MOAR HATEFollow

I suppose this is pretty much exactly dead on. I guess what I really mean to say is, why all the stuff about the wiretaps and library records, etc., doesn't phase me is because I really think the Fed has been doing that all along. At least since the '60s, if not since WWII. Do I like it? No. But there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it, really. I highly suspect that the vast majority of what the CIA and NSA do exists outside the law. Hell, there's probably a ton of stuff even the PotUS doesn't know about. All of which begs the question of why I even said anything about census data. I'm not really sure anymore myself. Probably because it was the argument du jour at the time and it seems like lefties outnumber righties here, so I jumped in for the underdog.

Pensive likes to use filler words to extend his post length and present himself as "intelligent". While I'm sure he's not stupid by any means, his verbal charade is pretty damn transparent.

[quote=Kavekk the Ludicrous][i]****************

One of the few alternate spellings of a word I find mildly amusing and acceptable in every day use.

I will tell both you and him the same thing that I tell everyone who makes this ridiculous claim: please tell me which words you think I have used which are supercilious and/or affected or perhaps "big," so that I may laugh heartily at you for having a vocabulary smaller than a common 14 year old, because, upon rereading of these posts, I find not a single word in usage which either I, or any of my peers, did not know at the time of age 14. Note, that if I wanted to actually use large words, I would do so, and probably use words inaccurately. I invite you, cordially, to attempt to point out a single word in any post in this thread, penned by myself, which is failing in either the test of precision or accuracy. With bated breath, I await your response.

Sincerely,
Pensive T. Ludicrous



Where? Point to a single word you've used which you think is even remotely close to being "big," whatever that means.

You see, I mention this, because "big" is a horrible word for you to use to make the point that you can use big words, because it is extremely imprecise, as it conveys about four meanings immediately and I'm sure that I can think of more if I spend a few seconds on it. I suppose this is a bit of a losing game for me if you think that calling something "big" is ever an appropriate description of derision. Superfluous? Affected? Pompous? Incorrect? Polysyllabic? Esoteric? Takes up lots of space?

These are tools of precision you twit, all of which mean extremely different things, and if you aren't prepared to speak precisely, then you probably shouldn't at all.



That would make sense now wouldn't it? Apparently, I need to use more words with you instead of trusting your intelligence to deduce the objects of grammatical articles. I cannot thank you quite enough for spitting yourself on your own petard.

Edited, Oct 4th 2009 5:54pm by Pensive

No goddammit. I refuse to believe that my 14 year old self was that much goddamn smarter or even linguistically developed than the rest of you. I don't care if its true or not, I will have faith if for no other reason than to avoid the sheer hubris of the conclusion that I am wrong, for if I am wrong, then for language I must weep.

Please, please don't make me cry by shattering my paradigm of the faith I have in my online friends, or the faith of public school. Please, someone deliver to me a beacon of hope and inform me that other 14 year-olds did, in fact, use words like that, when they also were in highschool, or at the very least could use them in a proper context, this discussion of which I feel would be one.

***

Penultimate I'll give you, but only that one.

Edited, Oct 4th 2009 6:05pm by Pensive

This, precisely. It's not whether the words are too big or even unnecessary. It's the frequency with which you insert them in, at the very least, some not-so vague attempt to bring credibility to your argument, and at the very worst, attempt to assume a lesser intelligence of your peers and exclude them from the argument by exaggerating your statement with superfluous adjectives in every single post.

It's cheesy at best, and I certainly don't think you any more intelligent for it. If the argument is sound, you don't need to dress it up in such a way.

Ugly is right. You do remind me of a roll of WOTD toilet tissue.

No. My arguments are credible on their logic, but if I were to try to express them purely in logical language, you would certainly tell me that I was being even more esoteric and inaccessible than normal, and in that case, I would be, for the knowledge of formal logic doesn't seem to be that prevalent, but I hope that some simple words like "proximate" "ethical" and "aggregate" are.



No. There is no exaggeration present in the use of a word. Everything I write is picked specifically for a reason.

In addition to being wrong, it's backwards. The words I use are the words I assume that people will know. If they are above you, then I have given you more credit than you merit, not less; if you don't understand them, then I am being nicer to you than I should be, and trying to include you in something more than you want to be. If I actually thought that you were stupid and did not merit a just, charitable, and accurate response, I suppose I could force myself to think that you were too dumb to understand the use of precision in language, as well as the purpose of precision in language. You see, right now, I am speaking as plainly as I can force myself, because you apparently want me to treat you like a child, and I in doing so, do exactly what you accuse me of having already done.

You are not a stupid person stubs, and to speak to someone plainly, when you know that they can understand more, is insulting, and I'd rather insult you with nasty descriptions of your behavior than to insult you by prejudicially deciding that you can't understand what I want to say.

If there is the slightest hint of haughty demeanor or exclusive arrogance, usage of esoteric nomenclature for the purpose of being twatty, in the words of anything that I have ever posted, you have invented it, probably do to the cynicism that you exude from every pore. It says more about you than it does me.

Your insistence on repeatedly resorting to the declaration that anyone who prefers not to use or encounter these words with the same frequency as yourself must be "too dumb" or "too stupid" is a manifestation of your justification of the overuse of these words such that self-promotion is the only logical motivation. Additionally, you seem to think that littering your commentary with verbal jewels will some how shroud the mediocrity of your point, but it doesn't.

P.S. I understand the words just fine.

uh huh...



The quote above seems to prove otherwise. You invented a point completely opposite of the one I'm making to argue against. I don't know how.



That would be self-defeating now, wouldn't it?

Edited, Oct 4th 2009 8:00pm by Pensive

The epitome of a *********** is one who convinces himself of his own deceptions.

Maybe not in verbal communication but I think you would definitely see the use of such words in written papers and the like.

People aren't offended by the way you speak/write (at least I'm not) but instead by the fact that you continue to claim that it is a common vocabulary for someone that is 14 years old. You insinuate that those who don't sound like a bulimic thesaurus purging after a buffet are somehow inferior to said 14 year olds.