The curse is broken

[fuzzyoctopus]

I see.  Perhaps I've now been married too long to someone who is psychologically hurt by arguing, but that does not seem like the nicest way to behave.  You would do well to take your mad l33t arguing skills and go power Seattle and leave me and my pitiful sarcasm alone.

My husband puts in that none of you has ever lived in Columbus, where they riot if the team wins and riot if they lose as well.

[House of Mustard]

1) You were using your hyperbole to justify your dislike of sports.  If the exaggerated claim is not true, then it doesn't stand up as evidence.  It was not apparent, in that context, that you were making a joke -- it certainly appeared that you wanted to make an actual comment on rioting at sports events.  (Yes, I recognized that you were using sarcasm, but does sarcasm exempt a statement from rebuttal?)

2) More importantly, why do you post if you don't expect people to respond?  If you want your statement to stand completely alone, post on the Quotes thread.  I assumed that, since you were responding to someone else, on a thread where some disagreement had already appeared, that you would expect some kind of response in return.

3) We actually have met in person -- at Buca Di Beppos about a year ago.  It seems to me that we've met some other time too, but I can't think of where.  It's too bad you don't remember me -- as I recall we got along just fine.  

4) If you want, I'll stop arguing with you.  As has been said on this site innumerable times (usually after someone gets offended) I, SE, EUOL, Entropy, and others just really like arguing.  No hard feelings are meant or intended.  (Well, that's probably not true with Ent...)

You've certainly never seemed to avoid arguments in the past, but, say the word, and I will cease and desist.

[fuzzyoctopus]

(Yes, I recognized that you were using sarcasm, but does sarcasm exempt a statement from rebuttal?)

I think so, yes.  If we're having a discussion about something serious, and I make a joke, I don't expect that joke to be challenged in formal debate.  You didn't debate Skar's statement that "mob violence can be fun!" - why?  Because it was a lighthearted post intended to amuse us.

I honestly don't have any problems with sports .  Baseball isn't the most interesting game to watch, I hope you'll grant me, because of its slow nature, but I think it's great that the BoSox won.

I consider myself a intelligent and fairly rational person and your assumption that I would base an opinion (like disliking sports) on a gross generalization that is OBVIOUSLY false really hurts my feelings.  Do you really that I'm that stupid?   That is why I assumed it was obvious as a joke.

I was also NOT at Bucca that time a year ago, I wasn't able to make it to EUOL's party unfortunately.

I would appreciate it if you only argue with me when I am trying to prove a point and not when I am trying to amuse myself by posting (what I think are) funny things on a message board.  I really dislike that tendency in Saint as well, but he has learned when not to pick an arugment, and when to just ignore a comment.

I find it ridiculous that someone who writes funny books can't just appreciate non-relevant humor when he sees it, and instead has to pick a fight.

[fuzzyoctopus]

That was long - let me try to summarize.  This is how I viewed the situation.

I posted something that I thought was funny, because it was untrue, but was a hyperbole of the fact that riots do happen  and have happened after some professional sporting events.

You responded with a reply that was so logical, and formal in its nature that I could only make one of two conclusions:  1)you thought I was serious and didn't credit me the intelligence that I have, as you believe that I was making a ridiculous claim based on something obviously false
2) you knew I was joking but like to argue so much that you thought it would be funny to have a formal argument about something obviously untrue.

[House of Mustard]

See, the thing is, I wasn't trying to pick a fight.

Here's what was going on in my mind:  Recently, on this board, a lot of people jumped down the throat of BYU football, when the actual complaint was with the honor code office.  In other, less-recent threads, there has been a large amount of anti-sports sentiment.  With that in mind, I didn't interpret your comment as a joke -- I assumed you were just perpetuating the anti-sports sentiment with an unfair stereotype (hence my comment: "It sounds like you eschew sports anyway, and use this to justify your eschewing.")

Reading back through the previous posts, and reading my initial response, I still don't think I was that out of line.  My second post was directed at SE, not at you.

But, no offense intended.  And I swear I've met you somewhere...

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I just want to insert, and I hope this doesn't piss anyone off, but fuzzy, you've recently told us all to "shut the hell up." When you have that kind of attitude, it's REALLY difficult to tell when you're kidding and when you're pissed off.

You KNOW what we do, and just as I've accepted that you don't want to argue, you should accept that others DO, and they don't do it to make you made or make you feel bad. Peace and understanding takes both sides. HoM has said he won't argue with you (though I don't think we can vouch for anything said in an exchange between lots of people, that wouldn't be fair), and I'll even put out on the table that I'll try not to. Though I think both cases assume that nothing challenging is put to us that is serious and asks for rebuttal. In exchange, I think it's only fair to ask that if we slip up, you please be understanding and not get bent out of shape about it.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Yes, Saint, and that was my wrong, made after a long day of being forced to listen to people argue in real life and then coming home and finding more of the same here.   I apologize for that, and for apparently making this thread harder than it needed to be.

I'm sorry I don't like debate.