Ticomaya
 
  5  
Reply Sun 1 Jul, 2012 09:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
A few hours ago, I put Spendius on Ignore,
because of his filthy, obscene language in combination with his
ofen incomprehensible English syntax. Its E Z to understand
The Queen of England, or Izzythepush, or Prince Charles, or Winston Churchill,
but it is too much un-rewarded, labor-intensive tedium to try to de-code what Spendius posts.
I hope that Spendius will win a BIGGER financial prize in some English Lottery than anyone has,
harvesting millions of pounds, tons, of English silver, and live out his life in great good health, with abundant alcohol,
but I don't wanna have to figure out some of his posts.

Do you not see the irony?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jul, 2012 10:34 pm
@Ticomaya,
I see it, but anyway.





David
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 02:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Just sayin’!

What does that frase mean ?



David, in response to Ti’s “Do you not see the irony?” you wrote,

Quote:
I see it, but anyway.


My comment, "Just sayin'!" was sorta the same thing...just a throw out line that can be used among friends to mean almost anything.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 02:58 am
@ossobuco,
Quote:
What is that boat you folks meet on, The Flat Iron? The Fat Tub? Frog Hollow? I've wanted to be there with all of you.


The Frying Pan...New York City's hottest spot these days.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 03:25 am
@Frank Apisa,
DAVID wrote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Just sayin’!

What does that frase mean ?



David, in response to Ti’s “Do you not see the irony?” you wrote,

DAVID wrote:
I see it, but anyway.
Frank Apisa wrote:
My comment, "Just sayin'!" was sorta the same thing...just a throw out line
that can be used among friends to mean almost anything.
Yes, thank u, Frank.
When I said that,
I meant that even tho I saw the irony,
I still consider what I posted to be correct and justified ANYWAY.

I 've been hearing those words a lot
within the last few months, and noted them with uncertainty.

I heard, very, very informally,
that "just saying" meant that someone was just SAYING
something, but that he did not really mean it
and that he was not attesting to the truth nor accuracy
of what he was "just SAYING." I 'm not too sure that is actually true.

I m kinda asking around about it,
for a more secure understanding of it.





David
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 03:38 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I don't think there actually is a hard and fast meaning for the phrase, David. It is one of those currently popular punctuation phrases that come into being from time to time.

Back in the day (another currently popular phrase) we often interjected a "That's what she said" into conversations. It was a phrase that had no meaning whatever, but was used by many nonetheless. I use "whatever!" and "It is what it is" that same way.

I seem to use "Just sayin" mostly to accentuate something that I want to be given serious consideration, but at the same time, I am acknowledging that whatever it is, is not so important as to constitute "earth shattering." I guess you could say that it is a way of "flipping the bird" at my own considerations.

I gotta mention this: I definitely learned the phrase here in A2K. Someone, cannot remember who, used to use it often...and I liked its sound. I adopted it and now it is part of my repertoire of meaningless phrases that sound better than "uhhh."
Frank Apisa
 
  7  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 03:46 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Read my first three posts after yours and Roberta's, Frank. I was frank and honest, not contentious. I stated that the rule was dumb, not that you and/or Roberta were dumb.


JTT...with all the courtesy and respect in the world, I suggest you read your last one hundred posts...and evaluate them. Were the majority of them delivered objectively, courteously and respectfully...and without an attempt at contention--or were most of them unnecessarily provocative...and filled with buzz words like stupid and ignorant?

Even in this last post of yours...the need to suggest Roberta or I were "maligning" others use of language rather than just responding to a question asked...is stretching things in the direction of provocation rather than understanding.

I bust balls as much as the next golfer, but I do not think it unreasonable to ask for all of us to consider how we respond here in a fairly small community of people.


Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 04:12 am
@Frank Apisa,
"Just sayin'" is a country boy's expression, and i believe it was popularized here by Rockhead.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
JTT
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 04:46 am
@Frank Apisa,
There can be no middle ground, Frank, when you are unable to deal with the facts at hand.

Quote:
Even in this last post of yours...the need to suggest Roberta or I were "maligning" others use of language rather than just responding to a question asked...is stretching things in the direction of provocation rather than understanding.


Maligning Joe's language was exactly what you were doing. You were wrong, you knew you were wrong because you and I have been over this same ground before. This time you slightly pulled your punches but nevertheless, you encouraged the perpetration of a falsehood.

You provoked the issue by spreading these falsehoods. You lack an understanding of what language is and how it works. See your post Post: # 5,030,738.



0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 04:50 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
. Its E Z to understand
The Queen of England, or Izzythepush, or Prince Charles, or Winston Churchill,


I never thought I'd be put into the same sentence as those three, and ahead of Charles and Winnie to boot.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 04:55 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
We are all people interacting with other people--people it appears with fairly common interests. The body is small…fewer than 30 people on a regular basis


I think we are cyber people and not real people. At meetings real people appear. Then they disperse and they try to become cyber people again but they no longer can be. That they have met inhibits their cyber aspect and there is a tendency for them to be nicer to each other and thus more insincere in the manner of normal acquaintances.

If, for example, Bernie said something which I disagreed with I wouldn't expect anybody who had spent the previous evening in his company to back me up even if they agreed with me. Objectivity begins to slip away in the service of the group's solidarity and that is perfectly understandable.

If a judge or a juror discovers during a case that they know somebody involved they will be replaced.

It ends up with a situation where disagreement with any member of the clique tends to become disagreement with the whole clique and whatever it does for the clique it is a loss to A2K.

Once people have met there seems no reason for them to interact any longer on A2K. Their relationship has become personal and anything they have to say to each other should be on the phone or in their face-to-face contacts.

Assurances that cliquishness was not a factor in your NY group are insufficient to demonstrate that such was the case. I might add that I have nothing against cliquishness. I have been a member of many cliques and I understand the social dynamics involved. In the last analysis cliques are bullying strategies. Political parties are essentially cliques.

Proust describes his membership of a family clique in which he doted on his grandmother. After a period in the military he returned to discover that she was a silly old bat.

Our membership of cliques distorts our perception of others. What you call "negative aspects" I see as positive in that there is a certain honesty in them. I don't see courtesy and respect being much use in objective discussion. They are strategies. And there can be aggressive aspects to them.

I accused Auberon Waugh of being too gentle towards feminists because of how many females he was in daily contact with who he didn't wish to annoy and his situation was mirrored all across media and gave feminism an easy pass when, in actual fact, it is ridiculous and will wreck our system eventually. When it is wrecked women will be the biggest losers. The feminist clique, and its lickspittals and pussy whipped lackeys, gang up on me and declare me a misogynist and it is them who are working against ordinary women's real interests so that a couple of thousand harpies can bust glass ceilings and get rich. They even believe that Fox News is conservative. Discussing feminism dispassionately is now impossible. The clique just shouts "MISOGYNIST!!" and that's the end of it.

The DSK case was an utter disgrace.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 04:55 am
@izzythepush,
dont get a big head, remember DAve is spelling challenged as badly as I
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 04:56 am
@farmerman,
I've always been very humble.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 05:03 am
@izzythepush,
Possibly you have much to be humble about izzy. I know I have.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 06:36 am
@Ticomaya,
That's priceless. Thanks for sharing that larf. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 07:07 am
@joefromchicago,
Isn't that the way the Brits say it?
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 08:42 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Sorry, we need to address questions sequentially,


We can certainly deal with those peripheral issues after YOU deal with the central issue that YOU raised, Joe.

You seem to be operating on the notion that I want this conversation to go forward and that I will work with you to make sure that it does. Let me disabuse you of that notion right now. I can assure you that it is a matter of complete indifference to me whether this dialogue continues. Furthermore, I am quite confident that you are much more eager to interact with me -- or, for that matter, anyone -- on this board than I am interested in interacting with you. Consequently, if this is to continue, it will continue on my terms. Agree to those terms or not -- it is all the same to me. But your terms -- where you ask all the questions and I'm expected to provide all the answers -- are completely unacceptable.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 08:57 am
@joefromchicago,
Well **** off then you pompous oaf.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 09:06 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols.


Edward Sapir.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

WHO WANT'S TO KILL APOSTROPHE'S? - Discussion by Setanta
RULES OF THE SEMICOLON, please - Question by farmerman
Punctuation in a quote - Question by DK
Punctuation smackdown! - Question by boomerang
Use of comma before "by" - Question by illitarate4life
Making actions clear - Question by clawincy
Not sure what punctuation to use - Question by LimitedKnowledge
Too many commas? - Discussion by Schwaben
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/05/2022 at 06:01:17