Twimfanboy: Bells On!
Posted in Blogosphere, Debate on | 1 minute | 5 Comments →
My dedicated hater twimfanboy has made the following statement:
If and when you can ever be ‘legitimately engaged’, cl, I’ll be there with bells on.
Of course, twimfanboy arbitrarily declared that the topic in question didn’t “cut the mustard,” so this thread is dedicated to any topic of twimfanboy’s choice. You, dear readers, can decide whether the engagement is legitimate or not (provided twimfanboy accepts the gauntlet he threw out).
twimfanboy
says...Unfortunately, you’ve missed the mark yet again. It’s not the topic that doesn’t ‘cut the mustard’, but your response to my post in your comment #1. It’s all vacuous, and utterly beside the point. How can you be legitimately engaged when you’re so engrossed in being one-up that you always miss the substance of peoples’ remarks? And now with this post, you’re merely interested in debating ANYTHING I bring up…LOLOL! Don’t you see how that reveals your true motivations here like nothing I or others might say? You want to contend with me about something, ANYTHING, just for the chance to show that you’re smarter than me. Gawd!
Oh well, another topic for my blog, perhaps. Thanks!
cl
says...twimfanboy,
Ah, I see. How convenient!
Oh, “always,” eh? That quantifier seems a bit out of scope but I can forgive you. Then, enlighten me. What was the “substance” of your remark?
You’re psycho-analyzing again (and in fact this is decent evidence suggesting you are Jim Crawford and not somebody impersonating Jim Crawford, because for Jim Crawford it was often about attributing motive and acting as if that assumed motive was established fact). Anyways, no, I don’t want to “contend” with you just to prove I’m smarter than you. I want to contend with you so I can directly confront your false claims about me, but you won’t even grant me that chance. And I’m the disingenuous one!
Whatever. See what you want. Never look back!
cl
says...Well, it turns out twimfanboy is confused. First, he says, “If and when you can ever be ‘legitimately engaged’, cl, I’ll be there with bells on.” Alright! I definitely leaped at that! Alas, when pressed on the matter—when I specifically asked him to discuss his claims that I’m a “blatant liar” among other things—he waffled, saying, “…thanks anyway. I’ve been to that dry well one too many times.” But after that, on his own blog, he fired off a screed quicker than lickety-split, and, much to my confusion, it seems he’s changed his mind yet again. He writes, bold mine,
Come clean? I admitted that I sockpuppeted Team Scarlet A the very same day I started sockpuppeting Team Scarlet A, three years ago, but I still get no respect. Is twimfanboy not a man of his word? As for, “viable refutation” that twimfanboy’s claims are illogical and false, that’s quite easy to demonstrate as evidenced by this question, upon which I’ll elaborate here. First, let’s take a look at twimfanboy’s “logic” :
Unfortunately, this is what happens when the technology-challenged try drawing conclusions that require a rudimentary understanding of technology. Due to his ignorance about IP addresses and proxies, combined with the human tendency to see what confirms one’s preconceived notions, twimfanboy mistakenly thinks a concession to using different IP addresses falsifies a claim that one has never commented via proxy (to this day, I still have never commented by proxy). Worse, instead of educate himself on the matter, correct his own ignorance and apologize for libeling me, he simply prefers to wallow in the mud and deny and all missteps.
I believe twimfanboy is beyond rational reach here, but let’s see how he responds.
George Henry Shaft
says...So he wants to engage in a debate, calls you a coward for not doing so, then claims mean tactics when actually challenged, with a corollary of mean intentions.
This loser is the textbook definition of an anklebiter.
cl
says...Did he call me a coward somewhere? I must’ve missed that one!
Nonetheless, I tend to believe he finally got the point. I’m not sure how much you were following the discussion, but twimfanboy basically admitted his logic was atrocious when he told Karl Grant, “No, Karl, this in itself DOESN’T mean much.” Of course, he must be alluding to all that “other” evidence that’s not on his blog, or anywhere else for that matter.
The weird thing is, I already admitted to having some fun with “sockpuppets” on SI’s blog, three years ago. I’ve never denied that. They did it to me—or, at least one of them did it to me—so I wanted to see how they’d react when I did it back. I know, I know… totally juvenile but man was it funny. Oh how the tune changes when it’s the smarty-pants atheists on the receiving end!
Some people just can’t let go. I hope I don’t get that set in my ways when I’m approaching retirement age.