@divegeestersaid What is it about the OP by dariusz that makes you call him a “douche”?
"Apparent" douche.
ap·par·ent - seeming real or true, but not necessarily so. Seems like if an upstanding, quality person like sonship calls someone's character into question, and that person apparently thinks Christians are brainwashed cultists... then yeah, that person is an apparent douche.
ap·par·ent - seeming real or true, but not necessarily so. Seems like if an upstanding, quality person like sonship calls someone's character into question, and that person apparently thinks Christians are brainwashed cultists... then yeah, that person is an apparent douche.
Well it’s only “apparent” to you, I.e. subjective douchbaggery based on your pinholed perspective, prejudice of the man and your sectarian localities which are clouding your already infected judgment.
@divegeestersaid Well it’s only “apparent” to you, I.e. subjective douchbaggery based on your pinholed perspective, prejudice of the man and your sectarian localities which are clouding your already infected judgment.
It can't only be apparent to me, as my assessment is based on the claims of another. Thus there is at least one other person in which the douchebaggery is apparent. So there are, at minimum, 2 who see it as apparent. The actual number of adherents to the apparent douche assesment is at least 100% more than you claimed. Now who's judgment is infected? Or at least found wanting.
@tom-wolseysaid It can't only be apparent to me, as my assessment is based on the claims of another. Thus there is at least one other person in which the douchebaggery is apparent. So there are, at minimum, 2 who see it as apparent. The actual number of adherents to the apparent douche assesment is at least 100% more than you claimed. Now who's judgment is infected? Or at least found wanting.
Incorrect, sonship has not once claimed that Dariousz is a fellow of douchenozzle tendencies. You are therefore alone in your condemnation of a man you have never met nor never exchanged a single post with, and therefore my previous post dissecting your fallibleness stands.
@divegeestersaid Incorrect, sonship has not once claimed that Dariousz is a fellow of douchenozzle tendencies. You are therefore alone in your condemnation of a man you have never met nor never exchanged a single post with, and therefore my previous post dissecting your fallibleness stands.
I didn't condemn. I observed an "apparent" (remember, 'not necessarily true' ) situation. The existence of a nozzle is neither claimed nor relevant.
@tom-wolseysaid I didn't condemn. I observed an "apparent" (remember, 'not necessarily true' ) situation. The existence of a nozzle is neither claimed nor relevant.
douche - an obnoxious or contemptible person
Calling a person by your own description “obnoxious or contemptible” is condemning them, especially as you are basing your insult on merely your buddyesque association with the absent (but lurking and thumbing down) sonship.
Of course you can back-pedal and run away from your comments if you feel more comfortable in doing so.
@divegeestersaid Calling a person by your own description “obnoxious or contemptible” is condemning them, especially as you are basing your insult on merely your buddyesque association with the absent (but lurking and thumbing down) sonship.
Of course you can back-pedal and run away from your comments if you feel more comfortable in doing so.
"Apparent." I could use the word to describe your accusation, saying you are apparently ignorant of the meaning of apparent. But it's gone beyond that with this, now 3rd time, claiming I insulted said apparent douche, even after I took the time to define "apparent." So it's not that you're ignorant of the meaning of apparent, you are committing an omission error by acting as if the word is not there.
You could likewise follow up an insult hurled by one of your entourage (or personas whatever) by implying the insult is apparently correct--and base it solely on your trust and respect for said entourage member/alter ego. And that would be fine because in your hypothetical use of the word "apparent" you would be admitting that the insult is possibly off-base.
@tom-wolseysaid "Apparent." I could use the word to describe your accusation, saying you are apparently ignorant of the meaning of apparent. But it's gone beyond that with this, now 3rd time, claiming I insulted said apparent douche, even after I took the time to define "apparent." So it's not that you're ignorant of the meaning of apparent, you are committing an omission error by acti ...[text shortened]... hypothetical use of the word "apparent" you would be admitting that the insult is possibly off-base.
You can walk away from your crass sock-puppetry if you want to, but you can’t weasel out of it; what you posted is there to be read.
I don’t care about dariusz or his aledged doucheness, what is interesting to me is your squirming intellectual dishonesty and cowardly sock-puppetry.
@tom-wolseysaid Let's see. The thread is about some apparent douche name Dariusz, and the problem of fair treatment for women, especially rape victims, in India.
What do you think of the way in which sonship used the issue of gang rape in India in order to retaliate against someone posting some material critical of his religious group?
And then what do you think of the way in which sonship said nothing about gang rape in India himself and, instead, just disappeared from the thread?
Do you think, on this thread, sonship has [1] effectively championed the cause of women victims of specific violent crimes in India and [2] pushed back against criticism of his religious group in a principled way?
Calling Out Dariusz
23 May '20 02:35
Back to Top