Random thoughts/comments

(Apr 10, 2021 06:04 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Apr 10, 2021 05:15 AM)Leigha Wrote: We're all works in progress. Besides, I like learning new things. I'm not a legal expert lol, did I give you the impression that I was? I'm not ashamed of what I don't know in life. You shouldn't be, either.

I'm not. And you shouldn't feel intimidated or lash out at people who just happen to know more than you. Treat them with respect, understanding that their opinions may be better informed than yours, and see what kind of response that gets you.

Or just keep assuming everyone's opinions are equally valid, regardless of who's taken the time and effort to better understand a subject. But you already know where that road leads.

I didn't show you disrespect, but this all started a few pages back with your response to my first post about the Chauvin trial:

''It's cute when people make emotional judgements out of complete ignorance of the law.''

You went from there to name calling me, and ultimately telling me to ''fuck off'' with more name calling. That's on you. Every discussion isn't a contest, I wish you wouldn't treat it that way.

(Apr 10, 2021 06:22 AM)Leigha Wrote: I didn't show you disrespect, but this all started a few pages back with your response to my first post about the Chauvin trial:

''It's cute when people make emotional judgements out of complete ignorance of the law.''

You went from there to name calling me, and ultimately telling me to ''fuck off'' with more name calling. That's on you. Every discussion isn't a contest, I wish you wouldn't treat it that way.

There's nothing disrespectful about that, unless you're insecure about your ignorance of the law (which I believe you've admitted yourself) and somehow feel that observation of fact is some kind of personal attack. "Cute" is endearing, not insulting. And plenty of very smart people are ignorant of the law. You could probably count people like Elon Musk or Stephen Hawking among them. Were you offended by "emotional judgements"? How else do you arrive at your opinions when you don't have enough information? Women generally rely on their intuition (emotional intelligence) in those cases. You admitted to opining on the case after only "Following off and on the Chauvin trial". Then you're the one who escalated our interaction by saying "you prefer Ben Shapiro to guide your opinion" and "You need to pretend like you are the smartest person in the room". If you don't think telling someone their opinions are not their own or that they are pretending anything is insulting, you need to take a long look in a mirror.

Or just keep playing the victim. Up to you.

I stated that you think you’re the smartest person in the room after a few pages of you berating me. And poking at me being a woman and MR being gay, there’s no need to be that guy.

I’m not offended as much as it would be nice to just discuss the topic at hand, but it often derails with your analysis of the person. It’s not just me that you do this with so ...

Anyway, like I said this isn’t a contest and I have gleaned some positives from the info you posted. So, thank you! But there may be times when we can agree to disagree.

(Apr 10, 2021 07:02 AM)Leigha Wrote: I stated that you think you’re the smartest person in the room after a few pages of you berating me. And poking at me being a woman and MR being gay, there’s no need to be that guy.

I’m not offended as much as it would be nice to just discuss the topic at hand, but it often derails with your analysis of the person. It’s not just me that you do this with so ...

Um, you do know that you being a woman and MR being gay are just facts, right? o_O

And I only said anything about you being a women AFTER you said I got my opinions from Shapiro and was pretending: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-7059-p...l#pid43092
You get that, right? You started it. You insulted me BEFORE I said any of that.

Quit being such a hypocrite, whining about insults that were just responding in kind to your own. You derailed the conversation.

But you're right. It's not just you. MR and SS like to level insults first and then whine that I respond in kind. Just look at how MR entered this thread...only to attack me. And that's who you have sticking up for you. People who are just as blind or uncaring to their own insults of others. That's why I have no problem giving it back. Because I always get it first.

And you have the gall to call yourself a Christian.

I’m a believer but does that mean I should allow you to misquote me, insult me and lie about my opinions? You have been doing this for years to many - both on here and sci forums. And now, you’re masquerading on sci forums under the username “Vociferous,” with the same antics. You are a smart guy, but you choose to create discord, constantly one up, and smear members in various topics, for reasons only you know. You could choose to have rational, reasonable discourse but you don’t. You started claiming I’m emotional as soon as I posted something about Chauvin in this thread and nothing I’ve posted could have given that impression. Because you believe Chauvin is innocent, doesn’t mean everyone agrees. You insulted my gender and on and on it goes. You make up a story about MR’s mom and then expect him to respond? It’s just bizarre. I’m not the only one who knows that’s you over on sci forums, btw.

The only thing I wonder is why you’re tolerated here. I’ve invited a few people from sci forums to join here and they encounter you and never return. Some just won’t join knowing you’re here. Anyway, I’m done dealing with you here and on sci forums under your alias. See ya.

(Apr 10, 2021 03:23 PM)Leigha Wrote: The only thing I wonder is why you’re tolerated here. 

It’s just a little pissing contest. We’re just trying to toss a few Cheerios in the toilet to improve his aim, that's all. 

(Apr 10, 2021 03:56 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Apr 10, 2021 03:23 PM)Leigha Wrote: The only thing I wonder is why you’re tolerated here. 

It’s just a little pissing contest. We’re just trying to toss a few Cheerios in the toilet to improve his aim, that's all. 

Lol


In other news, it’s a beautiful day outside but a rainstorm is coming in later this afternoon. Supposed to last through the night. It’s that time of year, I reckon...

(Apr 10, 2021 04:59 PM)Leigha Wrote: In other news, it’s a beautiful day outside but a rainstorm is coming in later this afternoon. Supposed to last through the night. It’s that time of year, I reckon...

Yeah, it’s been beautiful here, too. I’ve been landscaping. I’m creating a secret garden. So far, so good. I built a rustic split rail arbor for the entrance. It looks pretty cool.

(Apr 10, 2021 05:05 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Apr 10, 2021 04:59 PM)Leigha Wrote: In other news, it’s a beautiful day outside but a rainstorm is coming in later this afternoon. Supposed to last through the night. It’s that time of year, I reckon...

Yeah, it’s been beautiful here, too. I’ve been landscaping. I’m creating a secret garden. So far, so good. I built a rustic split rail arbor for the entrance. It looks pretty cool.

Ah, sounds exciting!
I was going to ask...like some secret gardens have rustic style gates and it has an enchanted forest effect.

(Apr 10, 2021 04:59 PM)Leigha Wrote:

(Apr 10, 2021 03:56 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Apr 10, 2021 03:23 PM)Leigha Wrote: The only thing I wonder is why you’re tolerated here. 

It’s just a little pissing contest. We’re just trying to toss a few Cheerios in the toilet to improve his aim, that's all. 

Lol

Now why would you guys make and agree to a humorous yet possible hurtful gender based comment? Going to have to look at the rule book for this one.  Technical foul? The game continues, no holds barred? The correct play was to just say you're done and stand by it. 

As referee I look the other way, sometimes the best call is no call. Trouble is the opponent may now feel free (freer) to do the same. No need for a rule IMO, its just gamesmanship.