You're disgusting and a pathetic liar.

I don't consider you worth a link from my profile, especially on the allies list. It looks disgraceful there. We don't really have the feature right now, though, so you're acting more like a sticky parasite there. Luckily, I'm not in too much of a hurry about that.

Now fade away. You're dismissed.

With a grammar of comparable complexity?

I know many don't, but their syntax is much simpler. Many don't even have plural forms for most words.

Also, English is perhaps the only language that does not have gender for objects even with such a grammar.

You should not because I would never (which is actually your first 3 paragraphs combined)

Seriously, who let you on a computer that connects to the Internet?

same for someone with a physical disability like lets go on a walk, oh wait.

The joke's on you.

And for the race thing ofc I will deal with different races differently most races have different cultures so it would make little sense to behave the same way around every culture.

Great. You post definitions without reading them.

Yes, he's someone I'd rather not have at my side anyway, except as a little pawn. They make the positions derogatory.

I don't care about any other part you've said here...

I don't like to nit pick about grammar but the entire statement except the claim is off.

You're the one who doesn't seem to know the littlest things about syntax and structure (not to mention formatting). Try doing your nit picking (seriously?) and show where I was grammatically wrong.

It's just your opinion is not a universal refutation of freaking logic.

And that's even worse than just mindlessly crying that you refuted me, without any reason.

So, you are dismissed. I have already said that I am not replying to that there, if you couldn't comprehend that.

Now fade away.

My claim here didn't really need your demonstration, but whatever.

They did, in 2001.

I've heard that it didn't go well. You'd remember, you're old.

I don't care to know why. Structuralism is dead.

I'd say it depends on how much you want them to forgive you.

As a side note, it'd remind you of something if the website always had a weekly points leaderboard.

Seems like you're obsessed with getting to the top of the leaderboard this time.

Well, I've been around the top for months.

Don't worry about him. He already has hard time figuring out what is said.

We always come far enough from originally intended meanings of words. That's inevitable.

I can't say for sure... I've only heard rumours about people arguing in the corners of the Internet, such as the YouTube comments section.

But from what I've heard, it seems pretty much insane.

Yes, usable information, or pragmatic truths, is a rare thing to come by from them. They seem to reflect more of insecurity than persuasion. Like they want to win over some crowd, as is the case of public debates. But still, with a lot of insecurity.

I wouldn't call it an argument, but the exact word evades me.

Anyway, this is the definition, from the Oxford Dictionary of Law,

A defect of reason, arising from mental disease, that is severe enough to prevent a defendant from knowing what he ...

The one from that page isn't clear enough - it goes into the legalities too soon.

Man, you've been paying him so much attention?

I'd say he must be flattered.

So, the correct term is perseveration.

Also, you know, the problem of induction. Just because something happened doesn't mean that it always will.

I guess I didn't include it earlier. Well, it just sounds rude if you're worth anything.

I'm not replying anymore in this thread unless you can present an argument against me.

I don't care about your random objections - they're meaningless, irrational and worthless.

It is just your opinion that you have refuted...worthless for consideration.

Unless you can present it as an argument.

As a recap,

I said something.

You asked where I said anything.

I told you that.

You asked where I explained it.

I told that and explained that too.

Now you're just crying over how you refuted everything I said.

Here's a little game for you.

Try refuting ANYTHING that I've said.

If you'll just cry over how you refuted everything, which you clearly couldn't even be close to doing, then you're dismissed.

You've said nothing which challenges me. Thus, I have no reason to defend.

But if you need guidance, then you can see my profile.

I wonder... I've already made my claim and shown you how I did that. So for all purposes of this thing you posted right now, you're dismissed.

Anything else I've said there is in support of it. You can read other of my arguments if you want it much longer. You're free to browse them all.

Or you can put your reasoning here if you disagree with mine, and I might destroy your claims if they seem worthy of attention.

I'd recommend you read more carefully than that.

(Hint : IT'S LITERALLY THE FIRST FEW WORDS.)

I wonder about that.

You know what, perhaps you're right.

Books? You don't need books there.

We will have all the great philosophers there. And souls are, of course, timeless (let's ignore all the absurdities - I believe they have some tricks to ignore them in Christian theology) so you'll have a complete existence.

All that'd remain is to party.

I'll be at the eternal party.

There are drinks, which don't harm you (for obvious reasons). And no hangovers, because spirits don't need to sleep.

Oh, that's strange.

Oh, that's strange.

Well, could itself is generally used as a modal in past tense.

You're confusing stuff for the readers.

All crusades weren't against Muslims.

It was your Dark Ages, anyway. If Islamic empires could do that, then about any empire across the world could enslave you.

Don't worry about such little stuff about heart attacks in heaven. I wouldn't have one, even if I see you sitting on the back of Christus. My heart is strong.

It's still better than the religions. I could create better fairytales on the same drugs, yet they're the ones people follow, and take as their opium.

Though it'd be better if we got to say that. But sadly, it won't happen.

Is that, like, your orgasm face?

Seems like it.

I'm Zeus. Didn't you see my picture?

Incidentally, I've been living, without that, for a long time.

No, they don't.

Some can always think anything - contrast is the most efficient strategy for progress.

Well, we're the only country that has a bill of rights for cows, or so I've heard.

You can't find beef. All of the foreign chains offer just cocks/hens and goats here. Or perhaps seafood.

The only real thing is what is happening. Everything else is imagination, anticipation or memory.

Unless, of course, what is happening is a delusion.

Some might do. There are even street cows here - some sort of curse on cows by some demigod.

2 of the biggest deities - Krishna and Shiva, had a special thing for cows.

I don't, though. Except that my name is a reference to Shiva.

No, I don't. I'm pretty much vegetarian. Hindus don't eat beef - it's probably even illegal to sell in India, for I have never seen such.

So does mine.

But I don't like religion enough for my mood to be that way for long.

So you intentionally made it vague.

It does seem to.