Anu said:
Well, let us know, Anu, when you decide to show it.
when expectations of the kind you evince are not fulfilled, one usually feels a certain degree of dissapointment. it is a general condition of being human. you do know what it is to be one, yes?
I'm long past the point of being disappointed about the general tone that predominates Sciforums. Part of it is that I generally don't like thinking so little of this or that person, but after I got used to the fact that some people absolutely insist on making the point that they're just not smart and rather quite vicious, I feel much better about chuckling at their misfortunes. It's a free Universe; people are welcome to be as miserable and stupid as they want. And that point--that people are free to be miserable and stupid--is one that took some getting used to. It finally clicked when a poster with a sense of self-importance similar to yours in magnitude but who is considerably less vicious made the transition from the general to the particular in order to write away a consideration with the simple declaration, "I don't think I'm miserable." It still doesn't make any sense to me that someone should pretend they're happy in order to avoid considering the amount of human strife in the world, but it also occurred to me that there's no reason to get stressed about it.
In a way, it actually deepens an abstract faith of mine:
Humanity has always been this stupid, and we haven't gone extinct yet.
If the Universe wasn't so damn vast, that might actually be something to be proud of.
The simple fact is that something is interfering with your reading comprehension. I mean, you quote the alternative yourself:
Frankly, Seaman Staines, I'm amused.
apparently this was cryptic enough for you to refer to it as... Now ... to me, that whole section is from left field. did you really have a point to all that? if so, what? do you really think presenting it in such a manner would lead to a serious consideration of it? naturally i thought not and replied with an equally moronic response. it is you that brings this crap to the table. why whine if i bite? (google squinchy and find dofo)
This would be a lot easier if you didn't directly indicate by the nature of your posts that you do not understand the discussion you've landed yourself in.
I mean, really ...
Now ... to me, that whole section is from left field:
•if that aint a clear indication of intent, i do not know what is - Do I care? What's ironic to me is that the "dirty campaign" isn't even focusing on substantial dirt. In that sense, it is pioneering, and perhaps prophetic of the upcoming American election. Cutting edge, indeed. But that's not always a good thing--just ask Allawi.
• and you must be dipsy donkey dofo? - Um ... I'm rubber and you're glue ....
• and you my dear sir, need a fat cock in the ass - Be that as it may, I still don't see what it has to do with the topic at hand.
• great, Jack Meehoff, i aim to please. - When did this become about you ?
• now lets go splash around in the kiddie pool. - How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
It is amusing. For some reason I can't shake from my mind the image of meeting the third McDonald twin. Now that connection, I'd like to understand.
But perhaps you might answer me a seemingly simple question: Why bare your teeth and pick an issue with me just to raise yourself as the issue?
It just seems ... extraneous.
(Tiassa)
You answered that last question by posting that self-important bit including chronology and general vagary:
now this bit was directly below my post. it brought up a point that concerned a previous engagement b/w us. it really was not that much of a reach to conclude the post was directed at me. secondly, it was also ambiguous enough to to allow a degree of leeway in interpretation. thus i formulated a response that employed logic and a certain amount of levity. thirdly, it was i that set the general tone of this thread (perhaps by sheer weight of posts alone). i think therefore i bear a certain responsibility towards the evolution of this topic. so.....critique the thread and naturally it reflects on me
(
Anu)
I have advised you twice about that passage (
1,
2) and you still don't seem to get it insofar as you won't even acknowledge the point in order to dismiss or counter it. You just ignore it and go on babbling.
But we can focus more directly on one part of your claims:
did you really have a point to all that? if so, what? do you really think presenting it in such a manner would lead to a serious consideration of it? naturally i thought not and replied with an equally moronic response. it is you that brings this crap to the table. why whine if i bite?
(1) You still don't get it, do you?
(2) Why did
you choose to take me seriously?
(3) Moronic, indeed.
(4) Try "biting" about something relevant, or else settle down, little doggy.
In the meantime, let's move on to your misrepresentations. Keep #4 above in mind:
"kapeesh" naturally. it must rank. see this elevation occurs only in your mind. i mean, i question its usefulness, i find it an irritant. how the hell does that translate to "something substantial"
How the hell does it translate to something substantial? Ask yourself, Anu. We've
already been through this, but you don't really care about what you haven't read or don't understand, do you?
I asked you,
Why bare your teeth and pick an issue with me just to raise yourself as an issue?
You responded with a truckload of self-centered delusions that I've already addressed repeatedly:
now this bit was directly below my post. it brought up a point that concerned a previous engagement b/w us. it really was not that much of a reach to conclude the post was directed at me.
(
Anu)
As we see, Anu,
you elevated the "kapeesh" argument in order to increase your sense of self-importance. So let's move on to some more of your misrepresentations now. They're all rather quite simple:
let me revisit that point in time when all went to pot
I applaud the attempt, but it is apparent from the outset that you are misrepresenting:
now there is the original hissy fit.
Interesting that you quoted from later in that discussion.
The original issue was that I wrote,
The word is spelled "capiche."
The response, of course, was to post an urban dictionary (a reference designed to indicate what the actual words are supposed to be, not something that legitimizes colloquial speech as proper), an online etymology that reinforces my point, and an internet discussion which lends nothing to your position.
there is the disrespect. do you really think that i am going to fucking let you get away with calling me an illiterate after it had been established that the variation is an accepted one simply because it offends you?
So ... they wrote the Urban Dictionary based on
your speech exclusively? It
seems you're upset by the sentence,
Generally speaking, people should at least know how to spell the simple words without referring to an "urban dictionary" designed to cater to those trying to understand what illiterates are saying ("coppish") and writing ("kapeesh"). By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.
So look at your angry question:
do you really think that i am going to fucking let you get away with calling me an illiterate after it had been established that the variation is an accepted one simply because it offends you?
It's very hard to take that question seriously, since in the exchange you're referring to, you seem to have overlooked a vital aspect:
What's so hard to grasp about the idea that it's unfortunate that we extol the dubious virtues of the illiterate by imitating them?
(
Tiassa)
Or as I explained to Shmoo:
Really ... it just amazes me that people put so much effort into justify their forays into the lifestyles of the dim and misguided. I realize that consistent spelling is too much to ask of a culture in general, but something about using a colloquial dictionary to establish the legitimacy of a colloquial degradation of a colloquialism strikes me as just odd. Colloquial dictionaries exist to explain the twisting of conventional communication taking place within the vernacular. They don't legitimize colloquialisms as proper communication.
(
Tiassa)
Or to Bells:
(I hope you realize I'm merely enjoying the sarcasm of it all. It's not necessarily the need to get votes from the right--that's a hopeless cause. But I live in a country filled with onomatopoeic comic books, and whose people survived an overdose of George Michael in a band of that name, and they still think the word is "wam!" Watching someone write poor colloquialisms is a bit like watching a gangster try to be tough and say, "Capiche?" while dressed in a pink tutu with "hair gel"--yeah, that's it ... it's hair gel--dripping from his ear.)
(
Tiassa)
I know you responded to at least one of those posts, so I'm wondering what the problem is? I mean, if you'd raised the angry question before those posts, I certainly would have at least tried to clear it up for you, but you're still simmering about it for absolutely no reason.
In your rush to raise yourself to the center of the Universe, you also overlooked some things that I posted directly in response to you:
The simple fact is that people who are not compelled to communicate clearly are no longer capable of understanding even the colloquialisms they use.
If that isn't a beguiling testament to humanity, well, that's your loss. I find it rather fascinating that people demand some sort of intellectual credibility for using dysfunctional forms of what is generally noncommunicative language in the first place . . . .
. . . . So raising laziness and illiteracy to a literary and linguistic pedestal isn't frivolous?
(
Tiassa)
And if it needed to be more clear:
I mean, you're relying on the illiterate and celebrating their dysfunction.
(
Tiassa)
So if we return to the discussion at hand and revisit once again your angry question--
do you really think that i am going to fucking let you get away with calling me an illiterate after it had been established that the variation is an accepted one simply because it offends you?
(
Anu)
--we see that both the inquiry itself
and the anger are falsely founded.
And it's not like the reality of what you're overreacting to is subtly buried where nobody can see it. As I have shown, the issue was repeatedly addressed in that topic.
Just a question:
Is it that you really think you can get away with such misrepresentation?
I mean, I'm a stoner--allegedly prone to memory issues--and I can remember what's going on in these and other topics. What's
your excuse, Anu? Why raise all of this pointless crap of yours?
Oh, yes ... how silly of me to forget--
understand this. regardless of spin that either of us places on my role here, i am still a participant in this thread. diss the thread and you diss me in turn. i will naturally respond.
Something about self-importance goes here.
you mean sentences, ja? interesting. what issues am i avoiding here?
Perhaps the funniest thing you've written so far.
Do you know what a paragraph is? Do you understand that sentences within paragraphs interact in much the same way that words within a sentence do?
Words? Sentences? Paragraphs? Articles, chapters, sections, parts, books, volumes?
The
sum effect of the words you're responding to is what you're avoiding. It's part of the reason you're continually and spectacularly missing the point.
For instance, when you wrote--
niggy, you claim incomprehensibility with regards to the topic. as such, i am wary of according any credibility towards your pronouncements.
(
Anu)
--a certain presumption of conflict is apparent. Your sound-bite responses are cheap flash and glitter. If you had paused to think in terms larger than sentences you might have noticed that I marked tactical errors, addressed issues of address, and restated what should have been obvious since the line about the monkeys:
Well, I suppose I should have presumed and then accounted for your paranoia, but I'll acknowledge the placement of the post in the chronology as well as the general vagary. But that's also the point: the general vagary. This entire topic is ineffably hilarious as its gone on.
(
Tiassa)
Which leads us back, just for amusement's sake, to what is a candidate for the
Horsepucky of the Year Award:
nuts. i rarely misjudge a post, tiassa. besides, you come to me. you are in control of events. what is that saying......yes, you will reap what you sow
(
Anu)
So, yeah ... I take back my earlier assessment; this statement of yours is the funniest thing you've ever written. Really ... that was ... cute and fluffy. I hope you felt better for having made such a demonstrably preposterous declaration.
Of course, you're just being moronic for effect, right?
is it the fact that i disagree with all your moronic assertions and expectations that compel you to pretend incomprehension? is it the fact that i do not acknowledge your neurotic desire to elevate and rise about it all that leads to "avoidant pseudo responses?" or is it the fact that i treat politics in a manner that befits it that gets your frikkin panties in a bunch?
Actually, Anu, it's the facts that you think yourself so important that you bother with such stupid pride in the first place and also that you have
no clue whatsoever what you're responding to that make it somewhat annoying.
I mean, look at all your misrepresentations that I've noted here. Look, people don't need to come to me with their SAT's in order to prove they can read; it is enough that they don't get hysterical about things they demonstrably don't understand.
To take a neutral example: The other day, a poster posted in World Events that WMD had been found in Iraq. The material removed, however, was long-known, non-weapons grade, and quite obviously
never sold to Al Qaeda. Now, these politics aside, it's puzzling to many of us how the poster concluded that the removal of 1.8 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and nonessential radiological materials (e.g. cesium) that have been known about for years constitutes a discovery of the long-sought weapons of mass destruction. Someone eventually made the comment that the topic poster had been duped, but here's the confounding question:
Was it politics that motivated the topic, or did the poster really believe that the removal of known materials constituted the discovery of WMD's where those known materials had not been counted as such before? The question becomes one of comprehension:
What does the poster understand about the article? We only have what s/he writes to fill in that detail. And it's obvious that there's some misunderstanding. Is the poster
unable or
unwilling to understand? At some point, that misunderstanding, that absence of comprehension, affects the functional performance of communication; in this case the poster, as a result of specific comprehension, misrepresented the information contained in the article s/he posted.
Likewise with you, Anu. The selective attention you give my posts of late seems to
seek conflict. You seem to be grasping at straws, avoiding points and screeching like a primadonna in order to make a scene.
get a grip, drama queen. lament indeed. is this not a constant whiny refrain of yours? one must note your conventions. one must follow your convoluted meanderings. one must be on the ball with regards to all obscure references. find your self a literary forum and take a measure of yourself there. you could possibly find yourself lacking. no more do you have the masses as a reference by which you measure your sense of self worth. yeah thats right. learn how to read, peasants. keep up with me, you 16 year old n00b. how easy it is to feel superior when one measures oneself against retards.
Your tantrums might carry more credibility, Anu, if you demonstrated the viability of their bases. At present, you're merely wailing about your own injured sensitivities; there's not much anyone can do to help you with that, though, if your sensitivities are such that you seek injury in order to complain.
i presume you speak from experience, eh? let me reiterate, if you cannot make your intent clear, if you insist on camouflage, obsure references and veiled insults, i will interprete your shit anyway i see fit. i am not one to ask for clarification when you do not even attempt to make an effort. see, i understand why you adopt this approach. it is in essence an attempt to cloak what is actually an ad hom attack. i understand very well what you are on about in this thread
Interpret away. One of these days you might actually hit the mark.
now, exactly what is it that i have misunderstood. is the fact that i say you rag on this thread and its contributers? i mean, after all, you insist the grand entrance was not directed at me. do you even understand the extent of the contribution in here that i take credit for? simple political slogans and lighthearted jabs at a candidate. that is hardly a cause for pride
The first part, as to what you have misunderstood, will take its own post. I'll give it a whirl later today. As to your contribution that is hardly a cause for pride--
it was i that set the general tone of this thread (perhaps by sheer weight of posts alone)
I agree that it's not cause for pride. Yet you raise it to such a point:
Do this sound familiar?
i think therefore i bear a certain responsibility towards the evolution of this topic. so.....critique the thread and naturally it reflects on me.
Or this?
diss the thread and you diss me in turn. i will naturally respond.
Just wondering.
uh, now i am suffering? what is my misfortune?
I consider such challenged literacy an unfortunate condition for someone who, as you are, seems compelled to attempt to communicate. At some point, however, I must defer to your right to remain in such a condition. It
is your life, after all.
By the way,
squinchy is a colloquialism "pertaining to, or reminding one of a fun feeling ... usually tactile in nature, but also can be used to denote coolness or acceptability." (
PseudoDictionary)
But that's also the thing about colloquialisms. Where I grew up, it was also an adjective for a certain character of feces, and was considered pseudo-onomatopoeic; this sense, however, derives from a literary employment of the word "squinch" as a verb--I can offer up for that use of the word a .PDF,
see page 7. (The PDF quotes Stephen King, I believe from
Danse Macabre.)
So you ought to feel honored; it seems I've compared you to a velvet jacket. My association with the word isn't widely-enough known yet.
Keep smiling, Anu. Between misinterpretation and misrepresentation, you're still setting that standard you're so proud of.
