DUMB IT DOWN-IMPEACHMENT

[Papillon + 485]

4 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Often remake it arguments are valid but presented in annoying, aggresive manner. But I think that calling anyone 'bot' is not right, it is similar to 'you are stupid', 'you are not worth talking to'. In my opinion name calling like 'bot' tells more about the person that is using the term than the recipient.

They are annoying to some sir precisely because they are valid? On these occasions you simply state ''bot'' and run away. This trumps all argument. You still read every word he says though, everyday, again and again, and attack whenever you wish, but when you are stumped the running and accusing can commence. For proof of this, simply peruse any thread at all here.

[Marcin + 519]

Guys, generally try to have some distance to yourselves.

I just do not like usage of 'bot' designation, the same as I do not like usage of 'f*ck off', which is to me synonym in this case.

(How you deducted from it that I am politically aligned with Chinese propaganda, wumao etc. is a mystery to me)

 

[Marcin + 519]

1 hour ago, Bob D said:

I did not respond to IT Papillon.  IT decided to contradict me.  No information.  Just "is not"  "you don't understand"   Blah Blah Blah Blah BOT!

I gave this post of yours a Trophy for a great post only because you wrote your shortest post ever .... thankfully.

Bob, this is modus operandi of remake it. Recently he pissed me off by giving the same, short, frustrating answers. He did have a valid point, but gave no information, just this "You are not right", "you do not undestand" etc. , I caught the bait at first but after 2 such ping-pongs I ignored him.

But I was called 'bot' by some users here in the past, just because I presented raw data, numbers, statistics to back my arguments and it was too much for them, had no answer.

[Papillon + 485]

3 minutes ago, Marcin said:

But I was called 'bot' by some users here in the past, just because I presented raw data, numbers, statistics to back my arguments and it was too much for them, had no answer.

Indeed sir, it can be detailed facts and figures, short answers, or a whole four paragraphs of text. It does not matter sir, what matters is that it is an opposing view. This must not be tolerated in any form.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Papillon

[Marcin + 519]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

There, I googled it for you

Chinese call them wumaos because that's a (Chinese) nickle, supposedly how much they make per post. 

Ward, I have a proof for you that I am Polish. I make mistakes in English, that are characteristic to person whose mother tongue is Polish. Any linguist specializing in Slavic languages can easily determine this fact.

[remake it + 288]

14 minutes ago, Marcin said:

He did have a valid point, but gave no information, just this "You are not right", "you do not undestand" etc.

Perhaps you made a sweeping comment that was not substantiated - who knows - but posters always have the opportunity to make make valid counterclaims or otherwise die in the cesspool of excreted opinions. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Ward, I have a proof for you that I am Polish. I make mistakes in English, that are characteristic to person whose mother tongue is Polish. Any linguist specializing in Slavic languages can easily determine this fact.

Yep.  I have zero reason to doubt that you are Polish.  And no reason at all to think that you are a bot.

And for all the hooplah in this thread, I'll link yet again to a year old thread started by an obvious bot (worldtdolphins) so you can read some bot nonsense and make up your own mind:

 

[PE Scott + 563]

I've never put the same emphasis on bot as "f*co off" or even "your stupid". As much as I find it impossible to discuss things with some people, I generally dont think they're stupid....misguided maybe......perhaps their point of view is just something I'm unable to comprehend or mold my nominal reality to. 

In any case, "bot" to me is more indicative of someone that has predictable and cyclical answers to everything. Personally, I dont think I've used that label on anyone. However, that's what I've always inferred from it. 

I can say this, I've only blocked one person on this forum. I rather enjoy the arguments you bring to the table @Marcin, even if I dont agree some or even most of the time. It's so important to try to understand the how other people view issues to better inform your own decision and be a decent and empathetic human being. @Papillon, the substance of your arguments is generally pretty.......substantial. Personally, the constant use of "sir" sounds oddly patronizing to me. I'm pretty certain that's not how you mean it, but it reads that way to me sometimes.

Anyhow, I think we're all "bots" sometimes, so I wouldn't put much weight into that "insult"

 

Edit: @Tom Kirkman bot example is of course the far more literal example. I suppose reading that I can see where the would assume  being called a bot was synonymous with being called "stupid"....because, wow.

Edited December 18, 2019 by PE Scott

[Papillon + 485]

8 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Personally, the constant use of "sir" sounds oddly patronizing to me. I'm pretty certain that's not how you mean it, but it reads that way to me sometimes.

The respectful term ''sir'' is patronising? Surely it is the opposite sir, that is the intent. May I ask what a polite word is if ''sir'' is patronising? Be careful by the way, your post was close to four paragraphs.

11 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

And for all the hooplah in this thread

Wonderful sir, have not heard that word for several years I must admit. 

I appreciate the previous example but currently do not consider Remake It's comments as anything like those on that particular thread. May I ask, do you? 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Papillon

[PE Scott + 563]

18 minutes ago, Papillon said:

The respectful term ''sir'' is patronising? Surely it is the opposite sir, that is the intent. May I ask what a polite word is if ''sir'' is patronising? Be careful by the way, your post was close to four paragraphs.

It's the context and abundant use of the word "sir", I think. That's why I say "oddly patronizing".

I know this probably isnt what you're intending, but I think that it comes across to me like someone calling you "genius" over and over when they clearly think you're a moron. Or if you instinctively tell someone you love them but with no real weight to the words. I'm not sure if that make sense.

I have no issue with long answers of substance. I meant that as a positive quality. I just couldn't think of a better word at the time. 

[Papillon + 485]

2 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I know this probably isnt what you're intending, but I think that it comes across to me like someone calling you "genius" over and over when they clearly think you're a moron. Or if you instinctively tell someone you love them but with no real weight to the words. I'm not sure if that make sense.

Yes I think I appreciate what you mean sir, it is merely meant in a respectful sense. I have written in this way for most of my eighty four years to various contacts around the globe, the majority of which spoke English, but not as a first language, so it is not the easiest task to stop this I dare say. My father was English and born in 1902 and my mother was Japanese, so I learnt both languages from a young age although all the Japanese has rather left me I'm afraid. 

[PE Scott + 563]

Just now, Papillon said:

Yes I think I appreciate what you mean sir, it is merely meant in a respectful sense. I have written in this way for most of my eighty four years to various contacts around the globe, the majority of which spoke English, but not as a first language, so it is not the easiest task to stop this I dare say. My father was English and born in 1902 and my mother was Japanese, so I learnt both languages from a young age although all the Japanese has rather left me I'm afraid. 

That makes absolute sense to me and is what I pictured in my head. I assumed you were probably just classier than me and you write as you speak, more or less. I can't remember seeing anything from you that made me think "this guy is definately using sir sarcastically". 

Anyhow, carry on and consider me better informed. Cheers!

[Papillon + 485]

4 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I assumed you were probably just classier than me and you write as you speak, more or less. I can't remember seeing anything from you that made me think "this guy is definately using sir sarcastically". 

Yes in a sense sir, closer to as I speak I guess, although verbally I use less sirs and more curse words if I'm honest. Therefore I don't know about classier but no, it is certainly not intended sarcastically. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

 

On 12/16/2019 at 12:28 PM, Rob Plant said:

I think if you have a genuine interest in making the world a better place then you do care and are interested, as many on this forum are or they wouldn't bother commenting. It doesn't however mean you have to believe in certain failing organisations such as WTO, NATO, EU, UN etc these need reforming and have proper repercussions for countries that flaunt the rules, to be worthwhile.

I accept that not everyone believe in the same solutions as me. If we can agree on the goal then we can discuss how to get there. I just don't think we can agree on the goal and that's kind of sad to me. 

And p.s. I have always stated that UN, NATO, EU needs reform... 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[remake it + 288]

8 hours ago, Marcin said:

This user agressively is trying to argue with you, just like Cleese in the sketch.

No you are imagining it @Marcin but it is true that all opposition here gets licked

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

9 hours ago, Papillon said:

They are annoying to some sir precisely because they are valid? On these occasions you simply state ''bot'' and run away. This trumps all argument. You still read every word he says though, everyday, again and again, and attack whenever you wish, but when you are stumped the running and accusing can commence. For proof of this, simply peruse any thread at all here.

I think Remake It can be very difficult to debate with as he will not generally accept any counter argument and ends up giving misdirection which means you end up going round in circles until the frustration level boils over. This is Marcin's point about not engaging with him when he is being aggressive. I also agree with Tom that he seems to have 3 totally different personalities, almost like 3 different people are using the same handle.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 hours ago, Marcin said:

Bob, this is modus operandi of remake it. Recently he pissed me off by giving the same, short, frustrating answers. He did have a valid point, but gave no information, just this "You are not right", "you do not undestand" etc. , I caught the bait at first but after 2 such ping-pongs I ignored him.

But I was called 'bot' by some users here in the past, just because I presented raw data, numbers, statistics to back my arguments and it was too much for them, had no answer.

You are the stats king Marcin, we love you for it mate👍

[remake it + 288]

43 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I think Remake It can be very difficult to debate with as he will not generally accept any counter argument and ends up giving misdirection which means you end up going round in circles until the frustration level boils over.

Posters could make it easier if first they actually posted on topic - you have not yet achieved that milestone in this thread - and then focused on precisely what was at issue rather than expect their moving target to be shot down or expect that distractions like this one necessarily warrant a reply.

Edited December 18, 2019 by remake it
plurality of reasons but none required changing

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

26 minutes ago, remake it said:

Posters could make it easier if first they actually posted on topic - you have not yet achieved that milestone in this thread - and then focused on precisely what was at issue rather than expect their moving target to be shot down or expect that distractions like this one necessarily warrant a reply.

Yep just like your last post on here, see below

1 hour ago, remake it said:

No you are imagining it @Marcin but it is true that all opposition here gets licked

 

Show us that sense of humour again Remake It! We like the funny guy.

Or is this the aggressive version of Remake It?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 hours ago, PE Scott said:

I've never put the same emphasis on bot as "f*co off" or even "your stupid". As much as I find it impossible to discuss things with some people, I generally dont think they're stupid....misguided maybe......perhaps their point of view is just something I'm unable to comprehend or mold my nominal reality to. 

In any case, "bot" to me is more indicative of someone that has predictable and cyclical answers to everything. Personally, I dont think I've used that label on anyone. However, that's what I've always inferred from it. 

I can say this, I've only blocked one person on this forum. I rather enjoy the arguments you bring to the table @Marcin, even if I dont agree some or even most of the time. It's so important to try to understand the how other people view issues to better inform your own decision and be a decent and empathetic human being. @Papillon, the substance of your arguments is generally pretty.......substantial. Personally, the constant use of "sir" sounds oddly patronizing to me. I'm pretty certain that's not how you mean it, but it reads that way to me sometimes.

Anyhow, I think we're all "bots" sometimes, so I wouldn't put much weight into that "insult"

 

Edit: @Tom Kirkman bot example is of course the far more literal example. I suppose reading that I can see where the would assume  being called a bot was synonymous with being called "stupid"....because, wow.

/ my non-moderator opinion here....

I remain fairly convinced that remake it is an Artificial Intelligence bot (robot) with a human handler.  This is strictly my own opinion.  Obviously my opinion may be wrong.

I got curious as to how I came to this bot conclusion a while ago, so this morning over a couple cups of coffee, I pulled up remake it's entire posting history and read through the first 10 pages of his / her / its comments.  I was actively involved in pretty much every thread, so I remember the conversations.

Divert it might be a better name.  Not trying to be mean here, simply an observation.  

The consistent refusal to answer plain questions while at the same time using psychological projection of accusing others of using straw man arguments is ... disconcerting.  Especially from someone who identifies as a "logician":

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/5557-electro-plate-tectonics/?page=2#comment-58378

 

I am not trying to tell anyone what to think here.  As always, dissent is encouraged.  You have a brain, use it, decide for yourself, make your own opinions.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

14 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I got curious as to how I came to this bot conclusion a while ago, so this morning over a couple cups of coffee, I pulled up remake it's entire posting history and read through the first 10 pages of his / her / its comments.  I was actively involved in pretty much every thread, so I remember the conversations.

 

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/8515-nuclear-deal-is-dead-iran-distances-itself-further-from-nd-alarming-russia-and-france/?page=6#comment-81

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 12/11/2019 at 6:44 AM, James Regan said:

Im am confused and not an American, but try to follow the current circus act playing out in Washington.

Is the general idea behind the current impeachment that Donald Trump is basically being charged at the core for trying to affect the 2016 and 2020 elections?

If so are the democrats not doing the same thing by carrying out this impeachment?

As they know it will never get passed the Senate is this not a grandiose publicity stunt to try and affect the US voting public by smearing POTUS.

Does political abuse of power not run in many forms?

Am I wrong or just naive??

 

And finally, getting back on topic, here is a sobering bucket of cold water for you to pour over your head and ponder, James:

On The Cusp of Impeachment

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

And finally, getting back on topic, here is a sobering bucket of cold water for you to pour over your head and ponder, James:

On The Cusp of Impeachment

Oh man:

"We know exactly who Donald Trump is, and we also know what he is not. He is exactly what we need at this moment. He is a necessary and glorious bastard."

Quite a video at the end as well.  Thanks, Tom.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Dan Warnick

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

21 hours ago, Marcin said:

Guys, generally try to have some distance to yourselves.

I just do not like usage of 'bot' designation, the same as I do not like usage of 'f*ck off', which is to me synonym in this case.

(How you deducted from it that I am politically aligned with Chinese propaganda, wumao etc. is a mystery to me)

Who was this intended for? Me? I didn't call you a bot, but did attempt to educate you In this comment . You take umbrage at someone calling you a bot, but @remake it has not taken offense, and I called IT out months ago and ever since. It is a bot with human handlers. Occasionally the handler(s) come out to play. I could write one just like it if I wanted to waste my time. I can even point you to websites where the initial source code resides. 

Remember, artificial intelligence merely simulates intelligence. If you play chess against an AI program you will most surely lose. Does that mean it is more intelligent than you, or merely that it brings more to the table than you can? After all, it can easily hold Millions of complete games in its memory at once, and compare wherever you are to all of them to ensure victory. Your brain just can't do that. Even the games you remember won't be perfect recall. 

Maybe I'll start a thread to tie all these thoughts together. 

[remake it + 288]

3 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I could write one just like it if I wanted to waste my time. I can even point you to websites where the initial source code resides. 

That is an interesting claim especially as if it were true then you would be exceptionally wealthy because there are presently no algorithms in the Western world that could make this possible.