DataPacRat: Descended from kings and gods

[DataPacRat]

He either responds to said accusations or fgalkin or another gets to play whack a mole with the rat.

Is this an official warning by one of the board's Global Moderators that I have to respond or be banned; or is it just a comment by a user who happens to be a moderator that if I don't participate in an argument the people who do will get to say whatever they want about me without any real opposition?

[fgalkin]

Make a guess. It's not a hard one.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[DataPacRat]

Make a guess. It's not a hard one.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Okay - I'm guessing that I'm taking a joking post, along the same level as the fellow who mentioned rat-poison by brand-name, too seriously, because the poster happens to have a big 'Governor' label by their avatar.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will let me know.

[Ghost Rider]

He either responds to said accusations or fgalkin or another gets to play whack a mole with the rat.

Is this an official warning by one of the board's Global Moderators that I have to respond or be banned; or is it just a comment by a user who happens to be a moderator that if I don't participate in an argument the people who do will get to say whatever they want about me without any real opposition?

I know thinking is not a strong spot on you, but why the fuck would I threaten banning just for the sake of it? Why not say it for everyone I don't care for, just to see said reaction.

So think real hard, and answer Duckie and the rest because you are breaking a few rules in determing to being an elusive little fuck.

[DataPacRat]

He either responds to said accusations or fgalkin or another gets to play whack a mole with the rat.

Is this an official warning by one of the board's Global Moderators that I have to respond or be banned; or is it just a comment by a user who happens to be a moderator that if I don't participate in an argument the people who do will get to say whatever they want about me without any real opposition?

I know thinking is not a strong spot on you, but why the fuck would I threaten banning just for the sake of it? Why not say it for everyone I don't care for, just to see said reaction.

So think real hard, and answer Duckie and the rest because you are breaking a few rules in determing to being an elusive little fuck.

... you're seriously telling me that expressing the opinion that using some common sense with the self-correcting mechanisms of Wikipedia can make it more reliable (as described, somewhat ironically, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia), not to mention much more convenient, than referring to a printed tome is a bannable offense on this board? I will admit a certain amount of confusion, as that opinion seems to be covered as being 'safe' under rule #6, and I'm uncertain which other rules you feel I have violated.

Anyway, if that's the case, then my opinions would have ended up with me being banned quite soon, on this or some related matter, so you might as well initiate your disciplinary process at your convenience. I signed on primarily so that I could comment on the Salvation War stories, and had started joining in other discussions; while I would certainly prefer to be able to continue to do so, I can go back to simply reading TSW without comment again without experiencing significant hardship.

[Duckie]

You aren't being scolded for having an opinion, you're being scolded for not making an argument. If Wikipedia is more reliable than an academic publishing, I'd like to you outline logical reasons why instead of just appealing to wikipedia itself. "It corrects itself" is not one of them, since that implies it's already more unreliable than any other resource and its chief feature is that it becomes less terrible slowly (this is true, but I don't see why you're touting it).

[DataPacRat]

You aren't being scolded for having an opinion, you're being scolded for not making an argument. If Wikipedia is more reliable than an academic publishing, I'd like to you outline logical reasons why instead of just appealing to wikipedia itself. "It corrects itself" is not one of them, since that implies it's already more unreliable than any other resource and its chief feature is that it becomes less terrible slowly (this is true, but I don't see why you're touting it).

You seem to have mistaken my initial point on the topic. (It seems that happens a lot, on this board.) It isn't that Wikipedia is better than the best academic papers in the world; it was more that most people online don't have /access/ to those best papers in the world... and that in a relatively informal online discussion, where the cost-benefit ratio of spending time researching a post is fairly low, Wikipedia is accurate /enough/ for the one-minute-or-so a poster would take to Google for a reference.

For example, I was completely unaware of the Germanic royal genealogy site posted by another member until that member posted it, and it didn't appear on any of the searches I made to find backup references.

If I was willing to spend more time on this post, I would also take the time to dispute your assertion that self-correction isn't a valid point in Wikipedia's defense, but I hope that I've made my point sufficiently to prevent bannination without going to that much trouble.

[Ghost Rider]

Is this an official warning by one of the board's Global Moderators that I have to respond or be banned; or is it just a comment by a user who happens to be a moderator that if I don't participate in an argument the people who do will get to say whatever they want about me without any real opposition?

I know thinking is not a strong spot on you, but why the fuck would I threaten banning just for the sake of it? Why not say it for everyone I don't care for, just to see said reaction.

So think real hard, and answer Duckie and the rest because you are breaking a few rules in determing to being an elusive little fuck.

... you're seriously telling me that expressing the opinion that using some common sense with the self-correcting mechanisms of Wikipedia can make it more reliable (as described, somewhat ironically, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia), not to mention much more convenient, than referring to a printed tome is a bannable offense on this board? I will admit a certain amount of confusion, as that opinion seems to be covered as being 'safe' under rule #6, and I'm uncertain which other rules you feel I have violated.

Anyway, if that's the case, then my opinions would have ended up with me being banned quite soon, on this or some related matter, so you might as well initiate your disciplinary process at your convenience. I signed on primarily so that I could comment on the Salvation War stories, and had started joining in other discussions; while I would certainly prefer to be able to continue to do so, I can go back to simply reading TSW without comment again without experiencing significant hardship.

Ah, being the wounded elusive dipshit.

What you claim as opinions are not. You made the claim, so really...put up evidence towards said claims or concede that you are wrong.

And as for escaping banning. No, you haven't since all you are doing is moving goalposts.

[DataPacRat]

And as for escaping banning. No, you haven't since all you are doing is moving goalposts.

If you believe clarifying what I previously said is 'moving goalposts', then you can go ahead and believe that. (Besides, even if you do consider my post to have done so, that tactic was used against my arguments earlier, without any moderators commenting on it.)

In that case, though, would you mind clarifying what you think the goalposts /are/, so that I have at least some hope in Tartarus of figuring out what it is you think I'm supposed to be defending, so I can actually decide whether or not I /want/ to defend it or not?

[Thanas]

Are you really trying to get banned?

[DataPacRat]

Are you really trying to get banned?

Not particularly. However, I was unaware when I joined the board how common it would be for other posters to mischaracterize the opinions I express in my posts, and am seriously debating with myself whether trying to defend my actual opinions here is worth the effort; XKCD put it pretty well in http://xkcd.com/386/.

[Duckie]

Put up or shut up: Where did I misrepresent your stupid ass, dipshit? Point it out to me. In big bold letters, because I'm apparently too stupid to notice when you conceded or sent me fleeing with my tail between my legs. You come off as going "Waaah, Stardestroyer.net has standards of evidence and requires people to actually back up things they say or stand down from them when called on it rather than concede they're wrong."

Somewhere the world's tiniest violin section is playing Adagio for Strings Op 11

[Thanas]

I don't quite know yet whether the rat really has that little emotional intelligence/situation awareness or if he has been nothing but a worthless troll right from the start.

[DataPacRat]

Put up or shut up: Where did I misrepresent your stupid ass, dipshit? Point it out to me. In big bold letters, because I'm apparently too stupid to notice when you conceded or sent me fleeing with my tail between my legs.

<boggles> What makes you think I was referring to the most recent incident in this thread? I was thinking of the whole section where I posted a list of names, and various people assumed that I believed the list was the absolute and unexpurgated truth.

[DataPacRat]

I don't quite know yet whether the rat really has that little emotional intelligence/situation awareness or if he has been nothing but a worthless troll right from the start.

You can either trust my given word or not, when I say that I joined the board to comment about The Salvation War, and had no intention of any of this kerfluffle in this thread coming to be. If you do, then I at least have the defense of good intentions rather than any malicious intent. If you don't trust my word on /that/, then nothing I can say will ever convince you.

[Serafina]

You said that Wikipedia is more reliable than a literary source - and not "some book", but something written by a historian about a subject where he is an expert.

This is, frankly, a really stuip argument.

I like you for some reason (don't ask me why), so i will try to explain your misconception to you:

Saying "Wikipedia is somewhat reliable due to self-correction" is one thing, and more or less a valid statment.
It can actually be shown that this self-correction works for most things, and you can more arguments.

However, this is not what you said. You said:

What evidence would you present that the book /actually/ more reliable than Wikipedia?

I don't really think that you realise how dense this statement really is, propably because you do not read scientific publishings regulary - oh, and neither do i, no blame here.

You see, on Wikipedia, you can post anything you want, and the worst that can happen is that someone edits it.
But if you write a scientific book (including history books), you are expected to do serious research. Thats a lot of work.
And your book will undergo rigorous scrutiny before it is even published (unless you go for self-publishing, which costs lots of money).
And if you publish complete bullshit, that will seriously dampen your carrer - and you studied years for that career, so you will take that possiblity seriously.

Now, think about that, and ask yourself: Where do people put more effort into?

Scientific literature is considered the pinaccle of evicende for a reason (only short to actual hard obversations).

Wikipedia is fine to get a general idea of something, but you always have to take it with a grain of salt - and the more obscure the subject is, the greater the margin of error.

Oh, and i repeat my earlier advice:
If you make an error, admit it, and do not repeat it.

Regards
Fina

[DataPacRat]

You said that Wikipedia is more reliable than a literary source - and not "some book", but something written by a historian about a subject where he is an expert.

This is, frankly, a really stuip argument.

I like you for some reason (don't ask me why), so i will try to explain your misconception to you:

Saying "Wikipedia is somewhat reliable due to self-correction" is one thing, and more or less a valid statment.
It can actually be shown that this self-correction works for most things, and you can more arguments.

However, this is not what you said. You said:

What evidence would you present that the book /actually/ more reliable than Wikipedia?

I don't really think that you realise how dense this statement really is, propably because you do not read scientific publishings regulary - oh, and neither do i, no blame here.

You see, on Wikipedia, you can post anything you want, and the worst that can happen is that someone edits it.
But if you write a scientific book (including history books), you are expected to do serious research. Thats a lot of work.
And your book will undergo rigorous scrutiny before it is even published (unless you go for self-publishing, which costs lots of money).
And if you publish complete bullshit, that will seriously dampen your carrer - and you studied years for that career, so you will take that possiblity seriously.

Now, think about that, and ask yourself: Where do people put more effort into?

Scientific literature is considered the pinaccle of evicende for a reason (only short to actual hard obversations).

Wikipedia is fine to get a general idea of something, but you always have to take it with a grain of salt - and the more obscure the subject is, the greater the margin of error.

Oh, and i repeat my earlier advice:
If you make an error, admit it, and do not repeat it.

Regards
Fina

Thank you, Fina, for a post which seems to be trying to do something /productive/ with this thread... <mumble grumble mumble>

What would you say if, when I made the post you quoted there, I was actually hoping for the person I was talking to to produce an actual, /specific/ book on the topic (the Rohan dynasty), and the evidence for its accuracy or lack thereof, which we could debate rather than speaking generally about books in general?

[Ghost Rider]

Y'know, I tire of this evasive shit.

If you really don't get that making empty claims, no back up and go *boggle* when someone says "prove it". You need to read the rules when a board states them.

Given that seems to be outside your capacity. Bu-bye.