Cecil covered this topic several years ago:
It was called “rose” or “rosy” before that.
It’s one of two colors I can think of that derive their name from an object that is that colour, the other being orange.
What I don’t understand is why people just up and switched what they called it.
I met my wife online the first time. We chatted about Warren Zevon and a few other things… I subsequently went to a baseball game made up of online users, and there was a woman there getting yelled at by a couple of guys. I went over and told them to back off and be civil, it’s just a fun game. They backed off, and I discovered that the woman in question was the woman I had been chatting with about Zevon. The rest is history.
I am flattered by the amount of time you’ve spent researching the past of a board user. You must have a lot of free time.
I am confused by the concept of ‘trolling’ in the pit. That’s all people in the pit do to other members. I’ve been getting trolled in the pit for years. I can’t imagine a rule like ‘no trolling’ when you are allowed to call people any name you want, accuse them of lying without evidence, pile up on them with mockery… But no trolling!
I guess they just liked it better that way
Ballsy move! But hang on a second.
You were chatting online with a bunch of friends so loudly that your future wife overheard the conversation because she was in earshot? You’re doing the internet wrong; you’re not supposed to actually talk to your computer when you type things on it, much less loudly enough to be overheard by your future wife. Also, you’re lying.
THAT I don’t remember. It’s not quite what happened, but close. We were chatting online privately, not with a group of people. Maybe I misremembered it as a teleconference communication with a group or something. We did get engaged and married in those timeframes. I don’t know why I misremembered that at the time - you are dragging up a post from 20 years ago.
Intellectual narcissism manifests in individuals who place excessive importance on their intellectual abilities and achievements. Here are some key characteristics of cerebral narcissists:
- Intellectual Superiority: Cerebral narcissists see themselves as intellectually superior to others. They believe their cognitive abilities set them apart and make them exceptional.
- Egocentrism: They tend to be egocentric, focusing primarily on their own thoughts, ideas, and achievements. Conversations often revolve around their intellectual pursuits.
- Using Intelligence Against Others: Cerebral narcissists weaponize their intelligence. They may use it to belittle or manipulate others, especially when their ideas or viewpoints are challenged.
- Downplaying Others’ Abilities: They downplay the intellectual abilities of those around them. Instead of appreciating diverse perspectives, they dismiss others’ insights.
- Pretentious Attitude: Cerebral narcissists exhibit a pretentious attitude, emphasizing their intellectual achievements and expecting admiration for their brilliance.
When dealing with a cerebral narcissist, it’s essential to set boundaries and recognize that their opinion isn’t necessarily reality. [Remember that their intellectual confidence doesn’t always reflect objective truth]
Captain Renault: What in heaven’s name brought you to Casablanca?
Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Captain Renault: The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert.
Rick: I was misinformed.
It is important to acknowledge the misinformation and to not fall for it again. Racist or fascist sources mislead others by not being able to identify sarcasm or falling into thinking that sarcasm from the organizations they hate is never a parody.
Just a thought.
This is why I do ask for the ones claiming superiority and that experts out there are not correct that then I want to see the cites from the experts they claim to agree with their opinions. (I’m not smart enough to be an expert, but I know that bullies do abuse science too)
Some, like you, do know that doing that would not be good because you are smart enough to realize that your cites would stink.
Sam finally pointed at a possible cite that showed something else. After claiming that science is king in his feeds, It became clear that he does follow very reprehensible sources of information to make his points.
When you open a conversation with “I know fuck-all about this topic” you shouldn’t be the one setting boundaries. You should be the one listening.
To be fair it’s easy to misremember anecdotes. Memory is a funny thing. I do commend you for acknowledging your mistake.
No snark meant, I frankly don’t think it’s fair to attack you on something like this.
You think it’s normal to have three distinct stories about how you met your wife? If he had told the same story with different details, maybe, but three completely unrelated scenarios?
It’s even more difficult to remember that you said something twenty years ago that rubbishes what you’re making up now to bolster your shitty self-martyrdom narrative.
But I guess there’s a sucker born every minute.
There’s a desperate need in some minds to keep some deplorable folks around.
This has come up over and over. If I open a post it is because I don’t know fuck all about it. I do something that I would think is helpful in opening a post but it always seems to backfire. I try to lay out my current understanding of something and what it is based on knowing full well the entire theory might collapse once I understand something better. By explaining how I arrived at where I am I am not making any claims of facts or knowledge, on the contrary I am making it easier on anyone responding to see the errors in my thinking and where to approach it from. Without fail this always backfires on me and I don’t think that is my fault. There seems to be a total lack of ability here to read something and keep an open mind.
.
“Explain to me why the Jews were the real Nazis. I don’t want to discuss IF they are the real Nazis!”
Stupid motherfucker.
One boundary is your login screen.
Mysteriously this doesn’t happen to other people. I could try to explain why (again), but I don’t want to be cerebrally narcissistic, so I’ll leave it to you to ponder. But…
Hint: it is your fault.
In this genetics thing, when people (as in literally everyone other than you who commented on the topic) told you your theory was completely wrong, you didn’t seem to accept that. You acted like we didn’t understand what you were saying, or that we were getting off topic.
We weren’t, your theory is wrong, and its wrongness doesn’t depend on your understanding. The theory doesn’t collapse once you understand better, it collapses because it’s wrong. It isn’t worth discussing, because the theory is wrong, entirely wrong, there’s nothing about it that describes the world we live in.
If you want to discuss this concept, you need to frame the discussion as a big ole WHAT IF THIS WERE TRUE? What would the world look like if this is how traits were passed on? Then people could come up with their fantastical ideas based on this fictional concept.
No, there aren’t, because the theory is wrong. It’s just wrong. There are zero things worth looking at. It doesn’t matter what you “suspect” influences offspring, because the theory is entirely wrong.
The ultimate in irony, of course, is that not only did @Joey_P read the posts, he linked them, and quoted them, *using them correctly to prove the point Joey_P was making.
Not only is every word of that, including but and and, a lie, so is every punctuation mark.
That comma seems to have an honest face.