On Sep 10, 9:32 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:08 pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Everyone is free to debate about this, but I won't discuss it with
> > Michael Gordge if he chooses to use personal attacks.
>
> I dont Scott, I never have Scott, I never would Scott, I identify
> things as they exist e.g. I would NEVER identify someone a ****ing
> useless, queer, knuckle-dragging commie Castro arse kissing ****,
> unless all of the evidence points to them being exactly that, ask
> chazzzzzz if you dont believe me.
Yes Scott I can tell you that this is what he thinks he thinks, but he
is mistaken.
He lacks the vision to see the plain evidence before his eyes. He is
very confused.
>
> I would never get so desperate to call someone a sheep ****er,
> especially I would never do it in public hiding behind an unethical
> ****ing cowardly stage name, I have never and I would never wish a
> poster's wife cancer, I have never and I would never threaten to smash
> someone's head in, I have never and I would never write anything at a
> public forum about anyone unless the evidence points to it, nor do I
> without providing my name.
>
> I treat nice people nicely and I do not owe civility to my enemy, nor
> to horrid human s*** e.g. socialists, commies, fascists, so if the cap
> fits Scottt then wear it and go **** yourself.
>
> Oh and how ****ing dare you start a thread with a stupid unjustified
> attempt to try and control the way I speak and deal with ****ing
> s***.
>
> I dont give two ****s that you dont have the ****ing courage of your
> cowardly Kantian queeer and stupid irrational contradicting
> convictions Scott, when you write your crap here then I will hold you
> responsible with the use of my words, you got that?
>
> > Kant gives us an example in an attempt to illustrate how we cannot
> > know things in themselves.
>
> That statement now exists as "a thing" in itself, therefore applied to
> itself, it is statement that cant be known in itself, can you work out
> why?
Yes we all know why: it is because you are a ****-wit.
>
> Kant steals concepts, he wants and needs "things" to have more than
> one meaning, he steals concepts and gives them his very own invented
> stupid meaning to suit his dopey epistemology.
Wow - he height of sartorial elegance: "dopey". Gosh I bow down to
your amazingly astute philosophical knowledge.
>
> > First of all, I consider three lines to be objects, not concepts.
>
> Then define them, but you'll have to pretend you're not talking to me.
That is easy enough as you fail miserably to be able to see the
concepts that you disagree with and simply ignore them.
>
> Michael Gordge
|
