Libertarian is a bully, a bully, bully

[yosemite]

@Never Have I Because I

Mods, please close this thread.

That’s the smartest notion you’ve had so far on this thread. Too bad you couldn’t have taken that advice, oh—a few pages ago, when someone else (I forget who) offered it up to you.

[Never_Have_I_Because_I]

@andros

I’m neither, and you didn’t, though I thank you for your concern.

Any respone to my points, though?

Nah, I think I’m going to sleep for a while. Goodnight Dopers.

[Ilsa_Lund]

@yosemitebabe

That’s the smartest notion you’ve had so far on this thread. Too bad you couldn’t have taken that advice, oh—a few pages ago, when someone else (I forget who) offered it up to you.

Something tells me he didn’t really need to ask…

[gluteus_maximus]

@Never Have I Because I

Bully for you!

I meant to post this quite sometime ago, but I become quite busy!

In my thread about superstitious people, Libertarian took a great big witnessing shit in it. He went on about how his theory of how god existed, which was proven to be shit, which only worked if you were allowing the fact god does exist, and totally derailed my thread. He used terms unfamilar to me, he quoted and referenced philiosopher people with great glee, as if they were supposed to justify his ideas and make him appear smarter. He expected me to understand things only in the way he described it. He bullied me around. He is a great big shithead. I hate him.

Who is with me?

i don’t care if he is my intellectual superior(which he probably is). it’s the way you use it, baby. if you’re smarter and a intellectual superior to everyone, does it not matter if you act like a shit?

I am just asking, because most libertarians seem to be silly, greedy “All for me, none for you” people, and I would like some proof otherwise, ok? That is my mission!

right. so you deicided you nitpick one bit of my op over and over again, saying all i was doing was complaining about ‘big words’, and only now renege about it? fuck you, you stupid bitch.

i was being facetious

fuck, do i need to post JOKE JOKE JOKE JOKE JOKE JOKE NOT BEING SERIOUS everytime i am not being serious?

Stop trolling, too. I mean it.

Wow, selective parsing. Real mature.

Wow, awesome, you can generalize! Good job on being condescending!

I said all along he used big words to obfuscate his meanings/make him look more intelligent.

All I was saying was that he was using big words and famous names to make himself look smarter than he is. And to obfuscate his meanings by doing so.

iampunha and libertarian, i am sorry, can you ever forgive me?

Oh, make up your ‘minds’, will you?

[don_t_ask]

Let it go folks.

gobear is right this is just bullying and serves no useful purpose. It’s not helping the OP and anyone else who is enjoying it should have a look at why they are here.

NHIBI only wanted to complain about a hijack of a thread, and from some of the responses I gather NHIBI had some justification.

I felt stupid for my contibutions after NHIBI made a serious response to a post that I intended to make fun of him/her - it was nonsense. I know that in real life I would not be so cavalier with someone else’s failure to understand and I don’t think that taking cheap shots in the Pit confers any honour on me at all.

I think if smart asses like us kept our mouths (keyboards) shut and left it to more supportive types to respond, NHIBI may see how things have gone wrong.

Right now NHIBI is backed into a corner by a gang of bullies and, completely wrong though he may be, he isn’t going to give in. So if we all walk away from the keyboard, take a few deep breathes and think about what we are doing maybe things will work out.

And Libertarian’s hijack:

Given

~N(~g)

Prove g

1. g --> N(g)
2. N(g) v ~N(g)
3. ~N(g) --> N(~N(g))
4. N(g) v N(~N(g))
5. N(~N(g)) --> N(~g)
6. N(g) v N(~g)
7. N(g)
8. N(g) --> g

Conclusion:

g

QED

Beats me too.

[Ilsa_Lund]

@gluteus maximus

Oh, make up your ‘minds’, will you?

They has tricksed us! Stupid, FAT HOBBITSES!

[Gadfly]

Never Have I Because I: I read over your silly pit thread. I gave your cause careful thought.

In a final conclusion: You’re a moron.

I respect Libertarian. He provides welcome contribution to these boards, and one of the most scholarly posters in GD, a fairly lofty title. However, there are times that I have disagreed with Lib, whether in views or demeanor.

This is not one of them. NHIBI, you will earn my respect as soon as you stop posting misleading and completely stupid pit threads. My advice to you, you inimical cabbage, is to lurk until you learn, as I have, to minimize your idiocy when posting.

[gluteus_maximus]

@Gadfly

My advice to you, you inimical cabbage, is to lurk until you learn, as I have, to minimize your idiocy when posting.

OOOOH!

Can I have that for a sig line? Pretty pretty please!!!

[Liberal]

Never Have I Because I

I apologized, I am waiting for an acceptance of said apology.

Apology accepted.

=======================

Don’t ask

Beats me too.

Here you go.

[Skywatcher]

Four pages in 8 hours? Damn, this is a busy thread!

@Never Have I Because I

In my thread about superstitious people, Libertarian took a great big witnessing shit in it.

Try again. I’m cetainly not the quickest wit in the world but even I could see that Lib was using the God exists example as a corollary. You’re suppsed to substitute “the supernatural” for “God”.

Also, when called on his bullshit, he mysteriously disappears

Excuse me? You’re the one who went to bed and never returned to the thread!

Nah, I think I’m going to sleep for a while.

Translation: “I’m getting my ass kicked. Time to bow out of this thread.”

[don_t_ask]

@Libertarian

Never Have I Because I

Apology accepted.

=======================

Don’t ask

Here you go.

This guy who works at Target is the source of the proof, or merely the custodian?

[iampunha]

Perhaps, given that the OP has posted saying s/he has left, we can all go do something else and chalk one up to a Big Lesson Learned. Surely there are far more important things to do … say, memorizing the names of the precambrian protozoa. One never knows when they will become bar-room trivia;)

[gluteus_maximus]

Well…

OK.

Just as long as there aren’t any big words involved.

[Liberal]

@don't ask

This guy who works at Target is the source of the proof, or merely the custodian?

Alvin Plantinga

[iampunha]

@gluteus maximus

Just as long as there aren’t any big words involved.

Understanding them is not as essential to their memorization as is the case with philosophy. Will it make things easier if you know that something with “flagella” in its name has little hair things on it that ease in movement and defense? Yes. Do you ultimately have to know what it means purely for purposes of memorization? Not so much. IMO, anyway. Perhaps your experience will bear out an alternate hypothesis.

[sub]Yes, I got the joke:)[/sub]

[gluteus_maximus]

Hey, philosophers have bills to pay, too, ya know.

Would you respect him more if he wasn’t holding down a day job?

[Liberal]

That reminds me of a scene from Max Dugan Returns*…

Grandpa: He majored in philosophy.

Grandson: Philosophy? You can make money with philosophy?

Grandpa: Oh, sure. If you’ve got the right one.

[gluteus_maximus]

@iampunha

Understanding them is not as essential to their memorization as is the case with philosophy. Will it make things easier if you know that something with “flagella” in its name has little hair things on it that ease in movement and defense? Yes. Do you ultimately have to know what it means purely for purposes of memorization? Not so much. IMO, anyway. Perhaps your experience will bear out an alternate hypothesis.

[sub]Yes, I got the joke:)[/sub]

Could you please point me to a source of names of precambrian protozoa?

I’m not really afraid of large, immense, gargantuan, or even preponderous, big words. I’m especially interested in anything which has ‘flagella’ in its name.

[don_t_ask]

@Libertarian

Alvin Plantinga

Interesting, unlike real proofs it is not universally accepted so where are we now?

Obviously Anselm thought this argument was valid and persuasive, and it still has occasional defenders, but many, perhaps most, contemporary philosophers believe that the ontological argument, at least as Anselm articulated it, does not stand up to strict logical scrutiny.

[iampunha]

@gluteus maximus

Could you please point me to a source of names of precambrian protozoa?

I’m not really afraid of large, immense, gargantuan, or even preponderous, big words. I’m especially interested in anything which has ‘flagella’ in its name.

This provides a working definition, and this provides more specific (though still, AFAIK, fairly general) terms.