Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: So you are give the finger-wag for being 'passive-aggressive' Harbal, and I am given the finger-wag for being 'aggressive-aggressive'. Could someone please explain what kind of 'aggressive' is allowed on this site?

I suppose aggressive passiveness might be permissible but it doesn't sound like much fun.

Harbal wrote:

uwot wrote:Harbal, have you lost your sense of irony, or is this a masterpiece of self-deprecation?

I've reviewed this post of yours, uwot, and if you're implying that I, myself, have a tendency towards passive aggression then all I can say is that there are several varieties of it and I don't think the one that I adopt has the same nauseating, condescending, odious nature as the variety that fux and IC favour.
And can I just say what immense admiration and respect I have for you.

You're forgetting the lapdog mentality you were using to describe thedoc. I think that applied to you, too!

ForCruxSake wrote:

Harbal wrote:

uwot wrote:Harbal, have you lost your sense of irony, or is this a masterpiece of self-deprecation?

I've reviewed this post of yours, uwot, and if you're implying that I, myself, have a tendency towards passive aggression then all I can say is that there are several varieties of it and I don't think the one that I adopt has the same nauseating, condescending, odious nature as the variety that fux and IC favour.
And can I just say what immense admiration and respect I have for you.

'Passive-aggressive'? Hmmm????

ForCruxSake wrote:

I've got some of those too.

Harbal wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

I've got some of those too.

Wow. She sure is fast on the draw when it comes to 'editing'. I'll give her that. She can do it so fast that she manages to avoid even an 'edited 1 times' announcement. That's pretty impressive.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wow. She sure is fast on the draw when it comes to 'editing'. I'll give her that.

Well it would be a sad human being who wasn't good at at least one thing.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

I've got some of those too.

Wow. She sure is fast on the draw when it comes to 'editing'. I'll give her that. She can do it so fast that she manages to avoid even an 'edited 1 times' announcement. That's pretty impressive.

Is there a rule against it?

I don't care how many times it takes me to get something right. And I don't care who can see that. Seems to be another item in your ever growing list of things to cast judgment on. It's your problem, not mine.

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote: I've got some of those too.

Wow. She sure is fast on the draw when it comes to 'editing'. I'll give her that. She can do it so fast that she manages to avoid even an 'edited 1 times' announcement. That's pretty impressive.

Is there a rule against it?

I don't care how many times it takes me to get something right. And I don't care who can see that. Seems to be another item in your ever growing list of things to cast judgment on. It's your problem, not mine.

Except that you will use expletives in a most unWRP way, and then hastily (to say the least) edit them out. That would be fine, except that you are always berating others for their supposed 'expletives' and 'hatemongering'. The trick is to catch these wil-o-the-wisps on the cusp of their fleeting existence, before they disappear into a subspace anomaly forever.

ForCruxSake wrote: I don't care how many times it takes me to get something right.

Let's be honest, you can't afford to care.

It's your problem, not mine.

If you don't see it as a problem I don't see why anyone else should.

Harbal wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:So not only are your comments personal and philosophically pointless, they are incorrect.

Well of course they are, surely you don't expect me to learn about philosophy just to argue with IC about it.

No, but on a philosophy forum you could put in a little effort for some of the people who do know a bit about philosophy.

Besides, you're missing my point completely. You just make up stuff to have a rant, is what I meant.

Harbal wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:Now the way I've interpreted uwot's comment here is that YOU passive-aggressively attack others whilst sidling up to to VT. certainly self-deprecating, but is it irony?

And is that an unbiased interpretation?

Well, he's not challenged it, yet, so it's not incorrect.

You don't even seem to be able to understand what it means, or how it applies to you, so it fills me with wonder that you can deign to judge my interpretation?

Harbal wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:(Clearly, what little intelligence you do you have, vacates it premises of a brain when you are the subject under consideration.)

Lucky for me then that being the subject under your consideration doesn't require much intelligence to deal with.

We should call this move the 'half-VT' , where you take the words (or idea) on display and attempt to wrestle another meaning out if it. My intelligence in considering your lack of intelligence, is not a reflection of, or comparable to, your stupidity. They are mutually exclusive.

You are just bending logic in that fake way, Uri Geller bends spoons.

Harbal wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:Maybe it's time to stop with the hate mongering

If you call ruffling a few feathers on an internet forum "hate mongering" I wonder what term you reserve for the Adolf Hitlers of this World.

You've been following me on to threads merely to insult me. And even here you had to go off on an extended, insulting series of rants about me. If that's all I experience of you, hate monger. That's all I can judge you to be.

I wasn't aware that there was a spectrum of hate mongery. Someone who tries to humiliate and put down others, publicly, in the hope of rallying some kind of admiration, or kinship to hated, is a hate monger. Both you and Hitler can be classed as hate mongers.

It's interesting you don't actually challenge the fact you ARE a hate monger. Just a lesser form of one.

ForCruxSake wrote:

Harbal wrote:

uwot wrote:Harbal, have you lost your sense of irony, or is this a masterpiece of self-deprecation?

I've reviewed this post of yours, uwot, and if you're implying that I, myself, have a tendency towards passive aggression then all I can say is that there are several varieties of it and I don't think the one that I adopt has the same nauseating, condescending, odious nature as the variety that fux and IC favour.
And can I just say what immense admiration and respect I have for you.

You're forgetting the lapdog mentality you were using to describe thedoc. I think that applied to you, too!

Thanks! I didn't think it applied to me at all.

ForCruxSake wrote: No, but on a philosophy forum you could put in a little effort for some of the people who do know a bit about philosophy.

On the few occasions I come across someone who's worth the effort I usually make one, albeit, as you recomend, a little one.

Besides, you're missing my point completely. You just make up stuff to have a rant, is what I meant.

Making up stuff like "racist" or "hate monger" you mean?

Well, he's not challenged it, yet, so it's not incorrect.

Neither has he confirmed it so, for the time being, it's just a matter of opinion.

You don't even seem to be able to understand what it means, or how it applies to you, so it fills me with wonder that you can deign to judge my interpretation?

It fills you with wonder, does it? Has anyone ever suggested to you that you may be a little bit prone to overstatement?

We should call this move the 'half-VT' , where you take the words (or idea) on display and attempt to wrestle another meaning out if it.

There was no wrestling necessary, the meaning surrendered without a fight.

My intelligence in considering your lack of intelligence, is not a reflection of, or comparable to, your stupidity. They are mutually exclusive

If this means something and you understand what that something is, then you are indeed more intelligent than I am.

You are just bending logic in that fake way, Uri Geller bends spoons.

Well, actually, that sounds rather clever of me.

You've been following me on to threads merely to insult me. And even here you had to go off on an extended, insulting series of rants about me.

Now who's making things up?

If that's all I experience of you, hate monger. That's all I can judge you to be.

Why on earth should I hate you? You're exaggerating again, what I feel is no more than intense dislike. You do make a fuss.

I wasn't aware that there was a spectrum of hate mongery.

No, you thought it flowed from a "faucet" or tap as we call it in the UK.

Someone who tries to humiliate and put down others, publicly, in the hope of rallying some kind of admiration, or kinship to hated, is a hate monger. Both you and Hitler can be classed as hate mongers.

As I said before, I have no feelings of hate, despite your vigorous attempts to push me in that direction. People like you are like a cancer in society. You've got an agenda and you'll say whatever will shut people up, for fear of being branded with an "ist" or "monger". You have far more in common with Hitler than I do. Your tactics are similar but, luckily, your influence isn't. The only people you will be able to influence are the ones more stupid than you and you're not going to find many of those.

ForCruxSake wrote: It's interesting you don't actually challenge the fact you ARE a hate monger. Just a lesser form of one.

Harbal tries to disguise his Hate Mongering with a sugar coating, but if you read carefully you can see it's true nature.

thedoc wrote: Harbal tries to disguise his Hate Mongering with a sugar coating, but if you read carefully you can see it's true nature.

Oh doc. You try ever so hard but never seem ascend to anything above the level of harmless. Never mind, Doc, it's the taking part that counts.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote: Harbal tries to disguise his Hate Mongering with a sugar coating, but if you read carefully you can see it's true nature.

Oh doc. You try ever so hard but never seem ascend to anything above the level of harmless. Never mind, Doc, it's the taking part that counts.

At least I can aspire to reach the level of the Earth, "Mostly Harmless".