I opened this thread intending to call you a moron. But upon mature reflection that is unfair. You see, I knew a guy named Billy once who was trapped under the ice as a grade schooler, whose IQ was probably somewhere between 51 & 70; in short he was a moron, in the discredited sense of the word. But Billy was a good guy, and I would not seek to associate him with you in any sense.
You see, lissener, you long ago passed moronity. You are is disingenuous as Alberto Gonzalez, as dishonest as Karl Rove, as insincere as Eddie Haskill, and as cuddly as a crocodile. It is quite clear that your primary motive for posting hereabouts is to be as contrary as possible, and your motive for behaving thus is to reassure yourself, if not others, that you are more highly evolved than the rest of us, superior in charm, in wit, in taste, and in verve. But you are not. You are the sort of poncy git whom other poncy gits lock out of the monthly Poncy Git meetings because the stink of your aura of self-satisfaction irritates the sinuses. Please take your next shower using actual tap water rather than your usual rose-scented cologne, lest you trigger a lethal asthma attack on one of the weaker gits.
What’s moronic is escalating an argument over the definition of misogyny into a half-witted and vitrolic pitting of everyone’s favorite punching bag.
I mean honestly, you couldn’t even find a challenging target to pit than lissener? Is your sentiment so extraordinarily notable that you needed to create a new thread instead of participating in the other umpteen lissener-dogpiles dotting the pit like piles of dogshit in a public park?
It looks more to me like you’re being a overly literal dipshit intent on ignoring common usage in favor of trying to score some easy points to extend your e-dick.
You know, I have my share of disagreeing, sometimes strongly, with lissener. However, I can’t agree with your debate with him on this topic. “Misogyny” is a fine and proper word to use in this situation. Just like using a strict from-the-word-components definition is a poor decision when talking about “homophobia”, you did a disservice by doing likewise here. Furthermore, you seemed to go out of your way to antagonize him on this, and though I can understand the impulse if you have a history with him, it didn’t add anything to the discussion. Sorry.
I’m glad you linked to the thread, because it gives everyone an opportunity to see what a moron YOU were being in that argument. You were a dipshit, and lissener was right.
It is a pointless diminuation of the meaning of the word misogyny to equate it to lookism. Is every instance of churlish behavior toward another person to be judged indicative of hatred? Can there be NO continuum permitted?
(b) Even if you were right (which you’re not), why not continue to debate it with lissener in that thread, or open a GD thread, rather than running to the Pit like a whiny bitch just because you think that it will be easy to get people to pile on lissener.
Of course there’s a continuum. That doesn’t preclude lissener’s usage from being “correct” (I use quotes here because there is no absolute where these things are concerned) I understood what he meant. You understood what he meant. Everyone understood what he meant. You just chose to get your panties in a bunch over it because you decided he could have used a better word there.
I, on the other hand, am going to overlook your use of the non-word “diminuation” because I’m not, well, a moron.
I’m a whiny sumbitch, thank you. Or querelous asshole. Or possibly poncy git. Well, definitely that.
Anyway, I opened a pit thread because I wanted to insult lissener, obviously. I find him vexsome, but one mayn’t insult other posters in GD or CF. Also, someone had complained about my hijacking the thread, and I decided that person had a point, so I decided continuing the discussion thereabouts was inappropriate.
Some of lissener’s pittings have been understandable, but not this one. It’s a pit thread started about a semantic disagreement. Also, the word is often used in the way lissener used it.
I like you Skald and I was reluctant to join in the pile-on, but lissener’s been getting a lot of crap lately, and starting a pit thread because you disagree with him about a definition is…well, baffling.
I’d blame the thread on a bit of undigested cheese and bow out as gracefully as possible.
[sub]Or are you trying to distract us with a lame pitting while you rob Fort Knox or something?[/sub]
I am thoroughly sick to puking of both lissener and those who somehow can’t refrain from giving him attention. The guy is a pompous twat with minimal social skills, at least as he presents himself on the board. He may be a very bright, cultured pompous twat as well but with evident drawbacks.
If you think his posts might contain enough gems to offset a lot of dreck, go ahead and read him. If the balance tips the other way for you, barely skim his posts or just skip right on by anything with his name on it.
Judgment call.
But for crap’s sake already, people. Must this tedious little man be given Pit space again and again and again?
I know, I know. Don’t have to read it. Anymore lissener threads aren’t even a welcome respite from the glut of political rants.
Veb, i think your post is unfair. It suggests that, in this particular case, lissener did something to deserve the pitting, or is somehow to blame for this thread.
In this case, though, lissener made some points that would barely have raised an eyebrow if they had been made by just about anyone else on this board. He made a perfectly reasonable post in what was, in my opinion, an utterly ridiculous thread. In fact, if anyone in that thread was worthy of a pitting, it was astro for his retarded choice of “topic.”
When i first opened the thread about Linda Hamilton, and read the ridiculous OP, i was going to make an argument about standards of beauty in Hollywood, and in particular the way that women are constantly expected to look young and attractive. But lissener, and a few others, had already made the point perfectly well.
Ummm, Skald? I don’t like the guy either, but not only do I see his point, I think he made it very well. He didn’t condescend, he didn’t rise to the bait, and he used a good analogy to make his argument. Absolutely nothing pitworthy in that thread.
I don’t like agreeing with lissener, but BTGINLBI, he’s right when it comes to this being misogyny. And you’re wrong to pit him for this.
Yeah, well, I think you shouldn’t have hijacked. You didn’t have one thing to say about the OP but just came in there to start your little fight. **Lissener **didn’t do anything to cause a fight, and I hatehatehate threadjackers.
And personally I think your post was juuuust on this side of being inappropriate for CS.
You probably have a valid point, mhendo. I’m willing to believe that because 1. I barely skimmed that thread earlier in the day before abandoning it for getting hinky in a lot of directions and 2. you usually do. Make valid points, that is.
My point–because I’m quite sure I started out with one–is that it seems like some people on this board are hypersensitized by lissener. He can rub people the wrong way. Allergic reactions may occur. He ain’t everybody’s tipple. Approach with caution. May cause swelling and redness.
I have no idea if lissener was innocent as a newborn puppy in that thread. He may have been.
My wail of distaste was for his being Pitted again at all, right on the heels of the last one. Maybe the overload is only in my perceptions. But I’m really, really sick and tired of All About Lissener.