Joined: Jan. 2006
|OK, Louis, let's look at the "argument" then. In gross terms, I called Lenny on abusive behaviour, and you butted in, and attacked me (well, originally just my critique of Lenny, but it's got steadily more personal the longer things have gone on) instead. That, overall, Louis, is the "argument". Everthing else is to be read in that context.|
You're right about the quote I gave defending Lenny's annoyance. You can infact interpret it very narrowly, as you propose. Indeed, at first, that's how I interpreted it too. But later on, with your own admission that you are downright abusive, and that you aren't going to apologise with that, plus the famous frying pan comment have caused me to re-evaluate the first quote more widely, with 'annoyance' becoming an euphimism for 'abuse'.
I think this first bit sums up your problem. You consider people's tone "abusive" if the word "fuck" (or whatever) is used, I don't. When I said I was occasionally abusive I wasn't defending outright abuse in the sense of your pub analogy, or even saying I do it (I don't) what I was talking about was that, as a fallible human being I am far from above calling a lying wanker a lying wanker should the mood take me (and additionally I could [and have] mount a relatively robust defense of said terminology). This directly implies that there must be some prior history of lying wankerism before the utterance is made. So no Demallien, I have NOT admitted to being abusive in the sense YOU mean it, I have admitted to being abusive in the sense I mean it, and have taken great pains to define what that is. Nice strawman, no dice.
Here's the full comment:
|I agree with you that simply abusing Avo (or anyone like her) is not the way forward, and sorry but I personally have not SIMPLY abused anyone ever. Note key word. I might get extremely pissed off with people mincing about and being dishonest before you would do so, and I'll cheerfully hold my hands up to being an intolerant bastard on that front. And yes I am very likely to use colourful expressions, allusions, metaphors and indeed outright abusive statements when so annoyed. I don't apologise for that, sorry if that hurts.|
We can tell the part you quote isn't the full thing because, in the interests of naughty grammar, I started the section you quote with a conjunction, "and". The full quote rather molifies your use of it doesn't it? Not only that but it refers to my eplanation of what abuse is and isn't, something you continually miss.
Also you seem to be under the incredibly erroneous impression that you have been attacked personally. Need I point out the irony of this from someone who has called me a bully, insinuated that I am a coward (with no basis in fact might I add), said I'm condescending, aggressive (hold my hand high up on this one! ), judgemental and snide. I could take offense if I were a sensitive flower! Luckily I'm not. This again is I think your reading of "tone" as you wish to see it, not (perhaps) as it is. Granted I am far from above sarcasm, but when, after going around this I think three times and you STILL are pulling a Humpty Dumpty (words mean whatever I say they mean) my patience, such as it is, is being tried. I have made it abundantly clear precisely what I mean by the word abuse (amongst other things), precisely what I consider abusive and precisely when and where I would or do use abuse. You are free to differ, but at least do so by answering the points and questions I've made rather than insisting your interpretation is the correct one and my own clearly stated one is not. The simple fact that you repeatedly infer that what YOU mean abuse to be (your, let's be honest, ridiculous and inaccurate pub analogy) is what I mean it to be when I have clearly stated that it isn't and defined what it IS doesn't fill me with any confidence that this is a productive discussion. Sorry if you don't like that.
The rest of your post is paranoid blither. Sorry, but it's just amusing. You seem to have taken massive umbrage at the question "are you an old friend Demallien?". Dare I say thanks for proving my point for me. You are so keen to see abuse and so keen to see hostility that you'll twist anything to be so. I freely admit to a degree of paranoia in even asking that question, but I'm also sad to say that I've often be proven right when I ask it. If have have unduly wronged you Demallien, then I apologise unreservedly. As a corrollary to that apology I will mention that your desire to see hostility where none exists and the manner in which you argue thus far does put me in mind of another poster. If my fallible human mind has made a connection and pattern which is false, then I can only say that I was wrong to make that connection and apologise.
As for ad hominem and my thinking you're a creationist, sorry but where have I done that (outside your interpretation of course)? I couldn't give a hoot if you are a creationist or not, I'm pretty sure that your evangelical atheist status and support of evolutionary biology is irrelevant to this discussion as indeed is mine. I'm chuffed we're on the same "team" but so what? Not only do I not think in "team" on this or indeed many other issues (I prefer to deal with people as individuals as far as is practicable). Would you like me to read a number of possible inferences into this particular comment of yours? Just to reiterate, ad hominem, where? Where have I made any argument of the form "Demallien (or anyone) is a nasty X/does nasty X/has nasty X and therefore his/her argument about unrelated topic Y is false"? Simple answer is I haven't. I don't expect an apology of course, just like I didn't expect one when you deliberately quote mined (yes that is taken out of context and inserted your own meaning)what I said about Lenny's justifiable annoyance (not abuse, there is STILL a difference). You even admit you were wrong to do so right before flipping back to justifying your "interpretation". Sorry chum, no dice yet again.
Frying pans. Now Demallien, like I said before you are a very uncharitable reader of what I wrote, it is just possible isn't it that I said what I meant (that the frying pan analogy was a cartoon, a humourous mental image like a Roadrunner cartoon)? If we really want to get all lit crit about the use of people's imagery might I draw your attention to your own comments re: dental rearrangement? I'm just curious to note that the first instance of what you in your own words consider abusive imagery was done by you. Personally, I don't consider that use of image abusive, but you do by the force of your own words. Dare I offer an OOPS on your behalf?
Oh and my writing lacks clarity? Perhaps you aren't sufficiently intelligent or well educated to comprehend the plainly written English word. This is, I will hasten to add, a possibility I don't even want to begin to consider, but if we are being honest it is at least at first glance a likely a possibility as my writing being obscure. I could make the comment that, since you seem keen to insist that what I mean by a term that I have clearly defined is what YOU mean by a term, less clearly defined if at all, that I have a degree of evidence to support this most unfortunate possibility. But then I'm more charitable than you, so I won't.
Perhaps Demallien, you might find I am eminently more reasonable if you assume I mean precisely what I say, rather than what you THINK I mean. That will also apply to your doubtless forthcoming character assassination based on my invidious and evil posts past.