Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 Collectively probably not, on an individual level maybe. Do salmon as individuals swim up stream to lay eggs as a reaction to something or are the salmon carrying out a hard wired pre-programmed action based on a collective knowledge worked out by millions of them for maybe thousands of years before. So salmon spawning is proactive, but a mature and reasoned foreign policy is reactive? Do you write for a living? Because you should. Write comedies. This sh-- is solid gold. Tom, if you want to have a civil discussion, I will continue, if not F-off. 614961[/snapback] I'm sorry...we were having a discussion? I thought the rest of us were just busting on you for being completely incapable of picking up a dictionary and looking up the definitions of "proactive" and "reactive". Here's a hint: they are NOT synonymous with "instinctive" and "reasoned".
ASCI Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 So salmon spawning is proactive, but a mature and reasoned foreign policy is reactive? Do you write for a living? Because you should. Write comedies. This sh-- is solid gold. I'm sorry...we were having a discussion? I thought the rest of us were just busting on you for being completely incapable of picking up a dictionary and looking up the definitions of "proactive" and "reactive". Here's a hint: they are NOT synonymous with "instinctive" and "reasoned". 614966[/snapback] I guess you chose F-off, so do that then.
X. Benedict Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 I guess you chose F-off, so do that then. 614974[/snapback] A good collegiate dictionary could be your best friend.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 I guess you chose F-off, so do that then. 614974[/snapback] Should I do it proactively, or reactively?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 A good collegiate dictionary could be your best friend. 614986[/snapback] He should start small. I've got an old Charlie Brown Dictionary he can borrow...
X. Benedict Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 Should I do it proactively, or reactively? 614994[/snapback] If you do it because he told you to it is reactive, if you do it just because you want to, then I'm not sure......instinct?
ASCI Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 A good collegiate dictionary could be your best friend. 614986[/snapback] (of a policy or person or action) controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it happens
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 (of a policy or person or action) controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it happens 615004[/snapback] Ergo, your conjecture is that foreign policy can never cause something to happen and thus control a situation, but can only respond. And that seems accurate to you?
ASCI Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 If you do it because he told you to it is reactive, if you do it just because you want to, then I'm not sure......instinct? 615001[/snapback] X, if you want to discuss this civilly without name-calling then I will proceed, if not you can join Tom and F-off.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 If you do it because he told you to it is reactive, if you do it just because you want to, then I'm not sure......instinct? 615001[/snapback] What if I do nothing and he puts me on "ignore'? Then am I !@#$ing off inactively?
erynthered Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 What if I do nothing and he puts me on "ignore'? Then am I !@#$ing off inactively? 615031[/snapback] That would be proactively instinctive of you.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 That would be proactively instinctive of you. 615042[/snapback] Well...no one likes you, so you can just retroactively !@#$ off. Don't know what that means? Let me explain it with this clown analogy...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 Collectively probably not, on an individual level maybe. Do salmon as individuals swim up Stream to lay eggs as a reaction to something or are the salmon carrying out a hard wired pre-programmed action based on a collective knowledge worked out by millions of them for maybe thousands of years before. Tom, if you want to have a civil discussion, I will continue, if not F-off. 614961[/snapback] By way of further example, in response to the breathtaking proactive salmon spawning analogy, I feel compelled to link to my earlier post: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=614375 My posting that is yet another example of being proactive. It was not instinctive, I anticipated you taking this thread into the realm of utter nonsense, and posted according to the anticipation. It is possible, believe it or not, to formulate foreign policy in the same manner.
erynthered Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 Well...no one likes you, so you can just retroactively !@#$ off. Don't know what that means? Let me explain it with this clown analogy... 615050[/snapback] In order for me to !@#$ off proactively retroactive, I need to be inactive on this board to be able to !@#$ off acting proactively reactive. ( Key, Frank Sinatra singing Send in the Clowns )
X. Benedict Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 X, if you want to discuss this civilly without name-calling then I will proceed, if not you can join Tom and F-off. 615024[/snapback] What is to discuss? Language breaks down for you, I'm not sure what your last reply meant. If you want to make the point that the word proactive is meaningless because of some metaphysical reason that's fine, but you have attempted to define the word out of existence insisting that you understand the denotation/connotation (which you don't). As far as name-calling, where? I think I have shown remarkable restraint in pointing out quite carefully that your use of terms in this particular lexicon is simply in error. If Stalin claimed that all Foreign Policy is reactive, then most likely he was making a rhetorical point. Your position seems to be based on someting other than the pragmatic use of language as it is commonly understood. If you are trying to win a point here, I give you credit for being tenacious with an awfully bad hand, but how can I belabor the point more than to say, A) either you don't know what you are talking about, or B) your point is so incoherent it requires bending the denotation of a lexicon and the rules of grammar to advance it. And to think, you are so frustrated with me you would like me to !@#$ off. Dumbass.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 What is to discuss? Language breaks down for you, I'm not sure what your last reply meant. If you want to make the point that the word proactive is meaningless because of some metaphysical reason that's fine, but you have attempted to define the word out of existence insisting that you understand the denotation/connotation (which you don't). As far as name-calling, where? I think I have shown remarkable restraint in pointing out quite carefully that your use of terms in this particular lexicon is simply in error. If Stalin claimed that all Foreign Policy is reactive, then most likely he was making a rhetorical point. Your position seems to be based on someting other than the pragmatic use of language as it is commonly understood. If you are trying to win a point here, I give you credit for being tenacious with an awfully bad hand, but how can I belabor the point more than to say, A) either you don't know what you are talking about, or B) your point is so incoherent it requires bending the denotation of a lexicon and the rules of grammar to advance it. And to think, you are so frustrated with me you would like me to !@#$ off. Dumbass. 615086[/snapback] Hey! No need to post so hyperactively!
erynthered Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 I wonder though, If the Chinese put an anti-satellite laser at the South Pole that can shoot down satellites at the equator, are they acting proactively or reactively?
X. Benedict Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 Hey! No need to post so hyperactively! 615131[/snapback] Do you think I squandered a teachable moment?
ASCI Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 What is to discuss? Language breaks down for you, I'm not sure what your last reply meant. If you want to make the point that the word proactive is meaningless because of some metaphysical reason that's fine, but you have attempted to define the word out of existence insisting that you understand the denotation/connotation (which you don't). As far as name-calling, where? I think I have shown remarkable restraint in pointing out quite carefully that your use of terms in this particular lexicon is simply in error. If Stalin claimed that all Foreign Policy is reactive, then most likely he was making a rhetorical point. Your position seems to be based on someting other than the pragmatic use of language as it is commonly understood. If you are trying to win a point here, I give you credit for being tenacious with an awfully bad hand, but how can I belabor the point more than to say, A) either you don't know what you are talking about, or B) your point is so incoherent it requires bending the denotation of a lexicon and the rules of grammar to advance it. And to think, you are so frustrated with me you would like me to !@#$ off. Dumbass. 615086[/snapback] What, I’m not bending any literal meaning of the word proactive. I am taking one of many definitions used to make my point. It is you that holds the English language to some universal constant or truth an unrealistic standard of perfection for which it was never intended to be. The English language is and has always been a subjective, disjointed, hodge podge of words from all over the world mixed together by circumstance whose true meaning can only be understood when put in it’s historical context and whose usage rules were established after the fact by pinheads like you. So, cling to your precious language god and choke on it. F-off
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 What, I’m not bending any literal meaning of the word proactive. I am taking one of many definitions used to make my point. It is you that holds the English language to some universal constant or truth an unrealistic standard of perfection for which it was never intended to be. The English language is and has always been a subjective, disjointed, hodge podge of words from all over the world mixed together by circumstance whose true meaning can only be understood when put in it’s historical context and whose usage rules were established after the fact by pinheads like you. So, cling to your precious language god and choke on it. F-off 615266[/snapback] In other words, you feel perfectly free to define any word you use however you want to define it at the moment. Gee...I wonder why you can't communicate with anyone...
Recommended Posts