I'm looking forward to the schadenfreude when you or one of yours is killed or injured by some laughing shit-for-brains on the phone while driving.
That'll be all LULZ and all.
Hey check this out.
Yeah...Unfortunately for us all, that seems to be the ONLY way you might actually learn something...Is to suffer from it yourself, as you are seemingly congenitally unable to conceive of your stupidity actually doing any damage, despite voluminous sources which state that if you continue these kinds of behavior, you will eventually involve yourself in the injury or death of another, or yourself.
I think your blindness and callousness is deservant of such a reply.
I've thought about it, and I think I should apologize for being so callous as to quote you expressing how you look forward to "schadenfreude" when I, or one of my loved ones, is killed. That was very callous of me to quote that.
Obviously I'm not. Otherwise you wouldn't, you know, be replying to my posts.
But on the righteousness of pretend ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
Oh, okay...So everything you post here is basically bullshit because it's all for the entertainment. I'll know better than to give any of your posts any credence whatsoever. They are all basically meaningless but for how they produce entertainment for you. Pomo bullshit, in other words.
That sounds like an excellent reason to keep you on ignore and stop looking at the occasional post in hopes that I might find something worthwhile.
Thanks for the heads up...Now I know all your posts are basically a waste of time, I needn't bother with any of them.
Tougher than you thought, huh? Need a little help with the will power?
You might think about starting a "ChuckF jar." Basically, every time you read one of my posts, you put a quarter in the jar. And every time you reply to one of my posts you put in another quarter. I think you'll be surprised at how quickly the jar fills up! But I won't, since you obviously read so many of my posts.
Just for the record for the humor impaired: I, of course, disapprove of the government suppressing research that is inconvenient.
I'm not humor impaired. You're just not funny.
I can understand why you wouldn't find that comment funny, considering that the butt of the joke was your tendency to make hyperbolic accusations towards people who disagree with you to any significant degree on your pet issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
Oh, yeah...You're on ignore. And a refreshing change it is, too. I recommend it for any and all.
Occasionally, I pop in and check out one of your posts to see how monumentally fucked up you really are...I haven't been disappointed yet.
As far as I can tell, you ignore ChuckF except in threads where his posts are likely to be goading you. As in this thread, where you appear to have read every single one of his posts.
So you don't read the posts when he's not trying to troll you, and do read them when he is. It seems like you're getting only downside from putting him on ignore, if you truly do have him on ignore.
Thanks, from:
Adam (07-23-2009), ChuckF (07-23-2009), Naru (07-23-2009)
As far as I can tell, you ignore ChuckF except in threads where his posts are likely to be goading you. As in this thread, where you appear to have read every single one of his posts.
So you don't read the posts when he's not trying to troll you, and do read them when he is. It seems like you're getting only downside from putting him on ignore, if you truly do have him on ignore.
This arrangement totally works on my side too. I keep all the benefits of godfryrage and I can continue to talk shit about him in threads where he doesn't suspect it.
Perhaps godfry doesn't like the truth, and he is simply suppressing "ignoring" it. Wink wink.
I put that in quotes and said "wink wink" because he isn't really ignoring me.
Joking about manslaughter, erimir? It makes you look very bitter, I think.
In case it's not obvious, erimir was not joking about manslaughter. He was joking about godfry's hyperbolic assertion (in another thread) that people who fail to become as exercised as he does about what he believes to be inappropriate cell phone usage approve of manslaughter. IIRC, it was Chuck who was accused of supporting manslaughter because he did not find it appropriate to react confrontationally to someone who phone rings in a library or movie theater.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
I support these actions as an extension of my support for manslaughter
In case it's not obvious, erimir was not joking about manslaughter.
Then his statement of support for manslaughter would be serious. There are many ways you might take issue with me on this, Adam, but that is a poor choice, I think.
"godfry's hyperbolic assertion" may be the cause of his bitterness, but he is making light of manslaughter as his way of expressing it and getting back at him, I believe.
I support these actions as an extension of my support for manslaughter
In case it's not obvious, erimir was not joking about manslaughter.
Then his statement of support for manslaughter would be serious. There are many ways you might take issue with me on this, Adam, but that is a poor choice, I think.
"godfry's hyperbolic assertion" may be the cause of his bitterness, but he is making light of manslaughter as his way of expressing it and getting back at him, I believe.
Well, no. He's not making light of manslaughter, he's aping an earlier occasion where godfry made light of manslaughter and pretending to take it seriously. That's one place where the meta- prefix comes in. The joke isn't about making light of manslaughter, it's about making light of people making light of manslaughter.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
He's not making light of manslaughter, he's aping an earlier occasion where godfry made light of manslaughter and pretending to take it seriously.
The trouble with sarcasm is that it is too blunt an instrument to make that kind of distinction. I don't know whether god3 was making light of manslaughter in that earlier incident. I do believe that aping making light of it involves making light of it, and if erimir were more sensitive to those who have needlessly died in road traffic accidents caused by drivers who were distracted by choice, then he wouldn't have made that post in those terms.
I do believe that aping making light of it involves making light of it, and if erimir were more sensitive to the pain of those who's loved ones have died in road traffic accidents caused in part by drivers who were distracted by choice, then he wouldn't have made that post in those terms.
I don’t know how persuasive the suppressed data are, but if the car talk guys oppose talking and driving, that clinches it!
Obviously, many accidents occur because of careless driving (which can be caused by a great many things, including distractions). Equally obviously, it is possible to drive reasonably carefully while talking on a cell phone. It’s also possible to drive carefully while listening to music, changing a CD, stroking the thigh of your girlfriend, or leaning (several years later) into the back seat to whack blindly at your son who has been noogying his sister.
Nonetheless, any of these things CAN be dangerous distractions, and often are. It’s reasonable to pass laws about them. What is unreasonable is to believe that ANYONE who drives while talking on a cell phone is an irresponsible jerk. Some people, in some situations, can doubtless talk on their cell phone while driving very, very safely.
__________________
"It's lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened."
- The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain
I don’t know how persuasive the suppressed data are, but if the car talk guys oppose talking and driving, that clinches it!
Obviously, many accidents occur because of careless driving (which can be caused by a great many things, including distractions). Equally obviously, it is possible to drive reasonably carefully while talking on a cell phone. It’s also possible to drive carefully while listening to music, changing a CD, stroking the thigh of your girlfriend, or leaning (several years later) into the back seat to whack blindly at your son who has been noogying his sister.
Nonetheless, any of these things CAN be dangerous distractions, and often are. It’s reasonable to pass laws about them. What is unreasonable is to believe that ANYONE who drives while talking on a cell phone is an irresponsible jerk. Some people, in some situations, can doubtless talk on their cell phone while driving very, very safely.
I don’t know how persuasive the suppressed data are, but if the car talk guys oppose talking and driving, that clinches it!
Obviously, many accidents occur because of careless driving (which can be caused by a great many things, including distractions). Equally obviously, it is possible to drive reasonably carefully while talking on a cell phone. It’s also possible to drive carefully while listening to music, changing a CD, stroking the thigh of your girlfriend, or leaning (several years later) into the back seat to whack blindly at your son who has been noogying his sister.
Nonetheless, any of these things CAN be dangerous distractions, and often are. It’s reasonable to pass laws about them. What is unreasonable is to believe that ANYONE who drives while talking on a cell phone is an irresponsible jerk. Some people, in some situations, can doubtless talk on their cell phone while driving very, very safely.
MURDERER!
Why are you making light of murder? You must be very bitter.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
Re: Don't like the truth? Suppress it.
on the righteousness of pretend ignore.
Good one.
Linear Mode
