Due respect, that wasn’t a response to your point; I don’t think your point merits much response.
I don’t know why you think I wasn’t aware who your response was to; your analogy was ridiculous enough that it merited a response and I chose to give one.
ok thx
ur welcome
You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
The only problem with your analogy is that, in it, SenorBeef apparently avoids a face smashing. In reality, he got his face smashed harder than anyone. I’d argue that Dajn smashed SenorBeef’s face with his own face. Did Dajn get his face smashed in the process? Yes, he did. Could we say SenorBeef smashed Dajn’s face? I suppose if we were being very technical, maybe.
Your understanding of my point is…lacking.
Oh, don’t I know it. I’m a big fan of beating my meat.
I think this thread just jumped the shark. Very tenderized shark, but a shark nonetheless!
The problem is a lot of people are getting off on beating someone else’s meat.
It jumped the shark after post #2.
Dajn smashing SenorBeef is irrelevant to the warning to SenorBeef because we don’t have an exception for retaliation. The proper response is to report the insult, not to use verbal jujitsu to turn the other’s attack against them.
Zing!
Not fundamentalism, rather Textualism: a formalist theory of the interpretation of law, holding that a legal text’s ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law.
AKA I can read what you wrote, not what you thought.
Your link is bad. I think the quotation marks in the tag are throwing it off. I fixed it below.
+1.
The whole thing merits a non sarcastic sigh, though.
It occurred to me, around the post I cite–which is where I now plan to bail–something along the lines of "…had SenorBeef said ‘…[whatever the hell he requoted]…and that makes you a “loser” too’ or “makes you a loser too” (larger quote span), the quotation marks to provide even a more obvious neon fingerpointing to the meta level of verbal argument, which is a use of the rhetorical trope tu quoque.
If SenorBeef had cited his case/data, and the punchline, instead of “and that makes you a loser too,” was “and you can draw your own conclusion as to the absurdity/ridicule-worth/baselessness of the insult which I am now rebutting”–which is the point you are making since post #1, then, judging by the mod’s comments and supporters in their side of the bleachers, you would get away with it.
Or simply, present the data, and say “pot calling the kettle black, isn’t it?”
The response of a mod, viewed through this idea and sigh-causing thread, may be to miss that point and (for better or worse) zero in if “black” is an insult, which would be just another case of ignoring the “plain meaning” of his sentenced infraction.
Which is infuriating, almost at the level of being dinged for a typo–ie, that a certain level of discursive skill is (correctly) assumed to be operant.
Thank you, cochrane. I thought I’d checked the link while in Preview, thought it worked but perhaps it displayed from the browser cache.