(Post a new comment)

	ladybirdsleeps 2003-11-11 06:10 pm UTC (link)
	Do we have a law for people who declare an argument over just when they start to lose yet? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	lokifin 2003-11-11 06:39 pm UTC (link)
	And its corollary law that the closer someone comes to losing an argument for lack of logical points to back up her claims, the more likely she is to call for a retirement of the argument to private email. guess who that one would be named after? wink (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-11-12 12:51 am UTC (link)
	Oh yeah. I was going to ask about the name. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: lokifin 2003-11-12 02:55 am UTC (link)
	snerk it's probably the only law that she follows, naturally. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-11-12 03:59 am UTC (link)
	If you win by losing, that would be Zen Wankery, right? Those who master that tactic shall be declared Zen Masturbators. And of course, taking it to private email is the Asshat Retreat. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: lokifin 2003-11-12 03:42 pm UTC (link)
	aha! perfect! but you have to add that said "taking" is really lip service to look like a Zen Wanker, when you're really the opposite. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-11-12 03:49 pm UTC (link)
	Oh right. Gotta remember not to be sarcastic when writing laws. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rann 2003-11-24 05:48 am UTC (link)
	Er, but what about when the rest of the community/list is shouting "Take it to private email instead of cluttering up the list!" and the participants are "No! We want to continue having our personal flame war right here in public!"? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-11-24 02:04 pm UTC (link)
	That'd be different. We're talking about using that excuse to avoid actual discussion of the issues. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ladybirdsleeps 2003-11-12 08:28 pm UTC (link)
	No, no clue. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lots42 2003-11-12 08:58 pm UTC (link)
	Has there ever been anyone who said 'This is my final say on the subject' who actually went away after said say? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2003-11-12 09:56 pm UTC (link)
	raises hand Though I say "I'm done" instead. It's funny how people will then accuse me of "perpetuating the argument" by saying "I can't take this anymore; I'm done." (I'll notice that either if it's a forum with threads that pop back up or if I get notification of replies by mail.) It was a difficult art to master, though. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rann 2003-12-23 05:07 am UTC (link)
	It was a difficult art to master, though. Looks like you need to practice a bit more, then. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rann 2003-12-23 05:14 am UTC (link)
	(Sigh... I'm aware that I just actually broke this law. In the thread about the law. Ah well. The snark was too good to pass up, guess I'll just take my lumps for it.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2003-12-23 04:02 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, because when the topic is something that you feel very strongly about, you're not allowed to get angry. And nobody ever, ever makes mistakes, and if they do they're stupid cunts!!!! You actually dug up this old law to bitch at me? Please. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re:

rann
2003-12-23 06:44 pm UTC (link)

I was unaware of any time limit on laws. And might I remind you, you're the one that started the bitchfest, with snarky comments like "I thought you thought he walked on water", and then degenerated into assigning me viewpoints that would make me look bad...
... Which, I think, is ANOTHER law...
Oh, let's not forget the massive hypocrisy of attacking someone for supporting a president who's part of a party you don't like because said party "is the Religious Right's bitch" and engages in bigotry, which involves sweeping generalizations and stereotypes, which are the foundations for bigotry.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

virago
2003-12-23 08:23 pm UTC (link)

Sure, I joked about your being the resident representative for the other end of the political spectrum, and I do have serious questions about supporting a party with some of the agendas they have.

But obviously I didn't mean it so maliciously as you did; I never called you a bitch or an idiot, and I didn't take it so personally. Sorry, I thought a little dissent/discussion could go on without slinging names like "idiot bitch."

And I see bigotry a little differently; to me, bigotry is about dehumanizing other people and seeing them as inferior to yourself, and a lot about fear and willful refusal to understand another's POV.

Sure, I don't like right-wingers, and their beliefs make me angry, but I am fully willing to ask questions about what they believe in order to understand where they're coming from. If you'd rather just snark, then I'm sorry and there's nothing more I can say. Keep believing I'm a stupid cunt and (fully Biblical Old-Testament) God bless.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re:

rann
2003-12-23 10:42 pm UTC (link)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2003-12-24 05:06 pm UTC (link)
	(Feeble-minded cunt, not signed in) No, that's not the same thing. But if you can't actually think for yourself and debate entirely by pointing out Jurisimprudence laws, then I can just ignore you and read the comm, can't I. Saves time that way. ^_^ (Reply to this)(Parent)

rann
2003-12-23 10:49 pm UTC (link)

Oh, and since we're apparently feeling free to assign people actions and beliefs based on politics we just THINK they hold, you must therefore be for the destruction and banning of all religions, spend all your time freeing animals into the wild and throwing blood on people who wear fur, shout phrases like "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers", be a steadfast communist, and love Saddam Hussein like a brother.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2003-12-24 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	(not signed in) Is hating me fun? I hope so. Enjoy. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: lokifin 2003-11-13 12:52 am UTC (link)
	I think there might have been a judge somewhere who did. Maybe if we provided gavels online? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Didionism oulangi 2003-11-12 02:43 am UTC (link)
	Ah but writers are, by the nature of what we do, aggressive and hositle in our need for the last word. It is this, our last-word-itis that defines what we do - arrange our will and inflict our arguments on readers, our spin remembered past the original construct. We are the silent bullies, the invaders of private space. (Reply to this)