indi.ca

---

Ruwani and other wise people are calling for a cease-fire between me and Sophist. A negotiated settlement, perhaps. Limited autonomy for Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer and a joint mechanism for comments. They’re probably right, but in my experience unanswered personal attacks just fester. Every blog gets its fair share of trolls taking potshots at the author, and many Sophist comments fall in this category. Jokes he says, but not especially clever. I’ve made my share of jokes, which he seems to find equally funny. I’ve never blocked anyone, but I do respond to every shot. I advise Sophist to take his own advice and ‘take that which he dishes out with such disdain, in good spirits’. Luckily for me, Sophist is blissfully unaware that he lives in a glass house. All I have to do is make faces and he’ll shatter the windows himself. This is a collection of comments where Sophist mercilessly beats himself up. He can have a full unedited post to respond to himself (email me). For the record, Sophie contributes to the general debate. If he fucks with me I’ll fuck with him harder, but I’ll never ask him to leave.

I’d like to make clear that I’m sure Sophist is cool and that I’d like him if we met. But we haven’t met. To quote Ludacris, ‘Get back motherfucker, you don’t know me like that’. He doesn’t know me and I think his personal assessments of me are innaccurate. That needs to be cleared up. I bear him no ill will and I hope he continues to comment. It’s even all good if he comments on me personally. I’ll never block him, but I will respond in kind. It’s part of the game, and I hope he likes playing. Here’s his latest comment, and this is my response.

Indi. I share Morq’s frustrated grief at your blinkered viewing of some comments that you don’t take kindly to. Upto now I have NEVER questioned your merit as a Sri Lankan. I have taken offence at your flippant remarks, and I have endeavoured to show you the other side of the coin in the most civil manner possible. I have been told to fuck myself. While my schlong maybe large it does not extend that far.

Yes I have told you that you need to cultivate a sense of humour and my manner of dealing with people (and I’ll be the first to admit) is hardly of the kid glove school. The only reason I have ribbed you about your obsession with the WB, Quebec and Ohio, is because you accuse others (not least of all myself) of only bringing their own experiences to the party.

If you have the time or the inclination (the latter which I doubt), do tell me when I have used Strategy No. 35. Comments in response to G-Man notwithstanding of course.

I am in UK for a year. Not a very long time in the grand scheme of things. I am coming back unlike several who don’t. *Please don’t imply some form of hypocrisy in your obviously vindictive italics. It is inaccurate and unfair*. Thank you.

Sophist says that I’m implying hypocrisy, so let’s go ahead and make it explicit. Sophist is hypocritical. I’ve never seen 100% consistency as possible (or desirable), but he takes it well into hilarity. There’s a good Sophist and a bad Sophist, and I’ll just let them beat each other up here. If the good Sophist was more than bluff and bombast he might have a case for crying foul. But he doesn’t. He doesn’t give any quarter, and I’m surprised that he even asks. For the record, these are the arguments I’m using, taken from the Schopenhauer post. They’re ordered by how much I’m using them. I’m not using many of my own words cause he pretty much speaks for himself.

26) A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against himself.
27) Should your opponent suprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal.
32) A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category. [hypocrisy, in this case]
23) Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating their statements. By contradicting your opponent you may drive him into extending the statement beyond its natural limit.

The following are the arguments that I’ve noted in Sophist’s comments. I’ve added their number to the respective comments below. He is correct to say that he rarely uses 35, relying more heavily on general rudeness (38).

36) You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast.
38) Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
14) Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.
35) Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.

*Bad Sophist*	*Good Sophist*
Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer On a serious note…I apologise to your mother for any offence caused. I am sure Mrs. Samarajiva is a very nice lady, and hopefully has a sense of humour, which due to the idiosyncracies of genetics she has unfortunately not been able to pass on to her offspring to enable him to *take that which he dishes out with such disdain, in good spirits*. (14) Anti-University It’s hilarious to wind people up. I should write a book. (36, 27)	How To Argue I have taken offence at your flippant remarks. (36)
Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer When we meet, you will barrack me with World Bank statistics while I pound you into the floor with one of Muba’s old cricket bats. (36, 38)	How To Argue I have endeavoured to show you the other side of the coin in the most civil manner possible (14)
Brass Monkey Show *If you take your head out of the Plaza swimming pool my friend* you will find a lot of original talent in Sri Lankan music, and your feigned surprise that it exists may be read in a more patronising tone than it was intended. (36, 38)	Brass Monkey Show If you take your head out of the Plaza swimming pool my friend you will find a lot of original talent in Sri Lankan music, and your feigned surprise that it exists *may be read in a more patronising tone than it was intended*. [internally inconsistent]
Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer Ah yes – the Canadian solution. How could we have missed that one?! Nation of bloody morons that we are. Please regale us with more details of the Ohio State 12 step way to Weeding Out Mediocrity as well. (36, 38)	How To Argue Upto now I have NEVER questioned your merit as a Sri Lankan (14, 36) …you accuse others (not least of all myself) of only bringing their own experiences to the party. (14)
Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer You really need to revise your attitude to matters you know nothing of. Starting by saying “*I know little about this but…*”, will help. [internally inconsistent]	Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer *You* really need to revise your attitude to matters you know nothing of. Starting by saying “I know little about this but….”, will help. (35, 38) Indi you will not incur the wrath of Sri Lankan graduates if *your heart* was in the right place mate (35)
How To Argue I share Morq’s frustrated grief at your blinkered viewing of some comments that you don’t take kindly to. (36)	Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer You really need to revise your attitude… (35, 38) You will not incur the wrath of Sri Lankan graduates if … (35)
Fresh Posters and Stuff seriously – you boys need to start taking at least your writings to a wider more accessible forum soon. Newspapers, magazines etc. Y’all are just lazy bastards. (14, 36)	Fresh Posters and Stuff Ado – I only have free broadband because I’m in University in London. Yes…more University. Nearly 27 and still effing studying.

One argument Sophist can counter with is #31 – general incompetence to respond. Apparently this works sometimes. One take would be lack of time, as he is in school. Another would be laughing it off, or telling me to get a sense of humor. If it’s the latter, I do find this funny. If Sophist wants a full response I’ll give him equal time and exposure. Can’t let these things fester.

31) If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you by a find stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge. Example: “What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can’t understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it.” In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense. This technique may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than your opponent.

Note:I have also been vindictive to Morquendi and he wanted a table as well.

Morquendi

Commie!

Scary