Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
There is a different name I use for people who measure a man's character and happines by the charts Don Diego posted...or who passive-aggressively call another poster a "mini-douche". But I think I've done enough name calling for one day.
Originally posted by: pjstroh
There is a different name I use for people who measure a man's character and happines by the charts Don Diego posted...or who passive-aggressively call another poster a "mini-douche". But I think I've done enough name calling for one day.
Poor old DonDiego is befuddled, . . . and hurt.
He requests a clarifiation of the Rules for Appropriate Discussion in an Internet Forum:
__Like, it's OK to measure a man's anger over a perceived affront but it is not OK to measure a man's happiness over, f'rinstance, his financial holdings? [For the record DonDiego did not, in fact, measure Mr. Wynn's character by his financial holdings, just speculated over his happiness with the performance of those holdings.]
__Like, it's OK to call persons "douchebags" but it is not OK to speculate what the persons subject to such mudslinging might call the namecaller in retaliation? [Since he was 5 or 6 little DonDiego has known there's always retaliation once the namecalling starts.]
__Like, it's not OK to speculate what someone might call someone else, but it is OK to classify such speculation as passive-aggressive by announcing that one will not call the person speculating about namecalling a name? Isn't announcing that one will not call a person a name, . . . a name which is being held in reserve, just in case, . . . extra-passive-passive-aggression, otherwise known as behaving as a weenie behaves, and from someone who initiated the namecalling in the first place?
DonDiego thanks "The Internet Forum Rulemaker" pjstroh in advance for clarification. [DonDiego would prefer the rules just be reduced to "No Namecalling", a rule little DonDiego discovered around the age of 9, but he'd at last like to know what the rules are so he can respect them, or choose not to.]
He requests a clarifiation of the Rules for Appropriate Discussion in an Internet Forum:
__Like, it's OK to measure a man's anger over a perceived affront but it is not OK to measure a man's happiness over, f'rinstance, his financial holdings? [For the record DonDiego did not, in fact, measure Mr. Wynn's character by his financial holdings, just speculated over his happiness with the performance of those holdings.]
__Like, it's OK to call persons "douchebags" but it is not OK to speculate what the persons subject to such mudslinging might call the namecaller in retaliation? [Since he was 5 or 6 little DonDiego has known there's always retaliation once the namecalling starts.]
__Like, it's not OK to speculate what someone might call someone else, but it is OK to classify such speculation as passive-aggressive by announcing that one will not call the person speculating about namecalling a name? Isn't announcing that one will not call a person a name, . . . a name which is being held in reserve, just in case, . . . extra-passive-passive-aggression, otherwise known as behaving as a weenie behaves, and from someone who initiated the namecalling in the first place?
DonDiego thanks "The Internet Forum Rulemaker" pjstroh in advance for clarification. [DonDiego would prefer the rules just be reduced to "No Namecalling", a rule little DonDiego discovered around the age of 9, but he'd at last like to know what the rules are so he can respect them, or choose not to.]