 |
Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
 Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Given your tendency to say "trolled so hard" or "so mad", you can't blame me for suspecting you of that when it seems like you're being pointlessly contrarian, especially when you keep trying to use the Qu'ran when it has literally no place in what I am talking about.
And yes, I very obviously mean Kurt's book.
You say the story of Lot's wife isn't about looking back, but others disagree:
| Quote: | Why did she look back? The context does not specifically give a reason, but she probably had an inordinate love for the world and the material things she had in Sodom. Obviously, Lot was a wealthy man who had enough livestock and servants to cause a problem while he lived with Abraham (Genesis 13:5-7). He and his wife may have had a palatial house with many fine furnishings, servants to do her bidding, fine clothes, sumptuous food and frequent entertainment.
Also, Lot had achieved prominence among the citizens of Sodom beyond his wealth. Genesis 19:1 shows him sitting in the gate of the city, a place usually reserved for the elders and judges. Lot's wife may have been reconsidering her decision to forsake the privileges of her high social status and her prominent friends. |
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/498/Remember-Lots-Wife.htm
You can argue all you want about using the bible instead of the Qu'ran, because it doesn't matter to me about what you think is "authentic", I will use the bible because the bible is the reference. As such, biblical sources are the best bet for understanding the bible.
| Quote: | The account of the tragedy is briefly related. As fire and brimstone out of heaven fell upon Sodom, Lot’s wife looked back from behind her husband. In oriental countries it was the rule for the wife to walk some distance behind her husband, but as Lot’s wife lingered and looked back she was overtaken by sulphurous vapors, and, encrusted with salt, perished where she stood. Entombed as a pillar, she became “as a monument of an unbelieving soul” in a desolate region, “of whose wickedness even to this day the waste land that smoketh is a testimony” (Wisdom 10:7). The wife of Lot looked back upon her own city with regrets at having to part with its sinful pleasures. She had been compelled to leave Sodom as a city, but all that Sodom represented was very much in her heart.
|
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Lot-8217-s-Wife
There are plenty of sources like this out there with no generally agreed meaning.
I'm just going to wave away their "discovery", because it is not accepted by any scientific community at this time, it's just sensationalist news, and it could be anything. Let me know if anything serious ever backs it up as a curiosity.
| Quote: | >In the case of the verb difference, it doesn't matter if she was literally or figuratively "looking back" (which seems to be what you're saying), because they both convey the same idea.
no, they don't. here you either failed to comprehend what i said, misread, or deliberately misrepresented it. how can you look back on where you are currently at? it does not make sense. the verb for looking upon sodom is different than what is used. |
Then explain to me what it means when they say:
| Quote: | 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
|
If it means literally looked back, then the people who assume the very sight of God turned her to salt, if it figuratively means looked back, then the people who assume it was her regrets and uncertainty of leaving her old life behind are correct, and in either case, she's both "looking back" out of longing, or I guess maybe curiosity if you're stretching.
| Quote: | > More importantly though, it doesn't matter what's "authentic", what matters is the message being conveyed.
it does matter, just not to you, because you are shallow-minded and arrogant. the message conveyed is not one of longing, compassion, or feeling of being destitute. it is simply not believing in the revelation so she did not leave. |
Oh man, you just can't go without shit talking, can you? When I say it "doesn't matter", I don't mean "it doesn't matter to anyone in the world", but rather "it doesn't matter in this conversation because authenticity is irrelevant when dealing with the topic of a quote in an unrelated book to the qu'ran that is referencing the bible." It's like you're intentionally misunderstanding me or something.
| Quote: | > but you don't need to know the story of Lot to understand what he's trying to say,
you are right. even though he is mistaken, his similitude is still coherent.
|
Which is all that matters in this context.
| Quote: | >It's fine to use the biblical story as a root of understanding (because that's what Vonnegut was referencing, so you might as well)
can you show where he says he uses the biblical story? because instead he is just referencing a historical event that occurred to a prophet of Islam that is recollected in other religions' texts. |
Yes:
| Quote: | I looked through the Gideon Bible in my motel room for tales of great destruction. The
sun was risen upon the Earth when Lot entered into Zoar, I read. Then the Lord rained
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven; and
He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that
which grew upon the ground.
So it goes.
Those were vile people in both those cities, as is well known. The world was better off
without them.
And Lot's wife, of course was told not to look back...... |
Literally all I am saying is that this is one of my favorite quotes from that particular book, and that's it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. (see my initial post). You can take any meaning you want out of it, but it doesn't matter if Lot's wife was "historically" made to stay behind in the city or if she was in Zoar with Lot, what matters is what the narrative in question says happened, and in this case it's the bible. It matters more because it's the book being referenced, so it's where the author wants us to draw our understanding from to understand his context.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?
 Reputation: 13
Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HackOtaku wrote: | Given your tendency to say "trolled so hard" or "so mad", you can't blame me for suspecting you of that when it seems like you're being pointlessly contrarian, especially when you keep trying to use the Qu'ran when it has literally no place in what I am talking about.
And yes, I very obviously mean Kurt's book.
You say the story of Lot's wife isn't about looking back, but others disagree:
| Quote: | Why did she look back? The context does not specifically give a reason, but she probably had an inordinate love for the world and the material things she had in Sodom. Obviously, Lot was a wealthy man who had enough livestock and servants to cause a problem while he lived with Abraham (Genesis 13:5-7). He and his wife may have had a palatial house with many fine furnishings, servants to do her bidding, fine clothes, sumptuous food and frequent entertainment.
Also, Lot had achieved prominence among the citizens of Sodom beyond his wealth. Genesis 19:1 shows him sitting in the gate of the city, a place usually reserved for the elders and judges. Lot's wife may have been reconsidering her decision to forsake the privileges of her high social status and her prominent friends. |
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/498/Remember-Lots-Wife.htm
You can argue all you want about using the bible instead of the Qu'ran, because it doesn't matter to me about what you think is "authentic", I will use the bible because the bible is the reference. As such, biblical sources are the best bet for understanding the bible.
| Quote: | The account of the tragedy is briefly related. As fire and brimstone out of heaven fell upon Sodom, Lot’s wife looked back from behind her husband. In oriental countries it was the rule for the wife to walk some distance behind her husband, but as Lot’s wife lingered and looked back she was overtaken by sulphurous vapors, and, encrusted with salt, perished where she stood. Entombed as a pillar, she became “as a monument of an unbelieving soul” in a desolate region, “of whose wickedness even to this day the waste land that smoketh is a testimony” (Wisdom 10:7). The wife of Lot looked back upon her own city with regrets at having to part with its sinful pleasures. She had been compelled to leave Sodom as a city, but all that Sodom represented was very much in her heart.
|
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Lot-8217-s-Wife
There are plenty of sources like this out there with no generally agreed meaning.
I'm just going to wave away their "discovery", because it is not accepted by any scientific community at this time, it's just sensationalist news, and it could be anything. Let me know if anything serious ever backs it up as a curiosity.
| Quote: | >In the case of the verb difference, it doesn't matter if she was literally or figuratively "looking back" (which seems to be what you're saying), because they both convey the same idea.
no, they don't. here you either failed to comprehend what i said, misread, or deliberately misrepresented it. how can you look back on where you are currently at? it does not make sense. the verb for looking upon sodom is different than what is used. |
Then explain to me what it means when they say:
| Quote: | 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
|
If it means literally looked back, then the people who assume the very sight of God turned her to salt, if it figuratively means looked back, then the people who assume it was her regrets and uncertainty of leaving her old life behind are correct, and in either case, she's both "looking back" out of longing, or I guess maybe curiosity if you're stretching.
| Quote: | > More importantly though, it doesn't matter what's "authentic", what matters is the message being conveyed.
it does matter, just not to you, because you are shallow-minded and arrogant. the message conveyed is not one of longing, compassion, or feeling of being destitute. it is simply not believing in the revelation so she did not leave. |
Oh man, you just can't go without shit talking, can you? When I say it "doesn't matter", I don't mean "it doesn't matter to anyone in the world", but rather "it doesn't matter in this conversation because authenticity is irrelevant when dealing with the topic of a quote in an unrelated book to the qu'ran that is referencing the bible." It's like you're intentionally misunderstanding me or something.
| Quote: | > but you don't need to know the story of Lot to understand what he's trying to say,
you are right. even though he is mistaken, his similitude is still coherent.
|
Which is all that matters in this context.
| Quote: | >It's fine to use the biblical story as a root of understanding (because that's what Vonnegut was referencing, so you might as well)
can you show where he says he uses the biblical story? because instead he is just referencing a historical event that occurred to a prophet of Islam that is recollected in other religions' texts. |
Yes:
| Quote: | I looked through the Gideon Bible in my motel room for tales of great destruction. The
sun was risen upon the Earth when Lot entered into Zoar, I read. Then the Lord rained
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven; and
He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that
which grew upon the ground.
So it goes.
Those were vile people in both those cities, as is well known. The world was better off
without them.
And Lot's wife, of course was told not to look back...... |
Literally all I am saying is that this is one of my favorite quotes from that particular book, and that's it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. (see my initial post). You can take any meaning you want out of it, but it doesn't matter if Lot's wife was "historically" made to stay behind in the city or if she was in Zoar with Lot, what matters is what the narrative in question says happened, and in this case it's the bible. It matters more because it's the book being referenced, so it's where the author wants us to draw our understanding from to understand his context. |
>Given your tendency to say "trolled so hard" or "so mad", you can't blame me for suspecting you of that when it seems like you're being pointlessly contrarian, especially when you keep trying to use the Qu'ran when it has literally no place in what I am talking about.
no, this is just your example of your own condescension, arrogance, and ignorance. of course an authentic account is going to be more reliable.
>You say the story of Lot's wife isn't about looking back, but others disagree:
>>Why did she look back? The context does not specifically give a reason,
IS THAT WHY THEY AGREE WITH ME? lol!
you are assigning reason when there is none given in context beyond that she did not believe in revelation!
obviously she reckoned that the city would not be destroyed, and the husband would recognise his error.
the rest of your quote just gives reason for her to stay behind.
>Lot’s wife lingered
this also says she stayed too long and did not leave in haste as commanded.
>If it means literally looked back, then the people who assume the very sight of God turned her to salt, if it figuratively means looked back,
you don't seem to understand literal vs. figurative and the context of this verb at all. to behold the city is a completely different verb.
>"it doesn't matter in this conversation because authenticity is irrelevant when dealing with the topic of a quote in an unrelated book to the qu'ran that is referencing the bible."
again, this just shows your shallow-mindedness and how arrogant you are to assume yourself as one of knowledge about either books or the authenticity of either.
>Given your tendency to say "trolled so hard" or "so mad", you can't blame me for suspecting you of that when it seems like you're being pointlessly contrarian
although i can apologise for being pedantic, it doesn't mean i'm wrong. and it doesn't mean you owe me condescension instead of the benefit of the doubt to take my statements seriously, as i try to respect yours, even though we have our differences.
>Which is all that matters in this context.
yeah, except the issue of your misinterpretation of the bible via using kurt's misinterpretation as citation instead of an authetic source i.e. revelation from God who commanded the event in the first place.
your argument relies on semantics and misunderstanding a word and misattributing something that has no scriptural basis.
>or if she was in Zoar with Lot,
it clearly says she never even made it to zoar,
>he adamantly requested to take refuge in the small town of Zoar, just beyond Sodom’s city limits. Granted his request, while they were en route, in the middle of the night, Lot’s wife /looked back from/ behind him, disregarding the angel's order and thus was turned into a pillar of salt.
but you are right about the author's context. the author is just mistaken.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Your entire argument is basically "That's not what the Qu'ran says!", I'm done with this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Channel GannoK
pffrt
 Reputation: 129
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 610
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HackOtaku wrote: | | Your entire argument is basically "That's not what the Qu'ran says!", I'm done with this. |
I think he expects you to literally take a picture of you holding open a page of the quran
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13
Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HackOtaku wrote: | | Your entire argument is basically "That's not what the Qu'ran says!", I'm done with this. |
it's also not what the bible says? lol. nice strawman to excuse your copout.
in fact, i never even used qur'an in my post you just responded to. only bible. and it says she did not go to the other city, she lingered in sodom due to doubt.
not to mention, only four books later, the source you're citing and that vonnegut is citing, gives prophecy of the Messenger of Allah, Rasulullah salah Allahu alayhe wa salaam, by NAME.
and so obviously, this would be a, "see reference: scripture by the Prophet (salah Allahu alayhe wa salaam)". and thus that Qur'an which expounds upon the unclear scripture, clarifying she is an evil-living, evil-loving woman, who doubted her husband, and lingered behind in sodom; which is EXACTLY IN LINE WITH WHAT VONNEGUT CITED DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY, therefore, vonnegut indirectly cited qur'an and the witness of edith remaining in sodom, looking back, from behind lut, and her family that she is leaving behind, due to her sincere conviction in revelation being a fable; just like you: like vonnegut's past enemy, an atheist, a transgressor, propagating hatefulness, through violent, untruthful means; persecuting men of faith and standing upon self-righteousness, surrounded by hypocrisy, and blind to the all-too-glaring arrogance you stand upon
just as the nazis kurt saw in wwii
atheists whose sincere conviction in revelation being a fable
persecute those of faith, propagate hatefulness violently.
standing upon self-righteousness, yet surrounded by hypocrisy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greatsage wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | Your entire argument is basically "That's not what the Qu'ran says!", I'm done with this. |
it's also not what the bible says? lol. nice strawman to excuse your copout.
in fact, i never even used qur'an in my post you just responded to. only bible. and it says she did not go to the other city, she lingered in sodom due to doubt.
not to mention, only four books later, the source you're citing and that vonnegut is citing, gives prophecy of the Messenger of Allah, Rasulullah salah Allahu alayhe wa salaam, by NAME.
and so obviously, this would be a, "see reference: scripture by the Prophet (salah Allahu alayhe wa salaam)". and thus that Qur'an which expounds upon the unclear scripture, clarifying she is an evil-living, evil-loving woman, who doubted her husband, and lingered behind in sodom; which is EXACTLY IN LINE WITH WHAT VONNEGUT CITED DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY, therefore, vonnegut indirectly cited qur'an and the witness of edith remaining in sodom, looking back, from behind lut, and her family that she is leaving behind, due to her sincere conviction in revelation being a fable; just like you: like vonnegut's past enemy, an atheist, a transgressor, propagating hatefulness, through violent, untruthful means; persecuting men of faith and standing upon self-righteousness, surrounded by hypocrisy, and blind to the all-too-glaring arrogance you stand upon
just as the nazis kurt saw in wwii
atheists whose sincere conviction in revelation being a fable
persecute those of faith, propagate hatefulness violently.
standing upon self-righteousness, yet surrounded by hypocrisy |
Not a copout, you are intentionally being contrarian and likely trolling. He literally references the Gideon bible in that quote, then goes on to mention the line about looking back and how people shouldn't do it. That's all there is to it, the Qu'ran is irrelevant, 4 books later is irrelevant. You're trying to argue about what "really happened" as if you know what really happened because "the qu'ran", when it doesn't matter in the first fucking place, because it's all about the context of the quote. She "looked back" in the bible, that's as simple as it gets, no need to get the qu'ran involved, no reason to even worry about where she looked back from or if she even "actually" looked back at all. All that matters is the context. I'm not "copping out", I am legitimately frustrated at your inability to get your head out of your ass, and am done trying to make you understand that it doesn't matter. I honestly can't take you seriously anymore.
| Quote: | >You say the story of Lot's wife isn't about looking back, but others disagree:
>>Why did she look back? The context does not specifically give a reason,
IS THAT WHY THEY AGREE WITH ME? lol!
you are assigning reason when there is none given in context beyond that she did not believe in revelation!
obviously she reckoned that the city would not be destroyed, and the husband would recognise his error. |
>agrees that there was no specific reason given
>goes on to give a reason based on his own interpretation and uses it as fact
>come the fuck on
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13
Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HackOtaku wrote: | | greatsage wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | Your entire argument is basically "That's not what the Qu'ran says!", I'm done with this. |
it's also not what the bible says? lol. nice strawman to excuse your copout.
in fact, i never even used qur'an in my post you just responded to. only bible. and it says she did not go to the other city, she lingered in sodom due to doubt.
not to mention, only four books later, the source you're citing and that vonnegut is citing, gives prophecy of the Messenger of Allah, Rasulullah salah Allahu alayhe wa salaam, by NAME.
and so obviously, this would be a, "see reference: scripture by the Prophet (salah Allahu alayhe wa salaam)". and thus that Qur'an which expounds upon the unclear scripture, clarifying she is an evil-living, evil-loving woman, who doubted her husband, and lingered behind in sodom; which is EXACTLY IN LINE WITH WHAT VONNEGUT CITED DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY, therefore, vonnegut indirectly cited qur'an and the witness of edith remaining in sodom, looking back, from behind lut, and her family that she is leaving behind, due to her sincere conviction in revelation being a fable; just like you: like vonnegut's past enemy, an atheist, a transgressor, propagating hatefulness, through violent, untruthful means; persecuting men of faith and standing upon self-righteousness, surrounded by hypocrisy, and blind to the all-too-glaring arrogance you stand upon
just as the nazis kurt saw in wwii
atheists whose sincere conviction in revelation being a fable
persecute those of faith, propagate hatefulness violently.
standing upon self-righteousness, yet surrounded by hypocrisy |
Not a copout, you are intentionally being contrarian and likely trolling. He literally references the Gideon bible in that quote, then goes on to mention the line about looking back and how people shouldn't do it. That's all there is to it, the Qu'ran is irrelevant, 4 books later is irrelevant. You're trying to argue about what "really happened" as if you know what really happened because "the qu'ran", when it doesn't matter in the first fucking place, because it's all about the context of the quote. She "looked back" in the bible, that's as simple as it gets, no need to get the qu'ran involved, no reason to even worry about where she looked back from or if she even "actually" looked back at all. All that matters is the context. I'm not "copping out", I am legitimately frustrated at your inability to get your head out of your ass, and am done trying to make you understand that it doesn't matter. I honestly can't take you seriously anymore.
| Quote: | >You say the story of Lot's wife isn't about looking back, but others disagree:
>>Why did she look back? The context does not specifically give a reason,
IS THAT WHY THEY AGREE WITH ME? lol!
you are assigning reason when there is none given in context beyond that she did not believe in revelation!
obviously she reckoned that the city would not be destroyed, and the husband would recognise his error. |
>agrees that there was no specific reason given
>goes on to give a reason based on his own interpretation and uses it as fact
>come the fuck on |
> then goes on to mention the line about looking back and how people shouldn't do it.
he mentions a line about looking back, and that line is about edith looking back from behind lut in sodom, as she did not believe in revelation.
>you're trying to argue about what "really happened" as if you know what really happened
no, i'm just actually reading what is referenced. and then if the source material isn't substantial enough, i cite material the source author references.
>no reason to even worry about where she looked back from or if she even "actually" looked back at all.
so the context of her looking doesn't matter at all? because that seems to be where one would derive her motivation: and it is her motivation vonnegut speaks on.
he just incorrectly assumes her motivation because he reads... /gideon's bible/... something that uses the same word for two different actions; because if she had looked upon sodom, a different verb would be used than such.
>All that matters is the context.
but didn't you just say that context doesn't matter?? lol  
>>goes on to give a reason based on his own interpretation and uses it as fact
>>come the fuck on
actually, i didn't give a reason based on my own interpretation. i gave a reason based off of the verb used, and based off of reference material.
the only thing you operate off of is /conjecture/; at least i have something substantiating my point. the idea of her looking upon sodom has /zero/ scriptural basis.
and that doesn't make our points mutually exclusive, you dolt. it just means you and kurt are completely mistaken about lut's wife's motivation; which was her disbelief, not longing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You're so far off the point, holy shit. I don't know how else to explain this to you and I can't understand it for you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13
Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HackOtaku wrote: | | You're so far off the point, holy shit. I don't know how else to explain this to you and I can't understand it for you. |
yeah, well, it would help if you understood either narrative in the first place instead of placing someone's interpretation as the seal of truth... l0l
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Channel GannoK
pffrt
Reputation: 129
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 610
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Here goes Talix again, making everything about him and Islam. Insufferable cunt
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greatsage wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | You're so far off the point, holy shit. I don't know how else to explain this to you and I can't understand it for you. |
yeah, well, it would help if you understood either narrative in the first place instead of placing someone's interpretation as the seal of truth... l0l |
Confirmed for trolling or autistic. You are missing the point entirely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13
Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Channel GannoK wrote: | | Here goes Talix again, making everything about him and Islam. Insufferable cunt |
riiight, /i/ made this about islam.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 130
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greatsage wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | You're so far off the point, holy shit. I don't know how else to explain this to you and I can't understand it for you. |
yeah, well, it would help if you understood either narrative in the first place instead of placing someone's interpretation as the seal of truth... l0l |
HE IS NOT SAYING THAT WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THE TRUTH
HE IS LITERALLY TELLING YOU THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "TRUTH" OF WHAT HAPPENED
HE LITERALLY TOLD YOU THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IT HAPPENED
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE QUOTE OF THE AUTHOR AND SAYING IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW THE AUTHOR USED IT AND WHAT BOOK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HE THINKS IT IS RELEVANT
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU SO DENSE
WOW
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13
Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| konr wrote: | | greatsage wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | You're so far off the point, holy shit. I don't know how else to explain this to you and I can't understand it for you. |
yeah, well, it would help if you understood either narrative in the first place instead of placing someone's interpretation as the seal of truth... l0l |
HE IS NOT SAYING THAT WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THE TRUTH
HE IS LITERALLY TELLING YOU THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "TRUTH" OF WHAT HAPPENED
HE LITERALLY TOLD YOU THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IT HAPPENED
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE QUOTE OF THE AUTHOR AND SAYING IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW THE AUTHOR USED IT AND WHAT BOOK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HE THINKS IT IS RELEVANT
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU SO DENSE
WOW |
lmfao you got trolled without me even trying. and you did it to yourself with your stupidity. i obviously noted all of that in my posts. lol
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
![]() Reputation: 130
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greatsage wrote: | | konr wrote: | | greatsage wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | You're so far off the point, holy shit. I don't know how else to explain this to you and I can't understand it for you. |
yeah, well, it would help if you understood either narrative in the first place instead of placing someone's interpretation as the seal of truth... l0l |
HE IS NOT SAYING THAT WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THE TRUTH
HE IS LITERALLY TELLING YOU THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "TRUTH" OF WHAT HAPPENED
HE LITERALLY TOLD YOU THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IT HAPPENED
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE QUOTE OF THE AUTHOR AND SAYING IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW THE AUTHOR USED IT AND WHAT BOOK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HE THINKS IT IS RELEVANT
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU SO DENSE
WOW |
lmfao you got trolled without me even trying. and you did it to yourself with your stupidity. i obviously noted all of that in my posts. lol |
No you didn't to both things above. You're a fucking specialcase lmao
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
