Sorry, but I’m not going to make this personal. Did the winkie I gave you mean anger or something? It’s a simple thing. A bovine is not always a cow, but a cow is always a bovine. Same same for pretentious. Pretending is not always pretentious, but pretentious is always pretending.
(And on preview, hello Miller!)
And I would respect whatever interpretation you might have taken since you would know best the history between you and him, the flow of the discussions you’ve had with him over time, and your own life experiences with him that have shaped your perceptions of what he says to you.
Oh for crying out loud, Liberal. What will it take to get you to accept that your cherry picking of definitions and your insistence that that cherry-picking is the only possible way the word was meant is only due to your intransigence? So far, in this thread alone, you have been shown that your definitions of skeptical, liberal, and pretentious are only your desired interpretations and have nothing to do with the meaning meant either by the referenced uses or in the vernacular.
As evidenced even by Czarcasm’s bewilderment, pretending was not meant to mean pretentious. Pretentious is what you are in this thread. Not only that, for someone as smart as you are, you’re being awfully fucking stupid.
Because personally, I doubt a single non-ESL Doper will agree with you. Because in this bit:
is wrong. No, it’s not “i.e.” pretending to be something you aren’t when you lop off the important bit, i.e. “distinction or merit, especially when unjustified”. That is what pretty much everyone understands the word to mean. It’s almost like you discovered the word “pretentious” for the first time ever, and decided to use it. To further decide, why not stick it in an online thesaurus and see if any synonyms jibe with your description of Czarcasm’s post.
Do we really need another thread about how Liberal picks and chooses his own definitions for words so that they suit whatever he is trying to complain about instead of what they actually mean? Because I thought that was old news.
Unless they read to the end of the thread, where I point out that you cherry-picked ONE definition from ONE dictionary and used some slightly tortured reasoning to come to the conclusion that you did. Your definition doesn’t even appear in most dictionaries. How typically disingenuous of you.
I am not reading the whole thread. But the irrational fear of mankind is anthropophobia; the fear of gooms, or “men” is androphobia; homophobia is “fear of the same,” which if not a category error in logosynthesis might mean fear of people like oneself.
Then why didn’t you say that Poly, who agreed with me, was disingenuous as well? And what about the cites given from leaders on the religious right who condemned Robertson and his looney ideas? You should be ashamed that, amidst all that discussion among all those people, you swooped by for no reason other than to call one poster — who, unlike you, cited sources — some irrelevant name with an ambiguous term that took fifty-three people three pages to figure out.
Well, if I was disingenuous for actually providing proof that Robertson is fringe, and Poly was not disingenuous for making the same argument, then I guess you’re just whatever word you people use to mean “fucked up”.
Doesn’t look like Polycarp actually participated in that thread, so that might be why Czarcasm let “the most non-disingenuos guy on the boards” off the hook this one time. Also, Czarcasm was specifically addressing [post=8246070]your blaming it all on CNN, Fox and gullible people[/post], which I hadn’t noticed others do.
Which makes it quite clear to us English speakers what he was accusing you of.
Or maybe you’re being persecuted? That seems just as likely, I suppose.
My apologies to Poly and Tom for confusing them. They are equally good men.
You English speakers should learn how to write prepositional phrases. I never said anything was limited to Fox and CNN. Fox and CNN were the sources Gonzomax cited, and about which I responded. And it was my first mention of the two at all — 232 posts into the thread. You don’t give a damn what was said, but only who said it. And that’s not persecution on your part; it’s deliberate ignorance. Pretense. Disingenuousness. Whatever word you like.
Hey, I’m just reporting what Czarcasm said and what he was responding to. He said “you know” that’s not true, implying you were disingenuous. That’s me understanding English. Your request for prepositional phrases and stated rebuttal of his point is moot here.
Good thing he has you to help, I reckon. Again, “Fox and CNN” were used by Gonzomax, and so were referenced in response to him. In fact, for most of the thread to that point, almost everyone referenced CNN only. Any complaint about that? Didn’t think so.
Actually, no complaint about that. [post=8246120]You[/post] and [post=8246107]Lord Ashtar[/post] correctly pointed it out to Czarcasm in that thread immediately afterwards. So there you go.
What THIS thread was about was your quibbling over the (mis-)use of “skepticism” and has been hijacked into your misuse of the word “pretentious” and failing to grasp “disingenuous” as the better descriptor. But since you’ve apparently [post=8311715]relented on the point[/post], I guess there’s no point draggiing out the hijack any longer.
