Merca.

[pErvinalia]

There's certainly history, and the level of my response might have been over the top for the the cases in this thread. But everyone is responsible for what they write, particularly if they don't retract past instances where they've clearly been shown to be wrong. That's the case with Coito and Hermit. Everything has a context.

Where's the rule book that says that anyone has to retract anything?

They don't. I'm just saying that if they don't then that justifies (to me) my overly aggressive attitude to them.

How so? Are you inevitably right? Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question because we all know that you are frequently wrong.

Why does your obviously flawed judgment "justify" an "overly aggressive attitude?"

Sounds a lot like intolerant, arrogant bigotry.

I said it justifies it to me. If I feel that I have been slighted repeatedly, then I feel justified lashing out on occasion. I'm not saying you have to think it's justified. I'm just explaining why I lashed out.

[pErvinalia]

Staff are reviewing reports on posts in this thread. In the meantime, everyone please take a step back and detach emotionally a little bit. Please.

Just give me a warning. There's nothing to discuss. I crossed the line.

I think you need a little vacation. Clearly you've let your emotions take over. It's understandable given the amount of stress you're under and letting you vent for a while is probably a good thing, but I think you need to hang up the keyboard and go for a walk in the sunshine and regain some perspective.

Really. With all my good intentions. Go for a walk.

Honestly, I'm sick of you delicate little flowers constantly reporting me. I know I abuse you and Coit from time to time, but you two also abuse me. I've got not problem with that, and I've never reported you (here at ratz) or coit. For someone who constantly goes on about how tough life is and how we just need to accept that and deal with it, you deal with it (in the case of me calling you names) in a very non-tough way.

I didn't report you, I merely suggested you get out of the house for a bit, as a bit of friendly advice from someone who knows you're under a lot of stress right now and may be in need of some diversion.

Well that's true. And I'm trying to get a grip on my current obsession with arguing with wrong people on the internet. I didn't want to argue with Coit, as I said, but I I couldn't help myself. Yes, poor willpower, but some idiotic things need to be countered. I could no more ignore some of the stupid things he said than I could ignore someone arrogantly trying to tell me that 2+2=7.

Regarding you reporting me, I'm not talking about in this thread. I'm talking about in other threads where we hook into each other. I seem to be constantly getting warnings for calling you names, so I assume you are reporting me (not an unreasonably assumption given your record for reporting people on rd.net and ratskep). What I love about this place is that they basically understand give and take. If two parties are abusing each other, there's no real need to single out one of them (unless a cry baby reports one of them). It basically evens out, and they only step in if it's wrecking a thread.

But in the case of coito, I won't accept ablism from him. It's fucking pathetic and low. As well as just plain bigoted.

How...bigoted of you.

[/quote]

Well I assume you are not racist or sexist, so how bigoted of you too. (I can feel a bout of abuse rising up.... )

[FBM]

rEv, this is a reminder that this post and this post contain personal attacks on other members. Please remember to direct your attacks to the ideas rather than to the person(s) stating them, as per the play nice rule. Thank you.

[Coito ergo sum]

And coit, i'm not getting in any more arguments with you about your butthurt over criticism of America.

I do not get butthurt over "criticism of America." I criticize it all the time, and in fact, I get a lot of resistance from certain folks here to my criticisms. All that is fine. That's called discussion. There is a difference between criticizing the US, and consistently turning threads that concern some incident or another in Merka into a commentary on Americans in general, and there is difference between criticism of Merka and consistently making denigrating comparisons to "proper, civilized" countries and Merka (not proper and not civilized).

You are a strawmanner of biblical proportions. Even after being told to carefully reread what I wrote, you still say "public" schools. I NEVER SAID PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

You did, although I did later focus your qualifier regarding the "science curriculum." When I first read your post, I did not see that qualifier as important, because t is a distinction without a difference. Oz still teaches it in schools. In the US we don't teach Creationism in schools at all, including but not limited to the science curriculum. It is unconstitutional to teach Creationism in public schools in the US. That means it's illegal.

You originally dropped "science classes"

because it is a distinction without a difference.

and when that was pointed out to you, you STILL DIDN'T ADMIT YOU WERE STRAWMANNING ME.

Because it's not strawmanning you. I get that you said "science class" -- but that does not change the basic fact that in Oz you folks teach Creationism in the public schools and in the US we don't because it is illegal.

You are either a dishonest cunt, or an A-grade idiot. Either way, I'm not wasting my time on such. You seriously need to remove the fucking giant chip you've got on your shoulder.

Me? Look in the mirror, dude. What the fuck are you so enraged about.

How many times does this have to happen over and over and fucking over with the whole forum pointing out your idiotic reading ability and your juvenile butthurt before it finally sinks in for you?

It should be obvious to everyone that this is your strategy: make points. When your points are rebutted, get angry. When the person does not get cowed by your anger, keep raising the temperature and keep cursing and namecalling until the purse gives up. You do this quite often.

I was wondering last night why you try to host serious threads and discussions here, but not at ratskep.

I didn't wonder about you at all.

As a general rule, one is more likely to get a detailed and involved and serious discussion over there. So I wonder why you do it here.

I believe my presence here at this forum predates yours. You can go away anytime you like. I reject any request on your part to justify my presence here. I know why you're not at ratskep, and it's not because you voluntarily left. It's because of behavior like you display toward me.

And I now realise. Here, people just ignore you and let you off the hook, or do what I do and give up in frustration.

Some probably do, and there are some people that I ignore. Although many more people here engage with me in reasonable discussions. We have serious discussions, as well as many humorous discussions and many just plain silly discussions.

Over there, they'd hound you off the site for being an intellectual midget and a fucking irrational biased flag-waving patriot.

They never did before. I've spent a lot of time at Ratskep under a different name. I even argued with you there. You're the one who got hounded off. I just sort of stopped posting there, and now to get back on I'd have to contact an administrator to reset my password because I can't remember it. They did, of course, ban you, didn't they? Maybe is was just temporary, but I do recall you getting suspended and such over there. It's because you can't engage in civil discussion, and you start wailing like a little baby, and then you start cursing people out.

Where's my mod warning?! Surely i've flipped my lid enough to earn one now??

People don't give a shit about you enough, I suppose. EDIT - oops, I guess they did warn you. Congrats. You're an internet tough guy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Rev. Respectfully speaking, having read this thread end to end, it seems to me that you are misreading posts and misinterpreting intent.

You also have adopted a very aggressive and dismissive tone from the start, which inevitably drew a sharp response. This seemed to me to be an example of being happy to give it but not take it.

Relating to who and what? Hermit or Coito?

Coito asbolutely strawmanned me, as I showed, the same as he does to me and others often. Hermit has a propensity for being a disrespectful prat to people who are actually sticking up for him. I've learnt my lesson. I won't be sticking up for the ungrateful prick again.

The way I read it, Coito did not raise a strawman at any stage. It seemed clear though, to me at least, that each of you was talking past the other.

Are you for real? He attempted to dismiss my argument with a couple of key points. And a couple of patently stupid points (including talking about a Kiwi in a specific point about US vs Aus). The key points were as I said - "public" schools, and "science curriculum". I DIDN'T limit it to public schools, so Coit's rebuttal on that front is irrelevant. I DID limit it to SCIENCE classes, so Coit's rebuttal, which hinged on HISTORY classes, is fucking irrelevant.

I never mentioned history classes. And, public schools (meaning schools run by the state/government) is the only relevant kind of school on this issue. People who run private schools and invite people to voluntarily enroll can teach whatever they want, like schools for homeopathy, chiropractic and even religion.

Your distinction, saying "in Oz we don't teach Creationism in science class..." is a distinction without a difference because in the US, the country you were "criticizing" when you wrote that, doesn't teach Creationism in science class either. And, we don't teach it in any other class. The only place it can legally be taught is in private schools.

Do you wonder why I get so fucking frustrated when basic points like this have to even be explained, let alone considered to be raised by someone?!?

What you're failing to recognize is that the assertion made in your post where you brought up the creationism thing was bogus.

I also didn't say that Australia doesn't have any creationists. ANOTHER strawman.

Your literal words were false, incorrect.

And my main points were about nutjob militants and constructionalists full of violent rhetoric (at the minimum), a point I made twice and a point Coit avoided twice. He's not interested in an honest debate. Tell me why I should show someone like that a fucking ounce of respect?

The difficulty in discussing things with you is that you can't keep yourself from going bananas and flying off the handle. If your main point was "nutjob militants" then why did you try insert Creationism into the discussion anyway?

Hermit - at least in his last post, didn't attack you at all, it seemed to me.

Of course it did. He's rebuking me for apparently speaking wrongly for him. And his strange non sentence that starts his post seems to be suggesting I am tedious (well, that's one reading, but it's impossible to tell what the fuck he was talking about). That would be annoying enough, except in this case he can't fucking follow the flow of the thread, and the very post he's rebuking me in is fucking incomprehensible for exact meaning. And this is the second or third time he's done that to me. If someone doesn't show me a modicum of respect then they get zero from me. Simple.

Why didn't you just ask him to clarify his meaning, if you didn't understand what he was saying?

I know that history in some cases can make what seems innocuous into something far more significant. But I think you'd have a better time if you started with the assumption that the other person isn't trying to be aggressive, and isn't trying to needle you.

You clearly don't follow Hermit's posts enough. He fucking needles everyone. He's a self-confessed misanthrope (if I'm not mistaken). This isn't that difficult. I'm very similar, except that I require an actual affront to start me off, Hermit just needs to imagine a minor slight and he's into the hate. Fuck that.

Apparently not. You just wrote above that "it's impossible to tell what the fuck he [Hermit] was talking about." Can you really say you've been confronted with a true "affront," if you are unable to tell what he is talking about?

[Coito ergo sum]

There's certainly history, and the level of my response might have been over the top for the the cases in this thread. But everyone is responsible for what they write, particularly if they don't retract past instances where they've clearly been shown to be wrong. That's the case with Coito and Hermit. Everything has a context.

The problem here, rEv, is that you did not show me that I was wrong. I showed you that you were wrong, and several times, and you consistently just blew past the issue. And, then you kept ratcheting up the rhetoric to try to mask that.

The other thing to say, is I find Coito's ablism fucking offensive.

Oh, you're offended? Well, gee willy willickers. Since I can tell from your posts that you are oh, so very concerned about what "offends" others, it's only fair that we care just as much about your little pet "offense."

It's not much better than racism or sexism. I call him names, he calls me names. No problems, as far as I am concerned. Just look at Seth and I. We call each other names all the time, and imply that the other is an idiot. But there's a BIG difference between that and bringing up someone's mental illness in a debate in which it has nothing to do with the debate. THAT'S fucking low, and Coit has done it at least twice now. If he said that to me in real life, he'd get a smack in head. What I do to him here is the best I can manage over the electrons.

Yes, it crosses the line when it's something that is personal to you. LOL. Got it. THAT crosses the line, but the offensive stuff that you do, well, that's just good ol' fashioned vigorous debate. Got it.

And, I did not bash you for whatever mental problem you may have. I bashed you because you're a layabout.

[Coito ergo sum]

Reading comprehension does not seem to be your strength. I said no such thing as "Coit's butthurt about criticism of Merca is annoying." I did say "His repeated tantrums are getting more than tedious", meaning they are getting positively soporific.

I can definitely see that. But, do you not see that my "tantrums" are in response to a certain kind of post that is getting just as tedious and just as soporific?

[pErvinalia]

You're an absolute fucking liar. What the fuck is wrong with you? I have only skimmed read two of your replies and you lie through your fucking teeth. I DID NOT MENTION PUBLIC SCHOOLS. You linked an article that stated that creationism is taught in HISTORY CLASSES in Queensland as evidence that creationism is taught in schools here. BUT I SAID SCIENCE CLASSES. Retract your lies or go fuck yourself, you dishonest cunt.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Tedious" and "annoying" aren't fucking mutually exclusive. In fact, they are very fucking similar. In fact they share fucking synonyms in the thesaurus. Can you understand this exceedingly simple point?

Newsflash: There's a reason why we have one word for being bored by something and a different one for something that annoys us. So, please don't put the wrong word into my mouth. I am not annoyed by Coito's repeated rants about alleged anti-USA prejudices. I just find it boring that he can't help himself for compulsively compensating for his inferiority complex with them. The repetitiveness is, uhm, well, tedious.

It's not as though I can't be annoyed by things people say, but Coito's rants about the respective values and vices of The USA and Europe are not among them, thanks.

Well, I would say that it's not a compulsion, but more of a sensitivity on my part. I see this kind of thing quite often, and I like to respond to it an point it out because, to me, it is tedious and soporific, among other things. Plus, there is no end to the list of things about which non-Merkins, especially Yerpeeins, claim a kind of superiority.

I don't think I have an inferiority complex, as I certainly do not view Yerpeeins, Canadians and Australians as my betters. Frankly, what brings my objections to the fore are the constant reverse claims - the claims by Yerpeeins, Canadians and Australians that they are the betters of Merka and Merkins.

Yes, how in the world, indeed, could a person get into the law enforcement system when he is as crazy as Police Chief Kessler, right? That's the question that was raised, wasn't it? Must be something creepy and "off" about Merka, that the country could let that happen, eh? Merka -- another example of how it sucks so bad -- crazy gun toting looneys can become law enforcement officers here. So, I pointed out that there were examples of far worse folks than Chief Kessler becoming law enforcement officers in Yerup. I mean -- murderers, kidnappers -- they worked their criminal trade for years before being caught and tried and convicted. How did THEY get to be police officers in Yerup? Why isn't that question answered? Why is Chief Kessler seen as a commentary on "Merca" in general, whereas the examples from Yerup are ignored. Plainly one would not consider a few examples of murderous and evil cops as indicative of anything regarding a Yerpeein country, right? I certainly don't consider it representative in that fashion. Yet in thread after thread such things ARE considered representative of Merka.

Even after I pointed out that this guy is a big nobody, running a basically one man LOCAL police force in a town of about 375 families in the secluded coal mountains of rural Pennsylvania. They don't even really have crime there for him to handle. He's there basically to respond to the occasional call for help from neighbors who may hear a bump in the night, or need some help now and again. Other than that, NOTHING HAPPENS THERE.

The context is ignored. The details are ignored. And all we get to read is how "Oh, my flippin' gawd!!! In Merka a man can be a POLICE CHIEF -- CHIEF OF POLICE -- and make looney pro-gun statements on youtube videos and tell his detractors to fuck off!!!! How craaaaaaaazzzyzyyyyy is Merka??? This would never happen here in [insert proper country's name]!!!!!"

Really? You have no nutjobs in "proper countries?"

[pErvinalia]

It's not much better than racism or sexism. I call him names, he calls me names. No problems, as far as I am concerned. Just look at Seth and I. We call each other names all the time, and imply that the other is an idiot. But there's a BIG difference between that and bringing up someone's mental illness in a debate in which it has nothing to do with the debate. THAT'S fucking low, and Coit has done it at least twice now. If he said that to me in real life, he'd get a smack in head. What I do to him here is the best I can manage over the electrons.

Yes, it crosses the line when it's something that is personal to you. LOL. Got it. THAT crosses the line, but the offensive stuff that you do, well, that's just good ol' fashioned vigorous debate. Got it.

There's a reason why racism/sexism/ablism/agism etc are considered worse than general name calling, arsewipe. You're a fucking scumbag for raising it TWICE. Once, I could forgive as a cheap shot. Twice is a pattern and shows that you are a bigoted cuntbag. And I'm somewhat pissed that the mods haven't given you a warning for it.

And, I did not bash you for whatever mental problem you may have. I bashed you because you're a layabout.

THREE times. Fuck off you bigoted wanker. If I ever meet you in person, I'm going to rearrange your face. First class bigots like you and Tyrannical deserve to be put in your place. I.e. back under the rocks from which you crawled.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're an absolute fucking liar.

Your opinion is noted. It's as ludicrous as always, but noted.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Oh, my...your "ablism" is offensive. I'm going to go cry now.

I have only skimmed read two of your replies and you lie through your fucking teeth.

Quote the lie, and tell me what the truth is. Let's get to the bottom of it.

I can tell you I did not "lie" in terms of an intentional falsehood. If you would be so kind as to quote the "factually incorrect" thing that I said, and show me the correct fact, then I'd be glad to discuss it with you. If I am wrong, I'll admit it. If I can clarify for you a misconception, then I'd be happy to do that too.

Also, you may wish to do more than "skim" and then react wildly. That may be your real issue. You may not actually read and understand what people write.

I DID NOT MENTION PUBLIC SCHOOLS. You linked an article that stated that creationism is taught in HISTORY CLASSES in Queensland as evidence that creationism is taught in schools here. BUT I SAID SCIENCE CLASSES. Retract your lies or go fuck yourself, you dishonest cunt.

O.k., I have already addressed this.

The classes in Queensland ARE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. A public school is a government run/organized, state funded school. A private school is privately run and they can teach whatever they want. If these terms are used differently in Oz, then just clarify that so we can be on the same page.

What is the big problem here? Were you referring to something other than state or government run schools?

The point is, in Oz they teach Creationism in the school system -- the school system which is funded by the government, from the public treasury. In the US we do not allow that. And, in the US you can't teach "Creationism" in history class either, but apparently you can in Oz.

You are certainly talking about schools in Australia right? And, those schools are "public" in the sense that the public can go to them and they set up by the government and funded from the public treasury, right? You're specifically NOT talking to wholly private entities like religious school run by a church or other such group, right?

See this is the kind of thing you do. You're all outraged, calling me a liar and such, and what you're flying off the handle about is a giant non sequitur. You're dodging.

If you were not referring to public schools, then what kind of schools ARE you talking about?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not much better than racism or sexism. I call him names, he calls me names. No problems, as far as I am concerned. Just look at Seth and I. We call each other names all the time, and imply that the other is an idiot. But there's a BIG difference between that and bringing up someone's mental illness in a debate in which it has nothing to do with the debate. THAT'S fucking low, and Coit has done it at least twice now. If he said that to me in real life, he'd get a smack in head. What I do to him here is the best I can manage over the electrons.

Yes, it crosses the line when it's something that is personal to you. LOL. Got it. THAT crosses the line, but the offensive stuff that you do, well, that's just good ol' fashioned vigorous debate. Got it.

There's a reason why racism/sexism/ablism/agism etc are considered worse than general name calling, arsewipe. You're a fucking scumbag for raising it TWICE. Once, I could forgive as a cheap shot. Twice is a pattern and shows that you are a bigoted cuntbag. And I'm somewhat pissed that the mods haven't given you a warning for it.

Quote me, tough guy. What's the blurb that has you so "outraged?" I can guarantee that you are not being entirely truthful about what I actually wrote. I'm sure you'll come up with a way not to do that, though. You probably "can't be arsed" and that, followed by a long line of expletives and insults.

I certainly don't respect an able-bodied person such as yourself who figures a way to get people to pay for his beer for him.

And, I did not bash you for whatever mental problem you may have. I bashed you because you're a layabout.

THREE times. Fuck off you bigoted wanker. If I ever meet you in person, I'm going to rearrange your face. First class bigots like you and Tyrannical deserve to be put in your place. I.e. back under the rocks from which you crawled.

Calling you a layabout is "bigoted?" Bigoted against what? Lazy people?

So, you've called me various names, "fucking cunt," idiot, "fucking" this, and that, and now you're threatening me physically? I think you've committed crimes under Australian law, actually. Section 471.11(2), of the Criminal Code Act of 1995 makes it an offence to threaten me with serious bodily harm. There are probably other applicable provisions too.

Anyway, go have a beer and get some rest. I know you probably don't have much else to do of any import or which may be pressing. I have an appointment in an hour, though, so I have to go.

[pErvinalia]

You're an absolute fucking liar.

Your opinion is noted. It's as ludicrous as always, but noted.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Oh, my...your "ablism" is offensive. I'm going to go cry now.

I have only skimmed read two of your replies and you lie through your fucking teeth.

Quote the lie, and tell me what the truth is. Let's get to the bottom of it.

FFS. I"ve pointed it out 5 or 6 fucking times. THIS is why I don't want to "debate" with you. You are a dishonest cunt.

I can tell you I did not "lie" in terms of an intentional falsehood. If you would be so kind as to quote the "factually incorrect" thing that I said, and show me the correct fact, then I'd be glad to discuss it with you.

I already have MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES, and you refuse to accept that you've made shit up about what I said. I don't give a fuck whether you've done it on purpose or you've done it because you are a thick cunt, but the fact is you have done it and when it has been pointed out, you refuse to accept you've done it. And as I said, this is now at least the third time in about 3 weeks or so that you've done this - twice with me, and once with another member.

If I am wrong, I'll admit it.

Bullshit you will. I've NEVER seen you admit you are wrong in all my time reading your tiresome bollocks on this forum.

If I can clarify for you a misconception, then I'd be happy to do that too.

You've had PLENTY of opportunity to "clarify". I've made it abundantly clear what I was referring to, and that your reply didn't match what I was referring to.

Also, you may wish to do more than "skim" and then react wildly. That may be your real issue. You may not actually read and understand what people write.

Lol, says the terminal strawmanner who claims that his strawmen aren't intentional and maybe just a misunderstanding. Start understanding, and then you can criticise other people for their alleged failings.

I DID NOT MENTION PUBLIC SCHOOLS. You linked an article that stated that creationism is taught in HISTORY CLASSES in Queensland as evidence that creationism is taught in schools here. BUT I SAID SCIENCE CLASSES. Retract your lies or go fuck yourself, you dishonest cunt.

O.k., I have already addressed this.

You wrote a pile of bollocks in response, with MORE lies. You claimed that I said "public" schools. I simply did not. I've asked you to quote it before, and you haven't, because you are a lying cunt.

The classes in Queensland ARE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

QLD wasn't even on the table when I raised the point about schools. If you wanted to talk about public schools, all you had to do was ask that the context of our discussion be changed. But no, you'd prefer to just strawman in a pathetic attempt to try and win the argument.

A public school is a government run/organized, state funded school.

No shit, Sherlock. Wow. You are a font of knowledge.

Although, you don't seem to know the difference between New Zealand and Australia, so, baby steps, I guess...

A private school is privately run and they can teach whatever they want.

Not in Australia they can't. And even if they could, which they can't, it makes no fucking difference to the fact that you strawmanned me. Goddamn, you are a dishonest piece of work.

If these terms are used differently in Oz, then just clarify that so we can be on the same page.

Fuck you. How about you stop misinterpreting things that are written in a way that suits your "argument"? If you are going to invent constraints on another person's argument, then the onus is on YOU to clarify. Unless of course one is a dishonest cunt, then you wouldn't expect them to clarify.

What is the big problem here? Were you referring to something other than state or government run schools?

LOL. It's a bit late for that. You don't get to play the innocent actor card now. You've lied through your teeth for many posts now, and you did it in at least two other threads in the last couple of weeks. You have a record, champ. You don't get to play innocent little boy any more. You get one chance to retract your bullshit statements, and if you don't then you get vigorously held to account.

The point is, in Oz they teach Creationism in the school system -- the school system which is funded by the government, from the public treasury. In the US we do not allow that.

I was the one making a point, dickwad, not you. And that WASN'T my point. So don't disingenuously try and tell us now what "the point" was. You are the one with the chip on your shoulder. You are the one who needs to defend your juvenile butthurt that swells up any time any one says anything bad about the US.

And, in the US you can't teach "Creationism" in history class either, but apparently you can in Oz.

Who gives a fuck? That's got nothing to do with my point. But of course, you know that.

You are certainly talking about schools in Australia right? And, those schools are "public" in the sense that the public can go to them and they set up by the government and funded from the public treasury, right? You're specifically NOT talking to wholly private entities like religious school run by a church or other such group, right?

I'm talking about SCHOOLS, just like I fucking wrote, you dolt. And as I mentioned now THREE times, I am primarily talking about nutjob militants, which you have now ignored THREE times! Do you honestly think people can't see through your pathetic attempts to dodge the main thrust of the thread?

See this is the kind of thing you do. You're all outraged, calling me a liar and such, and what you're flying off the handle about is a giant non sequitur. You're dodging.

I'm not dodging, I'm the one making the fucking point to YOU! YOU'RE dodging my point.

If you were not referring to public schools, then what kind of schools ARE you talking about?

SCHOOLS. Should I make it BIGGER so you can read it easier? Am I required to list every possible instantiation of my contention just so that you can't find a case to wiggle out of ANSWERING THE FUCKING QUESTION?

Fuck me. You are a shocker.

[pErvinalia]

It's not much better than racism or sexism. I call him names, he calls me names. No problems, as far as I am concerned. Just look at Seth and I. We call each other names all the time, and imply that the other is an idiot. But there's a BIG difference between that and bringing up someone's mental illness in a debate in which it has nothing to do with the debate. THAT'S fucking low, and Coit has done it at least twice now. If he said that to me in real life, he'd get a smack in head. What I do to him here is the best I can manage over the electrons.

Yes, it crosses the line when it's something that is personal to you. LOL. Got it. THAT crosses the line, but the offensive stuff that you do, well, that's just good ol' fashioned vigorous debate. Got it.

There's a reason why racism/sexism/ablism/agism etc are considered worse than general name calling, arsewipe. You're a fucking scumbag for raising it TWICE. Once, I could forgive as a cheap shot. Twice is a pattern and shows that you are a bigoted cuntbag. And I'm somewhat pissed that the mods haven't given you a warning for it.

Quote me, tough guy. What's the blurb that has you so "outraged?" I can guarantee that you are not being entirely truthful about what I actually wrote. I'm sure you'll come up with a way not to do that, though. You probably "can't be arsed" and that, followed by a long line of expletives and insults.

I certainly don't respect an able-bodied person such as yourself who figures a way to get people to pay for his beer for him.

How in fucks name would you know how able-bodied or not I am? What an arrogant piece of shit you are!

And I will look for the quotes presently. Unfortunately, to find the previous thread, I'll have to read through pages and pages of the mind-numbing bollocks that tumbles unbridled out of your "brain".

And, I did not bash you for whatever mental problem you may have. I bashed you because you're a layabout.

THREE times. Fuck off you bigoted wanker. If I ever meet you in person, I'm going to rearrange your face. First class bigots like you and Tyrannical deserve to be put in your place. I.e. back under the rocks from which you crawled.

Calling you a layabout is "bigoted?" Bigoted against what? Lazy people?

Disingenuous cunt. You know full well that my depression is one of the reasons why I can't get employment at the moment, as your previous bigoted quotes in this thread and the other thread have shown. I most certainly am not "lazy", and you using that term to describe someone who can't work at the moment because of medical reasons makes you a truly bigoted piece of shit.

So, you've called me various names, "fucking cunt," idiot, "fucking" this, and that, and now you're threatening me physically? I think you've committed crimes under Australian law, actually. Section 471.11(2), of the Criminal Code Act of 1995 makes it an offence to threaten me with serious bodily harm. There are probably other applicable provisions too.

God you are a little girl.

I have an appointment in an hour, though, so I have to go.

To see the proctologist? Or perhaps to see a surgeon to get that giant chip removed off your shoulder?

[pErvinalia]

Ok, from this http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 22&t=44224 thread, you ridiculed me for being on the dole.

Don't you have to pick up your dole check?

I was mistaken in that you didn't explicitly mention my disability, however, as your quote in this thread shows, you know damn well why I am on the dole.

From this thread:

Aren't you the one on the dole because of your mental problems, or is that someone else?

So go fuck yourself. You are a lowlife piece of shit.