[Jack_]

To be quite honest, taking MTVN's comment seriously as if he was essentially defending this story was quite stupid and looked to me like nothing else but yet another attempt at trying to incite an argument out of nothing. That, if you ask me, is 'wholly unnecessary'.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

To be quite honest, taking MTVN's comment seriously as if he was essentially defending this story was quite stupid and looked to me like nothing else but yet another attempt at trying to incite an argument out of nothing. That, if you ask me, is 'wholly unnecessary'.

I'll take a serious discussion as seriously as I wish - and this is such a discussion despite it being in the General Chat section.

If you have some objection to my posts Jack - rather than you having digs and personal snipes at me - which YOU ARE doing - I respectfully suggest you take it off the main board and to pm.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I'll take a serious discussion as seriously as I wish - and this is such a discussion despite it being in the General Chat section.

If you have some objection to my posts Jack - rather than you having digs and personal snipes at me - which YOU ARE doing - I respectfully suggest you take it off the main board and to pm.

In that case then, let me directly respond to this part of your last post. Now let's see if you should've taken his post so seriously or not.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

people were offering their own counter opinon on your comment.

But there wasn't any counter opinion/argument to his comment.

A counter-opinion would be to say it's not an ancient religious practice, and the fact of the matter is - it is. So there's no possible way you could 'counter-argue' that at all. And then the only other option would be to say that you were counter-arguing his post by saying that it doesn't excuse the foulness of the crime, in which case his original post didn't excuse it either, he merely stated what it was. Again, no possibly way of offering a counter-opinion. It's a fact that it's an ancient religious practice and he never once used that fact to defend the crime itself. Therefore, yes, you did take his post too seriously.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

In that case then, let me directly respond to this part of your last post. Now let's see if you should've taken his post so seriously or not.



But there wasn't any counter opinion/argument to his comment.

A counter-opinion would be to say it's not an ancient religious practice, and the fact of the matter is - it is. So there's no possible way you could 'counter-argue' that at all. And then the only other option would be to say that you were counter-arguing his post by saying that it doesn't excuse the foulness of the crime, in which case his original post didn't excuse it either, he merely stated what it was. Again, no possibly way of offering a counter-opinion. It's a fact that it's an ancient religious practice and he never once used that fact to defend the crime itself. Therefore, yes, you did take his post too seriously.

I think you will find that my counter opinion was simply that I, in my opinion, stated that there could be no acceptable reason for this type of behaviour - traditional or not.

There you have it. In one very small short paragraph. I did not say MTVN was defending this ritual. Perhaps read what is written instead of what is not Jack.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I think you will find that my counter opinion was simply that I, in my opinion, stated that there could be no acceptable reason for this type of behaviour - traditional or not.

There you have it. In one very small short paragraph. I did not say MTVN was defending this ritual. Perhaps read what is written instead of what is not Jack.

The point is, he didn't say there'd be an acceptable reason either. At no point did he state that, so how could you possibly respond to his post in a manner which insinuates that he was excusing the crime?

The very fact that you said 'I don't care what it is MTVN', appears to me like you thought he was trying to excuse it.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The point is, he didn't say there'd be an acceptable reason either. At no point did he state that, so how could you possibly respond to his post in a manner which insinuates that he was excusing the crime?

The very fact that you said 'I don't care what it is MTVN', appears to me like you thought he was trying to excuse it.

I do not care what it may be regarded as: MTVN put over a comment as a reason for said behaviour: it was THAT that I said I did not care for - the reason for said behaviour: not for MTVN personally...... I think you fail to to distinguish the difference in that Jack.

Additionally it would be good if you read what is written: rather than you reading 'what you wish was written'. It makes a huge difference also.

I will say again: if you have some issue with my posts.... take it to pm.

Also: I am quite sure MTVN is more than capable of replying without you acting on his behalf or acting as his bit of 'muscle'. He is a highly intelligent young man and more than able to answer himself.