Dennis Miller on Politics

TIASSA:

Thank you for your words, and you are correct, I spoke from my heart. I appreciate your honest response as well.

I believe you have all the signs of going forward, and I wish you the best.

PMT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ahh what a gem...

Regarding Dennis Miller, it is interesting in this world FILLED to the brim with far left leaning actors espousing their views, one actor who espouses his right leaning views gets blasted. (gregoftheweb)

this is obvious bait. there is one way to respond to this garbage and that is......hard and merciless.

I'll tell you the people I respect in the world the most, my father and my father-in-law hold conservative viewpoints on the world. And if you were to disparage their opinions in a like manner it would make me angry. They are also about the smartest men I know (a nuclear engineer and a aeronautical engineer (gregoftheweb)

implicit in assertions.....
*respectable people are conservative.
*any temerity to disagree with said respectable conservatives will evoke negative emotions and subsequent retaliation by totalitarian types
*respectable people are conservative and smart (the old standby...my dad's is better than your dad)

as far as vice goes, republicans are well established hypocrites. bible in one hand and pussy/dick/crackpipe in the other.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so where is the controversy?
the coolest was coffee! its a wonder the boy knows how to awaken from sleep.

*so!! wessie! what is this i hear? nuturing grudges are we now? instead of me welcoming you over to the dark side, i should have realized that you were the original inhabitant. do i lie??? am i right or am i wrong?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Be more specific

Your post preceding that to which I'm currently replying was a mass of contradictions, misrepresentations of what others said, denial, etc. Your comments were blatantly incorrect a number of times in that post. I'm curious as to if you are conscious of it. If you are, I would ask that you explain your intent.

Did you intentionally lie more than once in that post? Please answer yes or no with some explanation as to your answer.

That statement demonstrates that you are as mature as I claim you are. Also, refusing to think for me implies that I would have you do so. Is that an attempt at humor?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: ahh what a gem...

/this is obvious bait. there is one way to respond to this garbage and that is......hard and merciless.

That is not obvious bait. Seems like a valid point to me, of course it's probably easy to demonstrate its irrelevance, that doesn't mean the comment lacked sincerity.

/implicit in assertions.....
/*respectable people are conservative.

Trolling eh? Your statement is technically true but it seems you're trying to imply that he could only respect conservatives - based on the context you establish. From this I deduce that you have nothing better to do that see if you can get a rise from people. Sorry bitch. Hehe.

/*any temerity to disagree with said respectable conservatives will evoke negative emotions and subsequent retaliation by totalitarian types

So you jump from your implication in your first bogus point straight into accusations of facism? Troll.

/*respectable people are conservative and smart (the old standby...my dad's is better than your dad)

Only a troll interprets that from his statement of affection for his father.

/as far as vice goes, republicans are well established hypocrites.

then you get prejudice, nice. you're on a downhill slide now brother, preach on!

/bible in one hand and pussy/dick/crackpipe in the other.

Straight into character assasination! Yeah! There's no stopping you now!

/so where is the controversy?

Wherever you put it eh?

/the coolest was coffee! its a wonder the boy knows how to awaken from sleep.

A random baseless cheap shot. Trolly-style.

/*so!! wessie! what is this i hear? nuturing grudges are we now?

Depends on how you look at it I suppose. I wouldn't put it that way, but you're going to regardless of what I say. You force the dance, so I dance nice for you boss.

/instead of me welcoming you over to the dark side, i should have realized that you were the original inhabitant.

the dark side spookz? don't you remember I'm a moral relativist? you think we'd agree on what's dark? i don't think you know what you even mean when you say it, but only use it as a tool of your trollish trade.

i'm glad you want to be in my club, but I'm not sure I dig the games you're into as much as you do.

/do i lie???

Liberally.

/am i right or am i wrong?

In whose eyes? To me you're neither. You're usually (as in this case) simply irrelevant except for entertainment value.

 

What do you mean by that, Spookz?

 

wanna play 3 guesses kiddo?

 

Re: Re: ahh what a gem...

That is not obvious bait.

sorry. i rather not respect your opinion. you have demonstrated that you have no inkling of what goes down. you beg to be clued in, be thrown a bone. you are like a frikkin fish out of water, boy! subtleties just whizz by you. do not presume to tell me how to interprete a post!

Seems like a valid point to me, of course it's probably easy to demonstrate its irrelevance, that doesn't mean the comment lacked sincerity.

"filled to the brim (greg)" is valid? " far left leaning (greg)" is not an attempt at painting liberals as extremists? commies? i am supposed to take this as sincerity?

Trolling eh?

eh?

Your statement is technically true

then shut the fuck up if you aint got shit

but it seems you're trying to imply that he could only respect conservatives - based on the context you establish.

well look at the context that i established... bash commie hollywood, praise conservatives! it is right there. greg already established context. i bit.

From this I deduce that you have nothing better to do that see if you can get a rise from people. Sorry bitch. Hehe.

umm and i expected a different response from you? is that why you made that faux apology? you are now all a titter cos you think you figured me out. you think i need support and i gotta get frikkin cut up cos you...wes frikking morris aint there for me? you aint shit to me freak! i can stand by my words without your approval

So you jump from your implication in your first bogus point straight into accusations of facism?

look at the contradiction..."Your statement is technically true" and "first bogus point "/. which is it wessie? make up your mind

this is simply your naivety and foolishness in display here. when greg implies he would get angry at an opinion that displeases him, it is not hard to figure out the consequences of that anger. it will be a "shut the fuck up" or a beat down. that is plenty facist to me

Only a troll interprets that from his statement of affection for his father.

admiration translates to affection? you crack me up. you seriously have the most whacked out comprehension. you are so far out it is hard to think you are serious.

then you get prejudice, nice. you're on a downhill slide now brother, preach on!

Straight into character assasination! Yeah! There's no stopping you now!

frikkin wes morris. on a jihad! an expose! you go boy! so you noticed the cartoon and figured it out! well done farm boy!

Wherever you put it eh?

why thanks?

i don't think you know what you even mean when you say it, but only use it as a tool of your trollish trade.

hmm i am mystified. what ever do you mean wessie?

Liberally.

yah? where? when? what?

In whose eyes?

that segment was meant for you

To me you're neither.

liar

You're usually (as in this case) simply irrelevant...

liar, you responded

...except for entertainment value.

super. you and head (another ent loving guy) await my next show.


*let this be a caution to all about the dangers of elevating ones parents on to a pedestal in order to make a point. frikkin newbies!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: Re: Re: ahh what a gem...

/sorry. i rather not respect your opinion.

maybe that's your problem spooky. maybe you're so fucked up that your opinion is the only one you case see eh? you may not like it, but can you rationally debate it? i think your troll is out of control and you couldn't be rational about it if you tried.

you should note mister spooky, that if you presume if obvious you only leave yourself room for one interpretation. maybe that's what works for you eh? that way you can't be wrong. you remind me of T.

you see when i read it, i interpreted it differently and got a wholly different meaning from it. as such, it is to a valid perspective, not obvious bait. so i thought i'd let you know. i didn't tell you how to interpret it, i demonstrated how your interpretation is logically flawed.

/you have demonstrated that you have no inkling of what goes down.

have I spooky, or have I just demonstrated a propensity to offer an alternative perspective which you insist is invalid?

/you beg to be clued in, be thrown a bone.

I'd certainly appreciate honesty, yeah. You see without it I find communication somewhat counter-productive.

/subtleties just whizz by you.

so my reservation of judgement is tantamount to ignorance?

/do not presume to tell me how to interprete a post!

i covered this already.

/"filled to the brim (greg)" is valid? " far left leaning (greg)" is not an attempt at painting liberals as extremists?

LOL, okay, cheezy choice of words, but no, when I read it I didn't see that. I can see it as a possible take on it, if one assumes that gregg is a jerk. Regardless, there is more than one way to take just about anything. I generally try to allow for that until I've known someone for a bit and can make what I feel are valid assumptoins about their character. To me it looks like, based on one post in which he professes a leaning to the right, you defame him mercilessly.

/commies? i am supposed to take this as sincerity?

where did he call anyone a commie? is it not a well-known fact that actors who got airtime in the last year who got to deliver their policital stuff generally lean left? Have you been paying attention? it's just kind of how it is. at least those who speak out, generally speak left. as far as I'm aware, miller is one of the few voices from hollywood that talks from the right. of course, none of that matters for shit really, but it's still a valid comment to me, so that means to at least someone its valid. I'm guessing gregg found it valid too. most importantly though, another perspective exists. when you say "the only way to see this is X" and I say "but I see it Y", doesn't that cancel your statement?

/then shut the fuck up if you aint got shit

You apparently intentionally imply then pretend you didn't imply and then ask that it not be noted. if you didn't intend to imply, you should state that. otherwise, you are avoiding the issue eh?

/well look at the context that i established... bash commie hollywood, praise conservatives!

Yeah, you introduced that into his words.

/it is right there. greg already established context. i bit.

You definitely bit something.

/umm and i expected a different response from you?

I'd hate to let you down.

/is that why you made that faux apology?

As is your mode, you take the opposite of the intended meaning. Try reading that as "you're a sorry bitch". Poor choice of words on my part maybe. "you're a" seemed implicit, but I can see how you might take it otherwise. my bad and I've now corrected myself, thanks for the opportunity to clear things right up.

(note that if you read carefully, the point of my argument in this thread is summarized halfway decently right there)

/you are now all a titter cos you think you figured me out.

LOL. titter? Hehe.

/you think i need support and i gotta get frikkin cut up cos you...wes frikking morris aint there for me?

no man, i think you're a troll who presents a challenge for me to understand. I enjoy dissecting you.

/you aint shit to me freak!

denial?

/i can stand by my words without your approval

does that mean they are worth something? maybe approval isn't what I can offer you spooky. maybe i can only offer you dissection.

/look at the contradiction..."Your statement is technically true" and "first bogus point "/. which is it wessie? make up your mind

I'll look at your retardation for you spookz. Check this: I showed your first statement as though valid - phony. Hence: Bogus.

/this is simply your naivety and foolishness in display here

Uh huh.

/when greg implies he would get angry at an opinion that displeases him

lol. you've got him all figured out don't you? man you're a piece of work.

/it is not hard to figure out the consequences of that anger.

for a man of your limited faculty, I find that hard to believe.

/it will be a "shut the fuck up" or a beat down. that is plenty facist to me

then why don't you wait and attack that when you would have a valid point? that makes YOU the fucking fascist, dolt.

/admiration translates to affection?

close enough, sure. I'll take your correction though, pardon: admiration.

/you crack me up.

well I gotta be good for sumthin.

/you seriously have the most whacked out comprehension.

show it to be invalid if you think it sucks. i'm willing to listen. expect a rebuttal.

/you are so far out it is hard to think you are serious.

you don't have to worry about it though since I don't me shit to you.

/frikkin wes morris. on a jihad! an expose! you go boy!

it's just a dissection spooky. i'm interested to see where it goes, you are an interesting case or I wouldn't bother. you mean shit to me spookz.

/well done farm boy!

what does this serve? you think because you're in LA you're fucking cool? oh man is that what this is about? are you THAT FUCKING SHALLOW????????? WOW brother, I thought more of you!

/why thanks?

I do acknowledge you are a very good troll. it's fascinating to me - like a goddamn train wreck in your mind. fucking cool.

/hmm i am mystified. what ever do you mean wessie?

really? can't read between the lines spooky?

/To me you're neither.

/liar

can't EVER see a different way to see things eh spooky?

/You're usually (as in this case) simply irrelevant...

/liar, you responded

and you think that means I think you have a point? i think it means you are an interesting case study. I think it means you are a character I enjoy engaging.

/super. you and head (another ent loving guy) await my next show.

LOL. As if you have a choice. We cannot avoid it spookz, why should we try? Maybe instead of avoiding it, I can slice it to pieces.

/*let this be a caution to all about the dangers of elevating ones parents on to a pedestal in order to make a point. frikkin newbies!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or let it be a caution to the newbies, like a sign on a bridge : BEWARE OF TROLLS.

you know what man, i'm just not scared by fiction.

 

Spookz, I haven't met a lamer troll since you first came to this community.

Wes, pay no attention to Spookz. Him and his 6000 posts are nothing but crap.

 

go coffee go coffee

 

SPOOKZ WROTE:

i can stand by my words without your approval....

Though Wes was rather brutal in his response to you, it was in your language, and therefore much better than anything I could have said. Shame on you, and good for Wes for challenging you.

I recall writing something complimentary about you once. Could I please see that side of you again? There is enough hate in this world.

PMT

 

wes

maybe that's your problem spooky. maybe you're so fucked up that your opinion is the only one you case see eh? you may not like it, but can you rationally debate it? i think your troll is out of control and you couldn't be rational about it if you tried.

i say bait, you say not. what is there to debate? two opinions and i stand by mine. yours is wrong. since we are sparring i bring in "respect" to diss you. comprende? your analysis is pointless

you should note mister spooky, that if you presume if obvious you only leave yourself room for one interpretation. maybe that's what works for you eh? that way you can't be wrong. you remind me of T.

well duh! i do not flutter around in the wind as you appear to do

you see when i read it, i interpreted it differently and got a wholly different meaning from it. as such, it is to a valid perspective, not obvious bait. so i thought i'd let you know. i didn't tell you how to interpret it, i demonstrated how your interpretation is logically flawed.

and i disregarded. stop frikkin whining.

have I spooky, or have I just demonstrated a propensity to offer an alternative perspective which you insist is invalid?

i insist

I'd certainly appreciate honesty, yeah. You see without it I find communication somewhat counter-productive.

i do not trust you wes.

so my reservation of judgement is tantamount to ignorance?

ja

i covered this already.

you covered shit

LOL, okay, cheezy choice of words, but no, when I read it I didn't see that. I can see it as a possible take on it, if one assumes that gregg is a jerk. Regardless, there is more than one way to take just about anything. I generally try to allow for that until I've known someone for a bit and can make what I feel are valid assumptoins about their character. To me it looks like, based on one post in which he professes a leaning to the right, you defame him mercilessly.

stick to your position or you are wasting my time

where did he call anyone a commie? is it not a well-known fact that actors who got airtime in the last year who got to deliver their policital stuff generally lean left? Have you been paying attention?

now you ignore "far left" and proceed as if you did not acknowledge it. commie is valid. the insinuation is there.

it's just kind of how it is. at least those who speak out, generally speak left. as far as I'm aware, miller is one of the few voices from hollywood that talks from the right. of course, none of that matters for shit really, but it's still a valid comment to me, so that means to at least someone its valid. I'm guessing gregg found it valid too. most importantly though, another perspective exists. when you say "the only way to see this is X" and I say "but I see it Y", doesn't that cancel your statement?

you do not know shit....

]Nunberg discovered "a big disparity in the way the press labels liberals and conservatives – but not in the direction that Goldberg claims." Actually, the data showed, "the average liberal legislator has a 30 percent greater likelihood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does."

When Nunberg narrowed his search to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times – three dailies "routinely accused of having a liberal bias" – he learned that "in those papers, too, liberals get partisan labels 30 percent more often than conservatives do, the same proportion as in the press at large."

And what about Goldberg's claim that media coverage is also slanted by unfairly pigeonholing stars of the entertainment industry? His book declares flatly: "If we do a Hollywood story, it's not unusual to identify certain actors, like Tom Selleck or Bruce Willis, as conservatives. But Barbra Streisand or Rob Reiner, no matter how active they are in liberal Democratic politics, are just Barbra Streisand and Rob Reiner."

Again, Nunberg found, the facts prove Goldberg wrong: "The press gives partisan labels to Streisand and Reiner almost five times as frequently as it does to Selleck and Willis. For that matter, Warren Beatty gets a partisan label twice as often as Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Norman Lear gets one more frequently than Charlton Heston does."

The results are especially striking because the word "liberal" has been widely stigmatized, observes Nunberg, a senior researcher at Stanford's Center for the Study of Language and Information. "It turns out that newspapers label liberals much more readily than they do conservatives."

So, while Goldberg hotly contends – without statistical backup – that conservatives get a raw deal because they're singled out for ideological labeling more than liberals are, Nunberg relies on empirical evidence to reach a very different conclusion: "If there is a bias here, in fact, the data suggests that it goes the other way – that the media consider liberals to be farther from the mainstream than conservatives are."

You apparently intentionally imply then pretend you didn't imply and then ask that it not be noted. if you didn't intend to imply, you should state that. otherwise, you are avoiding the issue eh?

this is your brain on drugs....

Yeah, you introduced that into his words.

you ignorant ostrich

As is your mode, you take the opposite of the intended meaning. Try reading that as "you're a sorry bitch". Poor choice of words on my part maybe. "you're a" seemed implicit, but I can see how you might take it otherwise. my bad and I've now corrected myself, thanks for the opportunity to clear things right up.

hey guess what you make sense for the first time

no man, i think you're a troll who presents a challenge for me to understand. I enjoy dissecting you.

do what you must, boy

denial?

why yes!

I'll look at your retardation for you spookz. Check this: I showed your first statement as though valid - phony. Hence: Bogus.

nope. you choose to put a negative spin on a valid statement. i understand your need to do so

lol. you've got him all figured out don't you? man you're a piece of work.

experience, little man

for a man of your limited faculty, I find that hard to believe.

troll!

then why don't you wait and attack that when you would have a valid point? that makes YOU the fucking fascist, dolt.

where would you be if i did that? you are a strange cat

close enough, sure. I'll take your correction though, pardon: admiration.

two mistakes in comprehending post admitted. does this mean anything? you lack skills. defer to those those that actually can read. if not...well if not there will be more of this crap.

show it to be invalid if you think it sucks. i'm willing to listen. expect a rebuttal.

see above. you omit/miss and proceed to inaccurate take on post.

you don't have to worry about it though since I don't me shit to you.

oh cmon now!

it's just a dissection spooky. i'm interested to see where it goes, you are an interesting case or I wouldn't bother. you mean shit to me spookz.

cool thanks

what does this serve? you think because you're in LA you're fucking cool? oh man is that what this is about? are you THAT FUCKING SHALLOW????????? WOW brother, I thought more of you!

yup! bring on the profanities and i will retaliate. it will only get worse if you do not stop cussing. by the way, i am the coolest fucker

really? can't read between the lines spooky?

you dare waste my time? answer the goddamn question!

can't EVER see a different way to see things eh spooky?

point

and you think that means I think you have a point? i think it means you are an interesting case study. I think it means you are a character I enjoy engaging.

still a liar

LOL. As if you have a choice. We cannot avoid it spookz, why should we try? Maybe instead of avoiding it, I can slice it to pieces.

i like an audience. slice away

Or let it be a caution to the newbies, like a sign on a bridge : BEWARE OF TROLLS.

cmon, you don see the danger? the point collapses... so do the parents.

 

Gatorbait?

A note on the obvious bait:

To look at the phrase Spookz calls the "obvious bait":

Yes, some people, myself included, are somewhat unsettled by Miller's shift. But inasmuch as something is newsworthy enough to discuss, what is it that people find offensive about reporting the deviation from the mundane as compared to the mundane?

We report crimes in society via the newspapers because they are (A) of vital interest, and (B) deviations from the mundane or expected mundane. (The crime rate speaks to crime being mundane, of course, but still ....)

Several years ago the nation stood in disbelief as reports came out of Colorado that two kids had shot up a school, placed bombs, and killed themselves as well. Should the news have been about what happened at Columbine, the severe deviation, or should our news stations have fanned out across the country and reported on all the schools where there weren't shootings that day?

Comparably, if we accept the assertion itself or else find some acceptable "spirit" of the assertion--e.g. generalization vs. absolute--the question arises: Yes, Hollywood has a lot of liberals, and while its most successful and recognizable politicians forces are in fact Republicans: Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, and Arnold Schwarzeneggar (Content Warning: Viewer discretion is strongly advised for content on the "Arnold" link), when you get right down to it, I'm willing to accept the generalization that Hollywood is somewhat liberalized.

In the end, what I wonder is who cares if a thousand people in Hollywood woke up today feeling the same way about the world they did yesterday? Johnny Depp is being liberal? Who cares? He was the day before yesterday, too.

I mean, it's not as if people are just sitting by on their hands and silently tolerating liberal celebrities.

So to me, I just don't understand the sense of complaint about the "obvious bait." It isn't reflected in reality, and it wasn't necessarily reflected in the topic.

An inaccurate generalization, used to set up a rather inappropriate slam:

It just seems curious to me that the poster would ignore (A) reality (e.g. GOP celebrity success, uproar about liberal celebrities), (B) the reality of this topic (e.g. "What's up with the paranoia, people?, notes 4, 5-ff; post Don Hakman; note on Miller's lack of humor regardless of politics, as per JPS, &c.); and (C) common sense itself regarding what makes something newsworthy, simply to wind up and take a very generalized slam against the character of liberals.

Now, the baiter even went so far as to make a couple of interesting assertions:

I consider the bait neither rational nor reasonable.

A note on the "Newbie Factor"

Are we supposed to regard new User ID's as somehow retarded or otherwise-challenged? Are we giving out Bonus Bigot Points these days with registration? Essential free passes?

I've had a lot of new User ID's come after me over the last four years. I treat their disrespect according to the same standards I treat anyone else's around here.

I mean, anybody remember Craig Smith? We didn't exactly treat him well around here, you know. And nobody forgave his politics or bigotries just because he had a low post count.

So are we going to declare a general ... what, 500-post amnesty for new User ID's in which they get to ignore reality, the topic, and common sense while casting scurrilous aspersions against peoples' character based solely on their politics?

Or shall we actually include them in our community by treating their behavior as we treat longer-standing posters?

If we declare a segregation of standards, how soon before it leads to ridiculing of the newbies solely for being new? After all, since their behavior would be exempted from judgment and response ....

 

there are many facets to an individual. there are a myriad of differing situations that occur in a society. the dice will fall where they may. thru it all, my core values remain. you need not concern yourself about these

*how's that for pomposity?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: wes

/maybe that's your problem spooky. maybe you're so fucked up that your opinion is the only one you case see eh? you may not like it, but can you rationally debate it? i think your troll is out of control and you couldn't be rational about it if you tried.

/i say bait, you say not. what is there to debate?

- that the fact that you declare it bait does not make it so. it is bait if he had some dishonest intent. Otherwise, it's probably just a poorly (from your perspective) phrased attempt to communicate something very complicated that he can't quite find the words for. instead, like your hero tiassa, you inflate your opinion to the status of fact. certainly it's a fact that it's your opinion, and certainly you're entitled to voice it, but by declaring him "baiting" you declare knowledge of intent, then you make it indefensable. that's as fair as me kicking you in the nutz. so here I am, kicking you in the fucking nutz. you seem to enjoy it so I keep kicking. my leg is getting tired but my funnybone says keep kicking.

/two opinions and i stand by mine.

which puts you at odds with mine. so we dance. unfortunately, we are both hard heads bitches who know we're right. it's not a contest to me, but I'm right, you're wrong, nanny nanny boo, boo. phew, that was spooky.

/yours is wrong.

you're entitled to your own stupidity spooky, hell man, you're entitled to do whatever you want, and i'm entitled to call you out when I see you behave unfairly. when your paranoid bullshit disallows a person's right to defend their intent, you are simply unfair. tell me spookz, what is your intent? do you even know?

/since we are sparring i bring in "respect" to diss you.

so really it's just a lie? but I'm the liar right?

/comprende? your analysis is pointless

I see it differently child.

/well duh!

so your intent is unmasked here? from this I might presume your only intent is to be an antagonist, well I mean, if I were to practice the same standards which you and your master undertake.

/i do not flutter around in the wind as you appear to do

of course, i think i'm getting this. you are a sociopath. you see "being fair" as "fluttering around in the wind". yes things are coming together spooky. I feel bad for you. Nothing can be done to help you I suppose? I'm sure there are professionals who could help if you could be motivated to be willing. You don't seem capable of that though, as it would require you to possibly re-assess your stance regarding your own mental health. That's quite a pickle you've got there. I sincerely wish you luck.

/have I spooky, or have I just demonstrated a propensity to offer an alternative perspective which you insist is invalid?

/i do not trust you wes.

that's pretty obvious spooky. does that mean I don't speak the truth? you think because your malfunctioning brain tells you what I am, you should believe it? can you see where that, as a pattern of behavior - could/has lead you? hell it apparently works for you somehow - as you persist in it, which brings me to ponder the circumstances that lead to your this condition. hrmph.

/so my reservation of judgement is tantamount to ignorance?

/ja

Pardon but I find that shocking enough to double check your answer: If I see a multitude of ways some piece of written text can be taken and withhold judgement regarding the intent until some evidence for taking it one way over others is presented (is there a simpler way to say all that?) to verify a suspicion?

/you covered shit

- a LOT of shit, and you repeatedly fail to comprehend any of it. it's a flat out festivus miracle.

 

I demand a festivus for the rest of us! Get out the metal pole!

 

I'm sorry but I'm busy with "feats of strength"

*sigh*

 

Re: Re: wes

so here I am, kicking you in the fucking nutz. you seem to enjoy it so I keep kicking. my leg is getting tired but my funnybone says keep kicking.

heh, your impotence now translates to fantasies of physical violence?

Pardon but I find that shocking enough to double check your answer: If I see a multitude of ways some piece of written text can be taken and withhold judgement regarding the intent until some evidence for taking it one way over others is presented (is there a simpler way to say all that?) to verify a suspicion?

you are never on the bus, little man. your miserable life is all about playing catch up

you declare knowledge of intent

humans are a pretty simple affair

when your paranoid bullshit disallows a person's right to defend their intent, you are simply unfair.

greg is welcome to defend his crap. he is also welcome to apologize for it

I'm sure there are professionals who could help if you could be motivated to be willing

weak troll

which brings me to ponder the circumstances that lead to your this condition. hrmph.

save your brain the exercise little man. it is your existence that has become an affront. remedy that please

 

Re: Re: Re: wes

/heh, your impotence now translates to fantasies of physical violence?

a southpark metaphor for you.

/humans are a pretty simple affair

in what manner? it doesn't take many simple factors to add up into something complicated and unpredictable. of course if you pretend it impossible that people behave outside your realm of expectation... oh nevermind. you aren't interested. how about this instead: i disregard your opinion. that's fair right?

/save your brain the exercise little man.

i like the exercise, sad child. if your claims are correct them I'm sorely in need of it anyway right?

/it is your existence that has become an affront. remedy that please.

what kind of metaphor is that spookz?

awe, what's the matter spookz? you don't like the game you set up to play? i gotta admit I'm not a great fan but i'm kind of digging the excercise if nothing else. where to now? have we reached level 5 yet? what are the skill bonuses? will you show me your character sheet?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: wes

awe, what's the matter spookz? you don't like the game you set up to play? i gotta admit I'm not a great fan but i'm kind of digging the excercise if nothing else. where to now? have we reached level 5 yet? what are the skill bonuses? will you show me your character sheet?

umm, you see me complaining? you positioned yourself as the topdog? another tired old pathetic ploy. what do you think you resolved here? you declare victory? that is the most tired old hack.

in what manner?

it is down on paper

Regarding Dennis Miller, it is interesting in this world FILLED to the brim with far left leaning actors espousing their views, one actor who espouses his right leaning views gets blasted. (gregoftheweb)

I'll tell you the people I respect in the world the most, my father and my father-in-law hold conservative viewpoints on the world. And if you were to disparage their opinions in a like manner it would make me angry. They are also about the smartest men I know (a nuclear engineer and a aeronautical engineer (gregoftheweb)

it doesn't take many simple factors to add up into something complicated and unpredictable.

as usual you complicate matters by introducing bullshit. i am being very specific. i quoted the relevant portions i took issue with. outside that the poster could be a veritable angel for all i know. that is not my concern. once again, his language construes an attack on liberals. i see disingenouus arguments. i see no need to indulge his crappy emotionalism

complications and unpredictabilty are facets of your life. your inabilty to understand the psychology of others does not necessitate that you should either project this lack on to others nor pretend that it is you that defines what can be understood. your presence here is characterized by confusion for the most part. you miss obvious points and yet go on to form opinions. usual refrain...."my bad, missed that." you are the kind of loser that appears to be a perpetual victim. until something hits you in the face, you remain unaware. pathetic little peasant!

of course if you pretend it impossible that people behave outside your realm of expectation...

here you go again. extraneous garbage. you actually believe that you are being relevant. humans being a simple affair is true for the most part. i have not disregarded that complications do arise. (the thing about trolling is i am supposed to be unaware of your dishonesty) your tangents are a deliberate attempt to divert the issue.

oh nevermind. you aren't interested. how about this instead: i disregard your opinion. that's fair right

umm, do what you must? your notions of fairplay and mine do not mesh?
you are spiteful and malicious. like a bitch. i am not suprised. i can see it in your face