Community Property
30-11-2006, 21:37
Is it your IC goal to piss off as many players and mods as possible before being deleted for being an ass? If so, you're well on your way to your goal.Are you seriously prepared to claim that my behavior in forum is worse than anybody else's?
Or even yours?
You take a swipe at my posting style (which is certainly - and admittedly - pedantic) and I reply with a wisecrack referencing the source of your wisecrack (Alice's Restaurant). You're judging my use of......40000 words, colored text, footnotes, and twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to make my case....and you're pissed because I toss back a quip about you having a seeing-eye dog?We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, sat down. Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.That's awfully thin-skinned, Fris, especially because Sherrif Obie came off looking like a complete idiot in the piece - which is, by the way - exactly why you used it (IOW, to make me look like a complete idiot) - whereas the judge came off looking reasonable. So I take the joke and toss a softball back your way, and you're telling me that goes over the line?!?
If you don't like getting barbs tossed at you, don't toss them at others. On the face of this exchange, you've got nothing to complain about.
As for my other swipe, consider the entire exchange:I. "OMFG, your machinegunner killed an endangered beetle in my ecosystem!"
II. "Your soldiers should have been trained in the endangered flora and fauna of MyNation. That is sooo totally unreasonable!"
III. "But since you've broke the rules, we're going to nuke YourCapitol."
Worthless and unenforcable.Worthless and unenforcable.Any serious comments?Any serious comments?So, by disagreeing with your patent nonsense, I'm automatically frivolous?
Politicians and generals have been looking for excuses to justify their aggressive behavior for millenium. This is so namby-pamby in its phrasing that it has zero chance of preventing them from doing anything they want to in war. By my standards, that makes it a waste of time. If you didn't get that from my 'frivolous' example, that's your bad.So, by disagreeing with your patent nonsense, I'm automatically frivolous?No, but by disagreeing in such an absurd way, you make your own comments frivolous.I. "OMFG, your machinegunner killed an endangered beetle in my ecosystem!"
II. "Your soldiers should have been trained in the endangered flora and fauna of MyNation. That is sooo totally unreasonable!"
III. "But since you've broke the rules, we're going to nuke YourCapitol."Surely you don't consider remarks like that worthy of a serious response, do you?Politicians and generals have been looking for excuses to justify their aggressive behavior for millenium. This is so namby-pamby in its phrasing that it has zero chance of preventing them from doing anything they want to in war. By my standards, that makes it a waste of time. If you didn't get that from my 'frivolous' example, that's your bad.I thought I was the only person allowed to read a resolution “upside-down while cross-eyed and glaring at it through a kaleidoscope”.
If you want to take the point of view that all resolutions can be deconstructed ad absurdum, go for it. I'm tired of asinine legalism. But it should be pretty obvious that collateral damage to a beetle can hardly be used as a justification for nuclear war, whatever pretzel logic you'd like to employ.
As I said, a lot of people are going to hate this. But I still expect to get some constructive criticism somewhere along the line. even if I don't get any from you.Surely you don't consider remarks like that worthy of a serious response, do you?Unlike some people, I don't need 40000 words, colored text, footnotes, and twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to make my case. I said what needed to be said in three short lines and three little words.
You want two more words? "Abandon it."Unlike some people, I don't need 40000 words, colored text, footnotes, and twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to make my case.Funny, I didn't know you have a seeing-eye dog.I said what needed to be said in three short lines and three little words.Yes, and they were worthless. But thanks for playing.Funny, I didn't know you have a seeing-eye dog.
Yes, and they were worthless. But thanks for playing.Is it your IC goal to piss off as many players and mods as possible before being deleted for being an ass? If so, you're well on your way to your goal.O.K., looking at the whole exchange, what I see is: Your glib dismissal of my proposal on the basis of an absurdist argument.
A dismissal of your comments as absurd and unproductive.
Your testy refusal to accept my dismissal, built on the (false) assumption that you've been dismissed because you don't like my proposal.
My assertion that it's the absurdity of your example that makes it unworthy of consideration. BTW, at this point the worst I've said about your comments is that they are frivolous and not to be taken seriously. I've said nothing about you.
Your reply that similarly absurd arguments have been advanced as justifications for other breaches of international law; a last, a serious argument, but once more your tone is aggressive to the point of hostility.
My counterargument that such attempts at evasion are ridiculous, and that you either accept that somebody's going to pull that kind on nonsense and move on, or you get into a morass of legalism - which I don't want to do. I poke fun at the whole rules-lawyering, loophole-picking thing in a self-deprecating way, by quoting Kenny's jab at me, but that's apparently either lost on your or insufficient to assuage youy temper. I finish by recognizing that there are people who won't like this, and that I'm willing to move on without their support.
Rather than let this go (having been told, in essence, that I'm not concerned about excessive loophole-picking), you throw out a gratuitous barb about my posting and debating style. We're past discussion of the proposal any more; you're just defending your style of criticism, continuing to insist that it should be taken seriously. I've already answered your objection to the proposal, so the reason for this last point and barb is somewhat cloudy.
I repeat that I found the absurd example you used worthless - due to its extreme absurdity - and reply to your barb with a reference to its source.
You issue a warning that I'm treading on thin ice.About all I can figure is that you think I should: Drop any proposal you dislike immediately.
Accept your sniping and barbs with a smile.
Change my debating and posting style to something you find less annoying.
Not argue with you about anything.Care to tell me why I shouldn't read your remarks this way?
And, more to the point, care to tell me why it's acceptable for you to treat me like this?
Or even yours?
You take a swipe at my posting style (which is certainly - and admittedly - pedantic) and I reply with a wisecrack referencing the source of your wisecrack (Alice's Restaurant). You're judging my use of......40000 words, colored text, footnotes, and twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to make my case....and you're pissed because I toss back a quip about you having a seeing-eye dog?We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, sat down. Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.That's awfully thin-skinned, Fris, especially because Sherrif Obie came off looking like a complete idiot in the piece - which is, by the way - exactly why you used it (IOW, to make me look like a complete idiot) - whereas the judge came off looking reasonable. So I take the joke and toss a softball back your way, and you're telling me that goes over the line?!?
If you don't like getting barbs tossed at you, don't toss them at others. On the face of this exchange, you've got nothing to complain about.
As for my other swipe, consider the entire exchange:I. "OMFG, your machinegunner killed an endangered beetle in my ecosystem!"
II. "Your soldiers should have been trained in the endangered flora and fauna of MyNation. That is sooo totally unreasonable!"
III. "But since you've broke the rules, we're going to nuke YourCapitol."
Worthless and unenforcable.Worthless and unenforcable.Any serious comments?Any serious comments?So, by disagreeing with your patent nonsense, I'm automatically frivolous?
Politicians and generals have been looking for excuses to justify their aggressive behavior for millenium. This is so namby-pamby in its phrasing that it has zero chance of preventing them from doing anything they want to in war. By my standards, that makes it a waste of time. If you didn't get that from my 'frivolous' example, that's your bad.So, by disagreeing with your patent nonsense, I'm automatically frivolous?No, but by disagreeing in such an absurd way, you make your own comments frivolous.I. "OMFG, your machinegunner killed an endangered beetle in my ecosystem!"
II. "Your soldiers should have been trained in the endangered flora and fauna of MyNation. That is sooo totally unreasonable!"
III. "But since you've broke the rules, we're going to nuke YourCapitol."Surely you don't consider remarks like that worthy of a serious response, do you?Politicians and generals have been looking for excuses to justify their aggressive behavior for millenium. This is so namby-pamby in its phrasing that it has zero chance of preventing them from doing anything they want to in war. By my standards, that makes it a waste of time. If you didn't get that from my 'frivolous' example, that's your bad.I thought I was the only person allowed to read a resolution “upside-down while cross-eyed and glaring at it through a kaleidoscope”.
If you want to take the point of view that all resolutions can be deconstructed ad absurdum, go for it. I'm tired of asinine legalism. But it should be pretty obvious that collateral damage to a beetle can hardly be used as a justification for nuclear war, whatever pretzel logic you'd like to employ.
As I said, a lot of people are going to hate this. But I still expect to get some constructive criticism somewhere along the line. even if I don't get any from you.Surely you don't consider remarks like that worthy of a serious response, do you?Unlike some people, I don't need 40000 words, colored text, footnotes, and twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to make my case. I said what needed to be said in three short lines and three little words.
You want two more words? "Abandon it."Unlike some people, I don't need 40000 words, colored text, footnotes, and twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to make my case.Funny, I didn't know you have a seeing-eye dog.I said what needed to be said in three short lines and three little words.Yes, and they were worthless. But thanks for playing.Funny, I didn't know you have a seeing-eye dog.
Yes, and they were worthless. But thanks for playing.Is it your IC goal to piss off as many players and mods as possible before being deleted for being an ass? If so, you're well on your way to your goal.O.K., looking at the whole exchange, what I see is: Your glib dismissal of my proposal on the basis of an absurdist argument.
A dismissal of your comments as absurd and unproductive.
Your testy refusal to accept my dismissal, built on the (false) assumption that you've been dismissed because you don't like my proposal.
My assertion that it's the absurdity of your example that makes it unworthy of consideration. BTW, at this point the worst I've said about your comments is that they are frivolous and not to be taken seriously. I've said nothing about you.
Your reply that similarly absurd arguments have been advanced as justifications for other breaches of international law; a last, a serious argument, but once more your tone is aggressive to the point of hostility.
My counterargument that such attempts at evasion are ridiculous, and that you either accept that somebody's going to pull that kind on nonsense and move on, or you get into a morass of legalism - which I don't want to do. I poke fun at the whole rules-lawyering, loophole-picking thing in a self-deprecating way, by quoting Kenny's jab at me, but that's apparently either lost on your or insufficient to assuage youy temper. I finish by recognizing that there are people who won't like this, and that I'm willing to move on without their support.
Rather than let this go (having been told, in essence, that I'm not concerned about excessive loophole-picking), you throw out a gratuitous barb about my posting and debating style. We're past discussion of the proposal any more; you're just defending your style of criticism, continuing to insist that it should be taken seriously. I've already answered your objection to the proposal, so the reason for this last point and barb is somewhat cloudy.
I repeat that I found the absurd example you used worthless - due to its extreme absurdity - and reply to your barb with a reference to its source.
You issue a warning that I'm treading on thin ice.About all I can figure is that you think I should: Drop any proposal you dislike immediately.
Accept your sniping and barbs with a smile.
Change my debating and posting style to something you find less annoying.
Not argue with you about anything.Care to tell me why I shouldn't read your remarks this way?
And, more to the point, care to tell me why it's acceptable for you to treat me like this?