Your opinion of Stalin?

[The Brain]

Your reading comprehension is poor, your intellect is weak and you are a troll. I see you haven't changed a bit since 2003.

And now you'll get chewed out for adhomming him, avoiding to make your point which will prompt him to claim you have no point to make in the first place.

Syt the Psychic.

[Syt]

Syt the Psychic.

I never argue much with grumps, but I like reading his debates, because they're kind of amusing to predict what moves he'll pull. In most cases he'll just latch into some minutae of the discussion at hand, demand written, credible (in his eyes) proof of the point or dismiss the opponents' argument. This usual goes in circles till the other side throws up their hands, roll their eyes and walk away. grumbler feels better, knowing that he has destroyed yet another interesting discussion.

Of course, if you'd ask him he'd probably say that the way his debates are always like this on here because of the lack of intellectual challenge the posters pose.

He reminds me of a guy called Hannibal Barca (there's a HannibalBarca now, not the same) over at P'dox during the HoI1 beta. I suggested something about adding time outs for units that were redeployed, because I thought that moving some divisions from Poland to France as Germany was too fast. It was not until I racked up a rough calculation about troop/vehicle numbers, freight trains and rail capacities until he conceded the point. Since then I decided I'd rather avoid such discussions, because they're usually not worth the effort.

[grumbler]

He played the opposed move in this matchup, though. Instead of citing obscure sources he refutes them because they don't address the precise point he argues. As usual, he declares victory unless his opponent jumps through all the nitpicky loops he holds up for them.

This is trolling at its finest!  When I argue that facts support my position, I am "nitpicking."  When I argue that the mere mention of a book (or a chapter title) is not an argument, I am "refusing to acknowledge" something or other.  I cannot be doing this except as a ploy, because that would mean all of Syt's character assassination and trolling was wrong!

Tell me, Syt:  what are, in your opinion, the most salient points of the argument for Stalin being an intellectual, according to Montefiore?

Don't tell me you don't know, because that, in Syt-speak, is to "hold up" some " nitpicky loops" (which is a term I'm sure you alone know the meaning of).  And don't tell me that I know already, because The Brain refuses to say! 

[grumbler]

Your reading comprehension is poor, your intellect is weak and you are a troll. I see you haven't changed a bit since 2003.

So, in the end, you simply won't say what you think Montefiore has to add to the discussion?

I kinda figured, the way you were weaseling around to avoid actually saying anything about Montefiore while trolling for me to say something about Montefiore, that you weren't making an honest attempt at discussing this.  I guess neither of us have changed since 2003, then.

We are done with this.

[The Brain]

Syt the Psychic.

I never argue much with grumps, but I like reading his debates, because they're kind of amusing to predict what moves he'll pull. In most cases he'll just latch into some minutae of the discussion at hand, demand written, credible (in his eyes) proof of the point or dismiss the opponents' argument. This usual goes in circles till the other side throws up their hands, roll their eyes and walk away. grumbler feels better, knowing that he has destroyed yet another interesting discussion.

Of course, if you'd ask him he'd probably say that the way his debates are always like this on here because of the lack of intellectual challenge the posters pose.

He reminds me of a guy called Hannibal Barca (there's a HannibalBarca now, not the same) over at P'dox during the HoI1 beta. I suggested something about adding time outs for units that were redeployed, because I thought that moving some divisions from Poland to France as Germany was too fast. It was not until I racked up a rough calculation about troop/vehicle numbers, freight trains and rail capacities until he conceded the point. Since then I decided I'd rather avoid such discussions, because they're usually not worth the effort.

Indeed. I learnt in 2003 that grumbler isn't a serious poster, but today I tried some discussion that seemed harmless. I was wrong of course and shouldn't have fed him. Maybe my next try in 2017 will do better. Or not.

[grumbler]

I never argue much with grumps, but I like reading his debates, because they're kind of amusing to predict what moves he'll pull. In most cases he'll just latch into some minutae of the discussion at hand, demand written, credible (in his eyes) proof of the point or dismiss the opponents' argument. This usual goes in circles till the other side throws up their hands, roll their eyes and walk away. grumbler feels better, knowing that he has destroyed yet another interesting discussion.

I always enjoy these kinds of posts.  It makes me all tingly to know that you continue to dance on your crank, explaining how you "know what grumbler will do" and then, when I do the opposite, argue "oh, I knew he was secretly going to do the opposite."

You will note that I have latched onto no minutia in this discussion.  Asked for an opinion, I gave it.  When trolled, I simply stated that i was not interested in playing along with the troll.  That you would jump in alongside the troll is unsurprising.  So far, it looks like you and The Brain are the only ones interested in derailing this discussion.  I have simply asked what people's counter-arguments are - and, signally, The Brain has absolutely refused to say, preferring instead to address his beliefs about me rather than his beliefs about Stalin.

[Syt]

Tell me, Syt:  what are, in your opinion, the most salient points of the argument for Stalin being an intellectual, according to Montefiore?

I'm not attacking your point of whether or not Stalin was, in my opinion or someone else's, an intellectual, so I'm not going to enter that discussion.

I'm calling you out on your tedious and pedantic type of discussion that may be by the book and letter of how debating should be done but that is neither interesting nor rewarding to quite a few people on these boards, judging by the comments they make in your discussions. Your habit of mocking your opponents by aping their certainly doesn't endear you either.

[Syt]

I always enjoy these kinds of posts.  It makes me all tingly to know that you continue to dance on your crank, explaining how you "know what grumbler will do" and then, when I do the opposite, argue "oh, I knew he was secretly going to do the opposite."

I haven't said that, but rather made a surprised comment that you went the other way this time.

With regards to the rest of your other comments (no, I won't list them) - Let's just say that this is the point in the discussion where I shake my head and walk away smiling.

[Grallon]

I have a wonder grumbler; did you ever publish anything?  I mean beyond the bottom drawer of your high school desk?  I'd be interested to read you. 




G.

[grumbler]

Tell me, Syt:  what are, in your opinion, the most salient points of the argument for Stalin being an intellectual, according to Montefiore?

I'm not attacking your point of whether or not Stalin was, in my opinion or someone else's, an intellectual, so I'm not going to enter that discussion.

So your argument is that it is me who has "destroyed another conversation" because I want to talk about the topic, and it is you who didn't destroy it because you don't?  Entering a conversation when one has no interest in the topic sounds like trollspeak to me.

I'm calling you out on your tedious and pedantic type of discussion that may be by the book and letter of how debating should be done but that is neither interesting nor rewarding to quite a few people on these boards, judging by the comments they make in your discussions. 

When I consider who agree with me, and who does not, I get all tingly again.  The fact that you, Fate, Peter Wiggin, and The Brain are doing the dogpiling tells me I am doing something right.   You are welcome to that company (I expect Martinus and grallon would join in if they saw this, and that thought warms me as well).

Your habit of mocking your opponents by aping their certainly doesn't endear you either.

I never even attempt "aping their certainly."   That's a mug's game.  

[Fate]

trollbler has written many excellent pieces of Babylon 5 fan-fiction.

[grumbler]

With regards to the rest of your other comments (no, I won't list them) - Let's just say that this is the point in the discussion where I shake my head and walk away smiling.

I have been smiling from the start.  As soon as The Brain mentioned a chapter title but refused to state what was in the chapter, I knew where this was going.

Anyway, as regards Stalin, Raz is correct that "unintellectual" does not mean "unintelligent."  Stalin was obviously highly intelligent, in some ways. To use Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences model, thouygh, we would say that he probably had a very high Mathematical/Logical Intelligence but low Interpersonal, Linguistic, and Interpersonal Intelligences.  He was much better at the concrete than the abstract, IMO, which marks him as unintellectual.

[Eddie Teach]

When I consider who agree with me, and who does not, I get all tingly again.  The fact that you, Fate, Peter Wiggin, and The Brain are doing the dogpiling tells me I am doing something right.

All I've done was attack Fate's use of the English language. Though I am honored to be grouped with Syt and Teh Brain.

[grumbler]

All I've done was attack Fate's use of the English language.

Okay.  I withdraw your name.

Though I am honored to be grouped with Syt and Teh Brain.

All you need to do is constantly try to change the subject from Stalin to grumbler and you can be right with them. 

[Zanza]

To use Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences model, thouygh, we would say that he probably had a very high Mathematical/Logical Intelligence but low Interpersonal, Linguistic, and Interpersonal Intelligences.  He was much better at the concrete than the abstract, IMO, which marks him as unintellectual.

Wait, interpersonal intelligence is abstract whereas mathematics is concrete?