How many watmm trolls are paid by their governments to be here?

my favorite eugene memory is where he posted 13 paragraphs of unreadable nonsense

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:42 PM, Friendly Foil said:

I think we should have a thread where we try to figure out when this forum lost its sense of humor. There's an awful lot of seriousness and anger on here these days.

 

Maybe WATMM is in fact going through puberty. The website is 15 years old or so, isn't it?

Ur gonna have to prove the forum has no sense of humor. I am not saying the forum doesn't have the ability to lose its sense of humor, but that there is no proof it is losing its sense of humor. Give me proof so I can refute for 13 pages or so. You should give up as you are back-peddling already and my dick is bigger.

 

oh and U cant just say things and you haven't been around watmm long enough to know that it wasn't a zone for humorless dicks the whole time.

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:51 PM, Deer said:

my favorite eugene memory is where he posted 13 paragraphs of unreadable nonsense

lol, when did that happen ? care to remind me ?

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:01 PM, Audioblysk said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:42 PM, Friendly Foil said:

I think we should have a thread where we try to figure out when this forum lost its sense of humor. There's an awful lot of seriousness and anger on here these days.

 

Maybe WATMM is in fact going through puberty. The website is 15 years old or so, isn't it?

Ur gonna have to prove the forum has no sense of humor. I am not saying the forum doesn't have the ability to lose its sense of humor, but that there is no proof it is losing its sense of humor. Give me proof so I can refute for 13 pages or so. You should give up as you are back-peddling already and my dick is bigger.

 

oh and U cant just say things and you haven't been around watmm long enough to know that it wasn't a zone for humorless dicks the whole time.

 

I'll write a 20,000 word essay for you, excluding quotes and links to super interesting articles, and send it to you early tomorrow morning. Don't you think you can just sit there on the internet and say that I'm being wrong on the internet. Prepare. It begins.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Friendly Foil

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:06 PM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:01 PM, Audioblysk said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:42 PM, Friendly Foil said:

I think we should have a thread where we try to figure out when this forum lost its sense of humor. There's an awful lot of seriousness and anger on here these days.

 

Maybe WATMM is in fact going through puberty. The website is 15 years old or so, isn't it?

Ur gonna have to prove the forum has no sense of humor. I am not saying the forum doesn't have the ability to lose its sense of humor, but that there is no proof it is losing its sense of humor. Give me proof so I can refute for 13 pages or so. You should give up as you are back-peddling already and my dick is bigger.

 

oh and U cant just say things and you haven't been around watmm long enough to know that it wasn't a zone for humorless dicks the whole time.

 

I'll write a 20,000 word essay for you, excluding quotes and links to super interesting articles, and send it to you early tomorrow morning. Don't you think you can just sit there on the internet and say that I'm being wrong on the internet. Prepare. It begins.

 

 

I don't think you've been a watmm member long enough to take that position. Are you trying to win watmm rep points or something?

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:24 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 9:05 PM, chenGOD said:

What I actually googled was post-hoc statistical analysis sociology because I needed some sources as I'm not at home. Post-hoc analysis refers to looking for patterns not specified a priori. Trust, I understand its context just fine.

 

That's a very narrow definition of sociology, and I believe you would find many sociologists who would argue that sociology's main goal is not predictive at all. Rather it looks for patterns to explain why certain behavior has occurred in a given society.

Once again you fail at debating and sociology. Maybe you're just not as smart as you think you are?

and yet you gave examples of a simple statistical tool that simply has a "post-hoc" in its name as a proof that sociology at large deals with post hoc analysis.

 

No I gave it as an example to show that your blanket statement "sociologists don't do post-hoc" is incorrect.

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:16 PM, StephenG said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:06 PM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:01 PM, Audioblysk said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:42 PM, Friendly Foil said:

I think we should have a thread where we try to figure out when this forum lost its sense of humor. There's an awful lot of seriousness and anger on here these days.

 

Maybe WATMM is in fact going through puberty. The website is 15 years old or so, isn't it?

Ur gonna have to prove the forum has no sense of humor. I am not saying the forum doesn't have the ability to lose its sense of humor, but that there is no proof it is losing its sense of humor. Give me proof so I can refute for 13 pages or so. You should give up as you are back-peddling already and my dick is bigger.

 

oh and U cant just say things and you haven't been around watmm long enough to know that it wasn't a zone for humorless dicks the whole time.

 

I'll write a 20,000 word essay for you, excluding quotes and links to super interesting articles, and send it to you early tomorrow morning. Don't you think you can just sit there on the internet and say that I'm being wrong on the internet. Prepare. It begins.

 

 

I don't think you've been a watmm member long enough to take that position. Are you trying to win watmm rep points or something?

 

How dare you. Scratch the 20, you just bumped it up to 45,000 words!

Edited March 1, 2014 by Friendly Foil

yeah id take a critique more seriously like that from someone who actually contributes something of value to the forum discussions (granted chatmm comp contributions have been cool) or has at least been here for a while, neither criteria are met in this instance

Edited March 1, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:27 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

yeah id take a critique more seriously like that from someone who actually contributes something of value to the forum discussions or has at least been here for a while, neither criteria are met in this instance

 

can't tell if you're serious or not..

 

also can't tell who that's directed at since so many people seem to be arguing with eugene lol

Edited March 1, 2014 by StephenG

mr. 'friendly'

Oh no you didn't. 50,000 word essay and a documentary with spooky music incoming.

PSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:21 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:24 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 9:05 PM, chenGOD said:

What I actually googled was post-hoc statistical analysis sociology because I needed some sources as I'm not at home. Post-hoc analysis refers to looking for patterns not specified a priori. Trust, I understand its context just fine.

 

That's a very narrow definition of sociology, and I believe you would find many sociologists who would argue that sociology's main goal is not predictive at all. Rather it looks for patterns to explain why certain behavior has occurred in a given society.

Once again you fail at debating and sociology. Maybe you're just not as smart as you think you are?

and yet you gave examples of a simple statistical tool that simply has a "post-hoc" in its name as a proof that sociology at large deals with post hoc analysis.

 

No I gave it as an example to show that your blanket statement "sociologists don't do post-hoc" is incorrect.

 

no, you gave an example that sociologists can sometimes use a specific statistical tool that has a "post hoc" in its name (simply to signify the fact that it's done after some other test) which has little to do with larger concept of post hoc analysis as a major characteristic of the field that you initially alluded to. Edited March 1, 2014 by eugene

eugene, have you ever masturbated to the thought of yourself masturbating?

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:42 PM, Friendly Foil said:

I think we should have a thread where we try to figure out when this forum lost its sense of humor. There's an awful lot of seriousness and anger on here these days.

 

Maybe WATMM is in fact going through puberty. The website is 15 years old or so, isn't it?

 

It's not puberty, every few months watmm has a thread like this. It's like watmm is on it's rags or something. Maybe it boils down to an event like this occurring due to it coinciding with eugene having a bit more free time than usual. Or perhaps both awe and eugene having overlapping free time. heh

 

There's still plenty of other stuff going on round here, although the die antwoord thing is running out of steam a little given the lack of anything delivered. I'll agree that a lot of psychological energy is expended in a thread like this, it gets so dire that i spose it can drain the rest of the forum somewhat, leaving the place a little grey from lack of fresh air. But the world news is a bit dire at the moment too. So many nasty things happening, and we can't even open a world event thread to enjoy a cathartic vent of our anxieties at the ills of the planet, without our resident reflexive antagonist mooning our every attempt with his archimedean spiral of circular word hypnosis.

 

Whatever happened to ignoring the trolls guys? I know that you have fun doing this, so carry on, but wow.

Mother instinct. It's that damn nipple man video that's taking guys for a loop.

-edit- replied to the wrong thread

Edited March 2, 2014 by Guest

https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set

i thiink conspiritards are kinda ridiculous

sometimes i agree with robbie, sometimes, i don't

fluoride shit is stupid

 

 

eugene is stupider, i've never seen someone more deluded

signed, a realist

  On 3/2/2014 at 3:30 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:52 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 5:46 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

ok, so what would you say to someone that believes this sort of behaviour should be made illegal? do you think they're entitled to their opinion in that case? keep in mind not everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant or off the deep end by default

you can believe what you want of course, but what behavior do you have in mind exactly ?

  On 3/1/2014 at 8:15 AM, azatoth said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 5:46 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

ok, so what would you say to someone that believes this sort of behaviour should be made illegal? do you think they're entitled to their opinion in that case? keep in mind not everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant or off the deep end by default

 

I am sorry, if you don't agree with Eugene's official truth then you are stupid and a conspiritard. He is the truth and shines the light of reason on WATMM, peace be upon him.

 

unlike conspiratards i never pretended to know any truths, i just have a problem with what they call truth and how they get to it.

 

 

me too. but not everyone that disagrees with you is a conspiratard.

 

i don't call everyone who disagrees with me that way, just the awepittance camp who i feel simply exist in some alternative plane.

 

  Quote

as for what do i have a problem with....i guess everything? if you need specifics i guess tax dollars going towards funding a callous program of surveillance organised by people who are clearly incompetent which could infringe upon the civil liberties of innocent individuals?

 

 

do you really feel like the information you've attained about those programs is enough to conclude that they are callous ? that the nsa workers are incompetent and methodically infringe upon your liberties ? do you have enough information about the benefits of such programs to weigh against potential dangers to civil liberties ? did you consider that the persons behind most of the publication have a very clear and prominent political bias and might color the way in which they present their findings ?

 

i feel like most people simply got swept by the discourse those publication created without checking the content of actual publications seriously enough

 

 

  Quote

even if it's operated within the law my argument is that it is morally wrong and that's a subjective issue which you're just going to have to accept. us government agencies were responsible for cointelpro, mk ultra, the contra affair and countless other bungles and coverups so pardon me if i'm jumping to conclusions on this one pal.

 

without enough information on the benefits you can't conclude that they are morally wrong even subjectively. consider this scenario: for every 1000 innocent citizens' penises nsa agents see they gather enough information to grab a terrorist/some hardcore criminal, would that program be morally wrong or unjustifiable in such case ?

 

the us governments (and its various agencies) have been also responsible for well-being of hundreds of millions of people who lived their lives in comfort in the states throughout the years, does this consideration affect your "jumping to conclusions" in some way ?

another thing, cointelpro, for example, were hunting for racial equality activists, and now you have a black president. so doesn't it seem to you that precedents of this kind can't explain much of what's going on in the present ?

Edited March 2, 2014 by eugene

lol, that's a incredibly intellectually lazy copout. i mean you could at least try to justify why you have such opinions and put them to a test to see if they have a some basis.

you could have said that you don't want to discuss anything with me instead of throwing a childish hissy fit, trust me, i wouldn't bother you anymore.

  Quote

 

 

i don't call everyone who disagrees with me that way, just the awepittance camp who i feel simply exist in some alternative plane.

(eugene quote)

 

i didn't realize there was such a 'camp', interesting use of classic divide and conquer tactics

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

  On 3/2/2014 at 3:38 AM, kaini said:

i thiink conspiritards are kinda ridiculous

sometimes i agree with robbie, sometimes, i don't

fluoride shit is stupid

 

 

eugene is stupider, i've never seen someone more deluded

signed, a realist

awepittance is in the fluoride camp btw, so i guess you should put him together with the stupids. just fyi.

I had fluoride put on my teeth yesterday after a cleanup at the dentist's. am I a walking communications relay for government spooks now? pls respond urgently.

Edited March 2, 2014 by usagi

im sorry usagi fluride med us doomber