>>13943Of course, an attack. But once more, I'm taken aback by how often you pull out this generic lines. Does Shakespeare count as a playwright? Can he write a good opening monologue? He could! And so can you! I know the feeling you're going for, the look you're aiming for, and yes I'm calling you a hack writer. Your inspiration can barely add anything but clichés.I had no idea, I thought I was part of the group of people who knew about your secret admirer.Sorry! Sorry
>>13945Nice segue from personal attacks to ad hominem insults, real intellectual heavyweight.I bet you're a martial arts expert too, huh? That's probably how I ended up dead last week, right, since I apparently lack the necessary "basic human intelligence" to dodge punches. Oh wait, that's how your career went down the drain, sorry I didn't mean to stir up painful memories.Anyway, I'm off to drink coffee and smoke now, talk later! No hard feelings, I hope!
>>13942*sigh* Yet again I see the same quote-mined arguments rehashed. Repeating the same phrase several times doesn't magically prove your point. You're taking quotes out of context, cherry-picking bits that suit your argument while conveniently omitting crucial parts, and presenting this as objective analysis. Well done. It takes talent to misquote authors so thoroughly.Look forward to a proper rebuttal! So far I've only skimmed through your post, other than stopping briefly to note the quote mining, but your point is so utterly vapid that
>>13946This board is filled with people expecting each other to instantly "get" abstract references. I do tango, occasionally, it's fine! Not that you care. To address the main point, of course I "see" strings, you're referring to the ones attached to free will since that's your angle.But by your own admission, strings is a literal reference from Jim Henson. Ouch.Could you possibly write a little clearer post, it's hard to follow when there's no punctuation and no capitalization. Can't imagine what it
