Your post boils down to: I can't believe you're serious, because I don't want you to be, and, as a result, I don't have to respond to you with anything resembling substance. Bullshit. You said "religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe" and then you claimed you never said that religion is irrational.
You lied, I caught you on it, and now you're pissed.
Great. Fuck you. Shrug. Next time try to match wits with someone who is more your speed. Like a snail.
My point is that nerdishly chortling "technically I did not threaten you hur hur hur hur" while stopping just shy of an actual threat is still an extremely poor practice. I didn't. I did not come anywhere close to a threat. I didn't "technically" not threaten him, I did nothing remotely resembling a threat. You are completely off-base, and have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm not sure if you've spent most of your life coding in a basement Funny, you're the one who appears to me to have little experience "in real life."
The meaning of words doesn't necessarily match their literal content. That is how sarcasm works. Exactly. So what's your problem?
to imply requires intent. Says who? Um. Every definition for the word ever?
Evidentially you have your own personal definition of "imply" but for your future reference these are two totally unrelated terms. False. A meaning is only implied if the speaker intended that meaning. The other word is "infer," where you think I intended a meaning, whether I did or not.
It is entirely impossible to imply something without intending to do it. False.
A bluff (look it up!) would be one example. In fact, no. In a bluff, you are still intending to give a certain meaning. Else it wouldn't be a bluff, it would be a mistake.
I have, in fact, non-violently bluffed my out of several situations by implying violence that I did not truly intend to commit. Which you obviously INTENDED to do. Why are you not getting this?
So you've always been clueless when it comes to human interactions. No, in fact, never. Where the hell did you get that stupid idea?
you do understand that you provoked that, right? No, in fact, I did not. When a girl gets raped while wearing tight clothes, I suppose you would say she provoked her assailant.
I'm just trying to help you here. Wow. And now you're lying. You really need help. You seem pathological.
The fact of the matter is: If the ranter's challenges seemed immature, yours were even more so. Huh. That's really silly for you to say because, in fact, I made no challenges of any kind.
Emotionally underdeveloped. What part of that term implies you're speaking *with* emotion? That you said I demonstrated it, of course. If nothing I said was spoken with emotion, then there's no possibility you could have detected whether or not I was emotionally underdeveloped.
Come on, think a little bit.
I'm saying you're as bad as Zen because you're responses to him seemed to contain about the same amount of maturity. Maturity or emotional development? Make up your mind. They are two different things.
And chances are it "seemed" that way to you because you didn't understand.
A third party interjecting on a pissing match between emotionally underdeveloped human beings doesn't implicitly descend to their level of immaturity because he chooses to voice his opinion. But I didn't descend to his level. It's clear that you didn't understand what I wrote.
I never stated that you were emotional in your post Correct, but it is was required that I would have done so for you to be able to make that comment.
nor did I say that somebody responding to you is a nitwit, only somebody responding to him No, you didn't. You said HE is the nitwit, and that someone RESPONDING TO a nitwit "has issues." You further said that I was "emotionally as underdeveloped as Zed is," which implies that, like him, I am also a nitwit. Not necessarily, of course, but that is the apparent implication, because that is basically what a nitwit is: "a silly person." And "silly" means, in essence,. someone who is emotionally underdeveloped.
I only said it is of my opinion that you're emotionally undeveloped. You're the one that took the shovel and kept digging. And now you've taken over the task for youself!
As far as I can tell, all you demonstrated is that you're emotionally as underdeveloped as Zed is. In fact, nothing I said carried any emotional weight whatsoever. Emotion had nothing to do with any of it. Your perception filters need adjustment.
Anybody that responds to that nitwit has some issues. Hm. So you say I am as bad as Zed, and that I have issues because I responded to him, and so what does that say about YOU responding to ME?
Since I don't really know you, I guess I'm out of line. Not at all. Nothing done with sincerity, modesty, and good intention for others is out of line.
pudge, you should have cut off your responses in this thread a while back, and you know it. Again with the "shoulds." No, in fact, you're wrong. There is no "should" here. There's only choices and consequences, none of them objectively superior to the other in the abstract, but only weighed against the intended consequences. If my goal were to not look bad to some people, sure, I should stop. Hell, I wouldn't have started. If my goal were to not waste time, then that too, would have prevented me from continuing. That is, of course, not my goal. My goal here? Entertainment and intellectual stimulation at the end of the day. So by no means should I have stopped.
Ok, go ahead and ban me now...... Hm. I sure hope you're joking.
That doesn't seem to stop idiots from bringing lawsuits, unfortunately. Oh, sure. But if threat of lawsuit were a deterrent to me, I'd shut off my computer and never turn it back on.:-)
Much better to respond to him on his own, er, hunting ground. Shrug. I post where I post. I am no respector of persons, nor of web sites.:-)
A threat would be saying that I *would*, rather than *could*, hurt him, which I absolutely did not do. You don't understand why this is threatening? Oh, I am sorry for confusing you. Let me explain again. I do understand why it is, in fact, not threatening. Does that help?
If I "casually" mentioned that I know where you live and that I used to be a firefighter and know how to get away with arson and that I think you're somebody whose family deserves to suffer, you wouldn't think that was threatening? It depends on the context. For example, I COULD take that as an actual threat right now. But from the context, it seems quite clear that you are merely making a point. Which is precisely what I did.
I understand what you're saying - you said you could hurt him, not that you would. No. In fact, I did not say I could hurt him. I was only TALKING like I could hurt him. He said, fuck people if they think they could talk to him like they could hurt him. To show how stupid he was being, I did precisely that: I talked to him like I could hurt him. I was not, in fact, saying I could hurt him. Those are the words I used, of course, but that is not the meaning I gave to those words, just like you used words like "arson" but did not, in fact, give meaning to those words such that you would actually commit arson.
What I am saying is that communication between human beings is not precise like code. Which is also, in part, what I am saying to Zed. He says, stupidly, that the "best part" about ripping on people is that he is legally allowed to do so, and their only recourse is to write about it. And then he says he would fight them if they wanted to, which shows there are, in fact, other recourses available. I simply showed how stupid he was being by telling people they couldn't talk to him like they could hurt him, and virtually sticking the logical knife in by telling him his only recourse to my use of the language he said I shouldn't use is to write about it, throwing his own words back at him.
That's the saddest part about all of this: if I end my post saying that his only recourse is to write about it, then doesn't that make it totally obvious that I am not actually talking about using force? Come on, people.
You did not say that you would hurt him, but the implication was clear. No, sorry, that is entirely false. There was no such implication whatsoever. And you even agree with me on that:
Obviously, I don't think you have any intention of hurting him. Then you just contradicted yourself: to imply requires intent. So you are saying here that, obviously, I did not imply I would hurt him.
Try that kind of crap in the real world and you get beaten up and/or slapped with restraining orders and/or worse. No, in fact, it doesn't. In the real world people are much more sane.
Although, it does bring to mind an incident when I was about 10 years old. The local bully was on my baseball team, and he was looking around at all his teammates, and saying, "I could beat you up, and you, and you," and I made some snarky comment to him. I turned my head and he sucker-punched me. What a loser he was. Anyone can beat anyone up if you fight dirty. I imagine he's probably in prison today.
See, most people take words to be mere words. Most people don't assume someone saying "I could beat you up" means you actually would try to. In this idiot's case, he did mean it, and he had to wait until I wasn't looking to try. But merely saying it -- unless, like him, you have a history to back it up -- simply will not justify legal action. Even if you meant it, which I quite clearly did not.
As to getting beaten up, hell, most people wouldn't bother trying, and those that would, shrug. I can't control what other people do.
What a poor image you project for your employer! Well, you were incorrect in most of the rest of what you wrote, so I don't think I'll consider this to be reasonable, either. No offense.
If you're not doing it for the "lulz" then you should just stop. What is this "should"? Can you point me to a URL that explains the rules?
If you are doing it for the "lulz" you need to work on your counter-trolling techniques. We expect a more seasoned ZING from the ones with the slashdot icon next to their names. No, the problem is, that it was too seasoned. It was above the heads of many of you.
Okay, this is fun. Two can play this game. I never said you threatened him, I told you not to threaten him. And I never said you said I threatened him. At best, I implied it... which is, of course, what your subject line did.
I can weasel out of that far more easily than you can weasel out of "Hey Zed: I could hurt you." Well no, in fact, you cannot, because your intent was to say that I threatened someone, but my intent from the beginning was not to claim I could hurt anyone.
Or are you saying that lying comes easily to you... ?
You claimed you could hurt him. False. It never happened.
Your Star Trek analogy is just dumb. Transporters don't exist Neither does my supposed claim that you keep talking about.
Man, arguing with you is like matching wits with a brain damaged orangutan. Oh come on, don't be so hard on yourself. I think you would fare much better against a brain-damaned orangutan. You might actually, I don't know, win a point or two.
I did not make such a claim... What I did was TALK to him like I could hurt him... IANAL, but I think the term the OP was looking for is "fear of immediate harm." Given the context, I think you're correct in claiming that you did not commit assault, as there was no credible threat of imminent violence (battery). On the other hand, I don't know much about "simple assault". I am not a lawyer either, but this is simple. I can tell anyone in the world that I could beat them up, and it does not constitute assault unless I give the distinct impression that I will attempt to do so.
I know what you wrote Shrug. You certainly didn't when you wrote your post. Maybe you do now.
I never said you made a threat. You wrote, and I quote exactly, "Don't threaten people on your company's web site." (Hint: it was your subject line.)
I said you made a claim you could hurt him, which you did. Sigh. I did no such thing. It's so sad that you still can't read things in context. I only TALKED like I could hurt him, as he specifically said people should not do. It's not the same thing as saying I actually could hurt him. Is the difference too subtle for you? If so, I am afraid I am at a loss for how to explain it further.
Perhaps this would help. You know Star Trek? Well, when they say they can teleport from the ship to the planet, they are not actually claiming it. They are just TALKING like they could.
If you still don't understand, well, my condolences.
Because the fact is, in a fair fight he would mess you up good. I don't know, and I don't care. If I actually had something to fight with him about -- and I clearly do not -- then maybe I would care. Although even then, probably not.
for you to claim you could hurt someone is just laughable. Shrug. Feel free to think that if I had ever done so, it would be laughable. As I've never done that, I don't see why it should matter to me.
Oh, and I should also point out that -- I feel silly pointing it out, because I don't want to make you look stupid, but you said it, and so, for the record -- even if I was actually making a claim that I could hurt him -- which I was not -- that simply does not constitute a threat. Those are two VERY different things. A threat would be saying that I *would*, rather than *could*, hurt him, which I absolutely did not do.
Pudge, you work here. You just claimed that you could hurt someone, on your company's web site. Well, no, I did not make such a claim, although I understand how it could possibly be seen that way to those who are not reading carefully. What I did was TALK to him like I could hurt him, which is what he said I shouldn't do. Context is everything! Talking like I could hurt hum is subtly, but significantly, different than claiming I could hurt him.
Now, what he said was that he would pay for the ring, and fight you legally. Yes, which is very odd, because right before that, he claimed the only recourse someone had is to write a rebuttal. Then he starts talking about OTHER forms of recourse. Very very strange.
Knowing the two of you You do not, in fact, know me.
I would absolutely love to see the two of you face off in a ring. Shrug. Nope. As he said, and I reiterated, his "only recourse is to write their pathetic little rebuttals in their stupid little blogs."
I'm not confused. Well, yes, you are. You think talking at someone's level is talking below their level. You should have learned more about spatial relationships in kindergarten -- or, really, preschool -- and it's a sad statement about today's education system.
I mean, the very thought that you would issue such a lame-ass threat See, you're still confused. I issued no threat at all. But, since you can't get basic spatial relationships right, I should be unsurprised that you don't know how to read.
And then, just when you think you couldn't find a person more pathetic and worthless than the stupid ranting tit, you came along to prove that no matter how low someone sinks, there is someone else willing to go a little lower. You, too, are confused. In fact, I did not go lower than him. How could I? I responded directly to what he said. That is not lower, but at precisely the same level.
You are apparently confused. I already did it. He said, fuck you if you think you're gonna talk to me like you can hurt me. So I did precisely that. I have completed my task, my victory is right there for all to see, and I've proven you wrong when you say I couldn't.
Hm. He wrote:
You don't like what I've said, then write something in reply but fuck you if you think you're gonna talk to me like you can hurt me. Hey Zed: I could hurt you.
Really bad.
I could hurt you so bad you would forget that you were even hurt. You would run screaming like a little girl to your happy place.
And your only recourse is to write your pathetic little rebuttals in your stupid little blog.
How does the existence of the solstice warrant a national holiday?
Because that's the way Macy's said it should be. Fine, but how are you going to get billions of people worldwide to care about that? Valentine's Day has been a tough sell enough, and it's had some success moving into Europe and Asia only because of its tie to romantic love. The solstice has nothing of the sort going for it. So: no.
You need to learn about marketing. Everything has to have a "hook." It's the religion that makes Easter and Christmas popular, period.
Nice try.
Well, not really. It was actually a very poor try.
Let's take a holiday which has pretty much no capitalism associated with it -- Sukkot. I bet you've never heard of it. You lose. And it doesn't make a point either way anyway.
Correct, it isn't. And even if you want to superimpose "religion" onto it somehow, how would that help your case, seeing as how there are no significant peoples, cultures, or societies who belong to that "religion" today, such that it would be celebrated by millions, let alone billions, of people? Except, oh, everyone celebrating "Christmas". Um. Wow, I guess my point went completely over your head, because Christmas is evidence supporting my point.
I am trying to illustrate that one cause is not so important as to become the reason, when, especially in the case of Christmas, there are at least a few others that fit just as well. Oh yeah, you're right. There are just as many people who care about Yule as care about the birth of Christ.
(If you think that what I just said sounds reasonable, then you are beyond reason.)
You apparently believe religion is irrational I never said any such thing. I wrote a logical evaluation of arguments about the reasons for Christmas. You responded:
if you're theistic or deistic at all, but, if you are, I'd love to see how you're going to argue your reasons for coming to be so, using the same display of logic and reason. That statement could have two reasons behind it: you could be honestly looking for a logical evaluation of arguments for theism, or you could be implying that you don't believe theism is logical. I highly doubt your reason was the former, as it is entirely off-topic to the discussion, and normally when people inject such completely off-topic requests for information, it is done for ulterior motives. Further, your use of the words "I'd love to see how you're going to argue your reasons" directly imply you don't believe it is possible, and that you have hostility toward the very idea.
Additionally, in a separate post, you wrote:
Who cares? Why not [make denigrate religious people]? Making fun of people is cool and fun, and religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe. So why not challenge them on it? So I'm calling you on your bullshit: you did, in fact, say such a thing. You just hoped I didn't see it.
I have no problem explaining the logical reasons for theism. I've done so many times. However, I do have a problem indulging trolls. That puts me in a bit of a bind, and I usually opt for not-indulging.
Slashdot Mirror
You lied, I caught you on it, and now you're pissed. Great. Fuck you. Shrug. Next time try to match wits with someone who is more your speed. Like a snail.
Sad, sad, sad.
Come on, think a little bit. I'm saying you're as bad as Zen because you're responses to him seemed to contain about the same amount of maturity. Maturity or emotional development? Make up your mind. They are two different things.
And chances are it "seemed" that way to you because you didn't understand. A third party interjecting on a pissing match between emotionally underdeveloped human beings doesn't implicitly descend to their level of immaturity because he chooses to voice his opinion. But I didn't descend to his level. It's clear that you didn't understand what I wrote. I never stated that you were emotional in your post Correct, but it is was required that I would have done so for you to be able to make that comment. nor did I say that somebody responding to you is a nitwit, only somebody responding to him No, you didn't. You said HE is the nitwit, and that someone RESPONDING TO a nitwit "has issues." You further said that I was "emotionally as underdeveloped as Zed is," which implies that, like him, I am also a nitwit. Not necessarily, of course, but that is the apparent implication, because that is basically what a nitwit is: "a silly person." And "silly" means, in essence,. someone who is emotionally underdeveloped. I only said it is of my opinion that you're emotionally undeveloped. You're the one that took the shovel and kept digging. And now you've taken over the task for youself!
Quit while you're behind!
The rest of your post is based on this incorrect premise, and therefore needs to be reworked. Try again!
Or something.
That's the saddest part about all of this: if I end my post saying that his only recourse is to write about it, then doesn't that make it totally obvious that I am not actually talking about using force? Come on, people. You did not say that you would hurt him, but the implication was clear. No, sorry, that is entirely false. There was no such implication whatsoever. And you even agree with me on that: Obviously, I don't think you have any intention of hurting him. Then you just contradicted yourself: to imply requires intent. So you are saying here that, obviously, I did not imply I would hurt him. Try that kind of crap in the real world and you get beaten up and/or slapped with restraining orders and/or worse. No, in fact, it doesn't. In the real world people are much more sane.
Although, it does bring to mind an incident when I was about 10 years old. The local bully was on my baseball team, and he was looking around at all his teammates, and saying, "I could beat you up, and you, and you," and I made some snarky comment to him. I turned my head and he sucker-punched me. What a loser he was. Anyone can beat anyone up if you fight dirty. I imagine he's probably in prison today.
See, most people take words to be mere words. Most people don't assume someone saying "I could beat you up" means you actually would try to. In this idiot's case, he did mean it, and he had to wait until I wasn't looking to try. But merely saying it -- unless, like him, you have a history to back it up -- simply will not justify legal action. Even if you meant it, which I quite clearly did not.
As to getting beaten up, hell, most people wouldn't bother trying, and those that would, shrug. I can't control what other people do. What a poor image you project for your employer! Well, you were incorrect in most of the rest of what you wrote, so I don't think I'll consider this to be reasonable, either. No offense.
Or are you saying that lying comes easily to you
Perhaps this would help. You know Star Trek? Well, when they say they can teleport from the ship to the planet, they are not actually claiming it. They are just TALKING like they could.
If you still don't understand, well, my condolences.
Oh, and I should also point out that -- I feel silly pointing it out, because I don't want to make you look stupid, but you said it, and so, for the record -- even if I was actually making a claim that I could hurt him -- which I was not -- that simply does not constitute a threat. Those are two VERY different things. A threat would be saying that I *would*, rather than *could*, hurt him, which I absolutely did not do.
Couldn't what?
You are apparently confused. I already did it. He said, fuck you if you think you're gonna talk to me like you can hurt me. So I did precisely that. I have completed my task, my victory is right there for all to see, and I've proven you wrong when you say I couldn't.
Really bad.
I could hurt you so bad you would forget that you were even hurt. You would run screaming like a little girl to your happy place.
And your only recourse is to write your pathetic little rebuttals in your stupid little blog.
Because that's the way Macy's said it should be. Fine, but how are you going to get billions of people worldwide to care about that? Valentine's Day has been a tough sell enough, and it's had some success moving into Europe and Asia only because of its tie to romantic love. The solstice has nothing of the sort going for it. So: no.
You need to learn about marketing. Everything has to have a "hook." It's the religion that makes Easter and Christmas popular, period.
Nice try.
Well, not really. It was actually a very poor try.
(If you think that what I just said sounds reasonable, then you are beyond reason.)
Additionally, in a separate post, you wrote: Who cares? Why not [make denigrate religious people]? Making fun of people is cool and fun, and religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe. So why not challenge them on it? So I'm calling you on your bullshit: you did, in fact, say such a thing. You just hoped I didn't see it.
I have no problem explaining the logical reasons for theism. I've done so many times. However, I do have a problem indulging trolls. That puts me in a bit of a bind, and I usually opt for not-indulging.