As far as Tazio is concerned his postings of contempt and rudeness defy description. Yet, because he has lined up on the side opposite Vince he's joked with and quietly accepted. Why?
Your paranoia is greater than your delusion. I do not "line up with the other side". My thinking and my posts are mine alone. Yes, I use quotations of others, I don't hide that fact, but still, I am responsible for them. No "Left Wing Conspiracy" or similar, I act alone. I always have, and I always will.
My posts can be easily defined as contentious, abrasive and acidic against religious zombies who use whatever issue may be at hand to distribute their "mission in life" to push their beliefs on others. [or else, you are in the "out" crew]. I have always openly expressed such.
They can also be described as responding to attitudes and behaviors that cloud real issues, who do not recognize facts as they are. AKA Spin Doctors of Delusion. Or, with over-sensitive attitudes in order to twist words in a way that they were never meant.
A good example of it is you. I have posted the URL where the whole matter in this case was explained, and I am not going to search them again. You are not worth my effort. The fact that you chose to ignore such is part of the reason I would not respond to you in a civil manner. In addition, X has easily recognized your "tall tales-lies" call them whatever the hell you want to call them I don't care, I recognized your quality from response one.
I do not agree with most of the Clintoris lega-lunacy, yet You and your apostles build a whole case about the Clintoris way of defining the verb "is"...
Yet, you say in a post that you have placed X on "ignore" all this while you make reference to her posts. This truly questions what you had said.
Is that a lie, a tall tale, or bubble gum ?
I don't give a sh*t what you call it, I just know that it is consistent with my impression of you after reading a few of your posts.
You also threaten to "fight her", and two moments later you give up the fight. Confused ? ah never mind, it does not matter.
I am not sure that ...
he's joked with and quietly accepted. Why?
If Karen, X, marcos, et all, ("The ones on the dark side" according to you), are patient enough to explain to you and others what to me seems to be the obvious (provided, one takes off the bottle-lenses glasses prescribed by the Spin Delusion Doctors), then I do not see your "objection", why they would address me.
At least I do not insult their intelligence with delusional attempts to twist words and facts, pretending they are not going to notice it.
As for quietly accepted... how do you know they accept me? They probably hate my posts, but they TRULY have me on ignore, or they pay no attention to them.
You seem to be so consumed with what I say that it must really burn you... I wonder (NOT) why
I suggest you TRULY place me on ignore, that way I will not hurt your feelings. Besides, it is a spoonful of the same medicine for years the religious zealots got away dispensing to many people, the difference is that today, people like me stand up and tell you what's on our minds.
Now, if someone deliberate and repeatedly begin to insult me, well hell, they open the door to how I may choose to respond. My choice.
I am not shy. But I also value my time.
By now, I am sure you think I am "irrational" and my views are "in error"...
Well, read on:
economist.com
Being irrational may even be rational, according to some rationalists. Irrationality can be a good to be consumed like any other, argues Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University—in the sense that the less it costs a person, the more of it they buy. A peculiar feature of beliefs about politics and religion, he says, is that the costs to an individual of error are “virtually non-existent, setting the private cost of irrationality at zero; it is therefore in these areas that irrational views are most apparent.” Maybe, although Mr Caplan may grow sick of having those views read back to him for eternity should he ever end up in hell.
In his book, “Alchemies of the Mind: Rationality and the Emotions”, Jon Elster of New York’s Columbia University prefers to look at the other side of the same coin. Observing that “those who are most likely to make unbiased cognitive assessments are the clinically depressed,” he argues that the “emotional price to pay for cognitive rationality may be too high.”
Got Zoloff ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Since I can easily make the case that I am biased against religious extremists/zombies, my case is even better since, I have no fear of god or a burning hell HO HO HO.
The atmosphere here has become to stained for me to continue my presence.
dreamwater.com
Ciao bambino.....
p.s. "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing." |
