If you are honestly suggesting that the assertions of some number of ignorant people that Huckleberry Finn glorifies racism makes it possible for you to assert the same thing, and believe you are right in holding such an opinion, then you’re stupider than I thought you were.
 Cervaise:
 Cervaise:If you are honestly suggesting that the assertions of some number of ignorant people that Huckleberry Finn glorifies racism makes it possible for you to assert the same thing, and believe you are right in holding such an opinion, then you’re stupider than I thought you were.
If you honestly read that out of what I wrote, you’re more illiterate than I thought you were, so we’re even.
The particular opinion you’re advancing is neither rational or valid, as it’s based on a mistaken premise. Still waiting for an “Oh” from you, here.
Still waiting for someone to tell me the aforementioned gimmick wasn’t part of the film.
If I remember my rules of logical proofs correctly, validity is only determined by the structure of the argument, and not by the true/false nature of the premises.
This is a moot point, since my premise (that the film contains this stupid weight-gain gimmick) is not mistaken.
But I thought I’d bring it up.
 lissener:
 lissener:Or, eye of the cousin of the guy who married the piano teacher of the chick who overheard the beholder talking about a movie on the subway.
This shows you don’t even understand the facts as presented. The rest of your post shows that you’re just interested in hurling insults, and not discussing the actual method in question.
Of course, discussing the method in question is tangential to the subject in this Pit Thread anyway, but I was happy to do it.
Go hump Verhoeven’s leg. You’re not needed here.