| freddiefan91 07.05.2010 02:45 |
Is there any Queen song where you like the music more than the actual lyrics? For example with Get down make love i like the music more than the lyrics although there is nothing wrong with the actual lyrics themselves also the same for Now Im Here |
| Micrówave 07.05.2010 02:55 |
Most of the Innuendo album. |
| The_CrY 07.05.2010 03:50 |
The Miracle (song) |
| Sebastian 07.05.2010 04:43 |
With only occasional exceptions, I've always thought the four Queen members were good lyricists, but waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better composers/arrangers. |
| studyan 07.05.2010 05:59 |
love all the stuff they did EXCEPT GOD SAVE THE QUEEN what a cow and the rest of the royal wankers |
| jamster1111 07.05.2010 08:35 |
Ya most songs I like the music better than the lyrics. They were composers, not poets. The only song where I like the lyrics more than the music is probably body language and get down make love |
| mike hunt 07.05.2010 08:44 |
Tons of songs....March of the black Queen comes to mind. Too many to mention actually. I like their lryics, but most songs are great because of the arrangments. Vocally and musically. |
| dragon-fly 07.05.2010 17:37 |
Many of Mercury's songs. Wonderful music but the lyrics often weird or confusing. (Sorry Freddie!) May was much better at this aspect. |
| mike hunt 07.05.2010 18:12 |
dragon-fly wrote: Many of Mercury's songs. Wonderful music but the lyrics often weird or confusing. (Sorry Freddie!) May was much better at this aspect. Not sure i agree with that..... |
| Sebastian 08.05.2010 02:01 |
mike hunt wrote: dragon-fly wrote: Many of Mercury's songs. Wonderful music but the lyrics often weird or confusing. (Sorry Freddie!) May was much better at this aspect. Not sure i agree with that..... I do: who needs 'Lily of the Valley' or 'Jealousy' when you've got 'Sweet Lady' and 'Son and Daughter'? |
| Amazon 08.05.2010 03:19 |
Sebastian wrote:"mike hunt wrote: dragon-fly wrote: Many of Mercury's songs. Wonderful music but the lyrics often weird or confusing. (Sorry Freddie!) May was much better at this aspect. Not sure i agree with that....." "I do: who needs 'Lily of the Valley' or 'Jealousy' when you've got 'Sweet Lady' and 'Son and Daughter'?" I don't agree. I think that Jealousy and Lily of the Valley have much better lyrics than Sweet Lady, and also have better lyrics than Son and Daughter. Also, while May was great, I consider Freddie to have been Queen's most talented lyricist, as well as its best song-writer and composer. I truly love Freddie's lyrics, March of the Black Queen being a prime example, and I struggle to identify any Queen songs which I love in which the lyrics ar ordinary. Partly, it's because IMO the four Queen members (especially Freddie) were extraordinary lyricists, but also since lyrics play such an important role, it's hard for me to fall in love with a song with less than great lyrics. When the lyrics are particularly bad (such as Don't Try Suicide or If You Can't Beat Them or to a lesser extent Sweet Lady), the songs in question are often among my least favourite Queen songs. |
| Holly2003 08.05.2010 04:17 |
For me, the lyrics play second fiddle to the music. For example, on the Peaches thread, I realised for the first time the lyrics to Now I'm Here aren't "Baby I waltzed when you took my hand" :) I have the SHA album, but as it's second hand, I never had the lyrics sheet, nor could I be bothered to ever find them. But some Queen lyrics are misunderstood. People get riled by the "Call me sweet like I'm some kind of cheese" line in Sweet Lady, but there are sweet cheeses! Also, the "people with guns" line in Put Out the Fire is misunderstood: you need to know a little of the gun debate in the USA to fully appreciate that line. On the surface it looks a little silly, and it's sung with an emphasis that is missing in the rest of the song. But it does make sense if you know the debate: "Guns don't kill, people kill" "Yes, people WITH GUNS" |
| dragon-fly 08.05.2010 06:58 |
mike hunt wrote: dragon-fly wrote: Many of Mercury's songs. Wonderful music but the lyrics often weird or confusing. (Sorry Freddie!) May was much better at this aspect. Not sure i agree with that..... Nobody ask you to! :P Nice, you guys picked few the most weird songs from Bri, but nothing to underline from Fred? How so? I did NOT say May was perfect at writing lyrics. I said that he was better than Mercury IMHO. Of course he've got lousy lyrics as well. Don't try to read between the lines- there's nothing! And I'm not going to analyze the songs. Sebastian- if you want- go ahead. |
| GratefulFan 08.05.2010 09:58 |
Amazon wrote: I don't agree. I think that Jealousy and Lily of the Valley have much better lyrics than Sweet Lady, and also have better lyrics than Son and Daughter. Also, while May was great, I consider Freddie to have been Queen's most talented lyricist, as well as its best song-writer and composer. I truly love Freddie's lyrics, March of the Black Queen being a prime example, and I struggle to identify any Queen songs which I love in which the lyrics ar ordinary. Partly, it's because IMO the four Queen members (especially Freddie) were extraordinary lyricists, but also since lyrics play such an important role, it's hard for me to fall in love with a song with less than great lyrics. When the lyrics are particularly bad (such as Don't Try Suicide or If You Can't Beat Them or to a lesser extent Sweet Lady), the songs in question are often among my least favourite Queen songs. ======================================== I've been meaning to get back to the discussion where I was threatening to keep you away from the stereo, meaning in fact to start a thread about why people like one song and not another in general. It's interesting that this question has come up because one of the thoughts I had with regard to you (just again because we seem to be so very opposite in most songs so it's interesting to me) is that maybe the lyrics were really important to you and the music was really important to me. Like experiencing the song mostly with one's head or mind, rather than mostly with one's rhythmic gut, for lack of a better term. I do like lyrics, but I tend to experience them in very incomplete pieces. I can sing a song out loud for years without really attending to the whole of it. I had this experience just the other day with a song called 'Ahead by a Century' that I've listened to dozens of times. I always really dig a short line 'tonight we smoke them out' . I love the way it sounds and I love the way it feels. For the first time in 10 or more years I asked myself 'smoke what out?' The answer? Hornets, on the surface at least. The lines that precede it are "that's when the hornet stung me, and I had a feverish dream. Revenge and doubt, tonight we smoke them out.' How did I not notice that before? And the irony is that this guy is one of my favourite lyricists. He's brilliant. If I zone out on him, I can zone out on anybody. Some songs are so defined by their lyrics that you can't really experience one without the other. Bo Rhap is one like that, Save Me another. I'm sure there's more, but this post is long enough. |
| mike hunt 08.05.2010 13:41 |
Amazon wrote: Sebastian wrote:"mike hunt wrote: dragon-fly wrote: Many of Mercury's songs. Wonderful music but the lyrics often weird or confusing. (Sorry Freddie!) May was much better at this aspect. Not sure i agree with that....." "I do: who needs 'Lily of the Valley' or 'Jealousy' when you've got 'Sweet Lady' and 'Son and Daughter'?" I don't agree. I think that Jealousy and Lily of the Valley have much better lyrics than Sweet Lady, and also have better lyrics than Son and Daughter. Also, while May was great, I consider Freddie to have been Queen's most talented lyricist, as well as its best song-writer and composer. I truly love Freddie's lyrics, March of the Black Queen being a prime example, and I struggle to identify any Queen songs which I love in which the lyrics ar ordinary. Partly, it's because IMO the four Queen members (especially Freddie) were extraordinary lyricists, but also since lyrics play such an important role, it's hard for me to fall in love with a song with less than great lyrics. When the lyrics are particularly bad (such as Don't Try Suicide or If You Can't Beat Them or to a lesser extent Sweet Lady), the songs in question are often among my least favourite Queen songs. No Question in my mind that freddie was the best writer of the four....The arrangments were way more original and creative than the other members, not even close IMO. Freddie was actually a groundbreaking writer....Name one other write who could write a killer Queen?....He was totally original as a writer. Lryics though was much more closer...you could make the case maybe brian may was equal or even better than mercury. lryics was freds weakest part of his game for sure. His arrangments though blow brian out of the water. That's not even debatable. |
| Amazon 08.05.2010 14:40 |
I don't think that lyrics was Freddie's weakest point, and as a lyricist, I think he was definitely better than Brian. |
| Sebastian 08.05.2010 15:57 |
OF course it's all a matter of opinion here, but: Fred was a good lyriricst. Freddie was an extraordinary composer. Freddie was an extraordinary arranger. So yes, in the creative department, lyrics were his 'weakest' point. If you've got three brothers, aged 70, 100 and 102, the one who's 70-YO is the 'youngest' of them all, even if he's not a teenager, let alone a baby. Same here: Fred's lyrics weren't bad, but they were far inferior to his music. He was the first to admit so. And of course I was being sarcastic when mentioning arguably Brian's worst lyrical pieces and compared them with two of Fred's best. And that's my point exactly: if we compared 'Dragon Attack' with 'Love of My Life', Fred would 'win' by a country mile; but if we compared 'Delilah' with 'The Show Must Go On' it'd be the other way around. |
| Amazon 08.05.2010 16:12 |
Sebastian wrote: "OF course it's all a matter of opinion here, but: Fred was a good lyriricst. Freddie was an extraordinary composer. Freddie was an extraordinary arranger. So yes, in the creative department, lyrics were his 'weakest' point. If you've got three brothers, aged 70, 100 and 102, the one who's 70-YO is the 'youngest' of them all, even if he's not a teenager, let alone a baby. Same here: Fred's lyrics weren't bad, but they were far inferior to his music. He was the first to admit so" Except everything you said IS a matter of opinion. Contrasting it to the ages of three brothers is absurd, that's fact, however saying that Freddie was a better composer and arranger than he was as a lyricist (and using the adjective you did) is entirely subjective. It also doesn't matter what Freddie said. He may believe that his lyrics was his weakest point, that doesn't mean that others have to agree with him. This whole thing is subjective, and in fact, even saying that Freddie was an adequate song-writer is subjective. Similarly, the examples of songs you used are subjective. |
| mike hunt 08.05.2010 17:13 |
i don't think the lryics for delilah were bad, Actually charming if anything. The music in the song was lacking though. It is all opinion, we know that. The reason i like freds lryics a little better than brian (surprise surprise) is because they're not so simple, you have to guess what the hell this guy is talking about. I personally love the fact that fans still debate what Bo rhap was about, or the crazy lryics to Fairyfeller's Masterstroke, Which i think were brillant. I still wonder what the hell some of the lryics in march of the black queen were about...Where the hell did this guy come up with this stuff?....My fairy king?.....Some may say silly or confusing, I say fucking brilliant!.....Even brian may seems in awe of those early freddie songs......And love of my life is one of the best love songs lryically and musically ever written. One more thing.....Freddie never said that Lryics were his weakest point, or part of his game....He Just said it was the tougest part of writing for him, it doesn't mean he wasn't happy with the end result. It just gave him trouble. |
| Oberon 08.05.2010 18:01 |
mike hunt wrote: i don't think the lryics for delilah were bad, Actually charming if anything. The music in the song was lacking though. It is all opinion, we know that. The reason i like freds lryics a little better than brian (surprise surprise) is because they're not so simple, you have to guess what the hell this guy is talking about. I personally love the fact that fans still debate what Bo rhap was about, or the crazy lryics to Fairyfeller's Masterstroke, Which i think were brillant. I still wonder what the hell some of the lryics in march of the black queen were about...Where the hell did this guy come up with this stuff?....My fairy king?.....Some may say silly or confusing, I say fucking brilliant!.....Even brian may seems in awe of those early freddie songs......And love of my life is one of the best love songs lryically and musically ever written. One more thing.....Freddie never said that Lryics were his weakest point, or part of his game....He Just said it was the tougest part of writing for him, it doesn't mean he wasn't happy with the end result. It just gave him trouble. I actually listened to Delilah the other day and loved it. I thought the guitar work was actually really good. I mean it's an obvious thing to make the guitar sound like a cat, but I defy any other guitarist to do it with the "style" that Brian did. It's funny, because I always absorb the music first and lyrics later, sometime much later. I've got friends who have commented on lyrics and I've thought "wow, I've never realised that lyric was like that". I'm much more into the music, and sometimes the lyrics just lodge in my brain without me really analysing the meaning at all I do agree about some of Fred's lyrics on the first 2/3 albums. I don't think they bettered them in their whole career just for being so interesting |
| Sebastian 08.05.2010 20:31 |
> Except everything you said IS a matter of opinion. Yes. Can you read? That was the first thing I wrote in that message! > Contrasting it to the ages of three brothers is absurd, No, it's not: if his lyrics are good (IMO of course), but his arrangements are way better (IMO of course), and his harmony, rhythm, form and melody are better (IMO of course), then (IMO of course) lyrics are his weakest point, the same way the 70-YO brother is the youngest if all of the others are older. > that's fact, however saying that Freddie was a better composer and arranger than he was as a lyricist (and using the adjective you did) is entirely subjective. Of course it is. Are you able to read? That was the first thing I wrote in that message! > It also doesn't matter what Freddie said. Of course it matters. It's HIS abilities we're talking about, so of course what HE thought carries some weight. It doesn't mean you've GOT to agree with him, but it's NOT the same as it NOT mattering. > He may believe that his lyrics was his weakest point, that doesn't mean that others have to agree with him. But that doesn't mean that it DOESN'T matter what he said. > This whole thing is subjective Of course it is. Are you capable to read? That was the first thing I wrote in that message! > Similarly, the examples of songs you used are subjective. Of course they are. Are you able to read? That was the first thing I wrote in that message! > Freddie never said that Lryics were his weakest point 'I think my melodies are superior to my lyrics' (Circus Mag, '77). So he DID say they were his weakest point. > He Just said it was the tougest part of writing for him, He did say that, AND he also said they were his weakest point. |
| Amazon 08.05.2010 23:57 |
Sebastian wrote: "Yes. Can you read? That was the first thing I wrote in that message:" Give me a break! Don't you dare accuse me of not reading! You wrote "OF course it's all a matter of opinion here, but" and "you've got three brothers, aged 70, 100 and 102, the one who's 70-YO is the 'youngest' of them all, even if he's not a teenager, let alone a baby. Same here: Fred's lyrics weren't bad, but they were far inferior to his music." Instead of spouting nonsence, like asking me if I can read, perhaps you yourself can read what you wrote! I will ask you what you asked me so politely, Can you read? In retropsect, I should have realised that this wasn't worth it and not respond to your post. |
| Sebastian 09.05.2010 01:47 |
The 'maths' thing was added to clear that, even with lyrics being his 'weakest' point (IMO, of course, as it's stated in the first line of the message), it doesn't mean they were 'weak' or 'bad' (just like a 70-YO youngest brother isn't a teen, a child or a baby). It was not put to suggest or imply Fred's 'strongest' or 'weakest' creative points were not a matter of opinion. Again: can you read? |
| Amazon 09.05.2010 04:59 |
Sebastian wrote: "The 'maths' thing was added to clear that, even with lyrics being his 'weakest' point (IMO, of course, as it's stated in the first line of the message), it doesn't mean they were 'weak' or 'bad' (just like a 70-YO youngest brother isn't a teen, a child or a baby). It was not put to suggest or imply Fred's 'strongest' or 'weakest' creative points were not a matter of opinion." Right. Whatever you say. I guess you won’t have any problem if I used that analogy in the context of Brian being only Queen’s second best guitarist. "Again: can you read?" You're such a nice guy. Whatever. I know what I read, and if you think that you're being misinterpreted (funnily enough, everyone seems to be misinterpreting you), it is possible to explain what you meant without being so defensive and rude. But that's up to you. I will simply end with this, and this will be my last comment on this- of course it's all a matter of opinion here, but: Freddie's views do not matter in the slightest. |
| Winter Land Man 09.05.2010 06:37 |
ALL of Brian's Queen songs in which he performs the lead vocals, plus John's 'Misfire' and 'If You Can't Beat Them', and Freddie's 'Don't Try Suicide' |
| mike hunt 09.05.2010 07:17 |
Blue Roses Unlimited wrote: ALL of Brian's Queen songs in which he performs the lead vocals, plus John's 'Misfire' and 'If You Can't Beat Them', and Freddie's 'Don't Try Suicide' I forgot what the orginal thread was about. i agree with those, but misfire I liked lryically. |
| Sebastian 09.05.2010 17:28 |
> I guess you won’t have any problem if I used that analogy in the context of Brian being only Queen’s second best guitarist. Of course I won't. If you think Roger, John or Freddie are better guitarists than Brian, then it's your opinion. I may disagree (I would) but that's why it's an opinion anyway. > You're such a nice guy. As a matter of fact I am. I reckon you might be as well. But both points have nothing to do with this topic. > I know what I read, and if you think that you're being misinterpreted (funnily enough, everyone seems to be misinterpreting you) False: about 5-10 people have misinterpreted me in the last month or so. The world population is 6,819,800,000 (estimated by the US Census Bureau for 9th May 2010). 5-10 people is only 0.000000146631866% of 'everyone'. The remaining 99.9999998534% of 'everyone' has not misinterpreted me. > it is possible to explain what you meant without being so defensive and rude. Being defensive or rude would be insulting your family, your country, your gender, your religion, your ethnic group, your blood type, etc.. I simply asked if you can read and, TBH, I still wonder. > of course it's all a matter of opinion here, but:Freddie's views do not matter in the slightest. Neither do yours, neither do mine. So? |
| Holly2003 09.05.2010 17:53 |
Sebastian wrote: > I know what I read, and if you think that you're being misinterpreted (funnily enough, everyone seems to be misinterpreting you) False: about 5-10 people have misinterpreted me in the last month or so. The world population is 6,819,800,000 (estimated by the US Census Bureau for 9th May 2010). 5-10 people is only 0.000000146631866% of 'everyone'. The remaining 99.9999998534% of 'everyone' has not misinterpreted me. Mr Logic strikes again... |
| Sebastian 09.05.2010 18:26 |
So does Mr I-hate-Seb-but-I'm-obsessed-with-him. |
| Amazon 09.05.2010 18:38 |
Sebastian wrote:" > I guess you won’t have any problem if I used that analogy in the context of Brian being only Queen’s second best guitarist. Of course I won't. If you think Roger, John or Freddie are better guitarists than Brian, then it's your opinion. I may disagree (I would) but that's why it's an opinion anyway." Obviously, you completely missed why I wrote that. " "You're such a nice guy." "As a matter of fact I am. I reckon you might be as well. But both points have nothing to do with this topic." Two things. One, I'm not a guy (with my username, I would imagine it's pretty obvious), but two, I was being sarcastic. While I have no idea how nice of a guy you are, aggressively asking someone if they can read does not show that you are a nice guy. Not that you would care. " "I know what I read, and if you think that you're being misinterpreted (funnily enough, everyone seems to be misinterpreting you" False: about 5-10 people have misinterpreted me in the last month or so. The world population is 6,819,800,000 (estimated by the US Census Bureau for 9th May 2010). 5-10 people is only 0.000000146631866% of 'everyone'. The remaining 99.9999998534% of 'everyone' has not misinterpreted me." Honestly, I couldn't care less about this. I exaggerated. Do you really think I meant EVERYONE? " "it is possible to explain what you meant without being so defensive and rude." "Being defensive or rude would be insulting your family, your country, your gender, your religion, your ethnic group, your blood type, etc.. I simply asked if you can read and, TBH, I still wonder." No, being defensive could also be asking someone aggressively 'can you read' instead of explaining why they misinterpreted you (if they did.) Similarly, being rude could also mean aggressively asking someone 'can you read'? It's subjective, and I think you were being defensive and rude. Don't get me wrong. It's not that important to me. I'm not a frail little girl, and while I don't expect you to care, for what it's worth, I do think you were being defensive and rude. But in answer to your question, yes I can; perhaps better than you would like. In fact, probably alot of people read your posts better than you would like them to. " "of course it's all a matter of opinion here, but:Freddie's views do not matter in the slightest." "Neither do yours, neither do mine. So?" So you completely missed why I wrote it. Do you not see why the use of 'it's all a matter of opinion here, but:' can come across as meaning anything but that? (The reason I used this example was in response to your earlier post in which you said something like of course it matters what Freddie thinks, but that was secondary.) |
| Sebastian 09.05.2010 23:10 |
> Obviously, you completely missed why I wrote that. I didn't: it's a matter of opinion. If you think Brian's the best guitarist in Queen, great. If you don't, great. It's a matter of opinion. > One, I'm not a guy (with my username, I would imagine it's pretty obvious) I had intended to write 'I reckon you're a nice person' (or something more gender neutral) but I forgot. My mistake. > but two, I was being sarcastic. Judging a person's niceness (or lack thereof) over one post is stupid. Judge me if you see me hitting my girlfriend, traumatising my kid, mistreating people because of their race, gender, income, etc. But writing 'can you read?' doesn't make me a bad person (or a 'not-nice' one). > While I have no idea how nice of a guy you are, aggressively asking someone if they can read does not show that you are a nice guy. I didn't ask aggressively. I just asked. > Not that you would care. I do care. Otherwise I'd simply ignored it. > Honestly, I couldn't care less about this. Then why bother replying? You at least care enough to read and answer. > No, being defensive could also be asking someone aggressively 'can you read' Yes, but I didn't ask aggressively. I just asked. > instead of explaining why they misinterpreted you (if they did.) I could've explained (and I did), but first I wanted to know if you could read, otherwise it'd be a waste of space. > Similarly, being rude could also mean aggressively asking someone 'can you read'? It's subjective, and I think you were being defensive and rude. Of course it's subjective. On my first post on this thread (IIRC) I started by stating that all of this was a matter of opinion. Can you read? > Don't get me wrong. It's not that important to me. It's at least important enough for you to read and reply. And wasn't your previous message your last on this? Oh wait: you DO care enough to contradict yourself! > I'm not a frail little girl, and while I don't expect you to care, for what it's worth, I do think you were being defensive and rude. Being defensive and rude would be insulting your country, race, religion, political affiliation, intellect (not being able to read doesn't necessarily relate to it). But yes, it's subjective. On my first post on this thread (IIRC) I started by stating that all of this was a matter of opinion. Can you read? > But in answer to your question, yes I can; perhaps better than you would like. You can't read my mind. I wouldn't like or dislike whether you can read or not. I do care about it since it's a key factor for this discussion: if you can, there's a chance you may understand what I mean; if you don't, there's no need to waste time and space. > In fact, probably alot of people read your posts better than you would like them to. I wouldn't 'like' or 'dislike' people reading my posts. It's their problem. I only care if/when they write something (good or bad, or neither) about them, and then I reply, thats all. Maybe (and hopefully) there are people with enough understanding to get what I write (whether they agree or not), but there are also some who don't seem to get a simple comment like the one about the three brothers. And your behaviour and comments imply you're on the second group. Which prompts the question: can you read? > So you completely missed why I wrote it. Do you not see why the use of 'it's all a matter of opinion here, but:' can come across as meaning anything but that? It 'can', but it doesn't mean it always does. And I didn't use the example to suggest or imply Fred was absolutely and categorically 'weaker' as a lyricst, I used it to illustrate that his 'weakest' point (be it lyrics, harmonies, rhythm, modulations, dissonances...) could still be very strong. You completely missed that point, which prompts the question: can you read? |
| Amazon 09.05.2010 23:39 |
Sebastian wrote: ""> Obviously, you completely missed why I wrote that." "I didn't: it's a matter of opinion. If you think Brian's the best guitarist in Queen, great. If you don't, great. It's a matter of opinion." Except you did miss why I wrote it. I didn't write it because I don't think that Brian is the best guitarist in Queen. "Judging a person's niceness (or lack thereof) over one post is stupid. Judge me if you see me hitting my girlfriend, traumatising my kid, mistreating people because of their race, gender, income, etc. But writing 'can you read?' doesn't make me a bad person (or a 'not-nice' one)." I never said that you're a bad person. But I did note that aggressively asking me if I can read isn't in my view particularly nice, polite, decent etc... Also the fact that on this post you constantly ask me if I can read, when it was made pretty clear that I'm not particularly thrilled with that 'question' indicates to me that either you don't give a damn what the person you're having a discussion feels, you truly don't get why being asked 'can you read?' time after time would get on the nerves of the Dalai Lama, or you aren't as nice a person as you claim to be. "I didn't ask aggressively. I just asked." I disagree. " "Honestly, I couldn't care less about this." "Then why bother replying? You at least care enough to read and answer." I should have been more specific. I don't care about the world's population. " "No, being defensive could also be asking someone aggressively 'can you read'" " "Yes, but I didn't ask aggressively. I just asked." I disagree. " "instead of explaining why they misinterpreted you (if they did.)" "I could've explained (and I did), but first I wanted to know if you could read, otherwise it'd be a waste of space." Alright, I won't take it this personally this time, but I'll simply point that if I couldn't read, why would I be on this site, and how would I be responding to your posts? However, it's not about being able to read. Several times, on this thread, you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I could have checked to see if you could read, but I know that you can, however you did not get what I was saying. "Of course it's subjective. On my first post on this thread (IIRC) I started by stating that all of this was a matter of opinion. Can you read?" Actually you said OF course it's all a matter of opinion here, BUT: (I put the but in capital letters) Can you read?! " "Don't get me wrong. It's not that important to me." "It's at least important enough for you to read and reply." No, it's not that important that I would lose any sleep over it. And wasn't your previous message your last on this?"Oh wait: you DO care enough to contradict yourself!" I changed my mind. That has nothing to do with caring or not caring. "Being defensive and rude would be insulting your country, race, religion, political affiliation, intellect (not being able to read doesn't necessarily relate to it)." You do realise that there are plenty more things than that, that a person can be rude about? Those are not the only things which a person can be rude about. "But yes, it's subjective. On my first post on this thread (IIRC) I started by stating that all of this was a matter of opinion. Can you read?" Obviously better than you. "You can't read my mind. I wouldn't like or dislike whether you can read or not. I do care about it since it's a key factor for this discussion: if you can, there's a chance you may understand what I mean; if you don't, there's no need to waste time and space." You know what Sebastian, it's times like this that I have to really bite my tongue. Because, unlike other members, you don't resort to name-calling, I'm not going to do the same. I will simply note that in a civilised discussion, if someone feels that they are being misinterpreted, they calmly and reasonably explain what they meant. Obviously, I should have realised that was never going to happen. "Maybe (and hopefully) there are people with enough understanding to get what I write (whether they agree or not), but there are also some who don't seem to get a simple comment like the one about the three brothers. And your behaviour and comments imply you're on the second group. Which prompts the question: can you read?" Yeh, I know, it's my fault that I didn't understand such a simple (and stupid) comment. Give me a break. I didn't fail to get anything. However, if you think I did fail to get it, maybe it's because you weren't clear. No, you don't need to bear any responsibility at all. That's right, it's all the responsibility of the reader. " "So you completely missed why I wrote it. Do you not see why the use of 'it's all a matter of opinion here, but:' can come across as meaning anything but that?" "It 'can', but it doesn't mean it always does. And I didn't use the example to suggest or imply Fred was absolutely and categorically 'weaker' as a lyricst, I used it to illustrate that his 'weakest' point (be it lyrics, harmonies, rhythm, modulations, dissonances...) could still be very strong." All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion that his weakest point was his lyrics, which is absolutely a matter of opinion. "You completely missed that point, which prompts the question: can you read?" I know I said I wouldn't resort to name calling; well I changed my mind. Jerk. |
| Sebastian 10.05.2010 00:39 |
> I didn't write it because I don't think that Brian is the best guitarist in Queen. I didn't say you thought that. And I didn't say you didn't think that. I did imply that, in the case you think Brian's the best guitarist in Queen, it's your opinion and it's respectable; in the case you don't, it's also respectable. > But I did note that aggressively asking me if I can read isn't in my view particularly nice, polite, decent etc... There was no aggression in my question. I just asked. > Also the fact that on this post you constantly ask me if I can read, when it was made pretty clear that I'm not particularly thrilled with that 'question' indicates to me that either you don't give a damn what the person you're having a discussion feels, you truly don't get why being asked 'can you read?' time after time would get on the nerves of the Dalai Lama, or you aren't as nice a person as you claim to be. There are several things addressed there, so let's see them one by one: * If you're not particularly thrilled with my quesiton, there's a solution: don't read it. Can you refrain from reading? * About giving a damn about what you feel: I'm not kicking you or torturing you, I'm just asking. Go cry like a baby if I ever physically hurt you or do something that's truly serious. Asking you if you can read is far from being an actual offense. Grow up. * Neither you nor I can read Mr Gyatso's mind. * I am a nice person, as I'm sure most of the forum posters are (including you). > I disagree. Good for you. But since you can't convince me to agree with you, nor I can convince you to agree with me, you'd rather agree to disagree, or keep replying. It's your choice. > Alright, I won't take it this personally this time, but I'll simply point that if I couldn't read, why would I be on this site, and how would I be responding to your posts? I don't know, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can in fact read, then you should do it more carefully. > However, it's not about being able to read. Several times, on this thread, you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I could have checked to see if you could read, but I know that you can Good for you. I, on the other hand, am not sure if you can. > however you did not get what I was saying. Then why wasting time on me? > Actually you said OF course it's all a matter of opinion here, BUT: (I put the but in capital letters)Can you read?! Yes, I can (very original of you to ask that, BTW). The 'but' doesn't necessarily imply that my view on the matter was above subjectivity. Can you read? > No, it's not that important that I would lose any sleep over it. While it's not important enough for you to lose any sleep over it, it's important enough for you to read and reply. Why bother if I'm, according to you, a jerk? Is your self-esteem so low that you've got to argue with a 'jerk'? Is your self-esteem so low that I can push your buttons without even knowing you? Is your self-esteem so low that you've got to cry like a baby over a comment? > I changed my mind. That has nothing to do with caring or not caring. It has, if you cared enough to change your mind. > You do realise that there are plenty more things than that, that a person can be rude about? Yes, but asking you if you can read is not one of them. Of course, as I wrote earlier, it's a matter of opinion. Can you read? > Those are not the only things which a person can be rude about. You're right, but asking you if you can read is not one of them. Of course, as I wrote earlier, it's a matter of opinion. Can you read? > Obviously better than you. Oh yes, the good old 'I'm better than you' argument. Very mature. Should I get you a dummy or ask for somebody to change your nappy? > You know what Sebastian, it's times like this that I have to really bite my tongue. Of course it's your prerogative, but I advise you not to: it hurts, and if you bite hard enough, you may bleed. > Because, unlike other members, you don't resort to name-calling, I'm not going to do the same. OMG, I feel so blessed! > I will simply note that in a civilised discussion, if someone feels that they are being misinterpreted, they calmly and reasonably explain what they meant. Indeed. Was my reply the ideal one? No. But: Did I call you names? No Did I insult your family? No Did I say or imply your mother's having intercourse with strangers in exchange for money? No Did I say you're a person with defective chromosomes? No Did I insult your lifestyle (whichever it may be)? No Did I insult your religion (or lack thereof) or those following it? No Did I wish for everybody you know to die? No Did I write 'can you read' in capital letters (i-net equivalent of yelling)? No So, I did not offend you. Can you read? > Obviously, I should have realised that was never going to happen. You know how magic eight-balls aren't infallible. > Yeh, I know, it's my fault that I didn't understand such a simple (and stupid) comment. If it's so stupid, why bother reading and replying it? Am I such an important part of your life? > Give me a break. It is you who's got to give you a break. > I didn't fail to get anything. However, if you think I did fail to get it, maybe it's because you weren't clear. Yes, maybe I wasn't. It is one of the possibilities. Another one is that you can't read. Which is why I asked: can you read? > No, you don't need to bear any responsibility at all. Neither do you. However, there are better ways to reply. > That's right, it's all the responsibility of the reader. Not necessarily. > All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion No, I did not imply that. Can you read? > I know I said I wouldn't resort to name calling; well I changed my mind. Jerk. Oh yes, the good old 'I've got no argument so I'm gonna call you names' argument. Very mature. Should I get you a dummy or ask for somebody to change your nappy? Are you potty-trained already? |
| Amazon 10.05.2010 01:32 |
Sebastian wrote: " "I didn't write it because I don't think that Brian is the best guitarist in Queen." "I didn't say you thought that. And I didn't say you didn't think that. I did imply that, in the case you think Brian's the best guitarist in Queen, it's your opinion and it's respectable; in the case you don't, it's also respectable." Uh, I said that was why I didn't write it. "If you're not particularly thrilled with my quesiton, there's a solution: don't read it. Can you refrain from reading?" Well, obviously I would hope to have discussions with you without your getting so defensive. "About giving a damn about what you feel: I'm not kicking you or torturing you, I'm just asking. Go cry like a baby if I ever physically hurt you or do something that's truly serious. Asking you if you can read is far from being an actual offense. Grow up." Uh, I'm not the one that is throwing a tantrum here. "I don't know, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can in fact read, then you should do it more carefully." Or maybe you should explain yourself more carefully. You know, for someone so pedantic and literal, the fact that your questioning whether I can read is bizarre. "Good for you. I, on the other hand, am not sure if you can." I can say the exact same thing about you. "Then why wasting time on me?" Why wate time responding to me? ""Actually you said OF course it's all a matter of opinion here, BUT: (I put the but in capital letters)Can you read?!" "Yes, I can (very original of you to ask that, BTW)." Your accusing me of not being original?!!!! "The 'but' doesn't necessarily imply that my view on the matter was above subjectivity." Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm BTW.) "Can you read?" How original. "While it's not important enough for you to lose any sleep over it, it's important enough for you to read and reply." Let me get this straight. I can only respond to things if they are so important I lose sleep over them? In that case, I probably wouldn't be on this site. "Why bother if I'm, according to you, a jerk? Is your self-esteem so low that you've got to argue with a 'jerk'?" Since when did I say that I had low self-esteem? There are numerous reasons to have arguments, but low self-esteem isn't one of them (at least for me.) I"s your self-esteem so low that I can push your buttons without even knowing you?" Oh lord. If you mean that you're annoying me, yes you are pushing my button; if you mean that you're making me angry, then you're not pushing my buttons. "Is your self-esteem so low that you've got to cry like a baby over a comment?" I'm not the one who threw a tantrum. It's quite hypocritical of you to to accuse anyone of acting like a baby. Anyway, I made one comment. If you think that I was crying like a baby, you either don't have any children or nieces/nephews, or believe that anytime someone makes an emotional comment, they are crying like a baby. Very mature. "It has, if you cared enough to change your mind." Fine, I care enough to change my mind. "Yes, but asking you if you can read is not one of them. Of course, as I wrote earlier, it's a matter of opinion." It is indeed a matter of opinion, and I do think it is rude. "Can you read?" No comment. "Oh yes, the good old 'I'm better than you' argument. Very mature. Should I get you a dummy or ask for somebody to change your nappy?" You are such a lovely guy. (That was sarcasm.) It's actually quite funny. You repeat the same thing over and over, you make comments which you know annoys the other person and you throw tantrums. So, I'm curious, who exactly is meant to be the baby around here? "Of course it's your prerogative, but I advise you not to: it hurts, and if you bite hard enough, you may bleed." Are you serious? ""Because, unlike other members, you don't resort to name-calling, I'm not going to do the same." "OMG, I feel so blessed!" You can feel whatever you like about it. " "I will simply note that in a civilised discussion, if someone feels that they are being misinterpreted, they calmly and reasonably explain what they meant." "Did I write 'can you read' in capital letters (i-net equivalent of yelling)? No" You don't need to write it in capital letters, to be aggressive. "So, I did not offend you." I'm curious, since when did you develop the ability to read minds? You said that we can't read Mr Gyatso's mind, yet you can read mine? You can not tell me whether you offended me or not. You can say it wasn't your intention, but you can't know whether or not I was offended. As it was, for what's it worth, I was offended. "Can you read?" No comment. "If it's so stupid, why bother reading and replying it? Am I such an important part of your life?" No, but that's irrelevent. "Yes, maybe I wasn't. It is one of the possibilities. Another one is that you can't read. Which is why I asked: can you read?" Yeh, you definitely are proving that you don't know how to hold a mature discussion. BTW, before I reach the last comment, after all of these repetitive and immature 'can you read?' who exactly is meant to be the baby here? "Neither do you. However, there are better ways to reply." You're giving me advice on how to respond? That's incredible. ""That's right, it's all the responsibility of the reader." "Not necessarily." So, it's not all my fault? ""All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion" "No, I did not imply that." Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.) "Can you read?" In this case, clearly better than you. "Oh yes, the good old 'I've got no argument so I'm gonna call you names' argument. Very mature." No, the good old 'I'm sick and tired of this guy's constant and immature responses, and since he's clearly not interested in proposing any arguments or having a reasonable discussion (not that he probably ever was) I'm through with biting my tongue' thing. It actually wasn't so much an argument as an observation that you would get on the nerves of most reasonable people. "Should I get you a dummy or ask for somebody to change your nappy? Are you potty-trained already?" You're a very nasty person, you know that? I'm not complaining or making an emotional comment. I'm simply noting that you really are not a pleasant guy at all and that it was a disgusting response. Oh, and BTW considering that you forever repeat the same comments, you make comments which you're aware annoys the person you're talking to, you spout immature nonsence, and you throw tantrums; I really think you should be careful about calling or implying that other people are babies. |
| Sebastian 10.05.2010 01:57 |
> Well, obviously I would hope to have discussions with you without your getting so defensive. I'm not getting defensive. A defensive person would call the other names like 'jerk'. So, between the two of us, there is one defensive person, but it's not me. > Uh, I'm not the one that is throwing a tantrum here. Actually, you are. > You know, for someone so pedantic and literal, the fact that your questioning whether I can read is bizarre. Then why wasting your time on me? Am I such an important part of your life? > I can say the exact same thing about you. Then you're again contradicting yourself. > Why wate time responding to me. Because for me it's not wasting time. I'm not the one who's calling the other person bizarre, jerk or pedantic. You, to me, are a person who deserves respect (like almost anybody in QZ), so I've got no problem replying to any message you direct at me. > Your accusing me of not being original?!!!! Yes. Is that a crime? > How original. Well, no, it's not original. So? > Let me get this straight. I can only respond to things if they are so important I lose sleep over them? No, but I never said otherwise. Can you read? > In that case, I probably wouldn't be on this site. Your choice. > Since when did I imply that I had low self-esteem? You didn't, I did. Can you read? > Oh lord. If you mean that you're annoying me, yes you are pushing my button; if you mean that you're making me angry, then you're not pushing my buttons. If I'm annoying you, then why bother writing to me, replying to me and reading what I write? > I'm not the one who threw a tantrum. Actually, you are. > It's quite hypocritical of you to to accuse anyone of acting like a baby. No, it's not. There are two options: * Option A: I'm not acting like a baby, and I say you are. There's nothing wrong with it. * Option B: I'm also acting like a baby, and I say you are. There's nothing wrong with it: to say you are something, it's not mandatory for me not to be the same thing. Or should I be dead in order to say that a person's alive? Should I have feathers in order to say that a creature has scales? Should I be a plant in order to say a walrus is an animal? > If you think that I was crying like a baby, you either don't have any children or nieces/nephews, or believe that anytime someone makes an emotional comment, they are crying like a baby. I do have a kid, that's got nothing to do with my opinion on your attitude as childish. And trying to bully me with an argument like that again shows your immaturity: should I buy you a new set of nappies? > Fine, I care enough to change my mind. And why? Is your self-esteem so low? > It is a matter of opinion, and I do think it is rude. And I do think your attitude is childish. A view you reinforce by your behaviour. > You are such a lovely guy. (That was sarcasm.) It's actually quite funny. Then why bother replying to what I write? Am I such an important part of your life? > You repeat the same thing over and over, you make comments which you know annoys the other person and you throw tantrums. You reply to a person you claim is repeating the same thing over and over, making comments which he knows annoys you and throw tantrums. So, I'm curious, am I such an important part of your life? > So, I'm curious, who exactly is meant to be the baby around here? You are. Your attitude, behaviour and childish comebacks confirm so. > Are you serious? Indeed. Biting one's tongue is not dangerous (most of the time, at least), but it does make things difficult for a couple of days. Try giving a speech ... it's hell if your tongue's got blisters. > You can feel whatever you like about it. Of course I can, it's not up to you. > You don't need to write it in capital letters, to be aggressive. You've got that one right. > I'm curious, since when did you develop the ability to read minds? You said that we can't read Mr Gyatso's mind, yet you can read mine? I never claimed to read your mind. So, for you to throw that senseless argument is yet another feat of immaturity and perhaps an insane focus on me. Why is that? > You can not tell me whether you offended me or not. Well, I can, but the risk of making a mistake is high. But I can: I offended you. I did not offend you. See? I could!!!! > You can say it wasn't your intention, but you can't know whether or not I was offended. Right. And 2+2=4. How's that relevant to the topic? > As it was, for what's it worth, I was offended. Your problem, not mine, as I did not mean to offend you. > No, but that's irrelevent. Indeed. But it still prompts the question: why bothering reading what I write if I'm such a jerk? > Yeh, you definitely are proving that you don't know how to hold a mature discussion. So why bothering reading what I write and replying to me? Are you obsessed with me? > BTW, before I reach the last comment, after all of these repetitive and immature 'can you read?' who exactly is meant to be the baby here? You are. And your behaviour and tantrums show it. > You're giving me advice on how to respond? Actually, I'm not. It's up to you. I merely said there are better ways. Full stop. > All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion No, I implied that while it's a matter of opinion, it's still valid to state what one thinks and why. Can you read? > Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.) And totally uncalled for. > No, the good old 'I'm sick and tired of this guy's constant and immature responses, and since he's clearly not interested in proposing any arguments or having a reasonable discussion (not that he probably ever was) I'm through with biting my tongue' thing. I did propose arguments. Between the two of us, only you have called the other one 'jerk', 'pedantic', etc. And by the way, while my first post was about the topic, it was you who replied with personal things. So: you are the one with constant and immature responses. > It actually wasn't so much an argument as an observation that you would get on the nerves of most reasonable people. You don't know me, so it's ridiculous to make such statement based on what's written on an internet forum. > You're a very nasty person, you know that? You don't know me, so it's ridiculous to make such statement based on what's written on an internet forum. > I'm not complaining or making an emotional comment. But the way you do it is very childish and petty. > I'm noting that you really are not pleasant guy at all. You don't know me, so it's ridiculous to make such statement based on what's written on an internet forum. > Disgusting.Oh, and BTW considering that you forever repeat the same comments Not forever. Maybe for a couple of hours. That's not even a tiny fraction of 'forever'. > you make comments which you're aware annoys the person you're talking to Then why bother replying? Am I such an important part of your life? > you spout immature nonsence Not quite. You do, though. > and you throw tantrums Not quite. You do, though. > I really think you should be careful about calling or implying that other people are babies. Not other people: I think you're the first and only person I've called immature and baby-like (in terms of behaviour) in about a decade and 3,8+K messages posted here. And I stand by it: are you potty-trained already? |
| Amazon 10.05.2010 02:50 |
Sebastian wrote: "Well, obviously I would hope to have discussions with you without your getting so defensive." "I'm not getting defensive. A defensive person would call the other names like 'jerk'. So, between the two of us, there is one defensive person, but it's not me." I disagree. "Uh, I'm not the one that is throwing a tantrum here." "Actually, you are." You just keep telling that yourself. ""I can say the exact same thing about you." "Then you're again contradicting yourself." So what if I am? " "Your accusing me of not being original?!!!! "Yes. Is that a crime?" No, but it is unusual, considering that you aren't particularly original yourself. " "How original." Well, no, it's not original. So?" See above. " "Since when did I imply that I had low self-esteem?" "You didn't, I did." Hence, my rhetorical question. "Can you read?" No comment. " "I'm not the one who threw a tantrum." "Actually, you are." Actually, it is you who threw a tantrum. " "It's quite hypocritical of you to to accuse anyone of acting like a baby." "No, it's not. There are two options: * Option A: I'm not acting like a baby, and I say you are. There's nothing wrong with it. * Option B: I'm also acting like a baby, and I say you are. There's nothing wrong with it: to say you are something, it's not mandatory for me not to be the same thing. Or should I be dead in order to say that a person's alive? Should I have feathers in order to say that a creature has scales? Should I be a plant in order to say a walrus is an animal?" Considering your baby-related comments, you are a hypocrite. " "If you think that I was crying like a baby, you either don't have any children or nieces/nephews, or believe that anytime someone makes an emotional comment, they are crying like a baby." "I do have a kid, that's got nothing to do with my opinion on your attitude as childish." I'm sorry, YOU are calling me childish? "And trying to bully me with an argument like that again shows your immaturity:" If I'm attempting to bully you, that makes me a bully, not immature. I wasn't BTW. "should I buy you a new set of nappies?" You can use it yourself. (Look at that, I sank down to your level.) " "Fine, I care enough to change my mind." "And why? Is your self-esteem so low?" Uh, people change their minds all the time. It's part of being a fully developed human being. " "It is a matter of opinion, and I do think it is rude." "And I do think your attitude is childish. A view you reinforce by your behaviour." Right. Whatever you say. You really are delusional. " "So, I'm curious, who exactly is meant to be the baby around here?" "You are." Uh, no, but better luck next time. "Your attitude, behaviour and childish comebacks confirm so." Let's examine this. My attitude? I noted that I thought you were being rude. I didn't make much of it, I only made a comment or two, and you start accusing me of acting like a baby! Yeh, Sebastian, my attitude is really childish. My behaviour? No, I can't think of anything. My childish comebacks? Uh, let's see. No, the only ones I can think of belong to you. " "I'm curious, since when did you develop the ability to read minds? You said that we can't read Mr Gyatso's mind, yet you can read mine?" "I never claimed to read your mind. So, for you to throw that senseless argument is yet another feat of immaturity and perhaps an insane focus on me. Why is that?" You probably think that my walking down the street is a feat of immaturity; you're really clutching at straws. No, it's not a senseless argument. It was inspired by your argument that we can't read the Dalai Lama's mind (and that isn't a senseless argument?) and in response to your saying I wasn't offended. " "You can not tell me whether you offended me or not." "Well, I can, but the risk of making a mistake is high. But I can: I offended you. I did not offend you. See? I could!!!!" No, you can't tell me whether you offended me or not. " "You can say it wasn't your intention, but you can't know whether or not I was offended." "Right. And 2+2=4. How's that relevant to the topic?" Are you serious? I suppose talking about Killer Queen is irrelevent in a discussion about SHA. " "As it was, for what's it worth, I was offended." "Your problem, not mine, as I did not mean to offend you." Hence, my use of the phase for what it's worth. " "BTW, before I reach the last comment, after all of these repetitive and immature 'can you read?' who exactly is meant to be the baby here?" "You are. And your behaviour and tantrums show it." Keep telling that to yourself. Your fantasy world must be extraordinary. " "All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion" "No, I implied that while it's a matter of opinion, it's still valid to state what one thinks and why. Can you read?" I know what you said. " "Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)" "And totally uncalled for." No more uncalled for than any of the childish and immature things you've said and continue to say. "I did propose arguments. Between the two of us, only you have called the other one 'jerk', 'pedantic', etc." You proposed arguments? When? "And by the way, while my first post was about the topic, it was you who replied with personal things." Perhaps, but your response to my response removed any possibility of us having a reasonable discussion. "So: you are the one with constant and immature responses." Keep telling that to yourself. " "It actually wasn't so much an argument as an observation that you would get on the nerves of most reasonable people." "You don't know me, so it's ridiculous to make such statement based on what's written on an internet forum." I've read enough of your posts, as well as posts from other people, so it's not that ridiculous. "I'm not complaining or making an emotional comment." "But the way you do it is very childish and petty." Petty, yes, I'll give you that. " "you spout immature nonsence" "Not quite. You do, though." ""and you throw tantrums "Not quite. You do, though." Whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.) "Not other people: I think you're the first and only person I've called immature and baby-like (in terms of behaviour) in about a decade and 3,8+K messages posted here." I'm honoured. So I guess you only act like a baby with me? "And I stand by it: are you potty-trained already?" And I stand by what I said; you're a hypocrite and a very nasty person. |
| Sebastian 10.05.2010 03:47 |
> I disagree. Good for you. > You just keep telling that yourself. Actually, I'm telling that to you. > So what if I am? Nothing, just that: you're contradicting yourself. > No, but it is unusual, considering that you aren't particularly original yourself. No, it's not unusual. Do I have to be dead to say another person's alive? Do I have to be a woman to say another person's a man? Do I have to be old to say another person's young? > Hence, my rhetorical question. And a quite unneeded one. > Actually, it is you who threw a tantrum. No, it isn't me. The one with the name calling and all that is you, so it is you throwing a tantrum. > Considering your baby-related comments, you are a hypocrite. No, I'm not. Can you read? > I'm sorry, YOU are calling me childish? Yes. Can you read? > If I'm attempting to bully you, that makes me a bully, not immature. Many bullies are immature. Those conditions aren't mutually exclusive. I don't consider you a bully, and I don't consider you immature since I don't know you. However, I do consider your attitude in the last few hours to be completely ridiculous and childish. > You can use it yourself. I wouldn't find any use for them. > (Look at that, I sank down to your level.) You'd sunk way lower when you called me 'jerk'. > Uh, people change their minds all the time. Yes, and sometimes it hasn't got anything to do with being childish. But not in this case. > It's part of being a fully developed human being. Yes but, from what you've written here, you're far from being one. > Right. Whatever you say. You really are delusional. Actually, I'm not. The person with the name-calling (i.e. you) is the one who's delusional. > Uh, no, but better luck next time. What a comeback! Again, too childish. > Let's examine this.My attitude? I noted that I thought you were being rude. I didn't make much of it, I only made a comment or two, and you start accusing me of acting like a baby! I think both your replies and mine went way beyond a comment or two. > Yeh, Sebastian, my attitude is really childish. Yes, it is indeed. Very childish. > My behaviour? No, I can't think of anything. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > My childish comebacks? Uh, let's see. No, the only ones I can think of belong to you. 'Jerk' is completely childish. And who was the one who said it? > You probably think that my walking down the street is a feat of immaturity Walking down the street is not a feat of immaturity. Your behaviour on this thread during the last hours is. > No, it's not a senseless argument. It was inspired by your argument that we can't read the Dalai Lama's mind (and that isn't a senseless argument?) and in response to your saying I wasn't offended. If I did say you weren't offended, then I take it back. However, that's not implying I can read your mind (Again: can you read?). If I said something else and you thought I was implying I could read your mind, then again: can you read? > No, you can't tell me whether you offended me or not. Yes, I can. I can type the sentence and I can utter the words. Would that sentence be correct or incorrect? That's another matter. But of course I can say those things (again, they could be right or wrong). > Are you serious?I suppose talking about Killer Queen is irrelevent in a discussion about SHA. No, it's not. Unless of course it's about SHA the song, although there could be some connexions. > Keep telling that to yourself. I'm not telling that to myself: I'm telling that to you. > Your fantasy world must be extraordinary. So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Those three things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish. > No more uncalled for than any of the childish and immature things you've said and continue to say. So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Those three things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish. > You proposed arguments? When? Well, the whole brothers thing is an argument, and it had nothing to do with you. > Perhaps, but your response to my response removed any possibility of us having a reasonable discussion. So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Moreover, you've denied having any responsibility in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people. Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish. > Keep telling that to yourself. I'm not telling that to myself: I'm telling that to you. > I've read enough of your posts, as well as posts from other people, so it's not that ridiculous. It is, as that doesn't mean at all that you know me. If I, based on your comments, said you're significant other is cheating on you (for example), that'd be completely ridiculous, immature, uncalled for and childish. Same if I told you 'jerk'. But I didn't do the latter: you did. So, the one who's being childish and immature is you. > I'm honoured. So I guess you only act like a baby with me? Actually, I don't. So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Moreover, you've denied having any responsibility in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people. Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish. > And I stand by what I said; you're a hypocrite and a very nasty person. Actually, I'm not. There's nothing hypocrite about calling you childish. And the 'very nasty' people are those who are into really serious nasty stuff (e.g. wife-beating, nazism, rape), rather than simply calling someone 'childish' over an internet forum. So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Moreover, you've denied having any responsibility in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people. Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish. |
| Holly2003 10.05.2010 04:27 |
Sebastian wrote: So does Mr I-hate-Seb-but-I'm-obsessed-with-him. "Hate"? Don't be silly. Presumably you replying to me means you're obsessed with me? lol |
| Sebastian 10.05.2010 04:33 |
No, it doesn't. However, you've replied to several of my posts even if they haven't got anything to do with you, and very often with personal attacks. You seem to be very aware of what I write and ready to reply to it. That's a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed. |
| Amazon 10.05.2010 04:36 |
Sebastian wrote:" "Hence, my rhetorical question." "And a quite unneeded one." No, it was perfectly appropiate. " "Actually, it is you who threw a tantrum." "No, it isn't me. The one with the name calling and all that is you, so it is you throwing a tantrum." Think whatever you want, whether it be the truth or not. " "Considering your baby-related comments, you are a hypocrite." "No, I'm not. Can you read?" No comment. " "I'm sorry, YOU are calling me childish?" "Yes. Can you read?" No comment. "However, I do consider your attitude in the last few hours to be completely ridiculous and childish." I guess we have a different completely different view of the discussion. " "You can use it yourself." "I wouldn't find any use for them." Good for you. " "(Look at that, I sank down to your level.)" You'd sunk way lower when you called me 'jerk'." That's rich coming from you. Have you read some of the stuff that you've written? "Yes, and sometimes it hasn't got anything to do with being childish. But not in this case." You need to look up the word childish. " "It's part of being a fully developed human being." "Yes but, from what you've written here, you're far from being one." Ooh, that hurts. Whatever. Still think that my jerk comment was all that bad? " "Right. Whatever you say. You really are delusional." "Actually, I'm not. The person with the name-calling (i.e. you) is the one who's delusional." So this is the way it works? Everything I say to you, you throw back at me? Whatever. Very mature. " "Uh, no, but better luck next time." "What a comeback!" No comment. "Again, too childish." It's all relative. Compared to you, not in a million years. " "Let's examine this.My attitude? I noted that I thought you were being rude. I didn't make much of it, I only made a comment or two, and you start accusing me of acting like a baby!" "I think both your replies and mine went way beyond a comment or two." And whose fault is that? " "Yeh, Sebastian, my attitude is really childish." "Yes, it is indeed. Very childish." You obviously don't get sarcasm. " "My behaviour? No, I can't think of anything." "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Cute, but completely meaningless. " "My childish comebacks? Uh, let's see. No, the only ones I can think of belong to you." "'Jerk' is completely childish. And who was the one who said it?" Actually, it wasn't childish. The way you were acting, you deserved to be called far worst. "Walking down the street is not a feat of immaturity. Your behaviour on this thread during the last hours is." Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.) " "No, it's not a senseless argument. It was inspired by your argument that we can't read the Dalai Lama's mind (and that isn't a senseless argument?) and in response to your saying I wasn't offended." "If I did say you weren't offended, then I take it back. However, that's not implying I can read your mind (Again: can you read?). If I said something else and you thought I was implying I could read your mind, then again: can you read?" Can YOU read? I never said that you were implying you could read my mind. " "No, you can't tell me whether you offended me or not." "Yes, I can. I can type the sentence and I can utter the words. Would that sentence be correct or incorrect? That's another matter. But of course I can say those things (again, they could be right or wrong)." Oh, brother. You can do whatever you want. Obviously, however, that's not what I meant. "So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Those three things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish." Actually no. Insults are not automatically childish. Nor are they automatically ridiculously immature. " "You proposed arguments? When?" "Well, the whole brothers thing is an argument, and it had nothing to do with you." If it's on this site, it has to do with everyone. However, I'm not going to even comment on it. " Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish." Uh no. BTW, I haven't denied responsibility for the 'thread in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people.' I just haven't denied total responsibility. I'm perfectly willing to accept my fair share. Are you? "It is, as that doesn't mean at all that you know me. If I, based on your comments, said you're significant other is cheating on you (for example), that'd be completely ridiculous, immature, uncalled for and childish. Same if I told you 'jerk'. But I didn't do the latter: you did. So, the one who's being childish and immature is you." No, you just called me a baby and all that other stuff. Sebastian, you've judged me just as much as I've judged you, and as for the one being childish and immature, repeating that it is me does not make it true. "Actually, I don't. So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk," I don't know you, but if you act like a jerk, I will say so. "nasty" Do I need to remind you what you wrote to warrent being called nasty? What you said was nasty (and disgusting), and I said so. "and living in a fantasy world." Well, I stand by the context in which I said it. "Moreover, you've denied having any responsibility in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people." Unlike you, I've accepted some responsibility. "Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish." You keep telling that to yourself. "Actually, I'm not. There's nothing hypocrite about calling you childish." Let's just agree to disagree, and I was actually referring to your baby comment. "And the 'very nasty' people are those who are into really serious nasty stuff (e.g. wife-beating, nazism, rape), rather than simply calling someone 'childish' over an internet forum." My nasty comment was in relation to your 'are you potty-trained already?' comment. |
| Holly2003 10.05.2010 04:47 |
Sebastian wrote: No, it doesn't. However, you've replied to several of my posts even if they haven't got anything to do with you, and very often with personal attacks. You seem to be very aware of what I write and ready to reply to it. That's a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed. Nonsense, you just have a problem with people disagreeing with you, which is why you take such hissy fits. Yeah, I know you'll disagree, blah blah, but it's obvious. You also have double standards for what constitutes personal attacks, as can be clearly seen with your snotty 'can't you read' comment to Amazon. |
| Sebastian 10.05.2010 14:50 |
@Holly: I've got no problem with people disagreeing. A sensible person would disagree, politely tell me and that's it (and many have done that). A person who's obsessed with me would do what you do. Totally different. And in fact, it is you who seem not to stand anybody disagreeing, as you started cyber-stalking me after I did. --------- > No, it was perfectly appropiate. It wasn't: it was unneeded. > Think whatever you want, whether it be the truth or not. Of course I'll think whatever I want, it's not up to you. > I guess we have a different completely different view of the discussion. Well, that's a given. > That's rich coming from you. Have you read some of the stuff that you've written? Yes: I haven't called you jerk, nasty or made guesses about the kind of person you are. You have, which makes you the child, not me. > You need to look up the word childish. Actually, I don't, as I already know the meaning. And it applies to your behaviour in the last posts. > Ooh, that hurts. Actually, it doesn't. Biting one's tongue... now that hurts. > Still think that my jerk comment was all that bad? Yes, especially considering I didn't call you names. > So this is the way it works? It's not working to begin with. > Everything I say to you, you throw back at me? No, as I haven't called you jerk, nasty or made guesses about the kind of person you are. You have, which makes you the child, not me. > It's all relative. Indeed. > Compared to you, not in a million years. What a childish comeback. Are you potty-trained already? > And whose fault is that? Yours, as you're the one calling the other person 'jerk', 'nasty' and making guesses about the kind of person I am. That makes you the child, not me. > You obviously don't get sarcasm. Of course I do, but in that case you were telling the truth: your attitude is very childish. > Cute, but completely meaningless. I disagree. > Actually, it wasn't childish. Yes, it was. > The way you were acting, you deserved to be called far worst. No, I didn't. Your attitude is very childish. > Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.) And totally unneeded. However, your attitude is indeed very childish. > Can YOU read? Oh, very original. > Oh, brother As we don't share first-degree ancestors, I am not your brother. > You can do whatever you want. Well, not quite. If I want to fly, I still can't. Same if I want to run 60 miles per hour. > Actually no. Insults are not automatically childish. But the ones you've made are. > Nor are they automatically ridiculously immature. But the ones you made are. > Uh no. BTW, I haven't denied responsibility for the 'thread in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people.' Actually, you have. > I just haven't denied total responsibility. Think whatever you want to. > I'm perfectly willing to accept my fair share. Are you? Of course. > No, you just called me a baby and all that other stuff. 'All that other stuff'? > Sebastian, you've judged me just as much as I've judged you No, I didn't, as I didn't call you 'jerk' or 'nasty' or made guesses about the kind of person you are based on what you wrote on an internet forum. You did, which makes you the child, not me. > and as for the one being childish and immature, repeating that it is me does not make it true. No, it doesn't, it was true long before I repeated it. > I don't know you, but if you act like a jerk, I will say so. But I didn't act like a jerk. Which makes the comment uncalled for and immature. And, of course, childish. > Do I need to remind you what you wrote to warrent being called nasty? You don't 'need' anything from me. If you're writing to me, it's because you want to. And if I'm such a jerk, why bother? Is your self-esteem so low? > What you said was nasty (and disgusting), and I said so. Even if that were true (we disagree there), that doesn't mean I'm nasty. You don't know me, so making guesses about what kind of person I am is ridiculous, uncalled for and childish. > Well, I stand by the context in which I said it. Which prompts the question: why bother reading what I write and replying? Am I such an important part of your life? > Unlike you, I've accepted some responsibility. No, you haven't. > You keep telling that to yourself. No, I'm telling that to you. You are childish, at least in these last posts. > My nasty comment was in relation to your 'are you potty-trained already?' comment. And if you've got to cry like a baby over that comment then, indeed, it makes me wonder: are you potty-trained already? |
| Holly2003 10.05.2010 16:00 |
Sebastian wrote: @Holly: I've got no problem with people disagreeing. A sensible person would disagree, politely tell me and that's it (and many have done that). A person who's obsessed with me would do what you do. Totally different. And in fact, it is you who seem not to stand anybody disagreeing, as you started cyber-stalking me after I did. --------- Whiny nonsense. You're fast becoming a troll. |
| Sebastian 10.05.2010 16:12 |
Actually, it's neither whiney nor nonsense. You do have a problem with people disagreeing with you. So far you've called me whiney, mad, troll, etc. and yet you still read what I write (even when it's got nothing to do with you) and reply. You're unwilling to accept any single mistake in your ways and you reply to any message you disagree with by calling it 'whiny nonsense'. That is the behaviour of a troll. Your attitude is obsessive, as you seem to give a looooot of importance to what I write. You're becoming a cyber-stalker. Why am I so important to you? |
| Holly2003 10.05.2010 16:36 |
Sebastian wrote: Actually, it's neither whiney nor nonsense. You do have a problem with people disagreeing with you. So far you've called me whiney, mad, troll, etc. and yet you still read what I write (even when it's got nothing to do with you) and reply. You're unwilling to accept any single mistake in your ways and you reply to any message you disagree with by calling it 'whiny nonsense'. That is the behaviour of a troll. Your attitude is obsessive, as you seem to give a looooot of importance to what I write. You're becoming a cyber-stalker. Why am I so important to you? I'm embarrassed for you. I really am. I'm only pointing out your double standards. Clearly, you are playing the victim because you want me to stop doing that. Take some responsibility for your own views and for the way you respond to people. For instance, Amazon is a nice person, and you are trying to belittle her. Who do you think you are? If you don't like me pointing out your arrogant behaviour then modify that behaviour. Feel free to throw out some more accusations. Maybe you think it helps you save face, but you're not fooling anyone. |
| Sebastian 10.05.2010 16:49 |
> I'm embarrassed for you. I really am. Then why bother reading what I write (even if it's not directed at you) and replying? Am I such an important part of your life? > I'm only pointing out your double standards. And calling me names, and obsessing with me. > Clearly, you are playing the victim I'm not playing the victim. Women who are raped: those are victims. Kids physically and emotionally abused, they are victims. People mistreated because of what they believe, or because of their skin colour, surname, sexual orientation, nationality, age. Those are victims. I'm a person you're obsessed with, hardly the same thing. > because you want me to stop doing that. You can't read my mind. I don't want you to do or stop doing anything, it's your problem. > Take some responsibility for your own views I've always taken responsibility for that. > and for the way you respond to people. I've always taken responsibility for that. > For instance, Amazon is a nice person, and you are trying to belittle her. I'm not trying to belittle her. Moreover, does she need you to defend her? Is she unable to fight her own battles, or are you assuming that (in which case it is you who is trying to belittle her)? > Who do you think you are? I am me as you are you. That's not a relevant point in this discussion. > If you don't like me pointing out your arrogant behaviour then modify that behaviour. Arrogant behaviour would be thinking I'm 'better' than another person. And I've never ever claimed that here, or anywhere else for that matter. So, it is ridiculous and senseless on your side to say that. An arrogant person would be doing things like responding 'whiny nonsense' to a post they disagree with. So who's arrogant? You are. > Feel free to throw out some more accusations. Of course I'm free, it's not up to you. > Maybe you think it helps you save face, but you're not fooling anyone. I'm not trying to fool anyone anyway. You do act like you're obsessed with me, and for no reason. Do you think I'm a worthless person? If so, then why bother reading what I write and replying to me? Is your life so empty and pathetic that you have to waste your time and effort on a person who's got that little value as me? |
| mike hunt 10.05.2010 16:52 |
Man, My arguments don't even last this long..... |
| Holly2003 10.05.2010 16:58 |
Poor Sebastian, new winner of the 'Most Oppressed Person Ever' award. |
| Sebastian 10.05.2010 20:29 |
I'm not oppressed. There are many oppresed people in the world (unfortunately), but I'm not one of them. And while I'm not rich, I'm not poor either. And there's no such award BTW. Is your life so empty and pathetic that you have to waste your time and effort on a person who's got that little value as me? |
| Holly2003 11.05.2010 02:15 |
Sebastian wrote: I'm not oppressed. There are many oppresed people in the world (unfortunately), but I'm not one of them. And while I'm not rich, I'm not poor either. And there's no such award BTW. Is your life so empty and pathetic that you have to waste your time and effort on a person who's got that little value as me? Always have to have the last word too Seb. Another aspect of your ego trip. |
| Sebastian 11.05.2010 07:35 |
Now that is whiney nonsense. I don't always have to have the last word. There have been many, many, many instances where I haven't had the last word. Maybe the one with the problem is you. But since we're on that topic: why do you still read what I write? Are you that obsessed with me? Is your life so empty and pathetic that you have to waste your time and effort on a person who has that little value as I do? |
| andreas_mercury 11.05.2010 11:29 |
its only takes a few sentences to sort out that sebastian is a bright and well read man but a very poor debater, and holly2003 is in mostly on the same boat ........ my thinking of you both is you'd do better to not debate because it falls out of your areas of expertise. You are both in my memory as written great comments in other threads ... return to form, is my suggestion |
| Amazon 11.05.2010 12:44 |
Sebastian wrote: "No, it was perfectly appropiate." "It wasn't: it was unneeded." So, this is what this has descended into. I say it was appropiate, you say it wasn't, I say it was, you say it wasn't? And you're accusing me of being childish? " "That's rich coming from you. Have you read some of the stuff that you've written?" "Yes: I haven't called you jerk, nasty or made guesses about the kind of person you are. You have, which makes you the child, not me." This is absurd. Fine, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. " "You need to look up the word childish. "Actually, I don't, as I already know the meaning. And it applies to your behaviour in the last posts." Whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.) " "Still think that my jerk comment was all that bad?" "Yes, especially considering I didn't call you names." Whatever. It may actually shock you, but not all 'bad' comments need be names. Nonetheless, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. "No, as I haven't called you jerk, nasty or made guesses about the kind of person you are. You have, which makes you the child, not me." Juts so you know, repeating the same comment again and again is pretty childish. "Compared to you, not in a million years." "What a childish comeback." How is it childish?! You are incredible. You really don't know what the word means, do you? "Are you potty-trained already?" Nasty guy (and just so you know, your comment deserves such a response.) " "And whose fault is that?" "Yours, as you're the one calling the other person 'jerk', 'nasty' and making guesses about the kind of person I am. That makes you the child, not me." No, Sebastian, it's not my fault at all. I'm not the one acting like a defensive, aggressive, hypocritical baby. This all started because you felt that I was misinterpreting you. Instead of reasonably and calmly explaining why I had misinterpreted you (and you still haven't), you have acted like a jerk. The responsibility rests with you. " "You obviously don't get sarcasm." "Of course I do, but in that case you were telling the truth" I was being sarcastic! "your attitude is very childish." You keep telling that to yourself. "The way you were acting, you deserved to be called far worst." "No, I didn't." Uh, yes, you did, and yes you do. If this is the way you act in real life, you would find yourself with few friends. "Your attitude is very childish." Right, whatever. By writing that again and again, you are proving that it's not me who is being childish. " "Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.) "And totally unneeded." Actually, it is completely needed. "However, your attitude is indeed very childish." Proving what I said just above. " "Actually no. Insults are not automatically childish." "But the ones you've made are." Sorry, but you're wrong. " "Nor are they automatically ridiculously immature." "But the ones you made are." See above. " "Uh no. BTW, I haven't denied responsibility for the 'thread in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people.'" "Actually, you have." Actually I haven't. But you know what, reading this post, and rereading the thread makes me realise that the only responsibility I bear is responding to in the first place. After that, it's all on you. " "I'm perfectly willing to accept my fair share. Are you?" "Of course." Right. > No, you just called me a baby and all that other stuff. "'All that other stuff'?" Do I really need to remind you what you've written? "No, I didn't, as I didn't call you 'jerk' or 'nasty' or made guesses about the kind of person you are based on what you wrote on an internet forum." All very well, except that I wasn't making 'guesses' about the way you are in real life, only the way you are on this forum. " "and as for the one being childish and immature, repeating that it is me does not make it true." "No, it doesn't, it was true long before I repeated it." Think whatever the hell you want; you will anyway. "But I didn't act like a jerk. Which makes the comment uncalled for" Except you did (and are) act like a jerk. "and immature." If it makes you feel better, you can think that, you can think whatever you want. "And, of course, childish." Your new favourite word isn't it? Think whatever you want to think, it's a free site. "You don't 'need' anything from me. If you're writing to me, it's because you want to. And if I'm such a jerk, why bother?" Obviously that wasn't what I wrote (should I utilise your favourite catchphrase?) "Is your self-esteem so low?" Sebastian, if my self-esteem was low, I wouldn't be on this thread, would I? Or is it that the reason for your behaviour is that you have low self-esteem? " "What you said was nasty (and disgusting), and I said so." "Even if that were true (we disagree there), that doesn't mean I'm nasty." No, it means that on this thread you come across as a nasty guy. "You don't know me, so making guesses about what kind of person I am is ridiculous, uncalled for and childish." No more ridiculous, uncalled for and childish than making presumptions about my self-esteem based on what I write on an internet forum. " "Unlike you, I've accepted some responsibility." "No, you haven't." Actually, I have. " "You keep telling that to yourself." "No, I'm telling that to you. You are childish, at least in these last posts." Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.) " "My nasty comment was in relation to your 'are you potty-trained already?' comment." "And if you've got to cry like a baby over that comment then" You are such a comedian. Actually, Sebastian, I haven't cried at all. You however have; when I called you a jerk or referred to you as nasty, or when I reveal you for the childish hypocrite you are, and that's not to mention that it was you has thrown tantrums. Even now, you are acting like an infant who is upset because your favourite blankey has been taken away! "indeed, it makes me wonder: are you potty-trained already?" Yet another nasty comment from baby Sebastian. You really need to grow up. |
| andreas_mercury 11.05.2010 13:04 |
another poor debater ...... Lol this site sometimes |
| Amazon 11.05.2010 13:10 |
Holly2003 wrote: "Nonsense, you just have a problem with people disagreeing with you, which is why you take such hissy fits. Yeah, I know you'll disagree, blah blah, but it's obvious. You also have double standards for what constitutes personal attacks, as can be clearly seen with your snotty 'can't you read' comment to Amazon." I couldn't agree with you more! |
| Sebastian 12.05.2010 22:57 |
> So, this is what this has descended into. I say it was appropiate, you say it wasn't, I say it was, you say it wasn't? And you're accusing me of being childish? As a matter of fact I am > This is absurd. No, it isn't. > Fine, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Finally we agree on something. > Whatever. It may actually shock you, but not all 'bad' comments need be names. I agree. However, calling a person you don't know 'nasty' or 'jerk' is a clear sign of immaturity. > Juts so you know, repeating the same comment again and again is pretty childish And both you and I have repeated comments again and again. So my point (that you are childish, regardless of whether I'm too or not) remains valid. > How is it childish?! Both in structure and semantics. > You are incredible. I'm not. There are many incredible things in the world, I'm not one of them. > You really don't know what the word means, do you? I do. > Nasty guy There are many nasty guys in the world. Those who beat their wives and/or kids, those who rape, those who force others to steal or kill, those who destroy families, politicians who shut down hospitals to build shopping centres.. but I'm not any of them. Hence, I'm not a nasty guy. > (and just so you know, your comment deserves such a response.) Maybe the comment deserves it, but not the person, as there are many nasty guys in the world: those who beat their wives and/or kids, those who rape, those who force others to steal or kill, those who destroy families, politicians who shut down hospitals to build shopping centres.. but I'm not any of them, therefore I'm not a nasty guy. > No, Sebastian, it's not my fault at all. Yes it is. It's not your fault entirely. But 'not entirely' and 'not at all' aren't the only two options. > I'm not the one acting like a defensive, aggressive, hypocritical baby As a matter of fact you are. > This all started because you felt that I was misinterpreting you. And indeed you were, and still are. > Instead of reasonably and calmly explaining why I had misinterpreted you (and you still haven't), you have acted like a jerk. I didn't. I did ask you if you could read, and I do not regret that. You could've ignored me if you thought I was a jerk, but instead you acted like a child. > The responsibility rests with you. It doesn't: it rests with both of us. And the fact you don't even recognise your share proves once again that you're being childish. > I was being sarcastic! And yet you were telling the truth. > You keep telling that to yourself. I quote what you wrote earlier: 'Juts (sic) so you know, repeating the same comment again and again is pretty childish' > Uh, yes, you did, and yes you do. No, I didn't, and no I don't. > If this is the way you act in real life It isn't. > you would find yourself with few friends. Pretending you know somebody because of an i-net forum is indeed pathetic. > Right, whatever. Indeed, it's right. > By writing that again and again, you are proving that it's not me who is being childish. Yes: you are. > Actually, it is completely needed. No, it wasn't. > Proving what I said just above. Yes: you've been repeating some of the same comments again and again. Hence, you're childish (regardless of whether I'm childish too, or not). > Sorry, but you're wrong. I've been wrong many, many times, but this is not one of them. > See above. Above me there's a bulb, and the ceiling. So? > Actually I haven't. Indeed you have. > But you know what, reading this post, and rereading the thread makes me realise that the only responsibility I bear is responding to in the first place. Again, we agree. I seem to remember I had told you earlier that if you didn't like the way I wrote, you could simply ignore me and that'd be better for both of us. But, like a stubborn child, you still couldn't help wasting hours of your life on me. > After that, it's all on you. No, it's not 'all' on me. It's not 'all' on you either, but 'all on you' and 'all on me' aren't the only two options. > Do I really need to remind you what you've written? No, you do not need to do anything. Nobody forced you to reply to my posts. > All very well, except that I wasn't making 'guesses' about the way you are in real life, only the way you are on this forum. You've only commented on a dozen of messages of the 3.9+K I've written here. Hardly a pattern. > Think whatever the hell you want; you will anyway. Oh, what a discovery!!! > Except you did (and are) act like a jerk No, I didn't. Being a jerk is waaaaaaaaaaay more than simply asking a question on an internet forum. > If it makes you feel better, you can think that, you can think whatever you want. Oh, thank you for granting me your permission!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Your new favourite word isn't it? No, it's not. It's not a word I dislike, but it's not my favourite. For 15+ years, my favourite word hasn't changed. > Think whatever you want to think, it's a free site. Oh, thank you for granting me your permission!!!!!!!!!! > (should I utilise your favourite catchphrase?) It is not my favourite. It's not one I dislike, but it's not my favourite. > if my self-esteem was low, I wouldn't be on this thread, would I? Actually, it could be low or high and you could still be on this thread. Having low or high self-esteem and being on this thread aren't mutually exclusive. > Or is it that the reason for your behaviour is that you have low self-esteem? Even if I had low self-esteem, I wouldn't use it as an excuse. But then again, I haven't acted like a jerk. Being a jerk is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than asking a question on an internet forum. Even your childish immature insults towards me aren't enough for you to be a jerk, let alone a simple question on whether you can read or not. > No, it means that on this thread you come across as a nasty guy. No, I don't. Nasty people hit their wives, destroy famlies, etc. and I don't do any of those. Asking you if you can read is nothing compared to what a 'nasty guy' would do. > No more ridiculous, uncalled for and childish than making presumptions about my self-esteem based Only that I did not make presumptions about your self-esteem. I didn't say 'your self-esteem is low', I asked 'is your self-esteem so low...?'. Usually (though of course not always), when a person asks is because they don't know. I honestly don't know if you've got high or low self-esteem, I honestly don't know if you can read or not, I honestly don't know if you're potty-trained, and that's why I asked. So, it's a different case. Calling someone 'jerk' or 'nasty', that is indeed uncalled for and childish. > Actually, I have. Actually, you haven't. > Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.) Broken record again, which as you say shows the person doing so (you, in this case) is behaving childishly. > You are such a comedian. Actually, I'm not, and that's one of the things I'd always have liked to be but never could. I was never a good footballer either. > Actually, Sebastian, I haven't cried at all. Good to know. > You however have No, I haven't: tears haven't been shed from this thread. > when I called you a jerk or referred to you as nasty, I didn't cry for that. I did complain, but that's not the same thing. > or when I reveal you for the childish hypocrite you are I haven't done any hypocrite thing here. > and that's not to mention that it was you has thrown tantrums. Actually, I haven't thrown tantrums. You, OTOH, have. > Even now, you are acting like an infant who is upset because your favourite blankey has been taken away! Actually, you are the one acting like that. > Yet another nasty comment from baby Sebastian. Actually, I'm not a baby. > You really need to grow up. |
| Amazon 13.05.2010 00:00 |
Whatever. I know the truth about what occured and which one is acting like the baby. I will simply say this. Whether I 'wasted' hours of my lfe responding to the 'stubborn child' that is in fact you, is up to me and is none of your business. |
| Sebastian 13.05.2010 00:09 |
Of course it's up to you and of course it's none of my business. However, since you've commented on things that are none of your business either, I guess that ship had sailed a long time ago. And I do find it funny that you still waste seconds, minutes, hours or whatever on a person you think so little of. Last but not least, both parts of your post show that, indeed, you are a stubborn child. |
| Amazon 13.05.2010 00:23 |
Sebastian wrote:"Of course it's up to you and of course it's none of my business. However, since you've commented on things that are none of your business either, I guess that ship had sailed a long time ago." Right, whatever you say. I will just note that I have never commented on whether you are 'wasting' your time. Whether or not I am wasting my time, and if so, whether or not I want to waste my time, is my business only. "And I do find it funny that you still waste seconds, minutes, hours or whatever on a person you think so little of." That's my choice. "Last but not least, both parts of your post show that, indeed, you are a stubborn child." This is absurd. You are a comedian. Let me get this straight. You don't know whether I am wasting my time, and if I am, you don't know why I choose to do so, yet you think that I am a 'stubborn child'? Wow, well, I think you need to look in the mirror. |
| Sebastian 13.05.2010 00:33 |
You haven't commented on whether I'm wasting my time, just like I haven't commented on what you allegedly need. Whether you want to waste your time or not is your business and your business only, just like what I need or do not need is my business and my business only. And indeed, you're still spending, wasting or investing seconds, minutes, hours and energy reading and replying to somebody you think so little of. Utterly ridiculous. Your choice of course, and an utterly ridiculous one. |
| andreas_mercury 13.05.2010 00:45 |
the interpersonal relationship is a mirror ... as the chinks say |