Do you mean because posts like “can has” are around, that you believe people will somehow miss “meaningful” stuff, or worse, ignore it in favor of something silly?
Do you believe that people are somehow unable to do both? That is, look at/smile at a goofy post and then go on to other things?
(sorry, not accusing just trying to make sure I understood your post).
Don’t worry about it. Once again it was an unnecessarily nasty post.
There was a statement up-thread that “in many “debates” around here, a lack of response can be taken as a point scored.” The statement was made by Sapo, who I already suspected wasn’t firing on all cylinders. That was just my way of saying that an unaddressed post isn’t necessarily a “point scored.” That post had little to do with lolcats.
At the risk of over analyzing: Among my many hang-ups [yep, I’ve got lots] is the assumption that lack of action on someone’s part is the equivalent of agreement or approval. I used to be bombarded with emails like, “If you don’t call me back today and tell me it’s not OK, I’ll assume you approve of me upgrading to first class at the company’s expense.” Seriously. Or the more relevant example of a certain poster (who isn’t around to defend himself, so he’ll go unnamed) who would post lengthy and tedious line by line dissections, and if you did not respond in kind, would declare victory on every unaddressed point.
Aha, that means I completely missed your meaning (and the post that inspired yours). Which actually answers the question I posted.
And I think I recall the poster of whom you speak.
I have to say the whole lolcats thing is lost on me because the over-riding assumption being made by the lolcats crowd is that “If cats could talk, they’d speak like teenage Counterstrike players using IRC”.
I’ve always assumed Cats would speak with an educated, British accent (except for Russian Blues, who would sound like a Russian KGB agent)- and I can’t see that making for a particularly amusing internet meme, somehow…
That’s been what I’ve been trying to do , over at the other thread!
G’dammit!
OK. I’m all done, I think.
This is the part I am not getting. I know you said your KTHXBYEs and that you have already declared that explaining things to me is a waste of electrons, but please indulge me. What exactly is your problem with me?
I have a hard time believing it is just as a consequence of my first post on this thread (by which I stand, you pit something but find it ok to inflict it on the whole board where it cannot be avoided?). I don’t remember crossing words with you on a previous topic, though. I have often mentioned my difficulty remembering people, so don’t take this as a slight in any way.
Why is it that you have found it in you to take specific shots at my person (not at my posts), in this thread?
And as to my post that sparked this, I also stand by that one. There are people in this board who would rather eat a cubic meter of broken glass before posting “oh yes, you are right”. Someone asked about the anti-lolcats finding funny a good lolcat, my response was not to expect to see the antis lining up to say that one was funny. Nothing more. I am sorry it touched on a painful memory of a former member, not the intention.
Sapo, first you wanted to know why the phrase “I can has” appears in this thread if I don’t like it. I thought it was obvious, but when you wouldn’t give up - calling it trolling and making the erroneous accusation that I bump lolcat threads - I answered in detail. Now you want to know why I mocked your idea of chalking up unanswered posts in the win column, when I just explained this to CanvasShoes. Do you find it surprising that I consider you a waste of time? It’s that simple. No grudge, no long standing feud; I am just convinced that you aren’t really reading or aren’t really paying attention. Now I’m going to feel like a fool for answering you again – but I’ve typed this out. I may as well hit submit.
If you say so, but I don’t see how you think it is normal to go from this:
to this:
and not think there is anything else hiding under some carpet.
If that is your normal level of response to a simple question, well, I guess it was nice meeting you before you are institutionalized.
And no. I did not accuse you of trolling. And no. I did not accuse you of bumping lolcat threads. And no. I did not ask about your chalking up unaswered posts. But hey.
:dubious: Yeah, I do remember the saying about wrestling pigs.
i can has cherry picking?
Ouch, I can has burn? Give it up Sapo, unless you’re trying to win another medal, of course.
No, that’s not what Sapo said. Waverly got the quotes all right, and committed a brilliant act of bolding, but it’s not what he said.
Sapo was questioning the logic in complaing about “I can has” threads, then titling his own in the same fashion and repeatedly returning to defend his argument. He never intended to call him a troll, just the principle of “if you don’t like it, ignore it, it will go away on it’s own.”
The anger puzzles me too. I don’t beleive **Sapo ** is trying to defend himself as much as he’s just trying to figure out why you’ve seemed to enjoy insulting him far more than the others in this thread.
I’ve playfully disagreed with Waverly, and he’s come back at me, but never really with anger. And I’m a guy guilty of starting one such thread, and it was also supposedly racist. Don’t I seem like a better target to insult? Not someone suggesting that your thread title is sort of hypocritical.
Once again, your opening remark:
Well, tht seemed a bit over the top to me. But it’s the Pit, so ::shrug::.
Then you make this remark:
To which…
And you give a small apology…
But then again later on, after this small consolation you come back again and insult Sapo.
What’s the beef? Let’s examine this other quote.
Replying to two separate members, to one you make a humorous threat, to the other you accuse him of being a big fucking idiot. All this anger over someone who just asked you early on about the sense of your choice of thread title. I know **Sapo ** doesn’t really mind the negative attention, it’s just a message board. But I don’t understand why, and I don’t think he does either.
And if the above is “TLDR” (understandably). Then the summary is: I’m not trying to pick a fight, and neither was Sapo. So why are you acting so pissed?
Oh, come on. “If you don’t like it why did you use it in your thread title?” has got to be in the hall of fame for stupid whiny shit. It’s right up there with “if you like it so much, why don’t you marry it” and “I know you are but what am I.” In a more perfect world I would have a button I oculd press to dispense electroshock therapy around the world, and it would be used. With extreme prejudice.
Also, if you want to keep a timeline of smack, don’t forget this gem (which spawns your second series of quotations)
Of course, this is in response, after a few iterations, to a slightly lame example of lolcattery, but it is after all where the shit starts.
Now, I like a good woosh as much as (or possibly more than) the next guy, but is there anyone in this thread who seriously didn’t understand the thread title?
Thank you for answering my question?
Thanks, bbs, for the effort. I had given up on it already. I must agree with Tenebras on
But I don’t understand the level of reaction it got. I won’t even bother to defend its merits, but let it stand as plain old stupid, for the sake of the exercise. It is still insane that he went off hinge by it. Read post 209
Dude, that’s not even close to “unhinged.” You wanna see a genyoowine spittle-flecked, off-the-hinge rant, go read some posts by lissener or Liberal when they really get worked up. Waverly was damned calm by comparison.
And actually, it was also pretty funny.
Well I don’t doubt that he is funny, in fact I really think he’s been really funny.
I was just very confused by the seemingly dead aim he took at Sapo in a couple of posts. Maybe it’s justified, I don’t see where though.
I think he was going for “insult by hyperbole,” but I don’t claim to speak for him.
