Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

131 comments

  • winner2 - November 19, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    But don't you see? All the literary professors in the world already know that what I've tried to explain to you is true. See, this is why you should take some classes! You can't just figure this out yourself, you need help. If you havn't figured it out yet by yourself, there's just no way you can possibly do it alone! Why can't you see I'm trying to help you?
  • winner2 - November 19, 2012 12:43 p.m.

    See, all the literary professors in the world already know that what I've been trying to explain to you is true. Don't you see, this is why you should take some English classes! If you haven't figured it out on your own yet there's no way you'll ever be able to get a good grasp on this concept without help. I'm trying to help you!
  • winner2 - November 19, 2012 12:47 p.m.

    See, all the literary professors in the world already know that what I've been trying to explain to you is true. If you haven't been able to figure this out yourself yet then there's no way you can do it alone. I'm trying to help you!
  • winner2 - November 19, 2012 4:36 p.m.

    See, all the literary professors in the world already know that what I've been trying to explain to you is true. If you haven't been able to figure this concept out by yourself yet, it's obvious you need some outside help. Can't you see? I'm trying to help you!
  • winner2 - November 19, 2012 4:42 p.m.

    See, all the literary professors in the world already know that what I've been trying to explain to you is true. If you haven't been able to figure out this concept by yourself yet, it's obvious that you need some outside help. Can't you see? I'm trying to help you!
  • ZpeherX - November 19, 2012 5:48 p.m.

    Sooo...I was scrolling across the comments when I came upon this, uh, "chat". And I'm sorry to point out, but winner2 actually has a point. While I agree with you that the best way to derive tone is from the inclination of voice and mood from facial expressions, that's only true with face-to-face encounters. In literary terms, including random comments on the internet, all sorts of devices can be used to derive tone/mood. Agreed, adjectives are great for setting this up, but they're not the one-and-only, holy-above-all-holiest of ways to do it. Even simple things like syntax, punctuation, word choice, and emphasis play a role in determining the mood/tone that the writer is emitting. I'll take a phrase from one of your comments: "Welcome to the internet, fuck face." Most people reading that, whether inside or outside the conversation would take that word choice as aggressive. And since aggression is typically associated with anger, violence, etc. it made sense to me when I read winner2's, how shall I put it? - teasing about you being upset. So, yes, your point is valid when you say that adjectives are a staple in the whole emotional aspect of writing, but if it were the only one, literary professors and their TA's, such as myself, would be out of the job. Books, poems, etc. wouldn't be sold as much. So you're right, but don't let that blind you to the fact that s/he's right as well and only making fun of the fact that you're either a) not getting it or b) deliberately ignoring it because you don't want to admit being wrong. Also, there are some missed points in the argument above. When winner2 asked "Are you upset?" I don't think s/he meant "What, did I hurt your feelings?" I think it was more along the lines of "What ya comin' at me for, brah? I just thought MolokoVeck was being cool-headed and was impressed with the way he worded his opinion." Even if, as you said, MolokoVeck's argument can be summed up as "meh, idc, do what you want" (which, btw, shows that you yourself determined tone/mood from the sparse use of adjectives - just pointing that out), winner2 was just addressing s/he was impressed with HOW MolokoVeck expressed his/her thoughts, not so much what they were. Or the "clear up" thing - s/he was asking you if you had anything you wanted to clear up with him/her. As for context - please go back and reread the entirety of your two's petty spat. The context of situation is the fact that it took up almost two pages on the comment section. I'm not trying to pick a new argument with you or whatever and if you reply, I'm not likely to respond back. I just thought you should know, that from the outside perspective, it just look like winner2 is, for all intents and purposes, leading you by the balls, and you're somehow not noticing. I'd advise you to just ignore him/her, because it seems as though s/he's having fun trolling.
  • ZpeherX - November 19, 2012 6:02 p.m.

    Sooo...I was scrolling across the comments when I came upon this, uh, "chat". And I'm sorry to point out, but winner2 actually has a point. While I agree with you that the best way to derive tone is from the inclination of voice and mood from facial expressions, that's only true with face-to-face encounters. In literary terms, including random comments on the internet, all sorts of devices can be used to derive tone/mood. Agreed, adjectives are great for setting this up, but they're not the one-and-only, holy-above-all-holiest of ways to do it. Even simple things like syntax, punctuation, word choice, and emphasis play a role in determining the mood/tone that the writer is emitting. I'll take a phrase from one of your comments: "Welcome to the internet, fuck face." Most people reading that, whether inside or outside the conversation would take that word choice as aggressive. And since aggression is typically associated with anger, violence, etc. it made sense to me when I read winner2's, how shall I put it? - teasing about you being upset. So, yes, your point is valid when you say that adjectives are a staple in the whole emotional aspect of writing, but if it were the only one, literary professors would be out of the job. Books, poems, etc. wouldn't be sold as much. You're right, but don't let that blind you to the fact that s/he's right too, and only making fun of the fact that you're either a) not getting it or b) deliberately ignoring it because you don't want to admit being wrong. Also, there are some missed points in the argument above. When winner2 asked "Are you upset?" I don't think s/he meant "What, did I hurt your feelings?" I think it was more along the lines of "What ya comin' at me for, brah? I just thought MolokoVeck was being cool-headed and was impressed with the way he worded his opinion." Even if, as you said, MolokoVeck's argument can be summed up as "meh, idc, do what you want" (which, btw, shows that you yourself determined tone/mood from the sparse use of adjectives - just pointing that out), winner2 was just addressing s/he was impressed with HOW MolokoVeck expressed his/her thoughts, not so much what they were. Or the "clear up" thing - s/he was asking you if you had anything you wanted to clear up with him/her. As for context - please go back and reread the entirety of your two's petty spat. The context of situation is the fact that it took up almost two pages on the comment section. I'm not trying to pick a new argument with you or whatever and if you reply, I'm not likely to respond back. I just thought you should know, that from the outside perspective, it just look like winner2 is, for all intents and purposes, leading you by the balls, and you're somehow not noticing. I'd advise you to just ignore him/her, because it seems as though s/he's having fun trolling.
  • ZpeherX - November 19, 2012 6:12 p.m.

    Sooo...I was scrolling across the comments when I came upon this, uh, "chat". And I'm sorry to point out, but winner2 actually has a point. While I agree that the best way to derive tone is from the inclination of voice and mood from facial expressions, it's only true with face-to-face encounters. In literary terms, including random comments on the internet, all sorts of devices can be used to derive tone/mood. Agreed, adjectives are great for this, but they're not the one-and-only, holy above all holiest of ways to do it. Simple things like syntax, punctuation, word choice, and emphasis play a role in determining the mood/tone that the writer is emitting. I'll take a phrase from one of your comments: "Welcome to the internet, fuck face." Most people reading that, inside or outside the conversation, would take that word choice as aggressive. And since aggression is typically associated with anger, violence, etc. it made sense to me when I read winner2's, ... teasing about you being upset. So yes, your point is valid when you say that adjectives are a staple in the emotional aspect of writing, but if it were the only one, literary professors and their TA's, like me, would be out of the job. So you're right, but don't let that blind you to the fact that s/he's right as well and only making fun of the fact that you're either a) not getting it or b) deliberately ignoring it because you don't want to admit being wrong. Also, there are some missed points in the argument above. When winner2 asked "Are you upset?" I don't think s/he meant "What, did I hurt your feelings?" I think it was more along the lines of "What ya comin' at me for, brah? I just thought MolokoVeck was being cool-headed and was impressed with the way he worded his opinion." Even if, as you said, MolokoVeck's argument can be summed up as "meh, idc, do what you want" (which, btw, shows that you yourself determined tone/mood from the sparse use of adjectives - just pointing that out), winner2 was just addressing s/he was impressed with HOW MolokoVeck expressed his/her thoughts, not so much with what they were. Or the "clear up" thing - s/he was asking you if you had anything you wanted to clear up with him/her. As for context - please go back and reread the entirety of your two's petty spat. The context of situation is the fact that it took up almost two pages on the comment section. I'm not picking a new argument with you or whatever and if you reply, I'm not likely to respond back. I just thought you should know, that from the outside perspective, it just look like winner2 is, for all intents and purposes, leading you by the balls, and you're just not noticing. I'd advise you to just ignore him/her, because s/he's having fun trolling.
  • winner2 - November 19, 2012 6:17 p.m.

    See, all the literary professors in the world already know that what I've been trying to tell you is true. If you haven't been able to figure this out by yourself yet then it's obvious you need some outside help. Don't you see? I'm trying to help you!
  • ZpeherX - November 19, 2012 6:21 p.m.

    Sooo...I was scrolling across the comments when I came upon this, uh, "chat". And I'm sorry to point out, but winner2 actually has a point. While I agree the best way to derive tone is from the inclination of voice and mood from facial expressions, that's only true with face-to-face encounters. In literary terms, including random comments on the internet, many devices can be used to derive tone/mood. Agreed, adjectives are great for setting this, but they're not the one-and-only, holy-above-all-holiest of ways to do it. Simple things like syntax, punctuation, word choice, and emphasis play a role in determining the mood/tone that the writer is emitting. I'll take a phrase from one of your comments: "Welcome to the internet, fuck face." Most people reading that, in or out of the conversation would take that word choice as aggressive. Since aggression is typically associated with anger, violence, etc. it made sense to me when I read winner2' … teasing about you being upset. Yes, your point is valid when you say that adjectives are a staple in the emotional aspect of writing, but if it were the only one, literary professors and their TA's, likeme, would be out of the job. So you're right, but don't let that blind you to the fact that s/he's right as well and only making fun of the fact that you're either a) not getting it or b) deliberately ignoring it because you don't want to admit being wrong. Also, some missed points in the argument above: When winner2 asked "Are you upset?" I don't think s/he meant "What, did I hurt your feelings?" I think it was more along the lines of "What ya comin' at me for, brah? I just thought MolokoVeck was being cool-headed and was impressed with the way he worded his opinion." Even if, as you said, MolokoVeck's argument can be summed up as "meh, idc, do what you want" (which, btw, shows that you yourself determined tone/mood from the sparse, if any, use of adjectives - just pointing that out), winner2 was just addressing s/he was impressed with HOW MolokoVeck expressed his/her thoughts, not so much what they were. Or the "clear up" thing - s/he was asking you if you had anything you wanted to clear up with him/her. As for context - please go back and reread the entirety of your two's petty spat. The context of situation is the fact that it took up almost two pages on the comment section. I'm not trying to pick a new argument with you or whatever and if you reply, I'm not likely to respond back. I just thought you should know, that from the outside perspective, it just look like winner2 is, for all intents and purposes, leading you by the balls, and you're somehow not noticing. I'd advise you to just ignore him/her, because it seems as though s/he's having fun trolling.
  • ZpeherX - November 19, 2012 6:48 p.m.

    So...I was scrolling across the comments when I came upon this, uh, "chat". And I'm sorry, but winner2 actually has a point. I agree the best way to derive tone is from the sound of the voice and mood from facial expressions, that's only true with face-to-face encounters. In literary terms, including random comments on the internet, many devices can be used to derive tone/mood. Adjectives are great for this, but they're not the only, holy-above-all-holiest of ways to do it. Simple things like syntax, punctuation, word choice, and emphasis play a role in determining the mood/tone that the writer is emitting. I'll take a phrase from one of your comments: "Welcome to the internet, fuck face." Most people reading that, in or out of the conversation, would take that word choice - notice, no adjectives - as aggressive. Aggression being associated with fury, violence, etc. it made sense to me when I read winner2's … teasing about you being upset. Your point is valid when you say that adjectives are a staple in the emotional aspect of writing, but if it were the only one, literary professors and their TA's, like me, would be unemployed. So you're right, but don't let that blind you to the fact that s/he's right as well and is only making fun of the fact that you're either a) not getting it or b) deliberately ignoring it because you don't want to admit to being wrong. Also, some missed points in your argument: When winner2 asked "Are you upset?" I don't think s/he meant "What, did I hurt your feelings?" I think it was more along the lines of "What ya comin' at me for, brah? I just thought MolokoVeck was being chill and was impressed with the way he worded his opinion." Even if, as you said, MolokoVeck's argument can be summed up as "meh, idc, do what you want" (which, btw, shows that you yourself determined tone/mood from the sparse, if any, use of adjectives - just pointing that out), winner2 was just addressing s/he was impressed with HOW MolokoVeck expressed his/her thoughts, not so much WHAT they were. By addressing him/her first, you started this seemingly never ending b.s. Or the "clear up" thing - s/he was asking you if you had anything you wanted to clear up with him/her. As for context - please go back and reread the entirety of your two's petty spat. The context of situation is the fact that it took up almost two pages on the comment section. I'm not trying to pick a new argument with you or whatever and if you reply, I'm not likely to respond back. Your's was just the latest reply. I just thought you should know, that from the outsider POV, it looks like winner2 is basically leading you by the balls, and you're just not noticing. I'd advise you to just ignore him/her, because s/he's having fun trolling.
  • ZpeherX - November 19, 2012 7:11 p.m.

    Sooo...I was scrolling across the comments when I came upon this, uh, "chat". And I'm sorry, but winner2 actually has a point. I agree, the best way to derive tone and mood is from voice and facial expressions, but that's only true with face-to-face encounters. With lit., including random comments on the internet, many devices can be used to derive tone/mood. Adjectives are great for this, but they're not the only way to do it. Simple things like syntax, punctuation, word choice, and emphasis play a role in determining the mood/tone that the writer is emitting. I'll take a phrase from one of your comments: "Welcome to the internet, fuck face." Most people reading that, in or out of the conversation, would take that word choice – notice, no adjectives - as aggressive. Aggression typically being associated with fury, violence, ignorance, etc. it made sense to me when I read winner2's … teasing about you being upset. Your point is valid when you say that adjectives are a staple in the emotional aspect of writing, but if it were the only one, literary professors and their TA's, like me, would be unemployed. You’re right, but don't let that blind you to the fact that s/he's right as well and only making fun of the fact that you're either a) not getting it or b) deliberately ignoring it because you don't want to admit to their point. Also, some missed points in your argument: When winner2 asked "Are you upset?", I don't think s/he meant "What, did I hurt your feelings?" I think it was more along the lines of "What ya comin' at me for, brah? I just thought MolokoVeck was chill and was impressed with the way he worded his opinion." Even if, as you said, MolokoVeck's argument can be summed up as "meh, idc, do what you want" (which, btw, shows that you yourself determined tone/mood from the sparse, if any, use of adjectives - just saying), winner2 was just addressing being impressed with HOW MolokoVeck expressed those thoughts, not so much WHAT they were. By addressing winner2’s “standards”, you started this seemingly endless b.s. when there was no point. Or the "clear up" thing - s/he was asking you if you had anything you wanted to clear up with him/her. Behavior – what kind of comments/responses do you usually post? You may not agree, but it’s something you do, and it’s a reflection of behavior. As for context - please reread the entirety of your two's petty spat. The context of situation is the fact that it took up almost two pages on the comment section. About a game review. You’re both immature. If you disagree or refuse to see why, it’s basically boiled down to the “you’re dumb-no, you’re dumb” bicker of children. I'm not picking a new argument with you or whatever and if you reply, I'm not likely to respond back. Yours was just the latest reply. I just thought I’d let you know, that from the outside perspective, it looks like winner2 is basically leading you by the balls and you're not noticing. I'd advise you to just ignore him/her, because s/he's having fun trolling.
  • ZpeherX - November 19, 2012 7:55 p.m.

    So, yeah. I kinda stumbled on this…”chat”. Sorry to say, but winner2 actually has a point with “English class taught me”. Agreed, the best way to derive tone and mood IS from voice and facial expressions, but that's only true with face-to-face encounters. In literary terms, including random comments on the internet, many devices can be used to derive tone/mood. Adjectives are great for this, but they're not the only way to do it. Simple things like syntax, punctuation, word choice, and emphasis play a role in determining the mood/tone that the writer is emitting. Your point is valid when you say that adjectives are a staple in the emotional aspect of writing, but if it were the only one, literary professors and their TA's, like me, would be unemployed. So actually, yes, on the web, you can gather an idea of what a person is feeling based not only on how often they reply but in the way they reply. Example - a phrase from one of your comments: "Welcome to the internet, fuck face." Most people reading that, in or out of the conversation, would take that word choice – notice, no adjectives - as aggressive. Aggression typically being associated with fury, violence, ignorance, etc. it made sense to me when I read winner2's teasing about you being upset. It’s partially how winner2 chose to interpret it, but more so, it’s how you chose to present it. You’re right, but don't let that blind you to the fact that s/he's right as well and only making fun of the fact that you're either a) not getting it or b) deliberately ignoring it because you don't want to admit to their point. Also, some missed points in your argument: When winner2 asked "Are you upset?” it was probably more "What are you coming at me for?" opposed to “Are your feelings hurt?” – something YOU chose to interpret. Even if, as you said, MolokoVeck's argument can be summed up as "meh, idc, do what you want" (which, btw, shows you determining tone/mood from the sparse, if any, use of adjectives - just saying), winner2 was just addressing being impressed with HOW MolokoVeck expressed those thoughts, not so much WHAT they were. By addressing winner2’s “standards”, you started this something when there was no point. Or the "clear up" thing - s/he was asking you if you had anything you wanted to clear up with him/her. Behavior – what kind of comments/responses do you usually post? Do you typically choose to argue like this? You may not agree, but what you put on the net is something you do, and as such, a reflection of behavior. As for context - please reread the entirety of your two's petty spat. The context of situation is the fact that it took up almost two pages on the comment section about a game review. Sorry, but you’re both immature. If you disagree or refuse to see why, it’s basically boiled down to the “you’re dumb-no, you’re dumb” bicker of children. You’ve admitted – you’re 25. As an adult, why let yourself be pulled into an argument with someone who’s likely just younger than you and bored? I'm not picking a new argument with you or whatever and if you reply, I'm not likely to respond back. Yours was just the latest reply. I just thought I’d let you know, that from the outside perspective, it looks like winner2 is, basically, leading you by the balls and you're not noticing. I'd advise you to just ignore him/her, because s/he's having fun trolling. Sorry for the long reply.
  • ZpeherX - November 19, 2012 9:34 p.m.

    So, yeah. I kinda stumbled on this…”chat”. Sorry to say, but winner2 actually has a point with “English class taught me”. Agreed, the best way to derive tone and mood IS from voice and facial expressions, but that's only true with face-to-face encounters. In literary terms, including random comments on the internet, many devices can be used to derive tone/mood. Adjectives are great for this, but they're not the only way to do it. Simple things like syntax, punctuation, word choice, and emphasis play a role in determining the mood/tone that the writer is emitting. Your point is valid when you say that adjectives are a staple in the emotional aspect of writing, but if it were the only one, literary professors and their TA's, like me, would be unemployed. So actually, yes, on the web, you can gather an idea of what a person is feeling based not only on how often they reply but in the way they reply. Example - a phrase from one of your comments: "Welcome to the internet, fuck face." Most people reading that, in or out of the conversation, would take that word choice – notice, no adjectives - as aggressive. Aggression typically being associated with fury, violence, ignorance, etc. it made sense to me when I read winner2's teasing about you being upset. It’s partially how winner2 chose to interpret it, but more so, it’s how you chose to present it. You’re right, but don't let that blind you to the fact that s/he's right as well and only making fun of the fact that you're either a) not getting it or b) deliberately ignoring it because you don't want to admit to their point. Also, some missed points in your argument: When winner2 asked "Are you upset?” it was probably more "What are you coming at me for?" opposed to “Are your feelings hurt?” – something YOU chose to interpret. Even if, as you said, MolokoVeck's argument can be summed up as "meh, idc, do what you want" (which, btw, shows you determining tone/mood from the sparse, if any, use of adjectives - just saying), winner2 was just addressing being impressed with HOW MolokoVeck expressed those thoughts, not so much WHAT they were. By addressing winner2’s “standards”, you started this something when there was no point. Or the "clear up" thing - s/he was asking you if you had anything you wanted to clear up with him/her. Behavior – what kind of comments/responses do you usually post? Do you typically choose to argue like this? You may not agree, but what you put on the net is something you do, and as such, a reflection of behavior. As for context - please reread the entirety of your two's petty spat. The context of situation is the fact that it took up almost two pages on the comment section about a game review. Sorry, but you’re both immature. If you disagree or refuse to see why, it’s basically boiled down to the “you’re dumb-no, you’re dumb” bicker of children. You’ve admitted – you’re 25. As an adult, why let yourself be pulled into an argument with someone who’s likely just younger than you and bored? I'm not picking a new argument with you or whatever and if you reply, I'm not likely to respond back. Yours was just the latest reply. I just thought I’d let you know, that from the outside perspective, it looks like winner2 is, basically, leading you by the balls and you're not noticing. I'd advise you to just ignore him/her, because s/he's having fun trolling. Sorry for the long reply.
  • zombi3grim - November 26, 2012 7:23 a.m.

    Look, hes back! Your still not understanding this simple concept. Take what you just said with the quotes "I think we need to break up." Now, thats it! No context! You dont get to know that his girlfriend left slamming the door shut! "Slamming" indicates anger! All you get from me is the quote "I think we need to break up." Because THAT is how Im typing to you. Im not providing you any context. The only time you dont need adjectives is if your providing a situation such as "slamming a door" or "glaring." Those are descriptors. Now, sifting through all of your insults, this boils down to yet again, this going WAY over your head! Just stop! Give it up! You lost this a long time ago. Let it die.
  • zombi3grim - November 26, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    Calling me sweetie is very condescending. Especially online. Technically, no, you dont need adjectives IF I set up a specific scenario. Which as this is a comment board, you usually DONT write your comments like you would a book, setting up a scenario. Usually you write it how you would say it. Except WITHOUT facial expressions and tone of voice, which would make it impossible to defer how someone is feeling unless they specifically let you know. As an english teacher, if you really are one (what are the odds, right?) you SHOULD know this.
  • ZpeherX - November 26, 2012 4:46 p.m.

    I am - third year, so I'm still the rookie teach. I do AP Lang. and Comp. though, so winner2 caught my attention with the subject matter. And I do know that, I already told you that I agreed with your point that face-to-face communication is better for deriving a SPECIFIC person's reaction/emotion than something on a computer screen. But that doesn't mean that everything you've said is right. Writing's super subjective. I don't particularly care for trolls, but winner2 may have seen your comments as aggressive (you did tell him to up his standards) and aggression is associated with anger. You thought that my use of sweetie was condescending, even when I don't mean it that way. I wasn't trying to offend you, but I may or may not have simply with the use of that word. If we take the comment board as the setting or scenario, that would make the context of the whole situation (context can also be the writing itself, but I won't get into that since this is getting long) - the "book" per say - online. So on here, your posts are your writing, and you are the writer. And reading/analyzing that writing is the only only way to deduce what the writer may or may not be feeling by the tone/mood of what they've written. Like how your use of sarcasm is heavy (tone), but you don't have to set it up by stating you're going to be sarcastic, right? You word your post a certain way and because you've already used it before, it can be assumed you'll use it again. In your first response to me, I thought I wrote something that offended you, because of the curse words. To me, people curse when they're pissed, which in turn made me think you were mad (mood). You probably don't have the same connotation, so you might not have considered I would. Sorry I'm so long-winded. My point is, it doesn't have to be WHAT you write, but HOW you chose to write it, and how others will take that presentation (connotation is different for everyone, even if it is similar). I think that's what the other person was trying to say, but also decided to troll for a reaction in the process. And just so you know, ignoring a person looking for a reaction is WAY better than having the final word. Idk way he started replying again, but to me, the better man would just leave it alone. Sorry, but the more you get into it, the more it comes off as immature on both parts (again, not picking a fight with either party, just stating my opinion).
  • zombi3grim - November 26, 2012 5:08 p.m.

    Ive been on this site a long time. A very long time. Back when it was cheat planet. This is a new profile though. What Ive learned during my LONG years of posting on online comment boards and what Ive learned in school is you should NEVER assume something about someone online. My point with him was very simple. All I wrote to him was a small paragraph that told him he needed to raise his standards. Where do you get that Im upset from that? He then goes ahead and says he bases it off of my insults and the way I always prove my side. Again, HOW do you get that I was upset when I was speaking to those people, weeks and months ago. Im not eternally pissed off everytime I post here. Matter of fact, I made it clear to him that nothing people say online to me ever pisses me off. Because Ive been here A LONG time and Ive been in every discussion you can possibly imagine someone getting into on an online video game website. Your point about sarcasm is wrong. Its VERY hard to tell sarcasm online. Thats why alot of people post *end sarcasm* at the end of what they write. You cant hear them and you cant see them. My main point. If you base what someone is feeling soley on what they write without them giving you some sort of situation, context or adjective to let you know, all you are doing is ASSUMING. You cannot be 100% sure someone is pissed when they write something unless you let them know. THAT was my point and its something he REFUSES to grasp. I got two kids of my own. And a wife. I know how to be a better man and when to be one. Its the internet. Its not that serious to me. If this little shit stain wants to constantly try to throw his balls around and be big man on campus, I'll be happy to smash them tiny little nuggets into the ground with my logic hammer.
  • ZpeherX - November 26, 2012 6:22 p.m.

    How do I, specifically, get that you're upset or how do other people? I don't care how you felt as person - I care how you felt as a writer (i.e. what emotion you're trying to convey in your writing, not how you actually feel). May not make sense to you, but I totally separate the person from the writer if I don't need to know their biography. Okay, know how I said the context of the setting can be taken as a setting? He basically said he admired how someone worded their post, and you told him his standard were lacking if "meh, idc, do what you want" impressed him. He never said that's what specifically got his attention. Also his reply was to the other guy, not to you, so you responding at all, plus the message in the response, does look like an attack (and I say this objectively). The way I read, I basically take everything apart and put it back together. Why was this allusion used, why was that word chosen and not this similar word, what's the point of putting this after that, etc. and what does it mean as whole? So when I read comments, old or not, I do that. I don't care how you actually felt (I'm talking about me, not speaking for someone else), but what you wrote and how you wrote it does give an indication of some kind of emotion, whether it's one you felt or not, or something you did intentionally or not. (Just so you know, I disagreed when you said "'English class taught me' is not a fucking answer." I may not be 100% supportive of winner2's trolling, but I did think he brought up a good point with that - probably because I do language and composition for a living though.) By posting at all, you're giving me and everyone else the freedom to do that to what you have written. Online or not, writing is writing. Sarcasm may be harder to gauge on posts since people do type like they speak, but I don't think it's VERY hard. I mean, have you honestly, never, not even once, used it? And even if you haven't, have you never typed anything that can be seen (and that you know can be seen) that way? So what if it is an assumption? You're the writer. You're setting up your writing so that he will make that assumption. You're not fault free in that, because you know what you're doing. And even if you don't, you can still have the foresight to see how you can lead people to that conclusion. When you guys bring me up, please accept that I am the neutral chaotic Switzerland who only stands up for language and literature. I think you both brought up good points, and I think you both brought up bad ones or wrote things that were non-sequiter , and I don't necessarily think anyone's a "dumbass".
  • zombi3grim - November 26, 2012 6:55 p.m.

    You must be new to the internet. This isnt a book. Im not "writing" to set up anything. Im responding to a post. And he DID respond to me because it shows up in my inbox. Which is why I saw when you necrod it and you thought I wouldnt respond. That "are you upset" comment was directed at me. Otherwise, he would have said it along time ago that he didnt mean it for me. The fact is, this isnt book club. When you post, you post as if you are talking. The only DOWNSIDE to that is obviously you cant tell how someone is feeling, you can only guess or infer. You might be right. You might be wrong. That is my point. Which he did not get. You cant tell how Im feeling when I write to you with no descriptors, no adjectives and no context. Period. Regardless who knows about english, regardless of who was here longer, THAT is the absolute truth. You can only GUESS how Im feeling. And infer from that and do what you will with it.

Showing 1-20 of 131 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.