[snips]
On Sat, 03 May 2008 07:16:03 +0200, ~saba*gracile~ wrote:
>> If you'd learn to read, you'd realize that that was not what was said,
>> and in fact an example was given which directly refutes your statement.
>>
>> Of course, we're not actually expecting such breathtaking honesty from
>> you.
>>
>>
> But you do blame the unfortunate timeframe for not directly supporting
> your theory.
No, I blame your inability to read, or your dishonesty - whichever is the
case - for your lack of viable education.
I guess I sort of pity you; it must suck to know there's this entire
fascinating world out there, full of marvels and mysteries, clues to be
found, puzzles to be solved - and people finding those clues and solving
those puzzles - and to know you can never, ever, EVER be part of that
tapestry of wonder and amazement.
On the other hand, I don't pity you *too* much, because you *choose* to
wallow in your ignorance, rather than trying to learn something; where
you *could* choose to better yourself, to learn something of the wonders
of the world, you choose instead to wallow in ancient superstition.
So yeah, I do pity you, but not enough to stop pointing out when you're
being stupid, something you do with startling regularity.
|
