I’m late to this. I’ve been catching up on someone’s posts. But this is irresistible.
Keep The Reason - 03 November 2008 12:04 AM
Probably the least likable thing about both of you isn’t your childish egotistical attacking of people whose ideas you don;t like, it’s both of your don’t have the courage to man up and own the response of criticism that comes with it.
In other words, the least likable thing about Sanders and SC isn’t their childish egotistical attacking of people, it’s their refusal to “man up and own” childish and egotistical attacks in return.
Now what can this possibly mean? What would consist of “manning up and owning” return criticism?
Do you expect SC or Sanders to burst into tears and apologize? “Oh, dear KTR, we are so sorry for not recognizing that you were right all along. If only he could hear us—if only we could tell him how wrong we were.” <sobbing>
If not, what? Please describe what their “manning up and owning” your attacks on them would look like (other than it already does; it’s not like they are ignoring you).
- you want to bully, and want to whine when someone stands up to you and says “No.”
Too bad.
Oooh! Valiant KTR, barely able to stay upright with that set of stones between his legs, stands up anyway and says “No.” Members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders were never so brave.
That will shut them up, won’t it?
Won’t it?
Well, it’ll have some effect. And if not—TOO BAD.
They’re shaking in their boots now!
But seriously, KTR, please tell me what you would like to see Sanders and Salt Creek do. I personally don’t detect any whining from them, but we can agree to disagree about that. I also don’t see you telling them “No” in any meaningful way—how could you, anyway? It might be helpful to explain that too.
I’m just puzzled. I suspect this is just the always-satisfying flamery we all enjoy, but I’m willing to be enlightened. As always, I Could Be Wrong.
But seriously, KTR, please tell me what you would like to see Sanders and Salt Creek do.
I’m just puzzled. I suspect this is just the always-satisfying flamery we all enjoy, but I’m willing to be enlightened. As always, I Could Be Wrong.
I never expected them to do anything one way or the other. Sometimes I get called out for saying something stupid, or being surly, or whatever, and I don’t have a problem admitting it if it’s true. I don’t necessarily respond by spewing invective around in all directions like a startled octopus.
Sometimes it’s ok to admit you’re wrong about something, or you said something in a nasty sort of way. The sky rarely comes falling down.
But seriously, KTR, please tell me what you would like to see Sanders and Salt Creek do.
First of all, it is Sander without the extra S and second, I am tired of getting lumped in with Mr. Creek as if we were a beast with two heads.
For starters, my head is far prettier and a lot more vacuous.
If you’re tired of being lumped with SC, then it is up to you to distinguish yourself. And almost anyone shy of a self-hating person would claim that head.
If you’re tired of being lumped with SC, then it is up to you to distinguish yourself.
This is the oddest instance of third-order guilt-by-free-association that I have ever seen. For one thing, it was that moron KTR who was doing the lumping. For another thing M is for Malapert was asking that moron KTR a direct question about just what it was that he (KTR) wanted Sander and me to do. M is for Malapert was not doing any lumping herself, but only inquiring as to the casus belli implied by KTR himself, who has made a career out of acting wounded-by-being-dissed-for-fatuous-idiocy.
So the lesson for Sander is, if he wants to avoid taking his lumps-by-association in the minds of morons like KTR and Professor Doctor Campbell, he will have to recognize that it is an inversion of epic proportions to try to distinguish oneself in the minds of morons.
But seriously, KTR, please tell me what you would like to see Sanders and Salt Creek do.
First of all, it is Sander without the extra S and second, I am tired of getting lumped in with Mr. Creek as if we were a beast with two heads.
For starters, my head is far prettier and a lot more vacuous.
Sorry about the extra S. I did literally have one of those moments, falling asleep, when I suddenly realized I’d added it. (But although it did wake me up in momentary consternation, I didn’t care enough to get up and edit all those posts it could’ve appeared in. Apologies again.)
I’d been reading too many posts by Dennis and KTR and the others who add the S, which is no excuse for being careless myself, however.
Complain to KTR about lumping you in with Salt Creek, though.
Note that I am not saying human beings are evil, either. I’m just offended by the kind of presumption and emotional appeal you employ in the course of vilifying someone who doesn’t adopt the standards of discourse you approve of. In an internet forum, of all places. Do you think you’re on the floor of the US Congress, or something?
He should observe the floor of the British House of Commons. C-Span runs “Question Time”, where members have at the Prime Minister in a way that would shock our delicate flowers here, for example.
If you’re tired of being lumped with SC, then it is up to you to distinguish yourself.
This is the oddest instance of third-order guilt-by-free-association that I have ever seen. For one thing, it was that moron KTR who was doing the lumping. For another thing M is for Malapert was asking that moron KTR a direct question about just what it was that he (KTR) wanted Sander and me to do. M is for Malapert was not doing any lumping herself, but only inquiring as to the casus belli implied by KTR himself, who has made a career out of acting wounded-by-being-dissed-for-fatuous-idiocy.
So the lesson for Sander is, if he wants to avoid taking his lumps-by-association in the minds of morons like KTR and Professor Doctor Campbell, he will have to recognize that it is an inversion of epic proportions to try to distinguish oneself in the minds of morons.
