XPost: bc.politics, ont.politics, qc.politique   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: chompchomp@chompchompchomp.chomp   
      
   On 7/22/2014 4:53 PM, Uncle Steve wrote:   
   > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 04:26:27PM -0700, Chom Noamsky wrote:   
   >> On 7/22/2014 3:43 PM, Uncle Steve wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 03:27:16PM -0700, Chom Noamsky wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/22/2014 3:04 PM, Uncle Steve wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 01:16:37PM -0700, Alan Baker wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2014-07-22 20:03:37 +0000, Uncle Steve said:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:43:09PM -0700, Alan Baker wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2014-07-22 19:40:49 +0000, Uncle Steve said:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:33:38PM -0700, Alan Baker wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2014-07-22 19:30:16 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ)РаиÑ?а said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2014 8:35 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> news:lqkl69$5ml$1@news.datemas.de...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2014-07-22 02:09:59 +0000, (ಠ_ಠ)РаиÑ?а   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Snip!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's start out from accurate information.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Karen will need directions to there.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Who's "Karen"?  Your fictitious nemesis?  I'll bet you had   
   >>>>>>>>>>> fictitious   
   >>>>>>>>>>> friends when you were a kid.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> No one else would play with you.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> You are "Karen", Karen.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Happy to straighten that out for you.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> How?  By informing everyone that you're a pathological liar and a   
   >>>>>>>>> bigot besides?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> How does anything I've ever said suggest I'm either of those?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Why should I explain my reasoning to you when you would never do the   
   >>>>>>> same (unless you were somehow compelled by an authority you could not   
   >>>>>>> otherwise avoid)?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Ducking?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I understand.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Writing why you won't explain is a lot easier than writing an   
   >>>>>> explanation...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ...when you don't really have one.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, I'm explaining the concept of reciprocity.  You imagine I am   
   >>>>> obligated to concede to you when all you do is take take take and   
   >>>>> provide nothing in return except lies and insults.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What you're about is harassing certain individuals past the point of   
   >>>>> tolerance, and no uncivlized amoral dirty trick is too illegal, too   
   >>>>> immoral, or to extreme for your tastes.  You "win" when you've   
   >>>>> provoked something actionable, but of course nothing of your behaviour   
   >>>>> or actions will be allowed to be considered when that happens.  No   
   >>>>> different from a corrupt pig who commits unprovoked violence against a   
   >>>>> citizen and who then arrests that citizen if he dares to defend   
   >>>>> himself.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Just another uncivlized piece of lying filth in the company of more   
   >>>>> uncivilized filth infesting these newsgroups.  But oh, no, it's all in   
   >>>>> my imagination and you could never be the corrupt, malicious fuck you   
   >>>>> are in reality.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Now, would you call that a rant or a rave?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Holy doodle, somebody needs a Prozac.   
   >>>   
   >>> There's your holy narrative.  What do you do when events and facts   
   >>> interfere with your narrative?  You lie, distort, and ignore relevant   
   >>> evidence.  After all, why should reality or mere facts interfere with   
   >>> your political "needs"?  Especially when it is so lucrative to loot   
   >> >from civilians and so satisfying to prove your inherent superiority by   
   >>> proving you are exempt from mortal constraints such as the law.   
   >>>   
   >>> Laws are for little people; ain't that so Mr. chompchompchomp?   
   >>   
   >> Laws aren't always moral and ethical... so you're a legal positivist are ya!   
   >   
   > You'll never admit to what I actually hold to be true.  It is much   
   > more important for you to impose your "narrative" and the "facts" that   
   > "support" it.   
   >   
   > But you can have this one for free:  some laws are necessary for   
   > civilization to succeed, particularly where corrupt filth like you are   
   > to be found.  You like to pretend that you can be civilized and live   
   > in a civlized society where you and yours are free from the   
   > constraints of civilization.  You can't have it both ways, but then if   
   > you loot and destroy the lives of mere mortals in your lawless fashion   
   > it does not affect your enjoyment of the amenities of civilization,   
   > now does it?   
   >   
   > You'll never be immortal or all knowing, but if you conscientiously   
   > ignore those two key facts and only abuse and attack those who are   
   > denied any means to defend themselves, you can lie to yourself and   
   > pretend you are God.  But it's odd how corrupt fucks like you mainly   
   > express your illusory superiority through violence against the   
   > defenseless.  Very much like child molesters, eh?   
   >   
   > Quite a sizeable sick little "society" has accreted around values such   
   > as those, and it's no surprise that your naive brainwashed progeny are   
   > so thoughtless and quick to do so much of your dirty work.  By the   
   > time they realize it is all a sham (if they ever do) they are bound to   
   > your little "society" by their criminal guilt.  But as they can always   
   > project their shame, weakness, and guilt to an external target, it all   
   > works out.   
   >   
   > Too bad all of Western society must pay the costs of your weakness and   
   > immorality.  And there too, doesn't that remind you a bit of the way   
   > much of the world had to pay for the excesses of the Germans during   
   > World War II?  And look how well that worked out for the Germans of   
   > that time.  Are they not admired for their success?   
      
   You appear to have, um, issues.  Do you think this is the best place to   
   look for therapy?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)