~~~ Could You Sell EVERY Possession You Own? ~~~

[Lakin]

NO CHICKEN TONIGHT . I GOT HIM ON THE RUN

[Arising_uk]

Was it not Duszek who cast the first stone ? Yes I think so, but because you are a propagandist Judeo Christian relic of a philosopher (tin pot version) you have the licence to rearrange events, positions, orientations and all the figments of objective truth so that it appears that Duszek is the victim and I am the aggressor.

'Cast the first stone'? 'victim' and 'aggressor' how very judeo-christian of you.

Unfortunately for you the events are there for all to check and the fact is that the only stone that duszek cast was to engage with you. That he got in the way of your imaginary power games was his misfortune.

Duszek launched a sock puppet attack from the flanks and was duly slapped in the face and now you invoke his name because you are looking for allies in your petulant personal war against Bill Wiltrack.

Please stop imputing your motivations upon me. Bill writes a pleasant nature upon this forum and has engaged with duszek about depression and bullying but when he sees such he applauds purely because most of it was an attack upon me. Keep it up as you're doing him no favours but then you're not here for that are you.

As they say, If you can't stand the heat ,get out of the kitchen.

I'm a fair cook so no worries there.

That applies to you and that dullard Duszek whose third language is not English but "thinking".

Incoherent babble.

As usual you offer no substantive reply to any questions or points but just employ evasion and misdirection. All the hallmarks of the interweeb troll in fact.

Still, won't be long before you once again self-destruct and get banned. Woof! Woof! Eh! Pooch.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




...just...just so we're clear, I've done nothing but defend you throughout the years.



You have such a short memory...





.

[Arising_uk]

"Lacking".

Once again no substantive replies to my questions or any of the points I raise.

How would you know this Mr Philosopher?

I've told you, unlike you, I don't consider myself as such nor do I think myself an academic, just educable.

I said you had no graduate qualification and I know this because I have one or two, because of your lies about yourself in your introduction and because you do not say what you graduate qualification is. Tell me this and let's see if you can have the ring of truth.

My erudition is clearly greater than yours and you claim to have an Hons degree.

Not claim, have.

By comparison I should have a doctorate .

You said you did?

I know more about philosophy than you and I don't even have a qualification in the subject.

Then answer my questions.

No one here has called your work outstanding ...

You're right! I only got a 2:1.

Is that why you're here? To get a pat on the head from the likes of Bill?

and as far as I can see and
where is your contribution to philosophy here ?

Demonstrating that those who cannot answer simple questions no not of what they talk about.

Not one genuine original post and in fact where are your posts except your back biting
excursions into the posts of other forum members for years.

Looks like they all got deleted as the mods wiped everything except the past couple of years. But even back when I first joined I rarely initiated a post as once you've done a degree in the subject you realise that you have little to say thats not been said. If I ever do get a genuinely reasonably original idea then I'll be taking a Phd thanks.

Your standard of writing is poor and semi literate.

Nah! It's not, it's natural. As I'm not writing propaganda nor channelling another's ideas for my self-aggrandizement.

And is it not curious that you claim to have a degree from a college which no longer exists?

Only if you wish to impute something nefarious to my motives and cast doubt upon my character, which you obviously do. But since the Polytechnic system was replaced I find myself in the same position as thousands of others. Good job I've still got the bit of paper isn't it.

Still, not as curious as someone claiming to be a DPhil from Oxford, sorry Cambridge, no Oxford.

And you talk about my psychology of bitterness when the most bitter manifestation here is
The Chicken. The bile is enough to blot out the sun.
You are angry because you are unemployed and live in a bed-sit and are an abject failure in life. You have no qualifications and so you occupy this virtual world where your virtual qualifications can go unchallenged ,so you think.

At 53 I've experienced most of what you say at one time or the other, except for the bit about virtual qualifications as having those bits of paper took hard-work and sacrifice ironically leading to some of the above but I sleep soundly knowing it was worth it just to annoy such as you. Your words are why I think you a troll, an academic failure at the graduate level and a young bourgeois twat to boot.

You inability to understand Schopenhauer' s synthesis of philosophy exposed you as a charlatan .

Not really, it just shows that after twenty five odd years you forget stuff. Especially when it was a small section of the course as back then no-one took the Continentals that seriously in philosophy, academically that is.

Your cross examinations of Bill Wiltrack are plainly childish in their grammatical construction and import. Your puerile argument, than the man has not engaged with his minimalist world view, is not so much absurd as a concept (although it is silly) but it is the absurd gravity which you attach to it.

Not really, as I think that those who proclaim a 'philosophy' should live by it.

This is how children conduct arguments not adults with degrees in philosophy.

How would you know? As you admit to no such status.

Experience has shown that Bill has no intention of allowing reason to enter his thoughts just as you have no intention of assisting him to think about what he says. You're just on this bandwagon to promote your 'power play' upon this forum to satisfy your own grandiosity. Me, I just oppose what he says upon principle as I have no wish to see such guff promoted as philosophy. Now you can once again say 'But Schopenhauer did this!' and all I can say is that he didn't promote anti-reason as he'd not have postulated his FPSR.

It would not be so bad if your attacks were funny but they are menacing
in nature. You just come across as a bitter drop out from society who garners power
by wading into people on a forum.

You are an idiot as there is no power in such a sense. Although you obviously think so, hence your attacks upon me. When it comes to menacing I think your past PM's to other members fit the bill.

What a complete waste of space you are to the community.

Nice try but your psycho-babble is wasted upon me and I'll leave it to the community to put me upon ignore if they wish. Although I can't remember the last time I was banned but think you have that honour in spades.

[Arising_uk]

....just...just so we're clear, I've done nothing but defend you throughout the years.

Of course you have Bill.

But if this is what you truly think then I apologise to you if agree with Lacking that I'm personally attacking you. I'm not, I'm attacking your ideas.

[Arising_uk]

NO CHICKEN TONIGHT . I GOT HIM ON THE RUN

Some of us have to work for a living pumpkin.

[Lakin]

"Arising_uk"

Cast the first stone'? 'victim' and 'aggressor' how very judeo-christian of you.

I just knew that sarcasm would go right over your little head.

And the fact is that Dusek did nothing but engage with you.

And the fact is the evidence of the event carries more weight than your political representations of the event because we all know here that you are a Judeo Christian philosopher who likes to revise history to suit yourself. Were you ever a Catholic priest by any chance ? Had a few alter boys maybe? Told the police you were performing
a sacred rite on their members

Bill writes a pleasant nature upon this forum(sic)

That is not really a grammatical sentence .You have missed out the preposition "with"
and used the indefinate article "a" on its own . Bad form old boy . Polytechnic grammar .
(Could be poetic, however ; maybe you are a new Street Poet ,har har hah ahahaahaaarha.)

Now children let us redraft this sentence, according to the complete plain words, for the civil service ,to convey taught precise messages:
Bill's writing, on this forum, is pleasant . or
I am now sucking up to Bill by saying he is a pleasant chap .
[Psychology students ,please note the manipulation tactics of a bully
RE: I will now soften you up so I can continue to bully you, with impunity, from Lakin]

Keep it up as you're doing him no favours but then you're not here for that are you.

When referring to Americans you ought to use Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language as opposed to Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language

As they say, If you can't stand the heat ,get out of the kitchen. I'm a fair cook so no worries there.

Yeah it is amazing what you can do with a 25p can of spaghetti from Tesco.

As usual you offer no substantive reply to any questions or points but just employ evasion and misdirection. All the hallmarks of the interweeb troll in fact.

Stuffing you up all the time by way of reply is substantive enough for me .

Still, won't be long before you once again self-destruct and get banned. Woof! Woof! Eh! Pooch.

Looks like you are again sending PMs to Rick . ooooh Rick that Lakin made me cry ;won't you ban him please, pretty please

[Lakin]

looks like your chicken pal got stuffed again

[Arising_uk]

Lacking,

I just knew that sarcasm would go right over your little head.

Not surprising as sarcasm is mainly expressed by tone of voice.

And the fact is the evidence of the event carries more weight than your political representations of the event because we all know here that you are a Judeo Christian philosopher who likes to revise history to suit yourself. Were you ever a Catholic priest by any chance ? Had a few alter boys maybe? Told the police you were performing a sacred rite on their members

As a lifelong atheist I find this just trollish drivel.

You need to broaden your reading of philosophy to take in Russell and Ayer.

You attacked duszek purely because you thought he was coming to my defense as your only aim here is to assauge your intellectual insecurity and feed your feeling of grandiosity.

That is not really a grammatical sentence .You have missed out the preposition "with"
and used the indefinate article "a" on its own . Bad form old boy . Polytechnic grammar .
(Could be poetic, however ; maybe you are a new Street Poet ,har har hah ahahaahaaarha.)

I think you mean Muharharhahahahaahaaarha. My sentence sounded exactly as it was meant.

What has street poetry got do do with anything?

For someone who can't use the word "altar" correctly I think you should crow a little less.

Now children let us redraft this sentence, according to the complete plain words, for the civil service ,to convey taught precise messages:
Bill's writing, on this forum, is pleasant . or
I am now sucking up to Bill by saying he is a pleasant chap .
[Psychology students ,please note the manipulation tactics of a bully
RE: I will now soften you up so I can continue to bully you, with impunity, from Lakin]

None of the above as I've repeatedly told Bill that I don't hate him but his thoughts and ideas. I don't hate people I haven't met as it's a waste of emotion and essentially a ridiculous act.

When referring to Americans you ought to use Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language as opposed to Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language

Nah! As I'm English I'll use English not American when I write.

Yeah it is amazing what you can do with a 25p can of spaghetti from Tesco.

I'll have to take your word for this as personally I do better with just spaghetti, tomatoes, an onion and olive oil. Costs a couple of quid but would feed four.

Stuffing you up all the time by way of reply is substantive enough for me .

Only in your fantasies.

Looks like you are again sending PMs to Rick . ooooh Rick that Lakin made me cry ;won't you ban him please, pretty please

Nah! I've never complained about a forum member and never will as I prefer to watch the troll make a prat of themselves. Won't be long now before you once again self-destruct and start abusing via PM and then bye-bye once more. Woof! Woof!

[Lakin]

Lacking,

I just knew that sarcasm would go right over your little head.

Not surprising as sarcasm is mainly expressed by tone of voice.

And the fact is the evidence of the event carries more weight than your political representations of the event because we all know here that you are a Judeo Christian philosopher who likes to revise history to suit yourself. Were you ever a Catholic priest by any chance ? Had a few alter boys maybe? Told the police you were performing a sacred rite on their members

As a lifelong atheist I find this just trollish drivel.

You need to broaden your reading of philosophy to take in Russell and Ayer.

You attacked duszek purely because you thought he was coming to my defense as your only aim here is to assauge your intellectual insecurity and feed your feeling of grandiosity.

That is not really a grammatical sentence .You have missed out the preposition "with"
and used the indefinate article "a" on its own . Bad form old boy . Polytechnic grammar .
(Could be poetic, however ; maybe you are a new Street Poet ,har har hah ahahaahaaarha.)

I think you mean Muharharhahahahaahaaarha. My sentence sounded exactly as it was meant.

What has street poetry got do do with anything?

For someone who can't use the word "altar" correctly I think you should crow a little less.

Now children let us redraft this sentence, according to the complete plain words, for the civil service ,to convey taught precise messages:
Bill's writing, on this forum, is pleasant . or
I am now sucking up to Bill by saying he is a pleasant chap .
[Psychology students ,please note the manipulation tactics of a bully
RE: I will now soften you up so I can continue to bully you, with impunity, from Lakin]

None of the above as I've repeatedly told Bill that I don't hate him but his thoughts and ideas. I don't hate people I haven't met as it's a waste of emotion and essentially a ridiculous act.

When referring to Americans you ought to use Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language as opposed to Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language

Nah! As I'm English I'll use English not American when I write.

Yeah it is amazing what you can do with a 25p can of spaghetti from Tesco.

I'll have to take your word for this as personally I do better with just spaghetti, tomatoes, an onion and olive oil. Costs a couple of quid but would feed four.

Stuffing you up all the time by way of reply is substantive enough for me .

Only in your fantasies.

Looks like you are again sending PMs to Rick . ooooh Rick that Lakin made me cry ;won't you ban him please, pretty please

Nah! I've never complained about a forum member and never will as I prefer to watch the troll make a prat of themselves. Won't be long now before you once again self-destruct and start abusing via PM and then bye-bye once more. Woof! Woof!

The babble Chicken Queen .

[Arising_uk]

You appear to be running out of sage and onion.

[Lakin]

You appear to be running out of sage and onion.

Given that you are a gay man, I don't think it is sage and onion that you are being stuffed with.

[Arising_uk]

Ah! Good to see you're down to the stock troll response. Won't be long now.

(wot a twat!)

[Lakin]

Ah! Good to see you're down to the stock troll response. Won't be long now.

(wot a twat!)

Hahaha another ball right in the basket.

[Arising_uk]

Hahaha another ball right in the basket.

Shishishishishi. I think you mean MuHahaha.

Your homophobic ad homs are a sign of the interweeb troll and are pointless as if I was homosexual I'd not care and if I wasn't I'd still not care. All they prove is that you are a young small-minded bourgeois troll.