Words and phrases that drive me nuts

[Bananaman]

If anyone on this forum, which I've been perusing for a while, dares to use the words 'canard' or 'strawman' again I'm personally going to hunt them down and go round to their house and shoot them in the head with a bazooka.

Bananaman (who hates cliches).

[Bananaman]

And while I'm on the subject can I also say that I say that replying to a well written post picking out one tiny part out of a yard of considered writing with "that's slightly incorrect and prove it to me"...yes, "prove it to me" that's another one. Usually the point has been proved a million times already in the same thread. God.

Bananaman.

[brodski]

And while I'm on the subject can I also say that I say that replying to a well written post picking out one tiny part out of a yard of considered writing with "that's slightly incorrect and prove it to me"...yes, "prove it to me" that's another one. Usually the point has been proved a million times already in the same thread. God.

Bananaman.

This post seems to be a complete strawman.

[T.A.M.]

Bananaman:

Your short spew would hardly be called a DIATRIBE, but it is certainly a STRAWMAN, which is a typical nut case CANARD.

Let me know if you have anything worth reading.

TAM:)

[hurdygurdy]

God.
Can you prove his existence?

[T.A.M.]

Can i also suggest that this thread has NOTHING to do with CONSPIRACY THEORIES, and that it be moved to a more appropriate subforum, such as "WHINING CAUSE I'M PISSED".

TAM:)

[Myriad]

Bananaman (who hates cliches).

Usually the point has been proved a million times already in the same thread. God.


I'd offer a canard about the relative reflectivity of cooking vessels, but that would be a cliche.

ETA: It's not that I'm unsympathetic, Bananaman. But there are people here who have made thousands of rational posts under those conditions. If everyone had a 5:1 discourse:whine post ratio, we'd be quickly submerged in threads like this one.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Bananaman]

I'm actually being serious, and it's completely relevant to this forum in terms of how people reply to each other. People whip out these words and phrases rather than responding with words of their own. It's an instance of people not thinking and taking shortcuts. It's laziness.

I much prefer, "your argument sucks because"...followed by a counter-argument rather than "strawman" bollocks.

Honestly, have you really not noticed this?

I also notice that this tactic is far more popular with conspiracy theorists than logical people.

Bananaman.

[DavidJames]

You understand that the term strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)is common logical fallacy. People use the term not because they are lazy they use for expediency and simplicity. Much like you did when you used the terms "conspiracy theorists" and "logical people" ;)

[T.A.M.]

The word canard is a legitimate word, not some catch phrase. Strawman is a legitimate logical fallacy / debate term.

I agree there are a large number of repeated catch phrases used to either ignore or circumvent legitimate discussion here, on both sides, but these two words are not.

TAM:)

[Confuseling]

Have you ever had an impetuous 3 year old in your charge bananaman? Have you noticed the marked absence of meaningful conversation?

"Put that down!"

"No, put that down!"

"Stop playing with that, it's dirty!"

"Your toys are over here!"

"No, not that!"

If 3 year olds would only use the forum search function, they could find a list of shiny things which are dirty, and not to be used as toys. They won't.

[Totovader]

"Words of their own"? We need to invent words to have meaningful conversations, now?

That's just calaphractionalistic.

[brodski]

I People whip out these words and phrases rather than responding with words of their own. It's an instance of people not thinking and taking shortcuts. It's laziness. no it's an example of people using the correct words to correctly describe the


I much prefer, "your argument sucks because"...followed by a counter-argument rather than "strawman" bollocks. OK, your argument sucks because it is a strawman


I also notice that this tactic is far more popular with conspiracy theorists than logical people.
Can you define your terms please, use your own words not just lazy labels...

[tkingdoll]

The trouble with telling other people what words to use and how to debate, is that if you only have 13 posts, it's unlikely anyone is going to care what you think.

[Bananaman]

The word canard is a legitimate word, not some catch phrase. Strawman is a legitimate logical fallacy / debate term.

Yes, I absolutely agree. But, I'll give typical things I read that make my eyes wobble a bit

Question: How do you explain the impossibility of preparing a controlled demolition of the twin towers and world trade centre 7 (I'll omit all the complicated details being thrashed out)

Answer: Strawman.

Question: What about the hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon?

Answer: Strawman.

Question: Why did teams of workers spend weeks digging out bits of a jet liner and body parts to be identified from Shanksville?

Answer: Strawman.

It's annoying.


Have you ever had an impetuous 3 year old in your charge bananaman? Have you noticed the marked absence of meaningful conversation?

Sort of. My girlfriend has a daughter with Downs Syndrome. I won't enlarge on that.


"Words of their own"? We need to invent words to have meaningful conversations, now?

That's just calaphractionalistic.

Nobody has to invent anything, just steer clear of phrases that are an easy way out of properly discussing a topic. But you have a point. I do, when I read those words or phrases I pinpointed, have a tendency to fast forward whatever legitimate comments they follow with.


Can you define your terms please, use your own words not just lazy labels...

Here we are. Can I define what I have clearly outlined as phrases that avoid answering questions.

I'll say it again for clarity: Phrases or words that are used to sit smugly and avoid dealing with questions that need answers.

Bananaman.

[Bananaman]

The trouble with telling other people what words to use and how to debate, is that if you only have 13 posts, it's unlikely anyone is going to care what you think.

I see. Before you listen to what anyone says you look at their post count. Brilliant.

Bananaman.

[brodski]

Yes, I absolutely agree. But, I'll give typical things I read that make my eyes wobble a bit

Question: How do you explain the impossibility of preparing a controlled demolition of the twin towers and world trade centre 7 (I'll omit all the complicated details being thrashed out)

Answer: Strawman.

Question: What about the hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon?

Answer: Strawman.

Question: Why did teams of workers spend weeks digging out bits of a jet liner and body parts to be identified from Shanksville?

Answer: Strawman.

It's annoying.


So it is the misuse of words and phrases which annoys you. As nothing you posted as an example remotely approaches the form of a strawman argument.
perhaps your op should have read "if you wish to use a word, make sure you understand what the commonly understood meaning of that word is in the context in which you are going to use it".

[Bananaman]

So it is the misuse of words and phrases which annoys you. As nothing you posted as an example remotely approaches the form of a strawman argument.

Exactly. People just use these phrases lazily. Someone comes up with something difficult to answer and instead of saying "well, that's silly because..."

And also, if an argument is contesting something that hasn't been proposed then it's far more enlightening to say so. Say to them, "you're arguing about this, which is irrelavant, I'm arguing about a different point, which is.

Bananaman.

[DavidJames]

Question: How do you explain the impossibility of preparing a controlled demolition of the twin towers and world trade centre 7 (I'll omit all the complicated details being thrashed out)

Answer: Strawman.

Question: What about the hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon?

Answer: Strawman.

Question: Why did teams of workers spend weeks digging out bits of a jet liner and body parts to be identified from Shanksville?

Answer: Strawman.[Providing specific quotes from actual posts would go farther to help understand your position. What you are doingis to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponentguess where that quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) comes from (no peeking)

It's annoying.Indeed.

[WildCat]

Exactly. People just use these phrases lazily. Someone comes up with something difficult to answer and instead of saying "well, that's silly because..."

And also, if an argument is contesting something that hasn't been proposed then it's far more enlightening to say so. Say to them, "you're arguing about this, which is irrelavant, I'm arguing about a different point, which is.

Bananaman.
Arguing irrelevant points isn't what a strawman argument is. A strawman is when your opponent ascribes an argument to you which you've never said.

Do you know what drives me nuts? People who post threads in the wrong forum. What is the conspiracy theory here?

[Bananaman]

Arguing irrelevant points isn't what a strawman argument is. A strawman is when your opponent ascribes an argument to you which you've never said.

I think that is the point I made here:

]And also, if an argument is contesting something that hasn't been proposed then it's far more enlightening to say so. Say to them, "you're arguing about this, which is irrelevant, I'm arguing about a different point, which is...

Next.

Do you know what drives me nuts? People who post threads in the wrong forum. What is the conspiracy theory here?

And if something is particular to a forum don't you think it's better discussed in that forum?

Don't mean to have a go. I actually agree with most of your posts.

Bananaman.

[Horatius]

If anyone on this forum, which I've been perusing for a while, dares to use the words 'canard' or 'strawman' again I'm personally going to hunt them down and go round to their house and shoot them in the head with a bazooka.

Bananaman (who hates cliches).

People whip out these words and phrases rather than responding with words of their own. It's an instance of people not thinking and taking shortcuts. It's laziness.



So it is the misuse of words and phrases which annoys you. As nothing you posted as an example remotely approaches the form of a strawman argument.


Exactly. People just use these phrases lazily. Someone comes up with something difficult to answer and instead of saying "well, that's silly because..."




You know what I hate? People who come into a forum to lay down the law, and then can't even express their own ideas in a manner that allows others to understand them.

Your OP wasn't directed to the misuse of these terms, you only discussed their use, period. I suggest you spend a bit more time thinking about "your own words" before you post them next time.

Because that's what I hate.

[ElMondoHummus]

I use the term "canard (http://www.google.com/custom?q=elmondohummus+canard&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BAH%3Acente r%3BLH%3A75%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2F images%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlogo.gif%3BLW%3A849%3BAWFID% 3A31746880203d5407%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org)" because it's a lot more polite than saying "lie". And I shall continue to use the term, thank you very much.

[bignickel]

In the spirit of the OP, I will add to the list of words and phrases I'm sick of hearing of:

"Official story"
Sheeple
thermite
melted steel

[ElMondoHummus]

In the spirit of the OP, I will add to the list of words and phrases I'm sick of hearing of:

"Official story"
Sheeple
thermite
melted steel

squib

[R.Mackey]

"freefall speed"
"Zionist"
"New Pearl Harbor"
"Bush apologist"
"pyroclastic flow"
"MILDEC"
"MIHOP" and "LIHOP"
"pdoherty"

If we could just rid the world of these, what a glorious world it would be!

You know what I hate? Pummeling the new guy. Even if his opinions aren't as carefully considered as they should be. :D

[Bananaman]

You know what I hate? People who come into a forum to lay down the law, and then can't even express their own ideas in a manner that allows others to understand them.

I think you understood me perfectly.

Plus, I'm not laying down the law, just saying what disgruntles me and seeing if it hits nerves. As mine have been hit.

Your OP wasn't directed to the misuse of these terms, you only discussed their use, period. I suggest you spend a bit more time thinking about "your own words" before you post them next time.

Misuse? My OP (original post) was directed about as clearly as it's possible to do so, and with an aggressively humorous tone, I hope, at the irritation of continually seeing these terms used, not always innappriapriately, which they often are, but over and over and over and over again as an excuse not to explain one's point of view.

And then, over and over and over again.

Bananaman

P.s Horatious:

you only discussed their use, period. I suggest you spend a bit more time thinking about "your own words" before you post them next time.

If one is not directly attacking a member of a board but attacking words used in argument why should one spend more time thinking about their own use of words? One would imagine that they'd not use them lightly. I don't.

[Bananaman]

Even if his opinions aren't as carefully considered as they should be.

Good point, but sometimes the new guy doesn't arrive doffing his cap but storms in through the door with a major quibble.

Bananaman.

[cisco]

I'm honestly disgusted by the terms:

-False flag operation
-Inside job

They make me cringe when I hear or read them. They're so Hollywood, and the people using them are invariably the worst kind of ignorant: cocky ignorant.

[JWideman]

I suggest your problem is with the English language itself. Words mean things. And these examples are, in fact, words that mean things.
Now, a word that bugs me is "irregardless".

[Pardalis]

"Bananaman"

[Par]

Now, a word that bugs me is "irregardless".


Whycome?

[brodski]

.
Now, a word that bugs me is "irregardless".

Why? Words have meanings and irregardless has a meaning too, if you look back at 17th century literature you will see many words which take both a negative suffix and a negative prefix, using the double negative as an intensifier- unboundless is the classic example.
We also have other words today in accepted usage where the negative prefix is superfluous (boned/ deboned, ravel/ unravel etc.)
What really annoy me are people who get annoyed by the inventiveness, adaptability and variety of the English language, and attempt to pin it down to one "correct" form- with no regards to the history of the evolution of the language. ;)

[Fiona]

While all of that is true, it is also true that language has a rhythm and that some forms disrupt it. For me "irregardless"is such a word. It jars and interrupts the flow of the sentence. I think it is because it makes my brain stutter over "irrespective" or any other alternative which would be more natural. I know that those who use it are probably doing so deliberately, and are not mistaking the word for another; but I cannot seem to help searching for that non-existent error and it makes me lose concentration

[Ateius]

"Open-minded," in the context of "You don't accept my conspiracy theory/woo because you're not open-minded!"

:mad:

[ktesibios]

Won't anyone step up to defend the much put-upon canard?

I can think of hardly anything that's more restful, more soul-soothing, than to sit at the side of a pond watching the baby canards swimming in formation with their mother.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/37847d2f9015285a.jpg

Remember, as the song says- a canard may be somebody's mother. ;)

[Pardalis]

"Open-minded," in the context of "You don't accept my conspiracy theory/woo because you're not open-minded!"

:mad:

In the same vein, I get physically ill whenever I hear the "think outside the box" line.

[Brainache]

All this talk against and for canard reminds me of a joke, but I won't tell it because it is too rude.

So, can we still say Bollocks?

[fuelair]

[QUOTE=Bananaman;3509037 go .[/QUOTE]


Please explain your usage of this word and what support you have for it's specific selection. Thanks, summi mon

[fuelair]

All this talk against and for canard reminds me of a joke, but I won't tell it because it is too rude.

So, can we still say Bollocks? You thinking of the guy who got booted in the bollocks and canardly walk anymore?:confused:

[Brainache]

You thinking of the guy who got booted in the bollocks and canardly walk anymore?:confused:

It has to do with an exploited Waterside Worker and a Ship's Captain who works for Cunard.

(Bollocks was a red herring)

[applecorped]

Hi yoko!

[Fiona]

Hi yoko!

If that is addressed to me then hello yourself. I like your name :)

[Magenta]

The trouble with telling other people what words to use and how to debate, is that if you only have 13 posts, it's unlikely anyone is going to care what you think.I see. Before you listen to what anyone says you look at their post count. Brilliant.

Bananaman.


In general, I suspect criticism from "outsiders" is rarely well-received because of doubt about how well-informed they are and what their motives are. Specifically to this sub-forum, it's not unheard of for new posters to pretend to be something that they're not.

In regard to your OP, I think the comments would be more appropriate if they were directed at actual "offenders" rather than expressed as a generalised rant.


[...] sometimes the new guy doesn't arrive doffing his cap but storms in through the door with a major quibble.


That's OK, but remember you also need a thick skin. :) And welcome to the forum.

[Bananaman]

That's OK, but remember you also need a thick skin. And welcome to the forum.

That's quite sweet :-)

Don't worry, I come with my own carapace. And my own bananary super powers too.

Bananaman.

[WildCat]

While all of that is true, it is also true that language has a rhythm and that some forms disrupt it. For me "irregardless"is such a word. It jars and interrupts the flow of the sentence. I think it is because it makes my brain stutter over "irrespective" or any other alternative which would be more natural. I know that those who use it are probably doing so deliberately, and are not mistaking the word for another; but I cannot seem to help searching for that non-existent error and it makes me lose concentration
I can't believe someone who has Yoko Ono as her avatar, a woman whose music (if you call that screeching thing she does music) has been known to cause people to cut out their own eardrums, can possibly be irritated by anything. ;)

[realitybites]

I do not enjoy the word "floccinaucinihilipilification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floccinaucinihilipilification)".

[Bananaman]

I do not enjoy the word "floccinaucinihilipilification".

I do. As a matter of fact I think it's quite appropriate for some scoundrel's posts. The Floccinaucinihilipilificationists.

It might catch on, you never know. It makes a change from 'troofers'.

Bananaman.

[Dave Rogers]

Do you have a problem with people saying, "This is a strawman argument because Dr. Barnett never claimed he saw evidence of evaporated steel, therefore there is no need to explain any such observation in the context of a collapse due to debris impact and fire damage"? I don't, because it's an accurate criticism of the argument it's responding to.

On the other hand, if you have a problem with people saying "I personally never believed there were pods under the planes, so when Popular Mechanics debunked that it was just a strawman," I think most of the sane posters here might agree with you.

Dave

[peteweaver]

If anyone on this forum, which I've been perusing for a while, dares to use the words 'canard' or 'strawman' again I'm personally going to hunt them down and go round to their house and shoot them in the head with a bazooka.

Bananaman (who hates cliches).

Shouldn't that be a banana bazooka ?

[T.A.M.]

Will the next person to join the forum be called "Orangepeel" or "Plumnut" or "Berrytastic"?

TAM;)

[bignickel]

"Pull it"
"witnesses heard explosions"
"government shill"

[VespaGuy]

Welcome to the forum Bananaman.

Since we're talking about misuse of words and phrases, here are some of the most common you'll see on the conspiracy forum. I'll leave it up to any interested parties to find out which group of posters (Truthers for example) are the biggest offenders.

Incorrect use of "to", "too", and "two"
Incorrect use of "their", "there" and "they're"
The use of "should of" and "could of" instead of "should have" and "could have"

Outside of the forum, the spoken phrase "a whole nother"* is like nails on a chalkboard.

(*example: "I'm just telling you that 9/11 was an inside job. The NWO is a whole nother story.")

[tkingdoll]

I see. Before you listen to what anyone says you look at their post count. Brilliant.



Ordinarily, no. But when someone starts a thread criticising everyone else on an internet forum, then it's entirely relevant to check their posting history and see why they believe themselves qualified to tell everyone else what to write.

FAIL.

[Drudgewire]

If anyone on this forum, which I've been perusing for a while, dares to use the words 'canard' or 'strawman' again I'm personally going to hunt them down and go round to their house and shoot them in the head with a bazooka.

Bananaman (who hates cliches).
Hear, here!! I'll add all the stupid latin phrases, "ad hoc," "ad hominem," "argumentum ad verecundiam."

They're responses that could only be used on the internet because if you tried to drop any of them during a bar debate you'd wind up with a mouthful of knuckle. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/fist4su.gif

[Drudgewire]

Incorrect use of "to", "too", and "two"
Incorrect use of "their", "there" and "they're"
The use of "should of" and "could of" instead of "should have" and "could have"

"You're" and "your" should be way up there too.

[peteweaver]

Perhaps Bananaman is here to warn us of a conspiracy by Doctor Gloom, General Blight, and Apple man which involves space beams ?

[bignickel]

Guys, bananaman does a post where he he states he's sick and tired of people using 'strawman' all the time without knowing what the heck it means. Instead of other people posting words that they're sick of hearing, what we have instead is people jumping all over bananaman with 'who said that?' 'you misused this word' etc etc etc.

Seriously. I know we're all sick and tired of sock puppets, but bananaman hasn't done any classic 'I just have a few questions' OP's. So, give the guy some slack, alright? If you've got some words or phrases that you're sick of hearing all the time, post away.

[tkingdoll]

Guys, bananaman does a post where he he states he's sick and tired of people using 'strawman' all the time without knowing what the heck it means. Instead of other people posting words that they're sick of hearing, what we have instead is people jumping all over bananaman with 'who said that?' 'you misused this word' etc etc etc.

Seriously. I know we're all sick and tired of sock puppets, but bananaman hasn't done any classic 'I just have a few questions' OP's. So, give the guy some slack, alright? If you've got some words or phrases that you're sick of hearing all the time, post away.

Why? His manner of OP was singularly unpleasant. 'If people in this forum don't post in a way I approve of, despite me not having demonstrated any superior posting skills myself, I will hunt them down and kill them.' Nice!

[bignickel]

So, he's ranting. I've ranted myself. Is ranting only limited to frequent posters?

Like R. Mackey said, sometimes people don't express themselves perfectly. So, now that we know what the OP is about, why not post in the spirit of the OP? There's 19 posts on this page as I'm posting this: only 2-3 are actually continuing the discussion of the OP. The rest all are critical of bananaman, jokes, etc. I and few others have tried to get this thread off of it's current track, but people keep coming back to the 'imperfectly worded OP'.

Should I start up my own thread to keep discussion of the OP going, and leave this thread for just criticism of imperfectly worded OP statements?

[dudalb]

"Sheeple". Anyone using that can automatically be regarded as a CT Kook.

[Pardalis]

"Pull it"

Actually, this one can be useful in some occasions.

[ElMondoHummus]

"Pull it"


Actually, this one can be useful in some occasions.

That should go in "Humor" with the rest of the double-entendres...

;)

[Dave Rogers]

Outside of the forum, the spoken phrase "a whole nother"* is like nails on a chalkboard.

Yeah, tmesis abso-bloody-lutely sucks.

Dave

[NobbyNobbs]

If anyone on this forum, which I've been perusing for a while, dares to use the words 'canard' or 'strawman' again I'm personally going to hunt them down and go round to their house and shoot them in the head with a bazooka.

Bananaman (who hates cliches).

Actually, what bothers me even more is people who make unwarranted threats of violence simply because someone else chose to use a particular word.

Please review the membership agreement (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/136/87/), particularly rule 5.

[twinstead]

Don't worry, I come with my own carapace. And my own bananary super powers too.


Carapace. Is that like a codpiece?

[Dave Rogers]

Carapace. Is that like a codpiece?

Only if you're a cricketer.

Dave