DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 24, 2012, 11:41:49 AM
-
I was wrong to think that by posting a thread requesting a more civil discourse would actually facilitate such. But I'll be damned if I let anyone get away with trying to claim that effort was some sinister act of provocation. Plane understood precisely what I was trying to do, yet the thread was closed making it appear that I was some boogieman, and preventing me from defending myself
It's one thing when my sincere intentions are erroneously & wrecklessly trashed, by someone(s) else. Quite another when a thread is manipulated to make it something it never was, when it was closed the way it was. That's a really unfortunate turn of events here in the saloon, where flame wars were routine and allowed to run wild. I don't curse, I avoid flame wars, I've even criticized folks "on my side" when I felt they were going overboard in the curse &/or inappropriate rhetoric.
No one, including H, has any obligation to post or respond to anything I say/type. That said, if/when they do, I should have an absolute right to defend myself when completely bogus claims are being made about me. I feel sad for the state of the saloon when we're not allowed that right, and have to start a different thread to get that point across
-
I was wrong...
The first thing you have gotten right.
No one, including H, has any obligation to post or respond to anything I say/type.
Nor do you have any obligation to drag my name into any discussion, given that I made it perfectly clear I was finished with you.
That said, if/when they do, I should have an absolute right to defend myself when completely bogus claims are being made about me.
Okay, let's talk bogus claims. Your bogus claims -
1. That I was making some sort of plea when there was none to be made and no reason for me to do so.
2. That I was backing off some position I had never taken.
3. Putting words into my mouth, twice, that I was able to show I had never said.
And I walked away from that entire discussion and made it very clear I wanted nothing else to do with you, and had not posted again at all until you posted your 'olive branch' talking about me as though I was some cur dog out to do nothing but stir up trouble. Well, you got it. I apologize to BT and Plane and the rest in here, but until you end it by shutting your mouth about me, I intend to go on defending myself. Your call.
-
And here Bt did everything he could to put this to bed, even giving H the upper hand, and preventing any response from me to Bt's last post, but nooooooo, H has to kick start it all over again. And I'm the one supposedly yapping.
You really want to start this back and forth again? You really want me to pull those posts that explain in great detail how you did dodge those earlier questions, you're referring to? You really want me to re-demonstrate this ongoing double standard you have in claiming things I'm supposedly doing, while you perform the same act in spades??
No problem, when I have some more time, I'll repost all those in here and in subsequent posts as needed, ... as I said, I'll be damned if I let anyone get away with trying to claim that my effort at advocating a more civil discourse, was some sinister act of provocation. You read into the threads what you wanted to H, nothing more. I'll be back with more detail, as time allows
-
Life is short.
-
So is Warwick Davis
-
I shall assume that I am understood this time.
-
You're generally very plane in your comments ;) I hope I can be just as plane in defending myself from pretty wreckless accusations
-
And here Bt did everything he could to put this to bed, even giving H the upper hand, and preventing any response from me to Bt's last post...
I'm not concerned that you didn't get to respond to BT's post closing the thread, my point is you responded to mine.
You really want me to pull those posts that explain in great detail how you did dodge those earlier questions, you're referring to?
Go for it. Show me where I took any kind of stand on Obama's remark about terrorist acts, other than he made it, and later that it would be interesting to see how things shook out. Then explain to me how, without taking a stand, I could plead anything or back away from any position.
You really want me to re-demonstrate this ongoing double standard you have in claiming things I'm supposedly doing, while you perform the same act in spades??
Sure. Hurts when you get your tactics thrown back at you, dunnit?
-
Too many teachers , not enough students .
-
So true........and here is the little trap that H, as well as myself apparently find ourselves in. I'll deal with his wreckless accusations later, when I have more time, but what we have here is H's perceived "being attacked" and his need to "defend himself". So what he does is attack me, making these continued wreckless erroneous claims as to my real intentions, with all levels of cursing & insults tossed in for good measure, requiring me to demonstrate where he is in error, basically defending myself....which then he perceives as "being attacked" and his need to defend himself.........and the viscious cycle prevails
But at least he's finally conceded in perpetuating precisely that in which he claims I do. In that, there's some progress, I suppose.
You did grasp what my initial efforts & intentions were Plane, and I thorougly appreciate it. Too bad others couldn't have learned from the master teacher, including myself
-
You did grasp what my initial efforts & intentions were Plane, and I thorougly appreciate it. Too bad others couldn't have learned from the master teacher, including myself
Actually Plane did a rewrite of your original post, thus rendering it non-offensive, whether that was your intent or not.
I propositioned that you might not be aware of your offensiveness. Others agreed with that hypothesis.
I understood your request for civility. I did not see the need to point fingers while asking for civility. So in that sense your effort was doomed to failure and your tactic wrong for the situation.
That of course is my opinion, you are free to argue against it, but your efforts would be futile.
-
If you understod my request of civility to be sincere, that is a defacto reference that H was wrong in claiming it wasn't. Yet there you were closing the thread, inferring he could be right, ("not sure bear was wrong") and that I alone needed to go back and re-read, re-think everything.
He was wrong. Has been since his 1st posting in that thread. I realize its futile to expect H to believe that. He's made up his mind, and damn anything to the contrary. You then enabled it, and even gave it the seal of approval with your last post, and closing of the thread.
So, in expecting a bit of objective treatement, that too would seem to be futile.
But per H's mandate, I'll endeavor to repost those threads that show him where he was in error, along with the hypocrisy of performing precisely that which he claims I'm doing. And I'll do it again without all the 3rd grade cursing and insults
At some point perhaps, you can demonstrate how again I'm supposedly performing some "offensive act" that I'm not aware of, although folks cursing and insulting every other post they don't agree with, apparently isn't offensive. And correct me if I'm wring, but I think the "others" who agreed, would be a pair of those mentioned in the 1st post of the original thread at issue. Not too earth shattering
-
There you go again. Where did i say it was sincere?
-
It appeared so with your reference to my intent. So, you don't believe it was either? ok, Now I see why you closed the thread the way you did, propping H's erroneous conclusions, and removing any sign of objective leadership on this issue
Makes you both wrecklessly wrong, though at least you haven't down shifted into the namecalling. So I guess that's ....... something
-
And correct me if I'm wring, but I think the "others" who agreed, would be a pair of those mentioned in the 1st post of the original thread at issue. Not too earth shattering
Reread the thread.
-
It appeared so with your reference to my intent. So, you don't believe it was either? ok, Now I see why you closed the thread the way you did, propping H's erroneous conclusions, and removing any sign of objective leadership on this issue
Makes you both wrecklessly wrong, though at least you haven't down shifted into the namecalling. So I guess that's ....... something
So i didn't say it, yet you say i did. Why would you put words in my mouth?
And i closed the thread because it had ceased bearing fruit 20 posts previous.
I also suggest you reread the pms you sent me. I was truly worried for your sanity.
-
When you 'have more time'.
Having trouble finding where I took any sort of stand on what Obama said, other than that he did, in fact, say it?
Or proving I said what I didn't?
You seem to have plenty of time any other time throwing the old crap around, when you feel you can freely make stuff up, when you can pretend you know what I'm thinking and what my motives are. All of a sudden, when it comes to providing proof, you don't have the time.
It's okay. I'm patient.
-
....endeavor to repost those threads that show him where he was in error, ....
Nooooooooooooo!
-
LOL, pms to BT. What, trying to get me thrown out? Not a problem, Sirs, just as soon as you drop the subject and leave me out of your crap, I plan to be gone anyway. Well, other than checking in from time to time to be sure you're not trying to sneak a reference to me behind my back.
-
When you 'have more time'.
Having trouble finding where I took any sort of stand on what Obama said, other than that he did, in fact, say it?
Or proving I said what I didn't?
You seem to have plenty of time any other time throwing the old crap around, when you feel you can freely make stuff up, when you can pretend you know what I'm thinking and what my motives are. All of a sudden, when it comes to providing proof, you don't have the time.
It's okay. I'm patient.
LOL, pms to BT. What, trying to get me thrown out? Not a problem, Sirs, just as soon as you drop the subject and leave me out of your crap, I plan to be gone anyway. Well, other than checking in from time to time to be sure you're not trying to sneak a reference to me behind my back.
If you are indeed patient then be patient.
Sirs had a good intent , and by the time you teach him better , his intent might be changed!
It is the usual thing for a person to think his own thinking right, no?
-
For Bt: I made an assumption based on what you had said. You corrected it, end of story. Nothing nefarious, no attempt to "put words in your mouth", since it was pretty clear at that point
For H: Good god, you are one paranoid uber defensive SOB. Been working today......it's called a job. The few moments I have to post are directly related to the few breaks I have. That explains my few moments. As for the idiocy of thinking I'm trying to get you thrown out ::) By all means, Bt can publically release my PM's. Which ironically can also shoot down whatever's prompting his insanity dx. But don't worry, I'll get to your inquiry when I actually have the time to sit, read, copy and post. Hopefully later tonight after dinner and a movie with friends. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait a little longer
For Plane: Thanks again for your grasp to my intent, way back when. As sincere as it was, some folks just can't let go of the status quo it seems. And only they can answer the why
-
For Bt: I made an assumption based on what you had said.
And then stated it as if it were fact.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
BTW i never stated it wasn't sincere either. It is quite possible your intentions were good but your delivery was flawed. Which i have stated in so many words.
Imagine a mid east peace talk opening with you camel fuckers had best listen and you greedy hooked nosed shylocks don't be getting all cocky either. That's kind of how your opening reads, which might be why plane in his rewrite, cleaned that part up.
-
Like I said, I'm patient.
As for good intent, he could have shown that without referring to me like some troublemaking boogeyman.
And I don't particularly care what he thinks of himself.
-
Like I said, I'm patient.
As for good intent, he could have shown that without referring to me like some troublemaking boogeyman.
And I don't particularly care what he thinks of himself.
I can be wrong , I have a highly developed skill at guessing peoples motives wrongly.
With that disclaimer let me say, I don't think Sirs had the idea that his word choice conveyed.
To call for truce one might call out for the persons one wants the truth with, but if not carefully, it can seem accusatory.
As if to say "I shall deign to speak civilly to you -barbarian- if you can behave yourself for a little while."
Is what came out of the transmitter , but what went in was ,
"I am tired of fighting pointlessly, I am aware that I am wrong for a while before I know I am and I ask your pardon and forgiveness for the space of time of this truce, if you are so kind , I shall endevor to reciprocate".
I can be just as wrong reading one of you as another, but the vibe of hurt I get is from both sides this time.
Don't you both feel unjustly accused ?
Don't you both feel put upon?
Of course the reality is not even , somebody is bound to be the right one.
But tolerance is allowing someone to be wrong in peace.
-
And I keep telling you, I've tried tolerance. I've tried civility. And all I've gotten in return is some accusatory tone that I'm trying to hide something or I'm the bad guy.
There is an old story about a dirt farmer taking his new bride home in a wagon pulled by a stubborn mule. The mule acts up, pulling this way and that as the farmer tries to keep him going straight down the road. Finally the mule stops and refuses to budge.
The farmer gets down from the wagon and picks up an axe handle from behind the seat, then walks up to the mule and bang! smacks it across the head with the axe handle. He climbs back into the wagon, picks up the reins, and they go on down the road, the mule keeping a straight track and no longer causing any problems.
The new bride fumes at what she sees as an act of cruelty, and finally asks her new husband if he had to use the axe handle on the mule.
"Well," he replies, "Fighting with him over which way to go wasn't working, so I figured I had to get his attention first."
Do you think I have his attention?
-
Shame on you for expecting sirs to give precedence to you over his job, his dinner and a movie. Unlike Mitt Romney and Rupert Murdock, sirs must work for a living. Apparently he is not among the 1% and has no blind trust to manage his affairs.
-
LOL, I'm giving him all the time he needs.
-
It did not seem to me that you were prodding him to respond, but for some reason, he seems to have felt prodded.
The ways of sirs are arcane to normal beings, perhaps.
-
Sorry for the tardiness. I do have a life outside the saloon. Oh, and welcome back B. and per Plane's request, I tryed to keep from doing a bunch of reposting of previous threads, but the jist would be located in the "Would have made a Difference" thread
No one, including H, has any obligation to post or respond to anything I say/type.
Nor do you have any obligation to drag my name into any discussion, given that I made it perfectly clear I was finished with you.
Where was the "obligation"? I referenced specifically those who had fallen off the insult bandwagon, especially as it relates to the level of vitriole being thrown in my direction. You were one of them, that's why your name came up. It was neither "dragged", nor were you obligated to respond. Simple as that
That said, if/when they do, I should have an absolute right to defend myself when completely bogus claims are being made about me.
Okay, let's talk bogus claims. Your bogus claims -
1. That I was making some sort of plea when there was none to be made and no reason for me to do so.
You weren't making any "plea". You were dodging a direct question, which I discriptively compared it to pleading the 5th. You see, you posted what Obama said, AT THE TIME of the Rose Garden, and kept repeating that. I made it clear that his statements in the Rose Garden weren't at issue, meaning yes, he did say them, so your repeating them as an answer was pretty pointless. As Plane helped reference, that taken those comments, and those comments alone, minus anything and everything else said by him, and his minions, if you skewed your mind just enough, you might be able to rationalize he was referring to acts of terror specifically to Benghazi. It makes no sense, in the context he made those statements, but supporters of Obama could latch onto it.
The problem is what he said immediately after the Rose Garden, on 60 minutes, and even a week later on the show the View, all of those linked in the thread in question. In all those instances he wasn't just giving a speech, he was answering direct questions. He was asked specifically if Benghazi was a terrorist attack, he couldn't/didn't/wouldn't answer "yes". He merely deflected into "there's an ongoing investigation", "we really don't know what happened", and "we will bring those who did this to justice". THAT's the context I kept repeating my question to you about, and instead of using that objective little brain of yours, you kept reposting his Rose Garden comments
That's what you kept dodging, and that's what I called you on, as it relates to pleading the 5th.
3. Putting words into my mouth, twice, that I was able to show I had never said.
You're going to have to point to specifially what I claimed you never said. Both times, if you don't mind
And I walked away from that entire discussion and made it very clear I wanted nothing else to do with you, and had not posted again at all until you posted your 'olive branch' talking about me as though I was some cur dog out to do nothing but stir up trouble. Well, you got it.
No, I didn't get anything of the sort, since that was never my intention. You read into it, what you wanted to.
You have the ability H, to be an excellent debater, but to be bluntly honest, minus all the 3rd grade name calling you seem to embrace, you have a serious hyper defensive complex. You, and to a certain extent Bt, have a knack for rhetoric just vague enough to mean anything you want, at any given time. Bt's latest example on the sincerity of my olive branch. He should either think it is, or think it isn't, unless there's not enough associated comments to come to either conclusion. I've given enough verbage such that decision could be deduced, but an answer to that remained illusive as when I thought he had, he claimed that my deduction of that was "putting words in his mouth". Yet, when conceding that well, I guess he didn't, even that wasn't apparently correct.
Point being, when you make references, others can make assumptions based on it. We all do it. If we make the wrong assumption(s), one simply references how the other is in error, kinda like this ongoing ridiculous notion that my olive branch thread was somehow laced with provocative dynamite. What they shouldn't do is keep repeating the same answer that was never at issue, then have a major defensive fit. Then you top it off by thinking that my messages to Bt was some nefarious effort to get you kicked out......good gravy. Just because you had "put your foot down and wanted nothing more to do with me", doesn't negate that the request was directed at those who had a consistent knack of throwing all sorts of derogatory bombs, in my direction. So, I was hoping, in the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday, we could all try to do a little better.
I'm not out to get you....or anyone. I will go after rhetoric that I perceive as trying to have things both ways. If you happen to be the source of the rhetoric, it's not personal. It's a debate forum. Your positions are going to be challenged, especially when they appear to be either contradictory or even hypocritical. You're a smart fella, you can handle it
I intend to go on defending myself. Your call.
As will I, especially when someone repeatedly & erroneously keeps accusing me of something nefarious, when it was 180degrees not so. You read into it, what you wanted to, H. Pure & simple.
Minus the verbosity, how'd I do Plane?
-
...Where was the "obligation"? I referenced specifically those who had fallen off the insult bandwagon, especially as it relates to the level of vitriole being thrown in my direction. You were one of them, that's why your name came up. It was neither "dragged", nor were you obligated to respond. Simple as that
And once again, you had NO reason to bring my name into the matter, since I had been gone for two days and made it clear when I left I wanted nothing more to do with you.
...You weren't making any "plea"...
You're damned right I wasn't. I also wasn't backing off any previous position I had taken, or caught with my hand in a cookie jar, or any of that other crap you kept slinging my way. I posted exactly what Obama said the day after the attack, and that was it, PERIOD. I took no position on it one way or the other.
...You were dodging a direct question...
Show me please, the forum rule that states I have to answer any question I do not feel like answering? I am well aware what I posted and when it was said, and that was my sole intent, to rebut the claim Obama had not referred to it as a terrorist act. That should have made it clear to you, the first time I repeated that, that that was as far as I was willing to go on the issue. You do have a problem letting things go.
...You're going to have to point to specifially what I claimed you never said. Both times, if you don't mind...
1. You tried to claim I said Bush lied us into the war in Iraq. I showed you I never said Bush, personally, propogated the lie.
2. You kept yammering at me as though I had, in fact, taken some sort of position on the comment in the Rose Garden. That was what I asked you to prove, and you went after it saying you would 'meet my mandate' or some such nonsense. Days later, the big reveal, and - nothing. Nothing but a rehash that I refused to answer your question, as is my right. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. A big dud.
By the way, you mentioned that hyper defensive thing again - grind this is your mill:
...But per H's mandate, I'll endeavor to repost those threads that show him where he was in error, along with the hypocrisy of performing precisely that which he claims I'm doing. And I'll do it again without all the 3rd grade cursing and insults...
...For H: Good god, you are one paranoid uber defensive SOB...
Now, I don't know about where you come from, but most places I've been, SOB stands for son of a bitch. This is generally taken as a reference to the person's mother being of ill repute and in an unmarried state when that person was conceived. Where I'm from, tossing that term about recklessly might get your throat cut.
But here Sirs is, defaming my dear departed mother, bringing my family into our little spat, and not long after he said he would not use 'the 3rd grade cursing and insults'. I don't recall mentioning him in such terms lately. I don't recall mentioning him in such terms ever.
Best I remember, the only two members of this forum I ever called sons of bitches were Kramer and Tee. And far as I’m concerned, they both deserved it.
As for you, Sirs, you tried and failed miserably. You keep trying to define debate as this and that and the other thing, but the problem I have with you is your style. You won't, or can't, let go of a subject when it is abundantly clear that to keep pushing it is not going to get you any further. You are insulting, whether you see yourself as such or not. You tend to read things into what people say that just aren't there, or to assign them motives they do not have. BT and Plane are perhaps a bit more gentle in pointing that out. I'm more blunt and to the point, and when I've had enough, I've had enough.
Now, I will once again spell it out for you, and make it perfectly clear. I do not intend to post in this forum again, to you or anyone else, as long as you drop it, meaning leave out any reference to me, by name or otherwise.
-
Minus the verbosity, how'd I do Plane?
Since you asked.
Brace yourself.
Minus the verbosity would have improved it , but the central point still seems to be that you are not to blame for the felt offence.
Stop that , it is pointless.
You may be right, but just as pointless if you are wrong.
Here is the truth.
I am at fault .
Me , Myself, mea culpa.
I am at fault unless it is impossible for me to be at fault , and that is something you will have to prove.
I really don't see how you could prove I am not at fault with anything less than a doctorial thesis.
And if you do that , I shall find whatever single flaw in its mass there may be and curtly dismiss the whole thing.
So it is my fault , I want it to be my fault , and I shall fight you for this fault till my keybord runs with the blood of my fingertips!
-
...
H , I greeted your recent arrival with more joy than I let on.
I invited you with barely concealed urgency to engage in debate.
Maybe I should not have.Maybe I should have been less selfish.
I know you to be an able debtor, and I do not know yet of any thing that should attach any dishonor to you.
Please accept my apology for the harm and hurt and distress you feel.
And do what is right for yourself.
I am still selfish enough to invite you again to stay and debate.
But I acknowledge that I have no right to impose on you and no legitimate claim on your generosity.
If your decision is to not post and not join into our debates , this is our loss and my fault.
But I would be pleased to think that you have done for yourself what is right for yourself , and cancelled thereby my selfishness.
If you are not enjoying what happens here ,nor learning something new , nor exercising skill to sharpen it, nor teaching the less experienced, then there is nothing this site has to offer you .
If you decide to stick around , I cannot promise you better than you have already seen, the typical is the typical. But your input has a lot of potential to raise the bar , elevate the debate, raise the curve and instruct the ignorant (me).
So yet again I risk blame by selfishly inviting you to stay and play here. Don't feel unwelcome , just evaluate whether the balance tips for you in favor or no.
In short, you are welcome to do as you will.
With my thanks for what you have already done , and my apologies for the unrecompensed cost and harmed feelings.
-
...Where was the "obligation"? I referenced specifically those who had fallen off the insult bandwagon, especially as it relates to the level of vitriole being thrown in my direction. You were one of them, that's why your name came up. It was neither "dragged", nor were you obligated to respond. Simple as that
And once again, you had NO reason to bring my name into the matter, since I had been gone for two days and made it clear when I left I wanted nothing more to do with you.
And once again, since it was you and a 2 others providing all the vitriole, I had every good reason, that I've already explained,..... in spades. Not to mention, you had no obligation to respond, and thus continued to have "nothing more to do with me". You read into it, what you wanted to, nothing more
...You weren't making any "plea"...
You're damned right I wasn't. I also wasn't backing off any previous position I had taken, or caught with my hand in a cookie jar, or any of that other crap you kept slinging my way. I posted exactly what Obama said the day after the attack, and that was it, PERIOD. I took no position on it one way or the other.
Actually you did, which again, I've explained..... in spades. Your mileage may vary
...You were dodging a direct question...
Show me please, the forum rule that states I have to answer any question I do not feel like answering?
See....you can't have it both ways. You can't say you answered the question, then turn around and say you have no obligation in answering a question. Of course you don't have to answer it, especially if answering it happens to debunk an original stance you were taking.....that Obama was referencing Benghazy specifically as a Terrorist Act, repeating his words in the Rose Garden, while nicely ignoring everything else he had said, or more importantly didn't say, when HE was asked a question he apparently didn't feel like answering.
Thank you for helping to make my point
I am well aware what I posted and when it was said, and that was my sole intent, to rebut the claim Obama had not referred to it as a terrorist act. That should have made it clear to you, the first time I repeated that, that that was as far as I was willing to go on the issue. You do have a problem letting things go.
And that position was found wanting, when you don't take his comments in a vacuum, and allow the rest of what he said to be said in context, along with what he said immediately after, and even a week after. Apparently you didn't want to have to deal with the forest, and just hung on to one branch of a tree. Great strentgh and focus to do that, I'll grant you that, but context really does help
...You're going to have to point to specifially what I claimed you never said. Both times, if you don't mind...
1. You tried to claim I said Bush lied us into the war in Iraq. I showed you I never said Bush, personally, propogated the lie.
And I said, I see...I was wrong. That's kind of how it works around here. If a person makes an incorrect assumption, you merely correct him. Nothing nefarious or sinister. If I had continued to claim that despite facts to the contrary, THEN you can make such a claim. That wasn't the case here...next
2. You kept yammering at me as though I had, in fact, taken some sort of position on the comment in the Rose Garden. That was what I asked you to prove, and you went after it saying you would 'meet my mandate' or some such nonsense. Days later, the big reveal, and - nothing. Nothing but a rehash that I refused to answer your question, as is my right. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. A big dud.
That wasn't me saying you said anything. It was me showing how you dodged a question. So, that wasn't the case of me saying you said something you didn't either. Anything else?
By the way, you mentioned that hyper defensive thing again - grind this is your mill:
...But per H's mandate, I'll endeavor to repost those threads that show him where he was in error, along with the hypocrisy of performing precisely that which he claims I'm doing. And I'll do it again without all the 3rd grade cursing and insults[/color]...
...For H: Good god, you are one paranoid uber defensive SOB...
Now, I don't know about where you come from, but most places I've been, SOB stands for son of a bitch.
Yea.....and? I had lost all patience with your and your grammar school insults, H. Yet, that said, I was willing to start us a new, with my sincere intention to request we all do a little better, at least over the Thanksgiving holiday. Then you went apesnot defensive mode with your wreckless rhetorical rant. So I recipricated.....with not even the spelled out word, merely as abbreviation. Did I make any claim, what-so-ever that I wouldn't recipricate? In most places I've been people frequently respond in kind to how they're being treated. I've actually been the one keeping the tone to a moderately civil level
Best I remember, the only two members of this forum I ever called sons of bitches were Kramer and Tee. And far as I’m concerned, they both deserved it.
So, in your world SOB is like....the n word?? Perhaps that's a communication issue, since in mine, there's a whole heap of words far nastier and demeaning than the abbreviation SOB. Maybe we'll need to compare notes on that, some day
As for you, Sirs, you tried and failed miserably.
Oh, the irony
You tend to read things into what people say that just aren't there, or to assign them motives they do not have
We all do, several examples I've shown you doing, as of late
Now, I will once again spell it out for you, and make it perfectly clear. I do not intend to post in this forum again, to you or anyone else, as long as you drop it, meaning leave out any reference to me, by name or otherwise.
I'll endeavor not to mention you by name, any further H, but I will not refrain from noting posts of yours, or anyone for that matter, that tends to demonstrate some duplicity, at least until that perceived duplicity has been clarified. I hope that's spelled out as well enough, and that we can now claim the issue dropped
-
I could read an apology in what you just wrote , or a demand for an apology, depending on what I read the emphasis into.
I only think I know what you mean, there are limits to language.
If your connotation and denotation do not match, is that because you are unclear or that I am?
You are defending the defense of the defense of a misunderstanding.
At some point in these iterations the point is lost in the swirl .
You can be sanguine rather than frustrated if you accept the idea that someone elese being wrong does not necessacerily hurt you, nor require any effort to fix.
Does it matter that I think you were right in the first place?
Not if the first place is fourty places ago and thirty nine of these places were noise.
-
A typical end to a typical sirs rant.
-
Plane, it is not your fault. Maybe I expected too much of some in here, that they might have changed their method of debate. I suppose not. I get increasingly tired of having everything I say picked apart, searching for some hidden meaning, that just is not there. I am very aware of what I say, and how I say it, and exactly what I mean by it. Then to have someone try to imply some hidden meaning, or twist what I say to suit their purposes, it gets old fast. To keep coming at me with the same mindless, irrelevant questions over and over, to keep playing these gotcha games trying to score some stupid point somehow, is just not my thing. That's not debate, that's being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained, or in this case, nothing lost. It appears to have been a wasted effort.
-
I wish you wouldn't call it wasted , if any of us have learned or enjoyed some little thing of it that is all that can ever be expected.
Debate is supposed to be adversarial , but not uncivil. As long as you find opposition to be fair you should not complain because fair opposition is exactly the best you can expect. When you find the opposition unfair you might as well not complain because unfair opposition is never receptive to criticism. I wish you enjoyed the thing we are doing , because you are good at it .
And I wish that you would not deny me my blame after I have so strenuously and clearly staked my right to have it, I have influenced these discussions and the outcome is as you see. If I am selfish enough to persuede you to bring input here and increase our standard, that is me being selfish and maybe you being generous.
Have you ever heard the one my great grand mother used to tell---
"Wish into one hand , shit into the other___ lets see which hand fills first."
-
If the keel of a boat is off center you can work from dawn to dusk on the rest of it and it still won't sail right. You can, and I have, yell at Sirs from dawn to dusk and he still won't get it because his keel is off center. Only he can fix that and I wouldn't recommend anyone hold their breath.
Of my immediate family where there were six there are now only two. My parents are gone, my brothers are gone, it's only my sister and I. Her keel is off center, and try as I have I can't do a thing about it. She just can't get it. Tragically its cost us all. Its cost my two brothers children the most. Sirs has cost us all. The level of communication has been brought down so far it's really not worth trying. The same is true where my sister is concerned. All we have really, between us humans, is our communication. When that goes, it all goes.
BSB
-
Nothing ventured, nothing gained, or in this case, nothing lost. It appears to have been a wasted effort.
It's only wasted if you choose to waste it
-
If the keel of a boat is off center you can work from dawn to dusk on the rest of it and it still won't sail right. You can, and I have, yell at Sirs from dawn to dusk and he still won't get it because his keel is off center. Only he can fix that and I wouldn't recommend anyone hold their breath.
Of my immediate family where there were six there are now only two. My parents are gone, my brothers are gone, it's only my sister and I. Her keel is off center, and try as I have I can't do a thing about it. She just can't get it. Tragically its cost us all. Its cost my two brothers children the most. Sirs has cost us all. The level of communication has been brought down so far it's really not worth trying. The same is true where my sister is concerned. All we have really, between us humans, is our communication. When that goes, it all goes.
BSB
This is a profound remark, and I hope I really understand it before I disagree with it.
Don't fix everything, if that boat only sails in circles then it could be a pretty good ferry boat.
If you are the more understanding , then you are the stronger, the faster... and the right of way belongs to the slower boat.
Everyone has foibles some are more and some are less.
I feel responsible for the state of things here because I have made some mistakes , and that is where my fixing energy needs to go-mostly.
When sirs asked for an advice I felt like the time was ripe to give one, do you realise what a valuable moment that is ?
My father seldom gave me advice , I realised quite late he was waiting to be asked.
-
Plane, you have nothing to apologise for or feel responsible for. We all have our idiosyncrocies, and while mine isn't loaded with a bunch of demeaning insults, it is straightforward, and apparently others with a similar disposition of believing their word as gospel, like myself, can't be bothered with either backing up where I'm wrong and/or just throw garbage. Here, in this thread alone, we've seen precisely why the three were mentioned in the 1st place. Nothing provocative, nothing sinister, nothing personal. The ONLY personal attribute to all this is 2fold, my goal of hoping that the Thanksgiving holiday would provide a step towards a better, more civil effort on debating, including from myself, and that was pissed on, almost immediately. The other is your undenying effort to lead by example. With that, we are profoundly thankful (uh oh, I just put words into other people's mouths. Perhaps they're not thankful at all. bad sirs...bad sirs ;)
-
We all have our idiosyncrocies, and while mine isn't loaded with a bunch of demeaning insults, it is straightforward, and apparently others with a similar disposition of believing their word as gospel, like myself, can't be bothered with either backing up where I'm wrong and/or just throw garbage.
What an illuminating insightful sentence.
-
Not sure why......but ok, if you say so
-
...
We all have our idiosyncrocies, and while mine isn't loaded with a bunch of demeaning insults...
Really?
...For H: Good god, you are one paranoid uber defensive SOB...
Xo school of debate.....when you can't back up your asinine claims, keep throwing garbage.
Nice to see our resident ignorant leftists demonstrate yet again their supposed superior "I just know better" idiocy...
And another in a stellar string of Xo debating rhetoric. Ignore all the substantive efforts, and throw garbage. Bravo
Now, why would I post the comments about XO? Well, I've noticed in his back-and-forths with Plane, XO seems to manage to avoid the insults, because Plane manages not to just dismiss XO as ignorant, asinine, etc.
What do I get? I'm making some sort of plea, or backing off a postion I never took, or getting caught with my hand in the cookie jar. I'm dodging a question because I refuse to take a stand on an issue I never intended to address to begin with, and I am badgered over and over about it, long after I have made it clear I will not be pushed into addressing it. That's not demeaning or insulting? Having my every statement dissected for some hidden meaning, having my words twisted, having words put into my mouth, that is not demeaning or insulting? The profanity might not be there, but I find it every bit demeaning and insulting. The difference is I don't pull my punches. Once I've reached my limit, it's no holds barred.
Well, almost. I generally don't bring folks family, legitimacy of birth, ethnic group, or sexual orientation into the argument. I was born and raised in the South. There are limits to how far I will let someone push me before I lash back at them. Even then, there are limits to how far I will go.
Now, you think I'm talking out of my ass criticizing you for being uncivil, demeaning and downright insulting at times? Feel free to ask BT or Plane. You tend to keep pushing people and pushing people, and in my case you pushed just that much too far. Then you go crying foul, you're a victim, wah wah wah. Stop and take a good close look who instigated it.
-
Sirs, I will apologise if I damn well please to apologise!
Don't try to stop me and don't try to cut in on my rightfull blame.
I shall be at fault for everything, and as responsible for as much as I can be .
What so many people do not realise is that responsibility is the closest relation to authority, no one can be blamed for what they do not controll!
So why do people dodge blame and freely give it away?
They do not know my plan for World domination!
I will take more and more blame untill I am to blame for eveerything in total!
Then I shall convert my awesome culpability into its requsite authority!
And then I shall be king KING I tell you king of the world!
Bwahahahahaa!
Today 3DHS, tomorrow the world!
-
LOL
(and for H, apparently he missed the part about recipricating. No matter, I'm impressed he's having so much to do with my posts for insisting he was to have nothing to do with my posts ;) )
-
SIRS.....I wouldn't lose any sleep over what "they" think.
You are a credit to this site,
You are dead-on more often than not,
And to your credit you are often too nice a guy.
I am reminded of a great quote that you should consider sometimes abiding by....as far as who you are
"Never explain yourself. Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe it"
-
"Never explain yourself. Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe it"
Oh!
Bravo!
-
Thanks C, and I concur with Plane 8)