Wow that was a lot of words. I'm glad to have you back even if I'm yet to read one of your posts since returning cuz they are all far too long for me.
A fair point - and one that you are not the first to make, and likely won't be the last. In that mind, I'll place concessions first, elaborations next.
And I didn't mean to insinuate anything about your level of chastisement.
Excellent. Exactly my point in my earlier post. You do see how it could very easily be read this way, don't you?
For my part, I apologize for incorrectly
assuming the worst even if it was for only a moment.
I wasn't even really talking to you even though I used your handle.
That's the tricky thing about using someone's name/handle when posing a question: They tend to think the question is directed at them.
And no. I meant true things. Doesn't care if they say true things, Doesn't care if they say untrue things. Means the same thing. How about, doesn't care about the truth of what they say, the truth of what they say in unimportant to them etc. I mean really, you needed to include that little nitpick.
It was not a nit-pick, apologies if it seemed so. What I was doing was assuming you meant the point that was most compelling to your cause
from my point of view. There's a reason I chose the
untrue tac rather than what I now realize was your originally intended construction. Your construction, through the mention of "true things" implies to the reader (me) that the person says things that are true
to a point that it is worth mentioning. If we are to talk about "truth" as that which is objectively verifiable and quantifiable (fact) - then whether or not a person has an emotional attachment to the truth they speak, or indeed that they are in fact speaking the truth is irrelevent.
Because it's the truth - and therefore truth is always worth at least listening to.
Conversely, when changing the sentence to "untrue things" - the inverse connotation applies: the individual speaks untruths or falsehoods
to the extent that it must be mentioned (i.e. more than a couple by a bunch). With this reading, it a far more compelling point that if the person does not care or have an emotional attachment to the fact that they are speaking falsehoods - then this person should be largely ignored.
Summary: It was not me being malicious or looking for "easy points" against you, I was simply looking to respond to the best possible point you made that I could infer.
Peace keeping efforts... I appreciate it but I disliked her long before she claimed in one post that her remark was in response to Blackie and later confessed to having falsely attributed Blackie's comment to me when making that same remark and then pretended as if the words she says can be at all relied upon.
Fair enough, but I said previously it's context and information that I am unaware of, and would therefore be imprudent of me to use as context for judgment.
That's a great idea about making it protracted, maybe I'll stalk her posts for awhile and point out how she's full of shit. She probably usually is, I don't much read them in general.
Fair enough. I nor anyone else can prevent you from doing otherwise if you choose to do so. My only question to this is:
Is the vindictiveness and time/emotional investment really worth it to you?I'm awfully bored here these days and I do think she's a callous holier than thou cunt with far more moral flexibility than qualifies one as an honest person.
I'm pretty sure she already knew that.
Again, these are your personal feelings which are 100% fine and acceptable for you to have - even if they are 100% true or 100% off-base. Personally, I don't even think it's a bad thing for you to let her know that you don't like her. I think the honesty is far better than smiling through your teeth.
With that said, at some point, I have to imagine there's a point of diminishing returns. When I read statements like the above, I just can't help but ask myself if this is how you deal with all issues where conflict arises. My guess is, obviously, no - the Internet and a BBS allows the individual some liberties that generally are not considered acceptable in a more corporeal social context. I guess my only point here is that on this BBS, where (at least the last time I was here) issues and points of view are often debated - I would be extremely reticent to engage in a protracted discussion of a potentially controversial nature if I have a good suspicion that should it turn south this is what awaited me.
If you're REALLY bored you can find every time over the years someone has suggested that I'm being deliberately untruthful and see that it pisses me off a LOT. It's quite an explicit request to meet angry Royce.
Understandable. I don't know many people who enjoy being called a liar - explicitly or implicitly. As I said in my previous post - both of you used ad hominems.
At this point, I see that during writing this that you have already posted another response - and I think that further involvement on my part here would be inappropriate. I will summarize that I still maintain the belief that there has been some mis-interpretation of some of the original quotes on your part -
and that happens, so it's not really a mark of right/wrong. Similarly I think Rillion has at least 1 misinterpretation, which I mentioned previously as well.
I also still think the veracity of the vitriol (perhaps on the part of both parties) is unfortunate.