Are you a Predictive WWGHA User?

[HAL]

What I mean by this is I've been here so long, heard so many of the same arguments (this doesn't just apply to theists), I actually write some responses to some members before they've even responded to my last post. I write the responses in an external editor. Some of the members I've been able to do this on are magicmiles. Nam, Mooby, olivianus, Maggie the Opinionated, and others. I seem to know pretty much what they will say even before they say it. Very little editing is needed sometimes.

Has anyone else done something similar?

[Anfauglir]

I've been waiting for you to finally post this thread so that I could post this reply.....I drafted it weeks ago.....   

The answer is probably yes, had I thought about it.  But to be honest, I wouldn't find it particularly surprising.  We all like to think of ourselves as unique and fascinating and unpredictable individuals, but to a very great extend (which becomes heightened in a closed system like this) we will tend to respond in the same way in the same circumstances.  There are only so many ways that one can respond to a particular argument.

In many ways, I prefer the kind of theist person who will respond in a relatively predictable way to a particular circumstance.  I LIKE that when I say to people "morning, how are you?" I get the response "fine thanks, how're you?" rather than have them say "what? no, of course I don't eat plastic!" or spoon custard into my ear!

[magicmiles]

What I mean by this is I've been here so long, heard so many of the same arguments (this doesn't just apply to theists), I actually write some responses to some members before they've even responded to my last post. I write the responses in an external editor. Some of the members I've been able to do this on are magicmiles. Nam, Mooby, olivianus, Maggie the Opinionated, and others. I seem to know pretty much what they will say even before they say it. Very little editing is needed sometimes.

Has anyone else done something similar?

If I'm to be honest, black horses and the fat ice-cream novel.

Also, running across the Ukraine on most week nights.

[Ambassador Pony]

Ha ha, ya. What I do is predict the final outcome based on their initial responses to a few simple questions.

I can tell it's going nowhere, and I have no way of helping them, so I usually just say "well, this will be a waste of my time," and move on.

Like when you ask a fundamentalist fuck-tarded person how old the earth is and they say 6000 years old. You know it's the end of the civil portion of the discussion, and you will make zero inroads into the mush that is their brain.

 

[Kimberly]

I go as far as to foreshadow and prepare my next response mentally. Sometimes I'm real ballsy and just preemptively reply to what I know their response will be. Such as saying, "Before you say ____ let me remind you that ____" Or something like that.

On a similar note I think MB sent me a PM once on ATT about how to closed loop debate[1]. That basically explained how to review all possible responses to your post and respond to them before they have the opportunity to respond to you. I never mastered it but I found it interesting.

I've contemplated keeping a list of pre-written responses to questions I see all the time. But I thought that would make my responses impersonal.

1.	My term not his

[HAL]

I realized a while back while reading responses that, hey, that's almost exactly what I thought they were going to say in response to my post. After a while I just started writing the response I thought I would need while waiting for the first response. Quite a lot of the time I'm able to use what I've written for the most part.

[Nam]

Hal,

I knew you were going to say that. You're so easy to predict.

-Nam

[JeffPT]

What I mean by this is I've been here so long, heard so many of the same arguments (this doesn't just apply to theists), I actually write some responses to some members before they've even responded to my last post. I write the responses in an external editor. Some of the members I've been able to do this on are magicmiles. Nam, Mooby, olivianus, Maggie the Opinionated, and others. I seem to know pretty much what they will say even before they say it. Very little editing is needed sometimes.

Has anyone else done something similar?

No, but I do find myself writing out large responses sometimes that look exactly like things I've said before.  I end up erasing them and leaving the computer in frustration at having the same discussion over and over again. 

What I do find that I am almost fully able to predict is what portions of my posts theists will respond to.  They will most often not tackle the difficult portions.  They almost always go for the perceived insults, or the stuff they find easy to answer. 

[nogodsforme]

The closest I have gotten is to cut 'n paste from another post I have written to other theists. If I can find it. Sometimes I can recreate it almost word for word, I have said it so many times.

Like why evolution has more evidence than religion.....the TOE works in application: CSI, vaccines, genetics, etc. etc. No theist has argued against the TOE successfully[1], but they don't change their minds either. They change the subject or say they will pray for us and leave.

1.	as we tell them, if they can show why all of modern biology is based on a wrong theory, they will get a Nobel Prize

[Nam]

I think I am a predictable more for my topics I post.

-Nam

[kin hell]

So you are saying that you can predict what some people are going to respond, and can write your answer out before you get their reply, and often do not have to change your pre-write at all.

So why didn't you deal with the points the oppo is busily writing (as you are pre-writing your answer) in your previous post?

I mean, if you know what they are going to say, if they are so predictable, then surely the failure is on your part in not stymieing them with your superior knowledge/accuracy/logic/legitimacy of position .....before they even get to post such obvious points.

What, you know the oppo is gonna say X in reply #12,
......and yet you don't pro-actively pre-emptively (in reply #11) cut X out as a so boringly predictable escaperoute/furphy/error/timewaste  etc?


Or are you saying, your arguments are so full of predictable holes that the holes are even apparent to you before you use said arguments?
That certainly would explain your apparent prescience.

[HAL]

So you are saying that you can predict what some people are going to respond, and can write your answer out before you get their reply, and often do not have to change your pre-write at all.

Yea, but it's not 100% certain what they will say, so I have to actually wait for their response. You know human beings aren't 100% predictable.

[kin hell]

So you are saying that you can predict what some people are going to respond, and can write your answer out before you get their reply, and often do not have to change your pre-write at all.

Yea, but it's not 100% certain what they will say, so I have to actually wait for their response. You know human beings aren't 100% predictable.

that hardly answers this

So why didn't you deal with the points the oppo is busily writing (as you are pre-writing your answer) in your previous post?

I mean, if you know what they are going to say, if they are so predictable, then surely the failure is on your part in not stymieing them with your superior knowledge/accuracy/logic/legitimacy of position .....before they even get to post such obvious points.

What, you know the oppo is gonna say X in reply #12,
......and yet you don't pro-actively pre-emptively (in reply #11) cut X out as a so boringly predictable escaperoute/furphy/error/timewaste  etc?

my bold
Because you have pre-written a response to the points you expect them to raise, which begs the questions above, or put differently, why leave them such predictable wriggle room?
Surely your predictive posts could pre-empt.

[Aerial]

Such a stupid condescending thread.
Just because many theists are predictable does not mean they all are.

grow up

[HAL]

Because you have pre-written a response to the points you expect them to raise, which begs the questions above, or put differently, why leave them such predictable wriggle room?
Surely your predictive posts could pre-empt.

I already told you, I don't know what the person will post until I see it, so the points I predicted may not be what is needed to respond with. You're now just being argumentative for show.

[Mr. Blackwell]

I don't know how many of you have noticed but I don't generally get into it with theists on this forum. I find it much more personally gratifying and educational to debate atheists in general and you guys in particular.

I will often try to gain understanding by taking a contrary position to what I have assumed to be the norm. So, my responses are not always predictable. As a direct result I have been accused of trolling.

Velkyn[1] was notorious for calling people liars. That was her defacto observation. She was dependable and predictable when dealing with people who did not hold her particular pov on issues. For example, she would have likely responded to this comment here by saying "oh how convenient of you to change your position since you can't defend it."

But I have noticed that there is a certain amount of predictability in the classic arguments.

While there is comfort in predictability there is little chance for growth.[2]

1.	Is she okay? I just realized I haven't seen her around lately
2.	IMHO

[Seppuku]

Are you a Predictive WWGHA User?

You tell me?

[Nam]

Such a stupid condescending thread.
Just because many theists are predictable does not mean they all are.

grow up

I am not a theist.

-Nam

[Anfauglir]

Because you have pre-written a response to the points you expect them to raise, which begs the questions above, or put differently, why leave them such predictable wriggle room?
Surely your predictive posts could pre-empt.

I already told you, I don't know what the person will post until I see it, so the points I predicted may not be what is needed to respond with. You're now just being argumentative for show.

I think its a legitimate question - you said that "I actually write some responses to some members before they've even responded to my last post".  If you are going to that trouble, why NOT address that predictability in your first post?

Otherwise, what you are saying is that you find that you are regularly writing replies to what you THINK they will say, which you then have to junk because they went in a different direction.....which seems like an awful lot of effort to me!

To say that you often know which way some posters will respond is not particularly contentious.  I'd agree with that one myself.  But you've raised that to the point where you actually compose the next response!  The point kin is making is that if you're putting that effort in anyway, why not do that bit of writing in the original post - or at least close off that particular rebuttal?

[HAL]

To say that you often know which way some posters will respond is not particularly contentious.  I'd agree with that one myself.  But you've raised that to the point where you actually compose the next response!  The point kin is making is that if you're putting that effort in anyway, why not do that bit of writing in the original post - or at least close off that particular rebuttal?

What I mean by this is I've been here so long, heard so many of the same arguments (this doesn't just apply to theists), I actually write some responses to some members before they've even responded to my last post.

Read what I wrote again without your blinders on. Of all the responses I write (did you notice I said it doesn't just apply to theists?), only some of them I can predict. Of the ones I can sometimes predict, only some of my responses are written beforehand. So if you want some example numbers, only 10% of members I can do this for, and only 10% of their posts can I do this for. That's 10% of 10%.

[Anfauglir]

Unless I'm significantly misunderstanding, it seems like you are making an awful lot of work for yourself?

.....only some of them I can predict. Of the ones I can sometimes predict, only some of my responses are written beforehand. So if you want some example numbers, only 10% of members I can do this for, and only 10% of their posts can I do this for. That's 10% of 10%.

Are you saying that for 1%ish of posts you are always spot on  - i.e. that with those particular posts by particular posters you are always correct in your predictions?  That every time you make a prediction, you get it right?  If that is the case then I think my point stands - why (for that 1%) do you not pre-empt their response in your original post?  If you are going to write the rebuttal before their response, why not just include it in the OP?

On the other hand, if that 1% is a ballpark figure, that you make more guesses (say 2% of all posts) but with some of which you turn out to be wrong, does that mean that some of the time you compose a pre-emptive reponse that you can't then actually use?  If that's the case, isn't that wasted effort?

Like I've said - I'm right behind your point that a lot of poster (notably theists, but not exclusively) are predictable in their answers, I'm not offering any arguments there.  I'm just curious as to the way you put that observation into practical use.

[HAL]

Unless I'm significantly misunderstanding, it seems like you are making an awful lot of work for yourself?

For Pete's sake, you are making way, way more out of it than it is.

Are you saying that for 1%ish of posts you are always spot on  - i.e. that with those particular posts by particular posters you are always correct in your predictions?  That every time you make a prediction, you get it right?  If that is the case then I think my point stands - why (for that 1%) do you not pre-empt their response in your original post?  If you are going to write the rebuttal before their response, why not just include it in the OP?

BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IN ADVANCE WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY.

God Damn dude, I can't always predict what people are going to say, but when I get it right, I use it. I have to wait and see if the prediction was right. If it was I use what I wrote, if not I don't use it. They might take the topic in a different direction so what I wrote wouldn't be appropriate.

On the other hand, if that 1% is a ballpark figure, that you make more guesses (say 2% of all posts) but with some of which you turn out to be wrong, does that mean that some of the time you compose a pre-emptive reponse that you can't then actually use?  If that's the case, isn't that wasted effort?

Like I've said - I'm right behind your point that a lot of poster (notably theists, but not exclusively) are predictable in their answers, I'm not offering any arguments there.  I'm just curious as to the way you put that observation into practical use.

I just gave an example percent to make the point I'm not always able to do it. I'm not getting into the percentages beyond that because I don't know.

[Ivellios]

If I'm to be honest, black horses and the fat ice-cream novel.

Also, running across the Ukraine on most week nights.

Hehe. MM got called out so he insisted on doing something Hal couldn't predict... Who knows MM, maybe he knew you were going to post something random, but due to the nature of randomness, and infinite possibilities, he didn't know exactly what you were going to say.

I like Velkyn, and she did have some predictibility. The problem: when the theist believed the(a) lie, and propagated it, she called them a liar, though they weren't being manipulative in of it themselves since they were manipulated to believe it. The very first person in that train may not have willfully lied themselves, they may have had an epiphany and truly believed it, because it made sense to them. As a former theist, I saw it from both sides so I understood both point of views.

To be OT: I have referenced a few older posts I made in response to certain things, like the Flat Earth and Job. There are times I think I know what someone's going to say: I've even included, "Before you say this..." However, generally I wait till the actual response.

Hal can probably predict how I resond to the whole 'Flat Earth/Job' posts but I don't know otherwise how predictable I may be.

Edit: He probably knew I was going to pick MMs post, since no one else referenced it, and because I'm a smart***.

[kin hell]

To say that you often know which way some posters will respond is not particularly contentious.  I'd agree with that one myself.  But you've raised that to the point where you actually compose the next response!  The point kin is making is that if you're putting that effort in anyway, why not do that bit of writing in the original post - or at least close off that particular rebuttal?

What I mean by this is I've been here so long, heard so many of the same arguments (this doesn't just apply to theists), I actually write some responses to some members before they've even responded to my last post.

Read what I wrote again without your blinders on. Of all the responses I write (did you notice I said it doesn't just apply to theists?), only some of them I can predict. Of the ones I can sometimes predict, only some of my responses are written beforehand. So if you want some example numbers, only 10% of members I can do this for, and only 10% of their posts can I do this for. That's 10% of 10%.

I don't understand why this is such a sensitive issue to you Hal.
I only asked you a common sense question, and suddenly you are waspish?
I laugh that you feel capable of not only predicting some peoples posts sometimes, but now you can read minds and accurate impute peoples motives for them, reward those worthy and punishing those unworthy.
Incredible, you inaccurately guess my motive, then smite me on the basis of that your stupid erroneous presumption, in a thread that you started in which you claim the power to predict some posts some of the time.


Perhaps  you could clarify for us…
Please note, I am not arguing any position, I am only asking questions seeking clarification

1. So you’re saying that you only sometimes pre-write for the v. approx 10% of the members  that you believe you can predict(some of the time). Is there a reason you don’t pre-write these posts that you are saying you could’ve pre-written?
2. Do you ever pre-write for anyone/everyone on site?
3. Do you pre-write only for the very approx 10% of posts that you believe you can predict? (this is not the 10% of posters, but he 10% of their posts that you can predict that I am asking about) or


What I am trying to understand is are you pre-writing to all future posts of all your predictable posters that you think you've predicted, and getting a 1 in 10 success rate, or are you only pre-writing to some of the 10% predictable posters posts?(which is what I think you are saying)
4. If the latter, what method do you choose which posts of theirs to which you will pre-reply?
5. Are you able to predict which of the 10% posts you pre-write to a particular poster you will probably be accurate?  or
6. Are you surprised when your prediction is accurate?

[HAL]

I don't understand why this is such a sensitive issue to you Hal.

Quite the contrary, I don't understand why it's so sensitive to you.


Perhaps  you could clarify for us…
Please note, I am not arguing any position, I am only asking questions seeking clarification

1. So you’re saying that you only sometimes pre-write for the v. approx 10% of the members  that you believe you can predict(some of the time).

Yes.

Is there a reason you don’t pre-write these posts that you are saying you could’ve pre-written?

No, no reason.

2. Do you ever pre-write for anyone/everyone on site?

I don't keep a log so Hell if I can remember.

3. Do you pre-write only for the very approx 10% of posts that you believe you can predict? (this is not the 10% of posters, but he 10% of their posts that you can predict that I am asking about) or

Something like that.


What I am trying to understand is are you pre-writing to all future posts of all your predictable posters that you think you've predicted, and getting a 1 in 10 success rate, or are you only pre-writing to some of the 10% predictable posters posts?(which is what I think you are saying)

You're are making it too complicated for a hobby. I don't keep track of all that nor do I care to. Now you're just being a tool.

4. If the latter, what method do you choose which posts of theirs to which you will pre-reply?

See above.

5. Are you able to predict which of the 10% posts you pre-write to a particular poster you will probably be accurate?  or

No.

6. Are you surprised when your prediction is accurate?

Not really

[Nam]

I can pretty much guess what people are going to respond with on here but then if I answer for them in the OP, what's the point in posting the topic to begin with. There has to be a reason or reasons. I think it's that I want to see if I was right, or I just want to discuss the topic anyway. I think many of us see things that way.

-Nam

[Anfauglir]

For Pete's sake, you are making way, way more out of it than it is.

I think you're right.

We've now established that - a very small percentage of the time - you think you know how someone else is going to respond, and so you write a response immediately.
We've also established that - some of the time - you guess wrong, and you are unable to use the response that you pre-wrote.

Like you say - its a hobby!   Personally I can't see that the reward outweighs the wasted effort, but then I spent an hour yesterday in PotBS pressing the spacebar every ten seonds or so to shoot the ships sailing towards me.  I got two commendations for it, and if I get a couple more I can trade them for some facepaint for my avatar!!!  So I fully grok that people get a buzz from an outcome that others don't understand.

If it makes you happy my man, go to it!

[HAL]

If it makes you happy my man, go to it!

I just did it with befree. I predicted my next response to him could be "I don't know"

I was right!