Again, if you are dissatisfied by the manner in which I reply to a post...tough. Grow a thicker skin or don't read the post (the ignore list is pretty handy), or read the post and fume, or read the post fume and reply, or don't reply, or report it. Your tantrum will not change the manner in which I reply now or in the future.
And should I choose to address an issue brought up by the poster to which I've replied directly and include any discussion from the entire thread in that same post, then I will (as I already have). Until you are deemed an IMDB administrator and are given the power to delete posts/threads/accounts...I will continue to do so whether it pleases you or not.
I was simply stating the facts. If, as I said, you're a very sensitive person and see hints of emotion where they don't exist or, if imagining me fuming, tantrum and all, gives your pride some reprieve, by all means delude yourself. The simple matter is that the poster you replied directly to - that is me - and the poster that "brought up those issues" are different people - so basically you replied to me about a bunch of things somebody else said and are indifferent to that fact - this is absurd but shows you don't abide by the common-sense rule of replying respectively to whom it concerns; and so you've done it and will continue to do it regardless, as you said. Well, people driven by whims and pride, instead of logic and sense, stomp their foot and ultimately do as they please. Therefore, it's not in anyone's power to prevent you from flipping a coin to randomly decide where, about what and to whom reply, should you feel like it. Now I'm clarified: this explains it was probability and bad luck that you happened to knock on my door after all. It's a shame this assumed such ridiculous proportions before that was made clear.
Again I state that it's mighty convenient that you chose to reply to the thread after it was deleted. I stated this before, but it obviously didn't sink in the first time...
No, you didn't state that before now and I can demonstrate it. In all your posts, the single time you mentioned that the original thread was irretrievable was here
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481507/board/thread/109374509?d=109788947 &p=1#109788947 as it was of "Mon Jun 23 2008 16:41:27" and
never updated:
My reply was to negate the assertation in the post (be it yours or to whomever I replied) that Vincent behaved 'ungentlemanly' because he ran into the next room and that, had he not done so, he would've prevented Shalua's death. Had you been able to resurrect the thread in its entirety, my post and subsequent replies illustrated this was not the case.
As you can see, the only time you did refer to the thread being irretrievable you were merely explaining what you intended with your reply given that it couldn't be recovered -
no judgements were ever made of either the reliability of my memory or the faithfulness of my words in that or your other posts. So in none of your replies do you state what you
now found convenient to imply and
those were never updated either (naturally, it's become important that I mention they were never edited and updated, because if you have the scruples to suddenly start implying I'm lying about my account of the expired thread, then you may have scruples to do other things besides). I'll address this further down.
[Me:] «Well of course Vincent was taking point...! - did you think, before you stated the obvious, that anyone thought Vincent was rushing to the little boy's room or something...?»
[You:] Now I'm the one 'stating the obvious'? This after you've posted
[Me:] «Vincent's delay was clearly convenient to the storyline»
[You:] You seem to be the subject-matter expert on stating the painfully obvious.
What is "painfully obvious" is that the scope of your understanding forces me to explain and revisit the same things over and over, and every single time not only do you fail to understand my newly-worded reasoning (or pretend to) but you do yet worse: the only use you find for it is to deliberately dismember it, removing sentences out of their context to avoid having to comment the argument they were merely a part of. As you well know, those statements you quoted were both part of larger arguments - it is those arguments you should have commented instead of evading it by removing a couple of unrelated statements from context (not to mention different posts) and patch them together to fit some useless point.
And yes, since you ask, you're the one that originally said that
Vincent was taking point, therefore you're the one who stated the "painfully obvious". My reminding you of that fact or discussing it afterwards doesn't qualify as stating the obvious, because once you introduce the
painfully obvious to a discussion it becomes part of the discussion.
There is no conflict in the two quotes you made of me. The two corroborate and complement each other: the first quote
"People were merely saying his sprint was comical...! Just because people found it funny, and satirized it" is self-explanatory, and in the second quote
"I do remember someone said that, and I replied to that user agreeing on this one thing only: that the way Vincent sprinted out of the room was funny." - I'm perfectly able to confirm the use of the word "ungentlemanly" in the jest because it was something I myself found so acutely funny in their comment - what made the use of the word "ungentlemanly" such a perfect choice for the joke is
especially because the outcome of the scene was Shalua's death. I wouldn't have agreed with that user that it was funny had they seriously meant Vincent was "ungentlemanly" or negligent for that matter, because I myself never entertained that notion. So I'm not speaking for anyone by saying this; the humour in that user's post (as in the others that preceded it where Vincent's way of running was noted with amusement) was so blatantly obvious that I wonder how you could have missed it - the word "ungentlemanly" was simply a clever new ingredient they added to the ongoing joke. Mentioning the word "ungentlemanly" to joke about Vincent's actions when he ran out of a room and a woman was killed is therefore more than appropriate but, like any jest, it's not to be taken seriously.
Near the end of your reply, you quoted a large section of my post without commenting anything in it, whatsoever. All you did was quote all that text, then copy an excerpt from it and paste it underneath, only to borrow those words and use them as rhetoric against me, as though they even applied. The whole point of quoting before a comment is precisely when said comment appeals directly to the content of the quote. I complained quoting my statements out of their context is wrong, but quoting a large body of text only not to comment any of it afterwards is an equally useless waste of space. And quoting me before you say
any something doesn't mean that
any something refuted what I said, even if that's how you intended it to look.
I feel exactly the same way and wonder why you've chosen to resurrect a dead and deleted thread. Again, quite convenient that you chose to reply to a deleted thread, then present information from your own recollection as if it were fact and make assumptions about what other posters were thinking and present that as fact. BTW, don't bother to PM me, I don't respond to PMs. If I want to talk privately to someone, I give them my email or my AIM screenname. I come to public messageboards to discuss topics publicly. It's a shame the original thread can't be resurrected...all of this meaningless conjecture would end quite abrubptly I think.
So now I'm a liar? Now, isn't that convenient, all of a sudden - I wonder, if you thought that, why didn't you say so before?It crossed my mind that at some point, should you feel abased in some way, you might resort to imply I'm lying and take advantage of the fact that the old thread is indeed irretrievable to support just that idea. Initially I dismissed the thought, thinking it would be too despicable and malicious, but regrettably it wasn't beneath you. As to that:
As you know,
I don't have the power to delete threads to my advantage. If I have a life and live it, instead of lurking about in IMDB forums on a regular basis, I can't be blamed if a thread is deleted before I had the opportunity to post my reply to a user that addressed me. To that effect, I'll remind you I actually
PM'ed you that reply as a first measure, but since you didn't so much as acknowledge the reception of that PM or the second (reasons aside), it then occurred to me that someone with so much time to burn on the Final Fantasy Message Boards might eventually come across it if I created a new thread - and I was very right to think so, as eventually you did reply to the post (even if it took a good while after I gave you the link and someone else to agree with me before you deigned to, though I expect addressing your screen-name in bold letters may have had some weight as well).
At this point I'm not sure if I can appeal to your common sense, but consider these: If I were waiting for the thread to expire so I could manipulate the truth and then - only then - reply, do you mean the thread expired exactly the previous day of my reply or is it just more of your rhetoric? Do you keep track of such things, that you would conceive anyone might do that?
Think of how ridiculous what you're implying is. I haven't the slightest idea when the thread did expire, all I know is that when I eventually followed the link in the notification e-mail to go there it no longer existed. As you can see by my number of posts I'm not even a regular user of this site to keep any such track (you appear to be a regular user, perhaps you and others do) so it's even no wonder I forgot to post my reply until seeing the notification still in my e-mail reminded me of it.
And why would I even reply to you privately and lie? You knew the thread, nobody else would access the PM, so what exactly would I achieve in lying?
In fact, you know it makes no sense for you to insinuate I "conveniently" waited for the thread to expire only to create a new one where I could manipulate the truth, because it wasn't my intention to resurrect a dead and expired thread in the first place - I PM'ed you my reply, remember? Do not forget that I only resurrected the thread because (whatever your reasons) you didn't so much as acknowledge the reception of any PM, despite being very active in the forums. There's no way I could have guessed you never reply to PMs, nor would I ever impose upon you by demanding your personal e-mail just so I could reply (not that there would ever be occasion for that anyway, as you ignore the PM service) - so resurrecting an expired thread was never my intention: my sole intention was simply to answer back when addressed to - and
logically, if you only reply in the message boards, then my reply had but to go to the message boards. So better yet, and because you must have stressed the word
publicly for a reason: if I were lying, why was the post that opened the new thread
the exact same reply I sent you in private? And if I lied about anything, why would I open a public thread with an account of the old thread anyone might recognize as false? That would hardly qualify as "the crime of the century".
But above all, if I were lying at all, you would have said so before.
This new nonsense you're suggesting defies judgement. It's very safe for you to now claim that if the thread were recovered the discussion "would end abruptly" when you so suddenly decided to call me a liar. If anything, for you alone it is now convenient that the thread expired and can't be recovered, as you have no problem in
only now claiming that I'm manipulating the truth in things that so far you didn't remember to question. Naturally, I don't really think all of a sudden you believe I sat here all that time just waiting for the thread to expire so I could reply and lie, and what's more, in a PM at that.
Not only are you merely trying to discredit what I say by all of a sudden labelling me a liar, but you're also ill-timed, in that you didn't question the truth of my account of the old thread any time before now.I don't get a kick out of public bickering nor am I interested in pursuing discussions when I regrettably see them take personal turns, so I can only hope that besides having insinuated I'm a liar you won't come up with something even more unwarranted.
"Of all thieves, fools are the worst; they rob you of time and temper." J. GOETHE
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
Oriya_Mibu
16 years ago
[I'll just re-contextualize the quote you made of me:]
The simple matter is that the poster you replied directly to - that is me - and the poster that "brought up those issues" are different people - so basically you replied to me about a bunch of things somebody else said and are indifferent to that fact - this is absurd but shows you don't abide by the common-sense rule of replying respectively to whom it concerns; and so you've done it and will continue to do it regardless, as you said. Well, people driven by whims and pride, instead of logic and sense, stomp their foot and ultimately do as they please. Therefore, it's not in anyone's power to prevent you from flipping a coin to randomly decide where, about what and to whom reply, should you feel like it. Now I'm clarified: this explains it was probability and bad luck that you happened to knock on my door after all. It's a shame this assumed such ridiculous proportions before that was made clear.
I'm glad you've finally caught on.
It wasn't a matter of catching on: until you acknowledged what I said, it was only my impression. I'm also glad that's out of the way.
I see you're still fond of insults, but it's not my reading comprehension that's in question, it's your knowledge of linguistics and logic. I'll demonstrate, and before you accuse me of diverging from the topic, note that I'm merely invoking linguistics because
my interpretation is legitimate and your little insult unfounded: in the sentences in question (
A) the pronoun "
this" stands as the direct object; for several reasons, that
pronoun is understood to refer to something mentioned in the
immediately preceding sentence: not just because of
syntax, but also because of
formal arrangement of sentences (same paragraph, for example) and
punctuation (you end with an ellipsis instead of a colon). That's why when you say:
(A) Again I state that it's mighty convenient that you chose to reply to the thread after it was deleted. I stated this before, but it obviously didn't sink in the first time...
(B) My quote: My participation in the thread at all was to illustrate two things and two things only...1) that there is an alternate view to Vincent's 'ungentlemanly' behavior (I posted that I believed his behavior was the opposite and gave supporting information illustrating why) and 2) that his actions neither caused nor contributed to Shalua's death. All of my replies addressed and illustrated these two points...nothing more...nothing less.
... the pronoun "
this" necessarily reports to
A ("
it's mighty convenient that you chose to reply to the thread after it was deleted"). You can’t bend the rules of syntax and choose to say "
this" refers to some excerpt from another post (
B), not to mention the key fact that
A and
B pertain to completely different matters. Just so there can be no doubt in
syntax and logic: "
this" reports to
A and
A certainly has nothing to do with
B in any respect whatsoever, not even in content (in
A you make insinuations about me, while in
B you go on about your reasons for posting).
Also, since "
this" must forcibly refer to
A, I'll stress that the use of "
again", "
before" and "
first time" is false and misleading because - just as I demonstrated in my previous reply - you never suggested what you do in
A before that first time in the post of July 6th, so "
the first time it didn’t sink in" you speak of in
A (same July 6th post) never existed. And that brings me to:
[On July 8th, in reply to your post of July 6th, I had said:]
(...) no judgements were ever made of either the reliability of my memory or the faithfulness of my words in that or your other posts.
[To which you replied, on July 9th:]
No...any 'judgement made' of 'the reliability of' your 'memory' was established within the last paragraph of my previous post
Since I am now replying to your last post of July 9th, then the
previous post you spoke of is that of July 6th. My statement of "
no judgements were ever made of either the reliability of my memory or the faithfulness of my words in that or your other posts" was in my reply to that post of July 6th; it is part of a larger argument you'd do well in revisiting (so you can remember what "
that and your other posts" refers to) and it stands as true as ever:
the first time you ever introduced the insinuations and the matter of my convenience in resurrecting that thread was in your reply of July 6th and never before. You can easily confirm that by going over your posts before that date - as I'd said previously, you'll find your only mention of the fact the thread is irretrievable was in a post of June 23rd, and it did not contain any considerations as to the reliability of my account or speculation about my intentions in creating a new thread.
your multiple paragraphs of empty rhetoric were wasted and pointless.
[My words:]
So now I'm a liar? Now, isn't that convenient, all of a sudden - I wonder, if you thought that, why didn't you say so before?
It crossed my mind that at some point, should you feel abased in some way, you might resort to imply I'm lying and take advantage of the fact that the old thread is indeed irretrievable to support just that idea. Initially I dismissed the thought, thinking it would be too despicable and malicious, but regrettably it wasn't beneath you. As to that:
(...) At this point I've stopped reading as it's not worth the time/effort to continue to read (...)
I made no unfounded judgements; if you really are familiar with the concept of rhetoric, then you also know I never described as rhetoric anything (in your discourse) that wasn't just that, and you can double-check it by going back. On the contrary,
what you were keen to deceptively label as "empty rhetoric" in my post was in fact a thorough and objective demonstration of how your insinuations are preposterous and malicious, therefore, it's a shame that just when I introduced the most relevant part of the post - with
"As to that:" - you go and stop just shy of the inconvenient onus.
But while you chose to safely circumvent that key part of my reply, I never did expect you to justify your insinuations, they were false and ill willed, so obviously you couldn't.
[But because in your last post you decided to perpetuate your insinuations - by pretending I hadn't already exposed them as false - just so you could end on that malicious note, I'll repeat what I said then:]
So now I'm a liar? Now, isn't that convenient, all of a sudden - I wonder, if you thought that, why didn't you say so before?
It crossed my mind that at some point, should you feel abased in some way, you might resort to imply I'm lying and take advantage of the fact that the old thread is indeed irretrievable to support just that idea. Initially I dismissed the thought, thinking it would be too despicable and malicious, but regrettably it wasn't beneath you. As to that:
As you know, I don't have the power to delete threads to my advantage. If I have a life and live it, instead of lurking about in IMDB forums on a regular basis, I can't be blamed if a thread is deleted before I had the opportunity to post my reply to a user that addressed me. To that effect, I'll remind you I actually PM'ed you that reply as a first measure, but since you didn't so much as acknowledge the reception of that PM or the second (reasons aside), it then occurred to me that someone with so much time to burn on the Final Fantasy Message Boards might eventually come across it if I created a new thread - and I was very right to think so, as eventually you did reply to the post (even if it took a good while after I gave you the link and someone else to agree with me before you deigned to, though I expect addressing your screen-name in bold letters may have had some weight as well).
At this point I'm not sure if I can appeal to your common sense, but consider these: If I were waiting for the thread to expire so I could manipulate the truth and then - only then - reply, do you mean the thread expired exactly the previous day of my reply or is it just more of your rhetoric? Do you keep track of such things, that you would conceive anyone might do that? Think of how ridiculous what you're implying is. I haven't the slightest idea when the thread did expire, all I know is that when I eventually followed the link in the notification e-mail to go there it no longer existed. As you can see by my number of posts I'm not even a regular user of this site to keep any such track (you appear to be a regular user, perhaps you and others do) so it's even no wonder I forgot to post my reply until seeing the notification still in my e-mail reminded me of it.
And why would I even reply to you privately and lie? You knew the thread, nobody else would access the PM, so what exactly would I achieve in lying? In fact, you know it makes no sense for you to insinuate I "conveniently" waited for the thread to expire only to create a new one where I could manipulate the truth, because it wasn't my intention to resurrect a dead and expired thread in the first place - I PM'ed you my reply, remember? Do not forget that I only resurrected the thread because (whatever your reasons) you didn't so much as acknowledge the reception of any PM, despite being very active in the forums. There's no way I could have guessed you never reply to PMs, nor would I ever impose upon you by demanding your personal e-mail just so I could reply (not that there would ever be occasion for that anyway, as you ignore the PM service) - so resurrecting an expired thread was never my intention: my sole intention was simply to answer back when addressed to - and logically, if you only reply in the message boards, then my reply had but to go to the message boards. So better yet, and because you must have stressed the word publicly for a reason: if I were lying, why was the post that opened the new thread the exact same reply I sent you in private? And if I lied about anything, why would I open a public thread with an account of the old thread anyone might recognize as false? That would hardly qualify as "the crime of the century". But above all, if I were lying at all, you would have said so before.
This new nonsense you're suggesting defies judgement. It's very safe for you to now claim that if the thread were recovered the discussion "would end abruptly" when you so suddenly decided to call me a liar. If anything, for you alone it is now convenient that the thread expired and can't be recovered, as you have no problem in only now claiming that I'm manipulating the truth in things that so far you didn't remember to question. Naturally, I don't really think all of a sudden you believe I sat here all that time just waiting for the thread to expire so I could reply and lie, and what's more, in a PM at that. Not only are you merely trying to discredit what I say by all of a sudden labelling me a liar, but you're also ill-timed, in that you didn't question the truth of my account of the old thread any time before now.
I don't get a kick out of public bickering nor am I interested in pursuing discussions when I regrettably see them take personal turns, so I can only hope that besides having insinuated I'm a liar you won't come up with something even more unwarranted.
Etc, etc, etc...to infinity. At this point I've stopped reading as it's not worth the time/effort to continue to read and this will be my final response (...) In the future...should you reply to me directly I request that you please do so while the thread is active or don't reply to me at all. (...)
Infinity is too much. Unlike you, I'm not a regular and faithful user of IMDB. As you can tell by my Message Board history, burning time here is not one of my hobbies. In fact, if I knew you would eventually force this to drag on and deflect the matter by lashing out with personal insult and elaborate insinuations, I wouldn't have sent any reply to begin with, and the cordiality I used then wouldn't have been wasted. But I never liked leaving anyone that addressed me unanswered, and given that this site has a PM service, replying that way wasn't unreasonable because the thread had expired before I could post my reply. To that effect, I sent you my reply in a PM, which you ignored, as you did the second and last PM where, after two weeks passed in which you were busy in the Message Boards, I asked you
only whether you had received any PM at all. A simple 'yes' would have sufficed, but as you chose to ignore the PMs completely I didn't entreat you any further and dropped the subject.
Therefore, resurrecting an expired thread was never premeditated as you would have it look like:[This is the second PM you ignored, sent over two weeks after you ignored the first (the one with the exact same reply that opened this thread):]
Subject: Question
To - masonts on Wed Jun 18 2008 04:25:26
Hello
Just remembered to ask if you received any message at all from me, over two weeks ago.
It concerns a thread that eventually expired; the message in question is my reply to you (you had addressed me directly then).
Seeing as you've been very active in the forums since but didn't acknowledge my message, perhaps there's been an error and I should send it again.
Or I may instead resurrect the thread and post it there as it should have been, if you favour replying in public rather than in private; whatever suits you best.
Sorry for any inconvenience, just tying up loose ends.
As you well know and may confirm, the new thread wasn't even created but until later when you replied to me in another topic and I seized the opportunity to
then create this thread and give you the link to the reply; you'll remember
I also said you were free to ignore it if you wished, given that my intention was merely to convey my reply - by the only means available since you ignored the PMs - and tie that loose end. That's all there is to it and I hope this explains why and how I replied to you, once and for all. What happened afterwards is all in this thread. As you end your reply with a request I'll remind you, as you yourself stated once, that
you were just as free to ignore the thread I created as you were to ignore the PMs - but you didn't - therefore, should anyone reply to you directly in the future as you say, you always have the option to do just that.
I don't intend to waste more time with this either, not unless I am given further reason to.
"Of all thieves, fools are the worst; they rob you of time and temper." J. GOETHE
reply
share