I can see I've poked a sensitive issue. A lot of "long winded" text being plastered for a relatively trivial remark.
But, yes, lets put things in perspective. I make a comment, not directed at anyone, that I never understood or took pleasure in other people's misfortunes. I know by their comments that several disagree with me. But so what? What do they care? But not you, you seem to take personal offense. You claim that those like me have gone soft, that GetBig has gone soft "he barely gets roasted". It actually bothered you that more people don't relish Mike tumbling down the stairs. You brag that you fully expect your "friends" to laugh at you had you took such a spill. Notice no one felt that they had to defend themselves and their "sensitive and soft" nature. But not you. You are still trying to convince me by now taking the phony professorial tone you always take when trying to redeem yourself.
And now you are making one of the weakest arguments to defend your boorish behavior (why you feel you have to do this is another issue) by saying, "Oh yeah, well what about you? You said bad things, too!" Even resorting to a trivia point where I have mistaken a comma for an apostrophe -- which I freely admitted. Remember the logical fallacy Tu Quoque, Mr. Professor?
And somehow you think it's relevant that you are younger than me. Another breach of logic from such so desperate to be perceived as a learned individual -- Non-Sequitor .
You consistently prove yourself as one so desperate to seek validation and approval of others. You claim I am the loser and that you have a lot going for you, yet I am an open book here. People know what I look like, where I live, what I did for a living...
whereas you, the one who wants us to think is such a success, remains anonymous.
You're not bored. I know how to push your buttons. You'll be back. And in the future mind your manners when addressing me.
Indeed I will be back, Pellius, and this will have to be a long one, as not only is your post an example of psychological projection at its finest, but you're once again all over the place (are you perhaps related to Matt Canning?). First of all, in what way could you have 'poked a sensitive issue' when I not only admit to laughing at Mike's misfortune, but also stated that it can be taken as an indication of my real character? A sensitive issue has indeed been poked, and it's clear whose buttons have been pressed. 'You'll be banned if you regurgitate that thread!' 'Mind your manners when addressing me' lol. Pellius, you have a better chance of Mcdonald's awarding you with a giant golden penis for your 'defense of democracy' than you do of getting me to 'mind my manners'. I've already stated what I think of you.
Secondly, you replied directly quoting me when I made a lighthearted remark about expecting Mike to get more of a 'roasting'. You went on to talk about all sorts of irrelevant stuff, e.g. visiting hospitals, etc. I then replied, politely, that I doubt he would have even been hurt and that I'd expect the same treatment if I had a similar misfortune - clearly indicating that there's no malice and the comments are in jest. You then continued (again, directly replying to me) that laughing at this situation indicates 'arrested development' and shows 'what sort of person' I am as well as those around me. I first highlighted the stupidity of your use of the term, given that you hadn't operationalised it or measured it in order to claim that it's on the rise. But having accepted the rationality of judging one by their words on here, I then held you to the same standard. That's where the 'glass houses and stones' remark was aptly inserted. You persisted with the 'disturbed individuals' comment, so I reminded you of your words on here, which
are clearly disturbed, and as painful as it must surely be, you cannot weasel your way out of what you wrote. Google logical fallacies as much as you like, but you clearly don't understand them.
As for being desperate, needing validation from others, and wanting people to think I'm a success: this is a self-serving fiction arising from your own discomfort. I've never once made boasts on here (unless they're clearly trolling, which is about what 90 percent of my posts are) and I've never once sought approval or validation from people on here - unlike you. For the sake of argument, allow me a moment of immodesty: I've an exemplary service record from one of the most respected military units on Earth, and I've advanced degrees from a very well-respected university. My 'phony professional tone' here is how I actually talk, and if I wanted to impress losers on an internet forum, I've no shortage of stories that would accomplish that goal. The fact of the matter is, I post on here to have a laugh - hence mocking Mike's extemporized superman impression. As for being anonymous: as I've already stated, I've posted pics on here before (when it was required), I have corresponded with SF for a few years, and had a lot of fun times with Khan - hence the respect. Some individuals know what I used to do for a living too.
Stating that you're twice my age is also perfectly relevant when you consider the fact that it was in response to you claiming that I've nothing going for me (it could be worse, I could be an old 'fraud, liar, hypocrite, and hebephile'). Unfortunately, your pugnacity will always be your undoing on here, because you're evidently not the intellectual that you think you are. And in closing, seeing as your wounded emotional support animal is still whimpering falsehoods, ask him to post his face and his physique and I'll happily do the same (again).
