Utter codswallop.
No, can’t help it. I have the deepest sympathy for those who don’t love themselves. That said, perhaps you have good reason?
Learn to comprehend. You know my opinion on the possible causes of misinterpretation. I’d bet both are at play in what passes for your mind. Learn some manners while you’re at it (and no, I don’t mean here - here you can let rip with your childish substitute for intelligent discussion, I meant when you engage in a ‘Great’ debate by ignoring anything that doesn’t suit you and imagining that petulant pernickety playground games show your ideology in a good light).
Heh. Five bucks says that the next time a moderator has to smack Jack down for rulebreaking, he’s going to start whining that the mods have it in for him because he called Miller a “fatuous oaf” in this Pit thread.
Should have stopped there.
Self abuse doesn’t count, Jack.
Fortunately, I don’t need to.
No, not really. But the point is that your opinion, despite your grossly inflated opinion of its importance, doesn’t make the rules around here.
The rules around here are clearly stated, and you egregiously violated them. If you don’t like the rules then you can leave these boards so you won’t have to follow them. If you just continue to hang around here kvetching about how you don’t like the rules 'cuz you got smacked for breaking them, you’re going to get deservedly mocked for it.
It’s post’s like these that make your choice of user name the funniest thing you’ll ever write here. It’s simply adorable that you actually think you’ve got some sort of skill with language, when what you’ve actually got is bloody-minded literalism and a congenital inability to grasp gradations of meaning. You’re good at grammar, which is a nice enough skill. But you’ve got absolutely no talent at communication. You continuously make statements that you later insist you never made: not, I suspect, because you’re dishonest (although I’m certainly not ruling that out) but because you seem to genuinely not understand what meaning is being conveyed by the words you use. This is certainly the case in the reverse, where you are fundamentally unable to correctly parse meaning out of other people’s words. Your last exchange with Kimstu was particularly precious in this regard - you know, the one where you went back through the thread for examples of misandrist posts, and were only able to demonstrate that you’ve confused a persecution complex with reading comprehension? I mean, look at this. This is not the post of a competent reader. This is the post of a deluded, half-bright ideologue who is constitutionally incapable of not projecting his biases onto every thing he sees, no matter how transparently inappropriate the projection may be. Or, you know… a troll. But I have faith in you, Jack! I don’t think you’re a troll. I think you’re every bit as dumb as you present yourself.
As if there weren’t enough reasons already.
That’s what Jack calls “employing a creative concatenation”. Which I have to nominate for my favorite example of Jackobabble.
Old Jack is a sock. Apart from his six or so haikus (how cute is that?), he’s perpetually angry, with far too much invested in his board persona.
I suppose it’s remotely possible that he signed up simply to spew contempt in his inimitable style, but that would be even more pathetic, no? Trying to impress random strangers on a discussion board with his verbosity?
If LinusK weren’t so clearly limited, I’d guess Jack of Words was one of his personalities. The one that beats up all the feminists that LinusK is so frightened of.
Can we get back to LinunK, instead of this new troll?
As long as no one summons him again, we should be clear. I think it’s past his bedtime anyway.
Regarding LinusK was there some new frustration you wanted to vent?
In the last thread, I finally resorted to just posting earlier Post Numbers in response to his babble about subjects that had already been covered.
I started to make a list here of all of the topics that we now have exhaustive data points on, for easy copy and paste later, but maybe another time.
Truthfully the best thing will be if we can all just stay out of the inevitable next thread. It’s like a scab or something. You know you shouldn’t pick at it, but it just itches until you do.
LinusK, the itching scab of the SDMB.
I’ll take that. Easy money 
Oh, have they had to warn you again already? Show me the post where you got the new smackdown, and if I see that you managed to refrain from whining about mod retaliation due to “petty grudges”, I’ll undertake to get the five dollars to you.
What I have, chummy, is a career as a poet and script writer (with a sideline in amusing myself here, watching ideologues reveal themselves as having no arguments but plenty of insults - there’s no money in it, but I’m an amateur in the truest sense of the word).
I don’t recall denying ever having said something, not least because that would be foolish - after all, it’s all on record. That’s why I fell foul of the strange rule prohibiting one pointing out that a poster must either be a liar or a fool when they “paraphrase” (to use lance’s creative definition) a third party - by which I mean blatantly misrepresenting what was actually said. Of course, dependent on the ability (or lack thereof) of the liar/fool in question, it may be that they ‘believe’ something else was said. Anecdotally, I have a friend who swears I once told him ‘xyz’, when in fact it was a performance poem and the line was (and always is) ‘abc’ (where both are fairly insulting, but he heard/remembered it according to his own prejudices).
Communication is not a difficult subject. I’ve taught it. One of the precepts is that it necessarily involves both the sender of the message and the receiver. So to stand on one side and claim “you can’t communicate” is a sort of meta-ignorance. As an associated aside, it’s very telling that so many posts in that failed thread involved no attempt to engage with anything - it was about insulting (with an eye to moderation rules) and shutting down debate. ‘Rubbish’ is not the clever response kimstu seems to think it is - unless the measure is how well you can shut out ideas opposing your ideology.
My own ‘ideology’, if you want to stretch the definition, is eqalitarian. That is, equality for all (not just, for example, women). The handful of posts I culled casually from less than half that thread clearly demonstrate a view of equality that is pro-women and anti-men. That you (and others) think debate consists of shouting “Oh no it isn’t”* at ideas you have no more engaged with than the one you picked because it seemed to appeal on a sub-intellectual level, is a shame. That I fruitlessly persist in the naive belief that anyone so crippled might be shaken from their stupor is, too, a shame. but at least I’m right 
[*A pantomine reference. Pantomime is a british tradition. I’m aware that some posters here think this part of the WWW is ‘american’, and sadly aware that some americans think not being american is ‘wrong’ (the root, I expect, of your sad belief that I “can’t communicate”, because I’m not inside your bubble).]
I feel, despite it all, that we may have at least achieved a recorded lesson (for those that have ears to hear, as it were): an ideology that can only stick its metaphorical fingers in its ears and insult those who bring critical questions is…well, it’s that. That’s what it is. I suppose some people want that. “The poetry is in the pity”.
Miller, are you capable of truth? You seem to believe that saying something firmly, assuredly, and with a chorus, somehow creates truth. I think it was JK Galbraith who said power is the ability to define another’s reality. The petty power of moderation, as petty powers will, so often goes to the head. But please, I care about people (even stupid lieing ideologues) - don’t get so carried away that you think your power is truth.
I think you just lost $5, dude.
Oh, poor baby, do you feel ‘beaten up’ by the ‘troll’ who ‘can’t communicate’? You guys should really get your story straight…
I think you mean “eagle.” Or “vegetarian.”
No dear, they haven’t*. I just meant it would be so sweet to take your money, I’d refrain from saying anything you’d think I’d say. Why, for ten bucks I’d say anything you wanted me to - that’s my business, after all. Cash up front, mind.
*Once again, you’ve failed to do even simple, easy research before sounding off.
Oh touche, jimmy - you’ve been keeping that grudge warm for a while, eh?
ETA: I’ve been on the qin.
It’s spelled egalitarian. With a g, not a q.
Back to your crayons.