I Say We Duke It Out!

I submit that no matter how one chooses to read the statement in question, when parsed, the statement is a hypothetical. I submit fiurther you destroy your own argument with your statement " ... I think the second sentence in that statement by him makes it pretty clear he is doing the "if it's ok for you to do it then I can too" thing because he is confirming his first sentence by his last sentence ... "

Now, I'll not deny the snarkiness of Setanta's intent in that post, nor do I dispute what clearly he implied thereby. None the less, as typed by Setanta, the passage in question qualifies - albeit barely - as a hypothetical. That doesn't excuse it, by any means; it comes awfully close to the edge, but technically stays just short of going over it. It wasn't particularly civil, but it was moderately cleverly - if intemperately - done.

Whew! That was exhausting to read!

I submit that if Yitwail contends that RR was "kidding" that he is very desparate to sustain his contention, and is not terribly familiar with RR and his style. Not that i recommend to anyone that they read much of RR's work to get a feel for it . . . just as i wouldn't recommend to someone that they randomly step off the kerb into heavy traffic . . .

We are all human afterall.

MoAn wrote:

We are all human afterall.

I consider this to be an unsubstantiated statement to which i refuse to subscribe without considerably more evidence.

When first i logged on today, i found a private message addressed to me by Yitwail which obliquely referred to the subject currently under discussion in this thread. I considered the PM an imposition and an impertinence, but i responded to it civilly, because Yitwail has always addressed me in a civil manner. I believe that i am correct in asserting that i replied in a civil manner.

Of those who have posted in the last five pages, there is only one who has met me in person. That individual can assert that i treat everyone i meet in public in a civil manner--and, i think it would not be unreasonable to assert that that member knows that i try to be friendly and charming to everyone i meet in public.

When responding to Yitwail's private message, i asked the two following questions:

Do you feel obliged to converse with everyone who can shout at you in a public place?

Do you feel obliged to suffer fools gladly in a public place just because they are able to push through the throng and harangue you?

The cyber world and the real world are two very different places. In real life, i not only suffer fools, i try to get along with fools if i am unable to avoid them, and then try to get away from them as soon as courtesy permits. Online, things differ vastly. Online, i do not suffer fools gladly. Online, i enjoy pointing out to fools that they are fools. I am sure that there are many here who consider me a fool. I am equally certain that i do not care.

No, i would say nothing of the kind.

When first i logged on today, i found a private message addressed to me by Yitwail which obliquely referred to the subject currently under discussion in this thread. I considered the PM an imposition and an impertinence, but i responded to it civilly, because Yitwail has always addressed me in a civil manner. I believe that i am correct in asserting that i replied in a civil manner.

When responding to Yitwail's private message, i asked the two following questions:

Do you feel obliged to converse with everyone who can shout at you in a public place?

Do you feel obliged to suffer fools gladly in a public place just because they are able to push through the throng and harangue you?

Then I am very confused, sir.