Blair's Cajones

[Dadaist]

I didn't pull you, I just pointed out for the first time what I've seen you doing it before, and before I was a mod. So whilst my perception of you, the board, forum software, computers, conversation, debate, http, font design, crisp flavours and many other things has not changed, there may arguably be people who think your impression of me has.

Ok, so the fact that you pointed it out was the change.

BTW were you wrong to pull me/point it out?

Neither my nor your approach is either right or wrong. They are simply different approaches and our respective opinions have less value, as they are subjective.

[Porty]

Why is it so difficult to simply say, I was wrong.

I edited the post before anyone responded and therfore there was ne need to annonate that I had edited.

[Dadaist]

Why is it so difficult to simply say, I was wrong.

I edited the post before anyone responded and therfore there was ne need to annonate that I had edited.

By that time I had the reply box up though - and it can take time to write a response.

By the time I posted my reply you had edited your post - and without a clear indication that the original post had been edited, it could appear to an observer that a reply had failed to answer the full range of points stated by the "original" post.

I was wrong about some of the SPL results at the weekend.

[Porty]

So its your fault for not posting quickly enough.

Are you seriously suggesting I should modify my already compliant behaviour in case you happen to be composing a post?

[Porty]

Clever diversion on the opinion poll debate though

[Dadaist]

So its your fault for not posting quickly enough.

Are you seriously suggesting I should modify my already compliant behaviour in case you happen to be composing a post?

I'm suggesting you do nothing except follow your own free will.

There is no measurement of "quick enough" using this format.

I have merely observed things and then said what I saw.

[Dadaist]

Clever diversion on the opinion poll debate though

I'd completely missed your Iraq post. Was too busy buying BBQ Cheddars from the vending machine.

[Dadaist]

You thought wrong, go take a look.

so what does this mean then? (apology in advance if i have misunderstandimated you)

There are a few POLsters who favour opinion polls as "evidence" in a debate. The above just goes to show how flawed that thinking is.

In this case I am not "favouring" opinion polls, they happen to be all that's available. The polls are the only way that "evidence" has been gathered. If you have an alternative, then i must admit i am ignorant about it.

When i made the above statement I was thinking about statements like "The invasion of Iraq was the reason for the terrorist attacks in London".

It must be true as 70% of people say so in an opinion poll. In other words they are favouring the polls over any evidence.

Fair enough - I can't say I have an opinion on the difference between using an opinion poll and favouring one - the only one I've ever posted that I can remember was to wonder which shop Jesus would go to if he came back to Porty.

If I had a serious or controversial point to make, I would attribute it to myself rather than phrasing it as a question, starting a poll about it and ticking the "yes, gouge out his eyeballs with a fork" box for a bit of faux anonymity.

[Porty]

I have merely observed things and then said what I saw.

To make matters worse, I know you are concealing a dark editing secret.

[Dadaist]

I have merely observed things and then said what I saw.

To make matters worse, I know you are concealing a dark editing secret.

Tell!! Tell!! And don't use PM or email!!! What is it?????

[Gemini]

You thought wrong, go take a look.

so what does this mean then? (apology in advance if i have misunderstandimated you)

There are a few POLsters who favour opinion polls as "evidence" in a debate. The above just goes to show how flawed that thinking is.

In this case I am not "favouring" opinion polls, they happen to be all that's available. The polls are the only way that "evidence" has been gathered. If you have an alternative, then i must admit i am ignorant about it.

When i made the above statement I was thinking about statements like "The invasion of Iraq was the reason for the terrorist attacks in London".

It must be true as 70% of people say so in an opinion poll. In other words they are favouring the polls over any evidence.

Porty, The former ambassador to the US, has stated that,
The invasion of Iraq fuelled terrorist attacks in London.



http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... 2204832005

Edited 1553 10.11.05

[Dadaist]

No, fuelling it is different to causing it. You can't discount all the other things in the mind of a militant when they decide to kill themselves - in the case of a muslim, they have had brothers and sisters killed in many other places than Iraq, and by many other crusaders than the British.

[Porty]

To make matters worse, I know you are concealing a dark editing secret.

Tell!! Tell!! And don't use PM or email!!! What is it?????

Ok I will reveal your double standards.

I posted and whilst you were composing a response, I edited. However, I did not mark my post as edited and due to the timing factor the system did not mark my post either.

You took umbrage at this unmarked edit ,fearing observers would construe you as not responding to all of the points in my, now edited, post.

You immediately got on your high horse and made an unequivocal statement about your own editing habits:

"Whenever I edit one of my posts, I put a small note at the bottom of the post detailing what the edit was.".

When we look at your response to my edited post you mention the edit:

"ooh - swift bit of editing there!! ".

You could not have known that I was editing. You could not have known that I would not mark as edited. Therefore you must have made your own post, observed that I had edited my post and then edited yours accordingly.

Yet you forgot to tell us all that you had edited. The post in question is not marked as edited in any way.

"Whenever I edit one of my posts, I put a small note at the bottom of the post detailing what the edit was.".

You sir are a cad and a scoundrel.

[Gemini]

To make matters worse, I know you are concealing a dark editing secret.

Tell!! Tell!! And don't use PM or email!!! What is it?????

Ok I will reveal your double standards.

I posted and whilst you were composing a response, I edited. However, I did not mark my post as edited and due to the timing factor the system did not mark my post either.

You took umbrage at this unmarked edit ,fearing observers would construe you as not responding to all of the points in my, now edited, post.

You immediately got on your high horse and made an unequivocal statement about your own editing habits:

"Whenever I edit one of my posts, I put a small note at the bottom of the post detailing what the edit was.".

When we look at your response to my edited post you mention the edit:

"ooh - swift bit of editing there!! ".

You could not have known that I was editing. You could not have known that I would not mark as edited. Therefore you must have made your own post, observed that I had edited my post and then edited yours accordingly.

Yet you forgot to tell us all that you had edited. The post in question is not marked as edited in any way.

"Whenever I edit one of my posts, I put a small note at the bottom of the post detailing what the edit was.".

You sir are a cad and a scoundrel.

Dearie me - Hacks/Frig's and now Cad's and Scoundrel's - what next?

[Dadaist]

Incorrect. I didn't say that this time round the post changed while I was composing my response - I said it as a reason in general for stating that you've edited a post.

In this instance, I hadn't even replied. I just happened to have seen :

a) your original post
b) your edited post with no indication of the edit
c) xxxx then post something under it, after which time there would have been an indication it had been edited

If you look at my post you'll see it purely concerns the second sentence, which is about the military. I composed it after your edit. There was no original reply of mine to edit.

[Porty]

If I had a serious or controversial point to make, I would attribute it to myself rather than phrasing it as a question, starting a poll about it and ticking the "yes, gouge out his eyeballs with a fork" box for a bit of faux anonymity.

You are being silly.

The purpose of an honest poll is not to put over ones own views, it is to garner the views of others. The torture poll was pertinent and informative about the views of POL members towards torturing Oman. No more no less. It was worthwhile in the sense that yourself and xxxx have put forwrad some excellent points about how futile torture is. The poll has stimulated debate, allowing everyone to express their views, if they so wish.

You did challenge me previously about what my views were. You asked a direct question and I did not dodge it

[Dadaist]

The results of your dungeon poll were fascinating. I just wish more of the torture posse would confess (geddit) exactly which tortures they would apply, and if they would be happy to do it themselves.

[Porty]

If you look at my post you'll see it purely concerns the second sentence, which is about the military. I composed it after your edit. There was no original reply of mine to edit.

If this is the case I do not understand what your issue is? If your response was composed in full knowledge of my edit. Why are you worried about observers thinking you are avoiding some points?

I posted and edited before anyone else replied, there was no need for me to mark my post as edited.

I followed precisely the same logic as the system , which only marks posts as edited, when they are edited after a response is made. It would be easy to write code that showed a post had been edited under any circumstance. There is no need, it is not the rules. I'm sticking by the system we all operate under, you are making up your own.

[Porty]

The results of your dungeon poll were fascinating. I just wish more of the torture posse would confess (geddit) exactly which tortures they would apply, and if they would be happy to do it themselves.

So not only would you not torture but you would not even ask the questions before expecting a full confession.

Why not ask the questions of the torture posse and give them a chance to answer? Rather than condeming them for avoiding unasked questions.

Pick say 5 terrible tortures and ask them to pick their favourite stating whether or not they would do it themselves? It will be a totally pointless excercise but at least you may be able to stop torturing yourself about it. (geddit)

[Dadaist]

If you look at my post you'll see it purely concerns the second sentence, which is about the military. I composed it after your edit. There was no original reply of mine to edit.

If this is the case I do not understand what your issue is? If your response was composed in full knowledge of my edit. Why are you worried about observers thinking you are avoiding some points?

I posted and edited before anyone else replied, there was no need for me to mark my post as edited.

I followed precisely the same logic as the system , which only marks posts as edited, when they are edited after a response is made. It would be easy to write code that showed a post had been edited under any circumstance. There is no need, it is not the rules. I'm sticking by the system we all operate under, you are making up your own.

"there's no need" -> your opinion

"it's not the rules" -> a statement of fact

"you are making up your own" -> untrue. if forum rules change it's debated at the mods' meeting and the updated rules posted for all to see.

Like I said, I'm just observing what happens and reporting what I see. Don't accuse me of being worried when I'm not. I'm just interested in the fact that it's possible to edit a post without anyone knowing it's been edited.

[Dadaist]

The results of your dungeon poll were fascinating. I just wish more of the torture posse would confess (geddit) exactly which tortures they would apply, and if they would be happy to do it themselves.

So not only would you not torture but you would not even ask the questions before expecting a full confession.

Why not ask the questions of the torture posse and give them a chance to answer? Rather than condeming them for avoiding unasked questions.

Pick say 5 terrible tortures and ask them to pick their favourite stating whether or not they would do it themselves? It will be a totally pointless excercise but at least you may be able to stop torturing yourself about it. (geddit)

I have already posed some basic question to the POL Spanish Inquisition Group and have not had an answer. So when I say I wish they would confess, it is to a previously posted question.

[Porty]

I'm just interested in the fact that it's possible to edit a post without anyone knowing it's been edited.

It is only possible because the operating system dictates that is the way it is. It has always been so.

It is not a moderators rule you are introducing. It is a Dadaist posting rule and it goes against the POL operating system.

[Dadaist]

I'm just interested in the fact that it's possible to edit a post without anyone knowing it's been edited.

It is only possible because the operating system dictates that is the way it is. It has always been so.

It is not a moderators rule you are introducing. It is a Dadaist posting rule and it goes against the POL operating system.

I am not introducing any rule at all, nor do I have the power to do so.

[Porty]

I am not introducing any rule at all, nor do I have the power to do so.

I am very pleased to hear that.

Why was my edit not marked by the system?

[Dadaist]

I am not introducing any rule at all, nor do I have the power to do so.

I am very pleased to hear that.

Why was my edit not marked by the system?

Nothing to do with me, Gov. I'm just a moderator.

[Porty]

Dada, can you please explain the following.

On the 10th of November 2005 at 15.03 (porty's computer time) you stated the following;

By the time I posted my reply you had edited your post - and without a clear indication that the original post had been edited, it could appear to an observer that a reply had failed to answer the full range of points stated by the "original" post.

At 4:22 pm on the same day and only 79 minutes later you gave an entirely different description of events,

Incorrect. I didn't say that this time round the post changed while I was composing my response - I said it as a reason in general for stating that you've edited a post.

In this instance, I hadn't even replied. I just happened to have seen :

a) your original post
b) your edited post with no indication of the edit
c) xxxx then post something under it, after which time there would have been an indication it had been edited

In the first statement you claim not to have seen the edited post prior to responding. In the second statement you quite categorically state that you did see it.

Can you talk us through it once again, whilst maintaining the integrity of both statements?

[ali]

yaaaawwwnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!

[Jackson Priest]

I know one way this could be sorted out, once and for all:

Chess Boxing.

[Porty]

yaaaawwwnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!

Look away then

[Dadaist]

Dada, can you please explain the following.

On the 10th of November 2005 at 15.03 (porty's computer time) you stated the following;

By the time I posted my reply you had edited your post - and without a clear indication that the original post had been edited, it could appear to an observer that a reply had failed to answer the full range of points stated by the "original" post.

At 4:22 pm on the same day and only 79 minutes later you gave an entirely different description of events,

Incorrect. I didn't say that this time round the post changed while I was composing my response - I said it as a reason in general for stating that you've edited a post.

In this instance, I hadn't even replied. I just happened to have seen :

a) your original post
b) your edited post with no indication of the edit
c) xxxx then post something under it, after which time there would have been an indication it had been edited

In the first statement you claim not to have seen the edited post prior to responding. In the second statement you quite categorically state that you did see it.

Can you talk us through it once again, whilst maintaining the integrity of both statements?

Can't remember now - I think the first one must be wrong and I was remembering a previous time it had happened. I *think*.

[Porty]

I think you are full of it but I'm bored rigid, lets move on.

[Porty]

Fair enough - I can't say I have an opinion on the difference between using an opinion poll and favouring one - the only one I've ever posted that I can remember was to wonder which shop Jesus would go to if he came back to Porty.

I have to do a little reprise on the opinion poll debate. One circumstance when opinion polls could be seen to be prime facie evidence is when the subject that needs to be evidenced is; public opinion. As in this case.

[Dadaist]

Thing is though, how then would I know you *did* edit the post?

Wow, I'm really confused now. The one I wrote at 4.22 was hurried just before I left the office so it might be that one which is wrong.

Either way, you're quite right - one of the two is rubbish, so I was therefore incorrect myself, wrong for saying you are incorrect if it's the second one, and on a holistic level grossly unqualified to try and point out minor cosmetic inconsistency in your posts where mine can become confused in the space of 79 minutes.

[Dadaist]

I think you are full of it but I'm bored rigid, lets move on.

Don't give up now!! I want the truth.

[Porty]

Thing is though, how then would I know you *did* edit the post?

Wow, I'm really confused now. The one I wrote at 4.22 was hurried just before I left the office so it might be that one which is wrong.

Either way, you're quite right - one of the two is rubbish, so I was therefore incorrect myself, wrong for saying you are incorrect if it's the second one, and on a holistic level grossly unqualified to try and point out minor cosmetic inconsistency in your posts where mine can become confused in the space of 79 minutes.

Whatever , just don't do it again buddy.