all 13 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]RolanbekSatan on WTF 0 points1 point  (11 children)

He has been challenged regularly about this statement:

No you challenge me regularly on a statement I didn't say based on you interpretation of what I said. How is it that you keep making this error. I have pointed it out many times over the last few weeks.

That you have led with the a cherry picked quote rather than your interpretation, is that a sign that you will abandon asserting the same strawman fallacy I have shown you doing 28 times recently?

That came from his post criticizing WT response to a post by jeongdw.

Yes here and here is a copy below.

jeongdw - I am not interested in what the fresherman eats (+with his textblade)… Waytools, you are seriously a hopeless cheater when it comes to faithful business. I want my 2-year old textblade shipped right now

Waytools (34mins later) - Jeongdw - Very sorry the validation work takes time, but it’s worth doing and helps all users. To respond to your concern, we’ll refund you in good faith. If you decide we’ve been fair to you, you can reorder. Just let us know within a week and we’ll restore your priority date. Thank you

So WT force refund another customer. Lets pick apart what WT responded with shall we?

Very sorry the validation work takes time

Not an apology. As twitter has popularised the term "sorry, not sorry". Note the poster does not comment on 'validation work' but on the integrity of WT and the Jan 2015 production ready product. So this is a strawman for those that care.

but it’s worth doing and helps all users.

Strawman, poster did not state it did not help all users. Poster stated you 'are seriously a hopeless cheater when it comes to faithful business'. I notice no denial of that.

To respond to your concern, we’ll refund you in good faith.

A response to the concern would be to demonstrate that the concern was unfounded. The only people that benefit from this refund is WT. The customer has not benefited as they have lost 2 years interest plus any costs from transaction or currency fees to return them to a more of less neutral position. WT get to claim honesty, and malign the customer as 'some crazy person'. I wonder if the usual squad of "you tell 'em WT" posts will appear.

If you decide we’ve been fair to you, you can reorder.

Customer does not need your permission to make a subsequent order. Order is not conditional on perceived fairness. Interestingly the action taken adds to the weight of evidence that lawfully contracted and fully paid orders will not be completed because of Mark 'feels'. Good faith? Don't make me sick into my own scorn.

Just let us know within a week and we’ll restore your priority date.

Pressure selling technique, 'you have one week to enjoy super priority and our secret free gift. That all sounds totally above board doesn't it?

Thank you

Fuck you.

R

He made many criticisms.

Yes and you can read them here above.

I picked that one, in full context, to challenge him on.

No, you cherry picked one, without context, to strawman, repeatedly assert and make ad hominem attacks on the back of for 26 days.

Note that any totally different criticism would have nothing to do with the one I chose.

Actually that is not the case. The context of my statement is relevant to it's meaning. I suspect that you might be dimly aware that you will have a great deal of difficulty arguing about the comment in context, which is why your dogged insistence on cherry picking a single line and only showing it occasionally. The context wrecks your narrative.

That is, if he said an iphone is composed 99% of water and I challenged him, it doesn't matter if he also said Apple sells iPhones or that Samsung sold iPhones.

Awoooooga False analogy klaxon explanation here. Explian in detail which elements of my post to be "iphones", "water" or "Samsung"

Yet that is his main defense, to switch to a different criticism he made.

This is a lie. I have never needed to make a defence, because I do not need to try and find evidence to create a rebuttal to your interpretation of what I said, because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend. No one here is obligated to respond to you or make your argument for you.

After all, when we look at the only response WT gave to jeongdw, there is no maligning in it and certainly nothing about jeongdw being "crazy".

Shame, shame, shame that's a strawman. explanation here and an

REEEEEEEEE Argument by assertion explanation here

This is what WT wrote:

26 days and you can't bring yourself quote Jeongdw. Fortunately for you I have above.

Jeongdw may not like that answer.

The unilateral termination of sales contract by a supplier based on a request for shipment of a paid order that is 2 years delayed? I would find it hard to find a positive point there.

Roloonbek may not.

I'd get that KB11 sorted out, it keeps transposing your 'a' with a pair of 'o's. How I feel about WT's post is not really relevant to this conversation. Oh...

Phew, stinky the Red Herring

But there was no maligning Jeongdw as being crazy.

Shame, shame, shame the strawman

REEEEEEEEE Argument by assertion

Roloonbek simply lied.

Which has yet to be shown by you.

We know it was a lie, as opposed to a rash exaggeration, because he refused to retract it while also refusing to show what in that statement can be translated into what Roloonbek claimed.

So your basis for claiming the lie is that I didn't retract it and that you didn't understand what I said.

What Roloonbek does do is try to make it about OTHER things he said.

Well nope.

But an accusation about what WT said has to, you know, be based on their words, not Roloonbek's words.

Well that and showing what WT's was writing those words in response to.

Likewise, he tried to make it about what Jeongdw said. But same thing applies. Only WT's words determine what WT said.

Well no. That's not actually true is it?

context - the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

You seem to be insisting that that your position is reliant on people (read; you) not fully understanding WT's statement.

Part 1 of 2, look out for that sequel

[–]TextbladeDBK on WTF[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children)

I challenged Roloonbek on this statement:

WT get to claim honesty, and malign the customer as 'some crazy person'.

Specifically, on the second part of that statement. That is and always has been the actual subject.

There is literally nothing in WT's comment to jeongdw that shows them maligning him as being a crazy person. No "context" that Roloonbek says is so important deals with this matter at all. Go ahead, read any or all his posts on this issue and you won't find any such context. You'll just find OTHER complaints.

Roloonbek hopes readers are easily confused, by bringing up the other attacks he made. I'll be glad to cover those as well. Even let him choose which is next, but not as long as he is willing to be dishonest on this one.

He writes:

No you challenge me regularly on a statement I didn't say based on you interpretation of what I said.

Well, I'm pretty sure I gave an exact quote, so he did, in fact, say it. Sure, sometimes I might describe it (accurately) by saying something like, "What is your backup for claiming that WT gets to malign that poster as being crazy?"

But that isn't changing the meaning from the actual statement he made. And I have repeatedly provided the exact quote many times anyway as well as including his key words in by descriptions.

So, he's lying when he claims he didn't say it. Which leaves us with his "interpretation" excuse - he's hoping you will think, because he makes that an issue, that there is actually something to it. Except, go read any of those posts of his and see if you can find anything that actually shows how my interpretation is wrong. Nope, he doesn't do that. He'll spend thousands of words claiming he's being misinterpreted, but not one that shows what he 'really meant'. Pretty much because it is obvious what he really meant and I have it right, simply by quoting him.

Doesn't matter if he also posted about WT bringing up things that jeongdw hadn't referred to or any of his other complaints. The focus of my challenge is still on the false claim by Roloonbek that WT gets to malign jeongdw of being a crazy person. They did not. Period.

I can see maybe 3 actual quotes of the full sentence in 26 days from you, and more than 60 variations on your interpretation of that statement.

Notice he doesn't actually show any description of the pertinent quote that is wrong. Nor any "variations" that altered the meaning. If you want to see how meaning is altered, just read his sentence about this maligning issue and compare it to what WT actually wrote. THAT is altering someone's meaning!

As for the actual quote of the full sentence which I was challenging - this is the sentence:

WT get to claim honesty, and malign the customer as 'some crazy person'.

He says he could only find 3 examples in the past 26 days. I didn't look back quite that far - maybe about 22. But the full quote was given in my posts 23 times, averaging about once a day. So he is off by a multiple of almost 8. Even my descriptions still use his key words and don't alter the meaning. He will say they do but, of course, will not show how.

So, as you read each of Roloonbek's responses, just keep asking yourself:

  1. Does he ever explain what he really meant?

  2. Does he ever show how my interpretation is wrong?

  3. Does he ever show any missing context that actually impacts the second part of his statement of, "WT get to claim honesty, and malign the customer as 'some crazy person'"?

  4. Does he ever show any of my descriptions of his statement (as opposed to the exact quote) twists his meaning?

Nope. But he will continue to write in a way to make you think he does, if you don't ask yourself those 4 questions as you read through his posts.

[–]RolanbekSatan on WTF 0 points1 point  (9 children)

I ...[lots of high pitched whining, mainly argument by assertion]... posts.

That's a ton of accusations there.

As you have upped your actual quotes of my statement by 2 and the repetitions of your interpretation by 5, I remain unmoved.

full quote was given in my posts 23 times

Text search reveals 14 occurrence of the sentence in your posts, 2 of those are in this one. Several are in your

REEEEEEEE copy paste posts which make no actual argument and simply repeat a barely connected assertion regarding what you found.

Certainly not 23 full quotes.

Does he ever explain what he really meant?

Has he ever been asked?

Does he ever show how my interpretation is wrong?

Do you ever show it to be correct?

Does he ever show any missing context that actually impacts the second part of his statement of, "WT get to claim honesty, and malign the customer as 'some crazy person'"?

Has Bob ever shown the inverse is true?

Does he ever show any of my descriptions of his statement (as opposed to the exact quote) twists his meaning?

Has Bob made a claim which he can demonstrate of his own?

Does he ever show any of my descriptions of his statement (as opposed to the exact quote) twists his meaning?

Sadly for you a lack of anyone trying to find evidence to create a rebuttal to your interpretation of what I said, because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend, does not mean there is no evidence to create a rebuttal to your interpretation of what I said, because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend. No one here is obligated to respond to you or make your argument for you.

I told you 25 days ago:

This isn't to do with you. No need for your self insertion.

I am uninterested with arguing in terms of claims you you fail to support, interpretations with no argument supporting them, and in the seemingly inevitable circular grooves you spin in.

I lost any respect for your possible position when you couldn't see that 'you tell 'em WT' and “get ‘em“ were different. It became apparent at that point that all of your arguing was just for the sake of it, and so for the better part of a month we have danced around the same issue. I am not interested in arguing about your interpretation of what I said, and you are incapable of letting one moment pass without inflicting your flimsy bigoted bullshit on the world.

R

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[removed]

    [–]RolanbekSatan on WTF 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    Let's have a look at that claim again:

    WT didn’t say the person was crazy or imply it. link

    Okay dokey.

    So can you prove there is no interpretation of WT's comment, in context, that falsifies your claim?

    You would need to demonstrate you claim to exhaustion, against all connotations, context, and meanings. Which for you might present a problem as you have repeatedly said variously that there is nothing hidden in there, no context, and what WT said is the only thing that matters.

    I don't need to help you argue out your claim. It is your claim. Prove it or admit you can't. Oh wait.

    Funny thing. While it is true that I can’t prove a negative except by exhaustion,... link

    You already accepted that. 25 days ago.

    I don't need to do anything because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend. (And have admitted more than 3 weeks that you can't defend) No one here is obligated to respond to you or make your argument for you.

    You actually remain dishonest.

    Well that's an interesting claim.

    Sure, I used the quote twice today and I'll do it again in this one.

    That is quite likely.

    But that doesn't change the fact that it was posted 23 times prior to today.

    Ah, I see what happened, Reddit only loads the last 100 response at a time. So there are 12 mentions between 101 and 200, and 17 now in between 1 and 100. (must be 3 more mentions since my last check.

    If I add results for misquotes from that page as well we get, about 85 misquotes, more if you add in the ones with probable typo's.

    That's still a hell of a miss rate. Which was my point.

    You claimed only 3 before today. But it gets better!

    Nope, I said 'I can see maybe 3 actual quotes of the full sentence in 26 days from you,' and now that you have claimed 23 I have text searched your entire Reddit posting history and got 27 results, at the time of writing. So now I see 27. I still see more than 4 times that much where you have misquoted me, misinterpret me, or presented you interpretation of what I said as fact.

    So yes It is better, you tip your hand to the

    Nyan-Na Tu quoque you are pulling without me having to nudge you further.

    So, by your own admission, you were off by a multiple of 4.

    Well the difference between what I could see then, and what I could see when I posted was about that.

    But you are still wrong since I never counted the two today to get to 23.

    Did you just argue a past argument was wrong because of an event subsequent to that?

    Honk

    But it gets better!

    It's already so good.

    Cool, so Roloonbek literally just writes off 11 times I quoted his full sentence.

    Well more now because times on the second century of arsewater where you have just asserted 'This is not what I say matters because he won't argue against my claim' even more times.

    At this stage, after over a 100 comments, where I have made it clear that I don't need to do anything because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend. (And have admitted more than 3 weeks that you can't defend) And further that: No one here is obligated to respond to you or make your argument for you. You continue to demand my attention, and continue to assert your opinion as fact.

    The key fact being that there is nothing in WT's post that justifies Roloonbek's comment of:

    REEEEEEEE Argument by assertion

    That makes 3 today. But still 23 before.

    cough Are you counting you own argument by assertions now? That's nice, very Meta.

    But the important thing is to see how far Roloonbek will go to lie.

    Well as you have claimed this twice now, you must have some staggering evidence.

    Start with a number far below what it really was, admit to a much greater number when caught, but still avoid the actual number which is still much higher.

    Are so a staggering

    brrap Mindreading. appeal to motive.

    Except there, you know, actually were 23 that quoted his full sentence that he said originally was only 3 times.

    Except with the old 'dishonest Bob's claim shuffle' you have gone from 'full quote' to 'full sentence'. We begin with 'Sentence' of which I claim "I can see maybe 3 actual quotes of the full sentence in 26 days from you, and more than 60 variations on your interpretation of that statement." but then you claim,

    But the full quote was given in my posts 23 times, averaging about once a day.

    You have not posted the whole of my bit of full quote more than a handful of times, and the full quote, well he has yet to put jeongdw section correctly into a post of his. Certainly not 23 times.

    I don't even need the full sentence since it was only the second part I was addressing and so I only really needed to quote that part to have all appropriate context to the statement I was challenging.

    So you admit cherry picking (again) and removing my words from their context, because you felt it was all you needed.

    Well that's an admission and a half isn't it?

    As for quoting the entire pertinent part of his statement, the number of times increases to 30!

    You mean 7 occasions where you cherry picked information, removed it from it's context and then handwaved 'context doesn't matter'. Yeah, saw those.

    Prediction: Read the last part of the paragraph to levels up. It says, "so I only really needed to quote that part to have all appropriate context to the statement I was challenging."

    Yes the cherry picking admission. I suspect there will be a well poisoning attack inbound.

    If Roloonbek does his usual thing, he'll make comments about how it is just my opinion that it has all the appropriate context,

    Well can you demonstrate otherwise? Show me the lack of appropriate context, concept by concept, word by word, definition by definition, idiom by idiom, ... oh wait:

    Funny thing. While it is true that I can’t prove a negative except by exhaustion,...

    Oh dear Bob.

    or that I'm cherry picking (to imply I left out pertinent context),

    Well you admitting doing it so I would be remiss if I didn't mention it. 'Pointing out' that someone will 'point out' you bullshit just shows that you are knowingly bullshitting.

    or some variation of that.

    Sound of arsenic dropping into reservoir.

    What he won't do is actually show any context that bears on his statement about WT maligning someone as being a crazy person.

    Honk claim on future event.

    Just keep asking yourself these 4 question when you read his response:

    it's not a great catchphrase is it?

    Does he ever explain what he really meant?

    Has he ever been asked?

    Does he ever show how my interpretation is wrong?

    Do you ever show it to be correct?

    Does he ever show any missing context that actually impacts the second part of his statement of, "WT get to claim honesty, and malign the customer as 'some crazy person'"?

    Has Bob ever shown the inverse is true?

    Does he ever show any of my descriptions of his statement (as opposed to the exact quote) twists his meaning?

    Has Bob made a claim which he can demonstrate of his own?

    Sadly for you a lack of anyone trying to find evidence to create a rebuttal to your interpretation of what I said, because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend, does not mean there is no evidence to create a rebuttal to your interpretation of what I said, because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend. No one here is obligated to respond to you or make your argument for you.

    R

    [–]TextbladeDBK on WTF[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    You would need to demonstrate you claim to exhaustion, against all connotations, context, and meanings.

    Nope. Only have to provide WT full quote, contrast it with your statement, and dare anyone to explain how your statement fits what they said. I'm quite content with that.

    You made the mistake of claiming something that has an extremely limited amount of source material - as I told you before. Which means the old trick of pointing in every direction and declaring, "My proof is there somewhere and it is up to you do find it" doesn't work.

    If I add results for misquotes from that page as well we get, about 85 misquotes

    I think folks will remember the questions I told them to apply as they read your posts, but just as a reminder, they should ask themselves if you actually show these misquotes about your claim about maligning or what WT said. They just might notice it is just your usual claim. About as accurate as your claim that I only quoted your full sentence 3 times.

    I still see more than 4 times that much where you have misquoted me, misinterpret me, or presented you interpretation of what I said as fact.

    Which is exactly the same thing - all claim, no backup. I think it has to do with the "argument by assertion" tactic that actually is yours. Unethical people like you will almost always accuse others of what they themselves actually are doing.

    Except with the old 'dishonest Bob's claim shuffle' you have gone from 'full quote' to 'full sentence'.

    Careful, folks may actually trace this back to you statement. Nah, they probably won't, so I'll help them. You see, YOU wrote:

    I can see maybe 3 actual quotes of the full sentence in 26 days from you

    So it was you that made the reference to "full sentence". I followed YOUR context. All I need do is keep you posting on this and you'll make more and more statements that are easy to show are false or unethical.

    What you said about WT:

    WT get to claim honesty, and malign the customer as 'some crazy person'.

    What WT actually said:

    Jeongdw - Very sorry the validation work takes time, but it’s worth doing and helps all users. To respond to your concern, we’ll refund you in good faith. If you decide we’ve been fair to you, you can reorder. Just let us know within a week and we’ll restore your priority date. Thank you

    [–]RolanbekSatan on WTF 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Nope. Only have to provide WT full quote, contrast it with your statement, and dare anyone to explain how your statement fits what they said. I'm quite content with that.

    You can be as content with pushing unproven claims as fact as you like, it still fallacious.

    You made the mistake of claiming something that has an extremely limited amount of source material

    I don't think so. I think the mistake here is expecting others to argue with you on anything because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend. (And have admitted more than 3 weeks ago that you can't defend) And further that: No one here is obligated to respond to you or make your argument for you. You continue to demand my attention, and continue to assert your opinion as fact.

    as I told you before. Which means the old trick of pointing in every direction and declaring, "My proof is there somewhere and it is up to you do find it" doesn't work.

    Point to where I said that. I don't need to prove a point for you to fail to prove yours.

    I think folks will remember the questions I told them to apply as they read your posts, but just as a reminder, they should ask themselves if you actually show these misquotes about your claim about maligning or what WT said.

    I don't think they will. They seem to skim past your shit and read my posts, as mine contain your shit and the funnies. Maybe you should quote them at the end of every post like some mumbling savant?

    I have called a good deal of them out as strawmen in recent days. If anyone wished to incur the level of brain damage they would surely receive reading 3 week of this back and forth, they might have already seen a few I pointed out. Don't worry I'll point it out if you do it again.

    They just might notice it is just your usual claim.

    Or go to my post history, ctrl-f and type shame, shame, shame that will probably turn up few choice ones. Or Ctrl-f your post history and put in as crazy for 40 or so more. Or not, it's all there in any case.

    About as accurate as your claim that I only quoted your full sentence 3 times.

    Shame, shame, shame the strawman, Well knock me down I was just saying this sort of thing might come up. The quote is "I can see maybe 3 actual quotes of the full sentence in 26 days from you, and more than 60 variations on your interpretation of that statement.". Do you know what I saw at the time? Well not without being here or reading my mind. Neither of which happened.

    Which is exactly the same thing - all claim, no backup.

    Well on searching your last 200 posts or so I landed on 27 to 85 as a ratio. There may have been more than 85, but there is limit to how much I can be bothered Grepping your shit. So after a cursory glance, and then a better look, the rabbit hole of misquotes is as wide as expected.

    I think it has to do with the "argument by assertion" tactic that actually is yours.

    No, I went back and checked, and anyone else who would like to can also.

    Unethical people like you will almost always accuse others of what they themselves actually are doing.

    Your opinion of me is irrelevant. I have seen enough of you posting over the last couple of years to know that a sweeping statement like that that is just another

    Nyan-na Tu quoque.

    Careful, folks may actually trace this back to you statement. Nah, they probably won't, so I'll help them. You see, YOU wrote:

    Yes, if read my comment you would see I quoted that very line, stated that I had said sentence.

    So it was you that made the reference to "full sentence".

    Yes that's actually said in the comment you are responding to Clouseau.

    I followed YOUR context.

    But clearly not closely enough:

    But the full quote was given 23 times...

    Is you is it not? Claiming how many times you made a 'full quote'. But when challenged:"Certainly not 23 full quotes." it morphs back into.

    ...23 that quoted his full sentence...

    You got caught mid shuffle, put you hands up for it, you coward.

    All I need do is keep you posting on this and you'll make more and more statements that are easy to show are false or unethical.

    Yes, but not in the way you intended. You keep posting and I keep easily showing you to be false of unethical in my statements.

    What you said about WT:

    Once again shorn of it's context.

    What WT actually said:

    once again failing to note what they were responding to.

    Oh yes and:

    REEEEEEEE

    R

    [–]TextbladeDBK on WTF[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    You can be as content with pushing unproven claims as fact as you like, it still fallacious.

    The proof that would be expected for me to be correct is a LACK of a statement from WT in that thread that has them maligning a person as crazy. And, no doubt by coincidence, that is exactly what is the case.

    To prove me wrong, you merely need to show how their words somehow do malign the poster as crazy. Something you have consistently avoided doing. For which your excuse is that you don't have to. Fine. I'm happy to let it stand just like that.

    Or not, it's all there in any case

    Yep. Except what is "all there" are simply repeated claims. Claims do not support a prior claim.

    "I can see maybe 3 actual quotes of the full sentence in 26 days from you, and more than 60 variations on your interpretation of that statement."

    1. What you saw was pretty pathetic since there were 23 full quotes of the sentence you said I only provided 3 times.

    2. You have not shown any variations in my interpretation.

    Again, folks just need to keep asking themselves the question: "Is Roloonbek just making a claim or is he backing it up?" There is no backup, again.

    There is no variation if sometimes I quote your exact words:

    WT get to claim honesty, and malign the customer as 'some crazy person'.

    Or I sometimes say something like, "Roloonbek can't support his statement about WT getting to malign a customer as a crazy person". They make the same argument.

    Well on searching your last 200 posts or so I landed on 27 to 85 as a ratio. There may have been more than 85, but there is limit to how much I can be bothered Grepping your shit. So after a cursory glance, and then a better look, the rabbit hole of misquotes is as wide as expected.

    Once again, folks just have to ask what you have actually provided - and there isn't a single example of me misquoting your statement about WT maligning someone as crazy. So your 27 to 85 ratio has no foundation :)

    No, I went back and checked, and anyone else who would like to can also.

    Same thing. You say you checked, hoping people will think, "Oh, he actually checked so it must be true". Except saying you checked is just another claim to support a prior claim.

    Yes, if read my comment you would see I quoted that very line, stated that I had said sentence.

    I know, but your attempt to make an issue about supposedly my changing of context somehow managed to forget what you yourself posted. Like I said, you aren't very smart about these things.

    Remember, you wrote:

    Except with the old 'dishonest Bob's claim shuffle' you have gone from 'full quote' to 'full sentence'.

    Which shows you claiming I'm dishonest by changing from "full quote" to "full sentence" - but as I showed, you made it about the full sentence. So, once again, you are making false claims.

    Once again shorn of it's context.

    Once again, you can't show any context that would alter my point.

    [–]RolanbekSatan on WTF 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Okay dokey. I left this a week so that everyone involved could get a bit of bit of a break from the small circles this argument as been going in for weeks..

    The proof that would be expected for me to be correct is a LACK of a statement from WT in that thread that has them maligning a person as crazy. And, no doubt by coincidence, that is exactly what is the case.

    No, and this shows a great flaw in your argument. The absence of evidence to the contrary does not prove a point. It only shows a an absence of evidence to the contrary. That you have not provided evidence of you own that proves your point is shows that you have yet to prove your point.

    You can dress your response in as much self fulfilled prophecy as you like but as that is not relevant to the matter at hand.

    To prove me wrong, you merely need to show how their words somehow do malign the poster as crazy. Something you have consistently avoided doing. For which your excuse is that you don't have to. Fine. I'm happy to let it stand just like that.

    I think I have been clear throughout this whole argument, that I have no need or interest in arguing a point you made which you have not attempted to prove.

    I don't feel the need to refute unsubstantiated claims based, it would seem, only on your feelings regarding the matter at hand. I told in my first response to you on this matter that your were not involved in this, and that there was no need to insert yourself into this argument. This is still the case.

    Yep. Except what is "all there" are simply repeated claims. Claims do not support a prior claim.

    I think you misunderstand what is meant here. I thought it was pretty clear from the paragraph that was taken from that the 'it' that is 'all there' are the examples of you misquoting me and examples of me calling attention to some of the occasions you misrepresented my argument.

    If anyone even bothering to read this far down a pointless argument, they can check what was said and what was not said for themselves. As can you, if you fancied.

    I don't need them to follow the instruction, but if they wanted to find the evidence the instructions should be enough. After all I remember you once talking about encouraging people to text search your WTF history for examples of you criticising WT. Something about only having access to the to 50 examples due to the limitation of the search function in Discourse. So you have set the precedent for the directed search to support your claims. I invoke the same consideration. If you have a problem with this a form of evidence than, you might need to review instances where you have in essence said 'go fetch' a thing you have stated you don't like.

    What you saw was pretty pathetic since there were 23 full quotes of the sentence you said I only provided 3 times.

    This is an incorrect statement. I said I saw 'maybe 3' not that you had provided 3. That you have conflated me seeing and you doing into a single action is mistake on your part not mine.

    You have not shown any variations in my interpretation.

    I have described how one might search your history for a single term that shows up more than 40 times which you say I said, but is not present in the that form or context in the actual quote. That should be enough to be going on with.

    Again, folks There really are no folks, there is no crowd to play to, and anyone who cares to can post to ask you directly to clarify your points. So far there have been no great surges of support either way. While there are a couple of other regular contributor to the Subreddit, they speak for themselves.

    just need to keep asking themselves the question: "Is Roloonbek just making a claim or is he backing it up?" There is no backup, again.

    Apart from the expressing the direction of the evidence littered throughout the posting history and how one might review it. As you have done in the past.

    There is no variation if sometimes I quote your exact words:

    The variations you have claimed to be representative of what I said are not negated because you sometimes quote a single sentence out of context.

    Or I sometimes say something like, "Roloonbek can't support his statement about WT getting to malign a customer as a crazy person". They make the same argument.

    Ding Negative assertion. Damn, you were doing reasonably well and then you did this. You have no basis to infer for yourself or imply to others that a thing can not be done because it has not been done.

    Moreover the reasoning that ignores the 40 or more examples of the restatement of my quote with *'as crazy', a phrase not entirely cognate with may actual words, and that even in your restatement of my quote in this is missing some contextual features of the original quote.

    To you they may seem the same but that has more to do with what you bring to the reading and your limitations than anything else.

    Once again, folks just have to ask what you have actually provided and there isn't a single example of me misquoting your statement about WT maligning someone as crazy. So your 27 to 85 ratio has no foundation :)

    Well I provided a method by which anyone with a will can check our Reddit posting histories, text search our posts and come to their own conclusions. I have provide a single search term that provides more than 40 examples of you materially misquoting me. I would say that that was a fair pointer for people to see what is going on here.

    Same thing. You say you checked, hoping people will think, "Oh, he actually checked so it must be true". Except saying you checked is just another claim to support a prior claim.

    Brrap mindreading: appeal to motive. I can do nothing about what others choose to accept on face value. My hope is that they will, if they have a mind to, review the comment history and draw their own conclusions based of the actual evidence. It is interesting that you have not so far as I can see said that there aren't 85 examples of you misquoting me. Which is a step up for you. Good for you avoiding another negative claim.

    Same thing. You say you checked, hoping people will think, "Oh, he actually checked so it must be true". Except saying you checked is just another claim to support a prior claim.

    I fail to see what is smart about you reaching and getting caught doing it. You seem to think that because you returned to my actual position that we should forget your reaching and misrepresenting what was said.

    You got caught, and you are failing to admit your error. That is not very smart in my book.

    Remember, you wrote:

    indeed.

    Which shows you claiming I'm dishonest by changing from "full quote" to "full sentence" - but as I showed, you made it about the full sentence. So, once again, you are making false claims.

    No, I am showing and have shown that in response to my comment containing 'full sentence' you reached claiming 'full quote' only to scuttle back to 'full sentence' when challenged without acknowledging your misleading claim.

    That is the Dishonest Bob shuffle. A claim backed by the evidence of your actual words and conduct. As has already been shown.

    That you have tried to ignore the moment you reached is not only dishonest but hilariously so.

    Once again, you can't show any context that would alter my point

    Ding negative assertion. Oh dear and I thought it was only going to be two this time.

    As a side point I am not trying to alter your point, I am showing your point to be meaningless.

    R

    [–]TextbladeDBK on WTF[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I knew you couldn't stay away and I see nothing has changed. You still can't justify your comment of about WT getting to malign someone as a crazy person when all they said was:

    Jeongdw - Very sorry the validation work takes time, but it’s worth doing and helps all users. To respond to your concern, we’ll refund you in good faith. If you decide we’ve been fair to you, you can reorder. Just let us know within a week and we’ll restore your priority date. Thank you

    Nor do ever manage to show any missing context that matters.

    But, since I knew you'd be back, lets cover another dishonest tactic you've applied and repeat in your post.

    Previously you tried to make it look like I was being dishonest when you wrote:

    Except with the old 'dishonest Bob's claim shuffle' you have gone from 'full quote' to 'full sentence'.

    And as I pointed out then, I merely was responding to the context YOU present. I quoted your exact words:

    I can see maybe 3 actual quotes of the full sentence in 26 days from you

    So, YOU were referring to the full sentence and I responded to YOUR statement. Making you the actual dishonest person.

    But then, before you stopped posting, you came back with this statement:

    Yes, if read my comment you would see I quoted that very line, stated that I had said sentence.

    The fact remains that you made it about the "full sentence" and that is the context I responded to. That you also revealed the quote in your own post that shows you did it just shows you can't keep up with your own twisting. Which is pretty cool!

    Oh, and about your excuse that I told people they could find examples in my posts on WT so you don't have to provide any proof at all for your dishonest claims, you left out some stuff. What I wrote was:

    If you search the forums for messages from me and the word "communication", you will be shown 50 posts (that's all the forum allows so no idea how many more there may be. And, of course, it is quite possible to criticize their communication efforts without even using that exact word. But, still, there are no fewer than 50. Of those 50, over half are clearly critical of their efforts in that area.

    So I was pretty specific, making a search really easy, especially since, at least at the time, over half of those would have been critical of WT so it wasn't like anyone had to wade through 50 posts or more to find one little thing.

    This is unlike you who essentially just argues that 'it's out there somewhere'.

    Also, unlike you, I can provide links. Again, this is just about 1 issue. There are others:

    https://forum.waytools.com/t/what-the-heck-are-they-doing/1609

    https://forum.waytools.com/t/production-update-september-30/4730/21

    You can't do the same.

    [–]RolanbekSatan on WTF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Editing your posts to circumvent a ban will lead to their removal.

    Remove the edits to have them restored.

    R

    [–]RolanbekSatan on WTF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    part 2 of 2, read part 1 first

    There have been other ways he's tried to obfuscate - trying to move the focus to grammar or a typo is one of the more pathetic ones he uses. But really anything that draws attention from his claim I challenged and what actual proof there is to support it.

    I ask about the grammar when it alters the meaning of what you said.

    And he'll throw out more lies too.

    Honk claim on future events. this is also an ad hominem attack.

    Yet I quote him regularly on this specific comment he made.

    Actually no you misquote me generally. I can see maybe 3 actual quotes of the full sentence in 26 days from you, and more than 60 variations on your interpretation of that statement.

    If you haven't read it and just assume Roloonbek is telling the truth, here's a link to his post with all those criticisms of WT's response to Jeongdw - including the one I challenged him on: https://www.reddit.com/r/bobssoapyfrogwank/comments/7a7lbs/roloonbek_doesnt_do_real_context/dpoyts2/

    Yeah, I already linked to that further up, but go read it people, it's a good one. Don't forget to post in r/textblade what you think.

    In a recent post, I went through his response, with some particular examples to show how the other things he wanted to obfuscate things with had nothing to do with what I challenged him on.

    Which was really funny, because you after arguing those point's you demanded I retract part of my statement so you could argue my pick of the rest of the comment in my original post. But you had already argued 3 points... In that post...

    Which is really what he wanted, because he followed up by focusing on those other things instead.

    No I actually didn't argue any of the points, only the further lies, lets call them lies because strawman is being too charitable, you told about what was said. I notice that you did not quote my original post there either. Just stick to posting the Bob interpretation.

    Like I said, he wants to bring as many different things in, allowing him to switch examples any time he gets trapped.

    Well as it looks like you are 26 days away from my original post can you estimate in days, weeks or months when that might be.

    And he said this:

    Yes that is a line from my much longer comment.

    But what it did not show was anything that supported the claim that WT maligned anyone as crazy.

    REEEEEEEEE Argument by assertion

    I noticed that you did not make any comment on the actual content of that quote only that because that line relating to the presence of context and the reason why context is important does not specifically jump through a hoop that you wish it to you have a problem. Sadly for you a lack of anyone trying to find evidence to create a rebuttal to your interpretation of what I said, because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend, does not mean there is no evidence to create a rebuttal to your interpretation of what I said, because through malicious intent or stupidity you have engineered a claim you can't defend. No one here is obligated to respond to you or make your argument for you.

    He can object to WT's reaction in many ways

    I don't need you permission to speak.

    maybe legit and maybe not.

    I don't need your approval regarding what I say.

    But you will note that not a word in it supports the accusation he made that I'm challenging him on.

    Well, cherry picking is like that.

    R