Southern Borders More Secure Than Ever.....
- Thread starter dieseldiva
- Start date
Maybe, or a lot of them in that strip, been a while since I saw one.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Most days I'm out of pity for people that should know better....that's a liberal thing, make excuses...it is what it is and I'll call it what it is.....arrogance.
LOL!!! That has to be the VERY FIRST time that someone said that I did a "liberal thing"!!!
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
LOL!!! That has to be the VERY FIRST time that someone said that I did a "liberal thing"!!!
I hear ya....we all find ourselves feeling sorry for others but when "the others" are being turds then they're not deserving of our pity or anything else! This business about jumping into a thread ONLY to try and make others look small needs to be called out each and every time it happens.
Well, this is the soapbox.
That's pretty harsh considering all Witness did was correct a mistake made by Chef.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
That wasn't political debate that was posted...just sayin'
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Now that's funny there......harsh?? You don't think attempting to make someone look small is harsh?? Oh wait, you see it as "correcting" Chef.....which added what to the debate.....what is the reason to correct and do it in such a way that he implies that Chef doesn't understand the meaning of a word that he used.....yet I'm harsh for calling him out on it??? Now that's funny there.
My statement stands on its own. Yes, attempting to make someone look small is harsh, especially when it's done selectively. No, Witness' comment didn't add anything to the debate, just as Chef's comment added equally nothing to the debate. Picking out Witness' comment as being some kind of egregious faux pas within the scope of debate, while ignoring the equally worthless debate-sustaining statement by Chef, is a little harsh. He didn't belittle Chef in any way, shape or form with his reply. He merely pointed out the mistake, for which Chef acknowledged, and that should have been the end of it. Bringing it back up, and "calling" one but not both out for it, is a little harsh. So is accusing Witness of implying Chef doesn't understand a particular word, when it was LOS he was addressing on that matter, and even at that he wasn't talking about the word itself, but the context in which it could be used, namely that of the comical context of paying a compliment.
Other than Layout's initial reply in this thread, I have seen nothing that adds to the debate, unless you consider calling people turds and dopes because they fail to reply in a manner that lives up to some unknown and arbitrary satisfaction, while at the same time not making said dopes and turds feel small and/or belittled, and not understanding the difference between "imply" and "infer" as being germane to the conversation and to the furtherance of debate.
So, yes, IMNSHO, you're being harsh for calling him out on it and in not calling Chef out on it, too, And quire frankly, you're being harsh for calling either one out on it, because you did so based on what you inferred rather than what was implied, and clearly did so based upon who posted it rather than what was posted, otherwise the harshness would be spread around equally deservingly. So, again, my statement stands on its own. If that's funny, well then I guess it's funny.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Good grief, what a bunch of mumbo jumbo, some just have to keep coming back to protect "their boy"......how ridiculous. He's a big boy, let it go, as I would have had I not started the thread.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
Mumbo jumbo? Would you like me to use smaller words? Was my prose not clear? OK, in my opinion, you singled out someone for ridicule and to belittle them for something they did not even do, because you screwed up and can't keep track of who replied to what, and did so just because you don't like him replying in "your" threads. How's that?
Yes, it is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because you ignored everything that was said in response to you questioning my opinion of it being harsh, and moved directly to leveling a charged with something that has no merit whatsoever. None. You're just makin' stuff up. To anyone who has been paying attention, they would know my opinion of Witness, and they would all know it's less than complimentary. But then again, I'm more interested in what someone says, than in who said it.
That's disingenuous, too. You were the one who grabbed it in the first place, and did so just to make someone else look small. How ironic. But, hey, you're a big girl, let it go, as I would have had you not dismissed my observation as being nothing more than funny, and tried to defend the hypocrisy of belittling of someone for belittling someone. This business about jumping onto someone in a thread to belittle them about belittling someone else, especially if they didn't belittle anyone in the first place, needs to be called out each and every time it happens. Those who do not want their hypocrisy called out, should probably refrain from engaging in hypocrisy.
We could all stand to tone down some of the more personal stuff.
The more personal stuff? Huh? Oh, you mean like...
Got it. Thanks.
Turtle, I said WE. WE includes ME!! I singled out no one. I gave no passes to any one. We means EVERYONE.
Lambaste positions all you want, politicians of ANY flavor are fair game. Just lighten up on the personal stuff.
Never said it didn't include everyone. But since you hung the above off the bottom of one of my posts, and I didn't recall making any of "the more personal" comments to anyone, I did a quick review of what might constitute "the more personal stuff" and the one I quoted above was simply the first one I encountered. It seemed appropriate enough to use as a quoted example.
So I thought maybe he wasn't talking to me directly and I was just inferring that because it was hung off the bottom of one of my posts. But now we have a pointed directive, directed straight at me, to "just lighten up on the personal stuff," which expressly implies I'm doing something that needs lightened up. OK, fine, just point out where I lambasted someone personally, rather than lambasting their actual actions.
My comments here would be word-for-word precisely the same if all of the poster's identifying marks were removed, with the only exceptions being where I mentioned specific names where I would have otherwise have identified the post numbers, instead. None of my comments are personal, they are in direct response to what was typed, not to who typed them. I honestly could care less who types what in most cases.
Turtle, I guess I did not make it clear. I did NOT mean you, or anyone, in particular. I maybe should not have "hung it" on your post, but then I goof stuff up all the time.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Go ahead, go "levin", it would be entertaining commentary, tell us how you really feel.
I did have to take a second look at your last sentence in your post though, when I first read it, I thought you typed, "Get outta my "HEAD" ya big dope!!"
witness23
Veteran Expediter
The one person that had any right in taking offense to what I posted responded with this:
Did you notice something? He didn't take offense to it because none should've been taken. I was merely pointing out that he may have read the article incorrectly. Which could've been done easily when reading the original post, because of this part in the article:
This is only a guess on my part, but when reading the article you may not have noticed, but Said is the Imam's first name. If you did not notice that, then the paragraph can read entirely different than it's intended purpose.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
"Their boy"????? Have you not read and comprehended some of the exchanges Turtle and I have had in the past???? I'm still shaking my head in utter confusion on that comment.
Still trying to comprehend and understand where you are coming from in that statement????