Trump 2.0

Tiassa said:
Since We Have the Moment to Spare



Yeah, it's real easy to stand on crackpottery by saying, "Yeah I stand on that".

To remind↗ what you skipped over:

Meanwhile, "Traffic has definitely increased and improved in the last 12 months or so," is subjective at best and, as you're treating the statement, meaningless. Yet, compared to literally editing out the explanation in order to ask why↗ (hardly honest), or expecting we should skip out on history↗ in order to "respect" you (hardly novel), it isn't any surprise you're so willing to spelunk this particular rabbit hole: The distraction is the point, toward which, remember, there's more to it than just numbers, i.e., "increased and improved", and we could waste an entire thread on what you mean by "improved" without you ever actually saying.​

I accept you're not capable of answering that part, and thus passed it over to stand pat: Of course you will stand on what you are not capable of explaining. Still, the point remains. Your use of the word, "improved", is subjective, and, compared of your own behavior, dubious.

Also remember the part you skipped out on:

• I've seen this bit many times, before. It's right on schedule … The only real question is whether you stake your analysis on its own merit or seek shelter in the cacophony.​

And now we have an answer: You would seek shelter in cacophony.

• In its way, I'm fascinated; the day someone finally makes the argument, I'll learn something.​

Unfortunately, that day wasn't today.

• No, it's not how we get to fascism, but it's as much part and parcel of the Trump experience as it was what came before, both here at Sciforums and in daily living experience.​

Remember, my interest in the cacophony is how it affects discourse; your interest in cacophony seems to be that you need it for cover. That is to say—

• Remember, this manner of distraction is part of the Trump experience, both how we got here and how it sustains. It's one thing if G does his little turn, another if someone else wants to waste any discussion on him, but to bullshit through it like you did only reminds that the distraction is the point.​

—it's not really that you can't work out what I'm saying, there, but, rather, would be inconvenient if you did. Think of what you said↑ to Parmalee: "As I have told [Trek] before, if he comes out with something I can report him on I will. Every chance I get." Now think about what it means if Trek hasn't achieved your reporting threshold, yet.

It's always an interesting question: Those who don't bother reporting because they know people like Trek are already allowed to behave this way, and those who don't report his behavior because it doesn't exceed their threshold. Compare those two ideas, Pinball, and you'll start to understand why some injurious superstitions are permissible, but others are not, and why actual critical consideration of what people post around here upsets so many people. It's how we come to worry more about ufology than Nazis↗.

It's one thing if, as Sartre put it↑ people like Trek "are amusing themselves", believing they "have the right to play" in order to "discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors", "to intimidate and disconcert", but it is for the most part unclear why people who are aware of this would risk legitimization.

And from there, maybe things start to get subtle. Whether an algorithm or a vertically-sequential discussion, the main contribution of such noise, in either experience, is to dramatically reduce the significance of the topical subject.

†​

To the one, it seems almost ridiculous, but if we invoke psychology, please understand that it's not at all surprising when someone outs themselves as a pink Tory↗, or labour purple with some right-wing views↗.

The thing is, pandering to rightist sympathizers holding out because liberals are unsatisfactory is how Americans got into this mess. The "horror show across the pond" you describe comes about in no small part because of people similarly splitting hairs in search of a middle road, who used to say things about being liberal on social policies and more conservative fiscally, but, as we found over the years, never really were so socially liberal. Now that Britain is going through it, too, it's kind of hard to believe the grift anew. From Reagan to Trump, including stops along the way for David Duke, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Clay Higgins, and, really, more supremacist bigots than I can count; from afar, you probably wouldn't understand the joke about Colorado Five/Fifteen, but the area is a generational locus of Christian nationalism, white supremacism, and the United States Air Force, where the respectable version is being too ignorant to know when he's uttering well-known racism. And then consider that the approximate crossover range on this is to criticize liberals for expecting a Gen X white guy to at least know why he shouldn't be saying such things. So, for instance, when you see me referring to notas, that's part of what I'm referring to. There are many people who don't want to be seen as something, whether it's supremacist, conservative, or GOP, for instance, but still carry the line because some part of the critique against those things somehow offends them.

When it was gay rights, for instance, there were fence-sitters with nonspecific worries that liberals were being too rough on Christians, and then there were those who appealed against some imagined gay cruelty because, sure, they believed in gay rights, but homosexuals were going too fast, and needed to slow down, and wait until some unspecified future circumstance when their rights would finally be fulfilled. It's as if gays were supposed to convince conservative Christians the same way women are supposed to convince men. And that failure is what people seem to be on about when accusing liberals of certain condescension, paternalism, and elitism.

And over the period, if, for instance, you don't know who Scott Lively is, that might make a certain point; if you don't know who David Barton is, that might make a certain point. The thing is, these notorious figures are still held respectable in conservative circles, and have had access to the halls of power for decades. (Indeed, they are examples of why the bawling about cancel culture was complete bullshit that pretty much anyone ought to be embarrassed for perpetuating. I mean really, how stupid do we have to be?)

The road to trumpism is paved with purple pretense laced through with some views that are right-wing↗ and complaints about unions. In this sense, the whole thing with cancel culture is kind of like the question of what constitutes "improved" discourse. For these middle-road pretenders, the discussion is much improved if others should be discouraged from criticizing, speaking up, or participating in any way that does not satisfy them.

†​

So, yeah, there remains a question of what you mean by "improved". Aesthetics are among the most unreliable metrics of improvement.

Look around.
Click to expand...
That's quite big
 
Speaking of Nazis, I Mean Conservatives, I Mean Nazis

"Don't let yourself be gaslit," Rupar↱ reminds while presenting "video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC." That is to say, "It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended."

Meanwhile, Right Wing Watch↱ observes: "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'"

Fuentes: This was some sick shit. Bannon gets up there and says, "I think Trump's gonna run in '28," he goes, "We want Trump!" and then he throws up a straight-up Roman salute. It's, it's getting a little uncomfortable, even for me. Even I'm starting to feel like that guy in the picture, that wouldn't heil Hitler. It's even getting a little uncomfortable, and I'm saying that, y'know? And I was writin' policy memos for Supreme Leader Kanye West, okay? I was writin' policy papers based on Hitler's polices for Supreme Leader Ye. And it's getting even a little excessive for me. Bannon goes up there and he's, like, "Trump is our guy in '28, a person like that only comes around twice in a country's history, we want Trump, and then a straight-up salute, and I'm, and I'm, even me, I'm kind of lookin' around, like, is every―, everyone see that, is everyone rockin' with this?​

At some point, we're going to achieve the "conservatives aren't conservatives" threshold in order to keep pretending some mysterious, substantial difference between Trump and Republicans, or Trump and conservatives.

It is, after all, the Conservative Political Action Conference.

To the other, how often, really, ought I have occasion to say, people on both sides of the Nazi question, because, well, here we are: People on both sides of the Nazi question are looking at the Conservative Political Action Conference and wondering, Really, this is where you're at?
____________________

Notes:

@atrupar. "Here's video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC. It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended. Don't let yourself be gaslit.". X. 20 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1892785593442029712

@RightWingWatch. "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'". X. 21 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1893014146590900335
 
Tiassa said:
Since We Have the Moment to Spare



Yeah, it's real easy to stand on crackpottery by saying, "Yeah I stand on that".

To remind↗ what you skipped over:

Meanwhile, "Traffic has definitely increased and improved in the last 12 months or so," is subjective at best and, as you're treating the statement, meaningless. Yet, compared to literally editing out the explanation in order to ask why↗ (hardly honest), or expecting we should skip out on history↗ in order to "respect" you (hardly novel), it isn't any surprise you're so willing to spelunk this particular rabbit hole: The distraction is the point, toward which, remember, there's more to it than just numbers, i.e., "increased and improved", and we could waste an entire thread on what you mean by "improved" without you ever actually saying.​

I accept you're not capable of answering that part, and thus passed it over to stand pat: Of course you will stand on what you are not capable of explaining. Still, the point remains. Your use of the word, "improved", is subjective, and, compared of your own behavior, dubious.

Also remember the part you skipped out on:

• I've seen this bit many times, before. It's right on schedule … The only real question is whether you stake your analysis on its own merit or seek shelter in the cacophony.​

And now we have an answer: You would seek shelter in cacophony.

• In its way, I'm fascinated; the day someone finally makes the argument, I'll learn something.​

Unfortunately, that day wasn't today.

• No, it's not how we get to fascism, but it's as much part and parcel of the Trump experience as it was what came before, both here at Sciforums and in daily living experience.​

Remember, my interest in the cacophony is how it affects discourse; your interest in cacophony seems to be that you need it for cover. That is to say—

• Remember, this manner of distraction is part of the Trump experience, both how we got here and how it sustains. It's one thing if G does his little turn, another if someone else wants to waste any discussion on him, but to bullshit through it like you did only reminds that the distraction is the point.​

—it's not really that you can't work out what I'm saying, there, but, rather, would be inconvenient if you did. Think of what you said↑ to Parmalee: "As I have told [Trek] before, if he comes out with something I can report him on I will. Every chance I get." Now think about what it means if Trek hasn't achieved your reporting threshold, yet.

It's always an interesting question: Those who don't bother reporting because they know people like Trek are already allowed to behave this way, and those who don't report his behavior because it doesn't exceed their threshold. Compare those two ideas, Pinball, and you'll start to understand why some injurious superstitions are permissible, but others are not, and why actual critical consideration of what people post around here upsets so many people. It's how we come to worry more about ufology than Nazis↗.

It's one thing if, as Sartre put it↑ people like Trek "are amusing themselves", believing they "have the right to play" in order to "discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors", "to intimidate and disconcert", but it is for the most part unclear why people who are aware of this would risk legitimization.

And from there, maybe things start to get subtle. Whether an algorithm or a vertically-sequential discussion, the main contribution of such noise, in either experience, is to dramatically reduce the significance of the topical subject.

†​

To the one, it seems almost ridiculous, but if we invoke psychology, please understand that it's not at all surprising when someone outs themselves as a pink Tory↗, or labour purple with some right-wing views↗.

The thing is, pandering to rightist sympathizers holding out because liberals are unsatisfactory is how Americans got into this mess. The "horror show across the pond" you describe comes about in no small part because of people similarly splitting hairs in search of a middle road, who used to say things about being liberal on social policies and more conservative fiscally, but, as we found over the years, never really were so socially liberal. Now that Britain is going through it, too, it's kind of hard to believe the grift anew. From Reagan to Trump, including stops along the way for David Duke, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Clay Higgins, and, really, more supremacist bigots than I can count; from afar, you probably wouldn't understand the joke about Colorado Five/Fifteen, but the area is a generational locus of Christian nationalism, white supremacism, and the United States Air Force, where the respectable version is being too ignorant to know when he's uttering well-known racism. And then consider that the approximate crossover range on this is to criticize liberals for expecting a Gen X white guy to at least know why he shouldn't be saying such things. So, for instance, when you see me referring to notas, that's part of what I'm referring to. There are many people who don't want to be seen as something, whether it's supremacist, conservative, or GOP, for instance, but still carry the line because some part of the critique against those things somehow offends them.

When it was gay rights, for instance, there were fence-sitters with nonspecific worries that liberals were being too rough on Christians, and then there were those who appealed against some imagined gay cruelty because, sure, they believed in gay rights, but homosexuals were going too fast, and needed to slow down, and wait until some unspecified future circumstance when their rights would finally be fulfilled. It's as if gays were supposed to convince conservative Christians the same way women are supposed to convince men. And that failure is what people seem to be on about when accusing liberals of certain condescension, paternalism, and elitism.

And over the period, if, for instance, you don't know who Scott Lively is, that might make a certain point; if you don't know who David Barton is, that might make a certain point. The thing is, these notorious figures are still held respectable in conservative circles, and have had access to the halls of power for decades. (Indeed, they are examples of why the bawling about cancel culture was complete bullshit that pretty much anyone ought to be embarrassed for perpetuating. I mean really, how stupid do we have to be?)

The road to trumpism is paved with purple pretense laced through with some views that are right-wing↗ and complaints about unions. In this sense, the whole thing with cancel culture is kind of like the question of what constitutes "improved" discourse. For these middle-road pretenders, the discussion is much improved if others should be discouraged from criticizing, speaking up, or participating in any way that does not satisfy them.

†​

So, yeah, there remains a question of what you mean by "improved". Aesthetics are among the most unreliable metrics of improvement.

Look around.
Click to expand...
Why is my input important?
 
Tiassa said:
Speaking of Nazis, I Mean Conservatives, I Mean Nazis

"Don't let yourself be gaslit," Rupar↱ reminds while presenting "video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC." That is to say, "It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended."

Meanwhile, Right Wing Watch↱ observes: "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'"

​
Fuentes: This was some sick shit. Bannon gets up there and says, "I think Trump's gonna run in '28," he goes, "We want Trump!" and then he throws up a straight-up Roman salute. It's, it's getting a little uncomfortable, even for me. Even I'm starting to feel like that guy in the picture, that wouldn't heil Hitler. It's even getting a little uncomfortable, and I'm saying that, y'know? And I was writin' policy memos for Supreme Leader Kanye West, okay? I was writin' policy papers based on Hitler's polices for Supreme Leader Ye. And it's getting even a little excessive for me. Bannon goes up there and he's, like, "Trump is our guy in '28, a person like that only comes around twice in a country's history, we want Trump, and then a straight-up salute, and I'm, and I'm, even me, I'm kind of lookin' around, like, is every―, everyone see that, is everyone rockin' with this?​


At some point, we're going to achieve the "conservatives aren't conservatives" threshold in order to keep pretending some mysterious, substantial difference between Trump and Republicans, or Trump and conservatives.

It is, after all, the Conservative Political Action Conference.

To the other, how often, really, ought I have occasion to say, people on both sides of the Nazi question, because, well, here we are: People on both sides of the Nazi question are looking at the Conservative Political Action Conference and wondering, Really, this is where you're at?
____________________

Notes:

@atrupar. "Here's video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC. It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended. Don't let yourself be gaslit.". X. 20 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1892785593442029712

@RightWingWatch. "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'". X. 21 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1893014146590900335
Click to expand...
Have you been in these countries? Worked there?Just curious
 
So
Tiassa said:
Speaking of Nazis, I Mean Conservatives, I Mean Nazis

"Don't let yourself be gaslit," Rupar↱ reminds while presenting "video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC." That is to say, "It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended."

Meanwhile, Right Wing Watch↱ observes: "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'"

​
Fuentes: This was some sick shit. Bannon gets up there and says, "I think Trump's gonna run in '28," he goes, "We want Trump!" and then he throws up a straight-up Roman salute. It's, it's getting a little uncomfortable, even for me. Even I'm starting to feel like that guy in the picture, that wouldn't heil Hitler. It's even getting a little uncomfortable, and I'm saying that, y'know? And I was writin' policy memos for Supreme Leader Kanye West, okay? I was writin' policy papers based on Hitler's polices for Supreme Leader Ye. And it's getting even a little excessive for me. Bannon goes up there and he's, like, "Trump is our guy in '28, a person like that only comes around twice in a country's history, we want Trump, and then a straight-up salute, and I'm, and I'm, even me, I'm kind of lookin' around, like, is every―, everyone see that, is everyone rockin' with this?​


At some point, we're going to achieve the "conservatives aren't conservatives" threshold in order to keep pretending some mysterious, substantial difference between Trump and Republicans, or Trump and conservatives.

It is, after all, the Conservative Political Action Conference.

To the other, how often, really, ought I have occasion to say, people on both sides of the Nazi question, because, well, here we are: People on both sides of the Nazi question are looking at the Conservative Political Action Conference and wondering, Really, this is where you're at?
____________________

Notes:

@atrupar. "Here's video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC. It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended. Don't let yourself be gaslit.". X. 20 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1892785593442029712

@RightWingWatch. "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'". X. 21 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1893014146590900335
Click to expand...
i will ask you again.

Have you worked in these countries?
Have you had a machine gun stuck in your face?
Don't EVER speak to me like that again you fucking twat.
 
Tiassa said:
Speaking of Nazis, I Mean Conservatives, I Mean Nazis

"Don't let yourself be gaslit," Rupar↱ reminds while presenting "video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC." That is to say, "It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended."

Meanwhile, Right Wing Watch↱ observes: "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'"

​
Fuentes: This was some sick shit. Bannon gets up there and says, "I think Trump's gonna run in '28," he goes, "We want Trump!" and then he throws up a straight-up Roman salute. It's, it's getting a little uncomfortable, even for me. Even I'm starting to feel like that guy in the picture, that wouldn't heil Hitler. It's even getting a little uncomfortable, and I'm saying that, y'know? And I was writin' policy memos for Supreme Leader Kanye West, okay? I was writin' policy papers based on Hitler's polices for Supreme Leader Ye. And it's getting even a little excessive for me. Bannon goes up there and he's, like, "Trump is our guy in '28, a person like that only comes around twice in a country's history, we want Trump, and then a straight-up salute, and I'm, and I'm, even me, I'm kind of lookin' around, like, is every―, everyone see that, is everyone rockin' with this?​


At some point, we're going to achieve the "conservatives aren't conservatives" threshold in order to keep pretending some mysterious, substantial difference between Trump and Republicans, or Trump and conservatives.

It is, after all, the Conservative Political Action Conference.

To the other, how often, really, ought I have occasion to say, people on both sides of the Nazi question, because, well, here we are: People on both sides of the Nazi question are looking at the Conservative Political Action Conference and wondering, Really, this is where you're at?
____________________

Notes:

@atrupar. "Here's video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC. It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended. Don't let yourself be gaslit.". X. 20 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1892785593442029712

@RightWingWatch. "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'". X. 21 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1893014146590900335
Click to expand...
Hard man. Really. Don't do it.
 
Tiassa said:
Speaking of Nazis, I Mean Conservatives, I Mean Nazis

"Don't let yourself be gaslit," Rupar↱ reminds while presenting "video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC." That is to say, "It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended."

Meanwhile, Right Wing Watch↱ observes: "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'"

​
Fuentes: This was some sick shit. Bannon gets up there and says, "I think Trump's gonna run in '28," he goes, "We want Trump!" and then he throws up a straight-up Roman salute. It's, it's getting a little uncomfortable, even for me. Even I'm starting to feel like that guy in the picture, that wouldn't heil Hitler. It's even getting a little uncomfortable, and I'm saying that, y'know? And I was writin' policy memos for Supreme Leader Kanye West, okay? I was writin' policy papers based on Hitler's polices for Supreme Leader Ye. And it's getting even a little excessive for me. Bannon goes up there and he's, like, "Trump is our guy in '28, a person like that only comes around twice in a country's history, we want Trump, and then a straight-up salute, and I'm, and I'm, even me, I'm kind of lookin' around, like, is every―, everyone see that, is everyone rockin' with this?​


At some point, we're going to achieve the "conservatives aren't conservatives" threshold in order to keep pretending some mysterious, substantial difference between Trump and Republicans, or Trump and conservatives.

It is, after all, the Conservative Political Action Conference.

To the other, how often, really, ought I have occasion to say, people on both sides of the Nazi question, because, well, here we are: People on both sides of the Nazi question are looking at the Conservative Political Action Conference and wondering, Really, this is where you're at?
____________________

Notes:

@atrupar. "Here's video of Steve Bannon doing a Sieg Heil today at CPAC. It is what it is and it's what Bannon intended. Don't let yourself be gaslit.". X. 20 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1892785593442029712

@RightWingWatch. "Hitler-loving white nationalist Nick Fuentes reacts to Steve Bannon throwing a Sieg Heil at CPAC: 'It's getting even a little excessive for me.'". X. 21 February 2025. X.com. 21 February 2025. status/1893014146590900335
Click to expand...
Do NOT directly post to me. You got that?
 
TheVat said:
As one who doesn't have many, would you consider posting abstracts of your longish posts? I don't necessarily intend a criticism with this request, but I sometimes wonder if you ever engage in ordinary conversations.
Click to expand...

The international with some right-wing views↗ knows what it's about. I mean, I presume he's not stupid.

To the other, what passes for an "ordinary conversation" around here?

For me, the solution is easy enough: Just start other threads about particular aspects of "Trump 2.0".

Nonetheless, there remains the question of what constitutes "improved" discussion.

For instance, I do wonder why people say things like↑ "Why is my input important?" The answer is straightforward: Because it's what he said. There is an easy solution available: Okay, then what he says has no value.

But then, think about it: Three minutes later, that's followed by a separate short post↗, and wouldn't you know it, the best explanation for whatever the hell that post is supposed to mean would be some sort of E&O. And then what reads like a threat↑. And then some more distraction↑. And then flight↑. Five posts in just over ten minutes. At least he stacked up five posts.

Or, to reiterate↑: Whether an algorithm or a vertically-sequential discussion, the main contribution of such noise, in either experience, is to dramatically reduce the significance of the topical subject.

But the thing is, that's not the whole of the point, so it's not quite the summary you want. But if we follow it back↑, we arrive at the prospect that the distraction is the point↑; and remember, this manner of distraction is part of the Trump experience, both how we got here and how it sustains.
 
Tiassa said:
The international with some right-wing views↗ knows what it's about. I mean, I presume he's not stupid.

To the other, what passes for an "ordinary conversation" around here?

For me, the solution is easy enough: Just start other threads about particular aspects of "Trump 2.0".

Nonetheless, there remains the question of what constitutes "improved" discussion.

For instance, I do wonder why people say things like↑ "Why is my input important?" The answer is straightforward: Because it's what he said. There is an easy solution available: Okay, then what he says has no value.

But then, think about it: Three minutes later, that's followed by a separate short post↗, and wouldn't you know it, the best explanation for whatever the hell that post is supposed to mean would be some sort of E&O. And then what reads like a threat↑. And then some more distraction↑. And then flight↑. Five posts in just over ten minutes. At least he stacked up five posts.

Or, to reiterate↑: Whether an algorithm or a vertically-sequential discussion, the main contribution of such noise, in either experience, is to dramatically reduce the significance of the topical subject.

But the thing is, that's not the whole of the point, so it's not quite the summary you want. But if we follow it back↑, we arrive at the prospect that the distraction is the point↑; and remember, this manner of distraction is part of the Trump experience, both how we got here and how it sustains.
Click to expand...
So that would be a “No” then.
 
James R said:
Pinball:

Are we missing half of the conversation here?
Click to expand...
No. Tiassa is a gutless coward and would never directly say "pinball is ...."
Apologies I used Tiassa and "directly" in the same sentence so that is obviously ridiculous.
Let's say I have had enough of insinuation, reference and pathetic, petty, snide remarks.
Ignore is the option yes but not without comment first.
 
TheVat said:
As one who doesn't have many, would you consider posting abstracts of your longish posts? I don't necessarily intend a criticism with this request, but I sometimes wonder if you ever engage in ordinary conversations.
Click to expand...
No, he doesn't do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top