169 replies to this topic

[Stoned Prophet]

From 04 February 2015 - 03:06 PM:

You break me up, really you do. You get criticized, then report someone for hurting your tender feelings, and then have the "righteous indignation" to call them "snarky". I did nothing to be worth reporting except bruise your ego which must have the consistency of on overripe orange. Toughen up sonny, it's the internet.

Don't worry, I won't continue to argue with you, as I feel it's as much a waste of time as you do. I do hope you are reporting all my other posts in this thread, just for consistency.

So you attack me for my comments, and when i point out youre doing exctly what you accuse me of doing you say suck it up. Double standard much? So sad people like you exist. Please go back to whatever hole you crawled from To troll.

[TLBFestus]

The feelings mutual. I feel exactly the same way about entitled, self-important people like you that you feel about me.

I'll let you get the last word in now, because i know you won't not be able to reply.

[Nathan Bloodguard]

Nathan Bloodguard, on 04 February 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

Dear new reader to this thread. I would like to take the time to warn you that the original second post of this thread has currently been deleted (along with most of the posts that quoted it). As such some of these posts are now out of context and might make little sense. Whom deleted it or why it was deleted is not of question at this time, nor do I wish to get into a debate about 'the incident' that the said deleted post not only mentioned but also introduced into this thread. I only wish to make note, so that you new readers to this thread (assuming you are reading it from start to finish) might understand that some things are now out of context due to this gap in the thread.

I do ask, that any posts and subject matter referring to 'the incident' please be ignored and left out of further conversation inside this thread, as the post that introduced it is no longer in this thread and the subject can no longer be kept in context. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause to you, but is not in my control and not of my doing.

I will make a note that this post was mostly for my benefit, as I don't like looking a fool because of missing posts in an argument, unto which it could look like I am bringing something into this thread from another source/thread (because at least one post I quoted has been deleted and has no source to go back to any longer). It was also made to warn the new readers in this thread that some info is missing in regards to 'the incident' and as such some posts (including mine) might fall out of context.

I wanted to provide them with the reason why that might seem so. I did not mention who's posts where deleted, as it is irrelevant. My goal was not to gloat. If others in this thread wish to potentially look a fool to new readers to this thread because some posts are missing, then who am I to stop them...

[Burktross]

[Tesunie]

Here is the problem I'm currently seeing with trying to define the OP off the word "compete". Look at the title of this thread. I'm working off the word "Competitiveness". Though closely related, they are two different words. It was my own folly to try and define things based on your terminology of "compete", when instead I should have been aiming for "competitiveness", as my title of this thread indicates.

Compete: Verb. It's the action. It's the act of. You are doing it.

Competitive: Adjective. It's describing something. It's a description on the item.

Competitively: Adverb. It's describing an act. (Compete competitively!)

Competitiveness: Noun. It's an idea or a concept.
We are talking about the idea of competitiveness.

I am not talking about the act of competing, I am talking about competitive behavior, or called Competitiveness.

So, with your improper start of your logic train, you have come to incorrect conclusions. You didn't even start on the same tracks that you should have started on.

One can compete, without being competitive.
One can be competitive, without being in a competition.
Competitiveness is the concept of being competitive, which can lead to competing.

So far, the argument against my context definition of "competitiveness" has been that not everyone who competes aim at self improvement. This makes the assumption that competing and competitiveness are the same thing, when they are not. People who compete (competitors) don't have to play competitively. You can be competitive without being in a competition.

Competitiveness is the drive to compete. The drive to be able to compete. It is an aspect that makes you want to improve so you can compete. Competitiveness is the concept of competing and preparing one for competing. This concept doesn't happen only when in a competition, but happens before, during and after a competition.

In a previous example, you mentioned that buying a new mouse wasn't competing. It is not competing.
But! Buying a new mouse can be competitive, depending upon the reasons behind buying the new mouse.

In another example, you mentioned an apple and a tree and saying that all trees were apples.
I'm saying that this tree, which produces apples, is an apple tree. I'm not talking about all the trees of the forest, only the one tree that makes apples.


Hum. Didn't someone post a video about "learn your grammar" or something?
Verb =/= Noun
Compete =/= Competitiveness
Apple =/= Trees

[Burktross]

Here's a revolutionary idea! Stop arguing about semantics and syntax and watchamacallits and debate the actual topic before PGI takes this topic and pushes it somewhere else?

ktown

[Tesunie]

Burktross, on 04 February 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

Here's a revolutionary idea! Stop arguing about semantics and syntax and watchamacallits and debate the actual topic before PGI takes this topic and pushes it somewhere else?

ktown

In this case, he asked a valid question related to the OP itself. It has made me think and research more upon the subject matter at hand (which has actually been rather fun to look up in more depth). I give him the courtesy of providing a response to his valid questions, and trying to clarify the points within the OP. I have considered his points, where valid.

His challenges to the OP and the definitions and concepts provided within were expected (I just didn't expect the response I got though). I see this as a way to validate and improve upon my previous points, or be proven incorrect and then my thesis would need to be adjusted, changed and/or revised.

In this case, it's about what type of word it is, as that was what was causing the confusion. We each were correct, with the words we were using. He used the incorrect word compete, when he should have been looking up competitiveness instead. This caused the issues he presented from his perspective on this subject. I have clarified Compete, as well as have now clarified Competitiveness. I have seen the tracks he was on, so now I present him the line of thoughts I was on with more detail to help reduce any farther confusion.


Honestly though, if this thread is making it's way to Ktown, responding now will do nothing more than bump the thread on it's way there, as they have occupied the thread for an (amazing) 9 pages. I personally see it more as 9 pages of bumps for the thread, and an excellent example of their/our/my behavior for people to decide for themselves who did what and why and if either side is justified. I'll let those posts just... stand for themselves at this point. People will come to their own conclusions from the previous nine pages of... stuff.

If I desire, I can always repost a more refined edition of this concept again at a later time. One that, if I choose to do so, will hopefully prevent some of the confusion that occurred within this thread as the OP will be more refined and will include a better definition and terminology within.

[Stoned Prophet]

Nathan Bloodguard, on 04 February 2015 - 04:48 PM, said:

I will make a note that this post was mostly for my benefit, as I don't like looking a fool because of missing posts in an argument, unto which it could look like I am bringing something into this thread from another source/thread (because at least one post I quoted has been deleted and has no source to go back to any longer). It was also made to warn the new readers in this thread that some info is missing in regards to 'the incident' and as such some posts (including mine) might fall out of context.

I wanted to provide them with the reason why that might seem so. I did not mention who's posts where deleted, as it is irrelevant. My goal was not to gloat. If others in this thread wish to potentially look a fool to new readers to this thread because some posts are missing, then who am I to stop them...

Thats not why you look that way

[Stoned Prophet]

From 04 February 2015 - 11:10 PM:

In this case, he asked a valid question related to the OP itself. It has made me think and research more upon the subject matter at hand (which has actually been rather fun to look up in more depth). I give him the courtesy of providing a response to his valid questions, and trying to clarify the points within the OP. I have considered his points, where valid.

His challenges to the OP and the definitions and concepts provided within were expected (I just didn't expect the response I got though). I see this as a way to validate and improve upon my previous points, or be proven incorrect and then my thesis would need to be adjusted, changed and/or revised.

In this case, it's about what type of word it is, as that was what was causing the confusion. We each were correct, with the words we were using. He used the incorrect word compete, when he should have been looking up competitiveness instead. This caused the issues he presented from his perspective on this subject. I have clarified Compete, as well as have now clarified Competitiveness. I have seen the tracks he was on, so now I present him the line of thoughts I was on with more detail to help reduce any farther confusion.


Honestly though, if this thread is making it's way to Ktown, responding now will do nothing more than bump the thread on it's way there, as they have occupied the thread for an (amazing) 9 pages. I personally see it more as 9 pages of bumps for the thread, and an excellent example of their/our/my behavior for people to decide for themselves who did what and why and if either side is justified. I'll let those posts just... stand for themselves at this point. People will come to their own conclusions from the previous nine pages of... stuff.

If I desire, I can always repost a more refined edition of this concept again at a later time. One that, if I choose to do so, will hopefully prevent some of the confusion that occurred within this thread as the OP will be more refined and will include a better definition and terminology within.

"Those who must argue definitions have already lost"
You nust cant seem to admit when your wrong. So sad when people are like that
Compete or competitive, either way it does not intrinsically mean to try and improve oneself. You are flat out wrong tgats all there is too that. Just as your op as wrong. The idea you act like ypure trying to present is good, but its actually just a thj ly veiled cry to mommy that those other kids wouldnt be extra nice to you after you couldnt be bothered to read the chat or cooperate in any fashion. So sad, your bad.

/thread

From 04 February 2015 - 03:06 PM:

You break me up, really you do. You get criticized, then report someone for hurting your tender feelings, and then have the "righteous indignation" to call them "snarky". I did nothing to be worth reporting except bruise your ego which must have the consistency of on overripe orange. Toughen up sonny, it's the internet.

Don't worry, I won't continue to argue with you, as I feel it's as much a waste of time as you do. I do hope you are reporting all my other posts in this thread, just for consistency.

Stoned Prophet, on 04 February 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

So you attack me for my comments, and when i point out youre doing exctly what you accuse me of doing you say suck it up. Double standard much? So sad people like you exist. Please go back to whatever hole you crawled from To troll.

From 04 February 2015 - 04:36 PM:

The feelings mutual. I feel exactly the same way about entitled, self-important people like you that you feel about me.

I'll let you get the last word in now, because i know you won't not be able to reply.

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite, and then justify their actions.

Edited by Stoned Prophet, 05 February 2015 - 07:42 AM.

[Tesunie]

Stone Profit... OH WAIT! I mean "Stoned Prophet":

I like how you and Dimento Graven seem to be "tag teaming" this thread. He asks about the definition of Compete, and when I provide the information for him, you jump in and say your BS line.

I mention how Dimento Graven was calling me names (but he gets bonus points for providing some subject matter on topic at some point, but then loses those points by calling me names), and you jump in screaming how you didn't call me any names.

Dimento Graven, despite his attitude, has at least contributed in some portion on the topic of "Competitiveness".

You, however, have done nothing of the sort, and have resolved to personal attacks against me instead of approaching and talking about the OP topic (which to remind is about "Competitiveness"). For nine pages, you have existed in this thread with no contribution to your name.

You keep claiming how "innocent" you are, and how you are justified with your posts, and yet it is not my thread nor any of my posts (to my knowledge) that gets removed, but it is in fact your very first post that was deleted by a moderator (unless you deleted it yourself, which I seem to find unlikely). But keep telling yourself you are justified here and how perfect and innocent you are. I welcome the bumps.

But now, you desire to insult one of my "guests" in this thread? Someone whom I don't even know, and was not involved with anything prior to his posts here? And this is acceptable behavior for you?

I leave you with a song though, that seems very fitting on my perspective here:

Edited by Tesunie, 05 February 2015 - 06:18 PM.