Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Why restrain yourself? Sometimes a little passionate cursing goes a long way. And you *do* have a certain flair for it, SR.

HBJ

amazon won't LET you say a lot of stuff, not without obfuscation, which I loathe.

"A--Hat Pickle-F%%k_er" doesn't cut it for me.

And there is NO WAY I'm letting those assholes delete my account
and force me to buy another piece of bullshit from them just to
comment on their goddamn board.

Could we sticky this?

In all seriousness, it can be a great time-saver.

Done

Boo-yah!

Thanks, FZ.

11. "They own the copyright, so they can decide what is canon and what isn't!"

13.a. "Only a writer can criticize the work of other writers!" (AKA "The Ganymede Gambit")

For all of those statements : money. Who paid them? who paid the copyright ?
I paid for books which respect FH's spirit. They do not. I give them money to give me some pleasure. They do not. I paid for a book, not for a scrap. I paid a writer (or two -- are you sure?! ). So, if my "investment" does not satisfy me, I'm supposed to fire the CEO out. I lost money 'cause to them. So, I HAVE TO criticize them!!
And the worst : I give them money. And what did I receive ? Insults (talifans aso), scrap (their books) and they only allow me to shut up!!

12. "Frank's books contained inconsistencies, TOO!"

Frank wrote Dune for about 20 years. And he does not know when he wrote dune what will happen in C:D. So, there are some inconsistencies, OK.
But P&tB know where they are going (Hunters & Sandworms are not taking into account) : Legends and Houses have a common and official horizon : the Chronicles. Even having the end, they are able to make mistakes.
It's true they even contradict themselves, so....

14. "The new books are easier to understand, so they're better as an introduction into the Duniverse."

I do not want entertainment. I've comics to do so. I want (strong) ideas, I want thinking aso... That's what FH did, that's what I'm looking for.

Leto wrote:14. "The new books are easier to understand, so they're better as an introduction into the Duniverse."

Do they realy use that?

I was 13 when I read Dune, what's their excuse? If you want something easy to understand try something like Green Eggs and Ham.

Freakzilla wrote:

Leto wrote:14. "The new books are easier to understand, so they're better as an introduction into the Duniverse."

Do they realy use that?

I was 13 when I read Dune, what's their excuse? If you want something easy to understand try something like Green Eggs and Ham.

it's not something easy to understand they want, it's something they can understand and which doesn't force them to accept the fact that they have the intellectual capacity of a turnip

Leto wrote: .... and they only allow me to shut up!!

hey, that's a beautiful turn of phrase !
(serious, too, not making fun @all, I like that alot & will use it again)
(right up there with " ... and don't afraid of anything")

Freakzilla wrote:

Leto wrote:14. "The new books are easier to understand, so they're better as an introduction into the Duniverse."

Do they really use that?

yes.
I've heard it straight from Merritt on the DN BBS.

SandRider wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

Leto wrote:14. "The new books are easier to understand, so they're better as an introduction into the Duniverse."

Do they really use that?

yes.
I've heard it straight from Merritt on the DN BBS.

Dear gawd

If that's not a slap in FH's face, I don't know what is.

Freakzilla wrote:If that's not a slap in FH's face, I don't know what is.

This:

I wonder if it tasted like sawdust?

tasted like an ass-sandwich.




full of fail & AIDS.

If it looks like a failcake and smells like a failcake....

Its #15 on the NYT Bestseller list!

I think we need to add one, considering B. Conway's latest:

15. I don't have time right now to locate the references you're using (that prove I'm an idiot with the reading comprehension of a 6 year old), but I'll get back to you when I have the time (i.e., never).

rain_maker wrote:I think we need to add one, considering B. Conway's latest:

15. I don't have time right now to locate the references you're using (that prove I'm an idiot with the reading comprehension of a 6 year old), but I'll get back to you when I have the time (i.e., never).

Needs an example or something - this might be a good argument in some cases. When it is used to defend oneself against admitting that "P" means P, it is not.

15. I will not concede that fact P is the case in the Dune universe, just because you have shown me a quote saying "P". I will stall perpetually while claiming I have to look it up or check the context and hope this embarrasing fact, which directly contradicts what KJA has told me, will never be brought up again.

(I have tutored argumentation theory, and I don't think I have seen that fallacy mentioned anywhere. Not even sure it qualifies as a fallacy...)

The list is already up to #18. This new one, if adopted, would be #19.

Should be in the form of a direct quotation to conform to the others.

Edit: It's not really a fallacy at all. More of a method of derailing an argument. Obstructionist sabotage?

My bad, this should be #19 (if adopted).

I submit that it is an "argument" in that it is a tactic employed to obfuscate a very clear point made by an OH. I use this sort of tactic all the time, in Court, to draw the Court's attention away from a good point made by opposing counsel and to refocus on something that is beneficial to my argument. Although I don't simply state that "I don't have time" and then proceed to argue ad nauseum in another forum, but the re-direction tactic is similar.

Essentially, it is a way for a pre-tard to avoid admitting the point and drawing the argument away from an issue on which they are clearly wrong. I think it's worth inclusion because at this point the pre-tards have no way whatsoever of avoiding the incredible number of contradictions and ret-cons in McDune and will be simply unable to make "arguments" in the proper application of the word.

Maybe it's time the list went through mitosis and became:

Preeq Arguments (or stances)

and

Preeq Tactics

the later being things like this questionable #19 "I won't bother to do my homework."

I knew new guy was a mouthpiece from his user name ....

they startin' to congregate 'round here ...

somebody get the rope ready, jus' in case ...

SandRider wrote:I knew new guy was a mouthpiece from his user name ....

they startin' to congregate 'round here ...

somebody get the rope ready, jus' in case ...

Rope's useless.

Sunlight or silver ...

Apjak wrote:Maybe it's time the list went through mitosis and became:

Preeq Arguments (or stances)

and

Preeq Tactics

the later being things like this questionable #19 "I won't bother to do my homework."

Agreed. Let's not confuse a simple issue.

The purpose of this thread — and making it sticky — is to have all of the classic, specific preek arguments in one place. Adding their general tactics just muddies the water.

TheDukester wrote:

Apjak wrote:Maybe it's time the list went through mitosis and became:

Preeq Arguments (or stances)

and

Preeq Tactics

the later being things like this questionable #19 "I won't bother to do my homework."

Agreed. Let's not confuse a simple issue.

The purpose of this thread — and making it sticky — is to have all of the classic, specific preek arguments in one place. Adding their general tactics just muddies the water.

Well, I think they should be near each other because, illogically, stances and tactics get used interchangeably. Whenever people (myself and OH included) get passionate we just let reason go out the window. Why do you think legislatures needed rules of order. If we label the tactics as Tactics, we can respond to each in kind with "Stay on Target" instead of letting ourselves get baited onto distracting tangents.

Apjak wrote:

TheDukester wrote:

Apjak wrote:Maybe it's time the list went through mitosis and became:

Preeq Arguments (or stances)

and

Preeq Tactics

the later being things like this questionable #19 "I won't bother to do my homework."

Agreed. Let's not confuse a simple issue.

The purpose of this thread — and making it sticky — is to have all of the classic, specific preek arguments in one place. Adding their general tactics just muddies the water.

Well, I think they should be near each other because, illogically, stances and tactics get used interchangeably. Whenever people (myself and OH included) get passionate we just let reason go out the window. Why do you think legislatures needed rules of order. If we label the tactics as Tactics, we can respond to each in kind with "Stay on Target" instead of letting ourselves get baited onto distracting tangents.

The only tactic I've seen repeatedly is blatant evasion - which is pretty boring and not really list-worthy.

All the arguments they rely on when they work out what they're trying to say are listed here.