[ethigSmimbine]

I was explaining myself, I think, in a civil way to someone who was making accusations. I will continue do that when I see fit.

No, I answered the question you were so patiently "waiting" for, and you retreated into your standard pattern of clarification.

The only thing missing was the condescending [sigh].

If you were referencing the "thoughts" expressed in post #3, I'm sure that those thoughts were based on the "thoughts"' in #1 and #2.

I could also say that of my post #8: "I make no further statement... no editorializing.... take it for what you will... go off on a million tangents if you like." Blah, blah. Gets us nowhere.

[adultcheee]

^ I cannot make heads or tails of this. Zip... You are trying to make this into something it is not. I just don't know what more to tell you. I think I have explained enough and clearly. Reread the thread is all I can say. I am mystified.

In the meantime if any other posters here can shed light on this please do... because frankly I have no idea of what's going on here.

[AliceFromHouston]

No... you cut it out. I was explaining myself, I think, in a civil way to someone who was making accusations. I will continue do that when I see fit.

Again, cut it out.

"No you" is very juvenile for someone who prides himself on being mature/cultured.


"I will... ...do as I see fit" is equally juvenile.

Are you so insecure that you have to condescendingly defend everything? Seriously, let it go.

[robstamps]

I can see no issue with Fab's points. I dont understand why it has been turned into this big 'thing'. There is no need to call Fab juvenile or insecure when the topic at hand should be being discussed.

[Gakeincidoniac]

@Fabrizio:

I've reread the thread several times. What is it I don't understand?

In my view, you went off-base in post #10. I've seen it before, and responded to it. That's what I'm making of it, nothing more. I'm not even telling you not to do it, but when you do - give me a condescending line-by-line reconstruction - I'm going to call you out on it.

You don't see it that way; that's your opinion.

[Fouttysotlalf]

Post 10 is perfectly fine. I clearly explained myself. I think the post is entirely civil. What is condescending about it?

Also: I made no arguments with anyone. I even agreed with 212's sentiments that the German leaders should have responded more strongly.(note I say, "I do not disagree with the "immediately preceding thought".)

I have no idea what on earth you are "calling me out on".

This whole thing is baffling.

If anyone here (and that includes other Moderators) can find anything wrong with the following post please explain because i can't. Here it is (it would help to read it in it's context) but in the meantime, here is post 10:

There is the post.

And then there is "the immediatly preceding thought".

"the immediatly preceding thought" was:

"German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away."

My response to that was:

"Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?"

---------

BTW: I do not disagree with the "immediately preceding thought".

-----

LOL. I am being called juvenile for saying "no you" ...from a guy throwing around the pure Beaver-to-Wally "Cut it out!"

--

[Slonopotam845]

I can see no issue with Fab's points. I dont understand why it has been turned into this big 'thing'. There is no need to call Fab juvenile or insecure when the topic at hand should be being discussed.

Could you tell the boys that?

[Fouttysotlalf]

If I assume correctly who the "boys" are...

Fabrizio and I were engaged in a discussion (or argument if you think) that while one-on-one, was withing the framework of the thread topic.

You assumed that I was "taking it personally," and resorted to name calling, ironically, "taking it personally."

[Andromino]

Post 10 is perfectly fine. I clearly explained myself. I think the post is entirely civil. What is condescending about it?

I didn't say it was uncivil; I said it was condescending, and already explained why. It's your opinion that it wasn't

Also: I made no arguments with anyone. Neither did I in posts #5 and 8. If yours didn't require a response from me, why is the reverse different? You initiated the quote in #10.

If anyone here (and that includes other Moderators) can find anything wrong with the following post please explain because i can't. Depends on what you mean by "wrong." Since you've included moderators, I'm assuming you mean something that's in violation of posting policy. I stated previously: I'm not even telling you not to do it, but when you do - give me a condescending line-by-line reconstruction - I'm going to call you out on it. You should know by now that I try to avoid mixing posting with moderating.

"Calling you out on it" means responding in kind.

[TeftyJokip]

OK: if anyone here (and that includes moderaters) can find anything condescending in post # 10 please point it out because I simply do not see it. Thanks for the help.

In the meantime, although I have been told: "gimme a break"... that apprentley I have an "MO"... that I should "give it a rest", .... that "if challenged I retreat behind"..."that I have a "standard pattern" of clarification ... and who knows what else.... I believe my posts in this thread have been proper and I would not change a word.

--

[ArrereGarhync]

If I assume correctly who the "boys" are...

Fabrizio and I were engaged in a discussion (or argument if you think) that while one-on-one, was withing the framework of the thread topic.

You assumed that I was "taking it personally," and resorted to name calling, ironically, "taking it personally."

You guys are going OT. You are getting caught up in the semantics of your argument rather than the actual story here. You are busy dissecting his original posts trying to prove the validity of your criticism, including references to him following a formula and expecting him to "sigh".

He, OTOH, is pretending ignorance and innocence of anything going on, proclaiming his right to post as he wishes, also ignoring the OT as he defends his own particular style of posting.


You BOTH are very difficult to disagree with on anything, and it has turned a rather small, albeit serious topic, into a debate not on the matter of the stabbing, but more on whether it was post #8 or #10 that got things going.

Whatever. If you are having fun, have it. I think the rest of us are out of here (I can only speak for myself).




PS

>sigh<

[PetrZimin]

Ninja: In the Muslim world religious and government leaders are often the same thing.

But you cannot blame all of Europe for something that Germany did (or didn't) do.

Decrying the entirety of the Muslim leadership was a bit too broad, IMO.

In respnse to this statement -

"German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away."

I simply ask : "Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?" Yes. May I ask, what area was this guy from? You could have been more specific saying "Muslim leaders from XXX". As I said before, blaming all of Europe, say condemning England (by saying "European Leaders") for this stabbing and not speaking out about it would not exactly be fair.

It isn't exactly Apples and Oranges I am talking here, but you sure aren't providing a pair of Fugi's to compare.

As I said: "I'm waiting". If you are waiting for you want in life, it may take much longer than you are willing to wait for it.

[vodaPlaps]

OK, NOW I am out of here!!!!






















Maybe........

[poekfpojoibien]

Oh this is cute:

He, OTOH, is pretending ignorance and innocence of anything going on, proclaiming his right to post as he wishes, also ignoring the OT as he defends his own particular style of posting.

I doubt that anyone could ever accuse you of pretending ignorance.

[Gogogo]

Ninja,

Is OT = On Topic or = Off Topic? The acronyms can be misleading, and for the non-initiated like me, hard to understand.

[Audi_z]

I think OTOH is a penis, 2 balls and step ladder.

[arindiruppyr]

Yes, that ^

Ninja,

Is OT = On Topic or = Off Topic? The acronyms can be misleading, and for the non-initiated like me, hard to understand.

Also: On The Other Hand aka Conversely

[capeAngedlelp]

Guys, I think you forgot the topic a talked about yoursleves .

there have been fathers killing daughters for not weraing headscaves etc.

--

Really, I have never heard about some think like that .

*****************

I simply ask : "Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?" Dutch government treated him well .

*****************

I don't know why some westerns talking like Muslims got the power (not Europe&America) and battling the world and they should get stopped.
Guys, we got no power or anything to do
We are not bad, I swear to god we are not evils as "some of you" think .

[velichay]

^
Don't know about headscarves, but there are cases of "honor killings," where fathers murdered daughters who rejected arranged marriages, or fell in love with the "wrong person."

Here's one in the UK

I remember one in the US a few years ago, in Atlanta I think.

[SinncmxM]

Yes, that ^



Also: On The Other Hand aka Conversely

Imagine how confused I was trying to figure out what BOTH meant, then it hit me.