Reply With Quote
The irony is that you think you are intelligent and then resort to insults.
Insulting someone personally before or after your argument, c'mon, enough with the semantics. You are rude and not as smart as you believe. Nothing left to say.
Um, thats the definition of a personal attack (which in and of itself is wrong) but it doesn't explain how what I said was ironic. Its no wonder that you're misunderstanding movies when you don't grasp a concept like irony.
Also, I guess you missed the part where I explained to you why you were wrong.
I attacked you personally after I told you WHY you were an idiot. It wasn't a subs ution for my argument but rather a fairly satisfying addition to it.
The irony is that you think you are intelligent and then resort to insults.
Insulting someone personally before or after your argument, c'mon, enough with the semantics. You are rude and not as smart as you believe. Nothing left to say.
Intelligent people never insult anyone? I never said I wasn't rude and whether or not I'm as smart as I think I am is irrelevant. The point is that I'm smarter than YOU.
I will admit, this isn't a very high bar. I'm pretty much saying that I was happy Shawshank simply had an ending.
Well now, that sounds intelligent...I'm smarter than you..
Wow.
Why? I have no desire to have a "truce" with you. We are not at war. This is not real life. If you want to stop having verbal spats with other users on the forum, I suggest you modify your posting style, because as it's plainly obvious, I'm not the one trying to argue with 5 other people right now, talking smack all the way. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, it's YOU that's the problem? No, of course not. Your ego won't permit that.
You spent the ENTIRE thread about the tazing incident proclaiming that you knew you would be right, that the officers would be exonerated, and at the same time you would turn around and ridicule other posters for jumping to conclusions before they knew all the facts. You even openly stated that the facts of the situation weren't known, yet you voiced your opinion as if it were a scientific law, the very same thing you did in this thread.You came back... lots of words...would YOU be very cordial AFTER being attacked like that?
I listen to other posters who disagree with me, or who ask questions, and I respond to them as if they are my equal or better, 98% of the time. You have yet to do this with a single post you make, instead taking up the idea that you and what you say is infallible. You make incorrect statements and then when someone calls you out on them, you backpedal and attack/change the subject instead of just admitting that you're wrong. For instance, the very obvious statement you made about how I "disappeared" in the tazing thread was humorous, as I was the one with the last post in said thread. When I enlightened you with this knowledge, you raged some more and changed the subject, all the while never admitting a single mistake you made in your posts. I can see why you like being a cop, as it's pretty obvious to everyone here that you have a huge ego problem.THIS has happened in a lot of the threads where I am minding my own business. If you are attacked like that...what happens? How do you deal with it.
You're stupid because you've failed in any post I've ever read from you to acknowledge that someone with a thought that differs from yours has a point. You come off as infinitely smug and incredibly full of yourself, while possessing nothing to justify it. Just like this thread, you bandied about your opinion as fact, and when the first person insulted you for it, you went after everyone, and treated every single person who disagreed with you like they were beneath you. You got so utterly defensive that you lost all ability for rational discourse, and you STILL haven't listed a single objective reason for not liking NCFOM. 9 pages and your three reasons are 1. It made you feel bad. 2. The directors were lazy (which is absolutely false, as the Coen Brothers are two of the most hardworking, innovative director/producers in Hollywood) and 3. It was an "unconventional" ending which made it conventional.The same thing happened in the old man/taser thread and YOU were one of the first ones that attacked me and insulted me..called me stupid among other things.
Basically your three reasons for not liking this movie hold very little merit, and since you have yet to articulate your thoughts/feelings better than that in lieu of attacking other posters for disagreeing with you, you're catching heat for it. I guarantee you that any other poster on this site would face the same thing if they exhibited such conduct.
What? In what way is Spurstalk like the largest classified ads website on the internet? Again, you make these bold claims with absolutely nothing to support your statements.One of the things that I like about this site is that we CAN do that and I dish out my share so --I know I have to just deal with it. This is also one of the reasons why this site is becoming like craigslist,
What arguments? "I feel this way" isn't an argument. I can't poke holes in it. I can laugh at you for not being able to articulate yourself better, and raging against other people when they ask you to clarify your thoughts, though.If you really want to be fair...do yourself a favor...stop from examining my posts (and trying to poke holes in my arguments) and start from the beginning of the thread and find out WHY I may be responding in the way that I do.
Oh dear god, someone attacked you. Welcome to the internets. Enjoy your stay, although it won't be long if you rage every time someone says something mildly derogatory in your direction.IF you find ONE thread....just ONE thread...where I attacked someone FIRST...
I give you my word that I will apologize to everyone in this thread and wear a dunce cap or whatever.
The first thread I saw you posting in consisted of you lambasting other people for not knowing facts while simultaneously saying, "I know I am right." Everyone I know is going to fire shots at you when you say stupid things.Do you want to answer me respectfully and after finding out that I DID NOT fire the first shot....do you STILL want me to answer and explain everthing that I have said up to now?
Just like this. That's NOT irony. At worst, it's hypocrisy. Although Manny stating he's smarter than you isn't hypocrisy if he actually is, he's just being kind of a . Either way, it's not irony. Look up the definition of words before you use them.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 10-01-2010 at 04:50 PM.
So,
what is it you want?
We can disagree forever and you can point out everything you want. Where is this going?
I told you my point; that I never fired the first shot. It means something to me. Maybe to you it doesn't. It's okay. We don't have to agree. What is it you want. To lurk about until you see an opening and begin this game again?
Manny- poster- is an example you should re-think. He started insulting me from the start. Fine. No big deal, except you are now saying that there are legit reasons why other people are insulting me-yet the fact that he started it is overlooked in your little argument. We are going nowhere. Why don't you worry about you--not me?
The craigslist thing is just that craigslist - rants and raves- was at one time a pretty interesting place to discuss things. It also allowed cursing, insults, whatever...it was interesting...
in the end it became a place full of bigotry and nonsense...and it was full of rudeness etc...
That was what I meant-sorry for not explaining it.
I don't know what else to tell you-we are going in circles.
Even though you continued to insult me (calling me stupid again)
I will take your comments into consideration.
Last thing;
I find it kinda funny that you have convinced yourself and seem to want everyone else to know that I am a cop.
You came to this conclusion on your own. I don't know what to tell you about that. I don't try to ask what you do and it is none of my business.
People wear different hats at times in their lives. Policework may or may not be a hat that I once wore or a hat that I wear now, I have worn many other hats too. It still doesn't define me, as I am sure whatever you do or did for a living does not define you.
I stated plainly in the cop thread --that if the officers were guilty--that they should be punished. Somehow, you overlooked that comment too and mentioned only the other side of my argument.
I am not trying to argue with or justify anything to you here, but this is tiring and I am trying to speak reasonably here, because it seems like we will keep going in circles. Having said that, I get the feeling that I am of a different generation than most here-so maybe that is why you feel I have come across a certain way. I mentioned to you before that I didn't pay much attention to grammar and punctuation. It strikes me now, that younger people here, grew up with computers and it is second nature to you guys. So maybe my RANTING--and whatnot...was taken for being rude and I can understand that and tone it down. I was kinda jolted when you said I was raging? Now I kinda see what you mean--but it was my bas ized way of typing. Just throw whatever words together and post. Ok. I see where you would think I was raging. I can change that.
Fair enough?
Instead of toning it down could you just not post instead? You could even pretend in your head that you were posting and feel very gratified that your posts were top notch. I think this is a great solution.
Lets try it now. Instead of replying with an answer just imagine you replied with an answer!
So many words...
...I'm smarter than you...
that was classic..
nothing else needs to be said Will Hunting...
keep reading those books!
and for while I thought you were actually going to do it.
Yeah, it's almost a stupid as saying, "well, we don't know the facts yet. But I right and you're wrong!"
that was classic..
nothing else needs to be said Will Hunting...
keep reading those books!
For the record, I never asked what you do/did for a living. You volunteered that information. It was in the same thread where you said you were 100% sure you knew the officers had done no wrong. Because, as everyone knows here, you are awesome at being objective.
That last sentence is verbal irony, by the way.
The theatrical version ending is absolutely re ed. The director's cut, while still fairly lame, was much better explained.
They pussed out on the remake. Didn't quite get that.
Yeah, it's almost a stupid as saying, "well, we don't know the facts yet. But I right and you're wrong!"
For the record, I never asked what you do/did for a living. You volunteered that information. It was in the same thread where you said you were 100% sure you knew the officers had done no wrong. Because, as everyone knows here, you are awesome at being objective.
That last sentence is verbal irony, by the way.
Ok..see this is what is frustrating to me. You just did it again. You twisted words and made an inaccurate comment about me and then from here it starts piling up.
#1) If you care enough to be accurate, please re-read that thread about-I am right,etc...
When I said I was right--I was talking about ONE aspect that I had commented on. For example, when you said that the cops had no reason to be there. Ok...It was revealed that the paramedics had called the cops. So, I would say then that I was right---BUT only about that ONE thing. The one thing was that the cops had a RIGHT to be there. I am sorry that I did not make that clear. Maybe, I don't know, you took that to mean that I know I am right about every aspect of that thread. That is why I tried to reason with you before and I asked you --why don't we take one topic at a time--so that we can have an honest debate. Instead your retort was that I was not intelligent enough to argue several points at once.
When that thread started, you said that the cops had no warrant (you were right) no right to be there (not correct-remember the paramedics called the cops) and should be fired among other things. What I was TRYING to point out at that time was that, although it appeared to look bad--there would be more facts brought to light that would give us a better picture. Instead , the way I worded it--was that we don't know all the facts.(but I am right) That is why you jumped on me because it sounds funny. My mistake for not properly wording the argument. Finally, you just stated (wrongly) that I said the officers had done NO WRONG. This is frustrating because I said from the very start and I repeat here for the umpteenth time-that if the officers were guilty and had no right to be there-that they should be fired,sued,etc...
So that does NOT = to me saying that they did no wrong. Very Frustrating.
Later on in the thread when it had degenerated into personal attacks by both sides-is when I said that the officers would be commended for their actions.
So, would it hurt you to be accurate and not so self-righteous? I am not trying to escalate this as I am bored of going in circles but it would be at least reasonable to start letting this go in a reasonable way.
#2) Again. If you care to be accurate. Please re-read where I said I was a cop. I know that I never said I was. I actually told you directly that I would not confirm nor deny. It is no one's business and I would never say it anyway.
So, if you feel that you can throw allegations and want to appear credible-from now on -check what you are throwing out because it is inaccurate.
Time to let this tired vendetta go, don't you think?
If that bothers you, stop encouraging it. And stop turning this into a conversation about something other than No Country for Old Men.
I haven't seen anything on either side of the argument that I find particularly insulting, so I'm not going to weigh in on who started the personal attacks, but the only reason this conversation has moved beyond the qualities of the film itself is because YOU mistook our disagreement with your argument for an attack on your opinion. And YOU got all bent out of shape about it.
If you're tired of going in circles, then quit chasing your tail. This ain't rocket surgery.
I was only referring to Cry Havoc in that post, and it was referring to recent history between cry havoc and I and involving no-one else in this thread. The manny example was just to try to explain something to Cry Havoc. Yes, for once I agree with you.
Nuff sed.
The Wizard of Oz.
Contact. Dumbest ing ending ever.
I would agree that the ending was horrible and made that movie suck worse than it would have otherwise, but the "movies that were good until..." part of the thread le keeps me from fully endorsing its inclusion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
