Setanta wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I wasn't slinging any mud, Set, you were.
Yeah, and everybody in the holding cell down at the county courthouse is innocent, too.
Quote:But in response to my charge that you were being personally insulting, you said you were only demonstrating your "scorn for the idiocy you peddle," referring to me. Thus, in the post with which you now claim offense, I merely advised Lash that according to you, DD was only displaying his "scorn" for her POV. How can you possibly construe that as trying to get someone else (Lash?) to sling mud?
Your comprehension is failing you, which doesn't surprise me. I was pointing out that by mentioning me by name in the midst of an acrimonious exchange between two other members, you were trying to drag me in. You're the target here, not Lash.
The problem here isn't my comprehension ... it appears to be your lack of ability to communicate effectively.
You were not clear whom you believed I was trying to drag into the "childish mud slinging." The most logical person seemed to be Lash. It makes little sense that you were referring to yourself, since that wouldn't be a lateral drag ... it would be a direct engagement. But I understand logic isn't your strong suit, which is why I believe you drone on about history as much as you do, as you try to compensate for that shortcoming.
Set wrote:Tico wrote:Or are you just embarrassed at your prior silly comment, and are upset that I repeated it for Lash?
You flatter yourself if you think you can upset me so easily--you're not that good at this game, and the more i see of your style of posting, the less regard i have for your technique.
As often as you've commented about your lack of regard for my "style of posting," it's a wonder you have any regard left.
Set wrote:Tico wrote:And you have falsely accused me of lying so many times, I'm not even going to ask what the hell you're talking about. I'll just chalk it up as another frenzied fantasy of yours. Accusing others of lying appears to be one of your hobbies.
It sure helps your self-image to say as much--but it's horsie poop. This is the exchange to which i referred:
Tico the Habitually Untruthful wrote:Lash wrote:That direct insult is against TOS. I'd rather respond in kind, but I've decided to let you edit.
According to Setanta, that's not a personal attack ... he's just displaying his scorn for your POV.
At no time have i stated that a direct insult constitutes merely scorn for one's point of view--that was a knowing distortion on your part--a patent lie.
Referring to another's view as "horsie poop" is
your technique. One wonders if such colloquialisms are artificial, or whether you are just naturally folksy in your crudeness.
Let's recap: You called McG's post "
idiotic" and "
hateful" rhetoric. Then you called the post I made in response "
more idiocy from Tico mascarading as thought." When I told you I consider those to be personal attacks, you demurred and said I was mistaking your "
scorn for the idiocy you peddle" with personal attacks. Which was, of course, another example of how you must stoop to lodge a personal attack against another poster in order to communicate. Given the amount of bile that spews from your keyboard on a regular basis, it's truly amazing you aren't on a forced hiatus from this site more often.
Then, after DrewDad called Lash "either confused or lazy," and Lash accused him of violating the TOS, I reminded her that according to you, DD was simply expressing his scorn for her POV. That's when you started blathering on about me being pathetic and lying.
Set wrote:At no time have i stated that a direct insult constitutes merely scorn for one's point of view--that was a knowing distortion on your part--a patent lie.
You said I was equating "scorn for the idiocy you peddle with personal attacks." You clearly believed that calling McG's post "
idiotic ... hateful ... rhetoric" (thus effectively calling him an idiot), and calling my post "
more idiocy from Tico mascarading as thought," was merely an expression of your scorn -- not a personal attack. Calling someone an "idiot," or what they say "idiotic" or idiocy mascarading as thought," is certainly as much a direct insult to them as calling them "confused" or "lazy," and I would proffer that calling someone an "idiot" is more of a direct insult than "confused" or "lazy." Thus, you very clearly
did state that a direct insult was instead just your expression of scorn, and not a personal attack ... and my remark to Lash was appropriate.
Do you now wish to clarify what you meant to say?
