Attn: Cervaise - a dissenting opinion does not equal "ignorant"

iampunha · October 30, 2002, 3:29am

::notices that while Eleusis cited two of Cervaise’s posts, s/he failed to cite a single helping GQ post to back up his/her claim that s/he is useful in that formu::

::further notices that Eleusis is a titnail::

Eleusis · October 30, 2002, 10:28am

Wow, lots of action here, but sadly, nothing from Cervaise to back up his worthless posts.

You’re very welcome. Assuming you were referring not to Collodi, but to that awful movie Libertarian described, you now have 24 hours to live as an actual human being.

*Originally posted by Enderw24 *
**Eleusis, you complain in one of the linked threads that you are opposed to the police being called for every little thing. Yet here you are in the pit complaining.

You say that kids are kids and they should have some fun. Others had fun too in that thread. It was at your expense though, so here we are in the pit.

The OP of that thread could not stop and tell the driver that she was doing something wrong and so she did the next best thing: call the police.
You do have the chance to tell the person in the thread you believe he did something wrong and you took that opportunity to complain here.

I don’t have time to draw completely paralel analogies here, but I hope you’re getting my point.
If not maybe someone else can better outline it for I’ve got to go. I think you’re being hypocritical.**

First of all, I want to thank you and quote your entire post to show Cervaise how it’s possible to disagree with someone, address the issues, and avoid personal insults all at the same time. (Cervaise, please take notes)

I will, however, address all of your points individually, if I may.

I don’t consider what I’ve done here complaining. I’m politely asking a “fellow” poster to justify his actions.

Please read harder before you attribute others’ quotes to me.

This thread is directed at Cervaise, and him alone (see my reply to yojimboguy below).

Assuming the OP felt it necessary to take it upon his or herself to enforce the law for minor traffic violations, I guess you’re right.

I’m sorrry but I think my objection to Cervaise’s methods would have been drowned out there.

Thank you again for stating your opinion without resorting to petty insults. If you think I’m overreacting by pitting Cervaise, then I can see how you might consider me hypocritical. However, I think it’s simply a bad analogy because both of the OPs were very offended and/or freaked out IRL, and I’m merely calling attention to and asking for justifications of the actions of a SDMB poster.

Well, if you had read the first two lines of my OP, you would already know why. The other posters, some of whom also chose to resort to personal insults, at least attempted to address my arguments.

Heh. Did you miss where I said I didn’t want to focus on that? But since you insist:

Is that enough for you? After all, I’ve only been here less than a month. How many have you answered this month? I could produce more correct assertions I’ve made in GD but in these my valuble contributions cannot be questioned.

So here we are. Apparently it’s perfectly acceptable to jump into to the middle of a thread, hurl personal insults, not address anybody’s arguments, and call people who don’t subscribe to your own personal sensibilities ignorant, with no justification whatsoever. After all, it’s the Pit, right? Furthermore, for some people, this seems to be Standard Operating Procedure.:rolleyes:

I’m sorry. I thought there was a minimum level of acceptable conduct even here.

Fenris · October 30, 2002, 11:23am

Then perhaps you should have taken it to e-mail, rather than posting it on a public message board where it will be commented on.

Fenris

Eleusis · October 30, 2002, 11:30am

Sorry Fenris, you misunderstood. I meant I wasn’t calling out other posters who posted in the other threads because Cervaise’s actions were unique. Of course I expect further commentary from other dopers.

(While I’m here, there are at least three typos in the last part of my last post, but most importantly GD should have been GQ.)

Liberal · October 30, 2002, 12:24pm

RexDart wrote:

Actually, it was released in 2000, but if you want to claim the zero-base thing, I’ll go along with you and say the 90s were from '91-'00. That would in fact make Almost Famous Number 3. Number 1, of course, was Barton Fink ('91). And Number 2 was Sling Blade ('96).

Waverly · October 30, 2002, 1:00pm

And here I am thinking Jester’s explanation was sufficient. Am I supposed to quote, paraphrase, or express his words in interpretive dance? :rolleyes:

If you wish to hear responses from me alone, send me an email. If you wish to participate in a public forum, pay attention to what others are saying. You woefully misunderstood the intention of the pie comments, ignored the explanation given to you, and accused us of glurge without understanding what glurge is. As far as I’m concerned, I recognize a pattern, and I’ve formed a definite opinion about the value of anything you have to say.

Enderw24 · October 30, 2002, 3:57pm

**Eleusis[/b, FTR, when I read through this thread the first time, before posting and before reading either of the linked threads, I thought you were quite justified in your pit thread and most of the other people in this thread were being insufferable twits.
Then I read the linked thread. You hold an opinion which I disagree with and one that nearly defies logic with regards to the seatbelt issue. More to the point, you were coming close to being an insufferable twit yourself in the other thread.

Does that justify the pie posts here? No. I hate those. I hate “sports team posts” too, FTR. I also hate that people are attacking your newbie status because God forbid you haven’t been around long enough here so you clearly must not be wise in the ways of the world.

I believe you’ve been acting quite rationally in this thread and in this thread people shouldn’t be jumping down your throat. I also believe you should grow thicker skin and learn to roll with the punches.
You had a billion options available to you ranging from e-mailing Cervaise to just letting it all go.
You were both wrong and obnoxious in the other threads. If you can’t see that, I’m sorry. It doesn’t justify others posts in this thread but, hey, it’s the pit. You need to expect these things. And, again, grow thicker skin.

peepthis · October 30, 2002, 10:10pm

So one thread (in my 2 years and 700+ posts) in which we disagree and I misuse one word makes a pattern, eh? And thus the value of any future posts I make is lessened? I’ll do my best to get to sleep at night.

:rolleyes: yourself, twat.

Captain_Amazing · October 30, 2002, 10:26pm

Well, where would you rank Schindler’s List ('93)? That wouldn’t make top 3?

Liberal · October 30, 2002, 10:49pm

I can understand that movie being on someone’s list. It’s just that the three I listed kind of stuck to my bones. For what it’s worth, I did select SL as one of The 50 most important Hollywood films. (It was Number 19.)

herownself · October 31, 2002, 3:08am

I’d just like to add, in order to further clarify this debate, that **Cervaise ** has never been so entirely let down by his imagination that he had to wear either a Batman or a Fred Flintstone costume for Halloween.

Geek_Mecha · October 31, 2002, 3:18am

To be honest, I initially pictured him as the Kevin Smith half of Bluntman & Chronic.

RexDart · October 31, 2002, 9:03am

I’ll give you one Coen brothers movie. You sure about the pick? Strangely, the merger of your #1’s directors and your #2’s star was good, but not great. Some great lines though.

And you’re making me feel guilty for putting two well-known movies at #1 and #2 in my own list.

Rilchiam · November 2, 2002, 5:27am

I don’t get the Almost Famous reference. Please enlighten me?

username_for_rent · November 2, 2002, 9:18pm

Cervaise kicked ass in this thread.