Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Does your sister fake the orgasms?

What is revealing is the twisted turns your mind takes.  Uh oh. But now Dr. Freud can help you.

Even, when not cussing there are "boundaries" decent people do not cross. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being "forbidden," as when suggesting you have fleas, is a two while incest is a ten. Observing that you are trailer park trash gets a Jeff Foxworthy five, while whatever you may be thinking is a ten. Does your Mom know you talk like this? Would your Dad condone this behavior?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peter said:

What is revealing is the twisted turns your mind takes.  Uh oh. But now Dr. Freud can help you.

Even, when not cussing there are "boundaries" decent people do not cross. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being "forbidden," as when suggesting you have fleas, is a two while incest is a ten. Observing that you are trailer park trash gets a Jeff Foxworthy five, while whatever you may be thinking is a ten. Does your Mom know you talk like this? Would your Dad condone this behavior?    

Your sister is a ten? What would your wife say about you advertising that opinion on an Ayn Rand forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Does your sister fake the orgasms?

Now why on earth would you have a negative emoticon reaction to that, Billy?

Peter made light, warm humor, asking if I see dead people, and I returned some light, warm humor — is there a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decent people . . . don't you ever do anything productive? Let's see some smart posts or quotes, not your low life drivel.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Peter said:

What is revealing is the twisted turns your mind takes.  Uh oh. But now Dr. Freud can help you.

Even, when not cussing there are "boundaries" decent people do not cross. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being "forbidden," as when suggesting you have fleas, is a two while incest is a ten. Observing that you are trailer park trash gets a Jeff Foxworthy five, while whatever you may be thinking is a ten. Does your Mom know you talk like this? Would your Dad condone this behavior?    

You don’t get to define good humor, Michael just explained that, nobody gets to impose their idea of humor. I am doing my best to avoid cuss words today, you will notice that when I spoke of the “orgasms” your sister has with you, I didn’t use a naughty word for it, I used the scientifically accepted term. I am doing everything you have asked of me, but it’s not good enough for you. Now you think you can impose your ratings of good humor on others. You are a bully. You are creating a toxic atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I think that is the first time I have ever used the sad emoticon at OL.

I hope you are proud, Peter.

Oh for craps sake. I am not your father. And no I won't raise your allowance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Peter said:

Decent people . . . don't you ever do anything productive? Let's see some smart posts or quotes, not your low life drivel.

Of course I will get back to doing something productive here at OL.

But these are all your rules, yet you just called me a “low life.”

No one would hear me over your raging and bullying, so all I can do for now is wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

“Grabs some popcorn.”

hahaha?

Just when I think he has "understood" the rules of civilized banter he proves me wrong, Jules. Though his last few forays in big game hunting have been better. At some point Michael may even think we will be laughing together, though still "Friars Club roasting" each other.  Who knows? Now back to me being his father figure . . .  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peter said:

Just when I think he has "understood" the rules of civilized banter he proves me wrong, Jules. Though his last few forays in big game hunting have been better. At some point Michael may even think we will be laughing together, though still "Friars Club roasting" each other.  Who knows? Now back to me being his father figure . . .  

Imposing your humor rules on me, like a bully.

I don’t understand the last part. Did your father also sleep with your sister? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

He has been stalking me the last few weeks. Six or eight times by recollection, I would post in a thread that was untouched for a week, a month, and he plops pages of text over them within minutes. Perhaps he considers that putting his stupid shit where eyes will be, on Jon’s stuff, simply to get eyes on his shit. Maybe.

He is suffering a stalker episode.

Disengaging from me should be easy.

He has explicitly committed  himself to never doing that.

I’m open to other names for that, but it is not healthy. Anyone who cared about Peter would be advising him to just walk away from me and never look back, simple. But they, and he, want something else. Not peace or harmony. Me off OL.

Jon,

I think that Peter just looks at whatever pops up in the "Activity" feed and plops down his letter streams on whatever's handy.

I think your impression that he's specifically following you results from statistical artifact.  You happen to be doing a high percentage of the posting these days.

I agree that Peter would be well advised to just not respond to your posts if he wants to be left alone by you  But in a way, you're engaging in threat tactics:  "Don't respond to me or I'll call you names."

I hope it needn't be said, but I'll say it anyway:   I do not want you off OL.  Your posts are of much interest to me.

Ellen 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I hope it needn't be said, but I'll say it anyway:   I do not want you off OL.  Your posts are of much interest to me.

Ellen,

Nobody from this group is leaving OL unless they want to.

Notice that William has a place here that has withstood calls to get rid of him.

So if he ain't being pushed out, Jon and Peter ain't, either.

Here are two corollary axioms to the Law of Identity for human nature, two fundamental characteristics of human nature.

Individual humans disagree.
Individual humans differ in degrees of goodness and badness.

And here's a corollary to that:

Individual humans periodically engage in bullshit, including good individual humans.

That's a fundamental characteristic, also.

No exceptions.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon,

I think that Peter just looks at whatever pops up in the "Activity" feed and plops down his letter streams on whatever's handy.

I think your impression that he's specifically following you results from statistical artifact.  You happen to be doing a high percentage of the posting these days.

I agree that Peter would be well advised to just not respond to your posts if he wants to be left alone by you  But in a way, you're engaging in threat tactics:  "Don't respond to me or I'll call you names."

I hope it needn't be said, but I'll say it anyway:   I do not want you off OL.  Your posts are of much interest to me.

Ellen 

Thank you, Ellen, for that reply.

On whatever’s handy, yes, I acknowledge I have to give you this point. I noticed he did it to Michael last week and I was shocked because I didn’t think Peter wanted to be so incredibly rude, to Michael. It was right after Michael posted something to a fairly dormant thread, so circumstances like the situations where Peter pisses me off doing it to me. Michael had just posted a long work, something he obviously spent some time on, not just a re-posting of material he found somewhere, and expressed he found it very important, I just don’t remember where it is right now, maybe I will. And then Peter dumps some long postings having nothing about Michael’s subject and nothing important (that I could see.) I find that to be stalky and incredibly rude, but I see that Peter likely sincerely does not see it that way at all. That creeps me out and makes me wish even more that he would stop engaging me altogether.

I find it strange he refuses to just leave me alone. If he really wished for peace and harmony, that is what he would do. He wants me removed. His tactic involves passive threats, too. I have to take his toxic, purely anti-intellectual put-downs, or he goes whining to the owner and referencing his financial contributions.

About my threat tactics, the one you spell out was my stance with Billy at one time. I don’t think it is accurate for my stance with Peter, which stands at: If you engage me with humor, I will do the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Michael just explained that, nobody gets to impose their idea of humor.

Jon,

Your version of humor always includes humiliation of another. There are more forms of humor than that. But it's like explaining a joke. The more you explain it to someone who doesn't get it, the worse it gets.

(Imagine trying to explain a quip to Ayn Rand. From the reports I have read, that kind of effort never went well. You and her are very much alike on that point.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

A very good understanding took place over the Aristotle wheel paradox. It became clear to everyone in the end that they literally did not see the same thing, or process what they saw in the same manner, as those who disagreed with them. It had nothing to do with good and evil, or stupid and smart, etc. The same kind of thing is operating here.

 This is a side issue, but correcting your report of what happened:

No one came to see Tony's lack of ability at mechanical reasoning as anything but lack of ability - or Merlin's outright intellectual fraud (on Wikipedia) combined with ineptitude as anything but chicanery combined with ineptitude.

Maybe what you're referring to is Jonathan's commenting - I think this was on a different thread (the "Where are you?" thread)  - that he enjoyed seeing how the mathematically inclined approached the problem.  But Jonathan knew from the start that he isn't good at math skills, though he's excellent at mechanical visualization.

Ellen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

Just when I think he has "understood" the rules of civilized banter he proves me wrong...

Peter,

It's not about understanding the rules of social engagement. Jon thinks you attack him all the time. He does not have your kind of sense of humor. I don't think you will ever understand him, nor he understand you.

From the outside, it's like you are playing baseball and he is playing football, you both are on a javelin-throwing runway and you both are accusing each other of not playing fair and cheating about the markings on the turf to boot.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Your version of humor always includes humiliation of another. There are more forms of humor than that. But it's like explaining a joke. The more you explain it to someone who doesn't get it, the worse it gets.

(Imagine trying to explain a quip to Ayn Rand. From the reports I have read, that kind of effort never went well. You and her are very much alike on that point.)

Michael

Thank you for that feedback.

I think I may be someone that some people should not use humor on, even not engage at all.

What could motivate them to adamently refuse that simple solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

No one came to see Tony's lack of ability at mechanical reasoning as anything but lack of ability...

Ellen,

I specifically recall Jon saying Tony didn't see it. Several times he said that.

Not that he didn't think Tony didn't have the ability to reason about it correctly.

That he didn't see it.

If by ability you mean the blind not being able to see, OK. (btw - That's the same problem with this humor issue.)

But if by ability, you mean capacity to reason with understood inputs, that is not what I got from Jon's criticism of Tony in the end. 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

I specifically recall Jon saying Tony didn't see it. Several times he said that.

Not that he didn't think Tony didn't have the ability to reason about it correctly.

That he didn't see it.

Michael

Oh, no, sorry, Michael, I definitely did lay into Tony harshly, calling him an idiot and all the rest.

Tony suffers a tremendous deficit in mechanical visualization and reasoning.

I was very polite about it for a long time, we made some progress, but then he got “a sense of humor” about the process, and then I got a sense of humor, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That he didn't see it.

 

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

Tony suffers a tremendous deficit in mechanical visualization and reasoning.

Jon,

You just essentially said the same thing I did.

btw - I didn't say you became polite.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.