The Famous Statue Topple

[sArA]

@hobbes,

Well hello there matey!!!! Just thought I would pop in and fly off like the proverbial butterfly.....can't catch me with your net as this madame is as elusive as the widow hiding in your toilet bowl....she bites before you see her...and is so small and fast...she quickly hides in dark corners where you cannot find her....

[hobbes]

That's why I've taken to use the tub.

[clocker]

My God, you two....

GET A ROOM!

[MagicNakor]

I'll second that.

[hobbes]

Nah, I'm going to go surrender to the Iraqi information minister, again.

I'm kind of addicted to it.

[sArA]

He he.......

[myfiles3000]

j2k4, honestly. I mean really. For a self-proclaimed "Practitioner of Reason" you're producing a lot of fluff. Does the quote "never use a bigger word where a smaller word would do" ring a bell? It's time to take the next bold step, and leave behind the pursuit of words for their own sake. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to use words as the means to an end -- coherent expression. nice, simple, rationale communication. No temper tantrums, no hissy-fits, no mud-slinging, just a dignified difference of opinion.

For example...

I will state, however, that to pronounce upon improperly digested material in an "International" forum is, to put it plainly, irresponsible.

Pronounce? What I did was post a picture and a link and no comment. I didn't pronounce anything. It's impossible to determine what you mean by "improperly digested", perhaps you would like to vet all my posts, and the fact that this is an "international" forum is completely irrelevant (ah, but the deridian trace...).

To attempt to escape the derision you have invited by saying "All I'm saying is......." and then trying to sidestep the obvious intent of your original post by obfuscation is nothing more than changing oars so as to row out of the other side of the boat.

Please share your interpretation of my intent, which i later scrambled to obfuscate. I posted a photo with no comment. When asked for clarification, I suggested the possiblity of manipulation. Thats all i did.

Your picture was pretty much a stand-alone item, presented by itself-you didn't give the potential consumers (members of the forum) any side dishes, just a lousy entree.
The problem was, you "counselled" NOTHING. Just threw the picture out there and almost dared a different conclusion than the one YOU reached.

How can I win? I didn't offer any editorial initially, and my later comment was the suggestion of a possibility!
First I had an 'irresponsible obvious intent", then I did 'NOTHING' beyond putting information to the world for consideration. What do you want me to do, commission a congressional study? For gods sake, man, take it or leave it, but chill.

[/QUOTE]I thought you were merely irresponsible when I first read your post, but I upped the charge to dishonesty when you tried to defend it so vociferously.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but 'vociferously' is a pretty big word. The tweenies approve.

Also, don't insult me, yourself, and everybody else here by asking for the "3-year-old" explanation-it is plain you are at least a very precocious "10-year-old".[QUOTE]

You're all smoke and mirrors. Break it down into nice, digestible, bite-sized chunks of meaning. Articulate in rationale, clearly expressed language what I did that was irresponsible and dishonest.

[sArA]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@16 April 2003 - 03:33










Articulate in rationale, clearly expressed language what I did that was irresponsible and dishonest.

@ myfiles

Oh you too.....and I thought I was the only victim of the attack of the overly verbose and articulate....or is that verbal abuse and anally retentive!! lmfao!!!!!!

(I can dare to say this cos my antagonist seems to not be online just now ha ha)

[ClubDiggler]

dis don make no sense bro! I don understan shit!

No, seriously I think my head's spinning. I must say; forgive my
ignorance but maaaaan I used to have a dictionary in the cabinet under
the TV and now that sucker is planted right here by the computer.

I am enjoying the show though! Keep up the good work!

By the way, I agree with clocker there's a couple here in desperate need of a room.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@15 April 2003 - 21:33
j2k4, honestly. I mean really. For a self-proclaimed "Practitioner of Reason" you're producing a lot of fluff. Does the quote "never use a bigger word where a smaller word would do" ring a bell? It's time to take the next bold step, and leave behind the pursuit of words for their own sake. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to use words as the means to an end -- coherent expression. nice, simple, rationale communication. No temper tantrums, no hissy-fits, no mud-slinging, just a dignified difference of opinion.

For example...

I will state, however, that to pronounce upon improperly digested material in an "International" forum is, to put it plainly, irresponsible.

Pronounce? What I did was post a picture and a link and no comment. I didn't pronounce anything. It's impossible to determine what you mean by "improperly digested", perhaps you would like to vet all my posts, and the fact that this is an "international" forum is completely irrelevant (ah, but the deridian trace...).

To attempt to escape the derision you have invited by saying "All I'm saying is......." and then trying to sidestep the obvious intent of your original post by obfuscation is nothing more than changing oars so as to row out of the other side of the boat.

Please share your interpretation of my intent, which i later scrambled to obfuscate. I posted a photo with no comment. When asked for clarification, I suggested the possiblity of manipulation. Thats all i did.

Your picture was pretty much a stand-alone item, presented by itself-you didn't give the potential consumers (members of the forum) any side dishes, just a lousy entree.
The problem was, you "counselled" NOTHING. Just threw the picture out there and almost dared a different conclusion than the one YOU reached.

How can I win? I didn't offer any editorial initially, and my later comment was the suggestion of a possibility!
First I had an 'irresponsible obvious intent", then I did 'NOTHING' beyond putting information to the world for consideration. What do you want me to do, commission a congressional study? For gods sake, man, take it or leave it, but chill.

I thought you were merely irresponsible when I first read your post, but I upped the charge to dishonesty when you tried to defend it so vociferously.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but 'vociferously' is a pretty big word. The tweenies approve.

Also, don't insult me, yourself, and everybody else here by asking for the "3-year-old" explanation-it is plain you are at least a very precocious "10-year-old".

You're all smoke and mirrors. Break it down into nice, digestible, bite-sized chunks of meaning. Articulate in rationale, clearly expressed language what I did that was irresponsible and dishonest.

myfiles-

At this point I'll settle for labeling you a provocateur.

I plead guilty to nothing, other than "desiring the extra syllable".

You don't do too bad yourself, you know? Semiotics? Deridian trace? You win the "obscure reference" contest.

Perhaps I needed to reassure myself English IS my first language, astounded as I was that anyone would think otherwise.

It is apparent to all that you love words at least as much as I do.

You didn't have any trouble understanding my posts; others who are interested can understand also. Don't sell them short.

I don't mind if I send someone scurrying for a dictionary-I'm a big fan of the dictionary; I try to keep reference materials handy, just in case.

The language I used to articulate my perception of the flaws in your posts was, I feel, sufficiently clear as to need no "further" clarification.

There you go, nice bite-sized chunks. You may commence your digestion forthwith.