Everipeidia blockchain migration

[CrowsNest]

Classic Andrew, always making assumptions about what I seem to think.

I've been clear as to what I think. Your post was intellectually dishonest. Fifty posts of you dancing around this basic fact, something people can see with their own eyes, even claiming it is bullying to point it out, is what will be detrimental to the forum. We don't need people like that. But you will do it, because you always assume people are thick, and will be somehow persuaded by what you write, simply because you write it.

Just have the guts to defend what you said and stop wasting everyone's time wittering on about what you think I said/feel/believe, as if it somehow serves that same purpose. Your evident dishonesty renders those views worthless before you even post them. Nobody needs to spend a second worrying if what you say about me might be true, all that matters is they appear to only be posted to distract everyone from the real issue here. You posted utter crap, and can't/won't defend it, nor have you the integrity to retract it. That makes you worse than what I originally called you.

[AndrewForson]

Classic Andrew, always making assumptions about what I seem to think.

I've been clear as to what I think. Your post was intellectually dishonest. Fifty posts of you dancing around this basic fact, something people can see with their own eyes, even claiming it is bullying to point it out, is what will be detrimental to the forum. We don't need people like that. But you will do it, because you always assume people are thick, and will be somehow persuaded by what you write, simply because you write it.

Just have the guts to defend what you said and stop wasting everyone's time wittering on about what you think I said/feel/believe, as if it somehow serves that same purpose. Your evident dishonesty renders those views worthless before you even post them. Nobody needs to spend a second worrying if what you say about me might be true, all that matters is they appear to only be posted to distract everyone from the real issue here. You posted utter crap, and can't/won't defend it, nor have you the integrity to retract it. That makes you worse than what I originally called you.

Ah, polite abuse now. Calmed down a little, I suppose. You still need to work on that issuing orders to all and sundry thing, though.

Pro tip: accusations of dishonesty work best when supporting by some sort of case. You know, evidence, argument, that sort of thing. Otherwise people might come to the conclusion that your accusation of dishonesty are, well, dishonest.

Grade:C+. Coherent but unsupported by any sort of evidence or reasoning.

[CrowsNest]

Pro tip: accusations of dishonesty work best when supporting by some sort of case. You know, evidence, argument, that sort of thing. Otherwise people might come to the conclusion that your accusation of dishonesty are, well, dishonest.

The first and second lines of your post are verifiably untrue. Just pure garbage. That this is the issue was easily deduced from what I wrote and the preceding posts. But hey, if you need it spelled out for you before you even begin to reflect, it's your funeral. The rest was similarly flawed, but addressing that would require you to be able to discuss things you say without diversion, obfuscation or other general nonsense. That is how you respect a forum.

[AndrewForson]

Pro tip: accusations of dishonesty work best when supporting by some sort of case. You know, evidence, argument, that sort of thing. Otherwise people might come to the conclusion that your accusation of dishonesty are, well, dishonest.

The first and second lines of your post are verifiably untrue. Just pure garbage. That this is the issue was easily deduced from what I wrote and the preceding posts. But hey, if you need it spelled out for you before you even begin to reflect, it's your funeral. The rest was similarly flawed, but addressing that would require you to be able to discuss things you say without diversion, obfuscation or other general nonsense. That is how you respect a forum.

I'm not really interested personally in your spelling out anything about my posts, since as far as I'm concerned you comment on what I say only in order to fling around unsupported false accusations, insults and abuse. I'll grade it for you, since you're actually not nearly so good at it as you think you are. But if you were actually interested in having other people understand whatever it is you're trying to say about my posts, then yes, by all means spell it out for them.

In case you're unfamiliar with the format it would go something like this: A said "B" (link) but actually this is not correct. In fact "C" is true, and we know this because of D (link/source), E (link/source), ... .

Try to avoid the format: A is such a liar, because everything he says is a lie, and look at his posts which are all lies, because he's a liar. It isn't very convincing.

Grade: C. No specifics, no evidence. Try getting a grown-up to help you with something this hard.

[AndrewForson]

Incidentally, would anyone else like to discuss Everipedia? Here or elsewhere? Because in the absence of anyone bringing forward some facts or points about this or anything else vaguely related to Wikipedia or Wikipedia criticism for discussion in this thread, it's not clear what wider purpose is being served by my attempting to explain the basic points of argumentation to one specific participant.

[CrowsNest]

I'll grade it for you, since you're actually not nearly so good at it as you think you are.

I've spelt it out enough for even the most casual observer to see it for what it was. It is clear now you have no intention of defending or even justifying this lie, but you also lack the integrity to acknowledge it was a lie. For as long as you keep doing things which are worthy of insult, I'll keep insulting you. You sorry sack of shit.

Incidentally, would anyone else like to discuss Everipedia? Here or elsewhere? Because in the absence of anyone bringing forward some facts or points about this or anything else vaguely related to Wikipedia or Wikipedia criticism for discussion in this thread, it's not clear what wider purpose is being served by my attempting to explain the basic points of argumentation to one specific participant.

There is no point in anyone discussing Everipedia with you, because you see nothing wrong with lying about it. It is laughable you even dare to cast yourself as being interested in Wikipedia criticism, when you do something that a Wikipedian loving scumbag like Beeblebrox would consider the height of good argumentation.

[AndrewForson]

I've spelt it out enough for even the most casual observer to see it for what it was. It is clear now you have no intention of defending or even justifying this lie, but you also lack the integrity to acknowledge it was a lie. For as long as you keep doing things which are worthy of insult, I'll keep insulting you. You sorry sack of shit.

There is no point in anyone discussing Everipedia with you, because you see nothing wrong with lying about it. It is laughable you even dare to cast yourself as being interested in Wikipedia criticism, when you do something that a Wikipedian loving scumbag like Beeblebrox would consider the height of good argumentation.

Oh dear, just when things were looking up, all the way back to square one.

Grade: F. Nil satis.

[ericbarbour]

Give it a rest pls.

[Paul Bedson]

Can I try and drag this thread back on topic by awarding Everipedia a B- in Levantine Archaeology in comparison to Wikipedia, who I award a D+.

Anyone else wanna help improve our grades? What do you teach Andy? Apart from arguing?

[sashi]

He's sort of a born-again HTD holy-woman. I'd bet there's some rhetoric/logic in the mix somewhere. Also some praxis.

Anyway, figuring out cartoon atman wasn't my first goal in coming here.

I'm due for some dumbing down tomorrow. I guess I'm going to lose 8302 IQ points. That's really going to put me in negative terrain.

Will my IQ be cyrogenically frozen for a while or is it consigned to the dustbins of horsity?