mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 11, 2014 17:02:40 GMT -5
This is the Current Events board, Virgil. Those are the stories covered in the news. They're sensational. Big media, readers, TV, and posters all like sensational. It gives them something to talk about, ooh and ahh about, and generally opine about. Do you really believe the individual's thinking, beliefs, and general being is based on what's reported by big media? Really? I think there's a lot more to people than what they post here, or their reactions to what the media presents for the specific purpose of getting a reaction. People aren't shallow pools. People are oceans.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 11, 2014 17:11:10 GMT -5
Umm, EVT IS a gun owner. I don't think he wants to see us all decimated.  Indeed. But how to explain an average of 13 (now edging up to 14) anti-gun-owner threads per month for the past six months (and possibly longer, if I had the time to go back further)? That's 81 anti-gun-owner threads in six months. It's like a security feature. If a self-defense shooting, accidental shooting or police shooting thread ever comes up where the civilian gun owner isn't dead, arrested, or jailed by the end of it, we'll know his account has been hacked.  Well surely you can ferret out my position with all of my threads- and I only posted this one as a tangent from another thread where it was asked why the media only covers certain shootings. And I backed the cop on this one.
I have been against some cop shootings, for some cop shootings, against many self-defense claims (mainly because as I alluded to on the other thread they get media time when there are certain issues involved), and defend others.
It's a topic I like- and I find it interesting how people take sides right away when a gun owner shoots someone. Gun owners need to police their own and call them out when they are being irresponsible- sort of like Muslims need to call out their bad apples.
This all started with Zimmerman as far as I can remember- I could not get over the stupid decision of following someone after calling the police- and really could not fathom how so many people supported him- and then I saw the trend in other 'self-defense' shootings where the gun owner can do no wrong. So here we are- and when it happens again- I will be right there topic ready 
But you show me where I have ever supported banning guns or being anti-gun owner in any of those threads.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,475 
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 11, 2014 17:24:59 GMT -5
... People aren't shallow pools. People are oceans. Well, it least some are. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 11, 2014 17:28:27 GMT -5
Want to add one thing- when I grew up and used to go shooting with my dad- there were no carry permits like now- guns had to be carried separate from the ammunition. This is a new thing- so maybe I tend to see it as a privilege that comes with responsibility. So when we have douche bags patrolling public parks armed in camos, people thinking they should be able to shoot whenever or wherever they feel 'threatened', people that think they can take the law into their own hands, I consider them as abusing the laws and a negative for gun rights- as well as their supporters. So maybe I am actually looking out for gun rights |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,475
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 11, 2014 17:41:21 GMT -5
Want to add one thing- when I grew up and used to go shooting with my dad- there were no carry permits like now- guns had to be carried separate from the ammunition. This is a new thing- so maybe I tend to see it as a privilege that comes with responsibility. So when we have douche bags patrolling public parks armed in camos, people thinking they should be able to shoot whenever or wherever they feel 'threatened', people that think they can take the law into their own hands, I consider them as abusing the laws and a negative for gun rights- as well as their supporters. So maybe I am actually looking out for gun rights Spot on! This nation will repeal the Second Amendment when enough citizens finally get tired of reading about irresponsible gun activity. You want to retain a Constitutional right to bear arms, you need to work for responsible use of that right. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 11, 2014 17:49:11 GMT -5
i am really not getting the straddle, here. guns are pretty obviously the issue here, but nobody seems to want them taken away from dottering old fools.  *knock knock knock* "This is the police! Open up!" *click* "H... hello?" "Police business, ma'am. We're here to confiscate your firearms and matches." "My... gun? But I have it for protection. I live alone." "We're aware of that, ma'am, but it has come to our attention that you're a doddering old fool. We have to confiscate your firearms." "A doddering old... fool? What...? What is this?" "This notice explains the results of your most recent dodderiness assessment. It explains why we've been authorized to confiscate any firearms and matches in your possession. The items will be held for 90 days, during which time you may request a 1020 Dodderiness and Foolishness Reassessment if you wish to reclaim your property." "Oh. Oh my. Am I being... committed?" "No ma'am. You're just too stupid to own a firearm. Have a nice day." So yeah, add me to the list of people who don't want to take guns away from doddering old fools. not getting it. as usual. at issue: gun owner was "not in her right mind". legal basis: the mentally ill have not been allowed to own guns for nearly 5 decades. this death, and others like it, are totally avoidable, imo. your little fiction is, as usual, totally irrelevant. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 18:20:04 GMT -5
Just wanted to mention... anyone that thinks she should have been TAZERed instead... at 93, that would likely have been just as fatal as the gun.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 11, 2014 19:51:40 GMT -5
I shall assist.  Exhibit A: "legal basis: the mentally ill have not been allowed to own guns for nearly 5 decades." Exhibit B: "guns are pretty obviously the issue here, but nobody seems to want them taken away from dottering [sic] old fools." The fiction was intended to highlight how absurdly different "doddering old fools" is from "the mentally ill". Notwithstanding your obvious error in conflating "doddering" with "senile", I'd hoped to point out that foolishness cannot be clinically diagnosed, doddering cannot be measured or diagnosed, seniors diagnosed with old-age dementia are committed to homes (you may have heard of them), and this whole incident occurred when Ms. Golden's nephew tried to confiscate her property (her car keys). I was trying to imagine what a world might be like where guns are confiscated from doddering old fools. But since you don't like my interpretation, perhaps you could give us your rendition of how such a system might work.  It did. Something about the Zimmerman case just made you... snap.  |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 11, 2014 20:03:02 GMT -5
Really? They are? News to me. Mine lives with me. I know others who live with their families, and even those who still live alone ... and shouldn't. Demented people are NOT automatically committed to "homes" in this country, Virgil. Oh, and, yes. I've heard of them. I've also heard of condescension and I'm not particularly fond of it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 11, 2014 20:41:01 GMT -5
Really? They are? News to me. Mine lives with me. I know others who live with their families, and even those who still live alone ... and shouldn't. Demented people are NOT automatically committed to "homes" in this country, Virgil. Oh, and, yes. I've heard of them. I've also heard of condescension and I'm not particularly fond of it. In your professional opinion, under what circumstances would a senior be diagnosed as too demented to own a firearm, but not demented enough to be committed to a seniors' home? And although I appreciate your rebuking DJ for his condescension in Reply #35, I bit back a little, so we're pretty much even Steven. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 11, 2014 20:42:23 GMT -5
Just wanted to mention... anyone that thinks she should have been TAZERed instead... at 93, that would likely have been just as fatal as the gun. No doubt. Elderly people have shot and killed police- sorry- cop tells you to drop it and you don't- too bad. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 11, 2014 20:59:11 GMT -5
Really? They are? News to me. Mine lives with me. I know others who live with their families, and even those who still live alone ... and shouldn't. Demented people are NOT automatically committed to "homes" in this country, Virgil. Oh, and, yes. I've heard of them. I've also heard of condescension and I'm not particularly fond of it. In your professional opinion, under what circumstances would a senior be diagnosed as too demented to own a firearm, but not demented enough to be committed to a seniors' home? And although I appreciate your rebuking DJ for his condescension in Reply #35, I bit back a little, so we're pretty much even Steven. I don't know that I read dj's Reply #35. I did read your post, however. If you're a believer in two wrongs making a right, I'm sure you feel quite justified. A senior wouldn't be diagnosed as too demented to own a firearm unless the matter came up. Doctors here don't diagnose based on firearm possession unless they're required to do so by law. As for commission to a senior's home, there is no such thing. Families may choose to put their demented elder into a nursing home, or they may choose to care for that demented elder at home, as I do. Going to a senior's home isn't the equivalent of going to a mental health facility, Virgil, even if the subject individual is demented. Some of our nursing homes are equipped to deal with demented patients, but they are not mental health facilities in the general sense. Our seniors are not forced into nursing homes. The only way a senior would be sent, by law, to a nursing facility is if that senior had nobody to care for and watch over them. They're not insane. They're old and their brains no longer function properly. ETA: I've now read dj's Reply #35. There's no condescension there. You did create a fictional situation. DJ found it irrelevant. That's not condescension, Virgil. That's truth. It's something like mentioning senior's homes followed by (you may have heard of them) that's condescending. I think you're well aware of that. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 11, 2014 21:10:54 GMT -5
your little analysis is, as usual, totally irrelevant.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 11, 2014 21:11:38 GMT -5
It did. Something about the Zimmerman case just made you... snap. Yep it sure did. And for the record I brought that case up here before the media got it- I asked why he was not arrested.
I saw the ugly side of some gun owners. Then I noticed the trend. Some gun owners are OK with murder.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on May 11, 2014 22:31:34 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 11, 2014 22:38:39 GMT -5
I shall assist. Exhibit A: "legal basis: the mentally ill have not been allowed to own guns for nearly 5 decades." Exhibit B: "guns are pretty obviously the issue here, but nobody seems to want them taken away from dottering [sic] old fools." The fiction was intended to highlight how absurdly different "doddering old fools" is from "the mentally ill". really? let's see, shall we? here is the definition of FOOL: 1.
a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2.
a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3.
a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4.
an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
5.
a weak-minded or idiotic person. a weak minded idiotic person who lacks judgment and sense should not be brandishing guns, Virgil. thanks for the correction on the spelling of dottering, but i really don't see how what i said merited your apoplexy. but if you thought i was misusing it, why not just clear that up? oh, that's right- because you pretty much always assume the worst. never mind. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 11, 2014 22:44:12 GMT -5
your little analysis is, as usual, totally irrelevant. But, of course it is! It doesn't meet your specification.  |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 11, 2014 22:46:37 GMT -5
I expected that. From the last I read, I gathered there was quite a bit of public outcry over this shooting. The elderly woman was well-known about town. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 11, 2014 23:03:12 GMT -5
your little analysis is, as usual, totally irrelevant. no, i think it is pretty close, actually. very often our arguments consist of you misinterpreting something i say, and then mocking me for it. now, it may be true that i am not completely clear, but it is also the case that you don't bother to have me clarify. you simply take the most absurd possible interpretation of my posts, and then blast away at it. when i point out that you are making a point that is totally different than the one i am trying to make, you say that i am being condescending. i will say, without hesitation, that post #35 was an unusually terse and rude rebuttal, but i think that mmhmm actually got it right. i was not trying to be condescending. i merely tire of the same old red herring rubbish over and over and over again. but i am done waiting for the simple "what did you mean by that?". as many times as you are confused, you have never asked that question. rather, you assume that you are NOT confused, and i am some kind of lunatic. tiresome. why don't you just join zib and ignore my posts if you can't assume any better of me than to think i have it out for you, Virgil. your stress level will drop, and so will my keystrokes. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 23:08:24 GMT -5
I want a "Dislike" for this. He shouldn't have been fired since he didn't do anything wrong. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 11, 2014 23:11:12 GMT -5
I want a "Dislike" for this. He shouldn't have been fired since he didn't do anything wrong. if that button were available, i would use it WAY more often than "like". |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,917
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 12, 2014 7:26:28 GMT -5
I want a "Dislike" for this. He shouldn't have been fired since he didn't do anything wrong. You would be 'Dislike'ìng the poster's comment or the news article and not the police department's decision. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 17:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 7:59:19 GMT -5
I want a "Dislike" for this. He shouldn't have been fired since he didn't do anything wrong. You would be 'Dislike'ìng the poster's comment or the news article and not the police department's decision. I understand/understood that. I don't dislike the poster or the news source... I dislike the news itself. I also dislike the department's decision. |
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on May 12, 2014 8:00:27 GMT -5
Umm, EVT IS a gun owner. I don't think he wants to see us all decimated. Indeed. But how to explain an average of 13 (now edging up to 14) anti-gun-owner threads per month for the past six months (and possibly longer, if I had the time to go back further)? That's 81 anti-gun-owner threads in six months. It's like a security feature. If a self-defense shooting, accidental shooting or police shooting thread ever comes up where the civilian gun owner isn't dead, arrested, or jailed by the end of it, we'll know his account has been hacked. Dude, if you have the time to track statistics like this then I suspect Mrs. Virgil is getting neglected... just saying. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 12, 2014 9:24:51 GMT -5
That's BS to fire this guy when the investigation is still on going. Some reports said she fired the gun a couple times. Guess it is time to sue the city.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,475
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 12, 2014 9:33:06 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 12, 2014 11:41:20 GMT -5
I shall assist. Exhibit A: "legal basis: the mentally ill have not been allowed to own guns for nearly 5 decades." Exhibit B: "guns are pretty obviously the issue here, but nobody seems to want them taken away from dottering [sic] old fools." The fiction was intended to highlight how absurdly different "doddering old fools" is from "the mentally ill". really? let's see, shall we? here is the definition of FOOL: 1.
a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2.
a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3.
a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4.
an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
5.
a weak-minded or idiotic person. a weak minded idiotic person who lacks judgment and sense should not be brandishing guns, Virgil. thanks for the correction on the spelling of dottering, but i really don't see how what i said merited your apoplexy. but if you thought i was misusing it, why not just clear that up? oh, that's right- because you pretty much always assume the worst. never mind. So your argument is that "mentally ill" is really no different from "weak-minded or idiotic"? And that by "doddering old fool", you meant "a weak minded idiotic person who lacks judgment", which can somehow be clinically diagnosed? I suppose not. That would be me "assum[ing] the worst". Even though that's precisely what your post says, those are ridiculous assertions, and it's apparently my job to twist your words around in my mind until some suitably loose interpretation is no longer ridiculous. I wasn't correcting you on the spelling of doddering, I was correcting you on your misuse of it. It's a physical infirmity, not a mental one. your little analysis is, as usual, totally irrelevant. no, i think it is pretty close, actually. very often our arguments consist of you misinterpreting reasonably interpreting something i say, and then mocking me for calling me out it. now, it may be is true that i am not completely clear (or even slightly clear, on occasion), but it is also the case that you don't bother to have me clarify. you simply take the most absurd possible straightforward interpretation of my posts, and then blast away at it. when i point out that you are making a point that is totally different than the one i am trying to make, you say that i am being condescending duplicitous. i will say, without hesitation, that post #35 was an unusually terse and rude rebuttal, but i think that mmhmm actually got it right. i was not trying to be condescending. i merely tire of the same old red herring rubbish over and over and over again. but i am done waiting for the simple "what did you mean by that?". as many times as you are confused, you have never asked that question. rather, you assume that you are NOT confused, and i am some kind of lunatic. tiresome. why don't you just join zib and ignore my posts if you can't assume any better of me than to think i have it out for you, Virgil. your stress level will drop, and so will my keystrokes. See my viewpoint inline. My rebuttal in point form: - I have absolutely no interest in asking you "What did you mean by that?" every time you make a clear statement that happens to be ridiculous.
- Despite your assertion that "as many times as [I'm] confused, have never asked that question", the reality is that I frequently do ask you for clarification. Admittedly, my inquiry sometimes is hostile and/or rhetorical.
- Your Reply #35 doesn't bother me. I mentioned it because mmhmm took it upon herself to chastise me for the tone of Reply #37, which I felt was consistent with the "unusually terse and rude" tone of #35 and was perfectly willing to accept as the tone for the debate.
If what you clearly write isn't what you mean, I can't trust anything you say. When you say "as many times as you are confused, you have never asked that question", I don't know if by "never" you actually meant "rarely". Or perhaps you intended for "that question" to refer specifically to "what did you mean by that?" and not variations of this question.
What vexes me is when you come back with "Obviously what I meant to say was 'rarely', and why are you making this personal, Virgil? Your satire in Reply #14 is irrelevant as usual, Virgil, but why would you think a terse and rude tone in Reply #37 was acceptable? Why do you take the most absurd possible interpretation of my posts and blast away at them, Virgil?"
I'm definitely not going to waste my time asking you to clarify everything you say, and it would seem that you tire of our characteristically hostile debates, hence the obvious solution is to forgo them in future. They were fun while they lasted.
Indeed. But how to explain an average of 13 (now edging up to 14) anti-gun-owner threads per month for the past six months (and possibly longer, if I had the time to go back further)? That's 81 anti-gun-owner threads in six months. It's like a security feature. If a self-defense shooting, accidental shooting or police shooting thread ever comes up where the civilian gun owner isn't dead, arrested, or jailed by the end of it, we'll know his account has been hacked. Dude, if you have the time to track statistics like this then I suspect Mrs. Virgil is getting neglected... just saying. I admit it took 10 minutes to visit his profile page and count the threads going back to September of last year.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2014 12:26:37 GMT -5
really? let's see, shall we? here is the definition of FOOL: 1.
a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2.
a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3.
a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4.
an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
5.
a weak-minded or idiotic person. a weak minded idiotic person who lacks judgment and sense should not be brandishing guns, Virgil. thanks for the correction on the spelling of dottering, but i really don't see how what i said merited your apoplexy. but if you thought i was misusing it, why not just clear that up? oh, that's right- because you pretty much always assume the worst. never mind. So your argument is that "mentally ill" is really no different from "weak-minded or idiotic"? idiot is used to describe someone with an IQ below 30. in fact, it might be the case that an idiot is MORE dangerous than someone with a mental illness. they are certainly incapable of judging right from wrong. is that the person you want handling guns? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2014 12:28:09 GMT -5
I wasn't correcting you on the spelling of doddering, I was correcting you on your misuse of it. It's a physical infirmity, not a mental one. dottering means fumbling/stumbling, right? if so, i didn't misuse it. but again, thanks for pointing out my spelling error. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2014 12:37:00 GMT -5
If what you clearly write isn't what you mean, I can't trust anything you say.
you are doing it again, right now, Virgil. you are making an assumption (a wrong one), and then drawing your own conclusion based on that wrong assumption. in this case, it is that i don't mean what i say.
i mean what i say. you misinterpret what i say. i don't mean what you misinterpret.
When you say "as many times as you are confused, you have never asked that question", I don't know if by "never" you actually meant "rarely". Or perhaps you intended for "that question" to refer specifically to "what did you mean by that?" and not variations of this question.
you're right. i should have said that you sometimes ask me after going on and on for 20 posts or so in the wrong direction. but that is not typical. more often you just go on assuming that you are right, and that you understood me perfectly. i have concluded that you prefer doing this, and thus, i see no purpose in arguing with you any more.
What vexes me is when you come back with "Obviously what I meant to say was 'rarely', and why are you making this personal, Virgil? Your satire in Reply #14 is irrelevant as usual, Virgil, but why would you think a terse and rude tone in Reply #37 was acceptable? Why do you take the most absurd possible interpretation of my posts and blast away at them, Virgil?"
I'm definitely not going to waste my time asking you to clarify everything you say
i didn't ask you to do that. i asked you to do that when you are confused. but if you are confused by everything i say, then please stop responding. as to the "fun" of it, i think it was mostly yours, and thus the proportional loss. |
|
