Seriously, what if you don't flinch when people question you?

Originally Posted by TZK

What you call "socially acceptable" is clearly a matter of handicapping yourself so that you are at most only slightly above the average person who surrounds you.

As >I< explained multiple times, what people like you think of as an acceptable way of being intelligent doesn't really apply to someone who gathers information at a much faster rate than people around him or her.

The first time you figure something new out, you can just play it off as a fluke. Here you are basically saying "I'm an average guy just like you, but look what I stumbled across". This is what you call accepted intelligence. But do it again too soon and there is nothing you can say any more.

People who cannot face the reality that people are not truly equal simply define anything that causes someone to stand out as above average to be antisocial. You can't sugar coat it to make it so they won't be offended by it.

What you think is accepted intelligence is just average people patting each other on the back for every accomplishment they make. Meanwhile the person who can create those accomplishments at twice the rate is simply kicked out for being "arrogant" regardless of what they say and do to sugar coat it.

Funny thing is, I am one of the few of those types that is self aware enough that I can give information gathering tools to other people.

Tee hee.

Originally Posted by Jonas Grumby

There is no doubt in my mind that TZK is the Best Troll Ever (and I wish Tom would amend his AO title as such). I will consider alternative trolls, but must say that none come to mind immediately.

TTIA

[JohnLocke]

Originally Posted by Jonas Grumby

There is no doubt in my mind that TZK is the Best Troll Ever (and I wish Tom would amend his AO title as such). I will consider alternative trolls, but must say that none come to mind immediately.

Sindia is the only one I would consider other than TZK.

[ConfusedNY]

Smooth Criminal?

[TZK]

Trolls would be the people using debate fallacies in order to give the false impression that they are still debating when they are not. Examples:

One line or short responses that use a metaphor to compare the situation to something that has nothing to do with it to achieve a desired implication. If there was such a connection, the poster could just explain that instead...

Purposely quoting something out of context to form a weakened version of an argument. Or just misrepresenting an argument in general but then acting like the poster is sure that is what the target was trying to say.

Implying that any disagreement with the majority is wrong.

Simply stating that the opponent is wrong implying that everyone should just take the poster's word for it.

Trying to say that the target is wrong because of something that has no valid correlation to the targets chances of being correct.

Or just generally avoiding the real argument.

Without certain people in this thread being able to use these fallacies, the thread would only be 2 pages or so long...

[DoctorNo]

Put me down for Smooth Criminal. That dude was all right.

[MAX.]

Another vote for SC

[DW Simpson]

Originally Posted by Jonas Grumby

There is no doubt in my mind that TZK is the Best Troll Ever (and I wish Tom would amend his AO title as such). I will consider alternative trolls, but must say that none come to mind immediately.

Merril Hoge

[enyj]

Originally Posted by kolya23

If TZK were a TV or movie character, who would he be? I say Dwight Schrute from The Office.

OMFGBBQ.. Don't you insult Dwight!

Originally Posted by Alto Reed on a Tenor Sax

I'm thinking Rain Man.

Errrrrr......................

Originally Posted by Alto Reed on a Tenor Sax

Or possibly Mojo Jojo.

Ahh.... that smells just right!

[JABA]

Originally Posted by TZK

Trolls would be the people using debate fallacies in order to give the false impression that they are still debating when they are not. Examples:

Simply stating that the opponent is wrong implying that everyone should just take the poster's word for it.

Or just generally avoiding the real argument.

Without certain people in this thread being able to use these fallacies, the thread would only be 2 pages or so long...

Ok TZK, if you want help with your interviewing skills tell us the interview question, your response, the follow up question and your follow up response. If you don't, we must assume that you're either avoiding the real argument, that you expect us to simply take your word for it without any real proof, or that you're simply here to whine and make yourself feel better. There's been several posts asking you for this, and yet I've seen no response that couldn't be construed as you avoiding the question, and per your argument that you must in fact be a troll.

[DoctorNo]

Originally Posted by D.W. Simpson Webmaster

Merril Hoge

I think that might actually be Merril Hoge.