It's rumored that I have a type

[davez]

Well then, another satisfied customer. Crap music.

[Absurd]

[Korpsy Knievel]

It's quite funny you get your panties in a twist over something somebody did and at the same time can't take criticism where it is due.

Meanwhile in reality I'm answering your evasions and fabrications one by one. Pretend harder, dummy.

Unless you don't have a hangup on it, you don't have to do anything...

Along with your previous that's a tacit admission that you're unashamed of being down with the clown, just sensitive to being mocked for your white trash coulrophilia.

[mikemex]

Absurd and k0rpsy look like conflicting types which supports my hypothesis that Absurd is ESE and not LSE.

[Absurd]

Meanwhile in reality I'm answering your evasions and fabrications one by one. Pretend harder, dummy.

You can't "answer evasions and fabrications", for they didn't happen, and I don't really know what reality you live in unless you're speaking about fiction. The difference between reality and fiction is, fiction has to make sense, in your case.

In other words you just pick what you want to answer totally omitting the rest and the same time shooting argumentum ad lapidem in every direction. Again, no need to get defensive, you're not the first Olga typed ILE. Tcaud lived up to that as well, so you're not alone.

Along with your previous that's a tacit admission that you're unashamed of being down with the clown, just sensitive to being mocked for your white trash coulrophilia.

This is where I say you're projecting. I have so much in common with "the clown" as you have with the reality you speak of, the reality you want to avoid, but you cannot avoid the consequences of reality.

Absurd and k0rpsy look like conflicting types which supports my hypothesis that Absurd is ESE and not LSE.

Your Highness, I have no need for this hypothesis. This is not my trial. Besides as far hypotheses go and they're usually brought forth by those Ne people, I would be inclined to say, I'm not even Ne/Si quadra, for those excess speculations you make (not only Socionics) I really have no need for. Fact is, they're just assumptions and assumptions they're going to remain.

Of course this can be difference in subtypes, for I don't think I would stand five minutes in the same room with you the moment you opened your mouth without throwing you out of the window.

Looks like I'm your conflictor, too.

http://www.buzzedgames.com/anger-man...land-game.html

^ i don't think i have a good understanding with korpsy, probably type notwithstanding. does that make me ese too, mike?

Mikemex is divorced from reality as well.

[woofwoofl]

Absurd and k0rpsy look like conflicting types which supports my hypothesis that Absurd is ESE and not LSE.

Given my favor of looking at the socion as a multidimensional physical landscape of sorts, oftentimes a Möbius strip, as opposed to sixteen magically discrete and homogenous categories whose boundaries are defined by one person's interpretation of one person's words about a handful of unknown people's types, I totally like the shit out of this. Got 'em both closer to the midpoint peaks of Ni-INxp and Si-ESxj than the midpoint of any possible three letter typing. Definitely giving the advantage to k0rps, but good lord, for this to have been able to go on for as long as it did suggests to me something more balanced than the blatantly and extremely one-sided fistfucking of raw Supervision, like when Te-LIE girl tore the Fe-IEI guy a new one and he just looked helpless, bewildered, devastated, and completely without recourse.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Absurd and k0rpsy look like conflicting types which supports my hypothesis that Absurd is ESE and not LSE.

That is an interesting possibility. However, to examine the problem from another angle and so more-rigorously test this hypothesis, spend 5 seconds making a list of who I don't conflict with and then review the model again.

You can't "answer evasions and fabrications", for they didn't happen, and I don't really know what reality you live in unless you're speaking about fiction. The difference between reality and fiction is, fiction has to make sense, in your case.

In other words you just pick what you want to answer totally omitting the rest and the same time shooting argumentum ad lapidem in every direction. Again, no need to get defensive, you're not the first Olga typed ILE. Tcaud lived up to that as well, so you're not alone.

Hahahaha, you're still citing the wrong fucking fallacy and using this one backwardly. You're about as useful to yourself as a mayonnaise wheelchair. ESE might have merit as your type after all.

[FDG]

I still see Absurd and k0rp's discussions as little more than friendly banter.

[Absurd]

Hahahaha, you're still citing the wrong fucking fallacy and using this one backwardly. You're about as useful to yourself as a mayonnaise wheelchair. ESE might have merit as your type after all.

Prove it for the tenth(?) time, and if I am ESE, you're IEI. Besides, denial is not just the river in Egypt. And this is where you circle around your type thread, losing sight of it.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Prove it for the tenth(?) time, and if I am ESE, you're IEI.

I'll give you one last guess. The correct fallacy you're fumbling around for is linked on the same English wikipedia page as the one you keep misusing.

Besides, denial is not just the river in Egypt.

And of course you wouldn't say shit if you had a mouthful.

And this is where you circle around your type thread, losing sight of it.

Your consistent and unwarranted overestimation of your influence never ceases to slay me.

By the way, the correct answer rhymes with zes.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Given my favor of looking at the socion as a multidimensional physical landscape of sorts, oftentimes a Möbius strip, as opposed to sixteen magically discrete and homogenous categories whose boundaries are defined by one person's interpretation of one person's words about a handful of unknown people's types, I totally like the shit out of this. Got 'em both closer to the midpoint peaks of Ni-INxp and Si-ESxj than the midpoint of any possible three letter typing. Definitely giving the advantage to k0rps, but good lord, for this to have been able to go on for as long as it did suggests to me something more balanced than the blatantly and extremely one-sided fistfucking of raw Supervision, like when Te-LIE girl tore the Fe-IEI guy a new one and he just looked helpless, bewildered, devastated, and completely without recourse.

Hmmm, given an intertype constellation of complete antipodes as you're suggesting, I have to say that this is an increasingly interesting can of worms that mikemex has poured into Absurd's bowl.

[Absurd]

I'll give you one last guess. The correct fallacy you're fumbling around for is linked on the same English wikipedia page as the one you keep misusing.

That's yet another assumption coming from you, I'm not using wikpedia nor misusing it. No answer as usual Mr "in reality I answer your questions."

What follows is, you're using wikipedia assuming I am using it. You can't even follow my tracks which means you're looking in all the wrong places, again, assuming that's what I would do and did.

I'll give you B minus.

And of course you wouldn't say shit if you had a mouthful.

Assumption.

Your consistent and unwarranted overestimation of your influence never ceases to slay me.

!!!????!!!!!??????

By the way, the correct answer rhymes with zes.

Oh really?

[Korpsy Knievel]

That's yet another assumption coming from you, I'm not using wikpedia nor misusing it. No answer as usual Mr "in reality I answer your questions."

It looks like it wouldn't matter anyhow with such terrible reading comprehension. Either/or, the fallacy you want is proof by assertion, which seeks to establish something as fact through say-so without recourse to evidence. The one you keep grabbing by the wrong end, argumentum ad lapidem, is rightfully invoked when one dismisses an argument without reviewing available evidence, not in the instances or toward the purposes to which you've been citing it. See if you can prevent from dicking up the next time.

What follows is, you're using wikipedia assuming I am using it. You can't even follow my tracks which means you're looking in all the wrong places, again, assuming that's what I would do and did.

I gave you a clue where to look, I didn't say anything about where you were getting the information you're mangling. HAHAHAHAHA! I can't even make a mean comment about your persistent and wet-brained interpretation errors because the fact of their recurrence demeans you in itself.

Assumption.

Then bite a turd and say "shit" if you think I'm wrong.

!!!????!!!!!??????

DTs? Have a belt.

Oh really?

Deffo, Slosho.

[Absurd]

It looks like it wouldn't matter anyhow with such terrible reading comprehension. Either/or, the fallacy you want is proof by assertion, which seeks to establish something as fact without recourse to evidence. The one you keep grabbing by the wrong end, argumentum ad lapidem, is rightfully invoked when one dismisses an argument without reviewing available evidence, not in the instances or toward the purposes to which you've been citing it. See if you can prevent from dicking up the next time.

What a great copy/paste skills. Wonder who is using wikipedia now.

Argumentum ad lapidem is what you exactly do - you state something as a fact without any kind of evidence to support your claim, besides pointing out "you did it", that is, you do not discuss anything, you just say as you see it. There is no objectivity in it, it's only your subjective interpretation to which you cling to, no matter how erroneous it is and at the same time giving speeches in public like ****** (you lack moustache though, but you compensate it with beard) "we all know Absurd did this, and he is that, all of you see him this way" - argumentum ad populum - you're simply trying to play on public vote when it comes to people you might have a problem with to gain numbers, dismissing what one says after labeling them this and that - argumentum ad lazarum.

Besides, you just proved what I've been saying all the time with that quote of yours.

DTs? Have a belt.

Assumption again.

Deffo, Slosho.

Who cares?

[Korpsy Knievel]

What a great copy/paste skills. Wonder who is using wikipedia now.

Actually it was a paraphrase, but thanks for trying anyhow. Nice show of disdain for factuality and reading, too.

Argumentum ad lapidem is what you exactly do - you state something as a fact without any kind of evidence to support your claim, besides pointing out "you did it", that is, you do not discuss anything, you just say as you see it.

HAHAHAHAHA! You're incapable of learning. I just explained it and you're still repeating the same mistake. Amazing.

There is no objectivity in it, it's only your subjective interpretation to which you cling to, no matter how erroneous it is and at the same time giving speeches in public like ****** (you lack moustache though, but you compensate it with beard) "we all know Absurd did this, and he is that, all of you see him this way" - argumentum ad populum - you're simply trying to play on public vote when it comes to people you might have a problem with to gain numbers, dismissing what one says after labeling them this and that - argumentum ad lazarum.

And you make regular use of all the same tactics. Stop crying and take your medicine.

Assumption again.

And a reasonable one for a guy who talks so often about getting drunk and even falling down stairs. And don't tell me you just made that up to benefit from the image of being a complete alcoholic.

Who cares?

You since you found it meet to pose the question I answered. FYI: "Who cares" is a bitch move that appears most often when someone is getting upset with losing an argument. Your persistence is amusing but you can't win this one.

[Absurd]

Actually it was a paraphrase, but thanks for trying anyhow. Nice show of disdain for factuality and reading, too.

It's not factual you very smart person. Facts are something that happened, so no wonder they're used with "when", for they're dealing with passed time solely to recall what happened and when. Like korpsey died to AIDS in 2009 - this would be a fact. But it seems to me you're more concerned with truth than facts.

HAHAHAHAHA! You're incapable of learning. I just explained it and you're still repeating the same mistake. Amazing.

You didn't explain shit. That you swim in assumptions like a dog in heavy water regarding people on this forum isn't a surprise to me. You just state those as matter of fact which they're not. Factuality much I take it.

What's even more funnier is you accuse me of being sensitive whilst this shit of a convo has been sparked by, simply me saying the music you listen to is crap. Yes, yes, yes, to use your favourite line of "argumentation", I think you're projecting. Over-sensitive much?

And you make regular use of all the same tactics. Stop crying and take your medicine.

Assumption.

And a reasonable one for a guy who talks so often about getting drunk and even falling down stairs. And don't tell me you just made that up to benefit from the image of being a complete alcoholic.

This can be completely disregarded for it bears no relevance to discussion at hand which is your sorry "Sociotype", so I'll just dismiss it with a non sequitur. Best part is, I know you're reading me on this forum like no one else, like you have a life time subscription to Absurd to say the least, and I don't recall ever sending you a copy.

Long time ago, I thought about something funny, that is: "why not give this poor wanker what he wants, give him all this ammo and a gun to shoot himself with", and it works wonders so far. Dig that grave.

You since you found it meet to pose the question I answered. FYI: "Who cares" is a bitch move that appears most often when someone is getting upset with losing an argument. Your persistence is amusing but you can't win this one.

You don't even know what a rational argument is, simply put 'who cares' translates to 'I couldn't care less.'

[Korpsy Knievel]

It's not factual you very smart person. Facts are something that happened, so no wonder they're used with "when", for they're dealing with passed time solely to recall what happened and when. Like korpsey died to AIDS in 2009 - this would be a fact. But it seems to me you're more concerned with truth than facts.

You've lost track of what you're arguing about and are just making noise now.

You didn't explain shit. That you swim in assumptions like a dog in heavy water regarding people on this forum isn't a surprise to me. You just state those as matter of fact which they're not. Factuality much I take it.

More inability to read on your part. I provided a synopsis of the fallacy you were abusing and the one appropriate to your complaint.

Assumption.

Transparent and klutzy denial.

This can be completely disregarded for it bears no relevance to discussion at hand which is your sorry "Sociotype", so I'll just dismiss it with a non sequitur. Best part is, I know you're reading me on this forum like no one else, like you have a life time subscription to Absurd to say the least, and I don't recall ever sending you a copy.

Long time ago, I thought about something funny, that is: "why not give this poor wanker what he wants, give him all this ammo and a gun to shoot himself with", and it works wonders so far. Dig that grave.

Ask someone who can read to explain non sequiturs to you as well. I said you were a drunk only because you've said numerous times yourself that you're a sot, and bringing up your self reported swillardry is entirely germane to impressions and suggestions of you being a shambling drunk.

You don't even know what a rational argument is, simply put 'who cares' translates to 'I couldn't care less.'

Meanwhile you're still here arguing about something you've denied caring about, which in itself is quite anti-rational. Careful not to make yourself puke with all your spinning.

[Absurd]

You've lost track of what you're arguing about and are just making noise now.

Haha, I'm not arguing anything, maybe that you accuse me of being sensitive whilst this shit of a convo has been sparked by, simply me saying the music you listen to is crap. Yes, yes, yes, to use your favourite line of "argumentation", I think you're projecting. Over-sensitive much?

More inability to read on your part. I provided a synopsis of the fallacy you were abusing and the one appropriate to your complaint.

I wouldn't abuse it providing you wouldn't to the same, and it wasn't a complaint. That you proved me that you actually use fallacious reasoning on your part is enough for me.

Transparent and klutzy denial.

Parroting me won't help you here.

Ask someone who can read to explain non sequiturs to you as well. I said you were a drunk only because you've said numerous times yourself that you're a sot, and bringing up your self reported swillardry is entirely germane to impressions and suggestions of you being a shambling drunk.

It's not, it is totally unrelated and bears no relevance to this thread nor the content, a non sequitur. Now, you, ask somebody to "explain" it you. I would just say it's an ad hominem. And yet again you totally dismissed what I have wrote in reply to you two posts above and continue to spin that web of "you're this and that, everyone knows it, so..."

More power, ammo, and a gun to you. Grab onto that illusion you're on top of things, it's going to be fleeting and fragmentary but it's going to ease you existential pain, Kafka.

Besides pointing me towards "someone who can read" to explain it to me means you can't read and simply require other people to do it for you.

Meanwhile you're still here arguing about something you've denied caring about, which in itself is quite anti-rational. Careful not to make yourself puke with all your spinning.

Lolwut? And what is that?

Seriously, if you think a member called Davez(?) has anything to do with it or with any kind of argument, you're grasping at straws and the only argument is the one you think there is, but there is not. So good luck (you're going to need it) with steering this convo on the track you want it to be, it's going to distort readers' attention and sway them away from the meaning this thread you thought it is going to have.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Haha, I'm not arguing anything,

In that case you aren't replying to me or typing words. You might not even exist.

maybe that you accuse me of being sensitive whilst this shit of a convo has been sparked by, simply me saying the music you listen to is crap. Yes, yes, yes, to use your favourite line of "argumentation", I think you're projecting. Over-sensitive much?

Your favorite music is dull and tinny crap so any opinion you've got on what's good listening is moot. And I knew you wouldn't be able to resist me prodding you over your shit sounds, so rest assured I'm happy for you to jerk and dance whenever I pull your string.

I wouldn't abuse it providing you wouldn't to the same, and it wasn't a complaint. That you proved me that you actually use fallacious reasoning on your part is enough for me.

Everyone has their favorite rhetorical tricks, most of which they use just for goofing around. The difference between you and I in this regard is that I've got the balls to admit it while you just lie, lie, and lie.

Parroting me won't help you here.

Nobody's parroting you but I can start if you think it'll make your efforts less of a failure.

It's not, it is totally unrelated and bears no relevance to this thread nor the content, a non sequitur. Now, you, ask somebody to "explain" it you. I would just say it's an ad hominem. And yet again you totally dismissed what I have wrote in reply to you two posts above and continue to spin that web of "you're this and that, everyone knows it, so..."

Hahaha, I'm only working with your own boasts and confessions:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...015-RIP-Absurd

I'm drunk for the third day, yesterday I fell asleep in my clothes and woke up in the morning, 4 AM I think, and tended to it. Christmas is alright.

Yes, yes, yes they are very very disturbing, I don't have to mention I got drunk because of those pictures yesterday, sniff.

Only get more aggressive when drunk.

I've been drinking with this guy I knew from the past, 23 yrs ago. Didn't have much in common, I think. But I was a a bit drunk and I broke my bottle, so this guy says it's on him. I drank one, then the second and third, etc,., and this guy starts ranting about his failed relationship to me. I was really about to say "fuck off you failed relationship guy, go star in a gay porn film" but this beer somewhat got me soft or something and I endured it. It was hell.

I need alcohol to do that. That's the only way in which I can get that emotional but 99% of time I have it under control.

Can't remember, I mean, it is mostly accumulated stuff that accumulates and accumulates and I fix it. Of course some things I can't fix because they're already gone and I don't dwell on the past. So what I do is I get pissed drunk to release the tension. Works as intended, pretty, I don't know "functional" and I don't blackout anymore.
Beer, vodka and rum. Already answered to Somavision.

Don't worry about my health

Forum member "Absurd" has taken his own life as of 11:41 this morning. We can see his last words here in the chatbox below. RIP absurd, you will be missed for a brief period of time.

06-17-2009 23:41 <Absurd> I stll havent hanged meself and it's morning.
06-17-2009 23:41 <Absurd> Time "flies"
06-17-2009 23:42 <Absurd> Shit. Diddn't even had me last ride on me scooter
06-17-2009 23:43 <Absurd> That really sucks.
06-17-2009 23:45 <Absurd> Big time.
06-17-2009 23:49 <Absurd>
06-17-2009 23:49 <Absurd> Alright. Tieme for me.
06-17-2009 23:50 <Absurd> "Fiddler, why that frantic sound? Why do you gaze so wildly round? Why leaps your blood, like the surging sea? What drives your bow so desperately?" "Why do I fiddle? Or the wild waves roar? That they might pound the rocky shore, That eye be blinded, that bosom swell, That Soul's cry carry down to Hell."
06-17-2009 23:55 <Bionicgoat> are you going to hang yourself absurd?
06-17-2009 23:55 <Bionicgoat>
06-17-2009 23:55 <Bionicgoat> please don't
06-17-2009 23:55 <Bionicgoat> we'll miss you
06-17-2009 23:56 <Bionicgoat> or at least be a man and wait until you aren't drunk anymore
06-17-2009 23:56 <Bionicgoat> real men hang themselves sober
06-17-2009 23:56 <Bionicgoat> actually, real men kill themselves by ripping their own heads off
06-17-2009 23:57 <Bionicgoat> bare handed
06-17-2009 23:59 <Bionicgoat> or you could shoot yourself in the head with a cannon
06-17-2009 23:59 <Bionicgoat> that seems like a man's suicide
06-17-2009 23:59 <Bionicgoat> Absurd! are you still with us?
06-17-2009 23:59 <Bionicgoat>
06-18-2009 00:00 <Bionicgoat>
06-18-2009 00:00 <Bionicgoat> now I'm really worried

There was also this bit of conversation that occurred earlier (I took it from archives, it's in reverse order):

06/17/2009 23:12 <Absurd> You read between the lines. That's great. Yes.. I meant it,;
06/17/2009 23:11 <Absurd> Spot on*
06/17/2009 23:11 <Absurd> Wow. That;s I lkie you for, warrlotd.. You seem to be spotu
06/17/2009 23:10 <Warlord> are you planning suicide?
06/17/2009 23:08 <Absurd> fit me last day here on Earth, i''ll fecking hang meself than
06/17/2009 23:06 <Absurd> Gibhsite*
06/17/2009 23:06 <Absurd> Uttte, fecken gobshitw morons.
06/17/2009 23:04 <Absurd> "This is also the reason that you pay taxes; for the authorities are working for God when they fulfill their duties. Pay, then, what you owe them; pay them your personal and property taxes, and show respect and honor for them all" (Romans 13:6-7)
06/17/2009 23:01 <Absurd> "Remember what I told you: No slave is greater than his master" (John 15:20)
06/17/2009 22:59 <Absurd> "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you and pray for those who mistreat you. If anyone hits you on the cheek, let him hit the other one too...." (Luke 6:27-29)
06/17/2009 22:57 <Absurd> wel. "...for I have learned to be satisfied with what I have...so that anywhere, at any time, I am content, whether I am full or hungry, whether I have too much or too little" (Phil. 4:11-13)
06/17/2009 22:51 <Absurd> Ahhh bollocks. uttter bollock.s
06/17/2009 22:50 <Absurd>
06/17/2009 22:48 <Absurd> Come on, face me, It's me last time here. Got a lot of problems. Now's the time.

Hah, that's what I've arrived at actually, anyhow, next time I'm going to do something really stupid and see what happens, not like waking up in a forest/field of nettles not knowing how I got there, another motorcycle accident or falling from the stairs again - something less painful. Sounds like a plan.

I have had a book in pdf format dealing with this topic specifically. It contained pictures of spacecraft, the material used to build it, diet, and all the technicalities. I had it on my laaptop but I broke it when fell down the stairs with it.

It was beer and instant noodle soup that did mine. Second time I fell down the stairs with it.

I spilled beer/vodka and instant soup on it, fell down the stairs with mine(laptop), and after a "major repair", it still works. Can your Apple do that vs. my Toshiba?

^ So if "everybody knows" it's because you couldn't keep your cocksucker shut.

More power, ammo, and a gun to you. Grab onto that illusion you're on top of things, it's going to be fleeting and fragmentary but it's going to ease you existential pain, Kafka.

Whatever floats your goat, Snappo McSurd. I'm still dragging you around by your rosacea'd rap-clown nose.

Lolwut? And what is that?

Seriously, if you think a member called Davez(?) has anything to do with it or with any kind of argument, you're grasping at straws and the only argument is the one you think there is, but there is not. So good luck (you're going to need it) with steering this convo on the track you want it to be, it's going to distort readers' attention and sway them away from the meaning this thread you thought it is going to have.

Jesus Christ in a chicken basket, I've got doorknobs smarter than you. Davez has nothing to do with this other than you responding to him and me answering the question you posed with that meme pic. Yes, you can stare off into space while being in space. That's a no-brainer, at least for people who actually have brains. Have a drink, and then another and another until you figure out where you got lost.

[Absurd]

In that case you aren't replying to me or typing words. You might not even exist.

Not at all. As usual you omitted the rest and chose what you wanted to answer to which means you only answer to what you deem as refutable, the irrefutable you simply omit.

Your favorite music is dull and tinny crap so any opinion you've got on what's good listening is moot. And I knew you wouldn't be able to resist me prodding you over your shit sounds, so rest assured I'm happy for you to jerk and dance whenever I pull your string.

Of course, problem is by labeling something as "favourite" you assume it is, and assume is all you do. This was my whole point the entire time and still is.

Everyone has their favorite rhetorical tricks, most of which they use just for goofing around. The difference between you and I in this regard is that I've got the balls to admit it while you just lie, lie, and lie.

I said before in some other thread that I can do it with ease, but it's not going to be easy for you, for you can't prove anything. I remember a "convo" you had with a guy called Tits (Titaniumsomething), and funiest thing was, you said you nor any one can't prove Socionics, that they can try, but they can't, at the same time running around and typing your numerous duals, so I'll just wait patiently until you prove what you're accusing me of.

Nobody's parroting you but I can start if you think it'll make your efforts less of a failure.

I'm of different opinion, you're going to have to live with that, even your dog you go for a walk with, I seriously thought it was your date.

Hahaha, I'm only working with your own boasts and confessions:

Yet again you proved everything I have been saying about you so far, vide being the ardent reader having a subscription to Absurd. I'm sure, it's not only me and it's beyond any shadow of doubt that you spend your free time mulling over this forum, it's like a substitute you call life. But hey, nobody is perfect, definitely not guy roaming every typology forum there is arguing how he is ILI when some people actually came to disagree, not only you argue the case, you defend it like it was a matter of life and death to you. Hey, you can't prove anything, let it go...

^ So if "everybody knows" it's because you couldn't keep your cocksucker shut.

And I do not intend to, definitely not when it comes to guy whose face is filled with broken commandments.

Whatever floats your goat, Snappo McSurd. I'm still dragging you around by your rosacea'd rap-clown nose.

?

Jesus Christ in a chicken basket, I've got doorknobs smarter than you. Davez has nothing to do with this other than you responding to him and me answering the question you posed with that meme pic. Yes, you can stare off into space while being in space. That's a no-brainer, at least for people who actually have brains. Have a drink, and then another and another until you figure out where you got lost.

Yes, I did, you dumb idiot and I couldn't care less, for I really don't give a flying toss about it. I don't even know the reason your identical posted that image, didn't bother to ask, I couldn't care less. The fact you actually went so far and relieved your identical off duty is very admirable, change his diaper while you're at it as well, not to mention stroke his cock, and you're making an argument out of this is exactly what I said you would do, that is, you create those where there are none to prove something you just can't prove.

Well, that's what you can expect from a mental midget with the IQ of a fence post.

[ashlesha]

I still see Absurd and k0rp's discussions as little more than friendly banter.

lmao

[davez]

Yes, I did, you dumb idiot and I couldn't care less, for I really don't give a flying toss about it. I don't even know the reason your identical posted that image, didn't bother to ask, I couldn't care less. The fact you actually went so far and relieved your identical off duty is very admirable, change his diaper while you're at it as well, not to mention stroke his cock, and you're making an argument out of this is exactly what I said you would do, that is, you create those where there are none to prove something you just can't prove.

Well, that's what you can expect from a mental midget with the IQ of a fence post.

The reason is simple. Calling every song korpsey mentioned as crappy is tasteless and idiotic. I don't really have a duty, and as sad as it may sound, korpsey has no army. Although it would be fun to see few more identicals quoting and simply explaining your inconsistencies, while you desperately keep drowning with every next response.

Seriously, leave midgets alone. You have juggalos to take care of.

Seriously, if you think a member called Davez(?) has anything to do with it or with any kind of argument, you're grasping at straws and the only argument is the one you think there is, but there is not. So good luck (you're going to need it) with steering this convo on the track you want it to be, it's going to distort readers' attention and sway them away from the meaning this thread you thought it is going to have.

So at first you mentioned that i don't have anything to do with it, then you reply like i was big part in this argument. Someone just shit in his diaper.

[Olga]

2 Korpsy,
I have posted the questionnaire in the Associative typology topic.It would be good if you could transfer your information into the new form and try to answer honestly and fully as you can.
Your songs.... is it possible to organize them from the most favourite/ al the time favorite - to the least favourite. We may sometimes choose the songs because of a certain mood. Someof teh songs can refer to us being in a particular mindset. So if you want to comment on some songs - you can do it as well.

I will also need your subjective opinion about your type a - this is important. And if you have a doubt or did have a doubt before about your type - then I need to know what types they were.
You can also show your photo - send it to PM.

Davez is may be ILI or similar type?

[davez]

Davez is may be ILI or similar type?

more likely than not

[Olga]

more likely than not

Not even close?

[davez]

Not even close?

Probably ILI, second guess goes to LIE

[Absurd]

The reason is simple. Calling every song korpsey mentioned as crappy is tasteless and idiotic. I don't really have a duty, and as sad as it may sound, korpsey has no army. Although it would be fun to see few more identicals quoting and simply explaining your inconsistencies, while you desperately keep drowning with every next response.

Seriously, leave midgets alone. You have juggalos to take care of.

It is crap and I wouldn't change what I have said if I had the opportunity to, the same way I wouldn't change nor did change my opinion regarding, say, Olga's "typing by music" or whatever is that called. None of the representatives were my cup of tea. And she knows that very well.

As for "tasteless and idiotic" you midget, I don't give a Gammas' arse what you're listening to as long you stay out of my "porch" with your madman rhetorics, so I don't have to shoot you. The moment you violate my right kill everyone who enters not being invited, I'm going to kill you. And that I'm going to do. Figuratively speaking of course...

I have every right to do so.

I don't care what "korpsey has and not", he can be as well sporting a giant vagina on his forehead. Wouldn't move me at all. Careful with mentioning somebody's army though - when you deny it, someone can think it is actually not so, for you don't have a reason to deny something if it wasn't so to begin with. Comprende, midget?

So at first you mentioned that i don't have anything to do with it, then you reply like i was big part in this argument. Someone just shit in his diaper.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Davez.

There once was a man, his name Davez, sent by korpsey to point out the way to the Life-Light. He came to show everyone where to look, who to believe in. Davez was not himself the Light; he was there to show the way to the Light.

I did mention that, for I just don't know what the heck was the point of the image you posted, unless you can't read ask korpsey to point you to someone who can so this someone can help you. The only "big part of argument" was created by korpsey who I think from the lack of anything better to do had to create one out of none.

Someone did shit in his diaper. Better discuss that between korpsey.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Not at all. As usual you omitted the rest and chose what you wanted to answer to which means you only answer to what you deem as refutable, the irrefutable you simply omit.

Explain how that differs from your usual selectivity and confusion.

Of course, problem is by labeling something as "favourite" you assume it is, and assume is all you do. This was my whole point the entire time and still is.

Unless a person is a naive realist and a bonehead like yourself there's very little in the world that isn't based on assumption, so you've got a lot of tears left to shed.

I said before in some other thread that I can do it with ease, but it's not going to be easy for you, for you can't prove anything. I remember a "convo" you had with a guy called Tits (Titaniumsomething), and funiest thing was, you said you nor any one can't prove Socionics, that they can try, but they can't, at the same time running around and typing your numerous duals, so I'll just wait patiently until you prove what you're accusing me of.

I type and present many people for typing who are from outside my quadra as well, so this whine of yours is also meritless. And socionics is pluralistically hermeneutic, so one can argue a case and convince others of a typing, but it can't be proven conclusively without a) privileged information on a subject's shifting and characteristic mental states and b) a reliable means of quantifying IEs and their hierarchical position within the two-cube filing cabinet of Model A.

I'm of different opinion, you're going to have to live with that, even your dog you go for a walk with, I seriously thought it was your date.

And that weird construal is reason enough to ponder your own life experiences and the sort of ladies (???) you prefer.

Yet again you proved everything I have been saying about you so far, vide being the ardent reader having a subscription to Absurd. I'm sure, it's not only me and it's beyond any shadow of doubt that you spend your free time mulling over this forum, it's like a substitute you call life. But hey, nobody is perfect, definitely not guy roaming every typology forum there is arguing how he is ILI when some people actually came to disagree, not only you argue the case, you defend it like it was a matter of life and death to you. Hey, you can't prove anything, let it go...

Now list how many typology forums I'm on. Also, answer for your average of 9 posts a day here and previous boasts of trolling multiple forums.

And I do not intend to, definitely not when it comes to guy whose face is filled with broken commandments.

Of course not since it's not convenient to your self image, which you would prefer to clown up and clown down at your discretion.

Yes, I did, you dumb idiot and I couldn't care less, for I really don't give a flying toss about it.

Yet you're still scrambling to escape having done it because it blew up in your booze-bloated face.

I don't even know the reason your identical posted that image, didn't bother to ask, I couldn't care less.

Obviously he noted your mental handicaps and sought to bring them to your attention, though your "don't care" pretense is one of several handy defense you have against negative self-recognition.

The fact you actually went so far and relieved your identical off duty is very admirable, change his diaper while you're at it as well, not to mention stroke his cock, and you're making an argument out of this is exactly what I said you would do, that is, you create those where there are none to prove something you just can't prove.

Meanwhile you're still here struggling to save face. Nice addition of your usual homo scarecrow tactic, too, another telling sign of what you are and where you're from.

Well, that's what you can expect from a mental midget with the IQ of a fence post.

And that's exactly what I receive from you. Unfortunately you're too dense and image-anxious to stop befouling yourself.

[Absurd]

Explain how that differs from your usual selectivity and confusion.

You just changed the wording of the same thing I said first, parrot.

Unless a person is a naive realist and a bonehead like yourself there's very little in the world that isn't based on assumption, so you've got a lot of tears left to shed.

I type and present many people for typing who are from outside my quadra as well, so this whine of yours is also meritless.

Yes, yes, yes - that's a fantastic half, korpsey, but do you have any dirty films? No? You bastard.

Anyhow, I couldn't care less, Maritsa if you were to be the only ILI and some other person the only SEE. Point was, and that point you totally omitted once again, you are against Socionics at the same time typing your duals.

I don't care if you type some other people some other type. It means shit to me.

And that weird construal is reason enough to ponder your own life experiences and the sort of ladies (???) you prefer.

Assumption again. I'm not you.

Now list how many typology forums I'm on. Also, answer for your average of 9 posts a day here and previous boasts of trolling multiple forums.

Last time I bothered to check you were definitely on Socionics.com and Sociotype.com, I don't care (again) for, say, MBTI forums. First time you shoved your face in my way on this forum I thought you're some kind of newbie, only later I learned you're like a father clock of typology forums, so I got curious. I remember you banning yourself twice as well, must of been this emo cry having to do with "being fed up with Socionics..."

Of course not since it's not convenient to your self image, which you would prefer to clown up and clown down at your discretion.

Argumentum ad lapidem.

Yet you're still scrambling to escape having done it because it blew up in your booze-bloated face.

Argumentum ad lapidem.

Obviously he noted your mental handicaps and sought to bring them to your attention, though your "don't care" pretense is one of several handy defense you have against negative self-recognition.

No, I don't simply give a fuck what you have to say, for I know most of things you say are just fallacies.

Meanwhile you're still here struggling to save face. Nice addition of your usual homo scarecrow tactic, too, another telling sign of what you are and where you're from.

Meanwhile you're narrating a story the way it works out in your head, not much in reality. So, is it working out for you? In the real world I would skin you alive and eat you. I seriously don't know what is "homo scarecrow tactic" and I bet some people on here would be interested in terminology you come up with on the fly, for the only thing you do is you construct a mental image of some person, an image so deeply rooted in what you call your brain I bet when you even met that person in real life you wouldn't be able to utter a single vowel. Not only you construct an image of some person in what you call your brain, you try to project that image on said person just so your fantasy world you live in, won't shatter.

And that's exactly what I receive from you. Unfortunately you're too dense and image-anxious to stop befouling yourself.

The only image conscious person here is you. Your mind is so open ideas simply pass through it.

[Korpsy Knievel]

You just changed the wording of the same thing I said first, parrot.

It only looks that way because of your atrocious reading comprehension.

Anyhow, I couldn't care less, Maritsa if you were to be the only ILI and some other person the only SEE. Point was, and that point you totally omitted once again, you are against Socionics at the same time typing your duals.

I'm for socionics instrumentalism, against socionics realism. Unfortunately that's also beyond your capacity to understand.

I don't care if you type some other people some other type. It means shit to me.

Again with this, not caring but arguing anyhow. Incoherence has always been your sine qua non.

Assumption again. I'm not you.

That's probably correct but it doesn't explain why you hallucinate queers and dogfuckers all around you.

Last time I bothered to check you were definitely on Socionics.com

I quit Ganin's forum when I came here two years ago.

Sociotype.com

Nope, that's false.

I don't care (again) for, say, MBTI forums. First time you shoved your face in my way on this forum I thought you're some kind of newbie, only later I learned you're like a father clock of typology forums, so I got curious.

You're a shitty detective. I'm not on any MBTI forums.

I remember you banning yourself twice as well, must of been this emo cry having to do with "being fed up with Socionics..."

Must "of".

Argumentum ad lapidem.

Still fucking that one up.

Argumentum ad lapidem.

Still fucking that one up.

No, I don't simply give a fuck what you have to say, for I know most of things you say are just fallacies.

If you actually possessed the intelligence to understand the ideas you argue against this complaint might carry some weight.

Meanwhile you're narrating a story the way it works out in your head, not much in reality. So, is it working out for you? In the real world I would skin you alive and eat you.

Because you're so internet tough.

I seriously don't know what is "homo scarecrow tactic" and I bet some people on here would be interested in terminology you come up with on the fly, for the only thing you do is you construct a mental image of some person, an image so deeply rooted in what you call your brain I bet when you even met that person in real life you wouldn't be able to utter a single vowel. Not only you construct an image of some person in what you call your brain, you try to project that image on said person just so your fantasy world you live in, won't shatter.

Then I've got plenty of company around here, especially you.

The only image conscious person here is you. Your mind is so open ideas simply pass through it.

Argumentum ad inconsequentium.

[Absurd]

It only looks that way because of your atrocious reading comprehension.

If it looks that way, then it is that way, else it wouldn't look that way.

I'm for socionics instrumentalism, against socionics realism. Unfortunately that's also beyond your capacity to understand.

Of course it is, I opt for the latter.

Again with this, not caring but arguing anyhow. Incoherence has always been your sine qua non.

Well, I do not really care, your life and what you do with it, how you spend your free time - I do not lose sleep over. As far as I am concerned you can be doing your instrumentalist experiments dressed in a labcoat, pouring lead into your ears 24/7 on this forum providing you don't do that already.

That's probably correct but it doesn't explain why you hallucinate queers and dogfuckers all around you.

There are no "queers and dogfuckers all around me" - I'm quite picky whom I surround myself with, so sorry very much, but I don't have anything in common with you.

I quit Ganin's forum when I came here two years ago.

Ahh yes, I think you have had a bit of a shitty welcome regarding "your rumored type" as well there.

Nope, that's false.

Somebody trolled you, then.

You're a shitty detective. I'm not on any MBTI forums.

For a guy who accuses people of being unable to read you just failed your standard literacy test. I never said you were on MBTI forum(s).

Must "of".

Thank you very much...

Still fucking that one up.
Still fucking that one up.

I just can't stop "fucking it up" seeing you making the same mistakes.

If you actually possessed the intelligence to understand the ideas you argue against this complaint might carry some weight.

I would have to know what I am arguing against first, heh.

Because you're so internet tough.

Yeah, my muscles grow constantly pounding that keyboard. I have to admit, you're my role model when it comes to Internet chat room(s) body building.

Then I've got plenty of company around here, especially you.

Piss off, I'm not your company nor have ever been. Leave that line for your storytelling adventure super smash hit blockbuster film you're directing in your head.

Argumentum ad inconsequentium.

Like I said, you're just a parrot that glued itself to one's shoulder. And that sentence is perfectly fine, for if it wasn't so you wouldn't be even dreaming of some "image conscious" bollocks you came up with, so I thought I'm going to return the favour. What's funny is, you're the one to actually quote your sorry arse yourself and post what you have posted. And it was no hypothesis you shit - try that with mikemex, he self-types IEE (Ti polr) so you can barrage him those anytime, he's going to even thank you after.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Somebody trolled you, then.

Yes, somebody tried to but you weren't effective at it.

For a guy who accuses people of being unable to read you just failed your standard literacy test. I never said you were on MBTI forum(s).

Right, you admitted being duped by someone else who gave you this false info. Don't be so gullible next time.

Ahh yes, I think you have had a bit of a shitty welcome regarding "your rumored type" as well there.

The only issues were Ganin's grinning idiocy and a few clashes with your shitspaz little sister, Cyclops, who shares your predilection for attacking anything he misunderstands.

I just can't stop "fucking it up" seeing you making the same mistakes.

You keep putting the cart in front of the horse by confusing appeal to assertion with absence of proof, just as you're too dumb to stop mixing up poisoning the well with appeal to the mob. I've explained it to you already and given you a clue on how to use the internet but you're beyond assistance.

I would have to know what I am arguing against first, heh.

That would be an interesting starting point though it's generally one you skip, bypassing derp and beginning instead with herp.

Yeah, my muscles grow constantly pounding that keyboard. I have to admit, you're my role model when it comes to Internet chat room(s) body building.

You'd have difficulty finding much disagreement with that.

Like I said, you're just a parrot that glued itself to one's shoulder. And that sentence is perfectly fine, for if it wasn't so you wouldn't be even dreaming of some "image conscious" bollocks you came up with, so I thought I'm going to return the favour. What's funny is, you're the one to actually quote your sorry arse yourself and post what you have posted. And it was no hypothesis you shit - try that with mikemex, he self-types IEE (Ti polr) so you can barrage him those anytime, he's going to even thank you after.

Froggy, you're mikemex's ESE, not mine, though it is an amusing box he's stuffed you into. Best of luck talking Huxley into allowing you back out.

[Absurd]

1. Yes, somebody tried to but you weren't effective at it.

2. Right, you admitted being duped by someone else who gave you this false info. Don't be so gullible next time.

3. You keep putting the cart in front of the horse by confusing appeal to assertion with absence of proof, just as you're too dumb to stop mixing up poisoning the well with appeal to the mob. I've explained it to you already and given you a clue on how to use the internet but you're beyond assistance.

Yeah, right. Keep speculating "somebody did that."

I bet you even make the same mistakes in real life where you assume there's a bridge when there is none and you drive through it. And for the love of Jung and Virgin Mary, it is argumentum ad lapidem. Argumentum ad lapidem is exactly proof by assertion and in your case it is so widespread you're just going to repeat it over and over, and over again (argumentum ad nauseam), scribbling "stop mixing them up."

Go learn something other than Socionics, for so far the "claims" you create and repeat are just useless as the person repeating them. I wouldn't even put you in charge of snake control in Ireland out of fear you would blab to your supervisor the dinosaurs are hatching.

That would be an interesting starting point though it's generally one you skip, bypassing derp and beginning instead with herp.

Taking into account it is your imaginary argument I am supposedly arguing, it must be so.

You'd have difficulty finding much disagreement with that.

Yes, I'm sure the veteran of IRC is a very hands-on person.

Froggy, you're mikemex's ESE, not mine, though it is an amusing box he's stuffed you into. Best of luck talking Huxley into allowing you back out.

Guess what, I don't care. To me, mixemex isn't even IEE nor I want to know him just like quite a few IEEs on here. No offence to IEEs who think they are the chosen of course, nothing personal. The rest, which is not many, it's alright.

As you can see, everyone can "do" Socionics.

Thank you for the advice regarding Huxley, I'm sure not going to use it.

[thePirate]

Unless a person is a naive realist and a bonehead like yourself there's very little in the world that isn't based on assumption, so you've got a lot of tears left to shed.

This is nothing but an empty rationalization to justify your lunacy. What you fail to differentiate is that an assumption can be based on facts or a relative sense of truth. Absurd is right in that you are more concerned with a relativistic interpretation of reality, this is something multiple members including me have noted about you. I also find this thread exemplary of how the intellectual insecurity you possess leads you down a predictable response path. You need to stop pretending like you do anything more than evade questions, because that consists of the bulk of your communication in exchanges like this. As a side note it's nothing short of hilarious how you are able to completely reject any sense of reality thrown at you. It doesn't seem to matter that you are the sole outlier in a multitude of similar accusations thrown at you, you still manage to reject the input as invalid and not process it. It takes a special kind of delusional person to operate like that.

Why don't you try something different this time, and, oh I don't know, actually address what's been thrown at you? Why is it that you make these leaps in assumptions that have no grounds in reality? Or, more relevantly, how can you justify yourself being Te ego when much of what you say can not be substantiated through observable means? For all the bullshit you have spewed in this thread I, and pretty much anyone who has been familiar with you some time, will agree to what Absurd has been writing so why bother defending yourself at all. It's not like anything he wrote isn't clearly observable at a glance. I mean, does you making assumptions really need to be debated? Reading through what you wrote, much of your response to him could easily be labeled as projection when you fail at the same things you are accusing him of. I wrote a lengthier post, but I am condensing it into one simple message, and that is to stop being fake and accept the reality of who you are. Your inability to accept this is probably the most repulsive quality of yours, second only to the speed and magnitude of which you unload your malice on others.

Anyway to get on topic, as mentioned earlier, the intellectual insecurity reeks of head>heart, as well speaks in relation to the motivation of the 5. This is probably the most notable thing about you as far as motivations go. You have a heavy 4 wing and I would deduce are probably at the low-average to high unhealthy ranges of your type. This impression is heavier on me than the idea that of an identity itself or meaning being what you are looking for. Since you have a tendency to suppress your emotions it is very unlikely that you are a 4 since they tend to do the exact opposite as their emotions pertain to their identity. You are more or less ILI to me, but the boded earlier strikes me as very odd and would like to know what that is and how you see it reconciling as your type. Maybe it's just a result of being unhealthy.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Thank you for the advice regarding Huxley, I'm sure not going to use it.

Not surprising since you've given it to others before. Also, since you refuse to un-stupid:

Argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy in which a premise is described as absurd and them dismissed, but with no proof given for said absurdity.

- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. The form of argument employed by such dismissals is the argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

Agumentum Ad Lapidem
Also Called

Appeal to the Stone

The Act of dismissing a statement as absurd without providing any proof that is absurd.

Examples:

Film

In Thank You For Smoking, Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finnistre counters with "I...just...psh...no."

- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...entumAdLapidem

The argument "ad lapidem" is a logical fallacy that is essentially an attempt to dismiss a statement as absurd without giving reason to support the dismissal. They are fallacious because they fail to address the merit of the claims in dispute. Ad hominem's are fallacious for much the same reason, as they address the advocate, not the merit of the claim.

- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...tum_ad_lapidem

The argumentum ad lapidem (Latin for "argument to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists of dismissing an argument as absurd without explaining why it is absurd. The fallacy takes its name from Samuel Johnson's response to Bishop Berkeley:

Boswell had said of Berkeley's 'ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter and that everything in the universe is merely ideal' (both statements inaccurate) 'that the doctrine could not be refuted, though we are satisfied it is not true. Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone until he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus." '[1]

The argument is fallacious because it does not address Berkeley's point, but only asserts that the point is ridiculous. The argumentum ad lapidem has been compared to the appeal to ridicule in that the former does not even try to make an argument.[2]

- http://www.conservapedia.com/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

No need to thank me for straightening you out once again.

[Absurd]

Not surprising since you've given it to others before. Also, since you refuse to un-stupid:

Oh, I see it is the wikipedia you accused me of supposedly abusing, interesting. Out of sheer curiosity, I would like to know what am I going to end up abusing next time? That is what am I going going to get accused of in light of evidence you hold but can't disclose? Puking in front of a church at 6 AM? Am I guilty?

Argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy in which a premise is described as absurd and them dismissed, but with no proof given for said absurdity.

The most important thing when it comes to such fallacy is, the "instigator" just fails to address anything relevant and in this case this very thread which is your official 'type-me' thread doesn't bare anything relevant nor significant when it comes to discussion about your "rumored type."

Is it just me or do you fail to grasp the structure of an argument? I mean, I can as well copy/paste stuff into this window and post a quick reply, no problem with that, but you simply do not understand what you're quoting. No offence.

Law is a weird business, for you have to interpret what you're trying to prove, it's not fixed. The moment you think it is, you have to learn it the next day, no wonder many aspiring law people failed to get their applications and with some pain ended up in law enforcement - Police -, or writing church law, canonical law.

Appeal to stone, that is, argumentum ad lapidem simply means you state things as they are without any kind of proof to back it up. It further means you dismiss every statement I happen to utter without any proof as you, yourself pointed it out (by accident?) as absurd. For example, I can write I'm going to get stoned like Jesus but not quite, and you, do not have any proof it happened, for you're not even there. You have no witness. But you're still going to dismiss it and argue otherwise, having no proof to back it up.

This brings us(?) to ad hominem attacks you throw left and right. It's not even an argument. Do some head stands with woofwoolf, maybe you're going to see things clearly, oh and bake something. Brownies.

No need to thank me for straightening you out once again.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Oh, I see it is the wikipedia you accused me of supposedly abusing, interesting.

No, idiot. You're invoking the wrong fallacies, not to mention relying on them yourself. Learn to read.

[Absurd]

No, idiot. You're invoking the wrong fallacies, not to mention relying on them yourself. Learn to read.

Do you eat brain tumor for breakfast?

And "no, idiot" is "yes, idiot", it's black on white you accused me of abusing and misusing "English wikipedia" in this very thread whatever that means, but if you're so eager to supervise me now, I would like you list the fallacies you use so I can see on my own eyes and examine them myself. Just to prove you're correct of course...

Oh and point out how I am relying on them as well.

You're fucked.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Do you eat brain tumor for breakfast?

And "no, idiot" is "yes, idiot", it's black on white you accused me of abusing and misusing "English wikipedia" in this very thread whatever that means, but if you're so eager to supervise me now, I would like you list the fallacies you use so I can see on my own eyes and examine them myself. Just to prove you're correct of course...

Oh and point out how I am relying on them as well.

You're fucked.

It's only clear to you because you're a moron and view things as a moron does.

[Absurd]

It's only clear to you because you're a moron and view things as a moron does.

I can roll over you with ease Mr "in reality I answer your all questions" - the reality you traded for instrumentalism I take it, the reality you adhere to after trading it for instrumentalism.

You know nothing but you think you know everything, don't you?