Are you really at this point trying to maintain I didn’t provide a cite people could read for themselves to see if I’ve actually described it?
No, you’re lying again, I can’t “maintain” something that you invented in the feverish haze of insanity because being asked for a link sent you into paroxysms of rage.
And again what I’m pointing out is that you’re roughly as crazy as Margin and anything you say should be treated as fictional until proven otherwise.
[
You are a crazy person. Asking for a link to the paper/book/whatever in question sent you into absolute hysterics where you actually shrieked “you lying, disingenuous little prick I provided a cite to the survey concerned”.
Only an utterly berserk lunatic would respond to “Can you provide a link for that so I can see the substance of it and we can discuss it?” with “You lying, disingenuous little prick I provided a cite to the survey concerned!”
You’re not even tilting at windmills.
You’re foaming at the mouth with rage and shrieking because someone asked you for a link to the source of your claims so your analysis and its methodology could be discussed.
You’re not quixotic, you’re damaged.
So when you said…
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As I stated, you are a lunatic, so nobody should take your word for anything without a cite that they can read for themselves to see if you’ve actually describing it.
[/QUOTE]
… you weren’t actually meaning that I expected someone to take my word for something without a cite that they could read for themselves to see if I was actually describing it. Just that every time I check, I actually provided a cite that someone could read for themselves to see if I was actually describing it.
Because I am getting a little confused by your ranting here, and most humans would understand that quote of yours as saying that you thought I hadn’t actually provided such a cite. I guess the problem is I provided a cite acceptable to a federal court, or to a peer reviewed journal, but not to a fuckwit who has no legal training at all.
And to be fair, the cite would be acceptable to any state court as well. Just apparently not to FinnAgain. Guess they need to rewrite the Blue Book.
Hey, Finn, do you still think that your opinion on racial issues is just as valid as a black person’s, if they’re as much of a scholar as you are?
I was then, and am now, pointing out that you are both insane *and *dishonest. I pointed out that you did not provide a link. I know that you understood this, because after your berserker-freakout about “dishonest lying prick”, or whatever, you shrieked about how you weren’t going to provide a link and I’d have to go to a local library and try to find a hard copy.
The point remains: since you are both out of your mind and given to deliberate dishonesty, nobody has any reason to take anything you say at face value. It would barely be worth it to page through a link you gave, from which you quoted the relevant claims. It is absolutely not worth it to try to track down a physical, hardcopy of a source for which a request for a link starts you absolutely *raving. *
Even if you were not a crazy person and you were accurately describing events and I’d said you didn’t provide a cite instead of that you didn’t provide a link, you might have responded “oh, you missed it, I provided a cite.” Instead, you are a ragecrazed lunatic, so your response (to something that wasn’t actually said anyways) was “You lying, disingenuous little prick I provided a cite to the survey concerned!”
Now, I know that it’s hard for you to understand this, as insanity robs a mind of its ability to comprehend reality: we are not in a court of law. We are also not in a peer-reviewed journal. We are in an online forum. And when someone politely requests that you provide a link to a source you are using so that everybody can analyze it without having to go find hard copy and then hand-type it out to discuss relevant passages, the proper response is not “You lying, disingenuous little prick I provided a cite!”
Honest question: are you even sane and sober enough to realize that you’re talking to people online, and that you’re not, in fact, in a court of law?
- Your “I know you are but what am I!?!” defense is lacking, padawan.
- You’re confused, and more important driven to foam at the mouth and shriek, by my request for a link because there is something wrong with the operation of your mind.
Your continued sputtering ravings about “legal training”, “peer reviewed journals” and “courts of law”, in response to a request for a link so that people online can read your cite and see if you’re honestly/accurately describing it, and if its contents stand on their own despite your interpretation of them, speaks for itself.
There is something wrong with you. Seriously. Not joking.
Simple question, sparky…
What did you mean by…
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As I stated, you are a lunatic, so nobody should take your word for anything without a cite that they can read for themselves to see if you’ve actually describing it.
[/QUOTE]
… if not to suggest I didn’t provide a cite that people could read for themselves to see if I’m actually describing it?
And did I provide a cite that people could read for themselves to see if I was actually describing it?
Two very easy questions for you to answer. Try and answer them directly this time - it would show a degree of integrity on your part.
I can go on repeating the questions for ever if you choose to keep on avoiding answering them.
That you think I’m avoiding anything is just more proof of how thoroughly damaged you are.
For your sake, before you do something that might harm yourself or others, I’m going to just start scrolling past your posts.
Please see your doctor and get back on your medication.
So you aren’t going to answer?
So where’s the answer, Finn? To both Villa’s question and my own?
So it is your definition, as opposed to the legal definition. And lets not forget your definition makes every single sexual act in New Jersey rape. You see, if you want to talk about this in a grown up way, learning the legal basis of it can be helpful. That might even mean admitting that someone else might know more about it than you.
Leafing through my FinnAgain-to-English dictionary I have seen that “I didn’t lawyerproof my definition” means “I’m sorry, I was wrong, I shouldn’t have gone off ranting as if I knew what I was talking about, accusing you of being insane when in fact you were merely being legally accurate.”
Still, I am sure it must have been hard for you to realize I was giving a legally correct definition. Especially when I started with:
[QUOTE=Villa]
This isn’t the legal definition of rape, by the way.
[/QUOTE]
And you followed up with:
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
That is a legal definition of rape, by the way.
[/QUOTE]
Who’d have thought we were discussing the legal definition of rape? Anyone could make that mistake.
I was at a bar once and Spock dropped in. We got good and plastered. He ranted and raved about how stupd and crazy all the races were. Except for one. I still remember exactly what he said:
“Horta, now those Horta are fucking cool. Pillars of the earth. Rock solid. Stone cold sober they are”
I thought I detected a tear in his eye and a quiver in his voice when he said it.
Mister Spock reminds me of Doctor Spock. Doctor Spock was the Surgeon General, and advocated certain ideas about parenting children. Women give birth to children. Therefore, Mister Spock and the entire crew of the Enterprise were keeping women down and trying to dominate them.
Also, you’re not a lawyer.
Anyone else really, really bored?
Do you mean with this thread, or in general? I’m not particularly bored, so I have no impetus to waste my time actually reading this mess. 
I am all raped out actually.
It’s about time Rape Month was over - I need to recharge in anticipation of next year’s Rape Month Extravaganza (I’m not entirely sure that sentence has ever been typed on the internet before). 
I was hoping villa and FinnAgain would start making out.
After the wild days of my youth I now cleave to the dictate: don’t stick your dick in the crazy.
Nah, I’m a size queen.