Support NeoGAF

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It's fabulous to see you take pride in being disingenuous and deliberately misleading.

At least you're not lying about it.

The person was complimenting my lawyering skills.

 

[Dude Abides]

And here you're trying to do it again. You're twisting my words in order to do almost the exact same thing. You're so against the OWS movement that if anything comes up that acknowledges it, you immediately try and find a way to twist it into something with diminished credibility. I must admit, it's very lawyerly.

It's lawyerly in the same sense that acting in porn is "actorly."

 

[CHEEZMO™]

The person was complimenting my lawyering skills.

He was?

The conceit you display is astounding.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It's lawyerly in the same sense that acting in porn is "actorly."

Actually a lot of the porn actors form the 1970s where theatrical trained actors, so you didn't actually insult anything.

He was?

He did

 

[Dude Abides]

Actually a lot of the porn actors form the 1970s where theatrical trained actors, so you didn't actually insult anything.

Truly fascinating.

 

[Vicetrailia]

A laywer...? Of what background?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Truly fascinating.

Yeah, it was interesting to find out how many worked in the NYC theater scene.

 

[epmode]

Threadshitting | OT |

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Threadshitting | OT |

Remember when Manos explicitly stated that he would no longer continue to post in any OWS thread?

Those were great days, eh?

#wistful

 

[Something Wicked]

Once we outlaw property ownership only property owners will be outlaws.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Remember when Manos explicitly stated that he would no longer continue to post in any OWS thread?

Those were great days, eh?

#wistful

#nothappening

 

[Jak140]

It's fabulous to see you take pride in being disingenuous and deliberately misleading.

At least you're not lying about it.

And this is the heart of the issue. Every other page it seems like Manos crys crocodile tears about how our complaints about his constant presence in this thread means we don't want "open discourse." Of course he has no interest in open discourse, his only interest is in being right. I think many here would gladly have an honest debate about the issues at stake, but he only seems interested in agitating other posters and obfuscating the issues. No logically fallacy is too good for him to use in support of whatever diatribe he is on at the moment, but call him out on it and his instant response is, well he saw some other random person use the same fallacy against the tea party, as if that were any kind of justification for knowingly using one himself. How else do we explain the scenario where he stereotypes OWS as a "group that likes committing acts of violence" based on the actions of a small minority, then on the next page claim he has never stereotyped OWS and that we are hypocrites with no interest in open discourse because in his mind we would all stereotype the tea party, nevermind the inconvenient truth that he can almost never seem to prove that the person he is arguing with has actually done so.

Manos starts with the viewpoint that OWS is terrible and has no qualms about using any argument in support of that, no matter whether it is substantial or insubstantial.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

And this is the heart of the issue. Every other page it seems like Manos crys crocodile tears about how our complaints about his constant presence in this thread means we don't want "open discourse."

Crocodile tears? What nonsense are you talking about? Criticizing your hypocrisy is Crocodile tears?

Of course he has no interest in open discourse, his only interest is in being right.

That's a lie.

I think many here would gladly have an honest debate about the issues at stake,

I have done that, someone asked me on Saturday about lobbying to do so and I did and badcrumble did last night and I did.

So please stop with the boldfaced lies about me, especially when two specific incidents since Saturday show you are wrong.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

In the interest of letting people discuss the issues at hand, whatever they may feel they are or however they feel about them, I withdraw from posting in this thread and any future thread on the subject.

#nothappening

Clearly.

I await your smarmy reply that completely dodges this issue. I know it's coming as this has been brought up at least 6 times in this thread and you've reacted the same every time.

 

[Joe]

well imagine putting in all this time and energy into something and not being able to muster anything other than being a sideshow/trainwreck.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Clearly.

I await your smarmy reply that completely dodges this issue. I know it's coming as this has been brought up at least 6 times in this thread and you've reacted the same every time.

It's hard to dodge an issue that's already been addressed, but by all means keep up with the lie if you like.

As I said before I felt it was wrong to somehow limit my ability to speak on a subject to appease some people.

The posting stats thing has been done over and over again...and I'm still here....and I don't care.

well imagine putting in all this time and energy into something and not being able to muster anything other than being a sideshow/trainwreck.

Like OWS or like the person who made a chart of my posting lol

 

[CHEEZMO™]

"I promise not to do X"

*does X*

"Why did you do X after saying you wouldn't?"

"Changed my mind"

Seems legit.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Seems legit.

Happy you finally realized that.

 

[Jak140]

Crocodile tears? What nonsense are you talking about? Criticizing your hypocrisy is Crocodile tears?

See you've made the accusation of hypocrisy again, but still have made no effort to prove it. Nevermind the hypocrisy of you claiming you want open discourse after saying stereotyping is bad for honest discussion despite having stereotyped OWS less than 50 posts prior.

That's a lie.


I have done that, someone asked me on Saturday about lobbying to do so and I did and badcrumble did last night and I did.

So please stop with the boldfaced lies about me, especially when two specific incidents since Saturday show you are wrong.

I haven't said you won't have debates over substantial points when they are in your favor, just that the quality of the point you are arguing makes no difference to you.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

See you've made the accusation of hypocrisy again, but still have made no effort to prove it. Nevermind the hypocrisy of you claiming you want open discourse after saying stereotyping is bad for honest discussion despite having stereotyped OWS less than 50 posts prior.

Actually I proved by pointing out two recent substantive debates I've had.

Also when have I ever stereotyped OWS?

I haven't said you won't have debates over substantial points when they are in your favor, just that the quality of the point you are arguing makes no difference to you.

Both of the subjects were picked by the other posters, NOT me.

 

[Alucrid]

"I promise not to do X"

*does X*

"Why did you do X after saying you wouldn't?"

"Changed my mind"

Seems legit.

"Manos is ruining the thread. Everyone ignore him and don't respond."

*everyone responds to manos *

"Goddamn ir manos stop shitting up this thread."

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Also when have I ever stereotyped OWS?

Would calling Occupy the "We want free crap" movement count as stereotyping?

I'm not sure.

"Manos is ruining the thread. Everyone ignore him and don't respond."

*everyone responds to manos *

"Goddamn ir manos stop shitting up this thread."

If we left him alone he would only talk to himself in some crazy backpatting , self-congratulating way.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

"Manos is ruining the thread. Everyone ignore him and don't respond."

*everyone responds to manos *

"Goddamn ir manos stop shitting up this thread."

I guess I should appreciate their consistency. lol

 

[Fari]

I'm not particularly passionate about these protests, but I'm finding it difficult to look away from the Manos trainwreck.

I've lurked on this forum for years and I don't remember him being anywhere near as crazy as he is now.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I'm not particularly passionate about these protests, but I'm finding it difficult to look away from the Manos trainwreck.

I've lurked on this forum for years and I don't remember him being anywhere near as crazy as he is now.

Risky_Chris

 

[PJV3]

Manos isn't going to change his mind (nothing wrong with that) about the OWS movement so why bother arguing, he started out with the posistion in the previous thread that the protesters were dirty, smelly criminals who would achieve nothing and be an annoyance, and has stuck to it. But i don't see why he should avoid the thread and not post in it.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

PUT MANOS ON IGNORE. DONT EVEN SAY A SINGLE WORD ABOUT THREAD SHITTING IF YOU EVER RESPOND TO MANOS AGAIN



seriously, seriously, stop replying to him in any way shape or form. it's your attention he wants and you're feeding this troll huge helpings of it.

If we left him alone he would only talk to himself in some crazy backpatting , self-congratulating way.

not that i would ever call this desperate asshole (anyone who so fervently runs a joke account is desperate beyond psychological measures) a bully, but you ever learn how bullies just want attention? when you pretend they don't exist (and they don't have to if you press ignore) the issue goes away.

 

[kame-sennin]

If we left him alone he would only talk to himself in some crazy backpatting , self-congratulating way.

So what? Not responding to him would still cut his post count down by two thirds at least. Would it really kill you to see 3-4 random Manos posts per day (or not see them if he is on ignore)?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

PUT MANOS ON IGNORE. DONT EVEN SAY A SINGLE WORD ABOUT THREAD SHITTING IF YOU EVER RESPOND TO MANOS AGAIN



seriously, seriously, stop replying to him in any way shape or form. it's your attention he wants and you're feeding this troll huge helpings of it.

Now this is tolerance! lol

 

[Arde5643]

If we left him alone he would only talk to himself in some crazy backpatting , self-congratulating way.

And? Isn't that basically what sane people want in the end?

I'm not exactly sure on what we gain overall by trying to debate Manos and be dragged down through the cycle of false equivalence and loops of talking points.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

And? Isn't that basically what sane people want in the end?

I'm not exactly sure on what we gain overall by trying to debate Manos and be dragged down through the cycle of false equivalence and loops of talking points.

A thread that is more substantive and would be without circle jerk on one end and whatever your alleged complaints about me are.

As said earlier I had no problem with two debates/questions being asked by two people.

 

[Alucrid]

PUT MANOS ON IGNORE. DONT EVEN SAY A SINGLE WORD ABOUT THREAD SHITTING IF YOU EVER RESPOND TO MANOS AGAIN



seriously, seriously, stop replying to him in any way shape or form. it's your attention he wants and you're feeding this troll huge helpings of it.



not that i would ever call this desperate asshole a bully, but you ever learn how bullies just want attention? when you pretend they don't exist (and they don't have to if you press ignore) the issue goes away.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOU JUST GAVE HIM EVEN MORE ATTENTION.

That's also a terrible way to deal with being bullied.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOU JUST GAVE HIM EVEN MORE ATTENTION.

OH NO WHATS HAPPENING AHHHH!!!!!

 

[Baraka in the White House]

I'm not particularly passionate about these protests, but I'm finding it difficult to look away from the Manos trainwreck.

I've lurked on this forum for years and I don't remember him being anywhere near as crazy as he is now.

It started out as a simple trolling of the original thread until he saw there was a market for attention whores and decided to cultivate a bit of forum notoriety. Now he rather obsessively trolls and/or argues pathetically for attention and - unfortunately - we give it to him.

Take heart, though. He's not the first shtick this forum's ever seen and sooner or later his will follow it's natural course like all the others before him. It's already happening. First it starts with a bit of faux victimization, then some passive aggression. Then, when the day comes when he wants to take a break from the reputation he's so painstakingly earned and pipe in on a topic unrelated to OWS or the behavior of law enforcement, he'll find he can't. Eventually the frustration of being unable to divorce himself from his behavior here will build until the passive aggression gives way to just aggression, and then it's just a matter of time.

 

[Alucrid]

It started out as a simple trolling of the original thread until he saw there was a market for attention whores and decided to cultivate a bit of forum notoriety. Now he rather obsessively trolls and/or argues pathetically for attention and - unfortunately - we give it to him.

Take heart, though. He's not the first shtick this forum's ever seen and sooner or later his will follow it's natural course like all the others before him. It's already happening. First it starts with a bit of faux victimization, then some passive aggression. Then, when the day comes when he wants to take a break from the reputation he's so painstakingly earned and pipe in on a topic unrelated to OWS or the behavior of law enforcement, he'll find he can't. Eventually the frustration of being unable to divorce himself from his behavior here will build until the passive aggression gives way to just aggression, and then it's just a matter of time.

Is this manos or ows you're talking about?

 

[Angry Fork]

I like this image I saw today.

Ether. More people need to have a sign like this.

 

[Arde5643]

Awesome sign.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Ether. More people need to have a sign like this.

I thought the issue was the regulations that had an effect were repealed? So wouldn't effective, tighter, etc enforcement still not matter for preventing 2008 or would it have done anything regarding mortgage bundling?

 

[Jak140]

Actually I proved by pointing out two recent substantive debates I've had.

Also when have I ever stereotyped OWS?

No it isn't. It's a group of people who like committing trespass, acts of violence, and who can't even agree on any real issues or things to want. It's also one that the public is growing tired of more and more each day.

.

Both of the subjects were picked by the other posters, NOT me.

Again, I'm not arguing you won't have substansive debate, just that whether or not the point you are making is ingenuous or disingenuous matters not a whit to you as long as it supports your side.

 

[dave is ok]

I thought the issue was the regulations that had an effect were repealed? So wouldn't effective, tighter, etc enforcement still not matter for preventing 2008 or would it have done anything regarding mortgage bundling?

Securities fraud was committed many times. The SEC chose to ignore that.

 

[Jak140]

I thought the issue was the regulations that had an effect were repealed? So wouldn't effective, tighter, etc enforcement still not matter for preventing 2008 or would it have done anything regarding mortgage bundling?

Wanting the regulations that exist to be enforced and wanting tighter regulations as well are not mutually exclusive. You can argue that the sign makes the case that just enforcing the regulations we have would have been enough to prevent the scale of crisis we've seen, but it does not exclude that better regulations would have also helped.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Is this manos or ows you're talking about?

Wipe your chin.

 

[akira28]

Posted last night, posted again. 38 ways to win an argument without being right.

http://www.indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/

1 - Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.

3 - Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.
Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.

I mean...really, just stop feeding the beast.

And lots of people I end up arguing with on GAF love #1. Fucking. Bastards.

Now I can literally go back through Manos' post history in the thread and pick out applying rules from that list. So really, don't get excited, and don't get into it, because that's the point for him.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Securities fraud was committed many times. The SEC chose to ignore that.

Wanting the regulations that exist to be enforced and wanting tighter regulations as well are not mutually exclusive. You can argue that the sign makes the case that just enforcing the regulations we have would have been enough to prevent the scale of crisis we've seen, but it does not exclude that better regulations would have also helped.

Well I'm just interested in what the balance is though. Is it more regulations needed than just simply enforcing what was there, or more enforcement needed than needing more rules.
I don't mean they have to be mutually exclusive. I'm just wondering what people think the balance was or if they felt one reason was far more dominant than the lack or need for the other.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Posted last night, posted again. 38 ways to win an argument without being right.

http://www.indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/

I have never heard of that thing before being posted last night lol. It seems to mostly be common sense things as opposed to say something like The Prince.

 

[Alucrid]

Wipe your chin.

Lol. Do people on internet forums bother you that much?

 

[Jak140]

Well I'm just interested in what the balance is though. Is it more regulations needed than just simply enforcing what was there, or more enforcement needed than needing more rules.
I don't mean they have to be mutually exclusive. I'm just wondering what people think the balance was or if they felt one reason was far more dominant than the lack or need for the other.

There should have been laws to prevent the scale of lax lending we saw and that prevented junk loans from being repackaged as AAA rated mortgage backed securities. There also should have been enforcement of the fraud laws that exist that prevent people from knowingly selling securities they knew were junk and others from knowingly lying about the income of the people who were taking the loans.

Also, why is it that whenever you are called out on something, rather than acknowledge it, you ignore it and move onto the next subject?

 

[akira28]

I have never heard of that thing before being posted last night lol. It seems to mostly be common sense things as opposed to say something like The Prince.

Eh, whatever the source... no one said you had a copy open and in your lap. You are a lawyer of course, so you'd be well versed in verbal misdirection.

People just need to be aware that there's often a method at work, in these internet arguments.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

There should have been laws to prevent the scale of lax lending we saw and that prevented junk morgages from being repackaged as AAA rated morgage backed securities.

So that wasn't illegal?

There also should have been enforcement of the fraud laws that exist that prevent people from knowingly selling securities they knew were junk and others from knowingly lying about the income of the people who were taking the loans.

Than how is it fraud if the underlying activity is legal? I'm trying to understand that if you could repacking shit as gold and sell them as if they were gold, then how is fraud involved? I totally get why Part 1 seems like fraud, but how could enforcement had down anything if the activity was legal? Didn't the lying about people's income make Part 1 illegal?

Also, why is it that whenever you are called out on something, rather than acknowledge it, you ignore it and move onto the next subject?

Called out on what? Shouldn't you be thrilled that I'm discussing a substantive topic, or at least trying to, with you?

Eh, whatever the source... no one said you had a copy open and in your lap. You are a lawyer of course, so you'd be well versed in verbal misdirection.

People just need to be aware that there's often a method at work, in these internet arguments.

Fair enough.

 

[cooljeanius]

Awesome sign.

Yeah, I saw that quote on Twitter/Reddit. Nice to see it's making the rounds.