For Jari ONLY--A Topic Regarding Misunderstood Messages

[L. Spiro]

This is to keep our little war out of the otherwise quality-filled thread. (Oh, I guess I should actually make notes when I use satire because some people seem to be completely convinced I have no clue of the concept).


A few spare minutes found in the office.  Time to lay it down.   
[Disclaimer: I am going to be an ass where I could otherwise choose softer words.  The reason being that I have been directly attacked, pushed, and shoved by someone who deserves no less.  Any cockiness found in this post is otherwise out-of-character for the author, and should not be taken as part of the true nature of said person.
I have a second reason, too, but that will be revealed after Jari replies. ]

See, just claiming that you have a sense of humor does not mean you have one, anymore than me claiming I'm the King of Norway makes me one.

Except that I claim to have a sense of humor because I have one.  But I’ll get into that later (remember this, because I won’t get to it until after your reply).



And in one more post you managed to show yet again that you seem to have problems gathering the context out of written language.
Allow me.

Lesson 1: Address the Issues at Hand

Quite the contrary, I have assumed all this time - and continue to do so - that your tirade was written totally seriously.

Ah, but you’re addressing the wrong issue.  I never doubted that you thought my post was written entirely seriously.  I said you think I’m trying to claim it wasn’t.  Missed a big key word there, did you?   


Lesson 2: Context is a Tricky Thang

Ah, so, a shortage of Wii machines managed to cause a bit of “shoving and grappling”.
As expected.

Nuh uh, no you don't.

Since it was the "violent and sexist" games that made people fight over PS3, I'm waiting for your explanation about why Ninty-fanboys do it. With Nintendo games being all "wholesome", and supporting "family values".

I didn’t bother to reply to this simply to avoid making you look stupid. Like this guy. You didn’t even get the context of my reply, so why should I bother?
You thought I meant that I expected violence on the Wii side, and you thought that because you were looking for a way to claim this:

with you it's merely a case of apparently turning your coat to appease the crowd after having your ass handed to you once already, and trying to score minuscule "victories" by "cleverly" hinting what you really think.

Notice those clever little quotation marks meant to emphasize the “shoving and grappling” (also a direct quote from the article, to add to my point).
Normal people understood my meaning as, “As expected, the violence on the Wii side was nothing compared to that on the PlayStation 3 side.”

So when you say, “Nuh uh, no you don't,” I say, “Yessum, it’s exactly what I expected.  Knives and guns for Sony and a bit of pushing for Nintendo.”
Yeah, I just didn’t want to reply because there would be no way to point out that you are on a completely different planet without making you look like an idiot for being there. Man, I try to get along, even avoid pointing out your errors in the name of peace, and you just want to crap all over it.
Or is it because I wanted to see just how far you’d go on a context that doesn’t even apply to anything.  Or both.   


Lesson 3: If you Can’t Understand the Correct Context of a Sentence, Don’t Pick Fights that Don’t Apply
Oh, and speaking of which, I guess that means I never turned my coat in the first place, and never tried to go back and claim my old post was all a big joke, so when you go off and say “No, with you it’s merely a case of apparently turning your coat to appease the crowd after having your ass handed to you once already, and trying to score minuscule ‘victories’ by ‘cleverly’ hinting what you really think,” well, that goes out the window, yet again showing just how far you are willing to go on contexts that don’t even apply.
That’s strike 3 already. And it’s worse because you’ve been sitting here attacking me from some other tangent that only you acknowledge.  Eh, well, we all make mistakes, right?
Don’t worry about it mi amigo, I did the same to Qhimm in that thread about the Sony ads.  The difference is, I sincerely felt bad for it, admitted my wrong, and apologized to him multiple times.
I know the idea of admitting you made a mistake is altogether lost on you though, and you will just reply by gathering together a bunch of past incidences with the idea of assaulting my character rather than address the actual issues here and now (read Lesson 1), because, according to you, proving a faulty character is the basis for poving that that person must therefore always be at fault in all incidents, even though neither the past nor my character have anything to do with your poor reading comprehension and the fact that you have so much faith in your abilities to gather the correct contexts from sentences that you are willing to make youself look like a total jackass by attacking people on grounds that only work if your contexts were the right ones.
Or you’ll go the old route of “calling bullshit” once again on false pretenses (I won’t hide the keyword this time; it’s again).
Call bullshit all you want.  How much of it can you prove?  And if all you have is your hunch, why don’t you just admit it’s a hunch?  By going off on these tangents, you’re assuming your hunch is fact (sound familiar? *cough* religion *cough*), which still makes you wrong.  Except twice as wrong, since you were wrong in the first place to call bullshit.
I could list all the times you’ve been wrong to call bullshit too, but in most cases you wouldn’t be convinced by my word alone, and most cases don’t actually apply to the issues at hand, which are your poor reading comprehension skills.
I do have to give honorable mention to the one time you didn’t call bullshit when you should have, but that’s not the issue at hand.


Lesson 4: Err, Context is a Tricky Thang?

You’ll notice the lack of satire in my actual post.

Please, do not try to pretend that you are capable of humor of any kind.

I've had the "privilege" of observing you for more than half a decade already, and considering that you haven't been familiar with the concept thus far, it's rather obvious that you haven't figured it out now, either.

No, with you it's merely a case of apparently turning your coat to appease the crowd after having your ass handed to you once already, and trying to score minuscule "victories" by "cleverly" hinting what you really think.

Heh, and here you go again.
I said, “the lack of satire in my actual post,” which most people understand as separating a post from its topic.  In other words, if I thought there would be people who couldn’t put two and two together, I would have wasted time typing, “the lack of satire in my actual post, rather than having satire in both the topic and the post.”
Ah, yes, that makes perfect sense to everyone here but you.
My previous sentence had been about the topic of the post, which means it would be entirely illogical for my second sentence’s context to switch from the satire in the topic to the “satire” in my other thread.
Yet, you chose to overlook this logical connection, deciding for yourself that I was trying to use “satire” to refer to my old topic, and then claiming I was turning coat and trying to appease a crowd.
So, you misunderstood my sentence and attacked me.
I did this to Qhimm too, then I apologized multiple times to him on Yahoo! Messenger.




Class Dismissed, But…
Well those are the lessons for reading, but some points were raised that should be addressed.
Unfortunately, I won’t address them here, because our fight this time was caused by your poor reading, making up your own contexts, and then flinging poo that should never have been flung.  The other issues are not related to this, and bringing them up here would be to detract from the point of this topic, and to raise dead issues needlessly.

So why did I mention that there are things that are left open based off this post?
Why, that’s simple!  I’m leading you into a trap!
You’re a predictable human being.  I’ll tell you that I know for a fact you will not acknowledge that you are in the wrong for misunderstanding my (very simple) sentences and attacking me based off your own misunderstandings.
Now, you have the option of not replying to this topic at all, but that’s actually not the best way to go.
But you won’t select the best route for this situation due to personality flaws.
Obviously, I can’t just tell you what I know you will do, but I can tell you a bit.
After you reply, I will take tidbits of this post and quote them below, proving my point and what I (and everyone else) knew all along.


lsirpo

[ChaosControl]

Wow, a gigantic post, only you wrote your name wrong at the bottom =/

I really do think this is kind of pointless. This could be done just as easily over PM without having to bother the rest of the forum with the issues between you two. Not to mention this is kinda childish and even kind of dumb (this is only a forum, you won't ever meet Jari in real life so if you dont like him, you can use his firefox extension to block his messages).

Anyway, sorry to post in a topic in which I shouldn't but I'm at work and bored so I did anyway

[L. Spiro]

This could be done just as easily over PM without having to bother the rest of the forum with the issues between you two.

Score another one for me.
I already tried to go the PM route but Jari would have none of that, quickly informing me that I was put on PM ignore and further messages would never be read.

you won't ever meet Jari in real life

Ironically I offered to fly out there and meet him but he didn’t reply to that either.

Oh, and my naem si mispesled fro a porprose.


lspiero

[ChaosControl]

Ironically I offered to fly out there and meet him but he didn’t reply to that either.

Why'd you wanne do that? O_o

[Jari]

Placeholder.

Actual message exceeds 20000 characters, which is the set limit for the board currently. I'm going to ask Qhimm to tweak the limit little bit.

EDIT: This should be fixed now.

After you reply, I will take tidbits of this post and quote them below...

I have no doubt of this, after all this is what you do when you want to argue for the sake of arguing, instead of arguing about issues. And right now you are trying to argue about semantics, personalities, and everything except the issue. Because you don't have a valid argument for that anymore, and you are terribly, terribly afraid to admit that you were wrong to begin with.

So, I'm going to do this: I will reply to your points, just to humor you. You can reply to that, of course, if you want. But I'll also ask you the original question again, just in case you have grown enough spine to debate about that, instead of trying to hide behind accusations.

Here it goes: How do you explain the violence at the Wii launch?

I'd certainly prefer to see you - for once in your life - not trying to hide behind something, but rather address the actual issue. Choice, of course, is yours.

...I would have used a really small font size for the rest of this reply, just to help you concentrate on what I actually asked, but due to how the bbcode is parsed, that would take lot of work. Also, spoiler tags are broken as well.

[Disclaimer: I am going to be an ass where I could otherwise choose softer words.  The reason being that I have been directly attacked, pushed, and shoved by someone who deserves no less.  Any cockiness found in this post is otherwise out-of-character for the author, and should not be taken as part of the true nature of said person.

I stand corrected, you can make a joke, if you really try. No, wait. You weren't trying. That's pretty sad.

And I really hate to break this to you, but real life doesn't work like you seem to want it to work. While you certainly can make demands of all kinds, chances that people ignore your stupid normal (for you) behavior just because you tell them to, is rather slim.

I have a second reason, too, but that will be revealed after Jari replies. ]

Oh, I'm holding my breath here! Turning blue already, please don't make me wait for your great surprise much longer!

I'm also very curious about how this reason relates to Wii, PS3, violence or games. Since that's what I was asking about, IIRC.

See, just claiming that you have a sense of humor does not mean you have one, anymore than me claiming I'm the King of Norway makes me one.

Except that I claim to have a sense of humor because I have one.

Then why do you hide it so well? Why do you take everything so seriously? Why do you go berserk in debates - so badly that you have to edit your posts to hide what you once typed, when people question the point you are arguing? Where is that sense of humor of yours, and why do you not use it?

Lesson 1: Address the Issues at Hand

Quite the contrary, I have assumed all this time - and continue to do so - that your tirade was written totally seriously.

Ah, but you’re addressing the wrong issue.  I never doubted that you thought my post was written entirely seriously.  I said you think I’m trying to claim it wasn’t.  Missed a big key word there, did you?   

Missed couple of big key sentences there, did you: "It would seem that you do not know what I am thinking. That idea never even occurred to me."? What do you think I'm referring to, oh Great and Wise Spiro?

Surely there couldn't have been an ulterior motive to why you didn't quote my entire reply, right?

If you still want to nitpick that one sentence, think of this way; I am assuming that you wouldn't try to claim it as a joke, if you hadn't meant it as such to begin with. Or if you need an explanation; I still have a teeny weeny bit of faith in you, and actually believed that you wouldn't lie about that just to cover your ass.

But hey, if you have problems even with that, I can assume that everything you say is a lie.

You thought I meant that I expected violence on the Wii side...

Only thing I thought was that you were either

a) Totally lying - that what you typed is actually the exact opposite of what you thought, but if you try to appear "cool" and please the majority by posting "As expected", you hoped that I wouldn't bother pointing out your hypocrisy anymore, the issue would die down on its own and you wouldn't have to explain yet another fuck up of yours.

Or b) Trying to say that bit of “shoving and grappling” is to expected in such a situation. In which case I think you were trying to downplay what happened. I certainly think that it's quite a bit more than just bit of “shoving and grappling”, what you see on the video might have turned into mugging, if the person had had strength to resist. This - of course - is the more sane alternative (from your point of view), but sadly I don't actually consider you to be particularly sane.

So, here you are at least somewhat close to being right.

Actually, why on earth would I think that you really expected violence on the Wii side? Just because you say so? After you had just preached how Wii is holy and pure?

But, as I'm sure even you figured out, this does not directly affect the "Nuh uh, no you don't"-part, because both of those options assume that you are trying to downplay the incident in some way, and that's what I was referring to. Well, at least trying to. As in "Nuh uh, you are not getting away that easy, after your sermon.".

Notice those clever little quotation marks meant to emphasize the “shoving and grappling” (also a direct quote from the article, to add to my point).
Normal people understood my meaning as, “As expected, the violence on the Wii side was nothing compared to that on the PlayStation 3 side.”

How would you know what normal people would think? Which of your alternate personalities told you?

Anyway, that is one of the options I had in mind, as you can see above. That you were trying downplay the incident. Because it's not like Nintendo-fanboys would do anything bad, right?

Hold on, this is probably as good spot as any to introduce yet another incident for you to downplay.

So when you say, “Nuh uh, no you don't,” I say, “Yessum, it’s exactly what I expected.  Knives and guns for Sony and a bit of pushing for Nintendo.”
Yeah, I just didn’t want to reply because there would be no way to point out that you are on a completely different planet without making you look like an idiot for being there. Man, I try to get along, even avoid pointing out your errors in the name of peace, and you just want to crap all over it.
Or is it because I wanted to see just how far you’d go on a context that doesn’t even apply to anything.  Or both.   

Sure, buddy, sure.

Or in other words, you did not reply, because reply like that would have made you look like a total hypocrite, and it still does. You see, you are conveniently trying to forget few things; greater demand for PS3, greater value of each unit for PS3 and smaller launch volume for PS3.

I'd say that these are enough to explain the different level of greed. This is the argument I would have made, had you actually had balls to try and debate, instead of turning this into yet another whinybitching thread about yourself and how misunderstood you are.

Not to mention, you seem to think that grabbing a Wii from someone's hands is "bit of pushing", you speak of guns in plural, where as I'm aware of one shooting incident concerning the PS3 (not counting bb-guns, and that one arrest gone wrong... I doubt that the police killed the kid for PS3), for example.

And now that I've made my point, I expect your reply. Do you deny that these factors could have caused the difference? Do you still blame the games?

Lesson 3: If you Can’t Understand the Correct Context of a Sentence, Don’t Pick Fights that Don’t Apply
Oh, and speaking of which, I guess that means I never turned my coat in the first place, and never tried to go back and claim my old post was all a big joke, so when you go off and say “No, with you it’s merely a case of apparently turning your coat to appease the crowd after having your ass handed to you once already, and trying to score minuscule ‘victories’ by ‘cleverly’ hinting what you really think,” well, that goes out the window, yet again showing just how far you are willing to go on contexts that don’t even apply.

Did I say that you claimed your first post to be a big joke (see way above)?

No?

Ooops.

Also, I hope you don't mind too much, if I stick to my view about you turning your coat?

You have certainly stopped preaching, and seem to think that violence is ok with Wii - even if you only meant that grabbing consoles from other people is just "bit of pushing". This is quite far from your initial sermon, where you told us how the people playing PS2 and Xbox games are more violent, because of the games, in addition to preaching how the wholesome Nintendo games mean that this couldn't happen with Wii.

In any case, considering that your original post seems to be gone, except for links, I'd be much more inclined to say that you'd rather pretend that you didn't post such a steaming pile of shit in the first place, than try to claim it as a joke. If you wanted to do the second, why delete it?

...The difference is, I sincerely felt bad for it, admitted my wrong, and apologized to him multiple times.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did this privately, right? At least I don't remember seeing an apology from you, about anything, ever.

Not a big deal, but I find it somewhat humorous that you didn't see it fit to apologize in public, yet bragging about it is okay. Is this your modesty, again?

I know the idea of admitting you made a mistake is altogether lost on you though, and you will just reply by gathering together a bunch of past incidences with the idea of assaulting my character rather than address the actual issues here and now (read Lesson 1), because, according to you, proving a faulty character is the basis for poving that that person must therefore always be at fault in all incidents, even though neither the past nor my character have anything to do with your poor reading comprehension and the fact that you have so much faith in your abilities to gather the correct contexts from sentences that you are willing to make youself look like a total jackass by attacking people on grounds that only work if your contexts were the right ones.

Oooh, I think that someone is losing his temper already. Dude, you wrote that entire paragraph - about how I do not understand written English - as one sentence. There might be certain irony there, somewhere.

Anyway, back to the matter hand: you are not exactly in the position to blame anyone for attacking you. Remember? (I'm sorry that I must link to my own post, which contains only quotes of the post I talk about... since it looks like someone is again trying cover their fuck ups)

Not only is that excuse your favorite cop-out if you start losing; "You are attacking me, instead of debating!", but also you yourself launch massive attacks against other people.

Do unto others and so forth, if you really want to credibly accuse someone of attacking you.

Call bullsh*t all you want.  How much of it can you prove?  And if all you have is your hunch, why don’t you just admit it’s a hunch?  By going off on these tangents, you’re assuming your hunch is fact (sound familiar? *cough* religion *cough*), which still makes you wrong.  Except twice as wrong, since you were wrong in the first place to call bullsh*t.
I could list all the times you’ve been wrong to call bullsh*t too, but in most cases you wouldn’t be convinced by my word alone, and most cases don’t actually apply to the issues at hand, which are your poor reading comprehension skills.
I do have to give honorable mention to the one time you didn’t call bullsh*t when you should have, but that’s not the issue at hand.

Not directly related to the issue at hand, but on a more general level you were right about one thing; I certainly wouldn't be convinced by your word. Anyway, the way I see it is that it's not my job to prove anything wrong - I'm sure that you understand that this is near impossible in some cases even if the claim truly was wrong, but it's rather the job of the person making the claims to prove that his claims are true, if questioned. Or live with the fact that someone doesn't believe him. That shouldn't be a huge issue to anyone, right?

And no, doesn't sound familiar. You surely want to elaborate, though?

Lesson 4: Err, Context is a Tricky Thang?

You’ll notice the lack of satire in my actual post.

Please, do not try to pretend that you are capable of humor of any kind.

I've had the "privilege" of observing you for more than half a decade already, and considering that you haven't been familiar with the concept thus far, it's rather obvious that you haven't figured it out now, either.

No, with you it's merely a case of apparently turning your coat to appease the crowd after having your ass handed to you once already, and trying to score minuscule "victories" by "cleverly" hinting what you really think.

Heh, and here you go again.
I said, “the lack of satire in my actual post,” which most people understand as separating a post from its topic.  In other words, if I thought there would be people who couldn’t put two and two together, I would have wasted time typing, “the lack of satire in my actual post, rather than having satire in both the topic and the post.”
Ah, yes, that makes perfect sense to everyone here but you.
My previous sentence had been about the topic of the post, which means it would be entirely illogical for my second sentence’s context to switch from the satire in the topic to the “satire” in my other thread.
Yet, you chose to overlook this logical connection, deciding for yourself that I was trying to use “satire” to refer to my old topic, and then claiming I was turning coat and trying to appease a crowd.
So, you misunderstood my sentence and attacked me.
I did this to Qhimm too, then I apologized multiple times to him on Yahoo! Messenger.

A) Why are you editing things? You know very well that I did not quote part of your post when replying.

B) Dude, what are you babbling about?

What in the world gave you the idea that I thought you were talking about your old topic?

I was very much talking about your current one, and pointing that the topic - yes, the topic, not the post body - was not satire, since you are incapable of such, but rather it was reflecting your true feelings about the matter. You just thought that you could put it in the topic, and pretend that it was satire, if you were confronted about it.

I'm sorry, but about this you are completely wrong.

What did you say about reading comprehension, assuming and tangents?

Yeah, fucking oops.

Perhaps you should really train your own reading comprehension before you climb up on that soapbox of yours, next time?

Unfortunately, I won’t address them here, because our fight this time was caused by your poor reading, making up your own contexts, and then flinging poo that should never have been flung.

Hey, you are writing my replies for me! Thanks.

So why did I mention that there are things that are left open based off this post?
Why, that’s simple!  I’m leading you into a trap!
You’re a predictable human being.  I’ll tell you that I know for a fact you will not acknowledge that you are in the wrong for misunderstanding my (very simple) sentences and attacking me based off your own misunderstandings.

Would this trap of yours be similar to the one you bragged about at the very thread where you went ballistic about having an inferior IQ score? You know, the kind that never existed anywhere else, except in your head?

You know, you are right. I do not acknowledge misunderstanding them, because I did not misunderstand them - except being somewhat ambivalent about your "As expected."-quote. To me it looks like you not only misunderstood my posts, but also assumed that everyone takes your texts at face value, which we do not (after listening enough of your ramblings) do anymore. And haven't done for a long time, for that matter.

And then you proceeded to embarrass yourself once again. Cute lectures and all... but wouldn't it be better to base them on stuff that actually happened, instead of stuff you thought had happened?

Now, you have the option of not replying to this topic at all, but that’s actually not the best way to go.
But you won’t select the best route for this situation due to personality flaws.

Sadly for you, these "personality flaws" don't seem to stop me from pointing out that most of this thing was only in your head. Once again.

After you reply, I will take tidbits of this post and quote them below, proving my point and what I (and everyone else) knew all along.

Promise to stick to truths, instead of things you imagined?




Boys and girls, save Spiro's first post. Because it's a prime example of how you "debate" after you have no valid arguments left; you try to obfuscate, nitpick totally unrelated matters and write miles of shit about things that have nothing to do with the matter at hand - hoping that you can tire out the other party.

Spiro, we can continue this. It will end just like the previous thread, you babbling about your imaginary traps.

Or, you can end this circus, and reply to my question: "How do you explain the violence at Wii launch?". I thought that it was a fairly simple question, simple enough for even you to understand.

I already tried to go the PM route but Jari would have none of that, quickly informing me that I was put on PM ignore and further messages would never be read.

Bullshit!

Yes, I am indeed blocking all PMs from Spiro. Because reading his PMs is one of the least favorite pastimes I have. On the other hand, humiliating him in public is great fun!

The problem is that you never sent me PMs about this. Instead you were hard at work digging up old grudges and at the same time trying to be friends with me. Quite an achievement, I have to say.

Certainly, we can post the PMs, if you want to demonstrate how "related" they were. Please, start with the one about how modest you are. That one really made me laugh. 

Ironically I offered to fly out there and meet him but he didn’t reply to that either.

Why'd you wanne do that? O_o

He wouldn't.

He realizes that chances of me wanting to meet him are extremely low, thus it's "safe" to offer such a thing. And why offer? Because you can post about it later.

See, this is why we don't take his posts at face value anymore. He is fairly clever, for someone with so horrible reading comprehension.


But anyway, what is it going to be Spiro? Shall we continue on this route - it didn't work for you the last time, so it's not likely to work any better now - of talking shit, or are you man enough to reply to my question?

[Relf]

Oh, and my naem si mispesled fro a porprose.
lspiero

Damn my memory is going on me (And I'm so young too!),who was the other person who was once going on posting intentionally mispelt words and terrible grammar in the past, or was it you then too?

[L. Spiro]

Why'd you wanne do that?

Why not?  He’s my best friend.

Damn my memory is going on me (And I'm so young too!),who was the other person who was once going on posting intentionally mispelt words and terrible grammar in the past, or was it you then too?

I don’t think it was me.
But at least in my case there is and has always been a system behind the madness.

Actual message exceeds 20000 characters, which is the set limit for the board currently.

Sigh, as expected, you’ve chosen the most obvious and blatantly losing path.
But that’s normal, given your severe personality flaws and the fact that I’m forcing you to take this path.


L. Spro

[Jari]

Pretentious much?

If you are so sure of yourself, I wonder why you had to delete the contents from couple of your messages? You know, the ones where you made an ass out of yourself, again.

Not to worry, after debating with certain people here, I have taken it as a habit to save copies of threads where I suspect something like that might take place. And yes, I have your original messages, too.

Besides, are you blaming me for your superlong message?  You know very well that you touch several points, and I pretty much have to quote you, to maintain a context that is at least somewhat easy to follow.

[L. Spiro]

If you are so sure of yourself, I wonder why you had to delete the contents from couple of your messages? You know, the ones where you made an ass out of yourself, again.

Oh, don’t worry, I’m specifically counting on you to post those quotes.
Oh, and deleting those messages was part of my sense of humor, of which you claim I haven’t.

Not to worry, after debating with certain people here, I have taken it as a habit to save copies of threads where I suspect something like that might take place.

Yes, this is one of your personality flaws.
One of many flaws that forces you to keep track of other people’s dirt so you can always have some way of covering your own ass when the shit flies your way.
Normal people, such as myself, don’t try to store all these old posts hoping one day we can use them against said person if he or she ever lashes out (or what-have-you).
Typically people try to live and let live, but you are so afraid of ever being wrong, or ever needing to issue an apology for any reason what-so-ever, you’ll scoop up all this dirt so that no matter what happens, you can post some odd number of reasons why such-and-such person is below you and could therefore never be right in any situation, nor could you possibly be wrong enough to warrant an issued apology. 

As I stated in my post, you’ll never apologize, even though it’s obvious to everyone here that you attacked me for no reason other than simply misunderstanding my posts, and you’re soon going to follow up by digging up some dirt that somehow justifies (though only to you) your lack of apology.

Besides, are you blaming me for your superlong message?

I’m not sure which part of which post makes you think I’ve put blame on anyone for my lengthy posts. But fret it not, mi amigo, I decide for myself how long my posts should be, and I take full credit (or blame) for making them long.
[Disclaimer: This is how I typically respond to any misunderstandings: clearly, cleanly, and politely.  As mentioned, I have a specific reason for the change in tone recently.]

You know very well that you touch several points, and I pretty much have to quote you, to maintain a context that is at least somewhat easy to follow.

Usually, but the problem is, well, I’ll wait for your quotes before I explain the problem.


L. Spito

[ChaosControl]

*Passes everyone who's reading some popcorn*

[Jari]

Oh, don’t worry, I’m specifically counting on you to post those quotes.
Oh, and deleting those messages was part of my sense of humor, of which you claim I haven’t.

Ohhh! Sorry I missed that. Probably because normal people understand humor as something funny. Instead of trying to cover up their own stupidity.

Anyway, I'm sad to say that currently I have no need to post quotes from the said posts, but I take it that you'd have no issues with me posting the entire content of those posts, just to preserve it?

Oh, why am I even asking you this, you posted it once in public and then removed it because you are trying to evade responsibility of any kind. I don't need your permission, I'll simply post them, if I see the need to do so. Sorry.

Yes, this is one of your personality flaws.
One of many flaws that forces you to keep track of other people’s dirt so you can always have some way of covering your own ass when the sh*t flies your way.
Normal people, such as myself, don’t try to store all these old posts hoping one day we can use them against said person if he or she ever lashes out (or what-have-you).

*shrugs*

If you want to call sticking to truth a 'personality flaw', it is your right to do so. I, however, do not agree.

BTW, has it ever occurred to you that if certain forum members - such as you - didn't have this habit of not only conveniently forgetting things, but even trying to actively hide things that happened, I wouldn't have to save anything just in case? Not to mention, it would appear that the said members are trying to hide these things to... you guessed it, cover their ass, like you say. It's not me who needs help in this matter, I have never edited anything away from my posts for this reason - nor have I ever deleted any of my posts for this reason.

Not to mention that you are very, very wrong about me hoping that one day I can use those threads. In fact, I hope very much that I never need to post them, or refer to them. It just seems that some people have huge issues facing reality, and need some help now and then.

Typically people try to live and let live, but you are so afraid of ever being wrong, or ever needing to issue an apology for any reason what-so-ever, you’ll scoop up all this dirt so that no matter what happens, you can post some odd number of reasons why such-and-such person is below you and could therefore never be right in any situation, nor could you possibly be wrong enough to warrant an issued apology. 

Thank you for making the case for me.

"...but you are so afraid of ever being wrong, or ever needing to issue an apology for any reason what-so-ever..."

One of us even made an entire thread to apologize - you should remember it, since you mentioned it in one of the posts you wiped clean. Would you like to guess who it was? I can give you a hint: not you.

Must mean that I'm really afraid of apologizing. So, like you just kindly demonstrated, certain members here are pretty extreme revisionists. And I'd prefer to not let them "decide" what happened.

As I stated in my post, you’ll never apologize, even though it’s obvious to everyone here that you attacked me for no reason other than simply misunderstanding my posts, and you’re soon going to follow up by digging up some dirt that somehow justifies (though only to you) your lack of apology.

Oh really? I believe that I just demonstrated that I do apologize if there is a need. I do not need to apologize just because you think you know what people think, and decide to make an ass out of yourself based on that belief. That is entirely your problem.

[Disclaimer: This is how I typically respond to any misunderstandings: clearly, cleanly, and politely.  As mentioned, I have a specific reason for the change in tone recently.]

Oh, please don't lie. Or at least try to be believable, if you must lie.

[Sukaeto]

Hey guys!  GNU stands for "GNU's not UNIX"! 

Did you know that?