Guys, it's been 4 years

No, empirical evidence means it's based on observation and experimentation, either done by the community or done by myself personally (because I am a member of the community). Time and general reception are only two factors in a wide spectrum of what one can observe in a member of the community, and what cements them as someone who can be considered and oldfag.



Did I ever say there was an official definition? I've already made reference that the meaning of the term is philosophical and relative to Fakku's community, do you not understand what a microcosm is? The opinions of other communities don't hold weight when the term is being used in specific context to our own.



Saying "eh, whatever." doesn't magically void the implications of your statements. If I told someone they should probably kill themselves because they're the scum of society and then said "eh, whatever" do you think my words would suddenly no longer have meaning? If you really don't mean anything by what you say then you shouldn't say anything at all.

A more apt comparison would be if someone else makes a claim and then someone else said, "Eh, Whatever".
That's the thing about implications, they're context sensitive.

And yes, I understand what a microcosm is. I still don't think your definition applies to places where anonymity isn't a thing. I get that having the right attitude is important but there are users who've been here for a while yet act different, and there are those who've been here less than a year and already considered "normal" users.(although if you asked them about past events they'd be totally clueless)

Sort of died out, the only people staying here now are regularfags and we still have a million chat groups on skype anyway, see you around there.

No it wouldn't, I wasn't making reference to any statements but your own in that example.

Grats.

I'm not worthy.

So if it's a reference to my statement, isn't my example exactly what happened? Telling someone to kill themselves and then saying, "Eh, whatever" isn't remotely similar.

It's actually very similar. I don't know why you're having trouble seeing that. The example I provided is someone making a statement with the intent to offend or disagree with someone and then saying "eh, whatever", acting like that voids any implications made by their statement and the ability to call them out on it; which is exactly what you did.

So you're saying their both dismissive, even though they're not really dismissive in similar ways. Let's assume I used "eh, whatever" to be dismissive in that context, your example is still wrong.

They're*

The example fulfils the criterion I outlined, it isn't unfitting. Dismissive was not the word I used, don't strawman.

Totes mah gotes.




I won't teach you how to pronounce it. Think portuguese.


Life is hella sweet, the weather is perfect, I'm getting my first tan in yeaaaaaaars. Also, rent is dirt cheap and my job is nice.



I didn't think this sentence made much sense, but I do love (and I mean by that, LOVE) people who suck my dick due to inherent awesomeness. Also, you need to look for some pics of me, I'm a knock-out.




started* improving* Sorry couldn't resist, babe.

No it doesn't. "Eh Whatever" is not a specific statement with a singular unambiguous meaning.
It could be: apathy, dismissive, denial, reluctant agreement. As for the "Strawman" it was a mistake. I think you meant "denial" of claim, which would make even less sense. I'll try not to do it again if you stop assigning intent to my statement, you hypocrite.

No, that's not what I said either. I didn't "assign intent" to your statement, your reply gave it plenty of context to be taken in the way that it was; you even argued for it, further solidifying the context. Are you trying to contradict yourself?

A logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy. And hypocrite? I haven't misrepresented anything you've written.

Oh my god you two get a room. And tape it, babes.

You did assign intent by saying that you comparison works.

My original statement, "Eh, whatever" is ambiguous and is very context sensitive. You even said that it didn't void the "implication" of my statement, denying that you did would be an outright lie at this point.

The only reply that vaguely implies my actual intent was this, but even that's pretty gosh darn vague and maybe dismissive.

Other than saying that Neya never stood out to me, none of my post referenced her or her validity of anything. Saying, "well you disagreed with my definition proving me right" is a invalid assertion.

@Neya
Eh, whatever.

Why would I need to deny it? I just explained that it's not ambiguous when your reply to that same statement gave it context and the further replies only proved that my initial accusation as to what it implied was correct.



The way you handled my initial response and how you then went on to argue about what it means to be an oldfag shows otherwise.

No you gave me your definition, and I didn't agree because this isn't an anonymous image board.
That's not my disagreeing with Neya's assertion, it's disagreeing with YOURS.

People being here for one year, even if they're used to the "board culture" aren't really old. If I said, "Neya, you haven't been here for 7/8 years, you're not an oldfag" then you would have a case, but you don't.

My assertion also implied that you were disagreeing with Neya's assertion, you didn't deny this and then went on to argue about what it meant to be an oldfag with me. Like I said, your replies gave your words context, stop contradicting yourself. What you meant by your initial post wasn't ambiguous at all.

I didn't deny it because I only acknowledged your definition. Also my later post are clearly only acknowledging your definition, completely separate from mentions of OP.

So far none of my other post are at odds with my initial feelings when I said "Eh, whatever".

Sure thing, Cruz.

If you disagree, just quote me where I'm at odds with Neya's status of being and oldfag. If you don't, then whatever.

When I was making my initial post, I was thinking about my people who've technically been here for 8 or so years, and how they're mostly gone. When do pop up back to lurk and post a bit, their attitudes seem generally different and they generally don't post a lot. Not a lot of people remember or where around when someone like waar wasn't a mod, the whole Hibia thing, the silly fake TMS(?)suicide that actually scarred some people, when Shini_ex actually had positive reps, the stupid pre-skype chatango thing, when CTFG wasn't a thing.(I wasn't around here for most of these things)
It made me realize that the general attitude has changed, so someone who's been here for 4 years could be considered an old fag.

Reluctant acceptance that a person who's been here for 4 years being an "oldfag" isn't at odds with disagreeing that a person who's got a hang of the current general attitudes of this site being an oldfag.