Is it just me, or did the conversation move completely away from "Are there swine?" It seems to now be, "Are all the people Pundit thinks are Swine really Swine?" Which, of course, is something that a) nobody will find agreement on, and b) nobody really cares that much anyway.

So, does this mean that Tony has conceded the existence of Swine?

The sad part is, I still can't tell what that means...





No, wait.  The sad part is I even care...shame on me.

He conceded that a while back, and hasn't been aimed at trying to prove that assholes don't exist for a long time (if ever). His stance, from what I can tell, has never been that assholes (aka Swine) don't exist, but that Pundit's idea of them is wrong and the conspiracy is imaginary. On the flip side Pundit finally (after 40-something posts) admitted that he might actually be wrong sometimes, but can't seem to make up his mind as to whether there is no conspiracy or Tony is at their head, testing a new defense for every member of the Swine Community.

Quote from: James McMurraySorry, no links. As I said, the search function there is a hit or miss.

Eh, that's why everyone uses Google to search the site.

Quote from: James McMurrayHe conceded that a while back, and hasn't been aimed at trying to prove that assholes don't exist for a long time (if ever). His stance, from what I can tell, has never been that assholes (aka Swine) don't exist, but that Pundit's idea of them is wrong and the conspiracy is imaginary. On the flip side Pundit finally (after 40-something posts) admitted that he might actually be wrong sometimes, but can't seem to make up his mind as to whether there is no conspiracy or Tony is at their head, testing a new defense for every member of the Swine Community.

Sounds like a one para movie treatment for an Oliver Stone movie - "Bay of Pigs" , anyone?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: James McMurrayHe conceded that a while back, and hasn't been aimed at trying to prove that assholes don't exist for a long time (if ever). His stance, from what I can tell, has never been that assholes (aka Swine) don't exist, but that Pundit's idea of them is wrong and the conspiracy is imaginary. On the flip side Pundit finally (after 40-something posts) admitted that he might actually be wrong sometimes, but can't seem to make up his mind as to whether there is no conspiracy or Tony is at their head, testing a new defense for every member of the Swine Community.

yeah, well, forgive me if I take your take with a grain of salt, Jimmy.  You've got a hard-on for Pundy that just won't quit.  It's like you took Pundiagra and now you have Pundiapism or something...

So, if he's conceded that Swine exist - what's the point fo the remainder of the argument - to say he's not one?

Waste of time, man. Waste. Of. Time.

Quote from: James J Skachyeah, well, forgive me if I take your take with a grain of salt, Jimmy.  You've got a hard-on for Pundy that just won't quit.  It's like you took Pundiagra and now you have Pundiapism or something...

So, if he's conceded that Swine exist - what's the point fo the remainder of the argument - to say he's not one?

Waste of time, man. Waste. Of. Time.

To be fair, he's got a good synopsis. That's about the size of it, in his post, if you'll take my word for it. (I mean, you're certainly not obligated to.)

Quote from: James J SkachSo, if he's conceded that Swine exist - what's the point fo the remainder of the argument - to say he's not one?

He's conceded that assholes exist (not a shock).  He's arguing that they should not be grouped up together in a shorthand fashion that will inevitably lead to the view that they are in collusion or cooperation.  Also, he's arguing that labelling people by who they talk gaming with on the internet is a bad thing.

Or, at least, that's how I see it.

Quote from: James J SkachDo those of you who are sarcastically admitting to swinedom:

• Are you saying there are no pretentious fucktards who walk around telling people they are having badwrongfun?

[/LIST]Yes, there are some. So what? Ignore them, and that's it. It quite easier to do it in Internet.

• QuoteIf no, have you read The Forge at all?

Yes, I've had. It's not my favourite messageboard, but I'm not spitting bile about that. When I've run some indie games I've found useful advice there. Other threads are bullshit. As in any other forum.

• QuoteIf yes, do you disagree with Pundit's definition on the grounds that it's about pretention?

Yes, absolutely. Of course, there are some Forge members who go about pretention. Others (Judd is my best example) go for the fun of their games. As in any other forum. And coming from a guy with a forum devoted to wanking on his blog, his definition is hilarious.

Quote

• If yes, is there any possible definition you would provide to define a group of pretentious fucktards who believe their approach is better?

Group of people whom I ignore. Is it any good? My time is precious to waste it on any other thing about that people.

Quote from: James J Skachyeah, well, forgive me if I take your take with a grain of salt, Jimmy.  You've got a hard-on for Pundy that just won't quit.  It's like you took Pundiagra and now you have Pundiapism or something...

You keep saying that, and it's fine. If you want to be wrong because you prejudge my words based on what you think are their motives, go for it. you'll find, if you care to look, that while I don't like Pundit I've never lied about anything he's done (unlike, say, him). I've also manged to carry on conversations with the man and even tried to help him out when he's not spouting his hatred. But since you're such an expert on me and my posts I'm going to assume you knew all that already.

Try to take what I read at face value and it'll make a lot more sense. Or you could actually read the thread that we're talking about and see that I'm right.  Your choice, and it makes no nevermind to me which way you go.

QuoteSo, if he's conceded that Swine exist - what's the point fo the remainder of the argument - to say he's not one?

Waste of time, man. Waste. Of. Time.

I tried to give a synopsis but you opted to ignore it in favor of attacking me, so all I can say is that if you want to know what they're talking about it might behoove you to read their thread.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou keep saying that, and it's fine. If you want to be wrong because you prejudge my words based on what you think are their motives, go for it. you'll find, if you care to look, that while I don't like Pundit I've never lied about anything he's done (unlike, say, him). I've also manged to carry on conversations with the man and even tried to help him out when he's not spouting his hatred. But since you're such an expert on me and my posts I'm going to assume you knew all that already.

Try to take what I read at face value and it'll make a lot more sense. Or you could actually read the thread that we're talking about and see that I'm right.  Your choice, and it makes no nevermind to me which way you go.



I tried to give a synopsis but you opted to ignore it in favor of attacking me, so all I can say is that if you want to know what they're talking about it might behoove you to read their thread.

Hey, Jimmy - what's with all the hostility?  I was just being honest that I take anything you say about Pundy with a grain of salt the size of Texas.

Yeah, so sue me if I think you're biased in your summary.  If Tony has conceded, then what's the fucking point of the the rest, hmm?  This is the old "Well of course X, but what I want to know is Y" gambit. I took the langauge you used to describe this as, at worst, neutral. On the flip side, you talked about Pundit taking 40 posts to admit that he might sometimes be wrong about whether a specific individual is a Swine - which amounts to admitting he can judge people wrongly. I took the language you used to describe this as, at best, chastising.

No, you see, Tony has not conceded there are Swine (and, quite honestly, I wouldn't if I were him either given the lack of definition), he's admitted there are assholes. There are assholes in model railroading groups, or geneology forums, too. I never took that as Pundit's thrust and I'd press him on that.

Tony lost this thread when he made the argument about whether or not there are Swine. He should have provided a definition as he saw it and made Pundit react and he should have included an explanation of the "conspiracy." So, ironically, I agree with you on someone trying to nail down that whole aspect, I just think Tony missed his chance when he titled the thread.

I've read the thread - mulitple times.  I've read much of what's happened between you and Pundit.  I base my assessment of your feelings on what i've read.  That's not, as Pundy points out in the pistol thread, prejudice - it's judgement based on information. But, see, to know that Pundit's made that statement in the pistols thread, I would have had to read the fucking thing.

So give me a big hug and kiss and we'll agree to disagree on a couple of things, K?  I may be wrong for a lot of reasons, but not reading the thread or your fights with Pundy are, unfortunately, not among them.

The Pundit is prejudiced. He cherry picks info that supports his claims and refuses to acknowledge that he's painting in extremely broad strokes. He's as much a SWINE or  wanker as those he rails against. WW Swine, WFRP Swine, (no d20 Swine though)....I don't understand why some folks keep defending his rhetoric.

Regards,
David R

Was the some people directed at me, David?  Cause, then, ya know, you could be more...umm..direct...and just say "I don't know why you, Jim, support his rhetoric."

Otherwise, I'll assume you're talking about someone else. Not that you care - it might have been your intention to toss off a comment and not get a response because you're not really interested in discussing it.

Quote from: James J SkachHey, Jimmy - what's with all the hostility?  I was just being honest that I take anything you say about Pundy with a grain of salt the size of Texas.

*snicker*

QuoteI've read the thread - mulitple times.  I've read much of what's happened between you and Pundit.  I base my assessment of your feelings on what i've read.  That's not, as Pundy points out in the pistol thread, prejudice - it's judgement based on information. But, see, to know that Pundit's made that statement in the pistols thread, I would have had to read the fucking thing.

*snicker*

QuoteSo give me a big hug and kiss and we'll agree to disagree on a couple of things, K?  I may be wrong for a lot of reasons, but not reading the thread or your fights with Pundy are, unfortunately, not among them.

Ok, so you're wrong for another reason. I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion. *snicker*

Quote from: James J SkachWas the some people directed at me, David?  Cause, then, ya know, you could be more...umm..direct...and just say "I don't know why you, Jim, support his rhetoric."

James, I was not directing it at you, I'd quote you as I have done a couple of times in this thread already if I was. No, my comment was just a general statement brought on by reading the "Pistol's" thread and Tony's guilt by association comment and reading Erick's post in the "Amber litmus test" thread. Can you dig it?

Regards,
David R

I can dig it, David.  Just wanted to make sure you weren't expecting an answer from me.  There's so much passive aggression in forums, it's hard to tell sometimes..ya know?

Jimmy - always nice to see i can still get a laugh without having to take off my pants :eek: