I’m thinking of stuff like this:

I call that being earnest about the wrong thing. Call it something else if you like. Either way, you look silly.

In other words, you actually don’t back up your statements.

Then why are you evading the question?

As for the example you then gave, that wasn’t what I requested (see the emphasis I added above for your benefit). I already said you’ve been the butt of a few jokes on this thread. You justified your seemingly pointless reference to an old argument on the basis I had been sniping at you ever since that argument. Not just now, on this topic (it’s a given we’re arguing here, whether or not what I’m doing is “sniping”) but ever since that previous argument. Your words: 'Ever since'.

Look, we both know there is no sniping to be found between the two topics in question: there’s the argument then, and there’s the argument now. The rest is your paranoid imagination. But it’s okay, no one’s perfect. Your comment “ever since” was a mistake. But at least do the honourable thing and admit to your mistake. Just admit you miss-remembered and miss-stated.

You know, like Hillary Clinton.

...says the geedis who's made over 12000 posts with less content than the average spam message.

That's certainly a clear statement from you. So when I provide an example you react just as predicted;


No, you were suggesting that I couldn't provide something and therefore you'd be proven honest, but that just can't happen because you're not honest. You can request or demand that I provide whatever you want, but I provided an example that showed you to have been dishonest. What you did is indeed sniping. I supplied the full post and the context as well as a reasonable definition. Heck, I even accurately stated that you'd try to weasel out of the fact that you'd been sniping even when an example was provided.
Actually, I know that you've been guilty of this behavior since the initial thread. I imagine you know it too, but it's possible that instead of just being a liar you're also prey to having a selective memory.

Do the research yourself if you have any interest in being honest about yourself (a highly unlikely proposition). I'm not willing to go past your last 50 posts because you're not worth the effort when I already know the truth. I've already proven your dishonesty within this post. That's certainly example enough, and I was able to do it with less than a minutes research.

I made no mistake in that comment. If you honestly believe that this is the first time that you've randomly sniped at me since that thread you are either delusional or possessed of an incredibly faulty memory. I don't think that this is the case. Based on past posting patterns I think that you're probably just out and out lying.

You missed the point. I don’t care whether you want to call any of my comments on this thread “sniping”. If calling it sniping makes you feel better, go for it. I haven’t asked you to back up the use of the word “sniping”. I have asked you to back up the statement “ever since”. The maths is pretty simple: You said you back up your statements. You made the statement that I had been sniping at you ever since that thread. So provide an example. Just one.

Really? How? You have an example in mind? Reference it.

Why should I do research to prove or disprove your statement? Do you back up your statements or not?

Heh. At least my last 50 posts aren’t entirely on this thread.

Squeeky is accurate when he claims that his last 50 posts weren't in this thread. Only 40% of his last fifty were her. It's seems as if he believes it matters more where you post than what you have to say. His implication is that there's something wrong in posting to the one thread even if you happen to be having a fun time posting to that thread because you're not adding pearls of wisdom elsewhere. That one should be adding something pertinent to other threads such as;

"Rob Liefel's new project", even if one has no interest in Rob Liefeld whatsoever

or

"Oh great, now WAID's leaving B&B...", as if this book was somehow worth buying for anything other than Perez' art (Sorry Lawson, but I never felt Waid showed any real writing chops on this book).

That one should be adding things like these from Stevv posts in another threads (all unedited);

"Wow. I acknowledge I have little knowledge of the details here (not having studied decision, or followed the case), but that seems like a welcome (and bold) decision to me."

or


"What's the crossover aspect?"


or


"Johns, eh... yeah, I heard that guy's real good."


Not that there's anything wrong with these posts per se, but there really doesn't seem to be anything in these posts worth bragging about simply because they're in other threads.

If there's something wrong with only posting to the threads where there's an extensive back and forth, there wouldn't be threads with extensive back and forth.


If there's something wrong with posting to this thread I think it needs to be pointed out that I'm not the only poster posting here.

If there's something deprivational about not adding "me too" opinions to a thread where an opinion has already been expressed, perhaps there's something even more foolish about 40% of one's posts being in a thread that one implies there's something wrong with posting to.

At least I've proven that Stevv lied about his earlier posts (see 3 posts above) and that he tried to weasel out of the fact when caught by saying "that wasn't what I requested". Heck, he's still trying to weasel this away in the post 2 above this one. Among Squeeky's many posting problems is his seeming belief that trying to change the topic will somehow undo the fact that he's been proven inaccurate and wrong. If that means I'm not adding gems to threads about what movies I think are "way cool", I'm pretty sure I can live with that and not feeling any shame or a lacking. At least it's better than having to live with something as awful as, oh say, being Stevv.

Or, I was laughing at the funny post, and just wanted to express some recognition of stevv's effort.

You keep saying the same things over and over, selling your delusional viewpoint, with no takers. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. But you keep trying Ivy!

Ivy isn't one for facts.

He just doesn't seem to understand that this fact underscores a single minded obsession with this ridiculously pointless conversation.

An obsessive need to continually insist he is intellectually superior to anyone who challenges him. If he REALLY was intellectually superior would he NEED to keep proclaiming it? Is it to somehow deny his own feelings of insignificance, what else could he be getting out of this? Why else the need to keep ignoring such facts, if not some subconscious defense mechanism.

He keeps pointing to the percentages. But, it's the fact that nearly ALL his postings here for weeks on end now, have been in this one thread, that is significant. It's like having nothing but cake every meal. Empty calories are fine as a 'percentage' of your diet, but only if you have well balanced meals too. And yes Ivy, I know it's an imperfect metaphor, but you are basically becoming the comicon equivalent of morbidly obese. What a horrible image. Ivy sitting at the comicon table, chocolate frosting and saliva all around his mouth, dripping on his shirt. The upper hemisphere of his cake filled belly looking like a giant Mikhail Gorbachev head.

Ivy just step away from the cake and go get some carrot sticks or something. It's for your own good.

Are you somehow suggesting that there's a variety to how you post? That you aren't essentially repeating yourself over and over again and pretending that somehow you've approached the same things you've said earlier in a different way? The only time you stray from repetition is when you say "me too, me too", but even then you're essentially just repeating what you want to have said.

Your lack of insight is quite consistent.