Reply With Quote
I believe insipid is how I would describe your "not trolling" interactions. Reading is fundamental.
"Not trolling" does not imply substance.
I said "two posts up you quoted me not trolling." How do you take that as me agreeing there was no substance?you mad.
I believe insipid is how I would describe your "not trolling" interactions.
You agree that there was no substance at least.
You're weird. You need a therapist.
I believe insipid is how I would describe your "not trolling" interactions. Reading is fundamental.
"Not trolling" does not imply substance.
The post was on topic in response to his post. What's your definition of "substance"?
Something you do not directly contradict in the next response would be a start. Thus insipid.
Then why aren't you accusing CC of trolling?
Lol now the crickets
Another one with the self important questions.
His first response was to call you a hypocrite. The difference is he wanted to argue about inflation whereas you just wanted to make him mad and derail.
"CC is being attacked unfairly"
He thought he had a good point and wanted to challenge you, buttercup. Blake devolved it and you both blamed him for it.
It's horse .
His first response was to say Winehole can't add. The difference is that calling him a troll too undermines your story
CC wanted to challenge me, but his inference from what I said was faulty -- we were already substantially in agreement. He goofed, and there's not much more to say about it.
That is fine. Fine, you would have won the argument but that is not the point here. Or are you saying that winning an argument justifies the insipid devolution?
You should start a thread about it.
Is that what triggered the Quixote response. Fair maiden was besmirched.
Not sure exactly what "insipid devolution" is referring to, but a lot of the the threads you're acticve in seem to end up that way.
As far as I'm aware, no guardrails exist for posting, so it's beside the point to ask whether the posting was warranted. It's either present or absent, and you don't seem exactly allergic to it, tbh.
Well, when people intentionally give contradictory statement I find it insipid. Perhaps you find that vigorous discourse but as you like to say YMMV.
LOL we somewhat agreed after you backtracked and attempted cleanup. But we agree now. Prices don't go down just because inflation goes down a little. Thank for getting my point.
I never said prices go down because inflation goes down a little. I pointed out that they don't.
I honestly don't know how you twisted yourself into a pretzel over that.
Stated as a whine that prices don't go down.
It's OK Whinehole. we agree now.
we agreed from the beginning, it took you awhile to come around, for some reason.
still arguing. You just can't help yourself.
*yawns
Oh I see, it depends who posts it.
Are tariffs inflationary?
As for trickle down theory, that's totally faith based. The empirical evidence isn't there.
Republicans piss on your head and tell you it's raining.
Just like calling Biden's corporate welfare "build from the bottom up and the middle out"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions