PDA

View Full Version : "unseemly" (split from inaudible mutterings)



ursogr8
28-01-2005, 01:01 PM
It's probably just Sweeney messing with your heads.

:eek:


:confused:

:hmm:

That could only mean I am in for more of Bill's de facto condoning barrage.

:hmm:

I think I had better get in first.
The following are unseemly >


pompus arrogance.

argumentative SOB,

starter

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2005, 07:34 PM
I think I had better get in first.
The following are unseemly >
Firstly I dont appreciate being misquoted.
Can you please provide the post # where I supposedly used the term "pompus arrogance".

In post #92 I used the words "pompus tone".
If you think those words are "unseemly" then all I can say is you are a goose.

As for "argumentative SOB", you comprehension sucks.

I never referred to Woodstocker as an argumentative SOB.
He had just pointed out that he had never had to call the TD to arbiter a dispute and I pointed out (in post #83) he had therefore obviously never had to face an opponent who was an argumentative SOB who wouldnt agrree with him.
Woodstocker then used the term SOB's in post #89 and I referred to his use of it in #92.

ursogr8
29-01-2005, 02:16 PM
Firstly I dont appreciate being misquoted.
Can you please provide the post # where I supposedly used the term "pompus arrogance".

Bill
You advised me about misquoting and paraphrasing in the second week of May 2003. Since then I have been careful on any of your posts. Your use of "pompus arrogance" was not typed by me, but quoted from one of your posts. Now, recently, when I have been asking you for evidence you keep saying if I disagree then I should do the research. But since I don't agree with your rule then I will find the post where you used exactly those words with that spelling.

#92




In post #92 I used the words "pompus tone".
If you think those words are "unseemly" then all I can say is you are a goose.

I did not pass judgement on the words pompous tone, so I can't imagine why you are headed towards name-calling me?


As for "argumentative SOB", you comprehension sucks.

I never referred to Woodstocker as an argumentative SOB.

And Bill, I did not claim you did use those words to describe Woodstocker.

starter

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2005, 03:03 PM
Bill
You advised me about misquoting and paraphrasing in the second week of May 2003. Since then I have been careful on any of your posts. Your use of "pompus arrogance" was not typed by me, but quoted from one of your posts. Now, recently, when I have been asking you for evidence you keep saying if I disagree then I should do the research. But since I don't agree with your rule then I will find the post where you used exactly those words with that spelling.

#92
Well I'm glad to see you are paying attention however given I virtually handed it to you on a platter I would have expected you to find it. ;)


I did not pass judgement on the words pompous tone, so I can't imagine why you are headed towards name-calling me?
Its simple starter.
If Woodstocker is going to take me to task for suggesting its somehow improper for a player to summon the arbiter if his opponent is breaking the rules then as far as I'm concerned that is "pompous arrogance" on his part.

If you find that "unseemly" the I think you are a goose. ;)


And Bill, I did not claim you did use those words to describe Woodstocker.
You implied it, because their is nothing "unseemly" about the term "argumentative SOB" unless I directed it as someone in particular.

Garvinator
29-01-2005, 04:28 PM
would it be pompous arrogance or the like if i summoned the arbiter to rule on thread drift ;) :P :lol: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2005, 05:03 PM
would it be pompous arrogance or the like if i summoned the arbiter to rule on thread drift ;) :P :lol: :whistle:
Given the mods read virtually all posts then I think they can judge for themselves.

ursogr8
29-01-2005, 05:47 PM
Well I'm glad to see you are paying attention however given I virtually handed it to you on a platter I would have expected you to find it. ;)

Well done. Almost an admission by you of being wrong.

Admit Bill. You overlooked your use of "pompous arrogance". And only a day or so back you used it.



Its simple starter.
If Woodstocker is going to take me to task for suggesting its somehow improper for a player to summon the arbiter if his opponent is breaking the rules then as far as I'm concerned that is "pompous arrogance" on his part.

Maybe, Bill. But the point is, your use of "pompous arrogance" is not a point of argument in debate; it is an unseemly descriptor that serves no purpose. It doesn't approach credibility nor knowledge. "Pompous arrogance" is language that we can do without given that Woodstocker has been a model of politeness and debating points so far.


If you find that "unseemly" the I think you are a goose. ;)

Nothing wrong with you having opinions Bill. Even wrong opinions.



You implied it, because their is nothing "unseemly" about the term "argumentative SOB" unless I directed it as someone in particular.

"argumentative SOB" is unseemly whether you shoot it out of a rifle or a scattergun.

I am a little pouzzled why you are bothering to defend against unseemly. I thought your postion was that it is not criticism; so why are you defending?
And it is after all on the left-hand side of the criticism continuum from my point of view.

starter

ursogr8
29-01-2005, 05:56 PM
You implied it, because their is nothing "unseemly" about the term "argumentative SOB" <snip>

No Bill,
I did not imply.
Your original post on this point was perfectly clear to ALL, that you did not mean Woodstocker. Given that it was totally clear to ALL why would I leave my self open with a false implication?

starter

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2005, 08:53 PM
Well done. Almost an admission by you of being wrong.

Admit Bill. You overlooked your use of "pompous arrogance". And only a day or so back you used it.
Not true.
I used the search function for "pompus" and it highlighted both uses in red.
I simply was testing whether you objected to the word "pompous" or the words "pompous arrogance". It would seem its only the latter.



Maybe, Bill. But the point is, your use of "pompous arrogance" is not a point of argument in debate; it is an unseemly descriptor that serves no purpose.
I dont agree it is "unseemly" nor that it serves no purpose..


It doesn't approach credibility nor knowledge. "Pompous arrogance" is language that we can do without given that Woodstocker has been a model of politeness and debating points so far.
As far as I am concerned he comes across as pompous.
I also saw his tone as arrogant.
Hence I see my use of the term as entirely suitable.


Nothing wrong with you having opinions Bill. Even wrong opinions.
You would be an expert in wrong opinions since your full of them.
This is just another case where you are wrong.
One just has to look at your "marketing puff" as an example.


"argumentative SOB" is unseemly whether you shoot it out of a rifle or a scattergun.
Not as far as I am concerned.


I am a little pouzzled why you are bothering to defend against unseemly. I thought your postion was that it is not criticism; so why are you defending?
I'm not suggesting its criticism, just that your claim that iit was "unseemly" is wrong.


And it is after all on the left-hand side of the criticism continuum from my point of view.
Yes,your more into the Claytons criticism, the vetitable non existant criticism.