This is me

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 4366
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: This is me

Post by Walker » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:03 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:For the Americans on here. You really should be learning this sort of thing at school. Some insects are bugs, for example beetles. 'Bugs' are only one particular group of insects. Using 'bug' to describe all insects in general is ignorant and extremely irritating, and changing the beautiful ladybird to 'ladyBUG' is unforgivable. Perhaps Americans are more prone than most to copy and adopt stupid ideas from each other. Unfortunately idiocy is contagious, and before the internet other countries had a reasonable level of immunity.
Btw, 'loan' is a noun, not a verb.
To be insected is some sort of physical condition, like when a bare neck perched on a motorcycle smacks a slow-hovering wasp at 80 mph. Whacks it like a flyswatter.

To be bugged is to inappropriately bothered by the topical poison spread by the wind on the skin like lighter fluid. Better to stay on the road than to crash while clawing at the neck for what can’t now be changed anyway. To be bugged also means spying.

To be swarmed is an insect attack. However, for the POTUS to say his phone was insected doesn’t ring true. The word insected sounds like an overreach for precision. Bugged is primal. Monosyllabic. It communicates on a different level than the trinity of syllables. The primal bugged resulted in the preconceived press agenda of Hillary losing because of the Rooskies, scattering across the floor like cockroaches when the lights turn on.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3866
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: This is me

Post by Harbal » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:11 pm

Walker wrote:the trinity of syllables.
Are you allergic to plain English, Walker?

Walker
Posts: 4366
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: This is me

Post by Walker » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:13 pm

Harbal wrote:
Walker wrote:the trinity of syllables.
Are you allergic to plain English, Walker?
Only to be used in case of emergency, and with proper planning, those are rare.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6687
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: This is me

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:13 pm

Walker wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:For the Americans on here. You really should be learning this sort of thing at school. Some insects are bugs, for example beetles. 'Bugs' are only one particular group of insects. Using 'bug' to describe all insects in general is ignorant and extremely irritating, and changing the beautiful ladybird to 'ladyBUG' is unforgivable. Perhaps Americans are more prone than most to copy and adopt stupid ideas from each other. Unfortunately idiocy is contagious, and before the internet other countries had a reasonable level of immunity.
Btw, 'loan' is a noun, not a verb.
To be insected is some sort of physical condition, like when a bare neck perched on a motorcycle smacks a slow-hovering wasp at 80 mph. Whacks it like a flyswatter.

To be bugged is to inappropriately bothered by the topical poison spread by the wind on the skin like lighter fluid. Better to stay on the road than to crash while clawing at the neck for what can’t now be changed anyway. To be bugged also means spying.

To be swarmed is an insect attack. However, for the POTUS to say his phone was insected doesn’t ring true. The word insected sounds like an overreach for precision. Bugged is primal. Monosyllabic. It communicates on a different level than the trinity of syllables. The primal bugged resulted in the preconceived press agenda of Hillary losing because of the Rooskies, scattering across the floor like cockroaches when the lights turn on.
There is a word. Homonym.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: This is me

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:03 am

thedoc wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
thedoc wrote:
I am very sorry that you live in one of the sub-standard countries of the world and not in America, the best country there is.
It doesn't really count when you say it yourself. You might as well say 'I'm the handsomest man in the world'. If I could choose anywhere in the world to live, the US would be one notch above Somalia on the list.
Then if you move to America, you would be moving up.
American is first in many things.
First in poverty amongst comparable nations
First in illiteracy amongst comparable nations
First in geographical ignorance amongst comparable nations

But most of all first is a sense of self delusion.

thedoc
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: This is me

Post by thedoc » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:06 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: But most of all first is a sense of self delusion.
At least America has something worthwhile to be deluded about.

ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: This is me

Post by ForCruxSake » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:15 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: Some leave because of nutters, others because they can't stand the mirror of philosophy that unpacks their preconceptions.
... but most leave because of the display of an overtly hostile attitude that has little to do with philosophy, the sheer bloody mindedness. :roll:
Here's what I actually said, not what you think I said;

I doubt that very much. Such self aggrandising epithets rarely survive the scrutiny of those in this Forum.
Should you continue to participate I shall point out your oh too conventional ideas, your mental chains, your meanness and your closed-mind.
I can already see the usual traditional mother-nature/hippie worn out old nutshell of a closed mind right here.
Take the Pepsi challenge!

But hello and welcome anyway!


There is not ONE gramme of "hostility" in this.
Well. perhaps you need to re-read your own words, maybe state them more clearly, or explain them, instead of repeating them to me, word for word, in the hope I'll see something other than 'what you think I see'.

For starters, I didn't say you were being hostile. My statement was simply extending on the reasoning you gave for why people leave the forum. You made that about you, when it was more a general statement about how some of forum folk here treat discussion in a combative way, that's so pervasive, that it seems to have become acceptable for any understanding of what is being spoken about to be lost to the aggression of how it is being spoken about.

But now that you've brought up the subject of whether you were being hostile, or not, let's re-examine your words to see just how 'what you think you might be saying' may well be interpreted otherwise.

I didn't think that the words she used to describe herself were "self-aggrandising", as mentioned in an earlier post. In telling her that, if she continued to participate, your focus would be on every negative aspect of her communication, when she hadn't even said anything negative, is hostile. Your next statement wasn't very clear, but could well have been interpreted to suggest that you see Ruth to be an old hippie, with a fixed mindset. There was nothing positive or inviting in anything you had to say to a newcomer. It was insulting, and hostile, to the point it drove her away.

I didn't take offence at what you said. She did. It's not that hard to see why. This probably required less explanation than I've given. I just wouldn't want you reassuming what I might be saying.

Walker
Posts: 4366
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: This is me

Post by Walker » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:58 pm

ruthbreznay wrote:I have an interest in yoga, meditation and Buddhism, spirituality in general, shamanism, paganism, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and I like physical activity (cycling, walking, going to the gym, swimming etc). I also read a lot ( mainly classical literature) and do enjoy a good movie. I am also intrigued by tattoos, and their history and meanings in different cultures.
Hobbes of the Thread is saying in word and exhibiting in tone that the male qualities of reasoning and purpose, focuses and directs Shakti.

http://sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_an ... shakti.htm

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: This is me

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:57 pm

thedoc wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: But most of all first is a sense of self delusion.
At least America has something worthwhile to be deluded about.
And this is a perfect example of your delusion.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: This is me

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:01 pm

ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: ... but most leave because of the display of an overtly hostile attitude that has little to do with philosophy, the sheer bloody mindedness. :roll:
Here's what I actually said, not what you think I said;

I doubt that very much. Such self aggrandising epithets rarely survive the scrutiny of those in this Forum.
Should you continue to participate I shall point out your oh too conventional ideas, your mental chains, your meanness and your closed-mind.
I can already see the usual traditional mother-nature/hippie worn out old nutshell of a closed mind right here.
Take the Pepsi challenge!

But hello and welcome anyway!


There is not ONE gramme of "hostility" in this.
Well. perhaps you need to re-read your own words, maybe state them more clearly, or explain them, instead of repeating them to me, word for word, in the hope I'll see something other than 'what you think I see'.

For starters, I didn't say you were being hostile. My statement was simply extending on the reasoning you gave for why people leave the forum. You made that about you, when it was more a general statement about how some of forum folk here treat discussion in a combative way, that's so pervasive, that it seems to have become acceptable for any understanding of what is being spoken about to be lost to the aggression of how it is being spoken about.

But now that you've brought up the subject of whether you were being hostile, or not, let's re-examine your words to see just how 'what you think you might be saying' may well be interpreted otherwise.

I didn't think that the words she used to describe herself were "self-aggrandising", as mentioned in an earlier post. In telling her that, if she continued to participate, your focus would be on every negative aspect of her communication, when she hadn't even said anything negative, is hostile. Your next statement wasn't very clear, but could well have been interpreted to suggest that you see Ruth to be an old hippie, with a fixed mindset. There was nothing positive or inviting in anything you had to say to a newcomer. It was insulting, and hostile, to the point it drove her away.

I didn't take offence at what you said. She did. It's not that hard to see why. This probably required less explanation than I've given. I just wouldn't want you reassuming what I might be saying.
You are not qualified to state whether my words were "hostile", yet you seem to think that you can make that claim.
My claim is that, should she continue in the Forum she will be treated to some philosophy which would of necessity undermine and unpack her claims - that's what philosophy is for.
If you think that is "hostile" then you need to find another discipline than philosophy.

thedoc
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: This is me

Post by thedoc » Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:45 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: But most of all first is a sense of self delusion.
At least America has something worthwhile to be deluded about.
And this is a perfect example of your delusion.
Thankyou :D

ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: This is me

Post by ForCruxSake » Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:30 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are not qualified to state whether my words were "hostile", yet you seem to think that you can make that claim.
I'm not sure who you seem to think would be qualified to assess what the word "hostile" means? I would have thought it was anyone with a competent understanding of English or is it someone who has a daily working relationship with hostility? Someone in the army? A policeman? Just you???

I am qualified to understand English, and I know what "hostile" means.

Here's some easily accessible online dictionary definitions, from Merriam-Webster:
"marked by malevolence: having or showing unfriendly feelings, a hostile act"
"openly opposed or resisting, a hostile critic, hostile to new ideas"
"having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature"


But this is my favourite from The Oxford 'Learners Dictionary' (just trying to keep it simple enough for a child to understand):
"very unfriendly or aggressive and ready to argue or fight"

What you said, and the way you said it, was "unfriendly" and "aggressive". It was antagonistic to the point that it not only helped scare away someone who wished to join the forum, but had her responding in an equally aggressive manner.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:My claim is that, should she continue in the Forum she will be treated to some philosophy which would of necessity undermine and unpack her claims - that's what philosophy is for.
If you think that is "hostile" then you need to find another discipline than philosophy.
Your responses on this particular thread, to Ruth and myself, have had little to do with the "discipline of philosophy". They concern the way you have treated someone introducing themselves to this forum (-or do you see every "Hello..." as a matter for philosophic enquiry?). As such, maybe it is you who needs "to find another discipline than philosophy".

That apart, the bit of what you said, that you've chosen to explain here, was not ALL that was said.

If you had been as clear and as simple to make the above statement, to start with, with none of the extraneous stuff, implying that Ruth was an old hippy, I'd not have passed comment... but you didn't say it like that and you went on to say more.

At the risk of repeating myself: you need to re-examine the way you express yourself, the words you choose and the way you put them together. If you don't wish to have someone use evocative adjectives to describe the way you communicate, don't use evocative language.

What I really want to say right now is, "Suck it up!" but that would just be rude. :wink:

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: This is me

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:10 pm

ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are not qualified to state whether my words were "hostile", yet you seem to think that you can make that claim.
I'm not sure who you seem to think would be qualified to assess what the word "hostile" means? I would have thought it was anyone with a competent understanding of English or is it someone who has a daily working relationship with hostility? Someone in the army? A policeman? Just you???

I am qualified to understand English, and I know what "hostile" means.

Here's some easily accessible online dictionary definitions, from Merriam-Webster:
"marked by malevolence: having or showing unfriendly feelings, a hostile act"
"openly opposed or resisting, a hostile critic, hostile to new ideas"
"having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature"


But this is my favourite from The Oxford 'Learners Dictionary' (just trying to keep it simple enough for a child to understand):
"very unfriendly or aggressive and ready to argue or fight"

What you said, and the way you said it, was "unfriendly" and "aggressive". It was antagonistic to the point that it not only helped scare away someone who wished to join the forum, but had her responding in an equally aggressive manner.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:My claim is that, should she continue in the Forum she will be treated to some philosophy which would of necessity undermine and unpack her claims - that's what philosophy is for.
If you think that is "hostile" then you need to find another discipline than philosophy.
Your responses on this particular thread, to Ruth and myself, have had little to do with the "discipline of philosophy". They concern the way you have treated someone introducing themselves to this forum (-or do you see every "Hello..." as a matter for philosophic enquiry?). As such, maybe it is you who needs "to find another discipline than philosophy".

That apart, the bit of what you said, that you've chosen to explain here, was not ALL that was said.

If you had been as clear and as simple to make the above statement, to start with, with none of the extraneous stuff, implying that Ruth was an old hippy, I'd not have passed comment... but you didn't say it like that and you went on to say more.

At the risk of repeating myself: you need to re-examine the way you express yourself, the words you choose and the way you put them together. If you don't wish to have someone use evocative adjectives to describe the way you communicate, don't use evocative language.

What I really want to say right now is, "Suck it up!" but that would just be rude. :wink:
Nope. Hostility is an emotional state. My emotional state was calm. It was cheeky and friendly. Provocative hopefully but there was no sense of hostility.
Hostile implies agression.
You are not qualified to assert that from what I wrote.
(If you want "rude" then here is rude)
I don't even know the fucking person - why would I be hostile to a complete stranger?
(maybe you are a sensitive little flower?)
Now - run along and re-read my words with a smile.

ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: This is me

Post by ForCruxSake » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:58 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Nope. Hostility is an emotional state. My emotional state was calm. It was cheeky and friendly. Provocative hopefully but there was no sense of hostility.
Hostile implies agression
Clearly your understanding of English differs from the dictionaries from which I quoted. "Hostile" is an adjective that doesn't just describe an emotional state but can be applied to an action. I wasn't describing your emotional state when you were writing, I ascribed the adjective to what you wrote and it's impact.

What one chooses to write needn't be a reflection on their emotional state: one can be angry, when they write, but present an argument in a calm and rational manner, and vice versa. Your claim to be calm, which I'm not disputing, is not reflected in the words you chose to write. You may well have been in 'an emotionally calm state' but what you wrote was a poor reflection of calm. The 'tongue in cheek' attitude, you are now bringing up by way of explanation, had a tart humour, but it was not jocularity in which Ruth could share, it came across as jocularity at Ruth's expense. What you wrote was perceived as hostile by her, and I could see why.
Hobbes' Choice wrote: (If you want "rude" then here is rude)
I don't even know the fucking person - why would I be hostile to a complete stranger?
Possibly because you are posturing on a public forum and using her post to show off? (When did I say I wanted "rude" ???)
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are not qualified to assert that from what I wrote.
And you still haven't qualified what makes one qualified to assert the meaning they draw from a word, in the World According to Hobbes'.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:(maybe you are a sensitive little flower?)
Seems you have to personalise everything. She's an old hippy. I'm a sensitive little flower...Compared to 'old hippy', that seems rather nice. Should I thank you?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Now - run along and re-read my words with a smile.
Will a smile improve my understanding of something I have already had to explain to you, twice?

It maybe that two similar perceptions of your post are mere coincidence and it would take, at the very least, a third person who can see how your post could be perceived as hostile, to establish consensus on how badly you communicated this time round (or possibly how badly you are back pedalling to cover how poorly you communicated) but I'm afraid, I have to stand by what I have said. I don't have to re-read what you wrote to understand why it came across as hostile.

All I can say (again) is: you need to re-examine the way you communicate. You may be a Philosophy whizz but, if it is true your intention was to be "cheeky" and "friendly", your ability to communicate, in English, leaves a bit to be desired.

We appear to be at an impasse. I'm happy to agree to disagree. This can end here unless you really feel the need to repeat what you have already said, or put another spin on the manner in which what you said upset someone who was just trying to introduce herself, or if someone else wants to wade in.

Personally, I don't want to have to repeat the same thing for a third time. I'm "a sensitive little flower" not a parrot. :P
Last edited by ForCruxSake on Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.

thedoc
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: This is me

Post by thedoc » Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:11 am

ForCruxSake wrote: Personally, I don't want to have to repeat the same thing for a third time. I'm "a sensitive little flower" not a parrot. :P
Is that a Daisy or a Petunia, I certainly hope is't not a rose, those thorns can be nasty.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest