» Breaking News
Gianna Michaels [Breaking Beauty]
6 Minnesota Teens - Including Brianna Broitzman & Ashton Larson - Accused Of Abusing Nursing Home Residents
After Gun Shot, Plaxico Burress Suspended By Giants For Rest Of Season
Florida Man Thomas Edward Lackie Arrested For Attacking Dad With Christmas Tree
Soldiers Join Military To Avoid Weak Economy
Priceless!
Hillary’s calendar impairment knows no bounds
Typical. Looking to start the swearing-in April 2008. LOL!
Wellstone, please change your name to “HillaryLUVR” or something. You are not a spokesman for the late, great Paul Wellstone and certainly don’t share his politics.
I am an unabashed Hillary lover, and Paul Wellstone and I and Hillary have a LOT of things in commmon.
What’s Z_adura?
Like Pia Zadura?
http://www.poster.net/zadora-pia/zadora-pia-photo-xl-pia-zadora-6233838.jpg
What a delicious little whore.
Adura is Latin to ‘ignite’ or ‘enflame.’ Z is my first initial. It was something I came up with long ago that does not have specific meaning. “De gustabus non desputandum est.”
Wellstone is a borrowed name. You have squatted on it, which is fine, but you and Hillary share nothing with it. He was against the war, against Hillary’s flag burning legislation, against NAFTA (which Hillary supported and helped get passed), against Chinese trade deals. He almost always voted his conscience, which is not a Clintonesque trait in the least. Love Hillary if you must but don’t presume that either you or Sen. Clinton are heirs to his legacy.
This is a hilarious cartoon. Thanks for sharing
“Like Pia Zadura?”
Wellstone, if you have nothing to add, don’t post. If you have come here to attack someone’s name, you clearly have nothing to add.
Fair’s fair, CSS. Wellstone’s choice of handle (assuming it isn’t actually his name) was questioned first.
“Fair’s fair, CSS. Wellstone’s choice of handle (assuming it isn’t actually his name) was questioned first.”
It was questioned in a political sense. Pia Zadura has nothing to do with politics.
Sean, with all due respect, Senator Wellstone is a giant figure in the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Mark Penn may think that calling someone “liberal” is a slur, but I think it’s an honor.
I think it is incredibly disingenuous for any of us to presume Hillary speaks for the liberal wing or that she will be their advocate. That is not the kind of politicians either she or Bill have ever been.
And thus, it is definitely fair game, within the context of a political blog, to challenge someone who uses Wellstone’s good name in honor of his political adversaries.
Pia Zadura has nothing to do with politics.
And anyway, it’s spelled Zadora. And I hear she works at Target now.
CSS: It was questioned in a political sense. Pia Zadura has nothing to do with politics.
OK, C. Quick recap.
- z_adura asks Wellstone to “change your name to “HillaryLUVR” or something.” This presumes, of course, that Wellstone is not actually his name. (It may not be. I haven’t by any means read everything posted on OW, but I haven’t seen Wellstone say in any of his posts that it is not.)
- Wellstone responds by saying he and Paul Wellstone “have a LOT of things in commmon”. And then asks z_adura about the origins of his (his?) own handle.
- z_adura answers as to where his name comes from and explains his bother with Wellstone’s. “You have squatted on it, which is fine, but you and Hillary share nothing with it.” Note, he isn’t telling Wellstone to stop using it anymore.
All well and good so far. A fairly peaceful, reasonable exchange.
But then you enter the discussion (in your typical those-who-disagree-with-me-are-subhumans fashion) by insulting Wellstone for his apparent challenge of z_adura’s handle: “If you have come here to attack someone’s name, you clearly have nothing to add.”
Get it straight. Wellstone’s name was attacked first. And why do you feel it necessary to toss insult into a discussion when the two people involved in it seem to be able to refrain from that.
Sean, well said. I thank you.
Only Obama lovers could think Hillary and Paul Wellstone had nothing in common.
I can’t say it’s universal, but I HAVE noticed a tendency among Obama supporters to try and denigrate anyone who does not agree with them.
This militant, vocal, aggressive support may well be the reason for Obama’s success in caucuses, where bigmouths and bullies carry the day.
As to areas where Hillary and Paul Wellstone agree:
1. Hillary’s entire career has focussed on issues affecting family and children and women. Wellstone also, with his wife, focussed intensely on women’s rights particularly on Domestic violence.
2. Wellstone’s signal issue was the extension of a National Health Care policy to cover mental and emotional health issues, an issue that was followed through in the COngress after his death. Hillary’s signal issue is of course, Health Care, and she is interested in all aspects of it.
3. In 1993, Hillary spent a great deal of time with Senator Wellstone, who had campaigned in Minnesota on Universal Health Care, and was able to convince him to support her plan.
4. Wellstone was very close to Organized Labor and understood the importance of Unions to creating and maintaining a strong Middle Class in this country, as is Hillary. The AFL-CIO even created a special “Paul Wellstone Award” after his death given to those figures who support Labor. Howard Dean got the first one.
5. Paul Wellstone was a big supporter of President Clinton, and stuck with the President with controversial votes in favor of a strong, compassionate, intelligent foreign policy such as the actions in Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Desert Fox in Iraq, and of course Kosovo.
6. Like Hillary, Wellstone’s voting record was not always Progressive-Liberal. Notably, he broke ranks with the Liberal wing of the Democratic party on supporting the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, another issue where he supported President Clinton and not the Liberal Wing. Many on the Left and in its LGBT community went up in arms against Bill Clinton and Paul Wellstone on this issue.
You want to see where they agree? I’m not the only one who thinks Wellstone and Hillary have soemthing in common.
Here’s what EJ Dionne found as he compared one of Wellstone’s campaign ads with a recent Hillary ad in Wisconsin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102156.html
…”I don’t represent the big oil companies. I don’t represent the big pharmaceutical companies,” Wellstone said in the final television ad of his last campaign. “I don’t represent the Enrons of this world. But you know what? They already have great representation in Washington. It’s the rest of the people that need it. I represent the people of Minnesota.”
And here’s Clinton in a television ad run during the Wisconsin primary campaign: “The oil companies, the drug companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you.”…
To many, Paul Wellstone was not the ultimate Liberal, like he is remembered and portrayed in many places in the Progressive sphere.
To me, he represents a very American brand of MUSCULAR Liberalism, Compassionate Liberalism, Thoughtful Liberalism, Liberalism with Integrity.
That is what I respect in him and Hillary, and what I believe in.
I can’t say it’s universal, but I HAVE noticed a tendency among Obama supporters to try and denigrate anyone who does not agree with them.
Irony abounds, Wellstone, as you proceed to libel Obama supporters (albeit with the Clintonesque “I can’t say it’s universal” attached) by saying that they “denigrate” people who don’t agree with them.
Last I checked, more of you Clinton supporters have declared that they’ll vote McCain rather than the Democrat if the Democrat turns out not to be Clinton. (And based on her speeches and those of her husband, that includes Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.)
Senator Clinton’s campaign has spent nearly every hour since Super Tuesday going negative on (a) Senator Obama, (b) Senator Obama’s voting supporters, (c), Senator Obama’s political allies and endorsers, and (d) the states in general where Obama enjoyed significantly greater support than Senator Clinton.
So don’t come whining to me about all the negativity you have experienced from mean ol’ Obama voters.
By the by, I’d still vote for Senator Clinton. But I’d hold out no hope for anything monumental from her presidency. The ability to inspire, which you Clintonites so casually denigrate as “rhetoric,” is a key component to great leadership…and sorry, Wellstone, but Obama beats Clinton on this count every single time.
This militant, vocal, aggressive support may well be the reason for Obama’s success in caucuses, where bigmouths and bullies carry the day.
And again, boo hoo. Clinton had no problem with these when she expected to be the nominee a month or two ago.
“I can’t say it’s universal, but I HAVE noticed a tendency among PRETTY MUCH ALL GROUPS OF PEOPLE IN HUMAN HISTORY to try and denigrate anyone who does not agree with them.”
There, fixed.
“Get it straight. Wellstone’s name was attacked first.”
I know you don’t like me, but try and think before you respond to me.
z_adura argued against Wellstone’s politics and used his name to make a political point.
Wellstone argued against z_adura’s name and used it to call him Pia Zadura.
Do you get the difference?
“And why do you feel it necessary to toss insult into a discussion when the two people involved in it seem to be able to refrain from that.”
What insult?
By the way, most people would consider being called Pia Zadura an insult. So Wellstone was the first to toss an insult in this discussion, but thanks for lying about me in such a clear fashion.
“I can’t say it’s universal, but I HAVE noticed a tendency among Obama supporters to try and denigrate anyone who does not agree with them.”
I can’t say it’s universal but I HAVE noticed a tendency among Clinton supporters that they’re total idiots.
Now, have you ever read two more totally vacuous statements, empty of all meaning except for the ideological purpose behind them?
“Now, have you ever read two more totally vacuous statements, empty of all meaning except for the ideological purpose behind them?”
I love how he denigrate Obama supporters for denigrating Clinton supporters. The irony is self-contained and almost poetic in its obviousness.
CSS: I know you don’t like me…
Actually, I have no opinion of you that would translate as either “like” or “dislike”. I don’t like the approach you take in debates here where time and time again you have resorted to mindless insults while telling others to “think before you respond”. It seems to me a self-defeating approach. If the Jays and JTs and whoevers of the world are making their cases badly, you don’t sway anyone to your side by calling them sub-human.
CSS: z_adura argued against Wellstone’s politics and used his name to make a political point. Wellstone argued against z_adura’s name and used it to call him Pia Zadura.
This is the difficulty with posted comments: tone and inflection are so often left to the ear of the beholder. I’d have to leave it to Wellstone and z_adura to clarify what they were actually intending, but I didn’t read Wellstone’s mention of “Pia Zadura” as calling z_adura names any more than I read z_adura’s initial post to him as using a snide tone to suggest Wellstone change his name to “HillaryLUVR.”
You, it appears, saw nastiness only in Wellstone’s “tone” and not z-adura’s.
“… the ear of the beholder.”
Ouch. Such mixed metaphors always sound so grating to my eyes.
I’ll leave it to others to determine the tone and inflection — in deed the whole point — of my comment.
“… the ear of the beholder.”
Yeah, I feel what you’re saying. I’m never sure of how to talk about what people have written. Or is that write about what they’ve said?
Whatever.
This militant, vocal, aggressive support may well be the reason for Obama’s success in caucuses, where bigmouths and bullies carry the day.
What, you mean like Taylor Marsh?
can’t say it’s universal, but I HAVE noticed a tendency among Obama supporters to try and denigrate anyone who does not agree with them.
Maybe it’s because many of the Clinton supporters I’ve been reading lately are starting to sound like conservative Republicans and Little Green Football readers.
Come on, man, the die-hard Clinton supporters are talking about voting for McCain, for fuck’s sake.
And it’s Zadora.
“This is the difficulty with posted comments: tone and inflection are so often left to the ear of the beholder.”
Maybe you should read this part of your post and never read another post of mine. Because if seems you need to understand this part.
Telling someone to, “Think before they post” is an insult but making fun of someone’s name isn’t?
No fucking way.
The problem is clearly with you, and not with what I wrote. I don’t know what your problem is, nor do I care. But if you want to pick a fight, I can argue in whatever style you want. But don’t think for a second it’s my approach that’s the problem.
CS, you misunderstood Sean.
It’s not “think before you post” that’s the insult, it’s your penchant for beginning your retorts with “Jay, you subhuman etcetera etcetera.” Sean offers that lowering the tone of the discourse with such automatic namecalling while simultaneously asking others to “think” before they post comes across as a little hypocritical.
I get where Sean’s coming from; I used to also ask for a certain decorum in such discussions. The Internet, of course, puts paid to most discussion decorum, so I’m not going to lecture…I’ve figured out how to look past your juvenilia, CS, to the point you’re trying to make, so I’m fine.
CSS: Telling someone to, “Think before they post” is an insult but making fun of someone’s name isn’t?
Got my point exactly 180 degrees wrong.
CSS: if you want to pick a fight, I can argue in whatever style you want.
First, I really don’t. Second, if I did I’d select a style that completely rules out any insults or name-calling in which case, based on what I’ve seen so far, you’d pretty much have nothing to say after your first post on any subject.
SpiderJ: Thanks. You, on the other had, got my point exactly.
I get where Sean’s coming from.
We should all refrain from posting first and reading second.
Unless Dr. Pedro comes back.
CSS: “Telling someone to, “Think before they post” is an insult but making fun of someone’s name isn’t?”
Sean: “Got my point exactly 180 degrees wrong.”
So where did I start insulting Wellstone then? You claimed I lobbed the first insult. What insult? Quote the fucking insult, or admit you lied about me.
CSS: “if you want to pick a fight, I can argue in whatever style you want.”
Sean: “First, I really don’t.”
Actually, I think you do. Remember when you went after me for questioning Jay about his ‘per 100,000′ remark? You never admitted my question was legitimate, even though Jay admitted he misread Spider’s post. Here you are claiming I gave the first insult, when it is clear I did not. The only explanations I can come up is: A.) You really want a fight and are looking for any opening to start one. Or b.) You are dumb. One or two incidents like this and I can chalk it up to simple errors. Misreading a post or two. But that ‘per 100,000′ debate went on for days.
Sean: “Second, if I did I’d select a style that completely rules out any insults or name-calling”
I’ve seen that. It sucks. It protects the liars, the morons and the trolls. Sometimes a good flame is exactly what called for.
Sean: “in which case, based on what I’ve seen so far, you’d pretty much have nothing to say after your first post on any subject.”
Speaking of lies…
“It’s not ‘think before you post’ that’s the insult, it’s your penchant for beginning your retorts with ‘Jay, you subhuman etcetera etcetera.’ Sean offers that lowering the tone of the discourse with such automatic namecalling while simultaneously asking others to ‘think’ before they post comes across as a little hypocritical.”
I understand the point you are making, but it’s wrong.
First of all, I don’t automatically insult anyone. I haven’t insulted you and I don’t intend to you steaming pile of shit. … Damnit! (That was a joke, by the way.) For instance, I started called Jay sub-human after he declared that people should die because his political philosophy is more important than the health and warfare of others. To have such a complete lack of empathy means you are not human. There’s something seriously wrong with anyone who thinks like that. In fact, it could even be called sociopathy. I’m not saying this as an insult either (although Jay should be insulted). I am saying this as a matter of fact.
Secondly, you can simultaneously insult someone and think at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive, therefore it is not hypocritically. Having been on the internet for more than I decade, I can tell you that you can have highly intellectually debates that include lots of insults.
Thirdly, Sean claimed I made the first insult in this thread. Not insulting people in general, but insulting Wellstone in this thread. So while you have a point, it is not the same point Sean was trying to make, no matter what he claims now.
CSS: Quote the fucking insult, or admit you lied about me.
Thought my reference was clear:
“But then you enter the discussion (in your typical those-who-disagree-with-me-are-subhumans fashion) by insulting Wellstone for his apparent challenge of z_adura’s handle: “If you have come here to attack someone’s name, you clearly have nothing to add.””
As these things go, I could have used a different word than “insult” since declaring his posts worthless is rather tame compared to so true insults I’ve seen tossed about. But in any event, WHAT comment of yours I was referring to was quite clear.
CSS: But that ‘per 100,000′ debate went on for days.
And I kept it going all by myself?
There were a couple of points in that debate where I and others tried to clarify what we were saying and acknowledged that perhaps we’re talking past each other. So I don’t think it was just for the supposed joy of trading insults.
CSS: I’ve seen that. [Ruling out name calling and insults] sucks. It protects the liars, the morons and the trolls. Sometimes a good flame is exactly what called for.
Sometimes. Maybe. But most effective when used sparingly.
And my point would be (as made in several places) that it doesn’t really sway people to your point of view when you’re seen to be hurling insults rather than shooting down their points.
CSS: I started called Jay sub-human after he declared that people should die because his political philosophy is more important than the health and warfare of others. To have such a complete lack of empathy means you are not human. There’s something seriously wrong with anyone who thinks like that. In fact, it could even be called sociopathy.
See, I understand what you’re getting at, but I also see in your comments everyone who declared the other side to be non-human because that makes it easier to justify attacking them.
CSS: I can tell you that you can have highly intellectually debates that include lots of insults.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I’ve found it impossible to continue reasoned discussion with anyone once it’s devolved into hurling insults.
CSS: So while you have a point, [fafaroo], it is not the same point Sean was trying to make, no matter what he claims now.
Not sure what I’m supposed to be claiming now that I wasn’t before.
- Wellstone wasn’t the first one to question someone else’s handle.
- You’re not as well served by your debating style as you could be.
Is there something that I’ve said that I’m not still saying? “Quote the fucking reversal, or admit you lied about me.”
NAZI!!!
Okay, jsut wanted to get Godwin’s Law out of the way. Carry on.
Sean: “But in any event, WHAT comment of yours I was referring to was quite clear.”
So you are claiming Wellstone calling Z a woman’s name isn’t an insult, but calling his insult worthless is an insult.
Just want to make that clear. You said that Wellstone throwing out a sexist remark wasn’t an insult, but me complaining about it was an insult.
How can you justify that?
Sean: “And I kept it going all by myself?”
You kept going after it was clear you were wrong. You started out claiming the ‘per 100,000′ remark was perfectly rationally and me questioning it was out of the blue. Jay admitted the ‘per 100,000′ remark was based on him misreading the post, yet you kept claiming me questioning it was somehow strange. (And I still never got him to say what he thought Spider said in the first place.)
Sean: “So I don’t think it was just for the supposed joy of trading insults.”
Never claimed it was.
Sean: “And my point would be (as made in several places) that it doesn’t really sway people to your point of view when you’re seen to be hurling insults rather than shooting down their points.”
Don’t give a fuck. You can tell when someone is a true-believer, and true believers should not be treated as rational adults. If I think the person I’m talking to is able to handle an intellectual honest debate, then I will give them one. If they are going to act like an asshole, I’m going to treat them like one. I see no reason wasting my patience on someone who is clearly never going to change their mind.
And remember, this is Jay. Jay who said his political philosophy is more important than the health and well being of others.
Sean: “See, I understand what you’re getting at, but I also see in your comments everyone who declared the other side to be non-human because that makes it easier to justify attacking them.”
No, they do something that justifies me attacking them, then I call them sub-human.
CSS: “I can tell you that you can have highly intellectually debates that include lots of insults.”
Sean: “We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I’ve found it impossible to continue reasoned discussion with anyone once it’s devolved into hurling insults.”
I have other experiences.
Sean: “Wellstone wasn’t the first one to question someone else’s handle.”
Arg. Who gives a fuck about the fucking name?
It’s a fucking undistributed middle fallacy.
Just because you can find one similarity doesn’t mean you can treat the two incidents the same.
Z said Wellstone should change his name to reflect his political views.
Wellstone called Z a woman’s name, which is a fucking sexist insult.
Just because both involve someone’s name doesn’t mean they are the same.
Do you get it?
Sean: “Is there something that I’ve said that I’m not still saying? ‘Quote the fucking reversal, or admit you lied about me.’”
You attacked me for insulting Wellstone. Then you claimed you weren’t talking about me insulting Wellstone, but just my tendency in general. You changed your claim.
CSS: So you are claiming Wellstone calling Z a woman’s name isn’t an insult… You said that Wellstone throwing out a sexist remark wasn’t an insult…
Nope. Never said either of those things. I never said Wellstone was calling z_adura by a woman’s name. I never said his mentioning Pia Zadora was throwing out a sexist remark. Go back and see the parts of this thread talking “ear of the beholder” etc.
“I’d have to leave it to Wellstone and z_adura to clarify what they were actually intending, but I didn’t read Wellstone’s mention of “Pia Zadura” as calling z_adura names any more than I read z_adura’s initial post to him as using a snide tone to suggest Wellstone change his name to “HillaryLUVR.””
Wellstone hasn’t clarified his intent. I’ve, several times, made it clear that it didn’t come across to me as name calling. So please don’t say I’ve said what I specifically haven’t.
—–
CSS: Don’t give a fuck.
OK, you don’t give a fuck about swaying people to your point of view. Got it. So why participate in online discussions? I’m lead to wonder, since you don’t give a fuck about convincing people of the rightness of your view, if your interest in debates here is to, what?, just show you can shout louder than others?
CSS: You can tell when someone is a true-believer, and true believers should not be treated as rational adults… I see no reason wasting my patience on someone who is clearly never going to change their mind.
…they do something that justifies me attacking them, then I call them sub-human
So why respond to them at all? You clearly don’t think you’re going to change their minds, or get them to agree with you. So why bother? What is one to make of a supposedly “rational adult” who insists on banging their head against a wall which they don’t believe is going to move?
If I see in that something that justifies my attacking you, would you agree that I can can you sub-human?
—–
SDM: We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I’ve found it impossible to continue reasoned discussion with anyone once it’s devolved into hurling insults.
CSS: I have other experiences.
So we’re agreeing to disagree on this one, right? Good. Knew we’d find common ground somewhere.
—–
CSS: Wellstone called Z a woman’s name, which is a fucking sexist insult.
Just because both involve someone’s name doesn’t mean they are the same.
Do you get it?
First, a small aside. Do we know z_adura isn’t female? I tend to presume everyone here is male unless their handle makes clear otherwise. But I remain aware that for most folks I don’t actually know their sex, race, etc.
In any event, again, I didn’t see it as Wellstone calling anyone a name, so the basis of your complaint is a bit off. You can say I’m just not seeing what is there. But I’ll still say that when all we have to go on is the inflection-less words on the screen, I didn’t read them with the tone you did and I didn’t see it as either z_ or W insulting each other. On the contrary they seemed to me to have “A fairly peaceful, reasonable exchange.”
—–
CSS: You attacked me for insulting Wellstone. Then you claimed you weren’t talking about me insulting Wellstone, but just my tendency in general. You changed your claim.
Actually, I complained about both your insulting Wellstone and your tendency to insult in general at the start: “Get it straight. Wellstone’s name was attacked first. And why do you feel it necessary to toss insult into a discussion when the two people involved in it seem to be able to refrain from that.”
And where did I ever claim I wasn’t talking about you insulting Wellstone? At times I was writing about other things, so in those posts I wasn’t talking about you and Wellstone. But where did I ever make any kind of specific “I wasn’t talking about you insulting Wellstone” claim? You wanted me to actually quote the insult and I did. Still waiting for you to quote the reversal.
I’ve got no problem with your taking issue with things I have said. But don’t claim I’ve said things which I have not and then argue against those.
For the record, I consider calling anybody “Pia Zadora” an insult not because she is a woman, but because she is a terrible, terrible actress.
CSS: “So you are claiming Wellstone calling Z a woman’s name isn’t an insult… You said that Wellstone throwing out a sexist remark wasn’t an insult…”
Sean: “Nope. Never said either of those things. I never said Wellstone was calling z_adura by a woman’s name. I never said his mentioning Pia Zadora was throwing out a sexist remark. Go back and see the parts of this thread talking ‘ear of the beholder’ etc.”
Oh fucking hell. Words have fucking definitions. If you say something is more dangerous, for instance, you are also saying it is less safe. Just because I used different words to describe what you said, doesn’t mean you didn’t say what I said you did.
And you absolutely said the above when you claimed I threw out the first insult. Maybe that was not your intent, but you said it.
“Wellstone hasn’t clarified his intent. I’ve, several times, made it clear that it didn’t come across to me as name calling. ”
You have to be fucking retarded to not think it was an insult. And guess what, you’re not fucking retarded. Therefore you are acting like one because you know you’ve lost the debate.
I didn’t start this flamewar. I simple complained to Wellstone about his sexist remark. You have such an irrational hatred for me, or my debating style if you want to split hair, that you jumped all over that post without regards to the facts.
Hell, suggesting Wellstone should change his name to, “HillaryLUVR” could also be called an insult. But at least that one was based in politics and was therefore relevant to the discussion.
Wellstone, on the other hand, decided to the extra step and throw out a sexist insult.
Sean: “OK, you don’t give a fuck about swaying people to your point of view. Got it.”
You need to learn to read, Sean. There seems to be a serious problem with your reading comprehension skills.
I have the ability to quickly figure out who is rational and who is not. I will respond to the people who are rational with logic and reasoning. I will respond to those who are not with insults and flame.
I do this because it is a waste of time to do respond to the latter group with logic and reasoning, and at least the insults are entertaining to me. I could not respond at all, but where’s the fun in that? Seriously, you have to challenge people who are idiots or they become bolder idiots and spread their idiocy like a disease.
Sean: “If I see in that something that justifies my attacking you, would you agree that I can can you sub-human?”
Thinking differently is not enough. You have to show that there is something deeply wrong on a human level. Taking pleasure in inflicting misery on innocent people, for instance. Or intentionally inflicting misery on innocent people for personal gain. Or cheering for the New York Rangers. All these things would make someone sub-human.
Sean: “First, a small aside. Do we know z_adura isn’t female?”
It doesn’t matter. Using a female name as an insult is sexist regardless of gender of the target. Calling someone, ‘Fag’ as an insult is homophobic regardless of the sexual orientation of the person in question.
Sean: “I’ve got no problem with your taking issue with things I have said. But don’t claim I’ve said things which I have not and then argue against those.”
Sean, I’m not retarded. The words you use have meanings. I can figure out the implications of what you say. For instance…
“Get it straight. Wellstone’s name was attacked first. And why do you feel it necessary to toss insult into a discussion when the two people involved in it seem to be able to refrain from that.”
You can’t claim the first sentence was about the specific post and the second was about my tendencies in general. That’s not how the English language works. Or if you are going to make that claim, you need a refresher course in basic grammar.
CSS: If you say something is more dangerous, for instance, you are also saying it is less safe. Just because I used different words to describe what you said, doesn’t mean you didn’t say what I said you did.
Agree with your first sentence, not with your second.
In your first you’re again using a wrong analogy. I didn’t say one thing (dangerous) and then try to claim that isn’t effectively saying the same thing with different words (less safe). What I did actually say was “I didn’t read Wellstone’s mention of “Pia Zadura” as calling z_adura names”. No way is that also saying that he called z_ a girl’s name.
In your second you seem to be claiming that your interpretation of my words overrides my actual words. I’m really not trying to parse what the meaning of is is here. But I made it quite clear on several posts that W’s comments didn’t strike me as being name calling, that I wasn’t speaking for him and would leave it to W and z_ to clarify their meanings if they chose to do so, but until then that is how their posts came across to me. You can’t legitimately claim what I say is what you say it is just because you say it is when I’ve clearly said the opposite.
CSS: You have to be fucking retarded to not think it was an insult. And guess what, you’re not fucking retarded. Therefore you are acting like one because you know you’ve lost the debate.
Honestly, I didn’t see it as an insult. So your first claim is wrong. I’ll agree with your second. And in your third you claim I know something which I don’t.
Really, between having you to tell me what I said and what I know maybe I don’t need to post here at all. I can just leave it to you to start occasional posts with “Sean says…”
CSS I have the ability to quickly figure out who is rational and who is not. I will respond to the people who are rational with logic and reasoning. I will respond to those who are not with insults and flame.
So, if I follow your compare/contrast, insults and flame are not logical or reasonable. How should one classify you, then, when they see your insult/flame posts? Quickly figure out that you are one “who is not”?
CSS: I can figure out the implications of what you say. For instance…
“Get it straight. Wellstone’s name was attacked first. And why do you feel it necessary to toss insult into a discussion when the two people involved in it seem to be able to refrain from that.”
You can’t claim the first sentence was about the specific post and the second was about my tendencies in general. That’s not how the English language works. Or if you are going to make that claim, you need a refresher course in basic grammar.
You’re right, I can’t. But I can say that about the second and third sentences. (OK, kidding. Not at all suggesting you can’t count. if you could hear the tone I hear in my head when I write that it would be light banter-ish. An attempt to lighten the mood a bit with an obviously un-serious criticism. But, hey, didn’t someone once say it’s hard to determine tone just based on the words displayed here?)
Anyway, back on point (or closer to it, at least), actually I’d say that is how the English language works. Maybe in a carefully constructed argument building up to a particular point the sentences should build a link-by-link chain to the conclusion. But we speak less formally than that here and one can (and people often do) switch direction a bit mid-paragraph.
Would it have been clearer that I was making a change from specific to general if instead of using just “And” I’d phrased it “Wellstone’s name was attacked first. Oh, and by the way, why do you feel it necessary…”?
Sean: “In your second you seem to be claiming that your interpretation of my words overrides my actual words. ”
I am reading what you wrote using the rules of grammar. If you can’t get that concept, then there is no reason to talk to you, because nothing you say matters. You are incapable of communicating in this language. Got it?
Sean: “But I made it quite clear on several posts that W’s comments didn’t strike me as being name calling,”
And this makes you a fucking idiot. You claimed z_adura attacked Wellstone. You claim I attacked Wellstone. But you don’t think what Wellstone said was insulting. It seems your definition of insulting varies depending on how is doing the insulting.
Face it, you’ve lost the debate and you are sticking with a position that is impossible to maintain since otherwise you would have to admit a mistake. It is simple as that.
Sean: “So, if I follow your compare/contrast, insults and flame are not logical or reasonable. How should one classify you, then, when they see your insult/flame posts? Quickly figure out that you are one “who is not”?”
Ever seem me flame someone who comes in and writes a thoughtful post? Have I ever started these fights?
Sean: “Anyway, back on point (or closer to it, at least), actually I’d say that is how the English language works.”
And you would be wrong.
Remember, this is what you wrote before…
“But then you enter the discussion (in your typical those-who-disagree-with-me-are-subhumans fashion) by insulting Wellstone for his apparent challenge of z_adura’s handle: ‘If you have come here to attack someone’s name, you clearly have nothing to add.’”
Clearly you were talking about this thread specifically, you lying sack of shit. So fuck you, asshole. Don’t lie about me or about what you said, especially when it is so easy to prove you wrong.
CSS: If you can’t get that concept, then there is no reason to talk to you, because nothing you say matters.
Of course it doesn’t. Because no matter what I say, you will continue to read it the way you want. Claiming baselessly that there is some violation of the rules of grammar has got to be the weakest rebuttal you’ve come up with so far.
“And why do you feel it necessary to toss insult into a discussion when the two people involved in it seem to be able to refrain from that.”
The only complains you can make about that is it starts with “And” (sometimes considered bad form) and I forgot to end it with a question mark. Oh, and it’s more than 8 words long so perhaps taxed your comprehension skills.
(Ohhh, you’re right. Throwing insults at someone is entertaining! We having more fun yet?)
CSS: You claimed z_adura attacked Wellstone. You claim I attacked Wellstone. But you don’t think what Wellstone said was insulting. It seems your definition of insulting varies depending on how is doing the insulting.
Actually, I said “Fair’s fair, CSS. Wellstone’s choice of handle (assuming it isn’t actually his name) was questioned first.”
Questioned. I didn’t say z_ attacked anyone. That’s yet just another example of you saying I said what I simply did not.
“Attack” was first used by you to which I posted the above reply. Forgive me for using your term in subsequent posts. I thought talking in your terms would make things easier for you.
CSS: Ever seem me flame someone who comes in and writes a thoughtful post? Have I ever started these fights?
Oh, absolutely. Someone’s post may be badly thought out, badly expressed or even downright stupid, but I doubt they were specifically trying to start a fight. That usually happens once the name calling and insults starts. And that part tends to be started by you.
CSS: Clearly you were talking about this thread specifically, you lying sack of shit.
Yes, I was. In part of that particular example. I also touched on your general tendency to insult. So there, again, I was able to mention both the specific and the general in one passage.
Which, you should notice, is NOT the passage you were originally citing earlier when you first claimed “That’s not how the English language works.”
So, if you’re going to bitch about one thing I wrote, and then switch mid-rant to a different thing I wrote it really weakens your ability to legitimately claim I’m a liar. (Of course, as you keep showing, you’ll continue to claim I said things I didn’t and will tell me I’m thinking things I’m not, so that kinda undermines both of our abilities to have a legitimate discussion anyway.)
CSS: …then there is no reason to talk to you,
And yet, you don’t stop. You just keep plugging on on a course you yourself keep declaring unreasonable while complaining about those you see as irrational. Wow.
CSS: “Clearly you were talking about this thread specifically, you lying sack of shit.”
Sean: “Yes, I was.”
And yet you claimed you were not. Repeatedly. So you lied. Repeatedly.
You opinions are as worthless, because your credibility is zero. It is clear you read these threads with an eye to attack me.
“And then asks z_adura about the origins of his (his?) own handle.”
This is a beauty. Wellstone insults z_adura and you call asking about the origins of z_adura’s handle.
You’ve become a joke. Congratulations.
CSS: And yet you claimed you were not. Repeatedly. So you lied. Repeatedly.
Nope. You’re still distorting things, either intentionally or myopically, to fit your view. And it just ain’t true.
I wrote about this thread specifically AND your tactics in general. Sometimes in the same sentence (since one can do that in perfectly good English). You point to a general comment and say I’m being specific, which I am not in the sentence you point to. Now, because I agree I’m being specific when you actually do point to a place where I’m specific, you claim I’m lying.
I was at work on Monday, but not on Tuesday. You point to Monday and say I said I wasn’t at work that day. Nope, not true. Not what I said. You then point to Tuesday and I agree that I was absent on Tuesday. So you then claim I was lying about Monday. WTF??
CSS: It is clear you read these threads with an eye to attack me.
Demonstrably not true. You’ve posted to many threads where I have not. Most of my comments are not is response to your postings. When I do respond to your posting my initial comments are not in any way personal attacks. Only after you start do I respond.
CSS: Wellstone insults z_adura and you call asking about the origins of z_adura’s handle.
And just how many times have I endevoured to explain how I read W’s post? Do you attempt at all to actually understand what someone else has said, or does that just make it too difficult to jump into the insults which you’ve admitted you like because they are “entertaining”.
Far at least a third time: “…but I didn’t read Wellstone’s mention of “Pia Zadura” as calling z_adura names any more than I read z_adura’s initial post to him as using a snide tone to suggest Wellstone change his name to “HillaryLUVR.””
Wellstone’s “What’s Z_adura? Like Pia Zadura?” came across to me like a question about a non-obvious handle. Struck me the same is it someone had asked “Strowbridge? Like the Philadelphia Strowbridges?”
Perhaps I just don’t have your ear (and eagerness) for seeing insult.
You two do realize you’ve been bitching about this for over a week now, right? Jesus tapdancing Christ, either get a room or get over it already. Wellstone doesn’t care and neither does z_adura. You’re both just pissing on the electric fence for your own twisted edification now.
Yeah. It’s pointless. Kinda surprised anyone else is noticing still.