Lounge Issues with LarryS

I have just two issues with LarryS. Now normally, I wouldn't post this kind of thing, because who cares? But LarryS is the dominant poster here, so maybe there will be some resonance with others.

(1) It seems to me that it's odd, possibly absurd, and perhaps quite a paradox, to argue that one's posting is not "all about me" when the poster has more posts and more wordage than anyone else. If a poster responds to virtually every criticism with a post, and has the largest volume of posts and verbiage, how can he make the case that what he's posting isn't about him if the posts aren't purely informational?

(2) I loved "Seinfeld," but I recognize that the show relied for much of its humor on the nuances and minutia of particular behaviors in a particular US city at a particular time. It relied on the audience knowing and sharing what was expected and sanctioned, and it relied on the audience recognizing deviations in that acceptance. Many of LarryS's postings have that same kind of subjective, value-laden approval or disapproval being stated. They are not data-laden statements. They are subjective evaluations of what is correct, or to be accepted, or not accepted. What is right, or moral, or fair. You can do this to this degree, but not to that degree. KJ is right here, but wrong there, and so on. Setting these parameters for what is correct or incorrect makes the posts de facto all about the poster, "me, me, me."

I don't post on many boards, and not much when I do. To an outsider, this looks like LarryS's board. He posts the most; he imposes a subjective values system on the board by hammering his perspective home over and over, and he posts so frequently I feel as if I'm "in his living room" as opposed to visiting a public place.

 

Seems to me that LarryS "calls it the way he sees it," takes pains to explain why he sees it that way, and invites others to debate him on any and all issues.

If you believe a topic he hammers is worth discussing, then engage him on it, use your seemingly preferred "data"-based, non-subjective approach, and see what happens.

Once we separate the ad hominem component from our posts we realize that the idea is the only thing worth talking about, and not all of us express and explain ourselves the same way.

 

Really, its ok in this world to have an opinion. Its ok to have winners and losers in childrens sports. Its ok to give trophies to winners and nothing to losers. Its ok to have opinions on what is right or wrong...rather than straddling the fence

If you loved the 50 pages of KJ laying out a defense and critique of his personal banning...and if you feel that didnt belong on a separate thread....you have the perfect ability to express your opinion, just as I do. And when the me me me defense starts to appear again, you have the perfect ability to chime in "this is great KJ, let me hear more on this topic..... again".

However you do seem to have the common sense to start a thread based on you your your opinion on a tangential issue.

The fact that KJ was unjustly banned initially is a proper topic to comment on a board called "wov is dying". It gives another example of uneven punishment. However to take that comment and turn it into a 50 page defense of your case takes it to another thread..."I was personally fucked by shackelford and here are the reasons why"

You understand the need to take a topic off the thread. And I comment that KJ should have done that as well for those 50 pages. Now I see it possibly starting up again ...so I comment on it. I dindnt "report" it to the admin. I just comment on it.

So of course I think I am right. I am the kind of person who never expected my kid to get a trophy for participation. Its ok to have real opinions and present them, and its ok to be right, and ok to say when u were wrong
As you see below, Face brought up a point where I was wrong and I APOLOGIZED.

So for me its ok to be right and its ok to be wrong as long as you admit you are wrong when you are, and make good on it.

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/details-of-shackleford-discussion-my-final-post.5281/
KJ knows full well the etiquette involved, since he did try to start his own thread(above)..BUT the thread I am on seems to get more action and therefore gets the posts. Which is ok.....but that doesnt mean I cant comment on the content or the "right or "wrong" of it.

I responded with KJ as an examplr, since you brought him up.

only if that poster only goes to 3-4 threads

there are hundreds of other threads i dont participate in

 

KJ got screwed, and we all know it. Larry got what he deserved, and we all know it. Case closed.

 

A cogent and well explained commentary

you did the best that you could

 

Larry isn't interested in having a debate or discussion with anyone. He's interested in wasting other people's time (something he ironically has a lot of), twisting others' words constantly to make the debate/discussion not worthwhile. When asked a tough question he doesn't want to answer, squirms out of it with "who made you you you the arbitrater of.....".

 

Those are just declared generalities and are exactly what you accuse me of doing.

what a pompous hypocrite

 

Larry is a malignant narcissist. He exhibits the same qualities as Rob Singer. They both make statement after statement that rings out "I'm better than you!" Its the only thing that gives them relief from their feelings of inferiority. Both Rob and Larry were kicked off WoV for trolling a moderated site, period. He is now maligning KJ for "writing 50 pages of gibberish" over his banning from WoV. First of all, let's see Larry produce 50 pages. Show us Larry. You know you can't. But what can be shown is Larry writing hundreds of pages of gibberish attacking Shack and WoV right here in this thread. He does it over and over and over and over again. He's been at it for what? Two years now? But when someone else attempts to do the same Larry is on their ass? What the fuck for? Doing the same thing Larry does? Thats the sure enough sign of a TROLL.

Larry, this bullshit you assert that you are speaking for others and not yourself.

1. Who are these "others?"
2. Did they ask you to "speak for them?"
3. Do they even know you are "speaking for them?"
4. Or did you appoint yourself to "speak for them?"
5. Have any of them said "don't speak for me" like you have said to others?
6. Why would you speak for others when you don't like people speaking for you?

 

MC is in a drunken state...he thinks 50 pages about myself would be some sort of accomplishment

What the fuck does this hazy brained man want..does he want me to post all about me me me.

I surmise if I did, he would complain that I am doing the exact same thing I complained of KJ doing.

no thanks I wont take you up on that offer.

 

You are the one who is hazy brained. Show us the links to the 50 pages you say KJ wrote. You can't because it wasn't anything close to that. Its just another false premise you created so you could harangue someone. Here's the thing. You have listed many many grievances against Shackleford in the past two years in your job as self appointed spokesman. KJ has listed some grievances. WTF are you jumping him about it for when you do the same thing?

PS: You avoided the questions I asked. Tell us how you became the spokesman for these "others."

 

just go to page 44 of the wizard of vegas site is dying thread....and spend a few days reading non stop

just keep going....till you finish or until you pass out.

 

WTF? You've put hundreds of pages of bullshit in this thread?

 

"Declared generalities" ---- huh? If I said "Black people do X Y Z" or "Jewish people do...." or "basketball players do this" or "dogs are...." etc., then those would be (or could be) generalities.


If I said something about YOU and you said they were generalities, then you are in fact agreeing with what I said, as those things apply to you in general (but not always).

ie: If I say "puppies are cute" and someone said that's just a generality, that's true, as not all puppies are cute.

If I say, "XYZ person is an asshole" and soeone said that's just a generality, which would mean that person is generally an asshole (but not always).


So what's that say about LarryS, who admits the following is generally true (but not always) about him:

?

 

yes that example is a declared generality.
There is no specific definition of "asshole" and no specific examples given to back up the declaration. No quotes, no pictures, no videos...Just a meaningless generalization of no real meaning....or many different meanings .

 

have some coffee and realize that outof those 100 pages maybe 3-4 are about me specifically.

again you make my point.

 

Who gives a fuck who its about. It's still bullshit.

 

thats your opinon YOU are entitled to it. ....Just as I am entitled to my opinion that your brain has permanent damage from tears of chemical abuse,....and therefore what you say cant be taken seriously by me me me.

 

Just can't help trolling can you, maligno Larry?

 

I thought this was one of those obvious things that need not be mentioned.

Of course it's all Larry Larry Larry. It doesn't matter if he talks about KJ, or discusses WoV, or opines on Mickey's mental state. They're all opinions of his his his. Everything is filtered through his his his experiences and his his his values and are expressed with his his his words.

Anytime you speak, you are talking about you you you. Me challenging Larry for calling me FUCKFACE wasn't me talking about Larry Larry Larry. I was talking about me me me. How I felt, where I was coming from, why I chose the direction I did. Larry just happened to be the target I directed my me me me talk onto.

ALL talk is narcissistic. EVERYTHING is your stance, your judgement, your values, your beliefs. Even you talking about Larry Larry Larry is you talking about you you you. Same goes for him.

Am I off base here?

 

I don't know, Face. If you provide numbers, then it's not so much an opinion as a report. For example, if I say that Larry posts more than anyone else, uses more words than anyone else, and therefore -- by definition -- dominates the board, then if those things are all correct, that's not an opinion. It's a report.

If, on the other hand, Larry makes arguments without making objective factual statements, then those trend into the land of opinion. For example, he was skewered not long ago when arguing that Americans loved their jobs and the response was page after page of comparative studies suggesting, if not demonstrating, that Americans don't love their jobs. Larry's evidence was his opinion; the counterargument was a report.

There's a difference between reporting reality and stating one's opinion. Now I know the old axiom, "All writing is fiction," and to an extent that's true, but I think the following can be said. If something is stated that can be demonstrated to be wrong, then at least we are in the realm of reality and science. If I'm wrong about Larry's post counts and verbiage totals, then I'm demonstrably wrong. I have to accept that. If what one babbles about, however, can in no way be proven wrong, then we are in the land of anecdotal evidence and opinion.