On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 04:38:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava scribbled:
[snip]
> >> > Was there a GR to that effect or something?
> >>
> >> Unlike some, I can think on my own; I do not need a GR or aj to
> >> tell me how to proceed or what I should do.
>
> > Sure, but keep in mind that others can think on their own too.
>
> So why did you ask if there was a GR that I used to determine
> what I can say? Doesn't sound much like someone who can think on
> their own, if they go looking at GR's as a basis of other peoples
> actions.
I was being sarcastic, thought it was obvious.
[snip]
> > to John Goerzen full of invectives, which I'm not necessarily proud
> > of now :>). Again, I'm not saying you cannot use offensive words,
> > call names etc. - you can do it all the time and as often as you
> > want, but do not ever offend everybody without exceptions. If you do
> > that, you don't deserve to be part of any community (which I'm sure
> > isn't true).
>
> I am not offending any non-lazy-assed-non-whiners out
> there. Or can't you read?
You are generalizing. That's offending potentially everyone. Is like you
stood in front of a crowd and said "Hey, you lazy whiners, fuckers, yes you,
you know who you are" - it would be perceived as offence by many people not
included in the named group (and rightly so).
> >> fuck up. How's that?
> >
> > Wipe the foam off your face, sit back and read again what I wrote,
> > ok? At least now you directed the 'shut the fuck up' at a concrete
> > person, who can say - shut the fuck up yourself and get a grip,
> > dude. Got the concept now?
>
> I still am telling all them lazy-assed apathetic whiners that
> they need to shut up about blaming their lack of due diligence to
> some one deliberately deceiving them into their inaction.
Right, why did I ever think that you can be a partner in discussion.
> >> > If somebody resorts to calling names and and offence, it means
> >> > that person doesn't really have other arguments to support their
> >> > stance.
> >>
> >> *Shrug*. How you take my opinions is entirely up to you. But
>
> > See, that attitude means you don't give a flying fuck about
> > communication.
>
> I don't really give a shit about how nice I am to people who
> start off by insulting me, no.
It's not about being nice or not. You can just fine communicate using foul
language as quoting Shakespeare or Talmud. It's about the attitude you
present regarding your (willing or unwilling) listeners.
> > What you wrote, shows that you want to get your
> > point across, and that is it.
>
> That, BTW, is what communication is all about. Look it up.
Geez, do you have a thing with dictionaries? OK, let's see:
2. Intercourse by words, letters, or messages; interchange of
thoughts or opinions, by conference or other means;
conference; correspondence.
Argument . . . and friendly communication. --Shak.
If all you care about is 'get your point across' then, by the above
definition, it is not communication - since it's not interchange of thoughts
of opinion (since you're not willing to take the listener's opinion after
stating your own).
> [a whole lot of confused trivia snipped]
Geez, you really need prozac.
marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature