Complain about Zzyzx

[Zzyzx]

.
I dedicate this thread to those who feel inclined or compelled to complain about my style of debate – those who attempt to “debate� my debating or make extensive personal comments (or attacks) rather than debating the topic of discussion.

Anyone who feels as though they have a legitimate complaint that Forum Rules and Guidelines have been violated is invited to report such infractions to the Moderating Team or Admin. That does happen from time to time, and when it does, I retract comments (with apology when appropriate).

However, many typical complaints, those that translate approximately to, “I don’t like (or disagree with) the way you debate�, can be discussed here to keep such comments from derailing debate threads. I consider most of those complaints to be unintended complements by those who cannot or will not defend or debate effectively in opposition.

I realize that it is frustrating to have someone repeatedly asking to be SHOWN that you speak truth – to have me disrespect the book you have been told by preachers and parents is “holy� or “the word of god� – to have it repeatedly pointed out that your favorite “god� is just one of thousands promoted, worshiped and/or feared by humans. I KNOW before asking that Fundamentalists cannot offer anything other than tales in stories in an ancient book to support “miracle� tales and tall tales – and that they must resort to asking that their tales be believed “on faith alone�. It must be embarrassing to have no evidence to offer.

[Jester]

Moderator Opinions

This topic seems to be on the very fringe of what is allowed, and will require effort from all sides in order to remain acceptable.

As for the pissing match - what can anyone expect from a thread entitled "Complain about Zzyzx", started by Zzyzx himself? It might as well have been titled "Open invitation to pissing matches with Zzyzx".

I brought this up to moderators by reporting it, but I guess the consensus was that such a thread was viable, so....here we are, in pissing matches.

Regardless of any discussion about the nature of the thread, there is no excuse for personal comments in a post. If you feel that you cannot respond to a topic civilly, then don't respond.

Edited to add: This thread was created to give complainers a place to vent their frustrations without polluting debate threads with personal comments. Quite a few Fundamentalists seem to take exception to my posts and to reduce their "arguments" to rants about me personally.

Inviting discussions about the proper methods of debate is allowed in the discussion board, but we seem to be drifting into a commentary about your personal debating - rather than a more general discussion. The fact that this is presented as a challenge to those who you feel attack you personally would mean that it could be seen as flame bait (possibly encouraging others to break rules). It is not squarely against the rules, but we need to stay away from trying to judge the validity of your (or anyone else's) personal character.

[JohnnyJersey]

Going by this, the fact that you consider Wiki to be a "reasonable legit [sic] source" makes your judgment suspect. It appears to me that your response is biased.

It is not the end all of sources, but it certainly attempts to have a non-biased point of view, and give it's sources.

That is better than making 'unsupported claims'. People who love to pull rabbits out of hats, and make unsupported claims are frustrated at people who actually back up what they say.

It is not better than "unsupported claims" when its own claims are unsupported. For the Zzyzx entry, locate the sources; you'll find two, neither of which provide the bulk of the information that is presented in the article.

If you're going to try defending Wikipedia as a reasonably legitimate source, you will be hard pressed to prove it.

I most certainly can.. because I can point to their review process, and the fact that they have a way people can challenge their content if it is too biased. I can also point out that part of their requirements is putting their sources in the articles.

That doesn't help your cause; the wikipedia review process is a peer review that is non-academic. Their volunteer reviewers are not necessarily qualified and even if they are their review is non-academic. For an article like the one on Zzyzx, they hardly pay attention; they focus peer review on the major feature articles.

No, it is not the end all of sources.. however, they do attempt to make it as unbiased as possible, and to have legitimate information through a review process.

Again, their review process doesn't support legitimacy on their part.

This is the great thing about debate. If you think you spot inaccurate information in the supporting documentation, you have the perfect right to show your own source that disagrees with that information. There is nothing stopping you from refuting the information from a source with your very own source!

Debating over what sources are legit or not should not be an issue; it is a sign that the two sides are not on the same page as to the parameters of their debating. That makes for a sloppy and fruitless debate. In any case, this is the general chat forum, not the debate forum.

And, by all means, if ZZ's source can be shown to be inaccurate, let us see a source that has more accurate , up to date, and unbiased. I encourage you to use sources you feel are legit to back up any claim you make , right up front.

It can't be shown to be accurate. It seems to be copied from another website verbatim, and neither the article nor the website it is identical to provide sources or even credentials for the author.

It's basically my own experience and knowledge against some unknown, remote person's. It's not like it's my knowledge against that of someone who we know is a credible authority; you, and others, only perceive it as credible because it's in Wikipedia. That's pretty bad on your (plural) part.

[JohnnyJersey]

But he was wrong, so what was so funny?

But there is no irony, as he was inaccurate in saying I 'usurped' a name.

I don't remember McCulloch saying you usurped a name. I certainly never said you did, but neither did Zzyzx. Both of you just happen to use names of places in your usernames, I just don't see the big deal.

He suggested it in his question, you took it as "ironic" so you obviously saw the irony in someone with a usurped name (even though that wasn't the case) pointing out someone else's usurped name.

It's not a big deal that we use places in our names, but it is a big deal that I am erroneously alleged to have done what I didn't do, and have it put forth as I somehow "lost" for it. If it wasn't a big deal then what was the "win"??? "Win" implies a winner, which implies a loser. Anyway, from someone so sensitive to "childish insults" perceived against herself, I don't see how you can fail to see the childish insult of implying me to be a "loser".

What was personal was the mistake that you perceived me to have made. It was at that mistake - the irony that I mistakenly used the term "usurp" so as to make myself a hypocrite - at which you laughed.

If it truly offended you, I apologize. I would have never thought you or anyone would take that so personally. It won't happen again.

Thank you, apology accepted.

I don't see you laughing at others' hypocrisy, which you (conveniently) don't notice.

I laugh at what I find funny. It wasn't intended as a laughing-AT-you thing. Accurate or not, what I found funny was the way the whole thing was presented.

I believe you, that you laugh at what you find funny. I just see that you find it funny when something is offensive to those with whom you disagree, but find it offensive when something can be perceived as offensive to those with whom you agree.

[May I point out that none of this would have happened if you had chosen a less negative word to refer to Zzyzx's username?

Again, we get to the root of it - you perceive "usurp" as being a negative word, when it isn't. It is not a negative thing to "usurp" something so trivial as a place name. I was pointing out that Zzyzx's chosen screen name was not just a made-up jumble of letters, but actually based on a real place. I used the term "usurped" as I saw no connection, and there is no obvious connection, between him and Zzyzx, CA. So I was conveying that he took the name with no apparent "right" or connection to it.

I've usurped things in such a figurative way many times, and said so. I've sat down in seats that I thought were empty to find out someone else had been sitting there, and apologized by saying, "Oh, sorry, I usurped your seat". I've borrowed friend's pens or other small items without asking and said, "Oh, I have your pen, sorry - I saw it lying around and usurped it!" Doesn't make me a bad person for usurping - it's not a negative thing to do in trivial matters where the word is used mostly figuratively.

I see the disrespect from you, as well as the generalizations about fundamentalists that you and others so ignorantly hurl.

Maybe you should look at the way you disrespect others before condemning everyone else.

Such as...?

If you'd like to PM to me these generalizations that I made, or to point them out in the specific topics, I'll be happy to either support my claims or retract them if appropiate.

[JohnnyJersey]

.

As for the pissing match - what can anyone expect from a thread entitled "Complain about Zzyzx", started by Zzyzx himself? It might as well have been titled "Open invitation to pissing matches with Zzyzx".

I brought this up to moderators by reporting it, but I guess the consensus was that such a thread was viable, so....here we are, in pissing matches.

I stand ready to DEBATE you whenever you feel capable and so inclined. Which of the "miracle" tales do you think you can defend as literally true? I suggest Closely Moderated Head to Head to keep you from making personal comments (which seem to constitute your "arguments").

Care to have a go at actual debate?

I don't make "personal comments" - don't lie now.

I also don't make time to debate those who demonstrate contempt and disrespect towards me, as you do with your disrespectful tone and belligerence. If you want to debate me, they have the debate forums, and I will debate there when it suits me, when I have spare time to kill, like now. Otherwise, I'm not going to make time to debate someone that has yet to show me he's open-minded in his argument.

Edited to add: This thread was created to give complainers a place to vent their frustrations without polluting debate threads with personal comments. Quite a few Fundamentalists seem to take exception to my posts and to reduce their "arguments" to rants about me pernally.

Right. In other words, to invite people to pissing matches here so you wouldn't have them in the other forums.

[JohnnyJersey]

Moderator Opinions

This topic seems to be on the very fringe of what is allowed, and will require effort from all sides in order to remain acceptable.

As for the pissing match - what can anyone expect from a thread entitled "Complain about Zzyzx", started by Zzyzx himself? It might as well have been titled "Open invitation to pissing matches with Zzyzx".

I brought this up to moderators by reporting it, but I guess the consensus was that such a thread was viable, so....here we are, in pissing matches.

Regardless of any discussion about the nature of the thread, there is no excuse for personal comments in a post. If you feel that you cannot respond to a topic civilly, then don't respond.

I don't see how this topic lies on the fringe - the topic is "Complain about Zzyzx here". COMPLAIN.

com·plain [kuhm-pleyn] Show IPA
–verb (used without object)
1.
to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault: He complained constantly about the noise in the corridor.
2.
to tell of one's pains, ailments, etc.: to complain of a backache.
3.
to make a formal accusation: If you think you've been swindled, complain to the police.

I don't see how complaining, finding fault, expressing dissatisfaction, pain, resentment, etc. about a person is anything but flame bait. I'd love to know how one complains "civilly" without eliciting a pissing match from the object of the complaint.

Edited to add: This thread was created to give complainers a place to vent their frustrations without polluting debate threads with personal comments. Quite a few Fundamentalists seem to take exception to my posts and to reduce their "arguments" to rants about me personally.

Inviting discussions about the proper methods of debate is allowed in the discussion board, but we seem to be drifting into a commentary about your personal debating - rather than a more general discussion. The fact that this is presented as a challenge to those who you feel attack you personally would mean that it could be seen as flame bait (possibly encouraging others to break rules). It is not squarely against the rules, but we need to stay away from trying to judge the validity of your (or anyone else's) personal character.

I've stuck to discussing Zzyzx's debating "style", right down to his badgering technique of trying to manipulate others by goading them into his beloved "closely moderated head to head debate". It is only Zzyzx's allegation that I or anyone else who criticizes his style and techniques are criticizing him "personally". He seems to use that term when it can help give him a basis for indignance to avert discussion about his actual debate and argument style and techniques.

I have not made any negative remarks about Zzyzx that are personal in nature beyond that which concerns his argument/debate style and techniques.

[Zzyzx]

.

I stand ready to DEBATE you whenever you feel capable and so inclined. Which of the "miracle" tales do you think you can defend as literally true? I suggest Closely Moderated Head to Head to keep you from making personal comments (which seem to constitute your "arguments").

Care to have a go at actual debate?

I don't make "personal comments" - don't lie now.

Correction: You do not debate.

Every reader can evaluate how little you say OTHER than personal comments.

I also don't make time to debate

You evidently have plenty of time available to make personal comments.

Does it take less time (and effort) to make personal comments than it does to try to make rational arguments in favor of talking donkeys, people living in fish, and dead bodies coming back to life?

those who demonstrate contempt and disrespect towards me, as you do with your disrespectful tone and belligerence.

You are right to conclude that I have no respect for you – as a debater – because one who refuses to debate and who offers little or nothing other than personal comments has NOT EARNED and does not deserve my respect.

If you want to debate me, they have the debate forums, and I will debate there when it suits me,

I have challenged you to DEBATE in debate forums -- repeatedly -- and you have declined.

when I have spare time to kill, like now.

If you “have time� and feel competent, pick a bible “miracle� that you think you can defend as truthful and literal and let’s have a go at it in Head to Head with Close Moderation (to prevent dishonest tactics and personal comments).

Otherwise, I'm not going to make time to debate someone that has yet to show me he's open-minded in his argument.

I am quite open to EVIDENCE that supernatural beings exist. I do NOT accept as evidence opinions, conjecture, testimonials, unverified claims, hearsay or tales in religious promotional literature. What actual evidence do you have?

Edited to add: This thread was created to give complainers a place to vent their frustrations without polluting debate threads with personal comments. Quite a few Fundamentalists seem to take exception to my posts and to reduce their "arguments" to rants about me pernally.

Right. In other words, to invite people to pissing matches here so you wouldn't have them in the other forums.

Correction: I invite complainers to this thread with their personal comments so we can DEBATE in debate forums.

Debate forums are intended for DEBATE – not for airing personal laundry. Many Fundamentalists refuse to debate but make extensive personal comments in threads that are intended for DEBATE. You are a prime example.

I encourage complainers to have their say here, thereby attempting to preserve debate threads for what they are intended.

Do you prefer to air your personal comments in debate threads?

[JohnnyJersey]

.

I stand ready to DEBATE you whenever you feel capable and so inclined. Which of the "miracle" tales do you think you can defend as literally true? I suggest Closely Moderated Head to Head to keep you from making personal comments (which seem to constitute your "arguments").

Care to have a go at actual debate?

I don't make "personal comments" - don't lie now.

Correction: You do not debate.

Every reader can evaluate how little you say OTHER than personal comments.

Correction: I do debate; I just don't debate you on your terms at your whim when you attempt to goad me into debating, but rather I debate how, what, who, and when I want to. You just don't seem to understand that, some kind of comprehension problem on your part I suppose. I don't expect you'll understand even after being told yet again, I'm sure you'll be back to your pathetic, desperate begging for a debate. Beg all you want but remember - beggars can't be choosers.

I also don't make time to debate

You evidently have plenty of time available to make personal comments.

Oh, are we now taking a quote from each other, fragmenting it, isolating part of it, quoting it on its own out of context, and then making a remark about it as if it were said just the way we're misquoting it to get in some cheap shots? Cool!

Does it take less time (and effort) to make personal comments than it does to try to

I would imagine it takes as much time (and effort) or longer (more) to actually make personal comments than it does to try to.

make rational arguments in favor of talking donkeys, people living in fish, and dead bodies coming back to life?

Yes, I agree that I and others make rational arguments for those things. Glad you agree.

those who demonstrate contempt and disrespect towards me, as you do with your disrespectful tone and belligerence.

You are right to conclude that I have no respect for you – as a debater – because one who refuses to debate and who offers little or nothing other than personal comments has NOT EARNED and does not deserve my respect.

Who's making personal comments here??? (HINT: re-read what you typed)

If you want to debate me, they have the debate forums, and I will debate there when it suits me,

I have challenged you to DEBATE in debate forums -- repeatedly -- and you have declined.

Yes, and you look more and more desperate the more you do it. I know that READERS see it. Like the puppy dog who keeps dropping the ball at his master's feet, begging him to throw it for the 101st time, only to do it again and again after that, but his master can't be bothered to indulge the mutt.

when I have spare time to kill, like now.

If you “have time� and feel competent, pick a bible “miracle� that you think you can defend as truthful and literal and let’s have a go at it in Head to Head with Close Moderation (to prevent dishonest tactics and personal comments).

Otherwise, I'm not going to make time to debate someone that has yet to show me he's open-minded in his argument.

I am quite open to EVIDENCE that supernatural beings exist. I do NOT accept as evidence opinions, conjecture, testimonials, unverified claims, hearsay or tales in religious promotional literature. What actual evidence do you have?

I like how you blatantly contradict yourself; you say you're "open to EVIDENCE" and immediately you run down a laundry list of restrictions on the "EVIDENCE", excluding such basic evidence as testimonials amongst the things in your little list.

The funny thing is that I'm sure you do accept testimonial evidence for most things in your life and you don't even realize it.

Edited to add: This thread was created to give complainers a place to vent their frustrations without polluting debate threads with personal comments. Quite a few Fundamentalists seem to take exception to my posts and to reduce their "arguments" to rants about me pernally.

Right. In other words, to invite people to pissing matches here so you wouldn't have them in the other forums.

Correction: I invite complainers to this thread with their personal comments so we can DEBATE in debate forums.

Yes, and you engage them in pissing matches here, like you are doing with me.

Debate forums are intended for DEBATE – not for airing personal laundry. Many Fundamentalists refuse to debate but make extensive personal comments in threads that are intended for DEBATE. You are a prime example.

I encourage complainers to have their say here, thereby attempting to preserve debate threads for what they are intended.

Yes, and you engage in argument over the complaints (aka "pissing match") here, as well.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

I don't see how this topic lies on the fringe - the topic is "Complain about Zzyzx here". COMPLAIN....

It is against the rules to respond to moderator comments publicly. Please be sure to use a private message.

On another note, due to the lack of positive discussion, and the abundance of negative personal comments, I am locking this thread. This should not be taken as a judgment on the original post, or on any particular debater.
If you feel that this thread is contributing merit to the site, send a message to myself or another moderator.