BattleCry and Teenage Brainwashing

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Only a child reading with their emotions instead of ....

xoxoxoBruce, in simple terms, called The Economist an anti-American publication. He did so in a long chain of personal insults - no useful facts or conclusions were posted by xoxoxoBruce. That reference to The Economist was to further insult tw who is an avid reader of that publication.

Again, xoxoxoBruce is posting so much profanity and so much emotional hate lately that I wonder if something within him has changed adversely.

It was xoxoxoBruce who posted accusations of The Economist in a post of emotional tirades. His accusation to only attack tw and not for logical purposes. Happy Monkey has accurately posted what those quotes really mean.

Would someone, please, tell us why The Economist is Anti-American, specifically. The reason.
That is is a foreign publication is not a rational reason.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Another emotional post by tw, childishly accusing others of what he does constantly. Misread with emotion and cry that he is being personally attacked like a miniature Rush Limbawl.
Baby Rush adds nothing to the subject because he is a child playing his big dick slight of hand to mislead with his tantrums, blaming everyone else for his inability to grasp adult situations.
Maybe tw needs his diaper changed, his whining is disturbing the adults.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Would someone, please, tell us why The Economist is Anti-American, specifically. The reason.
That is is a foreign publication is not a rational reason.

Ask tw, he made the statement.

I did. He sidestepped.
I think it's a red herring.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Would someone, please, tell us why The Economist is Anti-American, specifically. The reason.
That is is a foreign publication is not a rational reason.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ask tw, he made the statement.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I did. He sidestepped.
I think it's a red herring.

tw did not claim the Economist is anti-American.

tw cited the Economist.
Bruce sarcastically referred to it as "...patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication".
tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits."

He was agreeing with you, rkzenrage, that the fact that the Economist is a British publication is not relevant.

[xoxoxoBruce]

How do you know it was "facetiouly". Are you reading between the lines? tw keeps telling you not to do that. Read exactly what he said and don't impose your prejudices on his posts.

[xoxoxoBruce]

How do you know it was "facetiouly". Are you reading between the lines? tw keeps telling you not to do that. Read exactly what he said and don't impose your prejudices on his posts. Shouldn't that facetious statement end with a question mark?

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

tw did not claim the Economist is anti-American.

tw cited the Economist.
Bruce sarcastically referred to it as "...patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication".
tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits."

He was agreeing with you, rkzenrage, that the fact that the Economist is a British publication is not relevant.

I was not arguing with Bruce.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

How do you know it was "facetiouly". Are you reading between the lines? tw keeps telling you not to do that. Read exactly what he said and don't impose your prejudices on his posts. Shouldn't that facetious statement end with a question mark?

Statements don't end with question marks. He was making fun of your charactarization of the Economist. I don't have to read between the lines; I just need to read the entire line.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I was not arguing with Bruce.

I didn't say you were. I just said that you and tw agree that being British doesn't make the Economist is not anti-American.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I made no characterization of the economist. I merely corrected my statement in mid-sentence. If you are reading your prejudice into the statement instead of what the statement says, I can't be responsible for that. Hasn't tw taught you that?

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I didn't say you were. I just said that you and tw agree that being British doesn't make the Economist is not anti-American.

So, what does make it anti-American?
What was the point of you restating something that I stated?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

So, what does make it anti-American?

Nothing.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I made no characterization of the economist. I merely corrected my statement in mid-sentence. If you are reading your prejudice into the statement instead of what the statement says, I can't be responsible for that.

tw only says that xoxoxoBruce now looks for reasons to attack; even attack The Economist - because tw reads it and quotes from it. Lately xoxoxoBruce has become so emotional as to liberally lace posts even with profanity. So when tw says, "The Economist is an anti-American publication", then it obvious is facetious of xoxoxoBruce's new attitude.

Meanwhile, one who is more interested in learning, grasping, preparing for the future, learning from history, etc would have ignored those details - stop acting like a scumbag lawyer or politician - and deal with the issues.

Point is that xoxoxoBruce now attacks only for personal reasons rather than deal logically with the issues.

Does xoxoxoBruce even remember the post that set him off on a tirade?

Number of supporters for extremists religious leaders is growing - not diminishing. Nothing about geology, anthropology, etc was posted. Why are you jumping to such conclusions?

Darwin has nothing to do with religion. Why then do extremist religious leaders attack Darwinism when it does not affect and is irrelevant to religion? Because Darwin is not irrelevant when religion is to be imposed on all others. Islamic Fundamentalism or Christian extremists. Both share a common agenda. Impose religion on all others. That is an example of satanism. Why is that so difficult, Bruce?

Notice that xoxoxoBruce never even replies to those questions or addressed those issues. Instead xoxoxoBruce went off on a tirade that even included an attack on The Economist. tw simply posted the facetious summary of what xoxoxoBruce is posting. A more logical xoxoxoBruce would have move back to a post maybe 3 pages ago. He did not. He continues to agrue over a post that made fun of his new attitude.

xoxoxoBruce - there is the post before this all broke down into personal attacks. Can you reply to the issues and questions in that post - rather than attack the messenger? IOW can you move forward to things relevant rather than fall back into more tirades and personal attacks?