Well, I tried the same thing 5 years ago, I had no reason to believe it wouldn’t work this time. 
Futility is my middle name!*
*Not really, then my name would be Wile F. It just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
How could it since it’s blind from all the Tabasco! But once she gets her helper monkey*, all bets are off!
*Helper monkeys are much more murderous than Guide Dogs.
Pray for Mojo.
No, it does not.
Not at all.
:rolleyes:
Frylock, vice or not, everyone in the world is going to continue to make what they consider to be reasonable assumptions. And seeing as your argument did not convince them to change their minds in the past, it makes no sense to try it again.
The only argument that would possibly work is telling people whatever your reason was that you found jumping on the couch to be acceptable in this circumstance. Since you refuse to do that, you are at an impasse, and must just agree to disagree.
And, anyways, it would be a lot more fun to call Fenris on his doing the same thing with his whole schtick of bringing up shit from years and years ago to mock people. (It’s why I still have him on ignore. It adds nothing, not even something to disagree with. People may disagree with me or think I’m clueless, but at least I make actual arguments.)
Fenris bumped this accidentally and admitted it. You often bump threads that have been dormant for weeks on purpose, just to wag your finger at people. What’s your excuse?
In this particular case, I am happy enough just to be right and to continue to explain why I am right when asked. If no one is convinced in this particular case, whatev’s. I am not that important in the scheme of things.
Sorry BigT, to be clear, I like you and I like your posts usually, but in this case you’re under the same failure to even comprehend the nature of the thread as several other people. Once more with feeling:
I am NOT (or anyway, wasn’t five years ago) trying to convince anyone that I was doing the right thing in the incident in question. I AM (or anyway, was five years ago) trying to show that people were making unfair assumptions and drawing uncharitable conclusions based on the evidence available. I had a self-imposed limitation in that I was refusing to actually show what really happened. But showing what really happened, while sufficient, was not necessary, to demonstrate the speciousness of people’s reasoning. I gave an adequate argument, and I’ve given an even more adequate argument lately, that people’s reasoning relied on unjustified assumptions, without reference to what really happened.
As I put it in another thread, here is my point boiled down and put non-rigorously.
If I were confronted with the following two claims:
A) My kid was jumping on the couch
B) In that instance, it was reasonable for me to allow it
my reaction to the claims would be to think “Hm something must have been going on in this situation which hasn’t been explicitly discussed.”
I would not (and should not) conclude “this person is either lying or unreasonable.” There is simply no call for such a conclusion from the two pieces of evidence listed above.
What is it that leads people to that latter conclusion instead of the one I draw? Neither conclusion is necessitated by the evidence. But one conclusion requires an assumption that the claimant must be wrong, while the other requires an assumption that the claimant might be right. There is nothing in the evidence which decides that either way, but the former (that he must be wrong) closes off all possibility of further reasoning unless the claimant makes an effort to contradict you. This is not fair. It’s not productive. It’s not nice.
The thread title keeps on drawing people in here and then they keep on having to read about stuff that has nothing to do with burning baby’s eyes. False advertising, indeed.
Mucking things up…TO THE AWESOME XRTEME!!!
also, it’s funny how BigTard keeps somehow reading my posts even though I’m allegedly on ignore per every thread were in together.
and is it just me, or was his “let’s you and him fight” pathetic and against the rules? I’m fairly certain that there have been warnings for that. Maybe this will be the straw that gets him banned
Just another example of a vicious lack of charity. And coming from BigT even. BigT you disappointed me. Now I has a sad. 
No, there’s no lack of charity involved in misunderstanding what I’m arguing for, as far as I can tell.
If one is dying, or assisting some one who is dying, it is acceptable to let your larva jump up and down on the couch. Otherwise, it is not. :dubious:
I’m dying here.
I have literally proven this claim wrong.
Just ugh never mind.
Run that by again? :dubious:
So now that we’ve firmly established Frylock is a terrible parent, has anone ever tried Tabasco on popcorn? Yum.
No, I am strictly a butter and salt man.
What was the actual situation I found myself in?
I’m not sure.
I don’t think one should let one’s child misbehave unless one is seriously otherwise occupied, for example, dying.
You have backed off your original claim.
No, that’s bullshit you guys make up. I respond to threads the first time I read them, or the first time I’ve read them since the response has been made. I try to stay within a week, and have never intentionally went beyond the first page in any forum. And it’s always to someone who has directly insulted me despite my having done nothing to them, and so I don’t really give a shit that it bothers them.
It’s one of those stupid exaggerations you guys use to have a reason to continue hating me, despite trying my best to listen to the valid complaints you give. (Even Fenris once said I had gotten better.)
I had a bad few years due to medical issues, and some never want to let me live it down. Fortunately, I’ve at least gotten them to mostly post it all on another message board. Because, they realize, if they bring it up here, I will call them on their bullshit.
I prefer not to go the Stockholm syndrome route, defending the people who insult me even when they are being assholes. The only reason why Fenris was in this thread is because he wanted to attack Frylock in his thread that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I did notice you didn’t defend him until I showed up–despite not being the only one who called him on that shit. So maybe your strategy is just to insult the people they hate, so you can get on their good side.