Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Lily and Bluenose,

This looks like a clear cut case of stalking, baiting and insulting! Hurry Lily, find some spontaneous elephant art! Maybe if you pull Bluenose's head out of his ass you could check up there for it!

Even better:

I think that Lily and Bluenose are the same person. They run around this website insulting others very similarily, that is, weakly.

Wheeeee! I like it when Lily shows up on a thread and whips out unprovoked insults while contributing nothing! I wonder when she'll cry and call a moderator.

Most Zen indeed...

   

Are mine historical sites? Perhaps you could answer that first? Secondly, what’s wrong with my text sources? Are you intimating they aren’t correct or legitimate? How would you know anyway? Aren’t you the Queen of anti-intellectualism? Thirdly, instead of making a personal run at me, why don’t you look at my main concern with Twister’s use of Xeroxing narrative history – he didn’t make any links to his assertion. He just threw out anything even remotely related to his topic but didn’t apply the information to the “salient” point.



You’ve intimated many times that this is not the place for intellectual discourse (I disagreed and I’m not sure how history isn’t academic) so why come out of nowhere and chastise me for legitimately questioning Internet sites (and their questionable application) instead of commenting on the thread’s main topic? Why would you express interest in something that you have rejected or downplayed in the past? Ulterior motive? You attacked me – without provocation –and you have yet to comment any of the history that is being bantered about here. You made a cheap run (like blue_nose) and unless you have something relevant to offer, then, why are you here unless it’s for less than genuine reasons? Your next response will answer that.

   

   

She didn’t get it Dayseed. Hey, where is her little Salacious Crumb? I’m waiting for the little rodent (note to fanboys – was Crumb really a rodent?) to chime in at any moment with some garbled crap and then scurry away.

   

I had every intention of not making such a scene with my comment, but you fellows have taken it so personally.

We can make a new thread and preserve the sancity of your precious historical debate, but I imagine I'll be tired of you before it will ever get to that.

   

Well, not to jump into this but I just want Twister to answer this and repeated 3 times already.. This is his own words anyways and not taken from any site.

Umm what battle was this??? I don't think Rome was sacked during the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

What I would like to know is where you got that info from Twister. Simple.

   

And if that were the thread topic, you'd have a point. However, even a cursory glance at the thread would show you this.

Secondly, cut the crap. You came on here to take cheap shots because Lily did. Are you entirely sure you want to follow the most brainless poster on here into folly? Remember, Lily has stated that the Criminal Code is lame, Mustang uses weblinks to prove historical points, elephants create spontaneous works of art, the RCMP uses the ceremonial Sam Browne holster for duty since she saw a picture of it on the internet and she's the master speeler and grammarian despite the litany of errors she made saying so. Also, she thinks a 2001 Grand Am given to her in charity by her aunt is a new car. She claims she will answer any moral dilema, except when asked at which point she gives (by her own admission) a non-answer.

She's also a notorious suck and got kicked off another forum.

The choice is yours padawan. Choose wisely.

   

Yes I did oh forgetful twit, I asked if you would prevent somebody having an abortion if the decision lay totally within your power. You gave, by your own admission, a non-answer.

   

   

Blue_nose,

Since you’ve seen it fit to pedantically and amateurishly ascribe some alleged motivations to me, I thought I’d respond in kind. Your incessant literary wailing and bellyaching practically begs a response. Actually, it demands one. Remember, your supercilious, personal and decidedly ill-fated interjection started this. You, not me, began this little dialogue.

You bemoan my alleged demeanour and yet you hypocritically lurk about trying to score points with these pathetic little jabs. You don’t jack about history, and yet why comment on this thread. You have some insight into historiographical issues? Let’s see it. You have ideological reservations regarding a particular historical school of thought? Let’s have it. I’ve somehow erred in my historical analysis? Demonstrate it. If not, then you’ve entered into a dialogue for proposes that are clearly personal – if not, then you’ll prove that assertion is overstated very quickly by commenting on the historical legacies of Henry VIII and Louis XIV. You won’t and in the process add more credence to my supposition.

You ascribe motives to me and yet, you hypocritically, omit your own glaring faults. You chastise my methods and yet where is your self-examination. Aren’t you guilty of the very things you reprimand others for? You don’t demand proof from people when they present contentious viewpoints? You claim I don’t consider others when I enter into discussions, but don’t you use insults? Ever? Aren’t you guilty of being condescending and self-righteous? Are you ethically perfect? If not, address your own issues before judging others. It’s supercilious and it doesn’t fool anyone.

If you want to take cowardly jabs at me in the future, that is your prerogative. If you expect these pusillanimous acts to go unchallenged, then you are sorely mistaken. I don’t care if you feel that I’ve misinterpreted your intentions – you need to articulate yourself better – because you’ve pulled this little wuss stunt too many times.

“Ralph Currie was the most underrated leader in history. The fact that you don't know who he is is my proof. QED.”

Lose the Latin – it doesn’t impress me – and the thread is about the most Overrated leader in history! If you have a relevant argument – make it, if not piss off, as you no longer amuse me.

   

Immaterial to the thread’s topic. Hey, wasn’t the tone of that last one rather condescending and dismissive? Hypocrite.

So Far:

1. No relevant contributions to thread’s topic
2. Condescending and dismissive treatment of others

Want to try defending that?

   

Sorry, Tman1 – some petulant little bullies hijacked the thread and ruined its discussion. Your question is interesting – do you think he confused it with something else?

   

Hmm I hope so but he was talking about Nero himself in which no major battle(s) commenced and Rome would not be sacked until 410 CE by Alaric the Visigoth.

   

For this, Mustang, I honestly appologise. I made a simple prodding comment (which I do with many other members in many other threads), and you took it as an unprovoked attack.

By the way, my opinion of the legacy Henry 8: too many wives, and Rick Wakeman produced an excellent album commemorating them.

(mere satire; forgive me)

   

This is some of the funniest shit I've ever read. Gleeking flap-mouthed foot-licker? Who talks like that? Good luck finding a date with that shit coming out of your mouth. Begone? Fuck.

This is a new low for anybody. I'm making that my signature. That's too embarassing. What a moron. Also, a plaigarizer!

http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~dwomen ... y1704.html

Check out the Shakespearian Insult Kit, aka wit for dummies.

   

Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next