Reading Comprehension 101

You know, I don’t expect everyone to like me. In fact, I expect a lot of people not to, because I’m opinionated about controversial topics, I’m frequently profane, I’m an iconoclast and I’m abrasive.

But don’t fucking mischaracterize what I say, OK? I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. I don’t say stuff just to hear myself talk. If you have a problem with what I say, fine. Tell me. But don’t start getting in my shit because of what you think or hope I said. If you don’t fucking understand what I said, ask me. I will restate it to the best of my ability.

I another thread (“Goodbye Sweetness” in MPSIMS), Omniscient referred to “further exposing my hypocrisy” or some such claptrap. Let’s take a look at the old M-W and see what “hypocrisy” means, shall we?

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

Let’s see, did I pretend to be something I’m not? No. Did I say something I don’t mean? No. Did I take on an appearance of virtue or religion? No. (Some would say I did exactly the opposite.) I gave my opinion, I explained and re-explained it, and defended it. Don’t use words to criticize me if you don’t understand what the hell they mean!

And argue with me, OK? Not some puppet in your head that’s talking in my voice but saying something I didn’t.

“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

NB: Yes, I know, I am responding to my own OP like a big loser.

The other example besides Omniscient’s was Sly’s, in the “God and Death” thread in GD. He said something about understanding death after a full life, but not at 23 or 42. I asked why, and quipped that it reminded me of a Homer Simpson comment (“76.2 years? But I’m already 38.1! I’m only guaranteed another 38.1 years!”)

Sly’s response? That “the foundation of my opinion is a cartoon character.” Well, that isn’t what I fucking said. I used a humorous comment as an explanatory tool for the idea that there is no promise of any particular span of life for anyone.

Argue with what I say, not what you think I said.

“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

Phil, I really don’t understand what you said in the “Goodbye Sweetness” thread which has people so friggin’ upset. I basically expressed identical views, but you seem to be taking all the heat over there. Maybe that’s my inability to express myself clearly, but I don’t think so.

Maybe there’s more to it than meets the eye or I have missed a confrontation between you and the posters who are targeting you with their wrath. It is beginning to look more like a personal attack rather than disagreement with your opinions.

If you guys are going to attack ideas, then do so consistently. Singling out one poster to condemn just doesn’t cut it. I was on the verge yesterday of taking this to the pit also, but it seemed things had cooled off a bit. Well, today it got hot again in a particularly personal way, so here we are.

Phil, I’d be happy to backstop you on this one if you want. If not, say so and I’ll butt out.

Phil, I read the “Sweetness” thread and I was inspired. I’m posting a copy of my post there in this thread as well.

Let’s see, Phil asks a perfectly valid question, (Why does anyone deserve – or not deserve to die and when has that had anything to do with it?) make a fairly inspirational statement (Let’s all appreciate what life we have…) and he’s attacked as insensative, hypocritical and on and on.
Hmmm… Phil did NOT:

  1. Attack Walter Payton
  2. Say he deserved to die
  3. Make any comment about the life, worth or character of Walter Payton

Yet some of you viciously attack him for daring to question our culture’s celebrity worship. Perhaps Phil’s timing was a little insensitive. But any reg around here knows he’s on the iconoclastic side. Why don’t you read what he’s actually written before you make wild accusations.

For the record, I was a fan of Walter Payton’s. He was a HELL of a football player. According to the media, he was a good man in his personal life as well, which I have no reason to doubt. His death was sad.

But most deaths are sad. And what disturbs me (and probably Phil as well, although I would never presume to speak for him) is that the celebrity building process urges us to form more of an emotional attachment to people we know only through the media than we do to people who are actually in our lives. It’s implicit that somehow famous people are worth more than the rest of us. This is wrong. There are people just as great as Walter Payton on every block of every town in the world. Let us not become so absorbed in the praising of famous men that we cannot recognize the humanity of our neighbor.

I respect and share your grief for Walter Payton. I also understand and share Phil’s belief that death has nothing to do with whether you deserve it or not. When I consider people who have died young, famous and otherwise, I can only come to the same conclusion that Phil did – appreciate the life you have, don’t take it for granted, live it to the fullest.


Personally, I don’t care whether you want my support or not. It’s my opinion and I’m expressing it. (since this is the Pit, I feel obligated to keep this from being a little love fest) And fuck you if you don’t like it, you pus sucking vermin, you.

I can perfectly understand what Phil said in the Sweetness thread.

However, that won’t stop me from being sad, for several reasons, not the least of which being that my stepfather, who is very close in age to Payton, also has a chronic and eventually terminal liver disease. And I liked watching him play.

I won’t jump on Phil’s back, though, because he has a perfectly valid point. Were it just about any other celebrity dying of just about any other cause, I would have been right there with him.

And I think I responded to Phil’s questions with relevant answers of my own. Whether he agreed with them is unlikely, but I’ll assume he thought they were at least presented in a non-abusive manner because he did not respond to my posts - Even the one that mentioned him specifically.

Yer pal,

there is someone else dealing with the same problems as i am. granted that there might be different reasons, but the conclusion remains the same.
people are frequently complaining that my posts are confusing and stuff, but at the same time there are others who say they can understand what i am saying. to me this is pretty simple, death to stupid people!(now some people are bound to misunderstand this hehehe ;)). but explaining it now before trouble starts, who am i calling stupid? some might think that i am calling the people i said didnt understand my posts stupid, and i want them dead. but that isnt the case. some people just misunderstand some things said due to no fault of their own. what is their fault is on the other hand when they go upon a crusade against their understanding of the given subject. a subject originally given another meaning by the original speaker.
well hell, now im going to have to explain myself again.

  1. you have a speaker who brings up a subject and provides statements for that subject.
  2. a reader interpets those statements in his own way(all good and well) but perhaps sees the subject from a different point of view, justifying or condemning it for reasons not intended by the original speaker.
  3. the reader now embarks on a crusade to prove the original speaker wrong, but fails to see his point of view or didnt grasp every meaning included in his statements.(that is where the reader fails)
  4. so the conclusion is that the reader is right based on his own conclusions, but he has no right to argue the statements provided by the original speaker because argument isnt from the same source. meaning you have got to argue the subject from the speakers point of view.
  5. so the correct protocol would be to ask the speaker to clarify a few things before crusading against him under false statements.
  6. the reader cant be called stupid for his assumption or conclusion of the statements meanings. but it can be said that he is wrong, from the speakers point of view of course.
  7. and that is what it is all about, the speakers point of view. but sometimes the reader thinks he understands the speakers point of view, but really doesnt. that is when trouble arises.

thank you for your time…i do hope the subject shines through my statements.

not a case-sensitive person, but a space-sensitive one.

My complaints with your “Sweetness” posts weren’t that they weren’t true- they were just tactless. As someone on the SDMB said, “would people have listened to Einstein if he called everyone “asswipe”?”.

In addition, you were only harping on comments Satan made and then revised. Your posts were strawmen arguments. Your “sarcastic” post didn’t have anything that anyone on that thread had said.

I had ignored this one because…well…I couldn’t comprehend it. I don’t know if there’s anyone that the “multitudes” know of that isn’t famous- thats the definition of fame.

I only knew of him because he was famous. I don’t miss him because he was famous, but for the person that he was.

Damn Phil, I wish I would have had your OP to plagarize back in the days of my “Does She Even Know His Name” when the dipshit twins, Con #3 and Rich Barr, had problems with that little puppet in their head talking in my voice (I love this analogy).

Seven days of sex makes a whole week.

Its like the time when Princess Diana died. There was like national mourning in america. Because she was famous? Well,how else would they have known who she was? Lots of good decent people die every day,but they don’t get on the news.

You will please note that I used no profanity of any kind, nor did I uses any such personal insult, until Omniscient started with his gratuitous personal insults. Please, please, I beg you, do NOT argue with stuff I didn’t say, or make things up to make me look bad. If you have to resort to that, I cannot respond to you.

No, there was a larger point being addressed–celebrity culture. The sarcastic post was simply that.

I didn’t even say this, Mojo. That’s from someone else entirely. (Although it would appear they agree with me.) You want to address them, do so, but don’t include it in a post addressed to me. Forgetting who you’re arguing with is pretty lame.

“Argue with what I said, not what you think or hope I said.” - Me

You know, Flora McFlimsey got severely blasted in MPSIMS for daring to suggest that a Dead Athlete may have had flaws in life.

She has since retreated into the hoary netherworld, presumably due to the hostile responses she got from some posters waving their torches there. I miss her presence on the board.

Back off, man. I’m a scientist.

Pldennison, I never claimed that you used profanity. My Einstein example was to point out that, if you don’t state something tactfully, people probably won’t listen to you. Nothing more.

You post a sarcastic post about Walter Payton to a thread dedicated to Payton and claim it was directed at “celebrity culture”? I’m arguing with what you said, not what you think you said. No one had brought up the general topic of “celebrity culture” and every post except Satan’s dealt only with Payton.

I didn’t claim that the “fame” quote was from you, but I didn’t make it clear that it was from Unclebeer either. My apologies- I did not mean for it to come out that way.

Mojo, after rereading my lines you quoted, I can see why you didn’t understand them specifically. I think the overall flavor of my posts is abundantly clear, however.

I still stand by my opinions and I am unconvinced it was necessary to attack those of us who feel this way.

Sorry, paragraph trouble. Let’s try:

No, there was a larger point being addressed–celebrity culture.

The sarcastic post was simply that: sarcasm.

So I was the first to bring up celebrity culture. I don’t think I brought it up in a particularly untactful way, unless you’re saying that the very act of putting it in that thread was untactful, in which case I don’t know what to tell you. I disagree, and I don’t apologize for doing so.

“Argue with what I said, not what you think or hope I said.” - Me

yep, wrong lind of comment at the wrong time in the wrong kind of forum which is MY OPINION, which BTW is just as valid as yours anyday. Further you go on to become nasty and profane in a later post in that same thread…uncalled for in MPSIMS. You are supposed to be smart enough to know that if you’ve got to get nasty, you go to the pit.

Sorry, C#3, but that doesn’t wash, especially from you.

You, like everyone else, are (probably deliberately) mischaracterizing what went on. I was perfectly civil, although insistent, with no profanity, until Omniscient posted a gratuituous and vicious set of personal attacks on me. After that, I fought back. He chose to make his comments there, I chose to respond to them there. When told by Ed Zotti to keep it out of the thread, I moved it here.

Omniscient is the one who went on the attack and went personal. You attack me, you’re gonna get it back in spades. Period. He could’ve chosen to address the issue, but he went personal. Don’t blame me for that.

“Argue with what I said, not what you think or hope I said.” - Me

Yep, it’s one big conspiracy against you Phil. ::rolls eyes::

And, in support of my statement to which Jackoff . . . er, Contestant #3 objects here is every post I made in the thread, up until Omniscient’s, with my added comments in bold.

Please feel free to point out any profanity or vulgarity, anywhere where I tell anyone to “get over it,” anyplace where I defame or belittle Walter Payton, or any other such thing:

POST #1: posted 11-01-1999 05:55 PM

I’m curious as to why exactly Walter Payton or Payne Stewart don’t
“deserve to die.” Sorry, folks, nobody gets a free pass, especially
not for being talented and rich. We’re all gonna get it, so start
appreciating what you have.

Simple, succinct, nonvulgar, and relevant in light of the OP.
Admittedly unpopular, but still relevant.

POST #2: posted 11-02-1999 07:52 AM

So sorry for offering an opinion that differs from the prevailing one.

What I meant to say was, “Walter Payton was the bestest greatest
person to ever, ever play football or do anything else, and even
though he had achieved more fame, talent and wealth than any 10
SDMBers combined, and probably had a pretty fulfilling life, he should
have been granted permanent immunity from all illnesses and been
permitted by the Universe to live forever and ever and ever.”

Granted, this was pretty snotty, but I think it was obviously
sarcastic. It was a response to the general “how dare you disagree
with us” tone. At this point, Mojo says I’m trolling.

POST 3#: posted 11-02-1999 09:18 AM

Ah, suddenly I’m “trolling.”

No, sorry, Mojo, I’m trying to make a point, albeit one that appears
to be going over the heads of those engaged in celebrity-worship:

  1. There is no such thing as “dying before your time.” Do you have a
    card promising you life through a certain date? I sure don’t. Nobody
    does. When you die, you die.

  2. Everybody dies. Everybody. Rich & poor, famous & faceless,
    beautiful & ugly. Everybody.

  3. I’m sure Walter Payton probably was a nice guy. So, probably, were
    many of the faceless people who died yesterday who had much tougher
    lives than he did, and without all the privilege that fame and wealth
    can bring.

Even Satan said, in a thread in GQ regarding the Columbine Martyr:
“Her loss was a tragedy, but no more so than the loss of anyone else
there, including the Godless heathens.”

He died. Everyone does. Life goes on. It’s silly to me to grieve over
the death of a complete stranger merely because he was famous.

** At this point in the discussion, UncleBeer agreed with me **.

POST #4: posted 11-02-1999 12:55 PM

I think that

can be interpreted by any person of reasonable intelligence that “He
should be allowed to live longer than others,” and strongly implies
that it is because he is a famous athlete. So, yes, I do take
exception to that.

I’m still curious as to why I am not permitted to have an opinion on
the matter. I didn’t say his death was a good thing; I said that it
wasn’t any more or less important than anyone else’s in the scheme of
things, and that he didn’t deserve it any more or less than anyone

Hell, a marketing manager for one of my office’s biggest and most
well-known clients died on the EgyptAir flight, and I don’t expect you
all to grieve or particularly care, but why is his death more deserved
or less tragic than Walter Payton’s? (Hint: It isn’t.)

**At this point, Omniscient comes back with personal attacks,
including “pathetic,” “hypocrisy,” “jealous,” “disturbed individual,”
“no perspective and emotions,” and “a truly bleak life,” among others.
Ed Zotti says my reply (and, by implication, Omniscient’s post) are
inapppropriate. I tell him to delete them and I’ll repost in the Pit.

Frankd6 posts something in support of my comments. Mojo again claims
I said something I didn’t, and refers to me as an “asshole.”

Yep, I can see where I’m in the wrong, here.

“Argue with what I said, not what you think or hope I said.” - Me

Gee Phil if in the middle of my father’s eulogy you would have walked in and said something like:

I would have punched you in the nose.

And then after you picked yourself up off the floor you had gone on to say something like:

What I meant to say was, “Mr C#3 was the bestest greatest person to ever, ever live or do anything else, and even though he had achieved more fame, talent and wealth than any 10 SDMBers combined, and probably had a pretty fulfilling life, he should
have been granted permanent immunity from all illnesses and been permitted by the Universe to live forever and ever and ever.”

I would have blackened your eye.

Do you really not get the point that during eulogies it’s not the time to walk in and start trying to convince the grieving that they shouldn’t be grieving? I think that you got the response that anyone that would be as callous as to say what you said would have gotten. I hope you learned something from it.