23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFIts just that you seemed rather excitable at the prospect of finding some purely semantic pretext to gripe about and when presented with what was obvious had to 'suck it up'.
Keep a grip on my knickers? My word, you really are running out of ideas.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat nonsense. A high proportion of your opinions manifest themselves in streams of abuse and highly personalized insults that bear no relationship to anything except your desire to dish out streams of abuse and highly personalized insults. You are grasping.
No I don't thin it does because I try where possible to have corroborating evidence for my opinions whereas as you seem content to express purely subjective values.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFanother figure of speech??? umm no i don't think it is merely a figure of speech in this instance, clearly you are insinuating some covert action otherwise you would not have employed that particular term. So no, its very specific and cannot be regarded as a mere figure of speech although you probably wish it was.
"Thinly disguised" is a figure of speech. It is not synonymous with "dishonesty". It's more like "disingenuousness". If I'd wanted to accuse him of "dishonesty" in the post you were replying to, I would have.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy post at the top of page 77 is measured and crystal clear and not excitable at all.
Its just that you seemed rather excitable at the prospect of finding some purely semantic pretext to gripe about and when presented with what was obvious had to 'suck it up'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wasn't "insinuating" anything. What I said means that I see talk of a "truce" as an attempt to sweep scrutiny of his behaviour under the carpet when he has been ignoring the criticism for weeks and responding instead with passive aggressive swipes.
another figure of speech??? umm no i don't think it is merely a figure of speech in this instance, clearly you are insinuating some covert action otherwise you would not have employed that particular term. So no, its very specific and cannot be regarded as a mere figure of speech although you probably wish it was.
Originally posted by FMFumm actually i think i have evidence for what you term, streams of insults. For example I have termed you sinister, this is based on the nature of your unfounded and refuted accusations. I have termed you contentious, this is based on your continual pattern of berating others. I have termed you dour because you appear to frown upon attempts at being lighthearted etc etc So you see its not nonsense but has as its basis corroboration from evidence. This is in stark contrast to your assertions which as we have now discovered have no reality beyond what you yourself imbue them with. Interesting.
What nonsense. A high proportion of your opinions manifest themselves in streams of abuse and highly personalized insults that bear no relationship to anything except your desire to dish out streams of abuse and highly personalized insults. You are grasping.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFdoes this subjective cynicism have any value beyond what you yourself are willing to give it? evidently not.
I wasn't "insinuating" anything. What I said means that I see talk of a "truce" as an attempt to sweep scrutiny of his behaviour under the carpet when he has been ignoring the criticism for weeks and responding instead with passive aggressive swipes.
As for Grampy Bobby's whole long standing self-annointed campaign to supposedly promote "etiquette" and "civility" and to rail against "trolls" and "trolling" and to supposedly discuss "insights" into the long often viciously condemnatory copy pastes ]that he sometimes doesn't appear to have understood himself or has failed to recognize how they might apply to him], and the entire atmosphere of rank hypocrisy in which he conducts all this, I have no problem with saying I find it all profoundly dishonest and rather obnoxious. And you can quote me on that.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA message board is for airing opinions, yours included. Do you think that your own opinions have any value beyond what you yourself are willing to give them?
does this subjective cynicism have any value beyond what you yourself are willing to give it? evidently not.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou calling me "sinister" and "creepy" are, nevertheless, descriptions of your emotional responses to being confronted by me and are therefore entirely subjective. You have also referred to me as "filth" and "evil". These terms of abuse are all subjective.
umm actually i think i have evidence for what you term, streams of insults. For example I have termed you sinister, this is based on the nature of your unfounded and refuted accusations.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't find the word "contentious" abusive. I am not at all worried about being seen as someone who disputes things or disagrees with people, even if it is sometimes controversial. If you'd understood my post at the top of page 77 you'd know this.
I have termed you contentious, this is based on your continual pattern of berating others.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf this is a reference to the fact that I don't find you funny and that I instead find you puerile and mean spirited, then yes, sure, I have been pretty forthright about these opinions. You calling me "dour" as your retort is neither here nor there.
I have termed you dour because you appear to frown upon attempts at being lighthearted etc etc .
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120159
Originally posted by SuzianneYou obviously didn't see it, but of course that is irrelevant what you can excuse his behaviour because "it is part of his religious beliefs"
Okay, go ahead, tell me which exact "Term of Service" he violated.
I'm guessing it was removed because the mod wanted to stop your whinging at him. How many alerts did it take? Did you spam him over it the way you spammed the forums about it?
"Deeply offensive". Yeah.