Mods Gone Wild

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you?

You have continually claimed that neither statement conveys my claim, or some such. I am telling you that even if I were to give you that (which I don't), that it would still not negate the the idea that the incomplete version you have quoted and the actual, full expression have different meanings to them. Whether or not you think either statement conveys what I intend, you are still in both cases altering the meaning through an incomplete quotation of my words.

unbelievable. i believe something very similar occurred earlier within this thread--and involving you, of course.

yes, the two statements have different meanings--your point? consider these two statements:

there is a cat.

there is a large cat.

they are different, but if the person who made the claim, "there is a large cat," were to interject at some later point that his intention was that "there is no cat," then the above two statements cannot be said to substantively differ, with respect to the purported "clarification." is this really all that difficult for you to understand?

you consistently miss the point here, which is not surprising as you seem to miss the point very often, especially within this thread.

is deflection your usual mode?

I can think of only a few reasons as to why you would do that... and none of them are good.

well, what are the reasons? had i quoted you as saying, ""her state of being an asian person who(m) I have previously offended," the result would not be substantively different--because this statement does not convey what you are claiming it was intended to convey. IOW, had i cited the quote in full, you would still appear an ass--at least in accordance with ordinary readings of the statement.

i'm not especially interested in diagnosing a person's various pathologies, but your habit of making every single instance in which a person differs from you (i.e. Trippy, Bells, Kira, psychotropic, Lucy, Geoff, myself--and that's just within this thread) into something personal, and interpreting such as suggestive of some "strong bias" against you, is indeed telling.


edit: perhaps you did not see this previously, as it was an edit, but could you address this:
and as to the matter of those who have PM'd you their "congratulations and gratitude": why are they not supporting you within this thread?
 
Last edited:
unbelievable. i believe something very similar occurred earlier within this thread--and involving you, of course.

yes, the two statements have different meanings--your point?

That one statement's meaning is correct and one is incorrect. You made a conscious decision to delete from the quotation a following qualifier that has more importance and meaning than the word which it is qualifying. Since you are the one who did that, perhaps you should explain your motive in doing so.


there is a cat.

there is a large cat.

they are different, but if the person who made the claim, "there is a large cat," were to interject at some later point that his intention was that "there is no cat," then the above two statements cannot be said to substantively differ, with respect to the purported "clarification." is this really all that difficult for you to understand?
Why are you making up unrelated and simplified statements and posting them as though they were analogous to the situation at hand? I never retracted my statement as you are doing in this example. You quoted a portion of my expression that altered the meaning of the whole expression. The whole expression says exactly what I mean. The shortened portion does not. There is no retraction. Do you get the picture yet..?
 
That one statement's meaning is correct and one is incorrect. You made a conscious decision to delete from the quotation a following qualifier that has more importance and meaning than the word which it is qualifying. Since you are the one who did that, perhaps you should explain your motive in doing so.

none of this is relevant. though it reminds me very much of your claim that Lucysnow "requested" to join your group.

Why are you making up unrelated and simplified statements and posting them as though they were analogous to the situation at hand? I never retracted my statement as you are doing in this example. You quoted a portion of my expression that altered the meaning of the whole expression. The whole expression says exactly what I mean. The shortened portion does not. There is no retraction. Do you get the picture yet..?

no, you did not retract your statement--you attempted to clarify it (and not very well, for that matter). clearly you believe that you original statement conveyed exactly what you intended it to convey. fascinating.

correct me if i'm wrong, but are you the one who--in another thread--adamantly tried to defend his notion that he was not a bigot. and with every successive attempt, you only served to establish the contention that your are, in fact, a bigot?

ohhh, poor Will. always being victimized by a troop of ignoble trolls, babies, ankle biters, and angry kittens.
 
none of this is relevant. though it reminds me very much of your claim that Lucysnow "requested" to join your group.
You don't want to state your motivation in abruptly shortening and leaving out an important qualifier to that statement then. Why am I not surprised..? :cool:
no, you did not retract your statement--you attempted to clarify it (and not very well, for that matter). clearly you believe that you original statement conveyed exactly what you intended it to convey. fascinating.
correct me if i'm wrong, but are you the one who--in another thread--adamantly tried to defend his notion that he was not a bigot. and with every successive attempt, you only served to establish the contention that your are, in fact, a bigot?
ohhh, poor Will. always being victimized by a troop of ignoble trolls, babies, ankle biters, and angry kittens.
I don't feel like a victim in this at all. You may be projecting. I can't help but notice that you are bringing in outside topics and threads into this argument suddenly. Is that because you are losing this one..?
 
Last edited:
You don't want to state your motivation in abruptly shortening and leaving out an important qualifier to that statement then. Why am I not surprised..? :cool:

you are unbelievably dull. i stated my motivation you fucking moron--can you read? i abbreviated the quote because in doing so it did not alter the meaning in any substantive fashion. how many times have i said this now? you see, had i stated in full "her state of being an asian person who(m) i previously offended," the exact same message would have gotten across. because neither freakin' statement conveys what you claim you intended to convey. do you truly not understand this?

to expand slightly: you were being an ass--not surprising, you had already been an ass repeatedly within this thread, with all those ignoble baby trolls who objected to your issuing a statement on their behalf--and i was seeking clarification. i wanted to know what you could possibly mean by that. of course, you didn't answer me--you simply focused upon what was not important--you know, kinda like how you did with Lucy, for instance. you would not admit that you invited her to join your silly group. i won't even bother quoting your idiotic post on that matter--just imagine some of your usual defelective shit. eventually, you kinda explained what you supposedly meant by that (to Kira, i believe), but not to me.

I don't feel like a victim in this at all. You may be projecting. I can't help but notice that you are bringing in outside topics and threads into this argument suddenly. Is that because you are losing this one..?

why exactly would i feel like a victim? have i referred to a dozen individuals as ignoble trolls, babies, angry kittens, etc. and whined about how i know the intentions of all of those who differ with me on any matter. face it Will, you isseued a statement without the consent of your silly little group and you reacted like a pathetic baby when the members rightly reacted to your doing such on their behalf. i bring in outside threads because i notice a certain pattern in you, Will.

that you tend to react this way over such trifling matters and the fact that you claim such things as that you, and your kind kind, have elevated the "intellectual discourse" of this forum and that you feel the need to remind folks that you were (so you claim) fortunate to have the best education, even at the primary and secondary levels, available--all of this speaks volumes about you.

the question is: do you truly believe what you say, or is this simply your way of dealing with your own perceived inadequacies?

i couldn't possibly know this, no do i especially care, i can only wonder; but i suspect that you honestly don't know either.

oh, and see how i made it all personal? you see, i am doing what you do on a regular basis--rather, every single time a person disagrees with you (so far as i can tell--i've looked through this thread and a few others out of curiosity, and you seem always to behave like a child--well, a paranoid child.) to this point, i've been trying to be some what polite--which is difficult with someone who cries like a baby and resorts to name-calling every time someone questions him. and then it got to a point where, well, frankly Will, you just are not terribly bright--and i am terribly bored.

on that note, i am done--there is no substance in anything you post and this is simply a waste of time for me.


and i'm not even going to bother fixing my typos at this point either.
 
Last edited:
For someone who is tired and bored of this discussion, you seem to have an unusually vested interest in the events of this topic parm. If you didn't want to talk about this, then perhaps you should have simply stayed out of it.

because neither freakin' statement conveys what you claim you intended to convey. do you truly not understand this?
That is your mere opinion, parm. My claim is what I stated. Because those words are my own and only I know what I was thinking as I wrote them, that is incontrovertible. It's you who is projecting your own thoughts onto its meaning.
i stated my motivation you fucking moron--can you read? i abbreviated the quote because in doing so it did not alter the meaning in any substantive fashion.
That is not a reason for doing something, parm. That is a reason for not doing something. My question to you was, why alter it at all if you wanted to preserve the meaning..? You seem to be unable or unwilling to answer that question. Gee, I wonder why. :rolleyes:

Suddenly you seem to be drifing off-topic into unrelated topics and discussions again. I repeat: is that because you are losing this one..? Surely what you have to say can stand on its own merits, if you actually believe it.
 
That is your mere opinion, parm. My claim is what I stated. Because those words are my own and only I know what I was thinking as I wrote them, that is incontrovertible. It's you who is projecting your own thoughts onto its meaning.

well here's a few more opinions on the matter: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=100457. funny, so far no one has interpreted it as you do.

That is not a reason for doing something, parm. That is a reason for not doing something. My question to you was, why alter it at all if you wanted to preserve the meaning..? You seem to be unable or unwilling to answer that question. Gee, I wonder why. :rolleyes:

uhh, gee--perhpas because it essentially conveys the same thing either way--as i have stated reply, as do several people in the thread linked above.

Suddenly you seem to be drifing off-topic into unrelated topics and discussions again. I repeat: is that because you are losing this one..? Surely what you have to say can stand on its own merits, if you actually believe it.

i don't know--why don't you ask Bells,Trippy, Tiassa, Lucy, PsychoTropic, Geoff, or anyone whose commented in the thread linked?
 
Instead of insulting the people who disagreed with your behaviour, and/or with the content that the official statement harboured, you could have just simply admitted that you made a mistake, and apologise. Sorry, but thus far I haven't seen any apology coming from you, WillNever. Where is it?

I civilly disagreed with what you had to say, and as a response I ended up being called a sheeple, and what not, or at least I felt that I was being lumped in together since I was also someone who posted days after you posted an official statement on the group members' behalf without asking for their consent prior to that. And then the disgusting presumptions you made about anyone's motives who didn't post their disagreement, or who posted it days after..and then you come and whine about others who allegedly didn't properly interpret the message your posts conveyed in this thread. All this wishy washy blah blah...

Seriously, man up, and apologise already, or shut the f-ck up.
 
Pyscho, I have made an official statement concerning that many pages ago. However, it is not extended to every one. Please see my visitor messages in my profile for the date and contents. In it you will see that some people have done things that make them unworthy of an apology.
well here's a few more opinions on the matter: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=100457. funny, so far no one has interpreted it as you do.
That is because those three people know the source of that statement and are continuing their purposeful misinterpretation on that basis, parm. However, Doreen got these parts correct: "You are still pissed because I [from Kira's perception] insulted you...based on your religion and ethnicity."
uhh, gee--perhpas because it essentially conveys the same thing either way--as i have stated reply, as do several people in the thread linked above.
Drawing in an imaginary posse does not change the meaning of the words, parm. In what sense is "an asian person" equivalent to "an asian person who is offended on the basis of her ethnicity?" Instead of trying to substantiate your consistent claim that both statements mean the same thing, why not simply state why that operative portion was left out?
i don't know--why don't you ask Bells,Trippy, Tiassa, Lucy, PsychoTropic, Geoff, or anyone whose commented in the thread linked?
Because each of those people belong to the group of angry kittens who harbor dislike for other reasons, parm. We can see that in this thread. :cool:
 
Because each of those people belong to the group of angry kittens who harbor dislike for other reasons, parm. We can see that in this thread. :cool:
Hey Will, were you attacked and severely injured by a wild group of kittens in your younger years?

Or just textbook Ailurophobia? :cool:
 
so apparently Doreen and Sarkus are key players in this conspiracy as well. this is much bigger than i thought. one has to wonder what government entities might possibly figure into this.

Hey Will, were you attacked and severely injured by a wild group of kittens in your younger years?
they were probably siamese--you know how being asian can make a person (or cat).
 
so apparently Doreen and Sarkus are key players in this conspiracy as well. this is much bigger than i thought. one has to wonder what government entities might possibly figure into this.


they were probably siamese--you know how being asian can make a person (or cat).

There isn't a conspiracy parm, or any of the other wild things you are imagining. However, all those people read this thread.
 
That is because those three people know the source of that statement and are continuing their purposeful misinterpretation on that basis, parm.
I guessed it was you, but I simply had fun pointing out what the sentence means, which may not be what you meant. It was a pretty goofy sentence, which happens, of course, with this medium. And attempts to get high falutin' -which there are indications there were in the writing of this sentence - can backfire rather splendidly.


As far as this....
n what sense is "an asian person" equivalent to "an asian person who is offended on the basis of her ethnicity?"
you are not fairly setting the scene

it's this part
you harbor some residual malice due to your state of being an asian person
you harbor resentment because you are an asian person

is a fair interpretation of that portion of the sentence.

state of being is a fancy way of saying are

Again. I have no idea what you meant, but what you said can be fairly interpreted this way.

As far as my being part of a pack (pride?) of angry kittens, hell, I don't even understand the teams. I think, though I've not read this thread in its entirety, that your basic idea was to set up some forum to complain about how SAM did not get impartial treatment. I agree with that notion. I am not sure what all these battles are about, here, and I am not sure how Kira would be against that basic notion, either. Could be a beside manner thing, I don't know.
 
you harbor resentment because you are an asian person

is a fair interpretation of that portion of the sentence..

Doreen, that would be like me saying that an example statement by you (or anyone else) which said "You went to seek therapy due to your state of being a woman who feels battered" is the same as saying "you went to seek therapy due to your state of being a woman." Fundamentally, those statements are exact parellels to mine... and interpeting them similarlly obviously makes no sense. However, in my case people's perception is clouded by the issue at hand.
 
Doreen, that would be like me saying that an example statement by you (or anyone else) which said "You went to seek therapy due to your state of being a woman who feels battered" is the same as saying "you went to seek therapy due to your state of being a woman." Fundamentally, those statements are exact parellels to mine... and interpeting them similarlly obviously makes no sense. However, in my case people's perception is clouded by the issue at hand.
No, it is not a parallel. Because you specifically mention that this is an asian person, rather than saying 'someone'. Because the extra word is included it seems like it must be part of what is causal. Throw in the 'state of being' before it and it really seems like you are emphasizing the particlar qualities of being an asian person or woman. When something extra is present, over and above what most people would say, it carries meaning.

Most people would say. You're just pissed off because I insulted you etc.....
or maybe
You're just pissed off because you're someone I insulted before....etc.

but the whole due to your state of being and asian person

even with the who(m) etc.

seems to be trying to assert something about how being an asian person has affected the way she is dealing with this. Again, it may not be what you meat, but it's a fair read.

And by the way

You went to seek therapy due to your state of being a woman who feels battered
This is pretty close to offensive also, though it is clearer it is unintended.
 
Last edited:
No, it is not a parallel. Because you specifically mention that this is an asian person, rather than saying 'someone'.
A female person would have the same meaning as "woman," Doreen... and be the same parallel. Simply replace woman with a female person and you have the same situation.
 
A female person would have the same meaning as "woman," Doreen... and be the same parallel. Simply replace woman with a female person and you have the same situation.
Nope, if you wrote the odd construction female person, I would assume you thought it had to do with her being female that she had the emotional states she had.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top