"The Causes of Atheism"

Originally posted by googlefudge
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 [b]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
w ...[text shortened]... time.

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

Let's break it down:

"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"

"...I don't believe that the man who said it should be beaten up..."
D64 is simply stating that SHE does not believe that the man should be beaten up.

"...(which Googlefudge said he would like to do)..."
D64 is simply relating what you said earlier: "I understand that it wouldn't be helpful, and why, but man would I like to beat the crap out of that a***." The fact is that you did say that you would like to beat the crap out of the man.

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.

Actually it doesn't.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's break it down:

"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"

"...I don't believe that the man who said it should be beaten up..."
D64 is simply stating that SHE does not believe that the man should be beaten up.

"...(which G ...[text shortened]... actually do X given the opportunity and does think X should happen.

Actually it doesn't.[/b]

Is this really worth arguing about?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Is this really worth arguing about?

Of what value do you give truth?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]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?[/b]

Did I not just do a post on how the context can change the meaning?

No, I see no irony because you just took a fragment of a sentence and not
the entire sentence, let alone the post it was embedded in.

Come on this is basic stuff.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's break it down:

"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"

"...I don't believe that the man who said it should be beaten up..."
D64 is simply stating that SHE does not believe that the man should be beaten up.

"...(which G ...[text shortened]... actually do X given the opportunity and does think X should happen.

Actually it doesn't.[/b]

It really does.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Did I not just do a post on how the context can change the meaning?

No, I see no irony because you just took a fragment of a sentence and not
the entire sentence, let alone the post it was embedded in.

Come on this is basic stuff.

Seriously? Have you even picked up on the fact that what you took issue with in my post wasn't even written by me?

Did I not just do a post on how the context can change the meaning?
Yes you did. And you really made a mess of it.

Come on this is basic stuff.

Yes it is. It's unfortunate that your reading comprehension skills are sub-par.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seriously? Have you even picked up on the fact that what you took issue with in my post wasn't even written by me?

[b]Did I not just do a post on how the context can change the meaning?
Yes you did. And you really made a mess of it.

Come on this is basic stuff.

Yes it is. It's unfortunate that your reading comprehension skills are sub-par.[/b]

Seriously? Have you even picked up on the fact that what you took
issue with in my post wasn't even written by me?

Yes of course I did. You were quoting and responding to [and implicitly agreeing with] D64.

Yes it is. It's unfortunate that your reading comprehension skills are
sub-par.

You have yet to demonstrate that.

In your previous post you said this...

"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***. "

And the post you quote me from... [in it's entirety]

I get why some blogs clearly place trigger warning messages above posts on
certain topics.

Man did that story piss me off. Right when I'm trying to wind down before bed.

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

Saying crap like that has to become utterly socially unacceptable period.

I would have reported the guy to the university... but then at my university I
know there were people who would have done [something] about it... many don't
have that luxury.


And no, I absolutely would not have given him any second chance.

The bit in bold is what I said I would do. Apparently you missed that bit, understandable
as it's such a long post... [sarcasm meters should explode here]

And you want to lecture me on 'sub-par' reading comprehension?

No ToO... you have not demonstrated this yet, or even come close to doing so.

And the fact that you [and others] have failed to do so after several attempts indicates
that if I am at fault it is not a clear cut black and white error.

I'm perfectly happy to write this off as a simple misunderstanding and people talking past
each other... But if you want to claim I have sub-par reading comprehension you are going
to have to prove it, and at the moment it's not me you are proving has sup-par reading
comprehension.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Ignoring the macho posturing crap.

Yes you interpreted it right, however the argument at hand is not over
what people meant [sadly] but over what they wrote and how it was and
could reasonably be interpreted. Your comments were [in my opinion] very
much open to being interpreted in a way apparently at odds with what you meant.
Particularly given the hostile attitude you have quickly developed towards me.

At this point your clarification of meaning [again] is no longer relevant.
It's not what the argument is over.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That sounds like 'macho posturing' to me.

And therein lies the problem.

And I don't think anyone here doesn't know what your opinion change was
based on. The wrongness and offensiveness of the posts being mainly a
figment of your imagination. If you think I have misunderstood you...
It's Nothing to how you misinterpreted me.

As I said. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Originally posted by googlefudge

That sounds like 'macho posturing' to me.

And therein lies the problem.

And I don't think anyone here doesn't know what your opinion change was
based on. The wrongness and offensiveness of the posts being mainly a
figment of your imagination. If you think I have misunderstood you...
It's Nothing to how you misinterpreted me.

As I said. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Evilution is a figment of your imagination.

The Moron Instructor

The post that was quoted here has been removed

And for the record I only wrote new posts at you after you joined back
in my argument with ToO. Feel free to go back and check.

If you don't want to argue this point then feel free to shut up and stop
arguing. I'm not making you.

And at the moment I have had the last word [in the literal sense] in my
argument with ToO on the topic of reading comprehension.
Unless ToO responds the argument is done.

If you want to continue lying about what I have said or meant [and you really
have no clue on the latter] then I will continue to point out where you are wrong.
If you don't want to talk with me then shut up, and I will happily do likewise.