So anyway, it was like, 07:18 CET Dec 06 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Homer was all like, "Dude,
> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>> So anyway, it was like, 04:46 CET Dec 05 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
[..]
> After all it's perfectly correct to refer to someone who violates a
> code of practise as a "violator", and to the people who suffer the
> consequences of that violation as "victims".
I read to about here, and I was still meaning to try to write a
sensible reply to some of your points, but then you started getting
really nasty.
> Or maybe, as you've alluded to repeatedly in your diatribe, people
> need to toughen up; stop whining; take it on the chin like a man, ad
> nauseam.
Like this unfounded insinuation here regarding how I feel about crime:
> After all, crime is perfectly acceptable, and should be tolerated.
> Right?
And this totally uncalled for comment, based on your misconceptions on
what I write because you don't enjoy being disagreed with:
> I find your attitude sickening.
This little gem from way up was also rather unfriendly:
> You seem to be advocating anarchy and barbarism.
I don't know what I wrote that makes you so hostile. Honestly, I
really tried to be civil to you and I don't know exactly where I
offended you so deeply.
>> Oh, hey, deadly accidents and predators. Close enough.
>
> I think you've already proved you don't give a damn about people's
> rights; compounding your indefensible position with yet more sarcasm
> isn't helpful.
I realise you don't appreciate my sarcastic streak (not all do, and
that's fine), but I was really having a hard time replying with any
sort of serious comment to your sudden mentioning of fatal traffic
accidents. After all, we were discussing marketing schemes, not lethal
weapons.
[..]
>> rather than, subtly or not, make it all into some sinister plan to
>> wipe out the human race anytime soon
>
> Your hyperbole might be funny if it actually made any sense.
I was sort of trying to point out the travesty of your comparisons,
apparently you took it to mean /I/ was comparing dishonest marketing
to life-threatening situations.
If I may once again point out, I was you who brought fatal accidents
and words like thugs (in the context of victimising the elderly, not
forgetting!) into the discussion, apparently not realising it is abit
over the top in the context at hand.
> In what way does dishonest marketing threaten life?
It does not, it was you who brought it up. For no apparent reason, I
might add.
> Or perhaps you mean to suggest that such things are unimportant
> /unless/ they are life-threatening.
I didn't mean to suggest any such thing, I was only trying to alert
you to the ridiculousness of the comparsion /you/ made, but apparently
you misunderstood me. Probably that sarcasm thing again, sorry about
that.
>> I don't think I'm all that interested in discussing truth in
>> advertising with you.
>
> You certainly don't seem to be interested in discussing the truth
> behind your motives for defending these marketing scum, [..]
This is really the point where I gave up hope that you would ever
stop being abusive towards me. Since I'm really getting tired of your
trying to make me out as some bad guy, I'm done with this discussion.
Thanks for your time.
ps. As I was deleting the rest of the article, I noticed this too.
You're really stuck on seeing me as a bad person just because I
don't agree with you on the interpretation of a phrase as "someone
recommends something", aren't you?
>>> They /do/ if you actually bother to make a complaint.
>>
>> Let me know how that goes then. No, really, I'm actually curious.
>
> More likely you're eager to see such a complaint fail, so you can
> gloat over it, thus satisfying yourself that the world is once again
> safe for predators to exploit the weak with complete impunity.
[..]
To me, the phrase in question is just another marketing ploy which I
don't believe people in general take as honest truth. To you, it's
apparent gospel to most people and intentionally misleading (and, may
I add, quite evil if not malicious).
That /really/ is how I would sum it up, and in many ways it's really
amusing that it sparked such a discussion when I just replied to a
post containing (alleged) evidence of someone being paid to advertise,
pointing out that is was hardly a revelation that this was going on.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
10:31:27 up 45 days, 23:19, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.10, 0.09
Linux 2.6.27.2 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
|
|
