Town Quixote's

[patrick jane]

Tomorrow? High notes, low notes and enough points between to blind a choir. :shocked:

Who says that ? Never heard that one. Blind a choir ?

 

[Town Heretic]

Who says that ?

:think:...me?

Never heard that one. Blind a choir ?

It's not as good as my "craptastic" but it'll do...if you sight read. oly:

 

[patrick jane]

:think:...me?


It's not as good as my "craptastic" but it'll do...if you sight read. oly:

What about blind an orphanage ? No, that's no good

 

[Town Heretic]

The Ruby Tuesday Gazette​

Explored the definitional with Cruc...

Let's define 'racist': the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others

I'm aware. Are you suggesting that someone who felt all Mexicans were of that stripe wouldn't feel superior to that group? lain: Because if you don't feel superior to a group you're insulting it mostly loses the sting and point, don't you think?

And...

He wasn't really speaking of all Mexicans. This is exactly what you all do-you abuse what people say.

You should really let his mistaken overgeneralization be a cautionary tale for you.

So this happened...

trump turpitude -remember you heard it here first -you have to give town an assist on this

Well, we may differ on a great deal, but not on the notion of this fellow as the leader of the free world.

But you just knew...

I seem to be clearer about it

It only seems that way to you because you understand you.

Continued with quip...

... you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys.

Rather, what I've stated is that the moment of conception is the beginning point where the vestment of right is as arguable as not. Every point up until birth is similarly situated. The argument follows the implications of that in relation to the foundation of the compact involving right.

The implications are obvious...you're claiming no difference between your son and the sperm/egg i.e. A=A; they both identify under the rubric of "life".

No difference in the one aspect that controls what we can or can't do to either.

While elsewhere something was potentially afoot...

Hey Knight or AMR or anybody that knows, what is the deal with bots ? Why do they get sent out to infiltrate discussion boards and who sends them ? What do they hope to accomplish or what is their purpose ?

It's usually one of two things: world domination OR selling you comfortable shoes at affordable prices.

Then a familiar tune began...

A cell is not a "person ". Period . Get over it !

A declaration is neither evidence nor argument. Get on with it. lain:

Cruc lodged a complaint...somewhere...

The universe is expanding because there's not enough room for your contradictory biases :idunno:

Or maybe it's just your head. lain: (either)

And...

People naturally know that abortion is not murder.

I'm a person. I don't agree. Most people knew the sun circled the earth once upon a time. Then someone said, "No, it really doesn't and here's why..."

While channeling the ghost of John McLaughlin...well, if McLaughlin had died...at least a couple of minutes after...maybe ten...

-Obamacare is not the evil demon many conservatives make it out to be

-There should have never been a 'Violence Against Women' act because instead of deterring violence against women it simply makes them confidently berate and manipulate men.

-Meh

-Immigration is a problem, only a complete imbecile says otherwise

Trump is still better

Tomorrow? Obsession (that doesn't smell so good), Cruc bares his soul (or at least his feet) and Trad shows everyone just how smart he is. :thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

"...enough points in between to blind a clutter of spiders"

'cause of the eight eyes, per

you see?

Slow day around the stacks?

I hear there's a sweet new People in the magazine section. lain: Just sayin.

Today's Gazette (link).

 

[Town Heretic]

Science Corner :singer:

In two studies introverts routinely rated extroverts lower than their introverted brethren, even when the extrovert clearly outperformed his or her competition. Curiously enough, extroverts showed no statistical preference in rating fellow employees.

This makes sense to me. I took part in team learning for a semester in an education class. My team was comprised of four extroverts and three introverts. I got along well with all my teammates, but especially well with only one of the introverts, noting the other two introverts were less involved in the team though I thought they contributed to the group when needed, at least in terms of product. We were told that as part of our grade students within each group would grade (anonymously) their fellows and the team. What wasn't told is that the grade didn't actually impact our final grade, which was only reflective of our academic work. There were three opportunities during the semester to rate one another. I noticed that my score within the group was uneven in each and at about the same level. In the highest category, but under my self evaluation and my evaluation of my teammates. I was puzzled and a little disappointed. I routinely encouraged my group, always did my share of the work, never missed a class and picked up slack when a couple faded toward the end.

After the term ended and I received my final score, which came in at a 98 average and spoke to my teacher about it. She let me in on the group study and said that the extroverts in our group were all undervalued by the introverts, except me. I had one of the introverts giving me a fairer appraisal. All of the introverts rated each others work more highly. The extroverts ratings were consistent and showed no particular bias.

Our smaller study was echoing the larger one. The conclusion? Introverts tend to underestimate and under value extroverts, while extroverts don't appear to be influenced as significantly by personality, either favorably or negatively.

Today's Gazette (link).

 

[Town Heretic]

The Early Bird Gazette​

Cruc had a point in our difference on abortion...

It seems to me like when it comes down to it, many of you resort to words like 'generalization' or 'anecdotal' to dismiss something.

I won't speak for anyone else, but that's a fair statement. I use it to dismiss a flawed and unreasonable approach to establishing a rule. Anecdotes are only worthy as illustrations of rules established by a broader means. Else, you might stub your toe and declare the world hobbled with as much reason.

The thing is, with this, you have a majority of society who do not see abortion as wrong in any sense

Simply not true. According to Gallop, last year (a better year for pro choice than many of late) only 29% of Americans thought abortion should even be legal in any circumstance. 51% allowed it should be legal in limited circumstance. 19% opposed it in every case and 1% were without opinion. So most Americans will be surprised to hear you misstate their case.

- and many more who do not see it, at least, as murder- and that automatically makes such arguments frivolous.

Neither declaration, nor numbers, nor the arrogance to confuse them with truth will silence truth or answer reason.

Wrapped up an example of how to support claims about a suspicion...

Spoiler

It began with:

... said the resident grammarian. :chuckle:

A pretense of good humor. But why call it pretense? Because not even you will defend it for its appearance in a moment. What’s clear to me is that at some point I gored your ox. I don’t know if it was an issue or a friend, but it got under your skin sufficiently that you reached out with a strained complaint. Met with an example of how someone who was what you thought would approach...

Oh, come on now big boy ... if you can dish it out you can take it.

Now that hostility was harder to miss, especially given you went back and literally corrected the goofy points I made about the grammar in your post, blowing by the point of doing it and the things surrounding it that should have told you what I was illustrating. Instead you continued to beat the drum:

Ah ... but you so often do when stripped of a defensible rhetorical position ... and I guess that would be my point.

Now I’m not only the resident grammarian, I’m habitually so and then, necessarily, habitually being stripped of a defensible position or I couldn’t routinely jump on the grammar wagon in defense. That’s an interesting corner you’ve painted for yourself.

I don’t even believe my worst enemies have ever said that. I note my actual, infrequent usage and...

No, actually you routinely gripe about grammar ... usually when you've run out of rhetorical ammo. That is okay. We each have our quirks and I'm not suggesting that is inherently bad.

And now it’s when I’m out of rhetorical ammo. In your world I routinely gripe about grammar after, it necessarily follows, routinely running out of ammo and having been stripped of a defensible position.

Asked for quotes and examples to support that fairly strong observation…

Another aspect of your online participation that I have noted is that you seem to suffer from amnesia when confronted with past offerings and want others to remind you of what you have said ...

Not actually confronted by anything more than declaration. You seriously made my request for support of a claim that should be as easily called to mind as you do the circumstances, about my memory instead of your inability to produce them. That’s brass. :thumb:

And this bit of polish:

and I don't think you are old enough to offer that for a defense just yet in the court of public opinion or the Big One. I'm not your Court Reporter but you do have one. Something you might want to consider ... or not. Up to you.

Consider how dramatically out of proportion the nature of this thing is for you to drag the Judgment Throne into it and how personal the root of this must be for you to hide a lack of ability to illustrate a thing that should be on the tip of your tongue behind yet another accusation.

By the next you’re not even believing your beginning was as advertised:

I call you out for your grammatical niggling when confronted with an indefensible point and then you grouse about my grammar in another thread ... I think the point sufficiently made. The defense rests.

A call out post. A reading of the response that misses the point of the response and a feeling in lieu of actual example.

And your latest?

For what it's worth you are intelligent and not devoid of a sense of humor ...

Yes, I’m particularly well known for not being devoid of a sense of humor. lain:

and you tend to carp about grammar when backed into a rhetorical corner and get a little forgetful on similar occasions.

So I have a habit of carping or niggling about grammar, habitually enough to make it the rule in your mind, even though you can’t actually recall it happening particularly, let alone repeatedly, which is obviously my problem for expecting you to provide evidence in support because you aren’t a Court Reporter…only a judge without evidence of much beyond that dead ox.

And that, fzappa, is how you use a mirror. Hold a person to what they say, offering proof on the point, not declaration slathered in the pretense of humor or helpfulness and masking, thinly, ire.

So Sod doubled down on fzap's error...

:think:
because you're pretentious?

Like having your BMI critiqued by Chris Christie. lain:

Then pure suggested...

What is absolutist is your conviction that your opinion is an "argument from reason"

Sustained by the composition and the open nature of my challenge to consider its parts. Or, reason itself will tell you that the argument is from it. Whether it is sufficient or flawed is another matter and the nature of the challenge you have before you to meet or fail.

when in fact it is an argument from ignorance

If so it must be illustrated. Else, that's a declaration from arrogance.

You presume that what you see to be certain IS CERTAIN

Not at all. Rather, I present the contextual framework for how right is viewed in the law and address what is known and our obligation within both in how we address what either isn't known or may not be knowable, objectively. If it isn't certain the reasoning will out it.

Everything about your posts indicate otherwise. You stoop to surprisingly low means to dismiss any and every objection that confronts you

That's really not true, which is why you'll say it, maybe on some level really believe it, but never illustrate me doing it with, you know, my actually doing it.

And Cruc was back with...

I couldn't count on my hands and feet the amount of times you all do what you just did.

I always suspected that's how you counted. lain:

I just showed you to be wrong on the very statement you just posted.

Who judged that you managed that? :think: It was you, wasn't it? Just a guess, mind you, but I'm betting you did that.

So I made a suggestion to Trad about approach following his being benched elsewhere...

With all due respect,

Have you ever noticed that what tends to follow that is often the same sort of thing that follows, "Not to sound racist..." lain: Okay, let's see if you shook the hubris out with your last exercise.

...Fact is, I got censored simply because the moderator in question found my views objectionable.

I think you were censored because he found you objectionable. How you presented the idea, not the idea itself.

And just so that you don't think that I'm looking at things through rose colored glasses," here is the actual conversation:

I read it. You were given an opportunity to do what I suggested and instead of proclaiming what you understood to be the truth in a way to invite your continued presence and an actual discussion, you gave the moderator what for...

And...

...The burden isn't on me to change my approach and soften my claims.

It depends on your purpose. If you mean to persuade people, you're wrong. If you meant to remain in play in the hope of reaching someone, you're wrong. If you wanted to strut and fret your hour on that stage and leave...mission accomplished.

So there was a chance to engage and discover. Instead you made another choice and learned nothing, taught nothing, and accomplished less.

On an unrelated note...

...I have said many times here at tol
-we are what we do our works define us

That was my understanding of your position. It's an interesting difference between us. I think what we do reflects us...or mostly what matters to us. I doubt God will be overly cross with whoever has it wrong, considering.

Tomorrow? More fun with figures. lain:

 

[Eeset]

As Paulsen said... " I will come right to the point, and take note of the fact that the heart of the issue in the final analysis escapes me."

 

[Town Heretic]

The Sunday Afternoon Gazette​

Fzap was fzizzing...

Nah, that's how you be a lawyer. Pretend you don't remember what you have said and hope the latest forum purge has removed enough of what you have said that anyone who calls you on it can't dredge it up anymore and offer it in the court of public opinion.

It isn't my memory that's in question...People like you, who just declare and then invent reasons why they shouldn't have to (I'm not a court reporter) or can't (inferred in the purge bit above) are just making noise to suit whatever ax they're dragging around. Apparently yours has a bit of lawyer stuck to it. lain:

Just remember ... there is a God and we will all account for every idle word .

...the judgement throne...that just screams perspective on the point of grammar. Well, I suppose if any of us was above nonsense and uncharitable motivation from time to time, if we always got a thing right and acted the way we should we wouldn't need grace.

And Trad was still talking about censorship...

I only wish to note that you are arguing in favor of censorship.

...sure, I don't believe in allowing children to view pornography. Do you?

Not that I'm surprised.

I'd hope not.

Angel said to anna...

Do tell where you got your clairvoyant license.

I got mine at a bait and tackle shop. lain:

Sky fell on a point or two...

Homosexuality is the final and most egregious immorality a society can commit.

So...worse than genocide or abortion to your mind. lain:

This isn't new either, when morals decline society eventually follows. It happened in Lot. It happened in Rome (to the Romans). It's happening here now.

What happened to the Romans was largely about inbreeding and bad pipes. Outside of parts of the Appalachians and Michigan, we have the inbreeding/water thing under control...though some find Congress fairly incestuous, metaphorically speaking.

They are transgressing beyond all bounds.

I don't watch as much news as I once did. Who have they been bombing or shooting? Where was the last gay looting riot?

Why not decriminalize every drug?

Because many a drug is inherently unsafe. Like processed sugar.

Then, before you knew it...

There you have it, folks. Comparing abortion with genocide-

Which I didn't really do. Or I did in the sense that were I to make a grocery list I'd be comparing items. lain:

Before charging after the rabbit...

Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist, as well as most white people.

Most white people of European descent saw themselves as superior to opposing cultures. The standard of the day. Labeling Lincoln a "white supremacist" is a bit skewed, contextually speaking.

Liberals are against conservative ideology.

...I'd say, rather, that liberals have a context and conservatives have another and they move toward their disparate goals. Often those goals conflict. I don't think the point is conflict, but goal oriented.

Now stop pretending like Rebulicans wanting to recriminalize homosexuality isn't for the same reason you all wanted it decriminalized in the first place

Two quick points. I'm not a liberal and you do a disservice to actual liberals (and any sort of rationalist) by doing the standard right wing nonsense of calling everyone to your left a liberal. Second point, my position would be there's no secular justification for criminalizing a private behavior that deprives no one of their right. I don't have to like it anymore than I like the Klan marching on a public street, but that's the nature of the Republic.

Felt obliged to take issue with a summary that wasn't...

Yes I do... because it's question begging. As it goes: We don't know at what point of development to assign a value to the unborn thus we must, by default, assign value at conception. ("error in favor of life")

Though, in effect: the unborn retain value (conclusion) because we're required to place defacto value (supra) upon them (premise)....TH's premise constitutes evidence for his conclusion, a text-book case.

That's not really true though...We don't protect the unborn from conception because we assume vestment and the presence of value. We protect them because a) we recognize that whenever vestment of right occurs we have no right to abrogate it and b) the chance for that vestment absent any self-authenticating standard exists as fully in each moment as not. Meaning that if we proceed in law to affirm the right to act we as likely write an unjust law that accomplishes what we have no right to as a just one that affirms what we may do. The only means we have to protect ourselves from doing that which we are not entitled to do is to refrain.

Now the thing that quip doesn't discuss, the thing no one objecting likes to discuss, is that unlike the argument presented they assign an arbitrary point of value themselves, be it the Roe standard or some other, and that from that point forward they are in no part different from the fellow standing just behind their chronological point, objecting.

My argument doesn't do that..

Then...

The reason such is not discussed is primarily because the issue is patently necessary...It simply doesn't warrant a specific debate.

I can see why you wouldn't want it to, but in fact it is important to note that everyone else subscribes to the very thing so many of you announce as the very thing to be avoided, the subordination of the rights of the woman to make a reproductive choice. You only differ as to the where on that line...So among those competing with my approach are a host of prostitutes arguing that virtue is determined by price. lain:

Interrupted chrys' ongoing attempt to make people feel stupid for taking his advice over the years on voting party...

idiots have to be reminded every day

Try a Post-it® on your refrigerator.

Tomorrow? Getting ready for the last run to the semester finish line. :smack:

 

[patrick jane]

Thank goodness, i've been jonesing for for some Quixote !!

 

[Town Heretic]

The Thursday Short Form Gazette
​

So SD said...

:yawn: I'm not here to teach you Logic 101 (Eph 4:14). :freak:

Then AB answered...

Your threads are more like 'Room 101'...:freak:

And I thought...

She should have stopped after "here". lain:

Yor did the ol injustice system tap-dance, so eventually...

Far beyond anecdotal evidence, the numbers are on my side.

Cardinal or ordinal? Else, sweet. Then post them, link to the source and lets' see what numbers and what they actually say.

Of course, I realize that someone as deep into the system as you would not realize what water even is. So you can take your vast training and immersion into the system and compare it to my few anecdotes, and feel good about yourself.

I know that you should cut whatever you're having with a lot more of whatever water is.

I will concede one point.

You seemed a little conceded.

Since so many lives are ruined by the injustice of the system, calling it a game doesn't do the system justice. Call it something more like... a gauntlet.

You can call it cheese, but I wouldn't try to eat it on a cracker. :nono:

And Cher...I just don't know what was going on with Cher....

I finally got around to watching the movie "The Force Awakens." The theme seems to be about a Black man who ends up with a White woman, whom they care about each other. Together they fight against the evil White man and his empire.

Did you see the first Star Wars film and if so did you think it was about romance across class boundaries?

My question here, is; Is the story line happen stance, or is there a political motive behind it?

Was your come away from The Passion that it was about the hazards of changing jobs? lain:

Cruc tried scripture to set up his latest shot at the women folk...

Jesus and the modern day Jews are a perfect example of what I'm saying here- see, many Jews like to scapegoat the whole thing on the Romans, because Pilate sentenced him to die.

What Jews would do that and why?

However, Jesus stated to Pilate that the Jews had the greater sin.

You mean the Sanhedrin and those present who urged Pilate. Most Jews had no part in the process or presence. But you're missing why the sin was compounded on the part of those Jews who sought Christ's death. They used their presence and pleas/insistence to corrupt the judgement and use of power of the magistrate, who derived (as all leaders do) his authority from God. This isn't about God declaring that whoever thinks up a plan is more guilty than the fellow who executes it. You missed his point. And your bit that follows is founded on that errant premise.

The woman, therefore, has the greater sin in abortion, not the one carrying it out.

:nono: Supra.

Wrapped up the latest with quip...

Well, I do remember stating that the unborn have no more an inherent right to a woman's body than a rapists may. Not quite sure of any direct comparison...I'd say it's rather direct evidence for the sexual impulse.

That too. But to the other point, among the important distinctions between a rapist and the unborn (and that's something I never thought I'd have to write) is the fact that the child is the foreseeable consequence of a consensual act on the part of the mother.

Of course. It was simply an allusion by way of contrast. Now, if you have a reasonable method for removing incipient life from the womb sans its subsequent demise....I'm all ears.

I don't have to (see: the as yet standing argument). Sounds like you're repackaging Roe, the point where most on the "Her body/her choice" suddenly become indistinguishable from the "It's a life, not a choice" chorus..

And Cruc was back as if...

Birth control and abortion are both specifically and uniquely of women.

Well, no. Maybe you just don't know much about birth control. :idunno: You should Google it.

They fought for it, they celebrate it- keep it at it's origin: abortionists exist because women who want abortions exist.

Many fought for it (with the support and aid of many men), though the Court that gave us Roe...how many women were on that, do you know?

There's a bottom, and there's a bottom bottom.

You already tried that with the scriptural bit I answered in your last. There's just death and sin and responsibility, your curious need to focus on a single part of the equation notwithstanding.

Then Cher summed...

It seems that some saw a different movie than I did.

No, we just saw it differently. You might wonder why that is.

Well...

It is because everyone is marching to a different tune! Right?

Though most of us aren't marching to "Dixie". :drum:

So quip had a new way of summing me and did it again, dad blast it...

...You can't place cart prior to horse.

Yet that's precisely what Roe did and every other attempt manages. "Don't look at the foundation, whether or not a power to do a thing or an obligation to refrain exists, rather, follow us to this new point founded without regard for the consideration and the establishment of a right that cannot exist else." Within Roe we have a tragic usurpation. The Court reduces right to a thing created by fiat and not recognized and protected by reason.

Tomorrow? :think: Slot machines in voting booths, track and field, and nobody wins a Pulitzer... Nobody. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Sunday Company Gazette​

Talked Trump a bit...

the system is rigged

Yes, that's why voting booths often resemble slot machines.

-trump is electing hillary

In the sense that a candy bar will make you fat.

And with CSludicrous...

Why didn't you just say you hate trump and drop all that nonsense about his poor speech.

Why can't he just dislike the speech?

It wasn't well prepared...so sue him.

Wait...does that mean that you hate Trump now? :think:

These things don't bother people who don't already hate the guy.

You mean people who support him have developed a self-defense mechanism that mostly involves disregarding what he says and how he says it?

But when you have to find some way to smear the guy and look smart to your friends.

Like not voting for him?

... Hey...go for it. Just don't expect everyone to be as bothered by it or impressed with you as you would desire.

Well, if there's one thing that I'm sure can't matter to Trump supporters it's impressing people. lain:

And the law with Yor...

This would be the only thing in your post worth responding to.

Then I've lapped you.

Look, seriously, you're entitled to think and say anything that suits you. I'm just telling you how it goes beyond your apparently unfortunate experience.

Tell us more

I could, but you're like some guy who's just been given an insight into the medical profession by his doctor, and can't bother to credit it because you've handed out a couple of aspirin and that's got to put you on par. lain:

Then Sod asked...

why would anybody have a bad experience with a system that wasn't flawed?

Because there's a difference between perfect and good. The best restaurants occasionally get an order wrong. The best surgeons make mistakes. Because systems are run by people and people don't always get a thing right.

Our system is predicated on that understanding, which is why we put standards and review in place to safeguard against it and to revisit when necessary.

And bottom lines with john w...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/18/media/pulitzer-prizes-2016/index.html?section=money_latest
Regrettably, I did not win, as the fix was in.
I have not won since 1998, when I won for my "To Do List."

I forgot to send my latest for consideration...which is a shame, because it had Pulitzer written all over it...literally. lain: I thought it might help.

Continued to chat politics...

Does it get tiring always having to clean up after Trump?

Supporting Trump means never having to say you're sorry.

...or being unable to, maybe. :think: It's a toss up.

Then...

Us trump people have finally stood up after going underground after Reagan.

All that time in the dark may have affected your retinas.

We are not going to let your hatred of us silence us again.

If there's one thing everyone can agree upon it's that silencing a Trump supporter is only slightly harder than getting one to listen.

The stereotype you have foisted on us through media and higher education will not last forever.

Well, if he does away with educational standards you might have a point to put your eye out with. Speaking of education, again...

Sooner or later, the truth will come out and it will be discovered that the emperor has no clothes.

You know what's funny about your using this?

That's a metaphor

That is...that's what's funny.

No one tell him why, please.

Quip made an end run...

...]Likewise, by a pure rational standard, you cannot deny the principle in play whereas one human individual has no uncontested right of access to another human individual.

The problem with that is you're only really finding a way to recontextualize the particular situation we're addressing. In what other situation would the notion of uncontested access have meaning? None if the argument is necessity and what other context is there?

The difference in either rational approach lies exclusively within the realm of moral discernment and subjective valuation.

My argument has nothing to do with subjective valuation save the founding principle of law can be called that...which is an argument, but everything that proceeds from it cannot be so situated or the law becomes nothing more or less than an incoherent plea to power.

And unlike my approach, every attempt to foist upon the chronological line of being a point of sudden value is entirely subjective pleading and my argument resists and rejects it.

Tomorrow? Cool kids, the arrogance of emotionalism and the remains of the daze. lain: Or something.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The Sunday Company Gazette​

Talked Trump a bit...



And with CSludicrous...



And the law with Yor...



Then Sod asked...



And bottom lines with john w...





Continued to chat politics...



Then...



Quip made an end run...



Tomorrow? Cool kids, the arrogance of emotionalism and the remains of the daze. lain: Or something.

Arrogant piece of garbage. You think your cool getting away with threads like these? Trash people from other thread and then lock the thread down if they challenge you. You are an example of why so many people hate the establishment. Deceitful. Gaining power from an unwitting site management and then getting your PC back up squad to cover your butt and destroy your opponents.

 

[annabenedetti]

Arrogant piece of garbage. You think your cool getting away with threads like these? Trash people from other thread and then lock the thread down if they challenge you. You are an example of why so many people hate the establishment. Deceitful. Gaining power from an unwitting site management and then getting your PC back up squad to cover your butt and destroy your opponents.

Now that you've trashed him, do you feel better?

 

[Rusha]

Right. On. Cue.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't think he liked his nickname.

Arrogant piece of garbage.

You seem a bit...high strung.

You think your cool getting away with threads like these?

Would it help if I promised that every time I put one together I roll a package of cigarettes up in a short sleeved shirt? lain:

Trash people from other thread and then lock the thread down if they challenge you.

First, I haven't locked a thread in a very long time and then only to keep out trolls. Second, if reproducing your own writing feels like trashing you might want to think a bit more before you hit send next time out.

You are an example of why so many people hate the establishment.

Deep seated feelings of inadequacy? :think:

Deceitful.

No, which is why people who level that one will never get around to quoting me doing that.

Gaining power from an unwitting site management

You think people get power from an anonymous internet forum? lain: Where do you live, in a box?

and then getting your PC back up squad to cover your butt and destroy your opponents.

Don't you think at least one of us should know what you're talking about?

I don't "get" anyone to do anything. If you don't like the Gazette you aren't required to actually read it. :nono: No one is.

Today's Gazette found here. (link)

 

[Rusha]

Second, if reproducing your own writing feels like trashing you might want to think a bit more before you hit send next time out.

It is just hideously shameful of you to provide other poster's exact quotes!

You need to apologize for being upfront and honest ... but whatever you do ... don't quote me!

 

[Town Heretic]

It is just hideously shameful of you to provide other poster's exact quotes!

If only it was that simple. I also...God help me...provide a link so anyone interested can READ THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE! :shocked:

Run away!

You need to apologize for being upfront and honest ...

Well, to hear Yor tell it I'd be the closest thing to a unicorn.

but whatever you do ...

Close enough?


Today's Gazette found here. (link)

 

[Rusha]

:rotfl:

 

[Nick M]