|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2013 8:18:18 GMT -5
Do you REALLY want me to go back and quote everything and point up your self-contradiction? I am sure that you could employ your intellect to find a way to illustrate contradiction there, but it doesn't change your deceitfulness. O.k., well, I'll take that as a "no" (at least for now, and thank you, btw). So what, exactly, am I being deceptive about?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 9, 2013 8:24:21 GMT -5
Again, anything I say you will go to great lengths to show to be wrong. It's not worth it. I made the comment, I'm not going to substantiate it, if you want to reject it on that basis, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2013 8:29:43 GMT -5
Again, anything I say you will go to great lengths to show to be wrong. It's not worth it. I made the comment, I'm not going to substantiate it, if you want to reject it on that basis, so be it. Well in that case, to me it seems that you calling me deceitful is just lashing out. I'm not lying about anything. You admitted that you were confused here: OMG... presence of absence. lolz I might be getting the wrong end of the stick, but your lol suggests that we are all agreeing. I'm a little....confused as to what's going on here. Rather than calling me a liar for no reason you could have just told me to "f-off" or something along those lines -- that wouldn't have been apropo over in GD, but you could have always created a parallel thread over here to do it -- I'm not the only one who can do that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 9, 2013 8:32:41 GMT -5
Again, anything I say you will go to great lengths to show to be wrong. It's not worth it. I made the comment, I'm not going to substantiate it, if you want to reject it on that basis, so be it. Well in that case, to me it seems that you calling me deceitful is just lashing out. I'm not lying about anything. You admitted that you were confused here: I might be getting the wrong end of the stick, but your lol suggests that we are all agreeing. I'm a little....confused as to what's going on here. Rather than calling me a liar for no reason you could have just told me to "f-off" or something along those lines -- that wouldn't have been apropo over in GD, but you could have always created a parallel thread over here to do it -- I'm not the only one who can do that. I just see it as deceitful, take it or leave it. If there is something I am interested in, its why you care. In your model, ideas/thoughts only affect the person, right? They don't touch what you are. Why do you want to discuss this?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2013 8:34:24 GMT -5
Stop it, or I'll slap ya both silly. lol ... oops I spelled lol backwards just then, If Andy wants to be heard he's got the right of free speech, especially over here. We all could have just ignored his confusion of course but you're the one constantly complaining about cruelty and I think that this conversation can point something up about that. Honesty is not cruelty. There are times when it's of course not necessary to be honest and even preferable to not be to avoid causing someone unnecessary pain, but I don't see this as one of those situations. Andy often makes many a day opposite day, and him calling me a liar when I was just being honest is a great example of that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 9, 2013 8:37:57 GMT -5
Stop it, or I'll slap ya both silly. lol ... oops I spelled lol backwards just then, If Andy wants to be heard he's got the right of free speech, especially over here. We all could have just ignored his confusion of course but you're the one constantly complaining about cruelty and I think that this conversation can point something up about that. Honesty is not cruelty. There are times when it's of course not necessary to be honest and even preferable to not be to avoid causing someone unnecessary pain, but I don't see this as one of those situations. Andy often makes many a day opposite day, and him calling me a liar when I was just being honest is a great example of that. If I thought you were lying specifically, I would have said 'liar'. I said 'deceitful'. Underhanded, deceptive and manipulative are other words.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2013 8:38:35 GMT -5
Well in that case, to me it seems that you calling me deceitful is just lashing out. I'm not lying about anything. You admitted that you were confused here: Rather than calling me a liar for no reason you could have just told me to "f-off" or something along those lines -- that wouldn't have been apropo over in GD, but you could have always created a parallel thread over here to do it -- I'm not the only one who can do that. I just see it as deceitful, take it or leave it. Right. So it's just inflamatory B.S. with absolutely no basis, and as a matter of fact, is just your way of denying what was actually the opposite, that I was being honest to you and about you. You often sometimes confuse yourself and that was an example of it. If there is something I am interested in, its why you care. In your model, ideas/thoughts only affect the person, right? They don't touch what you are. Why do you want to discuss this? O.k. that's got three assumptions and is just an attempt to deflect and change the subject. You called me a liar, and I was curious as to what exactly you saw me lying about, but it looks to me as if you're the one lying here, and the only one you're really deceiving is yourself.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2013 8:39:47 GMT -5
If Andy wants to be heard he's got the right of free speech, especially over here. We all could have just ignored his confusion of course but you're the one constantly complaining about cruelty and I think that this conversation can point something up about that. Honesty is not cruelty. There are times when it's of course not necessary to be honest and even preferable to not be to avoid causing someone unnecessary pain, but I don't see this as one of those situations. Andy often makes many a day opposite day, and him calling me a liar when I was just being honest is a great example of that. If I thought you were lying specifically, I would have said 'liar'. I said 'deceitful'. Underhanded, deceptive and manipulative are other words. Distinction without a difference. More unsubstantiated name-calling. You do know that this would have earned you a vacation under the old rules in the moderated section, right?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 9, 2013 8:40:50 GMT -5
I just see it as deceitful, take it or leave it. Right. So it's just inflamatory B.S. with absolutely no basis, and as a matter of fact, is just your way of denying what was actually the opposite, that I was being honest to you and about you. You often sometimes yourself and that was an example of it. If there is something I am interested in, its why you care. In your model, ideas/thoughts only affect the person, right? They don't touch what you are. Why do you want to discuss this? O.k. that's got three assumptions and is just an attempt to deflect and change the subject. You called me a liar, and I was curious as to what exactly you saw me lying about, but it looks to me as if you're the one lying here, and the only one you're really deceiving is yourself. I can see basis for saying you were deceitful, but I'm not going to show you the basis. Which of those assumptions are not true? Why do you want to discuss this?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 9, 2013 8:41:17 GMT -5
If I thought you were lying specifically, I would have said 'liar'. I said 'deceitful'. Underhanded, deceptive and manipulative are other words. Distinction without a difference. More unsubstantiated name-calling. You do know that this would have earned you a vacation under the old rules in the moderated section, right? Of course.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2013 8:42:06 GMT -5
Right. So it's just inflamatory B.S. with absolutely no basis, and as a matter of fact, is just your way of denying what was actually the opposite, that I was being honest to you and about you. You often sometimes yourself and that was an example of it. O.k. that's got three assumptions and is just an attempt to deflect and change the subject. You called me a liar, and I was curious as to what exactly you saw me lying about, but it looks to me as if you're the one lying here, and the only one you're really deceiving is yourself. I can see basis for saying you were deceitful, but I'm not going to show you the basis. Which of those assumptions are not true? Why do you want to discuss this? why you bothered to hit send on that one escapes me altogether
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2013 8:42:45 GMT -5
Distinction without a difference. More unsubstantiated name-calling. You do know that this would have earned you a vacation under the old rules in the moderated section, right? Of course. keep that stuff over here Andy.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 9, 2013 8:42:49 GMT -5
I can see basis for saying you were deceitful, but I'm not going to show you the basis. Which of those assumptions are not true? Why do you want to discuss this? why you bothered to hit send on that one escapes me altogether Okay.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 9, 2013 8:43:38 GMT -5
keep that stuff over here Andy. Yes mod. Saying you were deceitful over there would or should have got me banned?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2013 8:51:55 GMT -5
keep that stuff over here Andy. Yes mod. Saying you were deceitful over there would or should have got me banned? Well not for saying it to me anyway , and in this context you certainly didn't lash out on an unprovoked basis, but just watch the pattern of getting frustrated and then negatively characterizing the one you're corresponding with rather than addressing what was written to you. The old rules made that distinction between picking at the content and the pattern of content of the individual on one hand and just lunging at the individual on the other.
|
|