Why get so upset over someone's use of grammar?
Everyone has individual tastes and ways of doing things, so if you get upset at every one of them, you do yourself no good.
You will eventually get an ulcer.
Ukraine Crisis
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Everyone has individual tastes and ways of doing things, so if you get upset at every one of them, you do yourself no good.
You will eventually get an ulcer.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Um, what are you even talking about? Are you trying to tell me that someone is upset about something? Who? About what?
Oh? I suppose next you're going to tell me that not everyone even likes the same flavor of ice cream!
Me? Are you saying I'm upset about something? I don't know what you're talking about.
You're hoping I will eventually get an ulcer?
They don't? Who doesn't?...I thought this was settled?
I thought your post #2458 was too serious, but it is obvious you just wanted to get a laugh.
The last time I tried that in the "politics" forum I got a "time out".
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You think I "wanted to get a laugh" when I pointed out that I don't obey others' self-righteous expectations that I should conform my use of language to their PC demands?
How's about giving me a link to whatever it is you're referring to, here?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Some part of me understands that. I just doubt that the gratification in making someone mad (which I know is technically impossible) is worth it, even if they have no justification to get mad, just because you for example utter the R-word. I know that's infuriating. I just don't know that it's valuable to pick that particular battle to fight.
I guess it kind of depends upon whether your happiness depends upon whether you're popular or not and in which contexts. You can certainly alienate a lot of people if you aggressively ignore all their taboos as primitive. And what do you lose if you just abide by them (wherever it's not too burdensome), even though they're primitive? Can you achieve a higher purpose, than just making a point to deliberately offend someone's scrupulosity? In order to move us past the primitiveness, long-term?
The way he put that was funny. I don't know what he's referring to, but it sounded funny the way he put it.
Yes I did.
I have no way to do that, as I didn't mark it down in my palm pilot.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Why?
Because it was funny.
I couldn't fathom someone getting so upset over such a trivial matter.
"It had to be for the laugh", I thought.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Oh...now I see what's going on, here: You're flaming me. Sorry, I was kind of slow to catch on, but I read you now. It's pretty cool of you to w/out provocation accuse me of "getting so upset," and to belittle something I had said by calling it "trivial".
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
He either doesn't think passive aggression is a sin, or he doesn't think he's passive aggressive. I haven't figured out which one yet, but cf. the following thread where he comes in on the first page and we discuss it.Oh...now I see what's going on, here: You're flaming me. Sorry, I was kind of slow to catch on, but I read you now. It's pretty cool of you to w/out provocation accuse me of "getting so upset," and to belittle something I had said by calling it "trivial".
Is Mr. Jordan Peterson a false prophet or ravenous wolf?
Philosophically Mr. Peterson comes from materialism, he doesn't believe in God----so when he does think about God (the non-local hidden Person Who made everything) what does he think of? He thinks of ethics; morals. It's because being a materialist he 'gravitates' to the 'salient' things about...
theologyonline.com
Sigh … he/she reminds me of Eeset due to the passive-aggressive, acid sweet, *fun to get a rise out of people* posting mannerisms.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Interesting. I've only so far briefly glanced at the thread you linked, but something caught my eye scrolling down a little: viz., the claim that to give someone a scorpion while telling them it's an orange makes one a false prophet. Huh?? That's ludicrous. Though it seems to me that every instance of being a false prophet is necessarily an instance of uttering falsehood, I can't see how simply to utter falsehood could, in and of itself, make the utterer thereof a false prophet; nobody in his right mind would accuse a spelling bee loser of being a false prophet for saying that "quahog" is k-w-a-h-o-g. Nor can I see how simply lying could make every liar a false prophet. I mean, what then? Should we regard every person to be a (true) prophet insofar as he/she speaks honestly? Should someone who speaks the truth, "Canada is north of the USA," be considered as therein engaged in prophesying? And what of someone who speaks honestly, but mistakenly, saying "Gary drives a Porsche" (where it's false that Gary drives a Porsche): does his/her honesty in saying so make him/her a true prophet and yet his/her uttering falsehood therein make him/her simultaneously a false prophet?
Sorry, rambling again.
I offer my apology.Oh...now I see what's going on, here: You're flaming me. Sorry, I was kind of slow to catch on, but I read you now. It's pretty cool of you to w/out provocation accuse me of "getting so upset," and to belittle something I had said by calling it "trivial".
Sorry.
Musk threatens to stop funding Starlink internet Ukraine relies on in war
Elon Musk said Friday that his space company could not continue funding the Starlink satellite service that has kept Ukraine and its military online during the war, sparking an uproar as he suggested he was pulling free internet after a Ukrainian ambassador insulted him on Twitter.
A Starlink cutoff would cripple the Ukrainian military’s main mode of communication and potentially hamstring its defenses by giving a major advantage to Russia, which has sought to jam signals and phone service in the eastern and southern combat zones.
Musk, the world’s richest man by Bloomberg estimates, tweeted from the United States that his company SpaceX does not want reimbursement for its past expenses in helping Ukraine. But, he wrote, it “also cannot fund the existing system indefinitely and send several thousand more terminals that have data usage up to 100X greater than typical households. This is unreasonable.”
He also appeared to taunt Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany, Andrij Melnyk, who had some choice words last week after Musk tweeted a proposal to end the war in Ukraine that would favor Russia. “F--- off is my very diplomatic reply to you,” Melnyk said at the time.
“We’re just following his recommendation,” Musk tweeted Friday. The ambassador declined to comment, while his media representative told The Washington Post that Melnyk’s previous statement had been a specific response to the peace proposal.
Elon Musk said Friday that his space company could not continue funding the Starlink satellite service that has kept Ukraine and its military online during the war, sparking an uproar as he suggested he was pulling free internet after a Ukrainian ambassador insulted him on Twitter.
A Starlink cutoff would cripple the Ukrainian military’s main mode of communication and potentially hamstring its defenses by giving a major advantage to Russia, which has sought to jam signals and phone service in the eastern and southern combat zones.
Musk, the world’s richest man by Bloomberg estimates, tweeted from the United States that his company SpaceX does not want reimbursement for its past expenses in helping Ukraine. But, he wrote, it “also cannot fund the existing system indefinitely and send several thousand more terminals that have data usage up to 100X greater than typical households. This is unreasonable.”
He also appeared to taunt Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany, Andrij Melnyk, who had some choice words last week after Musk tweeted a proposal to end the war in Ukraine that would favor Russia. “F--- off is my very diplomatic reply to you,” Melnyk said at the time.
“We’re just following his recommendation,” Musk tweeted Friday. The ambassador declined to comment, while his media representative told The Washington Post that Melnyk’s previous statement had been a specific response to the peace proposal.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Of course you do: You are basically a good guy.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Isn't it k-o-h-h-o-g?
Where did you learn the concept of 'contraries' as compared to 'contradictories?' I ran into that reading a book by a nun. I know it wasn't her original invented work, she was just interpreting an older tradition, do you know where you first found that? I'm asking because it's extremely useful in clear thinking.
Hoping is definitely just empty headed. Thoughtless. He's not deliberately hostile or aggressive, he's just thoughtless. Like, unaware. This error he's making in exaggeration of everything corresponds with his ignorant passive aggression that he doesn't think he has. If he'd just accept the error he's making in exaggeration, which is the way in which he can't see how passive aggressive he is, then he'd fix both problems in himself. He doesn't have to be able to see his passive aggressive in order to solve that problem, iow. Just focus on the logic, and you'll fix your ethics too. Your ethics is a result of your logic. You can't see your poor ethics and it's because of your poor logic.
I mean that's why I'm asking about 'contraries' and 'contradictories,' because that's one type of logical error, is to confuse them. One of them must be one of the other, but the other might be neither, it just can't be both. People assume that contraries must be one or the other, but it might just be a false dilemma, it might be neither option.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Don't worry about it, brother.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Apparently I'm not the only one who enjoys watching Trailer Park Boys.