Mods Gone Wild

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

funny, the characterizations accorded any who deign to question you on any matter whatsoever--just within this thread: Geoff and i are angry kittens who crave flame wars, Lucy is ignoble, Kira and psychotropic are babies and trolls, Trippy and Bells are anklebiters--did i miss anyone?

anyhow, as far as me being an angry kitten who craves flame wars goes, you might wanna review my posting history: i post almost entirely in one subforum, the philosophy one, and you know, not a whole lotta "flame wars" going on there. oh, don't get me wrong: i enjoy reading such as much as anybody, i simply confine participation in that sort of activity to real life.

as to this matter of my alleged decontextualization: had i posted in it's entirety, "her state of being an asian person who(m) I have previously offended," such would more accurately have conveyed your intent? the complete expression would suggest that "it (was) *her* perception that (you) (were) drawing attention to"? interesting.

i'm sorry, but i fail to see how your intention would have been made any more clear by the fuller citation. you have on occasion reminded us that you are a product of noble birth and were privy to a superior education. well, one would think that such a person would make the effort to express himself more clearly, making his intentions unambiguously known--you know, set yourself apart from the "wretched, amoral-acting, and insatiable" poor people, for instance. but i'm hardly the only person here who purportedly misconstrues your words: you've got quite a list going of ignoble trolls, babies, anklebiters, angry kittens, etc.

[you very much remind me of one of your "high society" cohorts, whose, uh, "arguments" tend to run thusly: such-and-such is bad, 'cuz it's wrong, unjust, unnoble, immoral, etc.; therefore, any and all who disagree with me on this matter are unjust, unnoble, immoral, and pathetic. i'm just gonna come right out and make a bigoted statement here: you very much remind me of a typical privileged 22 year-old american male. apologies if i've offended anyone here.]

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2500373&postcount=309

too funny!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I am an angry kitten, to tell the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Correct. There was a reason that you decontextualized and abruptly shortened the citation in a way that excluded its full meaning. Exactly what that reason is, I will leave as an exercise for you to figure out.

Toodles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ahhh, so you know my intentions better than i do. and please do enlighten me as to what such might be.

the perfect description for your inane drivel. interesting that you lost over half the membership of your "high society" so abruptly. oh, but aren't you the one who selected these individuals in the first place?

it's remarkable that you've yet to realize how many people are laughing at you, Will.

 

They were part of an initial wider net that was cast in order to establish the group. I expected some from that initial wave of invites would either need to be removed or leave due to disinterest.

It's almost no one. The ones who are (or at least are pretending to be) are mainly the bittersticks I forcibly removed. Several people from this very thread have already PM'ed me in congratulation and gratitude for making some overdue statements.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

how do you figure?

ohhh, i see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and can you share some of the details with us?

but more importantly, can you respond to this?

edit: i am shooting for brevity here, for what i would think would be obvious reasons; nevertheless, implicit in my request is not only solicitation for the "reason" (for the presumed decontextualization) but also for your rationale as to how you arrived at such a conclusion.

 

Have you taken a numerical WillNever poll recently..? May I see it..?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The names of who sent them? Not without alienating the sources. What have they done to deserve that?

I have stated why on page 22. You have repeated it yourself in post #482.

 

did i in any way suggest that i have taken a poll?

deserve what?

i'm sorry, but "because they are angry kittens who crave flame wars" really is not an adequate, nor wholly intelligible, "reason." also, see my edit above: please inform me what my "reason" might be and offer your rationale as to how you arrived at this conclusion.

but i'll indulge you: can you provide some evidence which demonstrates that i am "an angry kitten who craves flame wars"?

 

I did already. Your decontextualization and alteration of my expression thorugh an abrupt shortening of its citation, which was ultimately designed to produce shock value and dishonest interpretation. I said all this to you.

 

and, as i stated, the complete form of the expression does in no sense convey what you claim it is intended to convey. the abbreviated form is not substantively different.

shall we create a thread on this matter? or a poll?

and as to the matter of those who have PM'd you their "support and congratulations": why are they not supporting you within this thread?

 

It does, in the sense that I explained above, actually. And enough people interpreted my meaning in it to justify that. And since I was the one who wrote that original statement, it is my interpretation of it that must prevail.

Sure it's different. The shortened version is stating that she's reacting in a certain way merely because she is asian. The full expression is stating that she reacting in a certain way because she was offended on the basis of her asian ethnicity. The two meanings are significantly different.

You may create a poll asking if those two statements mean different things, if you like.

 

yet neither statement conveys what you claim it is intended to convey.

and what exactly does this mean, "she react(ed) in a certain way because she was offended on the basis of her asian ethnicity"?

you are making less and less sense. perhaps you ought to heed the sage advice offered by a few within this thread (James and Bells, i believe): avoid it and pretend it never happened.

i did get a kick out of this part though:

certainly. but you know, when several people interpret a statement of yours in such a way that is both consistent amongst themselves, yet wholly differing from your own interpretation, it would be prudent to consider one's wording wisely. you are in the habit of accusing people of misconstruing our statements on a regular basis: do you sincerely believe that all of these people suffer for reading comprehension, or might perhaps your manner of articulating yourself be somewhat compromised?

 

Even if that were true (it isn't), that does not negate the the idea that the incomplete citation and the complete citation mean two different things -- which they do.

It means exactly what it says. She felt that her asian ethnicity was attacked. Therefore, her feelings were hurt and reacted towards the person who offended her in the way one does when their feelings are hurt. That is different than her reacting in a certain way merely because she is asian. I know, it's hard.

There are not "all these people," parm. There is a small handful of people with a strong bias against me, two of them who (and this includes you) purposefully quoted an incomplete version of my statement. The misinterpretation is artificial and forced.

I was thinking that about you, actually.

 

again, neither statement conveys what you claim you intended to convey. are you really this dense?

i don't know where that *face-palm* emoticon is; regardless, i think i already know the answer to the question above.

why exactly?

 

honestly, this is tiring.

i think i'll go back to that subforum where people are at least somewhat more inclined to be attentive to language.

 

ehhh, but one more thing:

oh, i beg to differ.

because i questioned but one remark you made, i now have a "strong bias" against you. uhhh, have i ever interacted with you before? (no.) so what is your basis for this contention?

 

Are you?

You have continually claimed that neither statement conveys my claim, or some such. I am telling you that even if I were to give you that (which I don't), that it would still not negate the the idea that the incomplete version you have quoted and the actual, full expression have different meanings to them. Whether or not you think either statement conveys what I intend, you are still in both cases altering the meaning through an incomplete quotation of my words.

I can think of only a few reasons as to why you would do that... and none of them are good.

That's good. I hope they understand it better too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He he. Sadly he IS that good Bells! Grown men lashing out at and chasing a little ball all day...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!