What drug describes YOU!

[spacejunk]

If cunts were capable of articulation, they'd require teeth, which are one of many linguistic articulators (cf. articulatory phonetics).

And if cunts had teeth, they'd be frightening creatures for sure. The world would abound with heterosexual virgins and our species would grow increasingly moribund until wholly extinct.

Vagina dentata?
The "cunt" bit was supposed to be a touch of irony. Depends on how you intend the term to be used.
I have an affection for intellectual fellows and dames, if that works better.

 

[alasdairm]

Oh, pardon the three consecutive posts if you may. I just forgot to mention something worth mentioning. But then, I figured it would better serve its purpose if posted separate. But I digress.

Anyway, I thought I'd encourage all my adamant adversaries not to let my innate, unalterable abnormalities deter their inexorable execrations and implacable enmity.

Please, continue with the aspersions and animus; for what ever will I have to discuss if not for the blitzkrieg of unfounded accusations and fusillade of unnecessary acrimony to which I am subjected daily?

it's not an aspersion if it's true.



alasdair

 

[Nom de Plume]

Vagina dentata?

Coupled with the real phenomenon of penis captivus, it's enough to inspire any man to be chaste for life. Castration is but one of my anxieties.

The "cunt" bit was supposed to be a touch of irony. Depends on how you intend the term to be used.
I have an affection for intellectual fellows and dames, if that works better.

I still don't get what you meant. You said "articulate cunt". Since "articulate" is an adjective, it qualifies the succeeding noun "cunt" and thus the combination of both words functions as one noun.

You weren't talking about articulate people and cunts, but an articulate cunt (which can be inferred from its context as me, or your idea of me).

Seriously, this is elementary grammar. I'm a soi-disant rhetoritician and have studied public relations, propaganda and psychological manipulation tactics as well as literary devices, so please don't insult my intelligence by thinking doublespeak—a form of chicanery for the sophomoric—is an effective tool against me.

Maybe you are aren't trying to mince words, but it seems so. At the very least, you suck at irony; at most, you suck at irony and doublespeak.

 

[Nom de Plume]

it's not an aspersion if it's true.



alasdair

An aspersion is an aspersion, regardless of its truth value or veracity. Your criticisms are tantamount to calling a person with Down's Syndrome retarded. As with Down's Syndrome, Autism spectrum disorders are a.) not an affectation of the individual, but a congenital neurological abnormality, and b.) do not improve or get better with insults and ad hominem.

Aspersion: 1. a damaging or derogatory remark or criticism; slander. 2. the act of slandering; vilification; defamation; calumniation; derogation.

If your comments aren't aspersions, than you don't know shit from shinola.

But insofar as they aren't aspersion, they're at least bullying, because when criticism becomes unsolicited and incessant, it cannot be constructive but rather is a form of bullying and harassment.

Not that I care any; say whatever you want, mate. I only take umbrage with the denial and dissimulation. Your trifling odium and lowbrow contumely are offensive only in that they're unlettered and boorish.

But what really bothers me is your amnesia or denial around the whole issue.

 

[alasdairm]

...supercilious...monomaniacal, urge to impress...feigned sense of superior sophistication...façade...

finally, something on which was can agree.

alasdair

 

[Nom de Plume]

finally, something on which was can agree.

Alasdair

q.e.d

 

[spacejunk]

Coupled with the real phenomenon of penis captivus, it's enough to inspire any man to be chaste for life. Castration is but one of my anxieties.



I still don't get what you meant. You said "articulate cunt". Since "articulate" is an adjective, it qualifies the succeeding noun "cunt" and thus the combination of both words functions as one noun.

You weren't talking about articulate people and cunts, but an articulate cunt (which can be inferred from its context as me, or your idea of me).

Seriously, this is elementary grammar. I'm a soi-disant rhetoritician and have studied public relations, propaganda and psychological manipulation tactics as well as literary devices, so please don't insult my intelligence by thinking doublespeak—a form of chicanery for the sophomoric—is an effective tool against me.

Maybe you are aren't trying to mince words, but it seems so. At the very least, you suck at irony; at most, you suck at irony and doublespeak.

Ermm, i'm australian. "Cunt" is used affectionately in certain contexts here.
If i "suck at irony", i daresay you suck at comprehension of lighthearted banter. It was meant to be a compliment, which you have clearly missed.
It wasnt an insult, it was a joke. Pardon fucking me... cunt.

 

[alasdairm]

2. the act of slandering; vilification; defamation; calumniation; derogation.

a claim can not, by definition, be defamatory if it is true.

simply stated.

you're a curious case, that's all. your affected, dictionary-swallowing persona is used for some of your posts but others are written in a rather more common manner. i just wonder who you're trying so hard to impress and why?

 

[Nom de Plume]

Oy vey iz mir. This is a game to me, and you're a sitting duck so while the hell not?

a claim can not, by definition, be defamatory if it is true.

I had permitted that possibility (cf. paragraph four), allowing for an alternative scenario wherein your comments are not defamatory, but, having supposed no aspersion, they are nonetheless demonstrably uncivil, rather bullying in point of fact.

Moreover, defamation is but one, albeit convenient for your sake, definition of aspersion. Now you've gone from insults to denial, transmogrified from a petulant amnesiac to a fallacious, cherry-picking, obfuscating prevaricator.

As if perpetually pointing out, in a conspicuously insolent manner, an ugly person's ugliness, a gay guy's homosexuality, a mentally challenged person's feeble-mindedness, or continuously critiquing to no end the foibles of any other person is not at all a form a derogation (one of the aforementioned definitions of aspersion).

This is asinine, and you are either unwittingly dim-witted for believing it or purposefully delusive and deceitful for attempting to get others to believe it.

you're a curious case, that's all.

And you're obsessed with trivialities, but sadly that is not all...

your affected, dictionary-swallowing persona

What is the affectation? That Nom de Plume is a persona (persona being synonymous with mask, etymologically), as are all other online personalities (consider the so-called Online Disinhibition Effect, Proteus Effect, and so forth).

Or that I "swallowed" (an equivocal term, to say the best of it) a dictionary? What does this amorphous cliché you love to disgorge even mean? That I consumed a dictionary, as one would consume any body of knowledge, and thus am not affecting my vocabulary any more than a physicist affects his knowledge of physics? Or...what?

used for some of your posts but others are written in a rather more common manner.

While it is rather perturbing to know how closely you monitor my activity, I'll humor you with a response nonetheless.

I'm an inveterate user of sundry GABAergic drugs, as you've probably come to know through your peculiar voyeurism of me. In particular, I have a weak spot for barbiturates and booze, usually used concomitantly.

I'm ignorant of the underlying pharmacological explanation of this, but barbiturates seem to affect my locution such that my active vocabulary or word usage is attenuated and vaguely appears inaccessible until the drug's effects wear off.

That is to say, my speech becomes less stilted, less prolix, less circumlocutory, less Hegel/Kant/Sarte/Heidegger-esque and Aspie-like. I communicate clearer, simpler, succinctly, and—at least for you—more dulcet and not as objectionably well-read.

Whenever my prose goes from stupefyingly turgid to satisfyingly tame, I've most likely just self-administered a barbiturate, strongly hypnotic benzodiazepine, or am sloshed on at least 500 mL (per every 2 hours) alcohol.

i just wonder who you're trying so hard to impress and why?

Expression that leaves no impression is what I call cacophonous ordure, not mellifluous oration. One is either speaking poetically, pedatically, or pitiably and forgettably.

There is little space for platitudinous, pedestrian prose in my parlance. Small talk is for the small-minded; being verbally stale is for the vocably vacuous and phrasally frail.

I speak and write for my own amusement. I read my writing, and if I am impressed then damn the rest.

Addendum: Oh, and Stephen Fry concurs, but in a much more laconic and poignant mode, as in :

 

[spacejunk]

Oy vey iz mir. This is a game to me, and you're a sitting duck so while the hell not?

You mean "why the hell not"? Clever.
As far as "games" go you seem to be wasting your time and self-proclaimed superior intellect.
Funny.

 

[Nom de Plume]

Ermm, i'm australian. "Cunt" is used affectionately in certain contexts here.
If i "suck at irony", i daresay you suck at comprehension of lightheated banter. It was meant to be a compliment, which you have clearly missed.
It wasnt an insult, it was a joke. Pardon fucking me... cunt.

Well, then thank you for the compliment. The word "cunt" is not used facetiously or as a term of endearment in either Indian English—my own dialect—or American English—the dialect outside India I'm most accustomed to. It was a reasonable presumption, since I hadn't used the word other than as an insult or crude colloquialism for the female pudenda.

At any rate, you didn't even attempt to clarify this in your last comment. In fact, you argued away your "articulate cunt" comment thusly:

I have an affection for intellectual fellows and dames, if that works better.

The implication of which is that in saying "articulate cunt", you meant intellectuals (an earmark of which is articulate communication) and women (a dowdy dysphemism for which is "cunt"). The result is an apparent attempt to disguise what is technically a noun qualified with a grammatical premodifier (i.e., a modified noun, which is actually a single noun, and thus can be considered a single word).

That interpretation, however, is not logical and is reliant on ungrammatical syntax. Therefore, I had concluded your foregoing explanation (quotes above) was clumsily used rhetoric and semantic duplicity.

Moreover, you write:

Depends on how you intend the term to be used.

which can easily be used to invalidate your assertion that "cunt" was only an innocent Australian jocularity, since you concede the fact that the intendment is open to the interpretation of the percipient, as demonstrated in the preceding quotation's underlined text and further emphasised in the emboldened 2nd person singular, "you".

So which is it:
A.) irony and a use of articulate for intellectual and cunt for dame?
b.) not choice A, but is contingent upon the interpretation of the second person?
c.) not choice A, but is contingent upon the interpretation of the first person (i.e., yourself), which you just so happen to indicate in a bizarre and solecistic way by the use of the 2nd person singular pronoun—in the same fashion of the so-called 'royal we', albeit an outré and confusing idiolectic fashion?

 

[Nom de Plume]

You mean "why the hell not"? Clever.
As far as "games" go you seem to be wasting your time and self-proclaimed superior intellect.
Funny.

Nah, I'm bored. Plus, I receive no greater joy than from writing (and drugs, too).

In other words, as the rapper Eminem once said,

I'm just fucking with you 'cause I got nothing to do...

Addendum: At any rate, just watch that video I posted above and fuck the fuck off.

 

[spacejunk]

Ok, does "bourgeois overly verbose cunt" work better for you then?

 

[Nom de Plume]

Ok, does "bourgeois overly verbose cunt" work better for you then?

I.) You're missing a hyphen between "overly" and "verbose".

II.) I'm not apart of the bourgeoisie but rather the intelligentsia or literati—the Bildungsbürgertum, as a Socialist may term it.

But yeah, other than those niggling objections it's just a regurgitation of what you originally said, with a few more words thrown in the salad to disguise it as something other than the facsimile it patently is.

It does reveal your true feelings with greater clarity, however. So, I guess it works for me.

 

[Sammy G]

I.) You're missing a hyphen between "overly" and "verbose".

II.) I'm not apart of the bourgeoisie but rather the intelligentsia or literati—the Bildungsbürgertum, as a Socialist .

Ouch.

 

[spacejunk]

Haha

 

[Nom de Plume]

Ouch.

Ok. My inadvertent omission of a space causes your ouch, and goons to guffaw out of some mob instinct.

But worse than a typo, your intentional red herring fallacy, ignoratio elenchi fallacy, logic chopping, desperation to refute sans refutation, and the subtlety of your stupidity—all with the use of a single word—should be demoralizing for society, as it is one more thing that belies its majority population's collective intelligence.

 

[Sammy G]

You mistake me for somebody who can't decode your ill-focused magniloquent bluster for the sub-sophomoric nonsense that it is.

Go home, laddie. You've had a hard day of it. No hard feelings, eh?

 

[Nom de Plume]

You mistake me for somebody who can't decode your ill-focused magniloquent bluster for the sub-sophomoric nonsense that it is.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your only ammunition comes in the form of carping over typos and talking about how your superb, incontrovertible counterarguments would be such superb and incontrovertible counterarguments, if you posted them.

You've said everything but absolutely nothing of even a soupçon of substance about my points made in my comments.

Oh, if only this prodigious and inimitable logician could spare the time to actually proffer these God-like elenchi—rather than merely proffer an exegesis on their incalculable profundity, indubitable syllogism, and logical lissomeness—maybe I wouldn't be so incredulous and skeptical.

Go home, laddie. You've had a hard day of it. No hard feelings, eh?

The only thing hard in here is getting you to say something other than how cool and cogent it would be if you said something.

As said in Reservoir Dogs, are you going to bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite?

 

[Sammy G]

This isn't even amusing as satire.