On language: on controlling and being controlled

am i now your friend?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I'll answer that in the typical, untrusting northern way.
Why, what do you want?
(translation: for now i guess. at least i find a reason to change my mind.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, as to the first part:
Unless you are being sarcastic with the first sentence, which might be implied through your use of the word 'fucking' in that one place only, yes. ..... Then you say you aren't smart because you know logs.
Nope, doesn't make much sence, but not 'exactly' contradictory.
Geez. Why are you trying to interpret it acording to your misunderstanding?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soo after much private messages between you two shitheads, that was the best you could venture???????????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you see "fucking" from first example, but miss "shitheads"?


Both of these things point to an overdeveloped sense of self importance, being as neither is true. Seeing how you just called some one else out on the same grounds (that being gendanken), it falls under the realm of finding fault in others that share the same faults as you, i.e. a hypocrite.
LOL. Or it could mean that is a verbal stab, and you are looking too deep into what is a "flame".

The contradictory part was how you post quote one, act in a hypocritical way and then say

(BTW on a side note, i think the word you were looking for was condemnation, as commend means to praise and you haven't done any as far as I've seen.)
No the word is commendation as I said "I applaud your fucking ego".

Now then, I used quote one as an example to compare/contrast your accusations of fault in others and you own behavior.
You then say that you knowingly in a way shows the same faults in you and did so to show yourself to be supperior in some way.
I'll quote the one line I find the most ammusing:
"I was waiting for the next assuming fool amongst the two of you to insinuate such and get their ass laughed at."
When the only person really insinuating anythign with out example is you.
So, you proceed to claim, repeatedly, that this was done to somehow, by undermining the authority that the original argument was based on, make your opponent look foolish when it only serves to make you appear so.
So then you resort to claiming I'm being irrational. (I'll admit that I am in continuing to actually answer this as it serves no point.)
Still, I've yet to see the rationality in your claiming you made an ass of your self just to prove yourself better than the other guy.
Sorry, it just doesn't make sense.
LOL. You go ahead and assume perceived insecurities and then you try to suggest I am hypocrital for assuming?? And again, what do you think the whole purpose of a freaking "flame" is?

So now that I've suffered through alot of strange grammer, some typoes and you, apparently, not knowing what the hell a pun is, I'm going to end this.
I am waiting for a notification of the numerous grammatical errors I made. Typos are irrelevant. I do not spell check. You start by assuming a "mature" logical stance and then degenerate to petty insults on typos?

And here, re-read:
"Soo after much private messages between you two shitheads, that was the best you could venture??????????? You two are really pathetic. "

And yet anothet def.
shit·head ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shthd)
n. Vulgar Slang
An inept, foolish, or contemptible person.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i am a bad influence
must stop this shit
must

 

Well firstly, the word shitheads wasn't in the example I was refering to. You might remember it. It was the one in the post you made in this thread right before this one. You might not spell check, but can you at least read? Seriously, lay off the weed. Apparently your short term memory has given up. It was only about an hour ago.
Either that, or you just can't be consistant in the least, which would only go to further my point.
As for me interpreting anythign according to my misunderstanding; I can only interpret what you actually post, which is, i admit, lacking in any real content. I can't read your mind, so if you want your intentions to be better understood, perhaps you should make the attmept to learn the language. Its called English.

Or, it could be that i really don't see the point.
A verbal stab why? Let's be honest; It sure as hell wasn't witty, so entertainment value is practically nill. Perhaps to make a point? You haven't had one of those since you first came to this thread.

True enough.

Firstly, I never said anything aout you being insecure. Egotistical doesn't imply insecure. Secondly, I showed what led me to that assumption. You didn't. I had something to base my argument from. I fail to see that in your case.
As for flaming: I wouldn't know what the purpose is. Why don't you enlighten me?

Typos: that is why I refered to them as typos and not a reflection of your ability to spell.
Grammer:I will admit it if I did in fact make an ass out of myself.
-horrible punctuation. Also, wrong tense on the word will. It should be "would've admitted", not the future tense cuppled with the past tense. All in all, its slightly confusing.
Grammer:It was a setup up.
-A setup up? Just repeating the last sylable for emphasis?

When you combine errors like these, your horrible sentence structure, and the occational (constant) typos, which I didn't balme you for (much), it makes reading your posts more of a pain in the ass then they already are.

As for my stance, I don't have one. I don't start off by assuming the "mature, logical stance". This is my normal way of being. No extra effort was put forth for you. Perhaps its just the fact that I don't share your pleasure in the pointless that upsets you.
I didn't insult you with something like typos. I simply pointed out that I suffered by merely reading your posts. Perhaps that makes you feel better?
Perhaps it would sink in if I said it this way; I take a few minutes while I am posting to actually think about what I am saying and how I am saying it. I do it so that the chance of me being understood clearly in increased and, so that anyone who reads it isn't so distracted by blatent errors in grammer that the point is lost. In short, I do it partially to communicate, which is what this is all about, and partially for your benefit.
It would be nice if you were as curtious..

Your point in having me reread this was what exactly?

You seem to have found the perfect new name for your self.
Much closer to the truth then fountainhed, I would assume.
It doesn't have quite the same ring though.

 

How? Why?
I know none of you are probably intersted, or even noticed for that matter, but I will bring this up anyway. After all, this thread doesn't really have a point anymore, so why the hell not.

I haven't posted much in about, oh, the last month or two. I'll tell you why. I came here with the impression that I could discus ideas and thoughts with people who could actually carry on an intelligent conversation. Hell, I recomended this place to anyone I thought might be a worth while addition to the members.

However, I have quickly become disillusioned. I realise that petty bickering will happen. I didn't think it was the official past time here. I thought I would find people who could discuss ideas with out resorting to child like name calling and arguments with more to them than "I'm right and your wrong".

I've seen a few, mainly in the heavier sciences, that can do this. However, for the most part, I'm surrounded here by people of less intellectual worth than I am in the outside world. I'm sure many of you are quite intelligent. For some reason, though, you don't like to show it.

Wess, you aren't a bad guy. You can sink as low as the rest of them, but at least you attempt (sometimes) to restrain yourself.
Spookz, I just don't know about you. You seem sto have something going on upstairs, but hide it well.
Fountainhed, well..I guess first impressions can be wrong.
Mind you, this isn't just aimed at the three of you. You three just happen to be at hand, so to speak.
I just do not see the point in the stupid, pointless flaming in topics that can only be called thought experiments.

It would seem that, most of the time, many of you see not being provable and not having a point as the same thing.

I'm not leaving.
I've met a few people actually worth my time here. Between them and the threads that are actually substantial I find enough reason to stay.

Want to call it a sob story? Go right ahead. I don't see how it is though. I'm certainly not missing out on anything here.

 

nice
stick around
its all gen's fault

 

...
?
And how exactly would that be?
Oh i realise that she takes place in it all too, but it takes two to tango.

 

oy vey
joke meph
i am aware of my juvenile antics
hep me somebody
please

 

sorry..
long night
what you need hep wit?

 

Mehphura the hypocrite:

1. I shall make a conscientious effort to eliminate typos and grammatical errors from my posts by editing. This will apply to both the irreverent and the serious.

2. You accuse me of egotism as if it were a bad thing, when in more than one post under this thread, you have taken the stance that you are of worthy intelligence and the rest of us are plebes.

3. I likewise came here with the intent of engaging in intelligent, well thought out discourses on the sciences, and the philosophies. In due course, I also realized that too few in here are that serious. Thus, I simply adapted, and it has been fun. When there are threads that require an intelligent post from precedence already set, I shall follow. You seem to forget that I left this thread precisely because you first insulted me. Or that when I came back, I tried to engage in rationality, but Gendanken switched the debate unexpectedly and then attacked.

4. A flame war is irreverence-- at least from my perspective. I take nothing seriously when I am engaged in it. I also think it productive in the sense that it breaches walls of unfamiliarity, which can eventually lead to "friendship" or at least whimsical solidarity. Thus, making future debates between fellow sciforumers much more cohesive. It is true that is can be counterproductive to the discussion at hand. Nevertheless, when a thread has already seeped to the level of verbal jabs, it will most likely remain at that level.

Now, I will reply to you post.

l firstly, the word shitheads wasn't in the example I was refering to. You might remember it. It was the one in the post you made in this thread right before this one.
Then in most probability, I was referring to "save face".

You might not spell check, but can you at least read? Seriously, lay off the weed. Apparently your short term memory has given up. It was only about an hour ago.
This is an example of the very same personal attacks you are admonishing the rest of us for engaging. That is hypocritical.

Either that, or you just can't be consistant in the least, which would only go to further my point.
My inconsistencies do not further your "point', for your original point was that I made an error-- I contradicted myself, and am trying to backpedal. I already acknowledged my inconsistencies to you-- everyone is inconsistent. You however, seem pressed to get an acquiescence out of me with regards to my perceived contradiction, and that simply will not happen, for I did not contradict myself.

As for me interpreting anythign according to my misunderstanding; I can only interpret what you actually post, which is, i admit, lacking in any real content.
That is correct, you can only interpret an assertion according to your subjective take on it. However, if I have repeatedly explained to you the original intent, it might make sense to view the post from the viewpoint so intended, neh? You are refusing to look at the post from my perspective and seem content to wallow in your arrogant subjectivity.

I can't read your mind, so if you want your intentions to be better understood, perhaps you should make the attmept to learn the language. Its called English.
I know you cannot read my mind; I already addressed that in a previous post and this. In addition, I do know English and can express myself very well in language. Yet, another unjustified, personal stab at one who preaches the opposite.

Or, it could be that i really don't see the point.
A verbal stab why? Let's be honest; It sure as hell wasn't witty, so entertainment value is practically nill. Perhaps to make a point? You haven't had one of those since you first came to this thread.
Both assertions are incorrect and ooze bitterness.

Firstly, I never said anything aout you being insecure. Egotistical doesn't imply insecure. Secondly, I showed what led me to that assumption. You didn't. I had something to base my argument from. I fail to see that in your case.
Are you blind? Gendanken has repeatedly asserted her superiority within this thread, amongst a host of others! Simply look back at her previous posts; insecurity because she maintains that as a woman, she must maintain such viewpoints.

As for flaming: I wouldn't know what the purpose is. Why don't you enlighten me?
I an only speak for myself: Fun and deliberate distraction from the rigours of academic life.

Typos: that is why I refered to them as typos and not a reflection of your ability to spell.
Grammer:I will admit it if I did in fact make an ass out of myself.
-horrible punctuation. Also, wrong tense on the word will. It should be "would've admitted", not the future tense cuppled with the past tense. All in all, its slightly confusing.
Grammer:It was a setup up.
-A setup up? Just repeating the last sylable for emphasis?
From your original statement, you used "a lot", which would imply a host of mistakes. I think from one who never edited his posts, I did do quite well. And no, simply "setup".

When you combine errors like these, your horrible sentence structure, and the occational (constant) typos, which I didn't balme you for (much), it makes reading your posts more of a pain in the ass then they already are.
I see. Maybe I should peruse over the rest of your post and correct your errors as I go along.

As for my stance, I don't have one. I don't start off by assuming the "mature, logical stance". This is my normal way of being. No extra effort was put forth for you. Perhaps its just the fact that I don't share your pleasure in the pointless that upsets you.
Nothing has unsettled or made me upset within this thread, excepting one comment from Gendanken-- I thus alerted her. You assumed a “mature"-- mark the quotations, logical stance in the sense that your first post after coming back was a personal attack on my picture-- this was immature; a logical stance in the sense that you alluded to the counter productiveness of personal attacks and the need for diplomacy and intelligence in personal debates.

I didn't insult you with something like typos. I simply pointed out that I suffered by merely reading your posts. Perhaps that makes you feel better?
No, it does not make me feel better.

Perhaps it would sink in if I said it this way; I take a few minutes while I am posting to actually think about what I am saying and how I am saying it. I do it so that the chance of me being understood clearly in increased and, so that anyone who reads it isn't so distracted by blatent errors in grammer that the point is lost. In short, I do it partially to communicate, which is what this is all about, and partially for your benefit.
It would be nice if you were as curtious.
I commend you on taking the time to "think" before you post; I am sure we all do. Also, notice if you will, the missing qualifiers, spelling of blatant and grammar, and punctuation errors in the first and second sentences, and the spelling of courteous in the third sentence from the above post.

Your point in having me reread this was what exactly?
"Shitheads"

You seem to have found the perfect new name for your self.
Much closer to the truth then fountainhed, I would assume.
It doesn't have quite the same ring though.
Aaaah, and we come full circle. You accuse me of inconsistence and you are inconsistent as hell-- lest you admonish me, oh great one, I use hell figuratively. You accuse me of egotism and you are likewise egotistical. You accuse me of engaging in personal attacks when you just engaged in one. So, Meph, what exactly has been the point of nearly two pages of posts if not to illustrate furthermore your hypocrisy?

 

happy happy..

Thanks hed. This is better.

My main gripe, you see, isn't in flaming per se. As I said before, I realise that it happens. Its that the flamming has to degenerate into such a....i don't know...simplistic level.

When we keep it at this level, I can at least have fun with it. It gives me a chance to actually have to admit I was wrong on points, which translates to a grudging respect.

However, when it becomes a process of us just throwing names and invectives back and forth, it becomes tiresome and pointless because there is no point to concede.

So, this is an honest, and heartfelt thank you. It has nothing to do with the rest of the mesage.

Now, on to the fun...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.Cool cool..

2.Actually, I never said egoism was a bad thing. It can actually be a sign of high self esteem. No the bad point was that you found fault in some one else having a large ego and their overinflated sense of importance, then acted in a way showed, (perhaps as you claim, as part of a set up) that you acted in the same way.

3.Amen brother. Let the evolution begin.
As for what I remember, its not much. Let me go and check on this real quick....

Ok, as far as I can tell, the first time you left this thread waas page four (at least on my browser at 20 posts/). I didn't insult you that i see, though one might have slipped by me. You said we think in language, i disagreed. You posted a link and left.
As for when you came back here, I think I had stopped coming here by them.

Unfortuneate as that is, you are probably right.
As far as the possible benefits of a flame war:
When the flaming has substance, I might agree. Yes, I realise that that is almost a contradiction in terms, but....

l firstly, the word shitheads wasn't in the example I was refering to. You might remember it. It was the one in the post you made in this thread right before this one.

I guess it beats seppuku.

You might not spell check, but can you at least read? Seriously, lay off the weed. Apparently your short term memory has given up. It was only about an hour ago.

I call 'em like I see 'em. You give me an example. I respond. An hour later you ask me why I don't respond to something that wasn't in the example.
My hypocracy does, most certainly, exist. Then again language, labels, and limits... Damn Europe. The whole western way of thinking is the problem.

Either that, or you just can't be consistant in the least, which would only go to further my point.

If one contradicts their original argument, then the argument is inconsistant. From websters:
lacking consistency: as a : not compatible with another fact or claim <inconsistent statements> b : containing incompatible elements <an inconsistent argument>
If the two claims made go against one another, then the claims aren't compatable.

As for me interpreting anythign according to my misunderstanding; I can only interpret what you actually post, which is, i admit, lacking in any real content.

You have explained the intent, and I have tried to view it from the intended view point, but I still fail to see how You planned on arriving at that end. Perhaps its simply my intelligence is lacking.
Perhaps its my arrogant subjectivity getting in the way. That must be the case. After all, I had so much to win by pointing out the error.
It couldn't possibly be that you setup was flawed and your arrogant subjectivity stops you from realising that. It couldn't possibly be that the whole thing wasn't planned, and you are simply trying to cover your ass. It couldn't be that you were so wrapped up in the idea of getting some one in your trap that you failed to look at your words from an objective veiw point and realise that they fail to do what you had planned.
No, no, no..
It has to be my stupidity in failing to see the obvious that just isn't there.

I can't read your mind, so if you want your intentions to be better understood, perhaps you should make the attmept to learn the language. Its called English.

Actually its a 'verbal jab' going back to your
" It is called Nkwasiasem and the language is Akan. Learn something for a change."
The only thing I can say in response to that statement is that Nkwasiasem must be the making yourself look stupid to somehow show superiority. It must be a cultural thing...

Or, it could be that i really don't see the point.
A verbal stab why? Let's be honest; It sure as hell wasn't witty, so entertainment value is practically nill. Perhaps to make a point? You haven't had one of those since you first came to this thread.
Both assertions are incorrect and ooze bitterness.

Bitterness? Nope. I'm not oozing anything.
See, here is where you should have brought up subjectiveness.
Entertainment value and wit are both subjective things. While you might find your own words witty and were entertained by them, I wasn't. Then again, boasting that you can entertain yourself is not somethign to be all that proud of.

Firstly, I never said anything aout you being insecure. Egotistical doesn't imply insecure. Secondly, I showed what led me to that assumption. You didn't. I had something to base my argument from. I fail to see that in your case.

Could be.
It could also be as she has made quite clear in several threads; That she puts up a front here because she can. Also, I would tend to agree with much of what she said. Most men do not place women on the same playing field as they do men, be it physically or mentally. I don't see how preaching your own virtues necessarily equates to insecurities.


As for flaming: I wouldn't know what the purpose is. Why don't you enlighten me?

The rigors of academic life?
Wow...
So you are telling me that the accedemic life is so harsh and stressfull that you have to entertain yourself by looking like a moron.
Guess I should be happy I don't lead the academic life.

Typos: that is why I refered to them as typos and not a reflection of your ability to spell.
Grammer:I will admit it if I did in fact make an ass out of myself.
-horrible punctuation. Also, wrong tense on the word will. It should be "would've admitted", not the future tense cuppled with the past tense. All in all, its slightly confusing.
Grammer:It was a setup up.
-A setup up? Just repeating the last sylable for emphasis?

Well, as you love to point out, so much is subjective.
But, you are right. For one that never edits his posts, you do do quite well.

When you combine errors like these, your horrible sentence structure, and the occational (constant) typos, which I didn't balme you for (much), it makes reading your posts more of a pain in the ass then they already are.

If you'd like. I would start with spelling if you do. I'm a horrible speller and, like you, don't use a spell checker. The grammer I try to be consistent with, though I probably have a slew, nay, a veritable multitude of arcane mistakes there too.
(sorry, the whole host thing got me going)

As for my stance, I don't have one. I don't start off by assuming the "mature, logical stance". This is my normal way of being. No extra effort was put forth for you. Perhaps its just the fact that I don't share your pleasure in the pointless that upsets you.

Ah..
Well, you got me there.


I didn't insult you with something like typos. I simply pointed out that I suffered by merely reading your posts. Perhaps that makes you feel better?

Not satisfied unless I die from it??

Perhaps it would sink in if I said it this way; I take a few minutes while I am posting to actually think about what I am saying and how I am saying it. I do it so that the chance of me being understood clearly in increased and, so that anyone who reads it isn't so distracted by blatent errors in grammer that the point is lost. In short, I do it partially to communicate, which is what this is all about, and partially for your benefit.
It would be nice if you were as curtious.

Told you I was a horrible speller. You are right..the second sentence is pretty messy. That's what you get out of me after three days with out sleep.

Your point in having me reread this was what exactly?

What about them?

You seem to have found the perfect new name for your self.
Much closer to the truth then fountainhed, I would assume.
It doesn't have quite the same ring though.

My hypocricy isn't your problem. I'm well aware of it. Your problem is your hypocricy, which you seemed to be unaware of.

However, being as I am the only one fit to sit in judgement of others, how dare you accuse me of anything!!
I am the messiah of sciforums!
All hail me!

-meph

 

Not Bad, Not Bad at all…

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I did murder you with previous post, but your comeback was well…decent. By the way, you play into my hands by having initiated the proverbial “my English is better than yours” tactic—I shall make you suffer.

English lesson 1: The spelling is flaming. The spelling is realize.
2: The second and third “sentences” should not be separate; or you need to use a semicolon or change the beginning of “sentence” three.

Response: As I believe I have already suggested, I merely adapt; and that adaptation can cover both extremes.

Response: I give you points here for no blatant grammatical or spelling errors. Also, if this “level” will ensure your participation, then lets rumble—I was impressed with “Poetic Parodies”

Yes, yes, onto the FUN.

English lesson 3: There should be spacing between over and inflated. Also, you need a comma immediately following ‘No’ in sentence two. The rest I will leave to a healthy difference between brain and typing speeds.

Response: You insinuated that my ego was unwarranted and hypocritical, suggesting me to conclude “a bad thing”. Let’s move on.

English lesson 4: Oy, such bad sentence structure does not even warrant a correction.

Response: If you go back, you will see that I responded to your assertion on language. Notice also that you said: “I didn’t insult you that I see”, and then proceed to contradict that statement. In essence however, it is not a contradiction, but rather a defense, and a sad attempt to deny responsibility. Here, I will again post the response to your statement regarding the definitions:
A partial of your response:
1 : to form or have in the mind
So you can not form images in your mind? Or have a song going through it?

5 : to call to mind : REMEMBER
So you do not remember how you felt, smells, sounds, images, ect? You only remember words?

8 a : to center one's thoughts on b : to form a mental picture of

Mine
1. This is nonsense. If the images you are forming in your mind make sense, reflect a concept, communicate a meaning to you, it through language.

5. You are talking of referencing. This is not conscious thought. Animals can reference-- can remember--this is not thinking.

8. The definition if referring usage of thought as in "I thought of Brian' -- a mental image of brain. This is referencing.

English Lesson 4: Spelling is unfortunate.

Response:
A contradiction exists only in your definition of substance.

By the time I am through, I assure you that you will want to forgo all the ceremonial hogwash that denotes seppuku, and simply wish for the second to end it all with one clean stroke.

Man, I am so giving; here is an example of an attack during a post where you were admonishing us plebes for engaging in such simplicity: You seem to have found the perfect new name for your self.
Much closer to the truth then fountainhed, I would assume.
It doesn't have quite the same ring though.

Lesson 5: Hypocrisy

Response: Ya well, you starting the labeling—between us two, and so on that path we shall remain; unless of course you recognize that it will be to your detriment and cease.

Lesson: Inconsistent, compatible.

Response:
Excellent, excellent dodge of my argument, which will necessitate a repeat: My inconsistencies do not further your "point', for your original point was that I made an error-- I contradicted myself, and am trying to backpedal. The argument is not of simply inconsistencies,-- of which I admit my fare share. Rather, it is whether I am trying to backpedal, and if that statement was contradictory. You even acknowledged that the statement was not contradictory: "Then you say you aren't smart because you know logs. Nope, doesn't make much sence, but not 'exactly' contradictory.”, accusations of the nonsensical and the quotations on 'exactly' notwithstanding.

Yes, I have explained my original intent. I planned on arriving at that end by having Gendaken imply that I has just lauded her ego, and that the rest of my post was thus forfeited by contradiction

Perhaps… By the way, it is “it’s”.

Perhaps it is indeed your arrogant subjectivity, but I think your subconscious guilt is reflected in a pathetic attempt at sarcasm. Of course, you had a lot to gain by attempting to correct me. You entered the fray when the “flame” was between Gendanken and I, and then made a crude, incorrect comment about my picture. I responded in my brilliant wittiness and you were left to explain yourself after Spookz had commented on your mistake. Where else did you have to turn to but a perceived grammatical error when you suffer the same mistake of ego inflation as Gendaken—the original puppet? So that you can relive your hell:

You: christ man!
you are hideous...

Here i thought she was just exaggerating 10-15-03 at 01:01 AM

Me:
HA HA HA HA FUCKING HA!!!

I am glad you hold that opinion. The last thing I need is a guy on dick
10-15-03 at 01:03 AM


Spookz: ahh
the messiah ventured out long enough to comment on a guy
10-15-03 at 01:42 AM

Your next post landed you here…

Nope, it couldn’t possibly be, for I was smiling at my own brilliance after I was done and right before I saw through the control panel that you had posted a reply.

You know what Mephura, I like you. It is pleasurable when one admits the mistakes they made and delineates it even further by a triple assertion: No, no, no! Absolutely delicious!

Bad attempt then.

The insinuation that this culture has this practice where some look moronic to appear superior is nonsense. What is happening is simply as I have explained with your help. Thank you.

Nope, this is not where I should have brought up subjectivity as OTHERS have alerted me within this very thread of both the lucidity of certain “points”, and the “wit” of certain posts I have made.

Lesson: Semicolon usage.

Response:
That men do not generally place women on the “same playing field” does not necessitate an overcompensation of the ego.

Lesson: academic, stressful. What implies a question, where is the ? ?.
Response: Yes academic life is harsh and stressful; and no I do not entertain myself by looking like a “moron”. I simply entertain myself by uncovering morons trying to hide their being—case and point, YOU. I am doing such a wonderful job so far too; and with Kerry Wood homering, you can imagine that both things currently entertaining me are excellent!

I am glad that you are at least not devoid of objectivity.

Whew, you can say that again! Talking about the rigours of academic life, ever thought of maybe a class in spelling? I hear that you can win a cookie for spelling ‘grammar’ correctly in first grade.

Not the first time and most importantly, wont be the last.

Hoping for death on another is so barbaric and worthy only of a poltroon like yourself; I’d rather you whimpered and begged for mercy.

I already know you are a horrible speller; have some pride for Christ’s sake. Also, stop making excuses and take responsibility or get spell checker. Then again, maybe 4th grade is the better option—up to you.

Well besides you being one, I wanted to you look for at that for a reference to pun—when I thought you were referring to that post.

That is a damn lie! Of course I am hypocritical. I have absolutely no qualms about being a hypocrite. This is why I never label anyone who can accept their hypocrisy. You however, seemed unwilling to accept such a label when it is by an egotistical man’s nature to hypocritical. Notice if you will, the correct spelling of hypocrisy.

LIAR! I sit in judgment of you! And you will beg for mercy. Besides, Spookz could only have meant the “Messiah” label in execration.


HED :m:

 

Damn you man.
Make me suffer by pointing out that which I'm already aware of, eh? Curse you for your farsighted cruelty. Nothing like pointing out the obvious to really get at your opponent.

I know about the spelling errors. If you dig around you'll find I switch the s and the z frequently on alot of words. Its more of a typo than anything. Typo on the flaming/flamming bit too as you can see from the correct spelling right before the incorrect.

So I am seeing. Glad to see it, too, I am.

Oh, this is too fun. You have no idea. (sarcasm not intended.)

Yeah, those two were pretty ugly. Man, I hate it when I miss commas like that.

If you think its a bad thing...
For your future reference, I try not to imply too much do to the elements that are lacking in communication via type.

Damn you. Correct me!! I obviously need the help.

I was merely going by what was defined. Also, I fail to see how asking you questions based off of the definition of the very thing we were discussing can be classified as an insult.
Now then, I see you point of thinking in language, but I still do not find it valid. Case in point: When driving long distances I will look at the map and remember the lay out of the roads. While I drive and I think about where I am, I take what the road is doing( i.e. sharp turns, following a river, etc..) and compre it to that map I have in my head. I am not using words when I do this. Even though my end result might be along the lines of "ok, I'm there", I am thinking with images and other imputs.
While you may call this referencing and not thinking, I ask how the two are different in this case. I have a question and I go through a thought process to arrive at an answer. I compare and contrast details that are based on things other than words. That is indicative of higher thought. Yes, we have words to descride the quantities and abstracts that I am comparing and contrasting, but the words are not what are going through my head at the time.

True enough

There is that ego again..
I seriously doubt that will be, or could ever be for that matter, the case.

True. I never claimed I don't join in on occasion. (I'm a hypocrit, remember? (Oh look! I got it right that time!)) I do, however, try to keep it to a minimum and throw in some other content with the name calling as well.
**HINT** Here is where you can say that the picture comment had no other content.

"unless of course you recognize that it will be to your detriment and cease."
Let's look at this one.
Detriment would imply some injury, damage, or, at the very least, some minor drawback. So how exactly is that going to be the case?
I doubt you're speaking of physical violence, so I can only assume that the detriment you are speaking of is...I don't know...making me look bad in front of a group of complete strangers. Is that the peril from which I am expected to recoil?
Do your homework. From day one, I've made no claim of my vast supperiority or anything of the sort. In fact, I claimed just the opposite.

Aright, let's go over this again. (didn't even realizing I was dodging it. Thanks..)
1.)You say statement 'X' judging person 'G'.
(This implies X to be bad and that you don't have said said trait.)
2.)You make statement 'Y', which goes against the implications of 1.
3.) I call you on 2 and you claim it was preplanned.
This doesn't seem likely.
4.)You have yet to show any proof of it being planed, or even why you would.

However, what I said wasn't exactly contradictory was the example you gave. I never said anything about the actual over all point. I still feel that intentions of your original statement, X, was undermined by your later statements.

Here in lies the issue at hand. I see your setup... finally. However, I didn't find any of it all that praising. I seemed more snide or contemptous than praising when taken in the context of the whole statement. I was refering more to the bit about the overinflated ego:
"Base that ego on something besides insecurity. Instead of an overcompensation, base it on something with subtance. Your ego is baseless and overamplified"
You then went on to say things about people plotting in pm's against you and digging through your old posts, which are unfounded ideas that, I would only imagine, come from an ego that is overamplified.

Thanks again.

Firstly, beauty is subjective. The only thing arrogant here is you in presuming your own beauty. Personlly, I find you slightly frightening in appearance. That is about the only way though.
You show me objective proof that you aren't hideousand I will admit my wrong doing. Hell, I'll start you a fan club.


Secondly, I don't see what I had to gain by attempting to correct you. Actually, I had nothing to gain. I'm not playing what ever little game it is you have going in your head. Correcting you did nothing but waste my time pointlessly, but i decided to do it anyway. In all actuality, I had alot to loose by bothering. I did so anyway.
So what exactly did I have to gain?

Third, subconscious guilt? What would I have to feel guilt over, hed? Obviously, from your constant psychoanalysis of me, you must know me pretty damn well. What guilt is it that trouble me so?

Fourth, brilliantly wittiness? I'll give you a little credit there, but I've heard alot better. The response was standard grade school shit. Brilliant is not the word I would use by any means. If anything, I would say your ego is the one that is getting inflatted here.

Fifth, my mistake? So commenting in a thread I started is a mistake now, eh? I don't recall spookz ever saying anything to me about a mistake, or to me in general at that point in time for that matter.

 

Holy fucking Christ. The things that take place when I'm gone.
I feel like a mother.


Wessy- we've gotten nowhere. You showed some incredible insight (specially dug the analgoy of a tornado- or wind curving round a corner type deal you had going because it all implies chaos narrowing down to a frantic focus which is key to what both you and I are getting at) but the most thing I'd personally fuck you or Chris for is that Neurotheology link. I would say thank you but then I'd feel all nice and icky and then I'd have to shoot those I'm being nice to through the nutsack.

"Kidding"


But we've gotten nowhere. This thread is leagues away from what it used to be, the person that used to love and read in silence no longer comes here and I've lost track. In closing
Fuck you
and you
and
yes you know who ( all hail prose)
for treading all over this thread of mine with your muddy ass boots.

Farewell.

 

Might I suggest we find a new thread? I mean, while I've been off it for a bit.. I'm very interested in keeping this conversation going in one form or another, as it is the core of my interests really. If you'd like, please start a thread about this you bastard.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Otherwise, I will I guess, but I'm not inspired at the moment as to the time and specific title. I suppose I can come up with something if you don't. If you DO start something, please post a link.

If not I might just continue posting here once I've found time to do so.

 

"All hail the guile of Gendanken. All Hail the might of the Mephman. 'Tis but sallies here that bring the brain sicklies."

 

Pondering.

Maybe. Yes, a new thread. Only remember what we've been saying here......the idea of progression being conelike was an ephiphany(sp?). That in contrast with your upside down Christmas tree was provoking.

This is it Wessy...we either start up a new one or continue here.
Which which which.........pick one.

 

Mephurio:

The torrents of laughter beat their might upon the breasted walls of a lady ...hark you! The sound is the sugared tune of mirth twinkletoing on the wind....

 

By the way-
This:

..........was in no way directed at Wesmorris. The parasites know who they are.

and:

...you have not picked one.