*****es that quit when I win

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by vondrack
Dunnagan, you might wish to pause and take a deep breath. Believe me, you are not doing yourself a good service by arguing with Aeson. Nor to anyone else here.

it isn't about doing a good service, vondrack.

Having one's wisdom teeth removed should not imply having one's wisdom removed - if your mouth is giving you hell and your mood is all-time bad, then kindly refrain from posting negative comments until it gets better and you regain perspective. There is no need to spread that bad mood around this friendly place.

if you've ever had them pulled, you know that in two days it's over. the pain was lingering when I made the post to vince, the last two days I've been pain -free.

Like I said before, I don't thrive off of arguing with people, nor do I enjoy it. It's a very rare occassion when you see me arguing about anything on a message forum.

Thank you.

vondrack you're a nice guy. I apologize, in full, if my thread offended you in any way.

-Dunnagan

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by Aeson


You broke up the sentence and then responded to it without regard to the other half of the sentence. That you then responded to the other half of the sentence without regard for the first doesn't make either of your arguments applicable.

I didn't 'break up' the sentence. I quoted select phrases, not leaving out a single word in the post, addressing everything.

You seperated out 'insult' from 'off-topic' and then made assumptions about my reasons for posting based solely on the 'off-topic', ignoring the 'insult'. In fact it was the other way around.

I addressed the 'insult' part of the post, aeson. How do you gather I 'ignored' it? or did you just make that up ?

It would obviously be less on-topic the more off-topic threads that occured.

Theoretically, that is true.

For you to respond with the assumtion that I speak in terms of black and white only shows your lack of understanding, not mine.

I assumed that because you didn't give any 'gray' examples. Read your post...the 'white' and 'black' issues are 'insult' and 'off-topic'.

lack of understanding

Pure irony.

I don't think you are the special one. You seem to think the rules do not (or should not) apply to you. You say your off-topic post is ok, even though the rules do not agree.

I said it was nice to have variety, and that a few monthly off-topic posts wouldn't hurt the forum, but make it more interesting, provided the author was of average or higher intelligence.

No, it's possible. It's just inane to do it.

You are smart Aeson, which has me wondering why you don't understand what argue means.

argue- conversation with someone who disagrees

Meaning there's two parties involved, each disagreeing with one another. A sig does not classify as a party.

Go back and read what you said. You were insulting him directly. You sound like you understand how you responded was wrong. Why continue to be defiant about it? Just apollogize and be done with it.

If and when Vince changes the signature, I will indeed give him a page long in-depth apology. Until then, I feel no remorse.

'Telling' was the term you used to refer to it. I was responding to your quote where you used 'telling' instead of 'asking'. I'm glad you can see I wasn't telling anyone to do anything now though.

I apologize, in full, if I did put down 'tell you' in that fashion; that is indeed uncalled for; nobody deserves to hear that from an acquaintance.

You're a good guy, Aeson. It takes a noble person to stand up to one being insulted, and I'm sure you have many loyal RL friends because of that quality.

-Dunnagan

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dunnagan
I didn't 'break up' the sentence. I quoted select phrases, not leaving out a single word in the post, addressing everything.

A sentence is a complete thought. By breaking it up and drawing conclusions based on a sentence fragment you failed to make applicable conclusions.

I addressed the 'insult' part of the post, aeson. How do you gather I 'ignored' it? or did you just make that up ?

You ignored it in the portion of your posts where you were making generalizations about my intent.

Theoretically, that is true.

In practice it is true as well.

I assumed that because you didn't give any 'gray' examples. Read your post...the 'white' and 'black' issues are 'insult' and 'off-topic'.

Your post is what it is. This forum isn't what your post is, but a compilation of thousands of posts. When I address a specific post, what you said is black and white.

You made the claim that my intent was to say that your post would define the forum, which it obviously doesn't.

I said it was nice to have variety, and that a few monthly off-topic posts wouldn't hurt the forum, but make it more interesting, provided the author was of average or higher intelligence.

Basically everyone here is average or higher intelligence. Everyone here shouldn't be making off topic posts. There are forums reserved for that (or other topics), and if you need variety, just visit the other forums.

You are smart Aeson, which has me wondering why you don't understand what argue means.

argue- conversation with someone who disagrees

Meaning there's two parties involved, each disagreeing with one another. A sig does not classify as a party.

From the dictionary:

ar·gue ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärgy)
v. ar·gued, ar·gu·ing, ar·gues
v. tr.

1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: “It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them” (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: “Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent” (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.

As you can see there are uses for "argue" that do not require it to be part of a discussion with another person like you suggest.

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by Aeson
A sentence is a complete thought. By breaking it up and drawing conclusions based on a sentence fragment you failed to make applicable conclusions.

a sentence is a grammatically correct complete thought, I agree. Show me (the money Jerry!!)where you say I drew conclusions based on a sentence fragment.

You made the claim that my intent was to say that your post would define the forum, which it obviously doesn't.

You made it clear that you think off topic posts and a couple insults will make a forum change as a whole for the worse, hence your saying 'I'd like to see it remain that way.'

As you can see there are uses for "argue" that do not require it to be part of a discussion with another person like you suggest.

I didn't say that was the only use for the word argue. I suggested the only applicable version of argue that would pertain to my picture caption post(the one you suggested and put into words). That doesn't pertain to my picture caption post. You claimed I was arguing with a signature, which, is impossible. (Scroll to the post and look for an argument, even a one sided one.)

The signature may have been quoted, so I can see why you'd think I was arguing with what I was quoting; but the post was directed to the creator of the signature, which is obvious.


-Dunnagan

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dunnagan
Since you put this on every single post, I thought I'd share my thoughts about it.

It's a signature. Lots of people have them. You can edit yours in the control panel (currently you have none). It's not like he types it in after every post; the forum adds it automatically.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dunnagan
a sentence is a grammatically correct complete thought, I agree. Show me (the money Jerry!!)where you say I drew conclusions based on a sentence fragment.

You quoted:

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm sure most everyone here would,

and drew this conclusion from it: (emphasis added)

Originally posted by Dunnagan
Nobody wants to see a good forum go under, of course.

Then again, who else thinks a couple off-topic posts per month will eventually turn a solid forum with brilliant minds reading it upside down.(as you clearly imply.)

Saying that I clearly imply that off-topic posts will turn a forum "upside down" when I had said no such thing (see: black and white argument), while ignoring the next part of the sentence which dealt with insults:

Originally posted by Aeson
so if you need to insult someone

Which obviously says that my argument is not solely against off-topic posts. So you ignored the insult part of the sentence while making an assertion about my argument as a whole.

Originally posted by Dunnagan
You made it clear that you think off topic posts and a couple insults will make a forum change as a whole for the worse, hence your saying 'I'd like to see it remain that way.'

Yes! You figured it out. First you were claiming it was only the off-topic posts I was referencing, without regard for the insults which were actually the driving factor in my addressing you at all. You've also given up your 'black and white' assessment of my posting to accurately depict my claim as 'better and worse'.

Originally posted by Dunnagan
I didn't say that was the only use for the word argue.

You clearly said that it is impossible for arguing to be used in reference to statements made about someone's sig:

Originally posted by Dunnagan
You said: " arguing with someone's sig... "...which is obviously impossible.

Originally posted by Dunnagan
I suggested the only applicable version of argue that would pertain to my picture caption post(the one you suggested and put into words). That doesn't pertain to my picture caption post.

Of course not. It pertains to the previous post where you were arguing with his sig. You will note you did not quote his sig in your picture caption post, and I did not quote that post. How you get that the picture caption post was the one I was referencing is beyond me. I quoted your other post, and have not quoted anything from the picture caption thread at all.

As you seem to want me to address that post, I will oblige.

Your picture post was sheer ego stroking on your part. First quoting yourself, then making a "PWNED" type comment. It seems I didn't accurately assess your posts, forgetting to add spamming and gloating to the list.

Spamming is also against the forum rules BTW.

Originally posted by Dunnagan
You claimed I was arguing with a signature, which, is impossible. (Scroll to the post and look for an argument, even a one sided one.)

Again you maintain that the term arguing cannot be used "To put forth reasons for or against" an idea or statement.

You quoted the sig. Just like I quoted these passages from you and am now making arguments against them. This is what I mean by "arguing with someone's sig", and is consistant with the dictionary definition 1 for the term. Which you claim is impossible to use that way.

Originally posted by Dunnagan
The signature may have been quoted, so I can see why you'd think I was arguing with what I was quoting; but the post was directed to the creator of the signature, which is obvious.

Even if we ignore the dictionary and go with your definition... Vince hasn't responded, so you couldn't be arguing against him:

Originally posted by Dunnagan
Arguing is when the other party speaks back.

[Vince278]

Greetings! I'm sorry I haven't responded in a while, the real world has unfortunately intruded and even now I only have time to be brief. Wow, it looks like I've missed quite a bit. I like to thank Aeson, UnOrthOdOx, vondrack, and Kuciwalker for their remarks. Not only are they right on the money but it saves me the trouble of responding to each outburst.

Perhaps a little history may help. My sig line, which was the only one I ever used, originated in the OT forum in a thread entitled something like "What do you do to irritate people". The responses were generally light-hearted and I replied in kind. It was not meant as a subtle insult to everyone (which would be dumb since I don't know anyone here) it was meant as a humourously subtle jab at myself. Quotes are just that, nothing says they must reflect the truth, and nobody that I'm aware of has been banned for humbly insulting himself. (and have you even looked at some of the others out there?)

A few short comments to Dunnagan:
1. When did you, in the two weeks that you've been registered, decide the forum and site rules did not apply to you?
2. Why do you feel the need to have myself or someone else argue with you?
3. Your using way too many "on-topic" posts to make a fool out of yourself. Someone should reduce your count for you.
4. You will be waiting a long time if you want me to drop a long used sig or apologize for it merely for your sake over everyone else's.
5. Have you noticed I added a quote from one of your posts in this thread. It appears to say that you are smart and interesting and others are not. Ironic, isn't it?

[Kuciwalker]

Mods, please move this thread

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by Vince278
Greetings! I'm sorry I haven't responded in a while, the real world has unfortunately intruded and even now I only have time to be brief.

That's a good story, Vince...however, It's interesting you had time to change your sig three days ago but not reply to the post. No need to lie, vince. We all know you didn't know what to say in reply to my post. You went from being a troll, to 'having rl issues' conveinently after being flamed. However aeson's previous message motivated you to post something, which is nice of you.

It was not meant as a subtle insult to everyone (which would be dumb since I don't know anyone here)

Well if you are being truthful here, I gotta tell you I apologize for cursing. But the sig sounds conceded vince.. and I'm not the only one that thinks so..

1. When did you, in the two weeks that you've been registered, decide the forum and site rules did not apply to you?

Here's some cheese. It goes well with wine.

2. Why do you feel the need to have myself or someone else argue with you?

when someone says something I disagree with, theres a point to be made. that's it.

3. Your using way too many "on-topic" posts to make a fool out of yourself. Someone should reduce your count for you.

I've recieved three separate emails from people I don't even know thanking me for speaking up about your sig.

what's that tell you?

5. Have you noticed I added a quote from one of your posts in this thread. It appears to say that you are smart and interesting and others are not. Ironic, isn't it?

What the post says is that off topic posts aren't bad; provided the poster is of average of higher intelligence, and the topic is interesting..which is absolutely true.

Never did I say I was smarter than anyone. Maybe you view others smarter than you and that's why you posted that.

I have sympathy for you, it takes a specific type of person to get flamed and not know how to respond to it, and then lie about it. I guess you didn't think I'd notice you changed that sig.

At least aeron said something, maybe you wouldn't even have posted at all if he hadn't spoke up. Pathological liars suck.


-Dunnagan

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Mods, please move this thread

Maybe emailing an admin would yield better results.

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Dunnagan
Since you put this on every single post, I thought I'd share my thoughts about it.

It's a signature. Lots of people have them. You can edit yours in the control panel (currently you have none). It's not like he types it in after every post; the forum adds it automatically.

that came out totally wrong, thanks for bringing it to my attention...fixing that post now

[Ming]

I think this has gone on long enough...

Case Closed.