Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - Character profile: Ed - Page 4

Tags: Snob Goblin is a muncher of sorts, Ed is on drugs, Ed is a huge floppy pussy, MAKE IT STOP, BORING THREAD IS BORING, ED IS NEVER WRONG, This is Ed and I never said I was never wrong Matt, unlike you, ED WILL NEVER BE WRONG, and this is Ed, Matt debate me Ed or you are a troll, This is Ed and I am a huge retard, Matt is a coward, its you're not your, This is Ed I never said I was a retard, Ed's tag about Matt never being wrong is WRONG, Matt you never EVER admit when you're wrong, This really is Ed and none of these other tags are mine, I'm sparticus, Ed has the reading level of a 3rd grader, This is Snob Goblin and I just clogged the toilet, This is Wilfred Brimley, CHECK YOUR BLOOD SUGAR AND CHECK IT OFTEN, We here at Liberty Mutual like CORN DAWGS, MAKE SURE YOU SPAY AND NEUTER YOUR PETS TO HELP CONTRO, Abandon thread snail is funny, Too many tags, Srsly, ABANDON THREAD!, Ed needs a sense of humor, I FUCKIN LOVE CORN DOGS, backpedal to the future, SPOCK MUST SAVE THIS THREAD, hard chiseled spock, Sea of spock, drowning in spock, what has Wolf Bird unleashed?, DIABEETUS, stupid tags, Can't count all the Spocks!, This is Ed and I suck huge black cocks, This is Ed and I want Spock inside my puckered asshole, godfuckingdamnit, Ed, Nominate [ Add Tags ]

This forum thread is currently locked, no new replies or edits can be made.

[ Return to Topic Ritz-Carlton | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:32
(0)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original

See above you still dont understand why I said that, its not that difficult to understand what I meant but apparently you WANT me to be saying something unreasonable despite me having explained what I really meant.

This shit might work with matt, but it doesn't with me. You do this every thread and it gets old. This is why no one has serious discussions with you. Of course, it can't be that you aren't totally grasping what is being said about your language. You've ignored what I'm really saying in favor of recapitulating your position. There is literally nothing new in your new post, and you havent accessed my argument and responded to it meaningfully. Instead, you just reiterated your old posts. I exit the thread the same way I came in.

Ed

</taugology>

#91 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:32
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

And no, they were just as good but you didn't want to have that discussion. I made the historical point for the abuse of alcohol, explained its correlation with societal factors as part as food custom, and suggested that the illegality of it was part of much deeper and far reaching issues than the ones you wanted to discuss.

OMG YES I KNOW THAT **YOU** THINK SO.

The point is **I* didn't accept your opinion on this point, so what happens in debates is you find another point.

I wanted to help you out by specifying what point I felt should be focused on. In so many arguments that people have the question comes up "what do I have to show you for you to accept you are wrong?". Well, I wanted to direct the argument to more solid points where evidence could be given rather than just what I saw as debatable opinions.

Read this again:

Yes, they weren't as good. My position is if there is no negative sociological impact (like crime or intellect or health) decriminalising cannabis, then your other arguments seemed completely redundant.

This is what happens in debates, if you disagree with your opponent for lots of reasons you find a point your opponent thinks is the strongest. Then demonstrating that to them will show that that they were wrong about a critical piece of their argument. Such as, a Creationist might say that they need to see a transitional sequence between two lineages to prove macroevolution. If you show that to them they should retract the claim they made or explain a valid reason for modifying it.

I can't be clearer than that, you apparently want to make me say something I never said. To me you are a hypocrite, but if you don't get what I'm saying don't bother replying because I can't say it simpler than this.

#92 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:34
(-1)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

You keep saying tautology, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Good job though Falkner, you actually have become even more obtuse than Matt and Bill combined

#93 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:35
(1)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original

Its not my fault you have the depth of understanding necessary to operate those arguments. It wasn't just an opinion. There is a boyd of literature to access on it that offers for meaningful discussion, but you didnt want to do that. But now you just want to play the same old game "you're putting words in my mouth" and then restate your old hat nonsense.

#94 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:36
(1)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original

Tautology- repeating a point in new words even if it doesnt really add any substantive clarification on the point, which is precisely what I am saying you do. You're an intellectual infant.

#95 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:37
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Falkner you ignored all my points on the P&T again. Why is that?

Why can you not specifically deal with the reality of my problem with it? I keep talking about specific claims it makes and you start describing the show like its all wishy washy and not really making any such denialist claims.

Do you want to stop doing that or what?

#96 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:39
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Tautology- repeating a point in new words even if it doesnt really add any substantive clarification on the point, which is precisely what I am saying you do. You're an intellectual infant.

If I say something and you ignore it I have to say it again in a different way. If I have to do that over and over again its because you keep ignoring me. Apparently you're new to debates or just discussing anything in general with anyone.

#97 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:40
(0)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original

No, I want you to develop the necessary cognitive ability to have a reasonable debate with. I ignored your points because all discussions with you end up the same way. You dont want to access what Im saying, so you wont. And thus ends the thread.

#98 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:42
(1)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original

If I say something and you ignore it I have to say it again in a different way. If I have to do that over and over again its because you keep ignoring me. Apparently you're new to debates or just discussing anything in general with anyone.

Wow. You really don't get it. You actually don't understand do you. Apparently youre new to the avenues of any meaningful cognitive existence. Get real. This is why people hate talking to you and why they say you can never let yourself be wrong. You just keep stumbling through on the same old trail.

#99 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
AKBastardPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:45
(1)
 

Level: 5
CS Original

I'm e-mailing Edward and telling him to set the server on fire.

#100 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:47
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

I ignored your points because all discussions with you end up the same way. You dont want to access what Im saying, so you wont. And thus ends the thread.

You keep saying that, but like Matt you don't offer any reason to say that.

You reference supposedly poor arguments like the McDonalds thread with Aaron but cant show me a SINGLE illogical argument i made or a SINGLE point I failed to respond to. With P&T you claim I am making some kind of poor argument against the episode except when you describe it its like you're not even talking about the same episode and literally ignore absolutely all my criticisms of it. With the pot thread, I was indeed wrong about the Norwegian thing, but you still INSIST that I was unreasonable to direct the debate to a point I deemed the most important issue for me (having explained exactly why) and claim that I just ignored all the other points for no reason at all.

Apparently you will not admit any errors, I've admitted various in this thread about many many things. It was a bitch to even get you to even slightly admit that you misspoke in a post earlier where I quite correctly assumed you were talking about a different thread than you were.

I like to boil arguments down to the simplest points. So when I want you to address the P&T issue why can't you just do than instead of dancing around every single one of my points against it? They are quite simple and, I think you'll agree, said them all many times in many different ways.

#101 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 00:49
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Wow. You really don't get it. You actually don't understand do you. Apparently youre new to the avenues of any meaningful cognitive existence. Get real. This is why people hate talking to you and why they say you can never let yourself be wrong. You just keep stumbling through on the same old trail.

Well then genius, please tell me what you do if you make an argument and then I tell you that you are wrong but totally ignore your points. Do you then reiterate your points and say I need to address them? What if its not sinking in, maybe you rephrase the same points in a different way?

Why is that so unreasonable? Please shock me with your wisdom, rape me with your intellect

#102 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 01:03
(-1)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Oh and Matt:

He didn't say that. You're wrong and you're a moron. Now, this "liar" is going to bed.

Yes, Dunning DID say that, I gave a direct quote. Too bad you don't like it, maybe you don't think Dunning is correct about everything in that article after all! Shame you can't admit it

#103 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Evil ElvisPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 03:07
(1)
 

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

WOW :-) This thread will probably get mentioned on TZM site.

#104 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Burger KingPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 03:28
(1)
 

I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?

Level: 5
CS Original

That's is I giving Ed and Eric hate mail!!!

#105 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Wolf BirdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 09:00
(0)
 

I shoot you dead.

Level: 9
CS Original

#106 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 10:10
(0)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original

My point is that your form of argumentation rests on reiteration and that you claim that your reiteration is the result fo people ignoring your points. However, I am saying that your tautology is rooted in the fact that you never want to empathize with other arguments and you continue to claim people are ignoring your points. The reality is, your points are taken in and replied to, but apparently in a way that is unsatisfactory to you (though to everyone else they are perfectly acceptable) so you insist and insist that you have been ignored. I've already told you (though either through the magnificence of illiteracy or arrogance, you chose not to understand) that you missed a point to stop your tautological reasoning. A great point is on page 10 of the McDonalds thread where you clearly missed an opportunity to empathize with the larger argument- that there is hyperinflated anti-McDonalds rhetoric that blows things out of proportion. But you didn't think to stop and look at that perspective and instead decided to push on with the way you were discussing the matter earlier without a thought that maybe, just maybe, you weren't seeing the argument in its totality. But certainly that can't be the case because you're infallible. And here, you've chosen not to access what I'm saying when I critique your move in the pot thread or the ethos you seem to utilize in an effort to assert yourself. You claim that the point was most important to you, and that the others weren't. But you are also not looking at it that your point was actually among the weakest arguments because it rested on a thin statistical model that wouldn't explain the behavioral questions at hand. You asserted they were my weakest arguments, I am saying that simply because you are unfamiliar with the literature and field of research I was referring to doesn't actually make it the weakest points and that they were perfectly valid contributions to the question of illegality and criminality in that post. And frankly, it is tiring trying to get you to see that. Now you're trying to pull in these other threads where no one seemed to be on your side, you want me to address all these arguments and point out what it was you missed. But its not my job to do that and its not my fault that you want to leave the blinders on. You can only see the points you want to see and you are somehow unable of understanding the larger arguments being made. Now get over it.

#107 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 10:26
(0)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original

Dr. Edell is the one who is stating that a hamburger is a well balanced meal. Dunning was paraphrasing him- but maybe that was totally missed by everyone reading. If you have a problem, you should probably contact Dean Edell Stone on his radio program. You'll also notice that the comment was made in the context that the caller was concerned he daughter would suffer from malnutrition. The basis of Dr. Edell stone's comment is that malnutrition isn't the concern, but weight gain as a result of over consumption was. If you want to address that point, keep it in its context and address it to the author who actually was responsible for the statement.

Three of those a day, which is more than anyone reasonably eats, still amounts to a good, healthy, slim 2,200 calorie diet for an adult.

Anyone of a reasonable literacy level could ascertain the meaning here. He's basing this off the fear that you would gain weight by eating copious amounts of McDonalds, to which he is saying that the calories in three of the Quarter Pounders exceed the daily recommended value for women by only 200 calories, and actually falls under that recommended for men by 200 calories. You seem to WANT him to be saying its great for you, but reading it with a slight degree of caution and its clear that isn't the case. He's saying the hype about how bad one burger is for you is way over done, and that even with three of those burgers you wont see hugely dramatic health implications as a result of your caloric intake. What he doesn't get into is the issue of consuming too much sodium. He spends the rest of the article describing how, in the categories of sodium, trans-fats, and cholestrol, the Big Mac is nowhere as bad as it is made out to be. He still presents the figures and references what standard he is using, and you wont see him denying that these substances are in fact in the food, but he notes that they also naturally occur in those foods you could purchase as the store.

#108 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 10:31
(1)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Falkner, the guy just doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand. Stop frustrating yourself, broseph. Everyone knows you've pwned Ed except for Ed.

Snob put it best: He's like a stray cat that shows up and annoys everyone. Nobody wants the guy around, because he's a frustrating mix of arrogance and ignorance and nobody is going to convince him otherwise. Just stop trying, man. You're gonna drive yourself bonkers trying to reason with someone who is inherently unreasonable.

#109 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:00
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

However, I am saying that your tautology is rooted in the fact that you never want to empathize with other arguments

So lets see what example you go on to give of this...

you clearly missed an opportunity to empathize with the larger argument- that there is hyperinflated anti-McDonalds rhetoric that blows things out of proportion.

Well that is strange since I said essentially EXACTLY what you said I should have said many times in many different ways THROUGHOUT the thread.

Lets see what I actually wrote, which you ignored. I spent the last 5 minutes scanning through the pages, so I've probably missed others.

Lets start with the fact that on page two I completely agreed with everything YOU wrote about McDonalds. Is that "empathising" enough for you? Outright stating I agree with all your points? What else do you want?

But lets see what else I said and this surely isn't exhaustive...

"I totally agree. :) Its more of a problem with society and how people don't know how to eat healthy to start with. Going to McDonalds a few times a week isn't going to make you fat, so long as you eat healthy the rest of the time and exercise."
- [inresponse to your post on page 2]

...

"McDonalds is not causing fat, unhealthy people, the mentality of people is."
- [page 5]

...

"First he [Dunning] quite rightly explains that Super Size Me overstates how bad McDonalds is by eating huge portions. OK, good job"
- [page 8]

...

"So...McDonalds food is not as bad as Super Size Me makes out, but he [Prof James Painter] isn't saying that McDonalds is a well balanced nutritious meal, in fact he most certainly is not saying that at all"
- [page 8]

...

"Dunning seems to really want to not just claim that Super Size Me was a bit misleading but"
- [page 8]

...

"One of the reasons Super Size Me is overstating how bad McDonalds is, is not just because Spurlock eating huge ridiculous amounts, but because he ONLY ate McDonalds. "
- [page 9]

...

"... Im also not anti-McDonalds, I know you [Matt] really want me to be. I ate there just yesterday, the difference is I dont pretend its healthy nutritious well balanced food. "
- [page 10]

...

"We choose to eat foods we know are unhealthy all the time, but I'm not going to sugar coat (pun intended) how unhealthy they are to make me feel better. McDonalds burgers and fries are not healthy foods, but they taste nice!

If I was saying they were an evil corporation and that no one should eat it you could call me a hypocrite and it would make sense."
- [page 12 - in response to Inside Job that suggested I was a hypocrite for saying I have no problem eating at McDonalds.

So as you can see, I did say exactly what you said I should have said many times in different ways.

If you're going to say I am being unreasonable the least you could do is read my posts properly before concluding that.

But you didn't think to stop and look at that perspective and instead decided to push on with the way you were discussing the matter earlier without a thought that maybe

And maybe, just maybe you didn't really read what I actually wrote properly, for some reason.

You claim that the point was most important to you, and that the others weren't. But you are also not looking at it that your point was actually among the weakest arguments because it rested on a thin statistical model that wouldn't explain the behavioral questions at hand.

Not to get into the debate itself again, but my position was IF there was no negative social impact from making cannabis legalised or at least decriminalised then I don't see why it shouldn't be. Therefore actual evidence showing that doing so WOULD cause a negative social impact would best attack my position. Therefore talking about how you think alcohol deserves to be legal and pot doesn't because it has more of a social connection (if thats the right word) and history is still irrelevant to the point, since I can still agree with everything you say and it would still matter not to the question of whether pot has any negative social impacts if it was decriminalised. My opinion that it should be legalised or least decriminalised was rooted in negative social impact, so if there is no evidence there is any negative social impact all there is left is basically wishy washy opinion. Since I wanted to actually get to that actual meat of the issue, I said its best to leave those other issues aside.

THAT is what I was saying, instead you decide that I was using some kind of disingenuous tactic to ignore all your other points.

You and Matt really want me to be saying unreasonable things, I strongly suggest reading what I actually write.

---

You also still haven't explained what was wrong in the P&T case. Why is it you can't directly address my criticisms of it? Why is it when you describe the episode it doesn't reflect what they actually said? I highly doubt you will decide to answer these questions after all this, but I am still looking for a reason why you think any of my arguments in that thread were poor. The trick is you actually have to address MY arguments. Ive said it it many times so I don't have to repeat myself again.

Lastly I asked you what happens if you are arguing with someone and they say you're wrong but then show you they ignored all your points. Do you repeat your points? What if you rephrase your points to try and make it clearer? Why is that so unreasonable as you seem to claim it is?

#110 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:07
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Oh and BTw no one seemed to have a problem with the way I argue when I was debating truthers and Zeitgeisters, in fact I was complimented many times.

But as soon as I touched upon some myth some people here believes suddenly I'm being unreasonable.

#111 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:12
(1)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Yes Ed, you are quite adept at besting Truthers and Zeitards. But you fail at everything else. I've suggested you stick to Truthers and Zeitards, and I meant it. For your own sake.

You're like Rainman, except with Truthers and Zeitards. But everything else is HOT WATER BURN BABY. I genuinely think you suffer from some sort of retardation and I'm not the only one.

Just stop. Stick to the two subjects you have a Rainman-esque grasp of and stay away from everything else for your own sake. This is as nice as I can possibly be with you.

#112 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:18
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Matt I argue with truthers and Zeitgeisters the same way I argue with you on P&T and McDonalds. There is no difference.

If Im so stupid and unreasonable about them then I was stupid and unreasomable arguing with CT's as well. I have not changed the way I argue at all, I still demand the same from the argument than I would demand from everyone else. I won't give someone a free pass if they are promoting bullshit even if they are Penn and Teller, sometimes it may even take a little time for me to understand why I am wrong in places but I do admit I am wrong when i am wrong.

All my beliefs are tentative, if I'm being fallacious or my arguments aren't sound I want to know about it because I want to know what is true, which is why I take accusations of dishonesty or "strawmanning" seriously because that is something I definitely do not want. I demand people show me where I have made a mistake because if I really have I want to correct it. And why? Because I absolutely HATE believing things that are untrue and HATE it if Ive ever told someone something I believed was a fact that turned out to be false especially when I have repeated it without enough critical thought.

When I debate CT's or anyone else I really try and get to the heart of what their position actually is, because unless I really know what it is the debate is just going to be around semantics and "i never said that!!! strawman!!" arguments.

Maybe you should consider the idea that you dont have a problem with me arguing with CT's because you already agree with me on those issues. See, if I'm being unreasonable and dishonest in my arguing style, then even if I'm right IM STILL WRONG.

#113 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:24
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

I'm not interested in repeating everything Falkner has stated in a far more civil and eloquent way than I can. If you didn't grasp it when he said it, you're certainly not going to grasp it when I do. Falkner is one of the most educated people on this forum, far more than I and definitely far more than you. But here you sit, still trying to argue with the guy.

People absolutely do not like you, and it has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with you.

#114 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:25
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

I like how you say people as if you know everyone. I guess this is the same way you think you haven't been arguing fringe beliefs recently.

Oh and frankly I dont really care if no one likes me. But I would take the opinion of Edward and Muertos over you guys however as I actually think they are credible and i value their opinion. I would however be very interested in finding out exactly why they think I was wrong, if they really thought I was. I actually think they would be reasonable and be specific.

#115 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:27
(1)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Okay Rainman, watch out for hot water.

Edward is gone. Muertos is gone. The two people you're hinging acceptance on don't even use this forum anymore. Essentially your position is that unless two people who don't use this forum tell you why you're wrong, you're not wrong.

#116 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:34
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

I dont know what you think I said Matt, but I said i respect their opinions and that if they didn't agree withme I would take that seriously and find out exactly why they thought so. Knowing what I know about them I know they would be specific and not hand wave all my argumets like most of you guys are doing.

Just how many times does it need to be said? No one has told me what I have got wrong in the P& T thread and yet you and Falkner keep saying I am wrong, why cant either of you be specific and directly address the issues? I can't think of a reason that doesn't involve intentional dishonesty, but maybe there is another reason I don't know about. Falkner also keeps saying I didn't say such and such in the McDonalds thread yet I did many times, this is just boring.

#117 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:35
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

"but maybe there is another reason I don't know about."

Could it be that you're mildly retarded?

#118 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:36
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Could it be that you're stubborn asshole that only changes his mind in rare occasions?

#119 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:37
(0)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original

Lastly I asked you what happens if you are arguing with someone and they say you're wrong but then show you they ignored all your points. Do you repeat your points? What if you rephrase your points to try and make it clearer? Why is that so unreasonable as you seem to claim it is?

You never repeat your points in that case since its clear theres a breach in the pathway. You utilize the persons counter point to demonstrate the inherent breakdown involved therein rather than restructuring your old point again again. This is debate 101. What youre trying to do is appeal to what I would do when I've stated that I would do things, and have in the threads I mentioned, very differently.

Again, you really are missing the crux of my anthropological argument on marijuana and ITS DIRECT IMPACT AND PLACE IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. But, again, if you dont want to actually engage in what the points were, you wont.

As for your McDonalds responses, your still not seeing the problem, you didnt do what I am suggesting. Your reading the most banal form of the concept and then pointing where you just agree with the sentiments as the exist without once demonstrating a position where you access an opposing argument and utilize any sort of ability to take that argument apart from its own fundamental pathway. Stating that you dont think McDonalds isnt an evil corporation is not the same as empathizing with an argument in order to properly dismantel it. Thats my problem with your argumentation and what has frustrated me about your continued responses here. I dont want to you to be saying unreasonable things, I want to demonstrate some ability to recognize why people hate arguing with you and continue to troll you. It has nothing to do with you "being against the grain and everything to do with your constant communication break down. But you dont want that to be the reason. You want it to be that you're right and that everyone else just doesnt understand what youre saying. News flash: everyone understands, the problem is that you are too stubborn to change up how you cognitively process whats going on.

#120 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]