I don’t know how many times since I’ve been an active poster to this board that I’ve seen posts where somebody decides to assume the point of view being expressed and take issue with it, rather than reading what’s said, and agreeing or disagreeing as appropriate.
What provokes this particular post is SqrlCub’s statement in the Gay Marriages/Adoptions thread in Great Debates that “I haven’t read this thread, nor do I intend to” and then taking issue with what’s posted by posting his views, which happened to be those expressed by a majority of posters to that thread, allowing for the differences that he’s actually experienced what the rest of us were reporting second-hand.
C’mon, Sqrl. I’d tell you to get your head out of your ass, but that might end up in some sort of debate on felching!
I was gonna make some inflammatory remarks about the Hoover and Aswan dams, but then I thought better of it. I’ll just save those for rec.conspiracy.concrete.structure.illuminati
Sounds like a mis-spelled description of Amsterdam’s red-light district…
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
Satan, three classes of people I go to great lengths to avoid getting upset with me: lawyers, ladies, and Methodists. And you’re offering me three for the price of one?
Still, you know the old saying about proper behavior when confronted by the foo bird?
Y’know what I think people should stop assuming? That every time somebody writes something which could be interpreted as containing a factual error, that it must have been conceived with a factual error. An example from real life:
Goofball
You know, squids are a great example of parallel evolution. They’re mollusks that have evolved a lot of the same things vertebrates have - arms, eyes, etc.
Boris B
Yeah, same thing with whales. Whale have evolved a lot fish-like characteristics -
Goofball
No no whales aren’t fish at all. They’re mammals.
And here’s a fictitious example, which I intend as a composite of my experiences at SDMB:
Boris B
So then Saladin, who was a Muslim and a warrior, drove the Crusaders out
Goofball II
Just because he was a Muslim doesn’t make him a warrior.
Goofball III
And don’t forget that the Crusaders invaded first.
Boris B
Forget nothing! I was just detailing the defeat of some Crusaders by this Muslim military leader. I was assuming people knew that the Crusaders crusaded.
Goofball III
How could he have defeated an invasion of Crusaders if the Crusaders hadn’t invaded? You really need a history lesson.
Goofball II
And there you go again with phrases like “Muslim military leader”. I must point out that some Muslims are not military leaders.
Boris B
Oh heck I’m late for vacuuming up my toenail clippings.
Goofball IV
Am I the only person on this lame bulletin board that know you don’t have to use a vacuum.
Kaylasdad
Are you calling me Mr. Badenov? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day! I really hadn’t thought of it. I hope you were calling me that, because now I’m going to unofficially extend my UserName a bit.
Look, Polycarp, all I said was, some of my best friends are squids, and it makes cephalopods look bad to have an octopus like Pap “Kill the Hexapods” Bluecannon saying
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
Boris, that’s highly offensive to rational cuttlefish and nautiluses, and a grossly overdone generalization. You should retract that statement. It is not only incorrect, it is totally molluscophobic. Besides, the Crusaders were invading!
Look, buddy, the war against cuttlefish was illegal. Unless they are a gold-fringed cuttlefish, in which case they are a martial cuttlefish.
Sorry, AuraSeer, I’m just trying to make light of my previous exercises in miscommunication. Surrealism is just sort of a knee-jerk reaction in these circumstances.
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
