The Elusive Concept of Context
I note that you constantly refer to CONTEXT in capital letters, which means that you’re actually shouting the word, in the context of the written word. You also seem to have take exceptional umbridge at Jayne’s comments on this and have created a personal argument with her.
The word is ALL-CAPPED to draw particular attention to it, as it was apparent that Jayne was consistently ignoring context in order to promote a false refutation. Note that this fallacy in argument is also what is used to suggest that the use of all-caps is merely for shouting (and not for emphasis).
The offence taken is in how Jayne’s initial post is nothing but a denigration of any who agree with the concepts in the thread. She, like many cyber-bullies, consistently browbeats any who oppose her and will resort to probing for weaknesses in character of the opposition rather than any in the opposing argument.
Issue is taken with her argument and her tactics. It is not “personal” in the sense that I keep my “personal” experience out of the discussion as much as possible. On the other hand, Jayne focuses on trying to clutch at anything she thinks will create a negative emotional response to any who disagree with her (that is easily seen in this thread, and I imagine in any other discussion that cyber-bullies of this type are involved in). In this regard, I have created no “personal” argument with Jayne.
A Name by any other Roast
You said it was immature to call people names and yet you are guilty of this self same thing, as you have consistently called women ‘princesses’ throughout your arguments, which is name calling and denigrating to the women on plenty of fish.
No. Recall the concept of CONTEXT again.
To couch it as “called women” is to suggest that one has called ALL women princesses. The description is to describe the prevalent attitude of women on Plenty-of-Fish. It is hardly inapt considering the plethora of remarkably similar experiences from men who have had been on the site. The behaviour is akin to the haughty attitudes of a spoiled heir. Thus in context, the term “princess” makes sense.
As far as name-calling, there is vast difference between using terms like, “useless noobs”, “major slut”, “eejits”, “poor widdle things” versus the apt usage of “princess”. Couple that with how most of Jayne’s posts are just derogatory diatribes (seriously, don’t even pretend to not realize this), it is clear that her whole “argument” is really nothing more than focused hostility.
Using terms to suitably describe behaviours (such as “princess”) is completely different from using terms that are unsubstantiated, chosen to be inflammatory and deliberately derogatory. You know the difference, and conveniently not seeing that difference to support an argument of hypocrisy, is, well, pretty weak.
You twist and turn the words to try and make it sound as if the original context of the post was to achieve something else other than it clearly stated, to lie about height, weight, job, prospects etc in order to achieve one thing: To bed women, lots of women. That is the context of the article, nothing more, nothing less.
Just where have I made it sound like the post was to achieve anything more than tactics on how to succeed in the Plenty-of-Fish environment? Seriously, where?
Note that it is criticism like this that I find to be indicative of an agenda to strike back based on a prejudice rather than an examination of what was presented. Please. Re-read, my comments on that thread and here (again in the CONTEXT of what is being refuted) and tell us all where I have made that thread out to be anything more than a “players guide”.
A reminder at this point is how Jayne consistently evaded redress of her points once they were shown to be based on faulty foundation. In lieu of this, she merely moved to the next position while laying down a rearguard of personal attack. That would be much more a demonstration of “twisting and turning” than anything her opposition has done.
In Title Meant…
I noticed on this post you have added little headers some of which are sarcastic and an attempt to put Jayne down.
While these titles may have a cynical tone, they are not sardonic. They are there to provide colour to the text and encapsulates the commentary as any title would. Furthermore, am I not to be afforded the luxury of creative labelling in my own blog? Please.
How these titles are an “attempt” to put Jayne down is unsupported. Our responses to Jayne here and on that thread do expose the fallacies in her argument. To weak or invalid arguments no mercy has or will be shown (just as they are not in this response). However, do not mistake the insensitivity to errant thought as a desire to strike personally at others. Every effort is made to address the topic rather than the person behind the opposing view. It is clear that Jayne, and others, cannot separate the two when attempting a refutation. Can you seriously say that I (or any others that have opposed zealots) have been afforded this same respect?
You have become so engrossed in your argument with Jayne (shown by the fact you have set up this little page) that you have now fallen foul of the very arguments you use against her, and you have ended up coming across as pompous and arrogant.
The page was set up mainly to avoid the typical criticism that one is filling up another’s thread with arguments that detract from the theme of the thread.
Amazingly, I am now being wrongly criticized for having the courtesy of respecting the context of the original thread immediately after being wrongly criticized for “twisting the context of that thread”. Well, two wrongs definitely don’t make a right here!
As I have shown, your accusations of my hypocrisy are unfounded, so no unceremonious slip onto my own petard was witnessed.
“Pompous and arrogant”? Well, what was that part about denigration and name-calling? Notice that even here, where I have more control, I have not resorted to calling you names or putting down your general character. Can you not see how you have shown the inability to separate the person from the position?
Quite frankly both of you have come out of this appearing childish and immature with anger issues.
Everyone is welcome to an opinion. Yet considering how I have not resorted to the level of deprecation shown by the opposition, and, that I expend the time to explain my reasoning, how I am now equally childish, immature and befallen with anger issues is unexplainable.
At the risk of sounding “arrogant”, can you now see how sometimes an agenda to “strike back” will often cause people to create false arguments in order to justify disparagement?