I did not wind you up - I stated that you felt such a surge of emotion that you felt it necessary to use an expletive. This is true, as you did feel compelled to put an expletive in your post.
You're generalizing about the motivatons behind swearing, you naughty, inconsistent robot. We may have to deactivate you.
You've never noticed that some people swear very casually? Your life experiences, available for critical comparison to generalizations, seem to be limited to ones had within 10 meters of your coworker's cubicle.
Get out more? Hateful, but helpful!
Nope, sorry. I made no admittance of fault, I merely stated how I believed you came to your wrong conclusion.
First of all, your wounded vanity over estimates of your vocabulary isn't interesting to me or to anyone else. But since you require lengthy explanations of everything, and are now even claiming a disability--and because it's Sunday and it's raining and it's cold--here we go: You'd previously said that I'd somehow reached my wrong, awful conclusion only because I disagreed with you about whatever in hell it was that this exchange was originally about, something to do with Morrissey and potentially pornographic wall decorations. Then I explained that no, it was because your use of the word "genderf***," barely even a word, seemed more mocking of the word itself than of my remarks. (This all happened very recently! Remember??) You followed this by saying that you could see why I had made my mistake, with regard to your no doubt amazing vocabularly. That doesn't imply that you still believed I'd maliciously imputed ignorance to you because of our disagreement about Charlize and Diana. It implies, I think any generalizing neurotypical would agree, that you accepted my clarified perspective on the matter, which secondarily implies that you agreed with my characterization of your usage of and your attitude about the word as ambiguous, in terms of what you were trying to ridicule; which, finally(!) implies that you agreed that your ambiguous usage of the word was what had understandably led to this slur against your vocabulary, and to the worldwide scandal that attended it.
Also, I am not a man, I'm female, however you assumed that I was a man. Why? What lead you to believe that I'm a man? This is another false assumption you have made.
Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
Yes, I am literal minded. Two of my family members have aspergers' syndrome so there's a chance I may have a degree of it too. Do you have some sort of problem with people like this?
I have a problem with anyone who insists that others speak their private language of twins. Diagnoses of Asperger's syndrome, furthermore, are virtually nonexistent among women, though I have noticed perhaps even more women than men claiming to have it online. So it's likely you're just precious. If your family does suffer from widespread autism, an environmental factor is likely at work, and so if I were you I'd be busy testing for toxins in the family home's crawlspace rather than trying to launch a campaign against generalizations in a forum thread about Morrissey's sexuality.
I have not been supporting any of the above arguments. Please find the post in which I expressed my support for the aforementioned arguments. You have just decided, because it's helpful to your argument, that I support these arguments.
I assumed you were supporting them because there is no other reasonable explanation for your being in this thread and carrying on in this way. I did realize, however, that you might say this now, if you were on the crazier end of the craziness continuum. Not caring what such a bonkers f*** would think, I decided to leave you the opening.
I didn't take issue with those two statements because I don't know for certain that those statements are true or false, having never bothered to stick posters of people I admire/fancy on walls myself. Therefore, I cannot confirm the veracity of the motivations which people may have for putting posters on walls. However, with my colleague as evidence, I knew that your statement was not always true. Simple.
Rational inference isn't available to you, then, and your abhorrence of generalizations turns out to be more flexible than we thought.
Are you sure you're not just a dishonest debater? It's a condition much more common in threads about Morrissey being gay than is Asperger's syndrome among women.
Again, you have made another assumption - you assume that I am not interested in what you believe he probably is, but in what you believe he possibly is. I'm not interested in "probably's" and possibly's". With regard to his sexuality, I can only say that "I don't know" because, quite simply, I do not know. You may have formed an opinion on his sexuality (I'm not going to assume you have) and that's what you have chosen to do.
The tragicomedy of someone who thinks as you do is that you believe you're being rigorously logical when you're doing something close to the opposite. Your objections and nitpicking are typical of young children, who are trying to test the boundaries of language and determine the rules of everyday discourse. I've tired of explaining obvious points to you at length, though, so I'll leave it at that. I don't have time to be your Anne Sullivan.
The blackened text is inarticulate and worded badly.
And "inarticulate and worded badly" is redundant, not to mention inarticulate. The blackened text no doubt made perfect sense to anyone with the attention span to consider the sentence as a whole, and to see how both the wording and the argument bore on both my own past remarks and yours. An inability to see the whole for the parts is characteristic of autism spectrum disorders, however, so your possible disability may indeed be at work. Stupidity or a pathetic attention span could also explain it.
I'll let you have the last word on this, unless I decide to post some YouTube clips from
Rain Man. I reserve the right.