you mean, I should have admitted my error before I was aware of it instead of in the next comment?
As to the greta example, as I explained last time but you still seem unable to wrap your head around, I was making a broader comment about the quality of the spectator and those that read it, rather than its predictably poor review, and the thunberg article aptly illustrated my point. I could have found plenty of others but I knew I'd find trash journalism googling thunberg and I found it first hit.
As to me being "full of shit", you'd think you'd have more ammunition than the sage error you oddly keep repeating. I think at its core it isn't so much that I know things, and I have my strengths and weakness like other people depending on their interests, and I make it clear when I'm speculating and when I'm certain. It's that I seem to know a lot more than you, as I imagine many people do, but in your case this infuriates you and seems to have created an obsession to try to show me up, with each failure only adding to it. I like that the people on links have different passions, such as music or space travel, and learn a lot. I even learn things about you. Now that I know you regurgitate your opinions from the spectator, your claim in that argument that "independent sage are all paid up members of momentum" now makes perfect sense, as it's exactly the kind of overblown nonsense they'd run in the modern spectator
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 22 May 2021, 2:27,
Reply)
You made the bullshit comment. I said it was bollocks. You said I was wrong and reasserted your lie. I reiterated it was bullshit. You backed down. That ain’t immediate.
You say you were making a broader point. The reality is that you were engaging in whataboutery, when you hadn’t seen the tv show and very obviously hadn’t even read the article. You attacked the article as an unjust piece of invective against Coogan personally, when it was not, it was a critique exclusively concerning the evolution of the comic character. That’s not a broader point. You were just picking a fight, without knowing what you were talking about. You’re mental.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 22 May 2021, 7:14,
Reply)
me talking about the spectator really upset, you didn't it?
identifying with that burberry of the publishing world must have been a source of much of your unwarranted pretentions.
When we look at who the mental one is, I'd ask you to think about your first comment above and the common thread running through most of our exchanges, which is Why? What prompted you to respond to my speculation about power of arrest? You weren't making a counter argument. You didn't have anything to say or add. you simply saw I was having a point of view and as in all the previous times you felt moved to try to insult me. What sociopathy motivates you? I have my own theories as to why you're a toxic little dweeb, but do you have the tools to understand yourself? Perhaps not. Sometimes the cause is also that which limits you understanding that cause.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 22 May 2021, 13:35,
Reply)
You hate The Spectator and think it's an evil right wing rag. I get that.
The link I replied to wasn't about The Spectator and the link I posted, while published in The Spectator, was specifically and exclusively about the content of the link. Yet on and on you go about whatever you've got your knickers in a twist about in the most inane and insane exercise in whataboutery imaginable projecting all kind of bollocks. You haven't watched the TV show. You didn't read the review. I doubt you've ever read anything in The Spectator. You're mental.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 22 May 2021, 15:34,
Reply)