Gong Sau Extravaganza 2013: Sirc vs. 3moose

**thrutch** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 6:59pm

Dammit Rivington I was trying to troll then.

**thrutch** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 7:00pm

Originally Posted by ChuckWepner

Uninterested = doesn't care / bored
Disinterested = has no stake in the matter at hand

So, a disinterested judge is a good judge, but an uninterested one is bad (how I remember).

They're also synonymous though, right?

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 7:12pm

Originally Posted by ChuckWepner

Yes, you are correct. It is. That falls into the first category I talked about. I mistakenly thought Omega might want an explanation that was clearer than what he got when he looked "self-refuting" up, so I dashed off a short post on each of the two main kinds (logical, would include either semantic or formal in the loose sense used here, and epistemic). This wasn't an argument about anything with you, let alone a bait-and-switch, it was just background definition of two different senses in which "self-refuting" gets used, since some people seemed interested (in a forum-appropriately hostile way). As a gesture of good will, *I'll* even delete them since they seem to be upsetting people.

Went to earlier posts. I don't find a way to delete them. Sorry, folks.

They're not upset, they just don't want to hear our technobabble.

Do you agree that:

MattPost#122: I'm not training
MattPost #123: Don't post if you don't train.
.
.
is self-refuting in similar fashion to "There is no true proposition." And that possibly-true fails to obtain in either case?

My teachers taught me well and I didn't forget a fucking thing. This conversation reminds me of one W. Rabbit will remember where an engineer tried to take a dismissive stance against a technical point I was making about a physical system, and ended up taking the whole thing back in the end. Boy was he patronizing at the beginning; you prolly would have liked him.

Get this straight: I don't care that you have a PhD in Philosophy; I don't care if you're fucking Saul Kripke, If you're wrong, you're wrong. And you're wrong here. Own it.

I have no degree beyond a high school diploma, but I've put in the work and learned my **** from the best people around. I don't talk unless I know what I'm talking about, and if I'm ever wrong I will admit it graciously and move on.

Edit: if you're about to file an objection against using Truth as a predicate I'm going to shoot you :P no really.

**ChuckWepner** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 7:16pm

Originally Posted by Rivington

They can mean the same thing. Disinterested has an additional meaning: without a selfish or personal interest.

For an MMA judge, for example, we'd want a disinterested observer—someone who doesn't benefit from making sure one fighter wins over the other. We would not want an uninterested observer—someone who doesn't care about the match and lets his or her mind wander.

Disinterested can also mean no longer interested, but that's a rare use.

The use of "disinterested" as a synonym for "uninterested" is still regarded by many usage experts as poor usage, but it has become widespread enough to be an accepted meaning. I retract my childish, pointless nitpicking about Matt's word choice.

**Rivington** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 7:17pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

Except that he didn't say I was "fucking around" with it he said I chose a specific Portuguese phrase to give the appearance that I was actually training in A REAL STYLE

And you did. Thus, he is correct.

even though the actual text of my style field was quoted more than once in nearby posts

So what? If I look at a post you made in some thread from last year—say, by Googling and coming across a Bullshido thread—your fake style field will be what I'll see. What happens in this thread hardly alerts other observers to what your style field means.

Furthermore, you know that the style field is visible on the posts outside of this thread, so clearly you should know that people can come across that field and read it and come away thinking that you train in some sort of JJ they've not heard of. The whole point of your style field—both the current one and the prior one—is to produce that bit of frisson. That is, it is not there to represent what you are truly training in at all.

So, again, Chuck was absolutely right, and you're just trying to squirm away from that by splitting hairs into quantum waves. It's not going very well.

Either way he's a douche, and either way "NAGA NO KATANA" don't look like no style to anyone who knows what NAGA is (LOL)

Knowing what NAGA is is not a prerequisite for looking at this site or your style field.

Previously: The style field is not for in-jokes, or a litmus test for long-time fans of martial arts. It's supposed to represent the style one is training—that was your argument.

No, that's you're point

No, it's his as well.

Matt demands that everyone adhere to a standard that he regards himself as entirely exempt from...There is another, closely analogous situation with his using his relationship with site admins to allow him to put a "pun" phony style name into his style blank, not in English (or even in our alphabet), in a way that hides his non-training, while attacking others if he suspects that their style field is not perfectly current.

He is 100 percent correct.

and the only reason I haven't changed my style field to "nothing" is that it annoys you.

You drastically overestimate the amount of time I spend thinking about your style field. If anything, I'm pleased that you continue to engage in such hypocritical displays–that way, fewer people are fooled.

That and I started easing back into training about a week ago.

Fattie-fu.

**Mr. Machette** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 7:18pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

I have no degree beyond a high school diploma...

But did you stay at a Holliday Inn last night?

**Rivington** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 7:26pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

I don't talk unless I know what I'm talking about, and if I'm ever wrong I will admit it graciously and move on.

LOL no you don't. How odd that someone as dopey as you and as poorly trained as you thinks he can elect himself the Moral Voice of Bullshido.

Quick example of you being wrong and never graciously admitting anything: the fabled 600 hours of annual training a year Zenodkan claimed to have started after his fateful Throwdown video, that you—in order to critique his vid—positioned prior to his video.

That is, you kept saying that he looked terrible for someone who trained 600 hours a year by pointing to a vid he appeared in before he started training 600 hours a year. This was pointed out to you any number of times, but you never actually recanted—you just said that you had recanted. And given your rehashing of Zendo here in this thread, you've certainly not graciously moved on.

Indeed, you also started arguing with Lebell, who had very wisely suggested that we all wait for your video before taking your estimations of training time and ability seriously back then. And indeed, your big video featured eighteen seconds of waddlefucking around before you tapped out. Oh, and then you dared step up to Kin almost immediately after tapping. Speaking of grace, and moving on.

**ChuckWepner** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 7:28pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

Do you agree that:

MattPost#122: I'm not training
MattPost #123: Don't post if you don't train.
.
.
is self-refuting in similar fashion to "There is no true proposition." And that possibly-true fails to obtain in either case?

Matt, no. This isn't PhD-level stuff. And to be honest, it is clear that you are quite a bright guy who does know some serious philosophy. I would be happy to say that this is an issue of theoretical self-refutation if it were, but it isn't.

You are not saying "Posts by non-trainers are false." or "Posts by non-trainers lack truth-value."

Matt Post #123 is a Command. A *moral* injunction, not a proposition about the truth-functionality of posts.

You are saying "It is wrong for non-trainers to post" or "Non-trainers shouldn't post." So, the conflict isn't about truth, it's not some logical paradox. It's that you are saying it is wrong to do something and then doing it. And that is what it is to be a fucking hypocrite. Nothing philosophically fancy about it. No paradox of meaning. Just a guy telling people that something shouldn't be done and that he doesn't do it over and over while he does it over and over.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 7:38pm

There are now four full on semantic pedants on this board not including myself. Bwahahahaha let the grammar and semantic beatings commence.

Shortly, Omega will call you an asshole and Matt will call you guys cryptic. Welcome to my club, here is your honorary badge:

LOL.. I will now be strictly trolling.. I always enjoy watching people argue EXACTLY like me, after complaining about how I argue.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 12/04/2012 7:47pm

Originally Posted by Rivington

And you did. Thus, he is correct.

So what? If I look at a post you made in some thread from last year—say, by Googling and coming across a Bullshido thread—your fake style field will be what I'll see. What happens in this thread hardly alerts other observers to what your style field means.

Really? Fake style? Really? You honestly think I WANT people believing I train in something called "No jiu-jitsu at all" so that I can seem the bad ass? You're a fucking ass clown. Are you deceiving random people that you are training in something distinct from Tai Chi Chuan by using the less publicly known of the two romanizations? LOLOL

Furthermore, you know that the style field is visible on the posts outside of this thread, so clearly you should know that people can come across that field and read it and come away thinking that you train in some sort of JJ they've not heard of. The whole point of your style field—both the current one and the prior one—is to produce that bit of frisson. That is, it is not there to represent what you are truly training in at all.

And you just KNOW this. You're paranoid beyond words dude.

So, again, Chuck was absolutely right, and you're just trying to squirm away from that by splitting hairs into quantum waves. It's not going very well.

Every person with half a brain reading this thread knows that interpretation is about as likely as you showing up at the next Mega

Knowing what NAGA is is not a prerequisite for looking at this site or your style field.

It better be.

Previously: The style field is not for in-jokes, or a litmus test for long-time fans of martial arts. It's supposed to represent the style one is training—that was your argument.

And I filled it out correctly in a recognized Human language spoken by hundreds of millions of people.

No, it's his as well.

[I]Matt demands that everyone adhere to a standard that he regards himself as entirely exempt from...There is another, closely analogous situation with his

LOL

using his relationship with site admins to allow him to put a "pun" phony style name into his style blank, not in English (or even in our alphabet), in a way that

Really? "Our?" Who the **** do you think you are?

hides his non-training,

Do you really think anyone is buying this? It's hilarious.

while attacking others if he suspects that their style field is not perfectly current.

Specify who was attacked for not being current, and provide a quote or STFU

You drastically overestimate the amount of time I spend thinking about your style field. If anything, I'm pleased that you continue to engage in such hypocritical displays–that way, fewer people are fooled.

You're right, Man; you got me. I want your grandma to think I do a crazy form of Portuguese JJ because I want to hide my non-training from her. Especially when I post about not training.

It must be awesome being so fucking smart.