It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:07 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 220 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:58 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6640
Interesting that the posts MG complains about, the ones he claims to be sick and tired of, are the ones he invests nearly all his time and effort responding to, thereby facilitating more of them.

Read into that what you will, I’m out.

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:59 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
I have a question wrote:
You started the thread.

For clarification, which thread are you referring to?

Thanks,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:00 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 5960
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
dimple head wrote:
For your information, Clark Goble...a much more intelligent and well read man that I...discussed this issue back here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46475&hilit=kjv&start=21

IHAQ wrote:
I’m sure he does.

But here’s the thing, I’m not asking for “Clark Gobles” thoughts and opinions. I’m enquiring as to yours.

He can't. He didn't read it. That's why he never copies and pastes the relevant section from a link. In fact, I'd be surprised if he made it through your three sentences.

The only thing MG wants is some attention and to keep playing like he's, I dunno, a defender of the faith. He just really sucks at it.

Because he's [multiple personal attacks deleted].

- Doc

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please restrict all personal attacks to the Telestial Forum only. Thank you.]

How interesting. Mentalgymnast, when you called Doc a liar in an earlier post in this thread, did you report yourself for that personal attack? I understand that you technically lived up to the letter of the law when you called groups of people here "purveyors of sin (pornography, sodomy, etc)", but did you report yourself to Shades for breaking the spirit of the law?

Report this, troll.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:01 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
Lemmie wrote:
Ignore him, Jersey.

She won't. That I can guarantee.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:02 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 5960
I have a question wrote:
You started the thread.

mentalgymnast wrote:
For clarification, which thread are you referring to?

Thanks,
MG

:lol: :lol: :lol: Well there you go, ihaq. The troll trolls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:05 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
Lemmie wrote:
...Mentalgymnast, when you called Doc a liar in an earlier post in this thread, did you report yourself for that personal attack?


Nope. Because what I said was true. And I limited my accusation to calling him a liar. Not a laundry list of other accusation. If someone else wants to report on the post(s) in question and can verify that I'm not telling the truth, go for it.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:08 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
I have a question wrote:
Interesting that the posts MG complains about, the ones he claims to be sick and tired of, are the ones he invests nearly all his time and effort responding to, thereby facilitating more of them.

Read into that what you will, I’m out.

Awesome! Thanks.

That's one less post I have to respond to in order to protect my good name. If others do the same...the thread dies a natural death.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:09 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
Lemmie wrote:
Report this, troll.

Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Are you going to keep this going?

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:10 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
Lemmie wrote:
The troll trolls.

Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:21 pm 
Savior (resurrected)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:38 am
Posts: 993
mentalgymnast wrote:
I'm not going to admit to something that isn't true to please you.

Well, some believers who frequently start threads here are secret pedophiles.

See how unkind and uncharitable that sounds, especially since it is completely unfounded and unsupported?

I'm sure you don't, and that your explanation of why you don't will be another textbook example of special pleading. Go ahead. I'm ready for it.

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:51 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
fetchface wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
I'm not going to admit to something that isn't true to please you.

Well, some believers who frequently start threads here are secret pedophiles.

See how unkind and uncharitable that sounds, especially since it is completely unfounded and unsupported?

I'm sure you don't, and that your explanation of why you don't will be another textbook example of special pleading. Go ahead. I'm ready for it.


As I said before, fetchface, over the years I've heard a number of posters...not a few...that don't seem to have a problem with pornography and the purported benefits derived therefrom. There have also been a number...not a few...who have expressed support and/or condone homosexual relationships which often result in sodomy.

That's ALL I'm saying.

If you feel like you need to take issue with that, so be it.

So when I say some, I mean some...based upon what I've read over an extended period of time.

If you are one of those that hasn't expressed support for and, in turn, the distribution/consumption of porn, then like I said, you shouldn't have any concern or take it personally. Ditto with your views in regards to homosexual behavior and practice.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:21 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 5960
mentalgymnast wrote:

As I said before, fetchface, over the years I've heard a number of posters...not a few...that don't seem to have a problem with pornography and the purported benefits derived therefrom. There have also been a number...not a few...who have expressed support and/or condone homosexual relationships which often result in sodomy.

That's ALL I'm saying.

If you feel like you need to take issue with that, so be it.

So when I say some, I mean some...based upon what I've read over an extended period of time.

If you are one of those that hasn't expressed support for and, in turn, the distribution/consumption of porn, then like I said, you shouldn't have any concern or take it personally. Ditto with your views in regards to homosexual behavior and practice.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:09 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:12 pm
Posts: 7553
Location: Cave
MG wrote:
If others do the same


Not quite yet.

First, while you added a link to the Cordon piece in the Ensign and the Wiki article, the Cordon piece is still a problem because 1) citing the entire article verbatim goes well beyond fair use 2) recycling the article without commentary adds to the fair use problem. You've stolen the article, and it's even the Church's article, or the Lord's article, and the Lord is actually the creator God, so you're essentially stealing from creator God. Wow.

Next, you continue to cite a quotation copyrighted by Doctor Cam without attribution. He staked his claim fair and square.

And I thought this was a little odd. You complained to shades:

MG wrote:
Lemmie for one, that seemed to think that I was doing something illegal.


But your repeatedly say to Lemmie:

MG wrote:
You are a liar.


If Lemmie is such a known liar, then why would you care if she think you're doing something illegal? The fact that you worried about her opinion on the matter, enough to start this thread, proves that you see her opinions as credible, and calling her a "liar" is a simple personal attack born from anger.

And finally, you've justified your personal attacks in this thread on grounds that they are "true". Not good enough. Never mind that we only have your opinion on the truth content, even if they are true, they are still personal attacks that aren't appropriate for this forum. Anyway, if someone has a deformity, just because it's true doesn't give you license attack and belittle the person over it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:14 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
Gadianton wrote:
...why would you care if [lemmie] think[s] you're doing something illegal?


The fact is, I...and I'm sure others...am not up to speed on all of the in's and out's when it comes to legalities, procedures, etc., in online posting. Your input, if indeed true, in your most recent post may be of interest to folks participating on this board. To be honest, I am somewhat naïve when it comes to some of the more esoteric online etiquette and practices that may be mandated/encouraged.

Unfortunately, for many folks participating in online forums, we may not always be well versed in fair use law and things of that nature. And I'm not sure whether or not you're even telling the truth. Be that as it may, to satisfy your interests and to pacify those that may be impacted through any potential violation of fair use laws, whatever they might be, I went back and deleted the two quotes mentioned. Thank you for bringing this to my/our attention.

As for Lemmie, my calling her a liar has more to do with repeated interactions I've had with her over a period of time. When she accused me of having done something illegal, that took me totally by surprise. I had no idea whether or not her statement had any basis in fact. And I still don't. I am the last one on earth that would intentionally do something illegal in this respect.

And from what Shades said in an earlier post as he analysed and/or took a look at what was going on, I don't think that there is anything to be concerned with there anyway at this point.

I think that DocCam would need to prove and/or verify that he has taken out a copyright on a certain phrase/statement. Truth be told, however, I don't see how that can be done when it can be shown/proved that those words are stolen from original content printed by me...and Dr. Shades, as a witness, has also viewed as the board owner/moderator. Anyone can make up a copyright notice. I think the onus would be on DocCam to show/prove that he actually went to the effort of doing so. But again, I don't see how he could, knowing that the words are not originally his and they are an exact copy of mine. If there is some kind ludicrous twist in the copyright law that allows this, I would like to have that shown

Anyway, gadianton, your input/observations/education on these matters is, I'm sure, appreciated by everyone on this board. Especially those that are somewhat unaccustomed/naïve to the ways and means by which fair use law may work/operate in this environment/new world of online discussion boards.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:49 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 5960
Gadianton wrote:
...and calling her a "liar" is a simple personal attack born from anger.

And finally, you've justified your personal attacks in this thread on grounds that they are "true". Not good enough. Never mind that we only have your opinion on the truth content, even if they are true, they are still personal attacks that aren't appropriate for this forum...

This sums up mentalgymnast's contributions to the board. In the last few days he has created dozens of spam posts where he has repeated identical messages in multiple threads, and interspersed them with multiple personal attacks on individuals and stereotypical attacks on groups of people (his term-- "purveyors of sin, pornography, and sodomy"). As Gad pointed out, he justifies these attacks by simply saying they are true, even though he admits he knows nothing about writers here. He talks about all the posts he's reported, however, where he feels attacked, apparently not seeing the irony.

Looking at last night's posts, his writings came closer and closer together until he was basically just responding to himself or taunting people with one sentence, emotionally unstable and virtually incoherent personal insults, again repeated identically in thread after thread. Something is wrong with this behavior.

If mentalgymnast hates and despises people here this much, why does he post? Only a troll whose intent is to disrupt would post the way he does.


Last edited by Lemmie on Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:46 am 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
Lemmie wrote:
This sums up mentalgymnast's contributions to the board. In the last few days he has created dozens of spam posts where he has repeated identical messages in multiple threads, and interspersed them with multiple personal attacks on individuals and stereotypical attacks on groups of people (his term-- "purveyors of sin, pornography, and sodomy"). As Gad pointed out, he justifies these attacks by simply saying they are true, even though he admits he knows nothing about writers here. He talks about all the posts he's reported, however, where he feels attacked, apparently not seeing the irony.

Looking at last night's posts, his writings came closer and closer together until he was basically just responding to himself or taunting people with one sentence, emotionally unstable and virtually incoherent personal insults, again repeated identically in thread after thread. Something is wrong with this behavior.

Mentalgymnast, if you hate and despise people here this much, why post? Only a troll whose intent is to disrupt would post the way you do.


blah, blah, blah

I've said what I've said. As have you. And if you're done, so am I. Two opposing points of view.

When I use this response:

Quote:
Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?


It is to notify the poster that, IMO, what they're saying really isn't productive in the sense that we're not going to go anywhere as a result of what that poster said. I invite anyone to go back and look at my usage of this 'same word response'...which is used simply to save time on my part...and show that I'm using it as spam. I am using it in order to hopefully course correct the conversation from one that is being steered in the direction of personal attack and/or innuendo and derail to a place where continued conversation can occur. The evidence will show that when a thread is moving along and a discussion is taking place...often there will be one or more folks that seek to derail the conversation in one way or another. And it's usually rather transparent. I then encourage them to steer back to substantive conversation rather than doing the 'he said, she said' thing. That gets old. As I'm sure many here can attest to. :smile:

Anyway, Lemmie, if you want to keep beating your drum, making mountains out of molehills, creating strawmen, taking my words out of context and creating false narratives, I suppose that's up to you. No one can stop you.

It seems like you might have better things to do with your time? I definitely would appreciate not having to continually respond to your posts over and over again. You could save us both time.

Thanks for taking this under consideration,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:19 pm
Posts: 9265
Location: Multiverse
Lemmie wrote:
Gadianton wrote:
...and calling her a "liar" is a simple personal attack born from anger.

And finally, you've justified your personal attacks in this thread on grounds that they are "true". Not good enough. Never mind that we only have your opinion on the truth content, even if they are true, they are still personal attacks that aren't appropriate for this forum...

This sums up mentalgymnast's contributions to the board. In the last few days he has created dozens of spam posts where he has repeated identical messages in multiple threads, and interspersed them with multiple personal attacks on individuals and stereotypical attacks on groups of people (his term-- "purveyors of sin, pornography, and sodomy"). As Gad pointed out, he justifies these attacks by simply saying they are true, even though he admits he knows nothing about writers here. He talks about all the posts he's reported, however, where he feels attacked, apparently not seeing the irony.

Looking at last night's posts, his writings came closer and closer together until he was basically just responding to himself or taunting people with one sentence, emotionally unstable and virtually incoherent personal insults, again repeated identically in thread after thread. Something is wrong with this behavior.

Mentalgymnast, if you hate and despise people here this much, why post? Only a troll whose intent is to disrupt would post the way you do.


Because he's a compulsive one trick pony/troll. It's all you'll ever get, it's all he's capable of, we should expect nothing more. Reading and responding to him feeds his compulsion. He can serve as an exhibit for fanaticism and intellectual dishonesty but I believe he's already won the awards in those categories. :lol:

He can't stay away, can he? Because we give him freedom to say things here that he can't elsewhere. Kind of like the Z-boy. And how is this indulgence repaid? Cast out everywhere else but allowed here, they portray themselves up as grand apologists, watching themselves in the mirror and using us as their narcissistic props while they pretend to win arguments that they never can never articulate or defend. :wink:

_________________
Farewell to trollville. ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:28 am 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6588
Maksutov wrote:

Because he's a compulsive one trick pony/troll. It's all you'll ever get, it's all he's capable of, we should expect nothing more. Reading and responding to him feeds his compulsion. He can serve as an exhibit for fanaticism and intellectual dishonesty but I believe he's already won the awards in those categories. :lol:

He can't stay away, can he? Because we give him freedom to say things here that he can't elsewhere. Kind of like the Z-boy. And how is this indulgence repaid? Cast out everywhere else but allowed here, they portray themselves up as grand apologists, watching themselves in the mirror and using us as their narcissistic props while they pretend to win arguments that they never can never articulate or defend. :wink:


Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Or let it die? :wink:

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:29 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 5960
Lemmie wrote:
Gadianton wrote:
...and calling her a "liar" is a simple personal attack born from anger.

And finally, you've justified your personal attacks in this thread on grounds that they are "true". Not good enough. Never mind that we only have your opinion on the truth content, even if they are true, they are still personal attacks that aren't appropriate for this forum...

This sums up mentalgymnast's contributions to the board. In the last few days he has created dozens of spam posts where he has repeated identical messages in multiple threads, and interspersed them with multiple personal attacks on individuals and stereotypical attacks on groups of people (his term-- "purveyors of sin, pornography, and sodomy"). As Gad pointed out, he justifies these attacks by simply saying they are true, even though he admits he knows nothing about writers here. He talks about all the posts he's reported, however, where he feels attacked, apparently not seeing the irony.

Looking at last night's posts, his writings came closer and closer together until he was basically just responding to himself or taunting people with one sentence, emotionally unstable and virtually incoherent personal insults, again repeated identically in thread after thread. Something is wrong with this behavior.

Mentalgymnast, if you hate and despise people here this much, why post? Only a troll whose intent is to disrupt would post the way you do.

Maksutov wrote:
Because he's a compulsive one trick pony/troll. It's all you'll ever get, it's all he's capable of, we should expect nothing more. Reading and responding to him feeds his compulsion. He can serve as an exhibit for fanaticism and intellectual dishonesty but I believe he's already won the awards in those categories. :lol:

He can't stay away, can he? Because we give him freedom to say things here that he can't elsewhere. Kind of like the Z-boy. And how is this indulgence repaid? Cast out everywhere else but allowed here, they portray themselves up as grand apologists, watching themselves in the mirror and using us as their narcissistic props while they pretend to win arguments that they never can never articulate or defend. :wink:

As usual, you are absolutely right! Your point about not being allowed to post anywhere else is interesting--their own groups don't even accept them. That's a weird level of apologia that is more informed by their narcissism rather than their beliefs, in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:51 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 26271
Location: Off the Deep End
mentalgymnast wrote:
I definitely would appreciate not having to continually respond to your posts over and over again.


:lol:

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Copyright Question for Shades
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:56 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:19 pm
Posts: 9265
Location: Multiverse
mentalgymnast wrote:
Maksutov wrote:

Because he's a compulsive one trick pony/troll. It's all you'll ever get, it's all he's capable of, we should expect nothing more. Reading and responding to him feeds his compulsion. He can serve as an exhibit for fanaticism and intellectual dishonesty but I believe he's already won the awards in those categories. :lol:

He can't stay away, can he? Because we give him freedom to say things here that he can't elsewhere. Kind of like the Z-boy. And how is this indulgence repaid? Cast out everywhere else but allowed here, they portray themselves up as grand apologists, watching themselves in the mirror and using us as their narcissistic props while they pretend to win arguments that they never can never articulate or defend. :wink:


Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Or let it die? :wink:

Regards,
MG


You already led us in an unproductive direction. You always do. Because you're a troll. Nothing needs to be added to that. We've seen your tricks and pathetic loops a thousand times at least. Why do you think I should care what you think? I'd rather talk about you. If you don't like that you can whine and play the persecuted one again. Or call some more names. Whatever your little self absorbed shtick is.

Why don't YOU let it die? You're the one on here whining and bitching interminably about Doc and Lemmie and me. Poor little MG, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. :rolleyes:

_________________
Farewell to trollville. ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 220 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrW, Exiled, Google [Bot], omni, Res Ipsa and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group