I’ll just take that as you agreeing with the rest. Sorry about your frazzled state.
1 Like
I’m sorry I still don’t feel intellectually challenged all things considered
1 Like
in that case, my last word is ‘toupee’
Man my senses are right on the mark, I was gonna say this dude sounds like another pseudo-intellectual like Jordan Peterson! 
The closest thing to a phone book for the I.D.W. is a sleek website that lists the dramatis personae of the network, including Mr. Harris; Mr. Weinstein and his brother and sister-in-law, the evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying; Jordan Peterson, the psychologist and best-selling author; the conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and Douglas Murray; Maajid Nawaz, the former Islamist turned anti-extremist activist; and the feminists Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers.
1 Like
I already commented on your 600 timestamp, which you yourself haven’t made any specific comments on, so I’m not sure of your complaint now. 
once again, it is because you haven’t read the conversation carefully enough
Once again, you make an assertion instead of addressing the points with support of any sort.
Edit: speaking of reading carefully enough, you literally had the wrong timestamp, the wrong brother, and missed that I did comment on your corrected timestamp. C’mon now.
1 Like
if I do, will you apologize or spin? how sure are you? because of the 4 farthest left people i’ve encountered here you’re the last that i’m willing to spend that level of time on, but i’ll do it if you’re sure. if you’re wrong, and i think you are, that’s it for my time except for ridicule (i will owe you nothing)
if you’re right, not only will i have spent that time, but also you’ll have the satisfaction (and of course, my acknowledgment).
what say you, sir?
yes, i recognize my mistakes. my problem is those who refuse to
edit: it’s cool to say you’re not that sure, i won’t judge
If you address the point with support, I’ll gladly engage you on the topics. I’m not sure why I’d apologize if you start engaging with support - again, not that clear the point you’re making. Please clarify what you’d like an apology for. I have no issues apologizing when wrong, but I’m not even sure what proposal you’re making.
As for being farthest 4 left… If that’s true, that would speak to how far right this place is. I’ve always been a registered independent that’s historically voted a mixed ticket, unapologetically work in the military industrial complex, have been to the sand box as a military contractor, and at core, don’t give a fuck about shit like universal healthcare as a core issue (pragmatically, I support it because it’d be lower cost), and make a very healthy salary (around a quarter mil) that I’d like to see lower taxes on. Based on the Republicans historic platform, I should be a lock for them - but given their recent* embrace of seemingly all things anti science, anti education, religious zealout, and now, anti fair election positions, it’s going to be a loooong time before I vote republican. If that makes me far left, well, fuck, Republicans are TRULY fucked.
*depends how old you are whether you consider this recent I suppose
1 Like
well, that’s because you aren’t sure what you are arguing against. would you like to check again why i chose that time stamp in the first place, the actual point i was making?
I was a progressive leftist before i started my phd, now i am apparently far right. this is the problem.
if i am far right, democrats are the same
I still respect you. I’m not sure what your complaint is with me because I only came in to say @mups was being silly with the toupee. we have rabbit holed to this point, shall we shake hands or shall we continue?
1 Like
See bud,.instead of talking in circles over many posts,.just make your point, clearly. Even if you have to repeat it once or twice. It’d be easier than making references to wrong brothers and timestamps and muddying the waters,.right?
You said:
And I’m telling you flat out that I don’t even know the point you’re making at this point with regards to the timestamp because the conversation has meandered so much, with so much muddiness (again, see brothers and 555 timestamp for examples), nor do I know what you’re proposing an apology for, so for gods sake, just spell it out.
1 Like
I’m doing my best, while trying to stay within community standards. To be honest, I find this condescending. We can all be more clear, and I don’t think I’m going in circles, just that we think differently and it isn’t easy for us to follow each other.
I think your ungenerous attitude here is at least part of the problem. I have admitted some mistakes but if there is no humility on the other side it doesn’t necessarily mean the fault is all on one side.
I don’t deliberately make mistakes to muddy the waters, again an ungenerous assumption. What happened to that hand shake I offered?
So, toupee or not toupee?
Well, if you don’t know what you’re arguing about, and you won’t go back and check, and you don’t express any humility, can you understand why I might not be interested in connecting the dots for you?
I’m trying to be generous here
It seems kinda weird that anyone who spends a good deal of their time living in paranoid fear of a supposed agenda coming from a loosely-knit band of far-left academic journal publishers… could miss a pretty obvious corporatist agenda from students bankrolled to the tune of millions by the Koch Brothers.
I’ll bet whoever thinks along these lines probably denied climate change with the same tone of indignance for decades.
1 Like
That’s the thing bro - I KNOW what I WAS arguing about - what you posted. That you then said wasn’t what you actually wanted to argue about, and was a mistake, and you’d like me to address that other thing which I wasn’t arguing about. Ok, then I did that, and you ignored it, and then you still have some issues with something that I’m apparently not addressing, but won’t say, specifically, what, despite me explicitly asking because I don’t know what else you want to address, and I should go back and check. Dude.
I am NOT arguing anything now - which might be what’s causing you confusion now if you think I don’t know what I’m arguing - I ASKED you explicitly to clarify, which you still refuse to do, then you claim ungenerous. sigh
I think you’re not nearly as clear as you think you are.
1 Like
Why don’t you argue with facts and/or reason and/or statistics and/or evidence and/or some kind of logic rather than this kind of thing? I mean, you might have picked up on the some of the back story you missed about the Evergreen professor had you done so…
final answer? i’ll put in the time and the far righties will love it if you’re wrong
1 Like
How is that my company? I don’t get your point - please clarify.
1 Like
I feel I have been as truthful and rational with him as I have been with you, on the same issues in general. I am engaging with everyone on Forumosa in the same way and only a few on the far left are harping on me, such as you and @McNulty. I made a point to @mups with that timestamp and you don’t seem to remember what it is but now we have this back and forth.
If you have a problem with the point I made with that timestamp, please let me know. Bear in mind that I have already acknowledged the couple seconds of mistake there and try to stay on point. If you continue to obfuscate and attack, well, I’m sorry but it reminds me of @McNulty