Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[Holmes_and_Watson]

24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

That analogy doesn't work on any level.

Could you provide a list of all the levels on which an analogy is supposed to work, please? Then illustrate why it doesn't work on "any" of them? Obviously, you've already checked, before being able to make that statement.

It seemed appropriate enough to me.

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

No, it is perfect, or at least very close it, as perfection is an insult to Allah.

I suggested some people put me on an ignore list so that they don't see my posts.

That  is not analogous with @egg nonsensical "pleading with the other kids to play with him whilst trying to pop their football". 

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Could you provide a list of all the levels on which an analogy is supposed to work, please? Then illustrate why it doesn't work on "any" of them? Obviously, you've already checked, before being able to make that statement.

It seemed appropriate enough to me.

We can add analogies to the list of things you don't understand. 

Suggesting some put me on a forum ignore list so they don't see my posts is not comparable to "pleading with the other kids to play with him whilst trying to pop their football".

Edited 7 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It does for the rest of us

We can add analogies to the list of things you don't understand. 

Suggesting some put me on a forum ignore list so they don't see my posts is not comparable to "pleading with the other kids to play with him whilst trying to pop their football".

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I suggested some people put me on an ignore list so that they don't see my posts.

That  is not analogous with @egg nonsensical "pleading with the other kids to play with him whilst trying to pop their football". 

"Please play with me egg, please".

No Mathew, you're a prick, fuck off. 

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

We can add analogies to the list of things you don't understand. 

Suggesting some put me on a forum ignore list so they don't see my posts is not comparable to "pleading with the other kids to play with him whilst trying to pop their football".

Understanding analogies require lateral thought Matthew, so they are lost on you. 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, egg said:

"Please play with me egg, please".

No Mathew, you're a prick, fuck off. 

I was doing the opposite of asking you to play! I was asking you to add me to an ignore list! That I'd why the analogy does not work.

So if you want me to 'fuck off', add me to the ignore list and we stop playing me teaching you what an analogy is!

[Matthew Le God]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

Understanding analogies require lateral thought Matthew, so they are lost on you. 

Bullshit. I was asking you to ignore me, not "pleading with the other kids to play with him whilst trying to pop their football".

It is the complete opposite. That is not what an analogy is! You do not understand what an analogy is!

Edited 7 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

I was doing the opposite of asking you to play! I was asking you to add me to an ignore list! That I'd why the analogy does not work.

So if you want me to 'fuck off', add me to the ignore list and we stop playing me teaching you what an analogy is!

Oh of course, resurrecting a thread a day later, and tagging various people who have left you alone, and asking that they leave you alone is exactly what someone who wants to be left alone does. Of course. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

We can add analogies to the list of things you don't understand. 

Suggesting some put me on a forum ignore list so they don't see my posts is not comparable to "pleading with the other kids to play with him whilst trying to pop their football".

I was about to respond, to save you have to score that off your list. But I see egg has already begun to point out why you are not only wrong yet again, why you don't understand it, and importantly why, like so many things in life, it's likely to remain beyond you.

While I'm here though, don't forget to answer trousers.

And I noticed that you've not learned about editing your posts to try and change their meaning. You got caught out on this thread doing it, and you've been editing away again.

[badgerx16]

19 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I suggested some people put me on an ignore list so that they don't see my posts.

That  is not analogous with @egg nonsensical "pleading with the other kids to play with him whilst trying to pop their football". 

But what was your motivation for the suggestion ? If you ask people to put you on ignore, you appear to be trying to hide from potential responses. What makes you think I, for instance, dislike your posts ? You seem to be quite happy responding to mine.

[badgerx16]

Maybe the entire forum could put Matthew on ignore.

[Matthew Le God]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

Oh of course, resurrecting a thread a day later, and tagging various people who have left you alone, and asking that they leave you alone is exactly what someone who wants to be left alone does. Of course. 

@Holmes_and_Watson is stalking me from thread to thread on this forum and dredging up posts from 17 years ago on other forums.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Maybe the entire forum could put Matthew on ignore.

Fine by me if anyone wants to. 

[Matthew Le God]

14 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

And I noticed that you've not learned about editing your posts to try and change their meaning. You got caught out on this thread doing it, and you've been editing away again.

I corrected a typo.

The one you claim is "caught out" is nonsense. Everything that was in the post when first written remains in it. Nothing was edited out. The edit added things, it took nothing away. Another fail for you.

[whelk]

Fucking hell are you cunts still going for it? Not even a weekend hiatus

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I corrected a typo.

The one you claim is "caught out" is nonsense. Everything that was in the post when first written remains in it. Nothing was edited out. The edit added things, it took nothing away. Another fail for you.

Nobody suggested anything was edited out. Just you. H&W, correctly, highlighted what you changed (added). 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Fucking hell are you cunts still going for it? Not even a weekend hiatus

Slow day. I can't be doing with dishonest trolls though. Movie now on. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

12 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

@Holmes_and_Watson is stalking me from thread to thread on this forum and dredging up posts from 17 years ago on other forums.

It was @Paul Chuckle who posted your FM guides, and your feelings regarding stadium names. You then made the choice to pretend you meant something else, admit lying to your readers, blame other thread creators and then blame SI. I forget if that was when you went off in a sulk, as we were laughing at your desperate deflection so much. That thread stays in my mind because it could easily have turned out completely different. You just had to dig yourself a hole.

When you put us all on ignore, you won't have to see any of our responses. Using ignore was your suggestion. "No excuse not to" use it.

No answer for trousers?

No list of why analogies work?

I think that's just this page. Undoubtedly more things you've gone quiet on.

Edited 6 hours ago by Holmes_and_Watson

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Nobody suggested anything was edited out. Just you. H&W, correctly, highlighted what you changed (added). 

Why can't I add things to posts?

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Holmes_and_Watson said:

No reply to being caught editing your posts again?

Caught? Wtf are you talking about? Why can't I add things to posts? I never denied editing the post, the forum says posts are edited. But nothing was removed from the originalpost, so what are you claiming the issue is?

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

No list of why analogies work?

I have already explained why the analogy in question doesn't work. The analogy in question does not reflect what I said at all, if anything it was the opposite of what happened. So it is not an analogy that works. An analogy works when two different things share a clear, relevant similarity.

 

 

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Posted your FM guides, and your feelings regarding stadium names. You then made the choice to pretend you meant something else, admit lying to your readers, blame other thread creators and then blame SI. I forget if that was when you went off in a sulk, as we were laughing at your desperate deflection so much. That thread stays in my mind because it could easily have turned out completely different. You just had to dig yourself a hole.

That is not even close to an accurate summary of what happened. Twisted and distorted!

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Slow day. I can't be doing with dishonest trolls though. Movie now on. 

You'll struggle to justify that!

[badgerx16]

22 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Fine by me if anyone wants to. 

You would be happy responding only to your own posts.

[The Kraken]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

You would be happy responding only to your own posts.

He’d probably end up arguing with himself.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

18 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I corrected a typo.

The one you claim is "caught out" is nonsense. Everything that was in the post when first written remains in it. Nothing was edited out. The edit added things, it took nothing away. Another fail for you.

That's quite a typo.

Your original post said:-

1) No one in this thread had posted that link. The link was relevant to a post in this thread that it was replying to.

2) Do you read every single new post in every thread before making your next post each time?

The response to those points was:-

) Utterly predictable. Never mind that the same information has been given. If you can say the same thing, from another source, you think it's breaking news. You've been peddling that nonsense for any number of transfer threads, where you just *had* to be seen to give the news. Like a man-child on X (sorry, you'd call it twitter), you've given up in a sulk when others kept getting in ahead of you.

2) As I'm here most days, yes, I generally do. There's not that much to catch up on, if visits are regular. If it's a discussion, then definitely, as it's just courtesy to the other posters, to know their views. But then, I don't set out to undercut other posters.

That's what people would have seen, and the thread moved on. But look! Later on, the world's biggest "typo" has added a whole new section!

 1) No one in this thread had posted that link. The link was relevant to a post in this thread that it was replying to.

2) Do you read every single new post in every thread before making your next post each time?

3) "We all knew about it"

Even if your answer to 2 is yes, do you really believe everyone else does?

4) Had anyone else on this forum made that post, would you reply to it? I guess you will come up with a reason why only me, but 1 to 3 shows why you are wrong.
Edited 6 hours ago by Matthew Le God

Caught out again. Someone described you as "tragic" which seems a good fit.

[Matthew Le God]

5 hours ago, trousers said:

MLG: genuine question... How self aware are you as to how you come across? As others have highlighted, the way you debate makes you come across as a bit of a twat. However, I genuinely don't believe you're a twat, so the only explanation is that you're blissfully ignorant. Unless you genuinely are a twat and I can't see it?

I'm not letting things go, but then so are half a dozen others. I'm aware continuing these debates will be annoying for many of those not interested in it. But it takes two to tango... I'm not the only one in these debates. One key difference is I don't generally get personal and make offensive comments.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

11 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I have already explained why the analogy in question doesn't work. The analogy in question does not reflect what I said at all, if anything it was the opposite of what happened. So it is not an analogy that works. An analogy works when two different things share a clear, relevant similarity.

 

 

No. You said "analogy doesn't work on any level."

You've shown nothing to prove that you, happy to nitpick others, has done even the most basic of checks on the levels of analogy, and how they apply in this instance.

Which is probably why everyone else knows you're wrong again.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

That's quite a typo.

Your original post said:-

1) No one in this thread had posted that link. The link was relevant to a post in this thread that it was replying to.

2) Do you read every single new post in every thread before making your next post each time?

The response to those points was:-

) Utterly predictable. Never mind that the same information has been given. If you can say the same thing, from another source, you think it's breaking news. You've been peddling that nonsense for any number of transfer threads, where you just *had* to be seen to give the news. Like a man-child on X (sorry, you'd call it twitter), you've given up in a sulk when others kept getting in ahead of you.

2) As I'm here most days, yes, I generally do. There's not that much to catch up on, if visits are regular. If it's a discussion, then definitely, as it's just courtesy to the other posters, to know their views. But then, I don't set out to undercut other posters.

That's what people would have seen, and the thread moved on. But look! Later on, the world's biggest "typo" has added a whole new section!

 1) No one in this thread had posted that link. The link was relevant to a post in this thread that it was replying to.

2) Do you read every single new post in every thread before making your next post each time?

3) "We all knew about it"

Even if your answer to 2 is yes, do you really believe everyone else does?

4) Had anyone else on this forum made that post, would you reply to it? I guess you will come up with a reason why only me, but 1 to 3 shows why you are wrong.
Edited 6 hours ago by Matthew Le God

Caught out again. Someone described you as "tragic" which seems a good fit.

Fail again for you.

The typo comment was regarding the post today.

The editing post debate was not about this post you just quoted. Even if it was... so what? Why can't I edit posts? 

[trousers]

22 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I'm not letting things go, but then so are half a dozen others. I'm aware continuing these debates will be annoying for many of those not interested in it. But it takes two to tango... I'm not the only one in these debates. One key difference is I don't generally get personal and make offensive comments.

The question was: "How self aware are you as to how your posting style comes across?" (Paraphrased)

There's obviously no obligation to answer the question explicitly or directly if you don't want to, but I am genuinely interested in how self-aware you are... Before you answer (if you choose to), bear in mind, it is still possible to come across as a twat at the same time as thinking others do too, so playing the "well, others are annoying too" card is deflection rather than answering the question.

As I say, I don't think you are a twat, despite you often coming across as one due to your posting style. I'm just curious as to whether you intend to come across as a twat or if it's unintentional.

Edited 6 hours ago by trousers

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

No. You said "analogy doesn't work on any level."

You've shown nothing to prove that you, happy to nitpick others, has done even the most basic of checks on the levels of analogy, and how they apply in this instance.

Which is probably why everyone else knows you're wrong again.

Bullshit.

Analogies can work on more than one level.

They can highlight multiple layers of similarity, surface details and deeper structures or ideas.

For example...

"The human brain is like a computer."

Surface level: Both store and process information.

Deeper level: Both have memory systems (short-term vs long-term / RAM vs hard drive), and both can be "reprogrammed" (learning vs updating software).

 

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

Nobody suggested anything was edited out. Just you. H&W, correctly, highlighted what you changed (added). 

Thanks egg. I was going to find your post saying this earlier.

MLG posts.

MLG gets a response/ reaction showing him to be wrong/an imbecile/both

MLG goes back and edits his post.

MLG then pretends that the edited version is the only reality, as that's what he meant all along.

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Fail again for you.

The typo comment was regarding the post today.

The editing post debate was not about this post you just quoted. Even if it was... so what? Why can't I edit posts? 

Your section long "typo" was from today. The editing post was the one egg is referring to.

My post said:-

And I noticed that you've not learned about editing your posts to try and change their meaning. You got caught out on this thread doing it [when you asked what was wrong with intolerance], and you've been editing away again [the post where you've added a section].

I see your argument has shifted away from the "no, I didn't" section and into the "so, what if I did" one. Tragic.

32 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

It was @Paul Chuckle who posted your FM guides, and your feelings regarding stadium names. You then made the choice to pretend you meant something else, admit lying to your readers, blame other thread creators and then blame SI. I forget if that was when you went off in a sulk, as we were laughing at your desperate deflection so much. That thread stays in my mind because it could easily have turned out completely different. You just had to dig yourself a hole.

When you put us all on ignore, you won't have to see any of our responses. Using ignore was your suggestion. "No excuse not to" use it.

 

24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

That is not even close to an accurate summary of what happened. Twisted and distorted!

It's all there for anyone who wants a laugh at your childishness. A number were laughing at you, at the time. So, since it was someone else who posted those, and you mistakenly are blaming me for starting it, I guess I can't be "stalking you across threads" then, either. Because anyone doing that would need a shovel, like the guy cleaning up after the elephant on Blue Peter.

[Matthew Le God]

19 minutes ago, trousers said:

The question was: "How self aware are you as to how your posting style comes across?" (Paraphrased)

There's obviously no obligation to answer the question explicitly or directly if you don't want to, but I am genuinely interested in how self-aware you are... Before you answer (if you choose to), bear in mind, it is still possible to come across as a twat at the same time as thinking others do too... As I say, I don't think you are a twat, despite you coming across as one due to your posting style. Just an observation. 

Sure, I know I my posting style on certain subjects can come across as a twat to some on this forum.

The amateur autism diagnosis thrown around is nonsense. I work in a SEN school, I know more about autism than any amateur expert on here.

I do not talk to people like this off the forum. For their own sake and that of others I hope those stalking me around the forum also don't act as they do on this forum!

A key difference is that along with the twatty arguments I get into, I do positively contribute to the forum with news, links, jokes etc. Same can't be said for some of those on this thread!

Edited 6 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Sure, I know I my posting style on certain subjects can come across as a twat ti some on this forum.

The amateur autism diagnosis thrown around is nonsense. I work in a SEN school, I know more about autism than any amateur expert on here.

I do not talk to people like this off the forum. For their own sake and that of others I hope those stalking me around the forum also don't act as they do on this forum!

A key difference is that along with the twatty arguments I get into, I do positively contribute to the forum with news, links, jokes etc. Same can't be said for some of those on this thread!

Thanks for the answer - appreciated.

For what it's worth, and just to clarify, I didn't "diagnose" you as having autism, I simply observed that, on here, you exhibit character traits that are akin to someone with autism and/or ADHD (my adult daughter having recently been diagnosed with the latter, hence having some personal experience of it). 

Anyway, I'll park the 'personal interrogation' line of enquiry now and concentrate more on our shite football team!

Edited 6 hours ago by trousers

[Holmes_and_Watson]

13 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Bullshit.

Analogies can work on more than one level.

At no point did I say they didn't. You made the statement that the one presented here didn't work on any level. It seems a natural query to one who is very literal minded when it suits, to ask how the posted analogy failed at all of those levels.

Sadly, you've just given some levels of analogy, and not how they apply here. Once again, you are a disappointment. I'm beginning to think you really didn't check at all, then rushed off to find a page about analogies.

Perhaps you'll do better once you've answered trousers, or cleared up the evidence of you editing posts to change their meaning, after people have responded/reacted. It wouldn't do, to be a "dishonest troll" after all.

 

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Thanks egg. I was going to find your post saying this earlier.

MLG posts.

MLG gets a response/ reaction showing him to be wrong/an imbecile/both

MLG goes back and edits his post.

MLG then pretends that the edited version is the only reality, as that's what he meant all along.

Utter bullshit.

I add things to posts for further clarification. I don't remove things. 

I have never denied editing posts. You again refused to give a reason why posts can't be edited to add more detail.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Sure, I know I my posting style on certain subjects can come across as a twat to some on this forum.

The amateur autism diagnosis thrown around is nonsense. I work in a SEN school, I know more about autism than any amateur expert on here.

I do not talk to people like this off the forum. For their own sake and that of others I hope those stalking me around the forum also don't act as they do on this forum!

A key difference is that along with the twatty arguments I get into, I do positively contribute to the forum with news, links, jokes etc. Same can't be said for some of those on this thread!

A disappointing evening for those who picked "imbecile" as MLG has confirmed "twat" 🙂

Suggestion: Have a go at talking to the people here, in the same way you talk to people elsewhere.

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

A disappointing evening for those who picked "imbecile" as MLG has confirmed "twat" 🙂

Suggestion: Have a go at talking to the people here, in the same way you talk to people elsewhere.

Do you talk to people elsewhere the way you do on here? I hope not for the sake of others. I might be a twat on here... but you come across as deeply unpleasant. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

12 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I work in a SEN school, I know more about autism than any amateur expert on here.

I was going to move on. But wanted to just ask that you consider lines like that. You have no idea who on the forum has autism or who cares/ supports others who do in whatever capacity.

It's a definite example of why you, by your own admission, "come across as a twat".

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Do you talk to people elsewhere the way you do on here? I hope not for the sake of others. I might be a twat on here... but you come across as deeply unpleasant. 

No. I somehow manage not to be a twat here or elsewhere.

Quiet, the rest of you. 🙂

Why you have to be at all, is baffling.

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I was going to move on. But wanted to just ask that you consider lines like that. You have no idea who on the forum has autism or who cares/ supports others who do in whatever capacity.

That is why I said amateur!

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

No. I somehow manage not to be a twat here or elsewhere.

Quiet, the rest of you. 🙂

Why you have to be at all, is baffling.

Do you agree the way you talk to people on here is unpleasant? Do you talk to people in the same way off the forum?

[badgerx16]

45 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 I know more about autism than any amateur expert on here.

 

How on Earth do you know this ?

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

How on Earth do you know this ?

Because I used the word amateur expert.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Because I used the word amateur expert.

Still doesn't mean you do.

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Still doesn't mean you do.

I didn't say than anyone else. I said compared to amateurs, i.e. people with no professional and/or academic qualifications and working history in the field.

[Matthew Le God]

 

Back on topic, well done this headteacher...

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[Farmer Saint]

Ignore lists are a funny one and don't really work the way they should, but they are necesary. This is because of multiple reasons:

1. For me, they are for the dregs of society. The paedophiles, the rapists and the racists. I use it in extreme situations. I have one person on my ignore list, and I believe him to be all 3 of the above.

2. Ignore lists are only "ignored" on the initial post - any post that is replied to us visible, so you still get see their diatribe if anybody wishes to reply to their dialogue.

Edited 5 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Holmes_and_Watson]

38 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

That is why I said amateur!

badger has just picked up on this. You can be better than this, surely?

37 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Do you agree the way you talk to people on here is unpleasant? Do you talk to people in the same way off the forum?

No. I wouldn't agree that I do. I can think of one other, who shares some of your attributes. More broadly, it's not for me to judge as to whether I actually am. If lots of others were to suddenly tell me I was, I'd certainly listen.

Clearly, their bribes need some renegotiation 🙂

I am much the same offline, as on. Or at least, try to be. Although, it's not anywhere near as Saints focused. My family have seen Close Encounters. So, if I start building Stoneham stadium out of potatoes, it's off for "help"...again. 🙂

I think you've missed something. All some posters have done for a day, is raise a little mirror to your posting. That I'm suddenly  a "deeply unpleasant" "stalker" should be making you think about what you do here.