"The Causes of Atheism"

The post that was quoted here has been removed

who are you talking too?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Have a butchers at this. Sound familiar?

http://www.chessbanter.com/rec-games-chess-misc-chess/6022-nick-bourbakis-many-lies.html

but..but..he's called nick and as we know from the extensive female experiences that duchess has had that she is female...................................................................................................................................................oh, i see. that reminds me i haven't watched 'the crying game' in ages.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]ToO I think this is a time when you're being to interrogatory.
When [for example] RC is trying to weasel out of something he said and
is trying to deny then your approach and tenacity are absolutely appropriate. I don't think it is in a case like this where there was an off topic misunderstanding that was corrected.

Of course, Suzianne could ...[text shortened]... ense about "thinking people", it being a "cultural thing", it being about "colloquialisms", etc.[/b]

Of course, since I'm a woman, I should simply be seen and not heard.

Even when attacked. Otherwise how could 'right-thinking' men ever run me down properly?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Have a butchers at this. Sound familiar?

http://www.chessbanter.com/rec-games-chess-misc-chess/6022-nick-bourbakis-many-lies.html

I'm glad we're not quite yet to this point.

But that's the problem when you have a forum with many, many posters. The amount of people with "a splinter in their backside" seems to increase.


By the way, as an aside, what does this mean, to "Have a butchers at this." Remember, I'm American, so you might have to speak slowly. 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm glad we're not quite yet to this point.

But that's the problem when you have a forum with many, many posters. The amount of people with "a splinter in their backside" seems to increase.


By the way, as an aside, what does this mean, to "Have a butchers at this." Remember, I'm American, so you might have to speak slowly. 🙂

Cockney rhyming slang.

Butcher's hook = look.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Cockney rhyming slang.

Butcher's hook = look.

Okay, I've heard of this. It still catches me every time, though.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm glad we're not quite yet to this point.

But that's the problem when you have a forum with many, many posters. The amount of people with "a splinter in their backside" seems to increase.


By the way, as an aside, what does this mean, to "Have a butchers at this." Remember, I'm American, so you might have to speak slowly. 🙂

edit - oops, already answered...nothing to see here, move along.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I would say that it upset me, but I don't believe that the man who said it
should be beaten up (which Googlefudge said he would like to do) for it.

Yeah, some seem to remain perpetually 16. Though, IIRC GF is still pretty young. Hopefully he'll grow out of it.[/b]

I never said I would beat him up. I didn't say he should be beaten up.
What I said was...

"I understand that it wouldn't be helpful, and why, but man would I like to beat
the crap out of that a***. "

What I said I would do is take him to task for it and report him.

In the same way that stories about peodofiles tend to make me want to rip them
limb from limb, but I never advocate for the death penalty [in fact quite the opposite]
and I am absolutely against torture.

Again, I suggest reading what I write more carefully and try to avoid inserting meanings
and intentions that are not actually there.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I never said I would beat him up. I didn't say he should be beaten up.
What I said was...

"I understand that it wouldn't be helpful, and why, but man would I like to beat
the crap out of that a***. "

What I said I would do is take him to task for it and report him.

In the same way that stories about peodofiles tend to make me want to rip them ...[text shortened]... more carefully and try to avoid inserting meanings
and intentions that are not actually there.

Wait a minute, just wait one ******* minute.

I see you take people to task all the time for 'putting words in your mouth'.

You are wrong this time.

ToO said (taken from YOUR quote box): "I would say that it upset me, but I don't believe that the man who said it should be beaten up (which Googlefudge said he would like to do) for it."

Here is what you say you said, "I understand that it wouldn't be helpful, and why, but man would I like to beat the crap out of that a***. "

Let's magnify the important parts:
ToO: "which Googlefudge said he would LIKE to do"
GF: "man would I LIKE to beat the crap out of that a***"

(My caps)

It seems that ToO reporting that beating him up is "which Googlefudge said he would LIKE to do" IS CORRECT, and therefore WHY are you taking him to task again?

Methinks you are just a tad too sensitive as to what you perceive as your 'civil right not to be misquoted', and tend to take this to such an extreme degree that you take offense even when the quoter is right.

But you yourself misquote ToO when you say to him, "I never said I would beat him up. I didn't say he should be beaten up."

My point is that *neither did ToO* say that you said that.

Maybe you could follow your own advice about reading what other people write more carefully.


Edit: And now I look back through the posts and I realize that this quote (supposedly from ToO) was from a post by Duchess64 which ToO was quoting. So actually, ToO wasn't even the origin of the quote. Notice that I still maintain the quote is a correct statement. No matter who said it, it's still true.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Wait a minute, just wait one ******* minute.

I see you take people to task all the time for 'putting words in your mouth'.

You are wrong this time.

ToO said (taken from YOUR quote box): "I would say that it upset me, but I don't believe that the man who said it should be beaten up (which Googlefudge said he would like to do) for it."

Here is wh ...[text shortened]... I still maintain the quote is a correct statement.[/i] No matter who said it, it's still true.

Actually no... At least I don't believe so.
The quote I was responding to was this...

"I would say that it upset me, but I don't believe that the man who said it
should be beaten up (which Googlefudge said he would like to do) for it"

The bit in bold is important. Because it [to my mind] clearly indicates that I actually
would have beaten him up if I was there, as opposed to simply feeling the desire to
beat him up which I never intended to act on.

Yes, both sentences used the word like, but it has more than one meaning and in
determining which context is vital. In this context it absolutely looks like I was saying
that had I been there I would have beaten him up, as opposed to feeling the desire
to hit him and repressing it.

Saying that "I don't think that X should happen", and following it with "Y would like to
do X" Seems to clearly indicate that Y would actually do X given the opportunity and
does think X should happen.

Which is neither what I intended or actually said.

So no, I really don't think I am wrong this time.

If I am [always possible], it's certainly not as black and white as you are making out.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Perhaps this is a question of interpretation, but Googlefudge's belated
(why did he not mention it earlier?) claim of having dyslexia seems to have
been made in the spirit of 'How dare you (Duchess64) unfairly criticise me
when I have dyslexia!', as though I already should have known of it.

I didn't read that into it.

Perhaps I felt sensitive to being attacked by him again.

This seems a reasonable possibility.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
who are you talking too?

I believe she is talking to us that have not given you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
nah, your still at it about 3 or 4 posts above this, that doesnt look like moving on. anywhoo im not the forum police, if you wanna argue over semantics then go for it. it just seems that there are more important semantics to argue over than things lost in translation.

No idea how you got "moving on" out of what I wrote and it wasn't just about semantics. But then, if you'd reread the posts as I suggested, you'd probably know that.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Of course, since I'm a woman, I should simply be seen and not heard.

Even when attacked. Otherwise how could 'right-thinking' men ever run me down properly?

Once again, not at all. This is at least they second time that you've made such statements and both times they have been unwarranted. Nowhere have I said or implied anything of the sort.

These statements and your earlier meltdown do seem to indicate pride at work. Since you're familiar with the Bible, you should be aware of its ill effects.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I never said I would beat him up. I didn't say he should be beaten up.
What I said was...

"I understand that it wouldn't be helpful, and why, but man would I like to beat
the crap out of that a***. "

What I said I would do is take him to task for it and report him.

In the same way that stories about peodofiles tend to make me want to rip them ...[text shortened]... more carefully and try to avoid inserting meanings
and intentions that are not actually there.

I never said I would beat him up. I didn't say he should be beaten up.

I never said you did.

What I said I would do is take him to task for it and report him.

Actually what you said was that you would "like to beat the crap out of that a***. "

Again, I suggest reading what I write more carefully and try to avoid inserting meanings and intentions that are not actually there.

See the irony here?