An anonymous contributor
  Loading editor
  • Apparently, if two users both disagree with a third party, it's perfectly rational for that third party to accuse them of both being the same person.  I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.

      Loading editor
    • View all 22 replies
    • Who's Eggshell?

      You should totally join our secret club.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Yeah...I'm surprised that it took them that long to do anything more than warn Rustspinner about his behavior (not that he seems likely to learn anything from the experience).  Or that Eggshell wasn't banned long ago.  It's clear that neither of them has any real interest in arguing in good faith, and both of them get snitty when disagreed with in any way.

      And, quite frankly: while I'm disinclined to go easy on people who behave like that?  I think that, if anything, I've been biting my tongue with them.  But, then again: my usual impulse is to cuss like a Marine on leave.

      Same here lol. And Miss-Swears-A-Lot? One of us! Join our club lol.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • Hi there. Could I ask that you try and condense changes to your comments down to just a few edits? Making 30+ edits in quick succession could be viewed as badge editing. If you do want to change your comment, please use the preview button to check that everything is correct before publishing. Thank you.

      Loading editor
    • HammerOfThor wrote:
      Hi there. Could I ask that you try and condense changes to your comments down to just a few edits? Making 30+ edits in quick succession could be viewed as badge editing. If you do want to change your comment, please use the preview button to check that everything is correct before publishing. Thank you.

      Yes. I apologize. I wasn't trying to break any rules (I didn't realize there was an edit limit). I just don't like being insulted for literally no reason and went a little nuts with editing.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor

    And if you think otherwise, it's misandry.

      Loading editor
    • View all 8 replies
    • HolyDragon2808 wrote:
      Magicman32 wrote:
      Dedicated monogamous romance is a load of bull, and people in them are completely stupid & lying to themselves and their animal instincts. Polyamory/promiscuity/two-timing, basically anything other then straight monogamy, is where it's at. [Generic disclaimer: This is my opinion and my right to believe this, don't get your panties in a bunch over it please, thanks ]
      Believe that if you want, but take it somewhere else (that is to say, off my wall please. Thanks). Not sure if this was a joke or troll bait or what though....

      Well it isn't a joke or troll bait or anything. It's just my actual opinions, but I since you asked I won't go further into them. I'm sorry.

        Loading editor
    • We may be animals, but we're also sapient and social.  And you're proving precisely nothing by claiming that people are "stupid and lying to themselves" for favoring monogamy over "two-timing."

      Cheating is betrayal.  If you have an understanding with someone—or with more than one person, for that matter—betraying them, no matter how many excuses you make for it, is not healthy and reflects poorly on your character as a social animal.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • Short Story:

    Longer Story: Saitama used to be a more prolific member before you got here. Since I don't pay attention to anything that doesn't directly involve me, I'm not sure how he got along with people in general, but I know I argued with him a lot. For a long time, I didn't say anything out loud, but I went back & forth a lot internally on whether these were quality debates or not. Sometimes they were fun & insightful, others little more than a tedious chore (especially once I discovered he was one of those VsBattle fans), & I think at one time he started pulling the old "you not wanting to continue means I'm right!" deal in all apparent seriousness (as I said in that thread, Saitama often seems to be less than genuine, making it difficult to discern his motive at any given time).

    There were a couple of traits I was particularly growing exasperated with. One was his tendency to want extensive citations for the most basic things, which he could easily look up himself if he wanted to know more, all while he rarely seemed to offer more than 1 or 2 citations of his own, if that. The other was that he never or almost never seemed to admit he was wrong, even when he clearly didn't know much about the topic.

    One time we were arguing about whether or not "transgender regret" is an extensive problem, he admitted he didn't know enough to keep arguing (but stopped short of retracting), & I about shit myself in shock. Of course, he claims I doth protest too much, an accusation I'm not at all unfamiliar with, but I don't see the need to pull out my resume every time I'm accused of "being stubborn." If they want to think debates with me are pointless, they can do what they want, & I'll be more than happy if they choose to not bother me. I've got zombie schoolgirl animu that needs a watchin'.

    But back to the story: Naturally, my patience was worn pretty thin when, in some thread or another, he started promoting Donald Trump (& maybe defending Kuvira, I don't really remember). As you might guess, Deist & I had words of disagreement. I don't remember exactly what went down, but I'm guessing he might be particularly bitter over something Deist said, thus explaining why he went after her out of the blue. That's just a hunch, of course.

    For my part, I decided to give him a taste of his own medicine. I stopped digging up sources to absurd questions like "in what way has Donald Trump been racist or sexist?" & just started an endless barrage of questions of my own. Basically anything he said, I would flat-out refuse to accept unless he gave a source, & even if he did, I'd dismiss it with some excuse. This, incidentally, is what I was referring to when I said I'd "already shown him what it was like to debate with him," & what I plan to do again in the immediate future if he doesn't cut the crap.

    Of course, he claimed I was strawmanning, & to be fair I was deliberately taking his habits to an absurd degree, but that was kind of the point. Either way, he did not like it one bit. He apparently hated it so much that he disappeared for some time almost immediately afterwards. During this time, I realized my relationship to this website had grown somewhat less toxic. He reappeared recently, posting in a bunch of threads that, if I read, I didn't care enough to remember. He seems to be mainly arguing in the Korrasami-related threads, which is weird, because I don't remember that being a huge sticking point for him (though I vaguely recall it coming up now & again).

    To his credit, one of the few times I remember him sort of conceding a point, he acknowledged it made sense that there could be unconscious biphobia in a lot of the antikorrasami camp. Though it took me like 87 different explanations to wring that concession out of him, & I'm not sure whether or not he'd stand by it, he's the only "skeptic" I can think of who has actually done that. Like I said, not all of the debates were godawful.

    In any case, I didn't want to fall down the old rabbit holes, if he had any issue with me he wasn't showing it, & I was kind of intrigued at the way his argument with Implord (someone else I had problems with way back when who seems more active now, but that's another story entirely) was going, so I just watched it. But then I decided to point out how absurd his "intellectual criticism" claim was, all Hell broke loose, & here we are now.

    I freely admit that as far as me vs. him is concerned, I'm the aggressor, but god damn, I am sick of his bullshit. "Legend of Korra doesn't count as evidence because I say it's bad writing!" Ugh. I'd just block him, but Wikia doesn't give me that option, so I'm repaying my frustration in kind.

    Near as I can tell, his "points," if they can so be called, include:

    1. A repackaging of tired old arguments about Korrasami & how we're "just discounting intellectual criticism out of hand!"

    2. The writers don't put any thought into Legend of Korra because he thinks their decisions "just don't make sense," (even when he admits there's no contradiction) including the part about Air Nomads not taking issue with homosexuality, because Buddhist monks have a lot of rules.

    3. Since it "doesn't make sense," he can decide what the "proper" original lore was, based on what "does make sense." Apparently even if it was never actually said.

    4. "You people" don't actually give any arguments (totally not a lie), & any reluctance to debate me is because you can't handle disagreement/know you're wrong, not because of my documented history of deliberate obtuseness & generally being an annoying know-it-all who doesn't actually know very much at all.

    Being confused is expected, as he quickly bogs down discussions with so many different things that keeping track of them all, let alone refuting them (endlessly, since he seldom accepts the actual refutation) becomes impossible. Not to mention the increasingly nebulous debate terms, like "prove this thing isn't bad writing without me even giving a falsifiable definition of bad writing!"

    So that's the cliff notes version, as I see it. Deist & Saitama might be able to tell you more. That's all I remember, & my memory is notoriously terrible.

      Loading editor
    • Gotcha.....I just wasn't sure what the hell was going on and both you and Deist Zealot seemed far more frustrated in that Mako Stanning topic than anything else. In other words, this is just a bid for attention by an insipid troll that's better ignored altogether (or at least as ignored as Avatar Wiki will allow). Crazy stuff though and thanks for taking the time to explain....though I will say that I think you and Deist Zealot should just bow out while you still can retain your sanities lol....

        Loading editor
    • Wait, is the troll Mako Fanboy or SaitamaBro?

      I did consider it. It seems the less I give a shit about what goes on in this website, the better off I am.

        Loading editor
    • Both really but I was referring to SaitamaBro. At least with Mako Fanboy it's pretty obvious he's a Mako Stan (his name gives him away) but SaitamaBro....I don't know he's just being a bastard who's arguing with the both of you just because rather than having anything insightful to add....I actually feel dumber for having tried to read his nonsense....

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • Fong welcomes Team Avatar

    Welcome to Avatar Wiki! Thanks for your edit to Thread:1313869#1349182|Who likes and Who dislikes KORRASAMI ???, and for joining our community! There's a lot to do around here, so we hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.

    Wiki Activity is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing.
    Questions? Need help? Don't know what to do? See if S.O.S. editing can help you, or just leave me a message!
    Have an opinion? Read the latest blog posts and meet other knowledgeable fans. Discuss the series and the movie to a depth that you'd have never imagined.
    Like fan fiction? Visit our fanon portal. You can read the quality works of others. You can even write your own, and share your stories with all the readers here.
    Follow our policies, to make sure that all of us get along harmoniously.
    Sign in every time you edit, so that we can recognize you.
    Sign your comments by typing ~~~~ when posting on one of our forum threads. This adds your signature and the date, so we know who's talking!

    We're really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! Have fun!

      Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.