New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] sigh
in reply to a message by queenv
By "hide inaccountability" I am refering to the art, especially the women on this board use to rationalize their impulsive and unfounded emotions: always inconsistant from person to person, never with a concrete reason--always with an overzealous list of rare unsupportive exceptions to their opposition, and always with a flare for the darkest hateful language imaginable. How can you expect to cultivate an agreeable response from me? I assure you, you never will like that.
This message was edited 4/14/2008, 10:38 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
That phrase does not accurately describe the condition you're referring to.
Look, you. You are obviously a sexist pig. Now you're saying women have impulsive, unfounded, inconsistant emotions not founded in reason. Have I paraphrased you correctly? Amazing. And you, being of the male gender, have no emotions,and are therefore so superior to us, yes? Oh and on the Lounge, you made reference to "menstrual ravings" or something similar. So because we have periods, that disables us mentally, correct? We'd better let the world know that women are so impulsive, inconsistent, and unreasonable, so everyone can know what a mistake they made in giving Indira Ghandi, Elizabeth I, and Margaret Thatcher such power. How did we survive that?
Realize, please, that this is a predominately female board and you are insulting each and everyone of the girls and women who post here.
I'm not backing down from you, but I think it's time to end this disagreement on what is supposed to be a board for opinions on names. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue this discussion. I'm ignoring any more of your posts on this board, and unless you PM me, I will consider myself to have had the last word.
Look, you. You are obviously a sexist pig. Now you're saying women have impulsive, unfounded, inconsistant emotions not founded in reason. Have I paraphrased you correctly? Amazing. And you, being of the male gender, have no emotions,and are therefore so superior to us, yes? Oh and on the Lounge, you made reference to "menstrual ravings" or something similar. So because we have periods, that disables us mentally, correct? We'd better let the world know that women are so impulsive, inconsistent, and unreasonable, so everyone can know what a mistake they made in giving Indira Ghandi, Elizabeth I, and Margaret Thatcher such power. How did we survive that?
Realize, please, that this is a predominately female board and you are insulting each and everyone of the girls and women who post here.
I'm not backing down from you, but I think it's time to end this disagreement on what is supposed to be a board for opinions on names. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue this discussion. I'm ignoring any more of your posts on this board, and unless you PM me, I will consider myself to have had the last word.
1
I hope I do offend you and your like. I am not running for office. I do not need to contour to your emotions or whims, nor will I ever. I don't want to be your friend. I get much more satisfaction out of speaking my mind. This one of the MANY reasons why I'd FAR prefer a MALE partner.
1
"I'd FAR prefer a MALE partner"? Are you saying that you're gay or that you want to be gay? I thought you mentioned having a girlfriend in the past.
BTW, you sound like someone who's just undergone a bad breakup. Did your girlfriend leave you or something?
BTW, you sound like someone who's just undergone a bad breakup. Did your girlfriend leave you or something?
1
I think I only mentioned Lyric, but his real name was Aaron. I referred to him in a subject in which the name Lyric came up.
That breakup was about six years ago. I am currently a few weeks into a new relationship, since you were wondering.
That breakup was about six years ago. I am currently a few weeks into a new relationship, since you were wondering.
This message was edited 4/15/2008, 10:06 PM
1
unneccessary
and rude. Bisexuality exists.
and rude. Bisexuality exists.
1
Contour? I think you mean 'contort', genius.
1
Not at all.
Contour is the exact word I wanted.
Contour is the exact word I wanted.
1
Actually, the phrase is "cater to whims," not contour.
1
Not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with this silly argument, which has already ended anyway, I still must say that -=A=-s use of "contour" was perfectly appropriate in context. There are a number of words that would have fit, but the one he chose is every inch as grammatically acceptable as "contort" or "cater," without being as cliché as they are in that phrase, which, if you're paying attention, speaks volumes.
1
Contour did slightly work in context; however, it altered the acceptable idiomatic expression, which doesn’t do much to bolster his argument. Idioms are not clichés, rather they are colloquial speech that is recognizable to speakers in the culture. Altering an idiom generally reduces the effect of an argument, rather than enhances it. I was merely pointing out the conventional figure of speech.
1
Contour in the context in which -=A=- used it is interchangeable with the word conform; go back and look. While I do not pretend to speak for him (or agree with what he said), I highly doubt he intended to use the "acceptable idiomatic expression," which, to be very precise, would be "cater to your every whim." That phrase is nothing like what he said; catering implies servicing, while conforming (and certainly contouring) implies yielding. I doubt he meant he wouldn't be of service; what sense would that make? I believe he intended to say exactly what he did say, by which he clearly meant he would not yield to others' points of view.
I strongly disagree that "altering an idiom generally reduces the effect of an argument, rather than enhances it." Who says? Quite to the contrary, the use of cliché idioms reduces the effect, or strength, of any argument. Any single argument is more forceful when it does not rely on such pap.
And for the record, I pursue this only because I felt the word contour was being maligned, not -=A=-. The English language is a very subtle thing, capable of limitless variety; I'm quite in love with it, and I felt it was being unjustly restrained. This interest is quite separate from the content of who said what.
I strongly disagree that "altering an idiom generally reduces the effect of an argument, rather than enhances it." Who says? Quite to the contrary, the use of cliché idioms reduces the effect, or strength, of any argument. Any single argument is more forceful when it does not rely on such pap.
And for the record, I pursue this only because I felt the word contour was being maligned, not -=A=-. The English language is a very subtle thing, capable of limitless variety; I'm quite in love with it, and I felt it was being unjustly restrained. This interest is quite separate from the content of who said what.
1
Catering implies servicing, or a subserving one's own opinion to the whims of others. Which means yielding your own personal desires to the desires of others - which also means conform. I'm quite aware that the way he was using contour was synonymous with conform. However, the message he was trying to convey was better served with cater and the recognizable idiom.
If one alters an idiom, it generally makes the speaker look like they don't have a grasp on what they are saying - in speech, altered idoms work far better than in text because there are cues in the tone. Again, idioms are not cliches - just as regional differences in the name of things are not cliches. It's about the figurative meaning that's known because of it's usage - looking at the literal meaning does not always convey the full meaning in idiomatic expression. Something like "spend time" or "act of God," can't be altered without changing the meaning attempting to be expressed. This isn't a restraint on language, it's simply the way idomatic expressions work.
I believe that the English language can be subtle, and it does have the potential for variety. However, I don't think we're going to agree on this, as I can see you disagreeing with my points on the ability for others to understand altered idiom. I'd hate to drag the name ops board off topic with a long debate on the usage of expression and word choice in language. Agree to disagree?
If one alters an idiom, it generally makes the speaker look like they don't have a grasp on what they are saying - in speech, altered idoms work far better than in text because there are cues in the tone. Again, idioms are not cliches - just as regional differences in the name of things are not cliches. It's about the figurative meaning that's known because of it's usage - looking at the literal meaning does not always convey the full meaning in idiomatic expression. Something like "spend time" or "act of God," can't be altered without changing the meaning attempting to be expressed. This isn't a restraint on language, it's simply the way idomatic expressions work.
I believe that the English language can be subtle, and it does have the potential for variety. However, I don't think we're going to agree on this, as I can see you disagreeing with my points on the ability for others to understand altered idiom. I'd hate to drag the name ops board off topic with a long debate on the usage of expression and word choice in language. Agree to disagree?
1
agree :-)
1
Yah, I know . . .
After reading that I did go and look up contour and saw that it can be used as a verb. However by that time it was too late so I just left it as it was and walked away from the thread altogether.
After reading that I did go and look up contour and saw that it can be used as a verb. However by that time it was too late so I just left it as it was and walked away from the thread altogether.
1
Oh my god. You really are a caveman.
1