Vote For Co-Mod Of WE&P

sargentlard,

No problem run for astronomy I’ll back you up so good even Jeb Bush's promise to Jr, Bush for victory will not match mine!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, let us know, Anu, when you decide to show it.

I'm long past the point of being disappointed about the general tone that predominates Sciforums. Part of it is that I generally don't like thinking so little of this or that person, but after I got used to the fact that some people absolutely insist on making the point that they're just not smart and rather quite vicious, I feel much better about chuckling at their misfortunes. It's a free Universe; people are welcome to be as miserable and stupid as they want. And that point--that people are free to be miserable and stupid--is one that took some getting used to. It finally clicked when a poster with a sense of self-importance similar to yours in magnitude but who is considerably less vicious made the transition from the general to the particular in order to write away a consideration with the simple declaration, "I don't think I'm miserable." It still doesn't make any sense to me that someone should pretend they're happy in order to avoid considering the amount of human strife in the world, but it also occurred to me that there's no reason to get stressed about it.

In a way, it actually deepens an abstract faith of mine: Humanity has always been this stupid, and we haven't gone extinct yet.

If the Universe wasn't so damn vast, that might actually be something to be proud of.

The simple fact is that something is interfering with your reading comprehension. I mean, you quote the alternative yourself: Frankly, Seaman Staines, I'm amused.

This would be a lot easier if you didn't directly indicate by the nature of your posts that you do not understand the discussion you've landed yourself in.

I mean, really ...

You answered that last question by posting that self-important bit including chronology and general vagary:

I have advised you twice about that passage (1, 2) and you still don't seem to get it insofar as you won't even acknowledge the point in order to dismiss or counter it. You just ignore it and go on babbling.

But we can focus more directly on one part of your claims:

(1) You still don't get it, do you?
(2) Why did you choose to take me seriously?
(3) Moronic, indeed.
(4) Try "biting" about something relevant, or else settle down, little doggy.

In the meantime, let's move on to your misrepresentations. Keep #4 above in mind:

How the hell does it translate to something substantial? Ask yourself, Anu. We've already been through this, but you don't really care about what you haven't read or don't understand, do you?

I asked you, Why bare your teeth and pick an issue with me just to raise yourself as an issue?

You responded with a truckload of self-centered delusions that I've already addressed repeatedly:

As we see, Anu, you elevated the "kapeesh" argument in order to increase your sense of self-importance. So let's move on to some more of your misrepresentations now. They're all rather quite simple:

I applaud the attempt, but it is apparent from the outset that you are misrepresenting:

Interesting that you quoted from later in that discussion.

The original issue was that I wrote, The word is spelled "capiche."

The response, of course, was to post an urban dictionary (a reference designed to indicate what the actual words are supposed to be, not something that legitimizes colloquial speech as proper), an online etymology that reinforces my point, and an internet discussion which lends nothing to your position.

So ... they wrote the Urban Dictionary based on your speech exclusively? It seems you're upset by the sentence, Generally speaking, people should at least know how to spell the simple words without referring to an "urban dictionary" designed to cater to those trying to understand what illiterates are saying ("coppish") and writing ("kapeesh"). By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

So look at your angry question:

It's very hard to take that question seriously, since in the exchange you're referring to, you seem to have overlooked a vital aspect:

Or as I explained to Shmoo:

Or to Bells:

I know you responded to at least one of those posts, so I'm wondering what the problem is? I mean, if you'd raised the angry question before those posts, I certainly would have at least tried to clear it up for you, but you're still simmering about it for absolutely no reason.

In your rush to raise yourself to the center of the Universe, you also overlooked some things that I posted directly in response to you:

And if it needed to be more clear:

So if we return to the discussion at hand and revisit once again your angry question--

--we see that both the inquiry itself and the anger are falsely founded.

And it's not like the reality of what you're overreacting to is subtly buried where nobody can see it. As I have shown, the issue was repeatedly addressed in that topic.

Just a question: Is it that you really think you can get away with such misrepresentation?

I mean, I'm a stoner--allegedly prone to memory issues--and I can remember what's going on in these and other topics. What's your excuse, Anu? Why raise all of this pointless crap of yours?

Oh, yes ... how silly of me to forget--

Something about self-importance goes here.

Perhaps the funniest thing you've written so far.

Do you know what a paragraph is? Do you understand that sentences within paragraphs interact in much the same way that words within a sentence do?

Words? Sentences? Paragraphs? Articles, chapters, sections, parts, books, volumes?

The sum effect of the words you're responding to is what you're avoiding. It's part of the reason you're continually and spectacularly missing the point.

For instance, when you wrote--

--a certain presumption of conflict is apparent. Your sound-bite responses are cheap flash and glitter. If you had paused to think in terms larger than sentences you might have noticed that I marked tactical errors, addressed issues of address, and restated what should have been obvious since the line about the monkeys:

Which leads us back, just for amusement's sake, to what is a candidate for the Horsepucky of the Year Award:

So, yeah ... I take back my earlier assessment; this statement of yours is the funniest thing you've ever written. Really ... that was ... cute and fluffy. I hope you felt better for having made such a demonstrably preposterous declaration.

Of course, you're just being moronic for effect, right?

Actually, Anu, it's the facts that you think yourself so important that you bother with such stupid pride in the first place and also that you have no clue whatsoever what you're responding to that make it somewhat annoying.

I mean, look at all your misrepresentations that I've noted here. Look, people don't need to come to me with their SAT's in order to prove they can read; it is enough that they don't get hysterical about things they demonstrably don't understand.

To take a neutral example: The other day, a poster posted in World Events that WMD had been found in Iraq. The material removed, however, was long-known, non-weapons grade, and quite obviously never sold to Al Qaeda. Now, these politics aside, it's puzzling to many of us how the poster concluded that the removal of 1.8 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and nonessential radiological materials (e.g. cesium) that have been known about for years constitutes a discovery of the long-sought weapons of mass destruction. Someone eventually made the comment that the topic poster had been duped, but here's the confounding question: Was it politics that motivated the topic, or did the poster really believe that the removal of known materials constituted the discovery of WMD's where those known materials had not been counted as such before? The question becomes one of comprehension: What does the poster understand about the article? We only have what s/he writes to fill in that detail. And it's obvious that there's some misunderstanding. Is the poster unable or unwilling to understand? At some point, that misunderstanding, that absence of comprehension, affects the functional performance of communication; in this case the poster, as a result of specific comprehension, misrepresented the information contained in the article s/he posted.

Likewise with you, Anu. The selective attention you give my posts of late seems to seek conflict. You seem to be grasping at straws, avoiding points and screeching like a primadonna in order to make a scene.

Your tantrums might carry more credibility, Anu, if you demonstrated the viability of their bases. At present, you're merely wailing about your own injured sensitivities; there's not much anyone can do to help you with that, though, if your sensitivities are such that you seek injury in order to complain.

Interpret away. One of these days you might actually hit the mark.

The first part, as to what you have misunderstood, will take its own post. I'll give it a whirl later today. As to your contribution that is hardly a cause for pride--

I agree that it's not cause for pride. Yet you raise it to such a point:

Do this sound familiar?

Or this?

Just wondering.

I consider such challenged literacy an unfortunate condition for someone who, as you are, seems compelled to attempt to communicate. At some point, however, I must defer to your right to remain in such a condition. It is your life, after all.

By the way, squinchy is a colloquialism "pertaining to, or reminding one of a fun feeling ... usually tactile in nature, but also can be used to denote coolness or acceptability." (PseudoDictionary)

But that's also the thing about colloquialisms. Where I grew up, it was also an adjective for a certain character of feces, and was considered pseudo-onomatopoeic; this sense, however, derives from a literary employment of the word "squinch" as a verb--I can offer up for that use of the word a .PDF, see page 7. (The PDF quotes Stephen King, I believe from Danse Macabre.)

So you ought to feel honored; it seems I've compared you to a velvet jacket. My association with the word isn't widely-enough known yet.

Keep smiling, Anu. Between misinterpretation and misrepresentation, you're still setting that standard you're so proud of.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know I'm not surprised...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Undecided,

about what? tiassa unstopable yaking? the vote results? what?

 

Congrats WCF. I hope you like my old job. You get free hand jobs, but the blow jobs cost money.

 

tiassa

a nibble

what do you think. do we have a winner?

what is the problem now? suffering from a persecution complex? it was just the two quotes below, pal. in both cases, you wag your finger in my direction. pardon me if that is a cause for annoyance.

your disingenuity is noted. do you not understand that you approach me? it is you that is addressing me. the historical record will clearly show the sequence of events.

your desire to critique and have it go unquestioned is unrealistic. i see no need to accept without question, the crap you spouted.

 

Question all you want. Why protest when I call my role in the "capiche" issue useless?

You're the one dragging it out, Anu. Get over yourself.

 

Great now its going to just get worse.