You managed to work your way through that entire thread in just a few minutes? Evelyn Wood move over!
And what, specifically, is the “much” that that thread explains to you?
It is interesting how much that says about you. I think you should examine what your choice of words reveals about your early childhood. Not that I’m psychoanalyzing you, as that’s a very specific term… but you should definitely look at how your early childhood traumas have led you to this position.
Me? I taught myself to type numbers in boxes while I was still in utero and by four years of age I had taught myself to transcend the realms of ideation and numeracy themselves.
I am also one of the MVDopers who is regularly martyred by a callous and stupid mob who do not appreciate my genius OP’s. I stand in solidarity with all misunderstood geniuses, everywhere. (And you should really ask yourself what it shows about your inherent personality flaws that you do not believe me.)
The hell?
FinnAgain was demonstrating the OP’s posting style from the thread ETF linked. The OP’s accusation that the posters in GD are intellectually dishonest is a case of pots & kettles, to put it nicely.
Oh, Finny, you really should start over with Dubliners, and perhaps stay there. Your further delvings into Joyce have only confused you.
You resort to absurb exaggerations and distortions to attempt, in another maneuver typical of these boards, to rouse a ganging up on another member. You are, at least, transparent.
I could address each of your ridiculous comments individually, but it would just take too much time. Rather, I’ll just lump them into one ball of shit and roll them away.
Maureen got it in one.
I had hoped I was over-the-top enough that I wouldn’t have to use a smiley.
I hate smilies.
Maureen, in the cited thread, I acknowledged explicitly the validity of some of your observations and that they had helped me to understand better certain of the issues at hand.
You are one of the tiny few with something of value to say. I would like to know what you mean, specifically, by my “posting style.” “Intellectually dishonest”? I never used that term in regard to anyone here, or anywhere else, for that matter.
It looked like it was explained to me that you were just choosing to ignore LHoD. Now it looks like I was wrong.
The way the thread was going, your behavior was suspicious. I suppose you don’t see that?
Jim
Why does he have to be a speedreader? Perhaps he simply needed to be reminded that you are the asshat behind that other thread. I know that was enough for me.
“Suspicious“ in what regard, exactly?
An encapsulation in four posts.
Aiint no speed-reading necessary no more, I reckon.
That you chose to ignore the posts of the only poster that seemed willing to provide you with an honest debate. I was waiting to see your answers to Daniel.
It does give the strong appearance of what **Maureen ** later put in words. That you are the intellectually dishonest one.
Jim
Aw, gosh, and here I was all set to reply to that post with a 
.
:smack:
Oh and if you are interested in the conspiracy theories,
- I agree with **Maureen ** often but not all the time in other threads and I like and respect her.
- I often disagree with LHoD, though I very much respect him as a poster.
- I tend to agree with FinnAgain, but I believe I am more to the right than **FinnAgain ** and more prone to finding a compromise, but again a poster I like and respect.
So it is not an automatic that I would side with the above, I honestly saw **LHoD ** making some good arguments that you were not responding to. I found that odd. I wanted to call you out on it. I think it may have worked.
Jim
Okay. That makes it much clearer.
Well, of course they’re rarer: if someone tells me that George Washington wasn’t a hula dancer (something I agree with), I’m less likely to ask them for a cite than if they tell me he was a hula dancer (something I disagree with). I mistakenly thought this was unremarkable; nothing’s curious about it.
But they do happen. I myself have said, “Not that I disagree with you, but could you give me a cite for that?” on more than one occasion, and I’ve seen other folks do the same thing. If someone tells me that NASA has come out in support of science-fiction movies, I don’t **disagree[/b[ with them, but I’d like to see a cite, for my own education. And if someone says that George Bush has admitted to attending dogfights as a youth, I’ll call for a cite on that, even though it meshes pretty well with my overall impression of the man.
As for your conduct in the other thread: my curiosity is absent. I can’t be arsed to read it, so I’ll just form my opinion of you based on your conduct in this thread.
Daniel
D’oh!
To be fair, I don’t mind other posters using smilies, but I feel like I’m being lazy and taking the easy way out when I use a smiley instead of making my text express the nuances of my position. Then again, sometimes it’s good to be lazy. 
jrfranchi: Thanks much! I hate “playing the respect game”, but you’ve definitely earned my respect… even if you’re not bloodthirsty enough 
(one of those damn smilies again!)
It’s interesting that you chose to value numerical understanding over language or philosophy at such a young age. I suspect that is why you hold yourself and others to such exacting quantitative standards when in truth human beings are imperfect and require time to improve themselves. Take the OP, for example. He taught himself to transcend boredom at the age of seven and now, over six years later, he’s still learning how not to bore others.
Life is a journey, my friend. Someday you’ll understand that, as I do.
My point exactly. You convert your indolence into a virtue.
In what way is that indolence? I’m not saying he didn’t read the other thread, merely that he had not made the connection between you in that thread and you in this thread, and seeing the other thread sparked the memory.
And thanks for demonstrating *my *point, by the way.