100 most often mispronounced words....

And it's presumptuous of you to claim I don't.

 

I didn't know you were clairvoyant.

Would it be presumptuous of me to claim to know your feelings? Yes or no? How would I know that? How would you know her feelings? Or mine, for that matter? I think it's presumptuous of anybody to claim to know someone else's feelings, at least without a lot more information than you get from reading messages on a message board.

 

Yes it would. Yet it didn't stop you did it? Your post to me to "Lighten up" suggests that you're presuming that my feelings are somehow dark. You also presume that I am guessing at Animal lovers feelings when it is quite evident in his/her post. S/he says s/he takes no pleasure in bashing Mr. Bush and then immediately makes two more disparaging comments. This is not something to guess at, but posted for everyone to read.

In fact I think it's awful presumptuous of you to jump into a conversation which had nothing to do with you. It's awful presumptuous of you to think that Animal lover needs your help in defending his/her postings.

It would seem, though, that you have no problem being presumptuous yourself, just so long as no one else is.

 

You are correct, Animal Lover does not need any help from me to defend herself. However, I thought this was a public discussion board, where we are all free to join in the discussion. And I fail to see where her statement of a couple more things that make her embarrassed and sad prove that she is enjoying it. Not many of us enjoy being embarrassed and sad.

 

Apparently except me.

 

How is calling someone presumptuous being a hypocrite?

You're slipping. You used to know definitions of words. Now I think you're just looking for an excuse to banter.

 

Now, you see? You missed the whole point of my post. I wasn't "getting on someone" for jumping to another person's defense (no, that would be hypocritical of me). I was "getting on someone" for presuming that the person needed defending (as well as making several other presumptions). Basically, I was "getting on" them for being a hypocrite.

You see, devilock76, you need to read not only the individual post, but the dialog to know what the context is.

 

You are presuming.

It may come as a complete shock to you, but you don't know everything. There are conversations that take place behind the scenes to which you are not privy.

 

No, I know you are not privy.

It is blatantly clear that you simply do not know the definition of the word "presume".

 

Sad to see that this thread, like all too many on these boards lately, has followed the typical progression.

initial post of information ->
some meaningful discussion of such (unfortunately completely skipped for this one) ->
mention of some political figure (typically Bush) ->
much bashing of various political figures and of those supporting them ->
all-out personal attacks

Such fun :-(

Note that this is simply my observation. I'm certainly not going to single anyone out, lest I become the focus of the attacks. And I'm not going to say no one has a right to take every single, blessed thread down this path - nope definitely would not presume that.

 

Oh, look. devilock76 can cut and paste. The ablity to cut and paste does not preclude the knowledge of the information being transfered.

Aside from the fact that you just asked me to prove that you are privy, I cannot prove a negative (much less a double negative). On the otherhand, you can prove you are privy by simply stating the names of those (or even the number of people) present during the discusion(s).

If it is so "typical", why did you feel a need to enumerate it?

 

Good grief, will you two just STOP IT already!! You must be siblings IRL. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

I know ya'll aren't serious, that's why I put all the laughing smiley's. It's just hilarious to watch you go back and forth like a ping pong game. :mrgreen:

 

Wouldn't that be golf?

 

Plowing straight lines?