Then why bother reading what I write (even if it's not directed at you) and replying? Am I such an important part of your life?
> I'm only pointing out your double standards.
And calling me names, and obsessing with me.
> Clearly, you are playing the victim
I'm not playing the victim. Women who are raped: those are victims. Kids physically and emotionally abused, they are victims. People mistreated because of what they believe, or because of their skin colour, surname, sexual orientation, nationality, age. Those are victims. I'm a person you're obsessed with, hardly the same thing.
> because you want me to stop doing that.
You can't read my mind. I don't want you to do or stop doing anything, it's your problem.
> Take some responsibility for your own views
I've always taken responsibility for that.
> and for the way you respond to people.
I've always taken responsibility for that.
> For instance, Amazon is a nice person, and you are trying to belittle her.
I'm not trying to belittle her. Moreover, does she need you to defend her? Is she unable to fight her own battles, or are you assuming that (in which case it is you who is trying to belittle her)?
> Who do you think you are?
I am me as you are you. That's not a relevant point in this discussion.
> If you don't like me pointing out your arrogant behaviour then modify that behaviour.
Arrogant behaviour would be thinking I'm 'better' than another person. And I've never ever claimed that here, or anywhere else for that matter. So, it is ridiculous and senseless on your side to say that.
An arrogant person would be doing things like responding 'whiny nonsense' to a post they disagree with. So who's arrogant? You are.
> Feel free to throw out some more accusations.
Of course I'm free, it's not up to you.
> Maybe you think it helps you save face, but you're not fooling anyone.
I'm not trying to fool anyone anyway. You do act like you're obsessed with me, and for no reason. Do you think I'm a worthless person? If so, then why bother reading what I write and replying to me? Is your life so empty and pathetic that you have to waste your time and effort on a person who's got that little value as me?
mike hunt · Member since
Man, My arguments don't even last this long.....
Holly2003 · Member since
Poor Sebastian, new winner of the 'Most Oppressed Person Ever' award.
Sebastian · Member since
I'm not oppressed. There are many oppresed people in the world (unfortunately), but I'm not one of them. And while I'm not rich, I'm not poor either. And there's no such award BTW. Is your life so empty and pathetic that you have to waste your time and effort on a person who's got that little value as me?
Holly2003 · Member since
Sebastian wrote: I'm not oppressed. There are many oppresed people in the world (unfortunately), but I'm not one of them. And while I'm not rich, I'm not poor either. And there's no such award BTW. Is your life so empty and pathetic that you have to waste your time and effort on a person who's got that little value as me?
Always have to have the last word too Seb. Another aspect of your ego trip.
Sebastian · Member since
Now that is whiney nonsense. I don't always have to have the last word. There have been many, many, many instances where I haven't had the last word. Maybe the one with the problem is you.
But since we're on that topic: why do you still read what I write? Are you that obsessed with me?
Is your life so empty and pathetic that you have to waste your time and effort on a person who has that little value as I do?
andreas_mercury · Member since
its only takes a few sentences to sort out that sebastian is a bright and well read man but a very poor debater, and holly2003 is in mostly on the same boat ........ my thinking of you both is you'd do better to not debate because it falls out of your areas of expertise. You are both in my memory as written great comments in other threads ... return to form, is my suggestion
Amazon · Member since
Sebastian wrote: "No, it was perfectly appropiate."
"It wasn't: it was unneeded."
So, this is what this has descended into. I say it was appropiate, you say it wasn't, I say it was, you say it wasn't? And you're accusing me of being childish?
" "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."
This is absurd. Fine, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
" "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."
Whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)
" "Still think that my jerk comment was all that bad?"
"Yes, especially considering I didn't call you names."
Whatever. It may actually shock you, but not all 'bad' comments need be names. Nonetheless, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
"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."
Juts so you know, repeating the same comment again and again is pretty childish.
"Compared to you, not in a million years."
"What a childish comeback."
How is it childish?! You are incredible. You really don't know what the word means, do you?
"Are you potty-trained already?"
Nasty guy (and just so you know, your comment deserves such a response.)
" "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."
No, Sebastian, it's not my fault at all. I'm not the one acting like a defensive, aggressive, hypocritical baby. This all started because you felt that I was misinterpreting you. Instead of reasonably and calmly explaining why I had misinterpreted you (and you still haven't), you have acted like a jerk. The responsibility rests with you.
" "You obviously don't get sarcasm."
"Of course I do, but in that case you were telling the truth"
I was being sarcastic!
"your attitude is very childish."
You keep telling that to yourself.
"The way you were acting, you deserved to be called far worst."
"No, I didn't."
Uh, yes, you did, and yes you do. If this is the way you act in real life, you would find yourself with few friends.
"Your attitude is very childish."
Right, whatever. By writing that again and again, you are proving that it's not me who is being childish.
" "Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)
"And totally unneeded."
Actually, it is completely needed.
"However, your attitude is indeed very childish."
Proving what I said just above.
" "Actually no. Insults are not automatically childish."
"But the ones you've made are."
Sorry, but you're wrong.
" "Nor are they automatically ridiculously immature."
"But the ones you made are."
See above.
" "Uh no. BTW, I haven't denied responsibility for the 'thread in the thread deteriorating into an argument between two people.'"
"Actually, you have."
Actually I haven't. But you know what, reading this post, and rereading the thread makes me realise that the only responsibility I bear is responding to in the first place. After that, it's all on you.
" "I'm perfectly willing to accept my fair share. Are you?"
"Of course."
Right.
> No, you just called me a baby and all that other stuff.
"'All that other stuff'?"
Do I really need to remind you what you've written?
"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."
All very well, except that I wasn't making 'guesses' about the way you are in real life, only the way you are on this forum.
" "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."
Think whatever the hell you want; you will anyway.
"But I didn't act like a jerk. Which makes the comment uncalled for"
Except you did (and are) act like a jerk.
"and immature."
If it makes you feel better, you can think that, you can think whatever you want.
"And, of course, childish."
Your new favourite word isn't it? Think whatever you want to think, it's a free site.
"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?"
Obviously that wasn't what I wrote (should I utilise your favourite catchphrase?)
"Is your self-esteem so low?"
Sebastian, if my self-esteem was low, I wouldn't be on this thread, would I? Or is it that the reason for your behaviour is that you have low self-esteem?
" "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."
No, it means that on this thread you come across as a nasty guy.
"You don't know me, so making guesses about what kind of person I am is ridiculous, uncalled for and childish."
No more ridiculous, uncalled for and childish than making presumptions about my self-esteem based on what I write on an internet forum.
" "Unlike you, I've accepted some responsibility."
"No, you haven't."
Actually, I have.
" "You keep telling that to yourself."
"No, I'm telling that to you. You are childish, at least in these last posts."
Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)
" "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"
You are such a comedian. Actually, Sebastian, I haven't cried at all. You however have; when I called you a jerk or referred to you as nasty, or when I reveal you for the childish hypocrite you are, and that's not to mention that it was you has thrown tantrums. Even now, you are acting like an infant who is upset because your favourite blankey has been taken away!
"indeed, it makes me wonder: are you potty-trained already?"
Yet another nasty comment from baby Sebastian. You really need to grow up.
andreas_mercury · Member since
another poor debater ...... Lol this site sometimes
Amazon · Member since
Holly2003 wrote: "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."
I couldn't agree with you more!
Sebastian · Member since
> So, this is what this has descended into. I say it was appropiate, you say it wasn't, I say it was, you say it wasn't? And you're accusing me of being childish?
As a matter of fact I am
> This is absurd.
No, it isn't.
> Fine, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Finally we agree on something.
> Whatever. It may actually shock you, but not all 'bad' comments need be names.
I agree. However, calling a person you don't know 'nasty' or 'jerk' is a clear sign of immaturity.
> Juts so you know, repeating the same comment again and again is pretty childish
And both you and I have repeated comments again and again. So my point (that you are childish, regardless of whether I'm too or not) remains valid.
> How is it childish?!
Both in structure and semantics.
> You are incredible.
I'm not. There are many incredible things in the world, I'm not one of them.
> You really don't know what the word means, do you?
I do.
> Nasty guy
There are many nasty guys in the world. Those who beat their wives and/or kids, those who rape, those who force others to steal or kill, those who destroy families, politicians who shut down hospitals to build shopping centres.. but I'm not any of them. Hence, I'm not a nasty guy.
> (and just so you know, your comment deserves such a response.)
Maybe the comment deserves it, but not the person, as there are many nasty guys in the world: those who beat their wives and/or kids, those who rape, those who force others to steal or kill, those who destroy families, politicians who shut down hospitals to build shopping centres.. but I'm not any of them, therefore I'm not a nasty guy.
> No, Sebastian, it's not my fault at all.
Yes it is. It's not your fault entirely. But 'not entirely' and 'not at all' aren't the only two options.
> I'm not the one acting like a defensive, aggressive, hypocritical baby
As a matter of fact you are.
> This all started because you felt that I was misinterpreting you.
And indeed you were, and still are.
> Instead of reasonably and calmly explaining why I had misinterpreted you (and you still haven't), you have acted like a jerk.
I didn't. I did ask you if you could read, and I do not regret that. You could've ignored me if you thought I was a jerk, but instead you acted like a child.
> The responsibility rests with you.
It doesn't: it rests with both of us. And the fact you don't even recognise your share proves once again that you're being childish.
> I was being sarcastic!
And yet you were telling the truth.
> You keep telling that to yourself.
I quote what you wrote earlier: 'Juts (sic) so you know, repeating the same comment again and again is pretty childish'
> Uh, yes, you did, and yes you do.
No, I didn't, and no I don't.
> If this is the way you act in real life
It isn't.
> you would find yourself with few friends.
Pretending you know somebody because of an i-net forum is indeed pathetic.
> Right, whatever.
Indeed, it's right.
> By writing that again and again, you are proving that it's not me who is being childish.
Yes: you are.
> Actually, it is completely needed.
No, it wasn't.
> Proving what I said just above.
Yes: you've been repeating some of the same comments again and again. Hence, you're childish (regardless of whether I'm childish too, or not).
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
I've been wrong many, many times, but this is not one of them.
> See above.
Above me there's a bulb, and the ceiling. So?
> Actually I haven't.
Indeed you have.
> But you know what, reading this post, and rereading the thread makes me realise that the only responsibility I bear is responding to in the first place.
Again, we agree. I seem to remember I had told you earlier that if you didn't like the way I wrote, you could simply ignore me and that'd be better for both of us. But, like a stubborn child, you still couldn't help wasting hours of your life on me.
> After that, it's all on you.
No, it's not 'all' on me. It's not 'all' on you either, but 'all on you' and 'all on me' aren't the only two options.
> Do I really need to remind you what you've written?
No, you do not need to do anything. Nobody forced you to reply to my posts.
> All very well, except that I wasn't making 'guesses' about the way you are in real life, only the way you are on this forum.
You've only commented on a dozen of messages of the 3.9+K I've written here. Hardly a pattern.
> Think whatever the hell you want; you will anyway.
Oh, what a discovery!!!
> Except you did (and are) act like a jerk
No, I didn't. Being a jerk is waaaaaaaaaaay more than simply asking a question on an internet forum.
> If it makes you feel better, you can think that, you can think whatever you want.
Oh, thank you for granting me your permission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Your new favourite word isn't it?
No, it's not. It's not a word I dislike, but it's not my favourite. For 15+ years, my favourite word hasn't changed.
> Think whatever you want to think, it's a free site.
Oh, thank you for granting me your permission!!!!!!!!!!
> (should I utilise your favourite catchphrase?)
It is not my favourite. It's not one I dislike, but it's not my favourite.
> if my self-esteem was low, I wouldn't be on this thread, would I?
Actually, it could be low or high and you could still be on this thread. Having low or high self-esteem and being on this thread aren't mutually exclusive.
> Or is it that the reason for your behaviour is that you have low self-esteem?
Even if I had low self-esteem, I wouldn't use it as an excuse. But then again, I haven't acted like a jerk. Being a jerk is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than asking a question on an internet forum. Even your childish immature insults towards me aren't enough for you to be a jerk, let alone a simple question on whether you can read or not.
> No, it means that on this thread you come across as a nasty guy.
No, I don't. Nasty people hit their wives, destroy famlies, etc. and I don't do any of those. Asking you if you can read is nothing compared to what a 'nasty guy' would do.
> No more ridiculous, uncalled for and childish than making presumptions about my self-esteem based
Only that I did not make presumptions about your self-esteem. I didn't say 'your self-esteem is low', I asked 'is your self-esteem so low...?'. Usually (though of course not always), when a person asks is because they don't know. I honestly don't know if you've got high or low self-esteem, I honestly don't know if you can read or not, I honestly don't know if you're potty-trained, and that's why I asked. So, it's a different case. Calling someone 'jerk' or 'nasty', that is indeed uncalled for and childish.
> Actually, I have.
Actually, you haven't.
> Right, whatever you say. (That was sarcasm.)
Broken record again, which as you say shows the person doing so (you, in this case) is behaving childishly.
> You are such a comedian.
Actually, I'm not, and that's one of the things I'd always have liked to be but never could. I was never a good footballer either.
> Actually, Sebastian, I haven't cried at all.
Good to know.
> You however have
No, I haven't: tears haven't been shed from this thread.
> when I called you a jerk or referred to you as nasty,
I didn't cry for that. I did complain, but that's not the same thing.
> or when I reveal you for the childish hypocrite you are
I haven't done any hypocrite thing here.
> and that's not to mention that it was you has thrown tantrums.
Actually, I haven't thrown tantrums. You, OTOH, have.
> Even now, you are acting like an infant who is upset because your favourite blankey has been taken away!
Actually, you are the one acting like that.
> Yet another nasty comment from baby Sebastian.
Actually, I'm not a baby.
> You really need to grow up.
Amazon · Member since
Whatever. I know the truth about what occured and which one is acting like the baby.
I will simply say this. Whether I 'wasted' hours of my lfe responding to the 'stubborn child' that is in fact you, is up to me and is none of your business.
Sebastian · Member since
Of course it's up to you and of course it's none of my business. However, since you've commented on things that are none of your business either, I guess that ship had sailed a long time ago.
And I do find it funny that you still waste seconds, minutes, hours or whatever on a person you think so little of.
Last but not least, both parts of your post show that, indeed, you are a stubborn child.
Amazon · Member since
Sebastian wrote:"Of course it's up to you and of course it's none of my business. However, since you've commented on things that are none of your business either, I guess that ship had sailed a long time ago."
Right, whatever you say. I will just note that I have never commented on whether you are 'wasting' your time. Whether or not I am wasting my time, and if so, whether or not I want to waste my time, is my business only.
"And I do find it funny that you still waste seconds, minutes, hours or whatever on a person you think so little of."
That's my choice.
"Last but not least, both parts of your post show that, indeed, you are a stubborn child."
This is absurd. You are a comedian. Let me get this straight. You don't know whether I am wasting my time, and if I am, you don't know why I choose to do so, yet you think that I am a 'stubborn child'? Wow, well, I think you need to look in the mirror.
Sebastian · Member since
You haven't commented on whether I'm wasting my time, just like I haven't commented on what you allegedly need. Whether you want to waste your time or not is your business and your business only, just like what I need or do not need is my business and my business only.
And indeed, you're still spending, wasting or investing seconds, minutes, hours and energy reading and replying to somebody you think so little of. Utterly ridiculous. Your choice of course, and an utterly ridiculous one.
