james R still is trolling
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
- Status
ja
acknowledged
while it is somewhat typical of style
the preponderance was due to a desire to jack up post count
Gustav said:
Yeah. Him and the two African masks on the wall, and the caucasian, buck-toothed, freckled, inbred-lookin' ventriloquist doll named Mama Pete.
I just assume you've got a better (ahem) connection than I do. But, uh, some indeed might end up wondering if your pears of wisdom precede the produce of swine.
Not everybody has the hep-cat jazz trio be-boppin' just so, y'know.
I know I am a very aggressive poster , I just come to sciforums to post my opinions and thoughts, that is my expression on the World . Yet it is others , like yourself, on sciforums who have problems with my posts contents and report it and I am either warned , receive an infraction or my thoughts are locked up ,which is tantamount to intimidation which is censorship .
Gustav is an artist , a poet , an Oscar Wilde , he expresses himself in verse .
i guess i shall reiterate
they are an impotent bunch
i know that it is your opinion alone that suffices.
hence the warning
do you see me dispute the fucking assertion?
Maybe Jim Morrison I like Drunk poets .
this places you in the unenviable position of being requested to provide examples, with explanation, of both pears and produce
the unenviable position if not immediately apparent, will probably be so, say 5 pages henceforth?
My current perception of you, part II. I hadn't finished, see. The problem is James that you seem to think you're so goddamn perfect. This is because you either:
a. think you're so goddamn perfect; or
b. somehow manage to project an aura of someone who thinks he's so goddamn perfect (those 'vibes' that Chewing Gum mentioned? Yours reek of pompous self-regard. Sorry, but they do).
I just feel that it's time for you to realise that I for one think you're far from perfect, and I want to take this opportunity to tell you in no uncertain terms how imperfect I think you are. That way, the next time you presume to make personal criticisms of me (on what authority I don't know) and I react badly to that, you can perhaps look back on my criticism of you and realise why I think your criticism of me is ill-founded and hypocritical, yes?
That's a shame. I do find you tremendously psychologically interesting, so a session of mutual psychoanalysis would be an absolute scream. Such a thing would leave me positively purring with amusement and satisfaction. But if it's not to be... it's not to be. Strange that you should be so coy about it now though when you've been offering me your unsolicited amateur assessments of my 'maturity' and character for some time. You're not comfortable in the patient's chair? Ah well.
Wait a second. I thought you didn't want to play psychoanalysis? I'm glad you do though because this is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about. Thankyou for proving my point.
Where did I say I'm smarter than you?
Where?
Why would I say that - when I believe the opposite to be true?
Stop reading things into people's words that aren't there please, James.
It's highly, highly annoying.
It's misinterpretations like this that lead you so often to such wildly inaccurate, piss-poor conclusions. Do you see?
(There's that word again, by the way. 'Immature'. It's growing old.)
Ha. I'm mystified as to how you arrived at that interpretation. Strangers on the internet have no capacity to hurt me whatsoever (well, not unless they're l33t hax0rs anyway). I'm astounded that you think it would be any different? I can give and take punishment until the cows come home. But how is this about me all of a sudden? I'm not the one who's chosen to put himself centre stage. Stop switching chairs, please.
You noticed.
Annoying to have your carefully-chosen words wildly misinterpreted, yes?
No 'gangs' visit Sciforums to the best of my knowledge. Very few members have met offline. Very few members even know the first names of the members they interact with the most. It's all make-believe. What is this delusional nonsense about gangs? A large group of interacting individuals - nothing more.
James, I look forward to your response. You don't seem to be enjoying our exchange? I have to say that I am. It feels healthy. A clearing of the air. An adult and frank exchange of views.
The doctor thanks you for your patronage. As usual, there is no charge.
P.S. You didn't respond to my question about what you think your main faults are? Here are five of mine:
1. I'm always late for appointments!
2. I have a terrible tendency to procrastinate!
3. I too often suffer fools gladly!
4. I'm overly self-critical.
5. Sudden, radical alterations to my environment give me the heebie-jeebies.
Please list five of yours. Ta.
Last edited:
As I said before, you're entitled to your opinion.
Nice attempt to divert. However, in case you are unaware:
To form a "gang" requires only a common purpose and communication. It does not require meeting offline. It does not require knowing first names.
And yes, a gang is a group of interacting individuals.
Carte blanche?
Then Sciforums is a gang.
Anyway, I'm done. I've enjoyed our chat. Have we learned anything about each other, do you think? Are we any closer to developing an understanding?
Also, tell me: what would you say are your main faults? Last chance.
Luckily being banned allowed me to spot this ad on sciforums:
What a lifesaver! I never knew it was so easy! Just using simple household items too!
What a lifesaver! I never knew it was so easy! Just using simple household items too!
Luckily being banned allowed me to spot this ad on sciforums:
What a lifesaver! I never knew it was so easy! Just using simple household items too!
Yeah, I never realized how child unfriendly and degenerated this forum really is until I got banned.
I found this one:
Maybe the administrators should disable the adds. I mean, children might click on these links.
No these ads are real. Google is adding them.
- Status