Matthew, I wish to present you a gift.

[Primitive Caveman]

A parasite requires a victim. The host is harmed in the process. I've harmed nobody. I am not a parasite.

Your definition of parasitism is wrong.

This coming from you is hilarious. Parasitism does not involve taking something by force, which is what you contended on somehting awful:"Parasites are people who take by force. Rapists, The IRS, etc. " When you learn the proper definition, you can try correcting people.

If I am not providing the correct value in return for what I am taking, it's stealing. I have not stolen anything of value. Parasites steal. If I cost my host nothing, I am only a symbiont: I can only create value.

Like hijacking someone's computer for your own purpose, without telling them, and potentially harming their hardware and/or increasing their electic bill while you reap the benefits. Yep, that's value right there.

Que your response that nothing of value was stolen, the amount stolen was miniscule, blah blah. If you repeat something enough, you think people will give in. You know, when everyone around you tells you you're doing wrong, they just might be right.

[1714987604]

1714987604

[ALPHA.]

A parasite requires a victim. The host is harmed in the process. I've harmed nobody. I am not a parasite.

Your definition of parasitism is wrong.

This coming from you is hilarious. Parasitism does not involve taking something by force, which is what you contended on somehting awful:"Parasites are people who take by force. Rapists, The IRS, etc. " When you learn the proper definition, you can try correcting people.

If I am not providing the correct value in return for what I am taking, it's stealing. I have not stolen anything of value. Parasites steal. If I cost my host nothing, I am only a symbiont: I can only create value.

Like hijacking someone's computer for your own purpose, without telling them, and potentially harming their hardware and/or increasing their electic bill while you reap the benefits. Yep, that's value right there.

Que your response that nothing of value was stolen, the amount stolen was miniscule, blah blah. If you repeat something enough, you think people will give in. You know, when everyone around you tells you you're doing wrong, they just might be right.

I'll stand by my definition.

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

-Wikipedia

It requires force to take.

Anyways, when people go to a website, they accept to run all the software that is on it.

You know, when everyone around you tells you you're doing wrong, they just might be right.

This is a dangerous mentality. The will of the collective is easily altered by social pressures; primal emotion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9UlQFRoajs

[RandyFolds]

A parasite requires a victim. The host is harmed in the process. I've harmed nobody. I am not a parasite.

Your definition of parasitism is wrong.

This coming from you is hilarious. Parasitism does not involve taking something by force, which is what you contended on somehting awful:"Parasites are people who take by force. Rapists, The IRS, etc. " When you learn the proper definition, you can try correcting people.

If I am not providing the correct value in return for what I am taking, it's stealing. I have not stolen anything of value. Parasites steal. If I cost my host nothing, I am only a symbiont: I can only create value.

Like hijacking someone's computer for your own purpose, without telling them, and potentially harming their hardware and/or increasing their electic bill while you reap the benefits. Yep, that's value right there.

Que your response that nothing of value was stolen, the amount stolen was miniscule, blah blah. If you repeat something enough, you think people will give in. You know, when everyone around you tells you you're doing wrong, they just might be right.

I'll stand by my definition.

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

-Wikipedia

It requires force to take.

Anyways, when people go to a website, they accept to run all the software that is on it.

You know, when everyone around you tells you you're doing wrong, they just might be right.

This is a dangerous mentality. The will of the collective is easily altered by social pressures; primal emotion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9UlQFRoajs

Copying and pasting a wikipedia entry does not qualify you as understanding parasitism. There are plenty of cases of debatable parasitism, such a zooxanthellae reproducing in corals, where it in unclear that there is any detriment to the host, as the coral sequesters the dinoflagelletes and consumes their waste products of photosynthesis, but there is a clear detriment to the parasite: it is no longer free living and it's population is bioregulated by the host coral and they are digested at will. One could argue that it is mutualism, as both organisms can survive independent of one another, but only one thrives in combination. So what say you to the host benefiting from the parasite? The same could be said about much of your gut flora.

[ALPHA.]

A parasite requires a victim. The host is harmed in the process. I've harmed nobody. I am not a parasite.

Your definition of parasitism is wrong.

This coming from you is hilarious. Parasitism does not involve taking something by force, which is what you contended on somehting awful:"Parasites are people who take by force. Rapists, The IRS, etc. " When you learn the proper definition, you can try correcting people.

If I am not providing the correct value in return for what I am taking, it's stealing. I have not stolen anything of value. Parasites steal. If I cost my host nothing, I am only a symbiont: I can only create value.

Like hijacking someone's computer for your own purpose, without telling them, and potentially harming their hardware and/or increasing their electic bill while you reap the benefits. Yep, that's value right there.

Que your response that nothing of value was stolen, the amount stolen was miniscule, blah blah. If you repeat something enough, you think people will give in. You know, when everyone around you tells you you're doing wrong, they just might be right.

I'll stand by my definition.

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

-Wikipedia

It requires force to take.

Anyways, when people go to a website, they accept to run all the software that is on it.

You know, when everyone around you tells you you're doing wrong, they just might be right.

This is a dangerous mentality. The will of the collective is easily altered by social pressures; primal emotion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9UlQFRoajs

Copying and pasting a wikipedia entry does not qualify you as understanding parasitism. There are plenty of cases of debatable parasitism, such a zooxanthellae reproducing in corals, where it in unclear that there is any detriment to the host, as the coral sequesters the dinoflagelletes and consumes their waste products of photosynthesis, but there is a clear detriment to the parasite: it is no longer free living and it's population is bioregulated by the host coral and they are digested at will. One could argue that it is mutualism, as both organisms can survive independent of one another, but only one thrives in combination. So what say you to the host benefiting from the parasite? The same could be said about much of your gut flora.

In any case, when there is no victim, I show no concern. A woman disgusted with my front door and the fecal matter she had stepped in on her way to it is no victim in my view. She can take my home as-is.

[teflone]

So when you repeatedly say you have stole nothing of value..

So you have stole something that is in your eyes worthless ?

[ALPHA.]

So when you repeatedly say you have stole nothing of value..

So you have stole something that is in your eyes worthless ?

Not necessarily. I can admire a woman and gain tremendous value from her beauty without taking anything of value but a slight wisp of the air she has breathed. She might look in the mirror and see an abhorrent creature. It's never a zero-sum game.

Anyways, I haven't stolen anything but if you wish to consider it stealing, in this case, it happens to be of little value to me.

If I were to take tremendous benefit from it, it would be no crime. The only "injustice" that would be felt is jealousy.

To quote my writing:

Jealousy is simply hating a person for experiencing pleasure or good fortune. How senseless. Primal -- but senseless. From this basis comes the absurd concept of "fairness"; the sense of entitlement from another's fortune. The only result of acting on this emotion is destruction.

[repentance]

The only "injustice" that would be felt is jealousy.

To quote my writing:

Jealousy is simply hating a person for experiencing pleasure or good fortune. How senseless. Primal -- but senseless. From this basis comes the absurd concept of "fairness"; the sense of entitlement from another's fortune. The only result of acting on this emotion is destruction.

Unsurprisingly, you're using another word wrongly.  What you're describing is envy, not jealously.  The two words aren't synonyms.  Jealousy is about keeping what one has whereas envy is about resentment caused by not having what one wants.

[ALPHA.]

The only "injustice" that would be felt is jealousy.

To quote my writing:

Jealousy is simply hating a person for experiencing pleasure or good fortune. How senseless. Primal -- but senseless. From this basis comes the absurd concept of "fairness"; the sense of entitlement from another's fortune. The only result of acting on this emotion is destruction.

Unsurprisingly, you're using another word wrongly.  What you're describing is envy, not jealously.  The two words aren't synonyms.  Jealousy is about keeping what one has whereas envy is about resentment caused by not having what one wants.

For the sake of the argument, when I say jealousy I mean envy; however, from what I am seeing in actual dictionary definitions, they should be synonyms.

[teflone]

Why do you try so hard to use big words?

Your response to me was bizzare and very out there..

Your idea of "adult talk" is warped, very few people speak with no emotion, or like a robot professor would talk.. Im at a loss of how to describe it.

It is not having the effect your looking for.  fyi

And quoting yourself..  I wont even go there..   Like its the gospel 

[ALPHA.]

Why do you try so hard to use big words?

Your response to me was bizzare and very out there..

Your idea of "adult talk" is warped, very few people speak with no emotion, or like a robot professor would talk.. Im at a loss of how to describe it.

It is not having the effect your looking for.  fyi

My writing is fine. I am typing with little effort, frankly. I would prefer you to address the discussion at hand.

[teflone]

Your writing is fine, but its when your trying soooo hard to sound smart, is where you lose us.

[ALPHA.]

Your writing is fine, but its when your trying soooo hard to sound smart, is where you lose us.

Trying, heh? I am really not trying to do anything. I actually feel I don't give these arguments and their participants their due effort sometimes. Anyways, your loss and mine too. I would of been happy to hear you refute me with your wisdom, teflone.

[LoupGaroux]

Why do you try so hard to use big words?

Your response to me was bizzare and very out there..

Your idea of "adult talk" is warped, very few people speak with no emotion, or like a robot professor would talk.. Im at a loss of how to describe it.

It is not having the effect your looking for.  fyi

My writing is fine. I am typing with little effort, frankly. I would prefer you to address the discussion at hand.

Judgement as to quality of the writing is best reserved to those who read said writing rather than the writer. As to typing with "little effort" you are clearly typing with "little thought" as well. I begin to suspect that you are nothing more than one of those clever bots that regurgitates cadged snippets of forum conversation in an attempt to see who can go the longest before being caught out at the deception. Although, I must admit the bit about the woman approaching your door, stepping in shit, and thus being forced to accept your fecal-enhanced lifestyle prima facie, gives me pause as to your level of machine intelligence even.

And since you are so desperately crying out for a dose of grammar Nazi salts- the loss you reference in relation to teflone's statement would be more accurately be introduced by "would have...", "would of..." is a misinterpretation of the colloquialism that you were reaching for, and as the entire subject matter under discussion here is in written form, you would be far more on topic to to write that you have "read his refute", as written wisdom cannot be heard. Unless, of course you are reading out loud, and trying to sound out the difficult words.

Which would explain a lot. It really would of.

[ALPHA.]

Why do you try so hard to use big words?

Your response to me was bizzare and very out there..

Your idea of "adult talk" is warped, very few people speak with no emotion, or like a robot professor would talk.. Im at a loss of how to describe it.

It is not having the effect your looking for.  fyi

My writing is fine. I am typing with little effort, frankly. I would prefer you to address the discussion at hand.

And since you are so desperately crying out for a dose of grammar Nazi salts- the loss you reference in relation to teflone's statement would be more accurately be introduced by "would have...", "would of..." is a misinterpretation of the colloquialism that you were reaching for, and as the entire subject matter under discussion here is in written form, you would be far more on topic to to write that you have "read his refute", as written wisdom cannot be heard. Unless, of course you are reading out loud, and trying to sound out the difficult words.

Which would explain a lot. It really would of.

Pedantry.

[ineededausername]

Gentlemen, I think this discussion is very meaningful.  Please keep talking about grammar in the off-topic forum and wasting your time.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Why do you try so hard to use big words?

Your response to me was bizzare and very out there..

Your idea of "adult talk" is warped, very few people speak with no emotion, or like a robot professor would talk.. Im at a loss of how to describe it.

It is not having the effect your looking for.  fyi

My writing is fine. I am typing with little effort, frankly. I would prefer you to address the discussion at hand.

And since you are so desperately crying out for a dose of grammar Nazi salts- the loss you reference in relation to teflone's statement would be more accurately be introduced by "would have...", "would of..." is a misinterpretation of the colloquialism that you were reaching for, and as the entire subject matter under discussion here is in written form, you would be far more on topic to to write that you have "read his refute", as written wisdom cannot be heard. Unless, of course you are reading out loud, and trying to sound out the difficult words.

Which would explain a lot. It really would of.

Pedantry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTwSwqtZmUk

[ALPHA.]

Why do you try so hard to use big words?

Your response to me was bizzare and very out there..

Your idea of "adult talk" is warped, very few people speak with no emotion, or like a robot professor would talk.. Im at a loss of how to describe it.

It is not having the effect your looking for.  fyi

My writing is fine. I am typing with little effort, frankly. I would prefer you to address the discussion at hand.

And since you are so desperately crying out for a dose of grammar Nazi salts- the loss you reference in relation to teflone's statement would be more accurately be introduced by "would have...", "would of..." is a misinterpretation of the colloquialism that you were reaching for, and as the entire subject matter under discussion here is in written form, you would be far more on topic to to write that you have "read his refute", as written wisdom cannot be heard. Unless, of course you are reading out loud, and trying to sound out the difficult words.

Which would explain a lot. It really would of.

Pedantry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTwSwqtZmUk

ಠ_ಠ

Some bleach for that abuse of language: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

[LoupGaroux]

Why do you try so hard to use big words?

Your response to me was bizzare and very out there..

Your idea of "adult talk" is warped, very few people speak with no emotion, or like a robot professor would talk.. Im at a loss of how to describe it.

It is not having the effect your looking for.  fyi

My writing is fine. I am typing with little effort, frankly. I would prefer you to address the discussion at hand.

And since you are so desperately crying out for a dose of grammar Nazi salts- the loss you reference in relation to teflone's statement would be more accurately be introduced by "would have...", "would of..." is a misinterpretation of the colloquialism that you were reaching for, and as the entire subject matter under discussion here is in written form, you would be far more on topic to to write that you have "read his refute", as written wisdom cannot be heard. Unless, of course you are reading out loud, and trying to sound out the difficult words.

Which would explain a lot. It really would of.

Pedantry.

Pedantry? No, child, it is was unabashed sarcasm, with a healthy dose of condescending disdain.

However, it is indeed illuminating that you chose "pedantry" as your dismissive retort. Pedantry is often used in medical literature to describe the precursor behavior that will eventually lead to a diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome, which I expect, given your intimate knowledge of obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and the incessant display of same, might be something that you have heard the adults around you discussing.

Prepare yourself for the next visit:

DSM-IV definition of Asperger Syndrome (called "Asperger Disorder") (APA, 1994)

    A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following: (1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction

(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

    B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms
(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

    C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning

    D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)

    E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood

    F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Why do you try so hard to use big words?

Your response to me was bizzare and very out there..

Your idea of "adult talk" is warped, very few people speak with no emotion, or like a robot professor would talk.. Im at a loss of how to describe it.

It is not having the effect your looking for.  fyi

My writing is fine. I am typing with little effort, frankly. I would prefer you to address the discussion at hand.

And since you are so desperately crying out for a dose of grammar Nazi salts- the loss you reference in relation to teflone's statement would be more accurately be introduced by "would have...", "would of..." is a misinterpretation of the colloquialism that you were reaching for, and as the entire subject matter under discussion here is in written form, you would be far more on topic to to write that you have "read his refute", as written wisdom cannot be heard. Unless, of course you are reading out loud, and trying to sound out the difficult words.

Which would explain a lot. It really would of.

Pedantry.

Pedantry? No, child, it is was unabashed sarcasm, with a healthy dose of condescending disdain.

However, it is indeed illuminating that you chose "pedantry" as your dismissive retort. Pedantry is often used in medical literature to describe the precursor behavior that will eventually lead to a diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome, which I expect, given your intimate knowledge of obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and the incessant display of same, might be something that you have heard the adults around you discussing.

Prepare yourself for the next visit:

DSM-IV definition of Asperger Syndrome (called "Asperger Disorder") (APA, 1994)

    A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following: (1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction

(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

    B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms
(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

    C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning

    D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)

    E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood

    F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.

LMAO, LoupGaroux, for this reason: I envisioned somebody learning about Bitcoin and, upon a Google search, finding this post (and this thread) first before anything else to get up to speed. His only two reactions come to mind: where do I sign up and WTF. I'm pretty sure the latter will be the one crossing his mind. That said, very interesting post. TY.

Bruno

[ALPHA.]

Fun fact: I was diagnosed with Aspergers four years ago.