IMHO, the kid is showing his/her sexist bigotry. Obviously, the kid thinks one religion is suppressive and he/she thinks women are the crux of that suppression. But, if you consider being a sexist bigot as having "a future" so be it.
Sexism:"1.prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women" (merriam-webster.com)
Believing that women are suppressed does not mean that one thinks they should be suppressed. Someone who believes that men and women should be treated equally is pretty likely to point out disparity in treatment, so merely acknowledging suppression can't possibly be assumed to be "sexist".
By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist". Obviously, that wouldn't make any sense, but I look forward to you asserting otherwise.
"Believing that women are suppressed does not mean that one thinks they should be suppressed."
That's the standard you insist that I hold ( you say I believe people should be responsible for their situations, therefore I think they should be responsible for their situations). So clarify your position. Is it one way or the other? You can't have it both ways.
"By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist"."
No, by my standards everyone who supports slavery was(is) a racist. You have a real problem with truth, don't you? Don't worry, though, that seems to be a problem for a lot of liberals.
"That's the standard you insist that I hold ( you say I believe people should be responsible for their situations, therefore I think they should be responsible for their situations)."
Read what you just wrote. You didn't provide any contrast between those two phrases. Did you mean to say "you say I believe people are responsible for their situations, therefore I think they should be responsible for their situations"? If that's what you intended, then the comparison is unclear at best. How would you be misrepresented by one phrase and not the other?
"No, by my standards everyone who supports slavery was(is) a racist."
No, if a child draws a cartoon pointing out that people of a certain race are being suppressed, then your reasoning would insist that child is a racist. The same would go for anyone who ever pointed out that suppression. Feel free to explain how you can believe that the cartoon in this article is "sexist" and that slavery opposition is not "racist" at the same time.
"No, if a child draws a cartoon pointing out ..." blah blah blah
The child also drew a cartoon pointing out injustice towards owning weapons. According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed. Does that make the child a sexist war-mongerer? That's what you say my standards are. Wow, how far you reach to whine is amazing.
"According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui [sic] Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed. Does that make the child a sexist war-mongerer [sic]?"
There's no commentary on weapons. The cartoon works whether one supports unrestricted gun ownership or not. Even if that was part of the point, "war-mongerer" doesn't fit. And since you haven't provided your personal definition of that word, as you did for "sexist", I have no idea whether you would think that or not.
"That's what you say my standards are."
Obviously not, because I never said anything about weapons. You're reaching, to put it kindly.
"Wow, how far you reach to whine is amazing."
You're the one whining about a child's drawing. I'm simply pointing out that the meaning of the word "sexist" isn't consistent with your opinion. I notice that you haven't provided anything to show otherwise.
I'm not whining about it. I am commenting on it ... you know, like stating an opinion. Just like Eddie asks people to do. If I was whining I would have said 'why is this kid drawing about significant issues when he/she has no idea about the depth of the issues'. But, I didn't say anything like that, did I? I just commented on what I think. Sorry, you're just reaching to far with your latest whines.
"There's no commentary on weapons."
Ummm, what are "arms" in the left hand part of the picture? I know I'm just a stupid conservative, but I'm pretty sure "arms" means "weapons" in that usage. But, you're a, way smarter, liberal .... tell me what "arms" means in that usage.
Looks like I outsmarted you again. If you got anything else, I'll check periodically. Otherwise, I fully expect you to just retreat and wait for another article that you don't have to lie to support your stance.
"I'm not whining about it. I am commenting on it ... you know, like stating an opinion."
Then you can't accuse me of "whining" when I point out that there's nothing "sexist" about the drawing.
"If I was whining I would have said 'why is this kid drawing about significant issues when he/she has no idea about the depth of the issues'."
So criticizing that would be "whining", but criticizing "sexist bigotry" is somehow something other than "whining". I'm sure there's some vital distinction you've simply forgotten to mention there (sarcasm).
"But, I didn't say anything like that, did I? I just commented on what I think."
Your hypothetical complaint would also be you commenting on what you think. And if that's supposed to mean that your complaining isn't "whining", then you're proving that I wasn't "whining", either. You'd better get to work on your definitions and distinctions here, or you're going to make yourself look like a hypocrite.
"I know I'm just a stupid conservative, but I'm pretty sure "arms" means "weapons" in that usage."
You'd have to be pretty stupid to miss this context: "The cartoon works whether one supports unrestricted gun ownership or not." That pretty clearly shows that "arms" is referring to weapons, so your idiotic and repetitive questions were already answered. Note that I didn't say that there was no "mention of" or no "reference to" weapons. There's no commentary, meaning that there's no opinion either stated or implied on the subject. That should have been clear enough already, since I was addressing this: "According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui [sic] Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed." Your assertion was that the cartoon asserts an opinion on bearing arms, and it does not. Get it now? You aren't going to outsmart anyone when you can't even follow your own posts.
If you really want to demonstrate intelligence, show the definition that substantiates your usage of "sexist". Actually addressing the point would be a way of doing that, as opposed to asking stupid questions and pretending that you made some airtight argument even before receiving the answers.
Incidentally, I'm not sure how you "expect" me to retreat when you've abandoned every single thread we've been on. At best, that comes off as false bravado to overcompensate for your lack of an argument. Just so you know.
"That pretty clearly shows that "arms" is referring to weapons, so your idiotic and repetitive questions were already answered."
Yeah, says the guy who just said: "There's no commentary on weapons.". Make up your mind. Because I see an OBVIOUS commentary on weapons in the cartoon. If you don't see it, then I can't help you. But, you've always been good at making shit up, that isn't present, and then commenting on it as if it was present. I see you haven't lost your touch.
"Incidentally, I'm not sure how you "expect" me to retreat when you've abandoned every single thread we've been on."
You mean you expect me to continue to discuss with a proven, unrepentant, habitual liar? Hell, you are even doing that very same thing in this article. Why ... WHY would I continue discussing with you when you act like that?
"Yeah, says the guy who just said: "There's no commentary on weapons.". Make up your mind."
I haven't said anything inconsistent. I never denied that weapons were mentioned, so your questions were unnecessary.
"Because I see an OBVIOUS commentary on weapons in the cartoon. If you don't see it, then I can't help you."
If you insist on assuming an opinion on weapons, you go right ahead. You can't explain how such an opinion would be necessary for the cartoon to make sense, though. And it's utterly irrelevant to the point, since you're the one who brought up weapons as some unexplained comparison to your manufactured standard for what constitutes "sexist" behavior. Weapons don't affect the validity of your "sexist" declaration, so this would just be a distraction even if it made an ounce of sense.
"But, you've always been good at making shit up, that isn't present,"
Like how you made up a quote out of thin air and attributed it to me? I'd love to see you try to provide examples of such behavior on my part, but I already know you don't have any.
"You mean you expect me to continue to discuss with a proven, unrepentant, habitual liar?"
You've continued to argue with me long after making those absurd claims before. Your indignant routine above was discredited quite some time ago.
"Hell, you are even doing that very same thing in this article."
Sorry, I'm not responsible for your misunderstanding of simple words, especially when the full text precludes your interpretation. On the other hand, you've obviously manufactured a definition of "sexist" that doesn't exist, and you haven't repented for that as of yet. You should probably demonstrate accountability for yourself before demanding it from me over your imagined grievances.
"Umm, (I pointed out already) the cartoon IS a commentary on weapons."
No, you pointed out that it mentioned weapons, which I said myself. You haven't shown how an opinion on the subject is necessary for the cartoon to work. And again, it's irrelevant to the point.
"Never been done."
It's been proven. I copied and pasted it in the very next post, and you never explained where you got the quote from. Remember, you putting words in quotes is your claim regarding what I've posted. You never backed up that claim, meaning you lied. Game, set, match.
"No, you pointed out that it mentioned weapons, which I said myself."
Factually, you denied the child was commenting on weapons. For some reason you think "arms" (in that usage) does not mean "weapons".
But, it's good to see you haven't lost your touch for lying consistently while discussing any given subject. Constant lying does wonders for your reputation.
"Factually, you denied the child was commenting on weapons."
Wrong. I said there was no commentary on weapons, because you were attributing an opinion to the cartoon. And as already demonstrated, the very next sentence mentioned gun ownership, so at this point your claim that I don't think "arms" means "weapons" is simply a lie. The first time I could accept your confusion or lack of attention, but at this point I don't see how it can't be intentional.
"Constant lying does wonders for your reputation."
I notice that you had no defense regarding your manufactured quote. I'm completely sure that your blatant dishonesty is more compelling evidence than you substituting words and trying to hold me accountable for it, so I'm not worried in the slightest. Thanks for the concern, though.
By the way, have you found anything to support your definition of "sexist" yet? As of now, it still appears that you used the term inappropriately.
Who cares what you think. My statements stand on their own merit. If you got a problem with what I say, take it up with someone who cares. Maybe you can go crying to Eddie that I didn't say something right. Either way, you're just crying.
"Who cares what you think.[sic] My statements stand on their own merit."
If you're not accountable for what you say, then you can't hold anyone else accountable for what they say. That's going to limit your posts pretty severely, since I'll be all too happy to keep you in line.
And I can't wait to see how you're going to try to respond to that without falling into your own trap. I don't want to hear you crying, now.
As I said, my statements stand on their own merit. If someone (with more respectability than you have) wishes to comment about my statements, they are more than welcome to do so. Your reputation for lying has cost you all respect, here, and you have earned no credence for further responses.
"Your reputation for lying has cost you all respect, here, and you have earned no credence for further responses."
You can't conclude that I've ever lied, though. All of my statements stand on their own merit, and you crying about them doesn't change that. And you don't have the credibility to say anything, anyway. Note on this very thread, you claimed "For some reason you think "arms" (in that usage) does not mean "weapons".", when my mention of weapons had already been demonstrated to you ("The cartoon works whether one supports unrestricted gun ownership or not"). You can't get around that. Given that proof of your dishonesty, you lack the respectability to comment on my statements.
See how that works? If you're going to shield yourself from accountability, I can use that standard to make an even better argument for myself.
Remember, that statement stands on its own merits. If you don't like it, tell someone who cares.
("The cartoon works whether one supports unrestricted gun ownership or not")
Too bad the cartoon isn't only talking about guns. It is commenting on "arms", which you denied it was commenting on when you said: "There's no commentary on weapons.". Arms, as everyone knows, (in that usage) refers to weapons. Which you denied was being commented on. game, set, match
"Too bad the cartoon isn't only talking about guns."
It doesn't have to be talking only about guns. Since guns fit into the category of "weapons", I proved that I know that "arms" refers to "weapons". What's your explanation for the comment, if you really didn't realize that already? If you thought "guns" were completely irrelevant to the subject, why didn't you say something about that?
"Which you denied was being commented on."
Again, the first time you say something wrong, I'll believe that you were confused. The second time around, you're lying. As I told you before:"Wrong. I said there was no commentary on weapons, because you were attributing an opinion to the cartoon." I never said "commenting" or "commented", which have a less specific meaning. To make that even more clear, you're using "commented on" as meaning "mentioned". Look up "commentary", and you'll see the difference.
Besides, my statement stands on its own. You're not allowed to criticize it. Did you forget that so soon?
"Hey Einstein, "the right to bear arms" IS the commentary."
Are you using the actual definition for the word, now? In all seriousness, if that's been your point all along, you only have yourself to blame for any misunderstanding. For instance, when I said "You can't explain how such an opinion would be necessary for the cartoon to make sense, though", you didn't even suggest that you were talking about "right to bear arms" all by itself. That would have been the obvious response. It also makes no sense to react to the original quote the way you did if that was always your argument. I can point out a half-dozen or so opportune times for you to say that, which would indisputably be more effective than going off on your dishonest tangent about the meaning of "arms". Your failure to speak plainly isn't my responsibility, much less your nonsensical behavior. I'm not even inclined to believe that was your original viewpoint, given all your suggestions otherwise.
But, just for fun, let's say that you really think that any cartoon that depicts a political stance must automatically be taking that stance. This took me a whole ten seconds to find: http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-cartoon.jpg . There are plenty of signs there which the artist obviously doesn't support. So, you'll have to explain how you know the child's opinion regarding that sign from those words alone. Given your Neanderthal communication skills, I'm pretty confident that you're not going to do very well at that.
Are you using the actual definition for the word, now?
Which word do you need defined, this time?
So, you'll have to explain how you know the child's opinion regarding that sign from those words alone.
Do make an effort to be this stupid or does it come naturally? My VERY FIRST POST: "IMHO, the kid is showing his/her sexist bigotry.". Now, where did I say I "KNOW THE CHILD'S OPINION"??? Do you even have a clue what IMHO means?
Given your Neanderthal communication skills, I'm pretty confident that you're not going to do very well at that.
I don't need any word defined, I asked if you are using the actual definition.
"Now, where did I say I "KNOW THE CHILD'S OPINION"???"
Why would that phrase have to be verbatim for you to assert that? And why the hell are you referencing your original quote? "Sexist bigotry" has nothing to do with "the right to bear arms", so how you thought that's relevant should be a funny story. Try this one: "According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui [sic] Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed." There's no humble opinion qualifier, either. You directly stated the child's opinion, so obviously you think you know what that opinion is.
Your homework is to post the definition of "commentary" and explain what the hell you think you're talking about. When you show that you're grasping the concept, then we can move past your nonsense.
You directly stated the child's opinion, so obviously you think you know what that opinion is.
Oh, look, another lie posted by you. I said "according to the cartoon". That is in direct reference to the commentary offered. How is saying what the cartoon is saying "knowing" anyone's opinion? BTW, I've already looked up that word, and I used it correctly. If you have something that shows differently, you're more than welcome to post it. I don't think that would be a good idea, for you, though. It would further cement the obvious lack of intelligence you are using currently.
Even if you had left it at that, the cartoon didn't draw itself. It's a reflection of the person who created it. And you cropped your own quote. You went on to say that the author is saying that "bearing arms in the US should be allowed".
"BTW, I've already looked up that word, and I used it correctly."
Then how do you explain the cartoon that I linked in response?
"6 sentences later: You: Your homework is to post the definition of "commentary""
Look, another dishonest quote-cropping. The full sentence: "Your homework is to post the definition of "commentary" and explain what the hell you think you're talking about." That by itself is consistent with "I asked if you are using the actual definition". That's even more clear when followed by "When you show that you're grasping the concept, then we can move past your nonsense."
So, your arguments are now that it's a "lie" to presume that you don't think that cartoons are sentient beings that speak for themselves, especially when you specify the views of the author of the cartoon, and to post segments of sentences in order to hide their actual meaning. It's safe to say that your desperation is rapidly approaching the breaking point.
Ahh, so it's YOU who knows what the child is thinking, not me. I merely stated my opinion as to what the child is intending. You specifically say it is a "reflection" of the child who created it. Very good. BTW, how you gonna correlate that with your complaints about me without coming over as a complete hypocrite?
Then how do you explain the cartoon that I linked in response?
I can't. I didn't read the comic you linked. I don't read your off-topic shit. Why don't you use your own criteria to answer your own question: "It's a reflection of the person who created it."? This should be funny. How does your own criteria work out with that one? Any difference between your criteria and mine? Here, I'll answer for you: Yes, there's a difference. I make my own opinion, you choose what the author's opinion is.
That by itself is consistent with "I asked if you are using the actual definition".
Umm, that's why I asked what word you wanted defined. You said none. Then you told me to define a word for you. Please try to follow along. I think I'm not the one reaching that "breaking point" you are mentioning. At least I don't deny then demand the same thing in the same post. Now, about that "neanderthal" communication level you're mentioning .... just sayin
"I merely stated my opinion as to what the child is intending. You specifically say it is a "reflection" of the child who created it."
If you're asserting what the "child is intending", then you're asserting the child's opinion. As for "reflection", back to Merriam-Webster: "something that shows the effect, existence, or character of something else". That doesn't specify any opinion.
"BTW, how you gonna correlate that with your complaints about me without coming over as a complete hypocrite?"
I never said that you couldn't draw conclusions, so there's no inconsistency. The point is that you have to have a basis on which to do so. The appearance of "the right to bear arms" by itself doesn't qualify. Scroll back up and try to get a better handle on it the second time around.
"I can't. I didn't read the comic you linked. I don't read your off-topic shit."
How would a cartoon featuring signs be "off-topic" when talking about a cartoon featuring signs? This should be entertaining.
"How does your own criteria work out with that one?"
What "criteria" do you think you're talking about? You're obviously reading some specifics from a general concept.
"I make my own opinion, you choose what the author's opinion is."
You: "According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed." You're stating the author's opinion in no uncertain terms, right there in black and white. Even better, you then ask what description of the child should be established because of that opinion. That obviously wouldn't make any sense if you're not attributing that opinion to the child.
"Umm, that's why I asked what word you wanted defined. You said none."
No, you asked "Which word do you need defined, this time?" You didn't ask for clarification, you lobbed a lame insult. I also didn't merely reply "none", I said "I don't need any word defined, I asked if you are using the actual definition." I don't need you to tell me what a word means, as if I don't know, I'm asking you what definition you're using because you clearly don't know what it means.
"Then you told me to define a word for you."
No, I told you to define a word for you. Since you're using it incorrectly, you need to fix that. You aren't assigned "homework" because the teacher doesn't know the material, it's done so that you learn.
For your vocabulary lesson, read this definition of "reflection" (in addition to the definition previously taught): "an often obscure or indirect criticism : reproach (a reflection on his character)" As used in a sentence: "His cropping of sentences in order to change their clearly intended meaning is a reflection on his poor upbringing."
I don't know. I don't read the shit you bring. I just told you that.
You're stating the author's opinion in no uncertain terms, right there in black and white.
That is what is written in the cartoon. There is no other option for interpretation, is there? What else could it possibly mean? I am assigning no opinion to the author. I am interpreting the written words as they are written.
No, I told you to define a word for you.
Then why would you call it "homework"? Homework is something done to bring to the teacher. Since you constantly make claims of being more intelligent, then you must be the teacher. Which would make it YOU demanding that I give YOU a definition of a word ... after YOU said YOU didn't want me to give a definition. And that would make YOU a liar because YOU did ask for a definition after saying none needed. And then you deny asking. Oops, didn't think that one through, did you?
You don't have to read it in order to answer the question.
"That is what is written in the cartoon. There is no other option for interpretation, is there?"
So you don't assert the author's opinion, but you don't accept any alternative to your interpretation of the author's opinion. Fascinating.
"What else could it possibly mean?"
It doesn't have to mean anything, as far as the author is concerned. It's there to set up the following panel.
"I am assigning no opinion to the author. I am interpreting the written words as they are written."
That wouldn't be a commentary, then. Besides that, I'll remind you yet again of your own words: "According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui [sic] Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed." To say that the author is saying that bearing arms should be allowed assigns an opinion to the author. You're not talking about the person holding the sign, who would clearly believe that. Understanding that would be "interpreting the written words as they are written".
"Homework is something done to bring to the teacher."
For your education, not mine.
"Which would make it YOU demanding that I give YOU a definition of a word ... after YOU said YOU didn't want me to give a definition."
Wrong. I never said I didn't want you to give me a definition, I said I didn't need any word defined. Note that "want" and "need" are two different words. Since I know the meaning of the word, I don't need you to define it for me.
To prove the point further: "Look up "commentary", and you'll see the difference." I told you to use the word correctly. If you could show that, in any way, then that would end your merry-go-round of obfuscation. After you forfeited your chance at that with your childish response, then I wanted to actually see the definition that you were basing your posts on. And since I never told you not to provide a definition, there's no inconsistency.
"And that would make YOU a liar because YOU did ask for a definition after saying none needed."
I didn't say anything about whether you accepted an opinion or not.
"Wow, you actually CAN answer a direct question without changing the subject."
As opposed to you, yes.
"Yes, that's the traditional teacher/student relationship."
Good, then you've caught up with that part.
"Homework needs to be done. It isn't wanted to be done."
The quote you're responding to isn't about the "homework" comment. But thanks for proving my point that "want" and "need" are different words. Make sure you use them accurately from now on.
"Why don't you tell me.[sic]"
Why can't you answer a direct question?
"That is your specialty ... telling me what I said. Albeit, usually incorrectly and/or out of context and/or off-topic."
Where are you even claiming that I took your words out of context? That's amusing, since you just cropped one of my quotes to change its intended meaning. You even cut off one of your own quotes, so you took yourself out of context. And you said earlier that you weren't making a criticism over "off-topic" quotes, but you're inserting that into a negative comment now. Try to resolve that within yourself.
It's even more hypocritical when you read your own posts, where you tell me what I said frequently. A couple of posts above, you insisted that I said that I didn't want you to give me a definition. Which was incorrect, of course. For another obvious example: "Too bad the cartoon isn't only talking about guns. It is commenting on "arms", which you denied it was commenting on when you said: "There's no commentary on weapons."" You're telling me what I said there, as well, even though everyone knows that "commenting" and "commentary" are two completely different words. Oh, also, you said that I insinuated that you used the word "sexism", which goes even beyond "what I said". One more, just because I can: "That's what you say my standards are."
That was fun. Would you like to make another idiotic attempt at criticism, so I can remind you of more of your own behavior?
Ok, Eddie, now that your alter-ego has admitted defeat, how about you? Are you still afraid to argue with me? I would hope so, because I'll wipe the floor with you, just like I did babblingtio.
"Ok, Eddie, now that your alter-ego has admitted defeat, how about you?"
So, you abandoning all of your arguments isn't admitting defeat, but me saying that you've been humiliated is? Hilarious. You'll have to provide a link to the rulebook which substantiates that your failure to challenge the demonstrations of your hypocrisy and invalid arguments makes you a winner. That should be an entertaining read.
And remember that once you resort to your baseless "alter-ego" accusations, you automatically void your previous distinctions between me and Eddie. Which would mean that you said "I will not discuss old topics on new articles" after you brought up an old topic to me (in your belief) on a new article.
So, I post to Eddie, and you start (continue) crying. I'm sorry your feelings get hurt so easily. Perhaps you should think about that before you bring your lies and mis-information to a conversation.
You'll have to provide a link to the rulebook ....
Read #5. That one alone rules you out of contention for being a "winner". And since there are only 3 posters, and you lose, that leaves only Eddie and me in contention. Of course that one rule means Eddie loses too. That would mean I win.
"So, I post to Eddie, and you start (continue) crying."
I corrected you. It doesn't really matter who you were pretending to address.
"Perhaps you should think about that before you bring your lies and mis-information [sic] to a conversation."
Like you insisting that "sexist" and "commentary" have meanings that can't be found in any dictionary? That would pretty clearly qualify as misinformation.
"Read #5. That one alone rules you out of contention for being a "winner".
Neither one of us is a blogger, so your source is odd. Besides, I can prove your lies. You've never proven anything of the sort. Every single time you try challenging me on that, you end up running away. To clue you in, your accusation in your previous post proves that you were lying about not discussing old topics in new articles. Or, if you change your tune, then you were lying about my "alter-ego". I have an unbeatable argument right off the bat, but feel free to let me prove it.
Like you insisting that "sexist" and "commentary" have meanings that can't be found in any dictionary? That would pretty clearly qualify as misinformation.
Fuck you, you stupid little mother fucker. You have NO clue and pretending you do only works in your little ass world. My definitions were accurate and applicable. Just because you're too stupid to understand them, don't lay that on me. Bring your shit or shut the fuck up. Punk ass lying bitch!
Neither one of us is a blogger,
Hey, stupid shit. What the hell do you think you're doing now? Oh, that's right ... you're BLOGGING. God you are one stupid mother fucker.
BTW, you got a problem with me calling you names? Call your wife, she will defend you. You can't do it on your own. You DO have a wife, don't you? Maybe not, the way you keep lying your way through life.
"Fuck you, you stupid little mother fucker. You have NO clue and pretending you do only works in your little ass world."
There's the breaking point I was anticipating. And that's probably the best demonstration of projection you've provided so far (which is quite an achievement for you). You believe your definitions and suppositions are important enough for everyone to treat as fact. They only work in your little world, as it happens. You don't dictate reality on your whims.
"My definitions were accurate and applicable."
Prove it, instead of just saying it.
"Just because you're too stupid to understand them, don't lay that on me. Bring your shit or shut the fuck up. Punk ass lying bitch!"
I showed how your definitions were wrong. It's not my fault if you can't understand. And be sure to repent for your immoral behavior on Sunday.
"Hey, stupid shit. What the hell do you think you're doing now? Oh, that's right ... you're BLOGGING."
No, I'm commenting. You yourself said the purpose here was to comment and argue. Blogging would be posting articles. "Blog" is shortened from "web log", "log" as you would see in "ship's log". That would be something like a journal for recording events or observations.
"God you are one stupid mother fucker."
Remember how you would get the vapors over being called a "moron"? You really should just change your handle to "hypocrite" and be done with it.
"BTW, you got a problem with me calling you names?"
Resorting to copying what I say after I say it? Great tactic.
Prove it, instead of just saying it.
Prove it to a stupid liar? Nah, I'll pass on that one. I've already proved it to the intelligent people reading this. But a stupid liar, like you, will never get it.
I showed how your definitions were wrong.
Where? I saw nothing from you that expressed that. What a fucking liar you are. Bring your shit or shut the fuck up.
No, I'm commenting.
You're too stupid to even know what the hell you're doing.
You yourself said the purpose here was to comment and argue.
I did not. You little liar. Get your shit straight, you lying little punk. That's all you seem to be good for ... lies.
"Blog" is shortened from "web log", "log" as you would see in "ship's log".
Shut up. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. None of that gibberish is true so just crawl back to your basement and shut up, you liar.
Remember how you would get the vapors over being called a "moron"?
Even MORE lies by you. You're just trying to justify your stupidity and dishonesty. When you can back up any of the shit you say, I'll let you post here again. Until then you are banned from posting here. You are a lying queer bait bitch who has no qualms about making shit up and using it as fact. You have nothing.
No, why do you ask?
Then why are you complaining about me doing it? More proof that you are a liar. It is so easy to yank your chains. Ah ha ha ha
Trying to change the subject?
Answer the question! Oh, wait, no ... you don't. You couldn't find anyone who would put up with your continual lying. Don't worry, theres a boy out there somewhere who will love you the same way you love.
When you project your behavior onto me, of course. Because it actually does apply to you, so I'm going to point that out. Explain your objection to that.
"Prove it to a stupid liar?"
You have to back up what you say, no matter what you call me. I could just as easily turn down your demands for proof with the same phrase, but I actually have valid arguments to make.
"Where? I saw nothing from you that expressed that."
Your own definition proved it. Did you see that? There was nothing in your "sexist" link that even suggested anything about a belief that women were the victims of discrimination.
"I did not. You little liar."
You: "Because that's what this site is for: commenting/arguing."
"Shut up. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. None of that gibberish is true so just crawl back to your basement and shut up, you liar."
I didn't see you cite anything to show that people commenting on a message board are "blogging". Why don't you back up what you say?
Here are some reminders: "Looks like I won another discussion with you. You just can't avoid calling people names when they outsmart you in a simple discussion, huh?" "Are you offended I think you are gay, but you are not offended by calling me names?" "BTW, I've noticed you started calling me names real early in our discussions. Have you admitted defeat that quickly? You DO realize that name-calling is the first sign of defeat in a conversation, right?" "You couldn't even come up with a name I called people, beyond 'liberal'. And that isn't even derogatory. Unlike: idiot, moron, ect.[sic]" "They work better than your first-grade name-calling. Are we in a discussion or elementary school? Because I've seen you and Eddie call me many, many names as if you were still in first-grade. When you can discuss like an adult, you will get adult treatment back. When you act like a child, I'll treat you like a child." "You cuss and call names ... while I do nothing but call you a liberal." "There are a few posters who actually don't agree with what Eddie says. And they are quickly cussed at and lied to." "Bring facts to support your statements instead of the constant name-calling and rude behavior!" And, brace yourself for these gems: "You don't want to be bound by morals and want to do as you please without having anyone telling what is or what isn't moral because you can do as you please as long as it pleases you. BTW, I don't feel threatened by Him, either. I am grateful for the peace-of-mind He gives me knowing that when I screw up I will be forgiven. You, on the other hand, probably live in denial and refuse to accept responsibility for your actions. Like name-calling. You don't seem to think calling people names is wrong." "Your behavior dictates you should have that fear. In spite of how you say you are moral, you still have no problem calling people names. How is that "doing the right thing"? I can understand when you point out my failures. But, to do them yourself and say you are doing "the right thing" seems just a little hypocritical." "And calling people names is doing "the right thing" in what way? So cussing at people is moral in your world, while praying is immoral? I guess I was correct in my statement about your religion (inherent lack of morals)."
"Answer the question!"
It's off-topic. Would you like me to remind you of your attitude about off-topic comments as well?
Let me give YOU a reminder, babblingtio; Me: "IMHO, the kid is showing his/her sexist bigotry." You: "Sexism: ... (merriam-webster.com)" You can't even bring the definition of the word I used. It's as if you intentionally ignored all the other dictionaries, out there, just so you could prove something and then blamed a web site for only offering one version of the word when you were called on it. And, you still defend that action to this day.
You: "By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist". " Me: "No, by my standards everyone who supports slavery was(is) a racist." You reverse my actual standards to fit your own usage. BTW, putting racist in quotation marks is an incorrect usage. I would have reminded you earlier but I don't usually care. Since you are constantly being a dick about spelling/grammar/composition I figured I'd let you know you failed that way also.
2 lies soon after you started posting, in reply to my statement. You know HOW soon you brought those 2 lies? http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-kid-who-made-this-has-future-in.html?showComment=1396632248534#c6571320386058161052 That soon.
You started out crying and lying, you're ending the same way.
Someday, you may explain why you say an argument is not valid.
"You said I didn't bring a definition."
No, I said you didn't bring a definition that supported your usage.
"You're too stupid to realize you are commenting on a BLOG, making you a BLOGGER."
No, the person who posts the articles is blogging, because it's their blog. Visitors comment. You didn't bring anything to prove your argument.
"My standards are different than yours."
Of course, because they shift to serve your purposes. For me, two cartoons featuring signs can't be compared, but for you, my marital status is completely relevant. That would be a "double standard".
"What does cussing have to do with morals?"
You tell me, they're your words.
"What do morals have to do with this discussion?"
You challenged me for proof regarding your attitude on swearing. I responded. What does my marital status have to do with this discussion?
"It's as if you intentionally ignored all the other dictionaries, out there, just so you could prove something and then blamed a web site for only offering one version of the word when you were called on it."
Why, because I knew that you were going to bitch and moan about an insignificant difference? That's the dictionary I go to first. The meaning was made clear, and it matched the one you provided. So, what are you whining about?
"And, you still defend that action to this day."
When you look up "sexist" on merriam-webster.com, what page appears for you?
"You reverse my actual standards to fit your own usage."
I spoke first. You only asserted the opposite, I didn't change what you had said. What's your point, that I'm not supposed to demonstrate the absurdity of your word usage because you might claim that you believe something?
"BTW, putting racist in quotation marks is an incorrect usage."
What's your source?
"You started out crying and lying, you're ending the same way."
So, providing the same information that you did and not being able to read your mind are your two newest examples of "lying"? That's hilarious. As for "crying", I'm just commenting, which is what you say you do. If you can't handle it, nobody's forcing you to post here.
No, I said you didn't bring a definition that supported your usage.
Done that too.
For me, two cartoons featuring signs can't be compared, but for you, my marital status is completely relevant.
Irrelevant, there isn't 2 cartoons. Just one. I didn't think you knew what was going on, here.
What's your source?
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm "Be careful not to use quotation marks in an attempt to emphasize a word (...)." "Underline or italicize that word instead."
I spoke first.
Factually, I spoke first. Yours was an incorrect and twisted lie in reply to what I said.
The full quote: "Be careful not to use quotation marks in an attempt to emphasize a word (the kind of thing you see in grocery store windows—Big "Sale" Today!). Underline or italicize that word instead. (The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else—or that your sale is entirely bogus.)"
I already use italics for emphasis, so that's obviously not the purpose. Quotation marks can be used when the meaning is ironic: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/02/. Since your standard for meaning wouldn't genuinely qualify as sexist, it was put in quotes to show the difference in meaning. Now, it was never emphasized to me to not use quotation marks for words used as words (like log earlier), but I'll bear that in mind. Your criticism, on the other hand, wasn't valid.
"Factually, I spoke first."
No, I said "By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist"." before you said "No, by my standards everyone who supports slavery was(is) a racist." That's why you put "No" at the beginning of it, because you were making a reply.
But I'm guessing that your point is that you posted on the thread first, while I'm talking about the two quotes you provided.
What are you talking about? It's one cartoon with 2 panels. Not, 2 separate cartoons.
I already use italics for emphasis, so that's obviously not the purpose.
But, you didn't use them in that instance. Meaning you used the quotations incorrectly. Because you HAD used quotation marks for "sexist" denoting the word I used as quoted. But, no one had mentioned racist, so your use was incorrect. Putting racist in italics sometime last year does not carry over to this conversation. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
No, I said "By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist"."
Unfortunately, you said that in reply to my initial statement. Meaning I spoke first. Admit you were wrong and move on.
But I'm guessing that your point is that you posted on the thread first, while I'm talking about the two quotes you provided.
Thanks for admitting I spoke first. Since yours was a REPLY to MY statement not a comment to Eddie's article. Meaning I spoke first. Admit you were wrong and move on.
"What are you talking about? It's one cartoon with 2 panels. Not, 2 separate cartoons."
I linked to a cartoon, which you absurdly claimed was "off-topic" and refused to read.
"But, you didn't use them in that instance."
Because it wasn't for emphasis.
"But, no one had mentioned racist, so your use was incorrect."
Nobody had to have mentioned it. The use of the word was ironic, so quotation marks are allowed. Try picturing someone saying it aloud and making air quotes with their fingers when they get to racist.
"Putting racist in italics sometime last year does not carry over to this conversation."
Who said it did?
"Unfortunately, you said that in reply to my initial statement. Meaning I spoke first."
Sorry, that's not the context you yourself established. You: "You reverse my actual standards to fit your own usage." Me: "I spoke first. You only asserted the opposite, I didn't change what you had said." See, the point would be that since your quote came after mine, you can't claim that I could possibly "reverse" your standards. You hadn't stated your "actual standards" at that time. Since you didn't quote from your original post, it's not relevant at all.
"Thanks for admitting I spoke first."
I did no such thing. I said you posted on the thread first. Since you posted two specific quotes that weren't in your original post, and my quote came first, I said so.
"Admit you were wrong and move on."
No, because that would be a lie. Shame on you for trying to compel someone to act immorally.
I linked to a cartoon, which you absurdly claimed was "off-topic" and refused to read.
Yeah? So what? This article is about one cartoon. Are you denying that fact? Are you crying about the ON-TOPIC cartoon or the OFF-TOPIC cartoon?
Because it wasn't for emphasis.
Hmm, interesting. It also wasn't a quote from anyone. So, just admit you were wrong and move on.
The use of the word was ironic, so quotation marks are allowed.
No, they're not. I've already posted the rules you asked for and those rules say; no. In fact they are expressly forbidden for that kind of use. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
See, the point would be that since your quote came after mine, you can't claim that I could possibly "reverse" your standards.
That truthful point would be (you don't know about truth) that since you reversed my standards, you had to have replied to ME. I spoke first. Again, just admit you were wrong and move on. Holding on to these issues of yours only makes you look very un-intelligent (stupid for those who have no reading comprehension abilities).
I did no such thing. I said you posted on the thread first.
Yes, that's correct. And, since you posted in REPLY to ME, I spoke first. You didn't "add a comment", you posted a "reply". That reply was directed at ME, not Eddie. Even in your provided quotes you admit I spoke first ("I didn't change what you had said"). I "had said" is what you brought. That obviously means I spoke first. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
No, because that would be a lie.
And your continued denial of obvious facts would be considered what? Insanity? Besides, you've never had a problem with lying before, why are you concerned about it now? Thinking of turning over a new leaf? Good for you, I'm proud of you.
"Yeah? So what? This article is about one cartoon."
So what? If you don't understand the nature of the cartoon, then a similar one would be entirely relevant. It's rather hilarious that you want to act as if you could talk about collecting stamps on an article about taxing churches, while here only one cartoon can be brought up. But, I could bring up middle school, since that word is in the graphic. I could also ask you if you have a daughter. That would be on topic.
"Hmm, interesting. It also wasn't a quote from anyone."
It doesn't have to be. Stay tuned.
"I've already posted the rules you asked for and those rules say; no. In fact they are expressly forbidden for that kind of use."
Liar. You mentioned emphasis, not irony. Besides that, my source specifically said that they are allowed for irony. Even better, your own source says this: "The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else—or that your sale is entirely bogus." That wouldn't have anything do to with quoting someone. It's not as if someone would see sale in quotes and wonder who said the word. They say "really mean something else" because people will think that the word is being used ironically, because that's a common usage of quotation marks.
"That truthful point would be (you don't know about truth) that since you reversed my standards, you had to have replied to ME."
What did you say about racism in your first post?
"That obviously means I spoke first."
None of that has anything to do with the two quotes you posted, which is what I was directly referencing. Regarding those two quotes, I spoke first. But, if you really want to go beyond your own context, I'll raise the ante. Truthfully, you believe that God spoke first. I don't think you can top that.
"And your continued denial of obvious facts would be considered what?"
Your misrepresentation, promoted in order to protect your fragile psyche.
"Besides, you've never had a problem with lying before, why are you concerned about it now?"
You've never proven a lie. In that respect, I certainly have never had any difficulties. Any other questions?
Your misrepresentation, promoted in order to protect your fragile psyche.
At least I'm not crying so much that I've got to say God spoke first in order to avoid being proven liar. That's how far you will go in order to avoid admitting that you lied. Being an atheist, you cannot fall back on that excuse (you do not believe in God), therefor you are admitting that you lied. There, that answers your "never proven a lie" statement.
None of that has anything to do with the two quotes you posted, which is what I was directly referencing.
I don't see how that could be true. You never mentioned referencing any particular quote any time before. And, it's quite obvious, from your statement, that you were (in fact) NOT referencing any statement after my initial one, in your first post. It is impossible for you to have referenced a statement that I had not made yet.
It's rather hilarious that you want to act as if you could talk about collecting stamps on an article about taxing churches, while here only one cartoon can be brought up.
I don't think I've ever talked about collecting stamps on any article about taxing Churches / marriage rights. Using your analogy, would discussing collecting stamps be relevant to the discussion on Church taxes / marriage rights? I think it would be off topic and irrelevant. Therefor, discussing a random cartoon instead of the cartoon from this article would be just as off topic as discussing collecting stamps in your other article.
I could also ask you if you have a daughter. That would be on topic.
Yes you could do that. And, I would answer yes, 2. See how that works? You stay on topic and your questions get answered. Of course the same cannot be said about you. If I stay on topic, you take it off topic in order to avoid looking like a complete fool.
Liar.
I am not lying. I did so post the rules that you asked for.
That wouldn't have anything do to with quoting someone.
I know. That is why they are not allowed. As explained in the link I provided.
What did you say about racism in your first post?
Oh, I get it now. You are saying you spoke off topic first. Ok, you got me there. I did not go off topic on my first post. You did go off topic on your first post. So, if you're changing the parameters (to keep from being proven a liar) to who spoke off topic first, then you are correct. You are the first one to speak off topic. I think the only one, too.
"At least I'm not crying so much that I've got to say God spoke first in order to avoid being proven [sic] liar."
It sounds like you're crying right there. Did that offend you?
"That's how far you will go in order to avoid admitting that you lied."
Maybe it doesn't need to go that far. But if you're going to go beyond the context that you established, then you'll have to make an argument for a stopping point. Eddie, maybe? King Henry VIII? Jesus? Adam? Where else would it cut off, and why? Meanwhile, you haven't explained what I supposedly "lied" about. In your earlier posts you kept squawking "admit you were wrong and move on", not anything about any intentional falsehood.
"Being an atheist, you cannot fall back on that excuse (you do not believe in God), therefor [sic] you are admitting that you lied."
If only you could read: "Truthfully, you believe that God spoke first." Notice the word "you", which makes it true since you believe in God.
"I don't see how that could be true. You never mentioned referencing any particular quote any time before."
I've never seen you say that you're referencing a quote as you do so, either. However, when you quote me, then you respond, the quote is what you're referencing in your comment. For instance: You:"You reverse my actual standards to fit your own usage." Since that followed the two quotes, the quotes were the basis for your comment.
Further, I repeated the quotes in a previous post, which you acknowledged. So, you know full well that I was talking about those quotes.
"And, it's quite obvious, from your statement, that you were (in fact) NOT referencing any statement after my initial one, in your first post."
I didn't suggest I was referencing the two quotes in my "first post". Are you claiming that you said that you spoke first in your second post? I'll help you find your way: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-kid-who-made-this-has-future-in.html?showComment=1397236271975#c725099751306515053
"I don't think I've ever talked about collecting stamps on any article about taxing Churches / marriage rights."
I didn't say that you did. I said "you want to act as if you could".
"Using your analogy, would discussing collecting stamps be relevant to the discussion on Church taxes / marriage rights? I think it would be off topic and irrelevant."
It would be extremely irrelevant, yes. However, since the only cause for saying that the article is about "marriage" is an insignificant word in a graphic, then by your standard "stamps" would also be part of the discussion.
"Therefor [sic], discussing a random cartoon instead of the cartoon from this article would be just as off topic as discussing collecting stamps in your other article."
You didn't read the cartoon, so you have to be lying when you claim that it's "random". And material which highlights points of comparison for understanding the nature of political cartoons is indisputably relevant to the article.
"Yes you could do that. And, I would answer yes, 2 [sic]."
So, how would your daughters be relevant to the discussion? It only mentions one daughter in the article.
"I am not lying. I did so post the rules that you asked for."
Where did they forbid quotations for irony?
"I know. That is why they are not allowed."
That's not what your link says. Again: "The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else—or that your sale is entirely bogus." That isn't consistent with you suggesting that quotation marks only go around what someone has said.
"Oh, I get it now. You are saying you spoke off topic first."
Examples for demonstrative purposes aren't off-topic. For instance: "Using your analogy, would discussing collecting stamps be relevant to the discussion on Church taxes / marriage rights?" This article isn't about church taxes or marriage rights, so why are you talking about them?
And no, what I'm saying is that since you didn't say anything about racism in your first post, your "since you reversed my standards, you had to have replied to ME" comment was a lie. As you said, setting yourself up beautifully: "It is impossible for you to have referenced a statement that I had not made yet." Since you hadn't made any statement on racism in your initial post, it's impossible for me to have referred to it in order to "reverse" your meaning.
It sounds like you're crying right there. Did that offend you?
I was kind of chuckling because even though you are an atheist, you know and admit the truth about God.
It would be extremely irrelevant, yes.
Then why are you talking about it?
I didn't suggest I was referencing the two quotes in my "first post".
I know. Your link says you said "I spoke first". Well, it's been proven and you can continue to see (on-going) that I spoke first and you have only shown up in a reply to me during this article. You have yet to post an original comment concerning the topic. In fact, I don't think you have ever posted an original comment, they have all been replies to someone or another. Is that true? Are you just another troll? Come to think of it, you do act that way and your conversational abilities/tactics are about equal to theirs.
Jeez, I can't believe I've been taken in, all this time, by just another troll. Good luck to you sir/madam
"I was kind of chuckling because even though you are an atheist, you know and admit the truth about God."
I'm sure you were, since you didn't realize that you had misread my comment. I got a good laugh out of your egregious error in return.
"Then why are you talking about it?"
Because your standard shows that it's part of the article and can be discussed. That was the point, that you create extremely lax rules for what you can say, while you try to dictate the number of political cartoons that can be mentioned on a thread about a political cartoon.
"I know."
Then why did you say "And, it's quite obvious, from your statement, that you were (in fact) NOT referencing any statement after my initial one, in your first post.", if I didn't suggest any such thing? There's no purpose for emphasizing that.
"Well, it's been proven and you can continue to see (on-going) that I spoke first and you have only shown up in a reply to me during this article."
Sorry, you must believe that God spoke first, according to your faith. If you're going to erase all context from what I said, then we're not restricted to this article, this website, or anything at all. Unless you think that you, personally, were around before your own god, you're lying.
"Is that true? Are you just another troll?"
Those concepts aren't linked. The term "troll" isn't defined by the order of posts. In fact, though, I've posted hundreds of original comments.
You're getting set up again. Will you figure it out this time?
"Prove that God spoke first. Bring an acceptable source that is believable by both of us and please actually provide a link, this time, troll."
Who do you think might have spoken before God did? You'll also have to explain why I need a source that's "believable" to "both of us", since I don't share your faith. That didn't make any sense.
On top of that, you don't own a Bible? And you really need a link to Genesis 1:3 to be convinced of something, here? I've seen remarkably lazy people, but a Christian who can't be bothered to look at the first page of Genesis (or use Google) goes well beyond any of them.
In all seriousness, have you been hacked? Even you aren't this stupid, so I have to wonder if someone's just having fun with your account.
Who do you think might have spoken before God did?
That is what you have to prove. You stated I "must" believe that God spoke first. Prove how I "must" believe that.
You'll also have to explain why I need a source that's "believable" to "both of us", since I don't share your faith.
I can easily bring evidence of my beliefs. Would you accept that evidence as un-deniable proof of the beginning of the universe and all I claim of my religion? If you would accept my proof then I would accept yours. But, you can't bring evidence to support your position if you don't believe that evidence. That would be just plain stupid. Even for a troll.
On top of that, you don't own a Bible?
Oh? Are you saying the Bible is undeniable proof of the beginning of life?
In all seriousness, have you been hacked? Even you aren't this stupid, so I have to wonder if someone's just having fun with your account.
I don't have an "account" here. What makes you think that? But, while we're on the subject of being stupid. Are you accepting the Bible as un-deniable proof of the beginning of life? That would be pretty stupid of someone who claims to not believe in a "higher power" then uses the Bible to prove Who spoke first.
That doesn't make any sense. I said that you have to believe that God spoke first, so why would I have to prove who you think might have spoken before God did? Maybe you should look at what you're referring to while you're replying.
"You stated I "must" believe that God spoke first. Prove how I "must" believe that."
Because you believe in the Bible.
"I can easily bring evidence of my beliefs. Would you accept that evidence as un-deniable proof of the beginning of the universe and all I claim of my religion?"
We're not talking about anything that actually happened, we're talking about your beliefs.
"But, you can't bring evidence to support your position if you don't believe that evidence."
So, if you knew something about another religion (purely hypothetical, mind you), and someone misquoted a passage from that religion's holy text, you couldn't correct them? This is going to be fun, if you're dumb enough to pursue it.
"Are you saying the Bible is undeniable proof of the beginning of life?"
No, I'm saying that it's your holy text, which would be consistent with the phrase "according to your faith".
"I don't have an "account" here."
Who said "here"? You can post under several different types of accounts, none of which are exclusive to this site.
"Are you accepting the Bible as un-deniable proof of the beginning of life?"
Not in the context of discussing "your faith", obviously. I eagerly anticipate your next stupid question.
Which Bible. There are several versions. Some acceptable, some not. Clarify your position, troll.
No, I'm saying that it's your holy text, which would be consistent with the phrase "according to your faith".
Well, how are YOU going to prove what YOU say, then? I can prove what I say, how are you going to? Oh, wait. I forgot that you're a troll and never prove your own statements. You got me again.
Who said "here"?
You did: "In all seriousness, have you been hacked? Even you aren't this stupid, so I have to wonder if someone's just having fun with your account.". How could anyone be commenting for me if it wasn't HERE? For a troll, you sure are one of the more dumb ones.
You can post under several different types of accounts, none of which are exclusive to this site.
Where would I be posting (under those several different types of accounts) and have you comment on whether I've been hacked?
I don't dare answer that one for you. I'll let you handle that "stupid question" on your own.
"he/she thinks women are the crux of that suppression."
That is fa rand away, and without a shadow of doubt, THE MOST STUPID THING you have ever posted here. POSSIBLY the most stupid thing I have read in the roughly 20 years that I've had internet access.
Now I totally get why I find your comments so mind-numbingly moronic... You read something, and then conclude the wrongest possible thing about it that you can.
Hey dipshit: I'd say it's a lot more obvious that the author feels that the women are the VICTIMS of said suppression. But then, as I don't have my head up your ass, I guess I can't see things the way you do.
Maybe you're using the same dictionary that the troll is using. Because "crux" means "a main or central feature". How is that different than what you are thinking it means?
Is there a version where someone speaks before God does? I'm willing to bet that The first chapter of Genesis is going to work in any accepted version you check. It's also pretty odd for you to expect me to clarify which version, as opposed to you saying what is "acceptable". As if I'm going to play your guessing game of which one you prefer, or something.
"Well, how are YOU going to prove what YOU say, then?"
I already have. According to your faith, God is the first to speak. It's not at all clear what barrier you think you're setting for me, especially considering that you can't explain why you couldn't correct someone who misquoted another faith's holy text.
"How could anyone be commenting for me if it wasn't HERE?"
You said your account here. It wasn't about where you were posting from.
"Where would I be posting (under those several different types of accounts) and have you comment on whether I've been hacked?"
Where you're posting doesn't say where you have an account. I can post on numerous sites with the same login, so it's not an account "here". Read what you wrote, so you can figure out where you're having difficulties.
As if I'm going to play your guessing game of which one you prefer, or something.
You're already playing, troll.
I already have. According to your faith, God is the first to speak.
You haven't proven anything. Saying it is true is not proof. Bring your proof, troll.
I can post on numerous sites with the same login, so it's not an account "here".
But, I'm not a troll, so I don't have an account that can be hacked. I don't have any accounts that can be hacked. Proving you are lying, yet again, troll.
I didn't hazard a guess, so apparently you're mistaken.
"You haven't proven anything. Saying it is true is not proof."
It's material you're already familiar with, supposedly.
"Bring your proof, troll."
You put a qualifer on which versions of the Bible are acceptable. When you tell me what version you find acceptable, we can proceed.
"But, I'm not a troll, so I don't have an account that can be hacked."
First off, that doesn't address the point. You said you didn't have an account "here", while I never suggested the account was "here". Secondly, you're getting increasingly random in your desperation. What would being a "troll" have to do with whether any account can be hacked or not?
"Proving you are lying, yet again, troll."
Asking if your account was hacked isn't stating that it was hacked. Moreover, you'll have to show how I'm supposed to be responsible for knowing about the seemingly magical link between "trolls" and accounts which are vulnerable to hackers.
"But, you have shown you don't have the ability or knowledge to answer them."
I don't see you disputing the answer you just received, though. And when it's put upon you to say what version of the Bible you think is acceptable, you apparently lack the knowledge to respond.
And when it's put upon you to say what version of the Bible you think is acceptable, you apparently lack the knowledge to respond.
You really want an answer to that? I will tell you that the preferred Bible is the accurate one. Which one is accurate you will ask. You do the research and choose your own. For obvious reasons, I would stay away from the Catholic version. But, perhaps you will think it is a great version. Perhaps you want the version that says homosexuality is ok. Well, you go find that one. I'm sure someone has printed one.
BTW, no one has hacked my computer, so you are wrong until that happens.
(Reposted in the right place, since the wi-fi started to die as I posted, and the page backed up to where I had previously posted. You're welcome.)
"You really want an answer to that?"
Of course. You wanted proof, then you said that only some versions of the Bible are acceptable. I'm glad to provide the proof you claim to have wanted.
"You do the research and choose your own."
Why would I do "research" in order to determine your opinion? All you have to do is say which version you prefer. Unless, of course, you don't actually own a Bible at all. Or you know what it says in Genesis, and it shows that your beliefs dictate that God spoke first. It certainly prompts the question of why you cared about the version at all.
But, as much fun as it's been to make you dance, I've always simply been able to link to this: http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-3.htm Now, when you show the words of "william" in one of the two verses before that, I will concede your point.
Actually, I can't concede your point, because then the phrase "I will" would no longer apply. Quite the conundrum, isn't it?
"BTW, no one has hacked my computer, so you are wrong until that happens."
I didn't claim that anyone had, so you're wrong until you correct yourself.
Or you know what it says in Genesis, and it shows that your beliefs dictate that God spoke first.
I know what it says in Genesis The only problem is that we're talking about YOUR beliefs.
I didn't claim that anyone had, so you're wrong until you correct yourself.
You were obviously referring to my computer being hacked because you specifically mentioned my password. I don't have passwords on any other computer system. So, I am correct that a troll, like you, is too stupid to be able to hack my computer. I don't know why you would want to discuss computer hacking in an article on sexist cartoons. But, trolls do what trolls do.
"The only problem is that we're talking about YOUR beliefs."
That's not possible, because I don't have any religious beliefs. It wouldn't be in this section of the thread, anyway, since I've specified that we're talking about your faith multiple times.
"You were obviously referring to my computer being hacked because you specifically mentioned my password. I don't have passwords on any other computer system."
Oh, my. Here's a fun little experiment for you: 1) Go to the library. 2) Get on one of their computers. 3) Open a web browser. 4) Go to your email site. 5) Type in your password. Now, what happens when you do all of that?
Secondly, I mentioned your account, which would naturally have a password. The computer systems which store passwords (necessary for validating what you enter as your password) can be hacked.
And, of course, none of that nonsense addresses the point. I asked if you had been hacked, which makes no assertion. Hence, you can't claim that I'm "wrong", because there's no statement to evaluate.
"I don't know why you would want to discuss computer hacking in an article on sexist cartoons."
I don't. I simply pointed out that your comment was even more stupid than usual. You're the one who mistook that for a valid topic of conversation.
That's not possible, because I don't have any religious beliefs.
Sure you do. Your religion is atheism. Look up religion in the dictionary.
1) Go to the library. 2) Get on one of their computers. 3) Open a web browser. 4) Go to your email site. 5) Type in your password. Now, what happens when you do all of that?
Nothing, because I'm not so stupid as to offer my passwords to complete strangers. You really have no common sense, do you?
The computer systems which store passwords (necessary for validating what you enter as your password) can be hacked.
Not mine. I have a system that cannot be hacked. It has not been hacked and will never be hacked. Too bad for you if you use one that can. Do you want me to supply you with a computer that actually works? If you think you can hack it, go ahead and try. Good luck.
You're the one who mistook that for a valid topic of conversation
If I had "mistook" that, then I wouldn't have asked you why you were commenting off the articles topic.
No, because it doesn't match the definition. Even using your invalid one, it's not a "belief" to start with, and I don't consider it "very important" even if it was.
Naturally, I have yet another high trump card to play. From Merriam-Webster's definition, this example: "Politics are a religion to him." The phrase "to him" further indicates the variable application of your absurd usage. Even if you were able to say that atheism was a "religion" to someone else, you couldn't assert it for me.
Essentially, you have to quit trying to have it both ways. If you want to claim that atheism is an actual religion, like Methodist or whatever else, then you have to make it match the definition which applies to that. If you want to claim that atheism is a religion in the more figurative sense of "Hockey is a religion in Canada" or "Politics is a religion to him", then the "religion" of hockey can't be assumed for every Canadian (or even every Canadian that plays hockey), or the "religion" of politics for everyone who is interested in or involved with politics. Because surely there's someone out there who would warrant the statement: "auto repair is a religion to him." That wouldn't mean that your religion is auto repair.
That was fun. Feel free to give me more opportunities like that.
"Nothing, because I'm not so stupid as to offer my passwords to complete strangers."
Outside of the mystery of what the "offer" would be, I'm not literally telling you to do any of that. Try it on a conceptual level, so you're not confused about how to get to the library or anything else. What would happen if you did that?
"Not mine. I have a system that cannot be hacked."
Nobody's talking about your system. Is blogspot.com run from servers in your basement?
"If I had "mistook" that, then I wouldn't have asked you why you were commenting off the articles topic."
Factually, you're the one who turned the comment into a conversation. You didn't seem to think it was off-topic while starting an argument over it. If you did, then you were intentionally posting about irrelevant matters, and now are displaying your hypocrisy by trying to criticize me for it. If that's your story, I find it much more credible than anything else you've said here.
Even using your invalid one, it's not a "belief" to start with, and I don't consider it "very important" even if it was.
Are you saying that you don't consider it "very important" that there is no god? Because from what I've read of your comments you consider that the basis for your belief that the is no god.
Naturally, I have yet another high trump card to play.
Are you now admitting to being a drug user? Well, that explains a lot of why you act the way you act ... you're high.
If you want to claim that atheism is an actual religion, like Methodist or whatever else, then you have to make it match the definition which applies to that.
I have done that. You believe (with absolute assurity) that there is no god. That is your belief, that makes your beliefs a religion.
Because surely there's someone out there who would warrant the statement: "auto repair is a religion to him."
And that has been done: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values BTW, your usage of a quotation mark is incorrect. Just sayin'
What would happen if you did that?
Nothing, because I'm not so stupid as to do that.
Is blogspot.com run from servers in your basement?
Do you know, one way or the other? If not, then that question is stupid, troll
Factually, you're the one who turned the comment into a conversation.
Umm, from your exhibited behavior, you know very little about facts. So, I would recommend you stay away from words like "factually" unless you can actually back up your claims with facts.
No. There's no reason for that to be considered important, as far as I can see.
Then how come you keep insisting there is no god? It must be very important if you have to continually mention that is part of your core beliefs.
So your "religion" is auto repair, now?
Did I say that? Or, is that another of your assumptions?
No, it isn't.
Yes it is. You ended with a quotation mark but didn't start with one.
You're not smart enough to answer a hypothetical question, either.
Actually, I'm smart enough to not answer a hypothetical question.
Would you like me to copy the start of the conversation, for your education?
Yes, I would like you to do that. It will be very interesting to find out how you felt you could bring a definition of "sexism" when my comment was on "sexist". This should be very interesting.
"Then how come you keep insisting there is no god? It must be very important if you have to continually mention that is part of your core beliefs."
Provide some examples of how I "continually" mention anything of the sort, specifically where you got "core beliefs" from. With some context, I'm sure I can show the reason for stating that I don't believe in any higher power.
"Did I say that?"
No, I asked you a question. Why are you shy about answering it?
"Yes it is. You ended with a quotation mark but didn't start with one."
You'll have to specify where, because I'm not sure you're even referring to the post you were replying to. More importantly, a single quotation mark wouldn't be "usage", that would be accidentally leaving off a quotation mark.
"Actually, I'm smart enough to not answer a hypothetical question."
Because it's inconvenient to your argument, which is obviously why I asked it. There's no "smart" option, except for you to admit that I wasn't talking about your computer.
"Yes, I would like you to do that."
Me: "In all seriousness, have you been hacked? Even you aren't this stupid, so I have to wonder if someone's just having fun with your account." You: "I don't have an "account" here. What makes you think that?" Me: "Who said "here"? You can post under several different types of accounts, none of which are exclusive to this site." You: "How could anyone be commenting for me if it wasn't HERE?" Me: "I can post on numerous sites with the same login, so it's not an account "here"." At which point, you devolved into defensive blathering about trolls, cockamamie accusations, and suggestions that passwords don't travel past the boundaries of your own computer.
As I said, factually, you're the one who turned it into a conversation. You even proved it by asking a question at the start, and another afterwards. Since you clearly think that I have to respond to your questions, you must believe that you intentionally forced the conversation to happen.
"It will be very interesting to find out how you felt you could bring a definition of "sexism" when my comment was on "sexist"."
The definition you provided listed the two words together, demonstrating that the two words are inseparable. The meaning of "sexist" hinges on "sexism" directly.
I personally didn't find that interesting, but then I already knew the meaning of the word. Besides that, you already know that searching for "sexist" on Merriam-Webster.com leads to "sexism". Unless there's some reason that I'm supposed to declare a widely-used dictionary to be wrong, all on my own authority, then there's no possible blame for providing what they presented. Moreover, since you do know that the website automatically redirects, your question is indisputably disingenuous.
And what I find fascinating is that you think it's some sort of personal victory to point out that "viewpoint" and "belief" are related words, but when you provide a definition of "sexist" which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is intrinsically connected to "sexism", then you still want to pretend that I'm on the hot seat for not finding a dictionary that happened to have a separate page. The sheer magnitude of your hypocrisy is breathtaking.
"BTW, you [sic] BETTER answer ALL my questions."
Naturally. The more you allow me to demonstrate your lack of intellect, knowledge and moral fiber, the better.
No, I asked you a question. Why are you shy about answering it?
I've stated, previously, what my religion is. You can go back and read my previous posts if you can't remember.
More importantly, a single quotation mark wouldn't be "usage", that would be accidentally leaving off a quotation mark.
At least you finally admitted you make mistakes, too.
There's no "smart" option, except for you to admit that I wasn't talking about your computer.
Your criteria was "smart enough". That makes "smart" one of the options.
At which point, you devolved into defensive blathering about trolls, cockamamie accusations, and suggestions that passwords don't travel past the boundaries of your own computer.
No, I said nothing about passwords traveling past any boundaries, I said my computer can't be hacked. If you think you can hack my computer, you go ahead and try.
The definition you provided listed the two words together, demonstrating that the two words are inseparable. The meaning of "sexist" hinges on "sexism" directly.
No, the definition that YOU brought listed both. Is this an example of your binary thinking?
Naturally. The more you allow me to demonstrate your lack of intellect, knowledge and moral fiber, the better.
Thanks for admitting you are intimidated into answering my questions.
I know. And it wasn't "auto repair". So, since you don't allow that standard to be used for you, you can't apply it to me.
"At least you finally admitted you make mistakes, too."
I've admitted mistakes recently. However, you would still have to show where that happened. The comment you quoted was general, so it didn't say anything about the error you're claiming.
"Your criteria was "smart enough". That makes "smart" one of the options."
No, it doesn't. You can be "smart enough" to open a door, that doesn't mean you aren't a drooling idiot. I already knew why you were dragging your feet on the question, I was just giving you the mocking you deserved for it.
"No, I said nothing about passwords traveling past any boundaries, I said my computer can't be hacked."
I said "suggested". As in you stating that you don't have passwords on any other computer system. As if you type in a password for your email, and the email server sends some sort of verification request into your computer, finds your password, and then reports back that you're allowed to view that email account. I'm sure, with your vast knowledge of computers, that you can go into all of the details as to how that is supposed to work.
"If you think you can hack my computer, you go ahead and try."
I never said anything about hacking your computer, and I wouldn't be interested in doing so myself if I had.
"No, the definition that YOU brought listed both."
Wrong. The definition you provided listed both. You even emphasized the point: "If this will help: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexist It gives BOTH definitions right next to each other."
"Is this an example of your binary thinking?"
No, even if you knew what the phrase actually meant. What's the "either/or" scenario that I'm supposedly presenting here?
"Thanks for admitting you are intimidated into answering my questions."
You intimidated me into embarrassing you? No, not really. The phrase "you'd better" means that I would be better off doing what's specified than I would be by doing otherwise. Since all you're doing is giving me opportunities to demonstrate your overall weakness, I have to agree with that.
So, since you don't allow that standard to be used for you, you can't apply it to me.
Are you saying that every person has multiple religions that they adhere to?
Wrong. The definition you provided listed both.
Thank you for proving they are different words with different meanings. They are both from the same root word (sex), but each mean something different. Unlike what you are advancing: that sexism is the same as sexist.
You intimidated me into embarrassing you?
No, I intimidated you into answering my questions. After you said you weren't intimidated by me.
"Are you saying that every person has multiple religions that they adhere to?"
Obviously not, considering that I said that your religion was not "auto repair".
"Thank you for proving they are different words with different meanings."
As opposed to being spelled identically and having the exact same meaning, yes. That would be one word, if that was the case. And on your gracious note, thank you for admitting that both words were in your definition, contrary to your assertion.
"They are both from the same root word (sex), but each mean something different."
Much like "atheism" and "atheist", which you used interchangeably.
"Unlike what you are advancing: that sexism is the same as sexist."
There's no difference in concept. That's what I've been saying. If you're pretending that I said that one word can always be replaced with the other, you'll have a rough time trying to prove your claim. And since the two words are inseparable, an understanding of sexism transfers directly to sexist. Meaning that your excuse about not using my definition (and then later supplying a definition that said the same thing, to my great amusement) was a display of either gross ignorance or shameless intellectual dishonesty.
I hope that clarifies things for you. I notice that you didn't find it necessary to address what I said in any way before continuing with your argument, and yet, I do the right thing regardless. You should take notes.
"No, I intimidated you into answering my questions."
During which, I embarrassed you. And if you had read past the first sentence, you would now know that your phrasing didn't qualify as intimidation at all. Perhaps you'll phrase your chest-thumping cliches more effectively the next time around.
Much like "atheism" and "atheist", which you used interchangeably.
Well, when used as: you are an atheist whose religious belief is atheism, there's not much room for interchangeability. I don't think I've ever said you are an atheism whose religious belief is atheist.
There's no difference in concept.
According to the dictionary there is.
During which, I embarrassed you.
By saying sexism and sexist mean the same thing? I don't think I was too embarrassed over that one.
"Well, when used as: you are an atheist whose religious belief is atheism, there's not much room for interchangeability."
Since I wasn't referring to that sentence, your comment is irrelevant. It's also redundant and contains a false premise, which is consistent with what I've come to expect from you.
"According to the dictionary there is."
No, according to the dictionary, "sexist" is based directly on "sexism". Your own definition demonstrated that.
"By saying sexism and sexist mean the same thing?"
You'll have to expand on "mean the same thing". You were already asked, but you must have forgotten by the time you reached the next sentence. And no, I wasn't specifying your unsustainable "different words" claim. I was referring to the entire post in question.
No, according to the dictionary, "sexist" is based directly on "sexism".
And, both words are based directly on sex. But I don't go around saying I want to have sexism with anyone (someone). Different words, troll. Get over it and move on. You lose yet again.
"You sound extremely ignorant as you continue saying sexist and sexism have the same meaning."
You have to show where I said that, or what specific phrasing you're contradicting. Along with that, you also have to explain whether you're using "same meaning" as "universally interchangeable", or merely being "inseparable". On that note, you have to address this exchange: You: "Thank you for proving they are different words with different meanings." Me: "As opposed to being spelled identically and having the exact same meaning, yes. That would be one word, if that was the case." There's no clarification by you after that, and I said they don't have the "exact same meaning". So, as it currently stands, your claim is plainly false.
Finally, you need to explain your oscillation between "atheism" and "atheist". Unless you're claiming that those two words have the "same meaning", then apparently you think that you veered off onto other topic.
If you're going to claim "ignorant", you have to show some evidence, and also explain what the hell you think you're even trying to say. Otherwise, you would seem fairly unreasonable for trying to set up a straw man argument instead of making an attempt at a clear demonstration of your claim.
And you have to agree, since you previously said this: "That is your specialty ... telling me what I said." Obviously, it would be incredibly hypocritical for you to simply assert my meaning. Bearing that in mind, I now have to assume that you posted early by accident and then suffered a power outage that prevented you from correcting the error. I'm sure you'll fix your post as soon as you have everything operational again.
At least I'm not so stupid as to threaten to hit people on the head with a brick and then run away (like a little girl) when called on it. Is the extent of your intelligence limited to making hateful comments and then run away?
Nope. But I have a job and a family and a life. And in all the time you've been here you've posted very little that's been worth mine. And lately I just don't have the to to waste that I used to.
Having a job and family gives you the right to threaten people with physical harm on the internet? You DO know that is illegal, don't you? Do it again, and your family may have to visit you in federal prison and your job will be making my license plates. Just sayin'
In fact, though, I've posted hundreds of original comments. (http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-kid-who-made-this-has-future-in.html?showComment=1397321452090#c5122877534631993644)
Prove it. I see 0 comments in the majority of Eddies 543 articles. And the few that have any comments, you added fewer. And mostly in reply. By my count you have 63 original comments. Bring proof that you have posted "hundreds of original comments" or you are lying, yet again. It is so easy to prove you are a lying troll. And, you have such a hard time proving otherwise.
Shut the fuck up. You're the one who runs away when called on your lies and threats. Don't ask me stupid questions like that. I'm doing what you ask, coming in and arguing. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
"I see 0 comments in the majority of Eddies [sic] 543 articles."
Eddie's articles? I never said that they were all on this site. Obviously, I've posted at other places besides here, so that's what I was referring to.
Obviously, I've posted at other places besides here, so that's what I was referring to.
Obviously, you know what was being talked about, so you're still a liar, troll. Even if you're talking about other sites, you still haven't brought any proof. Because your chosen and proven behavior is that you reply to others, you don't have thoughts of your own. Isn't that right, troll?
But, I like how Eddie has you sticking up for him. He can't do it himself? You 2 must be real good butties. No tissue needed for me, I'm not the one crying. Huh, Eddie?
"Obviously, you know what was being talked about, so you're still a liar, troll."
I did? What demonstrates your "obviously" claim? Be specific.
"Even if you're talking about other sites, you still haven't brought any proof."
I'm not providing hundreds of links to MMfA. Some other sites were under other names, so you wouldn't recognize that as proof, anyway. Maybe you shouldn't be introducing irrelevant subjects where finding evidence is prohibitively time-consuming.
"Because your chosen and proven behavior is that you reply to others, you don't have thoughts of your own. Isn't that right, troll?"
No, it isn't right. Again, the concepts aren't connected. When you post nonsense, I'm inclined to reply. That doesn't suggest that I don't have thoughts of my own. Now, if I were to refer to a random preacher instead of expressing my own opinion, that would be another matter entirely.
"No tissue needed for me, I'm not the one crying."
If your endless complaints about hyperbole that wasn't even directed at you isn't crying, then you don't get to use the term for pretty much anything. I don't see how you'll claim that's unfair.
Maybe you shouldn't be introducing irrelevant subjects where finding evidence is prohibitively time-consuming.
Maybe you shouldn't make absurd claims you cannot prove, troll.
No, it isn't right. Again, the concepts aren't connected.
But you have well established that pattern.
That doesn't suggest that I don't have thoughts of my own.
Since when do trolls have thoughts of their own. That's why all you do is reply. So, that suggestion is well documented and your theory is ... well ... a lie. Sorry, troll, that's the way things are.
Now, if I were to refer to a random preacher instead of expressing my own opinion, that would be another matter entirely.
You refer to random books in order to express your opinion. The difference is what?
If your endless complaints about hyperbole that wasn't even directed at you isn't crying, then you don't get to use the term for pretty much anything.
You spelled comments incorrectly. If you didn't mean comments, then you are the one crying now, troll. Save those tissues for yourself.
"Maybe you shouldn't make absurd claims you cannot prove, troll."
Considering you were banned from MMfA while I was there, you know how long I've been posting online. That makes my claim completely believable, if not expected. Besides, you asked. If you didn't want to hear the answer, then chastise yourself.
"But you have well established that pattern."
This is only one site. And if the concepts aren't connected, then it's irrelevant anyway.
"Since when do trolls have thoughts of their own."
Your labels don't alter reality.
"That's why all you do is reply."
Again, those concepts aren't connected, even if you could establish anything.
"You refer to random books in order to express your opinion."
What are you babbling about?
"If you didn't mean comments, then you are the one crying now, troll."
Your statements about Eddie's "threat" aren't complaints? This gets more and more amusing. So, you being up in arms over hyperbole is fine, but pointing out that you're complaining is "crying"? As I was saying, when your behavior doesn't match the threshold for "crying", you don't get to use it for that.
Considering you were banned from MMfA while I was there, you know how long I've been posting online.
Exactly what I'm referring to. You don't have original comments there, either. Only replies.
Your labels don't alter reality.
But, they are good at proving it.
What are you babbling about?
You rely on OTHER SOURCES to prove your points. So did I. Why is it acceptable for YOU to do that, but not ME? Would the word hypocrite fit that description?
So, you being up in arms over hyperbole is fine, but pointing out that you're complaining is "crying"?
Hyperbole can land you in jail. Just read the newest report on that football player at LAX. http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_25559489?source=inthenews I'm stating FACTS and you're the one crying. Perhaps you should hold onto those tissues. Apparently, you need them more than me.
Again, those concepts aren't connected, even if you could establish anything.
They don't have to be connected for you to have already proven your pattern of commenting. Besides, I don't have to establish YOUR pattern, you do that on your own. And, I don't have to prove what YOU say is fact. Why don't you break that pattern and comment on Eddies newest article and not reply to someone (anyone)? This should be interesting. You can also go back to the many, many articles that have 0 comments and be the first. Let me know which one you choose.
Labels don't prove anything, arguments do. Like that one just did, for me.
"You rely on OTHER SOURCES to prove your points."
As opposed to what? I'm curious to hear what you are recommending as appropriate behavior instead of that. Additionally, you said "random books". Relying on objective sources to support arguments isn't "random", so that still bears clarification on your part.
"So did I. Why is it acceptable for YOU to do that, but not ME?"
No, you handed off a question about your views to someone else. That's not even remotely similar to backing up arguments with evidence.
"Would the word hypocrite [sic] fit that description?"
The word hypocrite doesn't apply when circumstances are wildly divergent. For instance, if I suffered no consequences for killing an intruder in my own home in self-defense, and the same justice system convicted you for slaying your wife with a chainsaw, that's not hypocrisy. No matter how much you cry about how we both killed someone, the circumstances justify opposing results.
"Hyperbole can land you in jail."
Honestly, I wrote the above paragraph before reading that. Again, wildly divergent circumstances. Bomb threats in airports can't be ignored. Obviously, the people who heard that threat have a good reason to believe that it might affect them, to put it mildly. You, on the other hand, weren't even being addressed. There was no reason to believe that it could possibly be serious, and no justification for even erring on the side of caution. What's the theory, that he's carrying around a brick at all times, just waiting for some idiot conservative to say the magic phrase? Hilarious.
"I'm stating FACTS and you're the one crying."
You weren't threatened. If you had felt threatened, you wouldn't have volunteered yourself to be a potential victim. If you really want to explore this, I'd simply love to play the role of an FBI agent getting your side of the story. And if you really feel up to it, you can play a prosecutor trying to get a conviction, and I'll show you how you'll lose at every single turn. Let's see you try it.
"They don't have to be connected for you to have already proven your pattern of commenting."
They have to be connected for that pattern to mean anything, even if you could show the pattern.
"Let me know which one you choose."
Since replying to comments has no connection to any definition of "troll", I'm not exactly sure why you care whether I'm the first person to comment on an article or not.
Is this relevant to the topic, by the way? Do you have some convoluted, otherworldly ramblings to explain how you're not out on a distant tangent right now? You did say that you're never off-topic, so you must.
No, you handed off a question about your views to someone else. That's not even remotely similar to backing up arguments with evidence.
Yes it is. It's just like it. When you go to a web-site and use it to prove your point, you say: look at this site, it says exactly what I'm telling you is true, therefor what I say is correct. That is what I did, you asked for proof and I referred you to a web site that proves my point. The difference being what?
The word hypocrite doesn't apply when circumstances are wildly divergent.
But, it sure fits when they are similar. As in this situation.
Bomb threats in airports can't be ignored
Oh, so the threat can only be a joke if it's not in an airport. I'll bet the thousands of people who are in jail because they threatened physical harm to someone (anyone) will be glad to hear their cases will be overturned as soon as the troll tells the judge: hey, it wasn't at an airport ... what's the big deal? Great argument you make in favor of breaking laws.
What's the theory, that he's carrying around a brick at all times, just waiting for some idiot conservative to say the magic phrase?
I don't know Eddie. From the way he writes in his articles he seems to be a very angry man. So, perhaps he does just that. Are you able to distinguish between dangerous and not dangerous over the internet? Wow, you must really be a psychic.
"That is what I did, you asked for proof and I referred you to a web site that proves my point."
I asked for "proof"? Are you absolutely sure about that? I'll give you a chance to back up your assertion.
"But, it sure fits when they are similar. As in this situation."
This is nothing like a bomb threat, much less in an airport.
"Oh, so the threat can only be a joke if it's not in an airport."
Bomb threats in airports can't be taken as jokes, whether that was the intent or not. Besides, read your own article, particularly about the behavior before the comment about the bomb. It's not as if it was said in a lighthearted manner.
"I'll bet the thousands of people who are in jail because they threatened physical harm to someone (anyone) will be glad to hear their cases will be overturned as soon as the troll tells the judge: hey, it wasn't at an airport ... what's the big deal?"
Saying that a bomb threat can't be taken as a joke in an airport doesn't mean that everything outside of an airport can be taken a joke. Your binary thinking isn't making you look even remotely intelligent.
"Are you able to distinguish between dangerous and not dangerous over the internet?"
By that logic, you should be monitored by the authorities. Or did you forget about your recent unhinged rants already?
The test isn't whether someone could possibly be dangerous or not. You have to show that the threat can be reasonably assessed as genuine, and a hyperbolic comment made to nobody in particular just doesn't qualify. And that's especially apparent because you wouldn't volunteer to be the victim of anything you perceived as a real threat.
Besides that, threats are future tense. They can't ever actually happen, according to you, because then the future tense would no longer apply.
Incidentally, it's rather hilarious for you to use the "anyone" tag in the same post where you say "you must really be a psychic", since "anyone" was your assertion as to what Eddie meant, as opposed to what he distinctly wrote. You didn't realize you were setting yourself up, yet again.
Of course. You wanted proof, then you said that only some versions of the Bible are acceptable. I'm glad to provide the proof you claim to have wanted.
"You do the research and choose your own."
Why would I do "research" in order to determine your opinion? All you have to do is say which version you prefer. Unless, of course, you don't actually own a Bible at all. Or you know what it says in Genesis, and it shows that your beliefs dictate that God spoke first. It certainly prompts the question of why you cared about the version at all.
But, as much fun as it's been to make you dance, I've always simply been able to link to this: http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-3.htm Now, when you show the words of "william" in one of the two verses before that, I will concede your point.
Actually, I can't concede your point, because then the phrase "I will" would no longer apply. Quite the conundrum, isn't it?
"BTW, no one has hacked my computer, so you are wrong until that happens."
I didn't claim that anyone had, so you're wrong until you correct yourself.
This is nothing like a bomb threat, much less in an airport.
Random threats of physical harm. Please try to keep up, troll.
It's not as if it was said in a lighthearted manner.
Gee, troll. I don't see any LOL after Eddies threat either. Trolls are too stupid to continue discussing with me.
Saying that a bomb threat can't be taken as a joke in an airport doesn't mean that everything outside of an airport can be taken a joke.
Thank you for admitting you are wrong, in this situation, troll.
By that logic, you should be monitored by the authorities.
I already am being monitored. Pres Obama's NSA is doing that to everyone. Haven't you been keeping up with the news?
Or did you forget about your recent unhinged rants already?
Oh? Did I threaten you in any way? Wait ... are you crying? You better get those tissues back from Eddie.
And that's especially apparent because you wouldn't volunteer to be the victim of anything you perceived as a real threat.
And that's why so many have joined the military since we invaded Iraq. Because the "apparent" danger is only a "perceived" threat.
Besides that, threats are future tense.
Factually, it's an on-going, continual threat against anyone (someone) who says those magic words. So he could possibly hit someone today and still be threatening to do it again tomorrow.
They can't ever actually happen, according to you, because then the future tense would no longer apply.
The troll is lying again.
You didn't realize you were setting yourself up, yet again.
Do you realize you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about?
BTW, good job of knowing how computers work and double posting. Trolls are so intelligent. lol
Circumstances justify one perception of "harm", but not the other.
"I don't see any LOL after Eddies threat either."
You don't see any "seriously", or "literally", either. Are you psychic? And why not "hit you with a hammer" or "hit you with my S.U.V."? Why a "brick"?
Maybe it has something to do with this: http://www.memes.com/img/1896. Or this: http://www.memes.com/img/53620. Or this: http://sprintinglife.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/sometimes-life-is-going-to-hit-you-in-the-head-with-a-brick/. Or this: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/168814686005135405/. Or especially this: http://www.cafepress.com/whitetiger_llc/7936024.
There's also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherently_funny_word. Additionally: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InherentlyFunnyWords. Not only does the idea of carrying around a brick at all times seem difficult to imagine, the word itself has a natural and subliminal effect.
Your move, prosecutor.
"Thank you for admitting you are wrong, in this situation, troll."
Your baseless interpretation is not my responsibility.
"I already am being monitored."
The NSA doesn't match the context that's been established here.
"Oh? Did I threaten you in any way? Wait ... are you crying?"
Are you saying that complaining about a threat is crying? And no, I didn't say that you threatened me. Did you forget what was being discussed? You said: "Are you able to distinguish between dangerous and not dangerous over the internet?" Someone who spends their time acting pious and beyond reproach, even going so far as to claim that profanity is immoral, presents a strong case for "dangerous" when they snap and curse uncontrollably without provocation. Someone who uses hyperbole without any intended target while blogging is a much smaller possibility. Try it, if you need it demonstrated to you.
"And that's why so many have joined the military since we invaded Iraq."
Are you saying that soldiers volunteer to be victims? Also, if you really think that someone is a threat, you call the authorities. You don't try to start an actual, violent confrontation, unless you're a vigilante. What's the comparison to war, exactly?
"So he could possibly hit someone today and still be threatening to do it again tomorrow."
That's in direct conflict with your "it all happens in the future" comment.
"The troll is lying again."
And yet, you can't say how. Sorry, you saying so is not proof.
"Do you realize you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about?"
Do you realize that you're not actually challenging what I'm saying?
"BTW, good job of knowing how computers work and double posting."
I posted it twice intentionally, since the internet went out after I hit "publish" the first time and then went back to try it again. That's correcting an accident. Meanwhile, you think that a search function is "fancy". That's ignorance.
Circumstances justify one perception of "harm", but not the other.
Federal laws make BOTH illegal. You do remember I supplied you the link to the actual federal law that prohibits it and the potential punishment if convicted, right? Maybe you're ignoring that right now. I'll bet Eddies wife is asking him if that is true and telling him to remove that statement ASAP. But, who knows.
Your move, prosecutor.
Sorry, I rested my case the moment I produced the LAW that prohibits such an action. And I cannot lose with that kind of evidence. You are relying on "no big deal" as your defense? Good thing you're not a lawyer. Well ... good thing you're not MY lawyer. And, I'm pretty sure Eddie won't want you as his, either.
The NSA doesn't match the context that's been established here.
? President Obama will have the NSA do whatever he tells them to do. As we have found out during his presidency. Good thing Pres Obama isn't a republican or you liberals would be crying and all up-in-arms over his decision to have the NSA intrude into our lives like that. Nothing hypocritical about that, huh?
And no, I didn't say that you threatened me.
Thank you. Then where's the comparison?
Are you saying that soldiers volunteer to be victims?
No, that's what YOU are saying with your cockimany whine you have going currently.
That's in direct conflict with your "it all happens in the future" comment.
Umm, "tomorrow" is the future.
Sorry, you saying so is not proof.
But you doing so is.
I win. Try again?
If we are playing the "I'm stupid" game, yes you won. Congratulations, troll.
The laws rely on an evaluation of "threat". Remember, I know about this matter firsthand. You clearly do not. An obvious aspect that you're missing here is the purpose of the law. It's not arbitrary. It's based on effect. For instance, if you're annoyed with someone at work and you tell someone else "I'm going to smack him upside the head", it's not as if that person could immediately call the cops and have you arrested. There's no intimidation, and no way to show there was any intent of the same. The law is based on the effect of taking away someone's perception of safety.
So, your case would have to be that Eddie's comment, which was not directed at any specific person, qualifies as an "interstate" threat because you jumped up and volunteered to be the object of that "threat", while believing that Eddie might travel cross-country and try to find you, brick in hand.
See how that works? It has to be about you. It doesn't apply to millions of people around the country who haven't even seen the post, and not even to any of them who might be stupid enough to take it literally even if they had.
"Maybe you're ignoring that right now."
Maybe you're ignoring the fact that I invited you to test your argument by letting me play the role of an FBI agent asking you about your claim. I obviously wasn't joking.
"Sorry, I rested my case the moment I produced the LAW that prohibits such an action."
You have to prove that it qualifies as "such action". I could just as easily prove that your unhinged ranting was an interstate threat, given your standard. Eddie didn't use the phrase "I'm threatening you", right? Otherwise, it has to be evaluated.
"And I cannot lose with that kind of evidence."
The law is not "evidence". Without the law, there could be no action at all. "Evidence" comes later on, while both sides are trying to prove their case regarding a potential responsibility for violation of that law.
"You are relying on "no big deal" as your defense?"
No, I'm relying on the fact that he wasn't addressing anyone, primarily. How would there be any expectation of making an interstate "threat" when making a conditional comment that isn't directed at any particular person and has no connotations of being intended as a genuine promise of action? Further, it's not merely saying "no big deal" to show that a reasonable person can't possibly interpret it to be an actual threat. Baseless assertions are your practice, not mine.
"And, I'm pretty sure Eddie won't want you as his, either."
I'd say I already have all the arguments any professional lawyer would make already. Besides, he wouldn't need one, because the FBI would all but laugh directly in your phony, sniveling face.
"President Obama will have the NSA do whatever he tells them to do."
So now you think President Obama might take a personal interest in you?
"Good thing Pres Obama isn't a republican or you liberals would be crying and all up-in-arms over his decision to have the NSA intrude into our lives like that."
Why would you want to talk about the NSA on an article about a political cartoon? Oh, "trolls do what trolls do". I had almost forgotten.
"Then where's the comparison?"
Because you come across as more dangerous than Eddie does. You tried to use the argument that Eddie seems "angry", so he should be assumed to be dangerous. You're not just more angry, you exhibit violent mood swings, and while talking to a specific person at that. Do you need that clarified any further?
"No, that's what YOU are saying with your cockimany [sic] whine you have going currently."
I didn't say anything about soldiers, so I invite you to explain what you imagine you're talking about.
"Umm, "tomorrow" is the future."
But "today" is not.
"But you doing so is."
No, and you don't have anything to show that I believe that. I can restate any argument that you pretend to have missed.
"If we are playing the "I'm stupid" game, yes you won."
That's obviously not the game I'm referring to, since I used your ignorance in my favor. On top of that, I notice that you didn't try to refute the point, as an intelligent person would do.
So now you think President Obama might take a personal interest in you?
Your reading comprehension skills are quite amazing if that's how you conflate what I said. BTW, getting reading for your next question: are you talking politics now?
Why would you want to talk about the NSA on an article about a political cartoon?
Let's see ... you call it a "political cartoon", that means talking politics would be ok. According to YOUR standards.
Do you need that clarified any further?
Yes. I didn't know you could use the word "assumed" in place of the words that I did use. Also, how do you get "violent" out of cussing? If that is true, then you've exhibited "violent mood swings" during every one of our conversations (at one point or another). Is this line of questioning really helping your cause?
No, and you don't have anything to show that I believe that.
Of course YOU wouldn't believe that. You tell bold-face lies and then deny you did it. How in the world would anyone expect YOU to believe it. Everyone ELSE will see how you operate, though.
On top of that, I notice that you didn't try to refute the point, as an intelligent person would do.
You said "I win". What kind of "point" are you trying to make, other than to make yourself look stupid?
Go re-read the law I brought, as proof of illegality, and show me where it says it relies "on an evaluation of threat". Let me help you out ... it does NOT say anything like that.
I obviously wasn't joking.
So your defense for Eddie is role playing. Classic
I could just as easily prove that your unhinged ranting was an interstate threat, given your standard.
Actually, no you can't. You've already admitted my actions weren't "violent". Are you trying to have it both ways in one argument? Or, you could attempt to prove HOW. Which, I'm sure you will never attempt. It would only make you look MORE stupid (as if that's possible;).
No, I'm relying on the fact that he wasn't addressing anyone, primarily.
Good choice to change your defense from "no big deal" to "primarily". However, there is nothing in the LAW that says it is only illegal if you "primarily" intend to harm someone (anyone).
I'd say I already have all the arguments any professional lawyer would make already.
Well, if that's the extent of your knowledge for lawyering, then you'd better stick to being a paper filer. Because you would be laughed out of the court by any judge for your slack defense. And, your client would end up facing the penalties that are doled out for the law that Eddie has broken. Keep in mind this is a FEDERAL law, so he might end up in Leavenworth. I hope he paid you pro-bono. BTW, the double use of "already" is improper usage.
Besides, he wouldn't need one, because the FBI would all but laugh directly in your phony, sniveling face.
The FBI aren't the ones who decide guilty/not guilty. That would be a judge. Your knowledge of how the legal system works is as qualified as your lawyering ability. Ah ha ha ha Besides, do you think Eddie would want to take that chance? I think the penalty was 'up to 5 years' in federal prison. Check that for me, would you?
BTW: "phony, sniveling face." ... exhibiting some "violent mood swings" aren't you? Glad to see you can't be intimidated, like you claimed I was.
"Your reading comprehension skills are quite amazing if that's how you conflate what I said."
Of course, you forgot to mention what you supposedly meant instead of that.
"BTW, getting reading for your next question: are you talking politics now?"
I didn't bring up the NSA or President Obama.
"Let's see ... you call it a "political cartoon", that means talking politics would be ok. According to YOUR standards."
Where would that possibly be demonstrated as my standards, as opposed to clearly mocking your standards?
"I didn't know you could use the word "assumed" in place of the words that I did use."
I'm sure you did, since you think you can replace the use of "someone" with "anyone". And since I didn't put it quotes, I didn't claim that you used the word, contrary to your insinuation. Here's what you said, for the record: "From the way he writes in his articles he seems to be a very angry man. So, perhaps he does just that. Are you able to distinguish between dangerous and not dangerous over the internet? Wow, you must really be a psychic." So, if I have to be "psychic" in order to conclude that he's "not dangerous", then "dangerous" would be the default conclusion. You're taking it for granted that he's dangerous because of your perception of "angry", which makes it an assumption.
"Also, how do you get "violent" out of cussing?"
From having a vocabulary. Are you not familiar with the word?
"If that is true, then you've exhibited "violent mood swings" during every one of our conversations (at one point or another)."
Are you making a prediction for this conversation? Besides, it's a shift in behavior. Swearing by itself doesn't qualify if it's an established pattern, and by no means would any such incident qualify as violent. On top of that, the word "unprovoked" was included for a reason.
"Is this line of questioning really helping your cause?"
I can't imagine why not.
"Of course YOU wouldn't believe that."
I didn't leave it at my views. I said that you can't demonstrate it.
"You said "I win"."
Is that all you saw? I'll gladly help: "That's correcting an accident. Meanwhile, you think that a search function is "fancy". That's ignorance."
Where would that possibly be demonstrated as my standards, as opposed to clearly mocking your standards?
When you started talking about "collecting stamps" when that article is about "food stamps".
I'm sure you did, since you think you can replace the use of "someone" with "anyone".
Someone and anyone are interchangable. Show me where that isn't true.
So, if I have to be "psychic" in order to conclude that he's "not dangerous", then "dangerous" would be the default conclusion.
Or the other way around, troll.
You're taking it for granted that he's dangerous because of your perception of "angry", which makes it an assumption.
No I am not. I get my "assumption" from his exhibited behavior. Kind of like how you act like a troll, so I assume you are a troll. See how that works? Prove me wrong.
Are you not familiar with the word?
No. Can you bring a definition of the word so I can figure out if I'm using it correctly?
Are you making a prediction for this conversation?
No, just an observation.
I can't imagine why not.
With your exhibited intelligence level, I reckon you wouldn't.
Is that all you saw? I'll gladly help:
Factually, the remainder of your quote went like this: "I win. Try again?". I didn't see any of what you just said you wrote. That makes you a liar ... yet again.
What's your theory, that you just say that you were threatened and you can get someone thrown in prison?
Obviously not. I said it is against the law for him to say what he said. And, I proved that contention. Do you have anything more than whining about the shit you make up? I didn't think so.
I'm hoping the light bulb has sparked for you at this point.
My light bulb doesn't "spark", it lights up all the time. Yours, on the other hand, doesn't even spark by the way you're making your argument, troll.
Where did I use the phrase "no big deal"?
You didn't. You implied it and when I brought it up you didn't deny it. Reading comprehension 101.
Make a better case, and you'll warrant a more intricate reply.
I was kind of hoping for an honest reply. But, I get what I get from trolls.
That's an oxymoron.
Yeah, and a funny one at that. Nothing more to say on that? I didn't think so.
So you think the FBI doesn't investigate, they just take your word, arrest someone and then insure that they're prosecuted? Fascinating.
Umm, about you twisting what I did say into what you think I said ... just sayin'. Explain yourself.
If you can't make a case, there's no "chance".
I've made my case. Are you going to keep pushing me at Eddies expense? I'll bet you're his best friend right about now. What was it you said, once, about throwing "under that bus"? This is what you are doing to Eddie. I'll bet he appreciates you egging me into calling the authorities just to see if what he did is acceptable or not. But, considering you would face no charges why would YOU care about Eddie potentially going to federal prison? You've always got your other sites to reply on. You don't need this site, huh?
No, I'm commenting on the lack of merits of your arguments, like always.
Hmmm, sounds like you're intimidated. Explain how that isn't so. If you dare.
"When you started talking about "collecting stamps" when that article is about "food stamps"."
Which would be mocking you, since you talked about my marriage based off of a graphic which mentioned same-sex marriage. Try again.
"Someone and anyone are interchangable [sic]. Show me where that isn't true."
Examples, replacing the proper use of "someone": 1) "I told [anyone] I'd be there, I don't remember who." 2) "[Anyone]'s car is parked in my parking spot." 3) "In the background, I heard [anyone] whistling." Now, to analyze, replacing "anyone" with any person: 1) "I told [Bob] I'd be there, I don't remember who." That's pretty self-explanatory. Even without the substitution, it doesn't work because the phrase could clearly be restricted to a small group of possible people. 2) "[Bob]'s car is parked in my parking space." Bob doesn't have a car or even a driver's license. 3) "In the background, I heard [Bob] whistling." No, Bob couldn't have been whistling, since he had just had three cavities filled. He could barely talk because of the novocaine. Any questions?
"Or the other way around, troll."
If you're starting with "dangerous" as the default, then you're assuming it to be true.
"No I am not. I get my "assumption" from his exhibited behavior."
That involves your perception. You also aren't explaining how you didn't make an assumption, especially when you mention his "exhibited behavior". If you're open-minded, then what did you "get" from his exhibited behavior? On top of that, you're not presenting any contrast to what I previously said. You can be judged by what you say as well, so there's nothing protecting your behavior from being perceived as threatening.
"No. Can you bring a definition of the word so I can figure out if I'm using it correctly?"
That's exactly why I asked, yes: "2 b : extreme, intense (violent pain) (violent colors)" (Merriam-Webster.com).
"No, just an observation."
What "cussing" have you observed on the latest two threads?
"With your exhibited intelligence level, I reckon you wouldn't."
You didn't give a reason for me to believe I wasn't helping my case.
"Factually, the remainder of your quote went like this: "I win. Try again?". I didn't see any of what you just said you wrote."
You didn't address what came before that quote, so you weren't looking at any "remainder".
"Obviously not. I said it is against the law for him to say what he said. And, I proved that contention."
That's a lie. If there's no evaluation of a potential threat, then you couldn't have proven any such thing. All you're doing is saying that threatening someone is illegal. So, if there's no evaluation, you would also be subject to arrest based on accusation alone. It would be very easy for someone to prove that there's a law against threatening people, which is where you rested your case.
"My light bulb doesn't "spark", it lights up all the time."
Yet, you have no response to my point. Funny about that.
"You didn't. You implied it and when I brought it up you didn't deny it."
So you attributed a quote to me, and then admitted it. Hilarious. You also never showed how it was implied. On top of that: "Further, it's not merely saying "no big deal" to show that a reasonable person can't possibly interpret it to be an actual threat." That clearly shows that I took that as your phrasing, and disputed it. So your claim that I didn't deny it is a lie, as well. That was a very poor move on your part.
"I was kind of hoping for an honest reply."
That wouldn't be contrary to "intricate". You: "How more intricate do you want me to get?"
"Yeah, and a funny one at that. Nothing more to say on that?"
Yes, your ignorance is highly amusing. And what more needs to be said about it?
"Umm, about you twisting what I did say into what you think I said ... just sayin'. Explain yourself."
This was already explained. Law enforcement evaluates potential law violations and/or suspects. If your complaint doesn't hold water, they're not going to pursue any further action. Your comment that the FBI doesn't decide guilt clearly suggests that they're forced to arrest someone that is accused of a crime, otherwise your response makes no sense at all.
"Are you going to keep pushing me at Eddies expense?"
No, I'm going to keep proving the weakness of your argument at your expense.
"What was it you said, once, about throwing "under that bus"? This is what you are doing to Eddie."
That's not how the phrase is used. It actually refers to sacrificing someone else to save one's own person.
"I'll bet he appreciates you egging me into calling the authorities just to see if what he did is acceptable or not."
He would, if there was any danger, because your posts here are evidence. Not only have you admitted to manufacturing a quote and pretending that it came from me, your entire post here...
Are you ready for this?
Your entire post is evidence that you are an unreliable witness. You already replied to the same post not even a day previously. And you copied and pasted throughout, without realizing that you'd already replied to the same quotes already. You even used the correct meaning of "intricate", then you pretended that it was a synonym for dishonest. You've proven that you lack the stability and/or the mental aptitude to provide a credible courtroom presence.
Also, elsewhere, you've shown your bias against people who disagree with your political views. Even worse, while failing to make any objective case against Eddie, you've tried to silence me by threatening to call the authorities on him. Regardless of whether that's legally actionable or not, it easily appears more serious to threaten to have someone jailed without proper justification than to engage in hyperbole while not addressing anyone at all. Additionally, you've contradicted yourself, saying that Eddie threatened millions of people, and then saying that the authorities might not be contacted because so few people visit this site. And, of course, your unhinged obscenity spree is just the icing on the cake. There's much more, naturally, and the entirety of it testifies to your pathological irrationality.
"Hmmm, sounds like you're intimidated. Explain how that isn't so. If you dare."
Where would that possibly be demonstrated as my standards, as opposed to clearly mocking your standards?
You didn't use "note the sarcasm", so there is no other intention (to be drawn from that) with your statement.
You're taking it for granted that he's dangerous because of your perception of "angry", which makes it an assumption.
No, I think he perhaps may be dangerous because he DID make a threat of physical harm, on the internet, towards an undetermined number of people. That is illegal, according to the law I brought to support my position. Do you need me to re-post that law for you? Or do you remember what it said?
Swearing by itself doesn't qualify if it's an established pattern, and by no means would any such incident qualify as violent.
Then why would you say I have "violent" mood swings when I swore at you? If, by your own standards, it doesn't qualify as that? Is this another 'no hypocrisy there' moment?
I didn't leave it at my views.
Do your "views" equal "beliefs"? Ah ha ha ha
It's that simple, no processes involved?
No, I'm saying it is against FEDERAL law to do that. You seem to be arguing it isn't against FEDERAL law to threaten physical harm to someone (anyone) over the internet. Is that what you are arguing?
No, that's what would show that you can't justify the "threat" term.
Ok, got it. You're saying that the football player (I mentioned) can be fully exonerated because there is no justification for the threat. And, since it was not directed at anyone (someone) then what he did is legal??
Where was that?
Here: "And no, I didn't say that you threatened me.". Making you swearing at me no more violent than me swearing at you.
Make a better case, and you'll warrant a more intricate reply.
Why? You're a clerk. You said so. That means you "file papers" for a living. How more intricate do you want me to get?
So you think the FBI doesn't investigate, they just take your word, arrest someone and then insure that they're prosecuted?
I did not say that. Making you a liar. I said they don't decide guilty/not guilty. Now, about how you twist what I say around to allow you to continue your whine ... just sayin'.
If you can't make a case, there's no "chance".
The LAW was pretty specific about what is illegal and the potential punishment for the crime. Hell, lawyers got OJ off of a murder charge, but he was still arrested, wasn't he? Did the cops who arrested him decide his guilt or innocence? Yet, OJ was still subject to punishment for what he was "perceived" to have done.
"You didn't use "note the sarcasm", so there is no other intention (to be drawn from that) with your statement."
I never said that I always have to do that. And what statement are you even referring to? You left that part out, conveniently enough.
"No, I think he perhaps may be dangerous because he DID make a threat of physical harm, on the internet, towards an undetermined number of people."
If you were only saying that he may be dangerous, then I wouldn't have to be psychic to mock your ludicrous scenario. I wouldn't be required to know something for certain in order to disprove your claim, if you were actually open-minded about whether he's "dangerous" or not. Also, something for you to ponder: If there's nobody within earshot of you (and no microphones, cameras, etc. nearby), and you say you're going to kill the next Jehovah's Witness (or whatever) that comes to your door, did you make a threat? Why or why not?
"That is illegal, according to the law I brought to support my position."
That only applies to actual threats.
"Then why would you say I have "violent" mood swings when I swore at you?"
Because it was a radical shift in behavior. Then you respond by saying that I always cuss at some point. So, what would cause you to be surprised by that, if it always happens?
"Do your "views" equal "beliefs"?"
No. Those are two different words.
"No, I'm saying it is against FEDERAL law to do that."
That's not the point you were making. You wanted to see a specification regarding the evaluation of a threat in the law itself.
"You seem to be arguing it isn't against FEDERAL law to threaten physical harm to someone (anyone) over the internet."
How do you get that from the quote you posted? Here, look again: "It's that simple, no processes involved?" To play your game for a moment, where do I say anything remotely resembling "it's not against FEDERAL law to threaten someone over the internet" in that quote? Again, explain the process as you think it happens. The events seem to be, at this point; a) accusation, b) judge, c) prison. Fill in the blanks in your scenario.
"You're saying that the football player (I mentioned) can be fully exonerated because there is no justification for the threat."
No, because those are completely different circumstances. And unless you think the incident happened within mere feet of a state line, you know that it's a different law that applies as well.
"Here: "And no, I didn't say that you threatened me.""
The word "violent" isn't in that sentence. Are you confused? How about if I inform you that violent as in "mood swings" has nothing to do with violent as in "prone to violence". Also, you're conflating two different statements. The point is that by your standard, where the charge of a threat doesn't need to be evaluated, you're guilty of making a threat. Because it's not evaluated. I said that you didn't threaten me, because I don't use your idiotic standard. Glad to help.
You're a mechanic. How would you get any more intricate? Perhaps you should have thought that out a bit more.
"I said they don't decide guilty/not guilty."
Neither did I. I said that they would all but laugh in your face when investigating your complaint. How would it ever get to a judge if law enforcement doesn't find grounds for an arrest? Also, note the question mark at the end of the quote. Since you are clearly and strongly implying that the FBI simply hauls people off at the mere accusation of a crime, I asked for you to explain yourself. That can't possibly be categorized as a "lie", sorry.
"The LAW was pretty specific about what is illegal and the potential punishment for the crime."
The law didn't specify what constitutes a threat. You could say the same thing for laws against disturbing the peace. That in itself doesn't mean that you're going to get arrested for mowing your lawn because your lunatic neighbor calls the police after being jolted out of their Saturday afternoon nap.
"Hell, lawyers got OJ off of a murder charge, but he was still arrested, wasn't he?"
There was no question of the charge in that case, given the nature of the crime scene. The issue there is who committed the crime. In this situation, the person is not what is determined, it's the nature of the act. Those are completely opposite by nature.
"Did the cops who arrested him decide his guilt or innocence?"
They didn't decide his guilt, but it certainly wasn't for lack of effort. It's actually arguable that the police decided his (legal) innocence through their handling of evidence and the case in general. It's not at all clear how you think you're helping yourself with that. He was an obvious suspect from the start, having been accused of domestic violence already. He had no alibi, and fled police while carrying a passport. What's the alternative to an arrest in that scenario?
Meanwhile, law enforcement evaluates potential suspects of crimes every day. They don't all get automatically arrested. If you make an accusation that doesn't hold water, then law enforcement isn't going to do anything about it. What makes you think otherwise?
"Ah ha ha ha."
That's an appeal to ridicule, a logical fallacy. If you want to explain how commenting on your whining and your disingenuous argument qualifies as a "violent mood swing", You have the opportunity.
I don't get that from the quote I posted. I get it from statements you've made ... such as here: There was no reason to believe that it could possibly be serious, and no justification for even erring on the side of caution. and here: You weren't threatened.
The events seem to be, at this point; a) accusation, b) judge, c) prison. Fill in the blanks in your scenario.
a) accusation, b) arrest, c) trial, d) judgement, e) penalty. You DO know how the American system of justice works, don't you? Because you seemed to have left a couple important steps out of your scenario (arrest and trial). Here's something you should ask Eddie: would he want to risk the potential outcome of this using your determination of how the legal system works, if I was to file a complaint? Keep in mind that a FEDERAL crime has been committed in a day and age where interstate threats of violence are treated much differently than they were pre-9/11. Because the more you keep egging me on, the more I feel like testing those waters. I can face no penalty, since I was the one threatened. I have nothing to lose, Would you be Eddies lawyer?
No, because those are completely different circumstances.
"completely"?? How so?
I said that they would all but laugh in your face when investigating your complaint. How would it ever get to a judge if law enforcement doesn't find grounds for an arrest?
Law enforcement doesn't make that decision. It would be up to the prosecutor. THEN law enforcement would be required to either arrest him or not. OR, he is arrested then the prosecutor makes a decision on the warrants of the complaint.
The law didn't specify what constitutes a threat. You could say the same thing for laws against disturbing the peace.
Yes, the law does: (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to INJURE the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (highlights mine). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875 The law defines the threat as one that could cause injury. I think being hit over the head with a brick could cause injury.
And, bring the law on disturbing the peace (interstate) and prove your claim.
There was no question of the charge in that case, given the nature of the crime scene.
Apparently, there is enough question that the guy was found not guilty. Yet he still faced punishment for a crime he was found innocent of. Do YOU really want to put EDDIE through that test? I don't think so.
They didn't decide his guilt, but it certainly wasn't for lack of effort.
Well, you were able to answer half the question. BTW, their effort seemed to include made up evidence. And ignoring exonerating evidence. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm Did they decide his innocence?
He was an obvious suspect from the start, having been accused of domestic violence already.
Using that premise, Eddie has a history of "violent mood swings" (swearing at someone {anyone}), so he is an obvious suspect for threatening physical violence against someone (anyone). Then when he actually does threaten someone (anyone) he would be the obvious suspect. Thanks for proving my point ... that it is illegal to threaten physical violence against someone (anyone). And, that it is against FEDERAL law to do that on the internet.
Meanwhile, law enforcement evaluates potential suspects of crimes every day.
They sure do. And the prosecutor or judge makes the decision as to whether a person is charged or not. Law enforcement will book you into jail, but they don't decide what crimes you go to trial for.
"I get it from statements you've made ... such as here: There was no reason to believe that it could possibly be serious, and no justification for even erring on the side of caution. and here: You weren't threatened."
So it seems to you that I'm saying that it isn't against federal law to threaten someone over the internet because I said that there's no genuine threat in these scenarios? That doesn't help you in the slightest, because the idea that there is such a law and the idea that some statements are not threats are not in conflict with each other. And it's especially bizarre for you to come to that conclusion, since I told you that I have experience with this myself. I know that such threats are illegal. The point was specifically and explicitly that your case doesn't hold water, not that the law doesn't exist.
"a) accusation, b) arrest, c) trial, d) judgement [sic], e) penalty."
You forgot about the investigation. There's your problem.
"Because you seemed to have left a couple important steps out of your scenario (arrest and trial)."
I'm talking about your representation of the process. The point would be that it's not complete, obviously.
"Keep in mind that a FEDERAL crime has been committed in a day and age where interstate threats of violence are treated much differently than they were pre-9/11."
The threat that I dealt with was after 9/11. Remember, I know about this from personal experience. You clearly do not. Also, your assertion that a crime has been committed is not a fact.
"Because the more you keep egging me on, the more I feel like testing those waters."
I'm not concerned in the slightest. Further, disputing your moronic argument isn't provocation.
"How so?"
I find it humorous that you just mentioned 9/11 and then you don't see the difference between saying that you have a bomb at an airport and making a comment on the internet involving a brick with no specified target. Also: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/u-s-world/bad-bomb-joke-prompts-alaska-airport-evacuation Notice how there's an effect at hand there. The untold number of people who you claim to be under "threat" by Eddie don't seem to be affected, otherwise at least one of them surely would have contacted the FBI about the matter.
"Law enforcement doesn't make that decision. It would be up to the prosecutor."
Here's what you quoted in order to say that: "How would it ever get to a judge if law enforcement doesn't find grounds for an arrest?" Do you think that prosecutors travel around with law enforcement during investigations? Otherwise, how would they even know to demand an arrest? No, if law enforcement finds grounds for an arrest, they make the arrest. The prosecutor has no involvement in that. Read and learn: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-happens-when-you-re-charged-with-a-crime.html. Note the glaring lack of any prosecutor involvement with the arrest. Even better: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/arrest.html. A warrant for arrest doesn't involve a prosecutor. That was the only chance at your redemption, and it was slim from the start.
"OR, he is arrested then the prosecutor makes a decision on the warrants of the complaint."
If law enforcement doesn't make the decision to make an arrest (as you claimed), and the prosecutor makes a decision after the arrest, then who authorizes that arrest?
"The law defines the threat as one that could cause injury."
The law doesn't define what comments are reasonably perceived to be threats. You're highlighting what the threat would involve, which doesn't affect the definition of the term itself.
"And, bring the law on disturbing the peace (interstate) and prove your claim."
I didn't say "interstate" regarding those laws, and it's not a requirement for the comparison.
"Apparently, there is enough question that the guy was found not guilty."
The charge is not the case. First degree murder would be a charge. Again, considering the crime, there was no question regarding the charge. It's not as if he was found "not guilty" because the jury thought it might have been an accident.
"Yet he still faced punishment for a crime he was found innocent of. Do YOU really want to put EDDIE through that test?"
The test of facing punishment for a crime he's found "not guilty" of? What punishment are you predicting?
"BTW, their effort seemed to include made up evidence. And ignoring exonerating evidence."
BTW: "It's actually arguable that the police decided his (legal) innocence through their handling of evidence and the case in general."
"Using that premise, Eddie has a history of "violent mood swings" (swearing at someone {anyone}), so he is an obvious suspect for threatening physical violence against someone (anyone)."
Swearing has nothing to do with threatening physical violence. And the premise is that an ex-husband who's suspected of actual violence in the past is going to be the prime suspect in a murder. Your logical leap from swearing to threatening physical violence isn't even remotely similar to what I said.
"Then when he actually does threaten someone (anyone) he would be the obvious suspect."
There's no "obvious suspect" in that type of case. I already explained that to you: "The issue there is who committed the crime. In this situation, the person is not what is determined, it's the nature of the act."
"Thanks for proving my point ... that it is illegal to threaten physical violence against someone (anyone)."
Your point, actually, is that Eddie is supposedly vulnerable to prosecution for making interstate threats. Since I told you that actual threats were against the law, you're pretending to argue something that was never in contention.
"Law enforcement will book you into jail, but they don't decide what crimes you go to trial for."
What would that have to do with anything? You said that law enforcement doesn't make the decision on an arrest. That would be apprehension, not deciding on charges. But if law enforcement decides not to "book you into jail", then you would never stand in front of a judge. So what were you disputing, exactly?
For more amusement, let's compare your quotes; 1) "Go re-read the law I brought, as proof of illegality, and show me where it says it relies "on an evaluation of threat". Let me help you out ... it does NOT say anything like that." 2) "And the prosecutor or judge makes the decision as to whether a person is charged or not."
So there's a "decision" regarding whether someone's actions warrant a threat charge or not, and at the same time, there's no "evaluation" of any potential threat. Apparently, prosecutors and judges simply flip a coin and then call it a day.
And it has changed in WHAT way? Yeah, I didn't think you could answer that one in order to defend your "radical shift in behavior" comment. Facts are you don't know what the hell you're talking about and you just spew out whatever you can to cover your ass. Eddie has been complaining about my behavior since I started (here) and you say there's been a "radical shift in behavior". Hmmm, maybe you know something he doesn't? Ah ha ha ... I doubt that
You saying so is not proof.
Look the words up and let me know how they are different in the way they are being used.
So it seems to you that I'm saying that it isn't against federal law to threaten someone over the internet because I said that there's no genuine threat in these scenarios?
Yes. It took you how many posts to figure that out? Brilliant, simply brilliant.
I know that such threats are illegal.
Then why are you arguing that they would be laughed at by law enforcement? Brilliant, simply brilliant
You forgot about the investigation.
That's included in the "trial" part, troll.
I'm talking about your representation of the process.
Why? I've never misrepresented any part of it. Unlike you who left out crucial aspects of the American justice system.
The threat that I dealt with was after 9/11.
Nobody cares about your situation. THIS discussion is about laws broken by Eddie. Try to keep up with what is being discussed.
You clearly do not.
And you know that how?
I'm not concerned in the slightest.
Of course YOU don't. You didn't make the threat, Eddie did. You don't face a potential 5 years in federal prison. Wow, talk about egos.
I find it humorous that you just mentioned 9/11 and then you don't see the difference between saying that you have a bomb at an airport and making a comment on the internet involving a brick with no specified target.
I find it amusing you don't realize there IS a specific target. Remember, he gave his parameters for hitting someone over the head with a brick. That IS specific.
The untold number of people who you claim to be under "threat" by Eddie don't seem to be affected, otherwise at least one of them surely would have contacted the FBI about the matter.
Why?
The law doesn't define what comments are reasonably perceived to be threats.
Hey, troll, "reasonably" has never been part of this discussion. Changing the parameters again to fit your argument? Nothing unexpected there, from your proven behavior.
I didn't say "interstate" regarding those laws, and it's not a requirement for the comparison.
Yes it is, if you're going to make the argument you're making. Bring the law or shut the fuck up.
First degree murder would be a charge.
Did law enforcement charge him or did the court system charge him? Oooo, the tough question that you will undoubtably ignore. I think law enforcement arrested him and then the court system charged him. More specifically, the prosecutor. But I could be wrong. Show that I'm wrong ... please.
It's not as if he was found "not guilty" because the jury thought it might have been an accident.
That's right. He was found not guilty because law enforcement manufactured most of the evidence. And the rest was circumstantial.
Your logical leap from swearing to threatening physical violence isn't even remotely similar to what I said.
You think that because you're a troll. And you'll say anything to avoid looking like the fool you already look like.
Since I told you that actual threats were against the law, you're pretending to argue something that was never in contention.
Well, troll, it has to do with the fact that you implied that law enforcement are the ones who decide who gets charged and who doesn't. Please try to follow along ... at least with what you are talking about. You would think you could do that, but you are a troll after all, so anything is possible.
You said that law enforcement doesn't make the decision on an arrest.
Where?
Apparently, prosecutors and judges simply flip a coin and then call it a day.
That seems to be the way your mind works. Amazing, but true.
Do you have anything else or are you done? Because you have lost on EVERY count you've been arguing for. I really hope you're done because it must be very embarrassing to continue making illogical arguments in support of an obviously illegal action. But, you are a troll and trolls do as trolls do.
With an unhinged and obscene bender that was completely unprovoked. Did you forget that already?
"Yeah, I didn't think you could answer that one in order to defend your "radical shift in behavior" comment."
Are you talking to voices in your head again? When I respond to your question, then you can comment on what I did or did not do. Not before you hit "publish".
"Look the words up and let me know how they are different in the way they are being used."
View: "a conception of a thing; opinion; theory" (dictionary.reference.com) Belief: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing" (Merriam-Webster.com) You were talking about my viewpoint. That has nothing to do with any "belief", as you've been using it.
"Yes. It took you how many posts to figure that out?"
I'm so sorry that you find clarifying your otherworldly comments so inconvenient. As I said, the two concepts aren't in conflict with each other. I know that threats are illegal, and I can also say that something which can not reasonably be determined to be a threat at all doesn't fall under that law.
"Then why are you arguing that they would be laughed at by law enforcement?"
Because your complaint is a joke. It wasn't a general comment, it was specific to you.
"That's included in the "trial" part, troll."
The investigation is after the arrest? Fascinating.
"I've never misrepresented any part of it."
Except that law enforcement actually performs arrests on their own authority, without waiting for a prosecutor's decision.
"Unlike you who left out crucial aspects of the American justice system."
Here's what you quoted from me: "The events seem to be, at this point; a) accusation, b) judge, c) prison. Fill in the blanks in your scenario." Note "your scenario", proving that I'm talking about your representation.
"Nobody cares about your situation. THIS discussion is about laws broken by Eddie."
So an application of the very law you cited isn't relevant to this discussion? Maybe you'd like to talk about political cartoons instead.
"You don't face a potential 5 years in federal prison."
Concern (v.): "anxious, worried (concerned for their safety)" (Merriam-Webster.com) The meaning of the word isn't specific to myself.
"Remember, he gave his parameters for hitting someone over the head with a brick."
A specified target would be a specific individual. I didn't say "parameters" or anything resembling it.
"Why?"
What else could you expect? If you're going to claim that it was a real threat, that it applies to some vast amount of people, and that it has any effect, then how many people do you think are going to be terrified into submission before at least one person speaks to the authorities? And if the charge has any merit, why is he still posting articles? This is your theory, so feel free to explain how it's supposed to make sense.
"Hey, troll, "reasonably" has never been part of this discussion."
Then you can get arrested for your threatening behavior. But you already tried to explain why you shouldn't be arrested, as if accusations of threats should be evaluated reasonably. Why did you do that?
"Yes it is, if you're going to make the argument you're making."
No, "interstate" doesn't even make sense, and it has nothing to do with the principle at hand. Explain how you think otherwise. I've never been bullied into conforming to your insane and arbitrary demands, and that's not going to change.
"Did law enforcement charge him or did the court system charge him?"
This is what I was responding to: "Apparently, there is enough question that the guy was found not guilty." What does your new question have to do with that?
"Show that I'm wrong ... please."
Show where I suggested anything to the contrary.
"That's right. He was found not guilty because law enforcement manufactured most of the evidence."
And this contradicts what I said in what way?
"You think that because you're a troll."
In other words, you can't justify your argument. I already knew that, but thank you.
"Shut up, you never said that."
Liar; You:"Threats of physical violence are against the law. Even on the internet." Me:"I know more than you do about it. I got the FBI onto the doorstep of a lunatic who threatened me over the internet. The differences? First, he was talking to me specifically. Second, I didn't volunteer to be the subject of a previously stated threat. Third, he didn't use phrases that reek of hyperbole or would appear to be used for comic effect. Fourth, he gave me his address, inviting me to confront him in person, and thereby proving intent. You have none of those factors to show for yourself." Note, for your added humiliation, that I mentioned the FBI. The "F" stands for "Federal".
"Well, troll, it has to do with the fact that you implied that law enforcement are the ones who decide who gets charged and who doesn't."
I said that if they don't have grounds for an arrest, then it would never come in front of a judge. That doesn't imply anything regarding "who gets charged and who doesn't"
"Where?"
Me: "I said that they would all but laugh in your face when investigating your complaint. How would it ever get to a judge if law enforcement doesn't find grounds for an arrest?" You: "Law enforcement doesn't make that decision. It would be up to the prosecutor. THEN law enforcement would be required to either arrest him or not."
"That seems to be the way your mind works."
You forgot to include your argument, yet again.
"Because you have lost on EVERY count you've been arguing for."
You saying so isn't proof. You forgot that, as well.
With an unhinged and obscene bender that was completely unprovoked. Did you forget that already?
Cool, so I'm no different than Eddie with that excuse. Thanks
Are you talking to voices in your head again?
I'm not talking to a live person, I'm reading your shit. So, yeah that would qualify as "voices in my head". Ah ah hah ha
You were talking about my viewpoint.
Oh, so you're changing the parameters to "viewpoint"? Cool, because using your preferred dictionary (M-W) a related word to "viewpoint" is "belief". You should have stuck with what you actually said instead of changing it. Good job, troll.
The investigation is after the arrest?
Did they "investigate" OJ before he was arrested? Interesting concept you have of the American Justice System. No, I think they just went after him because he was the most convenient to go after. I don't think they actually analyzed the evidence that they had for the crime they had. I think they just assumed (as you did) that he was the most likely and therefor the most easy to convict of a crime they couldn't prove.
The meaning of the word isn't specific to myself.
Exactly, so pay attention to the e-mail Eddie sent you and shut the fuck up.
then how many people do you think are going to be terrified into submission before at least one person speaks to the authorities?
Well, none. Because so few people read these articles. He must have thought he can do whatever he wants without potential recourse. But, that's just my opinion. Hence, my offer to take him up on his threat. Which he still hasn't done. So, either he is scared to fulfill his threat or he regrets saying it. It seems to me it is one or the other.
And if the charge has any merit, why is he still posting articles?
I notice none of the articles, since, have any threats in them. Troll
Then you can get arrested for your threatening behavior.
I haven't exhibited any "threatening behavior". If I have please expound on that.
I've never been bullied into conforming to your insane and arbitrary demands, and that's not going to change.
Then why do you keep responding to my questions as I've demanded?
In other words, you can't justify your argument.
I must have, because you just admitted I was right in your previous 2 statements.
Liar;
Again, shut up you never said that. Your statement doesn't say anything about you admitting it is against the law for Eddie to do what he is doing. Your proof doesn't prove what you say it proves.
Me:
Again, that doesn't prove what you are saying it proves, try again. And, get it right this time. If you're able.
You saying so isn't proof. You forgot that, as well.
"Cool, so I'm no different than Eddie with that excuse."
You'd have to demonstrate the similarity, first.
"I'm not talking to a live person, I'm reading your shit. So, yeah that would qualify as "voices in my head"."
I didn't ask if you were hearing voices in your head.
"Oh, so you're changing the parameters to "viewpoint"?"
I'm not changing anything, since you're the one who mentioned my "belief".
"Cool, because using your preferred dictionary (M-W) a related word to "viewpoint" is "belief"."
Sorry, related words aren't automatically interchangeable. One of the definitions of "believe" involves having an opinion (example:"I believe so"). That's not even related to "belief" as you've been using it.
"You should have stuck with what you actually said instead of changing it. Good job, troll."
I wasn't talking about what I said, so your comment makes no sense at all. If you lose your bearings this severely against a "troll", what does it say about you?
"No, I think they just went after him because he was the most convenient to go after."
What would that have to do with the process as it typically functions? Is it supposed to be a general concept that juries don't weigh evidence because a jury ignored all of the evidence before rendering a verdict once? It seemed to me that you were trying to establish an understanding of the system, not the Simpson case.
"I think they just assumed (as you did) that he was the most likely and therefor [sic]the most easy to convict of a crime they couldn't prove."
That's incredibly unlikely, considering the history between Simpson and the police. They were very accommodating to him, and favored him when they were called for domestic abuse complaints. Besides that, picking on wealthy and famous people who can get the best lawyers and guarantee full media coverage of the entire story is probably not something one would do when trying to pin a crime on someone without any evidence to back it up. The conclusion of Simpson as the most likely suspect is entirely justifiable, and hardly an assumption. The issue is that the police department created reasonable doubt by compromising their credibility, a result of trying too hard to ensure a conviction.
"Exactly, so pay attention to the e-mail Eddie sent you and shut the fuck up."
What are you babbling about?
"Well, none. Because so few people read these articles."
Then where's the millions of potential victims that you were talking about?
"Hence, my offer to take him up on his threat. Which he still hasn't done. So, either he is scared to fulfill his threat
"I notice none of the articles, since, have any threats in them."
I notice that none of the articles previous to this one have threats in them, either. Now, try to focus. If this was as serious as you claimed, the website would be shut down. That's the very minimum.
"I haven't exhibited any "threatening behavior"."
You would have to explain that to a judge, after your arrest. But, since there's no concept of what can reasonably be taken as a threat, it obviously won't do you any good.
"Then why do you keep responding to my questions as I've demanded?"
I don't. I respond to your contortions, lies, and errors. You demanding that I answer a question has never been a factor.
"I must have, because you just admitted I was right in your previous 2 statements."
So if I say that water is wet, you'll admit that I'm right and then that will carry over to a completely different comment? You never showed how I said anything different from those two comments, so there's no admission on my part. As if that wasn't enough, the three comments are all in response to different quotes on different arguments. Even if I had admitted something on the other two, it wouldn't apply to what you claim it does.
"Your statement doesn't say anything about you admitting it is against the law for Eddie to do what he is doing."
I didn't say it was; You:"Thanks for proving my point ... that it is illegal to threaten physical violence against someone (anyone)." Me:"Your point, actually, is that Eddie is supposedly vulnerable to prosecution for making interstate threats. Since I told you that actual threats were against the law, you're pretending to argue something that was never in contention." Notice that not only did you make a general comment, but I corrected you to point out that your argument is really about Eddie. Then I contrasted that with the fact that I had already commented on the law itself. So, sorry, I was clearly not claiming to be saying anything about Eddie, there. Further, it was never about "admitting" anything. I promptly told you that I knew about the law in no uncertain terms. It's not as if you pressured me into saying it or anything like that.
"In this instance, it does."
Then you can't ever ask for evidence again. Because in any given instance, saying so is proof. Would you agree? If not, you'd better explain what's so special about this particular occurrence that it changes your own stated principle.
I didn't ask if you were hearing voices in your head.
I know. I don't have speech on my computer. Please try to follow along ... at least with what YOU are saying.
Sorry, related words aren't automatically interchangeable.
I didn't say they were. What are you having a problem with?
That's not even related to "belief" as you've been using it.
Ok. I don't think I've used the word "believe" yet. But, if you want to add yet another changed word into this discussion that would be totally expected from a troll.
If you lose your bearings this severely against a "troll", what does it say about you?
That I'm smarter than one?
What would that have to do with the process as it typically functions?
Quite a lot, considering you are saying that the FBI would laugh at me for attempting to pursue a case against the threat that Eddie brought. If it even MAKES it to the jury then Eddie is in lots of trouble.
That's incredibly unlikely, considering the history between Simpson and the police.
The police? I thought you said he had a history of violence against his wife (ex). Are you changing your story again?
The issue is that the police department created reasonable doubt by compromising their credibility, a result of trying too hard to ensure a conviction.
Yeah, that's a mild way of saying they made shit up ... kind of like you constantly do. Hmmm
Then where's the millions of potential victims that you were talking about?
I didn't think you knew very much about computers and how they work. You DO know that the internet is world-wide, right? Maybe I should have used billions to be more accurate?
Or, it was never a threat, of course.
Obviously that isn't the case. He's making the threat.
Now, try to focus. If this was as serious as you claimed, the website would be shut down.
Oh, you mean by the NSA, who Pres Obama is having spy on all Americans? You never did comment on how a democrat is not only allowing but requiring that his spy agency do that to the American public. I also noticed you had nothing to say about how liberals would be up-in-arms if the same thing had been done by a republican president. But, that is off-topic so perhaps you finally decided that you would prefer talking, off-topic, on subjects that don't show how hypocritical liberals are.
Then you can't ever ask for evidence again.
Actually, if you had minimal reading comprehension abilities, you would notice that I said "IN THIS INSTANCE".
That would be impossible, since we weren't even talking about me.
"I know."
Then you knew that you didn't address what I said.
"I didn't say they were."
You must have forgotten to show how you had a point, then, since you said the words were "related" and left it at that.
"I don't think I've used the word "believe" yet."
Of course you did. That's part of the context here. "Of course YOU wouldn't believe that. You tell bold-face [sic] lies and then deny you did it. How in the world would anyone expect YOU to believe it." On top of that, you've said the word multiple times on this thread. As recently as yesterday, you used it while baselessly insisting that I "believe" that there is no god. Further, it's not even necessary for you to have used the word for me to make the demonstration. If "belief" and "believe" have different shades of meaning, then you can't simply act as if "related" words are relevant. The word "even" in my comment should have clued you in to that. Since I didn't say that you used the word believe, you never had a basis for claiming that I was changing what you said.
"That I'm smarter than one?"
Probably not, because that doesn't explain why you would lose your bearings. Notice that I figured that out, and you didn't.
"Quite a lot, considering you are saying that the FBI would laugh at me for attempting to pursue a case against the threat that Eddie brought."
What does that have to do with your claim that the investigation follows the arrest?
"If it even MAKES it to the jury then Eddie is in lots of trouble."
Which it wouldn't, since the FBI would not pursue action based on your complaint.
"The police? I thought you said he had a history of violence against his wife (ex)."
You were talking about the police: "I think they just assumed (as you did) that he was the most likely and therefor [sic] the most easy to convict of a crime they couldn't prove." I honestly didn't realize that I couldn't use the word "history" for more than one purpose on a thread without confusing the hell out of you.
"Yeah, that's a mild way of saying they made shit up ... kind of like you constantly do."
Except it was demonstrated for the LAPD.
"I didn't think you knew very much about computers and how they work. You DO know that the internet is world-wide, right? Maybe I should have used billions to be more accurate?"
You said "millions". What's your point, that I should have corrected your ignorance at the time and told you it could be "billions"? It's not clear exactly how you think I'm vulnerable in this situation. More importantly, you just said that there are very few visitors to the website, so whether you say "millions" or "billions", it's going to be inconsistent with that.
"Obviously that isn't the case. He's making the threat."
Your assertion has been noted, but it isn't evidence by itself.
"Oh, you mean by the NSA, who Pres Obama is having spy on all Americans?"
No, by the FBI. That's who would be involved here.
"You never did comment on how a democrat [sic] is not only allowing but requiring that his spy agency do that to the American public."
Because it's off-topic.
"But, that is off-topic so perhaps you finally decided that you would prefer talking, off-topic, on subjects that don't show how hypocritical liberals are."
Where are you saying that I'm "off-topic"? Besides, unless you're claiming that conservatives stick by their principles no matter what, you're not going to establish anything about liberals.
"Actually, if you had minimal reading comprehension abilities, you would notice that I said "IN THIS INSTANCE"."
That is amusing. I'll repeat what I said, since you didn't comprehend it: "Because in any given instance, saying so is proof. Would you agree? If not, you'd better explain what's so special about this particular occurrence that it changes your own stated principle." I know you said "in this instance", obviously. Since you didn't explain how "this instance" justifies the change, then it can easily apply to any and every situation.
Then you knew that you didn't address what I said.
Didn't you ask if I was "talking" to voices in my head? Well, I can't talk to "voices in my head" if I don't hear them. And I explained my computer does not have a speech program so all I can do is READ what is being written in these articles. How much more explanation did you need?
Of course you did. That's part of the context here.
I'm sure you're way out of context. But, let's clear this up right now. Do you believe in a god?
Probably not, because that doesn't explain why you would lose your bearings.
But, I didn't lose my bearings. I've dropped them a couple times, but never lost them.
What does that have to do with your claim that the investigation follows the arrest?
Considering I replied to this statement: "What would that have to do with the process as it typically functions?", I don't know what it has to do with the investigation following the arrest. Is that the question you meant to ask but couldn't figure out how to word it?
Except it was demonstrated for the LAPD.
You mean it was demonstrated BY the LAPD, not for. You're welcome in advance.
More importantly, you just said that there are very few visitors to the website, so whether you say "millions" or "billions", it's going to be inconsistent with that.
Eddie has a running count of "visitors" per month. What is 56 times 2100? That's more than a few, but less than millions. The point is that it is on the internet and his site has NO filters that prevent anyone (someone) from reading his threat.
No, by the FBI. That's who would be involved here.
The NSA might get involved also, they are the National Security Agency, aren't they?
Because it's off-topic.
You seem to have no problem discussing OJ Simpson and the FBI and threats of physical harm. Don't worry though, I would never expect you to address your support of a democrat president who does what you would denounce a republican president for if they ever did something as terrible as that.
Where are you saying that I'm "off-topic"?
Umm, you're replying to the post that I said it right there. Reading comprehension 101.
That is amusing. I'll repeat what I said, since you didn't comprehend it: "Because in any given instance, saying so is proof."
That is cute. The only problem is that I replied by saying "In this instance". Since "any given instance" wasn't being discussed, just this one. But, thanks for showing you don't even have minimal reading comprehension skills.
I think I'll just discuss how Pres Obama is using his powers (of presidency) to force the spy agencies in the US to spy on anyone and/or everyone. And, that would include someone. Since you don't have to ability to follow what IS being discussed I'll just discuss Pres Obama's illegal spying that you seem to support. At least you haven't said you don't support it. Do you support Pres Obama having his spy agencies spy on all Americans?
"Didn't you ask if I was "talking" to voices in my head? Well, I can't talk to "voices in my head" if I don't hear them."
Which doesn't mean that you talk back to them just because you hear them.
"How much more explanation did you need?"
You could explain why you expect answers to questions before you publish them. That was the point, which you failed to comprehend.
"I'm sure you're way out of context."
You would be incorrect. I quoted you directly, in case you missed that as well.
"Do you believe in a god?"
No.
"But, I didn't lose my bearings."
Then you shouldn't have given a response which accepted the premise.
"Considering I replied to this statement: "What would that have to do with the process as it typically functions?", I don't know what it has to do with the investigation following the arrest."
Your "statement" is a question, for starters. You said, when talking about the way the justice system works, that the investigation is part of the trial. That wasn't for any specific case, that was about the general process of the system. Then you talked about O.J. Simpson when asked about it. One specific case, even if you had a point, is irrelevant to the process as it typically functions. My wording is not the problem, it's your need to obfuscate your claim that the investigation comes after the arrest.
"You mean it was demonstrated BY the LAPD, not for."
No, I mean it was demonstrated for them. As opposed to how you've failed to demonstrate the same thing for anything I've said. That was your comparison, if you remember that much.
"Eddie has a running count of "visitors" per month. What is 56 times 2100? That's more than a few, but less than millions."
Even beyond your flawed logic, you're now claiming that there are more than "very few" people who read these articles. So now we're back to the question of why at least one person hasn't contacted the authorities.
"The NSA might get involved also, they are the National Security Agency, aren't they?"
Do you think that you qualify as a matter of national security? As I said, I was referring to the FBI. That answered your question.
"You seem to have no problem discussing OJ Simpson and the FBI and threats of physical harm."
Are you saying those things are off-topic, considering that you brought them up?
"Umm, you're replying to the post that I said it right there."
Then that's not my issue, it's yours.
"The only problem is that I replied by saying "In this instance". Since "any given instance" wasn't being discussed, just this one."
Which is why my quote was followed directly by this: "Would you agree? If not, you'd better explain what's so special about this particular occurrence that it changes your own stated principle."
As if you failing to read all of that the first time wasn't shameful enough, I added this the second time around: "I know you said "in this instance", obviously. Since you didn't explain how "this instance" justifies the change, then it can easily apply to any and every situation."
If you can't read more than half of a paragraph, then you can't talk about anyone else's reading comprehension. So sorry.
"I demand that you answer my questions."
I don't care what you demand. Provide reasons, like intelligent people do.
"Then that would be one of your beliefs, according to your religion of atheism."
No, it would be the lack of a belief in a higher power. Let's analyze your question: "Do you believe in a god?" There's absolutely nothing there that even suggests that "believe" is established in any way. For your level of understanding, that means that it's not as if you've shown that I "believe" something, and now you're trying to get more specific as to what it is. So, as it stands, the response of "no" does not automatically mean that I have a "belief" in the lack of a higher power. Since "believe" is not established, "no" may also mean that I simply do not believe in a god. And, as pointed out earlier, Buddhists don't believe in a god, but they're also not atheists. You really need to work on your questions, if you want to present an honest and accurate representation of people.
"Did I say they "read these articles".[sic]"
That's what you said earlier: "Well, none. Because so few people read these articles."
"Your statement was about visitors."
In the context of the supposed potential victims of the "threat", obviously. Why would you be talking about anything besides people who read the articles? How could that have struck you as relevant?
"Yes."
Then what happened to your claim that you're never off-topic?
"You ARE discussing them, aren't you? Without mentioning they are off-topic and continuing to discuss them."
Because they're relevant to another point, for starters. If you're going to claim that any complaint about your behavior is "crying", then I'm going to throw your sniveling over a non-existent threat right back in your face. Additionally, there's nothing to say that I'm required to comment on any random topic you bring up because I'm making an argument on some other off-topic issue you introduced. You leave that up to me. Whether I decide to speak to it or not, the entire conversation is on you, because you brought it up. And why am I supposed to be responsible for you controlling your own behavior? If you're a grown man, then abide by your own proclaimed standards. It's not as if I can be criticized for letting you go off-topic.
"It's my issue that you can't comprehend what you read?"
No, it's your issue that the conversation is off-topic. You said it originally as if it had something to do with me.
"Yet, you are intimidated enough to continue to answer them."
You, to Eddie: "Shut the fuck up. You're the one who runs away when called on your lies and threats. Don't ask me stupid questions like that. I'm doing what you ask, coming in and arguing. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen." So, if someone doesn't respond to you, then they're running away and "can't stand the heat". But when I reply to you, then that's supposed to be proof that I'm intimidated into answering your questions. Interesting. Why don't you explain to me exactly what you believe the proper course of action is? What would possibly lead you to believe that I was not intimidated? There has to be an answer to that, unless you are under some delusion that everyone you meet quivers at the power of your words.
But when I reply to you, then that's supposed to be proof that I'm intimidated into answering your questions.
No. Being intimidated is when you answer them after I demand that you do. You could easily ignore my comments, like Eddie does, but I've intimidated you into answering them. Obviously, you notice I have not intimidated Eddie into answering them. Even after using some very good cliches.
"No. Being intimidated is when you answer them after I demand that you do. You could easily ignore my comments, like Eddie does, but I've intimidated you into answering them."
I'm talking about your demands, obviously. Check the history of comments.
The problem for you is that I always reply to your comments. So, as I pointed out on the other article, you're not altering my behavior. But if I don't respond to your questions, which I obviously would have responded to anyway, then you have pressured me into changing my behavior. So, no, I'm going to continue to reply to whatever I choose, because I'm certainly not going to be compelled to do otherwise by your bizarre argument.
"Obviously, you notice I have not intimidated Eddie into answering them."
Is that what you believe? That would mean that your "get out of the kitchen" line was intellectually dishonest, at best. Obviously, you can't criticize him for running away, and also criticize me for replying to you. That would mean that you're going to complain no matter what people do, and surely you're not that unreasonable. Right?
Did your supposed truthfulness get exhausted on this thread as well, by the way? Like you ran out of facts and reason because you forgot to stock up beforehand or something. That's just too damn funny.
So you think it's fair to criticize people if they don't respond to you and if they do.
Your lax interpretations are nothing new. Try again.
Anything else? You seem to be winding down.
Well, when you say sexism and sexist are the same words, there's really not much more to discuss, eh? You have to consider that when I'm dealing with a mind like that, it's hard to find more things for you to lie about. Although, you do seem to have an endless supply.
"Perhaps you should explain the definitions that you brought saying they are the same when the opposite has been pointed out to you."
Where did either I or the definition say they're the same? Since you don't seem to feel comfortable clarifying the degree of similarity you're talking about, it's impossible to know what the "opposite" might be.
But, for the moment: Sexism: "1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."
And since the only definitions of "sexist" refer directly to "sexism", then there's no other concept that could possibly be conveyed through the word.
Has the "opposite" of that been pointed out? I honestly did not see that, but I'm sure you can cite whatever you have in mind.
You forgot to say which criticism you had withdrawn, by the way.
Where did either I or the definition say they're the same?
Well, you're continuing to do it in your defense of my comment: "And since the only definitions of "sexist" refer directly to "sexism", then there's no other concept that could possibly be conveyed through the word.".
Sexist: 1. pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism 2. a person with sexist attitudes or behavior.
Notice that sexism is a PERSONAL ACTION (discrimination, stereotyping) performed against a gender. Notice sexist is a PERSONAL BEHAVIOR (person fostering, persons attitude) towards a gender. One is ONLY a noun, the other is an adjective & noun. Different words with different meanings. Even "action" and "behavior" are different words that have different meanings. Making sexist and sexism different words with different meanings.
Has the "opposite" of that been pointed out?
The same is opposite of different. That has been pointed out to you several times. Including now.
"Well, you're continuing to do it in your defense of [sic] my comment:"
I don't see anything which suggests that the two words are the same. You'll have to be more specific as to what you might be misinterpreting.
"Notice that sexism is a PERSONAL ACTION (discrimination, stereotyping) performed against a gender."
Wrong. It also applies to attitudes and conditions.
"Notice sexist is a PERSONAL BEHAVIOR (person fostering, persons attitude) towards a gender."
What is the difference supposed to be? Those are synonyms.
"One is ONLY a noun, the other is an adjective & noun. Different words with different meanings."
By your standard, any two words, minus plurals and conjugations, are "different words with different meanings". So, what was your point about "viewpoint" and "belief"? Further, why did you even ask whether "views" equals "beliefs" if you think that they are "different words with different meanings"?
"Even "action" and "behavior" are different words that have different meanings."
Except they're synonyms, as I said. If someone discriminates, that clearly would be their behavior.
"The same is opposite of different."
That's funny, because I previously pointed out to you that there was no significant difference between the two words in question. So, obviously you missed that, and somehow led yourself to believe that I had said something which I clearly had not.
But, now that you've been cured of your confusion about that, notice that your argument doesn't counter what I said in the slightest. You did, in fact, prove my point, since the definitions of sexist are inseparable from "sexism". There's simply no way to use "sexist" without referencing the concept of "sexism". Pointing to adjectives vs. nouns and "action" vs. "behavior" (even if both words applied and the contrast made any sense) is ineffective.
So, sadly, you have not demonstrated any flaws in my argument, much less any "opposite" of it.
And you forgot to say which criticism you've withdrawn, again.
That is not true (a lie). Action is not a synonym of behavior and behavior is not a synonym of action. Maybe you mean actions. But, I didn't use actions, did I?
"Maybe you mean actions. But, I didn't use actions, did I?"
Since there's no clear distinction between your usage of "action" and "behavior", the plural of your word has the same meaning. For instance, a single act of discrimination would still be described as someone's "actions".
Besides that, your own argument supports me. Note the definition of "sexism": "2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender." Now, you: "Notice that sexism is a PERSONAL ACTION (discrimination, stereotyping) performed against a gender." (capitalization yours) So, according to you, a behavior is an action. It's in the very definition that you categorized as "ACTION". You even specified stereotyping after "action", which was connected to "behaviors". On top of that, you listed "attitude" as a "behavior". You can also find "attitudes" under the definition of "sexism". So, if that's a behavior, and sexism is an "action", then that reinforces the synonymous nature of the words.
That was just as much fun as I had anticipated.
Now, I take your exceptionally brief response as a sign that you're going to abandon the rest of your argument in order to fixate on this new bit of shiny nonsense that you've found. Before you forget those points entirely, let me remind you that you repeatedly claimed that I was saying that "sexist" and "sexism" were the same words. Since I explained that I had already said that they were not the same (and demonstrated how), and you have no response, then it's safe to say that you were lying. Remember, a lie is an intentional falsehood. It doesn't automatically apply to every minor difference in interpretation or understanding that could easily be stated in good faith.
Just something for you to ponder.
Oh, and you forgot to say which criticism you've withdrawn. Maybe you should write it on a note, sometimes that helps people to remember.
Ok, if that's the limit of your intelligence, then you can believe what you want.
Now, I take your exceptionally brief response as a sign that you're going to abandon the rest of your argument in order to fixate on this new bit of shiny nonsense that you've found.
Ooo, there's a shiny object somewhere? I wonder if someone (anyone) dropped it and didn't go looking for it. That would be a weird actions for someone (anyone) to do if they didn't go looking for it. And, the director yelled "actions!" as he started the film about actions heros.
"Ok, if that's the limit of your intelligence, then you can believe what you want."
Ad hominem. My point stands.
"And, the director yelled "actions!" as he started the film about actions heros [sic]."
That wasn't your usage. Also, noting that the plural would be used for even a singular instance of behavior doesn't mean disagreeing articles or other context would ever be appropriate.
It's humorous, as well, that you keep pretending that "someone" and "anyone" are universally interchangeable. Not only has that been debunked, but it's truly idiotic to act as if those two words have the same meaning, while you simultaneously engage in nitpicking on a microscopic level over two words that indisputably bear the same concept.
By the way, you forgot to say which criticism you've withdrawn. Is it a difficult choice for you, perhaps?
Doesn't matter. I'm pointing out that the two words are NOT the same and have DIFFERENT meanings/usages. Therefor, my usage is correct and your attempts at showing otherwise is not. Just as you say (although unproven) that someone / anyone are not interchangeable, neither are action / actions.
Have a Very Happy Easter. Enjoy this Federal Holiday off of work. And, enjoy all the Easter chocolate the Easter bunny brought you and you family. Be safe
"Doesn't matter. I'm pointing out that the two words are NOT the same and have DIFFERENT meanings/usages."
If you're using a different meaning for the word, then obviously you're not demonstrating anything regarding your original usage.
"Just as you say (although unproven) that someone / anyone are not interchangeable, neither are action / actions."
That's wrong on multiple counts. First, I said that "someone" and "anyone" are not universally interchangeable. Second, that was demonstrated to you, and you didn't follow up on your challenge. Third, the plural of the word you used, with the same meaning as what you described, isn't the same degree of change as switching from "someone" to "anyone".
If you really want to make an argument, for once, do explain how fostering wouldn't qualify as an "action". And, also, show that discrimination and stereotyping wouldn't be accurately called "behavior". Otherwise, your claim of a vital distinction between the two doesn't hold up. More importantly, you would still have to show how "sexist" and "sexism" aren't inseparable, which trumps your argument even if you made some effort to establish it.
Or maybe that argument has run its course for you as well?
You still forgot to mention which criticism you've withdrawn. I'd say that my "interpretation" is being proven to be accurate, despite your protest.
First, I said that "someone" and "anyone" are not universally interchangeable.
What other part of the universe uses someone / anyone besides Earth? So, your insistence of "universally" has no meaning, other than to show you are admitting the words are interchangeable at any time. And, you have never brought anything that shows differently. If you had, you would have linked to it by now. You seem to be very prideful and a glaring error, like that, would send you on an immediate search for just that statement, to save face. Maybe you'll talk about "Bob" again, or "any person" instead of "someone". Because "someone" fits in each of the examples where you compared "anyone" with "Bob". Even when you had to add to the 3rd example and say "Bob" couldn't whistle because he had dental work done (but conveniently failed to mention that dental work in the "anyone" example, or a driver license in the 2nd example).
Second, that was demonstrated to you, and you didn't follow up on your challenge.
That has NEVER been demonstrated to me or anyone (someone) else. I cannot follow up on something that has never happened.
If you really want to make an argument, for once, do explain how fostering wouldn't qualify as an "action".
Who is doing the "fostering"? A person? If a person is doing the fostering, then they are DOING something. Did the definition say you can foster sexist? No, it said you can foster sexism. 2 different words with 2 different meanings.
"What other part of the universe uses someone / anyone besides Earth?"
Universal: "2 b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions" (Merriam-Webster.com)
"Maybe you'll talk about "Bob" again, or "any person" instead of "someone". Because "someone" fits in each of the examples where you compared "anyone" with "Bob"."
Of course "someone" fits in those examples. The point is that "anyone" does not. Further, "anyone" is not being compared to "Bob". Since you're trying to make any person fit into the context instead of "someone", "Bob" would be an example. If it doesn't work with him in it, then neither does "anyone".
"Even when you had to add to the 3rd example and say "Bob" couldn't whistle because he had dental work done (but conveniently failed to mention that dental work in the "anyone" example, or a driver license in the 2nd example)."
How, exactly, would specifics about individuals be mentioned in sentences that refer to "anyone"? Maybe you expected to see: "Anyone with a car and/or a driver's license...so, almost anyone...parked in my parking spot." I'd like to know what you think should have been there so that you weren't shocked when specific details came into the picture.
"That has NEVER been demonstrated to me or anyone (someone) else."
Obviously, you know that it has, since you're quoting from it. If you wanted to say that my examples didn't work, then you should have followed up on your challenge. Saying that something didn't happen because you don't want to accept it is rather childish.
"Who is doing the "fostering"? A person? If a person is doing the fostering, then they are DOING something."
Action: "5 a : a thing done : deed" Behavior: "1 a : the manner of conducting oneself" (both Merriam-Webster.com) You're making my point. Both of your words involve what people do.
"Did the definition say you can foster sexist?"
Did the definition distinguish between "action" and "behavior"? No, we're talking about your claim here. The dictionary doesn't have to mix verbs and adjectives in order to contradict your argument. Besides, you just emphasized "DOING", which obviously applies to "action". Yet, you categorized it as "behavior". As I said, you're making my point.
You forgot to say which criticism you've withdrawn. So you do think that it's fair for you to criticize people for responding to you and for not responding to you. For future reference, the phrase "try again" isn't for decoration. It actually is an invitation to try again, so you shouldn't use the phrase if you can't handle the argument.
Except people who don't drive. There are some people, who are known as "blind", who would fit that category. Besides that, the phrasing isn't the same. The substitution doesn't lead to "anyone can park in my parking space", it leads to "anyone parked in my parking space". It's not a matter of hypotheticals where every single person has some way of parking a car. It's limited to those who actually drive.
"Anyone can go to the dentist."
That wasn't one of the sentences. You mean "anyone can whistle". Even then, the truth is not on your side: http://en.diagnosispro.com/differential_diagnosis-for/unable-to-whistle/34494-154.html
"Anyone works in every instance."
You'll have to show that for all three examples, not just one. On top of that, you'll have to use the actual phrasing, not "anybody can". Since you've failed even while altering the examples, I'm quite sure that the original wording is not going to make this any better for you.
In fact, your rephrasing highlights the major difference between the words. "Anyone" applies for hypothetical situations, such as what's possible. Anyone can win the lottery. It never applies to anything that's concrete, anything that's actually happened or exists as a matter of fact. You never hear "anyone stole my mail", or "anyone is about to be named the next Miss America". I suppose you think that anyone can be named the next Miss America, but I'm pretty sure that there's a rule which excludes men from participating.
"That doesn't mean you are correct."
Your mere assertion doesn't mean that I'm not. Like I said, if you wanted to dispute the demonstration, you could have followed up on your challenge. But you can't ignore it and then act as if I didn't make the argument.
"Irrelevant to my question. I asked "Did the definition say you can foster sexist?"."
I know what you asked, since I clearly remember laughing at it. And, sorry, it's entirely relevant. We're talking about your claim. If the dictionary isn't using your distinctions, then you can't claim that the wording supports you. Also, again, the phrase "foster sexist" doesn't even make sense. No matter what was true and what was false, you would never see that phrase in any reference material. That being the case, your question is null and void.
"Now answer THAT question. I demand you do that."
It's entirely meaningless what you "demand". You already made my point, and you haven't even tried to dispute the fact that "sexism" and "sexist" are inseparable. Now, I fully expect you to bitch and moan as you stew in your impotence, but I'm always open to a pleasant surprise.
Except people who don't drive. There are some people, who are known as "blind", who would fit that category.
Sure they can. They may not do very good at it, but they can do it. You're just floundering, now, troll. Ever heard of the Bonneville Salt Flats? Blind people can drive there, without worry of hitting anyone (someone).
"Anyone" applies for hypothetical situations, such as what's possible.
That's because you're assuming a certain level of expertise in any given thing. Anyone can do anything, that doesn't mean they can do it at a qualified level. You're just being plain stupid if you think the example of "anyone" working in a sentence actually refers to the ABILITY of someone (anyone) being able to achieve any given goal. Hell, you may as well say Stephen Hawking isn't anyone (someone) since he can't talk/walk/eat by himself, without help. All you've done is prove that anyone DOES work in place of someone in all instances.
I know what you asked, since I clearly remember laughing at it.
Well, all I can draw from that is that you will not answer the question because it blows your argument out of the water.
Also, again, the phrase "foster sexist" doesn't even make sense.
Thank you for admitting that sexist and sexism are different words with different meanings and usages. That shows that you have been lying this entire article and I now have about 80 examples (proof) that you lie like a rug. Which proves my earlier analysis of your behavior as 'habitual and unrepentant'.
You already made my point, and you haven't even tried to dispute the fact that "sexism" and "sexist" are inseparable.
I think that just happened when you admitted that "foster sexist" does not makes sense and "sexist" cannot be used in that manner. If they are "inseparable" then "sexist" would have worked in that sentence without any qualifiers. But, you admitted it does not, so .... you lose. And are now proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be an self-admitted, unrepentant, habitual liar.
"They may not do very good at it, but they can do it."
I didn't say they anything about whether they "can" do it or not. I said they don't do it.
"Ever heard of the Bonneville Salt Flats?"
Are there designated parking spots on the Bonneville Salt Flats, where some random blind person may have parked? Hilarious. So you're aware, constructing some convoluted scenario where a blind person may have actually parked in a parking spot doesn't help you. You wanted to see where "someone" could not be replaced by "anyone". So, I control the circumstances. This parking spot was wrongfully filled in, let's say, New York City. which is not as friendly an environment for the aspiring blind motorist.
"You're just being plain stupid if you think the example of "anyone" working in a sentence actually refers to the ABILITY of someone (anyone) being able to achieve any given goal."
Didn't you just argue that blind people can drive? Aren't you referring to an ability there?
"Hell, you may as well say Stephen Hawking isn't anyone (someone) since he can't talk/walk/eat by himself, without help."
It depends on the context, obviously. For instance, if you said "someone pitched a perfect game yesterday", I'm just daring enough to say that it wasn't Stephen Hawking. So, "anyone pitched a perfect game" would be proven to be false, and therefore significantly different from the original phrase.
"Well, all I can draw from that is that you will not answer the question because it blows your argument out of the water."
Then you admit that every time you respond with an appeal to ridicule, it's because you won't answer a question since you know it destroys your argument. That's not a good idea for you.
"Thank you for admitting that sexist and sexism are different words with different meanings and usages."
Again, in the sense that they're not spelled identically and have the exact same meaning, yes. Because that would be one word, not two. Also, yet again, I never said they were the same. I said that they're inseparable, which is obviously a "different word" from "same".
Also, it was already established that you can't substitute a noun for an adjective without disrupting the syntax. So, that wasn't what we were talking about. Or, if you thought it was, then you were making an irrelevant and redundant argument because your memory is atrocious. Note this, especially: "That's funny, because I previously pointed out to you that there was no significant difference between the two words in question. So, obviously you missed that, and somehow led yourself to believe that I had said something which I clearly had not." Yet, here you are again, desperately pretending that your "different words" argument could have any possible impact.
If you scroll up, you'll see that you were asked to show how "foster" is not an action, because you were creating some bizarre distinction between "behavior" and "action". It wasn't about how you can't apply a verb to an adjective and therefore "sexist" and "sexism" are "different words". Since you couldn't substantiate your new ludicrous claim, you fell back on your previous garbage argument because you obviously know you have nowhere else to go.
"If they are "inseparable" then "sexist" would have worked in that sentence without any qualifiers."
Wrong. Inseparable: "incapable of being separated or disjoined (inseparable issues)" (Merriam-Webster.com) Note the example of "issues". They're not identical issues, they're inseparable. One would unavoidably involve the other. Bing's dictionary does even better: "2.unable to be separated: so closely linked as to be impossible to consider separately" As I said, the definition of "sexist" is intrinsically linked to the meaning of "sexism". It has nothing to do with whether you can put "sexist" after a verb or not, it has to do with the very concept that's being discussed. You can't find a definition of "sexist" that doesn't directly involve "sexism".
Really, stop and think for a moment. Seriously. You claim that you couldn't accept the definition of "sexism" because "foster sexist" makes no sense? That has nothing to do with understanding the term. If I had been saying that the two words were universally interchangeable, you would have an argument for once in your life. Unfortunately, that wasn't the point, nor that the two words were the "same", nor whatever convenient fantasy you want to dress up as reality at any given moment.
"But, you admitted it does not, so .... you lose."
You had to have noticed that I distinctly and repeatedly pointed out that I never said the words were the same, but that they were inseparable. Buy now, you're using your standard for the "same" as if it applied to "inseparable". What did you think the distinction was for, if the words were supposed to mean the exact same thing? Are you really that oblivious, or just that dishonest?
And, amusingly, just as the original point was that you can't alter the meanings of words at your whim, the actual definition of "inseparable" isn't magically changed due to your categorically false interpretation. When you can deal with objective reality, then put on your big-boy pants and try again.
.jpg)
IMHO, the kid is showing his/her sexist bigotry. Obviously, the kid thinks one religion is suppressive and he/she thinks women are the crux of that suppression. But, if you consider being a sexist bigot as having "a future" so be it.
ReplyDeleteSexism:"1.prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women" (merriam-webster.com)
DeleteBelieving that women are suppressed does not mean that one thinks they should be suppressed. Someone who believes that men and women should be treated equally is pretty likely to point out disparity in treatment, so merely acknowledging suppression can't possibly be assumed to be "sexist".
By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist". Obviously, that wouldn't make any sense, but I look forward to you asserting otherwise.
"Believing that women are suppressed does not mean that one thinks they should be suppressed."
DeleteThat's the standard you insist that I hold ( you say I believe people should be responsible for their situations, therefore I think they should be responsible for their situations). So clarify your position. Is it one way or the other? You can't have it both ways.
"By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist"."
No, by my standards everyone who supports slavery was(is) a racist. You have a real problem with truth, don't you? Don't worry, though, that seems to be a problem for a lot of liberals.
"That's the standard you insist that I hold ( you say I believe people should be responsible for their situations, therefore I think they should be responsible for their situations)."
DeleteRead what you just wrote. You didn't provide any contrast between those two phrases. Did you mean to say "you say I believe people are responsible for their situations, therefore I think they should be responsible for their situations"? If that's what you intended, then the comparison is unclear at best. How would you be misrepresented by one phrase and not the other?
"No, by my standards everyone who supports slavery was(is) a racist."
No, if a child draws a cartoon pointing out that people of a certain race are being suppressed, then your reasoning would insist that child is a racist. The same would go for anyone who ever pointed out that suppression. Feel free to explain how you can believe that the cartoon in this article is "sexist" and that slavery opposition is not "racist" at the same time.
"No, if a child draws a cartoon pointing out ..." blah blah blah
DeleteThe child also drew a cartoon pointing out injustice towards owning weapons. According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed. Does that make the child a sexist war-mongerer? That's what you say my standards are.
Wow, how far you reach to whine is amazing.
"According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui [sic] Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed. Does that make the child a sexist war-mongerer [sic]?"
DeleteThere's no commentary on weapons. The cartoon works whether one supports unrestricted gun ownership or not. Even if that was part of the point, "war-mongerer" doesn't fit. And since you haven't provided your personal definition of that word, as you did for "sexist", I have no idea whether you would think that or not.
"That's what you say my standards are."
Obviously not, because I never said anything about weapons. You're reaching, to put it kindly.
"Wow, how far you reach to whine is amazing."
You're the one whining about a child's drawing. I'm simply pointing out that the meaning of the word "sexist" isn't consistent with your opinion. I notice that you haven't provided anything to show otherwise.
"You're the one whining about a child's drawing."
DeleteI'm not whining about it. I am commenting on it ... you know, like stating an opinion. Just like Eddie asks people to do. If I was whining I would have said 'why is this kid drawing about significant issues when he/she has no idea about the depth of the issues'. But, I didn't say anything like that, did I? I just commented on what I think.
Sorry, you're just reaching to far with your latest whines.
"There's no commentary on weapons."
Ummm, what are "arms" in the left hand part of the picture? I know I'm just a stupid conservative, but I'm pretty sure "arms" means "weapons" in that usage. But, you're a, way smarter, liberal .... tell me what "arms" means in that usage.
Looks like I outsmarted you again. If you got anything else, I'll check periodically. Otherwise, I fully expect you to just retreat and wait for another article that you don't have to lie to support your stance.
"I'm not whining about it. I am commenting on it ... you know, like stating an opinion."
DeleteThen you can't accuse me of "whining" when I point out that there's nothing "sexist" about the drawing.
"If I was whining I would have said 'why is this kid drawing about significant issues when he/she has no idea about the depth of the issues'."
So criticizing that would be "whining", but criticizing "sexist bigotry" is somehow something other than "whining". I'm sure there's some vital distinction you've simply forgotten to mention there (sarcasm).
"But, I didn't say anything like that, did I? I just commented on what I think."
Your hypothetical complaint would also be you commenting on what you think. And if that's supposed to mean that your complaining isn't "whining", then you're proving that I wasn't "whining", either. You'd better get to work on your definitions and distinctions here, or you're going to make yourself look like a hypocrite.
"I know I'm just a stupid conservative, but I'm pretty sure "arms" means "weapons" in that usage."
You'd have to be pretty stupid to miss this context: "The cartoon works whether one supports unrestricted gun ownership or not." That pretty clearly shows that "arms" is referring to weapons, so your idiotic and repetitive questions were already answered. Note that I didn't say that there was no "mention of" or no "reference to" weapons. There's no commentary, meaning that there's no opinion either stated or implied on the subject. That should have been clear enough already, since I was addressing this: "According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui [sic] Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed." Your assertion was that the cartoon asserts an opinion on bearing arms, and it does not. Get it now? You aren't going to outsmart anyone when you can't even follow your own posts.
If you really want to demonstrate intelligence, show the definition that substantiates your usage of "sexist". Actually addressing the point would be a way of doing that, as opposed to asking stupid questions and pretending that you made some airtight argument even before receiving the answers.
Incidentally, I'm not sure how you "expect" me to retreat when you've abandoned every single thread we've been on. At best, that comes off as false bravado to overcompensate for your lack of an argument. Just so you know.
"That pretty clearly shows that "arms" is referring to weapons, so your idiotic and repetitive questions were already answered."
DeleteYeah, says the guy who just said: "There's no commentary on weapons.". Make up your mind. Because I see an OBVIOUS commentary on weapons in the cartoon. If you don't see it, then I can't help you. But, you've always been good at making shit up, that isn't present, and then commenting on it as if it was present. I see you haven't lost your touch.
"Incidentally, I'm not sure how you "expect" me to retreat when you've abandoned every single thread we've been on."
You mean you expect me to continue to discuss with a proven, unrepentant, habitual liar? Hell, you are even doing that very same thing in this article. Why ... WHY would I continue discussing with you when you act like that?
"Yeah, says the guy who just said: "There's no commentary on weapons.". Make up your mind."
DeleteI haven't said anything inconsistent. I never denied that weapons were mentioned, so your questions were unnecessary.
"Because I see an OBVIOUS commentary on weapons in the cartoon. If you don't see it, then I can't help you."
If you insist on assuming an opinion on weapons, you go right ahead. You can't explain how such an opinion would be necessary for the cartoon to make sense, though. And it's utterly irrelevant to the point, since you're the one who brought up weapons as some unexplained comparison to your manufactured standard for what constitutes "sexist" behavior. Weapons don't affect the validity of your "sexist" declaration, so this would just be a distraction even if it made an ounce of sense.
"But, you've always been good at making shit up, that isn't present,"
Like how you made up a quote out of thin air and attributed it to me? I'd love to see you try to provide examples of such behavior on my part, but I already know you don't have any.
"You mean you expect me to continue to discuss with a proven, unrepentant, habitual liar?"
You've continued to argue with me long after making those absurd claims before. Your indignant routine above was discredited quite some time ago.
"Hell, you are even doing that very same thing in this article."
Sorry, I'm not responsible for your misunderstanding of simple words, especially when the full text precludes your interpretation. On the other hand, you've obviously manufactured a definition of "sexist" that doesn't exist, and you haven't repented for that as of yet. You should probably demonstrate accountability for yourself before demanding it from me over your imagined grievances.
"Sorry, I'm not responsible for your misunderstanding of simple words, especially when the full text precludes your interpretation."
DeleteLike how you said: "There's no commentary on weapons."? Umm, (I pointed out already) the cartoon IS a commentary on weapons.
"Like how you made up a quote out of thin air and attributed it to me?"
Never been done. Unlike the provable lies that you bring.
"Umm, (I pointed out already) the cartoon IS a commentary on weapons."
DeleteNo, you pointed out that it mentioned weapons, which I said myself. You haven't shown how an opinion on the subject is necessary for the cartoon to work. And again, it's irrelevant to the point.
"Never been done."
It's been proven. I copied and pasted it in the very next post, and you never explained where you got the quote from. Remember, you putting words in quotes is your claim regarding what I've posted. You never backed up that claim, meaning you lied. Game, set, match.
"No, you pointed out that it mentioned weapons, which I said myself."
DeleteFactually, you denied the child was commenting on weapons. For some reason you think "arms" (in that usage) does not mean "weapons".
But, it's good to see you haven't lost your touch for lying consistently while discussing any given subject. Constant lying does wonders for your reputation.
"Factually, you denied the child was commenting on weapons."
DeleteWrong. I said there was no commentary on weapons, because you were attributing an opinion to the cartoon. And as already demonstrated, the very next sentence mentioned gun ownership, so at this point your claim that I don't think "arms" means "weapons" is simply a lie. The first time I could accept your confusion or lack of attention, but at this point I don't see how it can't be intentional.
"Constant lying does wonders for your reputation."
I notice that you had no defense regarding your manufactured quote. I'm completely sure that your blatant dishonesty is more compelling evidence than you substituting words and trying to hold me accountable for it, so I'm not worried in the slightest. Thanks for the concern, though.
"I notice that you had no defense regarding your manufactured quote."
DeleteIt was never done, so I have nothing to defend.
"It was never done, so I have nothing to defend."
DeleteWhat are you claiming, that you were never asked to show your source for the quote, or that you had a source and provided it?
By the way, have you found anything to support your definition of "sexist" yet? As of now, it still appears that you used the term inappropriately.
By the way, have you found anything to support your definition of "sexist" yet? As of now, it still appears that you used the term inappropriately.
DeleteWho cares what you think. My statements stand on their own merit. If you got a problem with what I say, take it up with someone who cares. Maybe you can go crying to Eddie that I didn't say something right. Either way, you're just crying.
"Who cares what you think.[sic] My statements stand on their own merit."
DeleteIf you're not accountable for what you say, then you can't hold anyone else accountable for what they say. That's going to limit your posts pretty severely, since I'll be all too happy to keep you in line.
And I can't wait to see how you're going to try to respond to that without falling into your own trap. I don't want to hear you crying, now.
As I said, my statements stand on their own merit. If someone (with more respectability than you have) wishes to comment about my statements, they are more than welcome to do so. Your reputation for lying has cost you all respect, here, and you have earned no credence for further responses.
Delete"Your reputation for lying has cost you all respect, here, and you have earned no credence for further responses."
DeleteYou can't conclude that I've ever lied, though. All of my statements stand on their own merit, and you crying about them doesn't change that. And you don't have the credibility to say anything, anyway. Note on this very thread, you claimed "For some reason you think "arms" (in that usage) does not mean "weapons".", when my mention of weapons had already been demonstrated to you ("The cartoon works whether one supports unrestricted gun ownership or not"). You can't get around that. Given that proof of your dishonesty, you lack the respectability to comment on my statements.
See how that works? If you're going to shield yourself from accountability, I can use that standard to make an even better argument for myself.
Remember, that statement stands on its own merits. If you don't like it, tell someone who cares.
("The cartoon works whether one supports unrestricted gun ownership or not")
DeleteToo bad the cartoon isn't only talking about guns. It is commenting on "arms", which you denied it was commenting on when you said: "There's no commentary on weapons.". Arms, as everyone knows, (in that usage) refers to weapons. Which you denied was being commented on. game, set, match
"Too bad the cartoon isn't only talking about guns."
DeleteIt doesn't have to be talking only about guns. Since guns fit into the category of "weapons", I proved that I know that "arms" refers to "weapons". What's your explanation for the comment, if you really didn't realize that already? If you thought "guns" were completely irrelevant to the subject, why didn't you say something about that?
"Which you denied was being commented on."
Again, the first time you say something wrong, I'll believe that you were confused. The second time around, you're lying. As I told you before:"Wrong. I said there was no commentary on weapons, because you were attributing an opinion to the cartoon." I never said "commenting" or "commented", which have a less specific meaning. To make that even more clear, you're using "commented on" as meaning "mentioned". Look up "commentary", and you'll see the difference.
Besides, my statement stands on its own. You're not allowed to criticize it. Did you forget that so soon?
Hey Einstein, "the right to bear arms" IS the commentary. Try to follow along in your excuses for lying.
Delete"Hey Einstein, "the right to bear arms" IS the commentary."
DeleteAre you using the actual definition for the word, now? In all seriousness, if that's been your point all along, you only have yourself to blame for any misunderstanding. For instance, when I said "You can't explain how such an opinion would be necessary for the cartoon to make sense, though", you didn't even suggest that you were talking about "right to bear arms" all by itself. That would have been the obvious response. It also makes no sense to react to the original quote the way you did if that was always your argument. I can point out a half-dozen or so opportune times for you to say that, which would indisputably be more effective than going off on your dishonest tangent about the meaning of "arms". Your failure to speak plainly isn't my responsibility, much less your nonsensical behavior. I'm not even inclined to believe that was your original viewpoint, given all your suggestions otherwise.
But, just for fun, let's say that you really think that any cartoon that depicts a political stance must automatically be taking that stance. This took me a whole ten seconds to find: http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-cartoon.jpg . There are plenty of signs there which the artist obviously doesn't support. So, you'll have to explain how you know the child's opinion regarding that sign from those words alone. Given your Neanderthal communication skills, I'm pretty confident that you're not going to do very well at that.
Are you using the actual definition for the word, now?
DeleteWhich word do you need defined, this time?
So, you'll have to explain how you know the child's opinion regarding that sign from those words alone.
Do make an effort to be this stupid or does it come naturally?
My VERY FIRST POST: "IMHO, the kid is showing his/her sexist bigotry.".
Now, where did I say I "KNOW THE CHILD'S OPINION"???
Do you even have a clue what IMHO means?
Given your Neanderthal communication skills, I'm pretty confident that you're not going to do very well at that.
Thanks for proving who has skills at that level.
"Which word do you need defined, this time?"
DeleteI don't need any word defined, I asked if you are using the actual definition.
"Now, where did I say I "KNOW THE CHILD'S OPINION"???"
Why would that phrase have to be verbatim for you to assert that? And why the hell are you referencing your original quote? "Sexist bigotry" has nothing to do with "the right to bear arms", so how you thought that's relevant should be a funny story. Try this one: "According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui [sic] Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed." There's no humble opinion qualifier, either. You directly stated the child's opinion, so obviously you think you know what that opinion is.
Your homework is to post the definition of "commentary" and explain what the hell you think you're talking about. When you show that you're grasping the concept, then we can move past your nonsense.
You directly stated the child's opinion, so obviously you think you know what that opinion is.
DeleteOh, look, another lie posted by you.
I said "according to the cartoon". That is in direct reference to the commentary offered. How is saying what the cartoon is saying "knowing" anyone's opinion?
BTW, I've already looked up that word, and I used it correctly. If you have something that shows differently, you're more than welcome to post it. I don't think that would be a good idea, for you, though. It would further cement the obvious lack of intelligence you are using currently.
This is classic:
DeleteYou: I don't need any word defined, I asked if you are using the actual definition.
6 sentences later:
You: Your homework is to post the definition of "commentary"
"I said "according to the cartoon"."
DeleteEven if you had left it at that, the cartoon didn't draw itself. It's a reflection of the person who created it. And you cropped your own quote. You went on to say that the author is saying that "bearing arms in the US should be allowed".
"BTW, I've already looked up that word, and I used it correctly."
Then how do you explain the cartoon that I linked in response?
"6 sentences later:
You: Your homework is to post the definition of "commentary""
Look, another dishonest quote-cropping. The full sentence: "Your homework is to post the definition of "commentary" and explain what the hell you think you're talking about." That by itself is consistent with "I asked if you are using the actual definition". That's even more clear when followed by "When you show that you're grasping the concept, then we can move past your nonsense."
So, your arguments are now that it's a "lie" to presume that you don't think that cartoons are sentient beings that speak for themselves, especially when you specify the views of the author of the cartoon, and to post segments of sentences in order to hide their actual meaning. It's safe to say that your desperation is rapidly approaching the breaking point.
It's a reflection of the person who created it.
DeleteAhh, so it's YOU who knows what the child is thinking, not me. I merely stated my opinion as to what the child is intending. You specifically say it is a "reflection" of the child who created it. Very good.
BTW, how you gonna correlate that with your complaints about me without coming over as a complete hypocrite?
Then how do you explain the cartoon that I linked in response?
I can't. I didn't read the comic you linked. I don't read your off-topic shit. Why don't you use your own criteria to answer your own question: "It's a reflection of the person who created it."?
This should be funny. How does your own criteria work out with that one? Any difference between your criteria and mine? Here, I'll answer for you: Yes, there's a difference. I make my own opinion, you choose what the author's opinion is.
That by itself is consistent with "I asked if you are using the actual definition".
Umm, that's why I asked what word you wanted defined. You said none. Then you told me to define a word for you. Please try to follow along. I think I'm not the one reaching that "breaking point" you are mentioning. At least I don't deny then demand the same thing in the same post.
Now, about that "neanderthal" communication level you're mentioning .... just sayin
"I merely stated my opinion as to what the child is intending. You specifically say it is a "reflection" of the child who created it."
DeleteIf you're asserting what the "child is intending", then you're asserting the child's opinion. As for "reflection", back to Merriam-Webster: "something that shows the effect, existence, or character of something else". That doesn't specify any opinion.
"BTW, how you gonna correlate that with your complaints about me without coming over as a complete hypocrite?"
I never said that you couldn't draw conclusions, so there's no inconsistency. The point is that you have to have a basis on which to do so. The appearance of "the right to bear arms" by itself doesn't qualify. Scroll back up and try to get a better handle on it the second time around.
"I can't. I didn't read the comic you linked. I don't read your off-topic shit."
How would a cartoon featuring signs be "off-topic" when talking about a cartoon featuring signs? This should be entertaining.
"How does your own criteria work out with that one?"
What "criteria" do you think you're talking about? You're obviously reading some specifics from a general concept.
"I make my own opinion, you choose what the author's opinion is."
You: "According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed." You're stating the author's opinion in no uncertain terms, right there in black and white. Even better, you then ask what description of the child should be established because of that opinion. That obviously wouldn't make any sense if you're not attributing that opinion to the child.
"Umm, that's why I asked what word you wanted defined. You said none."
No, you asked "Which word do you need defined, this time?" You didn't ask for clarification, you lobbed a lame insult. I also didn't merely reply "none", I said "I don't need any word defined, I asked if you are using the actual definition." I don't need you to tell me what a word means, as if I don't know, I'm asking you what definition you're using because you clearly don't know what it means.
"Then you told me to define a word for you."
No, I told you to define a word for you. Since you're using it incorrectly, you need to fix that. You aren't assigned "homework" because the teacher doesn't know the material, it's done so that you learn.
For your vocabulary lesson, read this definition of "reflection" (in addition to the definition previously taught): "an often obscure or indirect criticism : reproach (a reflection on his character)" As used in a sentence: "His cropping of sentences in order to change their clearly intended meaning is a reflection on his poor upbringing."
Class dismissed.
This should be entertaining.
DeleteI don't know. I don't read the shit you bring. I just told you that.
You're stating the author's opinion in no uncertain terms, right there in black and white.
That is what is written in the cartoon. There is no other option for interpretation, is there? What else could it possibly mean? I am assigning no opinion to the author. I am interpreting the written words as they are written.
No, I told you to define a word for you.
Then why would you call it "homework"? Homework is something done to bring to the teacher. Since you constantly make claims of being more intelligent, then you must be the teacher. Which would make it YOU demanding that I give YOU a definition of a word ... after YOU said YOU didn't want me to give a definition. And that would make YOU a liar because YOU did ask for a definition after saying none needed. And then you deny asking. Oops, didn't think that one through, did you?
"I don't know. I don't read the shit you bring."
DeleteYou don't have to read it in order to answer the question.
"That is what is written in the cartoon. There is no other option for interpretation, is there?"
So you don't assert the author's opinion, but you don't accept any alternative to your interpretation of the author's opinion. Fascinating.
"What else could it possibly mean?"
It doesn't have to mean anything, as far as the author is concerned. It's there to set up the following panel.
"I am assigning no opinion to the author. I am interpreting the written words as they are written."
That wouldn't be a commentary, then. Besides that, I'll remind you yet again of your own words: "According to the cartoon, the author is saying baring arms in Saui [sic] Arabia should be allowed and bearing arms in the US should be allowed." To say that the author is saying that bearing arms should be allowed assigns an opinion to the author. You're not talking about the person holding the sign, who would clearly believe that. Understanding that would be "interpreting the written words as they are written".
"Homework is something done to bring to the teacher."
For your education, not mine.
"Which would make it YOU demanding that I give YOU a definition of a word ... after YOU said YOU didn't want me to give a definition."
Wrong. I never said I didn't want you to give me a definition, I said I didn't need any word defined. Note that "want" and "need" are two different words. Since I know the meaning of the word, I don't need you to define it for me.
To prove the point further: "Look up "commentary", and you'll see the difference." I told you to use the word correctly. If you could show that, in any way, then that would end your merry-go-round of obfuscation. After you forfeited your chance at that with your childish response, then I wanted to actually see the definition that you were basing your posts on. And since I never told you not to provide a definition, there's no inconsistency.
"And that would make YOU a liar because YOU did ask for a definition after saying none needed."
Did you mean "none was needed"?
So you don't assert the author's opinion, but you don't accept any alternative to your interpretation of the author's opinion. Fascinating.
DeleteI accept anyone's opinion. I may not agree with it. Just like Eddie 'header' cartoon.
It's there to set up the following panel.
Wow, you actually CAN answer a direct question without changing the subject. Good job.
For your education, not mine.
Yes, that's the traditional teacher/student relationship.
Wrong. I never said I didn't want you to give me a definition, I said I didn't need any word defined.
Homework needs to be done. It isn't wanted to be done.
Did you mean "none was needed"?
Why don't you tell me. That is your specialty ... telling me what I said. Albeit, usually incorrectly and/or out of context and/or off-topic.
"I accept anyone's opinion."
DeleteI didn't say anything about whether you accepted an opinion or not.
"Wow, you actually CAN answer a direct question without changing the subject."
As opposed to you, yes.
"Yes, that's the traditional teacher/student relationship."
Good, then you've caught up with that part.
"Homework needs to be done. It isn't wanted to be done."
The quote you're responding to isn't about the "homework" comment. But thanks for proving my point that "want" and "need" are different words. Make sure you use them accurately from now on.
"Why don't you tell me.[sic]"
Why can't you answer a direct question?
"That is your specialty ... telling me what I said. Albeit, usually incorrectly and/or out of context and/or off-topic."
Where are you even claiming that I took your words out of context? That's amusing, since you just cropped one of my quotes to change its intended meaning. You even cut off one of your own quotes, so you took yourself out of context. And you said earlier that you weren't making a criticism over "off-topic" quotes, but you're inserting that into a negative comment now. Try to resolve that within yourself.
It's even more hypocritical when you read your own posts, where you tell me what I said frequently. A couple of posts above, you insisted that I said that I didn't want you to give me a definition. Which was incorrect, of course. For another obvious example: "Too bad the cartoon isn't only talking about guns. It is commenting on "arms", which you denied it was commenting on when you said: "There's no commentary on weapons."" You're telling me what I said there, as well, even though everyone knows that "commenting" and "commentary" are two completely different words. Oh, also, you said that I insinuated that you used the word "sexism", which goes even beyond "what I said". One more, just because I can: "That's what you say my standards are."
That was fun. Would you like to make another idiotic attempt at criticism, so I can remind you of more of your own behavior?
Would you like to make another idiotic attempt at criticism, so I can remind you of more of your own behavior?
DeleteNo. I'll let your words stand on their own merit. People will see that I've been honest, while you .... not so much.
"No. I'll let your words stand on their own merit."
DeleteThat's the first moderately intelligent thing you've said here. You're definitely better off by avoiding further humiliation.
Ok, Eddie, now that your alter-ego has admitted defeat, how about you? Are you still afraid to argue with me? I would hope so, because I'll wipe the floor with you, just like I did babblingtio.
Delete"Ok, Eddie, now that your alter-ego has admitted defeat, how about you?"
DeleteSo, you abandoning all of your arguments isn't admitting defeat, but me saying that you've been humiliated is? Hilarious. You'll have to provide a link to the rulebook which substantiates that your failure to challenge the demonstrations of your hypocrisy and invalid arguments makes you a winner. That should be an entertaining read.
And remember that once you resort to your baseless "alter-ego" accusations, you automatically void your previous distinctions between me and Eddie. Which would mean that you said "I will not discuss old topics on new articles" after you brought up an old topic to me (in your belief) on a new article.
That would make you a liar.
So, I post to Eddie, and you start (continue) crying. I'm sorry your feelings get hurt so easily. Perhaps you should think about that before you bring your lies and mis-information to a conversation.
DeleteYou'll have to provide a link to the rulebook ....
http://www.slideshare.net/shawnann/mitten-moms-ftc-blogging-ethics-social-media
Read #5. That one alone rules you out of contention for being a "winner". And since there are only 3 posters, and you lose, that leaves only Eddie and me in contention. Of course that one rule means Eddie loses too. That would mean I win.
"So, I post to Eddie, and you start (continue) crying."
DeleteI corrected you. It doesn't really matter who you were pretending to address.
"Perhaps you should think about that before you bring your lies and mis-information [sic] to a conversation."
Like you insisting that "sexist" and "commentary" have meanings that can't be found in any dictionary? That would pretty clearly qualify as misinformation.
"Read #5. That one alone rules you out of contention for being a "winner".
Neither one of us is a blogger, so your source is odd. Besides, I can prove your lies. You've never proven anything of the sort. Every single time you try challenging me on that, you end up running away. To clue you in, your accusation in your previous post proves that you were lying about not discussing old topics in new articles. Or, if you change your tune, then you were lying about my "alter-ego". I have an unbeatable argument right off the bat, but feel free to let me prove it.
Like you insisting that "sexist" and "commentary" have meanings that can't be found in any dictionary? That would pretty clearly qualify as misinformation.
DeleteFuck you, you stupid little mother fucker. You have NO clue and pretending you do only works in your little ass world. My definitions were accurate and applicable. Just because you're too stupid to understand them, don't lay that on me. Bring your shit or shut the fuck up. Punk ass lying bitch!
Neither one of us is a blogger,
Hey, stupid shit. What the hell do you think you're doing now? Oh, that's right ... you're BLOGGING. God you are one stupid mother fucker.
BTW, you got a problem with me calling you names? Call your wife, she will defend you. You can't do it on your own. You DO have a wife, don't you? Maybe not, the way you keep lying your way through life.
"Fuck you, you stupid little mother fucker. You have NO clue and pretending you do only works in your little ass world."
DeleteThere's the breaking point I was anticipating. And that's probably the best demonstration of projection you've provided so far (which is quite an achievement for you). You believe your definitions and suppositions are important enough for everyone to treat as fact. They only work in your little world, as it happens. You don't dictate reality on your whims.
"My definitions were accurate and applicable."
Prove it, instead of just saying it.
"Just because you're too stupid to understand them, don't lay that on me. Bring your shit or shut the fuck up. Punk ass lying bitch!"
I showed how your definitions were wrong. It's not my fault if you can't understand. And be sure to repent for your immoral behavior on Sunday.
"Hey, stupid shit. What the hell do you think you're doing now? Oh, that's right ... you're BLOGGING."
No, I'm commenting. You yourself said the purpose here was to comment and argue. Blogging would be posting articles. "Blog" is shortened from "web log", "log" as you would see in "ship's log". That would be something like a journal for recording events or observations.
"God you are one stupid mother fucker."
Remember how you would get the vapors over being called a "moron"? You really should just change your handle to "hypocrite" and be done with it.
"BTW, you got a problem with me calling you names?"
No, why do you ask?
"You DO have a wife, don't you?"
Trying to change the subject?
They only work in your little world,
DeleteResorting to copying what I say after I say it? Great tactic.
Prove it, instead of just saying it.
Prove it to a stupid liar? Nah, I'll pass on that one. I've already proved it to the intelligent people reading this. But a stupid liar, like you, will never get it.
I showed how your definitions were wrong.
Where? I saw nothing from you that expressed that. What a fucking liar you are. Bring your shit or shut the fuck up.
No, I'm commenting.
You're too stupid to even know what the hell you're doing.
You yourself said the purpose here was to comment and argue.
I did not. You little liar. Get your shit straight, you lying little punk. That's all you seem to be good for ... lies.
"Blog" is shortened from "web log", "log" as you would see in "ship's log".
Shut up. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. None of that gibberish is true so just crawl back to your basement and shut up, you liar.
Remember how you would get the vapors over being called a "moron"?
Even MORE lies by you. You're just trying to justify your stupidity and dishonesty. When you can back up any of the shit you say, I'll let you post here again. Until then you are banned from posting here. You are a lying queer bait bitch who has no qualms about making shit up and using it as fact.
You have nothing.
No, why do you ask?
Then why are you complaining about me doing it? More proof that you are a liar. It is so easy to yank your chains. Ah ha ha ha
Trying to change the subject?
Answer the question! Oh, wait, no ... you don't. You couldn't find anyone who would put up with your continual lying. Don't worry, theres a boy out there somewhere who will love you the same way you love.
"Resorting to copying what I say after I say it?"
DeleteWhen you project your behavior onto me, of course. Because it actually does apply to you, so I'm going to point that out. Explain your objection to that.
"Prove it to a stupid liar?"
You have to back up what you say, no matter what you call me. I could just as easily turn down your demands for proof with the same phrase, but I actually have valid arguments to make.
"Where? I saw nothing from you that expressed that."
Your own definition proved it. Did you see that? There was nothing in your "sexist" link that even suggested anything about a belief that women were the victims of discrimination.
"I did not. You little liar."
You: "Because that's what this site is for: commenting/arguing."
"Shut up. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. None of that gibberish is true so just crawl back to your basement and shut up, you liar."
I didn't see you cite anything to show that people commenting on a message board are "blogging". Why don't you back up what you say?
"Until then you are banned from posting here."
Good luck enforcing that.
"Then why are you complaining about me doing it?"
How did I complain about it, exactly?
"Even MORE lies by you."
DeleteHere are some reminders: "Looks like I won another discussion with you. You just can't avoid calling people names when they outsmart you in a simple discussion, huh?"
"Are you offended I think you are gay, but you are not offended by calling me names?"
"BTW, I've noticed you started calling me names real early in our discussions. Have you admitted defeat that quickly? You DO realize that name-calling is the first sign of defeat in a conversation, right?"
"You couldn't even come up with a name I called people, beyond 'liberal'. And that isn't even derogatory. Unlike: idiot, moron, ect.[sic]"
"They work better than your first-grade name-calling. Are we in a discussion or elementary school? Because I've seen you and Eddie call me many, many names as if you were still in first-grade. When you can discuss like an adult, you will get adult treatment back. When you act like a child, I'll treat you like a child."
"You cuss and call names ... while I do nothing but call you a liberal."
"There are a few posters who actually don't agree with what Eddie says. And they are quickly cussed at and lied to."
"Bring facts to support your statements instead of the constant name-calling and rude behavior!"
And, brace yourself for these gems: "You don't want to be bound by morals and want to do as you please without having anyone telling what is or what isn't moral because you can do as you please as long as it pleases you. BTW, I don't feel threatened by Him, either. I am grateful for the peace-of-mind He gives me knowing that when I screw up I will be forgiven. You, on the other hand, probably live in denial and refuse to accept responsibility for your actions. Like name-calling. You don't seem to think calling people names is wrong."
"Your behavior dictates you should have that fear. In spite of how you say you are moral, you still have no problem calling people names. How is that "doing the right thing"? I can understand when you point out my failures. But, to do them yourself and say you are doing "the right thing" seems just a little hypocritical."
"And calling people names is doing "the right thing" in what way? So cussing at people is moral in your world, while praying is immoral? I guess I was correct in my statement about your religion (inherent lack of morals)."
"Answer the question!"
It's off-topic. Would you like me to remind you of your attitude about off-topic comments as well?
Me: "Resorting to copying what I say after I say it?"
DeleteYou: "of course."
I could just as easily turn down your demands for proof with the same phrase, but I actually have valid arguments to make.
Someday, you may actually bring them. I doubt it, though.
Your own definition proved it.
You said I didn't bring a definition. Which is it? DID or DID NOT? Are you that confused?
I didn't see you cite anything to show that people commenting on a message board are "blogging".
Of course you didn't. You're too stupid to realize you are commenting on a BLOG, making you a BLOGGER. This isn't a "message board". Dolt
It's off-topic. Would you like me to remind you of your attitude about off-topic comments as well?
My standards are different than yours. You're even too stupid to realize that. Wow
I guess I was correct in my statement about your religion (inherent lack of morals).
What does cussing have to do with morals? What do morals have to do with this discussion? Bring something besides your blabbering, you fool.
Let me give YOU a reminder, babblingtio;
DeleteMe: "IMHO, the kid is showing his/her sexist bigotry."
You: "Sexism: ... (merriam-webster.com)"
You can't even bring the definition of the word I used. It's as if you intentionally ignored all the other dictionaries, out there, just so you could prove something and then blamed a web site for only offering one version of the word when you were called on it. And, you still defend that action to this day.
You: "By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist". "
Me: "No, by my standards everyone who supports slavery was(is) a racist."
You reverse my actual standards to fit your own usage.
BTW, putting racist in quotation marks is an incorrect usage. I would have reminded you earlier but I don't usually care. Since you are constantly being a dick about spelling/grammar/composition I figured I'd let you know you failed that way also.
2 lies soon after you started posting, in reply to my statement. You know HOW soon you brought those 2 lies?
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-kid-who-made-this-has-future-in.html?showComment=1396632248534#c6571320386058161052
That soon.
You started out crying and lying, you're ending the same way.
"Someday, you may actually bring them."
DeleteSomeday, you may explain why you say an argument is not valid.
"You said I didn't bring a definition."
No, I said you didn't bring a definition that supported your usage.
"You're too stupid to realize you are commenting on a BLOG, making you a BLOGGER."
No, the person who posts the articles is blogging, because it's their blog. Visitors comment. You didn't bring anything to prove your argument.
"My standards are different than yours."
Of course, because they shift to serve your purposes. For me, two cartoons featuring signs can't be compared, but for you, my marital status is completely relevant. That would be a "double standard".
"What does cussing have to do with morals?"
You tell me, they're your words.
"What do morals have to do with this discussion?"
You challenged me for proof regarding your attitude on swearing. I responded. What does my marital status have to do with this discussion?
"It's as if you intentionally ignored all the other dictionaries, out there, just so you could prove something and then blamed a web site for only offering one version of the word when you were called on it."
Why, because I knew that you were going to bitch and moan about an insignificant difference? That's the dictionary I go to first. The meaning was made clear, and it matched the one you provided. So, what are you whining about?
"And, you still defend that action to this day."
When you look up "sexist" on merriam-webster.com, what page appears for you?
"You reverse my actual standards to fit your own usage."
I spoke first. You only asserted the opposite, I didn't change what you had said. What's your point, that I'm not supposed to demonstrate the absurdity of your word usage because you might claim that you believe something?
"BTW, putting racist in quotation marks is an incorrect usage."
What's your source?
"You started out crying and lying, you're ending the same way."
So, providing the same information that you did and not being able to read your mind are your two newest examples of "lying"? That's hilarious. As for "crying", I'm just commenting, which is what you say you do. If you can't handle it, nobody's forcing you to post here.
No, I said you didn't bring a definition that supported your usage.
DeleteDone that too.
For me, two cartoons featuring signs can't be compared, but for you, my marital status is completely relevant.
Irrelevant, there isn't 2 cartoons. Just one. I didn't think you knew what was going on, here.
What's your source?
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm
"Be careful not to use quotation marks in an attempt to emphasize a word (...)." "Underline or italicize that word instead."
I spoke first.
Factually, I spoke first. Yours was an incorrect and twisted lie in reply to what I said.
"Done that too."
DeleteNo, your link didn't help you.
"Irrelevant, there isn't [sic] 2 cartoons."
Not if you refuse to read one of them, perhaps. Did you forget that we were talking about what you consider to be "off-topic"?
"http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm"
The full quote: "Be careful not to use quotation marks in an attempt to emphasize a word (the kind of thing you see in grocery store windows—Big "Sale" Today!). Underline or italicize that word instead. (The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else—or that your sale is entirely bogus.)"
I already use italics for emphasis, so that's obviously not the purpose. Quotation marks can be used when the meaning is ironic: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/02/. Since your standard for meaning wouldn't genuinely qualify as sexist, it was put in quotes to show the difference in meaning. Now, it was never emphasized to me to not use quotation marks for words used as words (like log earlier), but I'll bear that in mind. Your criticism, on the other hand, wasn't valid.
"Factually, I spoke first."
No, I said "By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist"." before you said "No, by my standards everyone who supports slavery was(is) a racist." That's why you put "No" at the beginning of it, because you were making a reply.
But I'm guessing that your point is that you posted on the thread first, while I'm talking about the two quotes you provided.
Not if you refuse to read one of them, perhaps.
DeleteWhat are you talking about? It's one cartoon with 2 panels. Not, 2 separate cartoons.
I already use italics for emphasis, so that's obviously not the purpose.
But, you didn't use them in that instance. Meaning you used the quotations incorrectly. Because you HAD used quotation marks for "sexist" denoting the word I used as quoted. But, no one had mentioned racist, so your use was incorrect. Putting racist in italics sometime last year does not carry over to this conversation.
Just admit you were wrong and move on.
No, I said "By your standard, everyone who ever opposed slavery was "racist"."
Unfortunately, you said that in reply to my initial statement. Meaning I spoke first.
Admit you were wrong and move on.
But I'm guessing that your point is that you posted on the thread first, while I'm talking about the two quotes you provided.
Thanks for admitting I spoke first. Since yours was a REPLY to MY statement not a comment to Eddie's article. Meaning I spoke first.
Admit you were wrong and move on.
"What are you talking about? It's one cartoon with 2 panels. Not, 2 separate cartoons."
DeleteI linked to a cartoon, which you absurdly claimed was "off-topic" and refused to read.
"But, you didn't use them in that instance."
Because it wasn't for emphasis.
"But, no one had mentioned racist, so your use was incorrect."
Nobody had to have mentioned it. The use of the word was ironic, so quotation marks are allowed. Try picturing someone saying it aloud and making air quotes with their fingers when they get to racist.
"Putting racist in italics sometime last year does not carry over to this conversation."
Who said it did?
"Unfortunately, you said that in reply to my initial statement. Meaning I spoke first."
Sorry, that's not the context you yourself established.
You: "You reverse my actual standards to fit your own usage."
Me: "I spoke first. You only asserted the opposite, I didn't change what you had said."
See, the point would be that since your quote came after mine, you can't claim that I could possibly "reverse" your standards. You hadn't stated your "actual standards" at that time. Since you didn't quote from your original post, it's not relevant at all.
"Thanks for admitting I spoke first."
I did no such thing. I said you posted on the thread first. Since you posted two specific quotes that weren't in your original post, and my quote came first, I said so.
"Admit you were wrong and move on."
No, because that would be a lie. Shame on you for trying to compel someone to act immorally.
I linked to a cartoon, which you absurdly claimed was "off-topic" and refused to read.
DeleteYeah? So what? This article is about one cartoon. Are you denying that fact? Are you crying about the ON-TOPIC cartoon or the OFF-TOPIC cartoon?
Because it wasn't for emphasis.
Hmm, interesting. It also wasn't a quote from anyone. So, just admit you were wrong and move on.
The use of the word was ironic, so quotation marks are allowed.
No, they're not. I've already posted the rules you asked for and those rules say; no. In fact they are expressly forbidden for that kind of use. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
See, the point would be that since your quote came after mine, you can't claim that I could possibly "reverse" your standards.
That truthful point would be (you don't know about truth) that since you reversed my standards, you had to have replied to ME. I spoke first.
Again, just admit you were wrong and move on. Holding on to these issues of yours only makes you look very un-intelligent (stupid for those who have no reading comprehension abilities).
I did no such thing. I said you posted on the thread first.
Yes, that's correct. And, since you posted in REPLY to ME, I spoke first. You didn't "add a comment", you posted a "reply". That reply was directed at ME, not Eddie. Even in your provided quotes you admit I spoke first ("I didn't change what you had said"). I "had said" is what you brought. That obviously means I spoke first.
Just admit you were wrong and move on.
No, because that would be a lie.
And your continued denial of obvious facts would be considered what? Insanity? Besides, you've never had a problem with lying before, why are you concerned about it now? Thinking of turning over a new leaf? Good for you, I'm proud of you.
"Yeah? So what? This article is about one cartoon."
DeleteSo what? If you don't understand the nature of the cartoon, then a similar one would be entirely relevant. It's rather hilarious that you want to act as if you could talk about collecting stamps on an article about taxing churches, while here only one cartoon can be brought up. But, I could bring up middle school, since that word is in the graphic. I could also ask you if you have a daughter. That would be on topic.
"Hmm, interesting. It also wasn't a quote from anyone."
It doesn't have to be. Stay tuned.
"I've already posted the rules you asked for and those rules say; no. In fact they are expressly forbidden for that kind of use."
Liar. You mentioned emphasis, not irony. Besides that, my source specifically said that they are allowed for irony. Even better, your own source says this: "The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else—or that your sale is entirely bogus." That wouldn't have anything do to with quoting someone. It's not as if someone would see sale in quotes and wonder who said the word. They say "really mean something else" because people will think that the word is being used ironically, because that's a common usage of quotation marks.
"That truthful point would be (you don't know about truth) that since you reversed my standards, you had to have replied to ME."
What did you say about racism in your first post?
"That obviously means I spoke first."
None of that has anything to do with the two quotes you posted, which is what I was directly referencing. Regarding those two quotes, I spoke first. But, if you really want to go beyond your own context, I'll raise the ante. Truthfully, you believe that God spoke first. I don't think you can top that.
"And your continued denial of obvious facts would be considered what?"
Your misrepresentation, promoted in order to protect your fragile psyche.
"Besides, you've never had a problem with lying before, why are you concerned about it now?"
You've never proven a lie. In that respect, I certainly have never had any difficulties. Any other questions?
Your misrepresentation, promoted in order to protect your fragile psyche.
DeleteAt least I'm not crying so much that I've got to say God spoke first in order to avoid being proven liar. That's how far you will go in order to avoid admitting that you lied. Being an atheist, you cannot fall back on that excuse (you do not believe in God), therefor you are admitting that you lied.
There, that answers your "never proven a lie" statement.
None of that has anything to do with the two quotes you posted, which is what I was directly referencing.
I don't see how that could be true. You never mentioned referencing any particular quote any time before. And, it's quite obvious, from your statement, that you were (in fact) NOT referencing any statement after my initial one, in your first post. It is impossible for you to have referenced a statement that I had not made yet.
It's rather hilarious that you want to act as if you could talk about collecting stamps on an article about taxing churches, while here only one cartoon can be brought up.
I don't think I've ever talked about collecting stamps on any article about taxing Churches / marriage rights.
Using your analogy, would discussing collecting stamps be relevant to the discussion on Church taxes / marriage rights? I think it would be off topic and irrelevant. Therefor, discussing a random cartoon instead of the cartoon from this article would be just as off topic as discussing collecting stamps in your other article.
I could also ask you if you have a daughter. That would be on topic.
Yes you could do that. And, I would answer yes, 2. See how that works? You stay on topic and your questions get answered. Of course the same cannot be said about you. If I stay on topic, you take it off topic in order to avoid looking like a complete fool.
Liar.
I am not lying. I did so post the rules that you asked for.
That wouldn't have anything do to with quoting someone.
I know. That is why they are not allowed. As explained in the link I provided.
What did you say about racism in your first post?
Oh, I get it now. You are saying you spoke off topic first. Ok, you got me there. I did not go off topic on my first post. You did go off topic on your first post. So, if you're changing the parameters (to keep from being proven a liar) to who spoke off topic first, then you are correct. You are the first one to speak off topic. I think the only one, too.
"At least I'm not crying so much that I've got to say God spoke first in order to avoid being proven [sic] liar."
DeleteIt sounds like you're crying right there. Did that offend you?
"That's how far you will go in order to avoid admitting that you lied."
Maybe it doesn't need to go that far. But if you're going to go beyond the context that you established, then you'll have to make an argument for a stopping point. Eddie, maybe? King Henry VIII? Jesus? Adam? Where else would it cut off, and why? Meanwhile, you haven't explained what I supposedly "lied" about. In your earlier posts you kept squawking "admit you were wrong and move on", not anything about any intentional falsehood.
"Being an atheist, you cannot fall back on that excuse (you do not believe in God), therefor [sic] you are admitting that you lied."
If only you could read: "Truthfully, you believe that God spoke first." Notice the word "you", which makes it true since you believe in God.
"I don't see how that could be true. You never mentioned referencing any particular quote any time before."
I've never seen you say that you're referencing a quote as you do so, either. However, when you quote me, then you respond, the quote is what you're referencing in your comment. For instance:
You:"You reverse my actual standards to fit your own usage."
Since that followed the two quotes, the quotes were the basis for your comment.
Further, I repeated the quotes in a previous post, which you acknowledged. So, you know full well that I was talking about those quotes.
"And, it's quite obvious, from your statement, that you were (in fact) NOT referencing any statement after my initial one, in your first post."
I didn't suggest I was referencing the two quotes in my "first post". Are you claiming that you said that you spoke first in your second post? I'll help you find your way: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-kid-who-made-this-has-future-in.html?showComment=1397236271975#c725099751306515053
"I don't think I've ever talked about collecting stamps on any article about taxing Churches / marriage rights."
DeleteI didn't say that you did. I said "you want to act as if you could".
"Using your analogy, would discussing collecting stamps be relevant to the discussion on Church taxes / marriage rights? I think it would be off topic and irrelevant."
It would be extremely irrelevant, yes. However, since the only cause for saying that the article is about "marriage" is an insignificant word in a graphic, then by your standard "stamps" would also be part of the discussion.
"Therefor [sic], discussing a random cartoon instead of the cartoon from this article would be just as off topic as discussing collecting stamps in your other article."
You didn't read the cartoon, so you have to be lying when you claim that it's "random". And material which highlights points of comparison for understanding the nature of political cartoons is indisputably relevant to the article.
"Yes you could do that. And, I would answer yes, 2 [sic]."
So, how would your daughters be relevant to the discussion? It only mentions one daughter in the article.
"I am not lying. I did so post the rules that you asked for."
Where did they forbid quotations for irony?
"I know. That is why they are not allowed."
That's not what your link says. Again: "The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else—or that your sale is entirely bogus." That isn't consistent with you suggesting that quotation marks only go around what someone has said.
"Oh, I get it now. You are saying you spoke off topic first."
Examples for demonstrative purposes aren't off-topic. For instance: "Using your analogy, would discussing collecting stamps be relevant to the discussion on Church taxes / marriage rights?" This article isn't about church taxes or marriage rights, so why are you talking about them?
And no, what I'm saying is that since you didn't say anything about racism in your first post, your "since you reversed my standards, you had to have replied to ME" comment was a lie. As you said, setting yourself up beautifully: "It is impossible for you to have referenced a statement that I had not made yet." Since you hadn't made any statement on racism in your initial post, it's impossible for me to have referred to it in order to "reverse" your meaning.
It sounds like you're crying right there. Did that offend you?
DeleteI was kind of chuckling because even though you are an atheist, you know and admit the truth about God.
It would be extremely irrelevant, yes.
Then why are you talking about it?
I didn't suggest I was referencing the two quotes in my "first post".
I know. Your link says you said "I spoke first". Well, it's been proven and you can continue to see (on-going) that I spoke first and you have only shown up in a reply to me during this article. You have yet to post an original comment concerning the topic. In fact, I don't think you have ever posted an original comment, they have all been replies to someone or another. Is that true? Are you just another troll? Come to think of it, you do act that way and your conversational abilities/tactics are about equal to theirs.
Jeez, I can't believe I've been taken in, all this time, by just another troll. Good luck to you sir/madam
"I was kind of chuckling because even though you are an atheist, you know and admit the truth about God."
DeleteI'm sure you were, since you didn't realize that you had misread my comment. I got a good laugh out of your egregious error in return.
"Then why are you talking about it?"
Because your standard shows that it's part of the article and can be discussed. That was the point, that you create extremely lax rules for what you can say, while you try to dictate the number of political cartoons that can be mentioned on a thread about a political cartoon.
"I know."
Then why did you say "And, it's quite obvious, from your statement, that you were (in fact) NOT referencing any statement after my initial one, in your first post.", if I didn't suggest any such thing? There's no purpose for emphasizing that.
"Well, it's been proven and you can continue to see (on-going) that I spoke first and you have only shown up in a reply to me during this article."
Sorry, you must believe that God spoke first, according to your faith. If you're going to erase all context from what I said, then we're not restricted to this article, this website, or anything at all. Unless you think that you, personally, were around before your own god, you're lying.
"Is that true? Are you just another troll?"
Those concepts aren't linked. The term "troll" isn't defined by the order of posts. In fact, though, I've posted hundreds of original comments.
You're getting set up again. Will you figure it out this time?
Sorry, you must believe that God spoke first, according to your faith.
DeleteProve that God spoke first. Bring an acceptable source that is believable by both of us and please actually provide a link, this time, troll.
"Prove that God spoke first. Bring an acceptable source that is believable by both of us and please actually provide a link, this time, troll."
DeleteWho do you think might have spoken before God did? You'll also have to explain why I need a source that's "believable" to "both of us", since I don't share your faith. That didn't make any sense.
On top of that, you don't own a Bible? And you really need a link to Genesis 1:3 to be convinced of something, here? I've seen remarkably lazy people, but a Christian who can't be bothered to look at the first page of Genesis (or use Google) goes well beyond any of them.
In all seriousness, have you been hacked? Even you aren't this stupid, so I have to wonder if someone's just having fun with your account.
Who do you think might have spoken before God did?
DeleteThat is what you have to prove. You stated I "must" believe that God spoke first. Prove how I "must" believe that.
You'll also have to explain why I need a source that's "believable" to "both of us", since I don't share your faith.
I can easily bring evidence of my beliefs. Would you accept that evidence as un-deniable proof of the beginning of the universe and all I claim of my religion? If you would accept my proof then I would accept yours. But, you can't bring evidence to support your position if you don't believe that evidence. That would be just plain stupid. Even for a troll.
On top of that, you don't own a Bible?
Oh? Are you saying the Bible is undeniable proof of the beginning of life?
In all seriousness, have you been hacked? Even you aren't this stupid, so I have to wonder if someone's just having fun with your account.
I don't have an "account" here. What makes you think that? But, while we're on the subject of being stupid. Are you accepting the Bible as un-deniable proof of the beginning of life? That would be pretty stupid of someone who claims to not believe in a "higher power" then uses the Bible to prove Who spoke first.
"That is what you have to prove."
DeleteThat doesn't make any sense. I said that you have to believe that God spoke first, so why would I have to prove who you think might have spoken before God did? Maybe you should look at what you're referring to while you're replying.
"You stated I "must" believe that God spoke first. Prove how I "must" believe that."
Because you believe in the Bible.
"I can easily bring evidence of my beliefs. Would you accept that evidence as un-deniable proof of the beginning of the universe and all I claim of my religion?"
We're not talking about anything that actually happened, we're talking about your beliefs.
"But, you can't bring evidence to support your position if you don't believe that evidence."
So, if you knew something about another religion (purely hypothetical, mind you), and someone misquoted a passage from that religion's holy text, you couldn't correct them? This is going to be fun, if you're dumb enough to pursue it.
"Are you saying the Bible is undeniable proof of the beginning of life?"
No, I'm saying that it's your holy text, which would be consistent with the phrase "according to your faith".
"I don't have an "account" here."
Who said "here"? You can post under several different types of accounts, none of which are exclusive to this site.
"Are you accepting the Bible as un-deniable proof of the beginning of life?"
Not in the context of discussing "your faith", obviously. I eagerly anticipate your next stupid question.
Because you believe in the Bible.
DeleteWhich Bible. There are several versions. Some acceptable, some not. Clarify your position, troll.
No, I'm saying that it's your holy text, which would be consistent with the phrase "according to your faith".
Well, how are YOU going to prove what YOU say, then? I can prove what I say, how are you going to? Oh, wait. I forgot that you're a troll and never prove your own statements. You got me again.
Who said "here"?
You did: "In all seriousness, have you been hacked? Even you aren't this stupid, so I have to wonder if someone's just having fun with your account.". How could anyone be commenting for me if it wasn't HERE?
For a troll, you sure are one of the more dumb ones.
You can post under several different types of accounts, none of which are exclusive to this site.
Where would I be posting (under those several different types of accounts) and have you comment on whether I've been hacked?
I don't dare answer that one for you. I'll let you handle that "stupid question" on your own.
"he/she thinks women are the crux of that suppression."
DeleteThat is fa rand away, and without a shadow of doubt, THE MOST STUPID THING you have ever posted here. POSSIBLY the most stupid thing I have read in the roughly 20 years that I've had internet access.
Now I totally get why I find your comments so mind-numbingly moronic... You read something, and then conclude the wrongest possible thing about it that you can.
Hey dipshit: I'd say it's a lot more obvious that the author feels that the women are the VICTIMS of said suppression. But then, as I don't have my head up your ass, I guess I can't see things the way you do.
Maybe you're using the same dictionary that the troll is using. Because "crux" means "a main or central feature". How is that different than what you are thinking it means?
Delete"Which Bible.[sic] There are several versions."
DeleteIs there a version where someone speaks before God does? I'm willing to bet that The first chapter of Genesis is going to work in any accepted version you check. It's also pretty odd for you to expect me to clarify which version, as opposed to you saying what is "acceptable". As if I'm going to play your guessing game of which one you prefer, or something.
"Well, how are YOU going to prove what YOU say, then?"
I already have. According to your faith, God is the first to speak. It's not at all clear what barrier you think you're setting for me, especially considering that you can't explain why you couldn't correct someone who misquoted another faith's holy text.
"How could anyone be commenting for me if it wasn't HERE?"
You said your account here. It wasn't about where you were posting from.
"Where would I be posting (under those several different types of accounts) and have you comment on whether I've been hacked?"
Where you're posting doesn't say where you have an account. I can post on numerous sites with the same login, so it's not an account "here". Read what you wrote, so you can figure out where you're having difficulties.
It should be a lowercase "t" in "The" in the second sentence.
DeleteAs if I'm going to play your guessing game of which one you prefer, or something.
DeleteYou're already playing, troll.
I already have. According to your faith, God is the first to speak.
You haven't proven anything. Saying it is true is not proof. Bring your proof, troll.
I can post on numerous sites with the same login, so it's not an account "here".
But, I'm not a troll, so I don't have an account that can be hacked. I don't have any accounts that can be hacked. Proving you are lying, yet again, troll.
"You're already playing, troll."
DeleteI didn't hazard a guess, so apparently you're mistaken.
"You haven't proven anything. Saying it is true is not proof."
It's material you're already familiar with, supposedly.
"Bring your proof, troll."
You put a qualifer on which versions of the Bible are acceptable. When you tell me what version you find acceptable, we can proceed.
"But, I'm not a troll, so I don't have an account that can be hacked."
First off, that doesn't address the point. You said you didn't have an account "here", while I never suggested the account was "here". Secondly, you're getting increasingly random in your desperation. What would being a "troll" have to do with whether any account can be hacked or not?
"Proving you are lying, yet again, troll."
Asking if your account was hacked isn't stating that it was hacked. Moreover, you'll have to show how I'm supposed to be responsible for knowing about the seemingly magical link between "trolls" and accounts which are vulnerable to hackers.
What would being a "troll" have to do with whether any account can be hacked or not?
DeleteBecause trolls are stupid and don't have the intelligence it takes to prevent hacking. Isn't that right, troll?
"Isn't that right, troll?"
DeleteNo, computer systems can be compromised regardless of how complicated your password is. Any other questions?
Any other questions?
DeleteYes, I have lot's of questions. But, you have shown you don't have the ability or knowledge to answer them.
"But, you have shown you don't have the ability or knowledge to answer them."
DeleteI don't see you disputing the answer you just received, though. And when it's put upon you to say what version of the Bible you think is acceptable, you apparently lack the knowledge to respond.
Care to try again?
And when it's put upon you to say what version of the Bible you think is acceptable, you apparently lack the knowledge to respond.
DeleteYou really want an answer to that? I will tell you that the preferred Bible is the accurate one. Which one is accurate you will ask. You do the research and choose your own. For obvious reasons, I would stay away from the Catholic version. But, perhaps you will think it is a great version. Perhaps you want the version that says homosexuality is ok. Well, you go find that one. I'm sure someone has printed one.
BTW, no one has hacked my computer, so you are wrong until that happens.
(Reposted in the right place, since the wi-fi started to die as I posted, and the page backed up to where I had previously posted. You're welcome.)
Delete"You really want an answer to that?"
Of course. You wanted proof, then you said that only some versions of the Bible are acceptable. I'm glad to provide the proof you claim to have wanted.
"You do the research and choose your own."
Why would I do "research" in order to determine your opinion? All you have to do is say which version you prefer. Unless, of course, you don't actually own a Bible at all. Or you know what it says in Genesis, and it shows that your beliefs dictate that God spoke first. It certainly prompts the question of why you cared about the version at all.
But, as much fun as it's been to make you dance, I've always simply been able to link to this: http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-3.htm Now, when you show the words of "william" in one of the two verses before that, I will concede your point.
Actually, I can't concede your point, because then the phrase "I will" would no longer apply. Quite the conundrum, isn't it?
"BTW, no one has hacked my computer, so you are wrong until that happens."
I didn't claim that anyone had, so you're wrong until you correct yourself.
Or you know what it says in Genesis, and it shows that your beliefs dictate that God spoke first.
DeleteI know what it says in Genesis The only problem is that we're talking about YOUR beliefs.
I didn't claim that anyone had, so you're wrong until you correct yourself.
You were obviously referring to my computer being hacked because you specifically mentioned my password. I don't have passwords on any other computer system. So, I am correct that a troll, like you, is too stupid to be able to hack my computer. I don't know why you would want to discuss computer hacking in an article on sexist cartoons. But, trolls do what trolls do.
"I know what it says in Genesis"
DeleteThen you didn't need to ask for proof.
"The only problem is that we're talking about YOUR beliefs."
That's not possible, because I don't have any religious beliefs. It wouldn't be in this section of the thread, anyway, since I've specified that we're talking about your faith multiple times.
"You were obviously referring to my computer being hacked because you specifically mentioned my password. I don't have passwords on any other computer system."
Oh, my. Here's a fun little experiment for you:
1) Go to the library.
2) Get on one of their computers.
3) Open a web browser.
4) Go to your email site.
5) Type in your password.
Now, what happens when you do all of that?
Secondly, I mentioned your account, which would naturally have a password. The computer systems which store passwords (necessary for validating what you enter as your password) can be hacked.
And, of course, none of that nonsense addresses the point. I asked if you had been hacked, which makes no assertion. Hence, you can't claim that I'm "wrong", because there's no statement to evaluate.
"I don't know why you would want to discuss computer hacking in an article on sexist cartoons."
I don't. I simply pointed out that your comment was even more stupid than usual. You're the one who mistook that for a valid topic of conversation.
That's not possible, because I don't have any religious beliefs.
DeleteSure you do. Your religion is atheism. Look up religion in the dictionary.
1) Go to the library.
2) Get on one of their computers.
3) Open a web browser.
4) Go to your email site.
5) Type in your password.
Now, what happens when you do all of that?
Nothing, because I'm not so stupid as to offer my passwords to complete strangers. You really have no common sense, do you?
The computer systems which store passwords (necessary for validating what you enter as your password) can be hacked.
Not mine. I have a system that cannot be hacked. It has not been hacked and will never be hacked. Too bad for you if you use one that can. Do you want me to supply you with a computer that actually works? If you think you can hack it, go ahead and try. Good luck.
You're the one who mistook that for a valid topic of conversation
If I had "mistook" that, then I wouldn't have asked you why you were commenting off the articles topic.
"Your religion is atheism."
DeleteNo, because it doesn't match the definition. Even using your invalid one, it's not a "belief" to start with, and I don't consider it "very important" even if it was.
Naturally, I have yet another high trump card to play. From Merriam-Webster's definition, this example: "Politics are a religion to him." The phrase "to him" further indicates the variable application of your absurd usage. Even if you were able to say that atheism was a "religion" to someone else, you couldn't assert it for me.
Essentially, you have to quit trying to have it both ways. If you want to claim that atheism is an actual religion, like Methodist or whatever else, then you have to make it match the definition which applies to that. If you want to claim that atheism is a religion in the more figurative sense of "Hockey is a religion in Canada" or "Politics is a religion to him", then the "religion" of hockey can't be assumed for every Canadian (or even every Canadian that plays hockey), or the "religion" of politics for everyone who is interested in or involved with politics. Because surely there's someone out there who would warrant the statement: "auto repair is a religion to him." That wouldn't mean that your religion is auto repair.
That was fun. Feel free to give me more opportunities like that.
"Nothing, because I'm not so stupid as to offer my passwords to complete strangers."
Outside of the mystery of what the "offer" would be, I'm not literally telling you to do any of that. Try it on a conceptual level, so you're not confused about how to get to the library or anything else. What would happen if you did that?
"Not mine. I have a system that cannot be hacked."
Nobody's talking about your system. Is blogspot.com run from servers in your basement?
"If I had "mistook" that, then I wouldn't have asked you why you were commenting off the articles topic."
Factually, you're the one who turned the comment into a conversation. You didn't seem to think it was off-topic while starting an argument over it. If you did, then you were intentionally posting about irrelevant matters, and now are displaying your hypocrisy by trying to criticize me for it. If that's your story, I find it much more credible than anything else you've said here.
Even using your invalid one, it's not a "belief" to start with, and I don't consider it "very important" even if it was.
DeleteAre you saying that you don't consider it "very important" that there is no god? Because from what I've read of your comments you consider that the basis for your belief that the is no god.
Naturally, I have yet another high trump card to play.
Are you now admitting to being a drug user? Well, that explains a lot of why you act the way you act ... you're high.
If you want to claim that atheism is an actual religion, like Methodist or whatever else, then you have to make it match the definition which applies to that.
I have done that. You believe (with absolute assurity) that there is no god. That is your belief, that makes your beliefs a religion.
Because surely there's someone out there who would warrant the statement: "auto repair is a religion to him."
And that has been done: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
BTW, your usage of a quotation mark is incorrect. Just sayin'
What would happen if you did that?
Nothing, because I'm not so stupid as to do that.
Is blogspot.com run from servers in your basement?
Do you know, one way or the other? If not, then that question is stupid, troll
Factually, you're the one who turned the comment into a conversation.
Umm, from your exhibited behavior, you know very little about facts. So, I would recommend you stay away from words like "factually" unless you can actually back up your claims with facts.
"Are you saying that you don't consider it "very important" that there is no god?"
DeleteNo. There's no reason for that to be considered important, as far as I can see.
"Because from what I've read of your comments you consider that the basis for your belief that the [sic] is no god."
I don't have any such belief. Apparently, you didn't read my comments.
"Are you now admitting to being a drug user?"
A trump card is a playing card of the suit designated as trump. You're obviously familiar with terminology for which I have no frame of reference.
"I have done that. You believe (with absolute assurity [sic]) that there is no god."
No, I don't. What statement of mine do you think you're referring to, specifically?
"And that has been done: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values"
So your "religion" is auto repair, now?
"BTW, your usage of a quotation mark is incorrect."
No, it isn't. I'm curious why would say that, since you admitted that "no big deal" (your quotation marks) wasn't a quote from me.
"Nothing, because I'm not so stupid as to do that."
You're not smart enough to answer a hypothetical question, either.
"Do you know, one way or the other?"
It seems highly unlikely, so clearly nobody's talking about your system.
"Umm, from your exhibited behavior, you know very little about facts."
Would you like me to copy the start of the conversation, for your education? I'm glad to help you out.
No. There's no reason for that to be considered important, as far as I can see.
DeleteThen how come you keep insisting there is no god? It must be very important if you have to continually mention that is part of your core beliefs.
So your "religion" is auto repair, now?
Did I say that? Or, is that another of your assumptions?
No, it isn't.
Yes it is. You ended with a quotation mark but didn't start with one.
You're not smart enough to answer a hypothetical question, either.
Actually, I'm smart enough to not answer a hypothetical question.
Would you like me to copy the start of the conversation, for your education?
Yes, I would like you to do that. It will be very interesting to find out how you felt you could bring a definition of "sexism" when my comment was on "sexist". This should be very interesting.
BTW, you BETTER answer ALL my questions.
"Then how come you keep insisting there is no god? It must be very important if you have to continually mention that is part of your core beliefs."
DeleteProvide some examples of how I "continually" mention anything of the sort, specifically where you got "core beliefs" from. With some context, I'm sure I can show the reason for stating that I don't believe in any higher power.
"Did I say that?"
No, I asked you a question. Why are you shy about answering it?
"Yes it is. You ended with a quotation mark but didn't start with one."
You'll have to specify where, because I'm not sure you're even referring to the post you were replying to. More importantly, a single quotation mark wouldn't be "usage", that would be accidentally leaving off a quotation mark.
"Actually, I'm smart enough to not answer a hypothetical question."
Because it's inconvenient to your argument, which is obviously why I asked it. There's no "smart" option, except for you to admit that I wasn't talking about your computer.
"Yes, I would like you to do that."
Me: "In all seriousness, have you been hacked? Even you aren't this stupid, so I have to wonder if someone's just having fun with your account."
You: "I don't have an "account" here. What makes you think that?"
Me: "Who said "here"? You can post under several different types of accounts, none of which are exclusive to this site."
You: "How could anyone be commenting for me if it wasn't HERE?"
Me: "I can post on numerous sites with the same login, so it's not an account "here"."
At which point, you devolved into defensive blathering about trolls, cockamamie accusations, and suggestions that passwords don't travel past the boundaries of your own computer.
As I said, factually, you're the one who turned it into a conversation. You even proved it by asking a question at the start, and another afterwards. Since you clearly think that I have to respond to your questions, you must believe that you intentionally forced the conversation to happen.
"It will be very interesting to find out how you felt you could bring a definition of "sexism" when my comment was on "sexist"."
The definition you provided listed the two words together, demonstrating that the two words are inseparable. The meaning of "sexist" hinges on "sexism" directly.
I personally didn't find that interesting, but then I already knew the meaning of the word. Besides that, you already know that searching for "sexist" on Merriam-Webster.com leads to "sexism". Unless there's some reason that I'm supposed to declare a widely-used dictionary to be wrong, all on my own authority, then there's no possible blame for providing what they presented. Moreover, since you do know that the website automatically redirects, your question is indisputably disingenuous.
And what I find fascinating is that you think it's some sort of personal victory to point out that "viewpoint" and "belief" are related words, but when you provide a definition of "sexist" which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is intrinsically connected to "sexism", then you still want to pretend that I'm on the hot seat for not finding a dictionary that happened to have a separate page. The sheer magnitude of your hypocrisy is breathtaking.
"BTW, you [sic] BETTER answer ALL my questions."
Naturally. The more you allow me to demonstrate your lack of intellect, knowledge and moral fiber, the better.
No, I asked you a question. Why are you shy about answering it?
DeleteI've stated, previously, what my religion is. You can go back and read my previous posts if you can't remember.
More importantly, a single quotation mark wouldn't be "usage", that would be accidentally leaving off a quotation mark.
At least you finally admitted you make mistakes, too.
There's no "smart" option, except for you to admit that I wasn't talking about your computer.
Your criteria was "smart enough". That makes "smart" one of the options.
At which point, you devolved into defensive blathering about trolls, cockamamie accusations, and suggestions that passwords don't travel past the boundaries of your own computer.
No, I said nothing about passwords traveling past any boundaries, I said my computer can't be hacked. If you think you can hack my computer, you go ahead and try.
The definition you provided listed the two words together, demonstrating that the two words are inseparable. The meaning of "sexist" hinges on "sexism" directly.
No, the definition that YOU brought listed both. Is this an example of your binary thinking?
Naturally. The more you allow me to demonstrate your lack of intellect, knowledge and moral fiber, the better.
Thanks for admitting you are intimidated into answering my questions.
"I've stated, previously, what my religion is."
DeleteI know. And it wasn't "auto repair". So, since you don't allow that standard to be used for you, you can't apply it to me.
"At least you finally admitted you make mistakes, too."
I've admitted mistakes recently. However, you would still have to show where that happened. The comment you quoted was general, so it didn't say anything about the error you're claiming.
"Your criteria was "smart enough". That makes "smart" one of the options."
No, it doesn't. You can be "smart enough" to open a door, that doesn't mean you aren't a drooling idiot. I already knew why you were dragging your feet on the question, I was just giving you the mocking you deserved for it.
"No, I said nothing about passwords traveling past any boundaries, I said my computer can't be hacked."
I said "suggested". As in you stating that you don't have passwords on any other computer system. As if you type in a password for your email, and the email server sends some sort of verification request into your computer, finds your password, and then reports back that you're allowed to view that email account. I'm sure, with your vast knowledge of computers, that you can go into all of the details as to how that is supposed to work.
"If you think you can hack my computer, you go ahead and try."
I never said anything about hacking your computer, and I wouldn't be interested in doing so myself if I had.
"No, the definition that YOU brought listed both."
Wrong. The definition you provided listed both. You even emphasized the point: "If this will help: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexist
It gives BOTH definitions right next to each other."
"Is this an example of your binary thinking?"
No, even if you knew what the phrase actually meant. What's the "either/or" scenario that I'm supposedly presenting here?
"Thanks for admitting you are intimidated into answering my questions."
You intimidated me into embarrassing you? No, not really. The phrase "you'd better" means that I would be better off doing what's specified than I would be by doing otherwise. Since all you're doing is giving me opportunities to demonstrate your overall weakness, I have to agree with that.
So, since you don't allow that standard to be used for you, you can't apply it to me.
DeleteAre you saying that every person has multiple religions that they adhere to?
Wrong. The definition you provided listed both.
Thank you for proving they are different words with different meanings. They are both from the same root word (sex), but each mean something different. Unlike what you are advancing: that sexism is the same as sexist.
You intimidated me into embarrassing you?
No, I intimidated you into answering my questions. After you said you weren't intimidated by me.
"Are you saying that every person has multiple religions that they adhere to?"
DeleteObviously not, considering that I said that your religion was not "auto repair".
"Thank you for proving they are different words with different meanings."
As opposed to being spelled identically and having the exact same meaning, yes. That would be one word, if that was the case. And on your gracious note, thank you for admitting that both words were in your definition, contrary to your assertion.
"They are both from the same root word (sex), but each mean something different."
Much like "atheism" and "atheist", which you used interchangeably.
"Unlike what you are advancing: that sexism is the same as sexist."
There's no difference in concept. That's what I've been saying. If you're pretending that I said that one word can always be replaced with the other, you'll have a rough time trying to prove your claim. And since the two words are inseparable, an understanding of sexism transfers directly to sexist. Meaning that your excuse about not using my definition (and then later supplying a definition that said the same thing, to my great amusement) was a display of either gross ignorance or shameless intellectual dishonesty.
I hope that clarifies things for you. I notice that you didn't find it necessary to address what I said in any way before continuing with your argument, and yet, I do the right thing regardless. You should take notes.
"No, I intimidated you into answering my questions."
During which, I embarrassed you. And if you had read past the first sentence, you would now know that your phrasing didn't qualify as intimidation at all. Perhaps you'll phrase your chest-thumping cliches more effectively the next time around.
Much like "atheism" and "atheist", which you used interchangeably.
DeleteWell, when used as: you are an atheist whose religious belief is atheism, there's not much room for interchangeability. I don't think I've ever said you are an atheism whose religious belief is atheist.
There's no difference in concept.
According to the dictionary there is.
During which, I embarrassed you.
By saying sexism and sexist mean the same thing? I don't think I was too embarrassed over that one.
"Well, when used as: you are an atheist whose religious belief is atheism, there's not much room for interchangeability."
DeleteSince I wasn't referring to that sentence, your comment is irrelevant. It's also redundant and contains a false premise, which is consistent with what I've come to expect from you.
"According to the dictionary there is."
No, according to the dictionary, "sexist" is based directly on "sexism". Your own definition demonstrated that.
"By saying sexism and sexist mean the same thing?"
You'll have to expand on "mean the same thing". You were already asked, but you must have forgotten by the time you reached the next sentence. And no, I wasn't specifying your unsustainable "different words" claim. I was referring to the entire post in question.
No, according to the dictionary, "sexist" is based directly on "sexism".
DeleteAnd, both words are based directly on sex. But I don't go around saying I want to have sexism with anyone (someone). Different words, troll. Get over it and move on. You lose yet again.
"And, both words are based directly on sex. But I don't go around saying I want to have sexism with anyone (someone)."
DeleteThat's good, because obviously the "sex-" in "sexism" refers to gender, and not to sexual intercourse. You would have sounded extremely ignorant.
But thank you for admitting that the two words are inseparable, which was my point.
You would have sounded extremely ignorant.
DeleteYou sound extremely ignorant as you continue saying sexist and sexism have the same meaning.
"You sound extremely ignorant as you continue saying sexist and sexism have the same meaning."
DeleteYou have to show where I said that, or what specific phrasing you're contradicting. Along with that, you also have to explain whether you're using "same meaning" as "universally interchangeable", or merely being "inseparable". On that note, you have to address this exchange:
You: "Thank you for proving they are different words with different meanings."
Me: "As opposed to being spelled identically and having the exact same meaning, yes. That would be one word, if that was the case."
There's no clarification by you after that, and I said they don't have the "exact same meaning". So, as it currently stands, your claim is plainly false.
Finally, you need to explain your oscillation between "atheism" and "atheist". Unless you're claiming that those two words have the "same meaning", then apparently you think that you veered off onto other topic.
If you're going to claim "ignorant", you have to show some evidence, and also explain what the hell you think you're even trying to say. Otherwise, you would seem fairly unreasonable for trying to set up a straw man argument instead of making an attempt at a clear demonstration of your claim.
And you have to agree, since you previously said this: "That is your specialty ... telling me what I said." Obviously, it would be incredibly hypocritical for you to simply assert my meaning. Bearing that in mind, I now have to assume that you posted early by accident and then suffered a power outage that prevented you from correcting the error. I'm sure you'll fix your post as soon as you have everything operational again.
Behold: William, lover of Muslims, hater of women.
ReplyDeleteDo make an effort to be this stupid or does it come naturally?
At least I'm not so stupid as to threaten to hit people on the head with a brick and then run away (like a little girl) when called on it. Is the extent of your intelligence limited to making hateful comments and then run away?
DeleteNope. But I have a job and a family and a life. And in all the time you've been here you've posted very little that's been worth mine. And lately I just don't have the to to waste that I used to.
DeleteHaving a job and family gives you the right to threaten people with physical harm on the internet? You DO know that is illegal, don't you? Do it again, and your family may have to visit you in federal prison and your job will be making my license plates.
DeleteJust sayin'
"Having a job and family gives you the right to threaten people with physical harm on the internet?"
DeleteWould you like a tissue?
In fact, though, I've posted hundreds of original comments. (http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-kid-who-made-this-has-future-in.html?showComment=1397321452090#c5122877534631993644)
ReplyDeleteProve it. I see 0 comments in the majority of Eddies 543 articles. And the few that have any comments, you added fewer. And mostly in reply. By my count you have 63 original comments. Bring proof that you have posted "hundreds of original comments" or you are lying, yet again.
It is so easy to prove you are a lying troll. And, you have such a hard time proving otherwise.
What they hell is wrong with you? Seriously dude. What the hell is wrong with you?
DeleteShut the fuck up. You're the one who runs away when called on your lies and threats. Don't ask me stupid questions like that.
DeleteI'm doing what you ask, coming in and arguing. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
"I see 0 comments in the majority of Eddies [sic] 543 articles."
DeleteEddie's articles? I never said that they were all on this site. Obviously, I've posted at other places besides here, so that's what I was referring to.
I accept your apology in advance.
Obviously, I've posted at other places besides here, so that's what I was referring to.
DeleteObviously, you know what was being talked about, so you're still a liar, troll. Even if you're talking about other sites, you still haven't brought any proof. Because your chosen and proven behavior is that you reply to others, you don't have thoughts of your own. Isn't that right, troll?
But, I like how Eddie has you sticking up for him. He can't do it himself? You 2 must be real good butties. No tissue needed for me, I'm not the one crying. Huh, Eddie?
"Obviously, you know what was being talked about, so you're still a liar, troll."
DeleteI did? What demonstrates your "obviously" claim? Be specific.
"Even if you're talking about other sites, you still haven't brought any proof."
I'm not providing hundreds of links to MMfA. Some other sites were under other names, so you wouldn't recognize that as proof, anyway. Maybe you shouldn't be introducing irrelevant subjects where finding evidence is prohibitively time-consuming.
"Because your chosen and proven behavior is that you reply to others, you don't have thoughts of your own. Isn't that right, troll?"
No, it isn't right. Again, the concepts aren't connected. When you post nonsense, I'm inclined to reply. That doesn't suggest that I don't have thoughts of my own. Now, if I were to refer to a random preacher instead of expressing my own opinion, that would be another matter entirely.
"No tissue needed for me, I'm not the one crying."
If your endless complaints about hyperbole that wasn't even directed at you isn't crying, then you don't get to use the term for pretty much anything. I don't see how you'll claim that's unfair.
Maybe you shouldn't be introducing irrelevant subjects where finding evidence is prohibitively time-consuming.
DeleteMaybe you shouldn't make absurd claims you cannot prove, troll.
No, it isn't right. Again, the concepts aren't connected.
But you have well established that pattern.
That doesn't suggest that I don't have thoughts of my own.
Since when do trolls have thoughts of their own. That's why all you do is reply. So, that suggestion is well documented and your theory is ... well ... a lie. Sorry, troll, that's the way things are.
Now, if I were to refer to a random preacher instead of expressing my own opinion, that would be another matter entirely.
You refer to random books in order to express your opinion. The difference is what?
If your endless complaints about hyperbole that wasn't even directed at you isn't crying, then you don't get to use the term for pretty much anything.
You spelled comments incorrectly. If you didn't mean comments, then you are the one crying now, troll. Save those tissues for yourself.
"Maybe you shouldn't make absurd claims you cannot prove, troll."
DeleteConsidering you were banned from MMfA while I was there, you know how long I've been posting online. That makes my claim completely believable, if not expected. Besides, you asked. If you didn't want to hear the answer, then chastise yourself.
"But you have well established that pattern."
This is only one site. And if the concepts aren't connected, then it's irrelevant anyway.
"Since when do trolls have thoughts of their own."
Your labels don't alter reality.
"That's why all you do is reply."
Again, those concepts aren't connected, even if you could establish anything.
"You refer to random books in order to express your opinion."
What are you babbling about?
"If you didn't mean comments, then you are the one crying now, troll."
Your statements about Eddie's "threat" aren't complaints? This gets more and more amusing. So, you being up in arms over hyperbole is fine, but pointing out that you're complaining is "crying"? As I was saying, when your behavior doesn't match the threshold for "crying", you don't get to use it for that.
Considering you were banned from MMfA while I was there, you know how long I've been posting online.
DeleteExactly what I'm referring to. You don't have original comments there, either. Only replies.
Your labels don't alter reality.
But, they are good at proving it.
What are you babbling about?
You rely on OTHER SOURCES to prove your points. So did I. Why is it acceptable for YOU to do that, but not ME? Would the word hypocrite fit that description?
So, you being up in arms over hyperbole is fine, but pointing out that you're complaining is "crying"?
Hyperbole can land you in jail. Just read the newest report on that football player at LAX. http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_25559489?source=inthenews
I'm stating FACTS and you're the one crying. Perhaps you should hold onto those tissues. Apparently, you need them more than me.
Again, those concepts aren't connected, even if you could establish anything.
DeleteThey don't have to be connected for you to have already proven your pattern of commenting. Besides, I don't have to establish YOUR pattern, you do that on your own. And, I don't have to prove what YOU say is fact.
Why don't you break that pattern and comment on Eddies newest article and not reply to someone (anyone)? This should be interesting. You can also go back to the many, many articles that have 0 comments and be the first. Let me know which one you choose.
"You don't have original comments there, either."
DeleteI posted original comments quite often there.
"But, they are good at proving it."
Labels don't prove anything, arguments do. Like that one just did, for me.
"You rely on OTHER SOURCES to prove your points."
As opposed to what? I'm curious to hear what you are recommending as appropriate behavior instead of that. Additionally, you said "random books". Relying on objective sources to support arguments isn't "random", so that still bears clarification on your part.
"So did I. Why is it acceptable for YOU to do that, but not ME?"
No, you handed off a question about your views to someone else. That's not even remotely similar to backing up arguments with evidence.
"Would the word hypocrite [sic] fit that description?"
The word hypocrite doesn't apply when circumstances are wildly divergent. For instance, if I suffered no consequences for killing an intruder in my own home in self-defense, and the same justice system convicted you for slaying your wife with a chainsaw, that's not hypocrisy. No matter how much you cry about how we both killed someone, the circumstances justify opposing results.
"Hyperbole can land you in jail."
Honestly, I wrote the above paragraph before reading that. Again, wildly divergent circumstances. Bomb threats in airports can't be ignored. Obviously, the people who heard that threat have a good reason to believe that it might affect them, to put it mildly. You, on the other hand, weren't even being addressed. There was no reason to believe that it could possibly be serious, and no justification for even erring on the side of caution. What's the theory, that he's carrying around a brick at all times, just waiting for some idiot conservative to say the magic phrase? Hilarious.
"I'm stating FACTS and you're the one crying."
You weren't threatened. If you had felt threatened, you wouldn't have volunteered yourself to be a potential victim. If you really want to explore this, I'd simply love to play the role of an FBI agent getting your side of the story. And if you really feel up to it, you can play a prosecutor trying to get a conviction, and I'll show you how you'll lose at every single turn. Let's see you try it.
"They don't have to be connected for you to have already proven your pattern of commenting."
They have to be connected for that pattern to mean anything, even if you could show the pattern.
"Let me know which one you choose."
Since replying to comments has no connection to any definition of "troll", I'm not exactly sure why you care whether I'm the first person to comment on an article or not.
Is this relevant to the topic, by the way? Do you have some convoluted, otherworldly ramblings to explain how you're not out on a distant tangent right now? You did say that you're never off-topic, so you must.
No, you handed off a question about your views to someone else. That's not even remotely similar to backing up arguments with evidence.
DeleteYes it is. It's just like it. When you go to a web-site and use it to prove your point, you say: look at this site, it says exactly what I'm telling you is true, therefor what I say is correct. That is what I did, you asked for proof and I referred you to a web site that proves my point. The difference being what?
The word hypocrite doesn't apply when circumstances are wildly divergent.
But, it sure fits when they are similar. As in this situation.
Bomb threats in airports can't be ignored
Oh, so the threat can only be a joke if it's not in an airport. I'll bet the thousands of people who are in jail because they threatened physical harm to someone (anyone) will be glad to hear their cases will be overturned as soon as the troll tells the judge: hey, it wasn't at an airport ... what's the big deal? Great argument you make in favor of breaking laws.
What's the theory, that he's carrying around a brick at all times, just waiting for some idiot conservative to say the magic phrase?
I don't know Eddie. From the way he writes in his articles he seems to be a very angry man. So, perhaps he does just that. Are you able to distinguish between dangerous and not dangerous over the internet? Wow, you must really be a psychic.
"That is what I did, you asked for proof and I referred you to a web site that proves my point."
DeleteI asked for "proof"? Are you absolutely sure about that? I'll give you a chance to back up your assertion.
"But, it sure fits when they are similar. As in this situation."
This is nothing like a bomb threat, much less in an airport.
"Oh, so the threat can only be a joke if it's not in an airport."
Bomb threats in airports can't be taken as jokes, whether that was the intent or not. Besides, read your own article, particularly about the behavior before the comment about the bomb. It's not as if it was said in a lighthearted manner.
"I'll bet the thousands of people who are in jail because they threatened physical harm to someone (anyone) will be glad to hear their cases will be overturned as soon as the troll tells the judge: hey, it wasn't at an airport ... what's the big deal?"
Saying that a bomb threat can't be taken as a joke in an airport doesn't mean that everything outside of an airport can be taken a joke. Your binary thinking isn't making you look even remotely intelligent.
"Are you able to distinguish between dangerous and not dangerous over the internet?"
By that logic, you should be monitored by the authorities. Or did you forget about your recent unhinged rants already?
The test isn't whether someone could possibly be dangerous or not. You have to show that the threat can be reasonably assessed as genuine, and a hyperbolic comment made to nobody in particular just doesn't qualify. And that's especially apparent because you wouldn't volunteer to be the victim of anything you perceived as a real threat.
Besides that, threats are future tense. They can't ever actually happen, according to you, because then the future tense would no longer apply.
Incidentally, it's rather hilarious for you to use the "anyone" tag in the same post where you say "you must really be a psychic", since "anyone" was your assertion as to what Eddie meant, as opposed to what he distinctly wrote. You didn't realize you were setting yourself up, yet again.
"You really want an answer to that?"
DeleteOf course. You wanted proof, then you said that only some versions of the Bible are acceptable. I'm glad to provide the proof you claim to have wanted.
"You do the research and choose your own."
Why would I do "research" in order to determine your opinion? All you have to do is say which version you prefer. Unless, of course, you don't actually own a Bible at all. Or you know what it says in Genesis, and it shows that your beliefs dictate that God spoke first. It certainly prompts the question of why you cared about the version at all.
But, as much fun as it's been to make you dance, I've always simply been able to link to this: http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-3.htm Now, when you show the words of "william" in one of the two verses before that, I will concede your point.
Actually, I can't concede your point, because then the phrase "I will" would no longer apply. Quite the conundrum, isn't it?
"BTW, no one has hacked my computer, so you are wrong until that happens."
I didn't claim that anyone had, so you're wrong until you correct yourself.
This is nothing like a bomb threat, much less in an airport.
DeleteRandom threats of physical harm. Please try to keep up, troll.
It's not as if it was said in a lighthearted manner.
Gee, troll. I don't see any LOL after Eddies threat either. Trolls are too stupid to continue discussing with me.
Saying that a bomb threat can't be taken as a joke in an airport doesn't mean that everything outside of an airport can be taken a joke.
Thank you for admitting you are wrong, in this situation, troll.
By that logic, you should be monitored by the authorities.
I already am being monitored. Pres Obama's NSA is doing that to everyone. Haven't you been keeping up with the news?
Or did you forget about your recent unhinged rants already?
Oh? Did I threaten you in any way? Wait ... are you crying? You better get those tissues back from Eddie.
And that's especially apparent because you wouldn't volunteer to be the victim of anything you perceived as a real threat.
And that's why so many have joined the military since we invaded Iraq. Because the "apparent" danger is only a "perceived" threat.
Besides that, threats are future tense.
Factually, it's an on-going, continual threat against anyone (someone) who says those magic words. So he could possibly hit someone today and still be threatening to do it again tomorrow.
They can't ever actually happen, according to you, because then the future tense would no longer apply.
The troll is lying again.
You didn't realize you were setting yourself up, yet again.
Do you realize you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about?
BTW, good job of knowing how computers work and double posting. Trolls are so intelligent. lol
"Random threats of physical harm."
DeleteCircumstances justify one perception of "harm", but not the other.
"I don't see any LOL after Eddies threat either."
You don't see any "seriously", or "literally", either. Are you psychic? And why not "hit you with a hammer" or "hit you with my S.U.V."? Why a "brick"?
Maybe it has something to do with this: http://www.memes.com/img/1896. Or this: http://www.memes.com/img/53620. Or this: http://sprintinglife.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/sometimes-life-is-going-to-hit-you-in-the-head-with-a-brick/. Or this: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/168814686005135405/. Or especially this: http://www.cafepress.com/whitetiger_llc/7936024.
There's also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherently_funny_word. Additionally: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InherentlyFunnyWords. Not only does the idea of carrying around a brick at all times seem difficult to imagine, the word itself has a natural and subliminal effect.
Your move, prosecutor.
"Thank you for admitting you are wrong, in this situation, troll."
Your baseless interpretation is not my responsibility.
"I already am being monitored."
The NSA doesn't match the context that's been established here.
"Oh? Did I threaten you in any way? Wait ... are you crying?"
Are you saying that complaining about a threat is crying? And no, I didn't say that you threatened me. Did you forget what was being discussed? You said: "Are you able to distinguish between dangerous and not dangerous over the internet?" Someone who spends their time acting pious and beyond reproach, even going so far as to claim that profanity is immoral, presents a strong case for "dangerous" when they snap and curse uncontrollably without provocation. Someone who uses hyperbole without any intended target while blogging is a much smaller possibility. Try it, if you need it demonstrated to you.
"And that's why so many have joined the military since we invaded Iraq."
Are you saying that soldiers volunteer to be victims? Also, if you really think that someone is a threat, you call the authorities. You don't try to start an actual, violent confrontation, unless you're a vigilante. What's the comparison to war, exactly?
"So he could possibly hit someone today and still be threatening to do it again tomorrow."
That's in direct conflict with your "it all happens in the future" comment.
"The troll is lying again."
And yet, you can't say how. Sorry, you saying so is not proof.
"Do you realize you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about?"
Do you realize that you're not actually challenging what I'm saying?
"BTW, good job of knowing how computers work and double posting."
I posted it twice intentionally, since the internet went out after I hit "publish" the first time and then went back to try it again. That's correcting an accident. Meanwhile, you think that a search function is "fancy". That's ignorance.
I win. Try again?
Circumstances justify one perception of "harm", but not the other.
DeleteFederal laws make BOTH illegal. You do remember I supplied you the link to the actual federal law that prohibits it and the potential punishment if convicted, right? Maybe you're ignoring that right now. I'll bet Eddies wife is asking him if that is true and telling him to remove that statement ASAP. But, who knows.
Your move, prosecutor.
Sorry, I rested my case the moment I produced the LAW that prohibits such an action. And I cannot lose with that kind of evidence. You are relying on "no big deal" as your defense? Good thing you're not a lawyer. Well ... good thing you're not MY lawyer. And, I'm pretty sure Eddie won't want you as his, either.
The NSA doesn't match the context that's been established here.
? President Obama will have the NSA do whatever he tells them to do. As we have found out during his presidency. Good thing Pres Obama isn't a republican or you liberals would be crying and all up-in-arms over his decision to have the NSA intrude into our lives like that. Nothing hypocritical about that, huh?
And no, I didn't say that you threatened me.
Thank you. Then where's the comparison?
Are you saying that soldiers volunteer to be victims?
No, that's what YOU are saying with your cockimany whine you have going currently.
That's in direct conflict with your "it all happens in the future" comment.
Umm, "tomorrow" is the future.
Sorry, you saying so is not proof.
But you doing so is.
I win. Try again?
If we are playing the "I'm stupid" game, yes you won. Congratulations, troll.
"Federal laws make BOTH illegal."
ReplyDeleteThe laws rely on an evaluation of "threat". Remember, I know about this matter firsthand. You clearly do not. An obvious aspect that you're missing here is the purpose of the law. It's not arbitrary. It's based on effect. For instance, if you're annoyed with someone at work and you tell someone else "I'm going to smack him upside the head", it's not as if that person could immediately call the cops and have you arrested. There's no intimidation, and no way to show there was any intent of the same. The law is based on the effect of taking away someone's perception of safety.
So, your case would have to be that Eddie's comment, which was not directed at any specific person, qualifies as an "interstate" threat because you jumped up and volunteered to be the object of that "threat", while believing that Eddie might travel cross-country and try to find you, brick in hand.
See how that works? It has to be about you. It doesn't apply to millions of people around the country who haven't even seen the post, and not even to any of them who might be stupid enough to take it literally even if they had.
"Maybe you're ignoring that right now."
Maybe you're ignoring the fact that I invited you to test your argument by letting me play the role of an FBI agent asking you about your claim. I obviously wasn't joking.
"Sorry, I rested my case the moment I produced the LAW that prohibits such an action."
You have to prove that it qualifies as "such action". I could just as easily prove that your unhinged ranting was an interstate threat, given your standard. Eddie didn't use the phrase "I'm threatening you", right? Otherwise, it has to be evaluated.
"And I cannot lose with that kind of evidence."
The law is not "evidence". Without the law, there could be no action at all. "Evidence" comes later on, while both sides are trying to prove their case regarding a potential responsibility for violation of that law.
"You are relying on "no big deal" as your defense?"
No, I'm relying on the fact that he wasn't addressing anyone, primarily. How would there be any expectation of making an interstate "threat" when making a conditional comment that isn't directed at any particular person and has no connotations of being intended as a genuine promise of action? Further, it's not merely saying "no big deal" to show that a reasonable person can't possibly interpret it to be an actual threat. Baseless assertions are your practice, not mine.
"And, I'm pretty sure Eddie won't want you as his, either."
I'd say I already have all the arguments any professional lawyer would make already. Besides, he wouldn't need one, because the FBI would all but laugh directly in your phony, sniveling face.
"President Obama will have the NSA do whatever he tells them to do."
DeleteSo now you think President Obama might take a personal interest in you?
"Good thing Pres Obama isn't a republican or you liberals would be crying and all up-in-arms over his decision to have the NSA intrude into our lives like that."
Why would you want to talk about the NSA on an article about a political cartoon? Oh, "trolls do what trolls do". I had almost forgotten.
"Then where's the comparison?"
Because you come across as more dangerous than Eddie does. You tried to use the argument that Eddie seems "angry", so he should be assumed to be dangerous. You're not just more angry, you exhibit violent mood swings, and while talking to a specific person at that. Do you need that clarified any further?
"No, that's what YOU are saying with your cockimany [sic] whine you have going currently."
I didn't say anything about soldiers, so I invite you to explain what you imagine you're talking about.
"Umm, "tomorrow" is the future."
But "today" is not.
"But you doing so is."
No, and you don't have anything to show that I believe that. I can restate any argument that you pretend to have missed.
"If we are playing the "I'm stupid" game, yes you won."
That's obviously not the game I'm referring to, since I used your ignorance in my favor. On top of that, I notice that you didn't try to refute the point, as an intelligent person would do.
So now you think President Obama might take a personal interest in you?
DeleteYour reading comprehension skills are quite amazing if that's how you conflate what I said.
BTW, getting reading for your next question: are you talking politics now?
Why would you want to talk about the NSA on an article about a political cartoon?
Let's see ... you call it a "political cartoon", that means talking politics would be ok. According to YOUR standards.
Do you need that clarified any further?
Yes. I didn't know you could use the word "assumed" in place of the words that I did use. Also, how do you get "violent" out of cussing? If that is true, then you've exhibited "violent mood swings" during every one of our conversations (at one point or another). Is this line of questioning really helping your cause?
No, and you don't have anything to show that I believe that.
Of course YOU wouldn't believe that. You tell bold-face lies and then deny you did it. How in the world would anyone expect YOU to believe it. Everyone ELSE will see how you operate, though.
On top of that, I notice that you didn't try to refute the point, as an intelligent person would do.
You said "I win". What kind of "point" are you trying to make, other than to make yourself look stupid?
The laws rely on an evaluation of "threat".
DeleteGo re-read the law I brought, as proof of illegality, and show me where it says it relies "on an evaluation of threat". Let me help you out ... it does NOT say anything like that.
I obviously wasn't joking.
So your defense for Eddie is role playing. Classic
I could just as easily prove that your unhinged ranting was an interstate threat, given your standard.
Actually, no you can't. You've already admitted my actions weren't "violent". Are you trying to have it both ways in one argument? Or, you could attempt to prove HOW. Which, I'm sure you will never attempt. It would only make you look MORE stupid (as if that's possible;).
No, I'm relying on the fact that he wasn't addressing anyone, primarily.
Good choice to change your defense from "no big deal" to "primarily". However, there is nothing in the LAW that says it is only illegal if you "primarily" intend to harm someone (anyone).
I'd say I already have all the arguments any professional lawyer would make already.
Well, if that's the extent of your knowledge for lawyering, then you'd better stick to being a paper filer. Because you would be laughed out of the court by any judge for your slack defense. And, your client would end up facing the penalties that are doled out for the law that Eddie has broken. Keep in mind this is a FEDERAL law, so he might end up in Leavenworth. I hope he paid you pro-bono.
BTW, the double use of "already" is improper usage.
Besides, he wouldn't need one, because the FBI would all but laugh directly in your phony, sniveling face.
The FBI aren't the ones who decide guilty/not guilty. That would be a judge. Your knowledge of how the legal system works is as qualified as your lawyering ability. Ah ha ha ha
Besides, do you think Eddie would want to take that chance? I think the penalty was 'up to 5 years' in federal prison. Check that for me, would you?
BTW: "phony, sniveling face." ... exhibiting some "violent mood swings" aren't you? Glad to see you can't be intimidated, like you claimed I was.
"Your reading comprehension skills are quite amazing if that's how you conflate what I said."
DeleteOf course, you forgot to mention what you supposedly meant instead of that.
"BTW, getting reading for your next question: are you talking politics now?"
I didn't bring up the NSA or President Obama.
"Let's see ... you call it a "political cartoon", that means talking politics would be ok. According to YOUR standards."
Where would that possibly be demonstrated as my standards, as opposed to clearly mocking your standards?
"I didn't know you could use the word "assumed" in place of the words that I did use."
I'm sure you did, since you think you can replace the use of "someone" with "anyone". And since I didn't put it quotes, I didn't claim that you used the word, contrary to your insinuation. Here's what you said, for the record: "From the way he writes in his articles he seems to be a very angry man. So, perhaps he does just that. Are you able to distinguish between dangerous and not dangerous over the internet? Wow, you must really be a psychic." So, if I have to be "psychic" in order to conclude that he's "not dangerous", then "dangerous" would be the default conclusion. You're taking it for granted that he's dangerous because of your perception of "angry", which makes it an assumption.
"Also, how do you get "violent" out of cussing?"
From having a vocabulary. Are you not familiar with the word?
"If that is true, then you've exhibited "violent mood swings" during every one of our conversations (at one point or another)."
Are you making a prediction for this conversation? Besides, it's a shift in behavior. Swearing by itself doesn't qualify if it's an established pattern, and by no means would any such incident qualify as violent. On top of that, the word "unprovoked" was included for a reason.
"Is this line of questioning really helping your cause?"
I can't imagine why not.
"Of course YOU wouldn't believe that."
I didn't leave it at my views. I said that you can't demonstrate it.
"You said "I win"."
Is that all you saw? I'll gladly help: "That's correcting an accident. Meanwhile, you think that a search function is "fancy". That's ignorance."
"Go re-read the law I brought, as proof of illegality, and show me where it says it relies "on an evaluation of threat"."
DeleteWhat's your theory, that you just say that you were threatened and you can get someone thrown in prison? It's that simple, no processes involved?
"So your defense for Eddie is role playing."
No, that's what would show that you can't justify the "threat" term.
"Actually, no you can't. You've already admitted my actions weren't "violent"."
Where was that? Besides, that would be determined when evaluating the "threat".
"Or, you could attempt to prove HOW."
That would also be part of evaluating the charge. I'm hoping the light bulb has sparked for you at this point.
"Good choice to change your defense from "no big deal" to "primarily"."
Where did I use the phrase "no big deal"?
"However, there is nothing in the LAW that says it is only illegal if you "primarily" intend to harm someone (anyone)."
I didn't use "primarily" in regards to intent. It's not clear how you inserted that word there.
"Well, if that's the extent of your knowledge for lawyering, then you'd better stick to being a paper filer."
A weak charge doesn't rely extensive argumentation. Make a better case, and you'll warrant a more intricate reply.
"I hope he paid you pro-bono."
That's an oxymoron.
"The FBI aren't the ones who decide guilty/not guilty."
So you think the FBI doesn't investigate, they just take your word, arrest someone and then insure that they're prosecuted? Fascinating.
"Besides, do you think Eddie would want to take that chance?"
If you can't make a case, there's no "chance".
"BTW: "phony, sniveling face." ... exhibiting some "violent mood swings" aren't you?"
No, I'm commenting on the lack of merits of your arguments, like always. I'm sorry that your feelings are so easily hurt.
Where would that possibly be demonstrated as my standards, as opposed to clearly mocking your standards?
DeleteWhen you started talking about "collecting stamps" when that article is about "food stamps".
I'm sure you did, since you think you can replace the use of "someone" with "anyone".
Someone and anyone are interchangable. Show me where that isn't true.
So, if I have to be "psychic" in order to conclude that he's "not dangerous", then "dangerous" would be the default conclusion.
Or the other way around, troll.
You're taking it for granted that he's dangerous because of your perception of "angry", which makes it an assumption.
No I am not. I get my "assumption" from his exhibited behavior. Kind of like how you act like a troll, so I assume you are a troll. See how that works? Prove me wrong.
Are you not familiar with the word?
No. Can you bring a definition of the word so I can figure out if I'm using it correctly?
Are you making a prediction for this conversation?
No, just an observation.
I can't imagine why not.
With your exhibited intelligence level, I reckon you wouldn't.
Is that all you saw? I'll gladly help:
Factually, the remainder of your quote went like this: "I win. Try again?". I didn't see any of what you just said you wrote. That makes you a liar ... yet again.
What's your theory, that you just say that you were threatened and you can get someone thrown in prison?
Obviously not. I said it is against the law for him to say what he said. And, I proved that contention. Do you have anything more than whining about the shit you make up? I didn't think so.
I'm hoping the light bulb has sparked for you at this point.
My light bulb doesn't "spark", it lights up all the time. Yours, on the other hand, doesn't even spark by the way you're making your argument, troll.
Where did I use the phrase "no big deal"?
You didn't. You implied it and when I brought it up you didn't deny it. Reading comprehension 101.
Make a better case, and you'll warrant a more intricate reply.
I was kind of hoping for an honest reply. But, I get what I get from trolls.
That's an oxymoron.
Yeah, and a funny one at that. Nothing more to say on that? I didn't think so.
So you think the FBI doesn't investigate, they just take your word, arrest someone and then insure that they're prosecuted? Fascinating.
Umm, about you twisting what I did say into what you think I said ... just sayin'. Explain yourself.
If you can't make a case, there's no "chance".
I've made my case. Are you going to keep pushing me at Eddies expense? I'll bet you're his best friend right about now. What was it you said, once, about throwing "under that bus"? This is what you are doing to Eddie. I'll bet he appreciates you egging me into calling the authorities just to see if what he did is acceptable or not. But, considering you would face no charges why would YOU care about Eddie potentially going to federal prison? You've always got your other sites to reply on. You don't need this site, huh?
No, I'm commenting on the lack of merits of your arguments, like always.
Hmmm, sounds like you're intimidated. Explain how that isn't so. If you dare.
"When you started talking about "collecting stamps" when that article is about "food stamps"."
DeleteWhich would be mocking you, since you talked about my marriage based off of a graphic which mentioned same-sex marriage. Try again.
"Someone and anyone are interchangable [sic]. Show me where that isn't true."
Examples, replacing the proper use of "someone":
1) "I told [anyone] I'd be there, I don't remember who."
2) "[Anyone]'s car is parked in my parking spot."
3) "In the background, I heard [anyone] whistling."
Now, to analyze, replacing "anyone" with any person:
1) "I told [Bob] I'd be there, I don't remember who." That's pretty self-explanatory. Even without the substitution, it doesn't work because the phrase could clearly be restricted to a small group of possible people.
2) "[Bob]'s car is parked in my parking space." Bob doesn't have a car or even a driver's license.
3) "In the background, I heard [Bob] whistling." No, Bob couldn't have been whistling, since he had just had three cavities filled. He could barely talk because of the novocaine.
Any questions?
"Or the other way around, troll."
If you're starting with "dangerous" as the default, then you're assuming it to be true.
"No I am not. I get my "assumption" from his exhibited behavior."
That involves your perception. You also aren't explaining how you didn't make an assumption, especially when you mention his "exhibited behavior". If you're open-minded, then what did you "get" from his exhibited behavior? On top of that, you're not presenting any contrast to what I previously said. You can be judged by what you say as well, so there's nothing protecting your behavior from being perceived as threatening.
"No. Can you bring a definition of the word so I can figure out if I'm using it correctly?"
That's exactly why I asked, yes: "2 b : extreme, intense (violent pain) (violent colors)" (Merriam-Webster.com).
"No, just an observation."
What "cussing" have you observed on the latest two threads?
"With your exhibited intelligence level, I reckon you wouldn't."
You didn't give a reason for me to believe I wasn't helping my case.
"Factually, the remainder of your quote went like this: "I win. Try again?". I didn't see any of what you just said you wrote."
You didn't address what came before that quote, so you weren't looking at any "remainder".
"Obviously not. I said it is against the law for him to say what he said. And, I proved that contention."
That's a lie. If there's no evaluation of a potential threat, then you couldn't have proven any such thing. All you're doing is saying that threatening someone is illegal. So, if there's no evaluation, you would also be subject to arrest based on accusation alone. It would be very easy for someone to prove that there's a law against threatening people, which is where you rested your case.
"My light bulb doesn't "spark", it lights up all the time."
Yet, you have no response to my point. Funny about that.
"You didn't. You implied it and when I brought it up you didn't deny it."
DeleteSo you attributed a quote to me, and then admitted it. Hilarious. You also never showed how it was implied. On top of that: "Further, it's not merely saying "no big deal" to show that a reasonable person can't possibly interpret it to be an actual threat." That clearly shows that I took that as your phrasing, and disputed it. So your claim that I didn't deny it is a lie, as well. That was a very poor move on your part.
"I was kind of hoping for an honest reply."
That wouldn't be contrary to "intricate". You: "How more intricate do you want me to get?"
"Yeah, and a funny one at that. Nothing more to say on that?"
Yes, your ignorance is highly amusing. And what more needs to be said about it?
"Umm, about you twisting what I did say into what you think I said ... just sayin'. Explain yourself."
This was already explained. Law enforcement evaluates potential law violations and/or suspects. If your complaint doesn't hold water, they're not going to pursue any further action. Your comment that the FBI doesn't decide guilt clearly suggests that they're forced to arrest someone that is accused of a crime, otherwise your response makes no sense at all.
"Are you going to keep pushing me at Eddies expense?"
No, I'm going to keep proving the weakness of your argument at your expense.
"What was it you said, once, about throwing "under that bus"? This is what you are doing to Eddie."
That's not how the phrase is used. It actually refers to sacrificing someone else to save one's own person.
"I'll bet he appreciates you egging me into calling the authorities just to see if what he did is acceptable or not."
He would, if there was any danger, because your posts here are evidence. Not only have you admitted to manufacturing a quote and pretending that it came from me, your entire post here...
Are you ready for this?
Your entire post is evidence that you are an unreliable witness. You already replied to the same post not even a day previously. And you copied and pasted throughout, without realizing that you'd already replied to the same quotes already. You even used the correct meaning of "intricate", then you pretended that it was a synonym for dishonest. You've proven that you lack the stability and/or the mental aptitude to provide a credible courtroom presence.
Also, elsewhere, you've shown your bias against people who disagree with your political views. Even worse, while failing to make any objective case against Eddie, you've tried to silence me by threatening to call the authorities on him. Regardless of whether that's legally actionable or not, it easily appears more serious to threaten to have someone jailed without proper justification than to engage in hyperbole while not addressing anyone at all. Additionally, you've contradicted yourself, saying that Eddie threatened millions of people, and then saying that the authorities might not be contacted because so few people visit this site. And, of course, your unhinged obscenity spree is just the icing on the cake. There's much more, naturally, and the entirety of it testifies to your pathological irrationality.
"Hmmm, sounds like you're intimidated. Explain how that isn't so. If you dare."
I think I just covered that.
Where would that possibly be demonstrated as my standards, as opposed to clearly mocking your standards?
ReplyDeleteYou didn't use "note the sarcasm", so there is no other intention (to be drawn from that) with your statement.
You're taking it for granted that he's dangerous because of your perception of "angry", which makes it an assumption.
No, I think he perhaps may be dangerous because he DID make a threat of physical harm, on the internet, towards an undetermined number of people. That is illegal, according to the law I brought to support my position. Do you need me to re-post that law for you? Or do you remember what it said?
Swearing by itself doesn't qualify if it's an established pattern, and by no means would any such incident qualify as violent.
Then why would you say I have "violent" mood swings when I swore at you? If, by your own standards, it doesn't qualify as that? Is this another 'no hypocrisy there' moment?
I didn't leave it at my views.
Do your "views" equal "beliefs"? Ah ha ha ha
It's that simple, no processes involved?
No, I'm saying it is against FEDERAL law to do that. You seem to be arguing it isn't against FEDERAL law to threaten physical harm to someone (anyone) over the internet. Is that what you are arguing?
No, that's what would show that you can't justify the "threat" term.
Ok, got it. You're saying that the football player (I mentioned) can be fully exonerated because there is no justification for the threat. And, since it was not directed at anyone (someone) then what he did is legal??
Where was that?
Here: "And no, I didn't say that you threatened me.". Making you swearing at me no more violent than me swearing at you.
Make a better case, and you'll warrant a more intricate reply.
Why? You're a clerk. You said so. That means you "file papers" for a living. How more intricate do you want me to get?
So you think the FBI doesn't investigate, they just take your word, arrest someone and then insure that they're prosecuted?
I did not say that. Making you a liar. I said they don't decide guilty/not guilty. Now, about how you twist what I say around to allow you to continue your whine ... just sayin'.
If you can't make a case, there's no "chance".
The LAW was pretty specific about what is illegal and the potential punishment for the crime. Hell, lawyers got OJ off of a murder charge, but he was still arrested, wasn't he? Did the cops who arrested him decide his guilt or innocence? Yet, OJ was still subject to punishment for what he was "perceived" to have done.
I'm sorry that your feelings are so easily hurt.
Ah ha ha ha. Thanks for the laugh.
"You didn't use "note the sarcasm", so there is no other intention (to be drawn from that) with your statement."
DeleteI never said that I always have to do that. And what statement are you even referring to? You left that part out, conveniently enough.
"No, I think he perhaps may be dangerous because he DID make a threat of physical harm, on the internet, towards an undetermined number of people."
If you were only saying that he may be dangerous, then I wouldn't have to be psychic to mock your ludicrous scenario. I wouldn't be required to know something for certain in order to disprove your claim, if you were actually open-minded about whether he's "dangerous" or not. Also, something for you to ponder: If there's nobody within earshot of you (and no microphones, cameras, etc. nearby), and you say you're going to kill the next Jehovah's Witness (or whatever) that comes to your door, did you make a threat? Why or why not?
"That is illegal, according to the law I brought to support my position."
That only applies to actual threats.
"Then why would you say I have "violent" mood swings when I swore at you?"
Because it was a radical shift in behavior. Then you respond by saying that I always cuss at some point. So, what would cause you to be surprised by that, if it always happens?
"Do your "views" equal "beliefs"?"
No. Those are two different words.
"No, I'm saying it is against FEDERAL law to do that."
That's not the point you were making. You wanted to see a specification regarding the evaluation of a threat in the law itself.
"You seem to be arguing it isn't against FEDERAL law to threaten physical harm to someone (anyone) over the internet."
How do you get that from the quote you posted? Here, look again: "It's that simple, no processes involved?" To play your game for a moment, where do I say anything remotely resembling "it's not against FEDERAL law to threaten someone over the internet" in that quote? Again, explain the process as you think it happens. The events seem to be, at this point; a) accusation, b) judge, c) prison. Fill in the blanks in your scenario.
"You're saying that the football player (I mentioned) can be fully exonerated because there is no justification for the threat."
No, because those are completely different circumstances. And unless you think the incident happened within mere feet of a state line, you know that it's a different law that applies as well.
"Here: "And no, I didn't say that you threatened me.""
DeleteThe word "violent" isn't in that sentence. Are you confused? How about if I inform you that violent as in "mood swings" has nothing to do with violent as in "prone to violence". Also, you're conflating two different statements. The point is that by your standard, where the charge of a threat doesn't need to be evaluated, you're guilty of making a threat. Because it's not evaluated. I said that you didn't threaten me, because I don't use your idiotic standard. Glad to help.
"That means you "file papers" for a living."
Actually, I maintain our digital training system and create elaborate spreadsheets for the calculation, collection and presentation of data for my Battery. But if your mind can only handle clichés, don't worry about it.
"How more intricate do you want me to get?"
You're a mechanic. How would you get any more intricate? Perhaps you should have thought that out a bit more.
"I said they don't decide guilty/not guilty."
Neither did I. I said that they would all but laugh in your face when investigating your complaint. How would it ever get to a judge if law enforcement doesn't find grounds for an arrest? Also, note the question mark at the end of the quote. Since you are clearly and strongly implying that the FBI simply hauls people off at the mere accusation of a crime, I asked for you to explain yourself. That can't possibly be categorized as a "lie", sorry.
"The LAW was pretty specific about what is illegal and the potential punishment for the crime."
The law didn't specify what constitutes a threat. You could say the same thing for laws against disturbing the peace. That in itself doesn't mean that you're going to get arrested for mowing your lawn because your lunatic neighbor calls the police after being jolted out of their Saturday afternoon nap.
"Hell, lawyers got OJ off of a murder charge, but he was still arrested, wasn't he?"
There was no question of the charge in that case, given the nature of the crime scene. The issue there is who committed the crime. In this situation, the person is not what is determined, it's the nature of the act. Those are completely opposite by nature.
"Did the cops who arrested him decide his guilt or innocence?"
They didn't decide his guilt, but it certainly wasn't for lack of effort. It's actually arguable that the police decided his (legal) innocence through their handling of evidence and the case in general. It's not at all clear how you think you're helping yourself with that. He was an obvious suspect from the start, having been accused of domestic violence already. He had no alibi, and fled police while carrying a passport. What's the alternative to an arrest in that scenario?
Meanwhile, law enforcement evaluates potential suspects of crimes every day. They don't all get automatically arrested. If you make an accusation that doesn't hold water, then law enforcement isn't going to do anything about it. What makes you think otherwise?
"Ah ha ha ha."
That's an appeal to ridicule, a logical fallacy. If you want to explain how commenting on your whining and your disingenuous argument qualifies as a "violent mood swing", You have the opportunity.
Because it was a radical shift in behavior.
DeleteHow can you say that? You don't know me.
No. Those are two different words.
But, obviously, interchangable.
How do you get that from the quote you posted?
I don't get that from the quote I posted. I get it from statements you've made ... such as here: There was no reason to believe that it could possibly be serious, and no justification for even erring on the side of caution.
and here: You weren't threatened.
The events seem to be, at this point; a) accusation, b) judge, c) prison. Fill in the blanks in your scenario.
a) accusation, b) arrest, c) trial, d) judgement, e) penalty. You DO know how the American system of justice works, don't you? Because you seemed to have left a couple important steps out of your scenario (arrest and trial).
Here's something you should ask Eddie: would he want to risk the potential outcome of this using your determination of how the legal system works, if I was to file a complaint? Keep in mind that a FEDERAL crime has been committed in a day and age where interstate threats of violence are treated much differently than they were pre-9/11. Because the more you keep egging me on, the more I feel like testing those waters. I can face no penalty, since I was the one threatened. I have nothing to lose, Would you be Eddies lawyer?
No, because those are completely different circumstances.
"completely"?? How so?
I said that they would all but laugh in your face when investigating your complaint. How would it ever get to a judge if law enforcement doesn't find grounds for an arrest?
Law enforcement doesn't make that decision. It would be up to the prosecutor. THEN law enforcement would be required to either arrest him or not. OR, he is arrested then the prosecutor makes a decision on the warrants of the complaint.
The law didn't specify what constitutes a threat. You could say the same thing for laws against disturbing the peace.
Yes, the law does: (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to INJURE the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (highlights mine). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875
The law defines the threat as one that could cause injury. I think being hit over the head with a brick could cause injury.
And, bring the law on disturbing the peace (interstate) and prove your claim.
There was no question of the charge in that case, given the nature of the crime scene.
Apparently, there is enough question that the guy was found not guilty. Yet he still faced punishment for a crime he was found innocent of. Do YOU really want to put EDDIE through that test? I don't think so.
They didn't decide his guilt, but it certainly wasn't for lack of effort.
Well, you were able to answer half the question.
BTW, their effort seemed to include made up evidence. And ignoring exonerating evidence. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm
Did they decide his innocence?
He was an obvious suspect from the start, having been accused of domestic violence already.
Using that premise, Eddie has a history of "violent mood swings" (swearing at someone {anyone}), so he is an obvious suspect for threatening physical violence against someone (anyone). Then when he actually does threaten someone (anyone) he would be the obvious suspect. Thanks for proving my point ... that it is illegal to threaten physical violence against someone (anyone). And, that it is against FEDERAL law to do that on the internet.
Meanwhile, law enforcement evaluates potential suspects of crimes every day.
They sure do. And the prosecutor or judge makes the decision as to whether a person is charged or not. Law enforcement will book you into jail, but they don't decide what crimes you go to trial for.
"You don't know me."
DeleteYour behavior is presented here for all to see.
"But, obviously, interchangable [sic]."
You saying so is not proof.
"I get it from statements you've made ... such as here: There was no reason to believe that it could possibly be serious, and no justification for even erring on the side of caution.
and here: You weren't threatened."
So it seems to you that I'm saying that it isn't against federal law to threaten someone over the internet because I said that there's no genuine threat in these scenarios? That doesn't help you in the slightest, because the idea that there is such a law and the idea that some statements are not threats are not in conflict with each other. And it's especially bizarre for you to come to that conclusion, since I told you that I have experience with this myself. I know that such threats are illegal. The point was specifically and explicitly that your case doesn't hold water, not that the law doesn't exist.
"a) accusation, b) arrest, c) trial, d) judgement [sic], e) penalty."
You forgot about the investigation. There's your problem.
"Because you seemed to have left a couple important steps out of your scenario (arrest and trial)."
I'm talking about your representation of the process. The point would be that it's not complete, obviously.
"Keep in mind that a FEDERAL crime has been committed in a day and age where interstate threats of violence are treated much differently than they were pre-9/11."
The threat that I dealt with was after 9/11. Remember, I know about this from personal experience. You clearly do not. Also, your assertion that a crime has been committed is not a fact.
"Because the more you keep egging me on, the more I feel like testing those waters."
I'm not concerned in the slightest. Further, disputing your moronic argument isn't provocation.
"How so?"
I find it humorous that you just mentioned 9/11 and then you don't see the difference between saying that you have a bomb at an airport and making a comment on the internet involving a brick with no specified target. Also: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/u-s-world/bad-bomb-joke-prompts-alaska-airport-evacuation Notice how there's an effect at hand there. The untold number of people who you claim to be under "threat" by Eddie don't seem to be affected, otherwise at least one of them surely would have contacted the FBI about the matter.
"Law enforcement doesn't make that decision. It would be up to the prosecutor."
DeleteHere's what you quoted in order to say that: "How would it ever get to a judge if law enforcement doesn't find grounds for an arrest?" Do you think that prosecutors travel around with law enforcement during investigations? Otherwise, how would they even know to demand an arrest? No, if law enforcement finds grounds for an arrest, they make the arrest. The prosecutor has no involvement in that. Read and learn: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-happens-when-you-re-charged-with-a-crime.html. Note the glaring lack of any prosecutor involvement with the arrest. Even better: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/arrest.html. A warrant for arrest doesn't involve a prosecutor. That was the only chance at your redemption, and it was slim from the start.
"OR, he is arrested then the prosecutor makes a decision on the warrants of the complaint."
If law enforcement doesn't make the decision to make an arrest (as you claimed), and the prosecutor makes a decision after the arrest, then who authorizes that arrest?
"The law defines the threat as one that could cause injury."
The law doesn't define what comments are reasonably perceived to be threats. You're highlighting what the threat would involve, which doesn't affect the definition of the term itself.
"And, bring the law on disturbing the peace (interstate) and prove your claim."
I didn't say "interstate" regarding those laws, and it's not a requirement for the comparison.
"Apparently, there is enough question that the guy was found not guilty."
The charge is not the case. First degree murder would be a charge. Again, considering the crime, there was no question regarding the charge. It's not as if he was found "not guilty" because the jury thought it might have been an accident.
"Yet he still faced punishment for a crime he was found innocent of. Do YOU really want to put EDDIE through that test?"
The test of facing punishment for a crime he's found "not guilty" of? What punishment are you predicting?
"BTW, their effort seemed to include made up evidence. And ignoring exonerating evidence."
BTW: "It's actually arguable that the police decided his (legal) innocence through their handling of evidence and the case in general."
"Using that premise, Eddie has a history of "violent mood swings" (swearing at someone {anyone}), so he is an obvious suspect for threatening physical violence against someone (anyone)."
Swearing has nothing to do with threatening physical violence. And the premise is that an ex-husband who's suspected of actual violence in the past is going to be the prime suspect in a murder. Your logical leap from swearing to threatening physical violence isn't even remotely similar to what I said.
"Then when he actually does threaten someone (anyone) he would be the obvious suspect."
There's no "obvious suspect" in that type of case. I already explained that to you: "The issue there is who committed the crime. In this situation, the person is not what is determined, it's the nature of the act."
"Thanks for proving my point ... that it is illegal to threaten physical violence against someone (anyone)."
DeleteYour point, actually, is that Eddie is supposedly vulnerable to prosecution for making interstate threats. Since I told you that actual threats were against the law, you're pretending to argue something that was never in contention.
"Law enforcement will book you into jail, but they don't decide what crimes you go to trial for."
What would that have to do with anything? You said that law enforcement doesn't make the decision on an arrest. That would be apprehension, not deciding on charges. But if law enforcement decides not to "book you into jail", then you would never stand in front of a judge. So what were you disputing, exactly?
For more amusement, let's compare your quotes;
Delete1) "Go re-read the law I brought, as proof of illegality, and show me where it says it relies "on an evaluation of threat". Let me help you out ... it does NOT say anything like that."
2) "And the prosecutor or judge makes the decision as to whether a person is charged or not."
So there's a "decision" regarding whether someone's actions warrant a threat charge or not, and at the same time, there's no "evaluation" of any potential threat. Apparently, prosecutors and judges simply flip a coin and then call it a day.
Your behavior is presented here for all to see.
DeleteAnd it has changed in WHAT way? Yeah, I didn't think you could answer that one in order to defend your "radical shift in behavior" comment. Facts are you don't know what the hell you're talking about and you just spew out whatever you can to cover your ass. Eddie has been complaining about my behavior since I started (here) and you say there's been a "radical shift in behavior". Hmmm, maybe you know something he doesn't? Ah ha ha ... I doubt that
You saying so is not proof.
Look the words up and let me know how they are different in the way they are being used.
So it seems to you that I'm saying that it isn't against federal law to threaten someone over the internet because I said that there's no genuine threat in these scenarios?
Yes. It took you how many posts to figure that out? Brilliant, simply brilliant.
I know that such threats are illegal.
Then why are you arguing that they would be laughed at by law enforcement? Brilliant, simply brilliant
You forgot about the investigation.
That's included in the "trial" part, troll.
I'm talking about your representation of the process.
Why? I've never misrepresented any part of it. Unlike you who left out crucial aspects of the American justice system.
The threat that I dealt with was after 9/11.
Nobody cares about your situation. THIS discussion is about laws broken by Eddie. Try to keep up with what is being discussed.
You clearly do not.
And you know that how?
I'm not concerned in the slightest.
Of course YOU don't. You didn't make the threat, Eddie did. You don't face a potential 5 years in federal prison. Wow, talk about egos.
I find it humorous that you just mentioned 9/11 and then you don't see the difference between saying that you have a bomb at an airport and making a comment on the internet involving a brick with no specified target.
I find it amusing you don't realize there IS a specific target. Remember, he gave his parameters for hitting someone over the head with a brick. That IS specific.
The untold number of people who you claim to be under "threat" by Eddie don't seem to be affected, otherwise at least one of them surely would have contacted the FBI about the matter.
Why?
The law doesn't define what comments are reasonably perceived to be threats.
Hey, troll, "reasonably" has never been part of this discussion. Changing the parameters again to fit your argument? Nothing unexpected there, from your proven behavior.
I didn't say "interstate" regarding those laws, and it's not a requirement for the comparison.
Yes it is, if you're going to make the argument you're making. Bring the law or shut the fuck up.
First degree murder would be a charge.
Did law enforcement charge him or did the court system charge him? Oooo, the tough question that you will undoubtably ignore. I think law enforcement arrested him and then the court system charged him. More specifically, the prosecutor. But I could be wrong. Show that I'm wrong ... please.
It's not as if he was found "not guilty" because the jury thought it might have been an accident.
That's right. He was found not guilty because law enforcement manufactured most of the evidence. And the rest was circumstantial.
Your logical leap from swearing to threatening physical violence isn't even remotely similar to what I said.
You think that because you're a troll. And you'll say anything to avoid looking like the fool you already look like.
Since I told you that actual threats were against the law, you're pretending to argue something that was never in contention.
Shut up, you never said that.
What would that have to do with anything?
DeleteWell, troll, it has to do with the fact that you implied that law enforcement are the ones who decide who gets charged and who doesn't. Please try to follow along ... at least with what you are talking about. You would think you could do that, but you are a troll after all, so anything is possible.
You said that law enforcement doesn't make the decision on an arrest.
Where?
Apparently, prosecutors and judges simply flip a coin and then call it a day.
That seems to be the way your mind works. Amazing, but true.
Do you have anything else or are you done? Because you have lost on EVERY count you've been arguing for. I really hope you're done because it must be very embarrassing to continue making illogical arguments in support of an obviously illegal action. But, you are a troll and trolls do as trolls do.
"And it has changed in WHAT way?"
DeleteWith an unhinged and obscene bender that was completely unprovoked. Did you forget that already?
"Yeah, I didn't think you could answer that one in order to defend your "radical shift in behavior" comment."
Are you talking to voices in your head again? When I respond to your question, then you can comment on what I did or did not do. Not before you hit "publish".
"Look the words up and let me know how they are different in the way they are being used."
View: "a conception of a thing; opinion; theory" (dictionary.reference.com)
Belief: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing" (Merriam-Webster.com)
You were talking about my viewpoint. That has nothing to do with any "belief", as you've been using it.
"Yes. It took you how many posts to figure that out?"
I'm so sorry that you find clarifying your otherworldly comments so inconvenient. As I said, the two concepts aren't in conflict with each other. I know that threats are illegal, and I can also say that something which can not reasonably be determined to be a threat at all doesn't fall under that law.
"Then why are you arguing that they would be laughed at by law enforcement?"
Because your complaint is a joke. It wasn't a general comment, it was specific to you.
"That's included in the "trial" part, troll."
The investigation is after the arrest? Fascinating.
"I've never misrepresented any part of it."
Except that law enforcement actually performs arrests on their own authority, without waiting for a prosecutor's decision.
"Unlike you who left out crucial aspects of the American justice system."
Here's what you quoted from me: "The events seem to be, at this point; a) accusation, b) judge, c) prison. Fill in the blanks in your scenario." Note "your scenario", proving that I'm talking about your representation.
"Nobody cares about your situation. THIS discussion is about laws broken by Eddie."
So an application of the very law you cited isn't relevant to this discussion? Maybe you'd like to talk about political cartoons instead.
"And you know that how?"
DeleteFrom your overwhelming ignorance.
"You don't face a potential 5 years in federal prison."
Concern (v.): "anxious, worried (concerned for their safety)" (Merriam-Webster.com) The meaning of the word isn't specific to myself.
"Remember, he gave his parameters for hitting someone over the head with a brick."
A specified target would be a specific individual. I didn't say "parameters" or anything resembling it.
"Why?"
What else could you expect? If you're going to claim that it was a real threat, that it applies to some vast amount of people, and that it has any effect, then how many people do you think are going to be terrified into submission before at least one person speaks to the authorities? And if the charge has any merit, why is he still posting articles? This is your theory, so feel free to explain how it's supposed to make sense.
"Hey, troll, "reasonably" has never been part of this discussion."
Then you can get arrested for your threatening behavior. But you already tried to explain why you shouldn't be arrested, as if accusations of threats should be evaluated reasonably. Why did you do that?
"Yes it is, if you're going to make the argument you're making."
No, "interstate" doesn't even make sense, and it has nothing to do with the principle at hand. Explain how you think otherwise. I've never been bullied into conforming to your insane and arbitrary demands, and that's not going to change.
"Did law enforcement charge him or did the court system charge him?"
This is what I was responding to: "Apparently, there is enough question that the guy was found not guilty." What does your new question have to do with that?
"Show that I'm wrong ... please."
Show where I suggested anything to the contrary.
"That's right. He was found not guilty because law enforcement manufactured most of the evidence."
And this contradicts what I said in what way?
"You think that because you're a troll."
In other words, you can't justify your argument. I already knew that, but thank you.
"Shut up, you never said that."
Liar;
You:"Threats of physical violence are against the law. Even on the internet."
Me:"I know more than you do about it. I got the FBI onto the doorstep of a lunatic who threatened me over the internet. The differences? First, he was talking to me specifically. Second, I didn't volunteer to be the subject of a previously stated threat. Third, he didn't use phrases that reek of hyperbole or would appear to be used for comic effect. Fourth, he gave me his address, inviting me to confront him in person, and thereby proving intent. You have none of those factors to show for yourself."
Note, for your added humiliation, that I mentioned the FBI. The "F" stands for "Federal".
"Well, troll, it has to do with the fact that you implied that law enforcement are the ones who decide who gets charged and who doesn't."
I said that if they don't have grounds for an arrest, then it would never come in front of a judge. That doesn't imply anything regarding "who gets charged and who doesn't"
"Where?"
Me: "I said that they would all but laugh in your face when investigating your complaint. How would it ever get to a judge if law enforcement doesn't find grounds for an arrest?"
You: "Law enforcement doesn't make that decision. It would be up to the prosecutor. THEN law enforcement would be required to either arrest him or not."
"That seems to be the way your mind works."
You forgot to include your argument, yet again.
"Because you have lost on EVERY count you've been arguing for."
You saying so isn't proof. You forgot that, as well.
With an unhinged and obscene bender that was completely unprovoked. Did you forget that already?
DeleteCool, so I'm no different than Eddie with that excuse. Thanks
Are you talking to voices in your head again?
I'm not talking to a live person, I'm reading your shit. So, yeah that would qualify as "voices in my head". Ah ah hah ha
You were talking about my viewpoint.
Oh, so you're changing the parameters to "viewpoint"? Cool, because using your preferred dictionary (M-W) a related word to "viewpoint" is "belief". You should have stuck with what you actually said instead of changing it. Good job, troll.
The investigation is after the arrest?
Did they "investigate" OJ before he was arrested? Interesting concept you have of the American Justice System. No, I think they just went after him because he was the most convenient to go after. I don't think they actually analyzed the evidence that they had for the crime they had. I think they just assumed (as you did) that he was the most likely and therefor the most easy to convict of a crime they couldn't prove.
The meaning of the word isn't specific to myself.
Exactly, so pay attention to the e-mail Eddie sent you and shut the fuck up.
then how many people do you think are going to be terrified into submission before at least one person speaks to the authorities?
Well, none. Because so few people read these articles. He must have thought he can do whatever he wants without potential recourse. But, that's just my opinion. Hence, my offer to take him up on his threat. Which he still hasn't done. So, either he is scared to fulfill his threat or he regrets saying it. It seems to me it is one or the other.
And if the charge has any merit, why is he still posting articles?
I notice none of the articles, since, have any threats in them. Troll
Then you can get arrested for your threatening behavior.
I haven't exhibited any "threatening behavior". If I have please expound on that.
I've never been bullied into conforming to your insane and arbitrary demands, and that's not going to change.
Then why do you keep responding to my questions as I've demanded?
In other words, you can't justify your argument.
I must have, because you just admitted I was right in your previous 2 statements.
Liar;
Again, shut up you never said that. Your statement doesn't say anything about you admitting it is against the law for Eddie to do what he is doing. Your proof doesn't prove what you say it proves.
Me:
Again, that doesn't prove what you are saying it proves, try again. And, get it right this time. If you're able.
You saying so isn't proof. You forgot that, as well.
In this instance, it does.
"Cool, so I'm no different than Eddie with that excuse."
DeleteYou'd have to demonstrate the similarity, first.
"I'm not talking to a live person, I'm reading your shit. So, yeah that would qualify as "voices in my head"."
I didn't ask if you were hearing voices in your head.
"Oh, so you're changing the parameters to "viewpoint"?"
I'm not changing anything, since you're the one who mentioned my "belief".
"Cool, because using your preferred dictionary (M-W) a related word to "viewpoint" is "belief"."
Sorry, related words aren't automatically interchangeable. One of the definitions of "believe" involves having an opinion (example:"I believe so"). That's not even related to "belief" as you've been using it.
"You should have stuck with what you actually said instead of changing it. Good job, troll."
I wasn't talking about what I said, so your comment makes no sense at all. If you lose your bearings this severely against a "troll", what does it say about you?
"No, I think they just went after him because he was the most convenient to go after."
What would that have to do with the process as it typically functions? Is it supposed to be a general concept that juries don't weigh evidence because a jury ignored all of the evidence before rendering a verdict once? It seemed to me that you were trying to establish an understanding of the system, not the Simpson case.
"I think they just assumed (as you did) that he was the most likely and therefor [sic]the most easy to convict of a crime they couldn't prove."
That's incredibly unlikely, considering the history between Simpson and the police. They were very accommodating to him, and favored him when they were called for domestic abuse complaints. Besides that, picking on wealthy and famous people who can get the best lawyers and guarantee full media coverage of the entire story is probably not something one would do when trying to pin a crime on someone without any evidence to back it up. The conclusion of Simpson as the most likely suspect is entirely justifiable, and hardly an assumption. The issue is that the police department created reasonable doubt by compromising their credibility, a result of trying too hard to ensure a conviction.
"Exactly, so pay attention to the e-mail Eddie sent you and shut the fuck up."
What are you babbling about?
"Well, none. Because so few people read these articles."
Then where's the millions of potential victims that you were talking about?
"Hence, my offer to take him up on his threat. Which he still hasn't done. So, either he is scared to fulfill his threat
or he regrets saying it."
Or, it was never a threat, of course.
"I notice none of the articles, since, have any threats in them."
DeleteI notice that none of the articles previous to this one have threats in them, either. Now, try to focus. If this was as serious as you claimed, the website would be shut down. That's the very minimum.
"I haven't exhibited any "threatening behavior"."
You would have to explain that to a judge, after your arrest. But, since there's no concept of what can reasonably be taken as a threat, it obviously won't do you any good.
"Then why do you keep responding to my questions as I've demanded?"
I don't. I respond to your contortions, lies, and errors. You demanding that I answer a question has never been a factor.
"I must have, because you just admitted I was right in your previous 2 statements."
So if I say that water is wet, you'll admit that I'm right and then that will carry over to a completely different comment? You never showed how I said anything different from those two comments, so there's no admission on my part. As if that wasn't enough, the three comments are all in response to different quotes on different arguments. Even if I had admitted something on the other two, it wouldn't apply to what you claim it does.
"Your statement doesn't say anything about you admitting it is against the law for Eddie to do what he is doing."
I didn't say it was;
You:"Thanks for proving my point ... that it is illegal to threaten physical violence against someone (anyone)."
Me:"Your point, actually, is that Eddie is supposedly vulnerable to prosecution for making interstate threats. Since I told you that actual threats were against the law, you're pretending to argue something that was never in contention."
Notice that not only did you make a general comment, but I corrected you to point out that your argument is really about Eddie. Then I contrasted that with the fact that I had already commented on the law itself. So, sorry, I was clearly not claiming to be saying anything about Eddie, there. Further, it was never about "admitting" anything. I promptly told you that I knew about the law in no uncertain terms. It's not as if you pressured me into saying it or anything like that.
"In this instance, it does."
Then you can't ever ask for evidence again. Because in any given instance, saying so is proof. Would you agree? If not, you'd better explain what's so special about this particular occurrence that it changes your own stated principle.
You'd have to demonstrate the similarity, first.
DeleteNah, I think your demonstration is sufficient.
I didn't ask if you were hearing voices in your head.
I know. I don't have speech on my computer. Please try to follow along ... at least with what YOU are saying.
Sorry, related words aren't automatically interchangeable.
I didn't say they were. What are you having a problem with?
That's not even related to "belief" as you've been using it.
Ok. I don't think I've used the word "believe" yet. But, if you want to add yet another changed word into this discussion that would be totally expected from a troll.
If you lose your bearings this severely against a "troll", what does it say about you?
That I'm smarter than one?
What would that have to do with the process as it typically functions?
Quite a lot, considering you are saying that the FBI would laugh at me for attempting to pursue a case against the threat that Eddie brought. If it even MAKES it to the jury then Eddie is in lots of trouble.
That's incredibly unlikely, considering the history between Simpson and the police.
The police? I thought you said he had a history of violence against his wife (ex). Are you changing your story again?
The issue is that the police department created reasonable doubt by compromising their credibility, a result of trying too hard to ensure a conviction.
Yeah, that's a mild way of saying they made shit up ... kind of like you constantly do. Hmmm
Then where's the millions of potential victims that you were talking about?
I didn't think you knew very much about computers and how they work. You DO know that the internet is world-wide, right? Maybe I should have used billions to be more accurate?
Or, it was never a threat, of course.
Obviously that isn't the case. He's making the threat.
Now, try to focus. If this was as serious as you claimed, the website would be shut down.
Oh, you mean by the NSA, who Pres Obama is having spy on all Americans? You never did comment on how a democrat is not only allowing but requiring that his spy agency do that to the American public. I also noticed you had nothing to say about how liberals would be up-in-arms if the same thing had been done by a republican president. But, that is off-topic so perhaps you finally decided that you would prefer talking, off-topic, on subjects that don't show how hypocritical liberals are.
Then you can't ever ask for evidence again.
Actually, if you had minimal reading comprehension abilities, you would notice that I said "IN THIS INSTANCE".
"Nah, I think your demonstration is sufficient."
DeleteThat would be impossible, since we weren't even talking about me.
"I know."
Then you knew that you didn't address what I said.
"I didn't say they were."
You must have forgotten to show how you had a point, then, since you said the words were "related" and left it at that.
"I don't think I've used the word "believe" yet."
Of course you did. That's part of the context here.
"Of course YOU wouldn't believe that. You tell bold-face [sic] lies and then deny you did it. How in the world would anyone expect YOU to believe it."
On top of that, you've said the word multiple times on this thread. As recently as yesterday, you used it while baselessly insisting that I "believe" that there is no god. Further, it's not even necessary for you to have used the word for me to make the demonstration. If "belief" and "believe" have different shades of meaning, then you can't simply act as if "related" words are relevant. The word "even" in my comment should have clued you in to that. Since I didn't say that you used the word believe, you never had a basis for claiming that I was changing what you said.
"That I'm smarter than one?"
Probably not, because that doesn't explain why you would lose your bearings. Notice that I figured that out, and you didn't.
"Quite a lot, considering you are saying that the FBI would laugh at me for attempting to pursue a case against the threat that Eddie brought."
What does that have to do with your claim that the investigation follows the arrest?
"If it even MAKES it to the jury then Eddie is in lots of trouble."
Which it wouldn't, since the FBI would not pursue action based on your complaint.
"The police? I thought you said he had a history of violence against his wife (ex)."
You were talking about the police: "I think they just assumed (as you did) that he was the most likely and therefor [sic] the most easy to convict of a crime they couldn't prove." I honestly didn't realize that I couldn't use the word "history" for more than one purpose on a thread without confusing the hell out of you.
"Yeah, that's a mild way of saying they made shit up ... kind of like you constantly do."
DeleteExcept it was demonstrated for the LAPD.
"I didn't think you knew very much about computers and how they work. You DO know that the internet is world-wide, right? Maybe I should have used billions to be more accurate?"
You said "millions". What's your point, that I should have corrected your ignorance at the time and told you it could be "billions"? It's not clear exactly how you think I'm vulnerable in this situation. More importantly, you just said that there are very few visitors to the website, so whether you say "millions" or "billions", it's going to be inconsistent with that.
"Obviously that isn't the case. He's making the threat."
Your assertion has been noted, but it isn't evidence by itself.
"Oh, you mean by the NSA, who Pres Obama is having spy on all Americans?"
No, by the FBI. That's who would be involved here.
"You never did comment on how a democrat [sic] is not only allowing but requiring that his spy agency do that to the American public."
Because it's off-topic.
"But, that is off-topic so perhaps you finally decided that you would prefer talking, off-topic, on subjects that don't show how hypocritical liberals are."
Where are you saying that I'm "off-topic"? Besides, unless you're claiming that conservatives stick by their principles no matter what, you're not going to establish anything about liberals.
"Actually, if you had minimal reading comprehension abilities, you would notice that I said "IN THIS INSTANCE"."
That is amusing. I'll repeat what I said, since you didn't comprehend it: "Because in any given instance, saying so is proof. Would you agree? If not, you'd better explain what's so special about this particular occurrence that it changes your own stated principle." I know you said "in this instance", obviously. Since you didn't explain how "this instance" justifies the change, then it can easily apply to any and every situation.
Then you knew that you didn't address what I said.
DeleteDidn't you ask if I was "talking" to voices in my head? Well, I can't talk to "voices in my head" if I don't hear them. And I explained my computer does not have a speech program so all I can do is READ what is being written in these articles. How much more explanation did you need?
Of course you did. That's part of the context here.
I'm sure you're way out of context. But, let's clear this up right now. Do you believe in a god?
Probably not, because that doesn't explain why you would lose your bearings.
But, I didn't lose my bearings. I've dropped them a couple times, but never lost them.
What does that have to do with your claim that the investigation follows the arrest?
Considering I replied to this statement: "What would that have to do with the process as it typically functions?", I don't know what it has to do with the investigation following the arrest. Is that the question you meant to ask but couldn't figure out how to word it?
Except it was demonstrated for the LAPD.
You mean it was demonstrated BY the LAPD, not for. You're welcome in advance.
More importantly, you just said that there are very few visitors to the website, so whether you say "millions" or "billions", it's going to be inconsistent with that.
Eddie has a running count of "visitors" per month. What is 56 times 2100? That's more than a few, but less than millions. The point is that it is on the internet and his site has NO filters that prevent anyone (someone) from reading his threat.
No, by the FBI. That's who would be involved here.
The NSA might get involved also, they are the National Security Agency, aren't they?
Because it's off-topic.
You seem to have no problem discussing OJ Simpson and the FBI and threats of physical harm. Don't worry though, I would never expect you to address your support of a democrat president who does what you would denounce a republican president for if they ever did something as terrible as that.
Where are you saying that I'm "off-topic"?
Umm, you're replying to the post that I said it right there. Reading comprehension 101.
That is amusing. I'll repeat what I said, since you didn't comprehend it: "Because in any given instance, saying so is proof."
That is cute. The only problem is that I replied by saying "In this instance". Since "any given instance" wasn't being discussed, just this one.
But, thanks for showing you don't even have minimal reading comprehension skills.
I think I'll just discuss how Pres Obama is using his powers (of presidency) to force the spy agencies in the US to spy on anyone and/or everyone. And, that would include someone. Since you don't have to ability to follow what IS being discussed I'll just discuss Pres Obama's illegal spying that you seem to support. At least you haven't said you don't support it. Do you support Pres Obama having his spy agencies spy on all Americans?
I demand that you answer my questions.
"Didn't you ask if I was "talking" to voices in my head? Well, I can't talk to "voices in my head" if I don't hear them."
DeleteWhich doesn't mean that you talk back to them just because you hear them.
"How much more explanation did you need?"
You could explain why you expect answers to questions before you publish them. That was the point, which you failed to comprehend.
"I'm sure you're way out of context."
You would be incorrect. I quoted you directly, in case you missed that as well.
"Do you believe in a god?"
No.
"But, I didn't lose my bearings."
Then you shouldn't have given a response which accepted the premise.
"Considering I replied to this statement: "What would that have to do with the process as it typically functions?", I don't know what it has to do with the investigation following the arrest."
Your "statement" is a question, for starters. You said, when talking about the way the justice system works, that the investigation is part of the trial. That wasn't for any specific case, that was about the general process of the system. Then you talked about O.J. Simpson when asked about it. One specific case, even if you had a point, is irrelevant to the process as it typically functions. My wording is not the problem, it's your need to obfuscate your claim that the investigation comes after the arrest.
"You mean it was demonstrated BY the LAPD, not for."
No, I mean it was demonstrated for them. As opposed to how you've failed to demonstrate the same thing for anything I've said. That was your comparison, if you remember that much.
"Eddie has a running count of "visitors" per month. What is 56 times 2100? That's more than a few, but less than millions."
Even beyond your flawed logic, you're now claiming that there are more than "very few" people who read these articles. So now we're back to the question of why at least one person hasn't contacted the authorities.
"The NSA might get involved also, they are the National Security Agency, aren't they?"
Do you think that you qualify as a matter of national security? As I said, I was referring to the FBI. That answered your question.
"You seem to have no problem discussing OJ Simpson and the FBI and threats of physical harm."
Are you saying those things are off-topic, considering that you brought them up?
"Umm, you're replying to the post that I said it right there."
Then that's not my issue, it's yours.
"The only problem is that I replied by saying "In this instance". Since "any given instance" wasn't being discussed, just this one."
Which is why my quote was followed directly by this: "Would you agree? If not, you'd better explain what's so special about this particular occurrence that it changes your own stated principle."
As if you failing to read all of that the first time wasn't shameful enough, I added this the second time around: "I know you said "in this instance", obviously. Since you didn't explain how "this instance" justifies the change, then it can easily apply to any and every situation."
If you can't read more than half of a paragraph, then you can't talk about anyone else's reading comprehension. So sorry.
"I demand that you answer my questions."
I don't care what you demand. Provide reasons, like intelligent people do.
No.
DeleteThen that would be one of your beliefs, according to your religion of atheism.
Even beyond your flawed logic, you're now claiming that there are more than "very few" people who read these articles.
Did I say they "read these articles". Your statement was about visitors.
Are you saying those things are off-topic, considering that you brought them up?
Yes. You ARE discussing them, aren't you? Without mentioning they are off-topic and continuing to discuss them.
Then that's not my issue, it's yours.
It's my issue that you can't comprehend what you read? Umm, ok.
I don't care what you demand.
Yet, you are intimidated enough to continue to answer them. Even after you said you aren't intimidated by me. Good job, troll.
"Then that would be one of your beliefs, according to your religion of atheism."
DeleteNo, it would be the lack of a belief in a higher power. Let's analyze your question: "Do you believe in a god?" There's absolutely nothing there that even suggests that "believe" is established in any way. For your level of understanding, that means that it's not as if you've shown that I "believe" something, and now you're trying to get more specific as to what it is. So, as it stands, the response of "no" does not automatically mean that I have a "belief" in the lack of a higher power. Since "believe" is not established, "no" may also mean that I simply do not believe in a god. And, as pointed out earlier, Buddhists don't believe in a god, but they're also not atheists. You really need to work on your questions, if you want to present an honest and accurate representation of people.
"Did I say they "read these articles".[sic]"
That's what you said earlier: "Well, none. Because so few people read these articles."
"Your statement was about visitors."
In the context of the supposed potential victims of the "threat", obviously. Why would you be talking about anything besides people who read the articles? How could that have struck you as relevant?
"Yes."
Then what happened to your claim that you're never off-topic?
"You ARE discussing them, aren't you? Without mentioning they are off-topic and continuing to discuss them."
Because they're relevant to another point, for starters. If you're going to claim that any complaint about your behavior is "crying", then I'm going to throw your sniveling over a non-existent threat right back in your face. Additionally, there's nothing to say that I'm required to comment on any random topic you bring up because I'm making an argument on some other off-topic issue you introduced. You leave that up to me. Whether I decide to speak to it or not, the entire conversation is on you, because you brought it up. And why am I supposed to be responsible for you controlling your own behavior? If you're a grown man, then abide by your own proclaimed standards. It's not as if I can be criticized for letting you go off-topic.
"It's my issue that you can't comprehend what you read?"
No, it's your issue that the conversation is off-topic. You said it originally as if it had something to do with me.
"Yet, you are intimidated enough to continue to answer them."
You, to Eddie: "Shut the fuck up. You're the one who runs away when called on your lies and threats. Don't ask me stupid questions like that.
I'm doing what you ask, coming in and arguing. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen."
So, if someone doesn't respond to you, then they're running away and "can't stand the heat". But when I reply to you, then that's supposed to be proof that I'm intimidated into answering your questions. Interesting. Why don't you explain to me exactly what you believe the proper course of action is? What would possibly lead you to believe that I was not intimidated? There has to be an answer to that, unless you are under some delusion that everyone you meet quivers at the power of your words.
But when I reply to you, then that's supposed to be proof that I'm intimidated into answering your questions.
DeleteNo. Being intimidated is when you answer them after I demand that you do. You could easily ignore my comments, like Eddie does, but I've intimidated you into answering them. Obviously, you notice I have not intimidated Eddie into answering them. Even after using some very good cliches.
"No. Being intimidated is when you answer them after I demand that you do. You could easily ignore my comments, like Eddie does, but I've intimidated you into answering them."
DeleteI'm talking about your demands, obviously. Check the history of comments.
The problem for you is that I always reply to your comments. So, as I pointed out on the other article, you're not altering my behavior. But if I don't respond to your questions, which I obviously would have responded to anyway, then you have pressured me into changing my behavior. So, no, I'm going to continue to reply to whatever I choose, because I'm certainly not going to be compelled to do otherwise by your bizarre argument.
"Obviously, you notice I have not intimidated Eddie into answering them."
Is that what you believe? That would mean that your "get out of the kitchen" line was intellectually dishonest, at best. Obviously, you can't criticize him for running away, and also criticize me for replying to you. That would mean that you're going to complain no matter what people do, and surely you're not that unreasonable. Right?
Did your supposed truthfulness get exhausted on this thread as well, by the way? Like you ran out of facts and reason because you forgot to stock up beforehand or something. That's just too damn funny.
Is that what you believe?
DeleteNo, that's a belief.
Like you ran out of facts and reason because you forgot to stock up beforehand or something.
It's difficult finding facts, and they do run out after a while. Unlike your made up shit, you just have an endless supply of that stuff.
"No, that's a belief."
DeleteSo you think it's fair to criticize people if they don't respond to you and if they do.
"Unlike your made up shit, you just have an endless supply of that stuff."
That would also be your belief, since you never demonstrate anything of the sort.
Anything else? You seem to be winding down.
So you think it's fair to criticize people if they don't respond to you and if they do.
DeleteYour lax interpretations are nothing new. Try again.
Anything else? You seem to be winding down.
Well, when you say sexism and sexist are the same words, there's really not much more to discuss, eh? You have to consider that when I'm dealing with a mind like that, it's hard to find more things for you to lie about. Although, you do seem to have an endless supply.
"Your lax interpretations are nothing new."
DeleteWhich criticism did you withdraw, then?
"Well, when you say sexism and sexist are the same words, there's really not much more to discuss, eh?"
Where did I say that? And how would they be the same "words"?
And how would they be the same "words"?
DeleteI don't know. Perhaps you should explain the definitions that you brought saying they are the same when the opposite has been pointed out to you.
"Perhaps you should explain the definitions that you brought saying they are the same when the opposite has been pointed out to you."
ReplyDeleteWhere did either I or the definition say they're the same? Since you don't seem to feel comfortable clarifying the degree of similarity you're talking about, it's impossible to know what the "opposite" might be.
But, for the moment:
Sexism: "1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."
And since the only definitions of "sexist" refer directly to "sexism", then there's no other concept that could possibly be conveyed through the word.
Has the "opposite" of that been pointed out? I honestly did not see that, but I'm sure you can cite whatever you have in mind.
You forgot to say which criticism you had withdrawn, by the way.
Where did either I or the definition say they're the same?
DeleteWell, you're continuing to do it in your defense of my comment: "And since the only definitions of "sexist" refer directly to "sexism", then there's no other concept that could possibly be conveyed through the word.".
Sexist: 1. pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism
2. a person with sexist attitudes or behavior.
Notice that sexism is a PERSONAL ACTION (discrimination, stereotyping) performed against a gender. Notice sexist is a PERSONAL BEHAVIOR (person fostering, persons attitude) towards a gender. One is ONLY a noun, the other is an adjective & noun. Different words with different meanings. Even "action" and "behavior" are different words that have different meanings. Making sexist and sexism different words with different meanings.
Has the "opposite" of that been pointed out?
The same is opposite of different. That has been pointed out to you several times. Including now.
"Well, you're continuing to do it in your defense of [sic] my comment:"
DeleteI don't see anything which suggests that the two words are the same. You'll have to be more specific as to what you might be misinterpreting.
"Notice that sexism is a PERSONAL ACTION (discrimination, stereotyping) performed against a gender."
Wrong. It also applies to attitudes and conditions.
"Notice sexist is a PERSONAL BEHAVIOR (person fostering, persons attitude) towards a gender."
What is the difference supposed to be? Those are synonyms.
"One is ONLY a noun, the other is an adjective & noun. Different words with different meanings."
By your standard, any two words, minus plurals and conjugations, are "different words with different meanings". So, what was your point about "viewpoint" and "belief"? Further, why did you even ask whether "views" equals "beliefs" if you think that they are "different words with different meanings"?
"Even "action" and "behavior" are different words that have different meanings."
Except they're synonyms, as I said. If someone discriminates, that clearly would be their behavior.
"The same is opposite of different."
That's funny, because I previously pointed out to you that there was no significant difference between the two words in question. So, obviously you missed that, and somehow led yourself to believe that I had said something which I clearly had not.
But, now that you've been cured of your confusion about that, notice that your argument doesn't counter what I said in the slightest. You did, in fact, prove my point, since the definitions of sexist are inseparable from "sexism". There's simply no way to use "sexist" without referencing the concept of "sexism". Pointing to adjectives vs. nouns and "action" vs. "behavior" (even if both words applied and the contrast made any sense) is ineffective.
So, sadly, you have not demonstrated any flaws in my argument, much less any "opposite" of it.
And you forgot to say which criticism you've withdrawn, again.
Except they're synonyms, as I said.
DeleteThat is not true (a lie). Action is not a synonym of behavior and behavior is not a synonym of action. Maybe you mean actions. But, I didn't use actions, did I?
"Maybe you mean actions. But, I didn't use actions, did I?"
DeleteSince there's no clear distinction between your usage of "action" and "behavior", the plural of your word has the same meaning. For instance, a single act of discrimination would still be described as someone's "actions".
Besides that, your own argument supports me. Note the definition of "sexism": "2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."
Now, you: "Notice that sexism is a PERSONAL ACTION (discrimination, stereotyping) performed against a gender." (capitalization yours)
So, according to you, a behavior is an action. It's in the very definition that you categorized as "ACTION". You even specified stereotyping after "action", which was connected to "behaviors". On top of that, you listed "attitude" as a "behavior". You can also find "attitudes" under the definition of "sexism". So, if that's a behavior, and sexism is an "action", then that reinforces the synonymous nature of the words.
That was just as much fun as I had anticipated.
Now, I take your exceptionally brief response as a sign that you're going to abandon the rest of your argument in order to fixate on this new bit of shiny nonsense that you've found. Before you forget those points entirely, let me remind you that you repeatedly claimed that I was saying that "sexist" and "sexism" were the same words. Since I explained that I had already said that they were not the same (and demonstrated how), and you have no response, then it's safe to say that you were lying. Remember, a lie is an intentional falsehood. It doesn't automatically apply to every minor difference in interpretation or understanding that could easily be stated in good faith.
Just something for you to ponder.
Oh, and you forgot to say which criticism you've withdrawn. Maybe you should write it on a note, sometimes that helps people to remember.
Besides that, your own argument supports me.
DeleteOk, if that's the limit of your intelligence, then you can believe what you want.
Now, I take your exceptionally brief response as a sign that you're going to abandon the rest of your argument in order to fixate on this new bit of shiny nonsense that you've found.
Ooo, there's a shiny object somewhere? I wonder if someone (anyone) dropped it and didn't go looking for it. That would be a weird actions for someone (anyone) to do if they didn't go looking for it.
And, the director yelled "actions!" as he started the film about actions heros.
"Ok, if that's the limit of your intelligence, then you can believe what you want."
DeleteAd hominem. My point stands.
"And, the director yelled "actions!" as he started the film about actions heros [sic]."
That wasn't your usage. Also, noting that the plural would be used for even a singular instance of behavior doesn't mean disagreeing articles or other context would ever be appropriate.
It's humorous, as well, that you keep pretending that "someone" and "anyone" are universally interchangeable. Not only has that been debunked, but it's truly idiotic to act as if those two words have the same meaning, while you simultaneously engage in nitpicking on a microscopic level over two words that indisputably bear the same concept.
By the way, you forgot to say which criticism you've withdrawn. Is it a difficult choice for you, perhaps?
That wasn't your usage.
DeleteDoesn't matter. I'm pointing out that the two words are NOT the same and have DIFFERENT meanings/usages. Therefor, my usage is correct and your attempts at showing otherwise is not. Just as you say (although unproven) that someone / anyone are not interchangeable, neither are action / actions.
Have a Very Happy Easter. Enjoy this Federal Holiday off of work. And, enjoy all the Easter chocolate the Easter bunny brought you and you family. Be safe
"Doesn't matter. I'm pointing out that the two words are NOT the same and have DIFFERENT meanings/usages."
DeleteIf you're using a different meaning for the word, then obviously you're not demonstrating anything regarding your original usage.
"Just as you say (although unproven) that someone / anyone are not interchangeable, neither are action / actions."
That's wrong on multiple counts. First, I said that "someone" and "anyone" are not universally interchangeable. Second, that was demonstrated to you, and you didn't follow up on your challenge. Third, the plural of the word you used, with the same meaning as what you described, isn't the same degree of change as switching from "someone" to "anyone".
If you really want to make an argument, for once, do explain how fostering wouldn't qualify as an "action". And, also, show that discrimination and stereotyping wouldn't be accurately called "behavior". Otherwise, your claim of a vital distinction between the two doesn't hold up. More importantly, you would still have to show how "sexist" and "sexism" aren't inseparable, which trumps your argument even if you made some effort to establish it.
Or maybe that argument has run its course for you as well?
You still forgot to mention which criticism you've withdrawn. I'd say that my "interpretation" is being proven to be accurate, despite your protest.
First, I said that "someone" and "anyone" are not universally interchangeable.
DeleteWhat other part of the universe uses someone / anyone besides Earth? So, your insistence of "universally" has no meaning, other than to show you are admitting the words are interchangeable at any time. And, you have never brought anything that shows differently. If you had, you would have linked to it by now. You seem to be very prideful and a glaring error, like that, would send you on an immediate search for just that statement, to save face.
Maybe you'll talk about "Bob" again, or "any person" instead of "someone". Because "someone" fits in each of the examples where you compared "anyone" with "Bob". Even when you had to add to the 3rd example and say "Bob" couldn't whistle because he had dental work done (but conveniently failed to mention that dental work in the "anyone" example, or a driver license in the 2nd example).
Second, that was demonstrated to you, and you didn't follow up on your challenge.
That has NEVER been demonstrated to me or anyone (someone) else. I cannot follow up on something that has never happened.
If you really want to make an argument, for once, do explain how fostering wouldn't qualify as an "action".
Who is doing the "fostering"? A person? If a person is doing the fostering, then they are DOING something. Did the definition say you can foster sexist? No, it said you can foster sexism. 2 different words with 2 different meanings.
"What other part of the universe uses someone / anyone besides Earth?"
DeleteUniversal: "2 b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions" (Merriam-Webster.com)
"Maybe you'll talk about "Bob" again, or "any person" instead of "someone". Because "someone" fits in each of the examples where you compared "anyone" with "Bob"."
Of course "someone" fits in those examples. The point is that "anyone" does not. Further, "anyone" is not being compared to "Bob". Since you're trying to make any person fit into the context instead of "someone", "Bob" would be an example. If it doesn't work with him in it, then neither does "anyone".
"Even when you had to add to the 3rd example and say "Bob" couldn't whistle because he had dental work done (but conveniently failed to mention that dental work in the "anyone" example, or a driver license in the 2nd example)."
How, exactly, would specifics about individuals be mentioned in sentences that refer to "anyone"? Maybe you expected to see: "Anyone with a car and/or a driver's license...so, almost anyone...parked in my parking spot." I'd like to know what you think should have been there so that you weren't shocked when specific details came into the picture.
"That has NEVER been demonstrated to me or anyone (someone) else."
Obviously, you know that it has, since you're quoting from it. If you wanted to say that my examples didn't work, then you should have followed up on your challenge. Saying that something didn't happen because you don't want to accept it is rather childish.
"Who is doing the "fostering"? A person? If a person is doing the fostering, then they are DOING something."
Action: "5 a : a thing done : deed"
Behavior: "1 a : the manner of conducting oneself" (both Merriam-Webster.com)
You're making my point. Both of your words involve what people do.
"Did the definition say you can foster sexist?"
Did the definition distinguish between "action" and "behavior"? No, we're talking about your claim here. The dictionary doesn't have to mix verbs and adjectives in order to contradict your argument. Besides, you just emphasized "DOING", which obviously applies to "action". Yet, you categorized it as "behavior". As I said, you're making my point.
You forgot to say which criticism you've withdrawn. So you do think that it's fair for you to criticize people for responding to you and for not responding to you. For future reference, the phrase "try again" isn't for decoration. It actually is an invitation to try again, so you shouldn't use the phrase if you can't handle the argument.
Of course "someone" fits in those examples. The point is that "anyone" does not.
DeleteSure it did. Can't you even read your own statements? Anyone can park in a parking spot. Anyone can go to the dentist. Anyone works in every instance.
Obviously, you know that it has, since you're quoting from it.
I'm quoting from your statement. That doesn't mean you are correct. Anyone fits in every instance you used, so does someone.
Did the definition distinguish between "action" and "behavior"?
Irrelevant to my question. I asked "Did the definition say you can foster sexist?". Now answer THAT question. I demand you do that.
Try again.
"Anyone can park in a parking spot."
DeleteExcept people who don't drive. There are some people, who are known as "blind", who would fit that category. Besides that, the phrasing isn't the same. The substitution doesn't lead to "anyone can park in my parking space", it leads to "anyone parked in my parking space". It's not a matter of hypotheticals where every single person has some way of parking a car. It's limited to those who actually drive.
"Anyone can go to the dentist."
That wasn't one of the sentences. You mean "anyone can whistle". Even then, the truth is not on your side: http://en.diagnosispro.com/differential_diagnosis-for/unable-to-whistle/34494-154.html
"Anyone works in every instance."
You'll have to show that for all three examples, not just one. On top of that, you'll have to use the actual phrasing, not "anybody can". Since you've failed even while altering the examples, I'm quite sure that the original wording is not going to make this any better for you.
In fact, your rephrasing highlights the major difference between the words. "Anyone" applies for hypothetical situations, such as what's possible. Anyone can win the lottery. It never applies to anything that's concrete, anything that's actually happened or exists as a matter of fact. You never hear "anyone stole my mail", or "anyone is about to be named the next Miss America". I suppose you think that anyone can be named the next Miss America, but I'm pretty sure that there's a rule which excludes men from participating.
"That doesn't mean you are correct."
Your mere assertion doesn't mean that I'm not. Like I said, if you wanted to dispute the demonstration, you could have followed up on your challenge. But you can't ignore it and then act as if I didn't make the argument.
"Irrelevant to my question. I asked "Did the definition say you can foster sexist?"."
I know what you asked, since I clearly remember laughing at it. And, sorry, it's entirely relevant. We're talking about your claim. If the dictionary isn't using your distinctions, then you can't claim that the wording supports you. Also, again, the phrase "foster sexist" doesn't even make sense. No matter what was true and what was false, you would never see that phrase in any reference material. That being the case, your question is null and void.
"Now answer THAT question. I demand you do that."
It's entirely meaningless what you "demand". You already made my point, and you haven't even tried to dispute the fact that "sexism" and "sexist" are inseparable. Now, I fully expect you to bitch and moan as you stew in your impotence, but I'm always open to a pleasant surprise.
Except people who don't drive. There are some people, who are known as "blind", who would fit that category.
DeleteSure they can. They may not do very good at it, but they can do it. You're just floundering, now, troll. Ever heard of the Bonneville Salt Flats? Blind people can drive there, without worry of hitting anyone (someone).
"Anyone" applies for hypothetical situations, such as what's possible.
That's because you're assuming a certain level of expertise in any given thing. Anyone can do anything, that doesn't mean they can do it at a qualified level. You're just being plain stupid if you think the example of "anyone" working in a sentence actually refers to the ABILITY of someone (anyone) being able to achieve any given goal. Hell, you may as well say Stephen Hawking isn't anyone (someone) since he can't talk/walk/eat by himself, without help. All you've done is prove that anyone DOES work in place of someone in all instances.
I know what you asked, since I clearly remember laughing at it.
Well, all I can draw from that is that you will not answer the question because it blows your argument out of the water.
Also, again, the phrase "foster sexist" doesn't even make sense.
Thank you for admitting that sexist and sexism are different words with different meanings and usages.
That shows that you have been lying this entire article and I now have about 80 examples (proof) that you lie like a rug. Which proves my earlier analysis of your behavior as 'habitual and unrepentant'.
You already made my point, and you haven't even tried to dispute the fact that "sexism" and "sexist" are inseparable.
I think that just happened when you admitted that "foster sexist" does not makes sense and "sexist" cannot be used in that manner. If they are "inseparable" then "sexist" would have worked in that sentence without any qualifiers. But, you admitted it does not, so .... you lose. And are now proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be an self-admitted, unrepentant, habitual liar.
"They may not do very good at it, but they can do it."
DeleteI didn't say they anything about whether they "can" do it or not. I said they don't do it.
"Ever heard of the Bonneville Salt Flats?"
Are there designated parking spots on the Bonneville Salt Flats, where some random blind person may have parked? Hilarious. So you're aware, constructing some convoluted scenario where a blind person may have actually parked in a parking spot doesn't help you. You wanted to see where "someone" could not be replaced by "anyone". So, I control the circumstances. This parking spot was wrongfully filled in, let's say, New York City. which is not as friendly an environment for the aspiring blind motorist.
"You're just being plain stupid if you think the example of "anyone" working in a sentence actually refers to the ABILITY of someone (anyone) being able to achieve any given goal."
Didn't you just argue that blind people can drive? Aren't you referring to an ability there?
"Hell, you may as well say Stephen Hawking isn't anyone (someone) since he can't talk/walk/eat by himself, without help."
It depends on the context, obviously. For instance, if you said "someone pitched a perfect game yesterday", I'm just daring enough to say that it wasn't Stephen Hawking. So, "anyone pitched a perfect game" would be proven to be false, and therefore significantly different from the original phrase.
"Well, all I can draw from that is that you will not answer the question because it blows your argument out of the water."
Then you admit that every time you respond with an appeal to ridicule, it's because you won't answer a question since you know it destroys your argument. That's not a good idea for you.
"Thank you for admitting that sexist and sexism are different words with different meanings and usages."
Again, in the sense that they're not spelled identically and have the exact same meaning, yes. Because that would be one word, not two. Also, yet again, I never said they were the same. I said that they're inseparable, which is obviously a "different word" from "same".
Also, it was already established that you can't substitute a noun for an adjective without disrupting the syntax. So, that wasn't what we were talking about. Or, if you thought it was, then you were making an irrelevant and redundant argument because your memory is atrocious. Note this, especially: "That's funny, because I previously pointed out to you that there was no significant difference between the two words in question. So, obviously you missed that, and somehow led yourself to believe that I had said something which I clearly had not." Yet, here you are again, desperately pretending that your "different words" argument could have any possible impact.
If you scroll up, you'll see that you were asked to show how "foster" is not an action, because you were creating some bizarre distinction between "behavior" and "action". It wasn't about how you can't apply a verb to an adjective and therefore "sexist" and "sexism" are "different words". Since you couldn't substantiate your new ludicrous claim, you fell back on your previous garbage argument because you obviously know you have nowhere else to go.
"If they are "inseparable" then "sexist" would have worked in that sentence without any qualifiers."
DeleteWrong. Inseparable: "incapable of being separated or disjoined (inseparable issues)" (Merriam-Webster.com) Note the example of "issues". They're not identical issues, they're inseparable. One would unavoidably involve the other. Bing's dictionary does even better: "2.unable to be separated: so closely linked as to be impossible to consider separately"
As I said, the definition of "sexist" is intrinsically linked to the meaning of "sexism". It has nothing to do with whether you can put "sexist" after a verb or not, it has to do with the very concept that's being discussed. You can't find a definition of "sexist" that doesn't directly involve "sexism".
Really, stop and think for a moment. Seriously. You claim that you couldn't accept the definition of "sexism" because "foster sexist" makes no sense? That has nothing to do with understanding the term. If I had been saying that the two words were universally interchangeable, you would have an argument for once in your life. Unfortunately, that wasn't the point, nor that the two words were the "same", nor whatever convenient fantasy you want to dress up as reality at any given moment.
"But, you admitted it does not, so .... you lose."
You had to have noticed that I distinctly and repeatedly pointed out that I never said the words were the same, but that they were inseparable. Buy now, you're using your standard for the "same" as if it applied to "inseparable". What did you think the distinction was for, if the words were supposed to mean the exact same thing? Are you really that oblivious, or just that dishonest?
And, amusingly, just as the original point was that you can't alter the meanings of words at your whim, the actual definition of "inseparable" isn't magically changed due to your categorically false interpretation. When you can deal with objective reality, then put on your big-boy pants and try again.
That should be "But now" in the second to last paragraph, before you misuse the word "usage" again.
Delete