On June 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm, Joy said: #91

From everything I’ve seen Z… you dish it out first by your ever disrespectful, baiting and antagonistic attitude (the LOL!s translate to sneering and laughing at a person) and then act truly astounded that people react the way they do to it.

Nope. You are wrong.

If you read the posts you would know that there were two posts insulting me before I made the post that you take issue with.

For your benefit I will cut and paste from my post #88 -

“Had I not been insulted in post #48 and then again in post #57, I would not have posted #63. I did not go there first. Not an excuse, a fact. I ignored the first, then addressed the second.”

It would help if you read, before commenting. We have established that you do not read my ‘tripe’. Not a good idea when you take me to task, absent the facts.

Yep, I dish because I am dished on. And, I am going ask you politely to stop dishing on me and use my full screen name. I veiw it as over the line and an insult.

I will give you an example of why you think I am harping and haranguing, because I asked you a specific question and you did not answer it. Why? I don’t know. It might be because I believe that you are afraid. Prove me wrong, answer the question. Don’t allow me to assume you are afraid. I will ask it again.

How can you suggest assumption is wrong in one breath, and then later, make an assumption?

If it is harping and haranguing to repeatedly ask a question, then there is one very simple way to stop me from doing so. Address the question.

As for sneering, that is only in your mind and imagination. Yes, I am laughing at some posters. I could insult them, hurl epiteths, or laugh at them. I choose to laugh.

Again, please, I am asking you, nicely, to use my entire screen name.

Have at dude or dudette – since it seems to be working so well for you.

I have no idea what you mean by this. If you want to expand the statement, you are welcome to do so.

X said:

Something WAY too long to waste time reading… but I’ll bet money it included lots of disrespectful LOL!’s

From everything I’ve seen Z… you dish it out first by your ever disrespectful, baiting and antagonistic attitude (the LOL!s translate to sneering and laughing at a person) and then act truly astounded that people react the way they do to it.

Have at dude or dudette – since it seems to be working so well for you.

On June 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm, Joy said: #86

I knew somehow that you would not address my respectful request. Or, specificaly address the statement and questions I made in post #84.

I do know the beginning of this. I was there and participating in the conversation and you were completely out of line and still are. You’re clueless. And you ARE dense. If you don’t like being called a troll, stop acting like one. That is why I took to scrolling past you.

LOL.

Name calling is name calling. It is insulting and offensive. Everyone has their standards. You accept calling people trolls, and accept being called a troll yourself. I do not. We walk to the beat of different drummers. So be it.

I don’t suspect that you think you are dense and since sonofdy will not address the question, I will repeat it for you in the hope that you will answer it.

How can you suggest assumption is wrong in one breath, and then later, make an assumption?

You’re insufferable and tedious and RUDE. Your way of interacting with the other folks on this site is what brings on the reaction and response to you. For once, look in the mirror and see it instead of harping and haranguing everyone else to death and expecting total civility in return.

That is a matter of opinion. Asking question is now rude, but not calling people names?

I don’t need to look in the mirror, you need to read and fully understand what is being said. Maybe if you, and others, answer a direct question it would be helpful.

Oh yeah, and repeatedly calling people names as a response to their posts, is not harping and haranguing?

There are lines Z. And MOST NORMAL people recognize the difference between calling someone dense, a troll or whatever and leaping over that line (WAY WAY over it) into filthy, disgusting, amoral, bizarre, gross and despicable and bitter, vile, degenerate ad hominem attacks.

Absolutely, there are lines. Lines are crossed all the time. And, I have asked others, and you just recently, to call me by my screen name. Well, you cross the line everytime you refer to me when you don’t use my screen name.

We all have lines. They are just in different places. If you cannot accommodate me, as I have respectfully asked others in the past, why should I accommodate you?

When you dish it out you had better be prepared to take it. When there is offense, take all of it to task.

On June 30th, 2009 at 2:31 pm, sonofdy said: #85

Salt and joy, don’t bother with Z, he is just being a dumbass deliberately. He knows his points are inaccurate but simply wants to try to sound more intelligent than he really is.

LOL

Whatever.

Assigning motive to me, and incorrectly at that, does not help your cause.

Tell me again about your post #74, especially the last five words?

You are so funny.

On June 30th, 2009 at 1:44 pm, Salt said: #82

Thank you so much for a reasonable discussion. And, that is part of the problem. Too many people retreat to insults and not take the path you have.

You are certainly of the earth.
[Note: Do I have to explain?]

In #37, sonofdy was referring to your statement about whether or not posters saw the question to which you were alluding.

Yep. And, I agreed saying it was a fair point. See, I am not an evil person. When a point is made that I agree with, I am not afraid to say so. I then asked if that applies to Janeane Garofalo.

Sonofdy agreed that it does apply to Janeane Garofalo.

Sonofdy then said, it is a You Tube world and it can be assumed she saw the question.

I am going to try one more time. Sonofdy did not renconcile the disconnect, maybe you can.

The first opinion suggests that an assumption can not be made about actually seeing the question, then the second opinion making the assumption that the question has been seen, is incongruous.

Those are sonofdy’s two opinions. I am not questioning his opinions, I am asking him, and now you, to reconcile the two, make sense of the two diametrically opposite opinions.

I suggested it could not be done. Maybe you can.

I distilled previously saying -

You are duplicitous. First you say don’t assume, and then you go ahead and assume.

Yet, no direct response from sonofdy. What I get is that I am questioning the opinion. No. For goodness sake, NO. I am not questioning the opinions, plural. I am questioning why the two opinions contradict one another.

When you started this sub-thread I suspected you were bringing a past grievance from another thread into this one, but I did not know exactly what you were discussing.

Nope. I did not bring any past grievances into this thread until I was insulted by someone who continually hurls perjorative epiteths without addressing the substance of my arguements.

For some, it is easier to insult than address what was actually said. It is easier for some not to answer questions, take tangents, create unseen scenarios and call people names.

Had I not been insulted in post #48 and then again in post #57, I would not have posted #63. I did not go there first. Not an excuse, a fact. I ignored the first, then addressed the second.

It is not about right and wrong, it is about taking people to task for what they say. I said I was over the top, neither right nor wrong.

Are you willing to take the poster of #48 and #57 to task for being over the top in insulting me? You could suggest it is an issue of degree. I say, it is still an insult and offensive.

In #42, sonofdy answered your question to him about Janeane specifically. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that she might have seen the video challenge, but we cannot know for sure. Even sonofdy has stated that it is only his opinion/guess.

Understood, and I say again. Reconcile that with sonofdy’s first opinion. Why suggest something should not be assumed, and then come back and make an assumption a couple of posts later?

#37 and #42 are about two different things. You tied them together whereas sonofdy had not. One was about posters and the question to which you were alluding, the other specifically about Janeane G. and the challenge issued to her.

Huh?

I did not make the statements. Sonofdy did. I did not force them from sonofdy. They were voluntarily given.

Take a deep breath and think about this. Though not connected in the moment and even if they had been said years apart. Two disparate statements by the same person are still contradictory.

A public figure who challenges another for an affair and suggests the only option is resignstion, then has an affair of their own and dismisses the option of resignation for themselves, is what? Inconsistent? Hypocrisy?

Sonofdy’s opinions are inconsistent. The content of the opinions are immaterial. It is that the opinions are like the politician’s. One day resignation is OK, and the next it is not. One day assumption is OK, and the next day it is not. You can’t have it both ways.

I did not connect anything. The opinions connected themselves.

I did not personally see any intellectual dishonesty in sonofdy’s answer and he appeared, to me, to be responding at level with you until you essentially called him a liar.

I never called sonofdy a liar, essentially, or not. I asked, and now I am asking you, since sonofdy won’t, to reconcile the two opinions.

I don’t think I can be anymore clear. I have asked it before.

How can you suggest assumption is wrong in one breath, and then later, make an assumption?

Admittedly, I went way long, but should you elect to respond please address the bold question first.

Again, thank you for the discussion. You and I managed to do so without insults, perjoratives, invectives and name calling.

I just wish we all could.