Stevie did a Bat Mitzvah

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

Yeah, no. And I think you are committing that fallacy, actually. You are assuming that because the qualifier "some" was not used, the inference "all" is correct.
I'm not trying to impress anyone. I just think you are wrong. And I think you parsed incorrectly, b/c I did the same thing and had a different conclusion. And if people start thinking that all words have no concrete meaning, and are up for "interpretation" even though the interpretation is something no one ever said, or can even be stretched to intimate that they meant that, well, then, suck balls. To me, it's called "spinning" or "making stuff up" pure and simple. It is a matter of logic. And it's a matter of taking words at their meaning.
Seriously. I don't want to get irritated. Now it's been proven that we will never convince each other. Perhaps we should drop it? Because I also resent the inference that when I really discuss something, and have knowledge about it, that someone thinks I am trying to "impress" them.
And I think what Eliud said was turned into "something it isn't" by anyone who inferred he meant all rich people.

Amber, because you apparently overlooked this pertinent FACT:
you can use one word to talk about a group: Republicans/Democrats, Liberals/Conservatives, Rich/Poor. White/Black etc.... the single word, without a qualifier means the GROUP. It is done all the time. You consistently argue with everything I say and just because it pops out of your mouth or whatever doesnt make you right. I did take his words at their meaning, and this convo PROVES there IS more than one way to interpret words. Apparently your knowledge isnt as extensive as you think it is. much like your vocabulary. Methinks your posting prowess bit into your study time. tsk. Tell you what: you put yer nose in a book and I'll suck balls. I'll even suck spinning balls. Sounds fun.

[Livia]

Wow.

Okay, kiddies, how about a palate-cleanser? Back on topic, just for a second, I'm sure - here's another article...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Tycoon spends £6m on daughter's party
By Harry Mount in New York
(Filed: 01/12/2005)

A New York body armour tycoon has spent £6 million on his 12-year-old daughter's coming-of-age party, flying in Tom Petty, Aerosmith and the rapper 50 Cent for the evening.

David Brooks, 50, booked the Rainbow Room, the restaurant on the 65th floor of Manhattan's Rockefeller Centre, for the evening last weekend.

Elizabeth Brooks, who was celebrating her bat mitzvah, the Jewish ceremony that takes place on a girl's 12th birthday, might have been slightly bemused by some of the entertainment.

Many acts on the bill appeared to cater more for Mr Brooks's 150 adult guests, rather than his daughter's 150 friends.

Members of the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac and the saxophonist Kenny G played until 3am. At one point, Mr Brooks, dressed in a black-leather, metal-studded suit, joined Aerosmith on stage.

The rock group allowed Mr Brooks's teenage nephew to accompany them on drums in return for their £1.2million fee for a 45-minute set.

Miss Brooks might have been more familiar with 50 Cent, currently starring in the new film, Get Rich or Die Tryin'.

As part of his £300,000 deal, the rapper customised one of his songs, singing, Go shorty, it's your bat mitzvah, we gonna party like it's your bat mitzvah.

Any disappointment the children might have felt at failing to recognise the wrinklier acts was tempered by their £600 goody bags, stuffed with digital cameras and video iPods.

The 1934 art deco restaurant, run by the Cipriani family, owners of Harry's Bar in Venice, was equipped with a stage, concert equipment and Jumbotron screens to accommodate the rock stars. They were flown to New York on Mr Brooks's company jet.

The bill for the party is small change for Mr Brooks, the chief executive officer of DHB Industries, a bullet-proof vest manufacturer which takes its name from his initials. Last year, Mr Brooks made £44million in salary and company stock options.

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

[amber]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Amber, because you apparently overlooked this pertinent FACT:
you can use one word to talk about a group: Republicans/Democrats, Liberals/Conservatives, Rich/Poor. White/Black etc.... the single word, without a qualifier means the GROUP. It is done all the time. You consistently argue with everything I say and just because it pops out of your mouth or whatever doesnt make you right. I did take his words at their meaning, and this convo PROVES there IS more than one way to interpret words. Apparently your knowledge isnt as extensive as you think it is. much like your vocabulary. Methinks your posting prowess bit into your study time. tsk. Tell you what: you put yer nose in a book and I'll suck balls. I'll even suck spinning balls. Sounds fun.

Oh, my. Well, I think you may be more stubborn than I .
I don't argue with you on "purpose", (and I didn't even think very often) but only whenever I find what you say to be illogical. Believe me, I'd rather agree. Um...even what you say about a "GROUP" right now seems totally unrelated to what was actually said.
And as far as my knowledge and my vocabulary (which you actually misunderstood, if you look at the other thread) and my study time, and putting my nose in a book - well, that's so offensive in comparison with my actual natural brain and my education that I don't know what to say. I'm inclined to believe that I actually know more than I think I do, honestly, not the opposite. I realize now that you are trying to prove your point by looking down on me somehow, (even though I am very well and roundly educated) and I really can't get involved in a discussion like that. I don't really understand it. Personally attacking me or you isn't really much of a debate about the subject at hand, yeah?
I tend to admit when i don't know about something.
It was fun to debate and hear your perspective, though.

[David]

Originally Posted by Livia

Elizabeth Brooks, who was celebrating her bat mitzvah, the Jewish ceremony that takes place on a girl's 12th birthday,

It's 13, & it's often not on the birthday -- it might take place weeks or even in some cases months after the girl's 13th birthday. In fact, even an adult woman can have a bat mitzvah.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

I'm inclined to believe that I actually know more than I think I do, honestly, not the opposite.

Obviously a typo but If I read you right, and if this is more of what you said to me in PM, you are bragging that you are smarter than I am and where you get THAT opinion I dont know. You may know more in some areas just as I may know more in others. The sage says the beginning of wisdom is to know that you know nothing. So, go ahead and shout from the rooftops just how bright you are. But you'll understand if I snicker, Im sure. Its not often that somebody PM's me to claim they are actually smarter than me. Somehow, the honor of the occasion escaped me.


btw: my comment about the single word having a "group" meaning is what Ive been saying all along, just not so bluntly. maybe I should have been blunt earlier on. So, to recap: "rich" is a group word. as in ALL. as in the entire group. MORE RICH ASSHOLES means those existing (as in ALL. As in the entire group) rich assholes are busy having babies (thats where the MORE part comes in) and teaching them to waste money in a spectacularly offensive fashion.(thats the ASSHOLE part)

NUFF SAID.

[amber]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Obviously a typo but If I read you right, and if this is more of what you said to me in PM, you are bragging that you are smarter than I am and where you get THAT opinion I dont know. You may know more in some areas just as I may know more in others. But just exactly HOW you came to the enlightened conclusion that you are somehow smarter than I am is a mystery to say the least.

The sage says the beginning of wisdom is to know that you know nothing. I may not be wise but Im sure not in your sophmoric league. So, go ahead and shout from the rooftops just how bright you are. But you'll understand if I snicker, Im sure.

That's not a typo, and that's not at all what I meant. I meant what I wrote.
And in case that wasn't the best description, what I meant was - I usually think I know less than I actually end up knowing. I usually know more than I think I did. And to be even more specific - I'm many years out of school,(except that I am in school now) and my job isn't especially challenging - so I sometimes forget how much I actually know and am good at, and perhaps underestimate myself a bit. I'm more inclined to admit when I don't know something, then the opposite. That was my point in response to you saying I think I'm so smart.
But in fact, I am so smart. Do I know more than you? I certainly could not know more than you about everything. That's absurd. Just like I know tons about some stuff that you don't.
I do have a very confident belief in my logic abilities, though, b/c it's been proven in school and many tests, and over and over. It's like my most natural skill aside from sports.
Would that make me say I'm smarter than you? No. It will only make me think I found the logical answer whereas you have not. And you believe the same. So it's even.
And I realize above all else that I don't know everything. My ambition in life is to learn about as many things as I can, b/c I don't know them. Learning is my favorite thing, I wish my parents were rich so I could go to college forever, and figure out how to solve world problems.
That's why I so often have to apologize and/or admit that I am wrong
which I do.
I'm not sure I was shouting from the rooftops how bright I am, but I certainly did feel the need to defend myself because you questioned my brains and education and vocabulary, in fact denigrated them, and intimated that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Perhaps it was not the most mature thing for me to defend myself in that situation, but like anyone, when attacked, I may respond.
And no, I don't understand why you would snicker. You were personally insulting me in the last few posts, and I didn't snicker. I disagreed with your point, but I didn't snicker.
But hey, if you get that much pleasure out of snickering at me, then rock on. If it makes you feel good to underestimate me and then snicker about your perceived estimation about my brain power, I'm glad you got some joy.
I still know what I know. *I'llsingwhati'vesaid - it'sathingthatikeepinthebackameyhead*

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

That's not a typo, and that's not at all what I meant. I meant what I wrote.
And in case that wasn't the best description, what I meant was - I usually think I know less than I actually end up knowing. I usually know more than I think I did. And to be even more specific - I'm many years out of school,(except that I am in school now) and my job isn't especially challenging - so I sometimes forget how much I actually know and am good at, and perhaps underestimate myself a bit. I'm more inclined to admit when I don't know something, then the opposite. That was my point in response to you saying I think I'm so smart.
But in fact, I am so smart. Do I know more than you? I certainly could not know more than you about everything. That's absurd. Just like I know tons about some stuff that you don't.
I do have a very confident belief in my logic abilities, though, b/c it's been proven in school and many tests, and over and over. It's like my most natural skill aside from sports.
Would that make me say I'm smarter than you? No. It will only make me think I found the logical answer whereas you have not. And you believe the same. So it's even.
And I realize above all else that I don't know everything. My ambition in life is to learn about as many things as I can, b/c I don't know them. Learning is my favorite thing, I wish my parents were rich so I could go to college forever, and figure out how to solve world problems.
That's why I so often have to apologize and/or admit that I am wrong
which I do.
I'm not sure I was shouting from the rooftops how bright I am, but I certainly did feel the need to defend myself because you questioned my brains and education and vocabulary, in fact denigrated them, and intimated that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Perhaps it was not the most mature thing for me to defend myself in that situation, but like anyone, when attacked, I may respond.
And no, I don't understand why you would snicker. You were personally insulting me in the last few posts, and I didn't snicker. I disagreed with your point, but I didn't snicker.
But hey, if you get that much pleasure out of snickering at me, then rock on. If it makes you feel good to underestimate me and then snicker about your perceived estimation about my brain power, I'm glad you got some joy.
I still know what I know. *I'llsingwhati'vesaid - it'sathingthatikeepinthebackameyhead*

Thank you for the clarification HERE, but the PM you sent me said something quite different. My attitude is a direct result of your having PM'd me to brag about being smarter than me, and I didnt insult you or your intelligence before that. I only said that a Con Law class would have given you the background to have known what was specifically being discussed in that thread at that time. Further, when I said I gave a ****, and that I educated myself, you came blasting back at me all mad because you thought somehow I was implying you didnt. I told you different but that didnt stop YOUR attitude at that time. I am not one to hold a grudge but its a bit hard when I feel that you jump on my posts and say they arent logical when in fact there is no logical component to the topic at hand. and when I point blank explain you say something like "thats unrelated" when in fact it is DIRECTLY related.

If anything, I think YOU underestimated ME. Not a good idea.

[Kelly]

Good grief!


Anyway......I am not sure how interested a bunch of 13 year olds would be in Joe Walsh, Don Henley, Kenny G, Tom petty and Stevie Nicks. I asked my fifteen year old son if he knew who Joe Walsh and Don Henley were and he said "Isn't Don Henley who you went and saw this summer?". I said, "yea but do you know what he sings or the name of his band?"... Blank look response. My kid loves music too and listens to his Ipod 24/7. I think he would recognize and enjoy Petty but the average 13 year old might not enjoy any of these particular acts. It seems like Daddy booked them more for the adults. 50 Cent and Ciara were for the kiddies. Can you imagine if Stevie and Don broke out in "Circle Dance"? We love the song but a 13 year old would be bored senseless. Even Leather and Lace would probably go over like a lead balloon with the kids. Stop Draggin might do ok, I guess? What a complete waste of money...but it is his money and he can do whatever the Hell he wants with it.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Good grief!

Its me Irish, quite frankly. its been roused a bit. If I had me a brew, I'd be a bit more mellow, unfortunately, Im broke and its a worknight. thus, the spleen venting which was actually brewing for some time. Im better now....

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Its me Irish, quite frankly.

Total Random Thought #487:


You have red hair? I've always wondered that.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Total Random Thought #487:


You have red hair? I've always wondered that.

well, now its only red-ISH in the sun, otherwise a kinda medium brownish, but there was a time when it was golden red and very pretty. I still have red highlights but alas, I miss my redder years...at least I dont have any gray to speak of...thats one good thing I did post a pic on the picture thread I think....

[amber]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Thank you for the clarification HERE, but the PM you sent me said something quite different. My attitude is a direct result of your having PM'd me to brag about being smarter than me, and I didnt insult you or your intelligence before that. I only said that a Con Law class would have given you the background to have known what was specifically being discussed in that thread at that time. Further, when I said I gave a ****, and that I educated myself, you came blasting back at me all mad because you thought somehow I was implying you didnt. I told you different but that didnt stop YOUR attitude at that time. I am not one to hold a grudge but its a bit hard when I feel that you jump on my posts and say they arent logical when in fact there is no logical component to the topic at hand. and when I point blank explain you say something like "thats unrelated" when in fact it is DIRECTLY related.

If anything, I think YOU underestimated ME. Not a good idea.

Err....wasn't that PM in direct response to you telling me I didn't know stuff? I think it was. Oh, yeah, right, you said my opinions weren't valid, b/c I didn't know about ONE SPECIFIC CASE in conlaw. I remember now. Yeah, we don't learn every case there ever was. And my opinion need not have had any basis in my education of that one case.

Also, if you tell someone that you "give a ****" (ie, care) enough to "educate yourself" in a direct response to what they said, that implies you think they don't care or educate themselves.
And if you hadn't said that apropos of nothing, I might've thought different, but you said that in direct response to one of my opinions. Direct response. Otherwise, why would you say that? Why would you say "I give a ****, and choose to educate myself" if you thought I didn't? The point that you give a **** and educate yourself certainly had nothing to do with what we were actually discussing, which was a point of conlaw. And so, I submit that my 'attitude' was a direct result of your implication. In fact, there was no other reason at all for you to say that you gave a **** and educated yourself, b/c I hadn't accused you of not giving a **** or educating yourself.

Well...If I jump on your posts, it's certainly not for personal reasons - It's actually purely because what I think your saying is fallacious.
Again - I wish I agreed, I'd rather that.
It's all too bad, I'm sure, but again, we'll never agree. I will make a check mark in my "Cancer and Libra are squared, and approach things completely differently, and may not get along" log.
I have no desire not to respect what you say. But I have to think what I think. And you do, too.
I've never underestimated you before. I've only responded to what you said with the best of my knowledge.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

Err....wasn't that PM in direct response to you telling me I didn't know stuff? I think it was. Oh, yeah, right, you said my opinions weren't valid, b/c I didn't know about ONE SPECIFIC CASE in conlaw. I remember now. Yeah, we don't learn every case there ever was. And my opinion need not have had any basis in my education of that one case. Also, if you tell someone that you "give a ****" (ie, care) enough to "educate yourself" in a direct response to what they said, that implies you think they don't care or educate themselves. and if you had said that apropos of nothing, I might of thought different, but you said that in direct response to one of my opinions. Direct response. Otherwise, why would you say that? Why would you say "I give a ****, and choose to educate myself" if you thought I didn't? The point that you give a **** and educate yourself certainly had nothing to do with what we were actually discussing, which was a point of conlaw. And so, I submit that my 'attitude' was a direct result of your implication.
Well...If I jump on your posts, it's certainly not for personal reasons - It's actually purely because what I think your saying is fallacious.
Again - I wish I agreed, I'd rather that.
It's all too bad, I'm sure, but again, we'll never agree. I will make a check mark in my "Cancer and Libra are squared, and approach things completely differently, and may not get along" log.
I have no desire not to respect what you say. But I have to think what I think. And you do, too.

Amber I was at a loss to know why YOU PM'd me in the first place because as I recall the convo was between Brwn_eyes, Towie, Diss, Strand and Me. You were a sideliner. however you decided to announce via PM, that YOU didnt have to take a conlaw class, out of the blue as far as I could tell. All I said was that I didnt either but that I did because I liked knowing about stuff. I also took a journalism law class. as an elective. I said I educated myself because I gave a ****. but you chose to take it another way. I never said your opinions werent valid, I said you were shortchanging yourself. You said you didnt need it. I still think you shortchanged yourself, but you'll never see it.

As for your jumping on my posts because you think they're fallacious, you're full of crap. period. Ive not said anything fallacious in this thread or the other one. You havent yet shown that I have. In fact, you've backpedaled when I proved my point. Typical. you can attribute it to astrology or whatever floats yer boat. but as far as IM concerned, yer living in a fools paradise.

now: I have to work tomorrow, and I'm guilty of wasting already too much time arguing with you. So, go ahead and have the last word. Im sure it'll be more of your brilliant pithy scintillating fare. And as you compose your missives, please imagine me saying in my snarkiest voice: WHATEVER.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Amber, because you apparently overlooked this pertinent FACT:
you can use one word to talk about a group: Republicans/Democrats, Liberals/Conservatives, Rich/Poor. White/Black etc.... the single word, without a qualifier means the GROUP.

Unless you're using it as an adjective, of course, in which case it simply describes the noun which it is modifying, regardless of the presence or absence of any other qualifiers.

If I said, "Black radicals are marching on Washington today," I don't understand how anyone could infer that I am claiming that all black people are radicals.

If I said, "I think it's wrong for Black Panthers to raise their children to think that violence is an acceptable political response. They're just creating more black radicals," I don't understand how anyone could infer that I am claiming that all black people are radicals.

You misread the sentence. No harm, no foul.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

MYAAAAAAAAAAAAAARHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

*insert anguished cry to heaven*



*relieved sigh*

that's what I've been trying to et cetera!


wow, I just relieve sighed about four times.

"misread"? by misread do you mean totally making up what someone has...er...?

nevermind.

Le sigh.

Now now. Let's at least give the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone can be grammar superstars like us. Though I am amazed that this particular branch of discussion has gone on for so many pages. I don't understand what's so difficult about, "Oh, okay, I guess I misread what was written. Oops." Jason eventually said as much. Time to take a deep breath and do the same, O Irish one.

have you decided to marry me yet? It's always a party at Amber's house!
or...it's always boring punctuated regularly by points of debate! Which are interesting!

I am a man who cannot be tamed.