Did DB and the Price Action Scribblers Throw in the Towel?

der_kommissar said:
It calls into question that "integrity" pillar you so proudly stand on. More like a lying sack of shit...to be blunt.
More...
You are an idiot. I have never denied leaning center left. Why would I? I'm proud of it. Meanwhile, shouldn't you be posting your agreement in anti-black threads in P&R and, no doubt, on Stormfront? Surely they're worried about your absence.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
You are an idiot. I have never denied leaning center left. Why would I? I'm proud of it. Meanwhile, shouldn't you be posting your agreement in anti-black threads on Stormfront? Surely they're worried about your absence.
More...

No one is questioning your "leftism". That is crystal clear. The larger point is that you re-appeared after a few years with your 4th alias and took immediate offense at being labelled as another "sock puppet" alias....which it turns out you were!
 
der_kommissar said:
No one is questioning your "leftism". That is crystal clear. The larger point is that you re-appeared after a few years with your 4th alias and took immediate offense at being labelled as another "sock puppet" alias....which it turns out you were!
More...
I have only ever had one username at any given time. So how is that a "sock puppet?"

As for my taking "immediate offense," you continue to live in a world of your own making. I merely respond in kind.
 
That other poster did not merely make an observation, as I had in my initial post. He sought to insult as well. "Sock puppet" is hardly a term of endearment. Was it because my initial comment in this thread was that of a drone? I don't think so. It was a considered opinion in the face of the available evidence presented thus far. When he decided to discuss apparel, why then, so did I.

Justified or unjustified, you are taking leaps. Rather than considering and commenting on the content of my innocuous 3- or 4-sentence post, you immediately sought to determine its source. It was just a couple of sentences or so. Was it really that hard to consider the content at face?

It's okay to have your own opinion and take sides. That's what this forum is about. But please don't try to pass yourself off as an arbiter. However you may try to cloak it, what you invariably express is opinion and bias. And that's okay. Except for the cloaking part. Because a cloak is an item of apparel, and that brings us back to Square Two, my initial post being Square One
More...

As your buddy Ricter would say, "affected"
 
Frederick Foresight said:
I own up to disagreeing with the content. I don't whine about the form when I don't like the content and then remain silent regarding the same form when I do like the content. It's a matter of integrity.
More...

Please show me some examples of your disagreements with Ricter, Spike, DB, etc..
 
Frederick Foresight said:
I noticed how you failed to show the link for context. Even though it shows up automatically (the little arrow in the red circle) if you copy the post properly...
More...

So is that your attempt to "disown" your words? That is one of your "tells". Whenever caught in one of your lies, you fall back on the "picayune".
 
Tsing Tao said:
Please show me some examples of your disagreements with Ricter, Spike, DB, etc..
More...

Exactly. The crowd of "attaboy's" and groupthink.

I'm still waiting for one of these leftist's to "break the script" and actually make a critical comment about a policy or action that they don't agree with...but it never happens...
 
Tsing Tao said:
Please show me some examples of your disagreements with Ricter, Spike, DB, etc..
More...
I seldom disagree with them, if ever. However, and I will say this again, I don't criticize the form someone else posts in when it is the content I don't like. I'm up front about it and don't resort to artifice. Is it that hard for you to comprehend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top