The quote, in context:
I’m not sure how Ryan intends to spin this so it can, some how, be interpreted that he never actually said what he just said. I look forward to his inevitable explanation with equal parts trepidation and ennui.
The Ryan sure spends a lot of time maliciously accusing others of lying about him, and goes to great lengths to argue that black is white. Something is seriously wrong with him. Whether he is deliberately obtuse or he simply can not help himself is an interesting point, but either way, the fellow is bent.
I’ve lost interest in that question, Muffin, either way, it’s a waste of time.
No spinning is necessary. The dishonesty is quite evident. The fact that you can pretend to not see it says quite a bit about your honesty. Are you really saying that you don’t see a problem with this? Would it be accurate for me to claim that you said “Eddy, the OP here is a miracle of clarity”?
Following Muffin’s standard of truth:
Somthing sure is!
Yes, you are maliciously accusing others of lying. Yes, you argue that black is white. Yes, there is something seriously wrong with you.
In fact, it would be entirely accurate to claim that I said such a thing, for I did, indeed, say just that. Your re-quote doesn’t even drastically alter the meaning of what I said, because as long as it’s evident that it refers to one of your OPs, the ironic intent is unmistakable.
Now, if I’m wrong there, and someone thinks that I was serious when I wrote that, there’s a very simple fix: I point out to them that I was not being serious, and re-state my position so that it is less ambiguous. You, on the other hand, would simply accuse the other person of lying. As you did here: Ryan, I posted your original quote, in full, and stated my opinion that Muffin’s redaction of it did not significantly alter its meaning. How is that dishonest? What information am I distorting or withholding? None, of course. What am I lying about? My own opinion? That’s not dishonesty, and the fact that you think it is says more about you’re reading comprehension than anything else.
Now, you obviously disagree with my opinion, but only because, as usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Literally! You simply can’t comprehend that somebody might read what you’ve written and come away with a different interpretation than the one you intended. So, as usual, you start in with the accusations of dishonesty, because it’s easier for you to believe that you’re surrounded by dissemblers and prevaricators than accept the fact that you’re a blithering idiot who can’t understand the simplest written English. Unfortunetly for you, you’re only fooling yourself. You can call Muffin and Coldfire and myself liars until you’re blue in the face, but most of the other posters here have long since stopped listening to anything you have to say. Except, as I’ve done here, when they use you as an exercise for their own rhetoric. You’re a joke, Ryan, and an old one at that.
Umm, no. Not “the Church”- one Cardinal. And, we only have (AFAIK) one (highly biased) sites interpretation of what that Cardinal said. Not that I doubt that that Cardinal said something that could be interpreted to mean that. If so, he is a Loon. However, I haven’t see that exact words- especially IN CONTEXT- have you?
But this is like taking one US Senators words, and then saying “this is the USA’s new stand on xxxx”. Especially if those words are out of context.
Indeed. If I could impart one message to The Ryan, it would be this - “Message sent is message received.” Learn it, live it, love it.
Esprix
Alrighty then, I’ll hold you to that.
And you continue your pattern of disrespecting the truth. I did not accuse you of lying, I said that you were dishonest. There is a difference. I don’t believe that you honestly evaluated Muffin’s quote, rather than simply siding against me in a knee-jerk fashion. You have hardly impressed me with you lack of bias.
Nah… too easy.
When you put in the words “originally posted by”, you are not presenting an interpretation, you are claiming that it is a direct quote.
I am not the one unable to comprehend neither quote marks nor question marks. And really, your statement makes no sense. If you truly believe that I can’t understand English, then posting in English would be quite silly. Clearly, you do believe I understand English. And when my critics resort to outright lying, and support of lies, the whole “maybe the problem is on my side” hypothesis suffers a severe blow.
At least there’s one thing you said that I agree with.
DrDeth
It was not a parody of the Cardinal specifically, but of a composite of widely held views. The idea that people should not take measures to avoid the consequences of not going along with Catholic teachings is hardly a “new” one among Catholics.
And in one sentence, you perfectly sum up exactly why nobody on the boards takes you seriously. You say I have a pattern of disrespecting the truth, you say I’m dishonest, but you didn’t say I was a liar? See, this is what I meant when I said you can’t understand the simplest English. How can anyone with an adult understanding of the language not see that, when you call someone dishonest, you are calling them a liar? This isn’t semantics, or spin, or misrepresentation. This is how the English language works.
And I am biased against you. Your previous contributions to the board have been so uniformly without merit, I now assume that whatever you have to say will be meaningless by default. Biases are not always a bad thing, when they are based on knowledge and not ignorance.
The stuff between the quote tags is a direct quote. The stuff written underneath is based on that posters interpretation of what the stuff between the quote tags means. If the stuff underneath doesn’t match the stuff between the tags, it’s not necessarily because one party or the other is dishonest: it could be a simple matter of miscommunication. You never give anyone the benefit of that doubt, though. Whenever anyone misunderstands what you’re saying, you consistently jump to accusations of deliberate dishonesty.
In point of fact, I have genuine doubts about your ability to understand English. You have a sizable vocabulary, you have a solid grasp of spelling and grammar, but you have no holisitic understanding of how communication works. You communicate on the rigidly literal level of a child. You don’t understand shades of meaning, implication, subtext, homonyms, hyperbole, or rhetoric, even when you employ them yourself. Which is why, when people react to what you’ve posted as if you knew what you were talking about, you inevitably blow a gasket and start accusing all and sundry of lying about you. I used to think this was kind of pathetic, but now it just makes me laugh.
Well thank you very much, Miller. Now we’re going to be treated to another four pages dissecting the words “disrespecting,” “dishonest,” “liar,” “semantics,” “spin” and “misrepresentation.”
Bastard!
Esprix
And, the award for the most idiotic Pit thread goes to…
:::drum roll:::
Seriously, guys, how did it get to this level? Everyone, go grab a beer and chill out. All Hallow’s Eve is tommorow, so if you must be demonic, wait until then, eh?
I don’t eat animals and am not a Catholic. However, I do believe that arguing on-line is no way to spend one’s life.
Do the posters of this thread (some have been members for some time) ever post a comment that isn’t hostile? I wonder why y’all have to debate all the time as opposed to talking with the members of the SDMB.
Mess with ETF and you’ll have me to contend with, guys.
Excuse me. I have sausage in the refrigerator that clearly states that the second ingredient is beef hearts. So I take exception to that statement.
Thanks for your useless input. Next time, if you’re not interested in the topic, don’t read the thread.
Esprix
I am actually quite interested in the topic, but you guys don’t seem to be coming to a conclusion, and it looks like USELESS bitching at this point. So, I’d suggest you form a group and present a conclusive argument. Damn, isn’t there anything you guys can fight over besides politics? It’s freaking NFL/NBA/NHL time!
Having read through the pointless, sniping bitchfest you and Diane went through in the "Why was Zenster banned thread, I submit that you should just shut the fuck up before you make yourself look any dumber.
Well, that would be MY first time to fly off the handle and appear to be a hostile idiot, Miller. And I regret losing my temper in that thread. However, I don’t routinely jump on the board and scream at strangers. I am absolutely unconcerned about “looking any dumber”, hon. I would, however, have problems sleeping if my life revolved around sniping and debating on the SDMB.
And a Happy All Hallow’s Eve to you.
Maybe it’s a bad day for anybody to post to a thread in which The Ryan is involved.
Me, I find his posts too confusing to attempt to unravel. So I’m outta here. Back to MPSIMS, where I belong.
Are you coming along, Blonde?
Yes, I am, hon. It’s a little hot in here.
Not hard to see why, either.