I registered in like May or June.

I THINK THEY HATE ME. Man posting here isn't going to help matters either.

...

lololololol pwned

So mrstickball represents Fade LLC? This can't end well.

Yes it's a very childish hatred and rivalry.  I don't know who's immediate fault it is but it's a very silly then.

Considering I can't post on that thread, I would like to say the dailmydrive guy who responded to ioi's post committed a few fallacies.  Here's what he said:

Holy shit @ oioio. If anyone challenges him they're automatically David Riley. Anogram <sic> my ass. The word is that Fade is a vgczzz company. Denying it and saying you bought a stake in it is another lie.

 Why is it that everyone who takes you to task is an automatic NPD or gfk employee, or whatever?

You are the most paranoid, ignorant, sad person in the world.

First of all he responded to his argument by denouncing it simply because ioi was stating it.  That's a red herring fallacy as it seeks to move away from the actual debate rather than actually debating it.  Secondly it's an ad hominem fallacy as he made it more about the person posting it rather than the actual content.  Both fallacies make his entire argument false.  But he made more.

Second he claims what he was saying was a lie.  But given he provided no proof he committed the negative-proof fallacy.  Just because you state something and feel you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true or not.  Simply a fallacious argument and should be denoted as such.  The last two sentences are more cases of ad hominem, red herring, and now a hasty generalization fallacy.  Obviously derailing the argument and making it personal but he also assumes based on something in the past that this argument he is being paranoid, ignorant and sad.

In entirerty there were obviously quite a few fallacies.  The main one is a straw man and a red herring as obviously it had nothing to do with what ioi said nor was it representative of what he said.  But of course throw the ad hominem, hasty generalization, and negative-proof fallacy and you got an extremely fallacious argument.  However he also committed the most common.  He states if someone challenges ioi they are such and such.  But then he goes on to say that ioi is paranoid, ignorant, and sad person after he was challenged by ioi.  Meaning it's bad when someone is accused they throw out denouncing terms but he here got accused and then started to denounce ioi's argument.  What is that guys?  Obviously a logical contradiction.  Something can't both be the case and not the case at the same time in the same respect.

To sum it up the argument made absolutely no sense and it was atrocious that so many fallacious things could be said in such a small selection of words.  I really do wish I could say it directly too him but I don't have the means to.  But if anyone wants to PM it to him, well you could even sign my name.  Common sense and logic is something this guy lacks and it is an embarrassment to humanity that any of us had to witness such an argument. 

And yes that is what you call ownage. 

Given that it was probably necessary to post on a suicide account, it would have been simplicity itself to - introduce himself, suggest rather than assume (if necessary) the identity of the other poster, lay out the facts but lay off the banter, invite constructive criticism rather than coming across bumptious and self-righteous. Basic internet politeness really. The account would probably have been banned for being used by someone other than the owner, but it would limit the options for response to the factual or the blatantly personal. And he would have come across as a reasonable guy and maybe some GAFfers would start to warm to him. As it is - way to make enemies.

Alternatively, could have asked someone else to furnish factual corrections on his behalf - I would have volunteered to do that provided I could confirm the facts, but by the time I got to this thread the damage had been done. (And given this little fracas I probably won't volunteer to do so in the future).

well well well zucas. I had no idea you had any insight in debating. Pretty good observations there.

@Staude- well thank you. Always been able to break apart arguments but now I've got words to describe them thanks to my philosophy class. So obviously when I saw that argument, it was just like stabbing a knife into logic and common sense haha.

Actually by knowing a few of these things, it helps my own arguments becuase I know I committed large amounts of errors in logic. Actually looked back at a few I've done with you and reconstructed my arguments to see how bad they were haha. Sorry for those haha.


But glad to see someone else has some respect for logical and respectful argumentation as well.

about bolded: absolutely true. It comes across as a bunch of childish people wanting to prove each other right, knowing full well it ain't going to happen. A playpen, three different toys so everyone has one of their own, would've sufficed in this matter.

lol don't worry. Yeah it's always important to be able to analyze the whole situation :)

wow so much hate! thats really ridiculous