|
Who What Now posted:Do you acknowledge Jrod has been banned before, yet? You mentioned it like six times. Are you physically capable of admitting you were wrong about something? Because jrod wasnt, and you're acting an awwwwwfully lot like him... If what you mean by "wrong" is that Jrod has in fact been banned. Sure. I admit I have no idea what mods have done in the past. I meant banned For - e - VUR. For - e -VUR!
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Promontorium posted:That's fine. Stop telling me to gently caress off then. Um, I pretty much only did anything like that once, hoss, and it was in the other thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:That's fine. Stop telling me to gently caress off then. Speaking solely for myself that holier than thou poo poo was why I went at you to start with
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:If what you mean by "wrong" is that Jrod has in fact been banned. Sure. I admit I have no idea what mods have done in the past. I meant banned For - e - VUR. For - e -VUR! So you don't actually have any idea what the rules are or how these forums work then. The answer is because he hasn't broken any rules serious enough to be Perma-Banned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, if you honestly want to have an honest discussion then you need to start by telling us exactly what you believe and why you think it is superior to other forms of political thought. You said Jrod did an awful job of presenting a good case for libertarianism, so here's your chance to do better. Mayhaps. One of these days. That's like telling me to get naked. Y'all are in winter coats at this point. Jabbing me in my love handles while I'm getting down to my swim trunks. In the meantime I will endeavor to be honest and forthright. I don't know if Jrod did an awful job. But he sure as hell pissed a lot of people off. Which is probably the same thing. I don't believe in Anarchism so I would argue vehemently against him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:38
|
|
Promontorium posted:I have many of his works. Thanks to a Marxist professor of mine at Cal. Who saw Marx in every subject. On the one hand, there's the formal issue that you aren't putting things together, and on the other, you're failing to deal with "primitive communism" as laid out in the 1884 book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, written by Engels using Marx's notes as a working basis.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, if you honestly want to have an honest discussion then you need to start by telling us exactly what you believe
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:If what you mean by "wrong" is that Jrod has in fact been banned. Sure. I admit I have no idea what mods have done in the past. I meant banned For - e - VUR. For - e -VUR! You have to do something actually illegal or account share to do that I think. Even back when the mods were way more strict you didn't cop a permaban just for being bad at posting iirc. And you can know exactly what the mods have done in the past by doing that thing I told or visiting the Leper's Colony, a log of all mod disciplinary actions you can find at the top of your screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So you don't actually have any idea what the rules are or how these forums work then. The answer is because he hasn't broken any rules serious enough to be Perma-Banned. What I know is that if someone hurt you and others so badly that you devote at least two threads to perpetually bash him, either he should be perma-banned, or you should. I don't see how the rules mean anything if they forbid trolling and flaming and that's all that's happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:If what you mean by "wrong" is that Jrod has in fact been banned. Sure. I admit I have no idea what mods have done in the past. I meant banned For - e - VUR. For - e -VUR! The only thing that really gets you that is being a pedophile sk
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Why am I writing lovely SA tutorials for someone who has never responded to me, or indeed as far as I know has never read a single on of my posts. Only Von Mises knows. YEAH THAT'S RIGHT SEDANCHAIR I'M STEALING YOUR JOKE IT WAS REALLY FUNNY AND CLEVER
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:What I know is that if someone hurt you and others so badly that you devote at least two threads to perpetually bash him, either he should be perma-banned, or you should. I don't see how the rules mean anything if they forbid trolling and flaming and that's all that's happening. He made this thread, not us, so going "you big meanies and your two threads" is more of that disdainful hand wringing
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:He did that a week ago. People offered a few replies challenging his ideas about biotruths, individual-vs-group action, and intellectual property. He ignored these replies and eventually resurfaced with a tone argument about how we're all being super mean to Jrodefeld. I haven't ignored anything. I made some posts before. And today I remembered this website and posted again. I don't even know what page my comments were on. And I certainly didn't thikn I would gain ire by not responding when all I did was give some of my opinions and not actually bother anyone. But thanks for joining the poo poo show of trying insult me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:He made this thread, not us, so going "you big meanies and your two threads" is more of that disdainful hand wringing He made this thread in what he claimed was good faith to discuss libertarianism. and more insults from you. Thanks. I'm not Jrod. I'm not defending Jrod. Please go seek therapy for what he did to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:What I know is that if someone hurt you and others so badly that you devote at least two threads to perpetually bash him, either he should be perma-banned, or you should. I don't see how the rules mean anything if they forbid trolling and flaming and that's all that's happening. No one has ever devoted a thread to bashing jrodefeld. Threads have been started (mostly by jrodefeld) that devolve into people only bashing him because he is a very bad poster who keeps coming back. As for why jrode hasn't been permad, take it up with the mods. They love taking suggestions from new people and you'd be a forums hero if he actually got permabanned. youtube videos
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:There's the rub. I'm simultaneously being insulted for acting too intelligent, while being called a retard. To those who just talk poo poo, I'm just talking poo poo. You have put yourself on your own pedestal. You keep framing sentences as if I have to match you. But you've provided nothing, and you insult me with the rest of them. I don't find you interesting at all, because all you're doing is talking poo poo. But, I do thank you for giving me permission to be better. Look, the solution is very simple. Apologize that you got off on the wrong foot by jumping in and (let's face it) trying to play a game of rules-lawyering about the behavior of posters, rather than posting your own statement, perspective, or rebuttal to a salient topic point. Introduce yourself, what you believe and think (maybe addressing the thread topic directly), and go from there. If you're just going to continue acting aghast and insulted, maybe close the browser window, go for a walk, and clear your head. Because you're not doing yourself any favors by trying to continue on this particular posting track. Words of advice, send me gold certificates or Bitcoins for services rendered plz, thx.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:He made this thread in what he claimed was good faith to discuss libertarianism. He has continued to claim that despite never backing it up once And you keep doing it! I'm responding to you, not him, accept that people react to your behavior in ways you don't always want and maybe don't be such a prick
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:I have many of his works. Thanks to a Marxist professor of mine at Cal. Who saw Marx in every subject. Okay... Promontorium posted:'Karl Marx argued for Communism as a new state that had never existed' - In which his argument tends towards what's most recognisable as socialism. Promontorium posted:Has Communism ever existed before Marx? If so, then I can move past this too. If not then I'm genuinely at a loss. Marx himself addresses 'primitive' communism in his works, so I guess your loss is not reading his works? Promontorium posted:Did Marx argue for the rationality of Communism as a new kind of governance? If so, then I'm done. This is touched upon but it was not him arguing for a communist state but in the inadequacy of the capitalist system of society and suggestion that communist methods of governance solved the inadequacy. This is not a communist state. Promontorium posted:What are you missing here? I was just pointing out Communism was a new idea that hasn't been established in history. What exactly are you missing? A magic tome of history that ignored Marx's own acknowledgement of primitive communist communities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:On the one hand, there's the formal issue that you aren't putting things together, and on the other, you're failing to deal with "primitive communism" as laid out in the 1884 book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, written by Engels using Marx's notes as a working basis. drat it I write a response and you beat me by quite a margin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:He made this thread in what he claimed was good faith to discuss libertarianism. You are pretty clearly defending jrode, and also don't know what you are talking about because you self-admittedly don't know anything about his history on SA. Jrode starts threads with big huge OPs, posts badly about inane or insane ideas, and then doesn't post for two months and does the exact same thing again, while basically refusing to acknowledge the prior threads existed. This is mostly what got him banned. Caros didn't want jrode to keep getting banned so made a thread where jrode could post however he wanted without getting banned. For this jrode (and you) have declared him a big ol' meanie who is deliberately poisoning the well. So, yes, jrode claimed he wanted to discuss libertarianism in good faith and we all instantly knew he was lying, because he's pulled this exact same shtick multiple times over like three years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:I haven't ignored anything. I made some posts before. And today I remembered this website and posted again. I don't even know what page my comments were on. And I certainly didn't thikn I would gain ire by not responding when all I did was give some of my opinions and not actually bother anyone. But thanks for joining the poo poo show of trying insult me. Hey: stop posting about posting and post about something interesting. Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:What I know is that if someone hurt you and others so badly that you devote at least two threads to perpetually bash him, either he should be perma-banned, or you should. I don't see how the rules mean anything if they forbid trolling and flaming and that's all that's happening. The rules don't really mean much, actually. You have perceived the truth for once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:Mayhaps. One of these days.  I tried to give you as many chances as I could, but if you're just going to refuse to actually have a discussion then you can just gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:On the one hand, there's the formal issue that you aren't putting things together Effectronica posted:you're failing to deal with "primitive communism" as laid out in the 1884 book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, written by Engels using Marx's notes as a working basis. Primitive Communism is not Communism. It's an argument for principles within Communism that found Communism, but it references people who, for one, were very religious. That alone should be enough. I wasn't arguing that Karl Marx snapped his finger and all new ideas were born. Certainly for libertarianism, it is based on many many ancient practices and social orders. But for the practical argument that wasn't about Karl Marx or Communism but whether or not a society has existed without taxation or fiat spending the specifics a "libertarian" nor a "Communist" society have yet to exist. That alone isn't the end of a discussion. Since the topic isn't "ideologies that have existed in the past" but rather "what can we do?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Yeah seriously, just give a quick rundown like "I want a minimal state that builds basic infrastructure like roads and that enforces contracts", just something so we can know where you're coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Yeah seriously, just give a quick rundown like "I want a minimal state that builds basic infrastructure like roads and that enforces contracts", just something so we can know where you're coming from. But if he does that then he'll have to defend his ideas! And there's nothing more terrifying to a libertarian than the prospect of having to look at their ideals critically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:Everyone is born without any money at all. New nations are formed without any money at all. Take 10, 100, 1000 people with absolutely no money or possessions and drop them into a jungle or something, do they all just magically die because they don't have currency? Ironically enough, you attack strawmen of my position in this post. But, no matter. It's interesting that you've brought up free will, because as I see it government providing for basic needs via taxation (food, shelter, health care, security) enhances free will, rather than "abandons" it. In Libertopia, assuming no special conditions (born into money, etc.) the individual can easily lose access to necessities if their income stream is interrupted. If there's only one employer in town, your career options are correspondingly limited; to start your own business is an act carrying immense risk, because how are you going to eat if you fail? But the world is full of scientific and cultural endeavors that weren't particularly remunerative to start with. With some cushion for risk provided by government services, people can enter fields that would be off-limits for financial reasons in Libertopia - the choice wouldn't be available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:56
|
|
Promontorium posted:I don't know what you mean. The quote that I apparently need to write an essay to explain was JUST, and ONLY meant to be an off-handed comment pointing out that political theories exist, and are shared, that do not, and have not had a historical context for. Particularly with ideologies that attempt to build on history, not repeat it. It was not any more important than that. Maybe I inadvertently opened a can of worms, but my point was as simple as I claim. Primitive communism was, for Karl Marx, communism. This is because Marx defined communism in terms of what already was understood as communism, and so irreligiosity was secondary to the absence of private property and class structures, in his understanding of communism. So in this you're making a mistake, and you're also doing so in such a way as to ignore the many societies that existed without taxation or without currency, let alone "fiat money". The advantage of the proposal for a debate that you are consistently refusing to acknowledge is that it would allow you to gather together a whole set of thoughts to put into a single argument that can be treated at length and with time.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 03:58
|
|
Promontorium posted:This and the "watermelon fucker" rant from Mr. NYT Bestseller, aren't these explicity forbidden in forum rules? No matter how many pages back I go, it's just people talking poo poo on this Jrod. Get back to me after you've read 1000 jrod posts about stuff like Why the Confederacy was Cool and Child Slavery: A-OK!
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:
This is way too into the weeds for me. I was just making a point that Marx's Communism hasn't been implemented historically. This is a fact. Tesseraction posted:
He addresses some of the aspects of Communism, not Communism. The same can be said for libertarianism, but there hasn't been a libertarian state yet either. What point exactly do you think you're making? My point was that Communism as laid out by Marx, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. Hasn't existed yet. Period. primitive communism has the qualifier "primitive" it included a society steeped in mythology and religion. PLEASE don't make me quote Marx on the importance of a lack of religion for the NEW Communism he was proposing. Why can't you get past this? You're arguing for nothing at this point. It was an off-handed FACTUAL statement about the minutia of theoretical ideologies. Tesseraction posted:This is touched upon but it was not him arguing for a communist state but in the inadequacy of the capitalist system of society and suggestion that communist methods of governance solved the inadequacy. This is not a communist state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Please understand that jrodefeld has a unique style of posting where any point that can be made in a sentence, is made instead in a paragraph; and that any point that can be made in a paragraph, is instead made in a massive text brick. The result is that only the most patient are willing to take him on point-by-point by now (he's been doing this for like three years if not longer.) Please understand that the patient people who do this, are invariably disappointed by jrodefeld immediately jumping to a new topic, posting new links to sources he hasn't read, or insistently, furiously latching on to only the points about racism and nothing else. Please understand that he also prefers to respond to troll/joke posts about him over actual critiques of his ideas, and that such troll/joke posts are quite a bit easier to make. Getting the idea now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Primitive communism was, for Karl Marx, communism. This is because Marx defined communism in terms of what already was understood as communism, and so irreligiosity was secondary to the absence of private property and class structures, in his understanding of communism. So in this you're making a mistake, and you're also doing so in such a way as to ignore the many societies that existed without taxation or without currency, let alone "fiat money". The advantage of the proposal for a debate that you are consistently refusing to acknowledge is that it would allow you to gather together a whole set of thoughts to put into a single argument that can be treated at length and with time. Infinite feedback loop. I can see why no one wants to actually discuss ideology. You are so far into the weeds you will never surface. Rather than discussing ideas, it's round 10 of why one sentence in a post I made an hour ago isn't 100% right because I don't have Marx's library on hand (though I have most of it, and that's not enough) and even though what I wrote is factual, it's now round 3 of why I'm technically wrong because Iroquois were social people. No, Primitive Communism WAS NOT Communism for Karl Marx. The primitives were religious. Marx emphasized atheism as a necessary component. That hasn't existed yet. That's it. Hasn't existed yet. Has NOT existed yet. My comment was factual. Primitive Communism IS NOT Communism. If it were, then everything Marx wrote was pointless. Which would render your argument meaningless on its foundation since you're arguing that a man proposing what he called a "new" philosophy and vehemently defended every aspect of, was actually definitively completed 1,000 years earlier and Marx wasn't needed at all, nor any of his arguments. Is that really the path you insist on going down? Just to deny me one sentence from a comment that had NOTHING to do with this? "ignore the many societies that existed without taxation or without currency" No, see, both libterarianism and Communism propose conditions without taxation or fiat spending. I see a difference between these two. I find those differences compelling. Which is why I'm discussing them. Not resolving that something vaguely similar to them has already existed. Because the topic wasn't about something vaguely similar, the topic was whether or not the exact thing had existed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Please understand that jrodefeld has a unique style of posting where any point that can be made in a sentence, is made instead in a paragraph; and that any point that can be made in a paragraph, is instead made in a massive text brick. The result is that only the most patient are willing to take him on point-by-point by now (he's been doing this for like three years if not longer.) i like when he defended qatar's slavery as being just union disputes
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Please understand that jrodefeld has a unique style of posting where any point that can be made in a sentence, is made instead in a paragraph; and that any point that can be made in a paragraph, is instead made in a massive text brick. The result is that only the most patient are willing to take him on point-by-point by now (he's been doing this for like three years if not longer.) Painfully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:i like when he defended qatar's slavery as being just union disputes And defended the Confederacy as just underdogs protesting tyrant Lincoln.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Ninety new posts since I last looked at the forums, JRodefeld you magnificent bastard you know just when I'm stuck babysitting and bor-Promontorium posted:This and the "watermelon fucker" rant from Mr. NYT Bestseller, aren't these explicity forbidden in forum rules? No matter how many pages back I go, it's just people talking poo poo on this Jrod. WHO THE gently caress ARE YOU AND WHERE IS MY PUNCHING BAG?!  The very fact that you called me out on the watermelon fucker joke shows how ill informed you are on the subject you are bitching about. If you go back to the previous thread, or if you use Jrodefeld's post history to go back even further back still, one thing you will notice is that I used to give him the benefit of the doubt. Sure I used to swear at him occasionally when he was being especially obnoxious, but by and large I treated him with respect whenever he treated me with respect and I always engaged his posts with substance. If you look at the post you are quoting me from and the posts that are leading up to it you might even realize that he was arguing from a position that essentially boiled down to "You couldn't have stopped being a libertarian simply because of a huge personal tragedy related to healthcare" followed by him bitching about tone. In that particular instance I called him a watermelon fucker because he was being a little bitch about tone (which is something he has in common with you) and I had more or less lost all patience with him. He was a child having a tantrum and I there is simply nothing to engage with if he is just going to throw himself on the floor and start screaming Now, to the substance of your post. Your entire posting history in this thread seems to boil down to complaining about the fact that we aren't being 'fair' to Jrodefeld. To this I say, you are at least years too late. Let me be abundantly clear, in tyol 2011 Jrodefeld was coming onto these forums and posting arguments that are functionally identical to the ones he attempted to drop this week. At a certain point patience goes out the window in favour of mockery, especially when a person shows that they are incapable of even the most basic introspection. Moreover, despite your assertions I have engaged with Jrodefeld's arguments with frankly alarming frequency. If you bothered to do even a cursory look at my posting history you'd have noticed this. For example, if you look at Jrodefeld's most recent return you'd notice that my first reply to him was a substantive point by point take down of his argument. What more would you prefer from me? I responded to an incredibly condecending argument with a polite-ish rebuttal and only started throwing insults when it became apparent that he had no desire to actually debate. If you actually read the post you are throwing a fit about you might even notice that the underlying theme of it was a request for him to stop being a bitch and argue in good faith. I explicitly challenged him to a debate (for like the 10th time) so that he could move away from tone arguments to just being destroyed on the substance of his arguments instead. As for why he isn't banned or I'm not banned, its because the forum rules are more like guidelines. Our mods are people and frankly they've taken pity on Jrodefeld so long as he doesn't go wandering around the forum throwing his garbage posts everywhere. The libertarian thread was specifically designed to keep him from being banned for like the fourth time. That said I'd be happy to tell you why you're wrong. In detail! Literally The Worst posted:Honestly I just want to know what book Caros wrote and until proven otherwise I'm assuming he's Dan Brown It is young adult trash along the lines of the mazerunner. I also ghostwrote it so despite my work getting critical acclaim I made pennies on the dollar of what I should have earned. Fortunately I am negotiating a much better deal for the sequel. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:26
|
|
Promontorium posted:Infinite feedback loop. I can see why no one wants to actually discuss ideology. You are so far into the weeds you will never surface. Rather than discussing ideas, it's round 10 of why one sentence in a post I made an hour ago isn't 100% right because I don't have Marx's library on hand (though I have most of it, and that's not enough) and even though what I wrote is factual, it's now round 3 of why I'm technically wrong because Iroquois were social people. I'm sorry, you're being insulting. You said you wanted an intellectual conversation, you whiny little brat. Liars go to hell, sonny. Liars go to hell. Your problem is that you are violently defending the thing you consider to be inconsequential, because, as far as I or any other person not endowed with telepathy can tell, you want to set up an equivalency between communism, or "Communism", (of which the reason for your incessant plague of capitalization may never be known,) and libertarianism. But, since that equivalency is not actually possible, you should probably move on to some other analogy, instead of throwing a hissy fit and stamping your feet and closing your eyes. Furthermore, communism does not propose a condition without taxation inherently. The idea is that the State has dissolved away, but that does not preclude taxation. As an example of why the Haudenosaunee (what your paleface rear end calls the Iroquois) were considered as the example for primitive communism by Marx and Engels, the Haudenosaunee lacked a centralized State apparatus, but they nevertheless operated as essentially a command economy with a gigantic tax rate, indeed taking everything beyond people's tools and the most common goods. This in turn would be redistributed out through centralized warehouses via the clan and family systems. The only exception was through trade, which was not "taxed". However, in turn, the Haudenosaunee economy at levels above village production operated via a gift economy, and as a consequence, individual fruits of trading would in turn be redistributed through the economy as a whole. This is another area in which your analogizing fails. A third area would be to point out that the Haudenosaunee did have "fiat currency", though wampum is not money as we understand it today and this would involve a lot of effort for someone in a conniption.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:And defended the Confederacy as just underdogs protesting tyrant Lincoln. For the record I am opposed to both slavery and the Confederacy. Though not the abstract confederacy, as it fits in with minarchism. Anarchist libertarians and "states rights" libertarians will take a different view. Anarchy is most distasteful to me. And "states rights" is really more of a political ploy to cut down on federal power. Although if it could be implemented honestly, not in a one-sided way (can only make more laws, not less) I'd be much more for it. However I hold above all things, the rights of individuals. No human can be justifiably kept a slave. I believe it is the burden of moral people to endeavor to liberate others. I totally get and agree with the Confederacy's right to secede, but nobody has a right to hold slaves. I would have fought for that cause alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:I totally get and agree with the Confederacy's right to secede, but nobody has a right to hold slaves. I would have fought for that cause alone. Do you often agree that people have a unilateral light to violate an agreement? Because the confederate states agreed to enter into a state of perpetual union when they joined the burgeoning United States. While it is certainly arguable that states could secede with consensus of the union, it is rather absurd to think they they should be allowed to take their ball and go home when that decision would have significant effects on the country they are leaving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm sorry, you're being insulting. You said you wanted an intellectual conversation, you whiny little brat. Liars go to hell, sonny. Liars go to hell. Deeper into the weeds than I even thought possible. You've completely left the land. The Catcher in the rye failed to catch you. Nothing you've written here is remotely connected to my point, nor your failure to criticize my point. You just keep introducing more and more of topics. I might be insulting, but I am abiding. I tried very hard to address every point. And rather than addressing anything you just keep going deeper. You've actually gone past parody, since I made a satirical comment about the Iroquois and then you devoted a paragraph to them. You have made "off topic" an art form.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 04:35
|
|