What is wrong with the web hosting industry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know Matt, you really took this whole subject for a train ride.

I'm calling it a night. Sorry to see that you can't bring yourself down a notch.
 
Blue said:
And thank you for one again proving my point that 90% of what you write is useless fluff.
Click to expand...

Nothing is proven through tangential defamation, which is what the thread has degraded into at this point. Defaming the opponent's character is a classic way to "win" a logical argument, without proving anything at all. The content I initially posted still stands, unaddressed by yourself.
 
Exon said:
You know Matt, you really took this whole subject for a train ride.

I'm calling it a night. Sorry to see that you can't bring yourself down a notch.
Click to expand...

Sorry to see you're unable or unwilling to address my response, good night.
 
mjzhosting said:
But anyway, before I start rambling into space..... outside of illegal activity, how would you define the backstabbing of competition? And if you can create examples that don't break the law, how can you condemn said examples when they are perfectly sound methods to engage within as far as the emotionless rules of economics are concerned?
Click to expand...
By backstabbing competition, I meant hosting companies that jump to conclusions and trash (not compete, but trash-talk) other companies when someone else either complains or discusses a host, even though they have never dealt with them in the first place.

Best,
 
Artashes said:
By backstabbing competition, I meant hosting companies that jump to conclusions and trash (not compete, but trash-talk) other companies when someone else either complains or discusses a host, even though they have never dealt with them in the first place.

Best,
Click to expand...
Ahhh I see. So jumping onto a bandwagon of unfounded assumptions about lived service quality (opposed to concepts). Makes sense, I can agree with that. "Trashing" can be a fine line though. An assumption can often be justified by a well thought out rationalization. It may remain an assumption none the less, but when being fueled by well researched evidence, it can often be quite credible... worthy of discussion/refutation at the very least.

It's very simple to discern trash talk from valid argument. Only one basic line of thought need be considered: Does the statement focus on/respond to/attack the ideas within the argument itself? Or does the statement avoid the content of the argument and focus on/respond to/attack the person behind the argument? So in other words, trash talk can basically be described as avoiding the argument and creating a new, tangential argument about the character of the opponent, as can blatantly be seen in a handful of the preceding replies in this thread.

In this case, and luckily for me, many of the replies managed to conveniently strengthen my point by inadvertently providing direct examples... or... real life extensions from various concepts within my outline... examples that may have otherwise been left to the imagination, so it could have been worse...

Furthermore, I have been accused of taking "this whole subject for a train ride," but did I really? My initial responses were right on topic to the matter at hand. If obviously not there, then when exactly did the train leave the station? It's rather obvious that the train was set into motion at the first sign of tangential slander... this is a classic failing witnessed in any argument.


Blue said:
Maybe you get these comments because your you constant verbal diarrhea.

The only thing you ever seem to prove in your posts is that you can take 10 times longer then the rest of the population to say the same thing.
Click to expand...

This adds absolutely nothing to the argument itself. My multiple points were ignored and my character instead condemned. The statement "verbal diarrhea" is merely a superficial opinion on prose and does not address content. This is followed by a comment on the length of my posts which too completely fails to address the content of the argument within them. It's blatant that this is nothing more than an attack on character which leaves me with little choice but to defend myself opposed to carrying on with the actual argument. And from this point on, given then "OK" from an authority figure, the bandwagon of slander is quick to follow. It's interesting to note that it was otherwise silent until a high ranking forum member set it into action. This sort of "slave morality" is, again, something that my initial posts touch on. At this point, it becomes painfully clear to understand when the "train" was launched and who its passengers were/are. Truth is a drag (your safety brakes)!

So uhhh... instead of continuing with the decline down the vulgar slope of lazy (lacking reason) slander, anyone care to actually address my initial statements? And if you truly consider them to be 90% fluff, please, for your own well being, never read any books on theory because what I wrote is about as concise as it gets. A lack of understanding (or a refusal to try for whatever reason) does not prove much past the repression of free/critical thought.

If you found this post to be insulting, remember what it is in response to and realize that without provocation, it wouldn't have existed in the first place.
 
Last edited:
If you have a question, post it.
I am not going to wade through hundreds of unnecessary words to try and decipher what your question is.
 
Blue said:
If you have a question, post it.
I am not going to wade through hundreds of unnecessary words to try and decipher what your question is.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. My mind is infected with literature. I think this section from Schopenhauer's The Art of Literature might sum up the problem (sorry for the fluff):


Schopenhauer said:
The other kind of tediousness is only relative: a reader may find a work dull because he has no interest in the question treated of in it, and this means that his intellect is restricted. The best work may, therefore, be tedious subjectively, tedious, I mean, to this or that particular person; just as, contrarity, the worst work may be subjectively engrossing to this or that particular person who has an interest in the question treated of, or in the writer of the book.
Click to expand...
While at the same time, I will conceed that I often fall prey to an excess of subjectivity:


Schopenhauer said:
Let me here mention an error of style, very prevalent nowadays, and, in the degraded state of literature and the neglect of ancient languages, always on the increase; I mean _subjectivity_. A writer commits this error when he thinks it enough if he himself knows what he means and wants to say, and takes no thought for the reader, who is left to get at the bottom of it as best he can. This is as though the author were holding a monologue; whereas, it ought to be a dialogue; and a dialogue, too, in which he must express himself all the more clearly inasmuch as he cannot hear the questions of his interlocutor.
Click to expand...
None the less, I will not conceed that my subjective zeal is in full error. As Schopenhauer might agree, it is at the same time, necessary to a high extent:


Schopenhauer said:
_Dilettanti, dilettanti!_ This is the slighting way in which those who pursue any branch of art or learning for the love and enjoyment of the thing,--_per il loro diletto_, are spoken of by those who have taken it up for the sake of gain, attracted solely by the prospect of money. This contempt of theirs comes from the base belief that no man will seriously devote himself to a subject, unless he is spurred on to it by want, hunger, or else some form of greed. The public is of the same way of thinking; and hence its general respect for professionals and its distrust of _dilettanti_. But the truth is that the _dilettante_ treats his subject as an end, whereas the professional, pure and simple, treats it merely as a means. He alone will be really in earnest about a matter, who has a direct interest therein, takes to it because he likes it, and pursues it _con amore_. It is these, and not hirelings, that have always done the greatest work.

In the republic of letters it is as in other republics; favor is shown to the plain man--he who goes his way in silence and does not set up to be cleverer than others. But the abnormal man is looked upon as threatening danger; people band together against him, and have, oh! such a majority on their side.

The condition of this republic is much like that of a small State in America, where every man is intent only upon his own advantage, and seeks reputation and power for himself, quite heedless of the general weal, which then goes to ruin. So it is in the republic of letters; it is himself, and himself alone, that a man puts forward, because he wants to gain fame. The only thing in which all agree is in trying to keep down a really eminent man, if he should chance to show himself, as one who would be a common peril.
Click to expand...
I guess moderation is the true challenge.

Either way, I still feel that what I initially posted is pretty plain overall and have no reason to restate it. The idea of "unnecessary words" is relative. If you'd rather not deal with them, then insultation is also unnecessary. To each his own.
 
Oh, this is off topic, but speaking of fluff and considering my Kierkegaard reference a few posts back, I'll show you some real fluff :)

Kierkegaard said:
Faith is precisely the paradox that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal, is justified before it, not as inferior to it but as superior--yet in such a way, please note, that it is the single individual who, after being subordinate as the single individual to the universal, now by means of the universal becomes the single individual who as the single individual is superior, that the single individual as the single individual stands in absolute relation to the absolute. This position cannot be mediated, for all mediation takes place only by virtue of the universal; it is and remains for all eternity a paradox, impervious to thought. And yet faith is this paradox, or else (and I ask the reader to bear these consuquences in mente [in mind] even though it would be too prolix for me to write them all down) or else faith has never existed, or else Abraham is lost.
Click to expand...
:thankyou:
 
Last edited:
Senad said:
ok matthew all you are doing now is playing games with everybody here...like some kid....

I know for a fact you can post nice easy to read posts without the fluff...proof?


http://www.hosthideout.com/showthread.php?t=21783


so my question is why take us all for a ride?
Click to expand...
Playing games? Taking you all for a ride? I am merely posting what is on my mind. If the "ride" is uncomfortable for you, by all means, you are completely free to get off (the Internet provides all these wonderful freedoms and stuff)! This is not a "ride" in my mind, however. I am posting the authentic thoughts that come to mind with little to no censorship. I understand that this can be a hard idea to swallow for many people, but again, you're not required to participate.


Senad said:
I know for a fact you can post nice easy to read posts...
Click to expand...
I bore easily... banality is not for everyone.


...like some kid....
Click to expand...
Hey now! No need to resent me just because my "inner child" hasn't completely died yet. You should try to contact yours, playing with him/her/it can be fun, you know? :)

As for "playing games", the Kierkegaard reference was a game, and for comic relief... to display real "fluff" in contrast to what I have been posting. I mean come on, the guy managed to say "the single individual" eight fu*king times in one sentence... lol. I'm sure there is some sort of deep meaning beneath it all, but it's hilarious none the less :)

I thought the incessant attacks on my character would be over by now. I would really rather that this thread went back to focusing on its initial question instead of scrutinizing the idiosyncrasies of my idiom (OH NO, WORDZZZ). If you can't keep up with what I am saying, you are not obligated to commentate... simple as that.
 
Last edited:
I'm done with this thread. Matthew short sentences that get to the point would make me read your post but since you like playing games with people then by all means continue doing it but count me out.

Second to close this thread.
 
Senad said:
...since you like playing games with people then by all means continue doing it but count me out.
Click to expand...
See previous post for explanation on these so called "games". If Kierkegaardian comic relief manages to deeply disturb your fragile inner essence, you should probably stop taking yourself so seriously man!


vito said:
Aw shucks, and I just restocked my cupboards with 3 cases of Redenbacher...

:popcorn: :D

Vito
Click to expand...
Let me hammer down a few more :beer: so I can become :smilie3: and start :shout: up this thread some more. Can't let that :popcorn: go to waste!
 
mjzhosting said:
I would really rather that this thread went back to focusing on its initial question instead of scrutinizing the idiosyncrasies of my idiom...
Click to expand...
I think the focus of this thread shifted a while ago into something that I haven't been able to figure out yet... I will let it rest. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Supporters

Back
Top