Heh, I was going to tell you how much I enjoy your drive-bys. Keep 'em
up. I love free spiritedness. This place needs a little shaking up as
the meds make them fall asleep.
On 06/15/2015 10:16 AM, Duveyoung wrote:
When is someone going to get that I'm fucking having funzies here with
my creativity that often features the anger tone? Geeeze. If I'm
vociferous, so the fuck what?
And it was an ad hominem, because the issue was "Is Edg a quality
thinker?" -- unexpressed, yes, but, no, IT WAS EXPRESSED. And to deny
this when everyone here knows that Steve was trying to elbow my ribs
is ANOTHER ACT OF AGGRESSION AGAINST ME.
Hee hee, fucking hee......I loves me da capital letters.
Can I get angry in a nanosecond? OF FUCKING COURSE I CAN. Can't you?
Can I have love flowing instantly? OF FUCKING COURSE I CAN. Can't you?
Have I lived a mostly normal life? OF FUCKING COURSE I DID. Didn't you?
I have been every kind of person -- shitheel, joker, leader, teacher,
priest, lover, devotee, businessman, sportsman, psychologist, father,
son, brother, husband, uncle, cousin, loser, winner. Got me tons of
success and tons of failure. OF COURSE I HAVE HAD EVERY EMOTION A
THOUSAND TIMES AND CAN RECALL OR RE-INSTITUTE THOSE WORKINGS OF MY
NERVOUS SYSTEM.
I'm having five thoughts per second -- I can cherry pick any emotion I
want and by attending it, amplifying it into a full flown mental event
with tons of processing. CAN'T YOU? Or rather, DON'T YOU SEE THAT
YOU DO THIS TOO?
If you haven't been all roles of life and gotten really muddified,
shame on you for wasting a life.
Am I angry right now as I type this? NOOOOOOO! THIS IS FUN ! I'm
writing! I'm putting words together "just so."
If I was angry, you'd not know it until the boom was lowered -- would
not want to give you advanced warning...that I was just now stepping
up onto your porch....with a blunt instrument.....hee hee....see?....I
just put an onerous image into your mind......writers get away with
this shit! .
And, me?, angry at the pissants here when I have had REAL ENEMIES WHO
DID MASSIVE DAMAGE TO ME IN EVERY WAY? Get real -- no one here is
worth my anger. And by the way, I have never taken revenge on anyone
in the real world.....though I did win three lawsuits.....I mostly
mean punching someone in the nose -- haven't been in a fist fight
since I was 13 years old. Not saying that Willy's nose wouldn't be
bloodied if I was stuck in an elevator with him, but God has protected
me by not putting me in said circumstances. Lucky me, eh?
The real issue that I was addressing with satire is that Steve's
trolling is too subtle for the likes of Doug to moderate. Doug can't
nail Steve for having an evil intent, because it would require a
massive trial and gathering of facts -- impossible. THAT WAS MY
POINT. Doug is going to fail at moderation, because everyone would
fail at it.
And how much more does it take for Doug to declare someone a misfit
troll out to make someone feel bad?
Does it really have to be such a large deal like someone asserting a
lie that amounts to legal libel before Doug will ban someone?
It's obvious that there's many here who LOVE TO DIG AT SOMEONE and get
them riled up, and yet, Doug has not addressed anyone's MANY sins
since he "took over here." See? That's proof about how hard it is to
pull it off -- Doug's probably regretting this, heh.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote :
Steve did not commit an ad hominem
All he said was:
1. Doug was a moderator and not responsible for vetting all content
(that would be rather difficult because Doug has to go outside and
work). This is basically a factual statement.
2. He said Doug was not a therapist, which is also probably a factual
statement. Then he expressed an opinion that you had personal issues
with anger. This may or may not be true. But his short post was not
concerned with any argument you made supporting some position, so it
is not an ad hominem. Ad hominem refers to logical argumentation as
was discussed in post #416814. With out supporting arguments an
opinion is just that, a surmise. Based on your response, I think
Steve's surmise has some merit, but that is still an opinion. Nobody
knows exactly what a person's inner emotional state is, but people do
make judgements based on the perceived outer behaviour of a person,
gestures, what they say, how they say or write.
Your response to Steve appears to be what is called a diatribe which
is defined (courtesy of google.com):
A forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
synonyms: tirade, harangue, onslaught, attack, polemic, denunciation,
broadside, fulmination, condemnation, censure, criticism.
Now that sounds like someone who is angry, that anger directed at
Steve in this case. This pretty much looks like a personal attack,
whereas Steve, it seemed to me (opinion), was just making a
suggestion. If any one has violated the guidelines here in this
exchange, you have.
I have to admit though, it is very entertaining. People to not require
a Ph.D. to determine whether they think someone is angry or
unbalanced, though eventually other factors may intervene for that
someone, such as law enforcement officers or medical professionals
working in the area of mental health.
If I were to comment on 'your case', I would have the opinion you have
low self esteem, that you blow up some simple comments into a vast
conspiracy against your person.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
Steve, You are labeling me as someone with stored up anger....."to
whatever degree"....and for a large part of my adult life.
This is an ad hominem -- in a public forum.
How so?
Quite simply Ihave not reported (here at FFL or elsewhere online) my
inner emotional states throughout my life with any detail such that a,
what?, couch psychiatrist?, can insinuate about my past or present or
future emotional states.....let alone present a logical assembly of my
posts that would demonstrate to a scientific prognosticator enough
information for that "decider" to say, "Oh, yeah, that kind of mind,
piss on it, that anger just clouds his judgment and it's just not
worth dealing with this fuckwad."
Yet this is exactly the intent of your post. You with no credentials
are asserting something untrue about me.
This is a foul accusation about me. I protest to Doug.
Doug? T! here are not enough facts in evidence that I am someone with
stored up anger -- which is merely code for "might blow at any
minute." My online history is checkered with every manner of
emotionalism, because I'm a writer and give myself permission to be
silly, satirical, rude, outrageous, poetic, raw, real, fake OR
WHATEVER. To interpret who I am from my online posts would require a
PhD jury to authenticate some candidate's findings. AS FUCKING IF.
This is an outrageous smear job by any decent minded regard.
Aaaaaaaaand, further, the question: "Does that make sense?" is clearly
another attempt to present the concept "Edg is
sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo fucking stupid, you have to treat him
like child, and always double check what's going on in that little
noggin' of his."
It is this sort of tactic that everyone here understands for what it
is: plain old trolling -- with a smirk that assumes there's denial
ability to shield all protests. "What? I never meant that. Why how
dare you accuse me of having such a low intent." -- like that. Like
fucking that. That's the tactic -- to me, it's Gestapol shit.
Now, in the past, I would enter into a delightful tirade of withering
statements about you, personally, that would leave stains on your
soul, but DOUG IS WATCHING, so I won't.
But you have violated the intent and spirit of the guidelines -- IN MY
OPINION, and I call for Doug to arbitrate this issue and give us the
benefit of his wisdom -- here in the public forum where the "act"
occurred. Let's see if you have, indeed, befouled our pristine and new
intent to be civil here, or if I'm mistaken and, truly, everyone
thinks I'm way over the top in my interpretation of your below text.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
He's a moderator Edg, not responsible for vetting all the content that
passes through here in terms of its future efficacy. Or present
efficacy for that matter.
Nor is he a therapist to help you process whatever anger you have
stored up from what appears to be a large part of your adult life
participating in this movement.
Does that make sense?
