So apparently it is blue moon...Follow

All I know is that despite having him on ignore, I can still tell he's posted (even if ppl weren't ******** and quoting him). Him still being here continues to annoy me. Like an itch you can't reach.

Is there any particular reason he bothers you so much? I am too lazy to actually search for anything thay has you both in it so if you can please give us a gift of a good chrismas story, it would be mildly appreciated.

He can't comprehend a single word said to him. He makes up definitions to words, or takes the most abstract definition of the word and misconstrues its meaning. He's horrendous at communicating his point and will argue 25 pages that what you said is wrong but in the end, it turns out he completely agrees with you. When he thinks he's made a point, despite people saying they don't understand his point, his attempt at helping you understand him is to simply requote what he already said over and over again. This brings us back to he can't comprehend a single word said to him and he's terrible at communicating. I'd add more but I've already spent more effort on him this week than I'd like to in a year. I would prefer to have never met him and not realize there are people that stunned truly existing on this planet. I would love nothing more than to be oblivious of his existence.

He doesn't like it when he is proven wrong. Ugly is like Smash in where they both like to use derision as their main arguing tool. The intent is to have the other person so offended and/or bothered, that s/he drops out. Smash actually believes in what he says, while Ugly admittedly will just troll. He doesn't like to be confronted and lose to a person who he think is stupid.



1. I suck at grammar, but it's pretty asinine to pretend that I'm the only one who commit grammatical crimes.
2. If by "deciding" you mean "correcting". People tend to purposefully misuse words to support their claim.
3. You mean like creating 30 different posts on same sex marriage. Hint: I didn't create those, I participated in them.


I think this word salad that you used to attack my communication skills is quite ironic.

The reason why the whole "page 14" started is because I wasted time repeating myself because no one was actually reading *all* of my posts. I would argue 25 pages only to find out that there was no real difference because the other person "didn't have time to read everything". As a result, I would repeat it once or twice, then I will either quote or reference myself. To somehow spin the facts, when others have openly admitted in commenting without reading is misleading. You let people like angrymnk think he actually has a point.

Yet, you criticize my usage of the dictionary? I realized my flaw in my limited vocabulary and actually started looking up words. That's when I realized that people (to include myself) unknowingly (and sometimes purposefully) misuse words.

You actually have no grounds on your claim of me other than mere opinion. If two people have opposing views on concepts, it isn't any more valid for one to accuse another of being incapable of understanding something. Being in disagreement doesn't equate to either personnel being "obtuse". That defining term is decided on the logic used in the discussion.

I challenge you to find one concept that I hold based on poor logic, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. For example, I can disagree with angrymnks assertion that there is no acceptable form of torture without thinking he's stupid. What makes him "obtuse" is his logic on why there is no acceptable torture. There's a difference and many people generally tend to overlook that.

You are partially right. We have been down this road before, but we have never actually had the conversation. The reason why? See post #85. You have no grounds.

Uhh..huh.. on a sliding scale of acceptable torture, what is the least acceptable torture?

Is the line in reference objective, subjective or something else? If it's objective, please link the source. If it's something else, please explain what that something else is.

Unless you're going to let someone else be the judge and accept their decision without argument, there's no point. No one is going to convince you that you're holding an illogical position. Gbaji tries to go down that road all the time ("You have to convince me that I'm wrong or else I must be right!") and there's nothing to do but laugh at it.

Worse when they're holding their positions by deluding themselves that they're "making the forums more interesting" and "fostering discussion."

Well that part is sort of true. This place would be Joph's blog without some opposing interest. I can only argue with him about playing pretend about Jesus and hating trans people for so long.

Ask me about trans-Jesus!

Edit: Wait... "Would be Joph's blog..."?

Edited, Dec 18th 2014 9:19am by Jophiel

It is pointer. Who said anything about a line? Just tell about your least objectionable torture. We can establish a line using your frame of reference. I am that nice.

Alma,

how abou we start fresh?

Hello kind sir or madam,

What brings you to this thread?