Quote from hapaboy:
Instead of dissecting your ramblings line by line as I usually do, I instead ran your latest post through my Sony Bombast Decoder and have concluded the following:
1) You're upset.
2) You're upset because you cannot effectively articulate your reasoning - in fact you refuse to - without further exposing your flaws. As such, you are reduced solely to ad hominem attacks and pathetic attempts at elitism to escape the need to clarify your reasoning.
But that's just my opinion, and as we both know, opinions by nature cannot be proved or disproved.
In any event, rational debating between us is not possible, at least not on this subject. I do not think it ever was. So we are left with this flame war which could go on forever if we wanted it to. We could exchange insults ad nauseum and neither of us will change his opinion of the other. You will forever consider me, among other things, an artless, unoriginal coward and "military idiot." I will always think you to be an ignorant, immature, callous spoiled brat cursed with horrendous English skills and an ego that far exceeds actual talent, if any.
It is all very tedious and a waste of both our time. I hope that at least you'll agree with me on that score.
I don't find it to be a waste of my time, I rather enjoy it and look forward to your posts. Conduct whatever psycho-analysis you wish.
I have effectively articulated my reasoning, but you wish to ignore facts when reality don't support your intentions.
I wholly believe myself to be a better writer than you, and so I'm upset that: you refuse to acknowledge your inability of creativity; you refuse to acknowledge my defined and unassailable
artistic superiority.
How can you, with a logical mind, actually write that I'm a bad writer and you a better writer than me? You backed down from my challenges using infantile remarks. You refuse to attempt to compete with me on a creative level. You childishly and unabashedly use my ideas as substance for your invectives against me.
This is another good example of why your insecurities make my insecurities seem trivial: you've no self-esteem. furthermore, this is also a good example of your inability to comprehend logic.
Do you truly wonder why I ended the debate on dead children? You're incapable of conclusions that are unfavorable for you. You're incapable of deducing properly. Thus, you're incompetent.
These aren't flames, or ad hominen remarks, but are statements which have supportable facts which I've accomplished through arguing with you.
I feel the need to reiterate which is why you'll find that the above statements are recurring. I restate these ideas for the purpose of your understanding. I hope that they may help you with your introspection. I mean nothing but the best for you.
If you had the courage to support your invectives with actual substance then I would possibly think differently of you. Because you refuse to meet my writing, and other, challenges, I find that you're in fact trite, and a coward who is incapable of any real substance.
You have given no information that disputes the previous statement. I have a multitude of reasons that support the above statements.
