Eyesore wrote:
Actually I called him an idiot because I truly believe he's an idiot. I didn't do it to antagonize. He posted it twice because he's a troublemaker. You're a sympathizer because you actually like to be that guy as well, you've admitted this.
Insults, whether or not they are intended to mean what is said or otherwise, serve to antagonize.
You think he posted it twice because you're blind to any other side but one that favors yourself... the meaning's obvious if you look at the posting times.
Eyesore wrote:
And actually, he was arguing one point and one point only. My behavior in general?, some of you keep saying this, and I ask again, WHAT BEHAVIOR? Where have I been out of line? I disagree with people here, but I disagree in a mature way, he was starting a flame war for the sake of starting a flame war. He was antagonizing from the start. Yes, that provoked an attitude from me, but even then a sarcastic comment now and again doesn't overshadow the FACT that I tried to continuously reason with the guy.
Eyesore, what I and V were/are saying is that you insult people and then when they get pissy, you say it was a joke. As V said,
belethor wrote:
If I apply a disclaimer, I am excused from shit-talking?
Paraphrased, but that gets the point across well enough.
Eyesore wrote:
He didn't listen, you won't listen, words mean nothing unless they're what you want to hear. My words are on this board unedited, if anyone cares to find out who's right or wrong here.
I'm not going to search through 2000+ posts to find examples that you'll inevitably attack as being out of context, which'll leave me right where I started minus an hour of my life that I could've spent shooting zombies.
It's not bloody worth it. My point's been made, if you have an issue, the ball's in your court, you can hit it back or let it through.