07-22-2018, 10:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-23-2018, 06:41 AM by dicappatore.)
(07-22-2018, 03:12 PM)New Guy Wrote:(07-22-2018, 01:52 AM)dicappatore Wrote: I tried using somewhat of the same argument in Post #288 Here are a couple of paragraphs from that post.
Quote:Case in point? Take the title of this thread. "Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human". How was Nick guilty of even contemplating such a idea. Yea he was trying to get her back to normal but wasn't Nick just continuing to follow up on what Juliette started to pursue weeks before she told him of her condition? If Nick is guilty of "demoting" her back to a human, wasn't she also guilty of the same for herself? What did she go to Sean and Henrietta for? To become a more powerful Hex or to get rid of her it? Or, as you prefer to call it, "demoting herself to a normal human".
Quote:So back to this thread. What scene or scenes or actions you can refer to where Nick was jealous, of her Hex-nesses (like my new term?) since it made her better than him. Didn't Nick look down on Hexenbiests? Wasn't that the natural order of Grimms vs Hexenbeists? You can't have it both ways. If Nick has a tendency to hate and look down to a Hex, why would he be jealous of her? If that was the case, he would have preferred to keep her at that lower level instead of elevating her back to a normal human.
But of course, the silence is deafening in a reply. I guess "some' only prefer to reply if name called then they wonder why their arguments can not be taken seriously.
Hi Dicap,
Many of us have presented facts, to which we applied reason and logic to derive an opinion. At times we have simply presented facts. We then would be attacked.
If our attacker presented a contrary opinion we often asked for the factual basis, only to again be attacked.
If we presented a simple question where a truthful answer would invalidate the attacker's opinion no answer would come, just more attacks.
For example, "did Kenneth murder Kelly?" If you believe he did, then you may be attacked to prove it. Some may argue that there was no scene of who killed her. Others may point to the fact that he was never tried in a court of law, and lacking a court judgement of guilt he remains innocent.
In the thread "Diana and the "Other Mommy" at post #99 I posed a simple question to two Members of this Forum:
Quote:True or false:One member replied:
Kenneth and the Verrat thugs murdered and decapitated Kelly Burkhardt?
Quote:Sorry, must have missed #99. The Verrat always killed. I don't think they were ever sent in to do anything else.The other member has yet to answer and my repeated requests for an answer only garnered juvenile insults.
Soldier on!
N G
You want to talk about unanswered questions, "let me count the ways". I also tried that approach, it only resulted in complaints about the post instead of replying to the facts. If I did get a reply it was in the form of some lame, quack-quack (my opinion), quack quack (my opinion).
Another form is the various spins and tangents (deflections) are used not only to fall on deaf ears but to reinforce BS with additional BS. How does that saying go? If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull-shitz. And one particular contributor is a master at "baffling)
That is the exact point I been trying to make. There are various types of examples on how some could be insulting. As opinions go, we all have them, we also have opinions on what constitutes an insult. The so-called "insulted ones", are not the authority on what is insulting.
Your point is a great example on how someone can be insulting without name calling. Another is by being higher than holly with self claiming intellect and talk down on others opinions without using facts but what as they indirectly claim, having the higher intellect such as the infamous coined phrase, "writers intent". ROFLMAO.
Me, being a crusader of exposing and confronting BS, I choose the more indirect approach such as using crafty sarcasm that some feeble minded wet noodle re-actors call it just plain name calling. Now, that is what I call, INSULTING!
PS, NG, remember whom you are dealing with in these characters. if you recall, thi other poster whom claimed the property the trailer was parked on belonged to Juliette, then he proceeds to claim that if you own the property you can burn it down at your pleasure just like bulldozing a house you own.
The stupidity of all of these statements are as follows. Twinkle toes never showed us any proof that the land for the trailer was bought by Juliette or put under her name by Nick. We both asked him to show proof and never did. Now, if she did own the land as if you own a house and wish to bulldoze it, in most of the civilized world where bulldozers exist, you gonna need to get permission in the form of a permit. Most likely you need to hire a licensed wrecker to get the approval.
He then claims that if she owned the land, she had the right to torch a property she did not own in the middle of a forest without any repercussions. Without any permits. Without any fire suppression if the torching gets out of hand. And to top it off, if she was stupid enough to apply for a permit to burn down a trailer she did not own in the middle of a forest without a fire department on site. No one in their right mind would give her this delusional permit, unless a moron that can come up with such BS was working in the permit office.
Do you see why trying to have a serious conversation with such insulting characters is futile. Now I am sure I am going to get accused of name calling, well what else am i supposed to call these people making such ridiculous statements? Pillars of our society?
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!