AnimatedDirt's Use of "*you"

[Davin]

*you theists think that no one can test the lord even to ask for a special feeling. *you theists think that all gays should be kicked out of the United States. *you theists keep wanting to put atheists to death.

Certainly a lot do.  I may not.  Do you wish to ask me a specific question on the matter?

That was the point of my demonstration. You don't know how to respond to it any more than I do, and you're the one that keeps using it.

So:

What does it mean?

Why do you use in the middle of responses to someone, making it look like you're talking to them, when you've recently said that you are not?

What purpose does it serve in discussion?

[AnimatedDirt]

You took offense to the *you when YOU shouldn't have.  Simply state you don't consider yourself in the *you and move on.  If there's a direct question about the *you, ask or I'll ask.  It's simply a general position of experience on this forum. (on that thread)
But a *you simply means general people.

[Davin]

You took offense to the *you when YOU shouldn't have.  Simply state you don't consider yourself in the *you and move on.  If there's a direct question about the *you, ask or I'll ask.  It's simply a general position of experience on this forum. (on that thread)
But a *you simply means general people.

I did not take offense at all, and I'd appreciate it of you'd not perpetuate that mistruth.

Please just answer the questions for clarification on your useages of the "*you" so that we can just clear it all up right now:

What does it mean?

Why do you use in the middle of responses to someone, making it look like you're talking to them, when you've recently said that you are not?

What purpose does it serve in discussion?

[AnimatedDirt]

You took offense to the *you when YOU shouldn't have.  Simply state you don't consider yourself in the *you and move on.  If there's a direct question about the *you, ask or I'll ask.  It's simply a general position of experience on this forum. (on that thread)
But a *you simply means general people.

I did not take offense at all, and I'd appreciate it of you'd not perpetuate that mistruth.

Please just answer the questions for clarification on your useages of the "*you" so that we can just clear it all up right now:

What does it mean?

Why do you use in the middle of responses to someone, making it look like you're talking to them, when you've recently said that you are not?

What purpose does it serve in discussion?

See my previous post.

[Davin]

What does it mean? [...]a *you simply means general people.

Why do you use in the middle of responses to someone, making it look like you're talking to them, when you've recently said that you are not?

What purpose does it serve in discussion?

See my previous post.

Will you please answer the other questions.

[AnimatedDirt]

What does it mean? [...]a *you simply means general people.

Why do you use in the middle of responses to someone, making it look like you're talking to them, when you've recently said that you are not?

What purpose does it serve in discussion?

See my previous post.

Will you please answer the other questions.[/quote]

Are we going to start this over again?  I already answered the question.  See my post above.

[statichaos]

Considering the context in which this question was asked, I suspect that the topic might be considered controversial, especially since it seems nearly designed to continue the argument that the two of you were  having in another thread.

[Davin]

Considering the context in which this question was asked, I suspect that the topic might be considered controversial, especially since it seems nearly designed to continue the argument that the two of you were  having in another thread.

I just wanted to know is all, I'm not looking for an argument. But if people are getting upset, then I don't care enough to push for an answer.

[statichaos]

Considering the context in which this question was asked, I suspect that the topic might be considered controversial, especially since it seems nearly designed to continue the argument that the two of you were  having in another thread.

I just wanted to know is all, I'm not looking for an argument. But if people are getting upset, then I don't care enough to push for an answer.

I'm not upset, and I believe that your question is a valid one.  I'm just thinking that it doesn't really qualify as "laid-back", all things considered.

[Davin]

Considering the context in which this question was asked, I suspect that the topic might be considered controversial, especially since it seems nearly designed to continue the argument that the two of you were  having in another thread.

I just wanted to know is all, I'm not looking for an argument. But if people are getting upset, then I don't care enough to push for an answer.

I'm not upset, and I believe that your question is a valid one.  I'm just thinking that it doesn't really qualify as "laid-back", all things considered.

I see your point. I should also correct my usage of "upset" to also include "irritated by, deathly bored of or just sick of my responses".

[Ali]

Considering the context in which this question was asked, I suspect that the topic might be considered controversial, especially since it seems nearly designed to continue the argument that the two of you were  having in another thread.

I just wanted to know is all, I'm not looking for an argument. But if people are getting upset, then I don't care enough to push for an answer.

I'm not upset, and I believe that your question is a valid one.  I'm just thinking that it doesn't really qualify as "laid-back", all things considered.

I don't know why, but that made me laugh.

[Crow]

Damn another thread descending into getting a coherent answer out of AD. He did state right at the end of the copy "*you simply means general people", I thought that was answering the question well enough.

[Amicale]

Damn another thread descending into getting a coherent answer out of AD. He did state right at the end of the copy "*you simply means general people", I thought that was answering the question well enough.

Yeah, I think when he explained it meant general people, that was clear enough. I try to watch the word 'you' in my own speech though, because when I'm talking to a group of people, I don't want someone to take something personally if I mean it generally to involve people rather than that one person... and if I DO want to speak to one person, I don't necessarily want them to think I mean everyone, either. Mostly though, I don't want anyone thinking I mean them, but not me too.

For example, "I think you have to be careful not to be a jerk while talking to others" could cause an entire group of people to say 'yeah, all of us should take care not to be jerks online', but someone may say 'huh?? I wasn't a jerk!'... and someone else may say 'worry about yourself being a jerk, don't tell ME what to do!' when I didn't intend that at all... then the fight starts.   

So, if I'm talking to one specific person, I generally quote them or use their name, so they know it's just them. If it's a group of general people I'd like to make a suggestion to, I always try to include myself in it by saying 'we'. And if talking about people generally, I try to say 'people should take care not to...' rather than 'you have to'. Sometimes I fail at that effort of being inclusive of myself, but try not to -- so if anyone sees me using 'you' this and that around here, tell me to knock it off, please. 

[Sweetdeath]

Maybe we should address people more by their user names to avoid confusion?

[McQ]

To Davin. What is your purpose in starting this thread? I can certainly see no point to it, other than trying to start an argument.

I don't see the need to create entire threads for that purpose. If you have some clear reason, please explain, so it doesn't appear that you're just picking a fight.

Thank you.