This post was originally going to be a comment in response to Side Bar's assholery. But the comment just kept growing, and it soon became obvious that I would have to let go and see what form it took. I was hoping it would take the form of Voltron. That, or a cheerleader in one of those, you know, cheerleader outfits, but... (sigh) ...it's just a post.
(Which reminds me, why hasn't one of us posted something about that conversation we had about how ridiculous Voltron was?)
[For some context, you should read Side Bar's recent post and check out the comments. I made one and for whatever reason, Side Bar decided to tear me a new one in response. Why? Because he's a dick. Here, I reply.]
Here we go again.
Last time you "grammatically bitch slap"ped me (again, be sure to read the comments), you had simply misinterpreted a joking response as some sort of attack on you as a person (and, more specifically, your aptitude with the English language). I thought I had cleared that up but, alas, you're overly defensive nature has reared its ugly face once more. That, and you're a dick.
So you chose to go with the second definition of "schizophrenic" both times. That made me wonder something: What did the first definition have to say? After all, when someone says something, he's generally going for the first-definition meaning; otherwise, it's incumbent upon the speaker to clarify, agreed? I mean, if I were to, I dunno, call you a "dick", I would clearly be referring to the first definition (using your references):
1. A detective.NOT:
2. Vulgar. Penis.See? Why in the world would I have referred to you as a "dick" if I had meant the second meaning? Clearly, if I call you a “dick”, I mean that I think that you investigate murders like Jerry Orbach. If, for whatever reason, I thought you were a “penis”, it would be my responsibility to make that clear.
As for your second reference, the esteemed “freedictionary.com”, here's what they have to say:
1. Chiefly British: A fellow; a guy.Again, my point is made. Although in this case, when I call you a “dick”, I do it in a British accent, and I mean that you're a fellow, a guy, a dude, a bro, a brah, a homey, my boy, etc... But if I meant the latter, it's on me to make that clear. Otherwise, how are you, the listener, supposed to figure out what the hell I mean? If you look a little further, the third definition says:
2. Vulgar. A penis.
3. Vulgar. A person, especially a man, regarded as mean or contemptible.Now, I certainly would never mean that, would I?
Side Bar, you wrote a very nice piece on the Mets' current situation. I particularly liked this part:
"The only thing they can do consistently is play inconsistent baseball."Wow. That's effing brilliant. I've never seen anyone play “consistent” off “inconsistent” like that before. (Google it.) In fact, I'll bet that if you look up “inconsistent” and “consistent” in, like, an online dictionary or something, you'll find that they mean the opposite thing. Nice, dude. Antithesis. James Joyce, your Irish brethren, would be proud.
So apparently, the Mets are playing "inconsistent" baseball – meaning you never know how well they're gonna play. Good sometimes, and bad sometimes, right? And if they "consistently" do that – meaning that you know they're going to do that – uh, does that mean that they're...wait, I'm lost. If you never know if they're gonna be good or bad, but you always know that they're either going to be good or bad, does that make them inconsistent or consistent? You could say that they're inconsistent – good and bad, randomly. And you could say that they're totally consistent – good and bad, randomly. So...you never know if they're going to be good or bad ("inconsistent"), but you do know that they'll be either good or bad ("consistent").
I'm not sure what that all means. I'll leave it to Chuck to parse my logic. But I can say this for a fact: What you, Side Bar, said was cliched as fuck with a cherry of meaninglessness on top. I'm sure you're gonna get all lawyerly on me and pick this apart, but hey, after all, you're a dick.
I consistently expect that from you.
P.S. Just to pile on, you also wrote this:
“[T]he Mets do not have a single relief pitcher who can consistently be called upon to get outs in a tough spot.”You use “consistent” like Joe fucking Morgan?