Yes...it can. Do you know what word play is? Metaphors? Poetry and symbolism? Given that you made an attempt at an allegory in another post, one would think you'd be able to understand; given that you failed at that in itself, I didn't expect you to understand.Word wrote:No, it can't. Practice what you preach and look up what you don't understand.To be clear: "colors" in your sentence can refer to race
Regardless, the point remains that it could have been interpreted as a distinction between races of people.
If you intended on being clear, you would have said what you meant and meant what you said. (no matter how many more words you need to clarify the disambiguation).
It is fact that they are. Do you wish to be educated? Do you realize who you are offending by saying this?Word wrote:Ah, I forgot that you also think that "German" is a race.I'm afraid I don't understand the joke.
" 'It was meant to be funny' is no valid excuse, unless the moderators think it was funny." - good thing you bought enough of their favor with your blind support. They might just overlook the uselessness of your sense of humor and permit you to continue. (seriously though, no one is laughing - try staying on topic if you want something to be solved?)Word wrote:I quoted Lucifer just to crack a joke. It had nothing to do with the first lines of that post."how does what Lucifer say show MY true colors?"
Yes, I saw you refer to the very same thing I refuted earlier:Word wrote:Actually, no:All that post contains are insults - unfounded by any actual reasoning.(See what I did there?)I said you're a coward because you use privacy as a smoke screen
Now I'm going to ask you again to stop making such assumptions and stop harassing me with your assumptions. This should be the last time I have to ask you at all.Durf wrote:The reasons why are not for "privacy". I made my reasoning clear and the more you try to label your own reason, the more you're just attacking / harassing me.
Did you forget the reasoning? Scroll up and read. Didn't understand it? I can explain it thoroughly for you should you need it.
You've mistook "you're a coward" as the insult (understandably); but your unfounded assumption, "because you use privacy as a smoke screen" is the insult in this case.
You're trying to support an unfounded claim with yet another unfounded claim. You wouldn't be insulting if you can show reason, but you can't seem to even do that.
I find it ridiculous that you cannot refrain from making such wild assumptions. I would only ever claim that Ratchet was a hypocrite if they did something hypocritical (such as violate rule 1 just to say to someone they have violated rule 1 - let alone violating other rules in the process - and you're trying to call me a hypocrite for that? LOL you're so misguided; makes it seem like your feelings are hurt because of something between Rachet and myself).Word wrote:Since you're always repeating the same mantra and your answers are so much alike and only differ in length, not in content, they're all the same to me by now, I'll admit that. So if that was a test, do you agree that your behaviour is hypocritical and that Ratchet's isn't? Oh wait, you don't, but everyone else is in a "biased environment". Hahaha, you're ridiculous.This was a test, and you failed.
Your ridiculousness aside, you are admitting to basically being incapable of reading the actual message of my words and you get lost in the words themselves.
I, like anyone, has a predisposition to using certain words; "mantra" is far from the appropriate term to use in this case.
I explained the purpose of the test - you're only making yourself an idiot by deliberately ignoring it. You think you're making some kind of point by even still responding, but you failed to assess your actions (words) for their overall effect they would have.
But taking your concern seriously for a moment, what does being hypocritical have to do with the test? How isn't that just another petty attempt at name-calling?
If you have a genuine question about the test, then ask it.
This has been an excellent example of how you just think I'm "ridiculous" without any real way to show it (in case you forgot about your first "smoke screen" assumption - you are assuming what I even think. [sarcasm -->] Tell us, oh great mind reader, tell us exactly what I think. [<-- sarcasm] )
Because you deliberately took part of the sentence away, let's correct your error:Word wrote:Um, where?Notice how vulgar and offensive you are
Here we go:Durf wrote:notice all the claims you make without any reasoning or proof to support them (insults you make).
this whole discussion is pointless if you remain elusive
We have already established that you're a hypocrite
You can start by showing us how these are not vulgar ("lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined." - Google Dictionary).most of your posts boil down to that "no u"
Then you can show us how these claims actually have some kind of foundation; a real basis to them; evidence to support them.
Otherwise, you'll just have to deal with the claim made of you - don't like it? Why should I even prove it if you yourself can't do the very same thing about what you say of others?
Regardless of me being able to prove my claims, you don't deserve anything more than unfounded claims in return.
But you can always prove me wrong (get it?)
^ you're putting words in my mouth. Besides this being more of the same harassment from you, it is only a petty attempt to change what was said to prove your side of things. In case you haven't realized yet, that will never work.Word wrote:The answer lies in the question, right?What worth are you to this community or to my inflated ego?
The more you try, the more you are harassing me (and for what? Just why are you here?).
^ Glad you said this as this is gold.Word wrote:Their job, not mine.why can't the moderators address my posts?
I've been saying the moderators haven't been doing their job - thanks for proving it.