Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
One solution that will still most of the argument is getting the penis and testes replaced by a false vagina.
Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]
- Thread starter TheVat
- Start date
- Status
Says it all, really. I rest my case.
This, dear readers, is the guy who accuses me of dishonesty.
Last edited:
No. The fact you don't even understand what I was writing about there shows that you have either no capacity - or perhaps just lack the will - to reflect on your own behaviour. Or, much more likely, you're willing to just tell lies and avoid, when it suits you.
Not alluded to it.
Are you just pretending you're confused about that, or are you are you honestly an imbecile? I hope it's the former. However, if that's the case, you ought to stop that nonsense. Take some time out. Take a deep breath. Wait until the anger subsides before you post again.
You're coming across like a baby throwing his toys out of the cot.
Okay, so you're implying that Parmalee is being hypocritically dishonest: accusing you of dishonesty while, you think, being dishonest himself. Hmmm. Okay.
Please can you help clear something up for me:
You're saying that it IS dishonest for someone to not answer questions while they're also being open and clear about why they are not answering them (e.g. irrelevancy, based on a misreading etc)?
And are you also suggesting that it IS NOT dishonest to be deliberately selective in your quoting so as to try to mislead readers? e.g. quoting a refusal to answer (so as to suggest dishonesty) but not also quoting the accompanying reasons given for refusing (that, to me at least, shows the refusal to be not dishonest)? I mean, this is what you seem to be suggesting, right, as surely you wouldn't try to imply that someone is being dishonest in a manner that is itself dishonest, would you?
And then I'm more perplexed that, after implying that it is dishonest not to answer questions, your next post sees you not answering a question he asks of you, presumably because you think it irrelevant?
Just asking, for a friend.
Thanks.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
False? Hey, if it does the job...
While the surgical minge is usually at the end stage of transitioning, I think we need some way to evaluate athletic competitiveness for those at the hormone treatment stage as well. The bulk of the physiological change (no pun intended) results from the sexual hormones, not the crotch decor.
If you're going to address me, lying troll, quote the full passage:
Read the bolded and enlarged portion. Read it slowly. Read it aloud. Read it through several times. Do you understand, James?
Edit: On second thought, and for shits and giggles, I'll answer.
Tiassa claims that JKR is not a transphobe. I mean, duuuhhh. You claim to have read the thread, James, why on earth would anyone think otherwise? Nowhere within this thread has Tiassa claimed, implied, nor even hinted at the possibility that JKR might be a transphobe.
Are you happy now?
Last edited:
Notice, dear readers, that James never addresses the matter of having claimed that JKR is a witch, nor has he specified the sense in which he intended as much.
Do I need to repeat the question, over and over again, until he answers my question?
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Testosterone is probably still produced even with hormone treatment. Also. physical results from before treatment may still persist.
No matter the result of treatments, the perceptions of unfairness will still persist if male parts are still present.
Oh look! It's Sarkus again, always ready to lend a boot to parmalee's personal attacks.
All that crap about irrelevancy, misreading etc. is just a smoke screen for not being honest enough to answer a straightforward question. You can't see that? Really?
That is not something I have suggested, as far as I can recall.
You never have been good at this stuff.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you have a question you would like me to answer?
There's no need. There's a link to the full text of your post, right there in my reply. Anybody who wants to see the entire post can easily follow the link.
Great!
See? That wasn't so hard. Why get your knickers in a knot over it?
Happier, certainly. There might be hope for you yet. I'm glad you decided to be more honest.
Um, your post #862 opened up your latest spat to the readership. You did, after all, address is directly.
I can see what you want reality to be, but unfortunately things don't work that way. You did genuinely misunderstand / misinterpret what was written. Parmalee has explained your misunderstanding to you, albeit with some colourful language. I have also explained your misunderstanding. But you... well, you just continue as if you've understood perfectly.which is a shame, 'cos you haven't. And for some reason (we can speculate, but really it's for you to work out and address for yourself) you wilfully choose to ignore efforts to correct you. Ah, well.
So, no, there was no smokescreen: your question really was irrelevant, and due to a misreading/misunder standing on your part.
Furthermore, since Parmalee explicitly and openly explained why he wasn't answering your question, and has explained why he thinks it irrelevant, it is not dishonesty on his part. You can disagree on his justification, but you have chosen not to.
Good. Then please stop being dishonest.
To quote only a specific part of a reply to suggest dishonesty on his part, while omitting his explanation for doing so, IS dishonest of you.
Please stop.
A reminder, dear readers, that this is the moderator who is so quick to accuses others of dishonesty.
I mistakenly thought you wouldn't be accusing Parmalee of dishonesty in such a dishonest manner yourself. My bad: you really are just that hypocritical.
Again with the wilful misunderstanding.
Anyone with sight can see the question mark and interpret it as questioning the accuracy of what was otherwise stated. But, again, you deliberately choose an interpretation that allows you to avoid the matter, or you think can score you points.
And this, dear readers, is still the moderator who accuses others of dishonesty.
Whodathunkit!!
Please do not troll.
??? So if someone quotes, say:
would be okay, because, well, there's a link to the full text of your post right there, so anyone who wants to see the entire post can easily follow the link? Right? I mean, you did type those words, right? In that order? The fact that I missed out some rather important context is neither here nor there, right?
Perhaps it's okay to leave it out if one thinks all that context is just smokescreen? If so then the above would be just as acceptable.
Anyhoo, it really is funny watching you try to rationalise your dishonesty, though. So thanks for that, I guess.
Just saying.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Please do not urge acts of extreme violence. Do not insult other members.
We don’t have to be nice on here then?
In that case...
Why don’t you take your own advice and shoot yourself in the head.
And, we all know that ICE agent took your advice when he disagreed with that woman driver and shot her in Minneapolis.
What a “fuckwit” you are.
I suppose you would be shooting JK Rolling and these nurses next for being women with concerns about Trans women.
BBC
Last edited:
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
The ambience in this thread seems to be deteriorating. Would 44 pages be considered sufficient attention to the Potter lady? Maybe we could have another thread devoted to the scientific and legal issues attendant on trans persons in competitive sports, restrooms, etc.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I blame Tiassa.
Don't ask, just start one. Can't hurt.
Compared to the mean spirit of its intention, it's hard to tell what anyone expected.
Did people not kiss your ass enough? Did they not praise you enough?
Or are there just not enough Maoists↑ to screech at↑?
I suppose bawling loudly↗ does work, sometimes, but please do remember↑ Sartre↑: "If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
Last edited:
Please do not insult other members.
Funnily, I wrote the text which I shall post below yesterday--before James's response below--and then just decided to not post it. But then, James posts this:
So, my speculation below--which I'll remind again: I wrote the stuff below before James had posted this response--is entirely correct.
IOW, decorum or form is vastly more important to James than the content, or what a person actually says.
He's "glad (I) decided to be more honest." IOW, "honesty"--to James--means answering James's stupid ass and wholly irrelevant question. I answered sarcastically, and plainly falsely (which is, in my mind, a sort of dishonesty, though it's intent is not to deceive but rather to mock), but that doesn't matter to James--what matters, and what makes me "honest" in James's muddled thinking, is simply that I answered.
Christ, this guy's a fucking goon!
Anyways. Here's the shit I wrote prior to James's posting that hilarious response above:
----------------------------------------------------
It has occurred to me that I probably ought to clarify the following for James's sake:
Remember, I can only work with what I am provided, and as per your insinuation that I am being "dishonest" by not answering your question (in post #862), I can only surmise that "honest" behavior--again, as per your highly unorthodox and unusual conceptions of such--is contingent solely upon answering a question, and not the manner by which one chooses to answer a question.
Also, and I know that this is a controversial matter for some, consideration of history often informs my understanding and interpretation of matters and events, and with respect to you, history informs me that you are very much concerned with how people "behave" (within the context of discussions on an internet forum) and you often remark upon how such and such "reflects poorly" upon one's "character", how such and such is "poor form", etc. Conversely, the actual substance of what a person is saying often seems a secondary, tangential, or even not particularly relevant concern as compared with how a person responds to you. In other words, based upon nearly two decades of experience, I have concluded that decorum is vastly more important to you than is what is actually being said.
So, my speculation below--which I'll remind again: I wrote the stuff below before James had posted this response--is entirely correct.
IOW, decorum or form is vastly more important to James than the content, or what a person actually says.
He's "glad (I) decided to be more honest." IOW, "honesty"--to James--means answering James's stupid ass and wholly irrelevant question. I answered sarcastically, and plainly falsely (which is, in my mind, a sort of dishonesty, though it's intent is not to deceive but rather to mock), but that doesn't matter to James--what matters, and what makes me "honest" in James's muddled thinking, is simply that I answered.
Christ, this guy's a fucking goon!
Anyways. Here's the shit I wrote prior to James's posting that hilarious response above:
----------------------------------------------------
It has occurred to me that I probably ought to clarify the following for James's sake:
The above passage is sarcasm. That being said, I did answer your question (which was wholly irrelevant to what was being discussed and had absolutely nothing to do with anything which I had actually said)--so am I no longer being dishonest here, because I have now answered your question? Or would I have to had responded earnestly--again, to a matter not relevant to anything being discussed at present and certainly not related in any way to anything that I had actually said, just to be clear--and not sarcastically in order to nullify your insinuation of "dishonesty" here, according to your highly unorthodox and unusual conception of what constitutes "honesty" and "dishonesty"?
Remember, I can only work with what I am provided, and as per your insinuation that I am being "dishonest" by not answering your question (in post #862), I can only surmise that "honest" behavior--again, as per your highly unorthodox and unusual conceptions of such--is contingent solely upon answering a question, and not the manner by which one chooses to answer a question.
Also, and I know that this is a controversial matter for some, consideration of history often informs my understanding and interpretation of matters and events, and with respect to you, history informs me that you are very much concerned with how people "behave" (within the context of discussions on an internet forum) and you often remark upon how such and such "reflects poorly" upon one's "character", how such and such is "poor form", etc. Conversely, the actual substance of what a person is saying often seems a secondary, tangential, or even not particularly relevant concern as compared with how a person responds to you. In other words, based upon nearly two decades of experience, I have concluded that decorum is vastly more important to you than is what is actually being said.
Last edited:
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
What does Sartre say about your lying about what posters said and meant. Actually l, what would Sartre say about you never actually asking me what I did mean and just assuming something pejorative? The Maoist comment, for example, was a way of describing JKR's flawed perceptions of some critics and not my own views. You never seem to catch irony. Also, what is Sartre's take on crude insults like "did not kiss your ass enough"? Wouid he possibly think you weren't interested in real discourse on the issues, but rather just want to score imaginary points by attacking the strawman of your interlocutor you've created?
Also "bawling loudly" (whatever that link was...no one has the time to click on your many arrows) is sort of an ad hominem, isn't it? Which suggests your moral high horse might just be a rickety sawhorse.
So, let's just double-check: When you wrote—
—you were ironically, as you suggest, "describing JKR's flawed perceptions of some critics and not my own views"?
(See, thing is, I actually comprehend the concept of such performances, and part of the answer is to consider to what degree a fundamental part of the performance is to accordingly receive the blows as they come. To the other, compared to your record, we can just file it all under, sure, whatever gets you through.)
- Status