HOW DARE YOU–!

Wow, thank you for typing all that.

I didn’t “type” anything. I used speech-to-text dictation, so your argument is irrelevant.
It’s also an inappropriate choice of “what” to “thank” me for since you go on to trash everything I actually “say,” as if your perception that I had “typed” anything was all anything I’d-said, amounted-to.

Actually, the part about

About “what?:” You trail-off into nothingness here.

Also, here, you turn-around after saying all I’d “done” was to “type–;” as though it may as well have consisted of nothing but “uyujhj678^788uikjioknnhoh…..” as far as you had been concerned.

Paragraphing

Oh, so you’r’e going to finish the last sentence in a new paragraph–?
Who does that–?
You need to stop that.

was very helpful,

(Faint-praise, given your blithe dismissal of everything else).

as I have wondered how to do that for quite a while.

(How long have “you” been commenting on Facebook?
(All it takes to discover it is to do it even once accidentally and backtracking to make the connection–; even though it really isn’t explained anywhere).

Apart from that,

(Yeah, just “apart-from” how to vertical-space in Fb comment-boards–. I “know” how “little” else I referred-to here–(!)).

I would argue

(You already HAVE argued so much you don’t even have to “warn” me about it anymore. Anything that comes out of your mouth next, is another, pitched, opinionated, and unsubstantiated argument–; although I guess you like to bask in it and rub-in the fact that you’re about just to do it again, one more time).

it is perhaps a little condescending

(F@$king pot calling the silverware black).

(not that I’m offended

(not that YOUR $%^ing ^&* is ‘offe

 

 

nded-; though of course, the hell with “my” being offended–(!!!!!))

, just demonstrates a slight divergenary

(Not even any actual WORD–!
(Google search points to “diversionary;” do you even know how your own words were “pronounced–?”

(In what way have I tried to derail the subject instead of addressing it head-on?

and defensive

(How could you possibly have disagreed that insulting someone with a rambling rant that was pure fallacy end-to-end had anything “himself” even “worth” defending, let-alone anything that would have “needed” to have been the most “sorely” “defended–?”)

frame of mind,

(Your speculation as to my so-called “frame-of-mind,” to say I had no reason to be defensive against your unapologetically railing attacks or worse to accuse me of attempting to “distract” you–; for whatever suspected “purpose–;” is pathetic).

but that

(attempting to distract the other person, or being pointlessly “defensive” (despite the fact that this accusation by you was pure nonsense)).

happens)

(Yeah, just like “dogs-and-cats,” really “do” fall-out of the sky when it “rains” hard-enough–: SNOT–!).

and demonstrating

(?)

a lack

(Could you even at least check to see you aren’t missing whole actual WORDS here, in your sloppy screeds? JEEZ–!)

(of)

relevance

(WT bloody F–?)

(a point which I think you seemed to miss

(It fell under “#3. Logic.” Did YOU miss THAT, being too full-of-yourself looking for ways to trash everything I wrote–?)

in your overview)

(I did not write any f@$king “o-ver-view–:” I put the details right-in with the headings and proceeded linearly).

for you to lecture me

(YOU NEED TO BE “LECTURED” IN SHACKLES TILL YOU GROVELLINGLY “GET” “EVERYTHING” AND STOP LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DENY EVERYTHING YOU WERE TOLD OR TO EXCUSE EVERYTHING YOU WERE WARNED WAS WRONG.

(I WILL KEEP LECTURING YOU UNTIL IT BURNS YOUR EARS OUT, YOU CLUELESS BRAT–!)

on rudiments

(Obviously I didn’t go rudimentary ENOUGH for YOUR clueless conditon)

of good

(I wasn’t even GOING for “good” with “you–;” I was just trying to dredge you back out of the forensic SEWER, given YOUR level of hopelessly blind catastrophic disrespectful address).

expression

(CORRECTION–: Rules of Engagement. You’re nothing but a menace. It had nothing to do with “expression–.”)

, which are really

(as opposed to how “I” seemed to “you” to have been defining them–?)

just

common

(it wasn’t common enough to have filtered down to “you”).

sense

(something “you” don’t value “at all”).

which anyone who considers them important

(which is everyone except meaningless fools, and therefore not a valid qualifier).

would already have come to their own conclusions about

(or reversed-position on thinking that they had been “important–?” Which is it? Are you even listening to yourself here or pasting cliches together to make noise?)

and taken on board,

rather than really addressing the point I had made.

(I make ABSOLUTELY ZERO APOLOGY for putting my CORRECTION of you, in the same post where I (inappropriately generously) BOTHERED even to ACKNOWLEDGE you so-called POINT–
(If I had it to do-again, I would have given you NOTHING-BUT the CORRECTION, and completely dismissed that you had even “proffered” any so-called “point.”)

On the basic point, I am still, after all that, unsure of your position

(You never needed to worry about what “my” “position,” had been, because your utterly disrespectful and unrelentingly aggressive posture throughout everything you’ve said marks any such thing as none of your freaking business, on any level.

(Even if it were otherwise, you have no argument in saying that I had done anything short of making myself ENTIRELY clear, in what I had said about it–! How even DARE you, make that insinuation–!

(I’m not even going to bother with proving this point, however, because that then would have to reiterate what I’ve here-told you you didn’t DESERVE even to have been told in the first place ONCE).

(and any justifications for it

(justifications for freaking “what–?”
(as-before, you are once-more being UNINTELLIGIBLE here, and expecting “me” to “decode” such babbling, and even expecting my translation of it to have been reliably “correct–!”
(THE ARROGANCE–!)

there might be from your point of view) !

(again–. The whole statement’s having-been unintelligible, makes your ironic addition of the exclamation point at the end of it a mere compoundment of an existing mystery).

On the one hand you say you are one of the people who ‘understands’ about ‘feeding psychs and the med industry’; on the other, you seem to believe wholeheartedly in their wares,

(Because the situation is not “black-or-white,” on this point, Charlie–.
(You don’t open your clothing rack in the morning or ask yourself, “What should I wear today–? My parka over a sweatshirt and double sweatpants, or just shorts and sneakers?”
Most days aren’t bitter cold or scorching hot. Most of the time, we would wear something in-between those two extremes.

(If I “were” interested in any further “educating” you at all about “that” situation–; and I’m not–; I would have tried to point-out, that there were “more than one side” of it–.

(If “you” don’t care about the “two” sides of a given situation, you probably don’t even care about the one you “claim” to care about–; but at the very least, the position you take is not a credible or responsible one).

(The only exception to this principle, is the fact that nothing you’ve said so far has been at all credible nor has made the slightest bit of sense whatsoever, on any level–; yet it has been spouted-out with the blithe effrontery of someone who thought they never could have been wrong–; and you can bet your life on this).

at least on this particular issue. I don’t mean to press you,

(AAAS-freaking-IFFF–!)

just saying that I don’t fully understand

(understanding is not important to you. Stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that it otherwise would have been).

or generally remain unconvinced

(I’m not even the most faintly persuaded I even COULD have been the least bit less than utterly CLEAR about what I had said about that–; though, again, you were undeserving of any explanation about it at all.
(Your statement to the effect of your “remaining” “unconvinced,” clearly reflects simply a defiant CHOICE simply to IGNORE the clarity with-which that was presented to you–; and it means you were lying through your teeth about it.
(Again, however, I rescind any previous decision even to attempt to answer that question or explain any position I might have had on whatever so-called “issue” it was.
(You had no business being on that comment-board.
(Your so-called “challenge” was not AT ALL posed in anything remotely-resembling any so-called “GOOD-FAITH–;” and, if I would have spotted your comment from back then, I would have deleted it and blocked you at once).

by your position and if you’d like to make yourself more thoroughly understood

(Not to YOU.
(Not on your BEST day.
(Getting my DRIFT yet–?)

, by all means feel free to go into more detail.

(Again, I take-back the fact that I ever would have engaged YOU AT ALL about anything other than your primary unacceptable attitude and utter need to change everything about yourself, from-the ground-up).

As for your

(It needs to become yours)

list

(It needs to be expanded for you into the size of the Encyclopedia Brittannica).

, I’d say

(You’ve already said way too much, and it’s long-since been time for you to have shut-up).

I have a somewhat

(Is “the universe” “somewhat” large–?)

more lax

(It’s not “lax–;” it’s DELIBERATELY predatorily insulting and undermining–!)

attitude to posting;

personally I am always grateful

(grateful enough to drown the poster in endless INSULTS)

when someone responds to one of my posts (unless it contains a threat of some sort, lol);

(I hope you have stopped “laughing” now).

if

(not-much “doubt” here, “is” there–?)

I do judge,

(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH…..(goes-on for five more lines)).

its

(it’s)

more on less easily definable qualities such as imagination, wit and general insight..

(none-of which could have been even close to having-been within your capacity–; although claiming-so puts a nice “gloss” on how you want people to think you had “viewed” yourself–).

Punctiliousness

(A word YOU chose that implicitly DEFINES the given quality ALREADY as supposedly EXCESSIVE.
(My post carefully explained why EVERY POINT I MADE in it, about how NOT to continue to have posted absolutely HAD-BEEN “NECESSARY–.”
(YOU–; on-the other-hand–; have not offered ONE-SHRED of SUPPORT, as to WHY you did NOT find what I said, to have been TRUE–; which made my entire effort to EXPLAIN it to you no more than a WASTE-OF-TIME on my part–;
(Obviously this proves my suspicion that I was just being FAR too ACCOMMODATING and that I SHOULD have just called you out on your being a reprehensible TROLL right-out of the-gate).

is not necessary.

(Again, the only thing any less than “necessary,” is everything I CALLED you on–:
(Endless Rudeness.
(Nothing but endless FALLACY, intelligence-insulting arguments and self-contradiction, all-the way-through–; and all-spoken, with the same shrill self-righteousness of someone who believed they were inherently “infallible,” or “incapable” of ever getting ANYTHING at-all WRONG–;
(Frequent neglect to see if a given statement is made even “comprehensibly” or “intelligibly,”
(Contempt for the entire value of respectful discourse, and dismissal of putting any effort into attaining it.
(Exaltation of Ignorance for Ignorance’s sake).

The whole

(There couldn’t have been more than one, and you’re going to tell us all this).

point of dialogue,

as I see it,

(none of us can “wait,” for you to tell us what it IS–!)

is not

(I thought you were going to tell us what it WAS, not what anything “WEREN’T–:” “BUMMER–!”)

to come up with

(This is no CONTEST, you dimwit–!)

perfect

(I never said the process I presented would make anything one had arrived-at through it, even “supposedly” “perfect–.” YOU were the one who introduced “that,” even as just a mere “concept–.”
(My point was that anything resulting from anything SHORT of the use of this PROCESS, is not by any means, at all MERELY just “LESS” than quote-unquote PERFECT–; what it IS, is UTTERLY unacceptable as anything that could have been used to have CHALLENGED somebody ELSE who ALREADY made-a-point to make whatever view THEY posted ACTUALLY have reflected every one of these responsibility-in public-speaking VALUES–! Don’t bring a babbling drunkard to a parliamentary debate. My group IS parliamentary in stature, entirely by DESIGN–! We don’t TOLERATE off-the-cuff venting here–! You take THAT mess SOMEWHERE-ELSE–!)

replies , which hardly anyone

(EXCEPT everyone in my GROUP–! Or any OTHER group I would run or BELONG-TO–! )

is capable of.

(I RUN-RINGS around, whatever, so-called “STANDARD,” of-which you here attempt to have SPOKEN–!)

Its all very well

(Oh, I’m glad you weren’t going to have me “charged” with anything, for, whatever OFFENSE with-which you were about to ACCUSE me–!)

going on

(Let me “tell” you about… “Santa Claus–;”
(How DARE you pretend not-to-get what I’d been-saying–; or then to jackknife-back at me by duplicitously accusing me of quote-unquote “GOING-ON–!”)

about ‘vetting’

(“Vetting:” (v., transitive (i. e., requiring a direct object)) “Carefully re-reading a draft of a document one has just composed to check it for flaws.”)

for ‘logical fallacies’,

(OF COURSE you would put mocking quotation-marks around the term “logical fallacies.” To you, “logic” is what “hadn’t-existed–:” Why should YOU concern yourself when THAT got VIOLATED (least-of-all by YOURSELF–?))

for instance,

(OH–? There were MORE things you were going to lump-in with, ah, “whatever” you were going to say against just trying not to make a sheer fool of onesself very-publicly–?)

but

(As-if your extant-insult of me hadn’t ALREADY been quite-ENOUGH–!)

the fact

(You wouldn’t know one if it BIT you–; but “GO-ON,” please–(!))

is if

(why WOULDN’T one?)

we

(Speak for yourself; you have NOTHING in-common with-me–!)

knew when we were
making

(COMMITTING–; they ALREADY long EXISTED as STRUCTURES–;)

them in the first place

(Some instances of logical misconstruction are obvious-enough for a person of a given level of experience to see, long-before they would ever even let it enter their mind.
(Others, are more subtle, and are filtered-out only as the person analyzes their own thoughts, but still never make it to the file.
(Stilll-others, still more-subtle, won’t be detected till the person goes-back or reads the document, often even several times.
(Even if “the writer” doesn’t find it–; one of their now more numerous than ever “readers” certainly is “bound” to–; but even THAT is far from even the actual POINT–!
(No one can FIND truth, if they’re using only broken TOOLS–; which is what FALSE LOGIC (FALLACY) IS–!
NO-ONE SHOULD EVER HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO ANYONE–!)
we wouldn’t
engage in

(You’ve just CONTRADICTED YOURSELF again-here).

them.

Similarly, not all

(I never SAID “all–;” JUST those you REMEMBERED came from somebody-else, especially if YOU couldn’t personally-demonstrate it INDEPENDENTLY.
(Nobody would even WANT a post literally PEPPERED with GRATUITOUS links for “who said” “The U. S. Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776–;” or the fact that “Penguins” could not “fly–.”

of a person’s views can be supplied with the appropriate ‘links’, but are based more on a cumulative process of exposure the sources of which are often hazy or forgotten.

As for

(AS-IF one could just put the most important thing I’d addressed, off by-itself in some little footnote or box–; Unbelievable–!

‘tone’;

(There it is–. lower-cased, and encased in mocking quotation-marks–! NOTHING-WRONG with INSULTING your host FIRST–; and then, “whatever–;” (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

some of us are more

(Yeah, as though this were just some “mere, relative” thing like different shades of the same color of hair, or one phone is a little louder than the next one, but that that wasn’t “the most” important consideration on “which one” to choose to buy–;

polite,

pussy-footed

(HOW FUCKING “PUSSY-FOOTED” AM I BEING WITH YOU NOW, RICHARD–?)

or genteel

(SAME-GOES FOR THIS-WORD–! GIVE-ME A-BREAK–!)

than others,

but I’d say

(Again, the idea that you actually “bother” to “qualify” ANYTHING that you “say,” is an underwhelming irony in its own right, but…)

at least

(NOT AT ALL.)

 

as much as the poster’s demeanor,

(DEMEANOR IS EVERYTHING).

a big part of that is learning to see passed

(a RED TRAFFIC LIGHT is NOT-THERE for one to have LOOKED-PAST).

any perceived

(The writer is RESPONSIBLE for the reader’s so-called “PERCEPTIONS–!”).

offence on the past of the reader,

(It’s THE READER’S CALL to make–!)

having a will-to-learn

(Said the partner who deliberately dismissed I tried to teach “YOU–!”)

rather than

(there’s “an opposite” to that–?)

concern

?

for

personal

?

displays

?

of status

?

and not responding

(I GUARANTEE you, I will ALWAYS answer ANY ATTACK–!)

to petty

(The “pettier,” the more-important it is to CORRECT) it–!

slights,

which is so easily done online,

(Not to the least-degree any would-be EXCUSE when WRITING had already existed for MILLENNIA before there were even simple VOICE telephones–!)

Even if

(There is not even THE SLIGHTEST shred-of DOUBT here).

these and the rest of these

(Again, Incomprehensible).

points are at least desirable,

(Even if they are utterly ODIOUS to you, the still remain, utterly NECESSARY–!)

(most of which I’d say were),

(You’re lying to taunt me here as part of your obvious parting-shot–;
(But still–; you have amply demonstrated you find them utterly odious, and not to the least degree desirable).

as ‘activists’
(I am FAR MORE TOLERANT of other activists who have more trouble than other activists in “getting points” about cross-current causes than any fellow activist I have ever met.

(YOU, on-the other-hand–; snipe and go-out of your-way just to PRETEND you HADN’T gotten points that you actually HAD gotten–!)

I’d argue

(YOU “would argue,” with four clones of yourself in a stuck elevator–; (and not just about “how” to “restart” the elevator–)).

it doesn’t behoove us to discard 99%

(If your argument made “me” any so-called “one-percenter,” then there’s nothing that could compensate me for what the one-in a-billion of whatever YOU were, have just put ME through today with this execrable screed from you–.

of the population who fall short of them,

YOU fall-short, not-just OF-ME–; but of literally everybody-else I have ever met in my life talking about any topic, on any level–.

particularly if they possess perhaps less easily recognizable and superficial virtues,

(like superficially spouting an unbroken chain of broken logic the whole time).

such as honesty,

(twisted arguments, the whole-way through, and repeatedly DEFENDING twisted arguing).

integrity,

(Trying to defend utter SLACKNESS in how to address, another public writer).

will-to-learn,

(Anybody subjected to YOUR commentary would have to do an IMPOSSIBLE act of “will,” to make themselves immediately FORGET everything they already KNEW, to try to assimilate YOUR contorted attempts at inter-reconciling incompatible respective conceptualizations instead of realizing that they didn’t fit or simply starting-over or trying to get any of your reasoning right).

unusual knowledge of some kind,

(Yeah, like “mine,” just “came pre-wrapped in a-box–;”)

or humane insight.

(You’ve got to “watch,” that “inhumane” insight–; people surely “must” have “died” from-it–;)

Having said that,

(You’ve never “said” anything–!)

I thank you

(No-one could ever thank anyone else enough, for having put them through, the corrosive condescenscion through-which you have just put me–; although I realize that this is just one more part of your pathetic, would-be parting, would-be salvo–).

for your considered

(I never once considered not sending you this EMERGENCY Correction).

and generously

(mocking, knowingly-ironic term actually implying “self-indulgent”).
(Actually, I was being very “stingy,” to echo your irony, where the true meaning had been “mercifully” brief.
(My original draft was ten times the length–; it was a huge struggle knowing what I could possibly HOPE to have LEFT-OUT).

long

(short)

and detailed

(spare)

reply and will try

(more mocking parting shot, I realize–; but, in fact “don’t” taint what I told you by even “handling” it in your mind.
(You deserve to rot in your ignorance.
(I firmly take-back anything I ever did here that had the slightest bit of goodwill toward you in it.
(The only thing I leave you with, is the warning never to have thought you ever could have ATTACKED me AGAIN–).

my best to conform to

 

your own

(mocking, further instance of deliberately-botched syntax).

strictures

(another insult, another part of the parting-shot).

if

(I will be the one who sees-to it, that there won’t be EVEN any so-called IF–!).

and when engaging in dialogue

(This never WAS any so-called “dialogue–;” just your pathetic, one-sided “screech–.”)

with you.

 

 

 

 

My finished answer to Lewy was obviously just too honest for you cowards who decided to protect your poor little baby by not letting him read it–.

Advertisements