Howdy, Jackmanii!
Lemme check something… Yup, you still haven’t responded to my last substantive post in your direction. And yup, that means you still don’t merit any respect.
You o’er-bilious jackanape.
Well, I see the P.C. twins are back to their tag-team routine.
Lessee, Gad, that’s about the 5th time you’ve stuck your snout in the air and proclaimed that I didn’t merit any further response from you. But you always seem to come creeping back with some lame rejoinder. At least in the media bias thread you had the pseudo-balls to post directly, as opposed to your aside in this thread.
And xenophon - you’d think someone who publicly equated the U.S. treatment of Native Americans with the Holocaustwould have the good taste to be embarassed into shutting up for awhile.
Mostly, though, you two are being very rude to The Ryan. This is his thread. If you have too much time on your hands, get your bored, bitchy, ignorant selves busy and start your own Gee-I’m-put-upon-by-Jackmannii thread.
Love and kisses.
I invite all readers to check out the thread Jackaninnie linked to and judge for themselves his reading comprehension level.
**
" you find snideness and sarcasm just as offensive as a direct assault"
"I’m not convinced it is less offensive to be snide and sarcastic than to call someone a name "(= assult directly)
??? - The only difference I see between the two statements is a lack of certainty, not a difference in meaning. So to me, it looks like you pretty much did say exactly that. You may not be absolutely sure it’s true, but you did say it.
But wait… you pissed ME off, doesn’t that mean I get to be the judge of whether you were being snippy in our thread? Wasn’t that * precisely * your contention when you said to The Ryan:
And when you reaffirmed this point in saying to me when I told you the above was not necessarily correct:
Assuming I am not mistaken in my reading of your posts, it looks to me like you want to do all the deciding for everybody… Jodi is the last word in whether others are being rude to her, and Jodi is also the last word in whether Jodi is being rude to others.
And this is fair because…?
(BTW: “merely reading” is all any of us do. The only greater understanding anyone has is our understanding of ourselves. When it comes to how you or I view the writing of someone other than ourselves, we are all equally disadvantaged, our “participation” in the thread makes no difference in that regard)
I specifically and exclusively referred to the “brain” remark, not the others, which came AFTER you got your knickers in a twist. By itself, I do not think the brain remark a big deal. After you complained about it, he stepped it up.
One more thing, regarding your contention about how pissing people off should be the measure of how rude someone is being… you have an (admittedly) extremely short fuse. I have an extremely long one. The Ryan pissed you off…an easy thing to do…you pissed me off…a hard thing to do. Does that make you worse than him?
Aw damn, do I HAVE to? Can’t I just take your word for it? PLEASE?
ohhh…alright… <sheepishly shuffling off to thread 57325>
Stoid and The Ryan sitting in a tree …
(Just to prove I can be as immature as the next.)
I’m gonna have to go with xenophon41 on that one. I read the thread and could not see where he(I’m assuming) equates U.S. treatment of Native Americans with the Holocaust. Could you be refering to this?
Or should I read that thread again?
Yes. If you rank them together and throw in a gratuitous reference to American troopers meant to evoke Nazi stormtroopers, you are implying that the events are comparable. Not an appropriate response to someone who appeared to be saying “Why are Nazis so bad? Other people did bad stuff too.” But I made my points about misunderstanding of history and denigration of the sufferings of Holocaust victims in that other discussion.
Right. Because it isn’t like the members of the U.S. Cavalry who fought the Indian Wars were actually called “Troopers” or anything as silly as that. Or that members of the Armored Cavalry and Air Cavalry are still called “Troopers” in the modern armed forces. No, that couldn’t possibly be. How could xeno engage in such a gratuitous and loaded use of the English language? :rolleyes:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/3179/troopers.html
http://www.linder.com/berserk/journ113.html
http://aircavalry17.tripod.com/
Is it physically painful when one embarrasses oneself in such a manner, or just the cause of mental anguish?
From the quotes you have provided regarding Scylla’s view on abortions…
-
Scylla believes that abortions are morally wrong. he does not believe that abortion after a rape or medical advice is morally wrong.
-
He believes that if a woman is to have an abortion, it should not be after the first trimester unless it is by Physicians advice.
3)As it is his own personal belief, and he does not believe it will be made law, he cannot see a moral or ethical conflict in what he believes.
-
Notice the difference between the first quote and the second. It will explain the fourth quote you used.
-
He is reluctantly pro-choice because of this line from the first quote you mention. “I also said that I realize that I have no right to to inflict my personal morality upon another, and force her to carry a baby she doesn’t want”
I’ll simplify.
As he believes that it is wrong to impose his own personal beliefs upon someone, he is reluctantly pro choice.
when he says he is “none the less pro-choice” it is not a contradiction, as he has already said that he is pro choice"
I will conceede that when taken out of context, his quotes may appear contradictory, but you can do that with anything.
I hope that this answers your question. I was not involved in the thread in question, yet I can understand Scylla’s point of view.
Any questions?
I’m well aware of that. As well as the need to watch’s one’s references when one is casually linking a multitude of historical events to the Holocaust.
Are you the same pldennison who criticized my comments about media bias for not having specific enough references, and who has now posted on affirmative action in Great Debates with a flood of generalities and not one specific case cited?
In other words, are you a flaming pus-wart all the time, or just on Fridays?
Hey, pld and Jack, could you start your own thread for this squabble? I’m still hoping that I might get an actual response from The Ryan for my last post.
Wow, Jack, you seem determined to establish yourself as a person incapable of reading and understanding English or following a chain of events. And you’re doing a dead-on job of it, too. Let’s follow along, shall we? I’ll attempt to use easy-to-read words.
-
During a thread on affirmative action, a lot of people who don’t work in college admissions made a lot of claims about what goes on in college admissions.
-
Since I have a good friend who has worked in college admissions, I said I would ask him for some insight into the general goings-on in the admissions process vis a vis affirmative action. (Pay attention to that word, “general.” It bears directly on things, no?)
-
He provides me with some capsule information regarding the ways which, in his professional experience and in general, affirmative action policies have been used in college admissions.
-
Nobody in the original thread asked for examples of specific cases. They asked for a general overview of how college admissions professionals use race information, if there are official preference policies, and how they are put into effect.
In short, Jack, I provided exactly the information that was requested and that I promised to provide. If you want specific cases, I will be happy to ask him to provide them, obviously without reference to the college or names, as that would be a breach of professional ethics and confidentiality. Until then, you appear bound and determined to continue embarrassing yourself. Be my guest.
(…and since I picked the wrong week to give up sniffin’ glue…)
Sorry, ENugent; I’ll try and stop the hijack right here.
pldennison, thanks.
Jack’, just pretend I said “Nazis? Nazis are bad m’kay?” And perhaps you can find room in Phil’s currently active AA thread to voice your criticisms. (See ya there.)
STOID –
Allow me to clarify. First, I was not aware that by “direct assault” you meant “calling someone a name.” “Direct assault” in my world, and I’m sure this is the fault of my profession, is something far different than calling someone a name. I NEVER said that sarcasm is as offensive as a direct assault. It is not. I did say that it CAN be as offensive to be snide and sarcastic as it is to call someone a name – but that would kind of depend on level of the sarcasm and the name that’s being called, wouldn’t it?
Sure. I just don’t have to agree with you. And if you say to me “tone down the snippiness or I walk,” I then know BOTH that I have evidently pissed you off AND that I have to make an independent decision about whether or not I want to continue the rudeness or the conversation, since I apparently can’t do both. What is so hard about this?
You may safely assume that you are totally mistaken in your reading of my posts. I find that you in particular would make this assertion to be so ironic as to be laughable, because it is you who have gratuituously stopped by to inform me that I have no right to even mildly object when someone says “Next time keep your brain on track.” I agree that someone has set herself up as the arbiter of what is objectionable or rude, but it ain’t me.
Of course it does, because the participants are the ones who care enough about the issue to post and, more importantly, they are the ones at whom the sarcasm or snideness or rudeness or insult is directed. They are the ones who decide how it feels, and they are the ones to decide whether or not they are willing to put up with it. Not you, despite your evident and incomprehensible desire to wade in after the fact and decree who can or cannot take offense.
Several things:
-
I do not care whether or not you consider the remark in question to be a “big deal” or not. It was not directed at you.
-
Not that its any of your business, I did not, as a matter of fact, consider the remark in question to be a “bid deal,” either, which is why I limited myself to informing the poster that he had the choice of being civil or seeing me walk. He apparently could not or would not constrain himself to be civil, so I walked. The end. You apparently have some reason (God knows what) to continue to construe this as something that mortally offended me. Feel free to continue to do so; but don’t expect me to assist you.
-
I have not asked you to review my posts or my posting style and make a determination of whether or not my feelings, reactions, or posts are, in your mind, defensible. I frankly don’t give a shit if you think they are or not because – again – what I say, and to whom, is none of your business.
This is again incorrect. I have never said that I have “an extremely short fuse,” because I don’t. I have a bad temper, which is not the same thing. What this means in my case (and, again, this is none of your business, but you seem hell-bent on misinterpreting me, willfully or not) is that while I do not lose my temper often, it isn’t pretty when I do. As it happened, this rather minor exchange – which you persist in recasting as something that enraged me – at no time caused me to lose my temper. In short, and again with a whole heapin’ helpin’ of irony, I never cared as much about the exchange in question as you apparently want me to, even though it is you who now maintains it was no big deal. I KNOW it was no big deal; I never reacted as if it was.
In short, feel free to butt back out at any time. I frankly doubt I’ll be willing to respond again in any event, since I never solicited your opinion and, at the end of the day, don’t really give a shit about it anyway, at least as far as this subject is concerned. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I regret responding to you in this thread in the first place, since by doing so I gave credence to your implicit assertion that you have any right to judge me, my feelings, or my actions. So I think I will simply allow everyone else who cares (if anyone does, which I doubt) to read the thread in question and reach their own conclusions on the propriety of my actions, and leave it at that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pldennison *
**
pldennison, I’ve reread your current posts on this subject and the words “general” and “generality” do not appear anywhere. You have made National Enquirer-style announcements about a “ton of information” and stuff that is supposed to confirm others’ suspicions about the injustices of affirmative action. Not only are there no specific cases cited, there are no specific policies cited. I didn’t call you in that thread on your lack of specifics, since I wanted to avoid a tit-for-tat squabble, but since you felt the need to drop in here with your load of misplaced scorn, your inconsistency was deserving of notice.
Regardless, I think my characterization of you as a “flaming pus-wart” was over the top and I regret it. You are hereby upgraded to “an insensitive, bad-tempered hypocrite” (with all the rights and honors appertaining thereto). 
ENugent:
If someone said that in a situation in which I believed my brain was on track, I would be annoyed. I don’t think the “would it upset you if someone said this to you” is a valid test in this case. If someone were to say to you
would it upset you? Most statements critical of a person’s abilities are upsetting. Does that mean they have no place in civilized discussion?
I certainly can’t perfectly express my thought processes, and I’m sure that there are some that will be glad to take advantage of my saying something that really isn’t quite what I was thinking. But I guess that what it comes down to was that I was trying to point out that she had not comprehended my point, and to criticize her for her failure. I do think that there is a difference between criticizing someone and insulting someone; “you’re not keeping your brain on track” (the implied statement) is very different than, say, “you’re an idiot”.
Yes, I did realize it. And the fact that Jodi required such attention to detail annoyed me. I could have said “How can that purpose not be discriminatory?” But constantly designing my sentences so that they cannot possibly be misinterpreted is just too, well, anal rententive. What Jodi’s post meant to me was that I could not use any pronouns when talking with her without fearing that she would not be able to figure out the antecedent. You have asked me to consider the annoyance that my requiring people to pay attention to detail creates; can you not understand the annoyance that I felt when required to pay attention to such detail?
I wanted her to keep her brain on track, so I asked her to keep her brain on track. Any sarcasm you see you are reading into it.
TwistofFate:
Could you define what you mean by “pro choice”? Thanks.
I hereby nominate this as this week’s quote that best supports the fucking OP. Use a goddamn dictionary, you hair-splitting wanker. It’s in a bunch of them; it has a neat, concise definition.
humph
My dictionary has it as “favoring legalized abortion.” I humbly submit that that’s a bit too concise. The Ryan’s comment may have been irrelevant, but how exactly did it split hairs? Or do all “pro-choice” people believe exactly the same thing?
You don’t think that the comment “Scylla is pro choice” could possibly mean “Scylla is in favour of legalised abortion” do you?
Nah.
pan