[QUOTE=magellan01]
Understood. I’ll see if I could muster something up.
[/QUOTE]
Fuck you, you canker-sore laden, hypocritical, vomitous buffoon. I have shits more intelligent than you. I’d ask you to think before you hit ‘submit reply,’ but we all know that’s impossible.
How many smileys do I need to indicate I’m joking. Let’s try four. 
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
I don’t see any evidence of trolling here. Kalhoun explained her reasons for how she writes various religious names. They clearly appear to be tied up in her personal views of religion and seem to be applied throughout her life, not just on the boards. The fact that many board members belong to a group that Kalhoun opposes and wants to protest against does not make her behavior trolling. Moreover, I think it would be a very bad idea for the staff to insist that someone obey certain religious customs, even ones as minor and mainstream as this.
To put things another way, let’s suppose Obama gets elected amid claims of electoral fraud. A longtime poster strongly feels that his election was wrong and states that they will never refer to him as President Obama, but only Mr. Obama or Barack. Further, they hope that doing so will remind Democrats that their man shouldn’t be president. Others are angry, saying it’s common courtesy to use the honorific even if you disagree with the man’s politics or how he was elected. Should we force the poster to use the phrase President Obama if we know that they’re deliberating avoiding it to anger people? Do we then force everyone to use the phrase President Obama?
Rules and mod intervention are not the right solution to these kinds of problems. (Graphic obscenities and inflamed rhetoric are.)
[/QUOTE]
Hypothetically, what if someone said they’re going to call him “Obama” just to be annoying?
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Hypothetically, what if someone said they’re going to call him “Obama” just to be annoying?
[/QUOTE]
Realistically, would anyone notice? It’s pretty rare to use the title around here. Even posts that are not anti-Bush (yes, there are a few) just say “Bush”. I myself occasionally say “Bush41” and “Bush43” in posts that discuss them both, just to save confusion. If Obama gets elected, I predict the vast majority of posts about him will just use his surname.
It’s a pretty fucking lame protest if you’d have to explain it each time.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Realistically, would anyone notice? It’s pretty rare to use the title around here. Even posts that are not anti-Bush (yes, there are a few) just say “Bush”. I myself occasionally say “Bush41” and “Bush43” in posts that discuss them both, just to save confusion. If Obama gets elected, I predict the vast majority of posts about him will just use his surname.
It’s a pretty fucking lame protest if you’d have to explain it each time.
[/QUOTE]
True. Perhaps I’d have to go the extra mile in order to be noticed. How about if I said
?
[QUOTE=Autolycus]
Fuck you, you canker-sore laden, hypocritical, vomitous buffoon. I have shits more intelligent than you. I’d ask you to think before you hit ‘submit reply,’ but we all know that’s impossible.
How many smileys do I need to indicate I’m joking. Let’s try four.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it’s a start. I was optimistic as I started to read, but it fell off for me after buffoon. It might be worth working on though.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
True. Perhaps I’d have to go the extra mile in order to be noticed. How about if I said “President” Obama ?
[/QUOTE]
Protests are supposed to call attention to something. In your opinion, she’s being a whiny protesty bitch. In her opinion, she’s accomplishing what she set out to do. Is there ever going to be agreement on this? Not likely.
Why are we still talking about it?
Did I say “whiny, protesty bitch”? I did not. I did, however, find myself indulging in a quick :dubious: at the free admission that this behaviour is intended to annoy, given that it’s not historically been confined to the proper venue for posting annoyance.
I mean, I got the point some time ago: “Look at me! I don’t believe in God! I don’t believe in Jesus! I don’t believe the Bible! Look at me! Look at me! Look at meeeeee!!!one!”. In my opinion it rather detracts from the force of any of the perpetrator’s arguments rather than reinforcing them.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
I mean, I got the point some time ago: “Look at me! I don’t believe in God! I don’t believe in Jesus! I don’t believe the Bible! Look at me! Look at me! Look at meeeeee!!!one!”. In my opinion it rather detracts from the force of any of the perpetrator’s arguments rather than reinforcing them.
[/QUOTE]
I know. That’s what you think the point is. It’s not what she thinks the point is. I don’t think there’s going to be much agreement about it.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Kalhoun, what if you met someone whose name was Jesus, as in “Hey-Zeus?”
[/QUOTE]
I work with a couple of Jesuses (Jesai??) I cap 'em. And not in the ass, either.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I work with a couple of Jesuses (Jesai??) I cap 'em. And not in the ass, either.
[/QUOTE]
“Jesus” is fourth declension in Latin, which makes the plural form “Jesus” too, but with a long u (think of it as the plural of “Jesu” and you’re there). “Jesu” is indeed the vocative, hence its use in Latin hymns addressed to him. By him, of course, I mean “jesus”, and not just any old Jesus.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
“Jesus” is fourth declension in Latin, which makes the plural form “Jesus” too, but with a long u (think of it as the plural of “Jesu” and you’re there). “Jesu” is indeed the vocative, hence its use in Latin hymns addressed to him. By him, of course, I mean “jesus”, and not just any old Jesus.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
My pleasure. Obviously random stuff sticks here and there - I kinda remembered about the fourth-declension thing without really knowing why. The name could perfectly well have been second, plural Jesi, or third, plural Jeses, being a foreign import into Latin, but knowing there was a “Jesu” form about the place was a pointer. Apparently from the link “Jesus” is an oddball even as a fourth-declension noun, but then this is an unusual form anyway - rather commoner than fifth, but still unusual.
I personally think most Latin-speakers must have been horribly barbarous in their mother tongue. There’s entirely too much grammar in it, and I doubt they were much better in the rank and file than the shining lights of our own generation who say things like “a pacific example” or “irregardless”.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
True. Perhaps I’d have to go the extra mile in order to be noticed. How about if I said ?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
“President” Obama
[/quote]
I think the proper response would be to hyperventilate, and then I would start swearing like crazy for several posts when I couldn’t change your mind, using the word “cunt” a lot.
:rolleyes:
Is it wrong to refer to the current president as “The Pinhead In Chief?”
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I think the proper response would be to hyperventilate, and then I would start swearing like crazy for several posts when I couldn’t change your mind, using the word “cunt” a lot.
:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
I suppose you might, but I try to keep who posted what straight, and not merely assume that those who appear to be broadly on the same side of the divide necessarily agree with each other down to the last particle.
@Kalhoun. Wrong? I thought it was de rigueur.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
I suppose you might, but I try to keep who posted what straight, and not merely assume that those who appear to be broadly on the same side of the divide necessarily agree with each other down to the last particle.
@Kalhoun. Wrong? I thought it was de rigueur.
[/QUOTE]
Clever, but you’ve completely missed the point.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Clever, but you’ve completely missed the point.
[/QUOTE]
I’d have to call for a ruling on it. I’m fairly sure that if you actually said you did it (at least in part) to inflame 'Pubbies, and were notorious for doing it in every forum and not just the Pit, you would… attract opprobrium.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
I suppose you might, but I try to keep who posted what straight, and not merely assume that those who appear to be broadly on the same side of the divide necessarily agree with each other down to the last particle.
[/QUOTE]
I apologize. In my(weak) defense, I was running late for a meeting, and had thought I had cut and pasted the line “…following the example of certain other posters in this thread” at the end of my diatribe, before I rushed out the door to catch tyhe #35 bus.
Which was 45 minutes late, making said rush out the door totally pointless. Karma can be a swift and vidictive bitch, sometimes.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I apologize. In my(weak) defense, I was running late for a meeting, and had thought I had cut and pasted the line “…following the example of certain other posters in this thread” at the end of my diatribe, before I rushed out the door to catch tyhe #35 bus.
Which was 45 minutes late, making said rush out the door totally pointless. Karma can be a swift and vidictive bitch, sometimes.
[/QUOTE]
John 8:7 (second half). 
I see your public transport system sucks as mightily as ours. Last train I caught was late by a similar amount owing to reports of sheep on the line. :smack:
Hijack to Guin’s post of three days ago re: Msgr. Romero: They shot him in front a church full of people while he was holding up God? That has got to be the worst public-relations move I have ever heard of in my life; it would still be the worst even if he was only holding God, or god, or even (god).
Re: the OP: I love you all! God likes you as a friend.