According to some, he's you.
But RonaldTrump/ProClutch is like a goldfish when it comes to talking points. It will present something, forget it when you poke even the smallest hole in it, then repeat a line - only to start over with something else.
I'm not sure if it's amusing, sad, or something else. Regardless, I have the time, I may as well have the fun. You should know how that works here.
According to some, he's you.
Ahahahahahahahahahahah you do realize if that were the case I'd have been blued by the autobot by now? Any voting on an account that shares an IP with another is one of the checks which cause a bluejewening.
But RonaldTrump/ProClutch is like a goldfish when it comes to talking points. It will present something, forget it when you poke even the smallest hole in it, then repeat a line - only to start over with something else.
So you enjoy pilpul? I can kind of understand because this isn't spoken. It's not ethereal. It has "permanence" and can be called back upon. But that's also tiresome.
Had to look up that word. Something you're not telling us?
Anyway, I know he's not you, you can actually form a coherent argument at times. Ronnie boy can't, he's just reading from a script and finding links online with no real context.
Regardless, if I understand that term correctly, it's relating to being asinine to the point of idiocy about a point. In the case of Ronbo, it's not that because he can't form an argument or have a conversation. He's just a script-bot. You refute the current line and it moves on to the next script point. Kind of like an Indian trying to tell you how your Windows is having issues...
Anyway, I know he's not you, you can actually form a coherent argument at times.
Sometimes. When someone engages me and coaxes it out of me in a meaningful way I'll post something substantive. I get bored easily though and I fully admit and understand this. I don't hide from my flaws. I own them.
Regardless, if I understand that term correctly, it's relating to being asinine to the point of idiocy about a point.
It's ;
The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion.
They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one's hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards.
If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday's defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct.
Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more--the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.
Funny thing? I typed only the first two sentence, got lazy and searched what I typed on yandex. Guess what popped up? https://poal.co/s/HDLunited/267937
I didn't check it for accuracy verse the image though, but whatever. It holds. These (((users))) will never admit they're wrong. Never admit a folly, their use of a fallacy etc. They'll double down with more lies or just claim ignorance or whatever.
e; For example there are then just supreme autists such as myself with whom (whom?) are perfectly fine admitting fault or even potential fault. ALA a few hours ago , , and (all the same instance three posts in a row overexplaining what I meant).
(post is archived)