Friday, November 20, 2009

friday 20/11/09: part 1.

so today i had an exchange with someone i didn't know through someone i knew's status update comments. the other person decided to delete all their posts, presumably saving face. i've replicated the conversation here for archive purposes and just because the process was so fun that i can't let it die with his post-exchange measures. i wasn't really on point the whole time but hey, you don't see me deleting what i wrote just because i looked a bit dumb. when someone starts getting all thesaurus on you it's interesting to see how far they can carry it.


Cassandra Emily Bird: ... Ok who's the cunt who called my house before pretending to be Dominic and pretending I was pregnant? Fucker.

Michael John Haydon: What's happened to you, Cassie?

Cassandra Emily Bird: ... Meaning what?

Michael John Haydon: You never used to sound like this...

Cassandra Emily Bird: No, I was always like this, I just hid it in certain places. Like church!

Daniel Cunningham: fight this fact in any fashion you may but it always seems to be someone on the 'outside' ( someone else ) who has the better view of who 'you' are...

Alexander Greenberry: Yeah Cass, you've changed.

Cassandra Emily Bird: ... And I've just realised nobody's with me on this one. Greenie, sif you'd know. Cuntingham, you too.

Daniel Cunningham: nice flawed defensive there towards me but if you had of let the other side of your brain take charge when launching that retort you may of noticed i gave a non-specific very generalized opinion giving no actual biased judgment on the topic at hand more so just something i have learned over time...

Michael John Haydon: You can only know a person based off how much they choose to reveal. So basically the only perception I have of you is that which you've chosen to give me.

Food for thought.

Daniel Cunningham: lamens terms 'one only can see what is visible'..

Brock Coombs: geez.. i agree people change and outsiders can see it more quickly depending on what we reveal. but cmon, if someone did that to you, you'd be pretty cut, no?

Michael John Haydon: I would be cut, but probably not cut enough to post it on Facebook like it will bring the culprit forward.

Daniel Cunningham: the in-ability to accept change within ones persona only shows one lacks a sense of realism within ones self... being 'cut' only makes someone look somewhat foolish and in denial...

Alexander Greenberry: This is a job for Batman.

Michael John Haydon: Daniel - what on earth are you talking about? Realism? I don't understand the context of what you were trying to say.

Daniel Cunningham: Michael : If someone cannot accept change within themselves would you agree and say they are not realistic?.

Michael John Haydon: Not realstic? Meaning them not accepting change is not realistic? Your question is ambiguous but I'll do my best: yes, if someone cannot accept change within themselves then a denial has taken place of what is most likely reality. Again. i don't understand the context.

Daniel Cunningham: Pragmatism... scroll up for enlightenment...

Michael John Haydon: Scrolled up - no enlightenment. Maybe if I sleep on it.

Daniel Cunningham: I would say so, i find my commentary fairly effluent. It baffles me as to how the context has eluded you.

Tom Prentice: English makes me happy, others sad. Your effluence has been most enlightenful, Sir Daniel, your command of the English language astounds and bewilders Michael and renders his immediate attention asunder. Truly, you are Grammar Incarnate!

Max Stekelenburg: Yeah so cassie's status is now about what now? prrrretty sure its not about cassie

Daniel Cunningham: of all the almighty epic fails Maximus, do you weild the fathomable capability that a conversation moves away from its point of origin as it transgresses into a discussion. Different people see a situation from different facets thus where we are now...

Max Stekelenburg: *coughwankercough*

Daniel Cunningham: --text missing--

Max Stekelenburg: And so your eloquent slander makes it more acceptable?

Michael John Haydon: First, Max can abbreviate to Maxwell, Maxamillion and even Maximo, but it is never abbreviated from Maximus, at least not in a formal sense, not to mention - unless there's something I'm not aware of - your leap in assuming his name was Maximus in full form as opposed to the alternatives. Second, you spelt wield wrong. Third, your use of 'fathomable capability' is ambiguous and ill-defined. Fourth, you started a question but failed to finish it with a question mark. Fifthly, your context of 'transgresses' is illogical as it implies a set of conversational 'rules' that is broken when a conversation 'moves away from its point of origin' and into a discussion, as if the two concepts are opposed or abohrrent to be compared to one another. Sixth, people cannot see from facets. Seventh, your use of 'thus' is poor grammar and the equal of saying 'so where are are now' which you'll agree, in context of the sentence, makes no sense in the English language. Eight, I just realised your first sentence does not allow the use of a comma as it does not flow logically from the first part to the second in a grammatical sense.

Try again.

Daniel Cunningham: not slander, an educated opinion based on the lack of perception show on your behalf in your initial comment... *cough* sub pseudo-intellectual...

Daniel Cunningham: THAT is slander...learn the difference

Daniel Cunningham: HAHAHAHAHA show me where it says illogical in the dictionary... and you want to try and correct ME!?.

Daniel Cunningham: It's amazing, one nights sleep and you go from questioning a mere understanding to typical keyboard warrior. --this was posted and deleted before i could see it, i only discovered it while going through my facebook emails to fill in the blanks--

Max Stekelenburg: k man you win life. I forfeit this conversation to your unreachable people skills. Go make some money writing Frasier episodes or something...

Michael John Haydon: You put ! before ? in your showing of outrageous surprise when it's traditionally the other way around, and you also put a period after that mistake.

I suppose the difference is, I never held myself up as a beacon of eloquence.

Daniel Cunningham: The hell you didn't. Your no better than any other individual cussing at strangers in a chat room as if to prove a point. If you are feeling somewhat in-adequate in life then do something productive with it and you still failed to tell me where this mysterious 'illogical' came from...

Michael John Haydon: "You're", not your. Were you addressing me in regards to the cussing comment? Cussing is a slang term for 'cursing' which I've not done any of in this 'discussion' (as opposed to a 'conversation'...wink). You seperated inadequate with a dash when it requires none. I tell ya, when you cut me down before I just...well I just felt so inadequate! You really cut right to the heart of me, Daniel. My life is killer and considerably productive, feel free to ask me about it if you'd like proof. "You've still failed", not 'you still failed'.

Oh, and I've failed to address your correction because it is incorrect.

Daniel Cunningham: you are FUCKING PATHETIC!... so far immature you have forgotten what this discussion is all about...it transgressed from a simple 'i don't understand your context' to 'lets be a typical keyboard toughie and stand over all who mean nothing to me like seriously dude...'no matter how well you play and win, you have already played there game and lost'...correct me again i really could not give a fuck ey...

Cass: you affiliate with some wankers...

Michael John Haydon: Nice of you to throw in some of that 'cussing at strangers' you repremanded me for. 'So far immature'? Remove 'far' and add 'that' between 'immature' and 'you' you've got a cohesive sentence. You've really got to look up 'transgressed' before you use it again. Read your reply immediately after Max's first comment to discover who first emerged as a 'typical keyboard toughie'. You failed to close your inverted comma before 'like seriously dude'. Did you use the game playing quote to make me feel like I've actually lost whatever game you're implying this is? Bit of a last ditch effort invoking the old 'I could care less' schtick, too.

And you still failed to tell me where this mysterious 'illogical is not spelled right' thing came from. You want to correct people but you can't stand it when people return the favour.

The only 'sub pseudo-intellectual' here is you.

Daniel Cunningham: and he continues... you and cass should get along fine =) ... both supremacists of mini victories only dif is shes not pathetic little individual like yaself... anywho head on down to fap town... i aint posting or reading here any more...

Michael John Haydon: Ah, the calm exterior. A keen tactic. 'She's not a pathetic little individual' not 'She's not pathetic little individual'. Sad to say I have no business in 'fap town'.

Adios!


admittedly, about halfway through i just started baiting him but it's amazing how quickly someone can lose their cool once the tables have turned. maybe i'm a wanker for keeping all this but hey, i enjoyed myself.

more later.

No comments:

Post a Comment