Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 815
    MEMBERS
  • 45529
    MESSAGES
  • 94
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Islamophobia   Religion

Started 11/6/19 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 17277 views.
RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Feb-23

Interesting that you expect me to respect your rules when you break my rules when answering my posts, so lets get this simple. Though you deny it, and ignore my statement that a "G" post is not an insult, but simply an opportunity to justify yours. Why is it that you can never do that. This case is an example because when you sent me a post earning a "G" you can´t seem to justify it, and ask me a question instead. So let me put it another way. I say you are just pretending to have a civil conversation, my "G" was given because in my opinión this previous post is not an example of <<JUST>> a civil conversation. So it is your turn to justify your post as such by responding to the challenge. If an example of a civil conversation why did you post it. Note I am asking for nothing else beyond the motivtion behind the post that I labled as a "G".

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-23

RGoss99 said:

Interesting that you expect me to respect your rules when you break my rules when answering my posts

It's against the rules to reply to your posts?

RGoss99 said:

Though you deny it, and ignore my statement that a "G" post is not an insult

I did not say the macro post was an insult.  I said it was an annoying waste of time for the recipient.

Everything after that was insufferably boring.

The post I objected to did nothing but blast me.

Was I supposed to thank you?

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Feb-24

No it is not against the rules to <<REPLY>> to my poss, but it is not only rude but against my rules to pretend to be replying to my post when the reply is not a response to them, changes the subject, or is abusive. In this case again "G=G+1" because my previous post asked a specific question which you still have not answered. Repeating "how do you justify yourself" or "what motivated you" to send that particular post to me. Little reminder, the subject was abuse of women, to which I politely responded with an example which contained a quotation in Scots. You politely asked for a translation, providing what you thought was such. I agreed that you were correct. In other words question politely asked and politely responded to. This process in a polite discussion brings closure. Unfortunately you had a further response that I considered not only unnecessary but possibly passive-aggressive, and simply asked for your motive, and/or justification for posting it. Had you simply done so this could have ended this off topic duscussion, but you have chosen not to. Why is that? PS: still awaiting the answer to the original question. 

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Feb-24

Anticipating a posible answer, here is an example: I posted this because I thought you might be interested. To which my response would be why would I be interested if you already knew the interpretation of the translation with which we already agrreed, you voluntarily, and me in response. Having experienced many examples of your passive-aggressive negativity, I suspect that the fact that <<YOU>> were unable to find <<OUR>> mutual translation, you were suggesting that my response was faulty in some way, so you had to check it out in an irrelevant source or two to justify your suspician that I was in error, thus <<PROVING>> that I was, in your mind, because being unable or unwilling to find the answer in a Scottish dictionary, chose, in error to use a Scottish-English dictionary that only translated words that are now aceptable in Englih via a Scottish accent and dialect of English. You seem to have been educated in a school system that taught that any answer from some claimed authority is equal to a contradictory one from a native speaker and/or established source. This seems to be a thread running through many of our disagreements. So now, tell me, what motivated you to send the the for which I gave you a "G" rating? If you could justify this post by doing so, I would be happy to revers the "G" and type "G=G-1".

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-24

RGoss99 said:

Repeating "how do you justify yourself" or "what motivated you" to send that particular post to me.

Is this the question you want me to answer?  What post are you referring to?

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-24

RGoss99 said:

I suspect that the fact that <> were unable to find <> mutual translation, you were suggesting that my response was faulty in some way, so you had to check it out in an irrelevant source or two to justify your suspician that I was in error

No.

You're being overly sensitive.

I saw the words, copied and pasted them into Google just as I do with any other term, person or event I do not know anything about.  Google was a bust, so I then offered what I thought it said.

I did my best to word the fact I could not find a translation as carefully as I could - knowing you would fly off the handle at the perceived insult.

Clearly I failed.

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

Feb-24

Now you have reached post 141 on your hijacking. You posted 131, to which I asked a still unanswered question in my post 132. you obviously knnow what the question was and still is.

What motivated you to post 131, considering I already agreed with your translation, if not to question me, a native speaker, with a bogus source, not that disagreed but simply could not translate it, which you and I already did. 

This style of passive-aggressive posting makes you a danger to the integrity of the web because no closure is posible unless you can answer a very simple question, e.g. what is the your motivation behind, or why did you post that in two sources (themselves not sourced) you could not find either your or my translation. The implication I gather is that you are saying that I am wrong. You have no evidence because lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. So without any facts or logic what is your justification for publishing doubt? You have also failed, to note that I acting on your doubt, had no problem verifying my translation, which is essentially the same as the one you came up with on your own.

Ignorance is a right. I believe in free speech. However every freedom carries with it a parallel responsibility. Just because you have the right to post whatever you want and have it spread throughout the web, also means that you have the responsibility of spreading accuracy and not causing doubt about other´s accuracy, unless you have some facts to question it, which so far you don´t have. I asked a simple question 10 posts ago, and you have wasted at least 5 avoiding answering it thus cluttering up the thread, diverting it into something personal. The "innocent" conversation was ended not by my "G" post, but when you diverted the thread from abuse of women, to a translation issue with my example which you seem to be unable to justify.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-24

RGoss99 said:

you obviously knnow what the question was and still is.

Nope.  That's why I'm asking.

RGoss99 said:

What motivated you to post 131, considering I already agreed with your translation, if not to question me, a native speaker, with a bogus source, not that disagreed but simply could not translate it, which you and I already did.

I answered that. 

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-24

Is this a competition?

If you call me "passive-aggressive" 100 times you win a coke?

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-24

RGoss99 said:

What motivated you to post 131

Post 131 is yours.

TOP