Little Girl: Do you wanna build a snowman?Old Man: NoLittle Girl: *cries hysterically*
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
There was two blank lines after my reply to him. I just didn't quote you afterwards.I'm just going into philosophy here and seriously questioning you. Will you not humour me? This is not about arguing. Should I start a thread for this instead?You brought up the subject, and that happens to be another topic I like talking about.
Quote from: Al Swearengen on May 02, 2011, 11:57:21 PMQuote from: Pyraxis on May 02, 2011, 11:07:07 PMQuote from: odeon on May 02, 2011, 06:24:43 AMHow is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.Nope. The further qualifications are to remove ambiguity, and your simplified definitions, by the nature of simplification, are imprecise.Beyond that, it's about subtext. So long as you refuse to acknowledge such a thing, we will never come to agreement.That said she will have a go at it. She dresses up silly notions to make them almost look legitimate though and that is something Hadron srives for but doesn't come close to doing. Quote from: odeon on May 02, 2011, 06:24:43 AMAnd finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.Yep. I often disagree with both of your stances on things. I also find your communication styles limiting and unpleasant. Hence, more conflict.That and the fact that you and Hadron are contrary in most discussions here and take the path less traveled in discussions. The big difference is that Hadron looks like he confuses himself when he does it. You do it rather a lot better.I think you do it to shit-stir and you like the intellectual exercise of taking a strong opposition to things. I personally find it interesting and like watching you come in to play.Hadron does it with everyone. Pyraxis is more selective so as a shit-stirrer she is rather limited. She doesn't like me or Callaway and it shows. I'd be more impressed if she did the same with others and even more so if she had a leg to stand on.
Quote from: Pyraxis on May 02, 2011, 11:07:07 PMQuote from: odeon on May 02, 2011, 06:24:43 AMHow is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.Nope. The further qualifications are to remove ambiguity, and your simplified definitions, by the nature of simplification, are imprecise.Beyond that, it's about subtext. So long as you refuse to acknowledge such a thing, we will never come to agreement.That said she will have a go at it. She dresses up silly notions to make them almost look legitimate though and that is something Hadron srives for but doesn't come close to doing. Quote from: odeon on May 02, 2011, 06:24:43 AMAnd finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.Yep. I often disagree with both of your stances on things. I also find your communication styles limiting and unpleasant. Hence, more conflict.That and the fact that you and Hadron are contrary in most discussions here and take the path less traveled in discussions. The big difference is that Hadron looks like he confuses himself when he does it. You do it rather a lot better.I think you do it to shit-stir and you like the intellectual exercise of taking a strong opposition to things. I personally find it interesting and like watching you come in to play.
Quote from: odeon on May 02, 2011, 06:24:43 AMHow is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.Nope. The further qualifications are to remove ambiguity, and your simplified definitions, by the nature of simplification, are imprecise.Beyond that, it's about subtext. So long as you refuse to acknowledge such a thing, we will never come to agreement.That said she will have a go at it. She dresses up silly notions to make them almost look legitimate though and that is something Hadron srives for but doesn't come close to doing. Quote from: odeon on May 02, 2011, 06:24:43 AMAnd finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.Yep. I often disagree with both of your stances on things. I also find your communication styles limiting and unpleasant. Hence, more conflict.
How is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.
And finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.
Quote from: odeon on May 03, 2011, 12:41:29 AMQuote from: Al Swearengen on May 02, 2011, 11:57:21 PMQuote from: Pyraxis on May 02, 2011, 11:07:07 PMQuote from: odeon on May 02, 2011, 06:24:43 AMHow is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.Nope. The further qualifications are to remove ambiguity, and your simplified definitions, by the nature of simplification, are imprecise.Beyond that, it's about subtext. So long as you refuse to acknowledge such a thing, we will never come to agreement.That said she will have a go at it. She dresses up silly notions to make them almost look legitimate though and that is something Hadron srives for but doesn't come close to doing. Quote from: odeon on May 02, 2011, 06:24:43 AMAnd finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.Yep. I often disagree with both of your stances on things. I also find your communication styles limiting and unpleasant. Hence, more conflict.That and the fact that you and Hadron are contrary in most discussions here and take the path less traveled in discussions. The big difference is that Hadron looks like he confuses himself when he does it. You do it rather a lot better.I think you do it to shit-stir and you like the intellectual exercise of taking a strong opposition to things. I personally find it interesting and like watching you come in to play.Hadron does it with everyone. Pyraxis is more selective so as a shit-stirrer she is rather limited. She doesn't like me or Callaway and it shows. I'd be more impressed if she did the same with others and even more so if she had a leg to stand on.Yes but Hadron for all his ego stoking as to being intellectual is fucking hopeless. You are right about Pyraxis being selective who she targets. You are right about not having a leg to stand on but then that comes with shit-stirring. She does manage to dress up a silly notion and pads it well enough to almost pass it for a clever idea. This is something Hadron tries for and fails miserably at. That she doesn't manage it is neither here nor there. I think she does very well. End result of a dressed up silly notion is under scrutiny it will show itself as silly, but I find it interesting how she works this. She is trying to be provocative.
I only came hear judging odeon. And I'm constantly making judgements to understand people.
I'll just diagnose myself as Goddess of the Universe and have done with it. Hell with autism!
nice is just something written on biscuits.
You guys are so gay.
Quote from: RageBeoulve on May 03, 2011, 10:01:47 AMYou guys are so gay. My sides are split with your sheer comic wit.(OMG IT RHYMED )
Quote from: Lady Squidling on May 03, 2011, 10:26:33 AMQuote from: RageBeoulve on May 03, 2011, 10:01:47 AMYou guys are so gay. My sides are split with your sheer comic wit.(OMG IT RHYMED )Gayness reaching critical mass.
Odeon I hope this isn't too personal a question , if it is just say and I'll delete and apologise if needs be.If one of your children decided they were trans (obviously when they are much older) , and wanted you to refer them as the opposite gender , would you refer to them as their desired gender?I'm not attempting to bring emotions into this i'm just genuinely curious.
Quote from: Lady Squidling on May 03, 2011, 09:58:59 AMOdeon I hope this isn't too personal a question , if it is just say and I'll delete and apologise if needs be.If one of your children decided they were trans (obviously when they are much older) , and wanted you to refer them as the opposite gender , would you refer to them as their desired gender?I'm not attempting to bring emotions into this i'm just genuinely curious. Excellent question.I honestly don't know. I would probably try but I doubt it would be easy.
I guess it's something I will only find out if it happens.
