Figured we ought to do this in a new thread to avoid continuing the hijack of this thread. Hopefully it won’t take too long, though.
A lot of people posted to the thread about my banning, and I appreciated all the support, including yours.
However that doesn’t mean I ought to now tiptoe around you, especially in a Pit thread where I thought you had said some pretty stupid things about the news media, “liberals,” and “political correctness”.
My first comment in response to your posts was not out of line. I began it with a clearly hyperbolic statement about you being dense, which you and one other poster apparently took very seriously. You asked “really?” And I responded that I had thought so. Nothing wrong yet.
Then your next post apparently attempts to bring up the length of your membership on the message board as some kind of “proof” that your posts are automatically good. It would not be the first time that a long-time poster had done this. I thought it was a sucky thing to say and it pissed me off, and my reponse reflected that.
Now you apparently want me to be extra special nice to you because you came to my defense when I had been banned. I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. No matter how much what you say in other threads may piss me off, I would still gladly come to your aid if I felt you were being treated unfairly.
Just curious, but since Anthracite has already backed down from her earlier statements in the linked thread, what exactly is the point of starting this one? Just so you can sling insults at her? Well, good luck. My money is on Anthracite.
FWIW, I thought you were unnecessarily snippy to her in that thread.
If you’ll note, I believe that the point you were attempting to get across (that it’s indeed responsible journalism to use the term ‘suspected terrorist’ vs. ‘terrorist’ vs. political correctness), some one else managed to get across to her.
and the reference to her posting history - your interpretation is one way to look at it, another way is “I"ve been here a while, and haven’t been accused of that before”
and the reference to her defense of you - again, my interpretation would have been “gosh darn, I don’t recall ever having a problem w/you before, why the hostility now?” vs. ‘you owe me bucko’.
I know this is the “Pit” and there fore people feel that it’s more acceptable, even damn near required to be abrasive/accusatory in responses, but for me personally, a less confrontational approach is my preference. (not that I always do).
Haven’t slung any inslults in this thread. I opened it for discussion purposes. It’s not the most earth-shattering of situations, but I figured if Anthracite is interested in continuing it, we ought to do it in another thread. She might be totally uninterested in continuing it, and I wouldn’t blame her if she is, but I figured I’d give her the option, anyway.
Having said that, I looked over the thread again after reading wring’s post above, and I think he/she’s quite right. Aside from the original post that pissed me off, Anthracite’s other posts are actually quite…nice. :o
The way I read it Anthracite expressed puzzlement over your insult. And now you are taking issue with the way she expressed that puzzlement? Now I’m confused.
The hyperbolic nature of your insult does not make it a non-insult.
You insult someone, then when they defend themselves with reference to the evidence on this message board of their dense/not dense status, you continue to snark!
Then, when the person you insulted points out that they’d stuck up for you, you feel the need to start a whole new thread to have an argument with them, supposedly about your right to be as rude to them as you like without them complaining, or making reference to the evidence available on this message board!
FWIW, even “suspected terrorist” is against the Globe and Mail style guide, because it makes it sound like a terrorist who’s under suspicion, not a person who’s under suspicion of being a terrorist.
Well, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m no idiot. I didn’t see any hyperbole when I read it. And then you go an reaffirm the sentiment of the “clearly hyperbolic” statement, which confirmed my impression that you meant every word of your “hyperbolic” statement. This is poorly worded, but hopefully you can understand what I’m talking about.
Also weighing in, without taking sides, to say that “clearly hyperbolic” is apparently in the eye of the beholder. With all due respect, I don’t see hyperbole; I see an insult.
Kyomara, Sorry, but I can see no other way a reasonable reader would take your first sentence as anything other than a direct insult, hold the hyperbole. I looked hard, I looked twice, and I’m just not seeing it.
May I suggest that you not lead with an insult when you’ve a serious point to make?
I read the thread. You attacked the poster, not the post. She was extremely nice about it, IMHO. Nicer than I would be if I let myself get going here.
You owe her an apology.
Oh, and BTW…I don’t know if she will feel like this thread is worth her time and effort to reply to, but even if she does it won’t be soon. Anthracite has “left the building” for a bit and I don’t know how soon she will have access to a computer again.
You must get pissy pretty quickly, to have taken such offense to what Una said to you. Consider this bit of advice, from a long ago thread: Read twice, post once. It might have saved you from the embarrassment of opening this thread.
I am in agreement with Fenris here, you really should apologize to Anthracite.
I would like to paraphrase the OP: “I was right, goddammit! I know I was right! What? You think I wasn’t right? Well, I was! I don’t care if nobody’s interested any more! There’s still the lurking possibility that somebody somewhere out there thinks I was wrong! Well, I wasn’t! I wasn’t, I tell you! I was right! I was totally in the right! I was not wrong! No, no, no, no, no–”
:blood vessel ruptures in brain:
“–no, no, no! Because I was totally in the right! Any possibility that I appear to be in the wrong is due to ignorant or willful misinterpretation! Because I was absolutely right! I was justified and correct and I’m right, goddammit!”
(And the rupture makes no difference because clearly the brain was not actually in use at the time.)
