Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47
  1. Harrisonized

    Default A Message from a Guildie

    Part 1

    On 3/21/09 8:37 pm, a guildie of mine, dogsruleu44 told everyone in guild to go look at the BBS:
    So I look at it and reply: "They'll die anyways." This instantly produces an inflammatory reply from her:

    dogsruleu44: How would you feel if you were going to die anyways?
    Harrisonized: If I were going to die anyways, I'd get a lethal injection.
    dogsruleu44: wtp, my dad's a pharmacist. Stop trying to act smart when you're not.
    Harrisonized: How's that "acting"?
    (thinking to myself: wtp does your dad being a pharmacist have to do with anything?)
    dogsruleu44: You think you're so smart but you're not.
    Harrisonized: That's merely your assumption.
    dogsruleu44: See: "MERELY" "ASSUMPTION"
    Harrisonized: wtp. You mean I have to dumb down everything just so you can understand it?
    dogsruleu44: So other people can understand it as well.

    My first question is how I'm "acting" to be smart. I have no idea how I'm "acting" in any way when I'm only speaking how I normally do.


    Part 2:

    So a few minutes later, I notice that there are two major errors in her quickly typed up paragraph.
    Trying to be helpful, I posted that strage was misspelled and that it should be strange. Then I tell her that when people are being kind, they should not be "profiting" off of it.

    I once again received an extremely negative reply from her saying how she knows and that I don't have to correct every grammar error.

    I told her that it wasn't a grammar error, it was an error in the intentions of the post. People who are helping out these dogs in Puerto Rico shouldn't be "profiting" off of our donations should we donate to them. Again she goes on about how I'm "acting" to be smart and that I'm actually stupid.

    My second question is why my good intentions are misinterpreted and produce such strong hateful replies. Why is it wrongful for me to tell people of their mistakes?

    It is common politeness to point out people's mistakes so that they may fix it where it is needed to prevent more people from viewing them. It is also common politeness to appreciate it when people try to help.


    Part 3:

    After I delete everything I wrote under her BBS message, as she's corrected the mistakes, I logged off to go to dinner. I haven't logged in until today but when I do, I've found this:

    Sn0Bunny28: WUT THE ****
    dogsruleu44: i know mandy
    dogsruleu44: lol harrison deleted
    dogsruleu44: everything he said
    dogsruleu44: to make us look bad -___-
    dogsruleu44: thats SO typicall

    Here's her corrected post:
    I have two questions on this portion:
    1) What is "so typical"?
    2) I have better things to do than to humiliate people. Am I deliberately misinterpreted purely on grounds of hate from my initial response of "They'll die anyways"? If so, why is one comment like that enough to taint all others?


    Why is it socially wrong to post "They'll die anyways"? I'd like to know.

  2. Default

    nothing's socially wrong about "They'll die anyways."

    some people are just too passionate about a cause or they just wanna look like the "good guy" to crave attention

    meh, people are confusing

  3. Default

    " dogsruleu44: See: "MERELY" "ASSUMPTION""
    Those are not big or hard words...

    Based on what you said I agree with you.

  4. Default

    You weren't wrong Har. It's just that some people are VERY passionate about what they believe in that anything against it is like saying God is wrong or something. These people have to learn to take criticism from other people. A lot of people don't agree with what I believe in for euthanasia, so w/e, people have a right to their own beliefs. Your initial statement may have sounded harsh to her, but again it's just what you think.

    and lol at " dogsruleu44: See: "MERELY" "ASSUMPTION""

  5. Default

    As soon as I saw that I realized this person was far too stupid for anyone to expect a logical conversation. Just let it go and stop interacting with them.

  6. Default

    Sounds like typical girls trying to be really confusing to boys. Ask her to define "THE" next time, since it's a really simple word we use all the time.

    But Harrison, saying "They'll die anyways" is basically giving the message "I don't care."

  7. Harrisonized


    "They'll die anyways" is an ambiguous statement. You can interpret it as "I don't care", or you can interpret is as "Nothing can be done, so why bother?" My view on it is the latter.

    Since there are so many dogs in Puerto Rico, nobody can possibly help them all. First of all, suffering is a natural part of life. Overpopulation is a natural process on the earth, and that shouldn't be limited to the dogs on Puerto Rico. The dogs "starving, diseased, and murdered" is just propoganda. In reality, it's merely another way of stating that they're competing with one another to survive in the area, which is essentially just natural selection at work. Overpopulation will occur especially when people are enhancing their survival by aiding them, feeding them and sheltering them.

    Overpopulation is what I attribute the dogs' suffering to. Really the only way to solve overpopulation is to pick out the weaker dogs and kill them off, so that the gene pool for the next generation is selected for the environment they are in. In natural habitats, wild animals, let's say such as zebras, get hunted each day by lions. Why doesn't anyone say that the zebras are suffering from an unasafe environment? Why must humans intervene?

    Donations for causes such as this is useless in my opinion, and that is why I posted "They'll die anyways", because they will. After all, life is merely a prolonging of death.
    Last edited by Harrisonized; 2009-03-22 at 07:05 PM.

  8. Default

    Her view =/= your view.

    Also, I already know by what you meant with your view. I wrote a paper on how humans should stop breeding completely for a dozen years if Earth is to be saved

  9. Harrisonized


    Well, I thought you were only seeing it from a one-side perspective based on your reply.
    Last edited by Harrisonized; 2009-03-22 at 07:22 PM.

  10. Default

    "They'll die anyway" wasn't the best thing to say. It's not wrong to say it, I also see that as "I don't care". Just say something nice back?

    I didn't know Disneyland was active still lol, does Kimoon still play?

  11. Won't Be Coming Back

    IGN: Helioh
    Server: Mardia
    Level: OMO
    Job: Hunter
    Alliance: '_-


    I know from experience that whenever you are talking to girl with a name like dogsrule/horsesrule/etc you should expect them to be very irrational, if not completely psycho.

  12. Default

    I don't get it? o.O

    Here's an example:
    Contains a little vulgarity

  13. Harrisonized


    Nope. He deleted Maple.

  14. Default

    The dogs wouldn't even be in Puerto Rico if humans didn't bring them there. It is our fault, so that's why people feel obligated to fix it. We didn't put the Zebras in Africa, that's where they belong and they are suited to that environment. These dogs are not suited to their environment, they don't belong there, and many of them were likely bred for certain purposes that makes them especially unfit. I mean, I have a dachshund, and it's a great dog, but let's face it: If humans hadn't intervened in their breeding, no dog would look like that. If all the humans disappeared, you can bet that Dachshunds, Chihuahuas, poodles, and so on would go extinct not long after. Some dogs, like huskies, would probably survive, but most of the dog breeds would die out.

    We caused the mess, we must clean it up.

  15. Default

    People are stupid, get over it.

    Dogs are perfectly capable of living on Puerto Rico, they're just over populated due to humans leaving behind waste. Wild dogs are likely to hunt all natural prey if they are over populated, and lead to their own extinction. What do you say Bob? "Get your pet spayed or neutered..." Especially before you let them get raped by a wild dog.

    As for saving humanity: That would require eugenics programs, not a complete halt to breeding. But the problem with "intelligent" people is that they are often arrogant.

  16. Default

    I'll help those dumb dogs when we're done fixing the economy and every human has a house and job.
    As for cats, those snotty, stuck up animals can just stay in their alleys.

  17. Default

    I wrote that paper a long time ago. Of course people won't stop breeding, that's like asking the wind to stop blowing.

    My next proposal might be war though. Middle East and North Korea show good promise. Why war you ask? Because war causes technology to make great strides, economy gets "fixed", and people die.

    Cats eat up pests such as mice and rodents. And they don't actively give people nasty bites complete with rabies. *cough*

  18. Harrisonized


    Erm, dogsruleu44 cussed at me after I posted what I wrote to the guild BBS.
    There are many examples of mutualism in the wild. Wikipedia shows some very good examples:


    Here is a history of how dogs came to be based on my understanding:

    Dogs did not start out as dogs in the past. In primitive times there were only wolves. The human inhabitants would have a symbiotic relationship with the wolves that would allow for their domestication.

    Maybe humans and wolves hunted the same food, but the human only ate part of the foods. Thus, the wolves would eat the portion of the food left behind. Perhaps it was the other way around, the wolves would hunt for food and the humans would eat their leftovers. Whatever the cause, the two eventually fell into a mutualistic relationship that could not be reversed.

    Over years of evolution, the wolves became more tame, that is, the ones that stayed dependent on the humans are the ones that evolved to be more docile, each successive generation more passive than the next. Their appearance changed as well, since they no longer needed to hunt, their sharp teeth gradually evolved to become blunt.


    You can't blame evolution on humans. Other animals, as given in the wikipedia article, pretty much cause the same problems, they cause their symbiotic partners to evolve with them. Also, who's to say that if people did not form symbiotic relationships with dogs that today there would only be wolves and most of them extinct?

    Why should we place the blame on ourselves for an accident of nature? Why should we claim credit for their evolution? Why should we be obligated to "fix" (if it is such a problem) their evolutionary line when survival of the species is the goal? Now that we no longer need dogs to survive, why not give them a chance to evolve to their evolutionary height? Again, why must we intervene with them? Have humans evolved to become weak by developing a "hindering" consciousness?
    Last edited by Harrisonized; 2009-03-22 at 10:22 PM.

  19. Default

    You forgot the part where the dogs learned to swim across the ocean to places like Puerto Rico.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts