"Lord, please make my enemies ridiculous." -Voltaire
I can think of no finer introduction, so I shall leave it at that and point out your idiocy for all to see, line by line.
I have not 'depicted' Shankar; I have 'mocked' his ideas.
At first, I was going to criticize your use of the term 'devil's advocate', but now that I look at it, it makes sense. With this post, you've made a complete ass of yourself, and by proxy, Shankar as well.
Why shouldn't I show contempt towards someone's grotesquely warped view of what is 'good'?
Learn to spell 'righteous'.
I have made several astute observations, and in only two of those prior to this post have I introduced a quote to make a point. In one more post, I turned a source quoted by Shankar back upon him. You have most insufficient grounds to accuse me of expressing opinions solely through others' words. Not that it matters, of course. Why shouldn't I credit the worthy men who have written before me? As I said to Shankar, your worship of originality is unoriginal.
My writing is indeed demonstrably superior to Shankar's - and yours. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.
My alleged feigning nonchalance is wholly unrelated to the concept of the rest of that sentence. You're trying to point out a contradiction between my seeming indifference and my wasting of time here, and it doesn't work. Illiterate peasant, I expressed indifference to the possibility of changing any minds. The fact that I am here demonstrates that I am _not_ indifferent to the argument itself. The two are separate and unrelated concepts.
How have I meddled with anyone's private affairs? This is a blog. It is, by definition, public.
I thank you for acknowledging my remarks as being 'trenchant'. I agree wholeheartedly...though I suspect that you did not intend the compliment. Learn to use the word properly.
And now, we've seen who is worthier. Get lost, amateur.
I can think of no finer introduction, so I shall leave it at that and point out your idiocy for all to see, line by line.
I have not 'depicted' Shankar; I have 'mocked' his ideas.
At first, I was going to criticize your use of the term 'devil's advocate', but now that I look at it, it makes sense. With this post, you've made a complete ass of yourself, and by proxy, Shankar as well.
Why shouldn't I show contempt towards someone's grotesquely warped view of what is 'good'?
Learn to spell 'righteous'.
I have made several astute observations, and in only two of those prior to this post have I introduced a quote to make a point. In one more post, I turned a source quoted by Shankar back upon him. You have most insufficient grounds to accuse me of expressing opinions solely through others' words. Not that it matters, of course. Why shouldn't I credit the worthy men who have written before me? As I said to Shankar, your worship of originality is unoriginal.
My writing is indeed demonstrably superior to Shankar's - and yours. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.
My alleged feigning nonchalance is wholly unrelated to the concept of the rest of that sentence. You're trying to point out a contradiction between my seeming indifference and my wasting of time here, and it doesn't work. Illiterate peasant, I expressed indifference to the possibility of changing any minds. The fact that I am here demonstrates that I am _not_ indifferent to the argument itself. The two are separate and unrelated concepts.
How have I meddled with anyone's private affairs? This is a blog. It is, by definition, public.
I thank you for acknowledging my remarks as being 'trenchant'. I agree wholeheartedly...though I suspect that you did not intend the compliment. Learn to use the word properly.
And now, we've seen who is worthier. Get lost, amateur.
Reply
Leave a comment