And the award for lamest, most poorly thought out, stupidest and most inflammatory OP of the new year goes to…
culture!
You know, not reading a poster’s entire response to a comment, and then calling them a bad parent in the title of your crappy little OP is a really, really shitty thing to do.
You owe Zabali an apology - big time.
Comprehension does not equal typing. If it did, typist would be paid the same as Ph.D.'s. I would submit that the former is infinitely more valuable than the later. I know that it is easy to take cheap shot at someone’s typing and grammar rather that address the issues, but I think it is important to call someone out who either intentionally misunderstands a post or whose comprehension is so limited that discussion is impossible. Obviously, Munch’s problem is almost certainly the former, but in the interest of Straight- Dope accuracy I do not want to leave out an option.
culture, your refusal to justify your asshattery is not painting you in a good light.
Alice, did you even bother to read to post? Either you did not read it or you did not understand it, which one? Because you will note, stuck right there in the middle of the post, where Culture states:
Now Alice, are you going to apologize to me?
Yes, nit-pickers, I know I mis-spelled applogize. I wanted the quote to be correct or you would complain about that.
You shouldn’t have to apologize in advance, jackass. Get your fucking facts straight, then post. All these accusations of other not understanding you are hilarious. Here’s a hint: if it seems that no one understands what you’re saying, maybe you don’t make any fucking sense.
Let’s go back to the original quote you posted, shall we?
How the hell does that not exclude allowing your child to smoke crack? Just answer that, and we’ll be done with it. Until then, let me apologize in advance for accusing you of raping farm animals, just in case I misinterpreted your posts.
Alice, what do you mean, not reading a poster’s entire response to a comment? I hate to tell you this, but I read the entire thing, and that was why I made the post that I did. Now, the poster did later make some additional comments that changed (or clarified if you want to be more kind) her earlier post, but it seems to me that any post you make is fair game without worrying about whether or not you are going to post something later that changes the meaning of the post. For example, let’s say I make the following post:
You would quite likely be pitting me as a racist. It would hardly be a defense of my part to later make a post stating:
You would then probably call me an idiot. However, this is what you are defending. You should choose you battles more carefully.
Zabali, in case you haven’t gotten the message, you may safely ignore this OP; I think we’d all agree that no response is required from you
Now Munch, I think I should let you know that calling names works around children, but it just makes you look uneducated in the company of adults. That being said;
Why not acknowledge in a post that you realize you may be misunderstanding the original poster, and acknowledging you owe an apology if so? Why is there something wrong with this? It is the stuff f civilized discussion. While I suspect you understand this, you do not seem to implement it. Simply running around calling people names doesn’t get anywhere.
(bolding mine)
See, miladdo, these are the exact same points people are trying to make to you–you didn’t read or think about Z-C’s post before you pitted him/her, and it’s obvious you didn’t understand it before jerking your knee. And insulting someone’s command of the English language for a perfectly comprehensible post, while at the same time making errors a third-grade boy in a dress wouldn’t make…well, that’s just funny.
You, on the other hand, are not funny.
I’d suggest you admit your mistake, apologize to Zabali and the others you’ve insulted in this thread, and ask a mod to close it. Trust me, I’ve seen threads like this before. They’re never pretty.
Why not just tell me where I’m misunderstanding you, instead of avoiding the topic?
True or false:
You are complaining that Z_B didn’t provide a comprehensive list of things that are excluded in the statement “who am I to limit a child’s self discovery and self expression?”.
You failed to notice, in the post you quoted in the OP, that Z_B did exactly that with the sentence immediately after the one quoted in #1: “A parent’s place is to teach their offspring how to survive, and be true to themselves, as well as “be honorable” to others, basically law abiding citizens who know themselves well, and accept themselves warts, “beauty marks” and all.”
You have no concept of how to conduct yourself in the Pit, or in any forum of the SDMB, as exhibited by your lack of understanding of the importance of providing a link to the quote you provided in the OP, refusal to address points and questions raises regarding your OP, a tendency to focus on grammatical mistakes rather than logistical ones, and an inability to coherently communicate your point.
culture, reading comprehension is also something over which you have no business criticizing other people. At this point, you ought to offer Zabali a massive, unabashed apology and then ask a mod to close this thread, because you’re making yourself look worse everytime you post in here.
Munch, if I made the statement that I did not have the right to limit what my children put into their bodies, your comments would be right on the nose. Unfortunately for you, that is not what I was talking about. Please thoughtfully read my post and try to make intelligent comments.
Munch, are you kidding yourself or do you realize that what you are posting was not part of the original post that I was addressing? Let’s not talk about what happened later, let’s talk about what was posted on 12:40 1-05-2004, and how a reasonable reader would interpret that post and its context (which includes what was posted before but not what was to be posted an hour in the future).
Obviously, given the entire thread to date, ZC was being very reasonable. However, her post of 12:40 1-05-2004 was very unreasonable, even on context of what preceded it. Perhaps that is why she felt the need to expound on her post later. I do not know for sure, you would have to ask her.
Wow.
Just…wow.
I have often heard that if you give an idiot enough rope he will eventually hang himself with it, but…wow. What a trainwreck of a thread. Since bowing out gracefully is obviously not gonna happen, I say we make a big pile-on!
culture, I will not apologize for calling you an asshole, because you are an asshole.
You should apologize to Zabali for calling her a bad parent, because as you yourself admitted she is not a bad parent.
I realize that you will disregard this post, or nitpick, or ignore the substance of what I just said.
I don’t care, because the only person you’re making look stupid is yourself.
No, the problem is NO limits were discussed, clearly implying to any reasonable reader that the writer felt the parent had NO rights to limits ANY actions of the child.
No, this was posted later, and is not part of the discussion. The issue is the post of 12:40 1-05-2004, not the clarification one hour later.
Yeah, the blind pig found a nut. I should have included the link. But please show me where I ever raised an issue with grammar? I believe that was as issue raised to point out that I did not have a clue. These are the first coherent questions you have asked and I am happy to answer them.
So what is your point? You missed 2.75 out of 3.
First of all, I have to say that what Zabali-Clawbane said about allowing her son to wear a dress is laudable, not worth of the scorn it received here. I think culture failed to distinguish between allowing a kid to express himself freely and preventing a kid from harming self or others. I think it’s an entirely specious point to say that Z-B never mentioned preventing that harm; it’s terrifically clear to me that’s what she meant. In fact, she SAYS SO right in the piece that culture quotes, so I cannot for the life of me see what was worthy of Pitting in Z-B’s post.
Friendly hint to culture: Do not Pit people for such frivolous reasons. Think loooooong and hard before you do it again. You’ve only made 150 or so posts on SDMB, and the Pit is not the place to break in your membership. Please consider apologizing to Z-B and then backing off. This thread is very uncool and unfair, and your rationalizations aren’t cutting any ice with anyone. Cut your losses.
culture, it’s poor form to slam someone for a post without even reading further down the thread to see if they’ve clarified their position. Especially if that post was made 6 hours before you decided to comment. Apologizing in advance for potential clarifications, that were already made 5 hours before your OP in the original thread, is ridiculous.
Do your homework, read the thread end to end before deciding to Pit someone. And for god’s sake quit defending yourself and apologize in ‘real time’ for being too quick on the trigger.
Of course no response is required. In light of her later post in the subject thread, her position is completely reasonable. I have already appologized for the misunderstanding of her (unclear) comments, which I realized might exist even when I originally posted (Which you would see if you actually read my post).
It also appears that I need to appologize for questioning a poster with signficantly more post than me. That appears to be a sin. OK, I am not really sorry for that.
From my perspective, blaming someone for your own massive miscomprehension when you’ve just called them a bad parent is pretty damn far from an apology. Zabali was perfectly clear from the get-go: she should not be expected to anticipate wallies who equate dress-wearing with crack-whoring. You are not apologising, you are weaseling.