1) post 95 contains the website info and my first reply to you, so you can stop being so obtuse.
Which doesn't change what you posted. You have missed the point completely. I don't care this came from another web page. At all. YOU posted it, and I am asking YOUR explination of it. I really don't see how you are failing to get this.
I told you I wasn't at 15 posts yet and I cannot edit it to contain the link so here it is directly to the page, hopefully this helps you to stop acting like a crybaby about it sir.
http://www.anewlife.org/html/faqs.html
As above. I'm not interested where you posted it from. You copied it and pasted it and presented it as your own opinion. I am asking you about your views on the content, not where to find the content.
2) It seems only you and the ranting lobster have a problem with it, your problem being merely grammar syntax and lobsters being etiquette.
My problem being "saving the world is a hoax" doesn't make sense, and I would like to know what you meant. I have explained WHY it doesn't make sense and offered you every oppertunity to admit it was a nonesense and to tell me what you meant to say. Instead you have wasted post after post, like this one, arguing.
Why can't you just say what you meant, now the error has been identified?
For example you've been repeatedly told that the word they used in that context obviously means a sweeping generalization of the masses, this is how many times you've been told this? Go contact them if you disagree, it's not hard.
Why? Will THEY know YOUR opinion? Will THEY know why YOU chose to copy and paste that gibberish and include it in the conversation THEY have played no part in?
What is so difficult about telling me what YOU think it means in the context YOU posted it. I have no interest in anybody elses opinion.
You've spent more time typing than it would have taken to confirm what they meant by the word they and them exactly.
Because you are the person whose opinion I have been asking for. Why can't you offer it? Why do you offer somebody elses?
1) Anytime someone uses the words they or them doesn't have to refer to you, the reason you take it so personally is because you think they or them is actually referring to you without confirming it with the author/site.
You're being paranoid sir.
Again with the accusation of paranoia. I do not thinki they meant me. I do not take the post personally. I have explained that several times. Please decist in this lie.
2)Why continue asking for names if you don't think it means you?
Because you haven't answered. I asked what you meant when you posted this as your own, not when you posted a link later. I still want to know who you think 'they' are in terms of a defined group or section of society.
Why would a sweeping generalization of the masses automatically mean = names? /Boggle
Because in the context of the discussion we are having "they" can not be a sweeping generalisation of the population as a whole. It is a discussion of an unyet undefined group. I want to know beyond "somebody" what you meant. What group, portion of society or body, you thought the comments represented and refered to when you posted them. How is this so hard?
3) He made the claim defend it or not I don't care obviously he doesn't have to prove it, but I know he can't. It doesn't make one look good when they rant and rave and cannot even back up their assertions. It gives the appearance of an angry lunatic.
By which logic, the fact you keep persisting in trying to accuse me of paranoia and turn this into an argument when I am offering you every chance to be civil makes you look like "an angry lunatic". Perhaps you could just answer the questions of what relevence the "FAQ" has in your opinion, whom you think it discusses and what exactly you meant by "saving the world is a hoax" instead of continuing this silly rant?
Go ahead and report this I don't feel i've been out of line at all.
So when somebody explains they did not assume something was a direct reference to them, and that your assumption of their paranois is wrong, you feel it perfectly reasonable and civil to act in a trollish way and call them a lunatic? Is it not a little odd that you keep trying to pretend I took one comment personally, while ignoring the very personal insults you continue to make?
I am astounded at the lengths you seem to be going to avoid some very simple questions. Here they are again. Take notes if you like:
What did you think the word "They" meant when YOU posted the copied text?
What did you mean by the word fart "saving the world is a hoax"?
You can keep arguing about if you were right or wrong to post them, or if they are good or bad English. But it would be a lot simpler to just answer them.
I think more that you and the frother are misunderstanding the fact that I refuse to join your side,
Nope. Amazingly enough most people here are fully aware others have different views. Sometimes, when other people make posts that are confused gibberish, we ask the poster what they meant and point out the statements that made no sense. We ask questions about those views and was meant. Like I have been doing.
this horrendous display of the lack of grace is a reasonable example why I shouldn't join unreasonable people such as yourselves.
You mean the lack of grace like pointing out statements that make no sense or are confusing and asking for clarification of your views? Like pointing out when your posts seem trollish so you might do something to avoid upsetting people?
You feel that is more horrendous than, for example, misrepresenting the posts of others and claiming they are frothing lunatics and ranters? Stating outright an entirely false reason for asking a question to justify accusations of paranoia?
Perhaps you would be so good as to explain what is so unreasonable about asking you what your posts mean and what your interpretation of a citation is rather than what the authors is?
Why would you consider me psychic for not being able to read someones mind?
I don't and did not claim you are. I pointed out that the text you copied made so little text you suggested you would have to be psychic to know what they meant. YOU made the statement you would have to be psychic to know what it meant. Why do you insist on misrepresenting posts?
In the hopes your not being a troll I can only point you to the new life foundation given in the link above. Go confirm with them what they meant by they and them but you've been offered my thoughts about it. It makes you look crazy paranoid to me.
Again, I don't care what they meant. Not a jot. I don't give two hoots what the new life foundation meant. I care what you thought they meant when you took the time to copy the danged text.
If this is so very hard for you to grasp, just don't bother replying to this post.
