knoxy wrote:
> In article ,
> scrawlmark@arvig.net says...
>
>>knoxy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"When is an insult not an insult?
>>>
>>
>>1. When it is demonstrably a simple statement of fact.
>>
>
> Calling someone a pisswit is still an insult.
It is impossible to insult a mudpie by calling it a mudpie.
Indeed, calling it a mudpie may even exalt it in that it may have
been only a random lump of mud.
>
>>2. When the putative target is too stupid to understand it.
>>
>
> Calling someone a pisswit is still an insult.
>
But think of how many people it may save from wasting their time on
it by calling it by its rightful name.
>
>>3. When its putative target lines up for it as the only immediate
>>term of endearment in his pathetic existence (cf. "Habituation,"
>>"Stockholm Syndrome").
>>
>
> Calling someone a pisswit is still an insult.
>
Let me make this simple enough even for you, then:
Calling someone a pisswit is not an insult when they so LUUUve to
be called a "pisswit" that they invite, even bait, the appellation.
>
>>4. When its putative target insists that it acknowledges his
>>importance (cf. "Narcissism," "Addiction").
>>
>
> Nothing you've said so far changes the fact that calling someone a
> pisswit is an insult.
>
Nothing you've said so far indicates that you'd recognise an act of
language if it bit you in your pisswit.
So, you see, we really /do/ know why you don't want /somebody
else/ to be called a "pisswit."
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon.
http://scrawlmark.org |