these contexts, it's easy to understand why I do not subscribe to headshots.

What exactly is the importance of your nonsubscription? Are you simply saying "people shouldn't shoot other people in the head?" What authority do you have that makes your statement relevant?

[CaptainChewbacca]

If you're worried about morality while shooting at someone with intent to kill, you've got bigger problems.

[avianmosquito]

You got a lot to learn if you think a list of your stupid threads in the hall of shame is a rules violation, which you have failed to cite anyway. But somehow I don't think you'll be lasting long enough to learn anything here.

He is, for the second time, in direct violation of debating rule #2:

No Vendettas. Do not "follow someone around" because you dislike him, hijacking threads to carry on your feud with him or dragging arguments from one thread to another. Try to debate the ideas, not the people.

Also, now that I have a legit reason to post here I can finally comment on what a fucking idiot Skeeter is once again.

Also, his debating strategy revolves ENTIRELY around hijacking other people's points and throwing in ad hominem attacks. When he has no points to work with he simply forgets all about making one and simply spews ad hominem attacks with no purpose or drags up arguements from other threads.

He's just a troll, nothing more.

[CaptainChewbacca]

His debating strategy has always been to point out what shitty, idiotic, and ridiculous ideas you have. It isn't trolling to call you stupid WHEN YOU ARE ACTUALLY BEING STUPID.

Now, if he was doing this in threads where you were posting productively you might have an argument, but I believe there are only five threads on this entire board where you have participated. In ALL of them, you make absurd claims, ask for advice or criticism, and then either ignore it or claim people misunderstand you without actually explaining why.

If you want it to stop then sack up, quit whining like a bitch, and either defend your positions in various threads or concede that a twenty-five year old with barely a high school education and a penchant for knocking up underage girls probably isn't an authority on ballistics, medicine, morality, genetics, politics, economics, or physics and should be politely humored or ignored.

edit: I'm probably backseat modding here, and for that I apologize, but I think my points are valid.

[Serafina]

To paraphrase some of my favored villains:
"This is not a court of law, this is pest controll!"
Oh, and "you are superior in only one way - you are better at being stupid".

Either way - a mod already decided that it was no rule violation.
This is the hall of shame - intended for direct mockery of people who should be ashamed of their own stupidity.

Now, filtering out the bias and exaggeration, I'll try to make a more universal essay regarding shot placement:

Ohh, "bias".
Yes, i am biased against you - i expcet nothing but stupidity from you. Because so far, you have not said a single intelligent sentence on this forum, ever.

First, I would like to say that headhsots are just as effective as heartshots in a situation where you cannot possibly miss, (read: contact shot)

Wow - yes, if you somehow have perfect accuracy - oh wait, that eleminates the main reason why you do not aim for the head first! If you somehow have god-like accuracy, you shoot them in the brain.

Further, if you shoot the heart the brain dies immediately, if you shoot the brain the heart keeps beating for a while. I understand this is completely irrelevent in a firefight, but the point still stands.

Yes, it IS completely irrelevant.
Hey, douchebag - if something is completely irrelevant, it is NOT a point!

Finally, as far as lethality of the shots... the brain is, strictly speaking, less lethal than the heart,

Directly contradicted by previously posted evidence.
You are not only stupid, you are also a liar.

which are frequently survived

Single examples do not make statistics. They proove nothing related to this "discussion".

Looking in these contexts, it's easy to understand why I do not subscribe to headshots.

Because you are a clueless kid (regardless of your age) who has never tried to have an actual discussion, doesn't know what knowledge is, doesn't understand honest debating, has no actual imagination and still wanks to his own "intellect"?
Yeah, i understand that perfectly - apparently, you do not.

[NecronLord]

It's not a DR2 violation; the intent of that rule of that is to prevent vendettas, not prevent anyone ever mentioning a poster's past record and statements.

[avianmosquito]

First, I would like to say that headhsots are just as effective as heartshots in a situation where you cannot possibly miss, (read: contact shot) they are less effective in every other circumstance because if you're a centimetre off when shooting the heart, your shots hit the aorta, or at least a lung. If you're a centimetre off when shooting the brain, you hit... air. No matter how good at it you are or what weapon you are using, you can't miss well enough to win a firefight.

My brain is more than a centimeter wide; I'm reasonably confident yours is too. Now, for a sufficient miss distance, yes the chest is a bigger target than the head. So what?

I mean, what's the point of the essay?

Okay, that was a concept so simple you would really have to try to misunderstand it.

When you are a centimetre off-target, it means your shot is a centimetre away from the target, it has nothing to do with the target's size. You can be a centimetre off when shooting at a tank as well. The only way being a centimetre off will still result in a hit is when you're using a projectile with a radius of over a centimetre, which would mean a diametre of at least 20mm.

If you hit the aorta, the target hits the ground in a second, is unconscious in less than ten and dead in 30.

If you hit the face, you disfigure the target, cause bleeding, and may or may not kill, depending on the part of the face hit and the weapon used. In any case, it will not be a swift death, and will be extremely painful.

If you hit the spinal coloumn, you may paralyze the target, but modern medical attention will be more than enough to ensure their survival. This kind of shot, as it is generally non-lethal but leaves the target crippled for life, is against my morals, but is generally accidental.

If you hit the skull, you may or may not cause spalling inside it, depending on the bullet's power, angle, age of target and the part of the skull hit. As it is unreliable in causing death, but generally disfigures the target and frequently cripples them, this shot is also against my morals.

The ethics of whether it is "honorable" to cause a certain type of wound are rarely, if ever, considered in serious combat. No one goes charging into a gunfight shouting "NOT THE FACE! NOT THE FACE!"

It has nothing to do with honour, it's about being humane. If you shoot somebody in the head and they survive, they'll be crippled for life. This is an extremely cruel thing to do.

If you hit the lungs, the target looses some of their ability to oxygenate blood immediately, causing swift hypoxia, as well as slowly filling the lungs with blood, causing asphixiation, which results in, you guessed it, further hypoxia.

And yet men can and have fought on despite serious wounds to the lung.

Finally, as far as lethality of the shots... the brain is, strictly speaking, less lethal than the heart, but it doesn't matter because all but the msot underpowered of weapons will simply do so much damage that the target will be dead instantaneously anyway...

Can a bullet be small enough to not cause massive damage on a hit to the head, while still being large enough to reliably cause massive damage to the heart? Can you document this, or is this just, like, your opinion?

I said no such thing, but so be it.

If the bullet transfers very little energy, but leaves a sufficiently large hole to stop the heart, this will be the case. With sufficient medical attention you can survive with a hole in your head, it does happen, and I listed an example of a very large hole in somebody's brain doing very little. Headshots rely on causing catastrophic damage through disruption of stiff neural tissue via a shockwave. (Very similar to the liver in this regard, but this is irrelevent enough to amount to nothing but a funfact.) Heartshots do not, instead relying on the hole in the heart to stop it from functioning, which stops bloodflow to all organs in the body, including the brain.

The opposite is also possible, having a bullet that transfers a lot of energy but leaves a hole too small to disrupt the heart. These will destroy a massive amount of neural tissue, causing catastrophic damage, but will do very little to the heart. However, while this is possible, no existing bullet inflicts this kind of wound.

Looking in these contexts, it's easy to understand why I do not subscribe to headshots.

What exactly is the importance of your nonsubscription? Are you simply saying "people shouldn't shoot other people in the head?" What authority do you have that makes your statement relevant?

It isn't all too important. Yes, I am saying people shouldn't shoot other people in the head... and it pisses me off that they do. I don't have any authority that would make this statement relevent, others who have made this statement do, but I do not. Nevertheless, this is a completely irrelevent statement and, more importantly, arguementum ad hominem.

[avianmosquito]

To paraphrase some of my favored villains:
"This is not a court of law, this is pest controll!"
Oh, and "you are superior in only one way - you are better at being stupid".

Either way - a mod already decided that it was no rule violation.
This is the hall of shame - intended for direct mockery of people who should be ashamed of their own stupidity.

Now, filtering out the bias and exaggeration, I'll try to make a more universal essay regarding shot placement:

Ohh, "bias".
Yes, i am biased against you - i expcet nothing but stupidity from you. Because so far, you have not said a single intelligent sentence on this forum, ever.

First, I would like to say that headhsots are just as effective as heartshots in a situation where you cannot possibly miss, (read: contact shot)

Wow - yes, if you somehow have perfect accuracy - oh wait, that eleminates the main reason why you do not aim for the head first! If you somehow have god-like accuracy, you shoot them in the brain.

Further, if you shoot the heart the brain dies immediately, if you shoot the brain the heart keeps beating for a while. I understand this is completely irrelevent in a firefight, but the point still stands.

Yes, it IS completely irrelevant.
Hey, douchebag - if something is completely irrelevant, it is NOT a point!

Finally, as far as lethality of the shots... the brain is, strictly speaking, less lethal than the heart,

Directly contradicted by previously posted evidence.
You are not only stupid, you are also a liar.

which are frequently survived

Single examples do not make statistics. They proove nothing related to this "discussion".

Looking in these contexts, it's easy to understand why I do not subscribe to headshots.

Because you are a clueless kid (regardless of your age) who has never tried to have an actual discussion, doesn't know what knowledge is, doesn't understand honest debating, has no actual imagination and still wanks to his own "intellect"?
Yeah, i understand that perfectly - apparently, you do not.

Worthless comment, using statements taken out of context that you use to imply that I am making an arguement other than the one I actually am. You are not contributing, go the fuck away.

[Sea Skimmer]

First, I would like to say that headhsots are just as effective as heartshots in a situation where you cannot possibly miss, (read: contact shot) they are less effective in every other circumstance because if you're a centimetre off when shooting the heart, your shots hit the aorta, or at least a lung. If you're a centimetre off when shooting the brain, you hit... air. No matter how good at it you are or what weapon you are using, you can't miss well enough to win a firefight.

Actually suppressive fire wins a lot of battles. The vast majority if gunfire in combat is only aimed in the general area of the enemy in the first place, and much of the time you cannot see someone to shoot him. Only muzzle flashes and smoke.

Further, if you shoot the heart the brain dies immediately, if you shoot the brain the heart keeps beating for a while. I understand this is completely irrelevent in a firefight, but the point still stands.

No your still full of shit as always. The brain does not die immediately, all the more so since you so very much love hair splitting on this issue. The brain does not die until it runs out of oxygen or is oversaturated with CO2 which can take as long as two minutes after the heart stops. The every last braincell will however die almost immediately if a bullet splits it open and lets the blood drain out directly, making any further supply from the heart irrelevant. That starves the cells of O2 far more quickly, as the blood stream otherwise acts as a short term reserve of O2 even if it is not flowing.
Of course, since you love hair splitting so much, I will also point out that even with brain death, and a stopped heart every last cell is still not dead for a while in many cases, which is the whole reason why organ harvesting for transplants works.

. A bullet through the heart will kill them equally dead, with slightly greater reliability and an underpowered hit will never leave them cruelly crippled for life. (Which is considered a-moral in my mind.)

Your fucking trying to kill someone with a gun, and you think the morality of shot placement matters? You shoot to kill with guns, and if you don't need to shoot to kill then you have no justification shooting at all. You have a real screwy idea of morality.

As for the head being hard to hit, yeah. We all already fucking know that already, and we sure didn't need a worthless 'essay' from an idiot like you to tell us. Take a hint buddy, its obivious you aren't really conceding and still do think you have some super superior knowledge of ballistics you could school us all with. No ones buying it and I suggest you just shut the fuck up. When you are this fucking wrong just running away and hiding isn't such a bad idea.

Okay, that was a concept so simple you would really have to try to misunderstand it.
When you are a centimetre off-target, it means your shot is a centimetre away from the target, it has nothing to do with the target's size. You can be a centimetre off when shooting at a tank as well. The only way being a centimetre off will still result in a hit is when you're using a projectile with a radius of over a centimetre, which would mean a diametre of at least 20mm.

If I aim for the center of a head, I can be off by more then a centimeter and still fucking hit the head. Do you really not understand that a 'target' can be an area, and not a single infinitely small point, and yet a shooter does in fact aim for a small point? He might not hit that point but if the target is still hit then the target is hit.

[avianmosquito]

His debating strategy has always been to point out what shitty, idiotic, and ridiculous ideas you have.

Again, all he does is parrot others, namely you, Serafina, (who isn't a particularly intelligent person either) Hellion and Simon_Jester. This is not productive nor worthy of respect. Now, on the rare instance (only one so far) that he backs up one of these claims by providing evidence instead of just dogpiling like the troll he is, I give credit because credit is due, but otherwise he deserves no respect from me.

It isn't trolling to call you stupid WHEN YOU ARE ACTUALLY BEING STUPID.

That's not the point, numbnuts.

Now, if he was doing this in threads where you were posting productively you might have an argument, but I believe there are only five threads on this entire board where you have participated.

9. 9 Threads. 5 threads of my own, 4 others.

In ALL of them, you make absurd claims, ask for advice or criticism, and then either ignore it or claim people misunderstand you without actually explaining why.

When I do explain why people ignore my points, especially if a single point renders the arguement moot regardless of victor.

If you want it to stop then sack up, quit whining like a bitch, and either defend your positions in various threads or concede that a twenty-five year old with barely a high school education

Arguementum ad hominem, cease and desist.

and a penchant for knocking up underage girls

Which I haven't done since I was an underage boy...

probably isn't an authority on ballistics, medicine, morality, genetics, politics, economics, or physics and should be politely humored or ignored.

This would only be relevent if I had claimed to be an expert. As far as terminal ballistics, I claimed to be more knowledgeable than the average layman, which I am, and nothing further. I cannot concede a statement I never made.

edit: I'm probably backseat modding here, and for that I apologize, but I think my points are valid.

I think otherwise, but that's irrelevent. You aren't backseat modding.

It doesn't really matter, it doesn't matter what I do. No matter how solidly I back something up, no matter how well constructed an idea is, it's automatically going to be stupid anyway because I'm hated by a few people on the board in higher standing than I am, who have no issue ignoring points and taking things out of context to deface me and will never admit when I make a valid point because of their distaste for me in general. Your ad hominem attacks are proof enough of that, and if I'm wrong here, PROVE IT.

[NecronLord]

It doesn't really matter, it doesn't matter what I do. No matter how solidly I back something up, no matter how well constructed an idea is, it's automatically going to be stupid anyway because I'm hated by a few people on the board in higher standing than I am, who have no issue ignoring points and taking things out of context to deface me and will never admit when I make a valid point because of their distaste for me in general. Your ad hominem attacks are proof enough of that, and if I'm wrong here, PROVE IT.

For the record, I'm barely aware of you, as indeed, I'm barely aware of anyone who mostly posts outside the sci-fi forums where I spend most of my time. My interpretation of DR2 (which you're welcome to dispute with other staff members if you wish) is entirely based on my understanding of it, without any prejudice whatsoever to you.

[Sea Skimmer]

It doesn't really matter, it doesn't matter what I do. No matter how solidly I back something up, no matter how well constructed an idea is, it's automatically going to be stupid anyway because I'm hated by a few people on the board in higher standing than I am, who have no issue ignoring points and taking things out of context to deface me and will never admit when I make a valid point because of their distaste for me in general. Your ad hominem attacks are proof enough of that, and if I'm wrong here, PROVE IT.

How well you back things up? GHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You haven't even tried. You know I asked you to provide details of those tests you claimed to have done fucking did days ago. You have not provided one single detail, which should be fucking easy for you to do if they ever really happened. This leads to the logical conclusion that you provide no details because you are a lair, but at least smart enough to realize that lieing about the details would easily get you caught in more lies. So how about those details? Start with the weapon, the range and the target, then we can talk about what ammo and the sensor.

[Coyote]

Hey, everyone, come look! Avianmosquito is actually tring to stand on his hind legs! It's trying to form coherent arguments and stuff! Bring a camera.

Skeet, sorry dude but the rule violations you are trying to defend yourself with are not actually rule violations. It works like this: you post a dumb comment, then when someone calls you on it you quit participating.

Then you post more dumb stuff, and the same thing happens. Pretty soon someone will say, "hey, everyone, this guy really just runs around posting dumb comments. This is like, the fourth time!"

So it is not really a vendetta or an ad hominem attack. It is simply pointing out that you have a history of posting dumb things and refusing to back them up when cornered. That's not a rules violation, that is a warning label to others.