Abdul's official "The past is a foreign country" thread.

[xouper]

You keep using that eyeroll smilie, you're gonna wear it out Xoup! :)

So you admit I'm not really on your ignore list. Well done.

Wrong again my friend: You are on ignore. But when it gets interesting, I occasionally open you posts manually just to follow the torrent of bullshit! :)

In other words, you don't really have me on ignore. Why do you bother reading my posts if you don't like them? Just so you can heckle me? Is that your hobby now? Is that the reputation you want here, to be known as a heckler, like certain others here?

[xouper]

Now xouper can explain to everyone how me, posting old glory, on 9 /11 in the UK, as a Mark of respect which was explained, on this thread, is trolling.

His desperate weasling should be fun.

I already explained it.

You only "explained" your post after you got caught posting it in the wrong thread. Given your long history of trolling the forum and otherwise behaving like a dillweed, that's all the explanation needed.

You are a grotty little cunt that has openly disrespected the victims of 9/11. You feculent little piece of turd.

People who can't win the argument on the merits often resort to name calling, like you just did here. Well played. :roll:

[sparks]

:roll:

[xouper]

:roll:

[Hotarubi]

Now xouper can explain to everyone how me, posting old glory, on 9 /11 in the UK, as a Mark of respect which was explained, on this thread, is trolling.

His desperate weasling should be fun.

I already explained it.

You only "explained" your post after you got caught posting it in the wrong thread. Given your long history of trolling the forum and otherwise behaving like a dillweed, that's all the explanation needed.

You are a grotty little cunt that has openly disrespected the victims of 9/11. You feculent little piece of turd.

People who can't win the argument on the merits often resort to name calling, like you just did here. Well played. :roll:

Yet it was you that started the name calling.

Game. Set. Match.

Let's see the temper of a bad loser.

[xouper]

:roll: :roll:

[Hotarubi]

Fuck off, troll.

Hahaha.

It really isn't difficult to dismantle your weak trolling.

[xouper]

It really isn't difficult to dismantle your weak trolling.

https://xoup.net/img/thumbs-down-64x64.png

You haven't dismantled anything except your own reputation here.

[Hotarubi]

Remember, calling people names harms your reputation.

Fuck off, troll.

#winningmorewitheverypost

[xouper]

Remember, calling people names harms your reputation.

And yet you keep doing it.

[Doctor X]

Thank you. I'll ignore the disrespectful attention seeker.

Thus am I poor!

– J. "Gold is Honorable!" D.

[Hotarubi]

Remember, calling people names harms your reputation.

And yet you keep doing it.

After you started it as evidenced in this thread. Hypocrite.

You can't beat me, son. I'm too good. That's what annoys you isn't it.

[xouper]

Remember, calling people names harms your reputation.

And yet you keep doing it.

After you started it as evidenced in this thread. Hypocrite.

You can't beat me, son. I'm too good. That's what annoys you isn't it.

Nope, what I did was not name-calling.

You are in fact a troll. And you keep demonstrating that fact.

[Hotarubi]

Remember, calling people names harms your reputation.

And yet you keep doing it.

After you started it as evidenced in this thread. Hypocrite.

You can't beat me, son. I'm too good. That's what annoys you isn't it.

Nope, what I did was not name-calling.

You are in fact a troll. And you keep demonstrating that fact.

And you keep demonstrating every charge I level at you Is a fact too.

You remain a weak troll and hypocrite.

[xouper]

:roll:

[Doctor X]

I am not sure I crave the ordeal necessary to endure the explanation as to how posting a commemoration is "trolling."

– J.D.

[xouper]

I am not sure I crave the ordeal necessary to endure the explanation as to how posting a commemoration is "trolling."

– J.D.

I already explained it.

Here it is again: It was not originally identified as a "commemoration". Not of 9/11 or anything else. Also, there was no obvious connection to 9/11. None at all. In fact, there was no explanation at all what it was supposed to mean.

So the obvious inference is that it somehow relates to the topic of the thread: "The past is a foreign country". Combine that with the fact that the person who posted it often trolls the forum with anti-American bullshit, and the primary inference to be made becomes obvious.

To prevent that obvious contextual inference, an explanation is necessary, but was intentionally not given (until later after having been called out on it). And if the explanation is that it commemorates the anniversary of 9/11, then it was posted in the wrong place and time for that to be an obvious inference.

I apologize if anyone feels this explanation has put them through some sort of "ordeal". Perhaps next time, don't suggest or imply I have no valid explanation.

[Doctor X]

Since the explanation proved wanting, I recognized further inquiry as an obvious necessity.

I received, instead, the claim that a personal inference must be recognized as "obvious" when, curiously, no one else made this "obvious" inference. The basis of the personal inference then proved nothing more than the personal prejudice against another that does not derive from the history of that person.

It proves rather unfortunately curious. Turning around this "explanation," one could counter that one should expect the person to post a picture of the Taliban flag, or various Taliban members mocking the raising of the flag on Mt. Suribachi . . . Surabachi . . . Iwa Jima, et cetera if he actually wished to "troll" the anniversary of 9/11. One should, I think, expect a history of the person previously mocking 9/11 akin to the Cunt mocking the American reaction to the terrorist bombings of the Boston Marathon.

Yet such does not exist.

More unfortunate, is one could simply ask for an explanation. When one was volunteered, it was dismissed as post facto, which proves even more curious since if the individual in question behaved as is claimed is so "obvious," one would expect him, like Wanda, to chortle and cum over the reaction to his prejudice as she did consistently.

Yet this did not happen.

I will note, en passant, the 90 minute IPA helped with the ordeal. "Lubrication."

Further libation will prove necessary to ease the tenesmus caused by the rather unfortunate conclusion that one has accused another of something so disgusting, so reprehensible, without evidence.

https://i.imgur.com/kqYoKdm.jpg

"And I have nothing more to say."

– J. "I Am Very Good . . . with Pain!" D.

[Hotarubi]

I am not sure I crave the ordeal necessary to endure the explanation as to how posting a commemoration is "trolling."

– J.D.

I already explained it.

Here it is again: It was not originally identified as a "commemoration". Not of 9/11 or anything else. Also, there was no obvious connection to 9/11. None at all. In fact, there was no explanation at all what it was supposed to mean.

So the obvious inference is that it somehow relates to the topic of the thread: "The past is a foreign country". Combine that with the fact that the person who posted it often trolls the forum with anti-American bullshit, and the primary inference to be made becomes obvious.

To prevent that obvious contextual inference, an explanation is necessary, but was intentionally not given (until later after having been called out on it). And if the explanation is that it commemorates the anniversary of 9/11, then it was posted in the wrong place and time for that to be an obvious inference.

I apologize if anyone feels this explanation has put them through some sort of "ordeal". Perhaps next time, don't suggest or imply I have no valid explanation.

You still have no valid explanation other "jumping to a conclusion" using Zero critical thinking ability.

Even after it was explained you were flat out wrong, you continued, using the aforementioned critical thinking ability
to insist you were right.

Grow up, child.

[xouper]

Since the explanation proved wanting, I recognized further inquiry as an obvious necessity.

I received, instead, the claim that a personal inference must be recognized as "obvious" when, curiously, no one else made this "obvious" inference.

He says without evidence.

A proper application of skepticism would legitimately conclude that mere lack of someone posting about it does not mean no one here had those thoughts, but decided not to comment publicly.

Furthermore, there was no evidence whatsoever that the original post was about 9/11, neither for nor against, nor did I infer that he was mocking 9/11. I only inferred he was mocking the American flag, since the post only showed an American flag with no explanation. Nothing at all about 9/11. In fact it was posted on September 10 (in New York where 9/11 happened).

One could of course ask for an explanation, but usually it is pointless to ask a known troll for such a thing. Would you ask "The Atheist" for an explanation if something he posts seems ambiguous? No, because you already know he is a troll.

This is what happens when a person gets a reputation as a troll, as Hotarubi has. Several people have previously stated they have him on ignore for exactly that reason.

[xouper]

I am not sure I crave the ordeal necessary to endure the explanation as to how posting a commemoration is "trolling."

– J.D.

I already explained it.

Here it is again: It was not originally identified as a "commemoration". Not of 9/11 or anything else. Also, there was no obvious connection to 9/11. None at all. In fact, there was no explanation at all what it was supposed to mean.

So the obvious inference is that it somehow relates to the topic of the thread: "The past is a foreign country". Combine that with the fact that the person who posted it often trolls the forum with anti-American bullshit, and the primary inference to be made becomes obvious.

To prevent that obvious contextual inference, an explanation is necessary, but was intentionally not given (until later after having been called out on it). And if the explanation is that it commemorates the anniversary of 9/11, then it was posted in the wrong place and time for that to be an obvious inference.

I apologize if anyone feels this explanation has put them through some sort of "ordeal". Perhaps next time, don't suggest or imply I have no valid explanation.

You still have no valid explanation other "jumping to a conclusion" using Zero critical thinking ability.

Even after it was explained you were flat out wrong, you continued, using the aforementioned critical thinking ability
to insist you were right.

Grow up, child.

Bullshit.

[Doctor X]

One who could not provide a rational explanation to rehabilitate his prejudice would, naturally, blame those who ask for a rational explanation for his failure.

One who pretends to critical thinking would realize and accept his error.

As the venerable sergeant-major and "Chosen Man" would advise:

There's no shame being born in the shite, lads, but there's ever so much for wanting to stay in it.

– Sgt. Maj. Patrick Harper, 94th Rifles, South Essex

– J. "I Provide Balance" D.

[xouper]

One who could not provide a rational explanation to rehabilitate his prejudice would, naturally, blame those who ask for a rational explanation for his failure.

One who pretends to critical thinking would realize and accept his error.

Ipsi Dixit and incorrect.

Also, no one has shown any error in my explanation.

[Doctor X]

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam and quite incorrect.

We are not responsible for another's inability to provide evidence to justify his prejudice and claims based solely on that prejudice.

It is not terribly complicated.

– J. "You are Not Important!" D.

[Hotarubi]

It proves rather unfortunately curious. Turning around this "explanation," one could counter that one should expect the person to post a picture of the Taliban flag, or various Taliban members mocking the raising of the flag on Mt. Suribachi . . . Surabachi . . . Iwa Jima, et cetera if he actually wished to "troll" the anniversary of 9/11. One should, I think, expect a history of the person previously mocking 9/11 akin to the Cunt mocking the American reaction to the terrorist bombings of the Boston Marathon.

I believe some unscrupulous asshole berated said cunt at some point in the past.

Seasoned posters will recall, that I have on several (many) occasions posted about my affection for the USA! USA! and its people. Xoupers remarkably stupid claim about "my history" on such subjects is also, provably, galactically wrong.

But hey, he's right because, like, unacceptable time zone.

https://i.ibb.co/BLkh6wT/CHINA-1-super-Jumbo.jpg
:(

[Doctor X]

How dares he, how dares he, post a picture of an IRA Terrorist™ on this anniversary of the Marathon Bombings!

MONTHS AFTER!!!

– J.D.

P.S. Here is the sad truth: people will disagree. That they do does not make either anathema. While I joke, I make the analogy seriously when I do, it is as if discourse has degenerated into the basest form of Sports Rivalry. In response to my Humble – Yet MagNIfIcent – Inquiry, I was given a huge argumentum ad ignorantiam. There is all of this "evidences" of "anti-American bullshit," yet, for some reason, he could provide no examples.

Rather like the sockpuppet who claims there is so much lots of really tremendous amounts of evidences – thanks – for his claims disproven by actual evidence he need not provide any.

I am reminded of an actual bar conversation I had with a MFY fan about the whole "Red Sox MFYankee" rivalry. He described it thusly:

Jeter sucks!

Why?

Because he sucks!

Nomar sucks!

No! Jeter sucks!

Why?

Because he sucks!

In odd serendipity [What? – Ed.] I listened to a former Red Sox player who quipped that, during Jeter's heyday in the late 90's, Nomar had "better numbers." Apparently he did. At least he could provide the numbers. He was joking. He was playing on the whole "NoMAH verses Jetes" debate, such as it was. The bottom line is Jeter kept playing because some steroid saturated purse waving "it's not about the money" took care of his right side and "NomAH" did not. Jeter accumulated the stats, and rings, the Nomar did not.

It is rather like some fool who tried to claim Johnny Unitas was better than Tom Brady. Or the octogenarians who quote their grandfathers about how "Battlin' Dave Sisterraper" of the "Kansas City N[CENSORED – Ed.]r Lynchers" "would've BUNTED with a man on third and two outs!"

The "Bunt Brigade." Somehow they survive Covid.

In sports it is "funny." I know of a Sports Dude who prank called his own station demanding, in an elderly voice, that they solve a debate with his grandson:

He says baseball is 53% pitching, but I say it's 61%!

This is reality.

It is rather sad that it is.

Particularly on a skeptic board.

A process it is not.

With a poor attempt to match Japanese dialogue.

In the rain.

– J.D.

[xouper]

:roll:

[Hotarubi]

In odd serendipity [What? – Ed.] I listened to a former Red Sox player who quipped that, during Jeter's heyday in the late 90's, Nomar had "better numbers." Apparently he did. At least he could provide the numbers. He was joking. He was playing on the whole "NoMAH verses Jetes" debate, such as it was. The bottom line is Jeter kept playing because some steroid saturated purse waving "it's not about the money" took care of his right side and "NomAH" did not. Jeter accumulated the stats, and rings, the Nomar did not.

Just reminded me about the slightly-larger-than-small chuckle I had about Captain Intangibles' non-unanimous HoF vote.

As for Xouper, I think he's ready for his close up.

"Bigger than peanut butter!"

[robinson]

Overbreeding religious crazies with atomic weapons.

Red China? looks great with white bedsheets.

[Doctor X]

He is still big; the internet got small.

– J.D.

[Fid]

Boy howdy, this thread turned to shit fast.

[Hotarubi]

Boy howdy, this thread turned to shit fast.

Quite clear who is responsible.

[Doctor X]

– J. "But it Looks Good on You!" D.

[Pyrrho]

@HaggardHawks
Slang names for pickpockets include FIG-BOY (1500s), BUNG-NIPPER (1600s), HOISTER (1700s), BUZZGLOAK (1800s), CLY-FAKER (1800s), FOGLE-HUNTER (1800s), and PRAT-DIGGER (1930s).

[sparks]

Bung-Nipper.

Indeed. :)

Must have had a past life in the 1600s. (If I bought into such tripe...)

[DJ]

Bung-Nipper.

Indeed. :)

Must have had a past life in the 1600s. (If I bought into such tripe...)

I had you for a buzzgloak. :wink:

[Pyrrho]

https://i.imgur.com/A1ArgVm.jpg

[Grammatron]

https://i.redd.it/1cg0vxygdwq71.jpg

[robinson]

That's still a great feature

[Pyrrho]

https://i.imgur.com/MW5mQiP.jpg