WHAT IS THE HONORABLE RESPONSE?

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You must obviously have never left a pub with the words "I've had enough".

I drink (sometimes) in restaurants, with meals.
It has not been my practice to frequent bars much.

David wrote:

I see no reason against that spelling; it had not occurred to me.

spendius wrote:

Do you think there are any other instances that haven't occured to you yet?

I am confident that there r many such instances.

spendius wrote:

"Speling" for example. Or "grater". Or "peeple".

Make sure your committee has the pension scheme in order.
Or the penshun skeem I shud say. And it has a deesent tiepissed to reecord the deliberayshuns.

I dearly love the American Museum of Natural History, which Teddy Roosevelt supported.
In its exhibition of his memorabilia, are to be found handwriten letters of contemporaneous citizens,
who ridicule his efforts toward fonetic spelling, by maladroit applications thereof.
I get it too.
Anyway: victory is inevitable!

spendius wrote:

Your problem as I see it Dave is that when you are composing
you have so much of your mind fokeussed on taking care over
your phonetic spelling that you can't give the matters on which
you are writing the consentrayshun they deserve.

Its a good thing for me, that I take an e z going approach to it.

spendius wrote:

Just as one might have difficulty doing the Times crossword when one has a bee in one's bonnet.

I 'd resume writing after resolving matters with the bee.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

But there are times when a strong response to an argument or idea is appropriate.

I agree, thing is I don't really think I recall any of your posts where I thought you were hugely insulting or anything, I think the criticism against you there was about being too quick to see racism more so than using overheated rhetoric.

But I didn't really follow either of those threads, so that's just my wild guess.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Personally, I think the solution is to not call anyone a disgusting [whatever] puke -- friend or foe -- and then go ahead and call out racism when you see it.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Thanks for your loyalty, Darlin' . . . perhaps David could learn to follow his own advice whent the subject is firearms, when all his phony devotion to the concept of civility flies right out the window.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

That approach may work for you, and for anyone else who's never repeated ad nauseam that "there's no such thing as race", but you'll see how it utterly destroys any accusations of "racism" by Setanta against anybody at all. Squaring the circle has got to be easier than observing the rules of logic while engaged in a "political correctness" syllogism - even the White Queen would recoil from such a monstrosity in horror

This is typical HS drivel. That there is no such thing as race does not deter people from claiming that there is, and using it as an excuse to claim that they are themselves superior, if by no other means than that they claim that this or that group is inferior, making themselves inferentially superior. It is appropriate to call someone a racist, even thoogh there are no separate races, precisely because they claim there are as a part of an agenda to belittle and marginalize others.

That's something you should understand, as you so often leap into the midst of a thread, sneering at and belittling others of the basis of an unsubstantiated claim of your superior understanding.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

sozobe wrote:

Personally, I think the solution is to not call anyone a disgusting [whatever] puke -- friend or foe -- and then go ahead and call out racism when you see it.

I need to dispense with this, which i have ignored until now. The person in question recently posted in a thread, and i simply pointed out that this member is a racist. I didn't call her a puke, or any other name, i simply noted that she is racist. Other members here are, in fact, more likely to call her names.

I don't call people names until they have done that to me in the first place, after which time i consider the gloves to be off. David, for example, has repeated more than once his image of people who support gun control legislation on their knees begging for their lives, and calls them cowards (so much for his selective devotion to civility), and it was after he had done that to me that i began to reply in like kind. There are very, very few examples at this site of me calling others names unless or until they indulge in it themselves.

4 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I don't call people names until they have done that to me in the first place, after which time i consider the gloves to be off.

This is very simply untrue. In the Lovejoy thread (as one example among many others) you referred to me as "idiotic asshole" although I had not attacked you personally at all.

((Not that it bothers me any more)).

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Once I read this, all bets were off.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The Klu Klux Klan, founded in 1867, was disbanded by its founder in 1870. The Klu Klux Klan of modern times was founded in 1915. Night riders certainly existed, but a Congressional committee exonerated Nathan Bedford Forrest--founder of the early Klan--of any involvement with night riders. But is there any basis for a claim that blacks were armed by authority in the daytime and disarmed by night riders at night? David appears to be as dismally ignorant of history as he is of most subjects--which of course does not deter him.

Here is another example from just this morning. You argue intelligently against the claims made by David-- and there is not problem with you doing this... until the last sentence.

Attacking David as "dismally ignorant" is another example where you launch an unprovoked (and unnecessary) personal attack.

0 Replies

In fact, since i posted that, i've decided that such a response would just lower me to his childish, petty level. So, i intend to ignore him from now on. Nevertheless, i won't apologize for serving people as they serve me. Once again, thanks for your loyalty, a concept which i have concluded is alien to you.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

lower me to his childish, petty level.

Setanta.... are you trying to be funny?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Don't bother trying to play that card. Didn't work at Abuzz, won't work here.

0 Replies

I'm not "playing a card." Were you as quick to condemn others for their remarks and their tone, you might have a point. But i don't see any evidence that you do so. Of course, there is also the problem that none of this is germane to the topic of the thread.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't call people names until they have done that to me in the first place,.... There are very, very few examples at this site of me calling others names unless or until they indulge in it themselves.

You probably think that's true.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I'm confused. I was responding to this:

Setanta wrote:

So how to deal with it here. It would be unfair to tell [EDIT: a certain member] that's she's disgusting racist puke, and then pass over in silence remarks made by others whom i consider friends.

(Emphasis mine.)

"Disgusting racist puke" came from you, even if you did not in fact say that to the member in question. This whole thread is about what you should say in this situation; "What is the honorable response?"

My point was -- if you recognize the inconsistency/ hypocricy of calling people you dislike a disgusting racist puke while passing over similar remarks of people you like in silence, it makes more sense to me that you become more consistent by refraining from calling people you dislike disgusting pukes, rather than becoming more consistent by calling people you like disgusting pukes, too. Go ahead and say "that smacks of racism," or whatever, just without the disgusting puke part.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

I understood your point about playing fair, Soz. I was just pointing out that i don't in fact address the member in question as a "disgusting racist puke," so that the portion of your response which deals with how i address other members is not really to the point--although i certainly understand why you made the comment.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

But from observing your behavior, you often do call people "disgusting pukes" or similar.

And you really don't wait to be attacked before resorting to personal attacks. "Clown" comes to mind, as a name that you call people for simply disagreeing with you. Showing contempt is an attack, even if the word used is not vulgar.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Once again, thanks for your loyalty, a concept which i have concluded is alien to you.

Honesty is loyalty. I hope you learn that one day.

0 Replies

I'll point out to you DD, what i have already said in this thread. I will sooner, rather than later, ignore people who take this thread as an opportunity to attack me personally, rather than to comment on the subject of this thread.

You may allege that honesty is loyalty, but how does that fall out when the "honesty" is not uniformly applied?

1 Reply

How would I deal with a situation in which I see someone I like and respect posting something which is offensive to the ideas I hold dear?

Mostly I remember it's only an internet forum and try and learn what I can about the things that interest me.

0 Replies

WHAT IS THE HONORABLE RESPONSE?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know