It is not wrong to retaliate with racial slurs on the General Board. Solid proof.

[Le Jacquelope]

How much longer is LT going to flog that same old opinion at us? One would think that he'd get tired of repeating himself.

Let's all give him a pass for perseverance and let him say whatever he pleases. Nobody has been really offended by his slurs, have they?

Oh they have.

Now you know how it feels when I have to put up with these slurs that none of you ever seem to see, or care about.

You do care now, don't you?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Until you can show me one single white person who criticized those racial slurs that I documented, your points have no substance because until you can show me one single white person who criticized those racial slurs that I documented, you've failed to show that racial slurs are actually condemned here.

Racial slurs are only condemned here when it's done by unpopular people.

Before you try to argue with me again, show me the white person who condemned those racist posts that I documented.

And, yet again, I shall observe that your logic now boils down to "So long as I can find one case where the behavior wasn't condemned in someone whom most people probably have on ignore anyway, the behavior must be good."

The irony, of course, is that it would be impossible for you to expect people to condemn the behavior if it wasn't wrong and offensive. You seem to be ignoring one obvious reason why racism and unpopularity might go together.

 

[BlackShanglan]

How much longer is LT going to flog that same old opinion at us? One would think that he'd get tired of repeating himself.

Let's all give him a pass for perseverance and let him say whatever he pleases. Nobody has been really offended by his slurs, have they?

Honestly, it's the offense to reason that really annoys me. Ishmael is an ass, but at least he doesn't generally go on for a solid week and more trying to argue that he's innocent and non-offending. What's ridiculous here is that LT knows perfectly well that his behavior is wrong and offensive, and there's not a scrap of reasoning to support his actions. Instead, we have what is essentially a temper tantrum: he's mad that people are rude to him, so he's going to scream and howl and be ugly to everyone around him, using as the stunning centerpiece of his logic the argument that other toddlers have also screamed and howled and had temper tantrums. Now he's down to attacking anyone who complains. It's ugly and silly, and it would be a great deal more honest simply to say "I enjoy being nasty and I like to look for excuses for it" and be done.

 

[phrodeau]

Oh they have.

Now you know how it feels when I have to put up with these slurs that none of you ever seem to see, or care about.

You do care now, don't you?

You would like to think so.

You'd also like to think that the racial slurs you use are needle-tipped darts which meet their intended targets, but they're actually more like bad farts that everyone has to smell.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Now again, show me a single white person who ever criticized these acts of racism:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=24028690&postcount=96
https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=23475259&postcount=131
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15033212&postcount=85
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=24253080&postcount=107

Yes, I know everyone is scared as hell to answer this question directly, but that's why I'm repeating it.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Honestly, it's the offense to reason that really annoys me. Ishmael is an ass, but at least he doesn't generally go on for a solid week and more trying to argue that he's innocent and non-offending. What's ridiculous here is that LT knows perfectly well that his behavior is wrong and offensive, and there's not a scrap of reasoning to support his actions. Instead, we have what is essentially a temper tantrum: he's mad that people are rude to him, so he's going to scream and howl and be ugly to everyone around him, using as the stunning centerpiece of his logic the argument that other toddlers have also screamed and howled and had temper tantrums. Now he's down to attacking anyone who complains. It's ugly and silly, and it would be a great deal more honest simply to say "I enjoy being nasty and I like to look for excuses for it" and be done.

You truly underestimate the depth of faith I put into my stance in things. I bet my life and livelihood on being and doing what I believe in, and have prospered. It is impossible for me to ever see this is wrong or offensive when it has been so successful.

I can go for years goading you into jumping onto your horse. You've become nothing more than a button that I push.

*push*

 

[phrodeau]

^^^^Big fucking wall.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Your logic has failed you and now so has your ability to count.

You see, LT ... the thing about logic is, it's disproved by logic. Crying "Your logic has failed you!" and twirling your stage mustache, however dramatically done, doesn't affect logic. You have to actually deal with the arguments, which you have persistently avoided doing.

I no longer care because for some people spewing racial slurs, criticism will never come to them. Ever. Because they're white and popular. That is a proven and documented fact of history.

Oh, for heaven's sake. You listed Ishmael in your list of racist posters, and how many times have I mocked him, taunted him, and called him an ass for just that reason? Citing examples in which people haven't been reproved doesn't actually prove that they never are. It only proves that there's not an unsleeping enforcement patrol following them about.

Now again, show me a single white person who ever criticized these acts of racism:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=24028690&postcount=96
https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=23475259&postcount=131
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15033212&postcount=85
http://forum.literotica.com/showpos...p sinking to the level you pretend you're at.

 

[BlackShanglan]

^^^^Big fucking wall.

You have a point, O sagacious and hairly-footed one.

 

[phrodeau]

You have a point, O sagacious and hairly-footed one.

And it's not just on my head. Thanks.

 

[warrior queen]

i am a white person.
i am also a confessed racist.
i get shit on all the time when i admit this on the gb.

guess this thread is finished now.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You see, LT ... the thing about logic is, it's disproved by logic. Crying "Your logic has failed you!" and twirling your stage mustache, however dramatically done, doesn't affect logic. You have to actually deal with the arguments, which you have persistently avoided doing.

Let's get back to the point you tried to dodge here.

"Your logic has failed you and now so has your ability to count."

You said I brought up one case of racism not being criticized. I brought up four. It is not mere logic or opinion that your logic and your ability to count have failed you: it is mathematical fact.

Until you can recognize that 4 is greater than one,

Oh, for heaven's sake. You listed Ishmael in your list of racist posters, and how many times have I mocked him, taunted him, and called him an ass for just that reason? Citing examples in which people haven't been reproved doesn't actually prove that they never are. It only proves that there's not an unsleeping enforcement patrol following them about.

You said Ishmael is on ignore. That you have pounded him into dust does not support the contention that Ishmael is on ignore. Is this the extent of those all powerful debate skills that I once actually feared? You really looked like a giant stepping on him. Up close and head to head against you, you look like a friggin minpin.

And, again, explain to me how this somehow makes their behavior right. I refuse to believe that you're really the sort of fool who molds his ideas of right and wrong on what idiots say without being told they're idiots.

I only follow rules that I have faith that they will be enforced.

When it's no holds barred for the enemy, it's no holds barred for me.

I've told you this before.

I don't constrain myself with rules of engagement the other side isn't held to.

(1) That would be a case strong enough for the L train to be stopped by, not to smash through.

(2) That's probably why it's sitting quietly in front of the undented case, yelling that it's smashed through and is careening wildly past on the other side.

Your case:
"So long as I can find one case where the behavior wasn't condemned in someone whom most people probably have on ignore anyway, the behavior must be good."

I showed you not one, but four cases (five if you count the Problem Child thread I posted later) of racism from people who aren't on ignore by a lot of people.

I showed your case to be factually wrong, yet you're saying it's undented? It's only undented if you believe your perception of reality trumps reality.

Tell us, is 4 greater or lesser than one?

Proving that one person hasn't got Cap'n Am on ignore is a ridiculous way to prove that part of the reason people don't correct him is that many are ignoring him.

Ok, who has him on ignore and who doesn't? Can you prove your case here?

I call your cards.

Unlike you, I don't deal in absolutes so extreme that they are utterly meaningless;

I am only asking you to prove your "most people have that person on ignore" case. You cannot do that.

therefore, I am able to grasp the concept of "many people," which is not the same as "all people." If you're able to get that far, perhaps the next will make sense: who are the most likely people to listen to a racist idiot? And who are the most likely to put him on ignore? Ahhhhh. See?

Do note how you have backpedaled from "most" to "many".

Perhaps the L train hasn't smashed through your case. It can't smash into what is not there.

Oh, I don't underestimate your conviction. I only point out that you severely overestimate your logic.

In the meantime, you subtlely backpedal from "most" to "many" when talking about who has Cap'n Amatrica and Ishmael on ignore. (Not to mention Byron or Wyldfire, which constitute TWO other cases... again, two is greater than your "one".)

You're bad at math, BlackShanglan. Very bad. But you're good at backpedaling.

The funny part is you're not adult enough to admit you backpedaled from "most" to "many". You'd have to admit error. And once you cross into the GB... you cannot and will not admit error.

Let's look at this example. In the World According to LT, one can evidently spot anyone who has ever said or done an offensive thing in his or her life because that person is impoverished and totally without success in any area of his or her life. And yet ... damned if I can't recall LT just saying that even offensive racist idiots seem to manage to find people to hang about with.

Racist idiots seem to manage to find people to hang about with ON the GB.

They would be utterly fucking toast on that other forum, and in real life, too.

Do you actually believe that success indicates moral uprightness? It seems an odd position for someone who so violently dislikes obscenely wealthy CEO's.

Oh, this is really too much, LT. Tell me you haven't really dropped all the way down to "Ha ha, I control you! If you answer, I'm in control of you, and if you don't answer, I'm right because I got the last word!"

I'll be sure to point out any more of those "I got LT to respond, I own him!" end zone dances that are done around here when people get caught in outright documented lies by me. It's all they ever do here any more.

Recidiva is one who does that.

Please tell me why you think this is wrong yet it is (using your magic word here) common standard"

That is the oldest, saddest, most pathetically worn-out schtick on the internet. I would have thought you'd be ashamed to be found scrounging around the armory of your logic and coming up with that dead frog to throw at someone. This is what happens when you keep pretending that you can't see obvious reason; you end up sinking to the level you pretend you're at.

Now let's see if you're adult enough to own up to the mistakes you've made and which have been pointed out here.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Let's get back to the point you tried to dodge here.

"Your logic has failed you and now so has your ability to count."

You said I brought up one case of racism not being criticized. I brought up four. It is not mere logic or opinion that your logic and your ability to count have failed you: it is mathematical fact.

Your remarkable tendency to cling to pointless and unrelated details is becoming harder and harder to see as anything but evasion. The full original quotation:

And, yet again, I shall observe that your logic now boils down to "So long as I can find one case where the behavior wasn't condemned in someone whom most people probably have on ignore anyway, the behavior must be good."

"Boils down to." As in, is reducable to. As in, no, Virginia, there wasn't really an accusation that you had only one example. See how that works?

You said Ishmael is on ignore. That you have pounded him into dust does not support the contention that Ishmael is on ignore. Is this the extent of those all powerful debate skills that I once actually feared? You really looked like a giant stepping on him. Up close and head to head against you, you look like a friggin minpin.

Still riding the "I only believe in absolutes and extremes" horse? You'll be reassured to know that I'm not actually crushed and suffering from the loss of my debating powers. Once more, as I pointed out elsewhere - "most people have him on ignore" does not actually mean the same thing as "everyone has him on ignore," or indeed "I have him on ignore." I find him far too amusing to ignore.

Now, on the topic of debating skills - accusing someone of claiming to have Ishmael on ignore when the person (1) never claimed to have him on ignore and (2) repeatedly mentioned to you personally its run-ins with Ishmael strikes me as a bit of an odd choice in the scintillating match of wit to wit. There seems to be a certain quantity of straw lying about. In fact, it looks distinctly like the aftermath of someone who cannot respect anyone who disagrees with him, and when he cannot meet that person head to head, prefers to beat a straw man dressed to look like the offending party.

I only follow rules that I have faith that they will be enforced.

When it's no holds barred for the enemy, it's no holds barred for me.

I've told you this before.

I don't constrain myself with rules of engagement the other side isn't held to.

Ah, thank you! Now it's nice and simple: "I'll be as ugly, nasty, unethical, and repulsive as I like so long as I see any other people getting away with it."

There, now. Was that so hard to say? Why all this play of "reasons" and "proof" and "debate" when, in fact, it's so easy to confess that you have no moral standards of your own?

Ok, who has him on ignore and who doesn't? Can you prove your case here?

Hmmm. Let's see. "Prove something that I know it's impossible to prove absolutely, because there is no data available, or I'm automatically right."

No.

However, I will stick to the argument that a great many people - and really, whether you call it "most people" or "many people" makes no odds to me, so pedal any way you like on that - are likely to ignore people who do ugly things they don't like, such as slinging racial slurs. I'm happy to confess that neither you nor I are going to be able to provide numbers, as I am happy to confess that I never suggested that I could.

The funny part is you're not adult enough to admit you backpedaled from "most" to "many". You'd have to admit error. And once you cross into the GB... you cannot and will not admit error.

Quite happy to, actually, as soon as it's pointed out to me. For instance, I will openly confess that you're not nearly as interesting a person as I once imagined.

(The phrase, by the way, was "most civil people." I can see that you're concerned about the precision of semantics, so it seems only fair to point it out.)

ETA: Note in post below explaining difficulties in identifying the quotation.

Racist idiots seem to manage to find people to hang about with ON the GB.

They would be utterly fucking toast on that other forum, and in real life, too.

God, I wish that were true. But ... can you honestly believe that it is?

On that topic, I'm happy not to provide examples. It's too unhappy a spectacle to contemplate for long. Whoever can still believe that ugliness, cruelty, and ignorance are inevitably met with failure in life, should enjoy the belief while he can.

I'll be sure to point out any more of those "I got LT to respond, I own him!" end zone dances that are done around here when people get caught in outright documented lies by me. It's all they ever do here any more.

So it's stupid and pointless when they do it, but clever when you do?

Now let's see if you're adult enough to own up to the mistakes you've made and which have been pointed out here.

Oooh, that's dashed clever of you, LT. Look how neatly you've re-dressed that silly, childish, exploded old strategy that I just identified in your last post. Now it's "If you agree with me you're wrong, and if you don't you're childish!" and it's a whole shiny new thing! It's got all the force, reason, and charm of the original, as well.

However, I think it will please you to know that I will indeed leave you to your own devices, LT. It's awfully kind of you to have clarified your moral stance ("Whatever I can see other people getting away with"), and now that you have, I think I need trouble you no longer. It was only the pretense that you had some actual reason or right that irritated me.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Your remarkable tendency to cling to pointless and unrelated details is becoming harder and harder to see as anything but evasion. The full original quotation:

It's not pointless or unrelated. You made a claim. A claim that was factually wrong.

Now you're not even being honest with yourself.

"Boils down to." As in, is reducable to. As in, no, Virginia, there wasn't really an accusation that you had only one example. See how that works?

Ayup. The L train can't smash through BlackShanglan's logic because there's nothing there to run into.

Still riding the "I only believe in absolutes and extremes" horse? You'll be reassured to know that I'm not actually crushed and suffering from the loss of my debating powers. Once more, as I pointed out elsewhere - "most civil people have him on ignore" does not actually mean the same thing as "everyone has him on ignore," or indeed "I have him on ignore." I find him far too amusing to ignore.

More backpedaling.
You did not say "most civil people have him on ignore". You said "most people".

Now, on the topic of debating skills - accusing someone of claiming to have Ishmael on ignore when the person (1) never claimed to have him on ignore and (2) repeatedly mentioned to you personally its run-ins with Ishmael strikes me as a bit of an odd choice in the scintillating match of wit to wit. There seems to be a certain quantity of straw lying about. In fact, it looks distinctly like the aftermath of someone who cannot respect anyone who disagrees with him, and when he cannot meet that person head to head, prefers to beat a straw man dressed to look like the offending party.

At this point I'm beating you on the head with your own words and you're resorting to denying what you said, or backpedaling.

Backpedaling is of course a sanctioned sport here.

Ah, thank you! Now it's nice and simple: "I'll be as ugly, nasty, unethical, and repulsive as I like so long as I see anyone else getting away with it."

I'll break it down even simpler:
I give what I get.

Hmmm. Let's see. "Prove something that I know it's impossible to prove absolutely, because there is data available, or I'm automatically right."

You made a claim. Why can't you back it up? Oh, I know. It's pointless and unrelated when you're wrong.

However, I will stick to the argument that a large percentage of people - and really, whether you call it "most"

Most, being the word you used.

or "many" makes no odds to me, so pedal any way you like on that - are likely to ignore people who do ugly things they don't like, such as slinging racial slurs. I'm happy to confess that neither you nor I is going to be able to provide numbers, as I am happy to confess that I never suggested that I could.

ROTFLMAO.

A real master of logic would know the difference between most and many, minpin.

Poof! Now in your mind, any error on your part becomes just a twinkle in the sky. Ignore the fact, of course, that up close, it's Betelgeuse.

Quite happy to, actually, as soon as it's pointed out to me. For instance, I'm happy to confess that you're not nearly as interesting a person as I once imagined.

Anyone who says in one breath:

And, yet again, I shall observe that your logic now boils down to "So long as I can find one case where the behavior wasn't condemned in someone whom most people probably have on ignore anyway, the behavior must be good."

and then in another breath:

'therefore, I am able to grasp the concept of "many people,"'

Is not good at debate. Not good at all.

You're weak, BlackShanglan. You can't even admit when you've backpedaled.

I'm disappointed that you would turn so yellow so fast, when earlier today you thought you had the perfect argument.

The GB has become like a deathmatch map full of opponents who commit suicide at the opening bell to keep me from scoring a single frag.

A whole lot of sound and light signifying nothing. Why couldn't you at least be a challenge?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Please do accept my sincere apologies for mixing my posts. I thought I'd found the source of your "most/many" quibbling in one post, which did read "most civil people," but didn't spot the other post from which you eventually supplied the fuller quotation. It did seem odd to me that you'd have skipped over to the other thread, but I couldn't find the post in question on this one. I'm happy to confess my confusion on that topic and acknowledge that I did say "most people" in one post, and indeed that "most" and "many" have slightly different meanings. I don't see in what way this utterly overthrows every point I've made and you've left unanswered in this thread, but I hope that you may long enjoy the spacious territory of righteous glory that you have thus won.

As for "turning yellow" and failing to present you with a challenge, I'm sorry to disappoint. The truth, alas, is that everything looks easy when one does not well comprehend it, either through lack of native ability or through ruthless suppression thereof. I'm flattered that you enjoy our discourse so much as to wish my continued presence on the thread; it's awfully kind of you to trick out that same dear old strategy in new finery to make your case, presenting it now as "Stay and debate, and I control you; leave and you're a coward!" I shall, however, leave the field to you. I confess that I have done all I can, that I am saddened by the results, and that indeed it would give me some pain and sorrow to continue.

 

[Cade Is Here]

Please do accept my sincere apologies for mixing my posts. I thought I'd found the source of your "most/many" quibbling in one post, which did read "most civil people," but didn't spot the other post from which you eventually supplied the fuller quotation. It did seem odd to me that you'd have skipped over to the other thread, but I couldn't find the post in question on this one. I'm happy to confess my confusion on that topic and acknowledge that I did say "most people" in one post, and indeed that "most" and "many" have slightly different meanings. I don't see in what way this utterly overthrows every point I've made and you've left unanswered in this thread, but I hope that you may long enjoy the spacious territory of righteous glory that you have thus won.

As for "turning yellow" and failing to present you with a challenge, I'm sorry to disappoint. The truth, alas, is that everything looks easy when one does not well comprehend it, either through lack of native ability or through ruthless suppression thereof. I'm flattered that you enjoy our discourse so much as to wish my continued presence on the thread; it's awfully kind of you to trick out that same dear old strategy in new finery to make your case, presenting it now as "Stay and debate, and I control you; leave and you're a coward!" I shall, however, leave the field to you. I confess that I have done all I can, that I am saddened by the results, and that indeed it would give me some pain and sorrow to continue.

You will soon learn that dealing with racists such as Lt is a total waste of time .....

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Please do accept my sincere apologies for mixing my posts. I thought I'd found the source of your "most/many" quibbling in one post, which did read "most civil people," but didn't spot the other post from which you eventually supplied the fuller quotation. It did seem odd to me that you'd have skipped over to the other thread, but I couldn't find the post in question on this one. I'm happy to confess my confusion on that topic and acknowledge that I did say "most people" in one post, and indeed that "most" and "many" have slightly different meanings. I don't see in what way this utterly overthrows every point I've made and you've left unanswered in this thread, but I hope that you may long enjoy the spacious territory of righteous glory that you have thus won.

As for "turning yellow" and failing to present you with a challenge, I'm sorry to disappoint. The truth, alas, is that everything looks easy when one does not well comprehend it, either through lack of native ability or through ruthless suppression thereof. I'm flattered that you enjoy our discourse so much as to wish my continued presence on the thread; it's awfully kind of you to trick out that same dear old strategy in new finery to make your case, presenting it now as "Stay and debate, and I control you; leave and you're a coward!" I shall, however, leave the field to you. I confess that I have done all I can, that I am saddened by the results, and that indeed it would give me some pain and sorrow to continue.

You have holes in your arguments that are incomprehensibly big.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Please do accept my sincere apologies for mixing my posts. I thought I'd found the source of your "most/many" quibbling in one post, which did read "most civil people," but didn't spot the other post from which you eventually supplied the fuller quotation. It did seem odd to me that you'd have skipped over to the other thread, but I couldn't find the post in question on this one. I'm happy to confess my confusion on that topic and acknowledge that I did say "most people" in one post, and indeed that "most" and "many" have slightly different meanings. I don't see in what way this utterly overthrows every point I've made and you've left unanswered in this thread, but I hope that you may long enjoy the spacious territory of righteous glory that you have thus won.

As for "turning yellow" and failing to present you with a challenge, I'm sorry to disappoint. The truth, alas, is that everything looks easy when one does not well comprehend it, either through lack of native ability or through ruthless suppression thereof. I'm flattered that you enjoy our discourse so much as to wish my continued presence on the thread; it's awfully kind of you to trick out that same dear old strategy in new finery to make your case, presenting it now as "Stay and debate, and I control you; leave and you're a coward!" I shall, however, leave the field to you. I confess that I have done all I can, that I am saddened by the results, and that indeed it would give me some pain and sorrow to continue.

You assume, wrongly , that you are dealing with a rational person. You have seen but a corner of LT's vast ability to ignore that which disagrees with his ideas. The twisting of reality is at first subtle, rapidly progressing to complete disregard for what actually happened.

LT isn't interested in discourse or truth, just "winning" by any means necessary. That's his game, he makes the rules, and revises them by the minute.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" should be the disclaimer at the bottom of every one of his posts.

 

[Recidiva]

Honestly, it's the offense to reason that really annoys me. Ishmael is an ass, but at least he doesn't generally go on for a solid week and more trying to argue that he's innocent and non-offending. What's ridiculous here is that LT knows perfectly well that his behavior is wrong and offensive, and there's not a scrap of reasoning to support his actions. Instead, we have what is essentially a temper tantrum: he's mad that people are rude to him, so he's going to scream and howl and be ugly to everyone around him, using as the stunning centerpiece of his logic the argument that other toddlers have also screamed and howled and had temper tantrums. Now he's down to attacking anyone who complains. It's ugly and silly, and it would be a great deal more honest simply to say "I enjoy being nasty and I like to look for excuses for it" and be done.

A week? Goodness. It's been much longer than that. My original "nigger" comment, which was stated after insulting him personally in detail in terms other than race, was in July.

This is the song that never ends...it just goes on and on and on!

This is an interesting thread from two years ago. You can see the same players to some extent, the same arguments...

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=384869&highlight=fuzzy

I'd been here two months. Never said the n-word for almost two more years, but he had me pegged all right.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

A week? Goodness. It's been much longer than that. My original "nigger" comment, which was stated after insulting him personally in detail in terms other than race, was in July.

This is the song that never ends...it just goes on and on and on!

This is an interesting thread from two years ago. You can see the same players to some extent, the same arguments...

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=384869&highlight=fuzzy

I'd been here two months. Never said the n-word for almost two more years, but he had me pegged all right.

The fact that you called me a nigger ONCE and I never insulted your race or even made it an issue, is what makes you a racist jerkoff.

Yes, it will go on and on. Because you are a racist and your racism is accepted by the GB.

You're like Scott Peterson saying "I only killed one woman. I'm not a murderer".

You made a racist and cowardly statement and you absolutely refuse to admit you did it.

Plus, you also LIED about me.

 

[Dragline]

I just wish negros would stop complaining all the god damn time, its draining and exhausting....

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I just wish negros would stop complaining all the god damn time, its draining and exhausting....

That would mean they'd go back to fucking your mom.

 

[Recidiva]

The fact that you called me a nigger ONCE and I never insulted your race or even made it an issue, is what makes you a racist jerkoff.

Yes, it will go on and on. Because you are a racist and your racism is accepted by the GB.

You're like Scott Peterson saying "I only killed one woman. I'm not a murderer".

You made a racist and cowardly statement and you absolutely refuse to admit you did it.

Plus, you also LIED about me.

Yes, but I didn't call you a nigger. I have called you lots of other things.

I've insulted your judgment, habits, methods, personality and arguments extensively. I don't think highly of you. I do not apologize for that.

Your race, however, is of no significance in that opinion.

 

[Dragline]

Yes, but I didn't call you a nigger. I have called you lots of other things.

I've insulted your judgment, habits, methods, personality and arguments extensively. I don't think highly of you. I do not apologize for that.

Your race, however, is of no significance in that opinion.

Oh call him a nigger and be done with it, eh nigger????

me so horny

 

[Recidiva]

Oh call him a nigger and be done with it, eh nigger????

me so horny

I'm pretty sure if I meant to, I'd have called him one.

But racism is truly foolish.

I've called him any number of clever things, but he picks the one thing I didn't call him to remember.

Makes me so sad. All those pretty words. Ah well.