A more important question, does some one want to hug you?
Your deflection speaks volumes. But I will answer your question. The hubby and I did a whole lot of huggin’ last night.
Annie, I do not personalize or internalize memes. I post here what I find and what may be an interesting meme. In simple terms what I post here has nothing to do with me, I do not inflect or deflect. I simply asked you the same question you asked me, which, in each case is nobodies business. People have a bad habit to assume what Phil or me, or any blogger that post is about them, it isn’t.
Certainly, Mr. Cederq, you have no obligation to answer any question but don’t try to snow this little lady by saying “what I post here has nothing to do with me.” Blogs are inherently a vanity project to share your views and interests. (most of which I agree with)
annie, how do you justify your fascination with my supposed vanity?
“Supposed”? All vanity matters.
Ecclesiastes 1:1
Seriously? You bringing that weak assed shit? My experience, and I am sure others feel that way is once you start using biblical scripture to a discussion or argument you don’t have the intellectual capacity or chops and lack critical thinking skills to defend your argument or thesis. Here I was giving you some credit you may have some terrier in you as you are pugnacious…
Hugs accepted if you don’t have a knife or gun in your hands…
Mr. Cederq, I’m so sorry if I offended your tender male sensibilities. Your last reply proves the hypothesis that your vanity is certainly not ‘supposed’.
In logic ‘personal experience’ is irrelevant as is the way others ‘feel’. Ad hominem attacks and ipse dixit statements will not win an argument.
The biblical reference was an attempt at humor. Certainly a man of your substantial intellect knows the word ‘vanity’ in the bible doesn’t have the same meaning as in modern usage. I’m sorry you missed the joke.
If you don’t cancel me I’d be happy to explain what I intended with my original and subsequent posts in terms that anyone can understand.
Again, I apologize.
First time someone asserted I had tender male sensibilities, that is a first for me…A statement does not prove an hypothesis. I did not provide an ad hominem attack, never did I impugn your character. Nor an undue assertion made. I would not cancel you, I am not petty. Apology is not required or wanted. You spoke your mind, I respect that. I will admit to you I am not well versed or a biblical scholar, never saw an advantage or need to do so. Words, knowing meanings change over time does negate a present day meaning of that word. So your use of it in a joke in the present form means exactly what the word means.
Oh Mr. Cederq! You did it again.
You said “you don’t have the intellectual capacity or chops and lack critical thinking skills to defend your argument or thesis”
That is a textbook example of an ad hominem argument.
Then you said ” I did not provide an ad hominem attack”
You really should make sure your last thought is consistent with what you wrote previously.
Does anyone want to hug you?
A more important question, does some one want to hug you?
Your deflection speaks volumes. But I will answer your question. The hubby and I did a whole lot of huggin’ last night.
Annie, I do not personalize or internalize memes. I post here what I find and what may be an interesting meme. In simple terms what I post here has nothing to do with me, I do not inflect or deflect. I simply asked you the same question you asked me, which, in each case is nobodies business. People have a bad habit to assume what Phil or me, or any blogger that post is about them, it isn’t.
Certainly, Mr. Cederq, you have no obligation to answer any question but don’t try to snow this little lady by saying “what I post here has nothing to do with me.” Blogs are inherently a vanity project to share your views and interests. (most of which I agree with)
annie, how do you justify your fascination with my supposed vanity?
“Supposed”? All vanity matters.
Ecclesiastes 1:1
Seriously? You bringing that weak assed shit? My experience, and I am sure others feel that way is once you start using biblical scripture to a discussion or argument you don’t have the intellectual capacity or chops and lack critical thinking skills to defend your argument or thesis. Here I was giving you some credit you may have some terrier in you as you are pugnacious…
Hugs accepted if you don’t have a knife or gun in your hands…
Mr. Cederq, I’m so sorry if I offended your tender male sensibilities. Your last reply proves the hypothesis that your vanity is certainly not ‘supposed’.
In logic ‘personal experience’ is irrelevant as is the way others ‘feel’. Ad hominem attacks and ipse dixit statements will not win an argument.
The biblical reference was an attempt at humor. Certainly a man of your substantial intellect knows the word ‘vanity’ in the bible doesn’t have the same meaning as in modern usage. I’m sorry you missed the joke.
If you don’t cancel me I’d be happy to explain what I intended with my original and subsequent posts in terms that anyone can understand.
Again, I apologize.
First time someone asserted I had tender male sensibilities, that is a first for me…A statement does not prove an hypothesis. I did not provide an ad hominem attack, never did I impugn your character. Nor an undue assertion made. I would not cancel you, I am not petty. Apology is not required or wanted. You spoke your mind, I respect that. I will admit to you I am not well versed or a biblical scholar, never saw an advantage or need to do so. Words, knowing meanings change over time does negate a present day meaning of that word. So your use of it in a joke in the present form means exactly what the word means.
Oh Mr. Cederq! You did it again.
You said “you don’t have the intellectual capacity or chops and lack critical thinking skills to defend your argument or thesis”
That is a textbook example of an ad hominem argument.
Then you said ” I did not provide an ad hominem attack”
You really should make sure your last thought is consistent with what you wrote previously.