Granted, it's a very rainy spring now, and the rains, combined with the water from the melting snow, has caused widespread floodings. You're stranded on your rooftop....
I wish the good weather here would hold for a few more days.
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
patokl
Over 90 days ago
Straight Cis Male
0 miles · Germany
Forum
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Return2SndRYou can only judge the intention of a title, if you read the piece it belongs to. Anything you say about a text, you admittedly haven't read, or its readers, is just ignorant, uninformed rambling.
Something makes it hard to understand what you're saying every time you post... Or maybe some-things. I know one is the excess/misplaced punctuation.
Nonetheless, I have read your posts (partially or in full) repeatedly if needed to aid my comprehension.
If you agreed that reincarnation isn't possible, let alone being reincarnated as the exact same person, then the "argument" you "challenged" goes without saying, as even if you "get"/comprehend the message, the second you do so, you realize it's blatantly false.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Return2SndR
I never said anything made it impossible to understand. In fact, it now seems you "completely agree" that what I said understanding what was written is true, meaning my understanding of it likely was also.
However, I have no problem with using "a little imagination" reading beyond the title of Harry Potter, John Grisham, or many others. But this is Boyle (a person I assume truly exists) writing something about Trump (who we know truly exists) as President Trump (which also truly exists now, & I believe when he wrote the piece).
Therefore, if his title is quite easy to comprehend so we both agree that what is described in it cannot take place in either of our respective lifetimes (or perhaps Boyle's or Trump's), there is no point in/reason to read beyond its title.
You did claim, something made it impossible to understand, what Boyle's piece meant. You literally said about the link (i.e. the piece): "nobody from anywhere gets the message, as the claim is impossible.".
I agreed from the start, that reincarnation isn't possible, let alone as oneself. I only challenged your argument, that nobody gets the message because of that.
As it turns out, you've made your claim, without even reading the piece, in other words, you really don't know what you are talking about.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by kiera
I am no longer going to respond to the word "Mum" or "MUM" or any version of it ever again. I QUIT I can't fucking believe it's possible to find THAT many trivial things to fucking fight about, boy was I wrong and my children are masters at it.
I am giving you a hug. Being a parent does take some patience at times.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Return2SndR
I would not be resorting to personal attacks or insult, simply statement of proven fact. However, many here (including staffers) would likely see it as the former if not both, which is why rather than "resort" to anything, I simply wish to not waste the space or time.
While we are talking about invalidating statements, however, let us refer to Boyle's. I agree it doesn't refer to any "forbidden subjects". (As an aside, I also agree with your statements regarding omnipotent persons & other things in the Bible.) However, regardless of whether or not one believes in reincarnation or even reads any of Boyle's piece, the title is this (Copied-&-Pasted): "Donald Trump: a man so obnoxious that karma may see him reincarnated as himself". Nothing will ever see anyone reincarnated as themselves!
I completely agree with that, nothing will. However, the fact that the title refers to an impossible scenario, does not make it impossible to understand, what Boyle wants to convey about Donald Trump with his piece. All that takes, is a little imagination and reading beyond the title. Think of what might happen if Karma and reincarnation did exist. Look at it, as hypothetical, in stead of factual. Just like we treat the phenomenon magic, when we read Harry Potter or any other fantasy story.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Return2SndR
You're "enlightened" enough, but explaining why would likely get me banned.
Anyhow, after a bit of back-&-forth on this, I went back & re-read the headline, and realized nobody gets the point, as the headline as it describes an impossible scenario. (I don't know that I've ever believed in reincarnation, but I've heard many real & fictional say they will/want to be "reincarnated as" something/someone else. Being the same again is against the word.)
Also, satire does not do what you are claiming it does.
I'd respond to that last part as well, but I don't understand what's "n that piece" (I literally don't know what that means, especially as part of a run-on "sentence").
It's pretty sad, when someone is not able to back up his statement, without mentioning things that aren't allowed. Boyle's piece has no references to forbidden subjects, so the only thing that could get you banned in this context, is personal attack or insult. The fact that you'd have to resort to that, invalidates your statement.
That aside, are you saying, that nobody can get the point Boyle is making, because he refers to reincarnation, and you don't believe in that? I don't believe in reincarnation either, but I still get the message. As far as I'm concerned, an omniscient and omnipotent god as portrayed in the bible cannot exist either, yet I have no problem understanding the messages the bible conveys. I don't agree with all of them, but one doesn't have to agree with something, to understand it.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Return2SndR
There is no need/use for "most-obvious", as there is only one reason for the phrase I used you repeated, & even if there are/were more, the one you gave is certainly not one (similar to the needless extra commas in the same sentence).
Similarly, I never claimed any knowledge of your ability to do anything. However, if you wish to falsely claim I claimed it, I'll actually confess to that, given that I do (contrary to your statement) have that knowledge of your understanding &/or ability to understand based on things you said in the post/thread.
Lastly, you honestly claimed no factual knowledge of me, nor do I expect you to ever do so, as you say I "seem" something I am clearly not, as well as saying I "maybe" should not judge you/your possession of things based on my own lack of something I don't lack.
Why not enlighten us then, and clarify why nobody from anywhere gets the message? Saying it's self-explanatory simply is a cop-out. Prove your point, if you can.
With "nobody from anywhere gets the message" you claim to know, that everyone, including me, is not able, to get the message.
We are not talking about a piece of journalism here. It is satire, a piece, that exaggerates aspects of the truth, to make a statement about the guy, leading the country now. In spite of your statement, I do understand what Boyle is saying in that piece, I do "get the message".
Edit: corrected an autocorrect error.
Thank you.