Regarding a recent propaganda ‘Teach-In’ hosted by a certain large university… What a bunch of ignorant, prejudiced, sensationalist crap! The lecture hall was was full of young students, who unfortunately lack the critical thinking skills to have fully survived the fatal blow of false information you served them. The evening was full of blame on my generation for things such as British colonialism, residential schools, environmental degradation, and unemployment rates on reserves. One of the representatives skewed facts, and made comprehensive documents seem like they were purposefully designed to be confusing (They’re legal documents, they’re not supposed to be a light read!). The prime minister was deliberately misquoted to serve your own agenda and to get the crowd riled up (and some of the idiots there soaked up every word that came out of your mouth, regardless of the content). The speakers breezed over important facts, and refused to answer questions (I assume to avoid having their entire platform picked apart beneath them). Also, apparently I have NO RIGHT to live in Canada! Really? So… my 250 years of Scottish Gaelic history in Cape Breton counts for nothing? — Stop Blaming ME, And STOP Taking My Money!
This article appears in Jan 17-23, 2013.
well constructed, i smell the keptin or d’mouth
Well done, paingirl. Tis the Captain’s tirade.
Although it’s been heavily edited and is a couple of weeks late, I appreciate The Coast for posting it.
i scare myself^^
Did they mention misusing treaty rights for financial gain? Did they mention bankrupting the moose population in Cape Breton due to over hunting for profit? Did they mention netting entire rivers for salmon or fishing lobster with no regard to fisheries conservation laws? Did they mention circumventing gaming/gambling laws to their advantage? Did they mention corruption in their local bands, using nepotism to decide who is successful and who isn’t, deciding behind closed doors how money is allocated, and paying their cheifs (and some council members) more than the Prime Minister?
Did they mention that all Native Canadians are afforded a FREE education of their choosing, coupled with the fact they never have to pay taxes? So it truely is FREE!!!
You know what? Our (whitey) way of life has changed. We are no longer farmers, blacksmiths, trappers, etc… It’s time to leave your old ways behind and stop clinging like grim death to an obsolete way of life, and stop blaming everyone else for your own problems. Noone is saying to let your vibrant culture become obsolete, and it should be your pride that keeps it alive not mine and everyone elses money. Only you can stop the cycle of being a “victim”. It’s been hundreds of years and the arguements are still the same.
A “teach-in” is the leftie equivalent of an Evangelical tent revival. Inquiring minds need not apply.
Ya know we could say fine and abide by the treaties as they were written and they could hunt and fish to their desire and live in wigwams and tents. However we are in the modern world. My concern is how the politicians, read chiefs are handling the money. Many do well but there are those that aren’t and it doesn’t get down to their people who wind up living in shit.
I am left but I value the input of right-thinking people because at the end of the day, there will always be a spin put on things by each side. When you take away every bias you are left with the truth.
there is no occam’s razor in this scenario
I smell a Conservative party shill.
YEah, there’s something wrong IMO with hundred+ year old treaties saying you have a right to hunt & fish & them getting in modern high tech fishing boats (for example) & going off & commercial fishing alongside those who have to follow license, governemtn regulations etc to do the same thing !
(which has nothing to do withthem equiping the same boats & ‘leasing’ them to non natives, to work these modern boats ….because they don’t know how to !)
You want 100 + year old rights to stand, then harvest that traditional bounty, using traditional tools & methods.
…and why is there left and right? sometimes the middle is good but i don’t like crowds or unmovers
the keptin does not shill
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘shill’ but I think paingirl is correct, I do not do it.
I am no fan of Stephen Harper, but purposefully misquoting and demonizing someone is deplorable and should not be. Ever
@ IassconeBlastbeats – Wrong. The Captain is about as far from Conservative as you can get. He is informed and passionate and believes in change. He also knows how to question which makes him Idle’s worst enemy. Far more so than narrow minded right-wing knuckle draggers like myself, who, let’s face it, have never been on the target list for a hearts and minds campaign, because we possess neither >; )Aboriginals are far too used to dealing with “allies” who wear their white guilt on their sleeves like a pair of nail holes through their wrists. “Occupy” orphans and radical simpletons who can be easily convinced to cut themselves in the belief that it will be Harper who bleeds.
The Captain is a potential ally of actual value and Idle cannot to afford to alienate people like him, for the sake of tired rhetoric and contrived publicity stunts.
Generals, it seems, are not the only ones to plan for a future campaign, by pretending it will be like past ones.
I think we should all take a step back here before things get out of hand and consider the fact that that Brawdove aka Sexgod guy has slept with over 80 women.
Cheers, Colonel
I appreciate the artillery support.
“When you side with a man, you stay with him. And if you can’t do that, you’re like some animal. You’re finished”
-Pike Bishop – “The Wild Bunch”
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5061368_f520.jpg
i’m guessing that the reason your post was late, keptin, was because the pot had already been stirred
True story, painey
I also think my bitching and moaning in the comments section played a small part 🙂
Threatening to picket The Coast’s offices in your ‘Sexy Pocahontas” costume probably tipped the battle in your favor, Keptin.
Oh you know it!
250 years of Scottish history? time for a good feed of haggis 🙁
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/haggis.…
WHO OWNS CANADA?
“Also, apparently I have NO RIGHT to live in Canada! Really?” Stop Blaming Me
The comments on this thread misconceive the issue surrounding the Idle No More movement. It has nothing to do with “Left” or “Right” positions or the defensive posture adopted by others – see above. It is is quite simple. It is a constitutional issue. It boils down to who owns Canada.
Theresa Spence demanded the presence of the Governor-General as well as the Prime Minister to engage in negotiations. Such negotiations were to be be “nation to nation”. Why? Very simple. According to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 the Crown, of whom the Governor-General is the representative in Canada, guaranteed the title to the lands occupied by the Indian tribes in what had become British North America. If one looks at the territory covered by such treaties it will be seen that they cover nearly the entire land mass of Canada. For the Indians the Proclamation was their constitution. Not the British North America Act of 1867. They do not owe allegiance to Canada. They owe it to the Crown. That is why Theresa Spence demanded the presence of the Governor-General.In negotiations with Canada, it was to be :nation-to-nation.”
So, does the writ of the Crown still run in Canada? The Assembly of First Nations – which must not be confused with the grass-roots movement called “Idle No More” which maintains that the AFN does not represent them – claims that it does. Neither the Indian Act of 1876 nor its subsequent amendments figures in the mix. In effect, there are two sovereign powers in Canada, that of Canada and that of the Indians.
So no “Stop Blaming Me”, maybe you DON’T have any right to live in Canada, particularly if where you live happens to be on Indian territory.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
i have never eaten haggis, can i still wear my colours?
Montreal, very well said. However (and I am aware that very few people will share this view point) I don’t believe in, nor condone, the ownership of land.
Land ownership is, in my opinion, an illusion set in place to propagate power. We were all born with the same inherent rights to live on the earth that we spawned from. Any legalities attached by governments, claiming to own vast territories or resources are false.
No one has the right to own a lake or a forest, no matter how big their army or how long they’ve lived there. We do not live in a world that reflects this view point because the human condition, as we have come to understand it, will not allow us to.
Native Americans thrived on this continent for thousands of years before European imperialists conquered them and systematically destroyed their culture. I can sympathize with a people that have been subjugated by a foreign power but I can not agree that I have no right to live in a place where I was born. I do not pledge any form of loyalty to the queen and neither should they.
When you take away nationalism, racial allegiance, the desire for financial gain, ideology and theocracy you are left with the truth, as I said above. Anything that is not the truth is a lie, no matter how well constructed.
Has anybody ever stopped to wonder just how the Wehrmacht could operate an archeological dig close to Cairo when Egypt in 1936 was a very strategic British colonial possession?
Also, for you English Patient fans, Laszlo Almaszy was gayer than a french trombone.
…and how come nobody has ever produced a 1/72 scale plastic kit of the Flying Wing from Raiders. Geez Loueeeze!
>: (
Thanks for illustrating the problem that faces the government of Canada-vs-Native Canadians, MM. It’s an inrealistic set of guidelines set out in 1763 that is the problem. The world has progressed and become an integration based society, where everyone contributes for the greater good. This segregation mentality is not only counter intuitive, it is also counter productive, and a fundamentally flawed way of thinking. When this act was conceived, I highly doubt that what the government of the day even had a thought of what society would look like 250 years in the future.
Our Constitution is and always has been ever changing and is debated and challenged every day. Maybe we should go back to the days where women can’t vote, drive or have no right to get an education. Maybe we should all still have the right to OWN slaves. Maybe we should bring back prohibition, I bet you would love that one when the police come storming through your door and confiscate your wine collection and put you in jail. Maybe our police chief should be entightled to his yearly tythe of 2 pigs, a cow and a goat. If living the nomadic lifestyle is what the act is there to protect, then lets cut them off financially. Let them live off the land in tipis, let them bow hunt and trade for all their food, and use stone tools to produce the materials to build what they need to survive.
Holding a government and country hostage, by crying racism when anyone suggests any changes to such a “sacred” act, is fueled by fear. Fear of having to face the neglect and dependence of a society in a society. This is something to celebrate? I say off like a bandaid, and watch how quickly those communities will flourish when some responsibility is bestowed upon them. Segregating them and doling out funds that get missused and stolen by a greedy few doesn’t seem to be working. So lets celebrate a new Native society fueled by pride, community, and tenacity.
———————————————————
Do I agree with the government abolishing strict environmental policy surrounding Native Lands to pave the way for big oil? Absoulutely not!!!! That is not only a crime against our Native peoples, but a crime against every single person in this country, and Harper should be beheaded for treason. Changing laws to suit those who contirbute the most to campaign funds is criminal, and should not be tolerated in any way. One should not be able to buy a stake in a country by throwing money at those in charge, and the message that Canada is not for sale should be heard the world over.
unrealistic. fuck sakes!!!
Of course remember the FA are also immigrants to the New World, coming from Asia over the Bering Strait ice bridge, so I guess we’re all in the same boat.
Steve Well said!
I’m becoming a fan of yours Ploopy.
Thanks troodon, I enjoy your comments as well.
I’m staying OUT of this one.
RSVP
: ploopy (01/26, 2:15PM)
Just a couple points. You misconstrued my sense of “owns” when I wrote “Who Owns Canada?” I didn’t mean it in the sense you appear to have done, i.e. as personal property. I meant it in the sense of sovereignty over a nation-state. For example, England is “owned” by the English, the U.S “owned” by the Americans, etc. In other words, a nation state does not exist without the people of that state exercising sovereignty over it. My point was quite simple: According to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Indians were guaranteed title to their lands and culture. However, according to the BNA Act, Canada is a nation-state by virtue of the sovereignty exercised by its people, Canadians. It’s not personal property like owning a pair of shoes.
Second point: You write, “I don’t believe in, nor condone the ownership of property” This is a very old position. It’s called “anarchism” and was most famously expressed by the 19th. century philosopher Joseph Proudhon who proclaimed, “All property is theft!”A very idealistic position no doubt but one which never materialized in reality. One thinks of failed experiments such as Robert Owen’s “New Harmony” in Indiana, of Charles Fourier’s utopian socialism – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” – of the the hippie movement of the ’60” where everyone all sang in perfect three-part harmony, and so on. None lasted.
A final point relates to your concept of “Truth.” You write, “When you take away nationalism, racial allegiance, the desire for financial gain, ideology and theocracy you are left with the truth, as I said above.” The obvious question is, after you have stripped away man’s philosophical, social, economic, political and theological framework, what’s left? In other words, what positive content do you give to your concept of “truth”? Are you even sure that’s even the right word? I don’t think it is.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“after you have stripped away man’s philosophical, social, economic, political and theological framework, what’s left?”
I think you are misconstruing some things here yourself. I said when you take away (ie remove from the equation, not strip away involuntarily and deny a person of) nationalism, racial allegiance, the desire for financial gain, ideology and theocracy.
I didn’t mention anything about removing philosophy or social constructs. “The need for financial gain” is not synonymous with “economy”. There are positive instances around the world that prove you don’t need banks or corporations to run a society. If this thread is still going later I’ll find some links but I’m just about to run out for a bit.
Politics and theology are based on lies and control. There is no other reason for them to exist. I apologize if I’m offending anyone with this statement, particularly where religion is concerned but it is my view point and what I believe to be the truth.
Anyway Montreal, I am well aware that most people do not share my views – you can call it anarchism if you like, though I don’t really consider myself an anarchist by any means.
I’m not really sure what you meant by my “concept of truth” or how to assign “positive content” to it. Truth is simply truth. I may be wrong in my interpretation and you may have a different interpretation of what truth is. But the truth will remain constant one way or the other. It’s difficult to give a specific definition of truth when addressing such a wide array of topics.
I do enjoy discussions like these, though, Motreal and you seem like a very well educated individual. Hopefully we’ll talk more when I’ve got some time.
Cheers!
As a side note, for some reason when I read your comments, it is usually in the voice of that guy from the Princess Bride:
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Daniel Is that you in your profile pic.?If so, I think I saw you last week at 2if by sea in Dart.
RSVP
: ploopy (1/27, 10:46PM)
Well ploopy, let’s take a brief look at your points. You never know, we may achieve consensus.
1. You appear to place great weight on what for me is merely a semantical distinction. When you write to “remove from the equation” and I wrote “strip away” I was just speaking conceptually, i.e., in theory. No “involuntarily denying a person” anything was intended. I simply meant taking away that in terms of which someone grounds their identity. How would you distinguish what you refer to as “ideology” and what I call “philosophy.” Looking over your statements there seems to be a strong, even dogmatic ideological flavour to them which seems to undercut your own position.
2. “‘The ‘need for financial gain’ is not synonymous with ‘economy'”.
But in order to function in a money economy, which is what we have, it seems to me that “financial gain” is an integral part of the economy. I suppose you’re referring to the “Wall Street rapists” and all that but these people need not be the yardstick in terms of which the need for financial gain is measured.
3.”There are positive instances around the world that prove that you don’t need banks or corporations to run a society.”
Are you an economic primitivist? Are you calling for a return to a hunter-gatherer economy or some form of primitive agriculture? Like it or not we live in a mass consumer society in which both banks and corporations are, in fact, necessary. Maybe you’re thinking of abuses that have occurred but to throw out banks and corporations is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And yes, I would be interested in your revealing just what those current “positive instances” that prove that we don’t need corporations and banks might be.
4. “Politics and theology are based on lies and control.”
It seems to me that you are being dogmatic about this. How did you know that? What would you replace politics with? How would you organize your society? And some people need to believe in a superior being. They take great comfort in it. Would you snatch it away? What would you replace theology with? Would it be some sort of secular dictatorship?
5. “… I don’t really don’t consider myself an anarchist by any means.”
Why not? An anarchist believes in precisely the very things that you appear to believe in. Principally these things are your rejection of property, politics and a coherent economic structure.
6. “Truth is simply truth.” What does that mean? In philosophy truth is that which attaches to propositions, not objects. Take what is called “the Tarski sentence.” It goes like this: “The statement ‘snow is white’ is true if and only if snow is white.” In other words, truth doesn’t attach to the snow. It attaches to the statement. You seem to objectify truth as some sort of transcendent object or state of affairs which exists independently of our thinking about it which seems to me to be pretty theological.
7. You’ve got me on the guy from Princess Bride. He sounds like he might be interesting but since I have never heard of him or the show, there’s really nothing I can say, whether true or not.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
didn’t think I’d post but
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbSGMRZsN4Q
Montrealman, way to confuse the hell out of me again. Can you just tell us which side are you on?
P.S. Don’t you eat that yellow snow, it used to be white. I’m also calling bullshit on you having never seen the Princess Bride, liar!!
Was this point on by a university or a student association/union, Captain?
It was hosted by a university, pretty kitty. The speakers were mostly aboriginals, but there was also one Professor from the university, representatives from Solidarity Halifax, an NDP Rep., and at least one student from that university. I didn’t get the impression that a student association/body was as heavily involved as those I mentioned.
Y’all mothafuckas need Carl Sagan.
RSVP
: Sonic Tooth (01/27, 7:25PM)
I’m where I always am. I’m on the side of Truth, Tooth.
In the case of yellow snow, the Tarski sentence would read: “The statement ‘Snow is yellow’ is true if and only if snow is yellow.” But snow is not yellow (at least not where you have passed by) but the Tarski sentence still obtains. In other words, the falsehood “snow is yellow” continues to be a property of the statement (or more properly, the “proposition” as we say in philosophy) not the snow itself. To say, in other words, that snow is true, whether white or yellow, is incoherent.
Not only have I never seen Princess Bride, I have never even heard of it. Is it a TV show? Is it sexually arousing?
Nothing so far from bloopy. He must be working on his response.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Boru
Yes that is me in the profile pic. It would be a pretty cruel prank to put someone else s picture there given how direct I can be sometimes.
montrealman, you know nothing of the truth. You can’t even admit to having seen a movie. You also fabricated a story about 50 Shades of Grey and how you acquired it. Stop letting me down, children used to look up to you. Theres also a revision in Tarski’s and Vaught’s work coming, it will shatter your current beliefs of what a “true sentence” is.
RSVP
: Sonic Tooth (01/28, 1:45PM)
Tooth, how do you know that I know nothing of the truth? That is a simple assertion unsupported by any evidence or reason and it worthy of “Stupidman” himself.
I’m trying to remember when I last saw a movie. Can’t think. That’s because movies bore me so. You sit there like an idiot watching shadows on a screen. You can just feel your brains oozing out of your ear holes.
I never “fabricated” a a story about 50 Shades of Grey, you buffoon. I quoted directly from it including the page number. I also never “fabricated” a story about how I acquired it either. Well, perhaps a little, um, embellishment.
Specify the title and date of your “Tarski and Vaught’s” (Vaught’s?) work. Indicate just how it will “shatter my current beliefs of what a true sentence is.” I might add that the Tarski sentence did not indicate “what a true sentence is” as you mistakenly appear to suppose. Rather, his assertion that “truth” attaches to propositions and not to things. As I previously wrote, the proposition “Snow is true” is incoherent. It is incoherent because it confounds the proper attribute to which truth attaches, i.e., to propositions and not to things. You appear to have failed to grasp this. I put your failure down to a generally diminished cognitive attainment rather to philosophical ignorance which, of course, is patently obvious.
I’m beginning to worry about ploopy. Perhaps he realized that he was out of his depth. Perhaps he realized that he was playing on my court, the poor bugger. Anyway, we’ll keep tuned.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Did you say “playing on your court” to ploopy. Another Blow Me comment, soon you’ll be running the boards too eh? If your confused by my mention of Vaught’s work alongside Tarski’s, then you need some more book learning buddy. And yes, TV and movies are a bleeding cyst on the ovaries of society. While 50 Shades of Grey contributes so greatly to the advancement of the human race. You also admitted to embellishment in one of your tales, how can I ever expect the truth from you now? Your an admitted liar!!! You also focus on my spelling errors, so just to let you know, you typed two a’s in a row. Your always letting me down now, maybe I should lower my expectations of you.
Screaming Fields of Sonic Love
Also, you said “and it worthy of “Stupidman” himself”, you forgot to spell “its”. Who’s looking like your “stupiman” now. And stop being a book word bully!!
Masturbatory outputs montrealman. One of the things you typed is not a sentence as it lacks a verb. God damn eh?
MY, my… a little testy for someone who can’t grasp the difference between “your” and “you’re”, dontcha think, Sonic? Perhaps you can google how not to be an ass!
I was going to find some things to link about how workers kept a factory going in Argentina and bartered their wares to hospitals and schools, etc, i exchange for food, medicine and education for their young but I think I’ve kind of lost interests. Montreal, you keep trying to assign some label to me, I think to make it easier for you to catergorize the things that I believe. But if you were to put any label on me Nihilist would probably be the closest thing there is. Looks like we’ll just have to agree to disagree. And you should download The Princess Bride, if for no other reason, Andre the Giant.
Mr Harper, once again you have made many many typo’s. Just fuel for a weak fire, I just pissed on you, go away. Well don’t really go away because I laugh at you alot.
And Harper, forgot to ask you something. Did you back out of your driveway today?
Again, using the improper word is not a typo. Especially when the mistake becomes a common occurance.
Ol’ Biscuit figures that the Treaties are valid and will always be valid as long as Israel can use The Bible as a basis for its claim to The Holy Land and get away with it, the Purity Law of Germany continues to make some of the freshest brew in the world, the Yanks have their Constitution written in 1776, and until Dr. Seuss changes Green Eggs and Ham to Bland, Colourless Quinoa and Brown Oatmeal.
On the real though, if you hate the Injuns so much then go do something. Take it to them. Your ancestors would be proud 🙂
Don’t let those tax-evading, butt-leggers push you around.
Forgot to mention:
EXCELLENT posts, montrealman (2012)! I know you ask that I add exact citations however I enjoyed them all and hope a simple year-of-publication is sufficient.
Mmmmm – Gotta love those German Purity Laws.
For beer, I mean. Not that other, er, um,… unpleasantness.
Just the beer. That’s it.
RSVPs
: ploopy (01/28, 4:59PM)
Well, ploopy, I can see why you “kind of lost interest.” If I based Canada’s economy on some factory in Argentine that bartered its wares to hospitals and schools I’d have lost interest too. I suspected your claim that you would provide examples of a current barter economy was little more than hot air and, of course, I was right.
I don’t “keep trying to assign some label” to you to make it easier for me to “categorize the things” you believe in. Ploopy, you’ve got to understand that I don’t care in the least about the things you believe in. I’m interested in rational discussion, something that is obviously beyond your abilities. Anyway ploopy, I’m telling you who you are! I (correctly) had you figured out as an anarchist and, of course, nihilism (to which you admit) and anarchism are intimately related. In fact, they conceptually overlap.
And when you say that “we’ll just have to agree to disagree” you make it sound like our views have equal worth. Nothing could be further from the truth. My position is supported rationally, by the force of reasons. Yours is just unsupported piffle.
Download the Princess Bride? You must be joking. Have you celebrated you tenth birthday yet?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
montrealman, you only gave one RSVP to Ploopy. Why did you write RSVP’s? Who said download the Princess Bride? I thought you’d buy it at a store and get hit on and asked for your email, you old player. You had also said “you tenth birthday”, you forgot an R. Nothing from you to me, must be working on a response? I’m beginning to worry about montrealman. Perhaps he realized that he was out of his depth. Perhaps he realized that he was playing on my court, the poor bugger. Anyway, we’ll keep tuned.
Screaming Fields of Sonic Love
Sorry MM, didn’t read Ploopy’s comments, I was anticipating yours too much. But you should buy it, you’ll get some action from the clerks. You could even get an OJ at the mall and get hit on there as well.
RSVP
: Sonic Tooth (01/29, 9:55AM)
You’ve got to read all the comments, Tooth. Read them all over to yourself. Try not to move your lips.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I read out loud, everything sounds better in my voice, even you. You have not actually answered anything I posted. You’ve got to read all the comments, mman. Read them all over to yourself. Try not to move your lips. But thanks for not using a bunch of book words I can’t understand. Also, respond to everything, or nothing. And I did apologize for my mistake, which I caught, there is no need to focus on only that. Is this how you treated your students? Now I want an apology from you over the numerous mistakes you have posted on this thread.
When they were protesting, why couldn’t they use the walkway across the bridge?
Chapter 6 from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, Senor:
“The more traffic you can disrupt, the more important your action will appear on the evening news”
>; )
RSVP
: Sonic Tooth (01é29, 10:26AM)
When I read your posts, Tooth, I feel like I am being drawn down, down into the world of unrelieved psychosis, of stark staring madness. You must try to seek help.
But not from me.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
You can just say that you give up. But no, you have to say it in a fancy book learning way. Perhaps you realized that your out of your depth. Perhaps you realized that you were playing on my court, you poor bugger. Anyway, we’ll keep tuned.
Screaming Fields of Sonic Love
PS- Did you give up on students this easily?
Actually Montreal, I was just stating my opinions, you don’t have to agree with them and I don’t feel the need to prove them to you. To be honest, I didn’t read most of what you wrote. Not looking for your permission to think the way I do. Cheers.
I was going to march up to these tobacco-offering radicals and protest their protest but social media allows me to do that in the comfort of my own cowardice. Anybody wanna go drive around and call random people “phags?”
“Shotgun”
Sorry Bro Tim, but I called it first >; )
RSVP
: ploopy (01/29, 5:35PM)
“Actually Montreal(man), I was just stating my opinions.”
Well yes, ploopy, I realized that, but for any rational conversation to take place one should have REASONS for one’s opinions. In the absence of those REASONS agreement or disagreement doesn’t make sense. You do understand that, don’t you?
Of course you don’t feel the need to “prove” your opinions to me since, being only opinions, any “proof” makes no sense either. If my opinion was that the moon is made of green cheese, I wouldn’t feel the need to prove that to you either, would I? You do understand that, don’t you?
I’m glad you’re being “honest” when you write that you didn’t read “most of what I wrote” since only your ignorance of most of what I wrote could possibly explain the complete vacuity of your responses. You do understand that, don’t you?
Your last sentence is unintelligible. To write that you don’t need my permission to “think” the way you do doesn’t make sense. You are going to “think” the way you do regardless of my permission. My permission plays no role in the way you think and it is incoherent to suggest that it does. You do understand that, don’t you? Finally, do you understand why I put “think” in quotation marks, ploopy? No, I don’t suppose you do.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I’m going to have to help keep MM supplied with quotation marks.
Here:
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
That’s all I can spare right now make sure you tell us if you’re running out.
your generation got blamed for British colonialism? damn op. You’re fucking old, man.