A brief note on anus.com "followers"

[infoterror]

We don't encourage braindead allegiance. What we do is write about what we feel to be the truth. Unfortunately, those of you here don't see the behind-the-scenes dialogues, which would show how little groupthink there is - what brought all the people who visit anus.com together is that we agree on some central ideas, but beyond that, they are their own people.

Sorry to mods for extra thread; it can be closed at will.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i would like to believe that, but for the constant "braindead allegiance" exhibited by those adherents on this and other forums.

 

[Demiurge]

i would like to believe that, but for the constant "braindead allegiance" exhibited by those adherents on this and other forums.

Be specific.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i'm referring to the foolish who simply post links to anus articles for support to what they say, or in place of what their input would be. i tend to disagree with the site, but what discredits people more in my mind is not that they use it as a source, but that they don't offer any personal input besides what anus has already written, or they use it as infalliable evidence. if you want more specifics, see the posts of a certain UM member "planetary eulogy" among others.

 

[NeverIsForever]

Okay, stupid question, but I really don't understand. What IS anus.com?

 

[Demiurge]

I have personally observed Planetary Eulogy disagreeing with Prozak on multiple occasions regarding various issues.

I haven't seen him or others source anus.com in the middle of a debate to make their point for them. When such an article is posted, it is always the first post in a topic. It's a means to start a discussion about some issue. If one reads an interesting article, why shouldn't he share it on a forum? I don't at all see this as making a poster an anus drone.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i guess our opinions differ once again, as i see him as well as several others as anus-bots.

 

[Demiurge]

i guess our opinions differ once again, as i see him as well as several others as anus-bots.

Right, that's because you haven't personally witnessed him disagreeing with Prozak as I have. This is because these encounters happened on the bbs.anus. To my knowledge, Prozak and PE haven't posted in the same topic hardly at all at ultimate metal. Moreover, I don't think they've been active users simultaneously. Not that it matters, but I can assure you that he's not an anus drone.

He hasn't sourced anus articles as evidence in debates, either.

 

[speed]

I always liked that PE guy. Now what nickname does Prozak use?

 

[Erik]

infoterror

 

[Kenneth R.]

well that explains his anus afilliation, if that is true.

i should add that i mean no insult by these observations.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Most of the people who post Anus articles as a response to posts are Prozak on his various 17 accounts per-board.

 

[Demiurge]

well that explains his anus afilliation, if that is true.

i should add that i mean no insult by these observations.

People post on that forum who don't even like Prozak.

No insult taken. It's not regarding me, anyway. I'm just clarifying that the poster in question, while he agrees with SRP on some issues(as do I, of course), is not a slavish drone to the articles of anus.com.

 

[infoterror]

i'm referring to the foolish who simply post links to anus articles for support to what they say, or in place of what their input would be.

What's different in that from citing any article? Are you against any article citations?

 

[infoterror]

I have personally observed Planetary Eulogy disagreeing with Prozak on multiple occasions regarding various issues.

I don't think he'll mind me posting this, but while he and I seem to an outsider to agree on the basics of ideology, there are some fundamental splits between us on issues of eschatology and ethical scope. The conversations I had with him in email were quite interesting; wish someone would post 'em.

 

[Kenneth R.]

What's different in that from citing any article? Are you against any article citations?

i am against citing without explanation. if you post a link, post your own words to go with it. unless of course, as it seems to be the case, if YOU wrote it.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I'm quite interested. The most insightful discussions tend to be those involving disagreements between people whose worldviews are both congruent and solid most of the time.

 

[no country for old wainds]

i am against citing without explanation. if you post a link, post your own words to go with it. unless of course, as it seems to be the case, if YOU wrote it.

If your viewpoint is essentially the same as the article's, what's the point in being redundant?

 

[Kenneth R.]

essentially the same does not mean exactly the same. it is better in my opinion to at least post a few words of agreement in that case. i'm not here to talk to dead books, i want to hear what all of your own personal views are and why. the sources are good to have, but i'm more interested in what forum members think.

 

[Demiurge]

I don't think he'll mind me posting this, but while he and I seem to an outsider to agree on the basics of ideology, there are some fundamental splits between us on issues of eschatology and ethical scope. The conversations I had with him in email were quite interesting; wish someone would post 'em.

Yeah, I would like to read them.