You make it sound as though I’ve come close. I recently was told by Xash not to make political comments in GQ; fair enough. But I’ve never gotten an e-mail from a mod, and never received a threat.
So sorry to disappoint you.
Perhaps you with your eagerness to have posters in good standing get banned, perhaps you with your name-calling (“troll”) will precede me in entering the Land of the Banned.
How does that sound, Priceguy? And I still don’t understand what I did to earn your enmity, but I hardly care. You’re evidently a first-class asshole who are free, I assure you, to kiss my ass.
Hey! Aeschines and Priceguy, this thread was supposed to be about me!
Just kidding. Aeschines, you haven’t established yourself as sufficiently intelligent or wise to talk down to anyone here, but I guess if that’s all the ammunition you have, you may as well use it, poor kid.
First glee, now Bryan Ekers. Looks like getting pitted by SnakeSpirit is going to be a badge of honor, soon. You know, Liberal, I’d be offended if I were you. So far, despite your best efforts, S.S. has not pitted you. Maybe he doesn’t like you.
Now, S.S., you ask why Bryan is ignorant. He’s ignorant for the same reason we’re all ignorant. No one can know everything. We aren’t perfect. So everyone is ignorant of something; it’s not an insult. But where Bryan, glee, and pretty much everyone on this board differ from you is we don’t wallow in our ignorance. We seek to expand our knowledge of life, the universe, and everything. And to do this in a meaningful fashion we require proof. Real proof, from real experiments with real controls performed in the real world. Because only in that fashion can we really all agree on what’s what.
Doing it your way is just people talking to one another, and whoever yells the loudest gets “believed”. It’s quite sad, really, how little you understand the world around you and lash out at those who dare to disagree.
I have no affiliation with SnakeSpirit. I don’t recognize the name at all. I do recognize the name Bryan Ekers, and as far as I’m concerned the guy is a rude, contemptuous, ill-mannered, slack-jawed fuck-nut. First he’ll give you an arrogant, condescending, derisive, “uh, yeah”. Then it’s off to nit-pick land, followed by some hair-splitting. Finally, when the voice of public opinion and the face of logic overwhelmingly prove him wrong, he disappears. If there’s one thing I can’t abide it’s a person who can’t admit when they’re wrong, and won’t apologize for rude behaviour. So, Bryan Ekers, until you come up with some common courtesy, fuck you, you fuckin’ mook.
Please explain how this is not a famous literary suicide. What, it doesn’t count because there is a historical person named Cleopatra? Shakespeare is literature. The suicide in the link is literary. I’m always willing to learn, show me where I’m wrong.
On the other hand, there’s something to be said for making a cogent point, defending it logically, then ceasing to post after it’s clear there’s nothing more to be gained by useless exchanges with the type of poster who considers himself “the voice of public opinion and the face of logic”.
Pretty much, yeah. The thread wanted famous literary suicides, not just famous suicides. Any famous suicide is going to be reproduced in some work of art, somewhere, which I think would lead to a broader discussion than the OP of that thread intended. Of course, unless astorian registered his opinion on the subject, there’s no way either side of the debate can be proven to be right.
And can I mention how hilarious it is that you’re carrying a grudge over this? I mean, you and Bryan disagreed over the precise implications of the word “literary.” So far as I can tell skimming the thread for posts from the two of you, it was done in an entirely civil manner. And you go from that to “rude, contemptuous, ill-mannered, slack-jawed fuck-nut”? Holy crap, dude. Cafe Society is a debate thread. Debate involves disagreement. Disagreement is often left unresolved. Bryan stated his opinion, you stated yours. Neither of you were persuasive enough to convince the other of his position. This is something you need to get this pissed off about?
Isn’t that funny! That’s exactly what I see in the anti-psi-possibility crowd!
It’s those folks who first start throwing the “slings and arrows” and move to outrageous claims to support their religion and start the name-calling, degredation, assumptions, hypocricy and then deny, deny, deny and trot away to hide behind a wall of cutsie put-downs.
Few people here have as much integrity as Aeschines.coven puts forth a reasonable argument and gets razzing instead of reasonable replies.
People like you, Miller, are seriously deluded and sorely in need of a real life. Just cause your little “gang of 11” supports you, you think you’re right. When in FACT YOU DON’T HAVE A CLUE.
Clueless. hey you can always change your names: clueless 1, clueless 2… etc.
