January 23, 201016 yr I win :nice: No but your point was actually a rhetorical question (Because youre too much of a pussy to just come out and say it) about how the only way I know how to operate is to criticise people and their posts all the time (You ****) which is a load of shit and here's the proof: http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/showpost.php?p=907963&postcount=26 There, that's one post where I did not criticise a person or a thread (You fucking dick). Your point- in tatters.
January 24, 201016 yr Author I win :nice: No but your point was actually a rhetorical question (Because youre too much of a pussy to just come out and say it) about how the only way I know how to operate is to criticise people and their posts all the time (You ****) which is a load of shit and here's the proof: http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/showpost.php?p=907963&postcount=26 There, that's one post where I did not criticise a person or a thread (You fucking dick). Your point- in tatters. Not really, because the odd post aside, it is basically all you seem to do (and are continuing to do in this thread). Coming up with the odd exception doesn't alter that fact.:rolleyes:
January 24, 201016 yr No, you bastard, you said all I do is abuse people, there is one post in which I didnt, your 'fact' is as shit as you are. You didn't say 'basically', you said that 100% of my contribution on here is being a dick, you dick. Even if you were right (Which you weren't) at least I come out and say it, I don't do it in your pathetic way of making snide comments to draw other people out. We see it all the time where you write something in the hope of antagonising, you know exactly how people like me or Nathan will respond and you're happy for us to do it because in your little mind it makes you look like the good guy. Besides, I didn't just insult the person in this thread, I gave them advice. Their twisted view was so ignorant that it wasn't even up for debate, I told them to get a book on ethics as I re-call. Do you expect me to feign such stupidity? You're lucky I do swear and act abusive because it gives you some form of excuse to completely disregard my points as irrelevant. I should go back to politely asking you to explain your fucked up bitter logic towards everything because at least when you realise you're wrong you just shutup.
January 24, 201016 yr Author No, you bastard, you said all I do is abuse people, there is one post in which I didnt, your 'fact' is as shit as you are. You didn't say 'basically', you said that 100% of my contribution on here is being a dick, you dick. Even if you were right (Which you weren't) at least I come out and say it, I don't do it in your pathetic way of making snide comments to draw other people out. We see it all the time where you write something in the hope of antagonising, you know exactly how people like me or Nathan will respond and you're happy for us to do it because in your little mind it makes you look like the good guy. Besides, I didn't just insult the person in this thread, I gave them advice. Their twisted view was so ignorant that it wasn't even up for debate, I told them to get a book on ethics as I re-call. Do you expect me to feign such stupidity? You're lucky I do swear and act abusive because it gives you some form of excuse to completely disregard my points as irrelevant. I should go back to politely asking you to explain your fucked up bitter logic towards everything because at least when you realise you're wrong you just shutup. Until you start discussing topics without getting abusive, my point stands.:smug:
January 24, 201016 yr ...Which is exactly what I just said you'd do in that quote you just posted, so why did you even reply? Like I said, it's convenient for you that I am abusive, it means you don't have to explain yourself. You dick.
January 24, 201016 yr Author ...Which is exactly what I just said you'd do in that quote you just posted, so why did you even reply? Like I said, it's convenient for you that I am abusive, it means you don't have to explain yourself. You dick. You're still doing it.:rolleyes:
January 24, 201016 yr Are you even reading my posts besides the swear words? Maybe your mind just edits everything else out and all you can see is 'dick'. It's as if you have Daily Mail vision and all you can see are key words which upset and you can distort into being the whole point of the post. There. I didn't do it. You dick.
January 24, 201016 yr Author Are you even reading my posts besides the swear words? Maybe your mind just edits everything else out and all you can see is 'dick'. It's as if you have Daily Mail vision and all you can see are key words which upset and you can distort into being the whole point of the post. There. I didn't do it. You dick. Again.:rolleyes:
January 24, 201016 yr Congratulations Mark, now you've completely proven my point. In case you haven't noticed I was being more tactless and inappropriate with my abuse, to see if you'd do exactly what I expected (And even wrote in the same posts as you quoted!), and you have. You completely ignored any points I made at your convenience because there was one abusive comment in it.
January 24, 201016 yr Daily Mail vision often leads normally rational people to regress into an ignorant child-like state. When not sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring everything they don't agree with or anything that questions their smug, self-righteous moralist bullshit, they like to patronise, condescend and avoid having any real debate at all through selective hearing and reading. When not reading the Daily Mail and being told what harmless topic they need to blow out of proportion next, these people tend to live very sad, unfulfilled lives, often resenting anyone who doesn't put them on a pedestal or take in every word they say with awe. The usually die bitter and alone. You can repel these kind of people by using their greatest weakness against them: a rational, well balanced argument that looks at all the possible angles as opposed to vicariously living through the biased opinions and corrupt subjectivity of the Daily Mail. Individual who can see right through their ignorance and the rubbish they're indoctrinated with can easily expose the depthlessness of any arguments they spew forth. Approach with caution. :D
January 24, 201016 yr Author Congratulations Mark, now you've completely proven my point. In case you haven't noticed I was being more tactless and inappropriate with my abuse, to see if you'd do exactly what I expected (And even wrote in the same posts as you quoted!), and you have. You completely ignored any points I made at your convenience because there was one abusive comment in it. Makes no difference whether there is one or a dozen. Still proves my point.:smug: Therefore you can keep this up for as long as you like, but you'll just be wasting your time.
January 24, 201016 yr Very good! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPlEIryW8zA]YouTube- Charlie Brooker's Daily Mail Island[/ame] Enjoy.
January 24, 201016 yr Author Also, anyone that blindly dismisses everything that comes from a particular news source is being extremely hypocritical, as they are clearly being as one-sided in their views as they are accusing that source of being.:rolleyes:
January 24, 201016 yr Daily Mail vision often leads normally rational people to regress into an ignorant child-like state. When not sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring everything they don't agree with or anything that questions their smug, self-righteous moralist bullshit, they like to patronise, condescend and avoid having any real debate at all through selective hearing and reading. When not reading the Daily Mail and being told what harmless topic they need to blow out of proportion next, these people tend to live very sad, unfulfilled lives, often resenting anyone who doesn't put them on a pedestal or take in every word they say with awe. The usually die bitter and alone. You can repel these kind of people by using their greatest weakness against them: a rational, well balanced argument that looks at all the possible angles as opposed to vicariously living through the biased opinions and corrupt subjectivity of the Daily Mail. Individual who can see right through their ignorance and the rubbish they're indoctrinated with can easily expose the depthlessness of any arguments they spew forth. Approach with caution. :D :laugh3:!!!!
January 24, 201016 yr Very good! Enjoy. Hahaha that was hilarious. The over-reacting, opinionated 'Justice of the Peace' guy really reminded me of our Mark here, I wonder if the actor based his character on this real-life caricature. :laugh3:
January 24, 201016 yr Also, anyone that blindly dismisses everything that comes from a particular news source is being extremely hypocritical, as they are clearly being as one-sided in their views as they are accusing that source of being.:rolleyes: Where did I say to dismiss everything? from the Daily Mail? ------- The paper as a whole will warp a persons mind because of its sensationalist attitude, which is the point of the 'Daily Mail Island' joke. Yes you can read the paper here and there, it can still be sourced in some ways, but if you read it every single day it can turn you into a completely ignorant human being. The Daily Mail represents people who care more about victimising and persecuting people for crimes that can be regarded as eternally horrible and summed up in a nutshell. It's the easy read for bitter people. PS. The original question is all I want you to focus on Mark, the rest was for other people to read, I know it's a bit advanced for you considering how you're attention span can drift after a few sentences.
January 24, 201016 yr Is it like that one paper at the end of the register I always read and then laugh at but can never remember the name of? :thinking:
January 24, 201016 yr Makes no difference whether there is one or a dozen. Still proves my point.:smug: Therefore you can keep this up for as long as you like, but you'll just be wasting your time. We've already been through this Mark, your point was that 100% of my posts are abusive and I'm incapable of operating in any other way, but I proved otherwise (Remember that post that I proved it?) If you meant that a lot of my posts are abusive, then you should have written that. If you over-exaggerated, then that's your own fault for being immersed in the Daily Mail. Either admit you are wrong or stop talking about how I 'proved your point', because I didn't.
January 24, 201016 yr Is it like that one paper at the end of the register I always read and then laugh at but can never remember the name of? :thinking: Hmm. I dunno. But I do often pick up the Daily Mail just to laugh at it.
January 24, 201016 yr Author Where did I say to dismiss everything? from the Daily Mail? Much as you like to think so, not everything is about you.:rolleyes: PS. The original question is all I want you to focus on Mark, the rest was for other people to read, I know it's a bit advanced for you considering how you're attention span can drift after a few sentences. Still doing it. You're like someone with tourette's, except in your case the problem is "insults" rather than profanity.:rolleyes:
January 24, 201016 yr :bigcry: Why can't we all just get along and cry over how much pain this poor girl must be going through, hell, I could never imagined being whipped. :sad:
January 24, 201016 yr Author We've already been through this Mark, your point was that 100% of my posts are abusive Incorrect. Now you're just being silly.:rolleyes:
Create an account or sign in to comment