Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • There's a much better reason to not pay any attention to pudge. That is that he's boring and shrill. He repeats the same arguments over and over again, presumably in the mistaken belief that spouting the same tired verbiage over and over again will make people believe him. That might work for the idiot masses, but it doesn't work for an intelligent audience. I expect that he knows this and he just wants attention.

    My mother told me that ignoring such people would make them give up and go away. Online at least it really works. Yay /ignore!

    • Wow, and you call him shrill?

    • Yeah, when you ignore him, he thinks he won, and he finally stops. Just let him have the last word. You can't ignore someone unless they get the last word.

      http://use.perl.org/~pudge/journal/23556 [perl.org]
      • Heh, you didn't know who Che Guevara was. It is common knowledge among everyone who's studied him, that he as a racist. I didn't "win" because you didn't respond, I "won" because I made an obviously true statement. I'm not the one who said "The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving ..." that was Guevara.
        • See, pudge, you had to get the last word! And please recall how I pointed out that you often take some minor point and drive on that, while leaving the major points unresponded to? You never responded to where "Bush" was the topic of the original post, and now you do this Che thing. Many months later, you choose to put out an incomplete purported quote with no citation as demonstrating the Che Guevara is a racist. I suppose that an uncited incomplete quote more determines a man as a racist than a trip t
          • See, pudge, you had to get the last word!

            You mean, I responded to your ad hominem attack against me by addressing your false allegations? Gasp, how dare I?

            And please recall how I pointed out that you often take some minor point and drive on that, while leaving the major points unresponded to?

            And please recall how what you pointed out is absolutely false?

            You never responded to where "Bush" was the topic of the original post

            Sorry. False.

            and now you do this Che thing.

            That thing that doesn't do what you said
            • But pudge, you did not respond to the content of my alleged ad hominem attack. That failure would tend to support my assertion. I am ready for your response to the content of the alleged attack, in part because I am not sure which attack you refer to.

              Now, on Bush, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I refer to "Is the word Bush there in TorgoX's post?". You seem to say you dealt with that, and honestly, I do not see where. Now maybe that is stupid of me- I can not even find you dealing
              • But pudge, you did not respond to the content of my alleged ad hominem attack.

                It was devoid of content,

                That failure would tend to support my assertion.

                No, it wouldn't. That's a logical fallacy.

                I am ready for your response to the content of the alleged attack, in part because I am not sure which attack you refer to.

                The one where you attack the very fact that I respond to you.

                Now, on Bush, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I refer to "Is the word Bush there in TorgoX's post?". You seem to
                • I really wish I had time to respond to all this good stuff, but the job of responding keeps getting bigger and bigger. But I am prepared to be made to look foolish on one point.

                  "Where I argued that his implication was obvious."

                  I read the posts. I searched for "implication" and "obvious". And I assert that your argument is not there. A link that shows me that it is there will show me to be careless and a time waster. I will humbly apologize.
                  • Ah, I see. I was arguing with phillup in that discussion too, and he linked to the discussion which explained it (although in a slightly different context). I took his posting of that link [perl.org] as the explanation.

                    There's history behind that discussion, which is why it is so short. But considering I was responding to phillup, I at that point considered the complaint answered. I now realize that was insufficient for you.

                    So to be clear: TorgoX was endorsing the quote, which directly referenced Bush by referring
                    • To be clear: I take it that I do not have to humbly apologize and this topic does not show me to be a time waster, because your argument is not there. Apparently another arugment about another quote is somewhere else, however, and that might have been sufficient for me. Your new arugment in the recent post (new at least to me, after having done all I can to follow your posts in this area, and please make a citation if it is not new, but found somewhere I missed) is that:

                      The use of the term "ownership soc
                    • "THIS STRANGE TWENTIETH CENTURY

                      The worst of my asthma attack is over and I feel almost all right, though now and again I resort to my new acquisition, a French inhaler. It's extraordinary how much I miss Alberto. It's as if my flanks are unprotected from a hypothetical attack. I'm always turning round to tell him something and then I realize he's not there.

                      Well, there's not much to complain ahout: painstakingly well looked after, good food in ahundance and the expectation of going home to start my studies a
                    • To be clear: I take it that I do not have to humbly apologize

                      I could not care less whether you apoloigize.

                      and this topic does not show me to be a time waster, because your argument is not there.

                      Well, yes, it is. You just didn't recognize it, which I cannot and did not fault you for.

                      The use of the term "ownership society" is the code phrase that allows us to know why TorgoX posted Mr. Buffett's quote- to disparage Bush- right?

                      Part of it. Also TorgoX's own call for replacing the US government. Also familia
                • "No, there is no such doubt, actually."

                  But pudge, google showed me:

                  http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2141593 [stormfront.org]

                  Quoting from which:

                  "Last but not least...Che Guevara, the ultimate anal icon:

                  "The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese."

                  "The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; th
                  • I doubt, pudge, I doubt! Help me! I asked for help earlier and you only got more insistent of your correctness.

                    False. My level of insistence has remained constant.

                    Since you are now insisting that google is my friend and there is no doubt, what are we to conclude?

                    That you read too much into those statements, believing I was implying they would provide you proof, instead of merely implying that they would help lead you to the proof you want?

                    I suppose if we were to conclude you were wrong about the infallibil
    • That is that he's boring and shrill. He repeats the same arguments over and over again, presumably in the mistaken belief that spouting the same tired verbiage over and over again will make people believe him.

      Wow. You sure are stupid.

      That might work for the idiot masses, but it doesn't work for an intelligent audience.

      Oh which you obviously are not a member.

      I expect that he knows this and he just wants attention.

      Yes, you expect that, because you're stupid.

      Seriously. None of what you said above has any bea