Your response to my response is typical of someone who can't be a part of the solution as you are for now bound to bring the discussion back to your own traumas and along the journey, insult all other participants of the discussion - as you have me. Implication is a dangerous weapon to wield and you should treat it with more respect. I am not apathetic, myopic or callous.
Did it ever occur to you that others on these forums could have had a number of their own traumas? Did it ever occur to you that one method employed by those individuals and others for dealing with such situations was humor?
I have had my fair share of personal trauma, and than some. One still very new and very fresh in my mind. My father has too and he and I share humor as one way to deal with the awful truths of the world. Humor is not turning a blind eye - humor is about remembering the good in the world in the face of evil.
So no, you don't understand. You don't know what I am doing and your response was offensive and unjustified. So, let me give you a little piece of unsolicited advice - your aims would be better served by your excusing yourself from the discussion, at least until you learn to stop including insults in your contributions.
Have a nice day.
Forgive me if I've been presumptuous. But honestly, how is one supposed to interpret your response? To anybody who does not personally know you, you come across exactly as I've described. Sorry, but it's true. I'm not saying that you are those things, because I do not know you, and perhaps you are right; however, I can't help feeling as though I've been baited, even if inadvertently.
You don't need to explain to me the healing power of humor, as I am quite fond of it myself; however, there is an appropriate context for such humor, and I feel that your timing was a bit off. I was trying to expose people to an America they never knew existed; I was trying to get just a couple more people on Earth to understand that these places are real, and that people like me, with our seemingly wild accusations, are not making anything up when we talk about them. Then you came in and attempted to make light of the situation, just as everybody else in my life has. What am I supposed to think? How am I supposed to feel?
I apologize if I have offended a good-intentioned individual; if it makes you feel any better, at least the feeling is mutual.
Forgive me if I've been presumptuous. But honestly, how is one supposed to interpret your response? To anybody who does not personally know you, you come across exactly as I've described. Sorry, but it's true.
No, it isn't true. It came across that way to you, but unless you're capable of reading the minds of everyone here, any other claim is a stretch if not downright outrageous. It was to be taken with humor, perhaps no more than a smirk because it was a lame joke, but still not the insulting attack you came back with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
I'm not saying that you are those things, because I do not know you, and perhaps you are right; however, I can't help feeling as though I've been baited, even if inadvertently.
1. Now, while a gross stretch of simple words I might have given you the feeling you were baited point except, I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Mr. H. So that claim is instantly invalid.
2. You made no effort known to me to get to know me. Did you check my posting history? You did not send me a quick private message to ask for clarification, a simple "What did you mean by..." private message would have allowed us to avoid this whole thing and the failure for this having not been done is your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
...people like me, with our seemingly wild accusations, are not making anything up when we talk about them. Then you came in and attempted to make light of the situation, just as everybody else in my life has. What am I supposed to think? How am I supposed to feel?
Don't kid yourself, with these words you're trying to justify a poor action on your part. Between us this isn't about you or your cause, it is about what you did. The harm that others have caused you is no excuse for harming another. No matter how much my words may seem to match their own, I am not them and I deserve to be treated as an individual and given my due. I was due at least a private message asking for clarification before a scorch earth policy of self righteousness. After all, let us remember my original comment was seven words direct towards someone other than you. Don't stick your head in the ground like those you so obviously abhor, realize what you've done and take responsibility for it, for your own sake if no one else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
I apologize if I have offended a good-intentioned individual
This is where you should have stopped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
...if it makes you feel any better, at least the feeling is mutual.
My feeling was that of anger towards your preposterous assault upon my character over seven innocent words never aimed in your direction. If your feeling is mutual, then you are angry with me for defending myself over your preposterous assault upon my character over seven innocent words never aimed in your direction? Put another way, would you care to reword this a little?
Look, I'll sooner leave than drag this out in some pointless forum war, but you've got to understand that to have any chance of effectively spreading awareness of any evils in the world, you can't attack people like you just did. You've got to keep your eye on the ball and ignore little things like calendars - or at least ask for clarification!
Otherwise, you will come off as too intense and that is often interpreted as conflict. Absent the right cause, most people are adverse to conflict. You see, it's not the information people avoid then, or even the knowledge of the horrors contained therein - as anecdotal evidence would suggest too many with your mindset would conclude, but rather you. The messengers become scary. You can talk about scary things, but you're not allowed to be scary. You've got to "sneak" a conflict worthy message in, without conflict at first. You must be able to have someone call you liar and keep your cool and if you're freaking out over a seven word comment I made here directed towards another, about a calendar of all things, well, you need to think about that.
Here's a silly analogy:
Imagine every time you went for the newspaper, to learn about both good and evil things in this world, a dog bit you. Now that bite is small compared to Afghanistan or Iraq wars, Iranian protests, and so on, after all - over 4,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq, but it hurt. Say each time the dog's bite got a little deeper. Now let me ask you, how long until you stopped going for the newspaper? For fun, let's say there are no alternatives and let's say this dog had a little pink sweater urging you to donate money to fight breast cancer, or a red one urging you to donate money to fight AIDS.
Really, does it matter what message is on the dog?
What about the articles in the newspaper?
No, the bite hurts and you want it to stop.
Now like I said, this is a very silly analogy. For one thing, there are plenty of alternatives to a newspaper, but that's not the point.
The point is:
You bit me, and for the moment my feeling is to hell with your sweater - and that isn't the feeling you want from anyone. Ya know?
You said something that came across as completely insensitive. I responded to the text as I read it. And that's it. I'm not about to engage in an online flame war with you.
Here: I'm sorry. My bad. I was wrong, you were right. Happy?
If I'd known you'd take such offense, I definitely would not have gone there. I absolutely did not foresee this, or I wouldn't have said anything. As you said: I don't understand.
You said something that came across as completely insensitive.
This is the part you don't get. I didn't say anything insensitive. I was talking about calendars for heaven's sakes!
Your comments were unjustified and yes, you really should be apologizing to me, but you clearly can't without some sort of bullshit qualification. And I'm sorry if your mother didn't teach you this, or perhaps wasn't around to do so, but any qualification prior to or after an apology nullifies the apology. No ifs, ands or buts before or after, no "here" crap. You have not apologized and you can't, because you obviously don't realize you were wrong.
Here's what you should do in the future:
When you've read something normally innocuous, like I don't know - how about a need for a new calendar, that person A has said to person B and you somehow "eavesdrop" and take offense, PM the person committing said "offense" before going on a crusade. Ok?
This is the part you don't get. I didn't say anything insensitive. I was talking about calendars for heaven's sakes!
Dude. You are way overreacting. What you originally said could easily be interpreted as insensitive. It was your first post in the thread, and as a response to something serious you posted a joke.
In fact, you are behaving like a troll. You come in here, make a joke about a serious subject, and then have a massive self-righteous rant when someone calls you on it. You haven't said anything on-topic, you've just berated cactus_man for what was an entirely reasonable response. Maybe you should read his response again? It really was not that offensive towards you.
EXCUSE ME!? What bizarre reality do you live in? And for someone trying to correct me on what to find offensive, calling me names isn't a good start. You're the self proclaimed language police, you want to tell me that "you are behaving like" isn't as good as "you are", what is the obvious implication? You should apologize for that.
I quoted you saying: "... it's 2009 not 1909."
Omitting everything else.
And responded with:
"Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
A comment innocuous to the vast majority.. Do you want to make an argument otherwise? Go ahead, but be direct about it.
To which he responded:
"At the risk of sounding melodramatic, your response is quite typical. You don't want to face the harsh, unpleasant reality of what is being discussed, so you're cracking a joke in an effort to distract yourself and everybody else who reads this. And I understand. It's always easier to look away from horrifying situations than it is to face them--until it happens to you. Currently, we're both immune from such practices because we over the age of 18. But if society continues to ignore these facilities, how long do you suppose it will be before adults are just as vulnerable? Personally, that day cannot come quickly enough. Maybe that'll get you to start caring."
A 115-word tirade that portrayed me as apathetic, myopic and callous. Do you want to make an argument otherwise, tell me how this isn't offensive?
And you're saying that I'm overreacting!?
Worse, when I dared to defend myself, look here:
"To anybody who does not personally know you, you come across exactly as I've described."
He responded as if his interpretation of my calendar comment was the only possible interpretation.
You want to tell me that my response:
"No, it isn't true. It came across that way to you, but unless you're capable of reading the minds of everyone here, any other claim is a stretch if not downright outrageous. It was to be taken with humor, perhaps no more than a smirk because it was a lame joke, but still not the insulting attack you came back with."
Is inaccurate?
And what of my suggestion to him about how to do things in the future, or what he should have done?
"You did not send me a quick private message to ask for clarification, a simple 'What did you mean by...' private message would have allowed us to avoid this whole thing and the failure for this having not been done is your own."
Is this a bad idea?
And you're telling me his: "Here: I'm sorry. My bad. I was wrong, you were right. Happy?"
Was that mature?
You see Mr. H, his response was never reasonable. He inserted attacks into each one and while I certainly am not innocent of doing the same, what I said that started this all was innocuous - whether he likes it or not. And what bugs me most is you don't cite anything I've said or he said. You just respond, so God only knows how far back you went. Because yeah, I was insensitive in every darn post except the first, including this one.
Because portraying someone as apathetic, myopic and callous is VERY OFFENSIVE. I'm the one under attack.
His approach sucks, you really want to make an argument otherwise?
EXCUSE ME!? What bizarre reality do you live in? And for someone trying to correct me on what to find offensive, calling me names isn't a good start.
I didn't call you a name. I said that you are behaving like a troll, which is accurate. You made an off-topic remark and have turned it into a massive off-topic argument. You are the one overreacting and you are the one that needs to calm down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wraithofwonder
I quoted you saying: "... it's 2009 not 1909."
And responded with:
"Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
Yes, you picked part of a serious post and made a joke. You made no contribution to the subject of the thread and made light of a serious comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wraithofwonder
A 115-word tirade that portrayed me as apathetic, myopic and callous. Do you want to make an argument otherwise, tell me how this isn't offensive?
Firstly, I don't regard his post as a tirade. Your posts are tirades. He did not call you apathetic (although that much certainly is implied by his reply, and it is something which you have failed to address re: the original subject matter). He did not call you myopic, and he did not call you callous. Maybe that's how you read that post, but it certainly isn't how I saw it and I have been genuinely bemused by all of your posts that have followed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wraithofwonder
You want to tell me that my response:
"No, it isn't true. It came across that way to you, but unless you're capable of reading the minds of everyone here, any other claim is a stretch if not downright outrageous.
...
Is inaccurate?
It's hyperbolic, just like most of your other responses. Maybe it was a stretch, but as I said, I certainly thought his original post was a reasonable response to your joke. It's going a bit far to call his assertion that most people would agree with said response "downright outrageous".
Recognizing that you are from the UK, maybe you don't have the same issues we deal with in the US. These constant firvolous lawsuits are boggin down our legal system and preventing real crimes from reaching trial.
I agree with your implying that the attourney representing this guy should be help acountable as well.
Finally, while I agree that this guy might be mentally ill, we really don't know. He might in fact be perfectly sain and able to fabricate these scenarios to support his lawsuit in hopes Apple will pay him to go away. But, even if this is mental illness, that doesn't give him carte-blanche <sp?> to run amuck in society without reprocussion. And no, burning at the stake would be way too severe. :0)
Dear sir or madam,
Frivolous civil lawsuits do not hinder criminal trials. They are not heard by the same court.
This is not to say that I disagree that this is a frivolous lawsuit, only that I disagree about its effect on trials held in criminal court.
Mr. H, thanks again for your concern regarding the original subtopic (government-condoned, institutional child abuse in the U.S.). And while you have done a great job articulating what I no longer had the patience to explain to wraithofwonder, I do believe you're right- his behavior is a bit "trollish." It's probably best that we leave him alone. But first, I feel compelled to contradict my own recommendation by saying one last thing; I do hope I'm not making a mistake:
Honestly wraithofwonder, why the hell do you even care what we think of you? You don't even know who we are. Here's some decent advice: don't let strangers over the internet get to you so much (or at all). You've obviously put quite a bit of time into your rants, but for the life of me I can't understand why. Even if I were to sincerely apologize, what would you gain from that? I'll answer for you: nothing. Absolutely nothing. The quality of your life would not be affected in any way, shape, or form.
I responded to your joke with a purpose in mind: I wanted to keep the subtopic going in order to educate people on the harsh reality of the United States. I did not respond because I was personally offended! When my own "friends" disregard what I say, or even laugh at it, then I am personally offended, as I very well should be. (And I often wonder if I should keep them as friends at all.) I am trying to point out society's misconceptions; that is all. When you interfered, I responded in kind. I did not rebuttal out of anger, but for the purpose of preventing your sardonic mentality from spreading. Moreover, I responded rather calmly; you are simply flipping out.
And here I go, wasting too much of my own time now. My response wasn't supposed to be that long, but it's already written, so there it is.
I didn't call you a name. I said that you are behaving like a troll, which is accurate. You made an off-topic remark and have turned it into a massive off-topic argument.
No sir, it is not accurate. A troll is deliberate. A troll would have been 7-word comment like, "Those children are brats, they deserve it." and not "Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
It would have been directed at something closer to the discussion and not "it's 2009 not 1909." Do you dispute that?
Would you care to explain, perhaps using small words and pictures, how it is possible that my comment could ever be interpreted as offensive or trollish by even the most sensitive or nuts. It is such a stretch that it is beyond my apparently very limited imagination, so I need someone to explain it. Care to do the honors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
You are the one overreacting and you are the one that needs to calm down.
I'm laughing right now. That's how you respond to what I said above? That's how you respond? Sad. I made clear that I was acting just right. Let me repeat myself:
I quoted you saying: "... it's 2009 not 1909."
Omitting everything else.
And responded with:
"Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
A comment innocuous to the vast majority.. Do you want to make an argument otherwise? Go ahead, but be direct about it.
To which he responded:
"At the risk of sounding melodramatic, your response is quite typical. You don't want to face the harsh, unpleasant reality of what is being discussed, so you're cracking a joke in an effort to distract yourself and everybody else who reads this. And I understand. It's always easier to look away from horrifying situations than it is to face them--until it happens to you. Currently, we're both immune from such practices because we over the age of 18. But if society continues to ignore these facilities, how long do you suppose it will be before adults are just as vulnerable? Personally, that day cannot come quickly enough. Maybe that'll get you to start caring."
A 115-word tirade that portrayed me as apathetic, myopic and callous. Do you want to make an argument otherwise, tell me how this isn't offensive?
And you're saying that I'm overreacting!?
In what world is a 115-word tirade against an otherwise innocuous 7-word comment that implies the person who made the 7-word comment is apathetic, myopic and callous, not overreacting?
Are you saying cactus_man is not responsible for this atrocious response, but I am? Be more clear, say it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Yes, you picked part of a serious post and made a joke. You made no contribution to the subject of the thread and made light of a serious comment.
I made light of a selection that came from a serious comment. I was sure to omit everything else. I find humor therapeutic and a way to get by in the world. I've seen some pretty awful things and experienced the same.
As for making no contribution to the subject of the thread. The subject of the thread was about a man suing Apple for supposedly helping the Italian mafia spy on him. Your discussion was about electro-shock therapies and the inherent violation of inalienable rights of young children suffering from horrible diseases within the borders of the United States. The link between the two was mental illness, but it was remote at best considering the topic was started by an article that while not without commentary was primarily legal in nature. My comment may have been a departure, but not that much further from your own discussion. Never mind that I have always been of the opinion that humor is found in all walks of life with any subject matter and anything towards that aim is a contribution to something. In short, don't be a thread Nazi and stick to the topic we're on now, claiming I was off topic is a petty attempt at a distraction and you know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Firstly, I don't regard his post as a tirade. Your posts are tirades.
My posts are tirades? That's a generalization. Let us stop for a second and look at my first post: "Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
You want accuracy? You need to stop with the generalization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
He did not call you apathetic (although that much certainly is implied by his reply, and it is something which you have failed to address re: the original subject matter). He did not call you myopic, and he did not call you callous. Maybe that's how you read that post, but it certainly isn't how I saw it and I have been genuinely bemused by all of your posts that have followed.
He implied it! Which is what I said earlier, so congratulations for that realization! Something I failed to address? No, that was center stage in my original response to his response to my calendar joke.
Let me quote myself: "Implication is a dangerous weapon to wield and you should treat it with more respect. I am not apathetic, myopic or callous."
Well gosh ye darn there my good buddy, it would seem I addressed it and referred to it as implication and if you're confused by my posts, perhaps you should try reading them rather than skimming. Because had you read them, I'm sure you wouldn't have just implied that I didn't make the distinction between his implication and his outright saying those things, when I began the sentence with "implication". I'm just sayin'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
It's hyperbolic, just like most of your other responses. Maybe it was a stretch, but as I said, I certainly thought his original post was a reasonable response to your joke.
He fired off a 115-word tirade against a 7-word innocuous comment and you want to tell me that I've exaggerated things? Fascinating. Better yet, you think a 115-word tirade against a 7-word innocuous comment is "reasonable". Proportional response must have no meaning to you - in order to match him, my response should have been 1,840 words. What about my comment that he should have sent a private message my way for clarification before the tirade? I must be nuts with that one. Mustn't I? Seriously, what would he have lost if he had done so? Oh wait, I saw this on double Jeopardy last night, what is nothing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
It's going a bit far to call his assertion that most people would agree with said response "downright outrageous".
Let's review what I said, "It came across that way to you, but unless you're capable of reading the minds of everyone here, any other claim is a stretch if not downright outrageous."
So you're telling me that his speaking for everyone else is justified and not outrageous?
If I ever meet you in person, don't worry, I'm not going to punch you. But I shall buy you a dictionary.
troll 1 |trōl|
noun
"An e-mail message or posting on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader."
You want everyone here to believe that a comment about a calendar was a troll. No, you might be able to get one or two guys to back that, but you won't get many others. Again, as I said to Mr. H above, a troll would have quoted more and said something like, "Those children are brats, they deserve it."
That's a troll - and it is something said by some. Seriously man, you need to visit some of today's imageboards. They'll teach you a thing or two about what trolling is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
Honestly wraithofwonder, why the hell do you even care what we think of you? You don't even know who we are.
For reasons inexplicable to me, I expect more from the posters on Apple Insider than I do elsewhere. Never mind that you original attack on me was so outlandish, I'm struggling to understand it. It's an exercise in learning and if you check my posting history, you'll see I may break off at any point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
Here's some decent advice: don't let strangers over the internet get to you so much (or at all). You've obviously put quite a bit of time into your rants, but for the life of me I can't understand why. Even if I were to sincerely apologize, what would you gain from that? I'll answer for you: nothing. Absolutely nothing. The quality of your life would not be affected in any way, shape, or form.
You're right, in theory I would gain nothing and yet, I'm somehow glad to see you admit that you haven't apologized. As for the time spent? I type a little faster than most and am watching the news.
Besides, you're the one who launched a 115-word tirade against my 7-word joke. A joke that took seconds to make. If I were you, I wouldn't talk about time spent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
I responded to your joke with a purpose in mind: I wanted to keep the subtopic going in order to educate people on the harsh reality of the United States. I did not respond because I was personally offended! When my own "friends" disregard what I say, or even laugh at it, then I am personally offended, as I very well should be. (And I often wonder if I should keep them as friends at all.) I am trying to point out society's misconceptions; that is all.
Make no mistake, I support your original aims in this thread and I'm sorry about your friends being that way - I wouldn't be so quick to get rid of them though, I was a little more like you when younger and that was a step I took. But your response to mine was something I took personally and at the moment it seems that you're saying that I should be sensitive to you but you shouldn't be to me and that's a double-standard I simply won't go with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
When you interfered, I responded in kind. I did not rebuttal out of anger, but for the purpose of preventing your sardonic mentality from spreading.
1. I didn't interfere with anything. I made a joke. However lame it was, it was inherently innocuous at least when taken in a literal sense.
2. I showed no contempt in my joke, I had no nefarious intent, to refer to it as a sardonic mentality is a terrible stretch. I mocked no one and there was no danger of it spreading, at least not too quickly. You had plenty of time to send me a private message. Can you admit that you should have done that? Can at least say you will consider it in the future?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
Moreover, I responded rather calmly; you are simply flipping out.
What is calm about ""maybe that'll get you to start caring"? Sir, be honest with yourself, you weren't calm when you wrote that reply. Your response was a perversion of humor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus_man
And here I go, wasting too much of my own time now. My response wasn't supposed to be that long, but it's already written, so there it is.
I think the underlying question here is why was this guy allowed to file the suit in the first place. I think he and his lawyer ought to be fined, imprisoned and be required to pay restitution back to anyone and everyone who has had to waste a single second of time in response to this. And people wonder why the law profession has such a bad name....
Read the Complaint. The man is "pro se" i.e. he has no lawyer. Yet, the fact that a mentally ill man can actually file a paper in a Court house is supposed to mean (to the "tort reformers") that "trial lawyer greed" is ruining everything for everybody.
Wake up. You are perpetuating a misleading example that is part of a coordinated effort sponsored by the National Chamber of Commerce, Big Tobacco and other groups like them to discredit the very idea of a civil justice system. So they trot out every ink blot in the Courthouse that sounds "crazy" in their argument that "lawsuits and lawyers" are amok.
It is inherent in a country in which responsible people have the ability to call even a large company to account in a Court of law, that a mentally ill man may actually file a bizarre suit, asking for whatever he want to ask for. But this "pro se" suit that will go as far as a single motion to dismiss, is no reflection on lawyers or the legal profession. The lunatic here has no lawyer.
Comments
Your response to my response is typical of someone who can't be a part of the solution as you are for now bound to bring the discussion back to your own traumas and along the journey, insult all other participants of the discussion - as you have me. Implication is a dangerous weapon to wield and you should treat it with more respect. I am not apathetic, myopic or callous.
Did it ever occur to you that others on these forums could have had a number of their own traumas? Did it ever occur to you that one method employed by those individuals and others for dealing with such situations was humor?
I have had my fair share of personal trauma, and than some. One still very new and very fresh in my mind. My father has too and he and I share humor as one way to deal with the awful truths of the world. Humor is not turning a blind eye - humor is about remembering the good in the world in the face of evil.
So no, you don't understand. You don't know what I am doing and your response was offensive and unjustified. So, let me give you a little piece of unsolicited advice - your aims would be better served by your excusing yourself from the discussion, at least until you learn to stop including insults in your contributions.
Have a nice day.
Forgive me if I've been presumptuous. But honestly, how is one supposed to interpret your response? To anybody who does not personally know you, you come across exactly as I've described. Sorry, but it's true. I'm not saying that you are those things, because I do not know you, and perhaps you are right; however, I can't help feeling as though I've been baited, even if inadvertently.
You don't need to explain to me the healing power of humor, as I am quite fond of it myself; however, there is an appropriate context for such humor, and I feel that your timing was a bit off. I was trying to expose people to an America they never knew existed; I was trying to get just a couple more people on Earth to understand that these places are real, and that people like me, with our seemingly wild accusations, are not making anything up when we talk about them. Then you came in and attempted to make light of the situation, just as everybody else in my life has. What am I supposed to think? How am I supposed to feel?
I apologize if I have offended a good-intentioned individual; if it makes you feel any better, at least the feeling is mutual.
Forgive me if I've been presumptuous. But honestly, how is one supposed to interpret your response? To anybody who does not personally know you, you come across exactly as I've described. Sorry, but it's true.
No, it isn't true. It came across that way to you, but unless you're capable of reading the minds of everyone here, any other claim is a stretch if not downright outrageous. It was to be taken with humor, perhaps no more than a smirk because it was a lame joke, but still not the insulting attack you came back with.
I'm not saying that you are those things, because I do not know you, and perhaps you are right; however, I can't help feeling as though I've been baited, even if inadvertently.
1. Now, while a gross stretch of simple words I might have given you the feeling you were baited point except, I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Mr. H. So that claim is instantly invalid.
2. You made no effort known to me to get to know me. Did you check my posting history? You did not send me a quick private message to ask for clarification, a simple "What did you mean by..." private message would have allowed us to avoid this whole thing and the failure for this having not been done is your own.
...people like me, with our seemingly wild accusations, are not making anything up when we talk about them. Then you came in and attempted to make light of the situation, just as everybody else in my life has. What am I supposed to think? How am I supposed to feel?
Don't kid yourself, with these words you're trying to justify a poor action on your part. Between us this isn't about you or your cause, it is about what you did. The harm that others have caused you is no excuse for harming another. No matter how much my words may seem to match their own, I am not them and I deserve to be treated as an individual and given my due. I was due at least a private message asking for clarification before a scorch earth policy of self righteousness. After all, let us remember my original comment was seven words direct towards someone other than you. Don't stick your head in the ground like those you so obviously abhor, realize what you've done and take responsibility for it, for your own sake if no one else.
I apologize if I have offended a good-intentioned individual
This is where you should have stopped.
...if it makes you feel any better, at least the feeling is mutual.
My feeling was that of anger towards your preposterous assault upon my character over seven innocent words never aimed in your direction. If your feeling is mutual, then you are angry with me for defending myself over your preposterous assault upon my character over seven innocent words never aimed in your direction? Put another way, would you care to reword this a little?
Look, I'll sooner leave than drag this out in some pointless forum war, but you've got to understand that to have any chance of effectively spreading awareness of any evils in the world, you can't attack people like you just did. You've got to keep your eye on the ball and ignore little things like calendars - or at least ask for clarification!
Otherwise, you will come off as too intense and that is often interpreted as conflict. Absent the right cause, most people are adverse to conflict. You see, it's not the information people avoid then, or even the knowledge of the horrors contained therein - as anecdotal evidence would suggest too many with your mindset would conclude, but rather you. The messengers become scary. You can talk about scary things, but you're not allowed to be scary. You've got to "sneak" a conflict worthy message in, without conflict at first. You must be able to have someone call you liar and keep your cool and if you're freaking out over a seven word comment I made here directed towards another, about a calendar of all things, well, you need to think about that.
Here's a silly analogy:
Imagine every time you went for the newspaper, to learn about both good and evil things in this world, a dog bit you. Now that bite is small compared to Afghanistan or Iraq wars, Iranian protests, and so on, after all - over 4,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq, but it hurt. Say each time the dog's bite got a little deeper. Now let me ask you, how long until you stopped going for the newspaper? For fun, let's say there are no alternatives and let's say this dog had a little pink sweater urging you to donate money to fight breast cancer, or a red one urging you to donate money to fight AIDS.
Really, does it matter what message is on the dog?
What about the articles in the newspaper?
No, the bite hurts and you want it to stop.
Now like I said, this is a very silly analogy. For one thing, there are plenty of alternatives to a newspaper, but that's not the point.
The point is:
You bit me, and for the moment my feeling is to hell with your sweater - and that isn't the feeling you want from anyone. Ya know?
You said something that came across as completely insensitive. I responded to the text as I read it. And that's it. I'm not about to engage in an online flame war with you.
Here: I'm sorry. My bad. I was wrong, you were right. Happy?
If I'd known you'd take such offense, I definitely would not have gone there. I absolutely did not foresee this, or I wouldn't have said anything. As you said: I don't understand.
This subtopic has derailed; signing out.
You said something that came across as completely insensitive.
This is the part you don't get. I didn't say anything insensitive. I was talking about calendars for heaven's sakes!
Your comments were unjustified and yes, you really should be apologizing to me, but you clearly can't without some sort of bullshit qualification. And I'm sorry if your mother didn't teach you this, or perhaps wasn't around to do so, but any qualification prior to or after an apology nullifies the apology. No ifs, ands or buts before or after, no "here" crap. You have not apologized and you can't, because you obviously don't realize you were wrong.
Here's what you should do in the future:
When you've read something normally innocuous, like I don't know - how about a need for a new calendar, that person A has said to person B and you somehow "eavesdrop" and take offense, PM the person committing said "offense" before going on a crusade. Ok?
Have a nice day.
This is the part you don't get. I didn't say anything insensitive. I was talking about calendars for heaven's sakes!
Dude. You are way overreacting. What you originally said could easily be interpreted as insensitive. It was your first post in the thread, and as a response to something serious you posted a joke.
In fact, you are behaving like a troll. You come in here, make a joke about a serious subject, and then have a massive self-righteous rant when someone calls you on it. You haven't said anything on-topic, you've just berated cactus_man for what was an entirely reasonable response. Maybe you should read his response again? It really was not that offensive towards you.
Dude. You are way overreacting.
EXCUSE ME!? What bizarre reality do you live in? And for someone trying to correct me on what to find offensive, calling me names isn't a good start. You're the self proclaimed language police, you want to tell me that "you are behaving like" isn't as good as "you are", what is the obvious implication? You should apologize for that.
I quoted you saying: "... it's 2009 not 1909."
Omitting everything else.
And responded with:
"Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
A comment innocuous to the vast majority.. Do you want to make an argument otherwise? Go ahead, but be direct about it.
To which he responded:
"At the risk of sounding melodramatic, your response is quite typical. You don't want to face the harsh, unpleasant reality of what is being discussed, so you're cracking a joke in an effort to distract yourself and everybody else who reads this. And I understand. It's always easier to look away from horrifying situations than it is to face them--until it happens to you. Currently, we're both immune from such practices because we over the age of 18. But if society continues to ignore these facilities, how long do you suppose it will be before adults are just as vulnerable? Personally, that day cannot come quickly enough. Maybe that'll get you to start caring."
A 115-word tirade that portrayed me as apathetic, myopic and callous. Do you want to make an argument otherwise, tell me how this isn't offensive?
And you're saying that I'm overreacting!?
Worse, when I dared to defend myself, look here:
"To anybody who does not personally know you, you come across exactly as I've described."
He responded as if his interpretation of my calendar comment was the only possible interpretation.
You want to tell me that my response:
"No, it isn't true. It came across that way to you, but unless you're capable of reading the minds of everyone here, any other claim is a stretch if not downright outrageous. It was to be taken with humor, perhaps no more than a smirk because it was a lame joke, but still not the insulting attack you came back with."
Is inaccurate?
And what of my suggestion to him about how to do things in the future, or what he should have done?
"You did not send me a quick private message to ask for clarification, a simple 'What did you mean by...' private message would have allowed us to avoid this whole thing and the failure for this having not been done is your own."
Is this a bad idea?
And you're telling me his: "Here: I'm sorry. My bad. I was wrong, you were right. Happy?"
Was that mature?
You see Mr. H, his response was never reasonable. He inserted attacks into each one and while I certainly am not innocent of doing the same, what I said that started this all was innocuous - whether he likes it or not. And what bugs me most is you don't cite anything I've said or he said. You just respond, so God only knows how far back you went. Because yeah, I was insensitive in every darn post except the first, including this one.
Because portraying someone as apathetic, myopic and callous is VERY OFFENSIVE. I'm the one under attack.
His approach sucks, you really want to make an argument otherwise?
EXCUSE ME!? What bizarre reality do you live in? And for someone trying to correct me on what to find offensive, calling me names isn't a good start.
I didn't call you a name. I said that you are behaving like a troll, which is accurate. You made an off-topic remark and have turned it into a massive off-topic argument. You are the one overreacting and you are the one that needs to calm down.
I quoted you saying: "... it's 2009 not 1909."
And responded with:
"Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
Yes, you picked part of a serious post and made a joke. You made no contribution to the subject of the thread and made light of a serious comment.
A 115-word tirade that portrayed me as apathetic, myopic and callous. Do you want to make an argument otherwise, tell me how this isn't offensive?
Firstly, I don't regard his post as a tirade. Your posts are tirades. He did not call you apathetic (although that much certainly is implied by his reply, and it is something which you have failed to address re: the original subject matter). He did not call you myopic, and he did not call you callous. Maybe that's how you read that post, but it certainly isn't how I saw it and I have been genuinely bemused by all of your posts that have followed.
You want to tell me that my response:
"No, it isn't true. It came across that way to you, but unless you're capable of reading the minds of everyone here, any other claim is a stretch if not downright outrageous.
...
Is inaccurate?
It's hyperbolic, just like most of your other responses. Maybe it was a stretch, but as I said, I certainly thought his original post was a reasonable response to your joke. It's going a bit far to call his assertion that most people would agree with said response "downright outrageous".
Recognizing that you are from the UK, maybe you don't have the same issues we deal with in the US. These constant firvolous lawsuits are boggin down our legal system and preventing real crimes from reaching trial.
I agree with your implying that the attourney representing this guy should be help acountable as well.
Finally, while I agree that this guy might be mentally ill, we really don't know. He might in fact be perfectly sain and able to fabricate these scenarios to support his lawsuit in hopes Apple will pay him to go away. But, even if this is mental illness, that doesn't give him carte-blanche <sp?> to run amuck in society without reprocussion. And no, burning at the stake would be way too severe. :0)
Dear sir or madam,
Frivolous civil lawsuits do not hinder criminal trials. They are not heard by the same court.
This is not to say that I disagree that this is a frivolous lawsuit, only that I disagree about its effect on trials held in criminal court.
Honestly wraithofwonder, why the hell do you even care what we think of you? You don't even know who we are. Here's some decent advice: don't let strangers over the internet get to you so much (or at all). You've obviously put quite a bit of time into your rants, but for the life of me I can't understand why. Even if I were to sincerely apologize, what would you gain from that? I'll answer for you: nothing. Absolutely nothing. The quality of your life would not be affected in any way, shape, or form.
I responded to your joke with a purpose in mind: I wanted to keep the subtopic going in order to educate people on the harsh reality of the United States. I did not respond because I was personally offended! When my own "friends" disregard what I say, or even laugh at it, then I am personally offended, as I very well should be. (And I often wonder if I should keep them as friends at all.) I am trying to point out society's misconceptions; that is all. When you interfered, I responded in kind. I did not rebuttal out of anger, but for the purpose of preventing your sardonic mentality from spreading. Moreover, I responded rather calmly; you are simply flipping out.
And here I go, wasting too much of my own time now. My response wasn't supposed to be that long, but it's already written, so there it is.
I didn't call you a name. I said that you are behaving like a troll, which is accurate. You made an off-topic remark and have turned it into a massive off-topic argument.
No sir, it is not accurate. A troll is deliberate. A troll would have been 7-word comment like, "Those children are brats, they deserve it." and not "Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
It would have been directed at something closer to the discussion and not "it's 2009 not 1909." Do you dispute that?
Would you care to explain, perhaps using small words and pictures, how it is possible that my comment could ever be interpreted as offensive or trollish by even the most sensitive or nuts. It is such a stretch that it is beyond my apparently very limited imagination, so I need someone to explain it. Care to do the honors?
You are the one overreacting and you are the one that needs to calm down.
I'm laughing right now. That's how you respond to what I said above? That's how you respond? Sad. I made clear that I was acting just right. Let me repeat myself:
I quoted you saying: "... it's 2009 not 1909."
Omitting everything else.
And responded with:
"Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
A comment innocuous to the vast majority.. Do you want to make an argument otherwise? Go ahead, but be direct about it.
To which he responded:
"At the risk of sounding melodramatic, your response is quite typical. You don't want to face the harsh, unpleasant reality of what is being discussed, so you're cracking a joke in an effort to distract yourself and everybody else who reads this. And I understand. It's always easier to look away from horrifying situations than it is to face them--until it happens to you. Currently, we're both immune from such practices because we over the age of 18. But if society continues to ignore these facilities, how long do you suppose it will be before adults are just as vulnerable? Personally, that day cannot come quickly enough. Maybe that'll get you to start caring."
A 115-word tirade that portrayed me as apathetic, myopic and callous. Do you want to make an argument otherwise, tell me how this isn't offensive?
And you're saying that I'm overreacting!?
In what world is a 115-word tirade against an otherwise innocuous 7-word comment that implies the person who made the 7-word comment is apathetic, myopic and callous, not overreacting?
Are you saying cactus_man is not responsible for this atrocious response, but I am? Be more clear, say it.
Yes, you picked part of a serious post and made a joke. You made no contribution to the subject of the thread and made light of a serious comment.
I made light of a selection that came from a serious comment. I was sure to omit everything else. I find humor therapeutic and a way to get by in the world. I've seen some pretty awful things and experienced the same.
As for making no contribution to the subject of the thread. The subject of the thread was about a man suing Apple for supposedly helping the Italian mafia spy on him. Your discussion was about electro-shock therapies and the inherent violation of inalienable rights of young children suffering from horrible diseases within the borders of the United States. The link between the two was mental illness, but it was remote at best considering the topic was started by an article that while not without commentary was primarily legal in nature. My comment may have been a departure, but not that much further from your own discussion. Never mind that I have always been of the opinion that humor is found in all walks of life with any subject matter and anything towards that aim is a contribution to something. In short, don't be a thread Nazi and stick to the topic we're on now, claiming I was off topic is a petty attempt at a distraction and you know it.
Firstly, I don't regard his post as a tirade. Your posts are tirades.
My posts are tirades? That's a generalization. Let us stop for a second and look at my first post: "Crap. It's time for a new calendar."
You want accuracy? You need to stop with the generalization.
He did not call you apathetic (although that much certainly is implied by his reply, and it is something which you have failed to address re: the original subject matter). He did not call you myopic, and he did not call you callous. Maybe that's how you read that post, but it certainly isn't how I saw it and I have been genuinely bemused by all of your posts that have followed.
He implied it! Which is what I said earlier, so congratulations for that realization! Something I failed to address? No, that was center stage in my original response to his response to my calendar joke.
Let me quote myself: "Implication is a dangerous weapon to wield and you should treat it with more respect. I am not apathetic, myopic or callous."
Well gosh ye darn there my good buddy, it would seem I addressed it and referred to it as implication and if you're confused by my posts, perhaps you should try reading them rather than skimming. Because had you read them, I'm sure you wouldn't have just implied that I didn't make the distinction between his implication and his outright saying those things, when I began the sentence with "implication". I'm just sayin'.
It's hyperbolic, just like most of your other responses. Maybe it was a stretch, but as I said, I certainly thought his original post was a reasonable response to your joke.
He fired off a 115-word tirade against a 7-word innocuous comment and you want to tell me that I've exaggerated things? Fascinating. Better yet, you think a 115-word tirade against a 7-word innocuous comment is "reasonable". Proportional response must have no meaning to you - in order to match him, my response should have been 1,840 words. What about my comment that he should have sent a private message my way for clarification before the tirade? I must be nuts with that one. Mustn't I? Seriously, what would he have lost if he had done so? Oh wait, I saw this on double Jeopardy last night, what is nothing?
It's going a bit far to call his assertion that most people would agree with said response "downright outrageous".
Let's review what I said, "It came across that way to you, but unless you're capable of reading the minds of everyone here, any other claim is a stretch if not downright outrageous."
So you're telling me that his speaking for everyone else is justified and not outrageous?
...his behavior is a bit "trollish."
If I ever meet you in person, don't worry, I'm not going to punch you. But I shall buy you a dictionary.
troll 1 |trōl|
noun
"An e-mail message or posting on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader."
You want everyone here to believe that a comment about a calendar was a troll. No, you might be able to get one or two guys to back that, but you won't get many others. Again, as I said to Mr. H above, a troll would have quoted more and said something like, "Those children are brats, they deserve it."
That's a troll - and it is something said by some. Seriously man, you need to visit some of today's imageboards. They'll teach you a thing or two about what trolling is.
Honestly wraithofwonder, why the hell do you even care what we think of you? You don't even know who we are.
For reasons inexplicable to me, I expect more from the posters on Apple Insider than I do elsewhere. Never mind that you original attack on me was so outlandish, I'm struggling to understand it. It's an exercise in learning and if you check my posting history, you'll see I may break off at any point.
Here's some decent advice: don't let strangers over the internet get to you so much (or at all). You've obviously put quite a bit of time into your rants, but for the life of me I can't understand why. Even if I were to sincerely apologize, what would you gain from that? I'll answer for you: nothing. Absolutely nothing. The quality of your life would not be affected in any way, shape, or form.
You're right, in theory I would gain nothing and yet, I'm somehow glad to see you admit that you haven't apologized. As for the time spent? I type a little faster than most and am watching the news.
Besides, you're the one who launched a 115-word tirade against my 7-word joke. A joke that took seconds to make. If I were you, I wouldn't talk about time spent.
I responded to your joke with a purpose in mind: I wanted to keep the subtopic going in order to educate people on the harsh reality of the United States. I did not respond because I was personally offended! When my own "friends" disregard what I say, or even laugh at it, then I am personally offended, as I very well should be. (And I often wonder if I should keep them as friends at all.) I am trying to point out society's misconceptions; that is all.
Make no mistake, I support your original aims in this thread and I'm sorry about your friends being that way - I wouldn't be so quick to get rid of them though, I was a little more like you when younger and that was a step I took. But your response to mine was something I took personally and at the moment it seems that you're saying that I should be sensitive to you but you shouldn't be to me and that's a double-standard I simply won't go with.
When you interfered, I responded in kind. I did not rebuttal out of anger, but for the purpose of preventing your sardonic mentality from spreading.
1. I didn't interfere with anything. I made a joke. However lame it was, it was inherently innocuous at least when taken in a literal sense.
2. I showed no contempt in my joke, I had no nefarious intent, to refer to it as a sardonic mentality is a terrible stretch. I mocked no one and there was no danger of it spreading, at least not too quickly. You had plenty of time to send me a private message. Can you admit that you should have done that? Can at least say you will consider it in the future?
Moreover, I responded rather calmly; you are simply flipping out.
What is calm about ""maybe that'll get you to start caring"? Sir, be honest with yourself, you weren't calm when you wrote that reply. Your response was a perversion of humor.
And here I go, wasting too much of my own time now. My response wasn't supposed to be that long, but it's already written, so there it is.
Now that I understand.
...
My response:
...
Ok then. Let's just forget it.
...Paranoid Schizophrenia? or Active Psychosis?
Are they separate things?
How would one go about differentiating between the two?
I think the underlying question here is why was this guy allowed to file the suit in the first place. I think he and his lawyer ought to be fined, imprisoned and be required to pay restitution back to anyone and everyone who has had to waste a single second of time in response to this. And people wonder why the law profession has such a bad name....
Read the Complaint. The man is "pro se" i.e. he has no lawyer. Yet, the fact that a mentally ill man can actually file a paper in a Court house is supposed to mean (to the "tort reformers") that "trial lawyer greed" is ruining everything for everybody.
Wake up. You are perpetuating a misleading example that is part of a coordinated effort sponsored by the National Chamber of Commerce, Big Tobacco and other groups like them to discredit the very idea of a civil justice system. So they trot out every ink blot in the Courthouse that sounds "crazy" in their argument that "lawsuits and lawyers" are amok.
It is inherent in a country in which responsible people have the ability to call even a large company to account in a Court of law, that a mentally ill man may actually file a bizarre suit, asking for whatever he want to ask for. But this "pro se" suit that will go as far as a single motion to dismiss, is no reflection on lawyers or the legal profession. The lunatic here has no lawyer.