Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

"Feel free to start a new one if you guys wish"....DONE

---

How I won the argument with AC in 3 easy steps:

1) AC - “So if I think something is boring or dull, like Arctic Monkeys, I think it's shit music, like Lily Allen."

2) Me - He says (and maintains) he “thinks it’s shit music”…not just SAYS it’s shit music…THINKS it’s shit music.

3) Problem With AC's Reasoning - You can't THINK music is "shit" if you yourself believe there is NO SUCH THING as "good" or "shit" music. You can only just SAY it's "shit" (using the word "shit" to only express it doesn't appeal to you). If music can't truly be objectively good (as most of you think), then "good" or "shit" could ONLY be words that express how you like or dislike a song, NOT words that express how a song is good or shit in any particular way (but AC has continually disagreed with this last sentence). When he says "this song sucks" he doesn't even know what he's really saying.

---

So to sum it up...a song isn't good or crap to anyone who thinks music can't truly be objectively good...those are just the WORDS they use to express they don't like it or that it doesn't appeal to them.

But AC says stuff like "I THINK it's shit music"..."It's shit in my opinion", and ALSO says that saying words like "good" or "shit" aren't necessarily ONLY to be used to express the like or dislike of a song.

Therefore, for AC, the statement "I THINK it's shit music" is implying more than just liking or disliking the music...'cause he says using "shit" means more than just expressing he dislikes a certain piece of music...so it must also mean something else. But WHAT? There's NOTHING else it could be saying about the music if to him music can't be objetively good or crap.

He doesn't even GET how he's being contradictory.


So...I'll leave it at that. I know I'm right, there's no question about it, and there's no point discussing this any further with someone who isn't man enough to admit he's wrong even though I KNOW he knows it.

Note:

In regards to the As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll thread...

I never said I had "no interest in keeping this thread on topic" as moderator BackFire suggested. I was often willing to get on topic. But the discussion had shifted for the time being (as many do), and I (as well as others) were involved in talking about something that was related to the original discussion...which I had promised I'd get back (guess BackFire didn't see this).

However, AC being the pest that he is, and asking me the same question 15 times over when he's not even expecting to get an answer, was if anything prolonging this…not to mention providing the hostility in the thread (along with a couple other foul-mouthed patrons).

But…whatever.

Alright then


So...now, upon request, we can finally continue with the original discussion.


I started a new thread and everything...so what's your question AC? (now that I'm prepared to respond)

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How I won the argument with AC in 3 easy steps:

Wrong

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
1) AC - “So if I think something is boring or dull, like Arctic Monkeys, I think it's shit music, like Lily Allen."

Correct.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
2) Me - He says (and maintains) he “thinks it’s shit music”…not just SAYS it’s shit music…THINKS it’s shit music.

Incorrect. He says it is shit music to him. He says he does not like it.


Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
3) Problem With AC's Reasoning - You can't THINK music is "shit" if you yourself believe there is NO SUCH THING as "good" or "shit" music. You can only just SAY it's "shit" (using the word "shit" to only express it doesn't appeal to you). If music can't truly be objectively good (as most of you think), then "good" or "shit" could ONLY be words that express how you like or dislike a song, NOT words that express how a song is good or shit in any particular way (but AC has continually disagreed with this last sentence). When he says "this song sucks" he doesn't even know what he's really saying.

You misportray the argument. That is not what he is saying. Do you really not understand it or are you a liar?

And there can be qualities that you define as good or bad in songs. That doesn't imply objectivity in music. That is also a fact.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
---

So to sum it up...a song isn't good or crap to anyone who thinks music can't truly be objectively good...those are just the WORDS they use to express they don't like it or that it doesn't appeal to them.

Wrong wording. It is crap to them, because they do not like it. Keep up the bad work, though.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But AC says stuff like "I THINK it's shit music"..."It's shit in my opinion", and ALSO says that saying words like "good" or "shit" aren't necessarily ONLY to be used to express the like or dislike of a song.

And he is right.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Therefore, for AC, the statement "I THINK it's shit music" is implying more than just liking or disliking the music...'cause he says using "shit" means more than just expressing he dislikes a certain piece of music...so it must also mean something else. But WHAT? There's NOTHING else it could be saying about the music if to him music can't be objetively good or crap.

Wrong conclusoon. AC does not thing that it is more than his subjective opinion. He stated so repeatedly. I trust his statements on his argument more than yours.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
He doesn't even GET how he's being contradictory.

Because he isn't. You can not use logic well.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So...I'll leave it at that. I know I'm right, there's no question about it, and there's no point discussing this any further with someone who isn't man enough to admit he's wrong even though I KNOW he knows it.

Incorrect. You are wrong as I have just shown once more.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Note:

In regards to the As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll thread...

I never said I had "no interest in keeping this thread on topic" as moderator BackFire suggested. I was often willing to get on topic. But the discussion had shifted for the time being (as many do), and I (as well as others) were involved in talking about something that was related to the original discussion...which I had promised I'd get back (guess BackFire didn't see this).

Lie! You did not reply to repeated requests to argue on topic. You tried to push your illogical vendetta agains AC, despite everyone disagreeing with your conclusions. You brought it off-topic.

And though you promised to get back you did not for more than 5 pages.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
However, AC being the pest that he is, and asking me the same question 15 times over when he's not even expecting to get an answer, was if anything prolonging this…not to mention providing the hostility in the thread (along with a couple other foul-mouthed patrons).

Nonsense. Asking the same question 15 times over is your standard way of arguing, despite getting an answer. He on the other hand did not get an answer, because you avoided the topic as much as you could. Which we can see again by you starting another thread which is not on the previous topic, but again on your stupid reasoning.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But…whatever.

You are a liar.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Alright then


So...now, upon request, we can finally continue with the original discussion.


I started a new thread and everything...so what's your question AC? (now that I'm prepared to respond)

Answer mine instead:

Why do you believe there is objectivity in music?

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Can you prove for any band that they are good or bad?

What bands are objectively good, what are bad?

Where does the objectivity come from?

He we go then, fourth thread and fourth time you're going to get beaten and put to shame.

My REQUEST: Prove any song of your choosing is good or bad objectively. Do it in ONE post, without 4 or 5 after posts.

One post to prove that a song of your choosing is good or bad, objectively, and then explain why that is. ONE POST.

If you cannot summerise and act out this request in one post, it proves you are too insecure to just put your argument out there and leave it.

-AC

EPIIIBITES, This personal vendetta against someone, who has clearly beaten you in every argument so far, is getting, really, really boring.

I think it would make more sense to leave that debate in the other thread. Start fresh.

If anyone is actually interested in doing that.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
EPIIIBITES, This personal vendetta against someone, who has clearly beaten you in every argument so far, is getting, really, really boring. AC...beaten me...oh boy.

I don't think you truly realize how funny that sounds.


This is the same AC who says stuff like "I think Lily Allen sucks"...

Sure, maybe some people don’t like her…be he thinks her music sucks…

...but doesn't mean it ACUTALLY sucks...

...he just SAYS with every ounce of his being that her music sucks...

...but she doesn't REALLY suck...only to him...

...meaning her music DOESN'T suck...to me...

...which would make me wonder why he's so adamant about her sucking in the first place...

...but oh yeah, it's because he doesn't like her...so then her music sucks. So much so that he somehow thinks ridiculing people for liking her has some kind of point.

…but her music doesn’t REALLY suck…so how can it?


JUST READ THAT AND TELL ME HE’S MAKING SENSE…YEAH…THOUGHT SO.


AC...is gonna tell US about Lily Allen. The same Lily Allen who's debut album appeared on NUMEROUS people's Top 10 lists for album of the year, garnering reviews from major music magazines such as these...


-"Pop music needed saving and in Lily Allen we've found just the woman to do it."

-"Britain's new pop darling justifies all the purple prose."

-"The pop album of the year."

-"In terms of a debut record-- and especially given the weight of expectation placed on her to deliver something special-- Alright, Still isn’t anything else but a fantastic success."

-Like Blondie circa 1981, Allen breathes needed fresh air into the game.

"-Allen one of the wittiest new voices in pop."

"-A simple, smart pop record by one of the most charismatic young talents to come along in a while."

"-A blast from start to finish"


But AC doesn’t like her…so then she sucks…but he doesn’t mean she ACTUALLY sucks…he’s only thinks she does…in his opinion. Which, as you can see, speaks VOLUMES.

You ask me for my request and question, I give you it, then you focus on Chillmeistergen. Why even ask me if you're not gonna answer? One more time:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But AC doesn’t like her…so then she sucks…but he doesn’t mean she ACTUALLY sucks…he’s only thinks she does…in his opinion. Which, as you can see, speaks VOLUMES.

Those quotes do not mean she's actually, objectively good. It means those people think she is, in their opinion. It doesn't matter who they work for or who they are, they are opinions.

So I am forced to ask you once again; Prove she's objectively good, and then tell me why, in one post.

Will you or will you not do this? Stop focusing on everything and everyone else, and answer my request or leave the thread. Don't keep referring to me as if you're talking to someone else, nobody else agrees with you, so deal with me, since you always wanna focus on me.

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

That's all I'm asking. If you don't do it now, I'll take it as an admittance of defeat.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you believe there is objectivity in music?

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Can you prove for any band that they are good or bad?

What bands are objectively good, what are bad?

Where does the objectivity come from?
I'll answer that in a bit...and THEN you can start replying to my post

Originally posted by Ytse
I think it would make more sense to leave that debate in the other thread. Start fresh.

If anyone is actually interested in doing that.
Sure...but someone decided to close it.

I'll post my argument again.

But in the mean time, check this out. It sums up the end of the last threadOriginally posted by EPIIIBITES
How I won the argument with AC in 3 easy steps:

1) AC - “So if I think something is boring or dull, like Arctic Monkeys, I think it's shit music, like Lily Allen."

2) Me - He says (and maintains) he “thinks it’s shit music”…not just SAYS it’s shit music…THINKS it’s shit music.

3) Problem With AC's Reasoning - You can't THINK music is "shit" if you yourself believe there is NO SUCH THING as "good" or "shit" music. You can only just SAY it's "shit" (using the word "shit" to only express it doesn't appeal to you). If music can't truly be objectively good (as most of you think), then "good" or "shit" could ONLY be words that express how you like or dislike a song, NOT words that express how a song is good or shit in any particular way (but AC has continually disagreed with this last sentence). When he says "this song sucks" he doesn't even know what he's really saying.

---

So to sum it up...a song isn't good or crap to anyone who thinks music can't truly be objectively good...those are just the WORDS they use to express they don't like it or that it doesn't appeal to them.

But AC says stuff like "I THINK it's shit music"..."It's shit in my opinion", and ALSO says that saying words like "good" or "shit" aren't necessarily ONLY to be used to express the like or dislike of a song.

Therefore, for AC, the statement "I THINK it's shit music" is implying more than just liking or disliking the music...'cause he says using "shit" means more than just expressing he dislikes a certain piece of music...so it must also mean something else. But WHAT? There's NOTHING else it could be saying about the music if to him music can't be objetively good or crap.

He doesn't even GET how he's being contradictory.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Sure...but someone decided to close it.

A moderator closed it. And I have a feeling he'll close this one too if it's just a continuation of the previous one.

Don't restart that debate again, the debate about me and what I said, I ended it, so stop continuing it, because we'll end up with another closed thread.

EP, answer my question and request.

Here:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Just answer that, please. You asked me for my request, I give it to you, you ignore it.

THAT is the main argument, objectivity in music, not "What AC means, despite him explaining it.".

-AC

I haven't actually read your posts...because you're just being your usual pesty self...hope you're proud of yourself. I'm sure you feel great about how you act.

Now you know what I've said regarding proof...


SO DON'T TRY AND TRICK PEOPLE INTO THINKING WHAT I NEED AND DON'T NEED TO PROVE.

AND STOP ASKING THE QUESTION YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO.


You truly are insufferable.

Don't PM me saying "You know I can't prove it.".

If you can't prove it, say you can't, and stop saying the objective standard exists and you know it does. You CAN'T prove it and EVERYBODY has proven why it isn't true, so you may as well drop the argument or, keep it to yourself and shut up about it. You can't prove it, we've proven it wrong, so either stop or find proof, don't keep pushing the same "But I PERSONALLY BELIEVE IT!" bs. You somehow convincing yourself it's right based on evidence we've all refuted, doesn't count.

However, just because I want you to answer I'll ask you again:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Debate this, debate this topic, the one you spend almost a working week writing a futile argument for. Don't spend time debating me and what I say, debate the topic you're slowly abandoning.

-AC

I've already said that about proving it in the other thread. So stop pestering about it me and taking up space. It's pointless. You know the answer...and evceryone will know it when I post my argument.

And AC, I actually haven't READ any of your posts for almost a couple days now...just now that. I know whatt they're saying...the same thing over and over again.

You're tactics are ridiculous.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I've already said that about proving it in the other thread. So stop pestering about it me and taking up space. It's pointless. You know the answer...and evceryone will know it when I post my argument.

And AC, I actually haven't READ any of your posts for almost a couple days now...just now that. I know whatt they're saying...the same thing over and over again.

You're tactics are ridiculous.

Hypocrite, hmm? Ignoring my posts, asking us to read yours. Don't reference me, misquote me and discuss me if you won't read my posts.

I'll ask you again, you've admitted you cannot prove it, which would be required. We have all proven what you DO have, wrong, so you can only re-paste your argument over and over, without proving anything. Here:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Answer it.

If you convince yourself there's an objective standard for whatever reason, fine, but don't enter a debate with OTHER PEOPLE and insist you are correct when you cannot prove it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So...I'll leave it at that. I know I'm right, there's no question about it, and there's no point discussing this any further with someone who isn't man enough to admit he's wrong even though I KNOW he knows it.

So stop.

-AC

Why do you even keep writing?...I DON'T READ YOUR POSTS AC...and most people just skip through them because they know what you're saying.

Haven't read your posts in days...they're ridiculous. So go ahead...keep wasting your time.

Like you're not replying to me now?

You do realise that everyone, from now on, is just going to keep asking you to prove the objective standard, rather than indulging your patheticism, right? You'll have to answer one of us when every post is straight to the point, not giving you anything to reply to.

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Answer it.

Or, to anyone else in this thread, ask him the same question, cos he "doesn't read" my posts.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wrong
About your reply to my post...Of course...it makes NO sense...

Originally posted by Bardock42
And there can be qualities that you define as good or bad in songs.
First off...we've been talking about QUALITY...not QUALITIES

I told you...

In regards to me pointing out the falacy in AC's idea about "judging" or "determining quality" in music (something that he himself says can't be objectively good or bad), you said...

"You can judge whether the person playing parts of the songs does so at a fast or slow pace. That would be one thing you can judge. There are many more, but you wouldn't understand."

GREAT...but fast or slow pace isn't the kind of stuff AC ever points to when he says "this song sucks" after APPARENTLY having judged it. No one really does! What are you on about?

Like Ytse said, you can look at things like Timbre, Pitch, Tempo, Dynamics (whether its loud or soft), and then judge and measure those things in a song...sure. But people don't say "this song sucks" or "this band sucks"...and then say it was becasue of the the pitch, timbre, or it was too slow.

Great argument!

Music (according to someone who thinks it can't be objectively good or bad) can't be judgeable IN A WAY THAT WILL LEAD THEM TO SAY "this song sucks".

People only judge it in ways to show things like tempo (which they basically NEVER use as a reason to say something like "this song sucks"...are you kidding me?


I'm right again it seems. Nice try though...

EP, if you "know" you're right and we're all wrong, why are you here trying to prove it to people you clearly feel don't understand and are beneath you? Why not just walk away?

Bardock, do not keep replying in my defense, it's ok. Let him think what he wants, he knows he's wrong about my point, so do you.

Just keep asking him to prove his initial argument, like this:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

EP?

-AC

I'm just gonna guess what your last post was about.

I already told you I'll post my argument when I'm ready.

Stop being a pest.

If you're so right, if we're all so ignorant and incapable of understanding and you know it's pointless, why are you still here? I will tell you why. You know for a fact that the only reason you are posting is because NOT posting would make you feel like you've lost.

Besides, you already said "Taste is subjective.". Taste is all we have to judge how good or bad music is outside of technique.

So you truthfully agree with all of us that there's no objective standard, you're just bsing. You know you agree, you factually know it, don't deny it. You agreed with me. I'm telling you that you agreed.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And AC, I actually haven't READ any of your posts for almost a couple days now...just now that. I know whatt they're saying...the same thing over and over again.

I doubt that actually surprises anyone.

AC, I already responded to YOUR question...I did.


I PM'd you...and gave the response I wanted to give.


But after that (and I knew you'd do this) you keep asking the same question in order to trick people...even though my response told you how it's an INVALID QUESTION according to my argument.


But whatever...


People were asking for the argument that my other thread was about - As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll thread...


So I'll give my argument for THIS...

I, EPIIIBITES, CLAIM THAT SOME MUSIC IS “TRULY” CRAP.


THIS IS (THE SHORT VERSION) OF MY ARGUMENT AS TO WHY.


…and ACTUALLY read it….don’t just drop in and say something like “but I like this song!”

OK

First off, let me say this. I am a kind of person who can say he likes a band , likes their music, but can stand back, look at them more closely, and say that they’re not “actually” all that good. Just because I like their music, it doesn’t get in the way of me realizing how bad they “actually” might be. Even the other way around…I might hate a band (like The Police or Dave Matthews Band), hate their music, but can admit they’re not “actually” bad…it’s just that I don’t like them. It doesn’t do it for me. It doesn’t strike a chord. But I don’t let that get in the way of me realizing how decent a band they are and how decent the music they make is. But I ALSO can look at someone like Ashlee Simpson and (regardless if I like her or not) can point to a thousand reasons why her music is “actually” crap.

Thing is, a lot of people have their opinions of how they feel about a certain band or certain music tied to how they critique them, and they can’t separate themselves from saying they like a certain band’s music, and seeing how the music that this band makes might not actually be all that good…which I think is kinda shallow.

Someone likes Nickleback…which is fine in itself…but they can’t see how Nickleback really aren’t all that good, and that they’re music is actually kinda weak.

Makes sense to me. But…what do I know, right?


Now, let me explain my argument…answering Bardock42's questions

------

Why do you believe there is objectivity in music?


Because universal truths exist. There IS a good/bad, and there IS a right/wrong. If there wasn't, then there'd be no ACTUAL difference in something like how just someone like Hitler is compared to how just Mother Theresa is. There would be no ACTUAL difference between the two in how just they are as human beings. But I, along with most intelligent-minded people would say that there's gotta be an ACTUAL difference between how just Hitler is compared to Mother Theresa. Otherwise, the alternative is ridiculous...that he might very well be considered AS JUST a human being as her (maybe from a fellow German during Nazi Germany or something like that).

Now, in order for there to be an ACTUAL difference there (like most intelligent people would say there would have to be), an objective standard of justice would have to exist to determine this difference (not describe WHAT the difference is and WHY, simply to determine the difference to be there). It wouldn’t be something we could use to measure HOW Hitler is less just then Mother Theresa or WHY…but it could serve as a way to determine a difference that most intelligent people would say would have to just be there (considering the alternative is preposterous).

So, compared to music…(and follow the direct comparisons within the paragraphs).

Saying there is no objectivity in music would mean that Ashlee Simpson's music could very well be as accomplished as Jimi Hendrix's music...again, most intelligent people/musicians and especially those with informed opinions on music would say that there's gotta be an ACTUAL difference between how accomplished Ashlee Simpson’s music is compared to Jimi Hendrix’s. Otherwise, the alternative is ridiculous...that her music might very well be considered AS ACCOMPLISHED as his (maybe from a fellow teenage pop fan or something like that).

Now, in order for there to be an ACTUAL difference there (like most intelligent people/musicians and those with informed opinions on music would say there would have to be), an objective standard of music would have to exist to determine this difference (not describe WHAT the difference is and WHY, simply to determine the difference to be there). It wouldn’t be something we could use to measure HOW Ashlee Simpson’s music is less accomplished then Jimi Hendrix’s or WHY…but it could serve as a way to determine a difference that most intelligent people/musicians and those with informed opinions on music would say would have to just be there (considering the alternative is preposterous).

And if you want to know the real details of this stuff you would have to read my original posts on the first page of the As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll thread.


What evidence do you have to support your claim?


None...never said I had evidence. But the thing is, things can exist in reality without evidence to support it. For example, just because there is no evidence God exists, doesn't mean he doesn't. I have no actual evidence, proof, or facts. Never said I did. BUT, I have TONS more to support my claim than ANYONE has ever put forward to support their‘s (and counter mine)…and if you understand what I put forward for my argument AND have an informed opinion on music, then you will certainly understand where I’m coming from when I say that there’s has to be an ACTUAL difference between Ashlee Simpson’s music compared to Jimi Hendrix’s music in how accomplished it is musically.

Again, if you want to know the real details, read my original posts on the last thread.

But in brief…

First…people with informed opinions on music (maybe, say, a writer for Rolling Stone magazine) have a much more valid opinion regarding music than just some guy who might only ever listen to music on his way to work or something. Again, I’m not gonna get into details as to why…go check it out yourself. But just like (as I said earlier) a fellow German during Nazi Germany could say something as preposterous as Hitler being more just or even as just as Mother Theresa…the dude who only ever really listens to music on his way to work COULD say something as preposterous as Nickleback being better as accomplished musically as Led Zeppelin. But some people’s opinions are more valid than others…I’m sorry, they just are…and in this case, the guy with the informed opinion on music from Rolling Stone magazine would have the more valid opinion. Again, even though there are no facts to speak of here, I’m just supporting my argument with what I think are reasonable claims.

Second,…there is a common phenomenon where SOMEHOW tons of people with informed opinions on music will, often and uniformly, point to the same music/artist/album as being “crap”. It will also occur (although not as common) that they will point to the same music/artist/album as being good (although it’s easier to distinguish with music being considered crap) . Now of course people with informed opinions on music won’t ALWAYS agree EVERY time, but MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, someone with an informed opinion on music will be able to recognize that certain music (which TONS of other people with informed opinions have labelled as crap) is crap. And NOT ONLY THAT, but people with informed opinions will commonly point to MANY of the SAME determining factors (the music is shallow, uninspired, has no soul, isn’t innovative, is contrived, has corny lyrics, has no depth, etc…) as reasons for why certain music is largely addressed as crap? Now how does that happen? Sure this doesn’t actually give any facts, but does it mean nothing at all? Can you just completely deny this and not consider what it could mean?

Once more, LOTS more in my original post. And again, I’m not saying what I just said gives any proof, I’m further supporting my claim.

And third…if there wasn’t objectively bad music, then that would simply mean that you couldn’t possible make bad music if you tried…an idea that most intelligent musicians would think preposterous. But of course you could make bad music if you tried…and again, more on this in the original post.


Can you prove for any band that they are good or bad?


No. I never said I can prove it.


What bands are objectively good, what are bad?


The Beatles are good...Nickleback are bad.

Massive Attack are good...2 Unlimited are bad.

Led Zeppelin are good…Creed are bad.

Jimi Hendrix is good…Ashlee Simpson is bad


Where does the objectivity come from?


It either simply exists...(kinda like a Platonic "ideal form" exists), or it is created by a creator. It doesn’t matter EXACTLY where it comes from…I’m making a claim that it exists.

------

Now before I sum it up, the last thing I wanna add (which kinda ties into the last discussion we were having) is that I think it’s kinda strange when people say something like “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap?” in response to my argument that music is objective. And I kinda mentioned this at the beginning.

Thing is…I think taste is subjective…and I‘ve always said this…meaning each person likes what they like…and that’s totally fine. But to say “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap?”, and suggest that somehow your taste should support the music you like as not being considered crap, is ridiculous…because a) if you don’t think there’s such a thing as “crap” music to begin with, then you shouldn’t even be asking a question like that…it’s contradictory, and b) maybe you haven’t considered that your opinion in music might not be as valid as someone who might have an informed opinion on music (you know…someone who just SOMEHOW will more often than not end up largely agreeing with others who have informed opinions on music on a lot of the same stuff being crap…AND give much of the same reasons for this from determining factors such as originality, substance, etc…).

But no…people still maintain that if they like it, then who’s to say it’s crap?

Ok


<cont>

<cont>


So to sum up, I don’t claim to have any “facts“ to support my argument…but as I said, something can exist even though there aren’t facts to prove it. (i.e. The earth existed before anyone knew of facts of it existing….and it was round before anyone knew of any facts of it not being flat…and even today there might be tons of deep sea underwater creatures that exist even though there‘s no evidence they do … and as I said before, God might exist even though there is no evidence he does, etc…). But since I nor you are an omnipotent being that knows all things and has perfect intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge etc……then if we had to choose between one argument over the other, any intelligent person would have to look at what I’ve put forward, compared to what the opposition has put forward (which has ONLY ever been “there’s no facts!”), and realise that I have far more to support what I claim is the truth about music than the alternative does.


And again, remember, the alternative suggests that Jimi Hendrix’s music is IN NO WAY more accomplished than Ashlee Simpson’s. Ok then…YOU’RE right


That's it.



(...now everybody watch AC only respond with "but there's no fatcs in your argument". I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he doesn’t get THE ARGUMENT.)

NOW...

What gives further insight into my argument FOR objectivity of music, is my argument (and it’s reeeeeally simple) AGAINST the way SOME PEOPLE use subjectivity of music (a way that completely contradicts itself and doesn’t really say what some think it does when they comment on music). It says NOTHING really…(apart form the obvious…. that the music appeals to them or doesn‘t appeal to them).

Some people get this…but AC is a perfect example of someone who doesn’t.

1) AC (who believes in no objectively good/bad music)- “So if I think something is boring or dull, like Arctic Monkeys, I think it's shit music, like Lily Allen."

2) Me (who believes in objectively good/bad music) - He says (and maintains) he “thinks it’s shit music”…not just SAYS it’s shit music…THINKS it’s shit music.

3) Problem With AC's Reasoning - You can't THINK music is "shit" if you yourself believe there is NO SUCH THING as "good" or "shit" music. You can only just SAY it's "shit" (using the word "shit" to only express it doesn't appeal to you). If music can't truly be objectively good (as most of you think), then "good" or "shit" could ONLY be words that express how you like or dislike a song, NOT words that express how a song is good or shit in any particular way (but AC has continually disagreed with this last sentence). When he says "this song sucks" he doesn't even know what he's really saying.

---

So to sum it up...a song isn't good or crap to anyone who thinks music can't truly be objectively good...those are just the WORDS they use to express they don't like it or that it doesn't appeal to them.

But AC says stuff like "I THINK it's shit music"..."It's shit in my opinion", and ALSO says that saying words like "good" or "shit" aren't necessarily ONLY to be used to express the like or dislike of a song.

Therefore, for AC, the statement "I THINK it's shit music" is implying more than just liking or disliking the music...'cause he says using "shit" means more than just expressing he dislikes a certain piece of music...so it must also mean something else. But WHAT? There's NOTHING else it could be saying about the music if to him music can't be objectively good or crap.

He doesn't even GET how he's being contradictory.



Thanks for reading

First off, reported for spamming, again. I'm glad you took time out from PMing a mod and threatening him to take action against me for asking you a question, when you complained that I reported you for doing the same.

However, let's move on to the part where you summed up your entire argument:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Saying there is no objectivity in music would mean that Ashlee Simpson's music could very well be as accomplished as Jimi Hendrix's music...again, most intelligent people/musicians and especially those with informed opinions on music would say that there's gotta be an ACTUAL difference between how accomplished Ashlee Simpson’s music is compared to Jimi Hendrix’s. Otherwise, the alternative is ridiculous...that her music might very well be considered AS ACCOMPLISHED as his (maybe from a fellow teenage pop fan or something like that).

False. It means that anybody can like anything, think it's good, and not be wrong or right.

What do you mean by accomplished? She's not a better musician, and that can be proven. As far as songs go, nobody can prove that Voodoo Chile is better than La La. Nobody on this planet can prove that, not writers, not critics, not fans and not you. I think it is, I think Ashlee Simpson's music is tripe, but that is my opinion, and it's only opinion, that's all this will ever be. There being no objectivity outside of technical aspects does NOT suggest that music is equal, it suggests that neither can simply be proven to be better or worse because that depends entirely on the individual. Let's move on to the next point:

When asked where your evidence is, you replied:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
None...never said I had evidence.

When asked if you can prove it, you said:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No. I never said I can prove it.

So when asked, ultimately, why you believe this truth exists, you suggested, based on absolutely nothing but your own mind:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It either simply exists...(kinda like a Platonic "ideal form" exists), or it is created by a creator. It doesn’t matter EXACTLY where it comes from…I’m making a claim that it exists.

Then you have the nerve to say this:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
any intelligent person would have to look at what I’ve put forward, compared to what the opposition has put forward (which has ONLY ever been “there’s no facts!”), and realise that I have far more to support what I claim is the truth about music than the alternative does.

You have nothing but a million and one reasons why you believe what you believe. You have nothing that we cannot refute, nothing we haven't refuted.

All you can do is repost your argument, convince yourself we agree, convince yourself you're right, and then tell us we don't understand.

You fail.

I'll ask you again:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Everyone ask him this, let's see if he'll finally give us one straight post to answer this claim, not five.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Everyone ask him this, let's see if he'll finally give us one straight post to answer this claim, not five.

-AC

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in ONE post.


You're welcome.

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post

EP...

Saying that you have no proof for your claim several times throughout your argument renders it ineffectual really fast. Because if you have no evidence for it's objectivity then it means your entire argument is mere opinion...which is subjective.

Originally posted by Ytse
EP...

Saying that you have no proof for your claim several times throughout your argument renders it ineffectual really fast. Because if you have no evidence for it's objectivity then it means your entire argument is mere opinion...which is subjective.

Yeah. All this has been covered a myriad of times. Basically the argument has died many deaths, each more hideous than the last.

He continues to post so it seems he's still in it. Not that it does.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post

Ha ha

---

10 people have agreed with me on this already according to the polls we've had...and that's pretty much all I expected.

THEY understand the concept that you fail to...

THERE DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE PROOF FOR SOMETHING TO ACUTALLY EXIST!

THEY GET THIS.

YOU DON'T.

AND IT'S EVEN EXPLAINED IN THE ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER.

If it was so OBVIOUSLY ridiculous, the all 10 of these people would’ve OBVIOUSLY disagreed with me on it...but it is not a concept most people understand (CLEARLY). That‘s why most people disagree with the argument.

---

And just so everyone knows, AC is SO frightened by the very idea that all these people do agreed with me, that he’s actually PM’d me and accused me of making ALIASES to vote to for my own argument on the polls…that’s what he’s resorted to. Incredible.

You guys are really doing a number on yourselves by actually posting that question. Hilarious. Maybe you should consider that perhaps you're not capable of grasping the idea...as well as probably the rest of the argument….instead of thinking you’ve pointed out the obvious. MOST people aren't capable of grasping it, so don’t worry.

My whole argument is a very difficult one to understand, and it’s quite a large idea. THAT'S why it takes 4 posts to fully explain, and THAT'S why MOST people don't get it.

I'm done explaining it to people who aren't even capable of grasping such a concept. EVERY argument people put fourth, I knock down...especially AC's. It's pointless. Maybe you're capable of grasping other concepts...not this one.



BTW. This will basically be my post from now on...it's the ONLY thing TO post.

Thanks for your efforts.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
10 people have agreed with me on this already according to the polls we've had...and that's pretty much all I expected.

Well if this is a matter of opinion (which is what these polls measure) then it cannot be objective.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

10 people have agreed with me on this already according to the polls we've had...and that's pretty much all I expected.


9 of which are your socks.


I would say friends....but....well, obviously that's not the case.

baa baa black sheep have you any wool?
yes sir yes sir three bags full

Originally posted by Ytse
Well if this is a matter of opinion (which is what these polls measure) then it cannot be objective. What? Did you hear what you just said? You just based objectivity on a matter of opinion. That's exaclty what objectivity isn't.

Ok then...so if it's people's OPINION (which is what these polls measure) that the earth is flat, then "it cannot be objective"....'cause according to you, it's a matter of their opinion.

...oops!


But the funny thing is here, most people are gonna jump all over this idea, simply because it's something against my argument that SOUNDS semi-clever. Happens all the time that most people here (though not all) will agree with any old thing that comes along...and that's where as a group they start to look ridiculous.

...but maybe now they won't because I mentioned it (and boy, I hope not, 'cause unfortunately it's a faulty point)...

The poll means nothing EP, and I say that having won both of them. I accused you of making aliases because YOU are the only person out of the "10" who has posted. So they mean nothing. Add up the two polls, 7 votes in the last one, 5 here. 12, where are these 11 others? Never to be seen, ever.

Has he posted what we've all asked him to yet? Nope? Well:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Come on everyone, he'll eventually have to answer one of us, and we're not doing anything wrong besides asking him to answer an on topic question.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
He continues to post so it seems he's still in it. Not that it does. Actually, the last time I posted my argument was in response to someone who requested a full elaboration and explanation of it...so I obliged. This time was because a couple different people asked me what it meant, so I re-explained it (which I would've done in that last thread but it was prematurely closed)

Again, you probably know this, but are just slingin' mud.

EP:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Everyone wants you to do that.

Oh, and if we're all "done", and you're so right, why do you keep posting?

-AC

Quite embarrassing.

One day (hopefully) he'll slap his hand on his forehead and go..."Crap! I didn't even understand the point of the argument"
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Prove she's objectively good.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

10 people have agreed with me on this already according to the polls we've had...and that's pretty much all I expected.

THEY understand the concept that you fail to...

THERE DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE PROOF FOR SOMETHING TO ACUTALLY EXIST!

THEY GET THIS.

YOU DON'T.

Just keep embarrassing yourself AC. Keep asking your pointless question.


What a character.

You have absolutely nothing besides "I believe the truth exists.", literally nothing beyond that, and you need more considering you are trying to make us agree and tell us we're wrong.

It's sad that you've voted for yourself 12 times. Unless those people come forward, they don't matter. What matters is what has happened in the threads, and you have been defeated.

So I'll ask you again:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

I DO have a question for you, if you won't answer that one;

If we're so wrong, if you "know" you're right and you are satisfied that 10 "people" agree, that we never will, and that we will always reply and refute anything you say, why are you still posting?

Will you at least answer that one?

-AC

He's gone mad.Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.x 20


-"There doesn't necessarily have to be proof for something to be true in reality" (see argument)

What a total pest.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
He's gone mad.x 20


-"There doesn't necessarily have to be proof for something to be true" (see argument)

What a total pest.

For something to be true it has to be falsifiable, your theory is not, as you use the same answer which lacks evidence to back it. No matter what argument is raised.
Your theory is not true, it's a theory that's all, and a bad one at that.

Isn't it annoying? Yeah. Now imagine how it feels to see a wrong argument and post pasted 90 times a day, when you have explained why it's wrong. I've edited the request;

Show us how you believe she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU show us in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

You will have to answer sooner or later, and remember, ONE POST.

So in summation, you have as follows:

1 x Claim that there is an objective truth.

0 x Pieces of evidence.

0 x Ways of proving it.

0 x Credible suggestions or ideas as to why it exists.

4 x Threads consisting of "I JUST believe the truth exists, but it does, and you all need to agree with me or you're wrong and don't get it.", but getting beat.

You fail to see why this means you should stop.

So, we move on to my next question, seeing as you won't adhered to the topic request:

Why do you keep posting if you "know" you're "right", we're "wrong", and "10 people" agree with you? What is your goal in this thread?

Answer one of the two.

-AC

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
For something to be true it has to be falsifiable, your theory is not, as you use the same answer which lacks evidence to back it. No matter what argument is raised.
Your theory is not true, it's a theory that's all, and a bad one at that. Changed it to be more specific for you.

So you're saying the earth IS NOT round because there is no proof (according to people many years ago). God DOES NOT exist because there is no proof.

Things can be true in reality independant of facts or proof.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Changed it to be more specific for you.

So you're saying the earth IS NOT round because there is no proof (according to people many years ago). God DOES NOT exist because there is no proof.

Things can be true in reality independant of facts or proof.

But a claim that there's a truth cannot be taken seriously in this day and age without facts or proof.

That's irrelevant, focus on your point; There's a universal truth that objectively good and crap music exists. You cannot prove it, have no evidence, have nothing outside of personal faith, ergo your debate is worthless.

I'll ask you again, answer one of these:

Show us how you believe she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU show us in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

or

Why do you keep posting if you "know" you're "right", we're "wrong", and "10 people" agree with you? What is your goal in this thread?

I'm asking you simple, civil questions. If you won't answer me, I'll just ask others to ask you. You're being rude.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So you're saying the earth IS NOT round because there is no proof (according to people many years ago). God DOES NOT exist because there is no proof. Things can be true in reality apart from facts.

No I'm not saying the earth is not round, at the time that was falsifiable as every conceivable way of proving it wrong failed. It was therefore felt to be right. I'm not getting into a discussion about God, as that's faith and followers argue they need no proof. I'll use an example for you to understand how your theory is not falsifiable. It's much like me saying I've got a football team, that are really, really good, but, we haven't haven't won any matches. See the problem here, you can try as you might to say that my team is not good, but I can always say, yes we are we have great players. It's much like you, as although you have no actual evidence you can jump on the back foot and start ranting about how truths are generally accepted as facts. And, how you know you're right so we don't matter.

And don't use that as a means to ignore my post, EP.

-AC

Why wouldn't I? It's a decent attempt at discussion. Just like Ptse's point was.

You're just a pest.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
-"It's much like me saying I've got a football team, that are really, really good, but, we haven't haven't won any matches. See the problem here, you can try as you might to say that my team is not good, but I can always say, yes we are we have great players"
First of all..."good" in football terms means something that is measured in points, winning matches, etc... And if I said your team aren't "good" in that sense, then I guess I'd have to be right regardless of what you say...

But "good" and "crap" in music terms isn't measured by something like points. So it's not really comparable.

I'm civilly asking you on topic questions, you ignore them cos you're afraid of me. Quality of music can't be measured either, not outside of technicality, which isn't what we're discussing. We all have our own ways of gauging what's good and bad, subjectively.

Can we stop discussing everything except music?

EP:

Show us how you believe she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU show us in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

or

Why do you keep posting if you "know" you're "right", we're "wrong", and "10 people" agree with you? What is your goal in this thread?

I'm asking you nicely.

-AC

I've answered you nicely.Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Show us how you believe she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU show us in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post. I wrote a whole argument to show how I believe what I believe, and it didn't have reviews or quotes.

Now please go away

You haven't answered me, you've replied.

If you spent more time answering my questions as best you can or adhering to my requests than you do replying and moaning, we'd have a smoother thread. I'll ask you until you answer, I'm doing nothing wrong, you have done the exact same thing but with ignorance and rude nature, I'm at least being nice.

Show us how you believe she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU show us in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

or

Why do you keep posting if you "know" you're "right", we're "wrong", and "10 people" agree with you? What is your goal in this thread?

I'm not being mean to you, I'm asking you politely to answer one or both.

I edited the first one because you have no way to prove it, so you can just give me your reasoning in a post that isn't 5 in a row, buried in needless ranting. Just one post.

-AC

Your argument was not an argument, it was you saying 'it's true but it can't be proved', 'I believe it because I know'. Bollocks, you've lost, you know you have and that's why you're giving up. EDIT: Directed at EPIIIBITES

I just replied to you...I didn't give up

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Show us how you believe she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU show us in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.
See argument on previous page...that's how I show it. I'm not gonna re-write it out again. There's nothing more I can add.


Really immature you.

But you'll spend time pasting everything else 90 times?

At least repaste in ONE POST the one part that answers my request.

Or, answer this question:

Why do you keep posting if you "know" you're "right", we're "wrong", and "10 people" agree with you? What is your goal in this thread?

That's one I really want answered. If you are so convinced you've won and we're all wrong/don't get it, why are you here?

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I just replied to you...I didn't give up

That example wasn't supposed to be a direct comparison, between this circumstance and that one. It was there to explain to you what falsifiable as judging by the previous response, you did not understand.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
At least repaste in ONE POST the one part that answers my request. The WHOLE PART answers your request.

YOU DON'T GET THAT!

It's a LONG answer...that ALL culminates in answering your question.

This very idea seems to escape you.

No, that's you chickening out.

Post your reasoning for why one song or artist would be objectively good. It doesn't take 5 posts.

Also, stop dodging this:

Why do you keep posting if you "know" you're "right", we're "wrong", and "10 people" agree with you? What is your goal in this thread?

-AC

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
That example wasn't supposed to be a direct comparison, between this circumstance and that one. It was there to explain to you what falsifiable as judging by the previous response, you did not understand. Maybe I didn't. Explain it differently.

EPIIIBITES:

Post your reasoning for why one song or artist would be objectively good. It doesn't take 5 posts.

Also, stop dodging this:

Why do you keep posting if you "know" you're "right", we're "wrong", and "10 people" agree with you? What is your goal in this thread?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't take 5 posts.

Also, stop dodging this:

Why do you keep posting if you "know" you're "right", we're "wrong", and "10 people" agree with you? What is your goal in this thread?

-AC
I can't do it in one post. It takes at least 2...and that's the short version.

And you said I either answer one question OR the other. I did answer the first question.

I'm not dodging anything you sly person.

If you want, I can copy and past the 2 posts again

I dont' even understand this other question.

It's the paradoxical idea that a proposition, or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit consideration of the possibility of its being false. Which you have not done, you've outright shown you refuse to accept any other way of thinking on the subject.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I can't do it in one post. It takes at least 2...and that's the short version.

No, you can, you just choose to fill it with useless rhetoric and babbling that takes two posts. Everyone here can summerise their points in one post, even in the GDF. You can too, so do it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And you said I either answer one question OR the other. I did answer the first question. If you want, iIcan copy and past the 2 posts again

I dont' even understand this other question.

You claim to know you are right, you claim to believe you are right, you reference the "10 people" who voted in agreement with you (Who are either you or people you begged to vote without reading it.), so if you are so sure, why are you still here? What is your goal? What are you trying to achieve? None of us will ever agree, because nobody on this forum agrees with you.

Oh and this is interesting;

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And I don't think the two words are interchangeable, becasue I think truth can exist apart from facts.

To which VVD replied:

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It can't, though.

I think you probably mean truth can exist despite a lack of available and accessible evidence. If it's true, it's also factual.

You ran away never to reply again.

-AC

You have officially ruined the Music Forums for everyone, Ep. Thank you very ****ing much.

How so? The last thread was due to a request.

And with this thread, BackFire himself said we can go ahead and make a new one after the last one closed...and again, it was due to people asking me to re-post my argument at the end of the last one.

If there was no interest, I would stop obviously.

Maybe be a bit more informed next time you make such a statement.

And how EXACTLY did I ruin the music forums...what a ridiculous statement. As AC said before, just ignore it.

No, you have ruined these forums, because you will not walk away from the debate you have lost, you just keep bumping it and creating threads, ignoring people and whining. There WAS no more interest, the thread died, YOU bumped it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How so? The last thread was due to a request.

BackFire himself said we can go ahead and make a new one after the last one closed...and again, it was due to people asking me to re-post my argument

Nobody requested the last thread, Morgoth's requested your argument. You decided it had to be in a new thread, nobody else.

Nobody is asking you to re-post your argument, people are asking you to prove it. You cannot, therefore you just keep posting.

Anyway;

Originally posted by Morgoth's Wrath
Fact and truth are firmly grounded in objective reality. If fact has nothing to do with it, then you must admit that good and bad music is determined by subjective tastes. There is no other option.

^Objective truth regarding this issue.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you have ruined these forums, because you will not walk away from the debate you have lost
What a goofy thing to say.

You won't admit you're wrong...YOU RUINED EVERYTHING!

WHAAAAAA!

^^^ That is precisely why you're ruining this forum.

You cannot debate for the life of you, and every single person here disagrees with you.

-AC

Actually, no they don't. The polls show that.

NO AC!

THIS IS YOU RUINING THINGS

PASTING THIS SAME QUESTION 20 TIMES...20 TIMES OVER AND OVER AGAIN GONG BACK TO THE LAST THREAD JUST TO PISS ME OFF AND TRICK PEOPLE INTO THINKING MY ARGUMENT IS ABOUT SOMETHING IT'S NOT.

DON'T TRY AND BE CRAFTY!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

...even after I answered him.


YOU'RE A PEST!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Actually, no they don't. The polls show that.

The threads don't, so the polls don't matter. All four of them and not one person agreeing with your initial point. It's you voting for yourself.

This is proof you've lost, you'll allow any off topic discussion cos ON topic, you're dead.

Besides, you already PMed me and said you agreed with me.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you can, you just choose to fill it with useless rhetoric and babbling that takes two posts.
No actually I can't. It's one large idea that has to be wholly taken into consideration at one time to understand.

It appears you don't understand such things as this...large ideas that need elaborate exaplantion of a number of things to be wholly taken into consideration at one time to get the point.

You don't think in those terms AC.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So if you are so sure, why are you still here? What is your goal? What are you trying to achieve?
I've already said why. To offer up something I think is beneficial and worthwhile. That's the only reason I argue anything adamantly. I want to make people actually think about what they're saying about music when they do.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh and this is interesting;
Nope...things can tuly exist apart from fact.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No actually I can't. It's one large idea that has to be wholly taken into consideration at one time to understand.

It appears you don't understand such things as this...large ideas that need elaborate exaplantion of a number of things to be wholly taken into consideration at one time to get the point.

You don't think in those terms AC.

No, you can, you just choose not to. You do possess the ability to make one post regarding your argument, you just don't want anyone to focus on it without having to sift through 5 posts of bs, cos you know what it would mean.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I've already said why. To offer up something I think is beneficial and worthwhile. That's the only reason I argue anything adamantly. I want to make people actually think about what they're saying about music when they do.

But you won't. None of us here agree, none of us ever will, cos you're wrong, so why are you still here?

If 10 people truly did agree, you'd have achieved your goal, but you still haven't stopped, so it only suggests those people don't exist.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Nope...things can tuly exist apart from fact.

Truths can exist without evidence to prove them, but if a truth does exist, it's factual.

You are the one separating the two, it doesn't make it right, it's wrong.

Truth and fact are both tied to reality, and if you cannot prove your argument to be either you have to accept it's all subjective, which you won't, cos you don't want to quit posting.

Besides, you've already agreed with me in PM. You know you did.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's you voting for yourself. Yeap...that's right.

You're probably the only person I could think of who would actually do something so sly and underhanded...it'a pretty representative of the tactics you use all the time.

You need to be more honest with yourself when you argue AC...just a suggestion.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Besides, you already PMed me and said you agreed with me.
AC...I can see what you're trying to do...and the fact that you've just again restated this in your last post makes it even more obvious.


-I say..."No I didn't agree with you"


-You say: "Yes you did. You PM'd me and said I can't prove it" <Then you write what I said in the PMd quote, trying to give the impresion that by saying I can't prove something, that then I'm wrong, even though I've explained my argument isn't about needing proof for things to exist>

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeap...that's right.

You're probably the only person I could think of who would actually do something so sly and underhanded...it'a pretty representative of the tactics you use all the time.

You need to be more honest with yourself when you argue AC...just a suggestion.

More people than me believe you're voting for yourself, EP.

Proof again that you need to keep posting. You can't keep on topic, but...you did fall into my trap.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...I can see what you're trying to do...and the fact that you've just again restated this in your last post makes it even more obvious.

Kind of like "ME? Why of course I didn't vote for me!".

And I'm not talking about THAT PM, I'm talking about the one this morning, but I'll keep that between you and I.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
my argument isn't about proof proving things to exist

Then it's not truth, it's not fact (Same thing, fact.), it's not objective.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...I can see what you're trying to do...and the fact that you've just again restated this in your last post makes it even more obvious.


-I say..."No I didn't agree with you"


-You say: "Yes you did. You PM'd me and said I can't prove it" <Then you write what I said in the PMd quote, trying to give the impresion that by saying I can't prove something, that then I'm wrong, even though I've explained my argument isn't about needing proof for things to exist>
HOW DOES IT FEEL THAT I'VE COMPLETELY FIGURED OUT WHAT YOUR TACTICS WERE EVEN BEFORE YOU USED THEM?

SO PREDICATABLE.


Well, guess that's it. Now that AC knows and I know his mind can be so easily infiltrated, there's no point in discussing this any further.

I give the green light to close this thread if so desired by others

Reply to the above post so we can debate the topic, you're the one who has been figured out, and not I have info that factually proves it, but I'll reveal that when the time comes.

If something is true, it's also factual, unless you're prepared to say the dictionary is wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...I can see what you're trying to do...and the fact that you've just again restated this in your last post makes it even more obvious.


-I say..."No I didn't agree with you"


-You say: "Yes you did. You PM'd me and said I can't prove it" <Then you write what I said in the PMd quote, trying to give the impresion that by saying I can't prove something, that then I'm wrong, even though I've explained my argument isn't about needing proof for things to exist>
How about you stop avoiding my question AC?...Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
HOW DOES IT FEEL THAT I'VE COMPLETELY FIGURED OUT WHAT YOUR TACTICS WERE EVEN BEFORE YOU USED THEM?

SO PREDICATABLE.

Really. You must burning up right now...no wonder you're not answering

So as I said...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Well, guess that's it. Now that AC knows and I know his mind can be so easily infiltrated, there's no point in discussing this any further.

I give the green light to close this thread if so desired by others
No point answering any of your pointles questions anymore AC...we disagree on everything...everything. And everything has already been discussed, even your last question.

Now he's gonna say..."but you're avoiding my question...blah blah blah"

...and of course...because I don't answer ANY of his questions.

Quoting him and giving a response over the last 2 pages isn't answering ANY of his questions. Of course not.

IT'S ALL BEEN DISCUSSED AC.

GO HOME

What AC is gonna say:

"Look! He wants to close the thread because he knows he lost"

or

"You're just avoiding my question"


NO. I WANT TO CLOSE THE THREAD BECAUSE I CAN PREDICT YOUR UNDERHANDED TACTICS EVEN BEFORE YOU USE THEM NOW. THERE'S NO POINT IN DISCUSSING THINGS WITH YOU ANYMORE.


EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DISCUSSED...AND DISAGREED ON.


EVERYTHING!



So again...Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I give the green light to close this thread if so desired by others
I think people will be happy with that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How about you stop avoiding my question AC?...

Really. You must burning up right now...no wonder you're not answering

There's no question in that quote, EP. If there was one, I'd answer it, but you can ask me again.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No point answering any of your pointles questions anymore AC...we disagree on everything...everything. And everything has already been discussed, even your last question.

Everyone disagrees with you in the threads, so why is there any point continuing that? You thrive on people indulging your stupid analogies, that's why you're still here.

You've lost, and you know that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Now he's gonna say..."but you're avoiding my question...blah blah blah"

He's? Who are you talking to?

The fact is you answered my question about me asking why are you here, and it made zero sense.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...and of course...because I don't answer ANY of his questions.

Quoting him and giving a response over the last 2 pages isn't answering ANY of his questions. Of course not.

IT'S ALL BEEN DISCUSSED AC.

GO HOME

Why don't YOU leave? Nobody wants you here.

If, of course, you feel you can tell me to leave, why don't you? Cos you'd lose sleep knowing you stopped posting in a debate.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I give the green light to close this thread if so desired by others
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC:

"Look! He wants to close the thread because he knows he lost"


"You're just avoiding my question"

We all know you've lost, whether or not you do is a non-issue.

-AC

How does it feel AC?

That's the only thing that hasn't been discussed.

You know what I'm getting at.

But YOU'RE AVOIDING THE QUESTION

AC. This takes the cake...WHAT A LIAR!!! I'VE ONLY PM'D YOU ONCE IN MY LIFE! EVER! AS OPPOSED TO ABOUT DOZEN TIMES BY YOU! WHAT other PM?Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And I'm not talking about THAT PM, I'm talking about the one this morning, but I'll keep that between you and I.

AND I KNOW WHY YOU'VE JUST LIED...IT'S CAUSE I KNEW WHAT YOU WERE UP TO WHEN YOU SAID THIS...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Besides, you already PMed me and said you agreed with me. Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Besides, you've already agreed with me in PM. You know you did.
TO WHICH I SAID...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...I can see what you're trying to do...and the fact that you've just again restated this in your last post makes it even more obvious.


-I say..."No I didn't agree with you"


-You say: "Yes you did. You PM'd me and said I can't prove it" <Then you write what I said in the PMd quote, trying to give the impresion that by saying I can't prove something, that then I'm wrong, even though I've explained my argument isn't about needing proof for things to exist>
THE LIE:
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And I'm not talking about THAT PM, I'm talking about the one this morning, but I'll keep that between you and I.Why do you do this to yourself...?



So again AC...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
HOW DOES IT FEEL THAT I'VE COMPLETELY FIGURED OUT WHAT YOUR TACTICS WERE EVEN BEFORE YOU USED THEM?

SO PREDICATABLE.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What? Did you hear what you just said? You just based objectivity on a matter of opinion. That's exaclty what objectivity isn't.

How did I base objectivity on opinion? What the hell are you talking about. Let me break this down for you:

1) You used the polls to support your argument that music is objective
2) Polls themselves only measure subjective opinion
3) Therefore you're only providing evidence that you're in fact, wrong. Because opinion is irrelevant to objective truths.





This analogy fails. Why would you make a poll about the earth when you can directly observe it's roundness or flatness?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES


How I won the argument

that is where you fail. its a subjective topic. nobody wins.

Finally...someone with something decent to againOriginally posted by Ytse
This analogy fails. Why would you make a poll about the earth when you can directly observe it's roundness or flatness? It doesn't fail...people could very well think the earth is flat...they used to.

And, I said 10 people have agreed with me

You said...

"Well if this is a matter of opinion (which is what these polls measure) then it cannot be objective."

AND

"You used the polls to support your argument that music is objective."


No I didn't. I told you above that things are objective apart from opinion. The opinions themselves don't support "music being objectively bad or good".

"Winner: Abortion Thread Post #10,000"

That's hilarious


...and I think your ferret's cute


And I don't think it's subjective...as you mean it.

Maybe the topic is...as in everyone has their opinion. But I don't think my idea is.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Finally...someone with something decent to again It doesn't fail...people cuold very well think the earth is flat...they used to

Whether someone does believe it or not isn't my point. I asked why anyone would make a poll to find that out in the first place when you can just observe the earth directly.

(I added more in my last post for the rest of your answer)

>

-" I asked why anyone would make a poll to find that out in the first place when you can just observe the earth directly."

You wouldn't do that now, because now it is viewable directly...but it seemed you were saying I was basing objectivity on a matter of opinion.

Of course I wasn't

The thread will be closed soon anyway, at your request.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC. This takes the cake...WHAT A LIAR!!! I'VE ONLY PM'D YOU ONCE IN MY LIFE! EVER! AS OPPOSED TO ABOUT DOZEN TIMES BY YOU! WHAT other PM?

AND I KNOW WHY YOU'VE JUST LIED...IT'S CAUSE I KNEW WHAT YOU WERE UP TO WHEN YOU SAID THIS...


TO WHICH I SAID...

THE LIE:
Why do you do this to yourself...?

Stop panicking, I said I wouldn't show it and I won't.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So again AC...

HOW DOES IT FEEL THAT I'VE COMPLETELY FIGURED OUT WHAT YOUR TACTICS WERE EVEN BEFORE YOU USED THEM?

SO PREDICATABLE.

THAT was the question? You haven't figured out anything, because no tactics are being used. You fail at everything, everyone is just taking shots at your argument as they have been forever.

Your poll proves nothing. I make a call now, a challenge, anybody voting in agreement with him, come forward.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop panicking, I said I wouldn't show it and I won't. You're unbelievable.

There is only one PM message you liar...because I've only ever PM'd you once. And if you do end up showing the imaginary "other" PM message...it'll just be the one and only one I ever sent you.

You just lied to everone and yourself that there isn't to get out of looking foolish as I showed above.

You and I both know what you said, and I'm forcing you to publically realise it and hope that the shame brings you to admitting it publically.

It's seriously time you just accepted you are defeated. We cannot force you to abandon your belief, but it's pointless to continue pushing it in hopes of changing people, you won't.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
(You wouldn't do that now, because now it is viewable directly...but it seemed you were saying I was basing objectivity on a matter of opinion.

Of course I wasn't

Okay, I see.

Then why did you reference the 10 people on the poll if it doesn't matter?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You and I both know what you said, and I'm forcing you to publically realise it and hope that the shame brings you to admitting it publically. AC...this is beyond anything I have ever seen.


I think I will be reporting you for slandering me.


And the fact that the administrator could probably look up how many times I've PMd you will just make you look foolish.


I've only PMd you once...ever...you're a liar

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...this is beyond anything I have ever seen.

I think I will be reporting you for slandering me.

And the fact that the administrator could probably look up how many times I've PMd you will just make you look foolish.

You can report me all you want, I know what PM I got, EP, and so do you. If it comes to it, I'll screen cap it. I'm not going to say anything, I raised the issue cos I'd hoped you would admit it, but you won't, so I'll move on and leave you with the shame of knowing.

You are reporting ME? You do realise that all anybody has to do is show any mod the amount of spamming and trolling you've done, and you will be rendered pointless, right? I'm sure they took it well when you threatened a mod with "consequences" if I wasn't "dealt with".

Anyway, like Ytse said, can you tell us why you referenced the poll if it doesn't matter?

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...this is beyond anything I have ever seen.


I think I will be reporting you for slandering me.


And the fact that the administrator could probably look up how many times I've PMd you will just make you look foolish.

I've only PMd you once...you're a liar

Well you're going to have to prove it's slander. I for one, believe it isn't.

Originally posted by Ytse
Okay, I see.

Then why did you reference the 10 people on the poll if it doesn't matter?
I'm saying they agreed with my argument.

IF they aren't you, they agreed enough to click "I agree." and run away.

They contributed nothing, so they are negligible.

EVERY person who has actively participated in these threads has, ultimately, disagreed with your point.

-AC

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well you're going to have to prove it's slander. I for one, believe it isn't. ? How could you possibly know?


These are all lies actually to get out of something I called him on...Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You and I both know what you said, and I'm forcing you to publically realise it and hope that the shame brings you to admitting it publically. Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And I'm not talking about THAT PM, I'm talking about the one this morning, but I'll keep that between you and I. Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop panicking, I said I wouldn't show it and I won't.

And if you know AC, you know he would stoop that low to full out lie about something like this.

And as I said. The moderator could find out how many times I've actually PMd him. If you does end up showing the imaginary "other" PM message...it'll just be the one and only one I ever sent.


HOW COULD KNOW IT'S NOT?

Stop dwelling on it then, deal with the thread.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
?

How could you possibly know?


These are all lies actually...

Because your argument lacks all conviction, you have a panicky character and AC has had no reason to lie as he, and everyone else in this thread has had the upper hand.

Add to the fact that it's not only me he's been PMing.

He talks of slander, but it's ok for him to PM a mod and other members and paste posts to them in an attempt to get them against me, when he was the one who got everything wrong, ever.

Either way, he's sure acting afraid for someone who knows I'm a "liar.".

Any innocent person would just keep on topic.

-AC

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
AC has had no reason to lie.
I guess you didn't see this...

>


WHAT A LIAR!!! I'VE ONLY PM'D YOU ONCE IN MY LIFE! EVER! AS OPPOSED TO ABOUT DOZEN TIMES BY YOU! WHAT other PM?


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And I'm not talking about THAT PM, I'm talking about the one this morning, but I'll keep that between you and I.


AND I KNOW WHY YOU'VE JUST LIED...IT'S CAUSE I KNEW WHAT YOU WERE UP TO WHEN YOU SAID THIS...


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Besides, you already PMed me and said you agreed with me.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Besides, you've already agreed with me in PM. You know you did.

TO WHICH I SAID...


Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...I can see what you're trying to do...and the fact that you've just again restated this in your last post makes it even more obvious.


-I say..."No I didn't agree with you"


-You say: "Yes you did. You PM'd me and said I can't prove it" <Then you write what I said in the PMd quote, trying to give the impresion that by saying I can't prove something, that then I'm wrong, even though I've explained my argument isn't about needing proof for things to exist>


HENCE THE LIE:


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And I'm not talking about THAT PM, I'm talking about the one this morning, but I'll keep that between you and I.



So again AC...


Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
HOW DOES IT FEEL THAT I'VE COMPLETELY FIGURED OUT WHAT YOUR TACTICS WERE EVEN BEFORE YOU USED THEM?

SO PREDICATABLE.




EDIT: Good one chillmeistergen!

Yes, that's you posting bs.

It proves nothing.

Why are you so scared? Surely you've got nothing to worry about.

Do you want to discuss topic before the thread is closed?

-AC

edit

do you really think some quotes that I've seen before are going to make me believe you? I don't trust you, I have no reason to. I see no reason for AC to lie, I do see a reason for you to lie. Simple as that.

You don't even know what eactly I'm saying he's lying about do you?

If you do tell me

If you don't, then your opinion on the matter is pointless



He's lying because he's trying to save face that I caught him using an underhanded tactic...and the way he was trying to this was by making it appear I PMd him about something I never did...when I've only ever PMd him once.


But he said it wasn't THAT pm......sure.


I've NEVER sent him more than ONE PM...EVER.


Of course he can show you the ONE pm I've ever sent him and say that's what I said...but as I said, an adminstrator could determine if I have in fact sent him more than the one PM.



...yeah?

...thought so.

Here we go, another "He doesn't know/get it.".

Someone close the thread already.

-AC

Fine with me...that's what I had suggested

Note...I wouldn't put it past this indivdual to be using Photoshop right now to doctor up this "other" PM I've sent him. Beware.

I knew exactly what you were saying he was lying about. If you feel so strongly get an administrator involved. It doesn't stop every point you've made, in the entire thread being infantile and uneducated.

Maybe you think so, but I don't.

That's your basic argument: I think something, so that's all that matters, but I'm gonna try to force people to agree, then ruin the forums and PM people.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Note...I wouldn't put it past this indivdual to be using Photoshop right now to doctor up this "other" PM I've sent him. Beware.

First, I don't own photoshop, and couldn't use it if my life depended on it.

It's funny how, in your posts, you end with "Watch him do this.", because you know it's the reply you deserve, and will get.

Now you know I have evidence, so you're going to try to convince anyone.

I said I'd not put it in public, I just brought it up to give you a chance to own up, you didn't. The thread will be closed soon anyway.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Maybe you think so, but I don't.

A matter of opinion; subjective.

Good. We disagree.

You cannot disagree on that, it's a fact.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You cannot disagree on that, it's a fact.

-AC

Not if you follow Skepticism. Maybe EP does. : p

Haha, I think we've established that he's following something.

Kind of like a dog following his tail.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Now you know I have evidence, so you're going to try to convince anyone. I'd like to see you give evidence to the administrator that I've PMd you twice.


Find two PMs by me in your inbox...I DARE you.


LIAR!

I don't care that you have, I didn't report you for it, so I'm not asking for anything to be done, I'm simply giving you a chance to admit here what you admitted there. If you won't you won't.

The thread will be closed soon and this will all be over.

I don't see why you're so scared, bolding everything.

Why are you calling me a liar? You've spent the past few days telling people what I said, when I never said those things, telling VVD he said he agreed with you when he didn't. So you have no place calling me a liar.

-AC

Is that so...?Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But since you've asked...it does means NOTHING if they say it. I personally have no problem with what they're saying. They, and you have the problem...because what's been said doesn't mean ANYTHING according to you. Which he quoted and said...Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Correct. It means nothing. Let's move on. Go see for youself if you don't believe me

You've taken that quote entirely out of context.

It's what he does, Chill.

-AC

OH. OF COURSE!!!Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You've taken that quote entirely out of context.
Why don't you actually make sure you know what you're talking about when you say this stuff?Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's what he does, Chill.

-AC Ya, chill...yeah, you got it, yeeaaaah. Yeah chill.





He quoted ME...and DIRECTLY said what he said.


There is NO OUT OF CONTEXT here. I invite you to check it out yourselves on the last page of the "Best album of '00 thread."


There is no end to the weakness in your guys' tactics and arguments.

It is.

You do it to VVD, then tell him he agreed, you do it to me, then tell everyone it's what I said, ignoring explanation.

-AC

EPIIIBITES, you are no one to accuse anyone of having a weak argument. Yours is pathetic.

Actually no, no it's not. Sorry.


And what weak argument...yours?


I just PROVED you wrong...and you can PROVE yourself wrong. Just go to thread and check it out.

Well as long as it helps you sleep at night, little one.

Go talk Star Wars, leave those who know about music to talk about music.

-AC

AC. You're a liar.

Tell me in honest writng that you see two PMs by me in your inbox right now...I DARE you.

I've only sent you one

You're lying and saying I've sent you two.

While you're at, drop by the "Best album of '00" and prove yourself wrong about VVD

edit.

Don't want to get into this.

That's because AC is making stuff up about me.

The dude is a flat out liar

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
That's because AC is making stuff up about me

What, like when you told everyone I was saying stuff I wasn't? Or when you told VVD he agreed, he told you he didn't, showed why, and you still TOLD him he agreed?

Funny old world isn't it, considering I'm not lying.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC. You're a liar.

Tell me in honest writng that you see two PMs by me in your inbox right now...I DARE you.

I've only sent you one

You're lying and saying I've sent you two.

You are lying, but that's not what this thread is about, I thought you'd own up if I brought it up; You didn't.

Stop calling me a liar; You are the one who keeps telling us we agree or what we've said when we, and everyone else, sees you are misinterpreting it.

-AC

AC...You're wrong

You won't go to the "Best of '00" thread like I'm telling you because you're afraid to see you're wrong

I just posted EXACTLY what's there, and you just said I misquoted him.

I read it, you're wrong, you're quoting things out of context and you're an idiot.

Either way, that's VVD. It doesn't change the fact that you did the same to me.

-AC

No...if you've read it, then you're lying.


I didn't MISQUOTE anything

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Or when you told VVD he agreed, he told you he didn't, showed why, and you still TOLD him he agreed?
He didn't show why...he simply tried to get out of looking like he agreed with me...which is silly...because he plainly did

Here's the link to the page...if I'm misquoting him like YOU say I am, then I wouldn't be offering up the link for everyone to see, would I...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/450427_6-favourite-album-of-the-00s-so-far#post8917804

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But since you've asked...it does means NOTHING if they say it. I personally have no problem with what they're saying. They, and you have the problem...because what's been said doesn't mean ANYTHING according to you.
TO which he IMMEDIATELY quoted and repliedOriginally posted by Victor Von Doom
Correct. It means nothing. Let's move on.
I made a post, then he quoted that post. THAT'S IT.


There's no misquoting ANYWHERE.

No, you are sitting there convincing yourself he did because you read it wrong and misinterpreted it, like you did with me.

Except with me, I explained it again and again, and you wouldn't admit you messed it up.

-AC

I'll try that again...maybe you didn't catch it...

Actually wait. I know you caught it...you're just making junk up like you usually do to make it appear you REALLY REALLY believe what you're saying.

Another tactic detected. That's 2 now just today.

>


Here's the link to the page...if I'm misquoting him like YOU say I am, then I wouldn't be offering up the link for everyone to see, would I...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/450427_6-favourite-album-of-the-00s-so-far#post8917804

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But since you've asked...it does means NOTHING if they say it. I personally have no problem with what they're saying. They, and you have the problem...because what's been said doesn't mean ANYTHING according to you.
TO which he IMMEDIATELY quoted and repliedOriginally posted by Victor Von Doom
Correct. It means nothing. Let's move on.
I made a post, then he quoted that post. THAT'S IT.


There's no misquoting ANYWHERE.


>


...'dya get that AC? Or are you gonna keep PRETENDING like you don't just so you're able to say..."you misquoted him".


I don't do crafty stuff like that...you do.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't change the fact that you did the same to me.
Did no such thing.

You're a liar and you know it.

If you're not, then go into your inbox and find 2 PM messages from me.

You can't 'cause they're no there.

LIAR!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Did no such thing

Yes you did. I said something that you misunderstood, I corrected you, and you ignored it and kept saying to people "THIS IS WHAT HE MEANS!", I kept saying "No, it isn't. I mean this.", "No, he means this.".

Stop pasting shit from other threads that is totally irrelevant.

I've read it, I read it when it happened, stop convincing yourself I haven't. You keep taking shit out of context and then claim it's someone agreeing with you.

You misquoted him, fact. Either way, that was between you and him, and it's not here in this thread, Backfire warned you not to bring that "YOU MEAN THIS." into here.

-AC

I didn't misquote anyone. Here's the PROOF again. I don't do that stuff. YOU do.


Here's the link to the page...if I'm misquoting him like YOU say I am, then I wouldn't be offering up the link for everyone to see, would I...?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/450427_6-favourite-album-of-the-00s-so-far#post8917804


I made a post, then he quoted that post. THAT'S IT.


There's no misquoting ANYWHERE.

And with you, I just called you a liar, because you are, and we both know it. There's no misquoting anywhere...there's just you saying you have some IMAGINARY second PM fromme, which is a FACT you dont.

And I've proved it on this thread over the past 2 pages by showing how you tried to easel out of me catching on to your tactics.