Tolerate This!

On the contrary, isosceles_kramer, I think if you read the string of responses to the bitch you are referring to, I think you’ll see that almost EVERYONE who replied, had a problem with it. The person who wrote it was an idiot, to put it mildly, and I think we all saw that.

“Recently one bitcher actually complained about someone using the word “famished” because there are actually starving people somewhere out there in the world and “politely” asked them not to return to her restaurant. This person works in public service. And nobody seems to have a problem with that.” – Isoceles_Kramer 29 Aug 12:53 AM

“On the contrary, isosceles_kramer, I think if you read the string of responses to the bitch you are referring to, I think you’ll see that almost EVERYONE who replied, had a problem with it. The person who wrote it was an idiot, to put it mildly, and I think we all saw that.” -AvastO, 29 Aug 8:30 AM

“Montealman has to come down on the side of isoceles_kramer (Aug.29, 12:50AM) and against Avasto (8:30AM). The OP isn’t an “idiot” as Avasto suggests but his focus is too narrow, ie. insufficiently philosphical.” – Montrealman 29 Aug 2011, 10:09 AM

I WAS replying to you MM. If you are familiar with the post that Isoceles_Kramer mentioned earlier, (see my reference above), then you will see what I was talking about. The person who wrote the bitch in question complained because a couple came in to his/her establishment and exclaimed they were famished and then proceeded to eat all the food they ordered. The OB was pissed off because they had used the word famished and thought it inappropriate given the drought in Africa and then proceeded to get even more pissed off because they actually ate all their food. He/she felt that the patrons should have ordered less food because of the African famine. I called the OB an idiot because of this, (not you). You stated that I was incorrect in calling them an idiot. I replied back and maintain, (narrow focus or not and regardless of your discussion of the mainstream climate of political correctness), that IMO, they are still an idiot, for reasons explained above.
Your parting shot stating “You might have to look ‘egregious’ up” was not necessary and unwarranted. No where in my post did I insult you or question your intellectual capacity. Would I be expecting too much from you to extend me the same courtesy next time?

Montrealman – Apology accepted

thank you.

BTW, I DID find it….your picture was next to it 😉

Tootle-loo!

Oh don’t worry, MM, I caught your subtle phrasing implying that the confusion was arising from my post. I WAS going to bring it up in my last response but had thought better of it at the last minute, opting, instead to take the high ground on the whole situation, thinking that pointing it out would serve no purpose other than to perpetuate another response from you. Apparently, however, it appears that I was mistaken as you simply responded anyway, making doubley sure I didn’t miss your implicative sentence.
So, that being said, let me break it down so you that you may understand more clearly. Please, do try to keep up, my friend: If you took the time to notice the order in which the posts appear in this thread, you would see that I had replied at 8:30 AM, 29 Aug and in direct response to isoceles_kramer’s post(29 Aug 12:53 AM) where she had mentioned the post from the bitcher about the “famished” couple. In fact, in that response, I had stated: “On the contrary, isosceles_kramer, I think if you read the string of responses to the bitch you are referring to…” The fact that I even mentioned the ‘famished couple’ post should have been enough to clue you in. Your post claiming that I was mistaken in calling the bitcher an idiot shows a time stamp of 29 Aug, 10:09 AM, over an hour and a half AFTER mine. In addition, the post that you claimed to have been commenting on was stamped at 12:50 AM. All of these time stamps, btw, are clearly visible. So you see, my dear, I’m afraid the evidence points to the fact that all this silly confusion arose when you, (yes, you), failed to read the preceding string and misinterpreted my post, and that contrary to what you said, it WAS quite clear. May I suggest you switch optometrists? Tell me, MM, do you make it a habit to randomly regurgitate your philosophical psycho-babble on someone BEFORE you ensure you have the correct target or was this just a simple matter of premature ejaculation on your part? Get a little too excited, did we? Couldn’t slow down the train? (Don’t worry,pet, it happens to the best of us.)
As for me accepting your apology, when you said, “There seems to be serious confusion here, i.e., there are TWO posts in play, a previous one from Kramer (with which I was not familiar) and one from the OP on which I was focusing and with which I WAS familiar.” And, “So, it seems that were ‘ships’ in the night”, I figured that THAT was as close to an apology from you that I was likely to get, and therefore, proactively accepted it as such. Once again, apology accepted. Thank you.
Finally, I’m so glad to see that your advanced age has left your sense of humour intact with regards to me stating that I had, in fact, found ‘egregious’ in the dictionary as you had suggested, and a picture of you was beside it. Your clever rebuttal in which you took a total of 43 words to effectively say, “Oh yeah? Well, you’re ugly!” only demonstrates your early onset of dementia and the level of maturity on which the esteemed upper class, (did I get that right?), operates and to which, I must stoop. To that end and not wanting to disappoint, I will take this opportunity for a few parting shots. (Just your style, eh ol’ chap?) I can only imagine that the orifice from which spews your endless stream of verbal diarrhea is as esthetically similar as the other orifice from which your fecal diarrhea flows forth, and probably the same amount of hair as well. I presume that you probably wear neck ties, not so much to make a fashion statement, but rather to keep the foreskin from crawling up your chin. (See? That was me basically saying, “I know you are, what am I?”)
Tootle-loo!

Any idiot (well, apparently not *any*) can see Avast used paragraphs. His crime(to MMan) is that he didn’t double space between his paragraphs.
Which is what MMan chooses to attack, instead of the actual substance of his “missive”.
Attacking Avast’s Blob is like dismissing your whole post, MMan, based on your incorrectly spelling the word “thought”, MMan.
Were you going to get to the substance of his missive, MMan, or just “correct it”, as if you were his teacher, MMan?

Thank you for the lesson in proper textual etiquette. If you happen to notice, my post WAS broken into paragraphs, (albeit, lengthy ones). Perhaps I am old fashioned but of all the grammar lessons I was taught in school, I must have been absent the day they taught that you must insert a blank line between paragraphs in order to denote a “transition in thought”. Is this truly the case MM? Or are you, perhaps just trying to make allowances for your aging eyesight? Finding the text a little hard to read, are we? In any regards, despite it’s length, or perhaps, inspite of it, mine was a post on a web site, not a thesis in which I was being graded for grammatical structure, (at least, I thought), and in the interest of brevity, I chose the more traditional form, (does that make me a “traditionalist”?), of no blank lines between paragraphs. To remain consistent, I will continue with this practice. (End of para 1, MM)
(Start of para 2) “One of my favourite sayings – perhaps because I formulated it myself some time ago – is, ‘All discourse is self-referential’. What this means Avasto is that while the speaker might think he is asserting an objective truth about the world, what he is actually referring to is the contents of his own mind.” – montrealman, 31 Aug 9:27 AM. So, let me see if I got this straight: In remaining consistent with your penchant for embellished, wordy, and overly intricate style of hurling immature, school-yard, adolescent retorts, the passage I have just quoted from your last post is essentially saying “I’m rubber, you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you”. Did I get that right? At least, that’s the way I read it. Is this seriously the best you could come up with? You really should start thinking about changing tactics, my friend. Your apparent lack of creativity is starting to get boring. (End of para 2)
(Start of para 3) “All discourse is self-referential.” Simply because you “formulated it” yourself, doesn’t make it a truth. I would think that one so obviously passionate about all things philosophical as you appear to be, would recognize the dangers of arrogance. It reduces the ability to listen, or in your case, read, and diminishes wisdom. But, lets, for a moment, say that it IS true. If you followed your own advice and applied this saying to the statement “all discourse is self-referential”, the result would be that while you THINK you are asserting an objective truth about the world, you are actually referring to the contents of your own mind, thinking you are asserting an objective truth about the world. (Profound indeed) In other words, while you THINK you are asserting an objective truth about the world, you are in fact doing, what I like to refer to as, “talking out of your own ass”. (I didn’t formulate this saying myself, btw) Whether I have the ability to grasp your “insights” or not is irrelevant. I choose NOT to because you’ve given me no purpose to. Case-in-point, your self-formulated saying. I would call it your ‘opinion’, much like me referring to your “insights” as psycho-babble and verbal diarrhea are my opinion. However, I have a feeling that the majority of the people who have had the pleasure of reading your “insights” would tend to align themselves more to my opinion. I could be wrong. (End of para 3)
(Start of para 4) Finally, in reference to your questioning of the final comment of my last post: Once again, you have proven your inability, (or is it out refusal?), to read what is so clearly typed in Arial font text in front of your, obviously, failing eyes. I did NOT type “I know WHO you are, what am I?” as you incorrectly pointed out. I typed “I know you are, what am I?”. This only reinforces my original claim that the confusion of the previous posts were, in fact, caused by your lack of diligence and accuracy when reading posts before commenting on them. The evidence keeps mounting. You’re really not fairing very well here, MM, are you? Are you SURE you wouldn’t like to think about switching optomotrists? I only suggest it out of concern. As for the supposed “cry of existentialist angst”, my parting comment was imparted on you for no other reason than in keeping with the spirit of your playground antics. In my previous post I had stated “Your clever rebuttal in which you took a total of 43 words to effectively say, “Oh yeah? Well, you’re ugly!”. To respond, I thought it only fitting that I do it in such a way that I thought you would understand, (apparently I was mistaken again), and this was the translation of that response into layman’s terms.(End of para 4)
So, let’s recap: – Plea to consider the future structure of my posts (to make it easy for the older-folk to read), passed-off as unnecessary grammar lesson;
– My last post hit a little too close to the truth so, naturally, no comment from MM other than for readers to draw their own conclusions;
– Self formulated saying is actually trumped up school-yard rebuttal to my post, (as per MM’s preferred style), but to be taken as truth and applied to my assertions, which served no purpose than to demonstrate MM’s incredible arrogance and the futility and irrelevance of such an exercise;
– MM’s eyesight continues to deteriorate, (whether from old age or arrogance), betraying his ability to accurately comment on bitchers’ posts YET AGAIN and unwittingly reinforcing the evidence given in my previous post. New optomotrist suggested.
That pretty much covers it.

Tootle-loo

You didn’t “spank” me on anything, perfesser.
Are you a “spanker”, MMan.

And as usual, your post is a whole lot of what Avast accusses you of, since you were unable to prove his diagnosis incorrect.
As usual.