Hey Dalektek…is this your brother?
- This topic has 58 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 23 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello fellow saddy’s!!!
I’m still doing battle with this really big moron on the Lexx ng, nobody can stand him (ask Cat about him) and yet he continues to spew this endless drivel and insists it’s all fact, even our beloved Dalektek isn’t this bad, but they would get on like a house on fire.
He does the same thing Dalektek does by making everything he writes annoying and obnoxious, and that he’s right and everyone else is completely wrong…even when many point out that there is no fact in what he says!!!
Anyway here’s he’s latest line of crap…(I thought you find it amusing to see there is more than one Dalektek out there!!!)On tonight’s episode of Lexx / The Rock there was a moment where Bunny
reenters the lives
of the Lexx’s crew.
They marvel at her reappearance and Kai says she may be “an archetype”.
This struck me on two levels,First, it was a very cold way of looking at humanity that only a deadman or
sociopath could
easily adopt. It basically says that humans are actually a very small set
of types, not the infinite variety
of individuals as we think of ourselves. It represents a personally-based
form of racism, that is
the realization that all other people are just reiterations of one generic
subtype or other.The second ramification is more palatable.
It could be the surfacing of the scriptwriter’s ( and all artists’) daily
hurdle…creativity.
In the case of a scriptwriter is the need to create characters that exist to
further a plot.
With experience, the writer responsible for the characters’ creation
( birth ) begins to see
how mechanistic that process actually is and that, try as they may, the
essence of each new character
created is simply a disquised reiteration of the best work the writer did in
the past…Archetypes.
The sad process of recreating the same people over and over just to torment
and kill them ad infinitum
must weigh heavily on the artistic spirit within the scriptwriter. This may
have led to musings that are being
manifested in the recycling characters in Lexx.The Fifi/Farley actor’s characters are a good example.
Fifi and then Farley both were searching for their identity, they were
feeling miscast in life.
In fact, I think it is an example a scriptwriter trying to loosen their own
absolute grip on the “character”
and let the character drift ( Like governments sometimes allow their
currancy to float without a set value
and reach its own true value in relation to other nations’ money.)I think artists, given enough time, eventually reach the limits of their
creativity while
still maintaining a far reaching vision. Their best work grinds to a halt,
unable to be developed further
but still needed to serve an ongoing drive for perfection.There was a funny documentary in the 70s called “Gizmo!”.
At the very end there is this appropriate summation:“Man’s reach, should ever exceed his grasp, or what’s a Heaven for?”
Squish: Remind you of anyone!?!, honestly he’s worse than what you have just read.
He leaves me with the image of spotty teenager with no friends and no life, thinking that he is super intelligent and is better than everyone else.
Dalektek, compared to him you are a model poster, I don’t think you could get this bad!!!——————
Annoyed Squishyis that free ?
seems like i saw in one of his posts where
he thought xenia seeberg was “getting long
in the tooth” [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/eek.gif[/img]i don’t flame or do battle with someone like
that, just ignore ’em or they’ll keep on
posting thier silliness [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]That is ‘Free’.
He has some.. unique, and quite unshakable, ideas about Lexx.
quote:
Originally posted by Cat:
[b]That is ‘Free’.He has some.. unique, and quite unshakable, ideas about Lexx.[/b]
so where is this guy posting at? he sounded more like rick, the people’s poet from the young ones to me [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]…well, everybody has to have an obsession i suppose
quote:
Originally posted by Annoyed Squishy:
[b]Hello fellow saddy’s!!!
I’m still doing battle with this really big moron on the Lexx ng, nobody can stand him (ask Cat about him) and yet he continues to spew this endless drivel and insists it’s all fact, even our beloved Dalektek isn’t this bad, but they would get on like a house on fire.
He does the same thing Dalektek does by making everything he writes annoying and obnoxious, and that he’s right and everyone else is completely wrong…even when many point out that there is no fact in what he says!!!
Anyway here’s he’s latest line of crap…(I thought you find it amusing to see there is more than one Dalektek out there!!!)[/b]
It’s very rude and inconsiderate of you to post things like that. [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] I have never posted anything that was intentionally offensive or insulting, all of my theories are based on the logical interpretation of events and dialog on the shows or movies they pertain to, and I always take time to listen to the theories and opinions of everyone else in order to better put things in perspective.
——————
Lee P. Sherman, code name DalekTek790
Whovian, Froudian, Lexxian, etc.Do you know how boring it is to read you constant whining about your latest argument with this person? If you don’t like what they have to say then don’t bother talking to them. Making assumptions about his appearance on what he says about Lexx is pathetic. Plus calling this topic “Hey Dalektek…is this your brother?” is just being plain rude to Dalek in my book.
——————
“I throw a little fit, I slit my teenage wrist. The most I can learn is in records that you burn”“drove the children from their chores. Handcrafted housewifes into whores. Fear of the beast is calling it near, creating what we’re hating; its only fear that is here….”
Free that’s the guy, I think he must post these ideas just to wind everyone up, I really can’t see how he can be serious over what he writes…he’s completely off his trolley!!!
I never usually allow somebody to get under my skin like that, but he managed it with ease. The way that he is rewritting the Lexx series to something that has nothing to do with Lexx really irks me, he has yet to say anything remotely sensible.
I’m glad I don’t visit that ng to often otherwise I would have little hair left…I would have torn it all out, the guy should have a government health warning applied to him.Right on to Dalektek:
It’s very rude and inconsiderate of you to post things like that. I have never posted anything that was intentionally offensive or insulting, all of my theories are based on the logical interpretation of events and dialog on the shows or movies they pertain to, and I always take time to listen to the theories and opinions of everyone else in order to better put things in perspective.Yes you’re right it was rude and inconsiderate of me and I apologise, but like it or not pal, you are a watered down version of this guy
And I never said that your posts were insulting or offensive, just that you can be a little annoying in the way you write your posts, but the overall theme of your posts are very good (sometimes a little wacky).
And I can never understand people that sound like they are writing a literary masterpiece to get their point across. There is no need to show that you can quote literature or an examination of the arts, or try to caome across like some great theologian and philosopher, because at the end of the day nobody appreciates it, as nobody talks like that in real life.
Anyway you are not as bad as this guy, but you do have traits that you share, so don’t take it so harshly.
Squishy
PS have you guys heard of Chris Eubank?, that’s what this free guy reminds me of, and Chris is hated too!!!——————
Annoyed Squishy
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury:
[b]Do you know how boring it is to read you constant whining about your latest argument with this person? If you don’t like what they have to say then don’t bother talking to them. Making assumptions about his appearance on what he says about Lexx is pathetic. Plus calling this topic “Hey Dalektek…is this your brother?” is just being plain rude to Dalek in my book.[/b]
Who the hell are you?, how’s this for boring ‘Mind your own god damn business’, and for your knowledge I have apologised to Dalektek and there is no malice between us as far as I am concerned, and I have supported him in the past when other’s have had ago…you on the other can take a running jump…
——————
Annoyed SquishyFX: news:alt.tv.lexx
quote:
Originally posted by Cat:
[b]FX: news:alt.tv.lexx[/b]
thanx cat, guess i’ll go check this out and look for some aggravation [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]
It was the best of times…It was the worst of times…
There are 3 kinds of people in life.. and probably some other kinds too.. The ones that throw darts, the ones that sit at the bar, and the dart boards.
Why just last nite DartboardTek790 called me a “jerk” just because I told him that Xenia Seeburg’s Xev is spelled “X-E-V” and Eva’s is spelled “Z-E-V”. Yet he contests that Xenia’s Xev was spelled “Z-E-V” in the credits before. Well, so far in every version of LEXX I’ve seen other than the movies, the character Zev or Xev is not listed at the end credits. Micheal McManus, Brian Downey, Eva Habberman, and Xenia Seeburg have only been credited durring the show’s intro, but never as who they play.
The only time “Zev” has appeared in the credits.. to my knowledge.. is in the first 4 movies, which was played by Eva Habberman. I’ve seen Xev mispelled as “Zev” in Cult Times before and a few times on the Sad LEXX guide but I can assure you it is meant to be spelled “Xev”. It was done in part to help distinguish Xenia’s Xev from Eva’s Zev. I read that somewhere and believe me as soon as I can find it I’ll post it or tell you where you can find it. But for the record.. Zev was mispelled as “Xev” in her character profile on the Kosch DVD releases of the first 4 movies so there [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/tongue.gif[/img]
The infurriating thing about our beloved DartboardTek790 is that he makes a target of himself by insisting there is fact where he can easily be proven wrong. Yet he admantly continues to insist not only that he is right but that anyone that objects is just flat out wrong. Now if DartboardTek can find me the episode where Xenia was credited as “Zev” in the actual episode it appeared in and not in some cast listing from a magazine like Cult Times, which I do respect btw.
And Mercury, you are whining about someone who you say is “whining” about someone else. What does that make you? Heed your own advice, man. Squish may consider some people here friends and may feel like talking to us about things that are bothering Squishy. Maybe you’re not so open with your friends, Merc. I politely digress.
This doesn’t mean we don’t love Dartboard, in probably the same way that Xev loves Stan and 790.
[img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
——————
X: I wasn’t whining about Squish, I was merely expressing my views on the topic he had started. I just don’t see why he had to start ripping this guy apart just because he didn’t agree with his views on Lexx.
Squish: I’m sorry you feel this is none of my business- I didn’t realise this was a private topic. You didn’t like my point of view- fine, but telling me to “take a running jump”- How old are you?
——————
“I throw a little fit, I slit my teenage wrist. The most I can learn is in records that you burn”“drove the children from their chores. Handcrafted housewifes into whores. Fear of the beast is calling it near, creating what we’re hating; its only fear that is here….”
I’m just an easy target because I usually don’t stand up for myself.
——————
Lee P. Sherman, code name DalekTek790
Whovian, Froudian, Lexxian, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury:
[b]X: I wasn’t whining about Squish, I was merely expressing my views on the topic he had started. I just don’t see why he had to start ripping this guy apart just because he didn’t agree with his views on Lexx.Squish: I’m sorry you feel this is none of my business- I didn’t realise this was a private topic. You didn’t like my point of view- fine, but telling me to “take a running jump”- How old are you?
The original post on this guy was in essence a request for somebody to make sense of what he was saying, as I could not understand him.
In another I was gently reminding people that Dalektek isn’t that bad when you come across people like this.
Now imagine if you will, somebody who is ten times more annoying than X’s description of Dalektek…the result being this Free, I’m not necessarily attacking his view, moreover the way he maintains it’s fact and will not listen to reason or other’s opinions even when proved wrong, it’s difficult to appreciate just what I’m saying. I would suggest going to the board yourself to get some idea of what I’m saying.
I don’t hold grudge’s against anyone and like X said I find everyone on this board pleasant and consider them like-minded friends (thanx X for the moral support).
You made me a little angry with your outburst because you are not fully aware of all the facts, I was intrigued to hear the reponses from other’s on this guy and his theories.
If you felt that was inappropriate then you could have told me in nicer manner instead of barking at me like you did.
This will be the last time I will mention this guy, but if you have any doubts about the observations I have made about this person, then either go to the newsgroup yourself, or ask the other two people that know of him their opinion.
Like I said before Mercury I consider everyone a mate and I enjoy a good ol Lexx banter with them, and hopefully that will include you.
As for Dalektek, well he know’s that sometimes he says things that are a mistake, and for the best will correct it, and I like him for that, it shows courage to admit when your wrong, and I do stick up for him if he is getting a rough deal.
He’s not a bad guy, just that sometimes what he is trying to say comes out the wrong way, but at least he is taking it onboard.
Peace and Love to you all fellow saddy’s.
Squishy[/b]
——————
Annoyed Squishy[QUOTE]Originally posted by DalekTek790:
[B]I’m just an easy target because I usually don’t stand up for myself.No Dalektek, you make yourself a target because of how you say things, not really what you say, it seems that sometimes you believe that your knowledge of Lexx is beyond reproach.
People just get upset if you A:Make your claims as if there were no point in debating them, and…
B:Even when wrong you continue to argue, where most of us would say ‘fair enough
and point well made’
There is nothing personal going on here, we all think that your points are valuable contributions and that at the end of the day that your’re a nice chap, who has a bit of difficulty expressing himself without sounding condescending.
Like I said before, I posted this to make some realise that you are not as bad as other people you might meet, everybody has their bad points, but just remember this group is special because we are all friends (and that is very rare in Cyberspace), treat people with dignity and respect and you will receive in kind.
So please don’t take everything so personally, don’t be serious about your posts, poke fun at your own ideas, if you have something to say that goes against somebody else’s view, then say it politely and most importantly CHILL!!!
Squishy——————
Annoyed SquishySee FX, it’s my new name (one I didn’t think I’d be keeping), everyone thinks I’m Mr Angry because I have annoyed in front of Squish.
Tell them I’m just a cute little psycho bunny rabbit, please FX… with fangs and beady little eyes!!!
Squishy——————
Annoyed Squishyhmmm well…having snapped at,as well as being snapped at [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img], multiple times here by dalek tek, i nevertheless feel compelled to agree with squishy that although we all snipe a bit here, overall we are a happy and tolerant little dysfunctional family, which brings me to a digression…i checked out the addy that cat so kindly provided, during my wanderings i went to visit pat’s site…i had heard that there was some sort of quiet blowup there, and i found all her links were not functional…what’s up with that? i found further allusions to same on the scifi board…is this common in cyberspace, or are lexxians just a contentious bunch? [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] at least here we usually manage to keep on going with an occasional lapse into grumbling and surliness…
It sounds like the guy on the newsgroup has ADD or ADHD. I bet he started reading a book by or about Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell, got distracted by something after reading half-way through it, and never finished it before getting to the point at the end. Seriously, now. The guy’s writing style is disjointed, aimless rambling, and has no real direction or point. In all honesty and all kidding aside, the guy could use some mental health help.
But the subject of Kai’s reference to archetypes is actually somewhat important to the ongoing story arc of the forth (and maybe even the third) season of the show. Just why are these people from Fire & Water here on Earth? The answer is, “It’s a TV show, stupid! They’re not going to leave you in the dark and never explain important plot points like this! That’s the function of stories, to explain things to you– to describe archetypes.” This chain of thought leads to an endlessly spiraling vortex of archetypes within archetypes and without– oh never mind.
Such a discussion has no point! See what I mean? Is that the kind of thing that “get’s under your skin”, Squishy? I think I understand what you mean by this guy being annoying. And he does this ALL the time with all of his posts? Wow.
Look, here’s the definitions of archetype:
quote:
1 : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : PROTOTYPE
2 : IDEA
3 : an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual
Fine. Now take the presentation of the story at face value. And what I mean is that Kai was talking in terms of definition #1: a model of all things of the same type. In other words, Earth-Bunny is the model of all the incarnations of Bunny on Fire & Water.
In summary, “Duh! [i](q.e.d.)[/i]”
Psychobabble alert! Psychobabble alert!
Where is this newsgroup?
And the award for fastest growing topic goes to… [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
Okay, here’s the typical argument I get involved in:
1. I state a theory or opinion, usually one that is fairly self-evident.
2. Antagonist disagrees with the statement, without giving any reason.
3. I explain the basis for my side, and the logical flaws in Antagonist’s argument.
4. Ant focuses on a small and peripheral part of my post, and rabidly attacks that while ignoring my main point.
5. I try to bring the discussion back to the central topic.
6. Ant posts irrelevant personal attack and ignores the actual content of my post.
7. I once again try to get the discussion back on topic.
8. Ant posts another personal attack.
9. I give up.
There are some slight variations, but that’s the archetype. I seem to be the only one here with a grasp on the standard dialectic/Lincoln-Douglas format for debate. My opponents just want to argue with and misrepresent me without actually thinking about what I’m saying. [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img]
——————
Lee P. Sherman, code name DalekTek790
Whovian, Froudian, Lexxian, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
[b]
It’s very rude and inconsiderate of you to post things like that. [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] I have never posted anything that was intentionally offensive or insulting, all of my theories are based on the logical interpretation of events and dialog on the shows or movies they pertain to, and I always take time to listen to the theories and opinions of everyone else in order to better put things in perspective.[/b]
Oh, really, DalekTek, you have never posted anything intentionally offensive or insulting? You have got to be kidding, how do you explain then the comment to my question of what Tina meant when she said she had never given herself to a living man..
Your reply was , “She’s a virgin, duh!” The “duh” does’nt imply that I am stupid? You could have simply answered the question and left out the “duh!” but I guess you just can’t help yourself..But don’t tell me you don’t try to be insulting… [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Flamegrape:
[b]It sounds like the guy on the newsgroup has ADD or ADHD. I bet he started reading a book by or about Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell, got distracted by something after reading half-way through it, and never finished it before getting to the point at the end. Seriously, now. The guy’s writing style is disjointed, aimless rambling, and has no real direction or point. In all honesty and all kidding aside, the guy could use some mental health help.But the subject of Kai’s reference to archetypes is actually somewhat important to the ongoing story arc of the forth (and maybe even the third) season of the show. Just why are these people from Fire & Water here on Earth? The answer is, “It’s a TV show, stupid! They’re not going to leave you in the dark and never explain important plot points like this! That’s the function of stories, to explain things to you– to describe archetypes.” This chain of thought leads to an endlessly spiraling vortex of archetypes within archetypes and without– oh never mind.
Such a discussion has no point! See what I mean? Is that the kind of thing that “get’s under your skin”, Squishy? I think I understand what you mean by this guy being annoying. And he does this ALL the time with all of his posts? Wow.
Look, here’s the definitions of archetype:
Fine. Now take the presentation of the story at face value. And what I mean is that Kai was talking in terms of definition #1: a model of all things of the same type. In other words, Earth-Bunny is the model of all the incarnations of Bunny on Fire & Water.
In summary, “Duh! [i](q.e.d.)[/i]”[/b]
Thankyou for checking it out it Flamegrape (I hope you read Flamegrape’s post Mercury), this is exactly what I’m talking about, I have never in all my time on the net met such a complete oddball, I was after Mercury’s post beginning to think I was the one with the strange views.
And your right, every post he makes is full of this mundane nonsensical rubbish (thank god he’s not on here!!!).
I just thought you would find it amusing to come across someone who really does deserve pity.
I hope Mercury is looking at his posts, because I don’t believe he can say hand on heart that this guy doesn’t deserve to be attacked, but like you said Flamegrape he needs mental care, and it’s fairly pointless trying to tell him anything!!!
In summary…he’s bloody annoying!!!
Squishy——————
Annoyed SquishyWould sombody please post the URL for this newsgroup?
If Kai is a personality racist :rolleyes ,why is he going to Translvania/Carpathia to fight the vampire/divine shadow in kkk robes? (giggle)
[This message has been edited by Hypatia (edited August 19, 2001).]
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
[b]And the award for fastest growing topic goes to… [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]Okay, here’s the typical argument I get involved in:
1. I state a theory or opinion, usually one that is fairly self-evident.
Squish: which usually sounds like you have all the facts and everyone else is wrong.2. Antagonist disagrees with the statement, without giving any reason.
Squish:Antagonist disagrees with the statement because you have indicated already that there is no room for debate and you are right at all times (i.e Atagonist getting ****ed off).3. I explain the basis for my side, and the logical flaws in Antagonist’s argument.
Everyone, not just the antagonist is getting ****ed off, because you are taking the whole thing too seriously, and you still won’t entertain the idea you might be wrong.
4. Ant focuses on a small and peripheral part of my post, and rabidly attacks that while ignoring my main point.
*Unfortunately, there are many points that you’re posts become questionable, you seem to rile the person even more by going off at tangents and using over the top sentences to explain yourself.
5. I try to bring the discussion back to the central topic.
*Whilst still getting on everyone’s nerves by using your use of logic and terminology.
6. Ant posts irrelevant personal attack and ignores the actual content of my post.
Ant get’s fed up with trying to reason with you, as it seems obvious you will not accpet an opinion other than your own, and try’s to tell what everyone is trying to tell you, stop going overboard with your posts.
7. I once again try to get the discussion back on topic.
Which is impossible now, because you have made everyone angry, and rational thought goes out the window.
8. Ant posts another personal attack.
Because you just can’t see how annoying you can be, do you really believe that everyone on here has a personal grudge against you, don’t you ever stop and think well maybe it’s something I’m doing that invokes this reaction?
9. I give up.
Only after it finally becomes clear that you have annoyed the hell out of someone, thankfully you do have the sense to walk away.
There are some slight variations, but that’s the archetype. I seem to be the only one here with a grasp on the standard dialectic/Lincoln-Douglas format for debate. My opponents just want to argue with and misrepresent me without actually thinking about what I’m saying. [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img]
No one talks or thinks like you do Dalektek, you’re like some old wordly professor that has lost touch with the real world, there is nothing standard about writing in Lincoln/Douglas dialect, nobody gives any thought to what type of dialect they are using because it really doesn’t matter.
You are like a shakesperian actor that can only communicate by quoting shakespeare, frankly it’s boring and get’s under people’s skin bigtime, if you want to write posts in the manner you do then join a literary forum.
In the meantime drop the OTT style of writing and converse like one of the boys, nobody on here is impressed or even like’s the way you express yourself when using this style of writing, we are now in the 21st century…not the 19th, no one talks like that…good thing or bad that’s a fact.
Squishy
[/b]
——————
Annoyed Squishy
quote:
Oh, really, DalekTek, you have never posted anything intentionally offensive or insulting? You have got to be kidding, how do you explain then the comment to my question of what Tina meant when she said she had never given herself to a living man..
Your reply was , “She’s a virgin, duh!” The “duh” does’nt imply that I am stupid? You could have simply answered the question and left out the “duh!” but I guess you just can’t help yourself..But don’t tell me you don’t try to be insulting…
What ever happened to “Doi”? As in, “No doi, that’s my point!” Or how ’bout “Dee”, (e.g. “No dee!”)? Or “Der”?
I’ll have to check my dictionotomy:
quote:
Main Entry: duh
Pronunciation: ‘d&, usually with prolonged &
Function: interjection
Date: 1974
1 — used to express actual or feigned ignorance or stupidity
2 — used derisively to indicate that something just stated is all too obvious or self-evident
Butthead: “No duh, Beavis! Uh-huh-huh, uh-huh-huh, uh-huh-huh…”
quote:
Originally posted by Hypatia:
[b]Would sombody please post the URL for this newsgroup?If Kai is a personality racist :rolleyes ,why is he going to Translvania/Carpathia to fight the vampire/divine shadow in kkk robes? (giggle)
[This message has been edited by Hypatia (edited August 19, 2001).][/b]
Hypatia, you sure you want to read his posts, as he’s now slagging off this board and it’s members, and believe me you need a cool head not to get annoyed.
Anyway, not sure if this will work…but it comes under the heading of alt.tv.lexx
Remember this guy has a screw loose, so I wouldn’t even bother responding,as like Dalektek it goes in one ear and and out the other very quickly!!!——————
Annoyed SquishyGoing back to the archetype thing…
Kai was refferring to Brud’s similar physical appearance to Stan. Perhaps Kai is refferring to a limitation in human DNA, only a finite amount of physical forms. But he was not talking about how the guy acted and it was not a “racist” comment. After all they are in a parallel universe. I alwasy half Xpected or at least thought they should or would run into alternate versions of themselves.
But really, it’s all just an Xcuse to bring back characters and actors that they like. The same people showing up on Fire and Water is not the same thing… the people that died in the light universe went to either of those planets and were supposed to be the same people. Fire and Water was supposed to be Heaven and Hell or something similar where people went after they died. Brud was supposed to be a different guy altogether who just looked like Stan.
Wow, before I went to bed this topic was only 12 posts long!
Squish: Sorry if I offended you by what I said, I didn’t mean it to come across so harshly. This guy does seem to have some rather odd views on Lexx, maybe he does need some attacking…
In conclusion: Hope theres no bad feeling between us.
——————
“I throw a little fit, I slit my teenage wrist. The most I can learn is in records that you burn”“drove the children from their chores. Handcrafted housewifes into whores. Fear of the beast is calling it near, creating what we’re hating; its only fear that is here….”
quote:
Originally posted by Hypatia:
[b]Would sombody please post the URL for this newsgroup?[/b]
[url=http://groups.google.com/groups?q=alt.tv.lexx]http://groups.google.com/groups?q=alt.tv.lexx[/url]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mercury:
[B]Wow, before I went to bed this topic was only 12 posts long!Squish: Sorry if I offended you by what I said, I didn’t mean it to come across so harshly. This guy does seem to have some rather odd views on Lexx, maybe he does need some attacking…
In conclusion: Hope theres no bad feeling between us.
Everything is cool mate, do you now see what I was trying to say, he’s completely bonkers!!!
I wouldn’t post this on here if it was just some ordinary fan who I took a dislike to, I thought you guy’s might be interested to hear his madcap idea’s and maybe have a laugh at the sametime.
I consider everyone a friend on here and that includes you, so there is no hard feelings…be well.
Squishy——————
Annoyed Squishy
quote:
Originally posted by Annoyed Squishy:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Mercury:
[B]I consider everyone a friend on here and that includes you, so there is no hard feelings…be well.
Squishy[/b]
that’s my little lizard baby…(mommy croons as she kisses beady eyes and feeds little squirming tidbits to waiting fangs…) [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Annoyed Squishy:
[b] No one talks or thinks like you do Dalektek, you’re like some old wordly professor that has lost touch with the real world, there is nothing standard about writing in Lincoln/Douglas dialect, nobody gives any thought to what type of dialect they are using because it really doesn’t matter.
You are like a shakesperian actor that can only communicate by quoting shakespeare, frankly it’s boring and get’s under people’s skin bigtime, if you want to write posts in the manner you do then join a literary forum.
In the meantime drop the OTT style of writing and converse like one of the boys, nobody on here is impressed or even like’s the way you express yourself when using this style of writing, we are now in the 21st century…not the 19th, no one talks like that…good thing or bad that’s a fact. [/b]
Everyone in Speech & Debate thinks like me, Squish. What I mean is, I typify the Speech psychology. I was a devoted member of the S&D Team at my high school, and I still keep in touch with some of my friends from the Team. And for the record my school’s Lincoln-Douglas champion agrees with my statements about His Divine Shadow and says I did a very good job in defending my argument.
It is highly inaccurate to say L.D. is dead. There has been a significant decline in its use in the National Forensic League since the early 1970s, but the 2000-2001 debate season saw a significant revival in L.D. participation. Besides, its use in N.F.L. S&D is really beside the point. It is an important facet of human society that cannot be killed.
I get the feeling you don’t understand what I’m talking about. Lincoln-Douglas style is the standard debate format in Western society today. L.D. might be called something else in England, I don’t know. It is a form of [b]dialectic[/b]. Dialectic is the rarely used Modern English equivalent to the dialektik(os) of ancient Greek philosophers of the Academy and Lycæum. The [i]Oxford English Dictionary[/i] defines “dialectic” as “The art of critical examination into the truth of an opinion; the investigation of truth by discussion…logic as applied to formal rhetorical reasoning; logical argumentation or disputation.” With that definition out of the way, I’ll describe the format of Lincoln-Douglas debate for you:
First, each speaker makes a constructive statement, which lists their opinions, beliefs, and other things the opponent will likely disagree with. These are called [b]contentions[/b]. Each contention traditionally has two or more [b]subpoints[/b], which explain specifically the meaning and implications of each contention. Speakers then present clearly organized, logic-oriented statements defending their contentions and rebut the contentions and arguments of their opponent. The idea is to ignore the actual person and focus entirely on their argument. The failure to do this, that is opposing the person instead of the idea is called a [b]personal attack[/b]. Statements may include any pertinent initial or subsequent line of argument. Rebuttals may include only extensions of arguments previously introduced into the debate.
Please don’t condemn a practice just because you don’t understand it.
——————
Lee P. Sherman, code name DalekTek790
Whovian, Froudian, Lexxian, etc.[This message has been edited by DalekTek790 (edited August 19, 2001).]
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
[b]And for the record my school’s Lincoln-Douglas champion agrees with my statements about His Divine Shadow and says I did a very good job in defending my argument.[/b]
Be that as it may, your arguments, which are interpretations of the text at hand, are not based on the text itself. Any interpretation that does not have a firm foundation in the text is worthless. Many of your arguments have been points that have no basis in the show at all, and instead have been based on assumptions made on the basis of assumption. In the HDS thread, you ascribed feelings and emotions (and a complete back-story) to HDS that was never presented in the series. Your argument (that HDS was a sympathetic character) was based on an assumption (that HDS had particular thoughts, feelings and reasons behind his actions) not based in the text (HDS was never shown to have these), but on the basis of another assumption (a back story that you invented). You have a tendency to build your arguments upon clouds, and these arguments have no chance of standing up.
And anyway, this is a *discussion board.* This is not an academic discussion group in which debates must be made to conform to Lincoln-Douglas standards. Like much of the world outside of academic circles, those standards are not conformed to in everyday discussion, which means that you probably take everything that is said to you as a “personal attack.”
And, for the record, your frustration about “personal attacks” is not based so much on *everyone else* refusing to conform to L.D. standards of debate, it’s based on your complete refusal or inability to participate in “real world” discussion.–Aleck
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aleck:
[B] Be that as it may, your arguments, which are interpretations of the text at hand, are not based on the text itself. Any interpretation that does not have a firm foundation in the text is worthless. Many of your arguments have been points that have no basis in the show at all, and instead have been based on assumptions made on the basis of assumption. In the HDS thread, you ascribed feelings and emotions (and a complete back-story) to HDS that was never presented in the series. Your argument (that HDS was a sympathetic character) was based on an assumption (that HDS had particular thoughts, feelings and reasons behind his actions) not based in the text (HDS was never shown to have these), but on the basis of another assumption (a back story that you invented). You have a tendency to build your arguments upon clouds, and these arguments have no chance of standing up.
And anyway, this is a *discussion board.* This is not an academic discussion group in which debates must be made to conform to Lincoln-Douglas standards. Like much of the world outside of academic circles, those standards are not conformed to in everyday discussion, which means that you probably take everything that is said to you as a “personal attack.”
And, for the record, your frustration about “personal attacks” is not based so much on *everyone else* refusing to conform to L.D. standards of debate, it’s based on your complete refusal or inability to participate in “real world” discussion.Dalektek, whether or not I understand the type of dialect you are using is irrelevant, none of us here are interested in discussing matters in this way.
If you want to talk that way then keep it within the group you mentioned, on here talk like a normal human being.
The fact is nobody is impressed or likes this way of writing, and it doesn’t impress anyone in the real world either, if you came up to me in the street and spoke to me in this manner, I’d either think poof or think you’re a bit strange.
I get the feeling that you think that this style of writing enforces your views, well it doesn’t, it just aggravates even more.
There is a time and a place for it (like hall’s of debate), it doesn’t gain you any merit here.
If you actually speak in this manner as well, then you won’t be acheiving anything in real life (girl’s will find you weird and blokes will think you are from another planet).
I used to be the same as you when I was younger, thinking that flexing my intellectual muscles would impress, I soon found out it does exactly the opposite.
So just to reiterate, nobody on here has any desire to talk in this manner, it’s wasteful and an unnecessary use of people’s time.
Just for once try talking or writing like a normal person.
Squishy——————
Annoyed Squishy[QUOTE]Originally posted by DalekTek790:
[b] Everyone in Speech & Debate thinks like me, Squish. What I mean is, I typify the Speech psychology. I was a devoted member of the S&D Team at my high school, and I still keep in touch with some of my friends from the Team. And for the record my school’s Lincoln-Douglas champion agrees with my statements about His Divine Shadow and says I did a very good job in defending my argument.It is highly inaccurate to say L.D. is dead. There has been a significant decline in its use in the National Forensic League since the early 1970s, but the 2000-2001 debate season saw a significant revival in L.D. participation. Besides, its use in N.F.L. S&D is really beside the point. It is an important facet of human society that cannot be killed.
I get the feeling you don’t understand what I’m talking about. Lincoln-Douglas style is the standard debate format in Western society today. L.D. might be called something else in England, I don’t know. It is a form of [b]dialectic[/b]. Dialectic is the rarely used Modern English equivalent to the dialektik(os) of ancient Greek philosophers of the Academy and Lycæum. The [i]Oxford English Dictionary[/i] defines “dialectic” as “The art of critical examination into the truth of an opinion; the investigation of truth by discussion…logic as applied to formal rhetorical reasoning; logical argumentation or disputation.” With that definition out of the way, I’ll describe the format of Lincoln-Douglas debate for you:
First, each speaker makes a constructive statement, which lists their opinions, beliefs, and other things the opponent will likely disagree with. These are called [b]contentions[/b]. Each contention traditionally has two or more [b]subpoints[/b], which explain specifically the meaning and implications of each contention. Speakers then present clearly organized, logic-oriented statements defending their contentions and rebut the contentions and arguments of their opponent. The idea is to ignore the actual person and focus entirely on their argument. The failure to do this, that is opposing the person instead of the idea is called a [b]personal attack[/b]. Statements may include any pertinent initial or subsequent line of argument. Rebuttals may include only extensions of arguments previously introduced into the debate.
Please don’t condemn a practice just because you don’t understand it.
I don’t condemn it, but there is simply no reason to use it here, how many other’s in this group have you come across that will enter into this type of debate?
It’s obviously something you take pride in, but nobody on here could care less about it, and you are not going to convert anyone or educate anyone on this group…we are not interested.
Like I have said, practice this elsewhere, somewhere where it is used in abundance, on here we just want people to have a laff and discuss Lexx light-heartedly, we don’t want to go into raging debate’s that end’s up giving everyone a blinding headache.
Keep it simple and keep it polite, then people will understand you, it’s all good fun at the end of the day, there is no seriousness, so there is no need for the heavy handed way you handle a reply.
Keep it cool…
Squishy——————
Annoyed Squishy
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
[b] And anyway, this is a *discussion board.* This is not an academic discussion group in which debates must be made to conform to Lincoln-Douglas standards. Like much of the world outside of academic circles, those standards are not conformed to in everyday discussion, which means that you probably take everything that is said to you as a “personal attack.”
And, for the record, your frustration about “personal attacks” is not based so much on *everyone else* refusing to conform to L.D. standards of debate, it’s based on your complete refusal or inability to participate in “real world” discussion. [/b]
…Which was replied to by Squish…
quote:
Originally posted by Annoyed Squishy:
[b]Dalektek, whether or not I understand the type of dialect you are using is irrelevant, none of us here are interested in discussing matters in this way.
[/b]
You’re replying to me, and not to DT. Don’t call me by his name. Ever.
And you just completely agreed with everything I said by arguing with me, though I can’t quite figure out how that happened.
Whether or not you have a problem with how DT writes (or, as it turns out, how I write) is not what should be addressed. It’s not *how* it’s written, it’s *what* is written. I don’t have any problem with DT’s style of writing, I have a problem with his style of arguement and his arrogant manner.–Aleck
I don’t want to make it seem like everyone’s picking on you, Dalek, but I gotta jump in on this one.
First, it takes courage and conviction to express your views even when people disagree with you frequently, and I applaud you for that.
You do, however, have a way of expressing your views which, whether you intend it to or not, comes across as arrogant, and when you start using big words and writing long paragraphs, it starts to seem like you just like to listen to yourself talk.
Of course, if you didn’t do these things you wouldn’t be Dalek, and I think the board would be a lot less interesting. But, if you’re going to talk as you do, understand that people will be annoyed by it and take that annoyance out on you.
——————
Gideon: I thought you said you don’t hold a grudge.
Galen: I don’t. I have no surviving enemies. At all.“I’d far rather be happy than right any day.”
“And are you?”
“No. That’s where it falls down, of course.”–Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy“It’s all in the mind.”–George Harrison
Just when I think I have a perfect post nobody can argue with, somebody comes up with some half-baked response to contradict me.
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
[b]Any interpretation that does not have a firm foundation in the text is worthless.[/b]
I completely agree. My arguments are based on the text [b]and nothing else[/b]. I define “text” as events depicted onscreen and lines spoken onscreen in the [i]Lexx[/i]/[i]Tales from a Parallel Universe[/i] movies and [i]Lexx[/i]: The Series. Until you can find a contradiction of my statements with the text or any of my theories that is not based on the logical interpretation of the text [b]you[/b] have no argument.
quote:
[b]In the HDS thread, you ascribed feelings and emotions (and a complete back-story) to HDS that was never presented in the series.[/b]
Once again, you are mistaken. If you watched the episode [i]Mantrid[/i], there was a lengthly monolog at the beginning that established the back story I have used:
Many years ago the humans defeated us in the Great Insect Wars. They thought that they destroyed all of us, but they did not kill me, as I live on. I hid myself by burrowing deep into a small planetoid. There, I waited.
I survived by passed my essence, my thoughts, my intelligence, my…everything to a human host. As the last surviving Insect I knew that I would never be able to defeat the humans. But, if I possessed a human body I could make them defeat themselves.
I became His Divine Shadow, the most powerful ruler in the two universes. My power grew as I passed my essence down from generation to generation. My Insect body also grew in strength, fed by the flesh of 20,000 worlds unknowingly enslaved to their enemy.
But my reign was ended by Kai, the last of the Brunnen-G, and my prematurely reborn body was destroyed by the Lexx, the most powerful weapon ever built. Kai crushed the brain of my last human host, but he did not kill me, as I live on. But, Kai does not know that I live through him.
I see no reason to doubt this. Unless you can give me something [b]from the show[/b] that discredits His Divine Shadow’s account of his own history, I consider it to be wholly valid.
quote:
[b]Your argument (that HDS was a sympathetic character) was based on an assumption (that HDS had particular thoughts, feelings and reasons behind his actions) not based in the text (HDS was never shown to have these), but on the basis of another assumption (a back story that you invented).[/b]
I don’t assume anything. It’s against my philosophy.
And I didn’t “invent” the back story, it was conceived by Donovan, Gigeroff, and Hirschfield. If you don’t like the way the direction the character went in [i]Mantrid[/i] that’s fine, just don’t blame me for it.
quote:
[b]And anyway, this is a *discussion board.* This is not an academic discussion group in which debates must be made to conform to Lincoln-Douglas standards. Like much of the world outside of academic circles, those standards are not conformed to in everyday discussion, which means that you probably take everything that is said to you as a “personal attack.”[/b]
I post in the same manner as others at this forum. I post the way I talk. [b]You[/b] were the one who forced me to bring up Lincoln-Douglas. And there has to be [b]some[/b] format for discussion in order to debate my (or anyone else’s) points. It’s like when Galileo said “How am I to show you the moons of Jupiter when you won’t look through my telescope?”
quote:
[b]And, for the record, your frustration about “personal attacks” is not based so much on *everyone else* refusing to conform to L.D. standards of debate, it’s based on your complete refusal or inability to participate in “real world” discussion. [/b]
What I describe as “personal attacks” are when people say what amounts to “you’re stupid” and never address my actual argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Annoyed Squishy:
[b]Dalektek, whether or not I understand the type of dialect you are using is irrelevant, none of us here are interested in discussing matters in this way.[/b]
It’s not “dialect” it’s “dialectic,” or “dialektik” if you prefer the Classical spelling. I dialect is a type of speech pattern. A dialectic is any scholarly discussion of opposing viewpoints. And I never said I was committed to any [b]type[/b] of dialectic, just the practice itself.
quote:
[b]The fact is nobody is impressed or likes this way of writing, and it doesn’t impress anyone in the real world either, if you came up to me in the street and spoke to me in this manner, I’d either think poof or think you’re a bit strange.[/b]
I don’t expect people to be impressed, I expect only for them to [b]understand[/b].
quote:
[b]I get the feeling that you think that this style of writing enforces your views, well it doesn’t, it just aggravates even more.[/b]
Yes, it does. Most people like my intellectual and witty style. People wouldn’t take me seriously if I wrote like semi-literate white trash, now would they?
quote:
[b]If you actually speak in this manner as well, then you won’t be acheiving anything in real life (girl’s will find you weird and blokes will think you are from another planet).[/b]
It’s funny you should mention that, Squish, ’cause I once assembled a Lincoln-Douglas style persuasive argument to try to convince a girl to go out with me. I didn’t get a chance to use it, which is a shame, because I had some really good points. But that’s not pertinent to this line of discussion.
quote:
[b]Just for once try talking or writing like a normal person. [/b]
I am.
quote:
Originally posted by Annoyed Squishy:
[b]Like I have said, practice this elsewhere, somewhere where it is used in abundance, on here we just want people to have a laff and discuss Lexx light-heartedly, we don’t want to go into raging debate’s that end’s up giving everyone a blinding headache.[/b]
This was a light-hearted discussion of [i]Lexx[/i], until Aleck turned it into a heated argument. The topic was “His Divine Shadow.” I started it because there were a lot of people posting things about His Shadow under several topics, and I wanted to condense it all into one thread where everyone could share their personal thoughts and speculations on [i]Lexx[/i]’s most complex and intriguing character. But Aleck, without provocation, decided to contradict my opinions and theories. So it turned into a debate. I suggested the format of a friendly dialectic, but he wouldn’t stand for it. Then he said I should “define my argument,” so I did in L.D. style, but he never really responded to that.
Essentially, the whole thread became like the Scopes Trial, with him (William Jennings Bryan) defending his personal mindsets, and me (Thomas Henry Huxley) showing the actual evidence to back up my claims. He got the last word in but I “won” in that my side was organized, logical, and fact-based. If you don’t understand the historical reference in that last paragraph, just don’t worry about it.
Aleck’s dogmatism and Squish’s anti-intellectualism do not threaten me.
——————
“Exterminate!” -Dalek warrior, [i]The Daleks[/i]: Episode 4-[i]The Ambush[/i]
“Feel the power of the dark Crystal!” -skekTek the Scientist, [i]The Dark Crystal[/i]
“I will love you forever!” -drone #790, [i]Lexx 1.1: I Worship His Shadow[/i]
[This message has been edited by DalekTek790 (edited August 19, 2001).]
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
[b]Just when I think I have a perfect post nobody can argue with, somebody comes up with some half-baked response to contradict me[/b]
More arrogance. Just what I expected.
quote[quote][b]Until you can find a contradiction of my statements with the text or any of my theories that is not based on the logical interpretation of the text you have no argument.[/b][/quote]
There is no contradiction within the text because you are going outside of the text. Things you are saying have no basis within it at all.
quote[quote][b]Once again, you are mistaken. If you watched the episode Mantrid, there was a lengthly monolog at the beginning that established the back story I have used:[/b][/quote]
Where in that monologue does it state that HDS saw the destruction of his people and plotted revenge? Where does it state that he sees what he does as just? Where does it state that he is doing what he senses as “right” (as if that makes his actions sympathetic)? Half of what you describe as HDS’s back-story has been invented by you. For instance, to quote you from the HDS thread:
quote:
[b]They came out of nowhere in the Neoproterozoic Period of planet Earth. Nothing on the planet was that complex, that organized, that devoted to the perpetuation of their existence. Their ravaging of the primæval biome brought about the dawn of the Paleozoic Era. For over a hundred thousand millennia they dominated the land, the seas, and the air. Though their reign was ended by the development of prochordates into vertibrate forms, they live on, outnumbering any other phylum of terrestrial life. They are the insects.
But in the Light Zone, the Insects fared much better. Their domination was on an interplanetary scale.
They harnessed the power of nanotechnology to grow to massive sizes and live for thousands of years. The fluid that coursed through their veins was the same proto-blood that reanimated Kai and Yottskry. They could exist outside their chitinous forms, and transfer their essence to new bodies adapted for different tasks. They could bend the very fabric of time-space to find new worlds to subgigate.
But when they opened a fractal core to a new and uncertain universe, they opened Pandora’s box. For a new race existed in the Dark Zone, one equally experienced in space travel and with an even greater lust for conquest: the humans.
Led by a warrior sub-race known as the Brunnen-G, humanity brutally slaughtered the Insect civilization, colonizing their worlds and stealing their technology. When the Great Insect War was over, not a single Insect could be seen traversing the stars.
But one lived on. He had seen his race, his planet, and everything he held dear torn to pieces by the alien race.
The humans must die. [/b]
None of this is in the text. All of this is pure speculation on your part.
You attribute motivations and reasoning to a being that never expressed them. You are going outside of the text, and your interpretation is invalid.quote[quote][b]I post in the same manner as others at this forum. I post the way I talk.[/b][/quote]
Correction: no one else in the forum posts in the same manner as yourself. No one has expressed the same level of arrogance as you have done. And if that’s the way you talk, I feel for those around you on a day-to-day basis.
quote[quote][b]You were the one who forced me to bring up Lincoln-Douglas.[/b][/quote]
…And in another stellar example of venturing WAY outside the text, you brought up Lincoln-Douglas in a thread in which I had yet to post. I hadn’t set foot in this thread until after you brought it up. I find it hard to see how I forced you to do something when I wasn’t even *around*…
quote[quote][b]What I describe as “personal attacks” are when people say what amounts to “you’re stupid” and never address my actual argument.[/b][/quote]
Which, I might add, despite your attempt to paint my posts as stating, I have never said. I have continually addressed your arguments.
quote[quote][b]But Aleck, without provocation, decided to contradict my opinions and theories. [/b][/quote]
Why should there be any provocation? You are posting your half-baked theories and opinions on a public discussion forum, which opens the floor up for debate on said theories and opinions.
quote[quote][b]So it turned into a debate. I suggested the format of a friendly dialectic, but he wouldn’t stand for it. [/b][/quote]
Which is patently untrue.
quote[quote][b]Then he said I should “define my argument,” so I did in L.D. style, but he never really responded to that.[/b][/quote]
Another lie. I, point-by-point, addressed every single facet of his argument, pointing out where he was staying true to the text, and where he was venturing into the realm of pure assumption. Turns out that most of his points were not based on the text, and were invalid arguments. Built upon clouds, with no foundation to speak of. DT never bothered to reply to that (so much for “focusing on some tangential point of my argument and not addressing the topic”).
–Aleck
[This message has been edited by Aleck (edited August 19, 2001).]
Ok Dalektek, you’re not going to listen because you are so self-absorbed, everything you say rings of arrogance and nobody on this group talks in this manner.
I’m not going to debate on an intellectual level,as that is exactly what I’m asking you not to do, this is not an arena to pit your wits against other’s.
Stop being such a pillock and join in with people as fun, because you are not witty and you are not intelligent, if you were you would have the commonsense to realise just how annoying you are.
I propose a vote,
Those who think Dalektek is an arrogant over the top and slightly moronic individual please add your name here:Those who believe and like Dalektek for what he say’s add your name here:
Since you won’t listen to anyone and clearly are not in touch with the real world, then I simply will view your posts with the contempt and ridicule they deserve, it is my opinion that you thoroughly deserve the attacks on you.
One day you will hopefully realise just how much of an insufferable idiot you sound.
I was happy to stick up for you in the past, but after that display of arrogance in your last post I will be joining the other’s in making fun out of you and your stupid posts.
If you won’t grow up and loosen up, there will come a time where you will simply be ignored, I have been very patient in the hope that you would listen to what was being said about you, and hoping that you would understand and change…obviously that is beyond you.——————
Annoyed Squishy
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
[b] You’re replying to me, and not to DT. Don’t call me by his name. Ever.
And you just completely agreed with everything I said by arguing with me, though I can’t quite figure out how that happened.
Whether or not you have a problem with how DT writes (or, as it turns out, how I write) is not what should be addressed. It’s not *how* it’s written, it’s *what* is written. I don’t have any problem with DT’s style of writing, I have a problem with his style of arguement and his arrogant manner.–Aleck[/b]
I’m sorry Aleck, I don’t know how that happened, but to be fair I have a different agenda to what Dalektek is doing, the whole thing reeks of supreme arrogance.
I don’t believe that you write in the same manner as he, you’re posts are well written and there isn’t a trace of arrogance in them, if you use this Lincoln/Douglas whatever, then that’s your choice as much as it is Dalektek’s, but for this board it’s completely unnecessary.
I don’t have a problem with you, and I’m very surprised if you feel I do, and I would not call you by his name intentionally.
I know who you are, so this was a mistake on my part and I apologise.
The fact is his style of writing goes hand in hand with his arrogance and just makes him even more annoying.
I’m not going to start flaming on here ever, I’ve done my fair shre of that in the past, I’ve said what I wanted to, and DalekTek (as usual) is taking it as a personal attack for which I can do nothing about, if he chooses to ignore what everyone say’s then he can stay wrapped up in his own cocoon and carry on believing that people talk and behave in this way.
I personally find that him and this Free are slightly off key with the rest of the world, I have no ill feeling towards him, but if he ignores friendly advice and chooses to ignore it then that is his right…at least I tried.
Anyway, apologies for the mix up, and like I said there is no problem as far as I am concerned between you and I on this matter.
Squishy——————
Annoyed SquishyOh Aleck, I see what went wrong, I was adding to your post, not in the slightest condemning it.
BTW, did you read his last one?, if any futher evidence was needed of his arrogance then there it is!!!‘I am not threatened by Aleck or Squish’…so what, I’m not here to threaten you Dalektek, and frankly you must have one helluva inferiority complex to believe that.
I’m not here to do battle with you Dalektek, you only want someone to massage your own huge ego, well guess what, I’m here for fun (do you even know that concept?) and to chat to my nice friends in the US, nothing more.Squishy
——————
Annoyed SquishyHands up, anyone who wants (sorry, make that needs) this thread locked. Already this 3 day old ‘Annoying Squishy’ has initiated enough personal attacks to be banned or moderated. Somebody do something NOW!
——————
Yoda of Borg are we: Futile, resistance is. Assimilate you, we will. Hmmm?
quote:
Originally posted by CBrate:
[b]Hands up, anyone who wants (sorry, make that needs) this thread locked. Already this 3 day old ‘Annoying Squishy’ has initiated enough personal attacks to be banned or moderated. Somebody do something NOW![/b]
Oh, here we go again, I have not initiated any personal attacks on anyone, that’s not my nature.
The first part was in a repsonse to some one who isn’t part of this board, and that most are in agreement in that he is off his trolley.
Now, it’s turned into Dalektek taking everything too personally and the whole thing has got out of hand.
I’ve been on this board a good long time now and feel part of the family, so don’t you come here and tell me that I’m starting something I haven’t, read what’s happened and like Mercury you will understand what is going on.
I’m not 3 day old either, my registration was reset after the big crash and I had to restart with a new one.
Like many have done before me, I was attempting to get Dalektek to soften up and not take so many thing’s seriously, but he’s taken it the wrong way, but I admit it’s got out of hand.
But don’t presume I’m a newbie because I am not, I love the peeps on here and the last thing I want to do is start a flaming war…so in future don’t be so quick to criticize when you don’t know what’s going on.
Squishy——————
Annoyed Squishy
quote:
Originally posted by Annoyed Squishy:
[b]Oh Aleck, I see what went wrong, I was adding to your post, not in the slightest condemning it.[/b]
That’s cool. I apologize for the tone of my post. I just got caught up in everything, and overreacted. My bad. [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
–Aleck
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
[b] That’s cool. I apologize for the tone of my post. I just got caught up in everything, and overreacted. My bad. [img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]–Aleck[/b]
Yeah, I get like that sometimes, no worries though dude, I know you’re better than that.
Squishy.BTW FX (If you’re reading this), I need your help again (as I’m a big wimp who can’t fight his own battles, and that you are bigger than me!!!), could you tell CBrate that I’ve been around for some time and I’m actually a cuddly little cluster lizard.
He seems to think I’m new and has decided to attack me for what reason I’m not clear on.
Beady eyed and long fanged Squishy.——————
Annoyed SquishyThanx for the links, Squish and Cat.
If DalekTek talks the way he does just to be pretentious, he is an a**hole. But more likely he can’t help it. As I have struggled not to sound like a nerd.
Not that you do, Dalek. But your posts are a bit long.
Now everybody hug.
quote:
Originally posted by Hypatia:
[b]Thanx for the links, Squish and Cat.If DalekTek talks the way he does just to be pretentious, he is an a**hole. But more likely he can’t help it. As I have struggled not to sound like a nerd.
Not that you do, Dalek. But your posts are a bit long.
Now everybody hug.[/b]
Ahhh, that’s the spirit Hypatia, I thought the same thing about Dalektek many times, and half the time I don’t think he realises what he say’s comes across arrogantly.
Did enjoy that guy’s comments and idea’s, the original idea was to say to everybody look at this guy, in an attempt to give Dalektek a break…I think it kinda backfired on me.
Oh well, another longer post initiated by your friendly neighbourhood Squish, I really don’t mean them to go on this long…but I suppose it gives us something to get our fangs into!!!
Squishy——————
Annoyed Squishy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.