Re: Kate Middleton : Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:36 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Eeeerm, if you care to take a moment, and cast your eyes over the previous 27 pages, you will see that is exactly what you have done!

You my friend, suffer from the literary equivalent of Tourettes, with as severe a case of palilalia as you are likely to encounter. Add in your short term memory loss....

Durham Giant wrote:on page 11 you stated that anyone who said the call was a prank was a MORON.

and yet a quick look back on page 11 reveals....

Ho hum. As 2012 slips out of view, the question on most people's lips is ...... just how far up that big Egyptian river will FA paddle in 2013.

Happy New Year, one and all.

First of all, Happy New Year, Rump.

You, my friend, suffer from a failure to be able to read. I made a generalisation. An insult is something you say to someone to insult them. I did not insult anybody. I did say (as you kindly quoted, if not actually read), that I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call like any other prank call. It is the last bit that you carelessly missed, but it makes all the difference. That is because anyone who says this was a prank call like any other prank call is, indeed, in my opinion of course, a moron.

This would not be an insult, it would be a statement of my opinion of any such person. As in, I think they would be a moron.

So, and to be clear, if YOU claimed this was a prank call like any other prank call, then you would indeed be moron.

Re: Kate Middleton : Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:50 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

An insult is something you say to someone to insult them. I did not insult anybody. I did say (as you kindly quoted, if not actually read), that I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call like any other prank call. It is the last bit that you carelessly missed, but it makes all the difference. That is because anyone who says this was a prank call like any other prank call is, indeed, in my opinion of course, a moron.

This would not be an insult, it would be a statement of my opinion of any such person. As in, I think they would be a moron.

The alleged offender doesn't determine whether what they say is insulting or not, it's down to how it is received. If someone is insulted by what you say then it is an insult. Even if you meant well (backhanded compliment etc) it is still an insult if it is considered to be pejorative by its recipient.

You are within your rights to say you didn't mean to be offend (though I think, in this case, it is obvious that you did), but you can't go about re-branding the definition of insult to 'your opinion'.

Re: Kate Middleton : Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:54 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

The alleged offender doesn't determine whether what they say is insulting or not, it's down to how it is received.
If someone is insulted by what you say then it is an insult. Even if you meant well (backhanded compliment etc) it is still an insult if it is considered to be pejorative by its recipient.

You are within your rights to say you didn't mean to be offend (though I think, in this case, it is obvious that you did), but you can't go about re-branding the definition of insult to 'your opinion'.

So, identify the person whom I "meant to offend".

[Durham Giant]

Re: Kate Middleton : Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:18 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

So, identify the person whom I "meant to offend".

Anyone who said it was a prank call. HTH

Re: Kate Middleton : Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:33 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

I can't actually comprehend that which is there for me to read. That's why I compulsively misquote.

Indeed. Try again.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Kate Middleton : Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:58 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Indeed. Try again.

So you lose the arguement and then you make up quotes.

You have tried to define the definition of insult.
Now you try to define quote.

Funnily enough even then you try to defend yourself by trying to redefine the notion of a prank call.

Whether you found it funny, whether it worked, whether it was executed well is all a matter of opinion but no you have to try to re define it as not being a prank call.

You have the ability to pick arguements with anyone. Then when you are shown up just tell everyone that you are right because they do not understand what you have said. When they show up the fact they understood exactly what you said how you try to re define the English language.

There are some very strange things going on in your head.
Black is white, night is day, FA understands and no one else does.

I suggest your psychiatrist sends you for an MRI scan.

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:04 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

So you lose the arguement ...

Emphatically not. The ball is in your court.

Durham Giant wrote:

and then you make up quotes.

Exactly where did I do that, then? Go on, I dare you! But in fact, misquoting has proved YOUR speciality.

Durham Giant wrote:

Funnily enough even then you try to defend yourself by trying to redefine the notion of a prank call.

Whether you found it funny, whether it worked, whether it was executed well is all a matter of opinion but no you have to try to re define it as not being a prank call.

Except that's all just your usual total bullcrap, because contrary to your inevitable mis-quote, I did not say that it was not a prank call. The words (which were requoted just above, but you are so lazy or stupid that you keep failing to see the printed word) were:

not a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls

In other words, it was a prank call that was not like thousands of other prank calls. If I had stopped writing at the same point you obviously stopped reading, then you would have a point. As the sentence did not stop there, you don't.

Let me give you a hypothetical example: "Durham giant is not an idiot just like thousands of other idiots, he is an absolute, total, class-leading, blithering idiot". There. Using the same technique, you can now put in your sig a "quote" from FA that "Durham Giant is not an idiot". Which would really be an accurate summary of what I said, wouldn't it.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:33 am  

Ferocious Aardvark Exactly where did I do that, then? Go on, I dare you! But in fact, misquoting has proved YOUR speciality. So when you put this in your post in a quote box 2 posts back this is not a made up quote ? Durham Giant wrote:I can't actually comprehend that which is there for me to read. That's why I compulsively misquote. So what you will do now is deny you said it. Then when someone points out that you did make that quote you will say it is not a , "quote" in the way you understand it it was piece of sarcasm or poetic licence. Then when challenged on that you you will claim that it is everybody elses misunderstanding because in your world "quote" does not mean it has to be a quote but if it slightly paraphrases something. Then when that is challenged you will just call the other person an idiot. What you seem to misunderstand is that your techniques for winning an arguement or confusing the issue works quite well in a verbal discussion but not so well when written down. Obfuscation, mis direction, parody, misquoting , confusion can work but when you leave a trail of evidence it does not work so well. Except that's all just your usual total bullcrap, because contrary to your inevitable mis-quote, I did not say that it was not a prank call. The words (which were requoted just above, but you are so lazy or stupid that you keep failing to see the printed word) were: In other words, it was a prank call that was not like thousands of other prank calls. If I had stopped writing at the same point you obviously stopped reading, then you would have a point. As the sentence did not stop there, you don't. What you said was on page 11 I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't. The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. Which clearly shows that you are redefining the definition of a prank call in your head to justify your position. In your world you rule it out as a prank call because The Truth is revealed afterwards The radio station stated very clearly they tried to contact the hospital 6 times to do exactly what you asked. The listeners when it was introduced knew it was a prank call humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Again your interpretation . The humour could also be in the ludicriousness of it all, the funny accents, the cheek of laughing at the establishment. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. Yet you do not know this. It may have been considrered but ignored. But in your world your interpretation is all that matters. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dict ... prank-call http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ank%20call http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prank_call None of these mention your charcteristics as being defining of a prank call. Now if you had said FEROCIOUS AARDAVARK SHOULD HAVE SAID I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't, BASED ON MY DEFINITION OF A PRANK CALL The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. I could have agreed with your post. Still in Aardvark world albeit not in the real world you are always right. I suggest you discuss this with your psychiatrist.

Ferocious Aardvark Exactly where did I do that, then? Go on, I dare you! But in fact, misquoting has proved YOUR speciality. So when you put this in your post in a quote box 2 posts back this is not a made up quote ? Durham Giant wrote:I can't actually comprehend that which is there for me to read. That's why I compulsively misquote. So what you will do now is deny you said it. Then when someone points out that you did make that quote you will say it is not a , "quote" in the way you understand it it was piece of sarcasm or poetic licence. Then when challenged on that you you will claim that it is everybody elses misunderstanding because in your world "quote" does not mean it has to be a quote but if it slightly paraphrases something. Then when that is challenged you will just call the other person an idiot. What you seem to misunderstand is that your techniques for winning an arguement or confusing the issue works quite well in a verbal discussion but not so well when written down. Obfuscation, mis direction, parody, misquoting , confusion can work but when you leave a trail of evidence it does not work so well. Except that's all just your usual total bullcrap, because contrary to your inevitable mis-quote, I did not say that it was not a prank call. The words (which were requoted just above, but you are so lazy or stupid that you keep failing to see the printed word) were: In other words, it was a prank call that was not like thousands of other prank calls. If I had stopped writing at the same point you obviously stopped reading, then you would have a point. As the sentence did not stop there, you don't. What you said was on page 11 I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't. The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. Which clearly shows that you are redefining the definition of a prank call in your head to justify your position. In your world you rule it out as a prank call because The Truth is revealed afterwards The radio station stated very clearly they tried to contact the hospital 6 times to do exactly what you asked. The listeners when it was introduced knew it was a prank call humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Again your interpretation . The humour could also be in the ludicriousness of it all, the funny accents, the cheek of laughing at the establishment. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. Yet you do not know this. It may have been considrered but ignored. But in your world your interpretation is all that matters. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dict ... prank-call http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ank%20call http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prank_call None of these mention your charcteristics as being defining of a prank call. Now if you had said FEROCIOUS AARDAVARK SHOULD HAVE SAID I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't, BASED ON MY DEFINITION OF A PRANK CALL The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. I could have agreed with your post. Still in Aardvark world albeit not in the real world you are always right. I suggest you discuss this with your psychiatrist.

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:23 am  

Some people were on the pitch just then, they thought it was all over...

Re: Kate Middleton : Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:29 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Some people were on the pitch just then, they thought it was all over...

We just require BG or Wanderer to say..............it is now.