The best thing you have seen on the internet today?
Ok, then. How’s this for a start, spaz?
Once upon a time there was a village idiot. Many years of gullibly favouring deluded ideology over practical rationality had left him with an affliction known as ‘leftardation’. Thankfully, he lived in a village called ‘PeeCeeville’, in the state of “Delusion’, where the desperate craving for social acceptance had led to an irrational fear of logic - so individual thought was frowned upon, and he fit right in. The local villagers were known as ‘sheeple’, due to their inability to comprehend or process any thoughts other than that which most other villagers (known collectively as ‘the flock’) condoned. The town was located in the middle of a huge forest, but strangely, all the flock ever saw were trees.
To be continued. . .
oh this is good, nice work…I can’t wait for the bit about a man not at all deluded, who said he couldve went to the moon if only he didn’t have so many excuses. I think it would fit nicely.
Ok, then. How’s this for a start, spaz?
Once upon a time there was a village idiot. Many years of gullibly favouring deluded ideology over practical rationality had left him with an affliction known as ‘leftardation’. Thankfully, he lived in a village called ‘PeeCeeville’, in the state of “Delusion’, where the desperate craving for social acceptance had led to an irrational fear of logic - so individual thought was frowned upon, and he fit right in. The local villagers were known as ‘sheeple’, due to their inability to comprehend or process any thoughts other than that which most other villagers (known collectively as ‘the flock’) condoned. The town was located in the middle of a huge forest, but strangely, all the flock ever saw were trees.
To be continued. . .
oh this is good, nice work…I can’t wait for the bit about a man not at all deluded, who said he couldve went to the moon if only he didn’t have so many excuses. I think it would fit nicely.
Nah, I’m working on the bit about the village idiot being so monumentally ignorant, that when arguing against that which he did not understand (and therefore disagreed with - because that’s what village idiots do), he had no choice but to centre his argument around an imaginary scenario he’d created in his own head, instead of simply contesting the actual point. Embarrassingly oblivious, he had no idea whatsoever he was once again favouring deluded ideology over practical rationality. . .
(Apparently, he also had a problem with writing in legible English, but that’s another story altogether. . .)
At least I’m up to speed with The Emperor’s New Clothes!!!!!
Not familiar with this tale whatsoever!!!!! 
Nah, I’m working on the bit about the village idiot being so monumentally ignorant, that when arguing against that which he did not understand (and therefore disagreed with - because that’s what village idiots do), he had no choice but to centre his argument around an imaginary scenario he’d created in his own head, instead of simply contesting the actual point. Embarrassingly oblivious, he had no idea whatsoever he was once again favouring deluded ideology over practical rationality. . .
(Apparently, he also had a problem with writing in legible English, but that’s another story altogether. . .)
I don’t think you should rant so much in a children’s story…..
(Apparently, he also had a problem with writing in legible English, but that’s another story altogether. . .)
Someone throwing stones in glass houses again? For someone who thinks they know enough about English that they would be arrogant enough to put someone else down about theirs - it is somewhat surprising that you have used the word “legible” in the wrong context. One would assume that you would know that legible refers to handwriting or print, and whether it is clear enough to be read, not correct syntax.
Really? THAT little bit of petty semantics is the best you can come up with? Really???
Although not entirely textbook accurate, use of the term “legible” in this context is perfectly acceptable. Try again.
Pathetic.
Really? THAT little bit of petty semantics the best you can come up with? Really???
Although not entirely textbook accurate, use of the term “legible” in this context is perfectly acceptable. Try again.
Pathetic.
Oh another Chucky rule…...
I wonder what we used to do for fun around here before you turned up to argue with and denigrate people. This is really good for my post count 
.
In case you missed it (not at all surprising), YOU are the one arguing with me. All I’m doing is exercising my right to respond. Wow, you REALLY are deluded. Way to go, genius. 
Back to the cool stuff..
This guy is amazing. Blind Surfer. Respect!
In case you missed it (not at all surprising), YOU are the one arguing with me. Wow, you REALLY are deluded. Way to go, genius.
haha yes thats true I am… . I can’t remember ever arguing with anyone else though. I seem to remember you being involved with pretty much every argument on this forum or make that being the one degenerating someone in every disagreement . Common denominator? Plus you cant help it, if someone disagrees with you, you immediately attack them. Not their argument. I find it quite funny when you do it to me, so it keep putting the bait out there for you to have another go or get you to make another chucky proclamation. I’ll stop now though as its becoming a little tiresome and I’m sure everyones over reading the childrens saga is has become. Maybe you should think about retiring from this one as well old chap. I’m out.
In case you missed it (not at all surprising), YOU are the one arguing with me. Wow, you REALLY are deluded. Way to go, genius.
haha yes thats true I am… . I can’t remember ever arguing with anyone else though. I seem to remember you being involved with pretty much every argument on this forum or make that being the one degenerating someone in every disagreement . Common denominator? Plus you cant help it, if someone disagrees with you, you immediately attack them. Not their argument. I find it quite funny when you do it to me, so it keep putting the bait out there for you to have another go or get you to make another chucky proclamation. I’ll stop now though as its becoming a little tiresome and I’m sure everyones over reading the childrens saga is has become. Maybe you should think about retiring from this one as well old chap. I’mt out.
^ Just like I said, delusional. Not to mention embarrassingly hypocritical. Sad, truly sad.
Chucky you should take heed the lesson of the Emperor’s New Clothes,
Point of the story being; Pointing out the ignorance and delusional ideology of others only highlights your own ignorance and will succeed in exclusion.
Just because someone is right (or wrong) has little significance. What is important is that a ones ideals are kept to oneself for the greater good of a community.
Throughout history people have succeeded in using simple logic, despite the best interest of a community, to win their point. Those people are called tyrants - tyrants become dictators and are viewed with great hatred.
Your story is hardly cryptic, uses to many verbs which exaggerate what could be said simpler or could be done by selecting some popular fiction to make your point.
Describing “the village idiot” as one who argues a point he does not understand lacks some literal merit (and you have used english literacy’s correctness in your argument) - an idiot in literary terms is a person so encompassed by himself he refuses to acknowledge the view (whether it be from a simple or wise man). Fredrich Nietzsche often used the term “Id” derived from “idiot” or “identity”.
A man who considers his own identity above others enough to demoralise another using terms and phrases another cannot understand and see’s their own identity and knowledge as having more importance. That man is an idiot. Nietzsche’s “The Superman” explores this greatly.
Chucky, you have shown yourself in this light and further buried yourself in that hole by referring to throwing stones in glass houses (I can only assume you now realise your walls where shattered by your own hand). The analogy of stone houses is meant to prevent any stone throwing, since when you throw a stone it must break though your wall resulting in the others being untouched due to the momentum lost and results in your own house in ruins.
I would go further and say an idiot would use terms and long descriptive sentences in an effort for others to not understand, to belittle them so they feel anything they may say has no merit, leaving them frightened and lacking in response. Any response given that is undue is the fault of the party who cannot contain their Id or keep a debate civil.
Boardworld is not about exclusion, it is a community.
We welcome simple and wise minds but idiots should keep their hands away from stones (and keyboards).
I will not appreciate this post being dissected into quotation boxes so you may attempt to belittle my point.
If we want to keep ourselves entertained by seeing who can whack their keyboards in a manner that fills a thread with intellectual debate about literacy and legible writings - you know I’m up for it!
So lets take it outside (by that I mean start another thread) and leave this thread to discuss more simple matters.
(you know I love ya chuckmiester)
Best thing I have seen is that ^^^^^^^^^ that bit where spaz says simple folk like me can be here 
derp