|
Post by dantesvirgil on Aug 3, 2009 20:49:14 GMT -5
No, Lithp, that's not a "fact" -- you're not in my head, and you can't speak for me. It's one thing to tell me I am dismissive, because you can perceive that action, I can understand where that comes from. It's another to tell me that when I point blank and quickly at that tell you that I'm sorry for a specific thing, that if it were you doing it, I wouldn't have accepted it. You don't know that, and you can't know that. No, I don't see the point of your analogy. Can you explain it to me again?
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Aug 3, 2009 21:02:48 GMT -5
@keresm, I agree with DV here, you're definitely getting out of line. It's got to the point that you're starting to look like you don't actually legitimately feel you were wronged, and you just want to try and insult and humiliate DV because she rubbed you the wrong way. Dante disagreed with me and so tried to put on her mod hat to call me down. The consequence of this is she got made to look like an idiot and a hypocrite. That's life. It goes on. Next time, perhaps she shouldn't get all pissy and defensive (heh) about other people not reading her posts when it's clear she didn't bother to read other people's posts. Perhaps also she won't get into a long-drawn out semantics argument after making it clear she doesn't understand a simple if-then statement. In short, maybe next time she'll pull her head out of her ass before putting on her mod hat. That wasn't an official warning is the thing. She was telling everyone to cool their jets and calm the fuck down. She wasn't picking on you. Oh, wait, the po-lice and ALL people in positions where they have any sort of authority are, by default, power-hungry assholes. I forgot that. FYI: DV isn't power-hungry or an asshole. You, however, fall well into the latter category. We get it. You hate authority figures because they try to keep you from being an anti-social prick. Need I go on?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 3, 2009 21:13:29 GMT -5
"...as per your earlier remark." As in, "because you said x, we can expect that you'll say y."
It would benefit you greatly to read the full sentence.
Quote hunting is a bitch, but so far, I have these:
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Aug 3, 2009 21:42:51 GMT -5
Let's put this in perspective, Eric: Let's say I claim you're absolutely right about Dante, but not about me. You then point out a bunch of quotes where I said basically the same thing. Then, I say, "Well, that doesn't count because I meant it this way," that would be hypocrisy. And if I started in with this "we have a different opinion" nonsense, it would STILL be hypocrisy that I'm refusing to own up to. Uh... No... You tried to claim protesting should be illegal because it is "intimidation" or "coercion" or "hate speech." DV posted the legal definitions of each of those and explained why protesting does not fall under any of those (much as I would like them to). You then accused her of making claims without posting cites, when she did post links to the legal definitions. She kept trying to point out her linked references, but you kept ignoring her links and kept accusing her of attacking you baselessly.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Aug 3, 2009 21:51:21 GMT -5
Lithp, I am not trying to be obtuse, but I need for you to explain to me what is wrong with what you have quoted from me.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 3, 2009 22:17:59 GMT -5
Let's put this in perspective, Eric: Let's say I claim you're absolutely right about Dante, but not about me. You then point out a bunch of quotes where I said basically the same thing. Then, I say, "Well, that doesn't count because I meant it this way," that would be hypocrisy. And if I started in with this "we have a different opinion" nonsense, it would STILL be hypocrisy that I'm refusing to own up to. Uh... No... You tried to claim protesting should be illegal because it is "intimidation" or "coercion" or "hate speech." DV posted the legal definitions of each of those and explained why protesting does not fall under any of those (much as I would like them to). You then accused her of making claims without posting cites, when she did post links to the legal definitions. She kept trying to point out her linked references, but you kept ignoring her links and kept accusing her of attacking you baselessly. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Dante posted exactly ONE definition (slander). So did I (coercion). In fact, there was a post where she called me on this generalization, then I pointed out that she made the exact same generalization. Ignored, of course. And excuse me for wanting some justification of this "dishonest argument" bullshit. I'm sorry, but her saying that my argument was "dishonest" does not make it so. It IS a baseless accusation. This post does not comment on what I said at all. All it does is ignore the same things Dante does, & make the same excuses that she does. Particularly, I'd like to point out that "she kept trying to show you" is a gross overexaggeration. Repeat: 1 definition.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 3, 2009 22:22:28 GMT -5
Dante, you SERIOUSLY don't know what's wrong with all of those? They're ALL about "twisting words."
Particularly this one:
Are you not still defending what you said? According to you, that "basically invalidates that they were poor word choices."
Then there's the accusations of "stubborness" and being "dishonest & pissy."
Remind me again how those were "attacking my argument, & not me"?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Aug 3, 2009 22:26:47 GMT -5
With that one definition I posted the link to a dictionary of legal terms also. It isn't links, just link singular. But it was an online dictionary of terms, surely there wouldn't be the need to post more links? Those terms were all in there. We didn't need those terms, incidentally, until after I posted the definition of "slander." That's the only word you were using at the time. After I posted that def., I believe you started using other words, I think "obscenities" came next. A different poster defined obscenities, but with no link. That's when hate speech and coercion came up, I believe. You accused me of this:
As erictheblue pointed out, I already had looked up the first definition and the link was a dictionary of terms. So you saying I didn't look the words up when I posted the link and posted the first definition was just plain wrong. That's the part I don't get. I showed you the first definition, another poster tells you the second one, and somehow I'm not "looking things up." That just doesn't make any sense.
And erictheblue is not being dishonest -- only giving things from eric's perspective. Just because it disagrees with yours doesn't mean it's dishonest. That's just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 3, 2009 22:34:44 GMT -5
This is my response to your "I did post definitions idiot (my words)" defense from that thread, which, of course, you ignored:
Is it even worth talking to you? You make a LITTLE bit of progress, then go back to the same, repeatedly debunked shit.
I didn't "start using" other words, and "obscenities" was part of a PHRASE, which came BEFORE all of that. No, shouting swear words is not illegal!
God damn it! If you're not going to say anything new, why the Hell are you even bothering to respond?
You know before, when I said I wasn't angry? Having to repeatedly correct all of this shit has changed that! Honestly, I've pointed out that you use "obscenities" out of context how many times now? WHY DO YOU KEEP DOING IT?
Edit: The reason I say that Eric is being dishonest is because several of his "points" are wrong. Repeat: You posted ONE definition.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Aug 3, 2009 22:54:15 GMT -5
Dante, you SERIOUSLY don't know what's wrong with all of those? They're ALL about "twisting words." Particularly this one: Are you not still defending what you said? According to you, that "basically invalidates that they were poor word choices." Then there's the accusations of "stubborness" and being "dishonest & pissy." Remind me again how those were "attacking my argument, & not me"? OK, first off, the only "bad word choices" I've said I've had was in this thread about the childish bit. I've repeated over and over again that the way it was worded conveys a meaning I did not intend. So, NO, I'm not still defending what I said with regards to that. If you're talking about something else, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Of course we could've probably both been more clear with what we meant. But if there is something else that is specific to what you're getting at with "bad word choices," you need to tell me what it is. While we're posting things, here is where I feel like things took a severe turn for the worse, and I'll tell you why. It's part of the same post where you accused me of being a hypocrite for not looking up definitions I'd obviously had to have looked up in order to post a link for you. First off, let me note that you admitted you were wrong. I will admit that I certainly lost sight of that and that I probably should've gone back and made more of it at the time. What happened for me, was I caught sight of the part I bolded, about how you had decided that you didn't care whether the argument was right or wrong, that the more important thing was how I "conducted" myself. This pissed me off for the same reason it would probably piss you off if I said it to you. To me, this is really where things became about the person and not about the argument. The argument, according to you, no longer mattered. What mattered was the person. So before you get too bent out of shape over some of the times I made comments about you, please recall you were doing the same thing. I don't think, by the way, that I ever claimed I didn't ad hom. I will say though that I tried not to. You made me incredibly frustrated. I'm a human being, and sometimes being frustrated gets to me. But, I'm not apologizing for saying that you were twisting things, because if you go back and read the posts, it certainly still seems that way to me. You asked whether I had one iota of evidence for that, and that evidence is all in the thread. You tried for several pages to make it fit how you wanted it to fit -- that is trying to twist things. That was frustrating. It's not bullshit, it's what you did. I said at one point that part of your argument seemed dishonest to me -- but when you asked about it, I clarified that I just thought you were stubborn more than anything else, not purposefully dishonest. Yes, your posts read as pissy -- we both were eventually. And yes, your posts read as defensive -- by the way more posters than just me called you defensive. As far as not being a "poor loser" goes, I really don't think it's about winners and losers. But I also know that people who aren't poor losers don't go make a bitch thread about it.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Aug 3, 2009 22:55:46 GMT -5
You know what, you're pretty fucking demeaning with your "you make a little bit of progress" bullshit. Do you think that helps anything?
I'm not here to be "schooled" by you. And if you can't see your part in this, you're never going to be able to "teach" me anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Aug 3, 2009 22:59:13 GMT -5
And I know what you're talking about with the obscene signs. Sorry if "obscenities" was confusing, but that was part of your argument at one point early on. Later you shifted to obscene anti-abortion posters. I know what you're talking about. There is no need to SHOUT in ALL cApS.
Here it is from page 2:
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 3, 2009 23:09:17 GMT -5
No, this is, in fact, bullshit.
Meh. I apologize for yelling at you, but note that you should choose your words more carefully next time.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Aug 4, 2009 8:28:48 GMT -5
What the hell, keresm? DV wasn't disagreeing with you in that thread, as far as I could tell. (Maybe I just skimmed a couple of important comments?) Maybe you did. I don't take kindly to being lied about. DV claimed I called people on the forum sick fucks. I did not. DV warned me for calling people on the forum sick fucks. But I did not. DV has refused to apologize for this claim.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 4, 2009 9:19:31 GMT -5
DV, are you done backtracking and changing your story yet? Yep. I said that. It states, quite clearly, in plain English, that he is capable of understanding why somebody who answered the question of 'can I shoot a rapist to defend myself' with a 'no' would be a sick fuck. I fail to see why you think Lithp should be insulted by this. Now, would you like to actually quote me calling someone on these boards a sick fuck, or implying that they are a sick fuck? Right there! Saying "if you believe this your a sick fuck" is different then stating "your a sick fuck because" is inane to say the least. Try and spin it all you want but it is pretty sad when you will not own up to what you said.
|
|