| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2012 07:10:13 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just protecting little old cowboy from your cyberhassling... ;) |
I think what she's getting at is that even by posting that, without any correlating data from both sides or any other information to tie it into the 'debate' at hand, you are doing nothing more than cowboy ever does.
That link doesn't 'prove' anything or even go towards showing a point of any kind. |
He's right. Also, cowboy hasn't told me that my responses to him are unwanted -- only you've told me that you don't care for the attention I am paying him and you suspect me of some hidden agenda of which I have none. I am not belittling him or his opinions, though you continually insult me with your lurid accusations. Ever read MacBeth, Doc? learn about the theories of Dr. Freud? I think you're accusing me of doing something that YOU do, but I am not you and I don't act like you. Your interjection in my questions to cowboy have stripped him of his voice; back off and let him reply or tell me to take a hike, whichever suits him. |
If that's the way you see it Frisc. To me you come across as one of those overbearing, sickly sweet, passive-agressive elitists (listen cowboy, we all know, guffaw guffaw, that you are an idiot, but I will deign to lower myself to try to show this oh so obvious fact to you. Why I bother? I cannot answer.) Some of your questions were vapid. "And what is an "environmental lobbyist" anyway?" Really? Come on. That information would seemingly be so self-evident that one can have a cogent argument without having to cover this ground (which is why I chose to answer that one in literally five seconds). Aren't we all up enough on the state of politics in our country to assume that a) lobbyists attempt to sway legislation. b) most legislation involves regulation or the removal of regulation and c) environmental groups would participate in this same process?
Why pick on Cowboy which you have now done twice? None of the other posts between his rose (or sunk) to the level of your required admonition? I find that odd. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 07:15:15 PM · #227 |
| Oh crap, now she's gonna dump on me. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 07:41:22 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by frisca:
He's right. Also, cowboy hasn't told me that my responses to him are unwanted -- only you've told me that you don't care for the attention I am paying him and you suspect me of some hidden agenda of which I have none. I am not belittling him or his opinions, though you continually insult me with your lurid accusations. Ever read MacBeth, Doc? learn about the theories of Dr. Freud? I think you're accusing me of doing something that YOU do, but I am not you and I don't act like you. Your interjection in my questions to cowboy have stripped him of his voice; back off and let him reply or tell me to take a hike, whichever suits him. |
If that's the way you see it Frisc. To me you come across as one of those overbearing, sickly sweet, passive-agressive elitists (listen cowboy, we all know, guffaw guffaw, that you are an idiot, but I will deign to lower myself to try to show this oh so obvious fact to you. Why I bother? I cannot answer.) Some of your questions were vapid. "And what is an "environmental lobbyist" anyway?" Really? Come on. That information would seemingly be so self-evident that one can have a cogent argument without having to cover this ground (which is why I chose to answer that one in literally five seconds). Aren't we all up enough on the state of politics in our country to assume that a) lobbyists attempt to sway legislation. b) most legislation involves regulation or the removal of regulation and c) environmental groups would participate in this same process?
Why pick on Cowboy which you have now done twice? None of the other posts between his rose (or sunk) to the level of your required admonition? I find that odd. |
I am not picking on him, I just responded to him because his posts catch my attention because they are opinions that rely upon some huge assumptions or facts that we aren't presented with. Lots of others do, as I recognized in my post above, and no one else ought to get a pass either. If I choose a cause or person to help, how is that "picking on him?" I am not disrespecting him or victimizing him. Unlike what you're doing to me.
Also, "what is an environmental lobbyist" is a great question! Are they lobbying FOR or AGAINST environmental control? Which lobbyist of this variety is the most dangerous when it comes to regulation/overregulation and its relationship to the environment? <---- this is what I was getting at with my question. I recognize it was a bit vague and I did not mean it to be vague so much as I meant for it to be simple. It certainly wasn't vapid. It was designed to further the discussion in that area.
Anyway, I am actually quite sorry for trying to raise the level of discourse in rant. I'm washing my hands of this project, however as you've soured me on the endeavour and thoroughly convinced me that no one should be trying to make the world or DPC rant a better place.
You call diplomacy and kindness "passive aggressive", and you called cowboy an idiot and insinuated that everyone thinks that. Nice friend. I don't think that, but I do think his opinions appear misinformed as framed. No more, no less. But you've also called me "overbearing" (maybe I am, I'll give you this one, but beg forgiveness as I am leaving this thread) "sickly sweet" (no has ever accused me of this before and I think I'm more blunt that sweet) and "elitist" (never been called that one before either. I have nothing in common with elitists. I am neither rich, nor white, nor male, nor do I hold any title or office). You're using this word to insult me because you perceive me to be educated, which I do not dispute nor will I apologise for. I went to university and earned two degrees. I won't apologise for knowing things or being good at learning. I believe in equality and donate my time and resources to this cause in various forms. I should give those causes this time, not you, so I'm done here.
You've clearly demonstrated that you have no respect for me, and therefore, I won't be allowing you the opportunity to speak to me anymore. I won't be replying in this thread any further, so you may consider this your victory. Enjoy! I have a lot more words for you, but I respect DPC forum rules.
Digipixer -- I have no idea who you are. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 07:56:38 PM · #229 |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 08:00:19 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If that's the way you see it Frisc. To me you come across as one of those overbearing, sickly sweet, passive-agressive elitists |
Goodness... and this coming from someone who got all upset because some ole fella used the word "ilk" in one of the threads.
Makes one wonder.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 08:01:44 PM · #231 |
OK I am back... frisca I was still at work and I really cant do a lot of research there. I do alot of times and I have posted links here and there
|
|
|
|
10/25/2012 08:03:47 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
OK I am back... frisca I was still at work and I really cant do a lot of research there. I do alot of times and I have posted links here and there |
I think she left  cowboy221977 and I doubt she will be back.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 08:11:09 PM · #233 |
People run away quickly. Sorry if the strong words make you feel wronged. I am intelligent enough that a handful of occasions won't make me lose all respect for someone, but, yes, lately I have not thought your posts were particularly useful. I can easily divorce that from Frisca, the person, or Frisca, the photographer.
I stand by my response and would hope that at the very least it might give you some possible insight in how someone in the real world might interpret a similar conversation. Lets be honest, if we in Rant world annoy or piss off or anger each other, it really has no bearing on the parts of our life that matter. That's a good thing. I could totally lose every bit of respect for you (a place we haven't reached) and your life wouldn't be affected negatively one bit.
Ed has said he wishes people would stir it up more often so I blame him...
Message edited by author 2012-10-25 20:12:57. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 08:45:33 PM · #234 |
ok from now on lets blame Ed
|
|
|
|
10/25/2012 08:54:58 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
ok from now on lets blame Ed |
I handle it well :) |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 09:00:22 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
People run away quickly. Sorry if the strong words make you feel wronged. I am intelligent enough that a handful of occasions won't make me lose all respect for someone, but, yes, lately I have not thought your posts were particularly useful. I can easily divorce that from Frisca, the person, or Frisca, the photographer.
I stand by my response and would hope that at the very least it might give you some possible insight in how someone in the real world might interpret a similar conversation. Lets be honest, if we in Rant world annoy or piss off or anger each other, it really has no bearing on the parts of our life that matter. That's a good thing. I could totally lose every bit of respect for you (a place we haven't reached) and your life wouldn't be affected negatively one bit.
Ed has said he wishes people would stir it up more often so I blame him... |
No no. I said I prefer it and find it entertaining. I did not say I wished it to happen more often. That was your inference. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 09:03:45 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
People run away quickly. Sorry if the strong words make you feel wronged. I am intelligent enough that a handful of occasions won't make me lose all respect for someone, but, yes, lately I have not thought your posts were particularly useful. I can easily divorce that from Frisca, the person, or Frisca, the photographer.
I stand by my response and would hope that at the very least it might give you some possible insight in how someone in the real world might interpret a similar conversation. Lets be honest, if we in Rant world annoy or piss off or anger each other, it really has no bearing on the parts of our life that matter. That's a good thing. I could totally lose every bit of respect for you (a place we haven't reached) and your life wouldn't be affected negatively one bit.
Ed has said he wishes people would stir it up more often so I blame him... |
Doc, there is a huge difference between disagreeing on a topic and insulting someone personally. I've seen your words turned against me and others a few times while you seem to keep acting as if you are being perfectly civil. I'm not sure who you think you are fooling, certainly not me, and obviously not Frisca, who has in my recollection defended me before.
Even your reply is condescending. "Someone in the real world" indeed.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2012 09:25:31 PM · #238 |
That phrase isn't meant in any condescending way. It just means it would be far better to make a mistake and have someone in rant take something the wrong way than to have an actual figure in your life (eg friend, coworker) be offended by something you say. This is one benefit in rant. You can avoid duplicating mistakes in real life.
I'm not personally attacking Frisca any more than she was Cowboy. I offered all the appropriate hedge words like "to me" and "you come across as". The words were strong, but they were meant that way. I'm not calling her names like a fourth grader, but using descriptive words to express how she might be presenting herself. In retrospect the "sickly sweet" was not very accurate and your own word "condescending" would have been better.
Are you personally calling me condescending? Should I be offended? I'm not taking it that way, but maybe that's my bad.
Message edited by author 2012-10-25 21:28:20. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 10:45:52 PM · #239 |
| Jason, you're lucky DPC doesnt keep track number of people offended, otherwise I might have to come out of semi-retirement. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 10:53:48 PM · #240 |
| Your semi-retirement was hard earned Richard. You should just enjoy it. Really I'm slowly retiring myself, but I guess I still have a little fight left in me. After five years I'm just skipping to the end of the conversation. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 11:08:18 PM · #241 |
To jump over the question of condescension and insults, and go back to the posting of the question of moneys donated by pro-environmental lobbies. Your link quoted a donation total of $26 million to political campaigns between 2003 and 2007.
Compare that to:
Chevron oil company's 2001-2010 (not exactly apples to apples but...) $50,405,905
Pacific Gas & Electric (our power monopoly) $66,897,713
Area Petroleum ( an oil producer) $33,435,243
Edison International (LA's power monopoly)$14,503,204
Occidental Petroleum Corporation (an oil producer)$9,978,000
Sempra Energy (Oil company)$6,441,13
Thats the energy boys. Lumber, fishing transportation, real estate development, manufacturing would easily double the total.
Here are the only 2 conservancy groups in the top 50 donors.
Nature Conservancy,$7,988,856
California League of Conservation Voters, $5,563,473
Do you see the conservationists swamping the system with their big money?
|
|
|
|
10/26/2012 12:47:18 AM · #242 |
Me? No, not at all. That's cowboy's horse to ride. I doubt, though, that it's a zero-sum game in the sense that if you are outspent by someone else you have no influence. It may also be that the overlap of politicians being courted by each group is limited. Perhaps the republicans exact a higher price in exchange for their souls? ;)
I don't back cowboy in this discussion. I was just calling out behavior that, in my eyes, deserved calling out. |
|
|
|
10/26/2012 10:04:14 AM · #243 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
People run away quickly. Sorry if the strong words make you feel wronged. I am intelligent enough that a handful of occasions won't make me lose all respect for someone, but, yes, lately I have not thought your posts were particularly useful. I can easily divorce that from Frisca, the person, or Frisca, the photographer.
I stand by my response and would hope that at the very least it might give you some possible insight in how someone in the real world might interpret a similar conversation. Lets be honest, if we in Rant world annoy or piss off or anger each other, it really has no bearing on the parts of our life that matter. That's a good thing. I could totally lose every bit of respect for you (a place we haven't reached) and your life wouldn't be affected negatively one bit.
Ed has said he wishes people would stir it up more often so I blame him... |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Doc, there is a huge difference between disagreeing on a topic and insulting someone personally. I've seen your words turned against me and others a few times while you seem to keep acting as if you are being perfectly civil. I'm not sure who you think you are fooling, certainly not me, and obviously not Frisca, who has in my recollection defended me before.
Even your reply is condescending. "Someone in the real world" indeed. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That phrase isn't meant in any condescending way. It just means it would be far better to make a mistake and have someone in rant take something the wrong way than to have an actual figure in your life (eg friend, coworker) be offended by something you say. This is one benefit in rant. You can avoid duplicating mistakes in real life.
I'm not personally attacking Frisca any more than she was Cowboy. I offered all the appropriate hedge words like "to me" and "you come across as". The words were strong, but they were meant that way. I'm not calling her names like a fourth grader, but using descriptive words to express how she might be presenting herself. In retrospect the "sickly sweet" was not very accurate and your own word "condescending" would have been better.
Are you personally calling me condescending? Should I be offended? I'm not taking it that way, but maybe that's my bad. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't back cowboy in this discussion. I was just calling out behavior that, in my eyes, deserved calling out. |
Pam (Frisca) came to my defense recently, and now she is paying the price. You really ought to grow up. Are you going to stalk her now for a couple of years? That seems to be your pattern. No, you don't back cowboy in this discussion, but you'll be happy to use him and any other opportunity you can find to go for the jugular.
Sorry for the interruption, folks, just had to say that. Back to your regularly scheduled program. |
|
|
|
10/26/2012 05:20:31 PM · #244 |
You're not alone, Frisca. You aren't the first, and you probably won't be the last.
Ilk ilk ilk. |
|
|
|
10/26/2012 05:25:11 PM · #245 |
:) Some PMs have been had and I think the worst is over.
I do think it's cute that the last two responses are from professional ranters. Come on you two, 80 and 90% of your last 10 posts are in Rant. You guys know there are other sections to this site right? ;P |
|
|
|
10/26/2012 06:08:26 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
:) Some PMs have been had and I think the worst is over.
I do think it's cute that the last two responses are from professional ranters. Come on you two, 80 and 90% of your last 10 posts are in Rant. You guys know there's are other sections another section to this site called DIY right? ;P |
Fixed for accuracy.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2012 06:15:01 PM · #247 |
| You make me chuckle Richard. Go have an Emergency Compliment on me! |
|
|
|
10/26/2012 06:23:02 PM · #248 |
Oh my... someone got Yankoed
Ray |
|
|
|
10/26/2012 08:52:38 PM · #249 |
I have to admit that I'm concerned by the polls. Over the last four years I've become accustomed to saying BAAAAARAAAAAK whenever I belch. RRRROMNEY.... I don't think it will work for me.
What is one to do?
|
|
|
|
10/26/2012 09:01:14 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I have to admit that I'm concerned by the polls. Over the last four years I've become accustomed to saying BAAAAARAAAAAK whenever I belch. RRRROMNEY.... I don't think it will work for me.
What is one to do? |
I think it may sound better if you expel the gas using the other end ... ;-) |
|
