Do you belive in god?

[headheldhigh01]

are you sure hypo isn't just short for hypersensitive and incapable of taking a joke (that's among other things what emoticons are for, in case you hadn't yet figured this out)?  

i doubt you understand the complexities when even the simplicities give you such difficulty.  

and the beauty of the net is, get as pouty as you want, my observations stay around as long as i deem fit, not you.  

get over it, bud  

[fizzy]

Prologue

The Self is the sun shining in the sky,
The wind blowing in space; he is the fire
At the altar and in the home the guest;
He dwells in human beings, in gods, in truth,
And in the vast firmament; he is the fish
Born in water, the plant growing in earth,
The river flowing down the mountain.
For this Self is supreme!

[hypo]

Head when I made humourous comments in this very thread, you continuanly failed to get it and then came out with a non joke retorte, to which I correctly responded with annoyance.  You then claim I am hypersensative.....pot kettle black

Just to remind you of the events my friend

My quote

Explain dinosaurs then?

Why are they not covered in any way by the bible?

Adam and Eve at the start and the history that follows but at no point dinosaurs?

Bill Hicks and Eddie Izzard both asked the question, so what about it them?

MMmmnn
unquote

Your response head was  quote

i'm not sure the sarcasm was called for
unquote

So you are the one with a sense of humour failure.  I threw your comment back at you, with another joke that related to our previous debates in another thread quote

Freedom of speach  

You may not agree with it, but "you defend to the death my right to say it"  
unquote

Having not understood that I was joking a second time and being hypersensetive you then came back with a non joke retorte quote

yes in fact i do believe you have a right to your opinions.  ironically, you yourself, by your prior rationales, do not    
unquote

To which I understandably got a little peturbed, because you just weren't getting it and were making inappropriate remarks and said quote

I do believe in freedom of speach head- cut the bull!!

It just I understand the complexities involved and you do not.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom, a society always has to balance one mans freedoms against that of another mans freedoms, hence my position in our other discussion.
 
Take your simpleton remarks elsewhere.

For which you come back with quote

are you sure hypo isn't just short for hypersensitive and incapable of taking a joke (that's among other things what emoticons are for, in case you hadn't yet figured this out)?  

i doubt you understand the complexities when even the simplicities give you such difficulty.  

and the beauty of the net is, get as pouty as you want, my observations stay around as long as i deem fit, not you.  

get over it, bud  
unquote

There you go does that make you look stupid enough
You accuse me of being hypersensitive yet it is clearly you on two consecutive occasions that is hypersensative not me  The only point at which I got annoyed was when you were being serious and fatuous in your inappropriate remarks.

The truth can be seen by all and yes it remains forever...well done you have just made a fool of yourself

You can say what you like on this from here on in, I cannot be bothered with you and this thread is like the dinosaur.....dead.  

[headheldhigh01]

hypo, if you had been literate enough to read my post # 73 on this thread, you would have observed me explain to you that my sarcasm suggestion was directed to doug_denver, not to you.  

therefore, every single breath of your c*cky ranting and raving, every single implication of stupidity on my part, simply rebounds back on you.  

(you also neither proved your missed-humor claim regarding me nor disproved mine regarding you, though that's a rather smaller faux pas by comparison.  wasn't your sensitivity what led you to dramatically stomp off and vow never to return, er, twice?  just learn to take a joke, it's much much easier.)  

i expect this must be extremely humiliating for you.  i'll try not to post the laughter icon, as i can still hope it finally sinks in and proves salutary for you nevertheless.  

i also see that in spite of my detailed instructions, -- twice, -- you seem to not yet have mastered the art of the

block quote

good thing gruff's not hanging around these days to enjoy this  when you grow up, i expect you'll continue to have very positive things to contribute to this board.  

[test]

NO!

[Doug_Denver]

Geez I need to hurry up and get my posts up so I can be really condescending to people! Imagine if i had a thousand or more then I'd be a total a**hole! That means you HHH

[UKgyne]

Geez I need to hurry up and get my posts up so I can be really condescending to people! Imagine if i had a thousand or more then I'd be a total a**hole! That means you HHH

Not that I agree with you anyway, but what's post count got to do with it?  Why refer to it?

Mike

[headheldhigh01]

doug, since your recollection appears to be a little fuzzy, here's the basic sequence of events again.  

1.  you made some comment or another.  
2.  i politely suggested (#67) i didn't think the sarcasm was effective and went on to offer my thoughts on the subject. i didn't even mention you by name.  
3.  hypo then assumed (#69) my suggestion must have had something to do with his post instead of yours, which if you read the actual thread, it pretty clearly did not.
4.  i pointed out to hypo (#73) my comment had to do with your message instead of his.  
5.  hypo then ignored what i said and started making c*cky digs  (#74).  
6.  i pointed out to hypo that among other things he might find it useful to read what he was theoretically replying to first.  he replied with more t*t-for-tat trash talk.  
7.  i tried to point out to him again my comment was in reference to not his post but the one you'd put up.  
8.  you then assumed i must have been making some crack at you.  the reason your name was in red, however, was simply because hypo in my experience (sorry hypo, but this was not the first time) has a way of just speedily glancing over other people's remarks without actually letting them sink in.  thus he not only made the mistake, he kept missing the fact (twice) i had gone and pointed it out to him.   the red was therefore a signal flare to try to get him to pay attention instead of just doling out clever repartees, as nothing else was working.   (at least i tried that first instead of boosting the size and making it blink, right?)  

so i'd suggest the same to you as to hypo:  you'd find it useful to go back and read first before sounding off at people who are in fact not "attacking" you.  

and yes, i have never pretended message count meant anything special, because it's meaningless.  if i'd discovered this board last week instead of last fall, my count would be low instead of high:  time is arbitrary.  i also try to avoid arrogance, it's kind of a disease on on the soul.  in fact i've even been trying to post less recently so as not to push the count higher.  dunno if gyne has anything to do with it, but i dislike being the center of any kind of attention generally.  

maybe we can file this one under "careless mistakes".  regards anyway.  

h³

[hypo]

1
In not making reference to who you were speaking to, it was your initial error, if inded it was an error and you are responsible for any initial confusion.

2
Irrespective of the first jibe at sarcasm "not being called for", it is NOT your place to say whether it is or is not called for anyway

3
irrespective of who the initial quote was was aimed at, I made a second joke, to which you absolutely did reply to me and you replied in a hypersensative manner and got serious.  Which was the reason I was rightly annoyed, hence my follow-up posts.  I made my comment because of your second remark, not your first one.  

i'll quote myself for you

quote
Head when I made humourous comments in this very thread, you continuanly failed to get it and then came out with a non joke retorte, to which I correctly responded with annoyance.  You then claim I am hypersensative.....pot kettle black  
unquote

4
Because we do not have that information we, will never know who your sarcasm comment was actually aimed at, so your asking us to take you at your word.

Interestingly though your post was the one after mine- 9 hours later.  So you could not have missed my post/be writing your post whilst mine was been posted.  You could clearly see what was stated, before you posted.

Which is why I believe, when that you didn't make a reference to any name, you were replying to me as opposed to doug and that is what i still believe.

6  
I think dougs comment on the number of postings is relevant.  I have 500 posts or therabouts, going at the rate I post at and i post a lot, i'd have 1000 posts about the year mark, you have 1800 odd in 9 months.  

It shows that you reply to just about anything and everything, which in my opinion tells its own story

[Doug_Denver]

One thousand and ONE!

[headheldhigh01]

1  In not making reference to who you were speaking to, it was your initial error, if inded it was an error and you are responsible for any initial confusion.

i believe i suggested it was reasonably clear in the context, as you were not employing sarcasm at the time, though you are certainly as capable of it as the next guy.  

2  Irrespective of the first jibe at sarcasm "not being called for", it is NOT your place to say whether it is or is not called for anyway Wink  

tautology.  by your logic, it is not YOUR place to say whether or not my call is called for or not.  weren't you just saying something a minute ago about pots and kettles?  this is the internet.  if you can't handle other people offering their opinions unsolicited, you are most definitely in for a world of hurt.  

3  irrespective of who the initial quote was was aimed at, I made a second joke, to which you absolutely did reply to me and you replied in a hypersensative manner and got serious.  Which was the reason I was rightly annoyed, hence my follow-up posts.  I made my comment because of your second remark, not your first one.  
...
Which is why I believe, when that you didn't make a reference to any name, you were replying to me as opposed to doug and that is what i still believe.

the fact something exists is no proof it was read.  my integrity is much sounder than you imply.  whether you choose to believe me is your problem -- though it's a rather odd remark from the guy i defended when gruff suggested you were lying and double handling, and the guy who to this day can't acknowledge that believing scientists may be mistaken does not equate to calling them evil insidious liars.  mmkay.  

It shows that you reply to just about anything and everything, which in my opinion tells its own story Wink  

naw, i generally just try to be constructive where i can; exchangeswith you are, i hope you're not disappointed, a pretty small fraction of my posts here.  but in my opinion (including your famous "that's it, i'm leaving forever" stomp-offs - wink back), you are rather more famous here for hypersensitivity.  clearly we must disagree again.  i’ve lived with that before and am sure i can again.

[hypo]

I actually do not think you are so bad at all and I actually mean that.  Perhaps it was unfair of me to question who the comment was aimed at- even if were at loggerheads.

Lets draw a line under this.

[hypo]

quote
Irrespective of the first jibe at sarcasm "not being called for", it is NOT your place to say whether it is or is not called for anyway Wink    

tautology.  by your logic, it is not YOUR place to say whether or not my call is called for or not.  weren't you just saying something a minute ago about pots and kettles?  this is the internet.  if you can't handle other people offering their opinions unsolicited, you are most definitely in for a world of hurt.    
unquote

This is semantics and a lot of crap.

But other things you say are NOT (shock horror, that I should think this:)

I should not question your integrity.  I have no reason to do so from my knowledge of you and our previous encounters.

quote
i defended when gruff suggested you were lying and double handling
unquote

You did indeed add your point does have relevance. Also the number of posts comment is on consideration unfair to you.

quote
I generally just try to be constructive where i can
unquote

I agree you do.

Like I say a line in the sand...yes?




Compromise is an interesting word.  

Depending upon the context, it can be positive and anti-dogmatic or it can be negative, as in capitulation.

e.g.  

A compromise was reached in peace negotiation in Northern Ireland.

I compromised my principles.

Have I, in not trying to logically argue "against" and be diametrically opposed to what you say, “compromised” and weakened my position, or have I been forward thinking???

Will you pounce on ground given and perceive my comments, my “compromise” as a weakness, or will you see the offering of a hand and see my “compromise”, as a genuinely anti dogmatic positive not to be pounced upon?

My thoughts…..line in the sand….I actually do respect you and your opinions as much as I may fundamentally disagree with some of them...(If I were the US president, I would have you in my cabinet to annoy and make me question my positons like Powell to Bush than have a yes man who vallidated my positions like a Rice)


We end up disagreeing on issues despite the fact that we are in accordance 90% of the time, because I think you look to what divides my opinions from your own more than you look to where we concur…politics for example

Just verbalising my “real” thoughts, nothing more nothing less.  

Have I lost ground have I gained it



 

[headheldhigh01]

i don't think it's loss of ground, it's perfectly respectable.  any debate should be, to the extent it's understood not to be personal.  i do however think it's fair and relevant to say i believe that a comment like this

quote
Irrespective of the first jibe at sarcasm "not being called for", it is NOT your place to say whether it is or is not called for anyway Wink   [/color]

tautology.  by your logic, it is not YOUR place to say whether or not my call is called for or not.  weren't you just saying something a minute ago about pots and kettles?  this is the internet.  if you can't handle other people offering their opinions unsolicited, you are most definitely in for a world of hurt.    
unquote

This is semantics and a lot of crap. [/color]

is somewhat inconsistent, on both the crap and freedom of speech points, with your post on another thread today saying this:

In starting a thread, it is inherent that people will make posts, some of which you will not necessarily agree with. That is the nature of message boards.  You need to learn that, Just because you start any given discussion, it does not mean you have ownership of it.[/color]

quote
I have a huge headache from seeing all the crap that u typed  
unquote

If you believe in this "theory", then I say to you what I have said to others, answer the questions that my posts raise and provide proof for the said "theory".

If you can do that, then you can refer to my postings as crap, as you succinctly put it.  

Until you do the above, you have no right whatsoever to refer to my posts as "crap".[/color]

Unless of course you are not challenging what I am saying but simply and ignorantly mocking me- ergo what I am saying.  

So which one is is then?

quote
For future reference try to put your large paragraphs into smaller ones
unquote

Freedom of speach dictates that I may write whatever I wish to say anyway I please.  So I trust you will understand when I choose to totally dismiss what you have to say here and not censor myself Grin [/color]

on the other hand, if it's understood there is no adversariality in such an observation, lost ground is not even an issue and ground can be found gained instead.    maybe you'll realize then that it's possible to read a comment like

We end up disagreeing on issues despite the fact that we are in accordance 90% of the time, because I think you look to what divides my opinions from your own more than you look to where we concur…politics for example

in entirely reverse polarity too.  

one more try at constructive suggestion if i may, however (third time's the charm? ).  to block quote, replace your initial word "quote" with the tag <quote>, except use square brackets instead of the angled ones.  replace "unquote" with </quote> (and two returns) after it.  so

<quote>cited text here</quote> + return + return
using "[" and "]" instead of "<" and ">"
gives you

cited text here

 
try it as an experiment, it will help make your posts much, much easier to read in future.  

[hypo]

This thread stopped being about the subject matter and more about semantics (on both sides) some time ago.

I agree that on initial inspection I am contradicting myself regarding semantics.  However, I didn't argue with you on the semantics point, although I easily could because I could not be bothered.

A bit lazy and unusual for me I know.

Irrespective of the merits of that point I am being truthful with you in my twp prior posts, "compromising" and paying you a few sincere compliments into the bargin....man take them for what they are.

In posts where almost everything I have said has been in your favor you commented mostly on the point where our opinions have diverged.  

Some advice that is 100% genuine.  Look at where you agree with people and try and build on that, not just go for what you think is the jugular of where opinions diverge.  I shall endeavor to do the same (yes I too am guilty of doing this on occasion as well).

Keep up the posts in advising people, you do a good job (and it will allow me to be a hypocritical b*stard and criticize you when you reach the 2000 mark