reply to post by jfj123
Honestly I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you.
to which I posted..
Obviously your logic and reason are flawed since you came back to me.
And now you post this....???
Me responding to you has nothing to do with flawed logic
Sure it does. It shows the manner in which you do or do not operate..how and why you think the way you do. It also shows that you cannot be taken
seriously. Why?? Because you keep going back and forth to me..the very thing you declared you would not do.
I realize that his topic is very dear to you .but as I am trying to state..your methodology leaves alot to be desired if you are attempting to be
taken as serious. And this is a serious topic ..indeed!!
You see I know you're the type of person that must have the last word no matter what so I'm just curious to see how long you will string
this out so you can get the last word
This looks silly in lieu of your statement I have quoted above ..the opening remarks of this post. Once again it makes it difficult for those who can
see..to take your posts/posting seriously.
You're actually the one who claims to be in an elevated position, not me as I've stated before But do go on
It is Salty..a Salty position ..do you know what it means and implies??
How does anything disagree with my devout religious beliefs? And what are my devout religious beliefs?
Your devout beliefs are of the feminine...in and of this world and the things of this world....of the flesh...complete with emotional default settings
to deceive you into thinking you can heap guilt and blame on others for how they think and express themselves. Translate that censorship. That you are
allowed to default..play through unquestioned unchallenged...by automatic default settings ..like this computer..it automatically goes there.
There are people out here who see this in you ..in the body politic, in the media and in public education non standards.
They don't go along and are not interested in your labeling them...nor default settings.
And they are teaching others to spot it across the board for what it is ..cheap censorship...also a sign of a religion at work..a very devout zealous
Can't respond. Statement makes no sense.
We are going to agree on this because of your provincialism. It limits you ..as obviously evidenced by you misunderstanding of the definition of
Wow..we are agreeing on something here.!!
Be careful here jfj123.
I do not consider myself elevated.
Of course you do. You've stated as such
No jfj123 I did not state that I was elevated...you did here ...remember??
From page 10 of this thread.
I like the way you try and elevate yourself above us by letting us know that you've trained yourself to spot these "techniques" that
lesser people use Your insinuation is that you can't be tricked by us because you're smarter
Insinuated is what you are reading into my statements. and then calling it elevated. This shows to me insecurity..in how you must continually put the
onus on others. Its ok..I'll take it all. I can handle it. But it is not mature jfj123 in its methodology/motives. It does pass for good drama among
most..but not to me.
Let me clarify. I have no need to justify my belief system to anyone.
LOL LOL LOL..ahh..sorry.I am slipping. This is serious business here.
No need to clarify on your part is why we are having this conversation, which you stated we were not going to be back and forth on page 10 of this
thread and which I quote at the very opening of this post...right??
This conversation goes back to page 6 of this thread. Yes..you most certainly don't need to justify yourself. I agree. But you do send mixed messages
by your method/methods of operation.
Actually I have no interest in painting anyone into any "self built corners". You have the right to your opinions whether or not I agree
with them. As example, although I hate the KKK, I support their right to free speech.
I am gratified to hear you say this jfj123. I don't have much use for the KKK as well. Around here some of us call them "Kluckers."
To be frank about this I think it is just as stupid to declare ones excellence or acceptability on the basis of their race ...just as it is stupid to
declare ones excellence and acceptability on the basis of sexuality.
It is incredibly stupid. It is the very epitome of stupid. And I can demonstrate that very easily about race.
These "Kluckers" respond to me in similar manner as do you until they find their default settings don't gel with me..then they become very
vitriolic/threatening. No problem I can handle that as well. Racists have problems trying to paint me into a corner as well. I consider Jesse and Al
to be racists too. Why?? ..because take race away and they have no topic. They are a one topic side show. A cottage industry. Hence they are
But it is not popular to remove such default settings ..is it?? Bad form to put Light on such nonsense!! No matter how true.
Declaring greatness and acceptability by race or sexuality is equally stupid and a very poor nonstandard...but it does make for good drama...until
one becomes mature enough to see it for what it is.
I am glad you brought up that perspective about the "Kluckers" Thank you.
I changed my mind. I'm having fun
Wow!! As I stated earlier in this post ..it is difficult to take you seriously when you make statements like this on a topic which is supposed to be
serious and dear to your heart. Now here you are proving it out once again.
What is my genre
Your genre is effeminate..in and of this world and the things of this world. Of the flesh. So to are Al and Jesse...the Kluckers as well.
Yes I consider anyone that hates people because of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc.. as intolerant. I thought I was pretty clear
about that earlier but as you say, "no problem...again"
I understood you said "Haters" or hate. I used the word intolerant while expecting tolerance of others. Here I will quote you again...
By your posts, it's obvious you have a hatred for homosexuals and this is how you're venting it.
Here again your quote and error...
If someone is not in favor of something, the disfavor that thing. Pretty clear to me.
jfj123. Disfavour is not the same as hate. You are grasping for straws here. And it is not good logic.
For the record, I can't stand perez hilton
I cant stand him as well. I thought him to be a drama queen. Not mature.. as it was he who asked the question and then could not tolerate the answer
in a very immature and dishonorable manner. He is intolerant.
Nobody censored her.
Many censored her even tag teamed here. I call it a gang bang.
Did you look up the definition of Censored ...which I provided in the link??
tr.v., -sored, -sor·ing, -sors.
To examine and expurgate.
YOu cannot censor a person until after they have done something....in this case ..spoken out in honest answer to a question.
Censor and censored is not the same as free speech. You seem to be having problems with this concept ..once again indicating your provincialism in
thought and understanding. Please re read the definition of censored.