| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 2:53:44 AM | Quoting anything 'out of context' will always give the quoters slant and opinion on the words quoted, and therefore will always lead to the quote deliberately or not being mis-represented.
The fact that I do think your points are totally irrelevant, and I quoted a section of one of your posts to confirm that you think so too, is therefore not a violation of forum rules.
HTH (to be read in a patronising manner). | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 3:01:32 AM |
The question was about a wealthy person who give their own time freely to aid the community versus someone who does not work and does nothing(to make money you need to work, so you're likely a busy person
But then the wealthy can afford to give their time freely can't they!!!!!
Where as the average working Joe especially in this climate is to busy trying to keep a roof over his/her head and keep food on the table to feed the rug rats..... to donate their time to the community.....
Being wealthy doesn't make you better then someone who isn't.... , nor does it make you superior....... you can be rich and a****or poor and a****... if you are a good friend a good parent a good person, doesn't matter if you are rich or poor.... | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 3:03:55 AM | Quoting anything 'out of context' will always give the quoters slant and opinion on the words quoted, and therefore will always lead to the quote deliberately or not being mis-represented.
It is also used by posters on here who wish to divert any useful discussion into a petty diatribe about what the definition of one word in an entire paragraph means, regardless of if it is of any use to the discussion.
Are there any nits left in here to pick??Who needs Full Marks....a morning in here and anyone would be insect free!
See now we have posts coming up with points in then that had already been discussed and done and moved on from. It's like being in an old folks home in here!!!! | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 3:06:24 AM |
Quoting anything 'out of context' will always give the quoters slant and opinion on the words quoted, and therefore will always lead to the quote deliberately or not being mis-represented.
I fail to see how the quoter's 'slant and opinion' can be given merely by quoting a section of someone's post. It is the quoter's comments about the quoted section that give the opinion, and I accept that I missed that bit out of my earlier post.
So, in the example I gave, the quoter who quoted "I have sex with men" would only commit a forum violation if they then stated something along the lines of " I had no idea you have sex with men!"
The quoter must ensure that the quoted poster's view is not misrepresented.
The fact that I do think your points are totally irrelevant, and I quoted a section of one of your posts to confirm that you think so too, is therefore not a violation of forum rules.
You are, of course, free to hold any opinion on the worth of a poster's points, but to state that I hold the same view is incorrect, and the section you quoted does not contain any opinion of mine with regard to how I view my own opinion.
Perhaps people should read what I write, rather than what they think I have written? | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 3:36:25 AM | It really isn't my problem that you have difficulty with context." I have had your help with not getting your context, since your poor at expresion your inacurate opinion.
For instance:
Is a person who is wealthy and very active in their community better than someone on the dole who does nothing at all? After all, the welathy person has less time on their hands and does more for the people around them in this case
This example is the wealthy with less time giving of his limited time, compared to the time rich not doing so.
I was if you like offering the opposite scenario to the rich chap in the bible who makes a show of giving gold coins to the collection plate, while the poorer person makes a penny donation which represents a much larger portion of their wealth
This example is the oposite acording to you, where the wealthy contribution is less in proportion to the poor mans contribution.
Lukes parable is lost of you btw.
In the parallel above the use of wealth was given quite obviously to indicate that the wealth of the person was not directly related to the generosity of a person. One of the components I feel of a person's 'worth'
Since your first example sets out that wealth means he has less time due to working to be wealthy, wealth has to be the issue you were addressing as the wealthy man has less time to donate compared to the one who does nothing at all and contributes nothing.
What's that noise?
Thats you using a Tv refernces to cover factual errors, again.
Secondly, I'd be interested in why you think that I have no understanding of insect society.
Your posts content show that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5035818/Bees-and-ants-are-model-citizens.html
study has found that some bees and ants do operate in the best interests of the group to which they belong – creating a "superorganism" – and can even sacrifice their lives for the greater good of their community.
But scientists at the Universities of Edinburgh and Oxford found the same could not be said for other animal groupings, such as herds of bison or shoals of fish.
In those instances, where individual animals appear to be acting like team players, they are actually putting their own interests first, researchers found.
| |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 4:42:14 AM |
This example is the wealthy with less time giving of his limited time, compared to the time rich not doing so.
Agreed.
This example is the oposite acording to you, where the wealthy contribution is less in proportion to the poor mans contribution.
Agreed.
Since your first example sets out that wealth means he has less time due to working to be wealthy, wealth has to be the issue you were addressing as the wealthy man has less time to donate compared to the one who does nothing at all and contributes nothing.
The wealth is part of the issue, yes, but note, I have given an example of a wealthy man who could have given cash. He didn't, he gave something which to him holds far more value, his time. Pretty much the opposite of the bible story I also posted.
So...............what's the problem?
I have not said one is better than the other, In fact I've made no comment on either.........anywhere, I have given them as some of many possible examples and then asked the question 'what do you all think?'
I fail to see any error.
Thats you using a Tv refernces to cover factual errors, again.
Ok, I have establish there are no factual errors, so the remaining issue is that I watch some TV?
I do. There are various TV programs I like.
But I have not seen you take up the offer that when I get home tonight, we will both take photographs of our book collection and swap them, this would answer once and for all the debate you're having with yourself as to whether I 'am well enough read' but you seem reluctant.
Your posts content show that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5035818/Bees-and-ants-are-model-citizens.html
study has found that some bees and ants do operate in the best interests of the group to which they belong – creating a "superorganism" – and can even sacrifice their lives for the greater good of their community.
But scientists at the Universities of Edinburgh and Oxford found the same could not be said for other animal groupings, such as herds of bison or shoals of fish.
In those instances, where individual animals appear to be acting like team players, they are actually putting their own interests first, researchers found.
I would even argue the idea that ants are not putting themselves first. It may not be in the classic sense, but being a hive and not a group of individuals, they have no identity of self, and therefore when they make the sacrifice for 'the community' they are in fact making it for themselves, albeit indirectly, because they ARE the community.
That said, none of this is at all relevent to what I wrote as the OP.
Please let me know when you're bored of this.
Where to start.
Well, firstly, I've never professed to know all there is about insects, in fact, I didn't even bring them into the thread.
Secondly, nowhere have I contradicted what you've written above. I have merely offered the opinion that sacrificing yourself for the community is not something I consider that makes an ant better than an elephant.
Nor have I commented anywhere on the altruism of the act.
Frankly, the old 'is there such a thing as true altruism' is first year psychology and those discussions were ones I had back in my foundation and first years of university. Nothing scintilating or new there. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 4:47:14 AM |
At no point was any reference made to people who we love!
And why would I reference the fact that there are people I love in a discussion based on 'my worth' to other people and my importance? I could love everyone, that doesn't make me important to them. If they love me however, it does.
No, but I consider stating that fact to be an example of 'excessive pride'.
I don't. It would be pretty damn sad if anyone couldn't come up with at least SOME people who loved them.
Is there any chance you could explain that comment without making derogatory comments about me?
It depends. I could explain it using what I have observed at you, but I can't comment on whether you would find it to be derogatory or just plain honest. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 5:08:48 AM |
And why would I reference the fact that there are people I love in a discussion based on 'my worth' to other people and my importance?
I have no idea!
I don't write other people's posts for them, and I'm not responsible for what they write.
The forum would make a very dull read for me if I wrote everyone's posts, but at least no-one would need the 'report thread'!
I don't.
Like I said.........it's a matter of opinion which I don't wish to discuss, because it cannot ever be resolved.
It would be pretty damn sad if anyone couldn't come up with at least SOME people who loved them.
Quite, but there are some people who can accurately claim not to be able to do that.
I could explain it using what I have observed at you, but I can't comment on whether you would find it to be derogatory or just plain honest.
Trust me - the final decision might not rest with me!
So, can you explain your earlier comment?
 | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 5:36:26 AM |
Trust me - the final decision might not rest with me!
So, can you explain your earlier comment?
Oh I feel quite sure you'd gleefully have some input.
And yes, I have already stated that I can explain my earlier comment. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 5:47:33 AM |
And yes, I have already stated that I can explain my earlier comment.
Very funny!
No, really, it made me laugh........I'm always tempted to answer "yes" whenever I'm asked if I know the way to somewhere.
But seriously, am I correct in assuming that you are unable to explain your comment to the person about whom it was made for the reasons I implied in MSG 81? | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:09:54 AM |
But seriously, am I correct in assuming that you are unable to explain your comment to the person about whom it was made for the reasons I implied in MSG 81
I really have no idea!!!
Of course, I have opinions about people based on what they type.
That said, I also ffully realise that type can be misleading in the extreme, and no one suffers the effects of this more than me, since I often come across as uncaring.
Then throw into the mix what my observations about your motivations mean to YOU.
People often accuse me of being arrogant.
Some people would see this as a personal attack, I see it as a fairly accurate description and I don't find it offensive.
So really, the only way to find out would be for me to state what I think of you based on your posting habits, and that is surely against the rules? or is it not? | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:32:09 AM | | Could I have the last word on this thread please? | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:36:19 AM |
Could I have the last word on this thread please?
No
Can people please use copy and paste a bit more please............lol | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:37:35 AM |
Could I have the last word on this thread please?
No 
You should know by now the bloke with the smallest knob will have to have the last word. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:43:58 AM |
ou should know by now the bloke with the smallest knob will have to have the last word.
Oops, there's my cover blown then! | |
|
*kath*
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 91 | |
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:44:48 AM | | Ive got a tenner on the one with the hard hat. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:51:29 AM | ^^^^^^You owe me a tenner...and no i won't take a cheque.
<div class="quote">Ive got a tenner on the one with the hard hat.
You're on, he'll never beat the wiki cut & paste warlord...never! | |
|
Pud78
|
Joined: 4/23/2009
Msg: 93 | |
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:52:09 AM |
Ive got a tenner on the one with the hard hat.
What on having the smallest knob or the last word? only asking as I may want to take that bet! | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:55:05 AM |
Is the idea that we are all equall a myth that those lower down the pecking order choose to beleive to assuage their own feelings of inadequacy?
According to many psychologists it's the people with the most insecurities who will overcompensate in an attempt to prove that they aren't actually inadequate.
They can prattle on endlessly without actually saying anything in an attempt to bolster their own image in the eyes of others.
It doesn't work as people like that generally just get on others t1ts though unfortunately. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:56:31 AM |
You're on, he'll never beat the wiki cut & paste warlord...never!
I'll you that tenner too!!
Ok who here is good at bets?? 2-1 on the hard hat! | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 7:02:54 AM | Mine is soooooooooooo bigger than yours..........
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 7:15:54 AM | I'm saying nothing
VVVV Did you ask him nicely? (an edit still counts doesn't it?) | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 7:17:09 AM | Calm down, everyone........there's nothing to see here!
I was just demonstrating that posters who make personal comments don't always have the balls to explain the content or reasoning behind such comments.
The OP made a comment in MSG 78 that we wasn't able to explain, despite my requests, viz:
Does this mean that no one loves you at all, and therefore you consider anyone saying that someone DOES love them is somewhat excessive? It would explain an AWFUL lot.
So, sort the tenners out between you, and let's carry on with this interesting topic.
 | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 7:20:37 AM | Lets not. Ok, now I've got the smallest peepee  | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 7:22:03 AM |
Lets not. Ok, now I've got the smallest peepee
Actually i think you'll find i've got the smallest knob. | |
|
Home
login 
