:dubious:
Oh yeah, I can see the difference now. You used two different words. Never mind that the semantic content of the two statement is equivalent.
:rolleyes: indeed.
Number (1) means relevant to the debate as the matter at hand. Number (5) means that it attaches to nothing, nevermind the debate. Not just irrelevant — a non sequitur.
Which means that in case (1) you’re claiming you wouldn’t do it because it’s not relevant in context and in case (5) you’re claiming you wouldn’t do it because it’s not relevant. The distinction is minor.
He has told you he thinks you’re dishonest. He has told you he has no use for you. But the following comes straight from your imagination:
This is an assumption on your part about Dorkness and Priceguy’s motivations. I’m not “reading your mind” to tell you that you’re making this assumption, I’m simply citing the very words that you wrote. You claim, right here, that his reason was to “overwhelm,” and unless you are reading his mind, you have no way of knowing that. Want more examples?
Here you are claiming that you know exactly why he’s “behaving in this manner.” You don’t know this, and I don’t need a crystal ball to tell me you’re inventing this stuff. I have to do nothing more than cut-and-paste. Here’s another!
You claim that the “whole purpose” of this “gang-bang” was designed to make response more difficult. Again your assumption. Again no mind-reading on my part involved. I will continue:
This is what I quoted in my last post to you. You claim that there is “one and only reason.” An assumption, Lib, and a very poor one at that. Like I told you in my last post, people have all sorts of reasons for posting as they do. You have no grounds for choosing your “one reason” and assigning it so carelessly.
My name’s Stricker van Gogh. You were replying to my third post in this thread.
Again, I haven’t been “reading your mind.” I have provided cite after cite that the bulk of your contributions to this thread have included assumptions about other peoples’ motivations. This is a bad habit to be in, and I recommend that you stop.
You’ve got (1) right, but (5) means that it doesn’t follow from anything — not from the debate, not from the coherent meaning of the metaphor, not from any historical usage of the term, not from anything at all. A non sequitur isn’t just irrelevant; it’s illogical.
Then (5) is a subset of (1). Liberal, this is one of the single most irritating things about you: you seem to believe that the only person who is allowed to define the meaning of words or phrases is you. The case of the CBC interviewer of Coulter is a sterling example of the way you refuse to accept the plain meaning of what is said. This sort of beyond ridiculous semantic nitpicking may be fun for you - it gets old for me.
You’re correct. I stand corrected. I am in no position to declare what he sought in that instance.
You don’t know what I know. How can you accuse me of mind reading while yourself presuming to know what is in my head? He has told me that I hurt his feelings, which was the reason I apologized in the first place.
No, that is a logical consequence of the pile-on itself. Have you looked at the time-stamps or read the contents of the posts? Do you realize that as I was composing a response to one of his posts, he was writing to ask me about a madman in the Land of Doom (or whatever it was) along with three or four other characters who came out of the blue, and whom he did not even ask questions about before hitting submit?
I believe I do, and I explained why. Left Hand of Dorkness has told me much more than what you’ve read in this thread.
You so far have told me what I know, what my motivation is, and what I am assuming. Physician, heal thyself.
But I’m the one who SAID the words! You mean you let the CBC guy decide what he means, but you get to decide what I mean? I assigned no special definitions to the words. They are the common meanings.
Well then, you didn’t type what you meant if you are saying that (1) and (5) are completely different things. They’re not. Any difference between them is, as Brainiac4 said, a minor distinction.
No, I didn’t let the CBC guy decide. I looked at what they said, at the context of the conversation, and I decided. He hasn’t contradicted me. You have, so although it would be nice if you could see how your phrases could be interpreted, I’ll let this drop.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t all I was talking about. I was also talking about the characterization of the event as a “pile-on”, the flying off of your handle that you did just because there were two of us and the refusal to answer some simple questions, such as these:
- What’s so difficult about responding to two people, when neither one of them is demanding responses within any particular timeframe? You could have responded once to each of us per 24-hour period if you wished. No-one forced you to try to “keep up”.
- If it is truly so difficult, why didn’t you just say something politely? You must have realised that I would have said “sure” if you’d said “Priceguy, is it OK if I respond only to Lefty for now, as I find it difficult to speak to both to you simultaneously?”.
- Do you really think it is reasonable to demand that someone stop posting to a thread just because he has roughly the same opinions as someone else in that thread, and insult them if they fail to do so?
I’m not presuming to know what’s in your head, Lib. You made a claim. Your claim was: “I know why you’re behaving in this manner.” I read these words that you wrote, which are a claim to know why Dorkness is behaving in this manner. But even if you’ve hurt his feelings in the past (and I’m not so sure of that, would appreciate a cite from either person), that doesn’t mean that his past wounds are the reason that he is now behaving in this manner. You simply have no way of knowing that, because people’s motivations change with time.
No, it is not a logical consequence of the pile-on. There are plenty of other reasonable explanations, even if you refuse to see them. From an earlier post from one of the participants himself:
They were passionate about the topic. They wrote a lot of questions. I’m sorry that it was hard for you to keep up, but that doesn’t mean that the questions were designed to make responding difficult for you. Maybe, just maybe, they wanted to know your answers to those questions and weren’t at all considering how hard the challenge might be for you.
No, you don’t have any reason to be so careless. If you can find a cite from Dorkness that says, “I’m calling you a rapist because I have a great enmity for you,” then you can safely make that claim. Otherwise you’re just making up motivations to attribute to him. He’s not you, and you have no cause to claim to know what he’s thinking unless he tells you.
Feel free to call him an asshole or whatever for his behavior. I wouldn’t agree with you, not at all, but at least it would be a critique of his posting style instead of telling him his “one and only reason” for acting.
I have told you that you don’t know what people are thinking, and I’ve told you what you’re assuming. I can prove that you’re making assumptions about others’ motives with a simple button on my web browser, and I trust it should be simple for you to understand why you don’t know what’s in Dorkness’s mind.
As for me assuming your motives, I must disagree. I have plenty of ideas about your motives, but they’re just ideas, and I have enough doubt about them that I’m not willing to share them with the world.
Correction: If you can find a cite from Dorkness that says, “I’m saying that you’re calling me a rapist because I have a great enmity for you,” then you can safely make that claim.
Gah. They are completely different things unless you and Brainiac believe that the sum total of all that exists is debate. Again, (1) is irelevant to THE DEBATE — the debate is one fucking thing, and (5) is apropos OF NOTHING — NOTHING — not the debate, not the time of day, not Winston Churchill’s heartburn, and NOT RAPE.
Is this going to be one of those dripping blood apologies? I’ve apologized, Priceguy. You can drop it or continue to stew. Whatever.
OK, skip the apologies and stick to answering.
You haven’t been keeping up. You talk like this suddenly surfaced yesterday, or that there was some period of quiet between my apology and this event. You are mistaken. Even in this thread, he has called me “contemptible”. He has said that the issue is “unresolvable”. You fancy yourself such a master at interpreting words, why don’t you get that he’s saying that I am “worthy only of being despised and rejected” (American Heritage), and that despite several people in this thread being taken by surprise at his interpretation of “gang bang” he believes that nothing can possibly resolve the issue of my allegedly calling him a rapist? He even took the liberty to extend his misperception on my behalf and project it onto Priceguy in post #25, where he said I called them both rapists. You are chastizing me about drawing generalities and conclusions while defending a man who here stated that people with gag reflexes are whiny and that no one in Africa is a picky eater. Plus, this isn’t the first time he’s taken it upon himself to declare what I mean when I use a metaphor. In this recent post, he called someone who tried to tell him that he had my meaning wrong a “petty creep”. Even though in the same thread, he pleaded that people who misunderstand him should “take it in the context of the rest of my post”. He wants leeway, but doesn’t want to give any.
Well, let’s find out. Daniel, old friend, would you like to wipe the slate clean and put all this behind us? Let’s resume our relationship of years past. I will accept all blame if you will forgive me.
No. No, I’m not going to answer any more of your questions. If my apology is worthless to you, then the answers should be also. It is the meanest people on this board who tell me I’m not nice. And the cruelest who tell me that I hurt their feelings.
Any more?
Who said your apology is worthless?
So now I’m mean and cruel?
You did. You said for me just to skip the apology — after I had offered it.
Misunderstood. You apologized for your behaviour in this thread. That apology is accepted and appreciated. I still want to know why you behaved as you did in the original thread in Great Debates. If you agree that your behaviour there was also unreasonable and meant for your apology to include that, then I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part and our beef is over, as far as I’m concerned.