he's not that old
toldailytopic: What can be done to help prevent the epidemic of school shootings?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
he's not that old
CW writes:
We certainly couldn't accuse her of that, could we?
We certainly couldn't accuse her of that, could we?
Unlike that joke.
lain:Christ's Word
New member
And I will ad to that, no one could have a real job, and post all of the garbage TH posts, he/she, whoever, needs to get job or do something constructive.
He makes false statements all of the time. Mocks my career and education, mocks my husbands career, mock my son's career, mocks my friends and their beliefs, constantly tries to discredit even State awarded credentials, all to minimize and marginalize those that disagree with him/her.
So why do I mock TH, because he mocks others constantly. Chrys may call him smooth and clever, I disagree.
I think greasy, and narcissistic fit much better. He/she is either a retired attorney that has become a prolific bloviator, or a young attorney that is so poor at his day job, that he/she can't get work and has too much time to harass others on the internet.
He/she likes to challenge others education on the internet, yet I have seen no evidence of his/her education level. His communication style resembles that of a used car salesman/greasy attorney, not someone who is highly educated. Now there is a "REASONABLE INFERENCE".
So why not ignore him? :idunno:
noguru
Well-known member
Christ's Word;3309451[B said:
I have not seen TH challenge many other peoples education level on this site. Apparently you are one of the few (if there has actually been more than just you) exceptions to that. I think you ought to take a different route, if you really want to make a convincing argument. But that is just my opinion, feel free to discard that as you see fit.
So you're talking to yourself now? Interesting.
I don't and I've challenged you, publicly, to produce more than your breath on the subject. Instead you do this sort of thing. And there's a reason for that.
No, let's be clear about that. You claimed at some point to be in the mental health care profession. I mock the claim, not the profession.
What education? Supra.
Nope. Supra.
You have an imaginary son now? When did that happen? And don't forget to remember me mocking grandpa and that three legged dog you saved or whatever you pull out of your hat.
(see: son)
Like you, no idea what you're talking about.
What credentials acknowledged where?
You're no more confused about my gender than I am about your rationality. Your earliest rabid insults, the ones that were part of the reason for your "vacation" establish that pretty clearly. And I don't mock people for disagreement, again. Most of my friends here (and chrys will loudly tell you I have a great many) disagree with me on one thing or another.
Next.
Best guess? Because you want attention.
Mostly I mock irrationality. Occasionally, as with you, that spills over where the comments cannot be separated from the character or want thereof.
Of course you do.
No. I'm just not practicing at present. And if things go according to plan I'll return here and there as an unfunded poverty lawyer once Jack is in a good school.
Not really. Produce me doing that broadly. Question yours? Absolutely.
Then you should read more widely. Else, inquire with AMR, someone whose reputation for honesty is established. He'll verify I am precisely what I hold myself out to be.
See, you undid yourself in the midst of your own side bar rant. No evidence followed by my speech resembling an attorney's. You're your own punch line, aren't you...
And now back to the first premise. See, that's so poorly thought out and internally contradictory that it goes into the "supports my suspicion that your familiarity with the mental health care profession is on the other side of it" column.
Thanks. I thought so too.
[
it works for me
well at least we agree on something
Eventually CW, you'll realize that the elephant's not really in the room, it's just on the telly.
When you realize that, you'll be able to turn down the volume or click the off button and the elephant will be gone. :thumb:
And yet you still talk about me. :think: Don't get me wrong, I'm all for your practical ignore tactic. It saves time when you make a sweepingly insulting remark about women or lay claim to a second standard when it comes to who gets called a "baby killer" or when you insult and drive off a decent guy, the way you managed with LMOHM. Then I can note it and your practice without all the side bar inquiry on your part offered to stall and distance.
And the same goes for Sod/resurrection. When he posts a "Jap" comment as he did the other day, or becomes an instant hypocrite, as he did with faux criticism aimed inferentially at me for not giving the Sandy Hook thread the maturity of staying on point and then gives out a repost of two people joking in that thread and crowns it with an "lol". I don't mind the ignore. It won't alter my calling the practice but it just cuts down on the clutter of having to respond to the disingenuous. So...thanks and by all means to the both of you.
Christ's Word
New member
No, you talk about yourself way more than anyone talks about you.
Your overly long blowhard posts ARE THE CLUTTER.
She said, talking about me even though I wasn't talking to her.
I know you like making claims you can't back, but shouldn't you be out trying to find that claim you made about the thing I didn't actually say.
I mean, I did say if you produced it I'd be happy to vacate the premises.
I actually don't tend to write very long posts. But it depends on the subject.
I just respond to every point someone makes and quote them, if you can imagine.
And I see chrys is lifting you out of the red. :chuckle: Good for you.
Christ's Word
New member
It is comments like this that make you who you are. Misleading people in thinking that Chrys is lifting me out of the red. Another lie from you.
I'll admit it's a guess, but it's an educated one. I wouldn't expect you to admit to it. You won't even face your own words. But if I'm wrong on the point I apologize.
:e4e:
Christ's Word
New member
We all see how you are, you arrogant jerk....."A guess", "an assumption", "a reasonable inference". Yet you are never right, and once again, what you say is not true.
Here is the truth, I have received positive rep from 9 different members here in the past few days, mostly for calling you the manipulative cad that you are.
Well, we can't all be as sweet as you unless we want the FCC involved.
The last one doesn't belong. Was that the test? :think:
Is this like when you said that I said your Denver Seminary didn't offer two specific degrees when I didn't say that at all? And then I said quote me and I'll leave and fail to and you leave and you ran like Jesse Owens at an Olympics?
Oh, then I could tell you what they have in common (and likely name them). They've been in your shoes. Called and sputtering to keep up appearances while you name call and dance away from backing your play.
Last edited:
Christ's Word
New member
More jibberish to cover up the fact that you are not as popular as you think you are.
As far as dancing goes, I prefer the road less traveled, and in that regard, you are a superhighway.