#26
Posted: 3/29/13 at 1:37pm
"Get in that kitchen and bake Scalia some pie."
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
Scalia is a Ass — Page 2
#28
Posted: 3/29/13 at 7:02pm
There's no guilty pleasure to be had in Gav v. Namo fights
No, there is not, mysteriousgrowl. If you have a solution I'll be happy to hear about it. I've been attacked for over a year now (since before I changed to my current hat), but I can't just be quiet. I already tried that and it didn't discourage my tormentor.
With all due respect, the word "fights" seems to imply more mutual participation than goes on here. What Namo does to me is bullying, pure and simple.
***
In reference to henrikegerman's post, I think he is saying that two parents who genuinely want to have children are almost always better than two parents who merely have children because it is expected of them. Smart words and I wish I'd said them myself in the first place. (God knows I got plenty of experience of the latter when I was a child.)
No, there is not, mysteriousgrowl. If you have a solution I'll be happy to hear about it. I've been attacked for over a year now (since before I changed to my current hat), but I can't just be quiet. I already tried that and it didn't discourage my tormentor.
With all due respect, the word "fights" seems to imply more mutual participation than goes on here. What Namo does to me is bullying, pure and simple.
***
In reference to henrikegerman's post, I think he is saying that two parents who genuinely want to have children are almost always better than two parents who merely have children because it is expected of them. Smart words and I wish I'd said them myself in the first place. (God knows I got plenty of experience of the latter when I was a child.)
Updated On: 3/29/13 at 07:02 PM
#29
Posted: 3/29/13 at 7:20pm
Here is what you wrote, Namo:
"And the post you edited was the one where you were invoking Freud in your idiotic quest to give some mythical memory of the Lisa Lampanelli of 20 years ago satirical gravitas, and you couldn't help tacking on one of your typical passive aggressive asides about me obviously not being a reader.
In my reply, I said you had no idea how much I read. You went back and changed the text and removed your line about me not being a reader. I will gladly await your apology for calling me a liar, you pompous blowhard."
(Emphasis added.) And here is my original post, which resides untouched in the Lampanelli thread:
"Namo, the idea to which I referred above may be found in Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1905).
Yes, I know, you're too lazy to read it. It's so much easier to mock those who do.
The odd thing is that although I'm not a particular fan of Lampanelli, I still think she's twice as funny and half as mean as you are."
So you're a liar or an idiot. Your choice. (Truth be told, I think you just missed my post while re-skimming the thread.)
P.S. I've been using the word "diction" in its Aristotelian sense, meaning how ideas are expressed through choice of words, prose v. verse, etc. Yours was a fair question as to how I was using the word and I am happy to answer you.
P.P.S. I have said many times that I don't expect anyone to be impressed by my use of language, but when you repeatedly accuse me of being verbose, my defense is that I am trying to be accurate. To inflate that to a claim that I think my language is superior is a gross distortion.
"And the post you edited was the one where you were invoking Freud in your idiotic quest to give some mythical memory of the Lisa Lampanelli of 20 years ago satirical gravitas, and you couldn't help tacking on one of your typical passive aggressive asides about me obviously not being a reader.
In my reply, I said you had no idea how much I read. You went back and changed the text and removed your line about me not being a reader. I will gladly await your apology for calling me a liar, you pompous blowhard."
(Emphasis added.) And here is my original post, which resides untouched in the Lampanelli thread:
"Namo, the idea to which I referred above may be found in Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1905).
Yes, I know, you're too lazy to read it. It's so much easier to mock those who do.
The odd thing is that although I'm not a particular fan of Lampanelli, I still think she's twice as funny and half as mean as you are."
So you're a liar or an idiot. Your choice. (Truth be told, I think you just missed my post while re-skimming the thread.)
P.S. I've been using the word "diction" in its Aristotelian sense, meaning how ideas are expressed through choice of words, prose v. verse, etc. Yours was a fair question as to how I was using the word and I am happy to answer you.
P.P.S. I have said many times that I don't expect anyone to be impressed by my use of language, but when you repeatedly accuse me of being verbose, my defense is that I am trying to be accurate. To inflate that to a claim that I think my language is superior is a gross distortion.
Updated On: 3/29/13 at 07:20 PM
#30
Posted: 3/29/13 at 8:08pm
Your PPS belies your PS.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#31
Posted: 3/29/13 at 8:18pm
I'm not going to apologize for going to school. That used to be a good thing. If my post isn't clear, I am always happy to explain or take another stab at it. Your continued insistence that I'm some sort of snob just doesn't wash.
But BTW, I missed your apology for accusing me of altering a post when I did not do so.
But BTW, I missed your apology for accusing me of altering a post when I did not do so.
Updated On: 3/29/13 at 08:18 PM
#32
Posted: 3/29/13 at 9:31pm
I'm on a phone, cruising a fireman in a pub. So basically, going back and finding the thread is not only difficult, it's not a priority. However, I'd like to point out that you like to play it both ways -- your training is to be be precise in your language choices when analyzing texts; you never claim to have perfect diction (and I know what sense you used the word, jagweed) -- so no matter what gets said you can come from angle one, and reply to critiques from angle two. Clever. Eel-like. Slippery. Tedious.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#34
Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:12pm
Not unless I can show up with a gun, Sean.
I don't doubt that these exchanges are boring to you. Imagine how they feel to me!
I don't doubt that these exchanges are boring to you. Imagine how they feel to me!
#35
Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:16pm
I'm on a phone, cruising a fireman in a pub. So basically, going back and finding the thread is not only difficult, it's not a priority. However, I'd like to point out that you like to play it both ways -- your training is to be be precise in your language choices when analyzing texts; you never claim to have perfect diction (and I know what sense you used the word, jagweed) -- so no matter what gets said you can come from angle one, and reply to critiques from angle two. Clever. Eel-like. Slippery. Tedious.
I quoted both posts in their entirety. There's nothing you need to "go back to".
If you knew what I meant by "diction" why call me out on it? Just to be an a-hole, I suppose.
The rest of your post makes no sense. I have never claimed perfection, I have never claimed superiority. I have only said that I strive for clarify and, if that makes my posts too long, by all means skip over them.
It appears that everyone here will be grateful if you do.
I quoted both posts in their entirety. There's nothing you need to "go back to".
If you knew what I meant by "diction" why call me out on it? Just to be an a-hole, I suppose.
The rest of your post makes no sense. I have never claimed perfection, I have never claimed superiority. I have only said that I strive for clarify and, if that makes my posts too long, by all means skip over them.
It appears that everyone here will be grateful if you do.
#36
Posted: 3/30/13 at 12:27am
AND ALL I SAID WAS FOR A GUY WHO GOES ON AND ON ABOUT HOW HE STRIVES FOR CLARITY, YOUR OBTUSE LANGUAGE RENDERS YOU REMARKABLY UNCLEAR.
Each time I point this out you focus on something else and usually end with one of your triangulations.
Whatever, the role of victim you've taken on seems comfortable, I imagine it's how you go through the world.
Each time I point this out you focus on something else and usually end with one of your triangulations.
Whatever, the role of victim you've taken on seems comfortable, I imagine it's how you go through the world.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#37
Posted: 3/30/13 at 12:34am
Is it a bad thing that I am getting hard reading this?
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#38
Posted: 3/30/13 at 12:43am
Sorry, SNAFU, it's my training.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#39
Posted: 3/30/13 at 12:57am
Call me! 
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#40
Posted: 3/30/13 at 3:15am
Snafu,
That made me snort!
That made me snort!
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#41
Posted: 3/30/13 at 10:32am
I really don't care if this continues, but I would like to point out that your line "I'm not going to apologize for going to school" reminded me of many a classmate (yes I would be considered highly educated) who used their education as a way to demean and condescend to those who did not have as much classroom education (which, as we all know, is not measure of intelligence, more of opportunity and in some instances tenacity).
To me, I almost expected Matt Damon to come out and ask you if you like apples after reading that line.
Maybe you're an academic, or some other occupation where using 20 dollar words has value and is the norm. Me, because I work routinely with people with far less formal education (which again, is not a measure of intelligence) strive whenever possible to simplify my writing to make it easy to understand and so that I do not put those reading it on the defensive. I don't want folks doing the crinkle eye "what does that mean" look when trying to explain things. Indeed, I dumb it down as much as possible so that those who I am trying to work with and explain things to don't need to ask for clarification when trying to understand complex legal concepts.
Different styles.
And, I am sure there are plenty of typos in the above post, but you get the gist of it.
Now, time for a nice, Honey Crisp apple.
Do You Like Apples?
To me, I almost expected Matt Damon to come out and ask you if you like apples after reading that line.
Maybe you're an academic, or some other occupation where using 20 dollar words has value and is the norm. Me, because I work routinely with people with far less formal education (which again, is not a measure of intelligence) strive whenever possible to simplify my writing to make it easy to understand and so that I do not put those reading it on the defensive. I don't want folks doing the crinkle eye "what does that mean" look when trying to explain things. Indeed, I dumb it down as much as possible so that those who I am trying to work with and explain things to don't need to ask for clarification when trying to understand complex legal concepts.
Different styles.
And, I am sure there are plenty of typos in the above post, but you get the gist of it.
Now, time for a nice, Honey Crisp apple.
Do You Like Apples?
Updated On: 3/30/13 at 10:32 AM
#42
Posted: 3/30/13 at 10:45am
This is the most addictive thread ever, so much tension!!
#45
Posted: 3/30/13 at 5:37pm
This is interesting. I actually saw the post above that Gaveston has since deleted. In it, he dismissed what YWIW wrote, said he would never be condescending, would always adjust his vocabulary for people without his educational levels, insisted that everyone here knows exactly what he means when he posts, and this would be his final word on the topic.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#47
Posted: 3/30/13 at 6:15pm
Yeah, I was almost going to post that it may not be his intent, but that is how it was perceived at least by one relatively well educated poster (i.e., me), but, poof, it was then gone.
Whatever.
Whatever.
#48
Posted: 3/30/13 at 6:41pm
You Want it When????, I decided that anything I post at this time only makes things worse. So I deleted my words.
But Namo has paraphrased correctly what I wrote, except for the part about "dismissing" your words. I did no such thing.
It appears I can't win when I post and I can't win when I don't post. Not only can I not win, I can't even be left alone.
So let me just say that I greatly admire your work with those who find reading a challenge. I am well aware that language skills MIGHT be an indication of intelligence but are BY NO MEANS necessarily so.
When I was teaching, I certainly adjusted my vocabulary to accommodate the students in my class.
But here, you understand me, Diva does, PalJoey does, SNAFU does, EricMontreal does, dramamama does, all that jazz does, SeanMartin does and many other posters--most especially including FindingNamo--do; so for whom, exactly, am I to simplify my choice of words?
P.S. to You Want It When????, imagine that your every post is attacked for everything from obvious typos to common philosophical, political and aesthetic opinions, and you might find yourself using more and more precise language because it is never clear from whence the next attack will come.
And then you are attacked for using "fancy words" and arguments to defend yourself.
Welcome to my world at BWW.
I understand your point about my phrase "I won't apologize for going to school", but I didn't make that pronouncement without a context. I was defending myself from the charge of trying to use language that other posters don't understand, when obviously they understand it quite well, when they bother.
But Namo has paraphrased correctly what I wrote, except for the part about "dismissing" your words. I did no such thing.
It appears I can't win when I post and I can't win when I don't post. Not only can I not win, I can't even be left alone.
So let me just say that I greatly admire your work with those who find reading a challenge. I am well aware that language skills MIGHT be an indication of intelligence but are BY NO MEANS necessarily so.
When I was teaching, I certainly adjusted my vocabulary to accommodate the students in my class.
But here, you understand me, Diva does, PalJoey does, SNAFU does, EricMontreal does, dramamama does, all that jazz does, SeanMartin does and many other posters--most especially including FindingNamo--do; so for whom, exactly, am I to simplify my choice of words?
P.S. to You Want It When????, imagine that your every post is attacked for everything from obvious typos to common philosophical, political and aesthetic opinions, and you might find yourself using more and more precise language because it is never clear from whence the next attack will come.
And then you are attacked for using "fancy words" and arguments to defend yourself.
Welcome to my world at BWW.
I understand your point about my phrase "I won't apologize for going to school", but I didn't make that pronouncement without a context. I was defending myself from the charge of trying to use language that other posters don't understand, when obviously they understand it quite well, when they bother.
Updated On: 3/30/13 at 06:41 PM
#49
Posted: 3/30/13 at 6:49pm
Gaveston, write the way you want to write and avoid interaction with Namo. For whatever reason, he's singled you out. Ignore him, in essence. Don't interact with him. There's plenty of other people here to talk to. He'll eventually get bored and start picking on someone else if you stop responding.
Scalia is definitely an ass.
Scalia is definitely an ass.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $72
Tickets From $106
