Periods Meeting Quotes

Do you not see the irony?

I see it, but anyway.





David

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

The Frying Pan...New York City's hottest spot these days.

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

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

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."

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.

"Just sayin'" is a country boy's expression, and i believe it was popularized here by Rockhead.

There can be no middle ground, Frank, when you are unable to deal with the facts at hand.



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.

I never thought I'd be put into the same sentence as those three, and ahead of Charles and Winnie to boot.

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.

dont get a big head, remember DAve is spelling challenged as badly as I

I've always been very humble.

Possibly you have much to be humble about izzy. I know I have.

That's priceless. Thanks for sharing that larf. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

Isn't that the way the Brits say it?

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.

Well **** off then you pompous oaf.

Edward Sapir.