So you regard it as reasonable to use a quote to say what you mean, but then when called on it, deny you’ve “said” it on the basis all you did was quote?
I believe I intended a bit of mockery concerning religious imagery referenced by Shodan in his thread title.
“A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.”
Precisely what I meant. Starting with Happy, there appears to be an idea transmitted through this thread that I’m terribly upset about this, despite what the OP specifically says about the importance of the whole deal.
Shodan, you’re going to have to wait for Lib to drop back in. He’s the one that’s seen them. He may have run a ruler over them.
You quote the definition and still don’t know what it means. The word meme annoys me when it is used properly. The way you are using it makes me slam my head into the table.
You know, what, dickwad? Elsewhere on the internet, I can find people who are arguing with a straight face that the only reasonable stance is to oppose gay marriage because marriage was instituted by (their idea of) God, who is clearly opposed (in their opinion) to gays doing anything but taking cold showers.
What they have in common with you is that their attitude is that their (and your) “enlightened” understanding of The Truth is one that needs to be forced on everyone else. Australia used to be a free country, where one could arrive at one’s own conclusions, not have them mandated by some self-righteous prick. America still is, at least for the moment.
Shodan used a deliciously ironic Shakespeare quote to wish badchad bon voyage. I found it hilarious, not because I happen to share Shodan’s religious beliefs, but from the perfect juxtaposition of the quote from Hamlet and the banning of BC.
I do not believe Christianity should “get a free pass” around here – I think civil debate on its views and whether they are superstitious is in order. But that means from an open, level playing field where people are free to present their cases without snide side comments or harassment – and certainly not that the Almighty Princhester has the authority to define for the rest of the Dope what is or is not superstitious from the exalted depths of wherever you pull your certitude from.
Ah, I see that it means more than I thought it meant. I made the mistake of thinking that I knew what it meant because I read the book in which Dawkins coined it. Silly me. Thanks for fighting my ignorance.
know I was using it loosely and I apologise for that. I know how it is used strictly. The problem is it’s such a damn good concept it’s tempting to use it other than as originally coined.
A word annoying you when used properly is something you’ll just have to sort out for yourself, though.
Then why did you respond as if it was? And started another thread specifically referencing them in the title?
You now claim to have “gotten” that it was a literary reference. Like was said, do you interrupt every performance of Shakespeare to contradict whatever you find questionable in the dialog?
I don’t have time to add “close-captioned for the atheist drama queens” to every farging thing I post. You might consider growing a pair, or something.
added on preview
Substitute the phrase “literary quotation” in the above, and see if it still sounds the same.
I have reached certain conclusions that I occasionally but frankly seldom espouse on this message board, and almost never anywhere else. I am honestly surprised that you, Polycarp, find yourself so enraged at that you spout some complete and utter bullshit about me wanting to mandate conclusions and force attitudes.
You have to use a little imagination and realise that angels may not have been the point per se
Do you usually regard a post in a thread as an interruption? Or do you only view a post as an “interruption” when it is an inconvenient barb in what was otherwise enjoyable circle jerk?
So what was your point? To prove to everyone what a humorless git you are? Do you have no concept of irony, or sarcasm, or is everything completely and totally literal for you? No such thing as a figure of speech?
If the vast majority are misinterpreting what you’ve said, I don’t believe the problem is on our end. It’s not our job to try and decipher every cryptic comment you make.
I think I did respond to what you said. You said, “So if I don’t know how the fuck Shodan arrives at the conclusion that I didn’t know his thread title was from Shakespeare, and it annoys me that he makes that assumption.”
So I responded that it sounds like you’re upset because Shodan thinks you’re dumb. He made an assumption about your intelligence, and it upset you. I’m just going off what you said.
Huh? But this might be the reason why you think I’m making wildass assumptions. I can’t figure out what the hell you’re even talking about a good deal of the time here. Just explain to me, without using paranthetical asides or “quotes,” why you are so upset at Shodan. If you can’t then I’ll just go on assuming you just like getting pissy in Pit threads when someone assumes you’re ignorant of something.
No, I think I can use the facts and still portray you as unreasonably hysterical. Or at least pissy and whiny. And obtuse. And condescending. And wont to starting really lame arguments in the Pit.
Wait wait, are we being whooshed? Is this a parody thread?
