I have explained more than once, Habibi, in this thread, why i treat religious remarks differently online than i do in real life. It can hardly be considered my fault if you can't understand that, or won't bother to check it out, or are too obtuse to acknowledge it. So i'm not going to play your game. I explained my position--if you want to debate it, quote one of my statements and argue with it.
On the other topic, you said that i had snarled. I said that i had not, and no one is in a better position to know that than am i, since you can't tell what my emotional frame of mind was when i made the remark. You came back with this:
nimh wrote:Setanta wrote:The snarling is all in your imagination, you overrate your significance to me.
"You great barking hypocrite" counts as snarling no matter what your disposition at the time of uttering it was. So you snarled with equanimity..
This demonstrates that your command of English is not sufficient to contradict me in the matter of whether or not i snarled. I provided a definition of snarl from a reputable source ("Answers-dot-com" uses the American Heritage Dictionary), and pointed out that all you have done is prove that you don't have much of a command of the English language.
To which you respond as follows:
nimh wrote:"Embarrassing evidence of my lack of a complete command of the English language"? Are you serious? Why in heavens name should a Dutchman be embarassed for supposedly not getting the exact definition of the English word "snarl" right?
Yes, that's correct--you did not use the word snarl correctly, because it would require you to know what my tone of voice were had i spoken rather than written "great barking hypocrite." Not only did i write it rather than speak it, you have no evidence upon which to base the claim you make next:
Quote:And you're not even correct! "Growling viciously" sounds like a perfect description for yelling, right from the bat, "you great barking hypocrite" at someone who only ever asked a politely-worded question. It doesnt matter a iota whether you were actually angry or not - the description is of demeanour, not of motivation or underlying feeling. You can easily "speak angrily" without actually being angry, as any actor (or parent or boss or whatever) will know.
In "netiquette," you'd have had evidence that i had "yelled" if it had been delivered all in caps, or in bold face, or in a large type face. None of those things were the case. You are making a claim that i were yelling, because your argument is feeble and needs your unsupported and exaggerated claim to make it seem plausible. But it isn't. I simply wrote at the end of my post: "Great Barking Hypocrite." I didn't, by the way, end a sentence or a post with "
you great barking hypocrite." Note that you need to make a false statement in the failed attempt to support your claim.
Your claim is false. Your command of English is not sufficiently complete (note that from the outset i did not say that you have no command of English, just not a complete command) for you to correct me in such a matter. So if you say it foolish to criticize a Dutchman for a lack of a complete command of English, by your own logic it is equally as foolish, if not more so, for said Dutchman to attempt to tell me what words mean in English.
However, far more telling than that is that you have no way of knowing what my "demeanor" was at the time i wrote what i did. You assume that because you otherwise have no argument. You can only rely upon your silly attempt here to raise the tone to an hysterical level to support your claim. You have failed.
