Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 2:27 PM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,789 Year: 11,825/19,786 Month: 1,606/2,641 Week: 115/708 Day: 49/66 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
rueh
Member (Idle past 1853 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(2)
Message 91 of 211 (633315)
09-13-2011 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 8:25 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Well it could be a bit complicated. Seeing as how a point could be made that a line of communication is what is implied in Spock's usage of response. In which case if it is communication that is being implied, then being unable to respond is correct from Spock's perspective. Regardless of the reasons why that response was not received. Though he was technically incorrect in the choice of verbiage. Truthfully though, I hate discussions about semantics and 'am going to go back to lurker mode so that I can read through RAZD's charts that he loves so much

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:25 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19977
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 92 of 211 (633318)
09-13-2011 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by New Cat's Eye
09-12-2011 7:00 PM


ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
Hi again Catholic Scientist

I suppose there's a bit of an overlap; if you were so ambivalent that you just couldn't bring yourself to do it, then I could call that 'unable'.

That doesn't affect the (technical) [able]ity to make a response, it affects whether a decision is made, or not, to respond or not respond.

I suppose there's a bit of an overlap; if you were so ambivalent that you just couldn't bring yourself to do it, then I could call that 'unable'.

But that isn't what ambivalent means. Message 52:

quote:
Apathy and ambivalence do not mean willing or unwilling.

ambivalence:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambivalence
quote:
-noun
1. uncertainty or fluctuation, especially when caused by inability to make a choice or by a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things.

and

- n
the simultaneous existence of two opposed and conflicting attitudes, emotions, etc


ie - neither willing nor not willing, but conflicted, uncertain.



willing
not[willing]
ambivalent
willing and ambivalent
not[willing] and ambivalent
not[ambivalent]
willing and not[ambivalent]
not[willing] & not[ambivalent]

You can't be both [willing] AND [ambivalent]
You can't be both not[willing] AND [ambivalent]
You can, however, be not[ambivalent] and be EITHER [willing] OR not[willing]

In other words, to be either [willing] OR not[willing] you cannot be ambivalent.

apathy:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apathy
quote:
noun
1. absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2. lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.

and

- n
1. absence of interest in or enthusiasm for things generally considered interesting or moving
2. absence of emotion


ie - neither willing nor not willing, but don't care


The ambivalence\apathy affect whether a decision to respond is made or a decision to not respond is made. The second ship could be highly conflicted whether to respond or not and thus have not yet decided to respond. Perhaps they are highly paranoid and fear the results of either path.

But at the end of the day, you didn't get it done. So you either couldn't or you wouldn't.

post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, (also begging the question, affirming the consequent).
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/posthoc.htm

At the end of the day, a response was not made: why that response was not made has not been determined.

  • Was it inability?
  • Was it unwillingness?
  • Was a response made but not received?
  • Was it paranoid ambivalence that sees both response and non-response as equally bad for the second ship? (neither willing nor unwilling, but stuck between them)
  • Was it complete apathy that sees neither response nor non-response as being of any particular value for the second ship? (neither willing nor unwilling but stuck between them)
  • Was it an automatic program in the ship that did not receive the proper input stimulus (a clearance code?) for a response to be sent?
  • Was it lack of available time, with higher priority tasks (like simple survival) such that they just don't have time to spend on a response? Able to respond, willing to respond, not sure if there is enough time for response and other high priority tasks (and was it their conclusion in evaluating priorities that a response was a low priority, as they were sure the Enterprise would investigate further if none was received, so the time would be better spent on surviving until then?)

These are just some of the many possibilities.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : low priority vs high priority tasks


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2011 7:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by rueh, posted 09-13-2011 2:53 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 3:20 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19977
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 93 of 211 (633319)
09-13-2011 2:50 PM


No sniping please
Everyone,

Let's cut out the personal attacks. They detract from the arguments and only encourage further [i]ad hominum[/u]s.

I continue to mark posts [cheer] if they address the topic in good debate manner, and [jeer] if they contain any attacks on others, whether they originate in the post or are in reply to attacks in other posts.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 11:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1853 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 94 of 211 (633320)
09-13-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
09-13-2011 2:43 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
Hello RAZD,
RAZD writes:

You can't be both [willing] AND [ambivalent]
You can't be both not[willing] AND [ambivalent]
You can, however, be not[ambivalent] and be EITHER [willing] OR not[willing]

In other words, to be either [willing] OR not[willing] you cannot be ambivalent.

If ambivalent means a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things. Then couldn't you be ambivalent and be willing and not willing at the same time? These are two opposite or conflicting things. In which case wouldn't the ultimate state of either being willing or not willing just rest on what the final decision to your ambivalence is? Or if no decision is reached wouldn't that have the same outcome as not willing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 2:43 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 3:21 PM rueh has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 95 of 211 (633325)
09-13-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
09-13-2011 2:43 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
But that isn't what ambivalent means.

Pardon me, I was writing ambivalent and thinking apathetic...

You can't be both not[willing] AND [ambivalent]

I would say that if you were ambivalent, and didn't get it done, then you weren't willing to get it done.

From Message 89:

It always amuses me when people say things like this. Curiously I am busy with many projects and do not have time to hang on your every post and assertion, and then get into a fetid rush to respond. Amusingly,

  • I am willing to respond
  • I am able to respond
  • but I haven't had the time yet to respond due to other factors impacting my life -- that are a higher priority.

This of course, is another possibility to explain the lack of response during the time when Spock et al were monitoring for a response ...

If you don't respond because other factors are more important, then you are unwilling to repspond. You may have wanted to, but you weren't willing to actually do it. I think this is a difference between our word usage, where you're saying that wanting to but not is still "willing" to do it. I'm saying that even if you wanted to but you didn't, then you weren't really willing to.

The ambivalence\apathy affect whether a decision to respond is made or a decision to not respond is made. The second ship could be highly conflicted whether to respond or not and thus have not yet decided to respond. Perhaps they are highly paranoid and fear the results of either path.

If they were too scared to respond, then they were unwilling to.

But at the end of the day, you didn't get it done. So you either couldn't or you wouldn't.

post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, (also begging the question, affirming the consequent).

Huh? How? Why?

At the end of the day, a response was not made: why that response was not made has not been determined.

(snip)

Was a response made but not received?

That would mean they were unable to (adequately) respond.

Was it paranoid ambivalence that sees both response and non-response as equally bad for the second ship?

Well if they didn't respond, then they weren't willing to.

Was it an automatic program in the ship that did not receive the proper input stimulus (a clearance code?) for a response to be sent?

Unable. They weren't capable of getting the reponse to the Enterprise.

Was it lack of available time, with higher priority tasks (like simple survival) such that they just don't have time to spend on a response? Able to respond, willing to respond, not sure if there is enough time for response and other high priority tasks (and was it their conclusion in evaluating priorities that a response was a low priority, as they were sure the Enterprise would investigate further if none was received, so the time would be better spent on surviving until then?)

Unwilling. They weren't willing to to actually send the response even thought they would have if they had the time or enough desire.

These are just some of the many possibilities.

I'm still not convinced any of those fall outside of unable or unwilling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 2:43 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19977
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 96 of 211 (633326)
09-13-2011 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by rueh
09-13-2011 2:53 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
Hi rueh, and welcome to the debate.

If ambivalent means a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things. Then couldn't you be ambivalent and be willing and not willing at the same time? These are two opposite or conflicting things. In which case wouldn't the ultimate state of either being willing or not willing just rest on what the final decision to your ambivalence is? Or if no decision is reached wouldn't that have the same outcome as not willing?

Think of it as the zero position between positive willing and negative willing -- it is neither positive nor negative.

If at the end of the day you say "oh what the heck" and toss a coin to determine whether or not to respond, then would that be willing or not willing?

Same with apathy. They may ask "is a response necessary? or will the Enterprise crew investigate further in any event? Would a lack of response affect the behavior of the Enterprise in any negative way?"

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by rueh, posted 09-13-2011 2:53 PM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by rueh, posted 09-14-2011 8:31 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19977
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 97 of 211 (633333)
09-13-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2011 3:20 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
Hi again Catholic Scientist

I would say that if you were ambivalent, and didn't get it done, then you weren't willing to get it done.

Then you are rejecting the definitions of willing and ambivalent in order to assume you are correct.

If you don't respond because other factors are more important, then you are unwilling to repspond. You may have wanted to, but you weren't willing to actually do it. I think this is a difference between our word usage, where you're saying that wanting to but not is still "willing" to do it. I'm saying that even if you wanted to but you didn't, then you weren't really willing to.

No, I am willing to do it fourth on my list of prioritized tasks. I somehow feel that survival is more important than response, so once I get that solved I can move on to making a response.

What in that statement says I will not make a response? What in that statement says I cannot make a response?

I don't wait up all night for posts here so I can rush out a response - does that make me unwilling to respond? I leave my computer hooked up and on, so that I can use it to work on any number of tasks, at any time I chose to: does that make me unable to respond?

If they were too scared to respond, then they were unwilling to.

AND if they were too scared to NOT respond, then by your logic they were willing.

If they are paranoid ambivalent, scared about the consequences of EITHER action, then what does that make them? Ambivalent.

Unable. They weren't capable of getting the reponse to the Enterprise.

False. Getting the response to the enterprise is not the task, making a response is the task.

They were able to respond, they were willing to respond, a response was made but the ship did not send it because the Enterprise did not have the proper security measures and clearance codes.

The ship is a high security research vessel with a simple program:

if the proper security measures and clearance codes are present, then allow communication
else (if the proper security measures and clearance codes are not present then) do not allow communication

Explain how the mere existence of this program affects

  1. the ableness of the people in the second ship to formulate a response, have the equipment to send it, and the skills to operate the equipment:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/able
    quote:
    adjective
    1. having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified: able to lift a two-hundred-pound weight; able to write music; able to travel widely; able to vote.

    and

    - adj
    1. ( postpositive ) having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity, etc, to do something: able to swim

    and

    Function: adjective
    1 : possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective < able to perform under the contract>


    and

  2. the willingness of the people in the second ship to make a response

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/willing
    quote:
    - adjective
    1. disposed or consenting; inclined: willing to go along.

    and

    - adj
    1. favourably disposed or inclined; ready


The program reacts to the existence or absence of the proper security measures and clearance codes, the program does not have [able]ity to respond, it does not have [willing]ness to respond, as those must come from the crew, so a response is only sent IF:

  1. the people in the second ship have the ability to formulate a response and have the equipment to send it
  2. the people in the second ship have the willingness to make a response
    AND
  3. the Enterprise is using the proper security measures and clearance codes
    to communicate with the people in the second ship.

All three conditions must be met for a response to be sent from the second ship. The first two depend on the crew, while the third depends on an external factor that the crew of the second ship have no control over - whether or not the Enterprise is using the proper security measures and clearance codes.

I'm still not convinced any of those fall outside of unable or unwilling.

Review the definitions above and show how they meet those definitions.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clarity


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 3:20 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 5:08 PM RAZD has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 98 of 211 (633334)
09-13-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
09-13-2011 1:12 PM


Re: ... haven't had the time yet to respond due to other higher priorities
CS writes
I replied to that and then you posted a bunch of pictures of dorks...

Thats funny

ways amuses me when people say things like this. Curiously I am busy with many projects and do not have time to hang on your every post and assertion, and then get into a fetid rush to respond. Amusingly,

yeah I knew you probably had not abandoned it, I was just doing that to pull you back in just incase you had. Ill get to your latest comments as soon as possible

a bunch of Dorks, that funny. I guess Spock would have to be the real dork observing sex only every seven years, now thats a dork Amok time

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 1:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 99 of 211 (633342)
09-13-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 8:22 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Some even made suggestions on how to improve on your example.

Would it help if I got some children to help you understand the mistake you are making?

If children can get it, you should be able to as well.

That would be great, but as far as I can see, you still have not, after may explanations seen the point I am making.

Ill try again. Forget what the task of the crew on either side was, forget whether they were able or unable to respond or communicate

Forget the grammar of the sentence.

Answer this simple question. Would any actions on either side of the scenario fall under a term that is not decribed by willing or able. Provide that word, concept or phrase that is different than those two

This is your only task. No lectures please

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 100 of 211 (633344)
09-13-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
09-13-2011 4:10 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
Then you are rejecting the definitions of willing and ambivalent in order to assume you are correct.

Au contraire, I am using a different definition:

From your online dictionary:

quote:
willing
–adjective

3. done, given, borne, used, etc., with cheerful readiness.


And further down:

quote:
will
–verb (used with object)

9. to decide, bring about, or attempt to effect or bring about by an act of the will: He can walk if he wills it.


My definition is about getting it done. If you don't get it done, and you were able, then you were unwilling.

No, I am willing to do it fourth on my list of prioritized tasks. I somehow feel that survival is more important than response, so once I get that solved I can move on to making a response.

So yeah, your definition is more about wanting to do it...

But that definition doesn't make sense in light of the context of the situation. Spock had just learned that their communicators were not jammed, he wouldn't be making a statement about whether or not they wanted to respond, he was talking about the fact that they had not responded, so if they were able, then that must mean that they didn't bring it about... they were "unwilling".

What there says I will not make a response? What there says I cannot make a response?

Its not about what you might do in the future, its about what you haven't done right now. The fact that the response was not made shows that you were either unwilling or unable.

I don't wait up all night for posts here so I can rush out a response - does that make me unwilling to respond?

You may still have the desire to repond, but you have not brought it about. In the sense of your desire, you are willing to respond, but in the sense bringing it about, you were unwilling.

AND if they were too scared to NOT respond, then by your logic they were willing.

But that would mean the the Enterpirse had received the response, which they did not.

If they are paranoid ambivalent, scared about the consequences of EITHER action, then what does that make them? Ambivalent.

And unwilling (in the sense of bringing it about) to respond.

False. Getting the response to the enterprise is not the task, making a response is the task.

No, Spock was talking about them getting their reponse to the Enterprise. He wasn't considering that maybe they were just stuck in their ship shouting really loudly in an attempt to "respond".

It doesn't matter what said task is, if you didn't get it done then you couldn't or you wouldn't... you are unable or unwilling.

They were able to respond, they were willing to respond, a response was made but the ship did not send it because the Enterprise did not have the proper security measures and clearance codes.

The ship is a high security research vessel with a simple program:

if the proper security measures and clearance codes are present, then allow communication
else (if the proper security measures and clearance codes are not present then) do not allow communication
Explain how the mere existence of this program affects

A.the ability of the people in the second ship to formulate a response and have the equipment to send it:

The fact that they could not get their response to the Enterprise means that they were unable to do it.

The program reacts to the existence or absence of the proper security measures and clearance codes, the program does not have [able]ity to respond, it does not have [willing]ness to respond, as those must come from the crew, so a response is only sent IF:

  1. the people in the second ship have the ability to formulate a response and have the equipment to send it
  2. the people in the second ship have the willingness to make a response
    AND
  3. the Enterprise is using the proper security measures and clearance codes
    to communicate with the people in the second ship.

All three conditions must be met for a response to be sent from the second ship. The first two depend on the crew, while the third depends on an external factor that the crew of the second ship have no control over - whether or not the Enterprise is using the proper security measures and clearance codes.

None of that matters.

It doesn't matter what said task is, if you didn't get it done then you couldn't or you wouldn't... you are unable or unwilling.

Review the definitions above and show how they meet those definitions.

Me, and Spock, are/were not using the word "willing" to mean a desire to accomplish a task, its being used to mean the bringing about of an accomplishment of a task.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 4:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 8:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 101 of 211 (633346)
09-13-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 8:25 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Reuh writes
If he had instead choosen communicate, than he would have been correct. However in choosing respond it allows for additional possibilities that unable or unwilling do not cover.

BT writes:

But DB is a little hard to explain basic word usage to.

I hope if he reads your post, perhaps the wording you have used may help it sink in.

Cheers,

It seems that RAZD is the only one on the opposing side undersatanding what the actual argument and contention concerns

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF THE SCENARIO ITSELF. Its not about whether Spock was right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. its about the logical implications concerning the words Willing and Able.

Forget about the TV scenario, thats not the point, you simplistic knucklehead. Ha Ha, just kidding

Can another word concept or idea that is a part of reality, describe thier actions besides Willing or able

Here is a hint. RAZD has tried ambivalent and apathy. His problem is that he has assumed that where there is ambivalence or apathy there is no will. He has assumed this, he has not demonstrated it

For his contention and example of these words to catagorize another area, he first needs to establish that one has no Will at all, even when apathetic, or approaching apathy

Of course he cant do this, because even ambivalence is a choice and apathy still involes will. therefore, those individuals are unable to make a decision because they CHOOSE not to.

That is how ambivalence and apathy work in conjunction with Will. They are not independant of it as his argument implies

How in the world can he show that apathy does not involve some Will. Does the mind quit working when one is apathetic.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:25 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 5:39 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 11:45 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1904 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 102 of 211 (633349)
09-13-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 5:20 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:

Forget about the TV scenario, thats not the point, you simplistic knucklehead. Ha Ha, just kidding


Why don't you go fuck yourself. Ha Ha, just kidding.
No really - piss off you stupid wanker. Ha Ha, just kidding.
Seriously - go fist-fuck yourself. Ha Ha, just kidding.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 5:20 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:06 PM Panda has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:06 PM Panda has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 103 of 211 (633354)
09-13-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Panda
09-13-2011 5:39 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
x

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 5:39 PM Panda has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 104 of 211 (633355)
09-13-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Panda
09-13-2011 5:39 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Why don't you go fuck yourself. Ha Ha, just kidding.
No really - piss off you stupid wanker. Ha Ha, just kidding.
Seriously - go fist-fuck yourself. Ha Ha, just kidding.

If you will notice BT has used some pretty fowl language and verbage, its just friendly jibes amoung friends.

If I were you Panda I would seek some psychological help for that temper of yours. I can understand why you are by yourself, with that temper

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 5:39 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 6:13 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1904 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 105 of 211 (633356)
09-13-2011 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 6:06 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:

If I were you Panda I would seek some psychological help for that temper of yours. I can understand why you are by yourself, with that temper


Eh? What temper?
I was joking!

Didn't you see the bits where I said "Ha Ha, just kidding"?
It was just some friendly jibes between friends.
Wow - you need to get a sense of humour you retard - Ha Ha, just kidding.

I thought that was how it worked:

Dawn Bertot writes:

those Admin "freaks" (just kidding fellas)
So stick that where the sun dont shine, ha ha, just kidding
It doesnt surprise your source messed this up, since most everything else you teaches is goofy as well. Ha Ha Im just kidding on that remark
Jerk, Just kidding holmes.
the grumpy-ole, IAJ, just kidding
nerdarama, just kidding of course
Why you worthless sack of cr...... No Im just kidding
Ive tried my best to get along with that evil, no good for nothing. No Im just kidding, but she is hateful
its just that your a knothead, IM JUST KIDDING.
even Peg and their little group, ha ha (just kidding Peg)
Just kidding about the nerd part.
Look out Gulf War veterans we have a real hero on our hands here fellas [sarcasm] Just kidding CaveDiver
Then ofcourse there is "Yogart", the "everlasting know it all", or Cavediver, which ever is easier, ha ha. Just kidding CD, dont have a anurism.
What if I refered to you as "Euro-Trash", of course I am just kidding here Homie.
Remember when i discussed earlier your reasoning abilities not being that polished, Well? Just kidding of course.
You will get thehang of this debating thing, just kidding dude.
Sounds like this boy has a problem with queermo sexuals, yeah dont we all at some point especially that 'Peter Pan' Rrhain, Im just kidding
one of those fellows that ran around with a rock tied on the end of a stick that looked much like yourself, no doubt. Ha Ha just kidding
you grouchy ole bag of crap. just kidding

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : typo


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:06 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:21 PM Panda has responded
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:28 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019