War Room Lounge v97: Jesus Christ, you're even pedantic with foreplay.

[Sketch]

Again, you were wrong about that one, but that's a small matter in the larger issue of your dishonest smear campaign (trying to invalidate whatever arguments I make not by referencing any potential flaws in them but by writing me off as some kind of fanatic).



I note a conspicuous lack of any substantive response here. You were caught lying twice in this thread, and your response was to accuse me of being generally dishonest with no reference to anything that can be examined. Going full Anung (or Trump) with that stuff.

@Anung Un Rama

 

[Trotsky]

This is the exchange you're referring to:





If the claim that my current position (as reflected in that post) is revisionism, which was the clear implication, the posts I provided of me saying the same thing in 2015 and 2016 should be regarded as definitive proof that Hockey was wrong. But again, you defend it because you think it's easier to just lie about me than to address points that I make.

Hockey was probably wrong in saying "I don't think you said anything in favor of Bernie other than 'He'd be better than Trump'". I did not endorse that. I did say it was reasonable for him to say you were/are the board's most prominent Clinton supporter, and that you calling him a moron and attacking him personally (instead of, you know, disagreeing with his characterization) was dirt bag behavior toward a non-dirt bag poster.

 

[Gregolian]

I'm confident in the passion of their designers (in every area) and super confident in the Elder Scrolls itself as a setting. What I'm not confident in is all of the back-end bullshit from corporate, which sounds ridiculous to say considering what Bethesda had always been until after the success of FO3 (and Skyrim of course).

FO4 was in and of itself a damn fine game, it just wasn't really a Fallout game. imo. Choice didn't matter, voiced protagonist, and main quest on rocket rails. All fully anti-Fallout. The MQ itself was perfectly fine though, even a bit compelling. FO76 does not exist, kind of like your brother whose birth certificate is still in that little drawer but nobody ever talks about him.

It's even hard for me to imagine how they might possibly fuck up TES. But who knows...

I don't know about Doom and Wolfenstein and stuff, because I'm not into those kinds of games, but I believe you lol.

True enough.

Wolfenstein went from stuff like this that had legitimate tension:


You are the Nazi parties #1 terrorist, auditioning as an actor to play their propaganda movie version of you, in front of Hitler.

To this:


THEY TRIED TO MAKE IT A DESTINY/BORDERLANDS LOOTER SHOOTER WITH GOD AWFUL CHARACTERS!

 

[Sketch]

I'm a sucker for scifi. It's funny how much the acting improved over the seasons though.
I still think of Frank Mir as Arnold Rimmer beefed up.

LOL they do look a like now that you point it out. Same hair.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hockey was wrong in saying "I don't think you said anything in favor of Bernie other than 'He'd be better than Trump'". I did not endorse that. I did say it was reasonable for him to say you were/are the board's most prominent Clinton supporter, and that you calling him a moron and attacking him personally (instead of, you know, disagreeing with his characterization) was dirt bag behavior toward a non-dirt bag poster.

Strongly disagree with your assertion that Hockey is not a dirtbag. He does the same thing you do, which is to make a general accusation of some kind of flaw while providing no specific examples. It then becomes impossible to respond to except to call out the obvious bad faith. And you're still misrepresenting his post, which was very clearly implying revisionism when I was simply expressing the same view that I did during the campaign (and, again, I provided evidence from the period, and you could find a lot more). And as far as prominence goes, it's like the Mick/ thing. Once someone makes the accusation, you think that you can detach yourself from it by citing previous accusers, and that's doubly dishonest here because *you* using a different name were one of the most prominent of those accusers.

 

[TeTe]

Was there really anything worth watching besides married with children or mash?

The intro to MASH is enough to make you want to walk in front of a bus

 

[TeTe]

Are we posting in good faith today guys?

 

[Ruprecht]

LOL they do look a like now that you point it out. Same hair.

It's the face that I think makes them comparable. Mostly they have an identical smug look (which they both wear pretty damn frequently).

 

[Sketch]

Are we posting in good faith today guys?

@good-faith poster

 

[Falsedawn]

Are we posting in good faith today guys?

*looks at list of threads*

 

[Sketch]

Strongly disagree with your assertion that Hockey is not a dirtbag. He does the same thing you do, which is to make a general accusation of some kind of flaw while providing no specific examples. It then becomes impossible to respond to except to call out the obvious bad faith. And you're still misrepresenting his post, which was very clearly implying revisionism when I was simply expressing the same view that I did during the campaign (and, again, I provided evidence from the period, and you could find a lot more). And as far as prominence goes, it's like the Mick/ thing. Once someone makes the accusation, you think that you can detach yourself from it by citing previous accusers, and that's doubly dishonest here because *you* using a different name were one of the most prominent of those accusers.

@HockeyBjj

 

[HereticBD]

Are we posting in good faith today guys?

I'm a neutral faith kind of poster, myself.

 

[Trotsky]

Strongly disagree with your assertion that Hockey is not a dirtbag.

I think most of the forum - left and right, most likely - will side with Hockey being a much less toxic and mean-spirited person than you. Despite my agreeing with him on few things, he's never engaged in personal attacks, let alone particularly vicious ones. You, in response to a mere statement of objective fact that didn't cater to your delusions, did just that despite the fact that we agree on 90% of things. Because that's what you do. Even in super-minor disagreements in the past in which you made a harmless factual error, you felt the need to immediately go low and condescend.

He does the same thing you do, which is to make a general accusation of some kind of flaw while providing no specific examples. It then becomes impossible to respond to except to call out the obvious bad faith. And you're still misrepresenting his post, which was very clearly implying revisionism when I was simply expressing the same view that I did during the campaign (and, again, I provided evidence from the period, and you could find a lot more). And as far as prominence goes, it's like the Mick/ thing. Once someone makes the accusation, you think that you can detach yourself from it by citing previous accusers, and that's doubly dishonest here because *you* using a different name were one of the most prominent of those accusers.

I tend to be glad that you think Clinton support is itself a flaw, but I don't think that was a premise of his statement of fact that you were the forum's most prominent Clinton supporter. And you jumping on me for defending him and then trying to pathetically tie me to an old account that you had a rivalry with speaks to your character.

 

[Sara]

The intro to MASH is enough to make you want to walk in front of a bus

I don’t know I was trying to think of old tv shows that haven’t been named. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a full episode of any old shows except married with children and Roseanne

 

[Gregolian]

*looks at list of threads*

That moment when searching for your spare Geissele trigger and you find:
- The electronic earpro you thought you lost and had recently purchased a replacement for
- Your InForce weapon lights both the OG APL and their new rifle one
- Shooting glasses
- Your Faceshields
- and the trigger


Now if Only I had spare 123A batteries.

 

[Gregolian]

I think most of the forum - left and right, most likely - will side with Hockey being a much less toxic and mean-spirited person than you. Despite my agreeing with him on few things, he's never engaged in personal attacks, let alone particularly vicious ones. You, in response to a mere statement of objective fact that didn't cater to your delusions, did just that despite the fact that we agree on 90% of things. Because that's what you do. Even in super-minor disagreements in the past in which you made a harmless factual error, you felt the need to immediately go low and condescend.

@HockeyBjj is still a dirty disgusting Minnesota Wild and Minnesota Vikings fan though.

 

[Fawlty]

he's never engaged in personal attacks

If we're going to be totally honest, it's because he's a pussy. He signs on to all kinds of this shit. You've noticed that, too.

 

[HereticBD]

I don’t know I was trying to think of old tv shows that haven’t been named. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a full episode of any old shows except married with children and Roseanne

"Fresh Prince" holds up pretty good.

 

[Sara]

"Fresh Prince" holds up pretty good.

Was that before 1990?

 

[Trotsky]

If we're going to be totally honest, it's because he's a pussy. He signs on to all kinds of this shit. You've noticed that, too.

That Hockey is a pussy? I don't think that's a criticism that holds much weight on a message board tbh. To be sure, someone could say that I am a pussy for my continued deference and tip-toeing to JVS and my declining to attack you outright, instead asking you "is this a joke or...?", when you came at me with personal attacks in his defense.

I have noticed that Hockey has liked some really shitty posts that he would not himself make. Don't see it as often as I used to and I think it genuinely reflects a different set of values on liking content and whether that signifies an endorsement of it. Beyond that, you'll need to expound a little bit on what you are wanting me to agree to.