Can you repeat the question? I don't think I read it.
1. You have a hard time understanding text (could be, with you claiming ignorance on my use use of "paywalling")
or
2. You are arguing in bad faith and skewing data in your favor. Which is just shitty on the level of your dear president.
What is it?
/shush please. Your bold typing is giving me a headache. Please do some work on improving your homeland. The rest of us are busy with ours.
Why are you unable to answer? It's a simple question, based on you skewing facts to support your arguments.
I'm not the one arguing in bad faith - you are. And you seem to have a problem coming clean about this shitty tactic of yours? Going off on sarcastic remarks instead.
Another very Trump:ian trait. Could it be, like they say on the cable news shows - he isn't the problem in the US, he is merely a symptom?
If that's all you have to hang your hat on with the discussion, I think you know what that means.
One party of the discussion choosing to use false information for their argumentation and to skew reality is obviously something to hang ones hat on. The fundamentals of a discussion is that you are not doing it in bad faith or presenting falsehoods. There is no discussion to be had, if you can't trust the other party to stick to the truth.
You trying to skip past this very fundamental thing and go on and attacking Sweden instead of acknowledging you being caught - says everything about your intent.
You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
At first I thought you were anti-patriotism, but your refusal to recognize the inherent regressive tax system leads to me to believe that isn't true. You are very pro-Sweden, blindly so. Then I thought maybe you just are jealous of the US. While that still may be true, this latest astoundingly weak line of argument you've taken up confirms what I think many thought from the beginning. You're just a web troll. That's fine, at least I've got it crystallized for myself.
Can you repeat the question? I don't think I read it.
1. You have a hard time understanding text (could be, with you claiming ignorance on my use use of "paywalling")
or
2. You are arguing in bad faith and skewing data in your favor. Which is just shitty on the level of your dear president.
What is it?
/shush please. Your bold typing is giving me a headache. Please do some work on improving your homeland. The rest of us are busy with ours.
Why are you unable to answer? It's a simple question, based on you skewing facts to support your arguments.
I'm not the one arguing in bad faith - you are. And you seem to have a problem coming clean about this shitty tactic of yours? Going off on sarcastic remarks instead.
Another very Trump:ian trait. Could it be, like they say on the cable news shows - he isn't the problem in the US, he is merely a symptom?
If that's all you have to hang your hat on with the discussion, I think you know what that means.
One party of the discussion choosing to use false information for their argumentation and to skew reality is obviously something to hang ones hat on. The fundamentals of a discussion is that you are not doing it in bad faith or presenting falsehoods. There is no discussion to be had, if you can't trust the other party to stick to the truth.
You trying to skip past this very fundamental thing and go on and attacking Sweden instead of acknowledging you being caught - says everything about your intent.
You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
At first I thought you were anti-patriotism, but your refusal to recognize the inherent regressive tax system leads to me to believe that isn't true. You are very pro-Sweden, blindly so. Then I thought maybe you just are jealous of the US. While that still may be true, this latest astoundingly weak line of argument you've taken up confirms what I think many thought from the beginning. You're just a web troll. That's fine, at least I've got it crystallized for myself.
Still trying to steer the discussion away from your use of false information/lies to skew the argument? The one presenting lies Sandra Huckabee Sanders-style, would be the troll in this instance.
As stated, You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Can you repeat the question? I don't think I read it.
1. You have a hard time understanding text (could be, with you claiming ignorance on my use use of "paywalling")
or
2. You are arguing in bad faith and skewing data in your favor. Which is just shitty on the level of your dear president.
What is it?
/shush please. Your bold typing is giving me a headache. Please do some work on improving your homeland. The rest of us are busy with ours.
Why are you unable to answer? It's a simple question, based on you skewing facts to support your arguments.
I'm not the one arguing in bad faith - you are. And you seem to have a problem coming clean about this shitty tactic of yours? Going off on sarcastic remarks instead.
Another very Trump:ian trait. Could it be, like they say on the cable news shows - he isn't the problem in the US, he is merely a symptom?
If that's all you have to hang your hat on with the discussion, I think you know what that means.
One party of the discussion choosing to use false information for their argumentation and to skew reality is obviously something to hang ones hat on. The fundamentals of a discussion is that you are not doing it in bad faith or presenting falsehoods. There is no discussion to be had, if you can't trust the other party to stick to the truth.
You trying to skip past this very fundamental thing and go on and attacking Sweden instead of acknowledging you being caught - says everything about your intent.
You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
At first I thought you were anti-patriotism, but your refusal to recognize the inherent regressive tax system leads to me to believe that isn't true. You are very pro-Sweden, blindly so. Then I thought maybe you just are jealous of the US. While that still may be true, this latest astoundingly weak line of argument you've taken up confirms what I think many thought from the beginning. You're just a web troll. That's fine, at least I've got it crystallized for myself.
Still trying to steer the discussion away from your use of false information/lies to skew the argument? The one presenting lies Sandra Huckabee Sanders-style, would be the troll in this instance.
As stated, You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
Posting the same thing over and over is the very definition of a troll.
Can you repeat the question? I don't think I read it.
1. You have a hard time understanding text (could be, with you claiming ignorance on my use use of "paywalling")
or
2. You are arguing in bad faith and skewing data in your favor. Which is just shitty on the level of your dear president.
What is it?
/shush please. Your bold typing is giving me a headache. Please do some work on improving your homeland. The rest of us are busy with ours.
Why are you unable to answer? It's a simple question, based on you skewing facts to support your arguments.
I'm not the one arguing in bad faith - you are. And you seem to have a problem coming clean about this shitty tactic of yours? Going off on sarcastic remarks instead.
Another very Trump:ian trait. Could it be, like they say on the cable news shows - he isn't the problem in the US, he is merely a symptom?
If that's all you have to hang your hat on with the discussion, I think you know what that means.
One party of the discussion choosing to use false information for their argumentation and to skew reality is obviously something to hang ones hat on. The fundamentals of a discussion is that you are not doing it in bad faith or presenting falsehoods. There is no discussion to be had, if you can't trust the other party to stick to the truth.
You trying to skip past this very fundamental thing and go on and attacking Sweden instead of acknowledging you being caught - says everything about your intent.
You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
At first I thought you were anti-patriotism, but your refusal to recognize the inherent regressive tax system leads to me to believe that isn't true. You are very pro-Sweden, blindly so. Then I thought maybe you just are jealous of the US. While that still may be true, this latest astoundingly weak line of argument you've taken up confirms what I think many thought from the beginning. You're just a web troll. That's fine, at least I've got it crystallized for myself.
Still trying to steer the discussion away from your use of false information/lies to skew the argument? The one presenting lies Sandra Huckabee Sanders-style, would be the troll in this instance.
As stated, You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
Posting the same thing over and over is the very definition of a troll.
What is not acknowledging presenting lies and skewing the truth to strengthen your argument?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Can you repeat the question? I don't think I read it.
1. You have a hard time understanding text (could be, with you claiming ignorance on my use use of "paywalling")
or
2. You are arguing in bad faith and skewing data in your favor. Which is just shitty on the level of your dear president.
What is it?
/shush please. Your bold typing is giving me a headache. Please do some work on improving your homeland. The rest of us are busy with ours.
Why are you unable to answer? It's a simple question, based on you skewing facts to support your arguments.
I'm not the one arguing in bad faith - you are. And you seem to have a problem coming clean about this shitty tactic of yours? Going off on sarcastic remarks instead.
Another very Trump:ian trait. Could it be, like they say on the cable news shows - he isn't the problem in the US, he is merely a symptom?
If that's all you have to hang your hat on with the discussion, I think you know what that means.
One party of the discussion choosing to use false information for their argumentation and to skew reality is obviously something to hang ones hat on. The fundamentals of a discussion is that you are not doing it in bad faith or presenting falsehoods. There is no discussion to be had, if you can't trust the other party to stick to the truth.
You trying to skip past this very fundamental thing and go on and attacking Sweden instead of acknowledging you being caught - says everything about your intent.
You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
At first I thought you were anti-patriotism, but your refusal to recognize the inherent regressive tax system leads to me to believe that isn't true. You are very pro-Sweden, blindly so. Then I thought maybe you just are jealous of the US. While that still may be true, this latest astoundingly weak line of argument you've taken up confirms what I think many thought from the beginning. You're just a web troll. That's fine, at least I've got it crystallized for myself.
Still trying to steer the discussion away from your use of false information/lies to skew the argument? The one presenting lies Sandra Huckabee Sanders-style, would be the troll in this instance.
As stated, You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
Posting the same thing over and over is the very definition of a troll.
What is not acknowledging presenting lies and skewing the truth to strengthen your argument?
Is your country at 70% college attendance yet? Let me know when that happens, then you can speak about equality of opportunity in a country. Until then, focus on your own problems.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,759
I can hear my Mom, "Boys, BOYS!"
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Can you repeat the question? I don't think I read it.
1. You have a hard time understanding text (could be, with you claiming ignorance on my use use of "paywalling")
or
2. You are arguing in bad faith and skewing data in your favor. Which is just shitty on the level of your dear president.
What is it?
/shush please. Your bold typing is giving me a headache. Please do some work on improving your homeland. The rest of us are busy with ours.
Why are you unable to answer? It's a simple question, based on you skewing facts to support your arguments.
I'm not the one arguing in bad faith - you are. And you seem to have a problem coming clean about this shitty tactic of yours? Going off on sarcastic remarks instead.
Another very Trump:ian trait. Could it be, like they say on the cable news shows - he isn't the problem in the US, he is merely a symptom?
If that's all you have to hang your hat on with the discussion, I think you know what that means.
One party of the discussion choosing to use false information for their argumentation and to skew reality is obviously something to hang ones hat on. The fundamentals of a discussion is that you are not doing it in bad faith or presenting falsehoods. There is no discussion to be had, if you can't trust the other party to stick to the truth.
You trying to skip past this very fundamental thing and go on and attacking Sweden instead of acknowledging you being caught - says everything about your intent.
You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
At first I thought you were anti-patriotism, but your refusal to recognize the inherent regressive tax system leads to me to believe that isn't true. You are very pro-Sweden, blindly so. Then I thought maybe you just are jealous of the US. While that still may be true, this latest astoundingly weak line of argument you've taken up confirms what I think many thought from the beginning. You're just a web troll. That's fine, at least I've got it crystallized for myself.
Still trying to steer the discussion away from your use of false information/lies to skew the argument? The one presenting lies Sandra Huckabee Sanders-style, would be the troll in this instance.
As stated, You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
Posting the same thing over and over is the very definition of a troll.
What is not acknowledging presenting lies and skewing the truth to strengthen your argument?
Is your country at 70% college attendance yet? Let me know when that happens, then you can speak about equality of opportunity in a country. Until then, focus on your own problems.
Still trying to steer the discussion away from having to acknowledge your use of false information/lies to skew your argument?
As stated, You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I know.. I'm tired. I am interested in hearing what you think about my counter to the socialized education piece. Do you get where I'm coming from that debt forgiveness and free college benefits the upper class more than the lower in this country?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,759
And then if we still kept it up it was like...
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Can you repeat the question? I don't think I read it.
1. You have a hard time understanding text (could be, with you claiming ignorance on my use use of "paywalling")
or
2. You are arguing in bad faith and skewing data in your favor. Which is just shitty on the level of your dear president.
What is it?
/shush please. Your bold typing is giving me a headache. Please do some work on improving your homeland. The rest of us are busy with ours.
Why are you unable to answer? It's a simple question, based on you skewing facts to support your arguments.
I'm not the one arguing in bad faith - you are. And you seem to have a problem coming clean about this shitty tactic of yours? Going off on sarcastic remarks instead.
Another very Trump:ian trait. Could it be, like they say on the cable news shows - he isn't the problem in the US, he is merely a symptom?
If that's all you have to hang your hat on with the discussion, I think you know what that means.
One party of the discussion choosing to use false information for their argumentation and to skew reality is obviously something to hang ones hat on. The fundamentals of a discussion is that you are not doing it in bad faith or presenting falsehoods. There is no discussion to be had, if you can't trust the other party to stick to the truth.
You trying to skip past this very fundamental thing and go on and attacking Sweden instead of acknowledging you being caught - says everything about your intent.
You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
You restricted the options for mrussel to two, while there are more - including the fact that you used a term that you’ve been proven incorrect by a dictionary and still continue to argue like a self-righteous know-it-all. Anyone who has any sense of reason or has been here for more than an hour sees what’s going on and knows mrussel to be nothing like what you’re accusing him of, and it speaks volumes of your character to accuse him of such. The reason for mrussel’s unwillingness to play ball, like my own, is because you refuse to debate logically and switch arguments as one by one they are disputed. As far as attacking Sweden goes - it’s highly ironic of you to ask people to have some introspection on here while making claims like that. Mrussel is very clearly trying to indicate how absurd your debate style is, and I don’t buy for a second that you can’t see that. The only reason I’m even bothering to respond is because you don’t have the right to denigrate a good person’s name and credibility on here and that must be called out.
One more thing: don’t fucking dare quote anything but this entire statement if you do quote me to respond (unlike the way you did last time with an out-of-context fragment of what I posted); I want people to see the context to make their own minds up and if you’re genuine in wanting fair debate, so should you.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
It's true, mrussel wouldn't be going around purposefully presenting anything in bad faith. I don't even know what this supposed false info is supposed to be, since one can only take so much of this little ongoing argument so I'm just skimming at this point, but I can't imagine it was presented in anything other than good faith, if it was false at all, given the source.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
One more thing: don’t fucking dare quote anything but this entire statement if you do quote me to respond (unlike the way you did last time with an out-of-context fragment of what I posted);
I don't want you to bow out of any discussions (please join our "what band t-shirt are you wearing today" thread in Other Music - it's the hottest thread on the board) - But, you don't seem to understand how quoting works or what the purpose of quoting is.
You see, a quote is in essence an excerpt. And you quote the part of a text which you wish to respond to. Like I did now.
Otherwise it would become awfully cluttered and the readability would be worse. E.g. lets say you are writing a thesis. If you need to quote a book, you quote the excerpt that is interesting for the specific context. You do not quote the entire book. Because then, it would be harder to read and for every quote you would add 300+ pages to your thesis. You would have complete books inside of your the text. Like playing Donkey Kong on the arcade cabinet inside of Donkey Kong 64.
And the last time I did correctly quote a part (you call it fragment) of your text to respond to that specific part (fragment). There was nothing "out-of-context" about it at all. It was a plain, normal, lagom use of quoting.
And also, I "fucking dared" to quote just the part of your text that was relevant to my answer. As explained above, that is how quoting works. But it sounds awfully close to a threat of some kind against me?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I’m beginning to hate sweden. That’s not fair, it’s probably a nice place that just happens to have assholes just like the US, Mexico, Canada, Ireland, England, Italy, Spain; Germany, etc
I’m beginning to hate sweden. That’s not fair, it’s probably a nice place that just happens to have assholes just like the US, Mexico, Canada, Ireland, England, Italy, Spain; Germany, etc
Ha! I know the feeling.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,759
"Boys! BOYS!!!"
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
One more thing: don’t fucking dare quote anything but this entire statement if you do quote me to respond (unlike the way you did last time with an out-of-context fragment of what I posted);
I don't want you to bow out of any discussions (please join our "what band t-shirt are you wearing today" thread in Other Music - it's the hottest thread on the board) - But, you don't seem to understand how quoting works or what the purpose of quoting is.
You see, a quote is in essence an excerpt. And you quote the part of a text which you wish to respond to. Like I did now.
Otherwise it would become awfully cluttered and the readability would be worse. E.g. lets say you are writing a thesis. If you need to quote a book, you quote the excerpt that is interesting for the specific context. You do not quote the entire book. Because then, it would be harder to read and for every quote you would add 300+ pages to your thesis. You would have complete books inside of your the text. Like playing Donkey Kong on the arcade cabinet inside of Donkey Kong 64.
And the last time I did correctly quote a part (you call it fragment) of your text to respond to that specific part (fragment). There was nothing "out-of-context" about it at all. It was a plain, normal, lagom use of quoting.
And also, I "fucking dared" to quote just the part of your text that was relevant to my answer. As explained above, that is how quoting works. But it sounds awfully close to a threat of some kind against me?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,759
I see something of value in everyone here so I just want to say, in the kindest and gentlest way possible...
BOYS!!! STOP YOUR FIGHTING... NOOOOOOOOOOOOW!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm just gonna say this mrussel1 is one of the best posters on here. Not sure why anyone would question is honesty just because he is quite satisfied with the US Post Secondary System...
One more thing: don’t fucking dare quote anything but this entire statement if you do quote me to respond (unlike the way you did last time with an out-of-context fragment of what I posted);
I don't want you to bow out of any discussions (please join our "what band t-shirt are you wearing today" thread in Other Music - it's the hottest thread on the board) - But, you don't seem to understand how quoting works or what the purpose of quoting is.
You see, a quote is in essence an excerpt. And you quote the part of a text which you wish to respond to. Like I did now.
Otherwise it would become awfully cluttered and the readability would be worse. E.g. lets say you are writing a thesis. If you need to quote a book, you quote the excerpt that is interesting for the specific context. You do not quote the entire book. Because then, it would be harder to read and for every quote you would add 300+ pages to your thesis. You would have complete books inside of your the text. Like playing Donkey Kong on the arcade cabinet inside of Donkey Kong 64.
And the last time I did correctly quote a part (you call it fragment) of your text to respond to that specific part (fragment). There was nothing "out-of-context" about it at all. It was a plain, normal, lagom use of quoting.
And also, I "fucking dared" to quote just the part of your text that was relevant to my answer. As explained above, that is how quoting works. But it sounds awfully close to a threat of some kind against me?
I explained why I’d prefer you quote me in context, and you ignored that request. This confirms that a meaningful conversation here isn’t your pursuit, so we’re done.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
One more thing: don’t fucking dare quote anything but this entire statement if you do quote me to respond (unlike the way you did last time with an out-of-context fragment of what I posted);
I don't want you to bow out of any discussions (please join our "what band t-shirt are you wearing today" thread in Other Music - it's the hottest thread on the board) - But, you don't seem to understand how quoting works or what the purpose of quoting is.
You see, a quote is in essence an excerpt. And you quote the part of a text which you wish to respond to. Like I did now.
Otherwise it would become awfully cluttered and the readability would be worse. E.g. lets say you are writing a thesis. If you need to quote a book, you quote the excerpt that is interesting for the specific context. You do not quote the entire book. Because then, it would be harder to read and for every quote you would add 300+ pages to your thesis. You would have complete books inside of your the text. Like playing Donkey Kong on the arcade cabinet inside of Donkey Kong 64.
And the last time I did correctly quote a part (you call it fragment) of your text to respond to that specific part (fragment). There was nothing "out-of-context" about it at all. It was a plain, normal, lagom use of quoting.
And also, I "fucking dared" to quote just the part of your text that was relevant to my answer. As explained above, that is how quoting works. But it sounds awfully close to a threat of some kind against me?
I explained why I’d prefer you quote me in context, and you ignored that request. This confirms that a meaningful conversation here isn’t your pursuit, so we’re done.
You didn’t request - you threatend.
And, you do not suddenly have the right to make up new rules on how quoting works on a message board or dictate that users should use it in a certain way just to please you.
And it is okey if ”you are done”. I believe this is the gentlemans second time being so.
Please don’t go around threatening members on the board though. I can take it and appreciate your passion. Others might not.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
One more thing: don’t fucking dare quote anything but this entire statement if you do quote me to respond (unlike the way you did last time with an out-of-context fragment of what I posted);
I don't want you to bow out of any discussions (please join our "what band t-shirt are you wearing today" thread in Other Music - it's the hottest thread on the board) - But, you don't seem to understand how quoting works or what the purpose of quoting is.
You see, a quote is in essence an excerpt. And you quote the part of a text which you wish to respond to. Like I did now.
Otherwise it would become awfully cluttered and the readability would be worse. E.g. lets say you are writing a thesis. If you need to quote a book, you quote the excerpt that is interesting for the specific context. You do not quote the entire book. Because then, it would be harder to read and for every quote you would add 300+ pages to your thesis. You would have complete books inside of your the text. Like playing Donkey Kong on the arcade cabinet inside of Donkey Kong 64.
And the last time I did correctly quote a part (you call it fragment) of your text to respond to that specific part (fragment). There was nothing "out-of-context" about it at all. It was a plain, normal, lagom use of quoting.
And also, I "fucking dared" to quote just the part of your text that was relevant to my answer. As explained above, that is how quoting works. But it sounds awfully close to a threat of some kind against me?
I explained why I’d prefer you quote me in context, and you ignored that request. This confirms that a meaningful conversation here isn’t your pursuit, so we’re done.
You didn’t request - you threatend.
And, you do not suddenly have the right to make up new rules on how quoting works on a message board or dictate that users should use it in a certain way just to please you.
And it is okey if ”you are done”. I believe this is the gentlemans second time being so.
Please don’t go around threatening members on the board though. I can take it and appreciate your passion. Others might not.
I can accept that, and I apologize for my tone there and didn’t mean for it to be deemed a threat. I’ll try again just so my message isn’t misconstrued. I find it the sleaziest debate tactic to take someone’s words, strip them of their context, and misrepresent a person that way. You have done this to me on several occasions, and I don’t appreciate it in the slightest (hence the aggression).
My words are mine and when I publish them, rules or not, I would expect the decency/courtesy/authenticity of treating them fairly. You have not done that.
I will not make the mistake of expecting decency, courtesy, or authenticity from you again, as I’m quite certain I won’t find those traits in your responses.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
One more thing: don’t fucking dare quote anything but this entire statement if you do quote me to respond (unlike the way you did last time with an out-of-context fragment of what I posted);
I don't want you to bow out of any discussions (please join our "what band t-shirt are you wearing today" thread in Other Music - it's the hottest thread on the board) - But, you don't seem to understand how quoting works or what the purpose of quoting is.
You see, a quote is in essence an excerpt. And you quote the part of a text which you wish to respond to. Like I did now.
Otherwise it would become awfully cluttered and the readability would be worse. E.g. lets say you are writing a thesis. If you need to quote a book, you quote the excerpt that is interesting for the specific context. You do not quote the entire book. Because then, it would be harder to read and for every quote you would add 300+ pages to your thesis. You would have complete books inside of your the text. Like playing Donkey Kong on the arcade cabinet inside of Donkey Kong 64.
And the last time I did correctly quote a part (you call it fragment) of your text to respond to that specific part (fragment). There was nothing "out-of-context" about it at all. It was a plain, normal, lagom use of quoting.
And also, I "fucking dared" to quote just the part of your text that was relevant to my answer. As explained above, that is how quoting works. But it sounds awfully close to a threat of some kind against me?
I explained why I’d prefer you quote me in context, and you ignored that request. This confirms that a meaningful conversation here isn’t your pursuit, so we’re done.
You didn’t request - you threatend.
And, you do not suddenly have the right to make up new rules on how quoting works on a message board or dictate that users should use it in a certain way just to please you.
And it is okey if ”you are done”. I believe this is the gentlemans second time being so.
Please don’t go around threatening members on the board though. I can take it and appreciate your passion. Others might not.
I can accept that, and I apologize for my tone there and didn’t mean for it to be deemed a threat. I’ll try again just so my message isn’t misconstrued. I find it the sleaziest debate tactic to take someone’s words, strip them of their context, and misrepresent a person that way. You have done this to me on several occasions, and I don’t appreciate it in the slightest (hence the aggression).
Example 1: You called me a troll. I wanted to respond to that accusation - so I quoted that specific part (fragment as you put it) and responded to that.
Example 2: You try to create a whole separate set of rules and dictate how quoting should work. I quoted that specific part because I think trying to force those kind of personal rules is completely verklighetsfrånvänt (you don't seem to have an english word for this, but it means "facing away from reality").
I have not misrepresented you. I have quoted you because of needing that specific quote for my response. Re-read my thesis example if you do not understand why one do not quote walls of texts when what is needed is one or two sentences.
This is the third (3) time you are bowing out. If this was a rom-com, I would expect your character, played by an ever handsome Hugh Grant of course, to want nothing else than for me to run to you in the rain.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
As stated, You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
As stated, You have shown to act untrustworthy, dishonest and to be a liar.
One more thing: don’t fucking dare quote anything but this entire statement if you do quote me to respond (unlike the way you did last time with an out-of-context fragment of what I posted); I want people to see the context to make their own minds up and if you’re genuine in wanting fair debate, so should you.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
In Sweden (Where I come from) a ”lie” is when you ”willfully push something untrue”.
From your reactions I take it, ”lying” means something completely different across the pond.
You see, a quote is in essence an excerpt. And you quote the part of a text which you wish to respond to. Like I did now.
Otherwise it would become awfully cluttered and the readability would be worse. E.g. lets say you are writing a thesis. If you need to quote a book, you quote the excerpt that is interesting for the specific context. You do not quote the entire book. Because then, it would be harder to read and for every quote you would add 300+ pages to your thesis. You would have complete books inside of your the text. Like playing Donkey Kong on the arcade cabinet inside of Donkey Kong 64.
And the last time I did correctly quote a part (you call it fragment) of your text to respond to that specific part (fragment). There was nothing "out-of-context" about it at all. It was a plain, normal, lagom use of quoting.
And also, I "fucking dared" to quote just the part of your text that was relevant to my answer. As explained above, that is how quoting works. But it sounds awfully close to a threat of some kind against me?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
And, you do not suddenly have the right to make up new rules on how quoting works on a message board or dictate that users should use it in a certain way just to please you.
And it is okey if ”you are done”. I believe this is the gentlemans second time being so.
Please don’t go around threatening members on the board though. I can take it and appreciate your passion. Others might not.
My words are mine and when I publish them, rules or not, I would expect the decency/courtesy/authenticity of treating them fairly. You have not done that.
I will not make the mistake of expecting decency, courtesy, or authenticity from you again, as I’m quite certain I won’t find those traits in your responses.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
You called me a troll. I wanted to respond to that accusation - so I quoted that specific part (fragment as you put it) and responded to that.
Example 2:
You try to create a whole separate set of rules and dictate how quoting should work. I quoted that specific part because I think trying to force those kind of personal rules is completely verklighetsfrånvänt (you don't seem to have an english word for this, but it means "facing away from reality").
I have not misrepresented you. I have quoted you because of needing that specific quote for my response. Re-read my thesis example if you do not understand why one do not quote walls of texts when what is needed is one or two sentences.
This is the third (3) time you are bowing out. If this was a rom-com, I would expect your character, played by an ever handsome Hugh Grant of course, to want nothing else than for me to run to you in the rain.