hydrodynDM's Humble Response to The Vet
hydrodynDM's Humble Response to The Vet
So The Vet and I had a bit of a dust up recently.
At some point in that argument I did something that I don’t typically do – I decided to simply abandon it. That isn’t usually my style – I’ve dragged arguments out over weeks – but with The Vet I didn’t really see the point. His reaction to me disagreeing with him about something as inconsequential as the moons of Mars seemed so extreme that I figured it would better to simply let it go. I didn’t even bother reading his posts after I basically told him I wouldn’t play anymore.
But then I went back and I did read them. And I’ve changed my mind.
Just to get our bearings straight, this whole thing started with this comment from bob. You’ll notice that his post was in response to CobraMan’s assertion that Mars doesn’t have moons. Well, of course Mars does have moons and the link bob provided supported that. Now to be fair, CobraMan was partly correct in saying they are captured asteroids but bob obviously wasn’t contending that.
The Vet decided to jump in and call him an idiot. Why? Well, I thought it was because he was disagreeing with bob. Why else call him an idiot? Maybe The Vet likes to call people he does agree with idiots? No, that couldn’t be it. CobraMan said Mars has no moons. Bob countered with a post that shows it does. The Vet called him an idiot for doing so.
Seems to me, The Vet was agreeing with CobraMan that Mars has no moons. I proceeded to express my opinion on the topic. The Vet’s counter was that they were just screwing around with bob and that bob’s link did in fact disagree with what bob was trying to assert.
Problem is that bob’s link doesn’t disagree with what bob was asserting - that Mars has moons. Guess that’s lie number one for The Vet.
In fact, The Vet made the same assertion about bob's link here. Guess that’s lie number two – or should I just count that as second occurrence of lie number one?
Here, The Vet repeats the fact that Mars’ moons are captured asteroids. Problem is that bob never contested that fact. The irony here is that The Vet calls bob a retard while exhibiting his own inability to understand what bob’s point was. If I were The Vet, I’d call that another lie but I’ll just let that go as The Vet being dense.
So I made the horrendous mistake of actually saying that The Vet (and Cobraman) was wrong.
Now, in a lame attempt to save face, The Vet contends that he never actually said that Mars has no moons. And I concede this. He never technically did. But why then did The Vet call bob an idiot? What was the point of contention here for The Vet? I asked him and his response was – well, it was what it was. Wading through the nearly incomprehensible babble reveals that he believes bob’s link contradicted bob. But it doesn’t, so that’s The Vet lying again. (Gee, this is fun).
After another back and forth, I pretty much decided to abandon the argument.
But The Vet didn’t, so I’ll mostly respond to this post which seems to sum up The Vet’s beef with me.
First I’ll say that despite The Vet claiming I called him a liar, I never once did in any of my posts. (Go ahead and do a word search and check). So I guess The Vet is lying about me lying. What is that, three or four now for The Vet? Or is that an infinite loop of lies. Not sure.
I did say that The Vet was “wrong” (and by "say" I mean "write" so no one gets confused and accuses me of lying). I don’t know - maybe The Vet doesn’t understand the difference between being mistaken and telling a lie. I suppose from now on, whenever a student of mine hands in a homework or exam which doesn’t get a 100%, I should write the word “liar” in big fat red letters across the front of it.
Having said that, I think it's obvious that my keeping track of the number of lies The Vet supposedly told above was both flippant and mocking.
I point that out because The Vet also doesn’t appear to understand the difference between being literal and being rhetorical. You see, he seems to think when I wrote “…you call just about every other poster here a troll” that I was being literal. He even goes so far as to laughably argue the point here. But of course, anyone with a functioning brain recognizes that I was being hyperbolic. Score another one for the dense column.
OK, last one. Here, The Vet yet again accused me of lying for writing “I’ll probably just ignore it and you.” The “it” was any future comments from The Vet. His contention was that since I had not, in fact, ignored him or his comments up to that point, I was lying.
Well, in addition to not understanding the distinction between being wrong and lying and the distinction between being literal and rhetorical, The Vet also appears not to understand contractions.
See, “I’ll” is a kind of shorthand for “I will”. As in, from this time forward. So what I was saying – in case it isn’t clear to some – is that from that time forward, I would probably ignore you. (You will also notice the word “probably” so that gets me off the hook for this post). So no lie there, just The Vet being dense again.
Well, I have to say that was cathartic.
I’m sure The Vet will show up to scream and yell at me – call me a liar and questions my smarts and give me some juvenile nickname and tell me to pack sand or pound dirt or make a mud pie or something. I look forward to more of his hysterical (both emotional and comedic) rants.