Why are technical message boards overwhelmingly liberal?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. I love the Europeans' proper perspective on politics. Here in the US, the conservatives cast gun control as being MORE liberal, not less. Sigh...

What am I missing here?

The root of liberal is liberty. A truly liberal position is any that advances human rights over government. So in truth, support of individual gun rights is a liberal position (which is why Atheus said gun control 'makes us less liberal'). In the US, it's also a conservative position too, because of our country's history of gun rights. To support gun control, however, is NOT a liberal position.
To put in perspective, the Liberal Party in England is similar to the Libertarian Party here in the US. I've said it a million times here, libertarianism is a liberal philosophy.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Vic
My bad. Let me rephrase, the English do not have an adequate or modern Bill of Rights. The one you do have protects you from the monarchy, not the government itself.

IANAL but are they not functionally the same in a constitutional monarchy? Anyway the fact remains that English citizens have had rights since the king's best suit was made of steel.

Also the US bill has been undermined by the patriot act etc...

IMO both nations are still far superior in these matters than 99% of others and to call Britain fascist is quite ridiculous.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. I love the Europeans' proper perspective on politics. Here in the US, the conservatives cast gun control as being MORE liberal, not less. Sigh...

What am I missing here?

The root of liberal is liberty. A truly liberal position is any that advances human rights over government. So in truth, support of individual gun rights is a liberal position (which is why Atheus said gun control 'makes us less liberal'). In the US, it's also a conservative position too, because of our country's history of gun rights. To support gun control, however, is NOT a liberal position.
To put in perspective, the Liberal Party in England is similar to the Libertarian Party here in the US. I've said it a million times here, libertarianism is a liberal philosophy.

Superb

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Get over yourself. I'm not sneering at you, nor am I making an accusation. I'm pointing out why you get tagged as a conservative. I have no doubt you have positions that differ from the official RNC platform. You are quite low-key about them, however, while vocal to the point of belligerence about supporting positions and excusing malfeasance matching RNC positions. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions are those of a die-hard Republican. That is, in turn, why so many people tag you as a conservative, because they cling to the antiquated notion the RNC is conservative.

:roll:

You absolutely made an accusation. In fact, you made a couple:

"The reason you get tagged as conservative is because you have been a loyal rubber stamp for RNC talking points, and for the Bush administration's until the RNC decided BushCo had become an election liability."

"If you don't want to be viewed as a Republican apologist..."

Talking out both sides of your mouth, once again? Do you really think you fool anybody but yourself with that sort of claptrap?

I have many independent positions but you and few others don't give a crap because if ANY of my positions, or anyone else's position in here, happen to touch anywhere close to that of the GOP we all get the same treatment from the usual pack of boneheads. Boneheads who actually imagine themselves to be enlightened and more intelligent than anyone else all while displaying copious amounts of ignorance and intolderance. You zoom in on one particular position I have and blinder yourself to all others that aren't even close to GOP or conservative positions and loudly exclaim I am an "apologist."

Clearly the problem is not me, it's you and your tendency to knee-jerk over anyone that doesn't toe the line of your own talking points platform in any way. Your complete and utter lack of tolerance for any opposing opinion is absolutely astounding. If anyone needs to get over themself, it's you.

 

[Tab]

TasteLikeChicken, as far as I can remember every singe thread about the war, corruption in the Bush Administration or anything that was even close to criticism of the Republican Party - you were in that thread defending them.

If anyone needs to get over themself, it's you.

I think you should take some of your own advice.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Tab
TasteLikeChicken, as far as I can remember every singe thread about the war, corruption in the Bush Administration or anything that was even close to criticism of the Republican Party - you were in that thread defending them.

If anyone needs to get over themself, it's you.

I think you should take some of your own advice.

Exactly. That was my point, and I suspect most everyone here, with the possible exception of TLC, sees it. It wasn't an accusation, it was an observation. That is why most people here believe TLC to be conservative, or at least Republican. If that label bothers him, he should consider changing the way he acts. Otherwise, live with it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab
TasteLikeChicken, as far as I can remember every singe thread about the war, corruption in the Bush Administration or anything that was even close to criticism of the Republican Party - you were in that thread defending them.

If anyone needs to get over themself, it's you.

I think you should take some of your own advice.

I participate in the threads related to Iraq. As far as other threads that criticize the GOP or Bush, you might want to check those out first before you make such an accusation. Here, I'll even provide some links to the Bush/GOP criticism threads over the past week or so to help you out:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2217317&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2218294&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2217905&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2215496&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2216492&enterthread=y

Oops, wait, here's one I responded in:

http://forums.anandtech.com/ca...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Damn, I didn't defend Bush in that one either. I spoke about the rampant partisanism on display in that thread.

And that's the problem with so many in here that levy the "Bush apologist" accusation to anf fro. Everyone that doesn't bash Bush silly looks like an apologist to them. You guys are emotionally tied up in your own passionate hatred of Bush yet imagine yourselves to be the moderates. lol. You don't even realize how blatantly silly you are and how you've absolutely allowed your emotions to distort and blur your perceptions. T'would be funnier if it weren't so sad.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: astralvoid
It seems very odd to me that most technical forums tend to be overwhelmingly liberal biased. I typically assume that most technical people are deep thinking, logical persons. Unfortunately, I've noticed that political threads seem to contradict this assumption.

So many threads dissolve into "You're wrong!...No, you're wrong!" type arguments that never truly discuss whatever the topic happens to be. As a technical person myself, I try to gather as much information as possible before making a conclusion. Conversely, many others seem to base their conclusions on feelings of how they want things to be instead of basing them on the facts.

While I am not against anyone standing on their core beliefs, I find it disappointing that so many seem to toss all of their logical reasoning skills out the window when something political is mentioned. Mathematically, I would expect to find and somewhat even mix of opinions, so given the imbalance, I can only assume that many of you choose not to make use of your generally better skills in reasoning.

Regardless, if anyone answers I hope this will stir you to try to think about what you are supporting and base those beliefs on fact instead of theory and speculation, just as you would do if you were discussion an new super-cool CPU from one of the chip makers. No matter which side of the fence you lean towards, if you base your conclusions on the given facts, it's probable you'll see viewpoints that may differ from your initial stand.

Techies do not take history classes. Anyone that takes more than a few advanced US History, World History, and History of Religion classes becomes a conservative.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Techies do not take history classes. Anyone that takes more than a few advanced US History, World History, and History of Religion classes becomes a conservative.

Uhmmm, no they don't.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Techies do not take history classes. Anyone that takes more than a few advanced US History, World History, and History of Religion classes becomes a conservative.

The absolutes that some of you throw out there are really cute.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Techies do not take history classes. Anyone that takes more than a few advanced US History, World History, and History of Religion classes becomes a conservative.

The absolutes that some of you throw out there are really cute.

yeah that's the worst one I've ever seen!

 

[Vic]

I always thought that was supposed to work the opposite way, which is why there are all those ultra liberal ivory tower elite university history professors.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: astralvoid
It seems very odd to me that most technical forums tend to be overwhelmingly liberal biased. I typically assume that most technical people are deep thinking, logical persons. Unfortunately, I've noticed that political threads seem to contradict this assumption.

So many threads dissolve into "You're wrong!...No, you're wrong!" type arguments that never truly discuss whatever the topic happens to be. As a technical person myself, I try to gather as much information as possible before making a conclusion. Conversely, many others seem to base their conclusions on feelings of how they want things to be instead of basing them on the facts.

While I am not against anyone standing on their core beliefs, I find it disappointing that so many seem to toss all of their logical reasoning skills out the window when something political is mentioned. Mathematically, I would expect to find and somewhat even mix of opinions, so given the imbalance, I can only assume that many of you choose not to make use of your generally better skills in reasoning.

Regardless, if anyone answers I hope this will stir you to try to think about what you are supporting and base those beliefs on fact instead of theory and speculation, just as you would do if you were discussion an new super-cool CPU from one of the chip makers. No matter which side of the fence you lean towards, if you base your conclusions on the given facts, it's probable you'll see viewpoints that may differ from your initial stand.

Techies do not take history classes. Anyone that takes more than a few advanced US History, World History, and History of Religion classes becomes a conservative.

You're half right. Conservatives take those classes, liberals are the folks who actually attend them, take notes and pay attention. :laugh:

Edit: In case anyone is wondering, no, I don't really think that. But since it's apparently now a contest to come up with the most ridiculous stereotype possible, I thought that the very least I could do was reply in kind to SphinxnihpS, who, if he or she attended college, probably should have been required to attend class a little more often.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: astralvoid
It seems very odd to me that most technical forums tend to be overwhelmingly liberal biased. I typically assume that most technical people are deep thinking, logical persons. Unfortunately, I've noticed that political threads seem to contradict this assumption.

So many threads dissolve into "You're wrong!...No, you're wrong!" type arguments that never truly discuss whatever the topic happens to be. As a technical person myself, I try to gather as much information as possible before making a conclusion. Conversely, many others seem to base their conclusions on feelings of how they want things to be instead of basing them on the facts.

While I am not against anyone standing on their core beliefs, I find it disappointing that so many seem to toss all of their logical reasoning skills out the window when something political is mentioned. Mathematically, I would expect to find and somewhat even mix of opinions, so given the imbalance, I can only assume that many of you choose not to make use of your generally better skills in reasoning.

Regardless, if anyone answers I hope this will stir you to try to think about what you are supporting and base those beliefs on fact instead of theory and speculation, just as you would do if you were discussion an new super-cool CPU from one of the chip makers. No matter which side of the fence you lean towards, if you base your conclusions on the given facts, it's probable you'll see viewpoints that may differ from your initial stand.

Techies do not take history classes. Anyone that takes more than a few advanced US History, World History, and History of Religion classes becomes a conservative.

lol? I mean most people attempt to avoid looking like an ignorant monkey, but you really put yourself out there shamelessly.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: astralvoid
It seems very odd to me that most technical forums tend to be overwhelmingly liberal biased. I typically assume that most technical people are deep thinking, logical persons. Unfortunately, I've noticed that political threads seem to contradict this assumption.

So many threads dissolve into "You're wrong!...No, you're wrong!" type arguments that never truly discuss whatever the topic happens to be. As a technical person myself, I try to gather as much information as possible before making a conclusion. Conversely, many others seem to base their conclusions on feelings of how they want things to be instead of basing them on the facts.

While I am not against anyone standing on their core beliefs, I find it disappointing that so many seem to toss all of their logical reasoning skills out the window when something political is mentioned. Mathematically, I would expect to find and somewhat even mix of opinions, so given the imbalance, I can only assume that many of you choose not to make use of your generally better skills in reasoning.

Regardless, if anyone answers I hope this will stir you to try to think about what you are supporting and base those beliefs on fact instead of theory and speculation, just as you would do if you were discussion an new super-cool CPU from one of the chip makers. No matter which side of the fence you lean towards, if you base your conclusions on the given facts, it's probable you'll see viewpoints that may differ from your initial stand.

Techies do not take history classes. Anyone that takes more than a few advanced US History, World History, and History of Religion classes becomes a conservative.

lol? I mean most people attempt to avoid looking like an ignorant monkey, but you really put yourself out there shamelessly.

lol, well put

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Techies do not take history classes.

So I guess this means you're not a techie. I hope you realize that anandtech forums is a technical forum...

Anyone that takes more than a few advanced US History, World History, and History of Religion classes becomes a conservative.

Don't know why anyone would take just a few advanced history course unless they flunked out of a history major.

Using this supreme logic, it looks like conservatives aren't very smart. Just the history of religion class would require a person's suspension of disbelief if they were to buy into it.

I'm assuming that you're heard of the concept that history is rewritten to some extent to fit the times. So, other than dates of the beginning and end of wars, plagues, etc, how do you know what to believe? Maybe what you think should have or wish had happened.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab
TasteLikeChicken, as far as I can remember every singe thread about the war, corruption in the Bush Administration or anything that was even close to criticism of the Republican Party - you were in that thread defending them.

If anyone needs to get over themself, it's you.

I think you should take some of your own advice.

I participate in the threads related to Iraq. As far as other threads that criticize the GOP or Bush, you might want to check those out first before you make such an accusation. Here, I'll even provide some links to the Bush/GOP criticism threads over the past week or so to help you out:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2217317&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2218294&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2217905&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2215496&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2216492&enterthread=y

Oops, wait, here's one I responded in:

http://forums.anandtech.com/ca...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Damn, I didn't defend Bush in that one either. I spoke about the rampant partisanism on display in that thread.

And that's the problem with so many in here that levy the "Bush apologist" accusation to anf fro. Everyone that doesn't bash Bush silly looks like an apologist to them. You guys are emotionally tied up in your own passionate hatred of Bush yet imagine yourselves to be the moderates. lol. You don't even realize how blatantly silly you are and how you've absolutely allowed your emotions to distort and blur your perceptions. T'would be funnier if it weren't so sad.

So, we've got a few threads you didn't respond in? So, what? That's nothing compared to threads you have posted in.

By the way, you're last link doesn't work. And I know I don't considered myself "moderate" by any means.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've explained it numerous times, and I've explained why as well, but it just doesn't seem to sink in. I'm no conservative (other than a fiscal conservative). Being a hawk on Iraq does not make me conservative. For some reason, some of the "highly educated" people on this forum can't quite grasp that though.

Claiming you're not a conservative doesn't make you a non-conservative. You constantly defend right-wing positions. Maybe your screen name should be "Quacks Like Duck" rather than TLC.

But hey, how about an objective test? Here's a litmus test on your opinions:

Easy enough. Let's see how far we differ.

------------------------------------------------

Are you for or against same-sex marriage? (Me: For) We agree

Do you believe that the gay lifestyle is a choice? (Me: No) We agree

Are you for or against essentially unrestricted first-trimester abortions (with appropriate safeguards - not barriers - for underage females)? (Me: Very few restrictions) Personally abortion is not a choice I would make but I believe everyone should be able to make their own choice in the matter and not be mandated that abortion is not a choice. So essentially we agree.

Would you rather see more Scalias or Ginsburgs on the SCOTUS? (Me: More Ginsburgs) We agree

Did you support the 2003 invasion of Iraq? (Me: Against) You already know my opinion on this

Should federal income tax rates be made more progressive (increase the rate on top earners and decrease the rates on the the middle and lower classes)? (Me: More Progressive) Middle & low income earners already have low tax rates. imo, the answer is to reduce gov spending, not raise taxes. I imagine that most fiscal conservatives feel the same way.

Do you want to see more restrictions on immigration to the U.S? (Me: Fewer restrictions) We agree

Is waterboarding an acceptable method of interrogation for suspected "high-value" terrorists? (Me: Never acceptable) I'd rather they shoot these guys on the battlefield than capture them and subject them to any "inhumane treatment" that people can whine about.

In the past four presidential elections, did you vote for the Democratic candidate at least once? (Me: Voted Democratic every time) 3 Democratic, 1 Libertarian (in 04)

Should marijuana use be decriminalized? (Me: Decriminalized) I think it should be legalized for all

The SCOTUS's recent decision notwithstanding, do you believe that the 2nd Amendment provides a personal right to bear arms? (Me: No personal right to bear arms) I don't own a gun. But, yes, the 2nd Amendment provides a personal right to bear arms and seems to do so fairly clearly.

Do you believe in the theory of Evolution. (Me: Yes) We agree

Do you believe that God created everything? (Me: No) We agree

Do you believe that human activity is having a major effect on climate? (Me: Yes) Undecided. Anyone who TRULY follows science should also be undecided because the facts are not in yet on this issue.

Are you for or against a "moment of silence" at the start of the school day (Me: against) We agree

Do you believe that there's one correct morality? (Me: No) We agree
-----------------------------------------------

I'm pretty liberal, and I've indicated where I fall on these 16 issues. I'm wondering on how many we agree.

Shocked? I bet we agree on far more than you imagined, don't we? In some ways I am more liberal than you are. The primary reason I get tagged as a conservative here is because of my hawkish position on Iraq. Then again, I view the Iraq issue from outside of partisan stances and believe that in the long run it will be a benefit to mankind overall, which is what anyone who is truly liberal would do.

I am shocked. Why is it you become invisible in most threads not having to do with Iraq?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab
So, we've got a few threads you didn't respond in? So, what? That's nothing compared to threads you have posted in.

By the way, you're last link doesn't work. And I know I don't considered myself "moderate" by any means.

Here's the last link again:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2216553&enterthread=y

btw, those are threads just in the last week or so. Of course they don't compare to ALL of the threads I've posted in. However, they do compare to the threads I have posted in within the last week or so.

C'mon. Ain't ya one'a them thar smart liberals who can easily figger stuff like that out?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shira
[I am shocked. Why is it you become invisible in most threads not having to do with Iraq?

I don't become invisible. It may be that when you read some of my more liberal opinions in here that you don't even realize it's TLC making the statement.

Plus, I pick and choose my battles. Not to mention that many threads are damned to perdition from the git-go.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab
So, we've got a few threads you didn't respond in? So, what? That's nothing compared to threads you have posted in.

By the way, you're last link doesn't work. And I know I don't considered myself "moderate" by any means.

Here's the last link again:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2216553&enterthread=y

btw, those are threads just in the last week or so. Of course they don't compare to ALL of the threads I've posted in. However, they do compare to the threads I have posted in within the last week or so.

C'mon. Ain't ya one'a them thar smart liberals who can easily figger stuff like that out?

I can "figger" out what you did there. It's called a straw man argument. That's where one counters an inaccurate representation or an especially weak piece of an opponent's argument, then pretends to have refuted the opponent's entire argument. Tab obviously did not mean you leap to defend the RNC and BushCo in literally every thread where they are challenged. That's an absurd interpretation of his argument. Nonetheless, that's what you attacked, finding a few recent threads in which you had not yet posted. So what? There are weeks when you are fairly quiet, even entirely absent, and other weeks where it seems you do nothing but post 24 hours per day.

The real point remains that the great majority of your posts have been defending either the RNC, or the Bush administration (before the RNC started distancing itself from BushCo). If you can refute that, showing that you have put a remotely similar level of energy into supporting positions contrary to the RNC's, you might have a valid argument. Until then, you will continue to be seen as a loyal water boy for the RNC. Like I tell my kids, if you don't like the consequences of your actions, change your actions. It's really that simple.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I can "figger" out what you did there. It's called a straw man argument. That's where one counters an inaccurate representation or an especially weak piece of an opponent's argument, then pretends to have refuted the opponent's entire argument. Tab obviously did not mean you leap to defend the RNC and BushCo in literally every thread where they are challenged. That's an absurd interpretation of his argument. Nonetheless, that's what you attacked, finding a few recent threads in which you had not yet posted. So what? There are weeks when you are fairly quiet, even entirely absent, and other weeks where it seems you do nothing but post 24 hours per day.

Finger swings mightily and misses yet again. How typical of him.

Erm, what I was demonstrating to Tab (formerly Tabb) was that I don't jump to Bush's defense in all, or even most, threads that bash Bush which is, of course, what a true "Bush apologist" would do.

Naturally I don't expect the wild-eyed ones in here to recognize that. They're too wrapped up in their own magnificance and moral righteousness to recognize any such thing and you don't disappoint in that respect.

The real point remains that the great majority of your posts have been defending either the RNC, or the Bush administration (before the RNC started distancing itself from BushCo). If you can refute that, showing that you have put a remotely similar level of energy into supporting positions contrary to the RNC's, you might have a valid argument. Until then, you will continue to be seen as a loyal water boy for the RNC. Like I tell my kids, if you don't like the consequences of your actions, change your actions. It's really that simple.

The real point remains that you are so deluded by your BDS that you can't see straight. Like I said before, anyone that doesn't bash Bush silly looks like an apologist to people like you. Fortunately those kinds of tools don't completely monopolize this forum and cooler heads prevail. May you choose to join those cooler heads one day. Until then you're just another BDS-filled tool.

 

[ultra laser]

Nerds are unhappy because they're nerds. Unhappy people tend to be liberal.

 

[zinfamous]

Why are technical message boards overwhelmingly liberal

b/c they tend to be more educated, on ave, than the voting public?

just going on facts.....

 

[Bowfinger]

I can "figger" out what you did here too:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I can "figger" out what you did there. It's called a straw man argument. That's where one counters an inaccurate representation or an especially weak piece of an opponent's argument, then pretends to have refuted the opponent's entire argument. Tab obviously did not mean you leap to defend the RNC and BushCo in literally every thread where they are challenged. That's an absurd interpretation of his argument. Nonetheless, that's what you attacked, finding a few recent threads in which you had not yet posted. So what? There are weeks when you are fairly quiet, even entirely absent, and other weeks where it seems you do nothing but post 24 hours per day.

Finger swings mightily and misses yet again. How typical of him.

First, empty huffing and puffing. It has nothing to do with the point, but creates the illusion of a response.

Erm, what I was demonstrating to Tab (formerly Tabb) was that I don't jump to Bush's defense in all,

Yep, that's what I said ...

or even most threads that bash Bush,

Oops. nope. you didn't do that at all. You offered absolutely zilch to address what you do in most threads, just a trivially small sample from the past week.

which is, of course, what a true "Bush apologist" would do.

Nope, that's another phony argument. That might be what a true Bush apologist with unlimited time and a high threshold for boredom would do. It is not a requirement for being a Bush apologist, however, no matter how you badly you need to redefine the term.

Naturally I don't expect the wild-eyed ones in here to recognize that. They're too wrapped up in their own magnificance and moral righteousness to recognize any such thing and you don't disappoint in that respect.

And there's your usual ad hom, more empty huffing and puffing.

The real point remains that the great majority of your posts have been defending either the RNC, or the Bush administration (before the RNC started distancing itself from BushCo). If you can refute that, showing that you have put a remotely similar level of energy into supporting positions contrary to the RNC's, you might have a valid argument. Until then, you will continue to be seen as a loyal water boy for the RNC. Like I tell my kids, if you don't like the consequences of your actions, change your actions. It's really that simple.

The real point remains that you are so deluded by your BDS that you can't see straight. Like I said before, anyone that doesn't bash Bush silly looks like an apologist to people like you. Fortunately those kinds of tools don't completely monopolize this forum and cooler heads prevail. May you choose to join those cooler heads one day. Until then you're just another BDS-filled tool.

Yet another empty ad hom to distract from the fact you failed to address the point. Again. You can flap and squawk in feigned indignation all you want, it doesn't change the truth of what I said. The great majority of your posts have been defending either the RNC, or the Bush administration (before the RNC started distancing itself from BushCo). Until you can refute that, showing you have put a remotely similar level of energy into supporting positions contrary to the RNC's, you will continue to be seen as a loyal water boy for the RNC.

That is the reality, and there's nothing any of us can do to change it. That falls solely to you. If your vanity demands that you keep posting duhversions and empty personal attacks, so be it. The rest of us can merely shake our heads and point at the odd little man, muttering self-deluded nonsense to himself in the corner.


Anyway, that's enough from me. Swatting you around used to be entertaining, like a cat playing with a mouse, but my time is finite and you're too predictable and tiresome. Your replies are always the same, endless duhversions, denials, and personal attacks, but 100% substance free. Toodles.