Been fending off lots of barbs and arrows.
Hey Bricker, now that I’ve explained myself, are you going to withdraw or modify the charges in the OP?
My barbs and arrows are more important than everyone else’s. Do pay attention.
Based on my reading of it, all he did was point out that you unfairly accused the woman in the eviction thread of exercising poor judgment- which you did. He didn’t call you a troll or a threadshitter or anything.
I’m not sure if this is a typo or not, but exactly what is the net benefit of calling the fat girl fat? I’d wager that in 99.74352% of the cases, the fat girl already knows she is fat. She also knows that you know she’s fat. You are not, in fact, giving out any information that she doesn’t already have, nor are you providing her with any useful information with which she could “better” herself.
Telling someone to become qualified for a job that doesn’t get 2000 applicants, or a renter to do a better job looking over the boilerplate contract next time does exactly nothing to help those people out at all, and in fact is akin to standing along the sidelines saying “Ha-ha!” (or calling the fat girl fat, which you claim not to be doing)
So, maybe you want to look up the word douchebaggery, because you fit it quite well in those threads.
Me too. “Troll” seems to have become synonymous with “person who doesn’t agree with me” among a certain subset of none-too-bright posters.
That’s because you hang out in Great Debates, where the none-too-bright posters all pretend to be grown up by skirting the name-calling rule as closely as possible and “taking it to the Pit” when all else fails.
Which means it’s pretty much your own fault, because you should have foreseen that you’d get called a troll.
But posting in GD isn’t a business decision.
What about your moral duty to yourself?
Your problem isn’t that you lack compassion. Your problem is that you enjoy being the center of attention from a bunch of people you claim to hold in contempt. Why is that? If people here are all a bunch of idiots, you can either attempt to educate them, or ignore them. Anything else makes no sense.
What benefit do you gain by posting in a way that you know will get you attacked? The answer is that it tickles your ego. If someone you look down on dislikes you, that validates you. Except it’s pretty pathetic. Why would anyone with a truly healthy ego care?
And the rest of you? Rand Rover loves this shit. I believe it literally gives him a pseudosexual thrill whenever you complain that he hurts your feelings. Trying to change his behavior this way is like trying to cure homosexuality by giving nude same-sex massages.
I see you’re familiar with my PhD dissertation.
Maybe he is just annoyed by the circle-jerk theme of some of these threads - “I pit you, life, for being so mean to me”, and he is trying to discourage people from posting their own cries for attention?
Why would someone with a healthy ego need to be stroked by a handful of random internet strangers posting “There, there, dear”?
So, are you trying to educate Rand Rover? If not, why aren’t you ignoring him? Or are you claiming he’s indeed not an idiot?
Yep. See also: “liar.” And apparently now the new one is “sociopath” (for conservatives only though).
It amuses me. That, and the kickback from Ed for increasing page views.
Of course I know it amuses you. But that sort of thing would only be amusing to a dick. So yeah.
Exactly why I’m not playing. Really, 6 pages of this utter shite?
I can do anything that makes me happy! That’s the beauty of your sophomoric philosophy. If you don’t like it, come on over here and stop me.
ETA: Actually, don’t bother. The value of wrestling pigs, etc.
- :: Wanders off ::*
Watching, I cannot tell that you are not the “stupid … creature”. There is a legal definition of the legal term “reasonably foreseeable”. Here it is: “what twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty come to an agreed conclusion upon after tiring of arguing what is reasonable and what is foreseeable. But not before they get their free lunch.”
I would hope that you meant the editor, as the writer of an article has little or nothing to do with which photos get published. Unless you’re like Bob Woodward or something. Regardless, you’re still full of shit. The article was not slanted toward a racial point of view, and the fact that the lady in the photo is black does not make it so. Perhaps she should have made herself up in whiteface so as not to flaunt that she is black?
That was cherry-picking; I still have serious comments to make.
You keep repeating that she should have had a reasonable expectation that her landlord might not pay his mortgage on the property, and that she should have made certain that part of her rent was going to the mortgage. I assure you, this is not a reasonable expectation.
I have rented for over thirty years, and I have never had a lease cancelled due to a foreclosure. Nobody I know personally has ever had a lease cancelled due to a foreclosure. Expecting one’s lease to be cancelled due to a foreclosure is not a reasonable expectation. It’s just not. It’s a rarity, not a common risk.
Nor can it be allowed for. A renter simply will not be allowed to pay their rent to the mortgage owner. It won’t happen because it’s not a reasonable expectation of renting.
Having one’s rented residence sold is not a rarity; it’s quite common. That’s happened to me a few times. Leases are transferred. Part of the purchasing is inheriting the leases.
Having one’s leased residence foreclosed on, having one’s leased residence sold, and having the lease on one’s leased residence end are completely different and distinct situations, each with their own and different level of reasonable expectations. I hope that if you stop and think about that, you’ll be able to see the difference.
This makes no sense. I didn’t claim that you were mentally ill at all. I opined that there might be something wrong with your brain–not the same thing at all. Disliking chocolate is not equivalent to lacking empathy (or even sympathy) for your fellow man–the fact that you cannot see this makes me more certain that there is something wrong with your brain.
Just because something is not legally binding does not make it unimportant or unnecessary.
JFTR, I’ve never called any conservative here a troll, not even under my breath while fuming about something they’ve written. The term is being misused by those who call people out on it and maybe we should go back to not using it.
I like it especially when someone posts just to say they aren’t participating. Oh yeah, baby, that’s the good stuff.
Wow Jodi. I actually thought you were one of the smarter ones here. Guess not.
Nothing I’ve said leads to the conclusion that I think “I can do anything that makes me happy.”
-
You are just as stupid as all hell.
-
We have a difference of opinion about what does and does not illicit empathy or sympathy. This does not mean that there is something wrong with my brain. Just like if you disagreed with me about liking chocolate ice cream, it wouldn’t mean there is something wrong with your brain (except that you would remain just as stupid as all hell).
-
Funny how you pat yourself on the back for not calling anyone a troll in the same post that you insist something is wrong with my brain simply because we have a difference of opinion.
That’s blighted my life: the man who has no empathy and no critical thinking skills thinks I’m stupid.
No, YOU don’t understand what should elicit (not illicit–that does not mean what you think it means) empathy or sympathy. That is not the same as a difference of opinion. “Should elicit” means conventionally accepted here–out in the world, people have generally accepted standards of considerate behavior, but these remain a mystery to you.
That is not the same thing. Haven’t you been paying attention? The posters here have been saying that citing a difference of opinion does not a troll make. What does Ayn have to say about trolls? Perhaps you should take your opinion from her.