BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Fear of death

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Dead Megatron
18:37 / 21.03.06
How condencenting of you.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:42 / 21.03.06
Not really. "Rhetoric" is in almost all cases an abusive term without any real contribution, and one which one should not use unless one understands it. Otherwise you risk looking both stupid and mean-spirited.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:46 / 21.03.06
Therefore, walking, a product of the leg, which is a part of the human body, is also logically a product of the mind, just like pain and fear, which are, according to you, products of the nervous system, which is also a part of the body.


Well, let's try again. Pain does not exists outside our mind, but the consequences of it (increased heartbeating, for instance) do.

The walking does exists outside our mind, but the will to walk does not.

And, on a personnal note, why am I being offended and dismissed for having a different opinion of yours? And why are you insisting on staying so off-topic just to keep doing it? What difference does it make if my spelling is correct or not, if the subject here is not even the English language? Which, btw, is not even my first language? I'm trying to keep an intelligent exchange here, and you seem to be trying to humilliate me. Barbe-royal much?
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:50 / 21.03.06
Otherwise you risk looking both stupid and mean-spirited.

oh, yeah, I'm the one being mean-spirited here.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
19:08 / 21.03.06
off topic>

Doesn't "rhetoric", in everyday language, mean something like "a device you're using to put across an argument"? Any derogatory use of that word would, I thought, imply that someone was trying to win by clever technique, rather than substance. Is using this word in that way always a sign of foolishness?

  
 
Dead Megatron
19:09 / 21.03.06
"Rhetorics" is the art of persuasion, usually through language (as says the wikipedia). You are using a rhetorical "trick" that works as follows: You take subject A ("is pain real?"), and instead of adressing it directly, you adress subject B that is similar but not equal("is the leg, or walking, real?") as if they were the same subject (pain is not the same as walking). You are also using another rhetorical trick, that is discrediting one's argument (DM claims I'm using a rhetorical trick) by attacking a characteristic of said one that has nothing, or little, to do with the argument (DM can't spell "rhetorical") or a personnal opinion on the argument (Those who cry "rhetorics!" are risking looking stupid, childish, and mean-spirited) as proof that one's argument is wrong.

And I think that's beneath you. You're a well informed, intelligent and sensible person, with lots to contribute to this board, and should not resort to such tatics to get your point across (see, now I used a rhetorical trick, by complimenting my attacker in the hope of atracting sympathy from the public).

Now, how about we drop this and get back on topic? If you really must continue this argument, please consider PM-ing me or starting another thread.

I'll paraphrase you now:

"Winky thinky, Haus, this is a thread where we discuss fear of death"

[I don't even know what "winky thinky" is supposed to mean]
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:21 / 21.03.06
Any derogatory use of that word would, I thought, imply that someone was trying to win by clever technique, rather than substance. Is using this word in that way always a sign of foolishness?

Almost always, yes, because it is very rarely the case that formal rhetoric is being used. Rather, somebody has disagreed with somebody else and that person is not emotionally or intellectually equipped to respond to the disagreement. Therefore, they use the term "rhetoric" because it sounds impressive.

Interestingly, "who's talking about words", in Dead Megatrons original and rather strident response to my rather light-hearted post, is rhetoric. It's not very good rhetoric, but it is a rhetorical question - that is one which seeks not to receive an answer but to make a point. However, Dead Megatron does not understand what rhetoric is, beyond "a word I wish to apply to people who are disagreeing with me in the mistaken belief that it causes an instant win".

A useful comparison is "semantics". "You are just arguing about semantics" is often used on Barbelith, and across the Internet more broadly, as an almost precise analogue of "Words! Words made of letters! Waaaaagh!".
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:25 / 21.03.06
[I don't even know what "winky thinky is supposed to mean]

In which case, much like "rhetoric", you probably ought to work it out before rather than after you use it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:29 / 21.03.06
On the plus side, DM, you've learnt in the course of this conversation how to spell "rhetoric".

Now, back on topic:

Pain does not exists outside our mind, but the consequences of it (increased heartbeating, for instance) do.

Sorry, but let me make sure I understand this. You are saying that an external stimulus - let's say, a pinch - occurs to a human body. The effect of that stimulus sends electrical impulses along the nervous system to the brain. The brain responds by registering a sensation which drives it to experience certain things and causes the body to react in certain ways, such as increased heartbeat, flinching from the source of the stimulus, and so on. So, what is this quality "pain" that you locate outside that physical process? Is it a metaphysical experience. It appears it must be so.

This argument was used by Descartes, among others - that physical sensation was a metaphysical quality. He had to do that because as far as he was concerned, at least at the time of "Meditations on First Philosophy", he saw thought as incapable of acting on matter and matter as incapable of acting on thought. The matter of mankind was res cogitans - thinking matter. So, pain was something experienced purely in the mind, parallel to but ultimately acausal with whatever was happening to the body. As a side effect, this means animals do not really feel _pain_ - they just show the physiological reaction to stimuli of unthinking material bodies without directing intellects.

This thinking is, you might notice, several hundred years old - Descartes died in 1650. In the intervening centuries, it has enjoyed a fair bit of debunking.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:30 / 21.03.06
Interestingly, "who's talking about words", in Dead Megatrons original and rather strident response to my rather light-hearted post, is rhetoric. It's not very good rhetoric, but it is a rhetorical question - that is one which seeks not to receive an answer but to make a point. However, Dead Megatron does not understand what rhetoric is, beyond "a word I wish to apply to people who are disagreeing with me in the mistaken belief that it causes an instant win".

A useful comparison is "semantics". "You are just arguing about semantics" is often used on Barbelith, and across the Internet more broadly, as an almost precise analogue of "Words! Words made of letters! Waaaaagh!".

SO, your argument now is "It was just a joke!!!!1??????" Riiiight.

It was not a rhetorical question. You were the one who brought the subject of "words" first ("Word loses all meaning after a while, doesn't it?") and I wanted to know what did it have to do with the debate "is pain real or not?"

And stop, please, being condencenting. I do know what rhetorics mean.

Do you have anything at all to add to this thread's topic? Or you just want to prove you're smarter than me? (now, this is a rhetorical question)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:33 / 21.03.06
Do you have anything at all to add to this thread's topic? Or you just want to prove you're smarter than me? (now, this is a rhetorical question)

Actually, no. That isn't a rhetorical question. It's just a question.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:47 / 21.03.06
Sorry, but let me make sure I understand this. You are saying that an external stimulus - let's say, a pinch - occurs to a human body. The effect of that stimulus sends electrical impulses along the nervous system to the brain. The brain responds by registering a sensation which drives it to experience certain things and causes the body to react in certain ways, such as increased heartbeat, flinching from the source of the stimulus, and so on. So, what is this quality "pain" that you locate outside that physical process? Is it a metaphysical experience. It appears it must be so.

Now, we're talking. I don't know if I'd call it a metaphysical experience, but maybe this is the best term to describe it. I say it's "not real" because the "feeling of pain" does not exist in the physical world, it has no mass, no volume, no shape, it cannot be measured. It does exist in the level/dimension of conscience, but conscience itself is still a mystery to science: what causes it? where is it located. everything in the experience is real (the stimulus, the eletric impulse in the nerve, the flinching of the body). Only the sensation cannot be clearly located.

So, it comes back to this thread subject, somewhat. What is the conscience, and can it exists without, or outside the body, after death? As I said in another thread, I fear that, although I'm pretty sure something survives death, how much of our mind can exist without the physicial medium of the brain cells? Can we still feel pain and fear, for instance? can we still think and feel like individuals?



Oh, and btw, thank you so much for teaching how to spell "rhetorics". [another rhetorical trick: sarcasm]
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:48 / 21.03.06
Actually, sarcasm isn't a rhetorical trick, really. It's just the lowest form of wit. One could use it for rhetorical purposes, but since you are not using it to carry an argument, but simply to demonstrate that you are cross, it's not a rhetorical usage.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
19:52 / 21.03.06
For some reason I thought that English wasn't Megatron's primary language, think it was a thread I read awhile back. If not, I think we should lay off his spelling a little.

If I'm wrong, slap me silly and spank my Denfeld.
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:05 / 21.03.06
I stand corrected on that, then.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:24 / 21.03.06
I say it's "not real" because the "feeling of pain" does not exist in the physical world, it has no mass, no volume, no shape, it cannot be measured

Your brain is part of the physical world as are the nerves that translate the pain to your brain. In neurological study pain can be measured through scans as can all stimulus.

You can't see wind but it can knock you over if its strong enough. Can you overcome that too?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:34 / 21.03.06
Indeed - or the colour blue, for that matter, which is really a perceptual hallucination caused by a particular form of refracted light striking the retina and transmitting information to the optic nerve. We've leapt about three hundred years here to C S Peirce's scientific realism, but it's a perfectly fair point. Blue has no mass, no weight, no motive force, really to speak ofon the level of the physical body - the force of the light is the force to make people perceive something identifiable as blue.

Denfeld: Lay off? One correction, of a word that is used by people in an attempt to lend a veneer of sophistication to the act of placing one's hands over one's ears and bellowing "wah wah wah!" by insulting the other party's integrity and intellectual honesty? It's hardly Hardball.
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:35 / 21.03.06
Good point. But we must make the distinction between "brain" and "mind/conscience". The same distinction can be made between the signals in the brain related to stimuli received from the pain nerve endings in the body (I forgot their name now, but they are very specific for that function) and the sensation of pain we experience.

I have to apologise to all 'lithians now. My comment way back totally derailed this thread. Which is a pity, I thought the subject - fear of death - so very interesting (not that this subject - objective existence of "pain" - but, IMO, not so much)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:41 / 21.03.06
The same distinction can be made between the signals in the brain related to stimuli received from the pain nerve endings in the body (I forgot their name now, but they are very specific for that function) and the sensation of pain we experience.

Not really. Possibly one can distinguish that from the experience of thinking "gosh, I am in pain. What should I do about that?", but that's a bit different. If you kick a hamster, it feels pain, yes? Despite not necessarily having a conscious awareness of pain?
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:44 / 21.03.06
Denfeld: Lay off? One correction, of a word that is used by people in an attempt to lend a veneer of sophistication to the act of placing one's hands over one's ears and bellowing "wah wah wah!" by insulting the other party's integrity and intellectual honesty? It's hardly Hardball.

You keep trying to imply I'm going "wah wah wah!" on this, when I'm not. I appreciate any correction of my spelling, but you were using my mistake to discredit me as a person and, hence, my argumentation, which I find unfair and uncalled for.

I do question your integrity and intellectual honesty in this (see previous posts) and I do it openly and to your face. You're the one trying to "deflect" my accusation thereof with cries of "stupidity" and "mean-spiritedness".
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:50 / 21.03.06
If you kick a hamster, it feels pain, yes? Despite not necessarily having a conscious awareness of pain?

I disagree. The hamster has a very conscious awareness of pain, as it does of hunger, horniness, and even fear. It only does not put it into words as we, humans, do. Using an animal right activism term, you're just being "specist" now.

Perhapes we are just "arguing semantics" here... [Is this sarcastic wit? You be the judge]
 
 
matthew.
20:58 / 21.03.06
[Hello Mods. Can we delete DM's seven million posts that start out "Now we're talking"?]
 
 
matthew.
21:07 / 21.03.06
From the International Association for the Study of Pain:

Pain is always subjective. Each individual learns the application of the word through experiences related to injury in early life. Biologists recognize that those stimuli which cause pain are liable to damage tissue. Accordingly, pain is that experience we associate with actual or potential tissue damage. It is unquestionably a sensation in a part or parts of the body, but it is also always unpleasant and therefore also an emotional experience. Experiences which resemble pain but are not unpleasant, e.g., pricking, should not be called pain. Unpleasant abnormal experiences (dysesthesias) may also be pain but are not necessarily so because, subjectively, they may not have the usual sensory qualities of pain.

Many people report pain in the absence of tissue damage or any likely pathophysiological cause; usually this happens for psychological reasons. There is usually no way to distinguish their experience from that due to tissue damage if we take the subjective report. If they regard their experience as pain and if they report it in the same ways as pain caused by tissue damage, it should be accepted as pain. This definition avoids tying pain to the stimulus. Activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state, even though we may well appreciate that pain most often has a proximate physical cause.

So it seems that pain is in the mind in that it is subjective. It is still objectively pain if there is tissue damage.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:33 / 21.03.06
The hamster has a very conscious awareness of pain, as it does of hunger, horniness, and even fear. It only does not put it into words as we, humans, do.

Which I just said. So, pain is not a quality merely in the mind, unless you believe that the mind of a hamster functions in the same way as the mind of a human.

You may feel I am being a little harsh. This is because I am being a little harsh. This being a thread in the Conversation that has already rotted, it may be a good place to explain why. Let us first consider this thread. Have you - and I have a $500 bet riding on this - read any of the sources linked to? Have you read the thread with any attention? Have you, indeed, had any opinion about the one child policy before you had a chance to say whatever came into your head about it in order to leave your spoor in yet another thread?

Or, let's take a look at this thread. This was already derailed for some time while you insisted that everybody stopped talking about feminism and concentrated on your winky, dammit. Not content with the eye-stabbing horror of this, you came back, after Mordant Carnival had ruminated that there was often a thread of misogyny running through so-called revolutionary sentiment, and out came the winky again:

But, threadroting a bit, let's be frank: is there anything truly revolutionary going on in Barbelith nowadays? If there is, please point it to me.

So, your response was to demand that we all, basically, stopped talking about feminism and misogyny and instead talked about how Barbelith wasn't revolutionary enough. For your winky. To your credit, you have now noted that this beyond-parody knee-jerk moment might not have been the wisest of comments, but for the love of God.

So, yes. I am a little cross with you, DM, because you seem determined to wipe your nob on the curtains of every room in this house, and I don't think that anything - gentle reasoning, poking, shouting, gentle reasoning again - has so far managed to calm you down. I don't know how to communicate the kind of standards we're looking for, because the advice usually given - read the threads - is apparently uncountenancable by you. It's making my hair hurt.

How, DM, do we get through to you?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:05 / 21.03.06
Oh, incidentally:

I do question your integrity and intellectual honesty in this (see previous posts) and I do it openly and to your face.

You accused Illmatic of rhetoric also. Do you question his integrity and intellectual honesty with the same questing gaze?
 
 
Dead Megatron
22:27 / 21.03.06
The hamster has a very conscious awareness of pain, as it does of hunger, horniness, and even fear. It only does not put it into words as we, humans, do.

Which I just said. So, pain is not a quality merely in the mind, unless you believe that the mind of a hamster functions in the same way as the mind of a human.

It is a quality of the mind that reflects the environment around the mind (as everything else in thje mind). And I'm not sure as to how the mind of a hamster works - hell, how can I be sure objectively of even the mind of other humans work? - but I do think it's not m,uch different, either.

You may feel I am being a little harsh. This is because I am being a little harsh. This being a thread in the Conversation that has already rotted, it may be a good place to explain why. Let us first consider this thread. Have you - and I have a $500 bet riding on this - read any of the sources linked to? Have you read the thread with any attention? Have you, indeed, had any opinion about the one child policy before you had a chance to say whatever came into your head about it in order to leave your spoor in yet another thread?

Yes, Yes, and not specifically about the one-child policy, but about the whole Chinese society nowadays, which I didn't take form a book, but from what my kung fu master - a Chinese who imigrated to Brazil about 6 years ago - which can be summed up as follows: "not god", "sick", and "insane". I'm concerned with the well-fare of children in general too.

Or, let's take a look at this thread. This was already derailed for some time while you insisted that everybody stopped talking about feminism and concentrated on your winky, dammit. Not content with the eye-stabbing horror of this, you came back, after Mordant Carnival had ruminated that there was often a thread of misogyny running through so-called revolutionary sentiment, and out cam the winky again:

But, threadroting a bit, let's be frank: is there anything truly revolutionary going on in Barbelith nowadays? If there is, please point it to me.

So, your response was to demand that we all, basically, talked about how Barbelith wasn't revolutionary enough. For your winky. To your credit, you have now noted that this beyond-parody knee-jerk moment might not have been the wisest of comments, but for the love of God.

It was not a demand, it was a rhetorical question, actually. I insisted at nothing.

So, yes. I am a little cross with you, DM, because you seem determined to wipe your nob on the curtains of every room in this house, and I don't think that anything - gentle reasoning, poking, shouting, gentle reasoning again - has so far managed to calm you down. I don't know how to communicate the kind of standards we're looking for, because the advice usually given - read the threads - is apparently uncountenancable by you. It's making my hair hurt.

I do read the threads, damnit, and I don't post impulsively anymore. Just because I post questions, instead of affimations as you do, it doesn't mean I'm not listening. How can I learn if I don't post questions? I have commited mistakes in the past, and will certainly commit more in the future, but I'm here to learn. And I'm learning. If you fail to see that, I feel it's because you lack patience.

How, DM, do we get through to you? Table rapping? Smoke signal?

How about showing respect? It works. Your attitude has been consistently condencenting, arrogant even. Any comment that displeases you - by not living up to your standarts of "enlightenment" - is met with some smirking, derogatory and, to a point, personal attack. You invite conflict, you insist on it, and then complain when people don't back down, and accuse them of spoiling the thread. This is called "entrapment", you know? You use sarcasm and bullying almost every time you disagree with someone. Do you think this is the best attitude? When I screw up, and realise I did, I apologise, and try not to do the same again. You, on the other hand, seem to never make a mistake. Never change your opinion. Never question yourself or your ways. Even in this threas]d, more than once I asked to return to the original issue, but you won't let go. It must be good to be absolutely sure you're always right. Most of the times, you are right because, as I said before, you are an intelligent, sensible, well-informed person. But that does not make you a better person. You are a posterboy for what is bad with the barbe-seniors.

Tell me, honestly, there's nothing in this thread you think you could have done or said in a better, more construcitve way? Or is this how you always talk to people? I get the feeling sometimes that you just don't want to share your "clubhouse" with anyone but a few long-time like-minded friends. Talking only to people that is a mirror-match of you is no good policy.

And, just so you notice: not once have you addressed the subject of this thread. In fact, you've come to the point as to say "back on topic" before addressing the pain issue, which is NOT ON TOPIC.

Actually, you started off by accusing Illmatic of rhetoric. Do you question his integrity and intellectual honesty with the same questing gaze?

No, I don't, but, dude, you're no Illmatic. And, regardless of if he agrees with my accusation or just didn't think it was a good idea to engage (my $500 is on option 2), he didn't spend a whole page rotting this thread just to win an argument for the sake of his own ego. If I was as wise as him, I'd have backed down on this already, but I'm tired of shutting up before your attitude just for the sake of peaceful convivence. Exceptionally, I won't do it this time. I accuse you, and only you, of arrogance, condencendence, and incapacity to self-criticism.

Incidentally, Matt, I'll watch out for the "now, we're talkings"

One last time, with feeling: how about we talk about fear of death?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:43 / 21.03.06

Yes, Yes, and not specifically about the one-child policy, but about the whole Chinese society nowadays, which I didn't take form a book, but from what my kung fu master - a Chinese who imigrated to Brazil about 6 years ago - which can be summed up as follows: "not god", "sick", and "insane". I'm concerned with the well-fare of children in general too.


Really? You read the sources? You just didn't feel it was worth referencing them in any way, rather than just the post directly above yours? Sorry, but I call bullshit.

(Incidentally, I think I'd rather "a Chinese person" rather than "a Chinese")

You seem to be misunderstanding me, DM. It's not about questions rather than statements. It's about being interested in what other people have to say against just wanting to advertise your existence by bowling in with the first thing that comes into your head. You say that you have stopped posting "impulsively" (that is, with a cretinous disregard for other people or the thread), but I'm not feeling where this break came.

Case in point: you accuse Illmatic of rhetoric - that is, of lack of integrity and bad intellectual faith - and then on the next page talk about how wise he is. Now, arguably, not bothering to try to unpick your logic is indeed very wise, but that's hardly the point. The point is that you are saying whatever comes into your head to keep attention on you, and while that continues you are basically living threadrot.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:46 / 21.03.06
Oh, btw:

But, threadroting a bit, let's be frank: is there anything truly revolutionary going on in Barbelith nowadays? If there is, please point it to me.

That's not really a rhetorical question. It's a question, followed by a rhetorical flourish. No offence intended, but I suspect that there is only one person in this discussion who has read Menander of Laodicea's treatise on epideictic rhetoric, and he don't have a fusion cannon on his arm.
 
 
Dead Megatron
23:59 / 21.03.06
Really? You read the sources? You just didn't feel it was worth referencing them in any way, rather than just the post directly above yours? Sorry, but I call bullshit.

No, I didn't feel the need to prove I read the sources. They were there, I read them, I posted my mind.

(Incidentally, I think I'd rather "a Chinese person" rather than "a Chinese")

This a language problem. Although I'm writing in English, I'm thinking in Portuguese. And, in Portuguese, there's no difference in saying "Chinese" and "Chinese person", but I'll be careful to do that from now on.

You seem to be misunderstanding me, DM. It's not about questions rather than statements. It's about being interested in what other people have to say against just wanting to advertise your existence by bowling in with the first thing that comes into your head. You say that you have stopped posting "impulsively" (that is, with a cretinous disregard for other people or the thread), but I'm not feeling where this break came.

I am interested in other people have to say. That's why I have been spendin no less than 3 hours a day reading - not posting in - Barbelith. It is my interest that prompts me to give my 2 cents. How else could I express it?

And you're not "feeling the break" because there's no break; it's a ongoing process. I still have to police myself, like a recovering addict. But you have to admit I have improved since I got here.

Case in point: you accuse Illmatic of rhetoric - that is, of lack of integrity and bad intellectual faith - and then on the next page talk about how wise he is. Now, arguably, not bothering to try to unpick your logic is indeed very wise, but that's hardly the point. The point is that you are saying whatever comes into your head to keep attention on you, and while that continues you are basically living threadrot.

I accused Illmatic of using a rhetorical trick, period. I accused you of using a rhetorical trick and lack of integrity and bad intellectual faith. I say what comes to my mind, not to keep attention in me, but ot interact with other people, get feedback, that sort of thing. Your feedback is important to me too, but you need to learn to express it without the derogatory speech. Positive stimulation, you know.

That's not really a rhetorical question. It's a question, followed by a rhetorical flourish. No offence intended, but I suspect only one person in this discussion who has read Menander of Laodicea's treatise on epideictic rhetoric, and he don't have a fusion cannon on his arm.

No offense taken, but do you realise how arrogant that statement sounded? "I read more about the subject than you, so shut up!". C'mon, you're better than that. I shall research that guy, though. You're probably right on the definition of, waht's it called, epidectic rhetoric, I wouldn't know that much.

I don't have the stamina to keep up with an agressive debate too long. So, I have two final questions to you:

Do you think your behavior in this thread has been exemplary? Regarding keeping on topic and the way you expressed yourself, I mean

And what, after all, is your view on death? I'm curious.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:14 / 22.03.06
Moving off topic is permissible in the Conversation, albeit sometimes crass; by the time I reached this thread it had already been moved to a discussion of pain - by you, among other people. As such, I don't have a huge problem with that. My behaviour was largely attempting to discuss your views on pain, in the face of remarkable rudeness and hostility (and "you are using a rhetorical trick" is an accusation of bad intellectual faith. It means you think somebody is trying to employ underhand means to carry a point. That is what you accused Illmatic of. If you don't want to do that, don't say that. It will make people either cross with you or give up on you. qv myself and Illmatic). Eventually, I used this thread to express some of my frustrations with your recent behaviour which might have been better expressed in Policy or the pub with the London Clique. So, yes.

As for death - getting less fearsome by the minute.
 
 
Dead Megatron
00:22 / 22.03.06
Apperantly, you're never wrong. Well, whatever. As for the "rhetorical trick" thing, I'll refrain from using it.

Go join your "London Clique".
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:23 / 22.03.06
Eventually, I used this thread to express some of my frustrations with your recent behaviour which might have been better expressed in Policy or the pub with the London Clique

And apparently you never read.
 
 
Dead Megatron
00:26 / 22.03.06
And apparently you never read.

I have to confess I didn't get the meaning here. Care to unpack?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:32 / 22.03.06
Of course.You appear not to have noticed me admitting my error. Looking back at the thread however, I note that your first response to me employed that old weasel-word "rhetoric". It seems you were unaware of its meaning and the offence it would be likely to cause (especially when used in response to a gag from Friends - The One with the Stoned Guy, to be exact), but it set a rather confrontational tone therefrom, especially given that it was applied to write off the views of Illmatic as well when he questioned your Cartesian view of pain. So, perhaps we can all learn something here, eh?
 
 
Dead Megatron
00:46 / 22.03.06
I did see you "admiting your mistake". But it was not the mistake I was questioning you about.

My question was "Do you think your behavior in this thread has been exemplary? Regarding keeping on topic and the way you expressed yourself, I mean"

You seemed to regret not have "expressed your frustation on the Police or in the Pub with the London Clique", which sounds like you do not regret your behaviour, only the venue.

Ant then you finish by saying "So, yes", which denies your own previous statement. (rembember the question? "Do you think your behavior in this thread has been exemplary?" "So, yes") Maybe it was you who did not pay attention to my post?

And, you also said "Moving off topic is permissible in the Conversation", but you accused me of "winky thinky" (whatever that means exactly) in another Convo thread for doing that exact same thing - moving off topic. And in a footnote to a post I felt it was on topic. Maybe you should just explain what "winky thinky" means to me.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply