BattleCry and Teenage Brainwashing

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

tw only says that xoxoxoBruce now looks for reasons to attack; even attack The Economist - because tw reads it and quotes from it.

But tw forgets to tell you I did not attack the economist. He only thinks so because he reads with childish emotion instead of whats posted

Lately xoxoxoBruce has become so emotional as to liberally lace posts even with profanity.

A very calm and unemotional, fuck you, liar.

So when tw says, "The Economist is an anti-American publication", then it obvious is facetious of xoxoxoBruce's new attitude.

That sentence didn't even make sense but if you were being obviously facetious (by the way did you thank HM for the big word) then why didn't everyone realize that? Probably because of tw's irrational claims make him sound like such a wacko they don't know what to think anymore.

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.

tw is so devoid of content he's now parroting what we've been telling him for years. At least tw has memorized what we've been telling him, if he could get a tutor to help him understand it he might start posting relevant facts.... instead of attacking me, even in response to other posters, and posts I didn't make. It must be the paranoia of not being able to understand the real world that makes tw lash out like a bad tempered child.

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

Case in point.

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

The poor baby is so confused he thinks I'm on a tirade. tw is obviously losing touch with reality, I'm sure that will lead to more wild accusations.

Notice that xoxoxoBruce never even replies to those questions or addressed those issues.

See, tw claims I never reply to questions. Now if that isn't the tallest pile of bullshit every made. From tw the champion of not answering legitimate questions. changing his position, lying about what he said, accusing everyone of being a moron because they couldn't understand his simple posts...god, what an asshat

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.

Again tw thinks I attacked the magazine because he reads with childish emotion instead of what was posted. tw is really losing it now.

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.

tw knows I can't go back three pages because that would just take me to waiting for tw to answer the simple questions I asked that he never answered...as usual.

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?

I can't move anywhere until tw answers my questions in this and others threads, but I'm afraid he's so lost he will never figure that out. Post 19 is waiting on you liar.

Originally Posted by tw

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? 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?

Wow... that was all over the place... still never answered the question huh?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Wow... that was all over the place... still never answered the question huh?

Typical post by tw...

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Wow... that was all over the place... still never answered the question huh?

Of course it answers the question. The question is xoxoxoBruce as characteristized by his denigrating the Economist. It was

What question are you looking at? Only question remaining is why xoxoxoBruce has become so antisocial complete with profanity. Profanity posted only when he cannot explain why he has these fits. Why does he now post insult and accusations without facts? He did this same thing when insisting global warming did not exist; but could not explain why.

tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits." That post ignited an emotional and illogical Bruce. What is the topic? The new xoxoxoBruce - who today is back to posting more like the old Bruce - no profanity; just the facts.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, tw. The question was;

How do you make the leap from not believing Darwin to endorsing Satanism? Just because these people don't understand the sciences of geology, anthropology, ad infinitum doesn't make them Satanists, just wrong.

That's when you (post #20) started* with the condescending, hey look a birdy, changing what you actually posted, bullshit.


* in this thread

Originally Posted by tw

Of course it answers the question. The question is xoxoxoBruce as characteristized by his denigrating the Economist. It was

What question are you looking at? Only question remaining is why xoxoxoBruce has become so antisocial complete with profanity. Profanity posted only when he cannot explain why he has these fits. Why does he now post insult and accusations without facts? He did this same thing when insisting global warming did not exist; but could not explain why.

tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits." That post ignited an emotional and illogical Bruce. What is the topic? The new xoxoxoBruce - who today is back to posting more like the old Bruce - no profanity; just the facts.

So its not anti-American?
What is your issue with a straight answer?

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

So its not anti-American?

You have the right answer. I repeatedly confirmed that I posted facetiously. You even quoted Happy Monkey who summarized what was obvious:

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."

Where is the problem? Or did you only read the intentional distortion by TheMercenary who coat tailed a joke on a facetious reply. Happy Monkey so easily summarized reality, you would even quote it, Happy Monkey’s summary would be confirmed by the author, and still you want it explained?

Bruce was disparaging The Economist because tw reads it and sometimes quotes from it. Bruce’s post was a backhanded slap that was followed with an obviously facetious reply. How many times must it be explained by multiple people?

Kudos to TheMercenary for playing a joke so effectively.

That is your idea of a straight answer huh? Sad.
I'll leave you alone now.

[Happy Monkey]

What wasn't straight about that answer? I won't deny that tw often writes confusingly, but pretty much every sentence in that post was direct and to the point.