Shofercia wrote:Oh wow, an entire link followed with all of 5 words. Nice and brief. Followed by pages of boring, infantile, and quite absurd essays. You claim the thread to be moronic, yet you're the only one writing massive essays in it, so Forsher - do you often waste your time on moronic threads? Did you come here looking for a fight because of something else?
Correction, a short post noting that (a) you failed to create a working thread title and (b) you failed to note that there are real reasons to not like foxes, followed by pages of responses to Shof's hissy fits... which were prompted by these five words which you failed to acknowledge in the first place.
Grow up.
(Also, I am hardly the only one with complaints about the thread. You're just choosing to respond to me... and at some quite considerable length on any and all points which have nothing to do with the thread's substance.)
You persist in believing that (a) quote mining is an acceptable behaviour and (b) essays must be boring. Wow. That's just incredible. Go (back?) to Twitter, Shof, it suits your style better.
Forsher wrote:But the thread is still moronic.
It will slowly become that, unless you actually lighten up for a change.
You literally just asked me if I was looking for a fight. Is it so hard to believe that you created the problem Shof? (Yes it is, because it is pretty obvious you think yourself God, hence the aforenoted mindreading.)
Forsher wrote:It is based around a non-existent pun
Not according to the OP, but you're not here to respond the OP; you're annoyed that you think you were clickbaited, and perhaps for some unrelated reason, and you're here looking for a fight, but Forsher, NSG isn't ED. There are moderators here.
Hey, Shof, ever considered that maybe you're wrong? Let's consider a few points:
- You said I hadn't responded to the thread's "substance". I did. In my first post. Which you apparently read.
- You claimed that it wasn't based on a pun. You dug up a four year old thread, found a post in it and then used it to claim that you were trying to make some kind of play on words.
- I have never claimed that I was clickbaited. I did say the word "clickbait" though, so I understand how this might be confusing for you Shof. (If it's not clear, I posted here to express my disappointment that this thread was not a well executed "deceit" thread. This is clear from my first two posts.)
- And while there are moderators here, Shof, your thread is moronic, not against the rules.
Forsher wrote:(that is, because I was loose with the terminology before, the thread title is just straight up lies rather than any kind of word play... beyond the very simplistic "it's got fox in it", which is much like saying that 12% of a plan is better than 11%) and absolutely fails to consider that perhaps there are actual reasons to be mean to foxes, to the extent that they are literally banned from entering at least one country.
So when I'm talking about Bear News, I'm not talking about news about bears? Let's Google that:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bear+ne ... e&ie=UTF-8
Oh wow, Bear News actually provides news about bears. Who knew? Oh yeah, anyone who knows how to use Google. Now just substitute Bear News for Fox News and... nah, you probably still don't get it.
Remarkably, I did consider this. Apparently, though, considering all the angles makes a post into an essay and therefore too great a burden for I AM ALWAYS RIGHT (AND SHOUTING) SHOF:
Forsher wrote:Why Are We So Mean to Fox News?
What news about foxes? Is it some further comment on how the news is often just the olds in clickbait? Maybe it's some kind of news about Edward Fox? It wasn't and there's still no news, either...
There is only the literal meaning... unless we want to believe it is a clever comment on the superificiality of Fox News, i.e. the title has only a superficial meaning which is, in reality, completely irrelevant to the Truth of the thread. I doubt this: it is difficult to coherently explain.
Hence, what pun? But I really do repeat myself.
Wanna try again hot stuff?
(Please don't, I fear my brain will melt if I ever read another post so wrong and yet so self-righteous. Hey, look! Fun! Naw, Shof probably doesn't get it... he didn't the first time. Clue: those results in that search of yours, provide news about bears, while this thread doesn't provide news about foxes, and nor is it intended to.)
Forsher wrote:The term to "outfox" means "to beat in a competition of wits", the synonym with "outguess", "outsmart" or "outwit".
The very first definition I get on Google talks about deception, but hey, what does Google know compared to Forsher?
Yeah, no, that's Wikipedia you just quoted. This sort of misattribution is against the rules, so please change it.
Similarly, assuming you got the same first hit as me, "defeat (someone) by being more clever or cunning than them" is clearly a positively minded sentiment, so, once again, you have been found misrepresenting evidence. Or, and this actually worse, you didn't but no one can ever know because you haven't actually quoted yourself. (The first dictionary website, Merriam Webster, just uses plain old outsmart, just like Wikipedia. This definition is from the Dictionary box Google sticks at the top of the search results.)
You're allowed your opinions, Shof and I can't help you not be wrong if you're unwilling to actually read what I wrote. Even worse, I will rapidly lose the will to help you, and by God you need the help, if you persist in the selective quoting too... what happened to, for instance, my link to several Zootopia trailers?