That rule does not apply to me, fuckwit.
>Who's the loser now Peter?
You still are.
>As to some offline message you *claim* to have sent. Well, I never
>recevied it. But given your tendency to rewrite history, who knows if it
>was ever sent?
So when I said in the messages that you were responding to:
In any event, I've responded to his latest and lamest post
off-line so you needn't be worried about collateral damage.
did by any chance a clue ever trigger inside your fucking head as to what the hell I was talking about? Or did it just breeze through from anus to anus?
> > It was fucking stupid to idiotic questions that read as actual
> > questions but were intended as sarcasm. In case you hadn't
> > noticed the debate was already heated - how is posting
> > an extra flamebait going to help?
>Poor Peter - you have to pity his lack of comprehension.
Evasion of the question, noted.
> > Moreover I do find it odd that if the original message was
> > so glaring, Michael didn't even see it until he was forced
> > to dig through the archives in order to justify his own
> > bad faith arguments.
>
>Are you really this dim? Or just pretending? I went back to the source,
>to give a proper reference point to others.
And the point of giving "a proper reference point" to others was what precisely? To assuage your wounded ego? All you did was pour lit petrol on already troubled waters.
>Obviously, how could the debate have started without me knowing the
>starting point?
Because you did not respond to the "original starting point". The first message of mine that you responded to was message #1609 (note well the alleged certainty that you claim ticked you off).
::The sources are far less clear on her identity and the chaos ::leakage could have been caused by Larnste's stomping rather than ::the creature he was attempting to stomp.
There is only one reply to the original statement (#1567) and that is Simon Phipp's. You responded to my followup (#1602) which merely listed the runes and said "which one of these is not like the others".
At no time did you ever claim about my definitiveness until you tried to cover your arse with flamebait.
>On the other hand there was
>more support on WorldofGlorantha for my position than yours.
Big deal. Glorantha isn't a democracy. There's far less support for Lesbian Vingans but that has a greater chance of becoming canon.
> > So you admit you were intransigent in trying to shout me down? Funny
> > that's not what you claimed in your original self-justification.
>Debate is about people moving position.
No, it's not.
> > And is going against published sources such a crime that you have
> > to repeatedly shriek, howl and gibber "But Krarsht is Chaotic!" whenever
> > I suggest reasons that she isn't? What a fucking hypocrite.
>Given that typed words make no sound your depiction is lame.
Free Clue: Look up metaphor in the dictionary. And thanks once again for evading my point.
> And more
>swearing makes me laugh.
That's the second time in this post you've claimed that you're amused. Since your emotional state isn't really germane to this topic, it's suggests that you're desperately trying to convey an impression of being untouched by the row.
>So your position changed?
No, it did not, retard. What I was pointing out was that throughout the thread, it was clear to all but the thickshits such as yourself that I was saying was only my opinion. Moreover pointing out that something is my only opinion is not a shift in opinion.
> Cool. So did mine. Why are we still arguing?
Oo, this is a hard one. Could it be because you are a fucktard?
>Oh, and why are you allowed to use "I think" but I'm not?
Because you use "I think" when posting vapid long-winded limp-wristed lame-arsed critiques of other people's statements whereas I used "I think" when prefacing suggestive statements about glorantha.
YOU: I think therefore I might be a pontificating buffoon.
ME: I think Krarsht has non-chaotic origins.
Spot the difference?
> I lost counts
>of the number of times you criticised me for using those words?
You can't count on the fingers of one hand? I feel so sorry for you.
> > But because you were so blinded by your sig file of Michael Hitchens, Ph.D.
> > (tell me, do you have it tattooed on your arse?), you somehow failed to
> > read the OPINIONS in each and every one of these statements. It is
> > only when I decided state explicitly what you two were doing that that
> > you finally got a FUCKING CLUE.
>
>Ohhh. Swearing in all upper case. Sign of desperation.
Well mild statements of concern had previously failed to penetrate your fucking thick head so I had to use stronger words.
> > Wrong. I gave a clear and concise summary of my position. Read,
> > mark, learn, inwardly digest and quit being a fuckwit.
>And more swearing. Do you even have the remotest understadning of how
>human communication works (and doesn't) via this medium?
Swearing and abuse are valid means of communication whether you like it or not. Implying that the other person is a newbie, on the other hand, is pretty much a fucking stupid thing to do when you don't know much about him.
>Somehoe I doubt it.
That would be more cutting if you could spell. In the words of _A History of Violence_: "How do you fuck that up?!?"
> >> Oh, and this is, to me, obviously related to one of the points I was
> >> trying to make in the gag/core debate - we are too careless about
> >> the difference
> >> bewteen
> >> "I believe X is this way"
> >> "I believe it is possible to rad the source as saying X might be this way"
> >> Two very different things.
> >
> > What's the fucking difference? You were saying that my X was impossible
> > because the sources said Y. I pointed out that the sources weren't so
> > definitive on Y so my X could still be possible. To which you
> two pretended
> > that Y was no longer canonical, quoted a truncated quotation from
> > Y to make it more definitive, boasted about how you had written Z (which
> > for all your care still got Dendara wrong) amonmg other things.
>
>Wrong. That wasn't me.
You did pretend that Y was no longer canonical. And you can't read for shit. I clearly said "you two" referring to You and Jeff.
>Of course, you never
>replied to my message pointing that out.
Aww, poor widdle Michael Hitcwhens. He's crying his eyes out because I've been ignoring his posts. Wah-fucking-wah. Just because your parents didn't love you as much as they should doesn't mean I have to be your sugar-daddy showering you with words of praise.
>Just like when you challenged me
>to come up with different defintions to your for "choatic" and "chaotic
>feature". Which I did - and you never replied.
What would be the point? After repeated prodding, you finally managed to post something close to original thought. Because the thread had already gone on far too long, I simply decided to let the post stand without trying other people's patience by needless nitpicking. If your original thoughts do get to be any good - I pretty much doubt it but I always live in hope - then they might be worth commenting on...
> > You can quit lying now. I have never changed my position.
>I'm happy to let people go and read the posts. That's what archives are
>for. They can make up their own minds. You obviously can't admit to being
>wrong or changing your mind about anything.
I can and have. It's just that all the evidence being tendered so far by the opposing side have been stupid arguments.
>You convinced me that it is
>possible to read the sources as Krarsht not being chaotic. So I've
>modified my original position. But that's not the positon of your
>original post.
I like the shifting goalposts. From talking about all my posts, you rowback to talking about an out of context statement from one post that you didn't even see as objectionable the first time around.
>The other thing you have convinced me of is that your
>level of maturity is well, let's just say lower than you obviously think
>it is.
Since I haven't made any claims to maturity, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail