See, when I asked "why would that matter", it was in relation to you using your ignorance of the discussion as a way to avoid answering the previous question I had asked (one you so honestly chose to ignore in your quoting, I might add).
One does not need to have followed the thread in order to provide an answer that question. However one would need to follow the thread to make a point, however. See the difference?
did you forget what you said again? Look into the section I quoted, and note the presence of a word. That word is "observations". I'm not talking about the statement you made initially, I'm talking about the observations you claim to have made of me.Oh, so now they are observations?
Given the fact that you aren't observant enough to take note of the words you yourself choose to use, I have serious doubts as to your competence at observation in general, though.
Actually, I pointed out the flaw in you not phrasing your post as a question. Seriously, check out the post. I never once claimed that you asked a question, I pointed out the stupidity of not asking a question when the issue you sought to address was your curiosity. Reading comprehension: not just for Quakers anymore.And here, you had previously insisted that my original post was phrased as a question, despite my insistence to the contrary.
It is what is has always been. Your inability to comprehend what it is has no bearing on what it is.So which is it?
You're the one who claimed that I called your initial statement a question when I repeatedly pointed out the stupidity of making statements from a foundation of ignorance. Do you feel that such glaring errors in reading comprehension make you qualified to determine veracity?Or do you once more demonstrate your belief that veracity is found only where you alone will it?
You think this is a debate?Because if that's the case, I submit to you that you debate only with yourself.
And for that you receive a Kewpie doll.And I'll not rephrase my comments until such time as they appear in some format, you find most commodious with your penchant for repetition.
If by amnesia you mean an actual recollection of events that is not distorted by an inability to comprehend what one reads, then yes, I have amnesia. However if you intend amnesia to mean "amnesia", then unfortunately you are incorrect, a state I'm sure you are used to but have desperately avoided acknowledging.It seems now all too clear that your device is reliant upon not only the mother of all hoodwinks, but a healthy dose of amnesia to boot.
Again, so?Both aggression and self defence may impact upon legality to so pronounced a degree, as to be ultimately decisive of either freedom or incarceration.
I already acknowledged that A has the potential to influence B in my logical syllogism, silly. If you were capable of understanding what you read, you'd know this. But due to the fact that you can't comprehend what you read, for whatever reason (I'm guessing willful ignorance) you are under the delusion that I did not acknowledge this.That you fail to either comprehend or (more likely) make admission of this, points only to a failing on your side.
However, the sad truth that you seek to ignore is that the claim that aggression potentially influences legality has exactly **** all relevancy to anything that I have been debating in this thread.
See, I keep asking you "so?" because it's a quick and easy way of saying "That's nice and all, but what the **** does that have to do with anything I have argued in this thread?"
I guess I should bow to your supremacy at the remedial, then.Being that I am all too aware of such remedial concepts as these, you stand in my shade.
Perhaps you were perturbed by my pedantic pontificating posts, but pretending it's posturing is positively pointless.And projection finally. How very expected. Your capacity for recall being commensurate with your facility for perspicacity, you now plummet headlong towards a nadir you could not have foreseen.
You've been riding high on the obsequious pandering of your fan base here for so long, what once may have passed for your native wit has become posturing only, and without recourse to content. In political circles, it's more likely to be hubris. Since you're a regular guy on the internet, it's only vanity. In a sense, I envy you that. Would that we could all remake ourselves by the light of such groundless adoration.
Now were you actually trying to use so many P words, or did gum get stuck to the pages of your thesaurus leaving you no choice but to go with P words?
Sorry, I needed to throw a bone to my adoring fans.