This forum's knowledge of bombing and nuclear weapons worries me.

And yes, we lost on penalites again. Still, at least the television schedule will ease up a little what with the incessant Alan Hansen having a little less to moan about now we're out of the tournament.

Talk about an abrupt thread hijacking!

This thread needed to die anyway. :D

Really?

GAYO WHERE IS MY KITTY? :(

Okay, I'm a little drunk. I hear ya grue. I deleted my posts cause I'm gonna try to post something a little better tomorrow.

To RageCage, I just don't know what to tell you.

In regards to the "name-calling" issue, I may in fact be 100% abso-fucking-lutely wrong about the definition of the term "name-calling". If that's the case, so be it. Honestly, I feel like there's a pretty strong argument that the term "name-calling" refers to the action of "calling someone or something a name", and the dict.com definition is more of a generalization of the type of discussion or dialogue that occurs when someone "name-calls". I'm just a little surprsied that you're saying this "it's not worth talking to you..." garbage, when I feel like my opinion in this is pretty well-founded, and in fact, quite sane and understandable. Am I alone here? Am I the only person that thought name-calling referred to "calling someone or something a name?"

Secondly, I understand your feelings regarding the article and it's "negative" comments at the beginning. I still would not classify them as "name-calling", regardless of which definition is used, because it's not name-calling by my definition, and it's not mudslinging or anything of that sort.

It seems to me you just read the harshness of what he had to say, and stopped reading. He actually backs up what he had to say, and points out why he says those things are true. He's not just "mud-slinging", he's making a logical argument.

For example, you could call me a bastard all day long, if you wanted, but if I was in actuality, a bastard, it wouldn't really be slander, would it?

Quote:Originally posted by mcgrue

I love drunken lore rants!

...when's vcon 7?

Yay! That makes me feel good. And I hope it's soon, hopefully, within the next 7 to 8 hours.

Quote:Originally posted by arias

Ahahahaha! First the Italian whining, and now the British bitch! :D Beckham has been dismal the whole tournament, I laughed when he missed that penalty.
Beckham is a god, leave him alone. Anyone would have missed that penalty if they hadn't been told that the penalty spot had in fact been replaced with a large hole filled with sand. Anyway, no one's complaining about us losing on penalities, because that was a foregone conclusion; it's the referee ruling out a perfectly good goal for no other reason than it would have put the home team out of the tournament in the last minute of the game. None of the Portuguese players protested that there had been a foul, the linesman signalled that it was a goal, but that prick Urs Meier sees a "push" that no one else in the world saw at the time, or has been able to see since. I hope he burns in Hell. Seriously.

Quote:Originally posted by RageCage

what I meant by that comment, about it not being worth my time, is that if your not willing to admit your wrong, even when a dictionary definition counters what your saying, then how can you ever admit your wrong in a argument? Those who cannot admit they're wrong are not worth my time arguing. You however have admitted your wrong in this thread now, so this doesn’t apply to you anymore.
The fact is, Lore wasn't wrong, and the dictionary definition doesn't counter what he said. Both yours and his definitions of "name-calling" are technically correct. Your definition of "bastard" however, could use a little revision... ;)

Quote:Originally posted by RageCage



you're right, lore wasnt wrong inhis definition of name-calling, but he was wrong in acting like the dictionary definition was wrong by saying "Well, I honestly don't know what's up with that definition, but I still don't consider that name-calling." Thats what I'm addressing.

Hahaha, well, I still don't consider "general negative insults" to be name-calling. I don't care what the definition from dictionary.com is, that's like saying the term "walking down the street" actually means "any sort of movement of the lower body." I still wouldn't care what any official or unofficial website claims it means, it's not going to change my mind. This is not some random word that I came up with my own definition of, this is a word created by hyphenating two other words with very specific meanings.

And, I think still think your "not worth talking to" comment was garbage, because you basically ignored the fact that my definition is a pretty logical one, and I would guess, probably a lot more commonly understood to mean that then what dictionary.com says.

I do however reconize what you were saying was "name-calling" by that definition, if you consider what Hitchens was saying was slanderous and mud-slinging, and so in that regard, I was wrong.

Edit: not to mention, I just checked webster's dictionary, and according to them, "name-calling", shockingly, actually refers to .... name calling. So smoke on that for a little while, and then give me a response.

smoke

Oh yeah, as far as Hitchen's comments which were immature, I still think you're being way overly-sensitive about it. Okay, maybe it's not the classiest way he could have stated it, but come on, we're all adults here. He's not going that low, as you seem to be taking it as, and I certainly don't consider any of what he wrote immature.

He doesn't just say "this movie is full of lies", which would be slanderous. He says "this movie is full of lies", and here's why.

Quote:Originally posted by Alex

Lore, that's pretty much an identical definition to the one I posted on the previous page. Nice to see how much attention people pay to what I say. :)

EDIT: the previous previous page, I mean.

Yeah.... sorry man, I didn't purposely mean to ignore you, it just happens sometimes when I'm focusing on those arguing with me, instead of backing me. But anyway, thanks for posting it, even if I was too dumb to catch it.