Buttercup wrote:

---

Think what you want, US.

---

USofAcop wrote:

---

but you know damn well it was whatever her whim of the minute was for a long while!

---

I agree with US.

entre new wrote:

---

eltsacon wrote:

---

So, if you see certain people like Entre New referred to as CUN'T, FREAK, FUCKING BRAIN DEAD, or the like, try not to look at that as a particular label against them personally. But rather a general label we give a type of person! :)

---

WTF is your problem with me, eltascon?  Because we disagree about something you have to talk to me like that?  I really don't understand what you have up your ass lately.

---

Though I admit I wrote that for you, it wasn't necessarily about you. See, I know how you like particulars to the point where,,, well, no point can be made. So, since its says, "try not to look at that as a particular label against them personally. But rather a general label we give a type of person! :) " Then it becomes a situation that when you apply the ZAP factor, it could mean anything, or nothing. :)

Does that help? Because you knowwwwwwwwwww, I am here to serve!!!!! LOL

entre new wrote:

---

Econ, the really ironic thing is that I don't think you are a person who accepts things at face value either.  I don't think you believe in something just because someone tells you it's true, or even because several people tell you it's true.  I think that you too would be asking for particulars.  But you expect me to take your word for something just because...just because....wait a minute, why was I just supposed to take your word for it again? 

And apparently if I don't take your word for it you're going to repeatedly call me the c-word.  Is that really necessary?

---

Not bad....

The fact you don't take heed, nope! That is not MY problem. As a matter of fact I can respect your argument. HOWEVER, there is this one thing. You on almost all occasions have used a particular thinking patterns that have a serious flaw. Now, you can argue all day about whether or not it exists, or the whys and how’s. BUT, I am not 17 like I try to be. And with that I can say I have dealt with many types of personalities over the last few decades. That on top of the fact I work with the public has taught me that their are exceptions to rules, but to expect an exception is asinine. And your legality thinking is ALWAYS are recipe for disaster to anyone involved with it. Been there, done that. As simple as some of the arguments have been with you, TC, and Kat, the patterns have been the same. Let me ask you something. How many times have you been wrong on this forum? How many times have you admitted to being wrong. Don’t answer that. That one is for you. You see, if you look around you will find that I admit it if it happens. I don’t mind it. It is a fact of life and happens to be needed to learn. However there are those who believe that being right, is only never being proved wrong. So the learning is only based on knowing how to no loose a argument, rather then knowing the facts. Though this looks good on paper, and thus works very well in court. It is however not life. And certainly not human progression/Evolution. It is the seed of what I like to call “educated idiots”. To put simply, book smart, but can’t “FIGURE OUT” how to walk and chew gum at the same time. And if pressured to do so, will only start debates on the reasons not to, or change the parameters of what is needed to fit the requirements. Better yet, to point out flaws of one person’s description of an artists picture to the point that no-one wants to see the picture. Sorry, sleeze bags and attorneys make very good livings playing that game, but trying to live life by it is,,,,, annoying.

Sorry, I didn’t bother because frankly I was waiting for the zap questionnaire. You see I have learned that people like yourself think backwards. Need a solution to find a problem, rather then look for a solution to a problem. So, I gave the solutions, you in turn gave me the questions, and now we can put them together.

However, it will do no good in the end, but sometimes this game you people play can be fun to work with. It’s like,,,,, a chess game of words. You have to think, if I say this then they will say that, so I have to say this first to cover that, yada yada yada. Circle jerk from hell, but it can be fun. J   Here we go….

“I really don't remember whether I've ever been wrong on this forum, though I'm sure I have been. I don't even think this is an issue of who's right or wrong.”

“. Don’t answer that. That one is for you.” / “. And if pressured to do so, will only start debates on the reasons not to, or change the parameters of what is needed to fit the requirements.”

  I just don't dislike someone that you think I should dislike.

“The fact you don't take heed, nope! That is not MY problem. As a matter of fact I can respect your argument.”

Truthfully, I can't concentrate on this post as much as I'd like to, because I'm getting eye strain without paragraphs (hint, hint).

“Better yet, to point out flaws of one person’s description of an artists picture to the point that no-one wants to see the picture.”

  As far as patterns or whatever, you're getting a little too abstract for me there.  If you're saying I have patterns in my interaction with others, then that may very well be, and is true for all of us. I think one of your "patterns" is that you tend to get a little too abstract.

.” It is the seed of what I like to call “educated idiots”. To put simply, book smart, but can’t “FIGURE OUT” how to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

But is it really up to you to analyze my patterns and ways of thinking, or would it be better if you just accept them and try to communicate with me as I am?  Like it or not, this is the way I think and interact, and I'm not necessarily pleased with the way you think and interact either.  I think we just have to take each other for what we are.

“has taught me that their are exceptions to rules, but to expect an exception is asinine. And your legality thinking is ALWAYS are recipe for disaster to anyone involved with it. Been there, done that.”

That being said, if you think I have some particular pattern which keeps you from communicating with me, then I'm open to hearing about it.  Just please be specific, and make it a little easier to read.

“Now, you can argue all day about whether or not it exists, or the whys and how’s. BUT, I am not 17 like I try to be.”

(keep in mind, I left it word for word even with all of my typo’s to keep the side tracking to a min.) J

The defense rests.

What the hell did I miss?

Nevermind, it has been a long night answering noise complaints and dealing with drunkards and I don't really want to know what petty arguments you people have puked on the forum.

God I feel like an afterbirth in a crackwhore alley dumpster right now. Prolly look like one too.

ejay wrote:

---

What the hell did I miss?

 

Nevermind, it has been a long night answering noise complaints and dealing with drunkards and I don't really want to know what petty arguments you people have puked on the forum.

 

God I feel like an afterbirth in a crackwhore alley dumpster right now. Prolly look like one too.

---

 

Nope, you look like a typical monkey! LOL

eltsacon wrote:

---

Plush wrote:

---

"If the facts don't fit the theory, then change the facts" - Albert Einstein

---

Good night!!!! Boy that's something you live by in one area I can think of!!!! ROFLMAO!

 

Lick, lick, lick.....

---

eltsacon wrote:

---

Plush wrote:

---

"If the facts don't fit the theory, then change the facts" - Albert Einstein

---

Good night!!!! Boy that's something you live by in one area I can think of!!!! ROFLMAO!

 

Lick, lick, lick.....

---

eltsacon wrote:

---

ROFLMAO!

---

Plush wrote:

---

eltsacon wrote:

---

ROFLMAO!

---

Don't laugh too hard, you might pop out your catheder(sp?).

ROFLMAO

---

Buttercup wrote:

---

You have to admit, E-con, that was very funny.

---