BattleCry and Teenage Brainwashing

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

tw, on what do you base that statement?

Which statements?

[Happy Monkey]

The "Economist" stuff actually came from Bruce initially.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the economist, that patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication, isn't it? Anyway, if it ceased publication, you would dry up and blow away. Even though most parrots live a long time, without feed they die, just as your online persona would without those Brits supplying your posts.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What I said and what tw posted are not the same statements.

[Happy Monkey]

You're the one who made the Economist/patriotic American connection. tw's post was facetiously responding to yours. TheMercenary misinterpreted it as tw actually claiming that the Economist is anti-American, which he was not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Only a child reading with their emotions instead of reading what was written would make such an unpatriotic connection.
maybe HM is not a patriot, why else would HM make that emotional connection like an unpatriotic child instead of reading what was posted, as it was posted.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Only a child reading with their emotions instead of ....

xoxoxoBruce, in simple terms, called The Economist an anti-American publication. He did so in a long chain of personal insults - no useful facts or conclusions were posted by xoxoxoBruce. That reference to The Economist was to further insult tw who is an avid reader of that publication.

Again, xoxoxoBruce is posting so much profanity and so much emotional hate lately that I wonder if something within him has changed adversely.

It was xoxoxoBruce who posted accusations of The Economist in a post of emotional tirades. His accusation to only attack tw and not for logical purposes. Happy Monkey has accurately posted what those quotes really mean.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Another emotional post by tw, childishly accusing others of what he does constantly. Misread with emotion and cry that he is being personally attacked like a miniature Rush Limbawl.
Baby Rush adds nothing to the subject because he is a child playing his big dick slight of hand to mislead with his tantrums, blaming everyone else for his inability to grasp adult situations.
Maybe tw needs his diaper changed, his whining is disturbing the adults.

Would someone, please, tell us why The Economist is Anti-American, specifically. The reason.
That is is a foreign publication is not a rational reason.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Would someone, please, tell us why The Economist is Anti-American, specifically. The reason.
That is is a foreign publication is not a rational reason.

Ask tw, he made the statement.

I did. He sidestepped.
I think it's a red herring.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Would someone, please, tell us why The Economist is Anti-American, specifically. The reason.
That is is a foreign publication is not a rational reason.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ask tw, he made the statement.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I did. He sidestepped.
I think it's a red herring.

tw did not claim the Economist is anti-American.

tw cited the Economist.
Bruce sarcastically referred to it as "...patriotic American... oh wait, that's a British publication".
tw then facetiouly said
"The Economist is anti-American because it is published by Brits."

He was agreeing with you, rkzenrage, that the fact that the Economist is a British publication is not relevant.

[xoxoxoBruce]

How do you know it was "facetiouly". Are you reading between the lines? tw keeps telling you not to do that. Read exactly what he said and don't impose your prejudices on his posts.

[xoxoxoBruce]

How do you know it was "facetiouly". Are you reading between the lines? tw keeps telling you not to do that. Read exactly what he said and don't impose your prejudices on his posts. Shouldn't that facetious statement end with a question mark?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

How do you know it was "facetiouly". Are you reading between the lines? tw keeps telling you not to do that. Read exactly what he said and don't impose your prejudices on his posts. Shouldn't that facetious statement end with a question mark?

Statements don't end with question marks. He was making fun of your charactarization of the Economist. I don't have to read between the lines; I just need to read the entire line.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I made no characterization of the economist. I merely corrected my statement in mid-sentence. If you are reading your prejudice into the statement instead of what the statement says, I can't be responsible for that. Hasn't tw taught you that?