- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/9997521
To the person from lemm.ee who reported this post as “terrorism” go fuck yourself.
Link for tickets: https://events2022.tpusa.com/events/kyle-rittenhouse-at-kent-state
Locked because I keep getting reports from people arguing. Cool off.
Are you sure you arent @madison420
This isn’t you, in literally your previous reply to me ~3 hrs ago?
Because that is you, saying that I blamed you for something (still not sure what though, please reference). That is you, saying that I fell for a trap (which is not apparent, so please explain). So yeah. I’m pretty sure I know that I have at least 3 different conversations going on here that have fragmented off at different points. Are you having an identity issue? Maybe problems keeping your accounts straight?
I am me, correct. Seems obvious but you do you.
Reading comprehension, get some.
Please, point out specifically where my reading comprehension was lacking? Is asking for specific examples with quotes too much?
Also still missing is the “trap” that I fell in to, and the “thing” that I blamed you for. Go ahead and quote those, otherwise I’ll take Hitchen’s Razor to those claims.
Try the last several of your comments, I already said that so add that comment as well.
I didn’t miss anything, it’s very obvious. Need I point out the color of the sky for you as well or at some point are you going to take responsibility for saying stupid trolly shit?
Right, so at this point, you have made assertions without evidence, and when asked to simply reference the evidence, you have failed make even the simplest defense of your claims.
Therefore, your points regarding my reading ability, blaming you for something, and that I fell into a “trap” by you can be refuted with the same evidentiary threshold.
If you’d like to continue this discussion, please provide direct evidence that:
I have blamed you for something
I have fallen for a trap
there is a lack of reading comprehension on my part.
Further discussion without meeting these (very basic) requirements is a tacit admission that any and all of those claims are without merit, and you yourself are trolling and not providing honest discourse.
The ball is in your court.
My evidence is the definitions you’ve provided dumb dumb, that’s the trap.
Again reading comprehension basil exposition, using more words doesn’t actually mean you’re saying anything of value.
This is a tacit admission from @madison420 that their previous statements are unfounded and meaningless.
There’s that reading comprehension thing again.
It’s all there, just read the big words and use that smooth fuckin brain for something other then word vomit.
Another baseless accusation, adding further evidence that @Madison420 is not engaging in good-faith discussion, and tacitly acknowledges that their previous statements are meaningless, because they have been unable to point out any actual shortcomings in my reading comprehension.