The sniper is a total asshole. - Page 2

Samsa · 10-22-2002, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

I think this response speaks for itself, but I'm gonna rebut it anyway.

All serial killers fall under the general rubric of "anti-society." Most of the response you made is exactly the kind of debate we need to be having. But just saying he is anti-society means nothing.

You suggest that a serial killer who kills for sadistic, sexual, personal reasons is not anti-society. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you can name me one single serial killer who was not anti-society I'll shut the fuck up.

John Wayne Gacy - Killed teenage boys after having sex with them or raping them because he did not want to go to jail for seducing or raping them. How is he not anti-society?

Ted Bundy - Killed women for sexual reasons, etc. But it's hard to say a man who brutally killed 29 women was not anti-society.

you are using it in a different CONTEXT from me moron

i am speaking of anti-society in MOTIVE and you are speaking of anti-society in RESULT

nuff said. all crimes are anti-society in result. duh. jesus fucking christ. but not all people kill other people because they 'hate society'

10-22-2002, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Random Female
but you know someone would be there that would get all fuckin offended cos they know someone who knows someone who got sniped a long ass time ago.

or just because some people feel the need to get offended when shit has nothing to do with them at all.

Smiley33 · 10-22-2002, 11:08 PM

OH GOODY IT'S THE SONG THAT NEVER ENDS MEETS LAW FOR DUMMIES!

10-22-2002, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

you are using it in a different CONTEXT from me moron

i am speaking of anti-society in MOTIVE and you are speaking of anti-society in RESULT

nuff said. all crimes are anti-society in result. duh. jesus fucking christ. but not all people kill other people because they 'hate society'

All Crimes? You mean to tell me crimes such as minor in possession of alcohol, possession of marijuana, etc. are anti-society in result. Absolutely not.

Besides, I don't agree with your MOTIVE/RESULT distinction in terms of serial killers. I would say that Ted Bundy's motives were both sexual and sociopathic. He has stated on the record that his killings were fueled by a desire to get back at women because he hated women. That would be an anti-society motive. John Wayne Gacy's motives in KILLING were based on the fact that he thought he was better than the rest of society, and that killing was justified if it enabled him to remain a free man.

The Zodiac Killer was totally motivated by sociopathic bullshit. He enjoyed tormenting his victims and instilling fear in the public.

Also I like how you the gun-hater didn't respond in the other post to my comments on the 2nd Amendment. I guess that means you know that I am right in my analysis.

And calling me "moron." Give that shit a rest. I get the point - you think I'm a moron.

10-22-2002, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smiley33
OH GOODY IT'S THE SONG THAT NEVER ENDS MEETS LAW FOR DUMMIES!

You rawk in an oh-so abstract way.

Mood ring · 10-22-2002, 11:23 PM

all things are possible to his motives...some things more plausible.

he could very well be a plant by Al-Queda to divert attention from something even bigger going on (hacking wars, for example). bigger in scope, is what I mean...these events happening in the D.C. area give merit to this theory. The nerve center of the nation is once again on edge (if there ever was a drop-off from 9-11).

even if he isnt, there's some lessons to be learned for Al-Queda about how Police and the Media have reacted.

this guy Moose is something of a camera hog joke...but Mr. Bush and his total void on this is an example of the power vacuum that exist these days...ohhhhh, these days, these days...*sighs*

*watches another Bonds home-run*

blah.

Smiley33 · 10-22-2002, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

You rawk in an oh-so abstract way.

Saying things like that is illegal in some states. Good thing Canada is my schtick.

Samsa · 10-22-2002, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
[b]

All Crimes? You mean to tell me crimes such as minor in possession of alcohol, possession of marijuana, etc. are anti-society in result. Absolutely not.

crime is by definition something that brings down society. so yes. all crime. unless the crime isn't' really a crime at all, only a crime on paper, but i don't know who would be the judge of that

Quote:

Besides, I don't agree with your MOTIVE/RESULT distinction in terms of serial killers. I would say that Ted Bundy's motives were both sexual and sociopathic. He has stated on the record that his killings were fueled by a desire to get back at women because he hated women. That would be an anti-society motive. John Wayne Gacy's motives in KILLING were based on the fact that he thought he was better than the rest of society, and that killing was justified if it enabled him to remain a free man.

The Zodiac Killer was totally motivated by sociopathic bullshit. He enjoyed tormenting his victims and instilling fear in the public.

but what was their primary motive? i seriously don't know anything about serial killers but it strikes me that thier *primary* intention is purely personal and selfish-- the quenching of personal desires. maybe they justified it with 'sociopathic bullshit' but i seriously doubt that their primary goal was analogous to that of, say, osama bin laden. i'm not arguing specifics/details whatever. i know that many things factor into every single crime, but i DO think it's possible to categorize a crime. and nobody knows the sniper's motives so far, which is another reason why my statement wasn't totally a 'BINGO!' because no matter how much you wanna be a sarcastic idiot, no one knows why he's doing it. my PERSONAL reaction or take on the matter is his crimes seem ANTI-SOCIETY IN NATURE/MOTIVE meaning his PRIMARY intent and REASON for doing what he's doing is because he does not like society. apparently berkowitz agrees. he wrote some fox news reporter a letter saying this guy seems to have a lot of spite for the fbi or the police or american society in general. don't sit here mincing words again. it's pretty fucking obvious that you CAN draw some basic distinctions around why people commit crimes, and no one can YET draw a distinction around the sniper because no one knows YET, but i am SAYING that from MY point of view it seems that he's doing this because he hates american society. end of discussion.

Quote:

Also I like how you the gun-hater didn't respond in the other post to my comments on the 2nd Amendment. I guess that means you know that I am right in my analysis.

okay, another case where i have to call you a moron.

first of all, i didn't even READ your comments on the second amendment. why not? because i don't fucking care what your comments are. secondly, you are so fucking dense. exactly whom did you just attack me a couple weeks ago for idolizing? mr gun-defending timothy mcveigh. do you not fucking understand? obviously not. i'm not going to bother going into details because if you can't connect two and two together then there is something seriously wrong with you.

but now that you mention it, i'll go read your retarded comment. actually i started to. someone mentioned the constitution and you started talking about the constitution and i stopped reading. you know why? because the constitution has nothing to fucking do with whether or not i personally think guns are good or bad for society. it's pretty obvious that the founding fathers thought they were a crucial right. people are still arguing about exactly how they thought this would be manifest (state militias, informal militias, personal citizens, etc) but it's pretty fucking obvious that to some extent the founding fathers were pro-gun. i've never fucking denied that in my life and it is so retarded of you to automatically fucking assume that i would, you, who doesn't know one fucking thing about my views. just fuck off.

Samsa · 10-22-2002, 11:34 PM

but oh wait. even if a crime is just a crime on paper and not *really* morally wrong than it still brings down society by being committed, the question only remains which is wrong, the crime or society. n/m

Samsa · 10-22-2002, 11:40 PM

okay, now i'm going to call you a triple moron because i read your snivelling post in the gun thread about the second amendment. you stupid retard. why would i reply to a post like that? it wasn't DIRECTED at me and it doesnt' APPLY to me. have i EVER said that the second amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to own guns? i don't fucking think so. moron. why would i reply to something that i more or less agree with?

well shit. you sure are a smart one.

what did you fucking say to me?

"Also I like how you the gun-hater didn't respond in the other post to my comments on the 2nd Amendment. I guess that means you know that I am right in my analysis. "

lol. i like how you insert completely irrelevant remarks into a thread. i like how you automatically assume that i'd go through any trouble whatsoever to read your posts. i like how you don't fucking realize that most people who believe in gun control plain and simply want to GET RID OF the second amendment, not WORK WITH IT. you fucking moron. i can't believe you.

10-22-2002, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

okay, another case where i have to call you a moron.

first of all, i didn't even READ your comments on the second amendment. why not? because i don't fucking care what your comments are. secondly, you are so fucking dense. exactly whom did you just attack me a couple weeks ago for idolizing? mr gun-defending timothy mcveigh. do you not fucking understand? just fuck off.

I was attacking your for sympathizing with the leading American killer of all-time. I understand why people feel so passionate about the second amendment but that does not lead me to sympathize when that motivates them to blow up a federal building.

McVeigh is a disgrace to the 2nd Amendment because unlike the Sisters of the Second Amendment, NRA, etc. he took things a little overboard. Your defense on him mentioned NOTHING about your belief that the second amendment is a good thing. So the dots do not connect. Just because you defend McVeigh does not mean you defend the 2nd Amendment.

And, yeah, I'll fuck off about the time you quit provoking me. Eg, never.

Samsa · 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

I was attacking your for sympathizing with the leading American killer of all-time. I understand why people feel so passionate about the second amendment but that does not lead me to sympathize when that motivates them to blow up a federal building.

McVeigh is a disgrace to the 2nd Amendment because unlike the Sisters of the Second Amendment, NRA, etc. he took things a little overboard. Your defense on him mentioned NOTHING about your belief that the second amendment is a good thing. So the dots do not connect. Just because you defend McVeigh does not mean you defend the 2nd Amendment.

And, yeah, I'll fuck off about the time you quit provoking me. Eg, never.

and i don't defend the second amendment but the fact that i can empathize with someone even though though he did vehemently defend the second amendmnt sort of fucking proves that i'm not a fucking radical or view the issue in extreme shades of black and white. and it proves that i'm capable of seeing the second amendment issue from the pro-gun point of view.

and exactly how did i fucking provoke you? if you haven't fucking noticed, retard, YOU'RE the one who provoked me in BOTH threads. you brought up MY name in this thread and you responded to me in the OTHER thread. and i didn't even fucking reply to your rant on the second amendment (because i more or less agree with that interpretation, or rather, i don't really agree or disagree with ANY interpretation of the second amendment because i don't think anyone really knows exactly what their intent was, i think it's an interesting issue to debate and that's fucking it), anywyas, even though i didn't even REPLY to your rant in the other thread you INSISTED on fuckign coming in here and assumed what i WOULD say even though you have no fucking idea what my views are. no fucking idea. so you make this retarded assumption that i USED to hold these *wrong* views and after reading your post i was somehow fucking *enlightened* to the *right* view and didn't reply out of shame. well you want to know how it really is, asshole? i disinterestly read the first paragraph of your reply and i said to myself 'yeah yeah what else is new' and i went on with my fucking life.

10-22-2002, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
okay, now i'm going to call you a triple moron because i read your snivelling post in the gun thread about the second amendment.

you stupid retard.

i don't fucking think so. moron.

what did you fucking say to me?

lol.

you fucking moron.

i can't believe you.

That's it. Next time I visit my brother in Arlington, we are taking a trip to Williamsburg. I am bringing your pictures. And using my investigative techniques to find you. I will then murder you. Mainly for personal, albeit sociopathic motives.

I suppose this makes me a bad person. I suppose this makes me irrational. But sometimes you just gotta say what the fuck.

I would say the main predicament will be that your one picture has cumstains on it. But surely someone will provide me with a clean copy if I mention the motive is to murder you.

Samsa · 10-22-2002, 11:52 PM

you say that because you know all this crap you have been saying about me is completely unfounded and you are no longer capable of making an argument. you understand that your laughing at me and going 'BINGO' for a completely un-'BINGO' supposition or even just the stating of a FACT to back up another OPINION (that this guy is more of a terrorist than a serial killer -- that was the REAL opinion and the 'anti-society' was just a FACT OR REASON for my opinion), you understand that your laughing at me because of this is completely ridiculous and stupid, that it was a misinterpretation of 'anti-society'; you also know that you shouldn't fucking assume that if i don't reply to something you say it's because 'i know i'm wrong', rather it's mostly because you didn't say anything i didn't already fucking know.

so now you're resorting to petty threats and retarded jokes just to save your stupid ass. stop fucking accusing me of being such a fierce liberal who doesn't even fucking understand all the issues surrounding the second amendment. just because it's there doesn't mean it's necessarily relevant anymore. that's the main argument. sorry you don't get that.

sppunk · 10-22-2002, 11:55 PM

It's getting hot in here, with all these four letter words, death threats and using Jesus' name in vain, which really bothers me.

skippy · 10-23-2002, 12:16 AM

I resent the fact that this thread has become a serious discusssion about the sniper. It was supposed to be humorous!

mpp · 10-23-2002, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

That's it. Next time I visit my brother in Arlington, we are taking a trip to Williamsburg. I am bringing your pictures. And using my investigative techniques to find you. I will then murder you. Mainly for personal, albeit sociopathic motives.

Hardball.

On a somewhat related note, oftentimes I can't understand why people are so serious on this messageboard. I mean, I like to argue just as much as the next guy/girl, but truthfully I don't read and re-read people's posts attempting to analyze every bit of cryptic meaning. One thing I've noticed during my tenure on Netphoria is that many people have a tendency to "misunderstand" certain Netphorians' posts. One major reason, I think, is the one I've already mentioned (namely, people don't read carefully enough).

Another argument, perhaps more credible, is that a few people on Netphoria contradict the Rational Actor Theory. To be able to carry on a dialogue with another, interpret their comments and arguments, and anticipate their next moves you (as a rational person) need to be communicating and arguing with another rational person. Therefore, on occasion, you end up with people posting rambling, meaningless, psychopathic, half-rational/half-irrational bullshit that, to a regular, intelligent person, makes little sense whatsoever. In conclusion, it is usually that person who is incomprehensible and irrational, not the person he/she is calling stupid for not being able to understand his/her irrational, cryptic arguments.

Whew.

Samsa · 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mpp

Hardball.

On a somewhat related note, oftentimes I can't understand why people are so serious on this messageboard. I mean, I like to argue just as much as the next guy/girl, but truthfully I don't read and re-read people's posts attempting to analyze every bit of cryptic meaning. One thing I've noticed during my tenure on Netphoria is that many people have a tendency to "misunderstand" certain Netphorians' posts. One major reason, I think, is the one I've already mentioned (namely, people don't read carefully enough).

Another argument, perhaps more credible, is that a few people on Netphoria contradict the Rational Actor Theory. To be able to carry on a dialogue with another, interpret their comments and arguments, and anticipate their next moves you (as a rational person) need to be communicating and arguing with another rational person. Therefore, on occasion, you end up with people posting rambling, meaningless, psychopathic, half-rational/half-irrational bullshit that, to a regular, intelligent person, makes little sense whatsoever. In conclusion, it is usually that person who is incomprehensible and irrational, not the person he/she is calling stupid for not being able to understand his/her irrational, cryptic arguments.

Whew.

hm. but isn't a person stupid when they can't fucking tell when someone is just rambling--and in no way trying to formulate any basis for argument or discussion whatsoever? isn't a stupid person someone who tries to create an argument or a basis for reasoning where none exists? yeah. i wouldn't call someone 'irrational' for simply venting and not really making any effort to be understood. something only becomes 'irrational' when a standard of rationality is applied to it. it shouldn't even be an issue if something ';makes sense' if it's not intended to. it's like you insulting a dog for not being able to speak english. who's stupid--you or the dog?

mpp · 10-23-2002, 09:28 AM

There is a consistent problem on this board, however, with 99% of the people understanding the other 1%. There is a pattern.

When some people post, oftentimes most other Netphorians will say "What?". That is a problem, I believe, in the communication of rational arguments.

It is quite possible, although incredibly unlikely, that those few people are just so intelligent and "above" the rest of Netphoria that they cannot be readily understood (ie, "my arguments are so involved and deep that no one gets t****). There is another possibility, namely that no one cares enough to read posts carefully. The third and more credible argument is that when some people post it's irrational, rambling, and incomprehensible.

Samsa, I do not think you are an arrogant person. I've seen you admit that you're wrong several times, and I think you really just want information about different subjects and then you get wrapped up in arguments about those subjects. However, I do think you get extremely FRUSTRATED when other Netphorians don't understand your arguments (I would, too). Why do you think they don't understand? Because you're smart and they're not? Of course not. The problem, in my opinion, is that you have trouble articulating the millions of thoughts in your head. If you could just slow down and stop adding so many "nevermind"s and "I don't know"s then I think most arguments on this board b/w you and other Netphorians would be much shorter and this place would be a better place to post.

mpp · 10-23-2002, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

i wouldn't call someone 'irrational' for simply venting and not really making any effort to be understood.

me neither.

that type of post is totally inapplicable to this discussion; i think Netphoria is a great place to vent frustrations

Smiley33 · 10-23-2002, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark LeDrew
I resent the fact that this thread has become a serious discusssion about the sniper. It was supposed to be humorous!

i tried to save it

Samsa · 10-23-2002, 11:48 AM

yet you continue to argue with me about this. you say 'well you would make a convincing argument if you just slowed down a little bit', yet you obviously seem to keep forgetting that i'm not making any effort whatsoever to make a convincing argument. i'm not trying to build up a case for any sort of logical discussion, i'm just talking, and i could really care if someone understands what i'm saying or not. it's completely irrelevant to me. and i already explained this and you keep saying you understand yet you continue to act as if it's simply a given that it's a *problem* that people don't understand what i'm trying to say because my posts don't make grammatical sense or structural sense or whatever, well it's not a problem, because i'm not writing a thesis or a dissertation, i'm not trying to set up an argument or a logical statement or whatever, i'm not even really trying to communicate with anybody except maybe one or two people who *can* understand me (which is not a causation but just a correlation) so bla bla bla i'm going to use the dog analogy again. why do you expect a dog to speak english? a dog has no reason or capability or no will or (as far as i know) no desire to speak english and i have no reason or will or capability and most definitely no desire to make sense or to formulate an understandable argument. so the fact that people reply to my posts saying "What?" or "You make no sense, stupid" or trying to use my posts as a basis for arguing with me, well that's their problem and not mine. it's their problem for trying to create something which wasn't supposed to exist in the first place. is a dog stupid for not speaking english? maybe in one sense of the word, you know, a completely subjective sense of the word, but really, the stupid people are the ones who expect a dog to speak english or try to turn his *barks* into logical words or rational thoughts. although i do believe dogs are intelligent creatures especially poodles and barking is a way of communicating blah blah blah but you get my point.

mpp · 10-23-2002, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
you get my point.

i think i do, but let me clarify:

you use this board to vent and you don't care if anybody else (besides a few people) understand at all what you're talking about?

if that's true, then i understand

10-22-2002, 11:08 PM	#33
Smiley33 Minion of Satan Posts: 6,542	OH GOODY IT'S THE SONG THAT NEVER ENDS MEETS LAW FOR DUMMIES!

10-22-2002, 11:23 PM	#36
Mood ring Banned Location: Between Sun and Moon Posts: 686	all things are possible to his motives...some things more plausible. he could very well be a plant by Al-Queda to divert attention from something even bigger going on (hacking wars, for example). bigger in scope, is what I mean...these events happening in the D.C. area give merit to this theory. The nerve center of the nation is once again on edge (if there ever was a drop-off from 9-11). even if he isnt, there's some lessons to be learned for Al-Queda about how Police and the Media have reacted. this guy Moose is something of a camera hog joke...but Mr. Bush and his total void on this is an example of the power vacuum that exist these days...ohhhhh, these days, these days...sighs watches another Bonds home-run blah.

10-22-2002, 11:34 PM	#39
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	but oh wait. even if a crime is just a crime on paper and not really morally wrong than it still brings down society by being committed, the question only remains which is wrong, the crime or society. n/m

10-22-2002, 11:40 PM	#40
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	okay, now i'm going to call you a triple moron because i read your snivelling post in the gun thread about the second amendment. you stupid retard. why would i reply to a post like that? it wasn't DIRECTED at me and it doesnt' APPLY to me. have i EVER said that the second amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to own guns? i don't fucking think so. moron. why would i reply to something that i more or less agree with? well shit. you sure are a smart one. what did you fucking say to me? "Also I like how you the gun-hater didn't respond in the other post to my comments on the 2nd Amendment. I guess that means you know that I am right in my analysis. " lol. i like how you insert completely irrelevant remarks into a thread. i like how you automatically assume that i'd go through any trouble whatsoever to read your posts. i like how you don't fucking realize that most people who believe in gun control plain and simply want to GET RID OF the second amendment, not WORK WITH IT. you fucking moron. i can't believe you.

10-22-2002, 11:52 PM	#44
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	you say that because you know all this crap you have been saying about me is completely unfounded and you are no longer capable of making an argument. you understand that your laughing at me and going 'BINGO' for a completely un-'BINGO' supposition or even just the stating of a FACT to back up another OPINION (that this guy is more of a terrorist than a serial killer -- that was the REAL opinion and the 'anti-society' was just a FACT OR REASON for my opinion), you understand that your laughing at me because of this is completely ridiculous and stupid, that it was a misinterpretation of 'anti-society'; you also know that you shouldn't fucking assume that if i don't reply to something you say it's because 'i know i'm wrong', rather it's mostly because you didn't say anything i didn't already fucking know. so now you're resorting to petty threats and retarded jokes just to save your stupid ass. stop fucking accusing me of being such a fierce liberal who doesn't even fucking understand all the issues surrounding the second amendment. just because it's there doesn't mean it's necessarily relevant anymore. that's the main argument. sorry you don't get that.

10-22-2002, 11:55 PM	#45
sppunk Netphoria's George Will Location: Fenway Park Posts: 37,125	It's getting hot in here, with all these four letter words, death threats and using Jesus' name in vain, which really bothers me.

10-23-2002, 12:16 AM	#46
skippy Apocalyptic Poster Location: NJ Posts: 4,096	I resent the fact that this thread has become a serious discusssion about the sniper. It was supposed to be humorous!

10-23-2002, 09:28 AM	#49
mpp Minion of Satan Posts: 7,577	There is a consistent problem on this board, however, with 99% of the people understanding the other 1%. There is a pattern. When some people post, oftentimes most other Netphorians will say "What?". That is a problem, I believe, in the communication of rational arguments. It is quite possible, although incredibly unlikely, that those few people are just so intelligent and "above" the rest of Netphoria that they cannot be readily understood (ie, "my arguments are so involved and deep that no one gets t****). There is another possibility, namely that no one cares enough to read posts carefully. The third and more credible argument is that when some people post it's irrational, rambling, and incomprehensible. Samsa, I do not think you are an arrogant person. I've seen you admit that you're wrong several times, and I think you really just want information about different subjects and then you get wrapped up in arguments about those subjects. However, I do think you get extremely FRUSTRATED when other Netphorians don't understand your arguments (I would, too). Why do you think they don't understand? Because you're smart and they're not? Of course not. The problem, in my opinion, is that you have trouble articulating the millions of thoughts in your head. If you could just slow down and stop adding so many "nevermind"s and "I don't know"s then I think most arguments on this board b/w you and other Netphorians would be much shorter and this place would be a better place to post.

10-23-2002, 11:48 AM	#52
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	yet you continue to argue with me about this. you say 'well you would make a convincing argument if you just slowed down a little bit', yet you obviously seem to keep forgetting that i'm not making any effort whatsoever to make a convincing argument. i'm not trying to build up a case for any sort of logical discussion, i'm just talking, and i could really care if someone understands what i'm saying or not. it's completely irrelevant to me. and i already explained this and you keep saying you understand yet you continue to act as if it's simply a given that it's a problem that people don't understand what i'm trying to say because my posts don't make grammatical sense or structural sense or whatever, well it's not a problem, because i'm not writing a thesis or a dissertation, i'm not trying to set up an argument or a logical statement or whatever, i'm not even really trying to communicate with anybody except maybe one or two people who can understand me (which is not a causation but just a correlation) so bla bla bla i'm going to use the dog analogy again. why do you expect a dog to speak english? a dog has no reason or capability or no will or (as far as i know) no desire to speak english and i have no reason or will or capability and most definitely no desire to make sense or to formulate an understandable argument. so the fact that people reply to my posts saying "What?" or "You make no sense, stupid" or trying to use my posts as a basis for arguing with me, well that's their problem and not mine. it's their problem for trying to create something which wasn't supposed to exist in the first place. is a dog stupid for not speaking english? maybe in one sense of the word, you know, a completely subjective sense of the word, but really, the stupid people are the ones who expect a dog to speak english or try to turn his barks into logical words or rational thoughts. although i do believe dogs are intelligent creatures especially poodles and barking is a way of communicating blah blah blah but you get my point.