Like I said, I don't care about the medium of delivery.
Flowery words to me are no more than a different language that employs words of other languages. Fucking = very, retarded = mindless. I personally prefer using strong language because I've grown up in that kind of environment, so sticking with it reduces friction of communication for me.
Of course, your choice about how many fuck(s) you want to use. I was suggesting that you may have gone overboard a bit within one of the last sentences.. but that is your discretion whether you believe that you are communicating what you had intended. Sometimes the fucks will b more effective when they are only a couple in a paragraph rather than 4 or 5 in the same paragraph... but whatever, that is your choice, ultimately.
I use it with a smile on my face, unless some dumbass is in front of me that would get physical because his tiny dick would fall off otherwise.
i will agree that we might be able to get a way with a higher level of assertiveness over the internet, but if someone is getting to aggressive with me in the physical space, that could be a crime. You hav heard of assault, right?
Anyhow, it is not necessarily appropriate to get too aggressive with people in civilized circles.
Or in professional settings. Obviously not going to go around swearing around professors, except for the two that swear along with me. And in some situations strong language is simply the way to go, namely when an objective debate can't be had because you're being attacked. Then you need to flat out obliterate the idiot to make sure that at least the environment picks up on their lack of rationality and composure.
i don't know if you win a debate by "obliterating" through swearing, unless you also have addressed points being made by the opponent. I suppose it depends on circumstances, and I doubt that it is necessary to always win, either.
I do agree that some strategic use of language can cause emphasis, though.
I don't read every post in this thread, but I see him dealing with the same issue I do in some of the debates here mainly because he's a believer in BCash. Namely people not listening and making up shit on either of our behalf and then derailing themselves from there while trying to claim some fictive moral high ground.
If you are a supporter of bcash, then you should expect to get bashed in this thread, and sometimes unfairly, and the question might not be whether you are right but whether you are relevant to the topics of the thread or if you are merely trying to derail meaningful bitcoin conversation with bcash bullshit talk. Who cares if there may be some good attributes of bcash and some of their various members, unless you can somehow make it kind of relevant to this thread?
By the way, I doubt anyone reads every post in this thread, but sometimes if we are talking about some kind of issue about posts or posting, it may be good to have an example here and there... otherwise, we may begin to flail with too many generalizations rather than referring to specifics.. to the extent the matter of a BIGBLOCK supporter poster might continue to be relevant beyond merely a general reference.
If I caught him making the same kind of argument and had the capacity to identify it as such I would at the very least think the same about his remarks as I've stated here. I simply don't know Bitcoin in-depth enough to make comparisons of the technological aspects, and neither do most of the people here who just repeat talking points.
If we are spouting out bitcoin talking points, then we are on topic. If we are spouting out bcash or alt coin talking points we are not, unless we at least attempt to make our talking points relevant without seeming like a shill or a troll, which can successfully be done, especially if you are not in the habit of posting bullshit off-topic stuff, like someone like roach frequently does or at least frequently there is a stretch to the extent his points are quasi-relevant.
I'll gladly be the first to say that I support Bitcoin Core
There should not be any need in this thread to use that extra word, "core" in order to distinguish about what you are talking about.. but I understand sometimes it can clarify ambiguity, but in this thread a vast majority of us seem to understand what is bitcoin without any additional need for the word "core".
because of the type of people BCash mostly attracts.
O.k. i like to beat up on bcash celebrities as much as anyone else, but I doubt that support or not has to do with what people are on their team, exactly. What I am trying to say is that there has never really been any effective undermining of the various bitcoin network effects, and whoever the fuck are working on bitcoin are still present and innovating... Yeah, we have disgruntled failures going over to bcash for a variety of reasons, including that they could not figure out a way to work within bitcoin parameters or they wanted to get rich or they wanted to attempt to have a voice with a smaller team, and whatever, who cares? Let them do their little thing, including trying to fraudulently act as if they are the real bitcoin and mislead peeps.. mostly mislead newbs, but these snake oil aspects are likely going to continue for a long time, and it remains good to call them out for what they are than to sugar coat.
Jbreher appears to be a strange exception on this, so I am at least willing to concede that there might be some merit to his claims.
You sound distracted, and who gives a shit if he is making good points. He can make them somewhere else. They are rarely relevant in the bitcoin thread.
By the way. I would sit down with whatever people would generally be considered "deplorable" and have an argument (= discussion) with them if I knew that it'd be safe for me to do so.
Fair enough. Frequently, if you already socialize in the real world, you are going to find plenty of opportunities to meet and discuss with people of differing views. Sometimes it can be interesting, but sometimes it is a BIG ASS waste of time. Several years ago, I recall getting coffee with a friend who I thought was ideologically on the same page as me, and then as we were talking, I realized that the approach was much different, and I recall asking what the fuck about how much time was being spent to "study the opposition?" I suggested that it was a BIG ASS waste of time, but I know people are in different places regarding how usefully they believe it is to study certain matters that I might believe to be less interesting and a waste of time. Anyhow, I seem to be deviating, a bit too much.
I like learning from people, even if I would celebrate their departure from earth in a casket (which really would take some Hitler or ISIS level idiot, or some child rapist or God knows what sort of menace).
Sometimes, it can be interesting, but sometimes it is a BIG ass waste of time.
If you can't talk to people you disagree with without just focusing on how you could somehow "get at them" or further your own agenda you clearly have no position worth defending or position that you're capable of defending and haven't learned a single damn thing from life. Such a person is just an infantile ape in an adult body.
I have no problem talking with various other people, but you know that in polite conversation, you need to be careful about talking politics, religion or sex, unless you are clearly engaging with a willing opponent/participant. You heard the expression, right? Don't bring those subjects up.... at a social gathering that is supposed to be friendly, unless you are clearly and unambiguously in a consent based interaction. Otherwise people might consider you as impolite and imposing your views on them.
I couldn't care less about defending Jbreher,
What is your point then? I thought that was the whole topic?
he can do that himself if he feels the need to.
Of course, he can.
I'm merely talking about the fact that some people make up shit while acting as if they weren't.
Huh? I thought that we were talking about jbreher and his ideas. Now you want to say it is about "some people" and that may be where I am getting lost, perhaps?
weeeeee
