Moderator: Vympel
Just to clarify, is this a request from Jim Raynor, or a request from Jim Raynor on behalf of stardestroyer.net?STFU and leave already, you little shit.
Use your brain (for once), dumbfuck. I'm not a mod or admin, just another poster who doesn't have anywhere near the highest post count here. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the others are already tiring of your pathetic sound bytes and evasions.Bryan Lambert wrote:Just to clarify, is this a request for Jim Raynor, or a request for Jim Raynor on behalf of Jim Raynor on behalf of stardestroyer.net?
I know my invitation to speak here came from someone in authority. If the request to stop speaking here also comes from someone in authority, I'll honor that as well.
Oh GROW UP. Seriously. How old are you, twelve? ZOMG somebody told you to leave! You haven't read the rules so you don't know what a bannable offence is! AND YOU MOCK THE REQUEST EVEN AS YOU FEAR ITS OFFICIAL.Bryan Lambert wrote:Just to clarify, is this a request for Jim Raynor, or a request for Jim Raynor on behalf of Jim Raynor on behalf of stardestroyer.net?
I know my invitation to speak here came from someone in authority. If the request to stop speaking here also comes from someone in authority, I'll honor that as well.
I never doubted your self-awareness of your behaviour. What I doubted is your ability to stand for it. Which you seem to have some of; I reserve my judgement for now, actions speak louder than words.Bryan Lambert wrote:Not at all. I stand by everything I said in the column. It's mean, it's harsh, it's insulting. What part of the domain name youaredumb.net do you think betrays a lack of self-awareness on my part?
Indeed it is, but here's the key; you never specified that any "good nerds" even exist. You generalize frivolously and just say "be a better nerd" in your new column; in your last column, you claim that they're beyond hope.Bryan Lambert wrote:The column is not an attack on nerds. It is an attack on bad nerds. It is an attack borne of 30 years of living as, with, and around nerds of all stripes. In real life and the Internet.
That's noted, but you don't earn a lot of brownie points merely for answering. I don't know how "excessive" amount of time you've spent here, but for me it's just a few minutes in between doing other things.Bryan Lambert wrote:And what have I been doing for the past six hours if not spending an excessive amount of time talking with a bunch of very upset people who are talking back at me? It's not like I came here under the delusion that you people were tractable. The whole point of the exercise is that you're willing to argue your point far beyond what sane people would find reasonable. Nevertheless, I'm here, because your boss asked. He didn't even ask nicely. But he asked.
It's pretty easy to get equally upset with your new column, but I'm going to play nice and assume that you actually mean what you say here for the moment rather than the likely unproportioned rant column. People here are nerds. Fair enough. They like to argue; in fact, this whole place is a discussion forum, and a lot of people hang out in such for various reasons. How long they continue to argue about something varies wildly.Bryan Lambert wrote:And I liked your forum rules. Almost identical to mine, if followed slightly less assiduously. At the end of the day, we'd probably agree on a lot of things, except, and this is crucial, the collective sanity of people who would escalate a flame war for eight months.
The very existence of the phrase "Be A Better Nerd" requires the existence of good nerds as well as bad nerds. Also, I mention right up front that Be A Better Nerd is an extended series; the rest of the series is not difficult to find.Indeed it is, but here's the key; you never specified that any "good nerds" even exist. You generalize frivolously and just say "be a better nerd" in your new column; in your last column, you claim that they're beyond hope.
Then why would you think I'm insulting you? If you can get past the "me insulting all your online buddies" part, we could almost hang out.I haven't argued the 3 mil. number in a long time now, and I don't plan to, unless a point in doing so shows up (as it did just now...).
Not quite; it could be used merely to express hope for something that isn't. But your new column is admittedly somewhat better at specifying that you're not talking about every nerd.Bryan Lambert wrote:The very existence of the phrase "Be A Better Nerd" requires the existence of good nerds as well as bad nerds. Also, I mention right up front that Be A Better Nerd is an extended series; the rest of the series is not difficult to find.
The answer apparently being nerds that still discuss the clones or being awkward at relationships. Which I would say comes natural for most nerds, being in their teens and not having a lot of experience with girls (or in the odd case, boys) yet.Bryan Lambert wrote:And I don't say nerds are beyond hope. I ask, rhetorically, under what circumstances nerds are beyond hope, and then spend the next several hundred words providing the answer.
Because I have been arguing it, and people I find to be perfectly sane and reasonable with as far as I can tell quality lives still do because they still see a point in it. Your column is, as you yourself admit, offensive by nature, intended so, and the last one tend to generalize. You're saying I'm not your target. Okay, I'll take that for now.Bryan Lambert wrote:Then why would you think I'm insulting you? If you can get past the "me insulting all your online buddies" part, we could almost hang out.
Yeah, cause we don't mock stupid people here at all. No sir. It's no written anywhere - not that I can see.SancheztheWhaler wrote:I revise my original post - old dirty Bryan has clearly admitted his nerd-dom, and in so doing has enraged several dozen board members who took his column WAY too seriously.
While I also agree that the 3 million number is too low, I also think it's a bit ridiculous to get this upset about somebody thinking you're ridiculous for getting so upset about it. This whole issue is ridiculous, and I wonder if those who participated so earnestly can see this?
Ignore his column, read it and hate it, read it and love it, whatever... he got a huge rise out of a bunch of folks here, and I have to thank you all. I just spent the last ten minutes laughing my ass off at the ferocity of some of the posts here.
For the record, I have posted on the Internet using my real name for over a decade. There's no persona.I suspect the relative anonimity of the Internet plays a part... I seriously doubt you would feel the need to hide behind an online persona and insult vast groups of people from afar.
That is not what I claim. That is what people in this thread keep saying I claim. The column is, and I'm speaking structurally here, a scorn progression. It starts with a small amount of scorn for activities I find mildly annoying, but that, if that was all there was, wouldn't have garnered notice. Then, after some backstory, context, and side-jokes, the scorn ramps up in accordance with specific actions, until finally we reach the point, at the end of the column, where the actions I criticize warrant the level of condemnation I allude to at the beginning.you claim, simply on the basis of a fleeting familiarity with a single topic of debate, that the posters here as a whole are insane, worthless nerds worthy of mass castration, because we enjoy discussing and analyzing quantification in a fictional universe.
I'm sorry, this is the second time you've said this, and I'm not sure what you mean by "new column".But your new column is admittedly somewhat better at specifying that you're not talking about every nerd.
It is, nevertheless, a persona. Of course, since I, and virtually everyone else on the Internet uses one of some sort, even if it has their real name tacked onto it, I retract the statement (although my point about your sniping remains).For the record, I have posted on the Internet using my real name for over a decade. There's no persona.
What's the difference? However you structured it, you still declared that the targets of your article were deserving of the highest levels of contempt, and many of your comments here have further reinforced the notion that you think you are intellectually superior to us.That is not what I claim. That is what people in this thread keep saying I claim. The column is, and I'm speaking structurally here, a scorn progression. It starts with a small amount of scorn for activities I find mildly annoying, but that, if that was all there was, wouldn't have garnered notice. Then, after some backstory, context, and side-jokes, the scorn ramps up in accordance with specific actions, until finally we reach the point, at the end of the column, where the actions I criticize warrant the level of condemnation I allude to at the beginning.
Then what did you mean? Are you going to claim that the entire thing was allegorical, and not directed at SDN at all, despite the fact that you have said directly several times that it is what you think of us? Were you simply exaggerating for effect?That's how the thing is built. But the entire thread has started from the assumption that the extreme sanction was meant to apply to all transgressions, large, small, and imagined. And that is simply not what I wrote.
Wow, you sure are brave, what with letting your real name be known to your incredibly vast viewership of <200 people a day on average. I'm sure that at least one of those people is somewhere within 300 miles of you.Bryan Lambert wrote:For the record, I have posted on the Internet using my real name for over a decade. There's no persona.I suspect the relative anonimity of the Internet plays a part... I seriously doubt you would feel the need to hide behind an online persona and insult vast groups of people from afar.
That is not what I claim. That is what people in this thread keep saying I claim. The column is, and I'm speaking structurally here, a scorn progression. It starts with a small amount of scorn for activities I find mildly annoying, but that, if that was all there was, wouldn't have garnered notice. Then, after some backstory, context, and side-jokes, the scorn ramps up in accordance with specific actions, until finally we reach the point, at the end of the column, where the actions I criticize warrant the level of condemnation I allude to at the beginning.you claim, simply on the basis of a fleeting familiarity with a single topic of debate, that the posters here as a whole are insane, worthless nerds worthy of mass castration, because we enjoy discussing and analyzing quantification in a fictional universe.
That's how the thing is built. But the entire thread has started from the assumption that the extreme sanction was meant to apply to all transgressions, large, small, and imagined. And that is simply not what I wrote.
My first post on Page 2 contains my response to Darth Wong's objections. I'm sorry you missed it, but this thread has moved pretty fast.The first post in this thread contains a breakdown of your article: either you can defend it, in which case do so, or you can't, in which case shut the fuck up and stop bleating about how we're all horribly crippled, sick morons.
