XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.past-films   
   From: nospam@yahoo.com   
      
   Merrick Baldelli wrote:   
   > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:15:36 +0800, "C'Pi"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Merrick Baldelli wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:28:03 +0800, "C'Pi"  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Well, the "it of the now" which you called a farce, was as far as I   
   >>>> could   
   >>>> tell directed at me.   
   >>>   
   >>> Quite correct.  You my little torqued up padawan finally did   
   >>> catch on...   
   >>   
   >> So then I was correct along.   
   >   
   > And yet you blythely continued on a different line of thought.   
   > My word.  You're a politician aren't you?  Always right, never wrong   
   > -- in spite of the fact that you took the wrong path and continued on   
   > until it was pointed out to you otherside.   
      
   What you have written here doesn't really make any sense. Why would I change   
   a line of thought if I was correct?  But then in the last sentence you say I   
   did change.  No, you're not making any sense here.   
      
   >>>> You did after all say, "It's becoming a farce" in what seemed to be   
   >>>> response to my post.  If you meant the discussion as a whole and   
   >>>> not me in particular making it a farce then that's nice.  But then   
   >>>> the discussion is the people in it, so I'm not sure how you   
   >>>> separate the two.  I may have not been the whole "farce" you were   
   >>>> talking about, but I must have been part of it.   
   >>>   
   >>> Hmmm...  *Re-reading this twice.*  And you said *I* have   
   >>> issues?  Seems yours were rearing their ugly head long before mine   
   >>> did.   
   >>   
   >> Be specific.   
   >   
   > I am...  You apparently have issues comprehending tenses in   
   > English.   
      
   Or you're simply moving your argument around.   
      
   >> What in my first post were issues "rearing their ugly head"   
   >   
   > No, the one previous.   
      
   The one previous to the first one?  No, that can't be it since there can't   
   be a previous post to the first one.  So the one before the last one?  But   
   that doesn't really make sense since you said my issues "were rearing their   
   ugly head long before mine (yours) did."   
      
   >> and which you called a farce?   
   >   
   > No, that would've been the one that I had responded to about   
   > bowing out of.   
   >   
   > Really.  Do you need a clue map?   
      
   Obviously, cuase so far you're not making a whole lot of sense.   
      
   >> Now, I already know you didn't like the gay comment, but there must   
   >> have been something more than that related to my comments on the   
   >> movie.   
   >   
   > No...  I'm simple like that.  My respect for you diminished   
   > when you made the comment about "...gay dapper politician..."  and   
   > diminished exponentially from there when you thought you said nothing   
   > wrong.  The Star Wars discussion had been pretty bowed out of when I   
   > realized I was going into a realm of novelizations and justifying   
   > conjecture therein.   
      
   That's all understood.   
      
   >>> I bet you're one of those "Special" kind of folk that tell   
   >>> people to "butt out" of a public thread because you can't   
   >>> differentiate between talking to a person and having others chiming   
   >>> in.  And by "special" I mean limited.  Bless.   
   >>   
   >> Since I've never asked you to "butt out" and have instead   
   >> specifically made   
   >> it clear I want you to comment on whatever you like, even if it's an   
   >> insult towards me, then you're just making stuff up about me again.   
   >   
   > That my torqued up little padawan, is called conjecture based   
   > on demonstrable characteristics.  You do rise entirely too easily to   
   > the call of flamebait, I'll say this much.   
      
   Just as long as it clear you're just making up flamebait, it doesn't bother   
   me.   
      
   >> What I would like is for you to be consistent.   
   >   
   > I have been consistent.  You simply lack the ability to   
   > comprehend what's coming at you.  Not surprising really, given that   
   > you confuse easily between facts, conjecture, perspective and   
   > flamebait.   
      
   In the end it becomes clear which is which.  Just wanting to be clear.   
      
   >> So far you haven't, and that leads to confusion.   
   >   
   > No, get the facts straight.  You have a difficult time   
   > comprehending what you're reading and instead of reading what's being   
   > said to you at face value, are trying to find the meaning behind the   
   > words in order to determine what it is I'm trying to imply.  Dangerous   
   > game there, as I use words as directly as possible -- even when I say,   
   > "I'm attempting to imply to you the importance of these words..."   
      
   You're trying to be as direct as possible but at the same time filling your   
   words with a mixture of facts, conjecture, perspective, and flamebait?  No,   
   wonder things get confusing.   
      
   >> Was the "farce" you commented on me or this discussion/debate?   
   >   
   > Asking questions like this is good.  Someone's apparently   
   > taught you to ask questions.  Good for them.  Too bad though it took   
   > too much assumption to get you to this point.   
      
   Supposedly you were being clear before when I asked you but since you   
   contradicted yourself so much I had to ask again.   
      
   > To answer this question: The discussion and the choice of what   
   > you were using to justify your side of the debate.   
      
   Is this the answer you'll stick to now?   
      
   >> You've said both.  If you think that makes sense, fine, but it   
   >> certainly   
   >> doesn't make sense to me.   
   >   
   > It started with one, and ended with both.  Can your mind not   
   > make logical leaps?  Or do you constantly need a Kloo to keep up with   
   > discussions.   
      
   When you contradict yourself, yes.   
      
   >>> My backing out was indeed VERY civil..  But your chances of my   
   >>> remaining civil were lost the instant you used the word "gay" in the   
   >>> manner you did, and further erode the chance of civility by not   
   >>> recognizing the errors of your using the word in the derogatory   
   >>> manner you had.   
   >>   
   >> You can be as derogatory as you want, but do not pretend you are   
   >> being civil while you are doing it.  You said my comments were a   
   >> farce while you were   
   >> backing out.  That's not being civil.   
   >   
   > My clueless padawan.  I cannot make it any clearer than above   
   > not without having to use words that a third grader will understand.   
   > Apparently you should have an adult assist you in reading what I say.   
   > Most folk with at least a high school education understand linear   
   > reading.  You apparently do not.  Come back when you learn how to.   
      
   Maybe instead of thinking that's the issue, you should concentrate on what's   
   civil and not civil.   
      
   >>>> I'm shocked you would even pretend it was,   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100.  Can you tell me   
   >>> what it is?   
   >>   
   >> It's not reading your mind.   
   >   
   > No, but you're attempting to read my intentions, which is very   
   > much like reading my mind.  Dangerous game there.  People that deal   
   > with me will tell you right out -- read what he says, not what he   
   > intends.   
   >   
   >> You have specifically said you were being civil, when you called my   
   >> comments a farce.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)