Why aren’t they all just considered ridiculous?

Yes he did.

Actually, had i said it, rather than written it, i would have said it in a dry, sardonic tone, in a low voice. Had Habibi persisted, i'd have gotten up to get another cup of coffee . . . and sat down again at another table.

Habibi and O'George have this in common--an overweening self-love which leads them to interpret the written word in a manner which heightens their perceptions of their respective self-worth.

Both have accused me (O'George more than any one else) of yelling at them, when neither of them is sufficiently important to me to warrant raising my voice.

And yet, you are here - answering us.

It was just a light-hearted jibe. (No doubt a product of overweening self-love).

I'm fairly certain about the overweening self-love aspect, Admiral . . . you know, the Jesuitical conceit and all that . . .

Actually, between the last response and this, i've spent my time peeling some white asparagus for the Sweetiepie Girl, who says she loves it . . . there's no accounting for taste.

I'll come back to underline once again your cosmic insignificance, but first i have to get the green asparagus readY to cook. According to The Girl, the white stuff needs to cook longer, so i did that first.

No . . . no, really, O'George, you're important to me . . . just not as important as supper.

Lamb sausage anyone?

OK, lets first do the silliness, than the substance.


YES. And I pointed out that the definition you quoted nowhere says anything about what the speaker's "emotional frame of mind" is.

How you were feeling when you were posting what you posted is completely irrelevant to the question whether it constituted "snarling". You can "speak angrily" without being angry. You can "snarl" without sincerely being angry. You can be wholly cheerful and yet snarl at someone - say, for random example, in order to intimidate him, or express your condescension, or whatever.

"You great barking hypocrite" certainly qualifies for the dictionary description of "snarling". You may have been laughing out loud in your computer chair while you were doing so, and it wouldnt matter one iota, because the definition merely describes the manner of expression, not its motivation or underlying emotion.

You may have sounded sardonically indifferent, drily witty or God knows what if you'd been talking out loud, but you werent talking out loud, you were writing; and you written words certainly fit the description.

Jesus.

OK, so much for the silly bait and switch. Now as for the substance.


I DID.

I just asked you two specific questions, and for the second question referred to specific things you wrote here, quoting your statements.

And yet you pointedly refuse to answer either, instead harrumphing on forth about word choice and the like.

Here - question number two, in which I quoted the statements of yours I'm debating, as you require.

Here - question number one, a straightforward, simple question

So whats with all the switch & bait? First it's that I should read up. I answer that Ive read up as far as Phoenix's post and no, there were no subsequent posts in which you expanded on the matter or addressed the question I'm asking. Then it's random discussions about words I used wrongly. Now its that I should quote your statements to debate it. Well, I did. Do you have any more excuses?

I like the word sardonic. Reminds me of one of my favorite sandwiches: sardones and cheese on rye bread. Goes good with a hearty IPA.

It helps me to think of witty remarks, but usually I just forget about what I was going to say.

OH. Wait. I was going to say that nationalism should be considered a form of religion, don't you think? I mean, if you don't think so, try setting fire publicly to your country's flag.

You have no idea how insecure you sound when you write stuff like this, huh?

Only the most insecure would have this perennial need to go forth about how insignificant this or that guy's opinions are to him, like you do here and do about every two days about some guy or gal or other.

"I dont care, I dont care - who are they. They're midgets to me, midgets I say - nothing they can say can touch me. See, look at how unconcerned I am? See? Let me tell you how little I care, I care so little, I just peeled some asparagus. See how secure I am about myself and my behaviour? I just dont give a F, see? See?"

Compensating, anyone? Well, that would be one explanation for the perennial and random bullying thing.. a kind of daily superiority injection or something?

But what kind of guy would need that? I mean, aside from RexRed?

Weird.

First, as i've already pointed out, i did not write: "You great barking hypocrite." (That's important because tone can't be gleaned from the written word, except perhaps with the greatest writers--and i don't claim to be a great writer. But it is an important point, because it serves to demonstrate that you are completely wrong about the manner in which i addressed you.) At the end of several remarks--the substance of which is that you showed up at his thread to sneer at the participants for attacking religious people for 18 pages, which made it obvious that you had not read the thread--i wrote "Great Barking Hypocrite." As i have pointed out, had i said it rather than written it, it would have been delivered drily, in a sardonic tone. There was no yelling invovled. Therefore, it did not partake of snarling, precisely because there was no aspect, no "manner" of expression which qualified it as snarling. You have chosen to so characterize, just as you have chosen to characterize it as yelling, because that will allow you make this eminently silly argument. But you are wrong, and your argument fails, because you don't know the manner in which i delivered it, and have clearly demonastrated that you failed to correct perceive the manner in which it were delievered.

Whether or not you call upon your asshole-buddy Jesus, the fact remains that you don't know anything about the "manner" in which it was written, you only make the claim because your pride won't let you acknowledge that you don't know, and it would just eat you up to think that you'd lost an argument with me--and probably, with anyone else, for that matter.

For the second question which you linked, and which you identify as your first question, i answered it in the immediately succeeding post. I could not care less if you weren't satisfied with the response, i answered it. Specifically, i wrote: But this is a discussion board--it is a venue specifically intended for discussions, and there is no requirement that people display civility. You may disagree, but that does not warrant claiming that i did not answer the question.

As for the question you linked first, and said was your second question, the first answer applies there. But i have also already discussed in this thread why i have different approaches to those whom i consider religious fanatics, and to all others. You can go look for it if you wish to question it. But nothing obliges me to answer these questions, so you can snivel and whine to your heart's content if you don't like my answers, or if i choose not to answer, but you haven't any right to demand and answer, and couldn't enforce a demand if you made one.

So, as far as i'm concerned, i've addressed these matters in this thread, and don't intend to rehash them just to gratify your unwarranted opinion of the worth of your rhetorical method. If that doesn't satisfy you, that's your problem and not mine.

I was going to post something really humorous. You guys would LAUGH

But the posts are coming so fast, I forgot.

I'm glad to see that your affections are appropriately organized. I can understand my place behind the asparagus, but ... lamb sausage??

Nimh,

Ease up. He called me a "great barking hypocrite" as well. Three words - I liked two of them and chose to think I was ahead of the game.

What . . . you don't like lamb sausage? It war really, really good . . .

Now this provides a marvelous example of the method i use. I made snotty remarks to O'George about the Navy and the Jesuits. He didn't bite. On his bad days, he might have, but not yesterday evening. On balance, i find that he usually doesn't.

What that tells me is that he is (usually) comfortable about his naval service and his jesuitical education. When--to use and example other than the Christian crackpots who come here--a new Muslim shows up, and appears to be ranting (posts long copy and paste screeds, for example, which one can track down online through a unique key phrase in the text; or responds to questions or criticism by posting scripture, sura and verse), i have a similar method. I ask them why we should respect a man who was illiterate, bone idle, a polygamist who obviated his idleness by marrying rich widows, and who married and matrimonially raped a nine-year-old girl. The ones who are comfortable in their "faith" ignore me, or make plausible (even if i ain't buyin' it) answers to the charges against Mohammed.

Christian or Muslim, the nut cases don't last long around here. There are a few exceptions (such as RexRed), but those seem to be the ones who are so far out of touch that the criticisms don't touch them--they don't understand or they're completely immersed in their own goofy exegesis, and don't listen.

Earlier in the thread, i pointed out that it's the fanatics i have a problem with, not the ordinarily "faithful." The fanatics show themselves fairly quickly, and they don't last long. While they're here, though, i'm not boing to spoil my own fun by refraining from telling the just how full of **** i think they are. Some hypocrites around here want to assume a sanctimonious mantle of moral superiority on this topic--but i see many, many of these people laughing to ridicule those who come up with goofy, crackpot political theories in the politics forum. When some rightwingnut clown tries to link American "liberals," for example, to the Nazis and Stalin, it is recognized as an idiotic rant, and the "thesis" gets the ridicule it deserves.

There is no reason not to treat religious loonies in exactly the same way. People who don't like my "style" shouldn't read my posts.

The reason I keep up with this thread is to pay homage to the non believers who similarly are fanatical and goofy in their respective opinions.

Present company excepted, of course.

'Mornin, Set.

Wish I could stay for coffee; but I must take my leave briefly.

You better take your briefs when you leave . . . don't be leavin' no dirty underwear around here, stinkin' the place up . . .

Mornin' Boss . . .

I think you need a fix of this thread Kindness?

Well, I am also learning something about your "method" (see below). (Besides us Jesuit-educated Naval Aviators know in our hearts that no one would seriously give us any real sh!t, so we can laugh it off more easily.)
....


Sometimes I get the impression that the net you use to catch the 'fanatics" may have too fine a mesh size - you also catch quite a few of the ordinary faithful.

I also am a bit more inclined than you to give the occasional loonie the benefit of just being ignored. That applies as well to the occasional loonie moments of the 'regular guys' too.

I'll refer again to what it means to be Irish. Meeting a jesuitical naval aviator (and i have met at least one in person, a young pilot whom i met in the mid-1990s) would not impress me anymore than meeting a warehouseman--other than that, having been a warehouseman, i'd consider the latter to be likely to be in better physical condition, and to have a better chance at kicking my ass.



Not at all. It is the fanatic who looses it in the face of the types of criticisms i deploy; the ordinarily faithful, in my experience, don't lose their grip because someone questions what they believe. At all events, as so many eminent men and women of letters have pointed out far more elegantly than i will be able to do, if what you believe is not proof against ridicule, it probably isn't worth believing.



We'll put a gold star next to your name on the bulletin board, O'George. I only ever make a concerted effort to draw blood with the real nut cases, or those like Snood or MOAN, who have given me specific reason lay into them. The occasional "loony" moments of the "regular guys" usually doesn't lead them to stalk me through the threads (as Snood has done) or to construct elaborate lies to attempt to gain my sympathy and divert my criticism (as MOAN did). So, once again, people generally get out of their interactions with me what they put into them.

Also, once again, this is an online discussion board. If i rattle your chain, and you snarl as a result, don't be surprised if i try to jerk you around again, and soon.