Question for you all

> Obviously, you completely missed why I wrote that.

I didn't: it's a matter of opinion. If you think Brian's the best guitarist in Queen, great. If you don't, great. It's a matter of opinion.

> One, I'm not a guy (with my username, I would imagine it's pretty obvious)

I had intended to write 'I reckon you're a nice person' (or something more gender neutral) but I forgot. My mistake.

> but two, I was being sarcastic.

Judging a person's niceness (or lack thereof) over one post is stupid. Judge me if you see me hitting my girlfriend, traumatising my kid, mistreating people because of their race, gender, income, etc. But writing 'can you read?' doesn't make me a bad person (or a 'not-nice' one).

> While I have no idea how nice of a guy you are, aggressively asking someone if they can read does not show that you are a nice guy.

I didn't ask aggressively. I just asked.

> Not that you would care.

I do care. Otherwise I'd simply ignored it.

> Honestly, I couldn't care less about this.

Then why bother replying? You at least care enough to read and answer.

> No, being defensive could also be asking someone aggressively 'can you read'

Yes, but I didn't ask aggressively. I just asked.

> instead of explaining why they misinterpreted you (if they did.)

I could've explained (and I did), but first I wanted to know if you could read, otherwise it'd be a waste of space.

> Similarly, being rude could also mean aggressively asking someone 'can you read'? It's subjective, and I think you were being defensive and rude.

Of course it's subjective. On my first post on this thread (IIRC) I started by stating that all of this was a matter of opinion. Can you read?

> Don't get me wrong. It's not that important to me.

It's at least important enough for you to read and reply. And wasn't your previous message your last on this? Oh wait: you DO care enough to contradict yourself!

> I'm not a frail little girl, and while I don't expect you to care, for what it's worth, I do think you were being defensive and rude.

Being defensive and rude would be insulting your country, race, religion, political affiliation, intellect (not being able to read doesn't necessarily relate to it). But yes, it's subjective. On my first post on this thread (IIRC) I started by stating that all of this was a matter of opinion. Can you read?

> But in answer to your question, yes I can; perhaps better than you would like.

You can't read my mind. I wouldn't like or dislike whether you can read or not. I do care about it since it's a key factor for this discussion: if you can, there's a chance you may understand what I mean; if you don't, there's no need to waste time and space.

> In fact, probably alot of people read your posts better than you would like them to.

I wouldn't 'like' or 'dislike' people reading my posts. It's their problem. I only care if/when they write something (good or bad, or neither) about them, and then I reply, thats all. Maybe (and hopefully) there are people with enough understanding to get what I write (whether they agree or not), but there are also some who don't seem to get a simple comment like the one about the three brothers. And your behaviour and comments imply you're on the second group. Which prompts the question: can you read?

> So you completely missed why I wrote it. Do you not see why the use of 'it's all a matter of opinion here, but:' can come across as meaning anything but that?

It 'can', but it doesn't mean it always does. And I didn't use the example to suggest or imply Fred was absolutely and categorically 'weaker' as a lyricst, I used it to illustrate that his 'weakest' point (be it lyrics, harmonies, rhythm, modulations, dissonances...) could still be very strong. You completely missed that point, which prompts the question: can you read?

Sebastian wrote: ""> Obviously, you completely missed why I wrote that."


"I didn't: it's a matter of opinion. If you think Brian's the best guitarist in Queen, great. If you don't, great. It's a matter of opinion."

Except you did miss why I wrote it. I didn't write it because I don't think that Brian is the best guitarist in Queen.

"Judging a person's niceness (or lack thereof) over one post is stupid. Judge me if you see me hitting my girlfriend, traumatising my kid, mistreating people because of their race, gender, income, etc. But writing 'can you read?' doesn't make me a bad person (or a 'not-nice' one)."

I never said that you're a bad person. But I did note that aggressively asking me if I can read isn't in my view particularly nice, polite, decent etc... Also the fact that on this post you constantly ask me if I can read, when it was made pretty clear that I'm not particularly thrilled with that 'question' indicates to me that either you don't give a damn what the person you're having a discussion feels, you truly don't get why being asked 'can you read?' time after time would get on the nerves of the Dalai Lama, or you aren't as nice a person as you claim to be.

"I didn't ask aggressively. I just asked."

I disagree.

" "Honestly, I couldn't care less about this."

"Then why bother replying? You at least care enough to read and answer."

I should have been more specific. I don't care about the world's population.

" "No, being defensive could also be asking someone aggressively 'can you read'" "

"Yes, but I didn't ask aggressively. I just asked."

I disagree.

" "instead of explaining why they misinterpreted you (if they did.)"

"I could've explained (and I did), but first I wanted to know if you could read, otherwise it'd be a waste of space."

Alright, I won't take it this personally this time, but I'll simply point that if I couldn't read, why would I be on this site, and how would I be responding to your posts?

However, it's not about being able to read. Several times, on this thread, you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I could have checked to see if you could read, but I know that you can, however you did not get what I was saying.

"Of course it's subjective. On my first post on this thread (IIRC) I started by stating that all of this was a matter of opinion. Can you read?"

Actually you said OF course it's all a matter of opinion here, BUT: (I put the but in capital letters)

Can you read?!

" "Don't get me wrong. It's not that important to me."

"It's at least important enough for you to read and reply."

No, it's not that important that I would lose any sleep over it.

And wasn't your previous message your last on this?"Oh wait: you DO care enough to contradict yourself!"

I changed my mind. That has nothing to do with caring or not caring.

"Being defensive and rude would be insulting your country, race, religion, political affiliation, intellect (not being able to read doesn't necessarily relate to it)."

You do realise that there are plenty more things than that, that a person can be rude about? Those are not the only things which a person can be rude about.

"But yes, it's subjective. On my first post on this thread (IIRC) I started by stating that all of this was a matter of opinion. Can you read?"

Obviously better than you.

"You can't read my mind. I wouldn't like or dislike whether you can read or not. I do care about it since it's a key factor for this discussion: if you can, there's a chance you may understand what I mean; if you don't, there's no need to waste time and space."

You know what Sebastian, it's times like this that I have to really bite my tongue. Because, unlike other members, you don't resort to name-calling, I'm not going to do the same. I will simply note that in a civilised discussion, if someone feels that they are being misinterpreted, they calmly and reasonably explain what they meant. Obviously, I should have realised that was never going to happen.

"Maybe (and hopefully) there are people with enough understanding to get what I write (whether they agree or not), but there are also some who don't seem to get a simple comment like the one about the three brothers. And your behaviour and comments imply you're on the second group. Which prompts the question: can you read?"

Yeh, I know, it's my fault that I didn't understand such a simple (and stupid) comment. Give me a break. I didn't fail to get anything. However, if you think I did fail to get it, maybe it's because you weren't clear. No, you don't need to bear any responsibility at all. That's right, it's all the responsibility of the reader.

" "So you completely missed why I wrote it. Do you not see why the use of 'it's all a matter of opinion here, but:' can come across as meaning anything but that?"

"It 'can', but it doesn't mean it always does. And I didn't use the example to suggest or imply Fred was absolutely and categorically 'weaker' as a lyricst, I used it to illustrate that his 'weakest' point (be it lyrics, harmonies, rhythm, modulations, dissonances...) could still be very strong."

All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion that his weakest point was his lyrics, which is absolutely a matter of opinion.

"You completely missed that point, which prompts the question: can you read?"

I know I said I wouldn't resort to name calling; well I changed my mind. Jerk.

> I didn't write it because I don't think that Brian is the best guitarist in Queen.

I didn't say you thought that. And I didn't say you didn't think that. I did imply that, in the case you think Brian's the best guitarist in Queen, it's your opinion and it's respectable; in the case you don't, it's also respectable.

> But I did note that aggressively asking me if I can read isn't in my view particularly nice, polite, decent etc...

There was no aggression in my question. I just asked.

> Also the fact that on this post you constantly ask me if I can read, when it was made pretty clear that I'm not particularly
thrilled with that 'question' indicates to me that either you don't give a damn what the person you're having a discussion feels, you truly don't get why being asked 'can you read?' time after time would get on the nerves of the Dalai Lama, or you aren't as nice a person as you claim to be.

There are several things addressed there, so let's see them one by one:

* If you're not particularly thrilled with my quesiton, there's a solution: don't read it. Can you refrain from reading?

* About giving a damn about what you feel: I'm not kicking you or torturing you, I'm just asking. Go cry like a baby if I ever physically hurt you or do something that's truly serious. Asking you if you can read is far from being an actual offense. Grow up.

* Neither you nor I can read Mr Gyatso's mind.

* I am a nice person, as I'm sure most of the forum posters are (including you).

> I disagree.

Good for you. But since you can't convince me to agree with you, nor I can convince you to agree with me, you'd rather agree to disagree, or keep replying. It's your choice.

> Alright, I won't take it this personally this time, but I'll simply point that if I couldn't read, why would I be on this site, and how would I be responding to your posts?

I don't know, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can in fact read, then you should do it more carefully.

> However, it's not about being able to read. Several times, on this thread, you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I could have checked to see if you could read, but I know that you can

Good for you. I, on the other hand, am not sure if you can.

> however you did not get what I was saying.

Then why wasting time on me?

> Actually you said OF course it's all a matter of opinion here, BUT: (I put the but in capital letters)Can you read?!

Yes, I can (very original of you to ask that, BTW). The 'but' doesn't necessarily imply that my view on the matter was above subjectivity. Can you read?

> No, it's not that important that I would lose any sleep over it.

While it's not important enough for you to lose any sleep over it, it's important enough for you to read and reply. Why bother if I'm, according to you, a jerk? Is your self-esteem so low that you've got to argue with a 'jerk'? Is your self-esteem so low that I can push your buttons without even knowing you? Is your self-esteem so low that you've got to cry like a baby over a comment?

> I changed my mind. That has nothing to do with caring or not caring.

It has, if you cared enough to change your mind.

> You do realise that there are plenty more things than that, that a person can be rude about?

Yes, but asking you if you can read is not one of them. Of course, as I wrote earlier, it's a matter of opinion. Can you read?

> Those are not the only things which a person can be rude about.

You're right, but asking you if you can read is not one of them. Of course, as I wrote earlier, it's a matter of opinion. Can you read?

> Obviously better than you.

Oh yes, the good old 'I'm better than you' argument. Very mature. Should I get you a dummy or ask for somebody to change your nappy?

> You know what Sebastian, it's times like this that I have to really bite my tongue.

Of course it's your prerogative, but I advise you not to: it hurts, and if you bite hard enough, you may bleed.

> Because, unlike other members, you don't resort to name-calling, I'm not going to do the same.

OMG, I feel so blessed!

> I will simply note that in a civilised discussion, if someone feels that they are being misinterpreted, they calmly and reasonably explain what they meant.

Indeed. Was my reply the ideal one? No. But:

Did I call you names? No
Did I insult your family? No
Did I say or imply your mother's having intercourse with strangers in exchange for money? No
Did I say you're a person with defective chromosomes? No
Did I insult your lifestyle (whichever it may be)? No
Did I insult your religion (or lack thereof) or those following it? No
Did I wish for everybody you know to die? No
Did I write 'can you read' in capital letters (i-net equivalent of yelling)? No

So, I did not offend you. Can you read?

> Obviously, I should have realised that was never going to happen.

You know how magic eight-balls aren't infallible.

> Yeh, I know, it's my fault that I didn't understand such a simple (and stupid) comment.

If it's so stupid, why bother reading and replying it? Am I such an important part of your life?

> Give me a break.

It is you who's got to give you a break.

> I didn't fail to get anything. However, if you think I did fail to get it, maybe it's because you weren't clear.

Yes, maybe I wasn't. It is one of the possibilities. Another one is that you can't read. Which is why I asked: can you read?

> No, you don't need to bear any responsibility at all.

Neither do you. However, there are better ways to reply.

> That's right, it's all the responsibility of the reader.

Not necessarily.

> All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion

No, I did not imply that. Can you read?

> I know I said I wouldn't resort to name calling; well I changed my mind. Jerk.

Oh yes, the good old 'I've got no argument so I'm gonna call you names' argument. Very mature. Should I get you a dummy or ask for somebody to change your nappy? Are you potty-trained already?

Sebastian wrote: " "I didn't write it because I don't think that Brian is the best guitarist in Queen."


"I didn't say you thought that. And I didn't say you didn't think that. I did imply that, in the case you think Brian's the best guitarist in Queen, it's your opinion and it's respectable; in the case you don't, it's also respectable."

Uh, I said that was why I didn't write it.

"If you're not particularly thrilled with my quesiton, there's a solution: don't read it. Can you refrain from reading?"

Well, obviously I would hope to have discussions with you without your getting so defensive.

"About giving a damn about what you feel: I'm not kicking you or torturing you, I'm just asking. Go cry like a baby if I ever physically hurt you or do something that's truly serious. Asking you if you can read is far from being an actual offense. Grow up."

Uh, I'm not the one that is throwing a tantrum here.

"I don't know, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can in fact read, then you should do it more carefully."

Or maybe you should explain yourself more carefully. You know, for someone so pedantic and literal, the fact that your questioning whether I can read is bizarre.

"Good for you. I, on the other hand, am not sure if you can."

I can say the exact same thing about you.

"Then why wasting time on me?"

Why wate time responding to me?

""Actually you said OF course it's all a matter of opinion here, BUT: (I put the but in capital letters)Can you read?!"

"Yes, I can (very original of you to ask that, BTW)."

Your accusing me of not being original?!!!!

"The 'but' doesn't necessarily imply that my view on the matter was above subjectivity."

Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm BTW.)

"Can you read?"

How original.

"While it's not important enough for you to lose any sleep over it, it's important enough for you to read and reply."

Let me get this straight. I can only respond to things if they are so important I lose sleep over them? In that case, I probably wouldn't be on this site.

"Why bother if I'm, according to you, a jerk? Is your self-esteem so low that you've got to argue with a 'jerk'?"

Since when did I say that I had low self-esteem? There are numerous reasons to have arguments, but low self-esteem isn't one of them (at least for me.)

I"s your self-esteem so low that I can push your buttons without even knowing you?"

Oh lord. If you mean that you're annoying me, yes you are pushing my button; if you mean that you're making me angry, then you're not pushing my buttons.

"Is your self-esteem so low that you've got to cry like a baby over a comment?"

I'm not the one who threw a tantrum. It's quite hypocritical of you to to accuse anyone of acting like a baby. Anyway, I made one comment. If you think that I was crying like a baby, you either don't have any children or nieces/nephews, or believe that anytime someone makes an emotional comment, they are crying like a baby. Very mature.

"It has, if you cared enough to change your mind."

Fine, I care enough to change my mind.

"Yes, but asking you if you can read is not one of them. Of course, as I wrote earlier, it's a matter of opinion."

It is indeed a matter of opinion, and I do think it is rude.

"Can you read?"

No comment.

"Oh yes, the good old 'I'm better than you' argument. Very mature. Should I get you a dummy or ask for somebody to change your nappy?"

You are such a lovely guy. (That was sarcasm.) It's actually quite funny. You repeat the same thing over and over, you make comments which you know annoys the other person and you throw tantrums. So, I'm curious, who exactly is meant to be the baby around here?

"Of course it's your prerogative, but I advise you not to: it hurts, and if you bite hard enough, you may bleed."

Are you serious?

""Because, unlike other members, you don't resort to name-calling, I'm not going to do the same."

"OMG, I feel so blessed!"

You can feel whatever you like about it.

" "I will simply note that in a civilised discussion, if someone feels that they are being misinterpreted, they calmly and reasonably explain what they meant."

"Did I write 'can you read' in capital letters (i-net equivalent of yelling)? No"

You don't need to write it in capital letters, to be aggressive.

"So, I did not offend you."

I'm curious, since when did you develop the ability to read minds? You said that we can't read Mr Gyatso's mind, yet you can read mine? You can not tell me whether you offended me or not. You can say it wasn't your intention, but you can't know whether or not I was offended. As it was, for what's it worth, I was offended.

"Can you read?"

No comment.

"If it's so stupid, why bother reading and replying it? Am I such an important part of your life?"

No, but that's irrelevent.

"Yes, maybe I wasn't. It is one of the possibilities. Another one is that you can't read. Which is why I asked: can you read?"

Yeh, you definitely are proving that you don't know how to hold a mature discussion.

BTW, before I reach the last comment, after all of these repetitive and immature 'can you read?' who exactly is meant to be the baby here?

"Neither do you. However, there are better ways to reply."

You're giving me advice on how to respond? That's incredible.

""That's right, it's all the responsibility of the reader."

"Not necessarily."

So, it's not all my fault?

""All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion"

"No, I did not imply that."

Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)

"Can you read?"

In this case, clearly better than you.

"Oh yes, the good old 'I've got no argument so I'm gonna call you names' argument. Very mature."

No, the good old 'I'm sick and tired of this guy's constant and immature responses, and since he's clearly not interested in proposing any arguments or having a reasonable discussion (not that he probably ever was) I'm through with biting my tongue' thing. It actually wasn't so much an argument as an observation that you would get on the nerves of most reasonable people.

"Should I get you a dummy or ask for somebody to change your nappy? Are you potty-trained already?"

You're a very nasty person, you know that? I'm not complaining or making an emotional comment. I'm simply noting that you really are not a pleasant guy at all and that it was a disgusting response.

Oh, and BTW considering that you forever repeat the same comments, you make comments which you're aware annoys the person you're talking to, you spout immature nonsence, and you throw tantrums; I really think you should be careful about calling or implying that other people are babies.

> Well, obviously I would hope to have discussions with you without your getting so defensive.

I'm not getting defensive. A defensive person would call the other names like 'jerk'. So, between the two of us, there is one defensive person, but it's not me.

> Uh, I'm not the one that is throwing a tantrum here.

Actually, you are.

> You know, for someone so pedantic and literal, the fact that your questioning whether I can read is bizarre.

Then why wasting your time on me? Am I such an important part of your life?

> I can say the exact same thing about you.

Then you're again contradicting yourself.

> Why wate time responding to me.

Because for me it's not wasting time. I'm not the one who's calling the other person bizarre, jerk or pedantic. You, to me, are a person who deserves respect (like almost anybody in QZ), so I've got no problem replying to any message you direct at me.

> Your accusing me of not being original?!!!!

Yes. Is that a crime?

> How original.

Well, no, it's not original. So?

> Let me get this straight. I can only respond to things if they are so important I lose sleep over them?

No, but I never said otherwise. Can you read?

> In that case, I probably wouldn't be on this site.

Your choice.

> Since when did I imply that I had low self-esteem?

You didn't, I did. Can you read?

> Oh lord. If you mean that you're annoying me, yes you are pushing my button; if you mean that you're making me angry, then you're not pushing my buttons.

If I'm annoying you, then why bother writing to me, replying to me and reading what I write?

> I'm not the one who threw a tantrum.

Actually, you are.

>  It's quite hypocritical of you to to accuse anyone of acting like a baby.

No, it's not. There are two options:

* Option A: I'm not acting like a baby, and I say you are. There's nothing wrong with it.

* Option B: I'm also acting like a baby, and I say you are. There's nothing wrong with it: to say you are something, it's not mandatory for me not to be the same thing. Or should I be dead in order to say that a person's alive? Should I have feathers in order to say that a creature has scales? Should I be a plant in order to say a walrus is an animal?

> If you think that I was crying like a baby, you either don't have any children or nieces/nephews, or believe that anytime someone makes an emotional comment, they are crying like a baby.

I do have a kid, that's got nothing to do with my opinion on your attitude as childish. And trying to bully me with an argument like that again shows your immaturity: should I buy you a new set of nappies?

> Fine, I care enough to change my mind.

And why? Is your self-esteem so low?

> It is a matter of opinion, and I do think it is rude.

And I do think your attitude is childish. A view you reinforce by your behaviour.

> You are such a lovely guy. (That was sarcasm.) It's actually quite funny.

Then why bother replying to what I write? Am I such an important part of your life?

> You repeat the same thing over and over, you make comments which you know annoys the other person and you throw tantrums.

You reply to a person you claim is repeating the same thing over and over, making comments which he knows annoys you and throw tantrums. So, I'm curious, am I such an important part of your life?

> So, I'm curious, who exactly is meant to be the baby around here?

You are. Your attitude, behaviour and childish comebacks confirm so.

> Are you serious?

Indeed. Biting one's tongue is not dangerous (most of the time, at least), but it does make things difficult for a couple of days. Try giving a speech ... it's hell if your tongue's got blisters.

> You can feel whatever you like about it.

Of course I can, it's not up to you.

> You don't need to write it in capital letters, to be aggressive.

You've got that one right.

> I'm curious, since when did you develop the ability to read minds? You said that we can't read Mr Gyatso's mind, yet you can read mine?

I never claimed to read your mind. So, for you to throw that senseless argument is yet another feat of immaturity and perhaps an insane focus on me. Why is that?

> You can not tell me whether you offended me or not.

Well, I can, but the risk of making a mistake is high. But I can: I offended you. I did not offend you. See? I could!!!!

> You can say it wasn't your intention, but you can't know whether or not I was offended.

Right. And 2+2=4. How's that relevant to the topic?

> As it was, for what's it worth, I was offended.

Your problem, not mine, as I did not mean to offend you.

> No, but that's irrelevent.

Indeed. But it still prompts the question: why bothering reading what I write if I'm such a jerk?

> Yeh, you definitely are proving that you don't know how to hold a mature discussion.

So why bothering reading what I write and replying to me? Are you obsessed with me?

> BTW, before I reach the last comment, after all of these repetitive and immature 'can you read?' who exactly is meant to be the baby here?

You are. And your behaviour and tantrums show it.

> You're giving me advice on how to respond?

Actually, I'm not. It's up to you. I merely said there are better ways. Full stop.

> All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion

No, I implied that while it's a matter of opinion, it's still valid to state what one thinks and why. Can you read?

> Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)

And totally uncalled for.

> No, the good old 'I'm sick and tired of this guy's constant and immature responses, and since he's clearly not interested in proposing any arguments or having a reasonable discussion (not that he probably ever was) I'm through with biting my tongue' thing.

I did propose arguments. Between the two of us, only you have called the other one 'jerk', 'pedantic', etc. And by the way, while my first post was about the topic, it was you who replied with personal things. So: you are the one with constant and immature responses.

>  It actually wasn't so much an argument as an observation that you would get on the nerves of most reasonable people.

You don't know me, so it's ridiculous to make such statement based on what's written on an internet forum.

> You're a very nasty person, you know that?

You don't know me, so it's ridiculous to make such statement based on what's written on an internet forum.

> I'm not complaining or making an emotional comment.

But the way you do it is very childish and petty.

> I'm noting that you really are not pleasant guy at all.

You don't know me, so it's ridiculous to make such statement based on what's written on an internet forum.

> Disgusting.Oh, and BTW considering that you forever repeat the same comments

Not forever. Maybe for a couple of hours. That's not even a tiny fraction of 'forever'.

> you make comments which you're aware annoys the person you're talking to

Then why bother replying? Am I such an important part of your life?

> you spout immature nonsence

Not quite. You do, though.

> and you throw tantrums

Not quite. You do, though.

>  I really think you should be careful about calling or implying that other people are babies.

Not other people: I think you're the first and only person I've called immature and baby-like (in terms of behaviour) in about a decade and 3,8+K messages posted here. And I stand by it: are you potty-trained already?

Sebastian wrote: "Well, obviously I would hope to have discussions with you without your getting so defensive."


"I'm not getting defensive. A defensive person would call the other names like 'jerk'. So, between the two of us, there is one defensive person, but it's not me."

I disagree.

"Uh, I'm not the one that is throwing a tantrum here."

"Actually, you are."

You just keep telling that yourself.

""I can say the exact same thing about you."

"Then you're again contradicting yourself."

So what if I am?

" "Your accusing me of not being original?!!!!

"Yes. Is that a crime?"

No, but it is unusual, considering that you aren't particularly original yourself.

" "How original."

Well, no, it's not original. So?"

See above.

" "Since when did I imply that I had low self-esteem?"

"You didn't, I did."

Hence, my rhetorical question.

"Can you read?"

No comment.

" "I'm not the one who threw a tantrum."

"Actually, you are."

Actually, it is you who threw a tantrum.

" "It's quite hypocritical of you to to accuse anyone of acting like a baby."

"No, it's not. There are two options:

* Option A: I'm not acting like a baby, and I say you are. There's nothing wrong with it.

* Option B: I'm also acting like a baby, and I say you are. There's nothing wrong with it: to say you are something, it's not mandatory for me not to be the same thing. Or should I be dead in order to say that a person's alive? Should I have feathers in order to say that a creature has scales? Should I be a plant in order to say a walrus is an animal?"

Considering your baby-related comments, you are a hypocrite.

" "If you think that I was crying like a baby, you either don't have any children or nieces/nephews, or believe that anytime someone makes an emotional comment, they are crying like a baby."

"I do have a kid, that's got nothing to do with my opinion on your attitude as childish."

I'm sorry, YOU are calling me childish?

"And trying to bully me with an argument like that again shows your immaturity:"

If I'm attempting to bully you, that makes me a bully, not immature. I wasn't BTW.

"should I buy you a new set of nappies?"

You can use it yourself. (Look at that, I sank down to your level.)

" "Fine, I care enough to change my mind."

"And why? Is your self-esteem so low?"

Uh, people change their minds all the time. It's part of being a fully developed human being.

" "It is a matter of opinion, and I do think it is rude."

"And I do think your attitude is childish. A view you reinforce by your behaviour."

Right. Whatever you say. You really are delusional.

" "So, I'm curious, who exactly is meant to be the baby around here?"

"You are."

Uh, no, but better luck next time.

"Your attitude, behaviour and childish comebacks confirm so." Let's examine this.

My attitude? I noted that I thought you were being rude. I didn't make much of it, I only made a comment or two, and you start accusing me of acting like a baby! Yeh, Sebastian, my attitude is really childish.

My behaviour? No, I can't think of anything.

My childish comebacks? Uh, let's see. No, the only ones I can think of belong to you.

" "I'm curious, since when did you develop the ability to read minds? You said that we can't read Mr Gyatso's mind, yet you can read mine?"

"I never claimed to read your mind. So, for you to throw that senseless argument is yet another feat of immaturity and perhaps an insane focus on me. Why is that?"

You probably think that my walking down the street is a feat of immaturity; you're really clutching at straws.

No, it's not a senseless argument. It was inspired by your argument that we can't read the Dalai Lama's mind (and that isn't a senseless argument?) and in response to your saying I wasn't offended.

" "You can not tell me whether you offended me or not."

"Well, I can, but the risk of making a mistake is high. But I can: I offended you. I did not offend you. See? I could!!!!"

No, you can't tell me whether you offended me or not.

" "You can say it wasn't your intention, but you can't know whether or not I was offended."

"Right. And 2+2=4. How's that relevant to the topic?"

Are you serious?

I suppose talking about Killer Queen is irrelevent in a discussion about SHA.

" "As it was, for what's it worth, I was offended."

"Your problem, not mine, as I did not mean to offend you."

Hence, my use of the phase for what it's worth.

" "BTW, before I reach the last comment, after all of these repetitive and immature 'can you read?' who exactly is meant to be the baby here?"

"You are. And your behaviour and tantrums show it."

Keep telling that to yourself. Your fantasy world must be extraordinary.

" "All I know is that you implied that while it is all a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of opinion"

"No, I implied that while it's a matter of opinion, it's still valid to state what one thinks and why. Can you read?"

I know what you said.

" "Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)"

"And totally uncalled for."

No more uncalled for than any of the childish and immature things you've said and continue to say.

"I did propose arguments. Between the two of us, only you have called the other one 'jerk', 'pedantic', etc."

You proposed arguments? When?

"And by the way, while my first post was about the topic, it was you who replied with personal things."

Perhaps, but your response to my response removed any possibility of us having a reasonable discussion.

"So: you are the one with constant and immature responses."

Keep telling that to yourself.

" "It actually wasn't so much an argument as an observation that you would get on the nerves of most reasonable people."

"You don't know me, so it's ridiculous to make such statement based on what's written on an internet forum."

I've read enough of your posts, as well as posts from other people, so it's not that ridiculous.

"I'm not complaining or making an emotional comment."

"But the way you do it is very childish and petty."

Petty, yes, I'll give you that.

" "you spout immature nonsence"
"Not quite. You do, though."

""and you throw tantrums
"Not quite. You do, though."

Whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)

"Not other people: I think you're the first and only person I've called immature and baby-like (in terms of behaviour) in about a decade and 3,8+K messages posted here."

I'm honoured. So I guess you only act like a baby with me?

"And I stand by it: are you potty-trained already?"

And I stand by what I said; you're a hypocrite and a very nasty person.

> I disagree.

Good for you.

> You just keep telling that yourself.

Actually, I'm telling that to you.

> So what if I am?

Nothing, just that: you're contradicting yourself.

> No, but it is unusual, considering that you aren't particularly original yourself.

No, it's not unusual. Do I have to be dead to say another person's alive? Do I have to be a woman to say another person's a man? Do I have to be old to say another person's young?

> Hence, my rhetorical question.

And a quite unneeded one.

> Actually, it is you who threw a tantrum.

No, it isn't me. The one with the name calling and all that is you, so it is you throwing a tantrum.

> Considering your baby-related comments, you are a hypocrite.

No, I'm not. Can you read?

> I'm sorry, YOU are calling me childish?

Yes. Can you read?

> If I'm attempting to bully you, that makes me a bully, not immature.

Many bullies are immature. Those conditions aren't mutually exclusive. I don't consider you a bully, and I don't consider you immature since I don't know you. However, I do consider your attitude in the last few hours to be completely ridiculous and childish.

> You can use it yourself.

I wouldn't find any use for them.

>  (Look at that, I sank down to your level.)

You'd sunk way lower when you called me 'jerk'.

> Uh, people change their minds all the time.

Yes, and sometimes it hasn't got anything to do with being childish. But not in this case.

> It's part of being a fully developed human being.

Yes but, from what you've written here, you're far from being one.

> Right. Whatever you say. You really are delusional.

Actually, I'm not. The person with the name-calling (i.e. you) is the one who's delusional.

> Uh, no, but better luck next time.

What a comeback! Again, too childish.

> Let's examine this.My attitude? I noted that I thought you were being rude. I didn't make much of it, I only made a comment or two, and you start accusing me of acting like a baby!

I think both your replies and mine went way beyond a comment or two.

> Yeh, Sebastian, my attitude is really childish.

Yes, it is indeed. Very childish.

> My behaviour? No, I can't think of anything.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

> My childish comebacks? Uh, let's see. No, the only ones I can think of belong to you.

'Jerk' is completely childish. And who was the one who said it?

> You probably think that my walking down the street is a feat of immaturity

Walking down the street is not a feat of immaturity. Your behaviour on this thread during the last hours is.

> No, it's not a senseless argument. It was inspired by your argument that we can't read the Dalai Lama's mind (and that isn't a senseless argument?) and in response to your saying I wasn't offended.

If I did say you weren't offended, then I take it back. However, that's not implying I can read your mind (Again: can you read?). If I said something else and you thought I was implying I could read your mind, then again: can you read?

> No, you can't tell me whether you offended me or not.

Yes, I can. I can type the sentence and I can utter the words. Would that sentence be correct or incorrect? That's another matter. But of course I can say those things (again, they could be right or wrong).

> Are you serious?I suppose talking about Killer Queen is irrelevent in a discussion about SHA.

No, it's not. Unless of course it's about SHA the song, although there could be some connexions.

> Keep telling that to yourself.

I'm not telling that to myself: I'm telling that to you.

> Your fantasy world must be extraordinary.

So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Those three things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish.

> No more uncalled for than any of the childish and immature things you've said and continue to say.

So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Those three things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish.

> You proposed arguments? When?

Well, the whole brothers thing is an argument, and it had nothing to do with you.

> Perhaps, but your response to my response removed any possibility of us having a reasonable discussion.

So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Moreover, you've denied having any responsibility in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people. Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish.

> Keep telling that to yourself.

I'm not telling that to myself: I'm telling that to you.

> I've read enough of your posts, as well as posts from other people, so it's not that ridiculous.

It is, as that doesn't mean at all that you know me. If I, based on your comments, said you're significant other is cheating on you (for example), that'd be completely ridiculous, immature, uncalled for and childish. Same if I told you 'jerk'. But I didn't do the latter: you did. So, the one who's being childish and immature is you.

>  I'm honoured. So I guess you only act like a baby with me?

Actually, I don't. So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Moreover, you've denied having any responsibility in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people. Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish.

> And I stand by what I said; you're a hypocrite and a very nasty person.

Actually, I'm not. There's nothing hypocrite about calling you childish. And the 'very nasty' people are those who are into really serious nasty stuff (e.g. wife-beating, nazism, rape), rather than simply calling someone 'childish' over an internet forum.

So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Moreover, you've denied having any responsibility in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people. Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish.

Sebastian wrote: So does Mr I-hate-Seb-but-I'm-obsessed-with-him.

"Hate"? Don't be silly. Presumably you replying to me means you're obsessed with me? lol

No, it doesn't. However, you've replied to several of my posts even if they haven't got anything to do with you, and very often with personal attacks. You seem to be very aware of what I write and ready to reply to it. That's a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.

Sebastian wrote:" "Hence, my rhetorical question."


"And a quite unneeded one."

No, it was perfectly appropiate.

" "Actually, it is you who threw a tantrum."

"No, it isn't me. The one with the name calling and all that is you, so it is you throwing a tantrum."

Think whatever you want, whether it be the truth or not.

" "Considering your baby-related comments, you are a hypocrite."

"No, I'm not. Can you read?"

No comment.

" "I'm sorry, YOU are calling me childish?"

"Yes. Can you read?"

No comment.

"However, I do consider your attitude in the last few hours to be completely ridiculous and childish."

I guess we have a different completely different view of the discussion.

" "You can use it yourself."

"I wouldn't find any use for them."

Good for you.

" "(Look at that, I sank down to your level.)"

You'd sunk way lower when you called me 'jerk'."

That's rich coming from you. Have you read some of the stuff that you've written?

"Yes, and sometimes it hasn't got anything to do with being childish. But not in this case."

You need to look up the word childish.

" "It's part of being a fully developed human being."

"Yes but, from what you've written here, you're far from being one."

Ooh, that hurts. Whatever. Still think that my jerk comment was all that bad?

" "Right. Whatever you say. You really are delusional."

"Actually, I'm not. The person with the name-calling (i.e. you) is the one who's delusional."

So this is the way it works? Everything I say to you, you throw back at me? Whatever. Very mature.

" "Uh, no, but better luck next time."

"What a comeback!"

No comment.

"Again, too childish."

It's all relative. Compared to you, not in a million years.

" "Let's examine this.My attitude? I noted that I thought you were being rude. I didn't make much of it, I only made a comment or two, and you start accusing me of acting like a baby!"

"I think both your replies and mine went way beyond a comment or two."

And whose fault is that?

" "Yeh, Sebastian, my attitude is really childish."

"Yes, it is indeed. Very childish."

You obviously don't get sarcasm.

" "My behaviour? No, I can't think of anything."

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Cute, but completely meaningless.

" "My childish comebacks? Uh, let's see. No, the only ones I can think of belong to you."

"'Jerk' is completely childish. And who was the one who said it?"

Actually, it wasn't childish. The way you were acting, you deserved to be called far worst.

"Walking down the street is not a feat of immaturity. Your behaviour on this thread during the last hours is."

Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)

" "No, it's not a senseless argument. It was inspired by your argument that we can't read the Dalai Lama's mind (and that isn't a senseless argument?) and in response to your saying I wasn't offended."

"If I did say you weren't offended, then I take it back. However, that's not implying I can read your mind (Again: can you read?). If I said something else and you thought I was implying I could read your mind, then again: can you read?"

Can YOU read? I never said that you were implying you could read my mind.

" "No, you can't tell me whether you offended me or not."

"Yes, I can. I can type the sentence and I can utter the words. Would that sentence be correct or incorrect? That's another matter. But of course I can say those things (again, they could be right or wrong)."

Oh, brother. You can do whatever you want. Obviously, however, that's not what I meant.

"So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk, nasty, and living in a fantasy world. Those three things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish."

Actually no. Insults are not automatically childish. Nor are they automatically ridiculously immature.

" "You proposed arguments? When?"

"Well, the whole brothers thing is an argument, and it had nothing to do with you."

If it's on this site, it has to do with everyone. However, I'm not going to even comment on it.

" Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish."

Uh no. BTW, I haven't denied responsibility for the 'thread in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people.' I just haven't denied total responsibility. I'm perfectly willing to accept my fair share. Are you?

"It is, as that doesn't mean at all that you know me. If I, based on your comments, said you're significant other is cheating on you (for example), that'd be completely ridiculous, immature, uncalled for and childish. Same if I told you 'jerk'. But I didn't do the latter: you did. So, the one who's being childish and immature is you."

No, you just called me a baby and all that other stuff. Sebastian, you've judged me just as much as I've judged you, and as for the one being childish and immature, repeating that it is me does not make it true.

"Actually, I don't. So far you've accused a person you don't know of being a jerk,"

I don't know you, but if you act like a jerk, I will say so.

"nasty"

Do I need to remind you what you wrote to warrent being called nasty? What you said was nasty (and disgusting), and I said so.

"and living in a fantasy world."

Well, I stand by the context in which I said it.

"Moreover, you've denied having any responsibility in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people."

Unlike you, I've accepted some responsibility.

"Those four things alone point at you being ridiculously immature. So, indeed, you are being childish."

You keep telling that to yourself.

"Actually, I'm not. There's nothing hypocrite about calling you childish."

Let's just agree to disagree, and I was actually referring to your baby comment.

"And the 'very nasty' people are those who are into really serious nasty stuff (e.g. wife-beating, nazism, rape), rather than simply calling someone 'childish' over an internet forum."

My nasty comment was in relation to your 'are you potty-trained already?' comment.

Sebastian wrote: No, it doesn't. However, you've replied to several of my posts even if they haven't got anything to do with you, and very often with personal attacks. You seem to be very aware of what I write and ready to reply to it. That's a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.

Nonsense, you just have a problem with people disagreeing with you, which is why you take such hissy fits. Yeah, I know you'll disagree, blah blah, but it's obvious. You also have double standards for what constitutes personal attacks, as can be clearly seen with your snotty 'can't you read' comment to Amazon.

@Holly: I've got no problem with people disagreeing. A sensible person would disagree, politely tell me and that's it (and many have done that). A person who's obsessed with me would do what you do. Totally different. And in fact, it is you who seem not to stand anybody disagreeing, as you started cyber-stalking me after I did.

---------

> No, it was perfectly appropiate.

It wasn't: it was unneeded.

> Think whatever you want, whether it be the truth or not.

Of course I'll think whatever I want, it's not up to you.

> I guess we have a different completely different view of the discussion.

Well, that's a given.

> That's rich coming from you. Have you read some of the stuff that you've written?

Yes: I haven't called you jerk, nasty or made guesses about the kind of person you are. You have, which makes you the child, not me.

> You need to look up the word childish.

Actually, I don't, as I already know the meaning. And it applies to your behaviour in the last posts.

> Ooh, that hurts.

Actually, it doesn't. Biting one's tongue... now that hurts.

> Still think that my jerk comment was all that bad?

Yes, especially considering I didn't call you names.

> So this is the way it works?

It's not working to begin with.

> Everything I say to you, you throw back at me?

No, as I haven't called you jerk, nasty or made guesses about the kind of person you are. You have, which makes you the child, not me.

> It's all relative.

Indeed.

> Compared to you, not in a million years.

What a childish comeback. Are you potty-trained already?

> And whose fault is that?

Yours, as you're the one calling the other person 'jerk', 'nasty' and making guesses about the kind of person I am. That makes you the child, not me.

> You obviously don't get sarcasm.

Of course I do, but in that case you were telling the truth: your attitude is very childish.

> Cute, but completely meaningless.

I disagree.

> Actually, it wasn't childish.

Yes, it was.

> The way you were acting, you deserved to be called far worst.

No, I didn't. Your attitude is very childish.

> Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)

And totally unneeded. However, your attitude is indeed very childish.

> Can YOU read?

Oh, very original.

> Oh, brother

As we don't share first-degree ancestors, I am not your brother.

> You can do whatever you want.

Well, not quite. If I want to fly, I still can't. Same if I want to run 60 miles per hour.

> Actually no. Insults are not automatically childish.

But the ones you've made are.

> Nor are they automatically ridiculously immature.

But the ones you made are.

> Uh no. BTW, I haven't denied responsibility for the 'thread in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people.'

Actually, you have.

> I just haven't denied total responsibility.

Think whatever you want to.

> I'm perfectly willing to accept my fair share. Are you?

Of course.

> No, you just called me a baby and all that other stuff.

'All that other stuff'?

> Sebastian, you've judged me just as much as I've judged you

No, I didn't, as I didn't call you 'jerk' or 'nasty' or made guesses about the kind of person you are based on what you wrote on an internet forum. You did, which makes you the child, not me.

> and as for the one being childish and immature, repeating that it is me does not make it true.

No, it doesn't, it was true long before I repeated it.

> I don't know you, but if you act like a jerk, I will say so.

But I didn't act like a jerk. Which makes the comment uncalled for and immature. And, of course, childish.

> Do I need to remind you what you wrote to warrent being called nasty?

You don't 'need' anything from me. If you're writing to me, it's because you want to. And if I'm such a jerk, why bother? Is your self-esteem so low?

>  What you said was nasty (and disgusting), and I said so.

Even if that were true (we disagree there), that doesn't mean I'm nasty. You don't know me, so making guesses about what kind of person I am is ridiculous, uncalled for and childish.

> Well, I stand by the context in which I said it.

Which prompts the question: why bother reading what I write and replying? Am I such an important part of your life?

> Unlike you, I've accepted some responsibility.

No, you haven't.

> You keep telling that to yourself.

No, I'm telling that to you. You are childish, at least in these last posts.

> My nasty comment was in relation to your 'are you potty-trained already?' comment.

And if you've got to cry like a baby over that comment then, indeed, it makes me wonder: are you potty-trained already?

Sebastian wrote: @Holly: I've got no problem with people disagreeing. A sensible person would disagree, politely tell me and that's it (and many have done that). A person who's obsessed with me would do what you do. Totally different. And in fact, it is you who seem not to stand anybody disagreeing, as you started cyber-stalking me after I did.

---------

Whiny nonsense. You're fast becoming a troll.

Actually, it's neither whiney nor nonsense. You do have a problem with people disagreeing with you.

So far you've called me whiney, mad, troll, etc. and yet you still read what I write (even when it's got nothing to do with you) and reply. You're unwilling to accept any single mistake in your ways and you reply to any message you disagree with by calling it 'whiny nonsense'. That is the behaviour of a troll.

Your attitude is obsessive, as you seem to give a looooot of importance to what I write. You're becoming a cyber-stalker.

Why am I so important to you?

Sebastian wrote: Actually, it's neither whiney nor nonsense. You do have a problem with people disagreeing with you.

So far you've called me whiney, mad, troll, etc. and yet you still read what I write (even when it's got nothing to do with you) and reply. You're unwilling to accept any single mistake in your ways and you reply to any message you disagree with by calling it 'whiny nonsense'. That is the behaviour of a troll.

Your attitude is obsessive, as you seem to give a looooot of importance to what I write. You're becoming a cyber-stalker.

Why am I so important to you?

I'm embarrassed for you. I really am.

I'm only pointing out your double standards. Clearly, you are playing the victim because you want me to stop doing that. Take some responsibility for your own views and for the way you respond to people. For instance, Amazon is a nice person, and you are trying to belittle her. Who do you think you are? If you don't like me pointing out your arrogant behaviour then modify that behaviour.

Feel free to throw out some more accusations. Maybe you think it helps you save face, but you're not fooling anyone.