Besides, nobody recognised his brilliance, so he's probably better off.

His “interesting” ideas we're all based on the same basic fallacy he couldnt recognize. — DingoJones

So he made coherent arguments that you were convinced were always incorrect? Sounds like a typical TPL interchange.

The only reason he lasted as long as he did was because of idiots like you who thought they found a sparring part er rather than a troll with a personality disorder. — DingoJones

Never underestimate what you can learn from trolls with a personality disorder. Or what you can teach them.

The only reason he lasted as long as he did was because of idiots like you who thought they found a sparring part er rather than a troll with a personality disorder.
— DingoJones

[whisper]Hey Joshs, I don't think DJ likes you.[/whisper] — T Clark

Have you noticed that those most eager to jump on the
‘pummel Batricks’ bandwagon share some of his uncivil
tendencies? Maybe a bit of projection going on here? Just remember what goes around comes around.

Never underestimate what you can learn from trolls with a personality disorder. Or what you can teach them. — Joshs

Hats off :up: :100:

I remember you also took part in his thread about recognising greatness. I think it is an original topic and his arguments were well defended.

Or probably is just my own view because I have personality disorder :smile: :wink:

So he made coherent arguments that you were convinced were always incorrect? Sounds like a typical TPL interchange. — Joshs

His arguments were not coherent. They were at times internally consistent but all based on logical fallacy.
You just can’t be paying attention if you thought Barts posts were indicative of the normal discourse here.
There is being cheeky or abrasive, and then there is vacuous trolling.

Never underestimate what you can learn from trolls with a personality disorder. Or what you can teach them. — Joshs

Maybe the first one encountered, but I learned nothing from Bart, and Bart never learned anything from anyone that I saw. So what are you talking about?

He can be a toad sometimes. He does know a lot about hazardous waste, tho.

Have you noticed that those most eager to jump on the
‘pummel Batricks’ bandwagon share some of his uncivil
tendencies? Maybe a bit of projection going on here? — Joshs

Whose pummelling the guy? This is a thread about bannings, we are discussing the banning of Bartricks.
Besides, you like it when I call you an idiot. Gets your juice flowing, right?

Have you noticed that those most eager to jump on the ‘pummel Batricks’ bandwagon share some of his uncivil tendencies? — Joshs

My goodness, I think you might be right.

So he made coherent arguments — Joshs

No, he didn't.


"There but for the grace of god...'

Doubtless. We're better at it.

So he made coherent arguments
— Joshs

No, he didn't. — Banno

According to DG he did. Otherwise how would he know they were false?

You don’t know what “projecting” means. Look it up. It doesnt just mean identifying traits in others that you yourself possess, its attributing traits to others based on your own possession of them. Attributing traits based on the other person actually having those traits is just being accurate and rational.
Anyone got a pair of dunce caps for these chuckleheads?

You don’t know what “projecting” means. Look it up. It doesnt just mean identifying traits in others that you yourself possess, its attributing traits to others based on your own possession of them. Attributing traits based on the other person actually having those traits is just being accurate and rational. — DingoJones

Really? Is that what this has come to? Quibbling about word meanings. Let's get back to the vituperation.

Anyone got a pair of dunce caps for these chuckleheads? — DingoJones

Ah, yes. That's more like it.

Besides, you like it when I call you an idiot. Gets your juice flowing, right? — DingoJones

Doesn’t bother me. Always nice to learn what buttons set someone off.

Really? Is that what this has come to? Quibbling about word meanings. Let's get back to the vituperation. — T Clark

Well Clark, the end game of quibbling about word meanings was an insult (couple of dunces I implied) so it was still in the right tone I thought. Sorry, word meanings was the only way to lump you two together since “idiot” only describes one of you. Ill do better, scouts honour.

Doesn’t bother me. Always nice to learn what buttons set someone off. — Joshs

I sincerely hope neither of us is bothered by this exchange. Im just goofing on ya a bit cuz you think Barticks was a worthwhile poster. You’re begging to be made fun of there, like the flat earther website that says they have members all around the globe.

Close this taco stand already. Too much diarrhea from the tacos.

Close this taco stand already. — Shawn

Good analogy. They look good, sometimes even healthy, but they mostly end up on your shoes.

Misanthropy is democratic.

Hand me some or close the thread.

That'll be three fiddy.

How about I don't spit in your popcorn?

I sincerely hope neither of us is bothered by this exchange. Im just goofing on ya a bit cuz you think Barticks was a worthwhile poster. You’re begging to be made fun of there, like the flat earther website that says they have members all around the globe — DingoJones

I’m just pissed off because I wasted half an hour writing a response to his ‘greatness’ OP and now he won’t answer it.

He wouldnt have anyway, thats his trick. Discourse with Bartricks was an illusion imo
He would have ignored anything he didnt directly use as a vessel for insult. You were just the latest hopeful to begin a lesson that ends with you realizing you’re wasting your time you just never got the chance cuz he got banned. Good riddance.

He was one of those Gassadini1 guys. — Shawn

Gassendi1 his name was. He was a prick but I learned a lot from him. He really added argumentative quality to the forum as well as knowledge of hard nosed analytical philosophy, something that the forum lacks nowadays.

And it is. It reflects badly on those who participate. — T Clark

Agreed. A banning is never nice and no one likes to be ostracized. It is sad for the person to whom it happened Being gleeful about a decision which is needed perhaps, but sad anyway is not very nice. He is not in the position to defend himself as well.

to make sure our delicate sensibilities don’t blind us to whatever substantive contributions are intertwined with a nasty delivery. — Joshs

Indeed. When I interacted with Bart, which wasn't very often, he puzzled me because I did see him make some points which made me think. He was unpleasant to me sometimes as well though and I found it odd. Why would he? But then again, why would I care? The forum is a lot like life and I do not think we should be too squeamish about posters who sometimes debate in a harsher form. Sometimes attitudes cross the line, but sometimes we might also ask posters to develop a thicker skin and not take every incivility too sensitively.

Oh, shut up.

Oh, shut up. — frank

I guess you do score extra points for being both concise and to the point :rofl:

Oh, shut up. — frank

He explained.

Agreed. A banning is never nice and no one likes to be ostracized. It is sad for the person to whom it happened Being gleeful about a decision which is needed, but sad is not very nice. He is not in the position to defend himself as well. — Tobias

Gassendi1 his name was. He was a prick but I learned a lot from him. He really added argumentative quality to the forum as well as knowledge of hard nosed analytical philosophy, something that the forum lacks nowadays. — Tobias

:up: :up:

@Bartricks – gfy, D-K troll! :victory:

I agree with everybody. In his last appearance, in the thread "greatness" he SURPRISINGLY made sound arguments, and consistenty logical lines of reasoning.

I thought he was making a turn-about, and now I see why, because he got a warning.

But I also agree with the on-grave-jumpers-and-spitters, he was a veritable troll and a highly aggravating sparring partner.

He was good at two things: 1. Insulting others. 2. Pulling them into an argument. 3. Keeping them in the exchange of (false) ideas.