[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]Maoman,
I think this is one of those threads better left ignored. Stray dog posts like a chess player plays a game of chess. When he posts something, his focus isn’t on delivering a good opinion. He’s two or three moves ahead anticipating your response. In fact, most of his posts in controversial threads are baits. He then sits patiently waiting for you to slip and make a slight error is semantics. He then refuses to see that there are other interpretations for what you wrote aside from his own skewed interpretation and he just keeps harping on and on with general accusations that he simply can’t back up. If you ask him to back his shit up, he will say something like “It’s all there, I won’t bother cutting and pasting.” His favorite line is this empty claim “Thanks for proving my point!”
As far as he’s concerned, you are using your privileges as an admin to cover evidence and to stifle discussion. He’s attacking your integrity, and as usual, he’s thinking two posts ahead. He actually wants you to tell him to fuck off so that he can just harp on and on about your lack of professionalism in a subsequent response. It’s a game to him but it’s only a game if you acknoledge his bullshit and play along. 
Me, I have reduced him to the third person at the very best. I will never address that person directly again.
By the way, I know exactly where the line is between discussing a post and discussing a poster. But in this case, the problem isn’t in the posts. The problem is the person writing them, in my opinion.
YMMV[/quote]
Robin, you really, really do come to incredibly erroneous conclusions. If I’ve pointed out the holes in your arguments, then you can accept it or not (or, in your case, choose to ignore me and refer to me in the third person—of course, you really are free to behave any way you want. I am genuinely flattered that you hold my debate skills in such high regard, but the truth is I’m not that proficient—I’m just more skilled than you.
FWIW, there have been several times when I thought you were going to give me a tough time, and I was very surprised when you didn’t spot the opportunity. If it weren’t for your always losing your temper, I actually would enjoy our discussions, and I think you would do better. I suspect you’re not actually angry with me, but with yourself, which is why I never take it personally.
Your analysis of my debating style was (sorry to say!) well off the mark, but, as I said above, I think it’s important to you to believe that you were beaten by a pro. The truth is—and I’m being completely honest here—I (and I’m sure many others) don’t have a ‘game plan’ here. I just react to what I read and then I post. Basically, I speak honestly, so I can wing it. I’d love to accept the compliment of being a master planner, but anyone who knows me in real life would point out your error.
More on topic now: If you think it’s cool for Maoman to insult people and then lock threads so that person can’t even point out why a site owner shouldn’t keep doing that, then that’s honestly fine. You are at liberty to do that. I will disagree, but that’s really OK.
I’ll stop there, because you don’t read my posts anyway, right? 
[quote=“ironlady”]There is no connotation of rape or sexual assault involved with declaring that one would like to “rip someone a new one”. It is one of those bleached expressions that no longer carries its original meaning, though it is not really suitable for polite company. It simply means that one is extremely angry with the person in question. Unless uttered very directly in a dark bar after a number of drinks, no one would take this as a credible threat of violence.
Is it responsible to adopt animals at all in a country like Taiwan, where one might be creamed by a bus tomorrow morning and die, leaving them to an uncertain fate? No one can see the future, and no one can know what is in the mind or intentions of another person.[/quote]
Hi, ironlady. Many thanks for your input on idiom definitions. But deciding whether the idiom is threatening or not is moot because the point is that a similar idiom supporting an opposing point of view was treated differently. I’m guessing you haven’t read through the thread, as it’s clearly stated, so I’m just bringing you up to speed. As you pointed out though, it does indeed have threatening overtones. Just out of interest, do you think it’s something that should be written on a public forum about a lady who feeds stray cats?
Re. adopting animals when one could be killed tomorrow . . . I’ll let you debate that with others who are interested in that kind of thing.
