One of the most underrated movies of all time. Bill Murray at his absolute finest....no Groundhog Day was his best work IMO. At any rate, you are so right - it was a sh*tty analogy. But the point is still obvious to anyone as dumb as I am.
I say to a friend "man that is so retarded!". Only he and I are in the room. Who have I hurt?
No one directly obviously but again your intent is to compare his actions to a mentally handicapped person. Do you honestly not see this? You are saying that they are as low as a person with a disability is. Insult to anyone with a disability and those close to them. There is not a single person here who has trouble with the concept except for you. A few have mentioned having family members with disabilities who were insulted/offended. Yet instead of giving up a single word you chose to keep going in spite of how bad it makes you look. At this point, you come across as someone with zero compassion nor common sense really. Unable to accept defeat or wrong doing.
Can't believe that this was debated at all. Never mind over and over.
Your logic dictates that something is only offensive if there is someone there that matches. So the N-word is fine as long as someone of color is not around? F-word if only a gay is near? Those people are not needed for a word or thought to be offensive.
Who is hurt? Yourself for not learning a thing. Your parents as I am sure that they raised you with better morals. Every handicapped person and family affected because you don't deem them worthy of your respect, kindness and understanding even when confronted about your ignorance on the subject whether intended or not. No ones looking or listening - call them what you want - it's OK. Right?
Oh damn, nevermind about that respectful thing.
LOL. Do you know why this comment might be funny to some?
Today the r-word has become a common word used by society as an insult for someone or something stupid. For example, you might hear someone say, "That is so retarded" or "Don't be such a retard." When used in this way, the r-word can apply to anyone or anything, and is not specific to someone with a disability. But, even when the r-word is not said to harm someone with a disability, it is hurtful.
Hurtful to whom?
Potentially to anyone within earshot (or anyone who reads it on a message board, as the case may be). Maybe you can tell just by looking at people (or reading their screen names or whatever) whether they would be hurt or not, but that's not always the case for most of the rest of us. And by the way that piece you just quoted is from website of "the r-word people" but I still hope you plan to write to them about this conversation anyway.
Maybe you guys are morally superior to me in ways I cannot even imagine, but I'm having trouble believing that every private comment you make in your life is with regards to not offending someone else somewhere in the world.
Are we talking about private comments or conversations only now? Just a few posts ago you said we should keep this real and make it about what you and I both actually said on this publicly accessible message board. But if you'd rather to talk hypotheticals...
I say to a friend "man that is so retarded!". Only he and I are in the room. Who have I hurt?
Ok, now that we are back to hypotheticals...can't you see that you very possibly will have hurt your friend, the same way that someone who were to say that to me or just about anyone I know would be hurt? Maybe you don't have any friends who would be hurt if you said that in private to them, and that since you know that none of your friends would be hurt by it, that it is a totally fine thing to say to any of them in private. Ok, hypothetically speaking maybe that would indeed be no harm no foul kind of situation. But, what if you didn't know that someone he loves has an intellectual disability, and you said it to him and he told you that he was hurt by it? Would you care? Would you respect his feelings? Would you apologize? Would you still say it if you knew that there was a chance it might hurt him? Would you say it if you knew for sure it would hurt him? Would you say it if he had an intellectual disability himself? Where would you draw the line, or would you at all, on when or when not to say it?
PB, whether you ever grasp the concepts being discussed or not
This is hardly a matter of comprehension.
Except that every time you post you keep making it obvious that it is exactly that. I and others have been trying to help you comprehend it, but you either can't or don't want to. Either way, feel free to keep digging in your heels because I'll keep talking about it for as long as you want.
The N-word and the F-word have no other practical usage in our language. They are purely derogatory and their meaning's quite unambiguous.
And in this respect they are very much unlike the so-called R-word.
You used an edit for this? The other meanings that you mention refer to scientific terms, as you wrote earlier. But your use for the word has no scientific meaning, just derogatory meaning.
What about words like "fat", "stupid", "ugly", stuff like that?
All words used by people w/ anger and limited vocabulary, but perfectly legal to use.
I don't believe I disrespected him in any way. Or you for that matter.
You haven't disrespected me....lately. I agree w/ a lot of your politics and targets, but you're wrong about this one. Your own examples of how you use the word are examples of derogation. I agree with him that using it publicly in a forum is inappropriate. If you wouldn't say it in an office setting in a meeting, then I wouldn't use it in public.
The N-word and the F-word have no other practical usage in our language. They are purely derogatory and their meaning's quite unambiguous.
And in this respect they are very much unlike the so-called R-word.
You used an edit for this? The other meanings that you mention refer to scientific terms, as you wrote earlier. But your use for the word has no scientific meaning, just derogatory meaning.
Check dictionary report back.
From the default google search dictionary:
So when you said "What an utterly retarded comparison" were you using the "dated offensive" meaning or the "informal offensive" meaning? By the way, that's a rhetorical question, I think we all know you were using the "informal offensive" meaning.
[Edited on 6/2/2016 by gondicar]
What about words like "fat", "stupid", "ugly", stuff like that?
All words used by people w/ anger and limited vocabulary, but perfectly legal to use.
Sign of a negative human who is full of bitterness and anger. Perhaps a person abused or neglected at home.
Also your use of the r-word is used for insult and no other way. So it wouldn't matter if there were thousands of other meanings. Your use is limited to insult as your examples display.
Look in the mirror and say
I AM WRONG.
No one else will see or hear and you clearly need the practice. I honestly hope that you were just trying to troll and annoy and not being that lost to social behavior and compassion.
The problem with this conversation is you guys have me cornered with this idea that I am OK -- even possibly get off on -- offending mentally handicapped persons, and this is just not true. I realize it makes the argument so much easier for you to win, but it's just not true.
No, no, no, no. You are still missing the point. I don't think you used the word in this thread or in general to purposefully offend anyone (actually at some point I think you actually were trying to offend me, but not with the original statement). My entire point, and the entire point of "the r-word people" and their website, which you don't seem to comprehend, his that when you do use it like that, you are hurting/offending people whether you mean to or not. Whether you agree that people should or shouldn't be offended isn't the point either. The main point I am trying to leave you with, that we all are, is that whether you mean to hurt/offend or not by using the word like that, you do. It's a fact. If you can understand that, then what you do with that understanding is of course entirely you to you.
The problem with this conversation is you guys have me cornered with this idea that I am OK -- even possibly get off on -- offending mentally handicapped persons, and this is just not true. I realize it makes the argument so much easier for you to win, but it's just not true.
Your feeling of being being cornered is just your inability to admit that you are wrong about it. I don't think you would offend a mentally handicapped person. This conversation isn't about whether someone is right or wrong for saying it in private, or around your closest friends and family. This is about broadcasting and conversing in public, such as this forum. It doesn't belong in public simply because we should be better than that as people.
That's incredible that your behavior here on the WP and at the office are totally consistent.
And here I thought the internet arguments brought out the worst in all of us. I guess just me? I mean my goodness, CM's never even referred to anyone as ugly or stupid or fat before in his whole life. I've never met anyone like that.
Are you referring to comments made in the heat of passion, or after days to think and craft a response in defense of a major topic? And I can't speak for him, but my point is that when we f-up, we own up to it and try to be better.
I have a pretty good idea what my friends or family are offended by.
So are you saying that you wouldn't use the r-word like you did here with one of your family or friends (or anyone else for that matter) if you had a pretty good idea that it would offend him/her?
Just to make a real easy example I'm sure you can relate to, I have a pretty good idea which of my friends I can trash-talk conservative politics around and who I cannot.
No sure that is an apples-to-apples analogy, but it would seem to indicate you believe things you say are not offensive per se, but only offensive if/when someone is actually offended and tells you so. Is that what you mean?
It should be fair to assume for the sake of argument that you and I both at some point in our lives have accidentally offended someone and had to recover from it either via apology later or an awkward disagreement in realtime or whatever. It happens.
Of course it happens. It is one of the ways that we learn and grow.
My entire point, and the entire point of "the r-word people" and their website, which you don't seem to comprehend, his that when you do use it like that, you are hurting/offending people whether you mean to or not. Whether you agree that people should or shouldn't be offended isn't the point either. The main point I am trying to leave you with, that we all are, is that whether you mean to hurt/offend or not by using the word like that, you do. It's a fact.
Speaking for myself, if someone called me retarded I would definitely not be hurt or offended in the least. So know there's at least one person out there that contradicts what you assert here.
There are probably more people, too.
You're right, it's basically impossible for me to comprehend this concept of a universally offensive word that's guaranteed to hurt feelings if used no matter what. I don't think such a word exists.
No one said it is universal nor that being universal is a litmus test. Although worth noting that the dictionary definition that you encourage us to look up says it is offensive.
[Edited on 6/2/2016 by gondicar]
My entire point, and the entire point of "the r-word people" and their website, which you don't seem to comprehend, his that when you do use it like that, you are hurting/offending people whether you mean to or not. Whether you agree that people should or shouldn't be offended isn't the point either. The main point I am trying to leave you with, that we all are, is that whether you mean to hurt/offend or not by using the word like that, you do. It's a fact.
Speaking for myself, if someone called me retarded I would definitely not be hurt or offended in the least. So know there's at least one person out there that contradicts what you assert here.
There are probably more people, too.
You're right, it's basically impossible for me to comprehend this concept of a universally offensive word that's guaranteed to hurt feelings if used no matter what. I don't think such a word exists.
Not one said it is universal nor that being universal is a litmus test.
Maybe I am reading into it too much but everything you wrote above was very absolute. And you said it like that twice so I assumed you meant it that way.
"you say the r-word you WILL hurt/offend someone, that is a fact"
No?
Well, you misquoted me (I didn't use the sentence you put in quotes with the word "WILL") but yes, I said something very close to that...and if you put it in context (which you have said is important) I also included "when you do use it like that" (twice as a mater of fact), as in the way you did here, in public for anyone to read. And I will stand by that. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a noise? Maybe you think it doesn't, but I'm pretty sure it does. In any case, I didn't say or mean to imply that everyone is offended by it.
[Edited on 6/2/2016 by gondicar]
I have never seen anyone so determined to display their ignorance. You can't honestly be this dense so it is a matter of trolling.
I never once said that I never used words like fat, stupid or ugly. I just grew up and realized that these are hateful words and I acquired an adult vocabulary. And common sense told me that the intention of using these words was hateful and served no purpose.
See I realized that this type of behavior is wrong and stopped. It is called maturing. Continuing behavior after realizing it is offensive and trying vainly to defend it is childish, foolish and displays a complete level of immaturity.
Life of the party if I used those words? Wow you are rather easily amused. So insulting people makes it a good party? No wonder you are so bitter. Also those parties must suck.
See you came here trying to call out people and troll. Now you have posted more than any in a thread that you condemned originally.
Then post after post where you try to defend (poorly) the many uses of a word. Then you use it the same way over and over. Not sure if you think this actually makes you seem intelligent to others. It doesn't. There is nothing witty about stating the same incorrect statements over and over. It does indicate a level of maturity though and now I understand your lack of vocabulary and social skills. You are challenged yourself and apparently new concepts are hard to adjust to.
Some people just need to troll. Some hate their lives so much that inflicting pain and hurt is a desperate cry for help. Some just can't grow up to attain an adult maturity level. Some develop social skills and problem solving abilities. Others remain immature with a stunted development.
Some were just raised poorly. Either way it must be a sad and lonely life. My condolences and sympathy to you and yours. It must not have been easy.
Although worth noting that the dictionary definition that you encourage us to look up says it is offensive.
Yes, the dictionaries have been updated to reflect the notion that referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" is indeed offensive an no longer acceptable. I think that's great.
Did you also happen to notice that the dictionary definition says that not only is referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" offensive and no longer acceptable, but also that referring to an idea (not a person, an idea..."vapor" as you put it) as "retarded" is also offensive and no longer acceptable? You left that part so just want to make sure you saw it.
If this argument was scored on avg. word count you'd be the winner for sure.
He's the winner no matter how you score it.
Although worth noting that the dictionary definition that you encourage us to look up says it is offensive.
Yes, the dictionaries have been updated to reflect the notion that referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" is indeed offensive an no longer acceptable. I think that's great.
Did you also happen to notice that the dictionary definition says that not only is referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" offensive and no longer acceptable, but also that referring to an idea (not a person, an idea..."vapor" as you put it) as "retarded" is also offensive and no longer acceptable? You left that part so just want to make sure you saw it.
Merriam Webster online says "sometimes offensive". But in either case the dictionary is clearly not the end-all decider as both sources are clearly incomplete because we know there are several acceptable usages of the word, especially of the ones I listed earlier with respect to specific industry, that are not even cited.
I get the feeling that actual paper dictionaries are better resources than these online ones, but I wouldn't know as I haven't seen a real dictionary in 40 years or more.
Bawaaa haa ha haaa! Maybe you should have checked yourself before you chided us to "Check dictionary report back." #backpeddling #selfinflictedwound
[Edited on 6/2/2016 by gondicar]
If this argument was scored on avg. word count you'd be the winner for sure.
He's the winner no matter how you score it.
There's a saying about winning arguments on the internet. How does that one go again?
You brought up keeping score and winning, so just following your lead. I'll discuss this topic as long as you want and don't really care who you think wins/loses.
[Edited on 6/2/2016 by gondicar]
If this argument was scored on avg. word count you'd be the winner for sure.
He's the winner no matter how you score it.
There's a saying about winning arguments on the internet. How does that one go again?
There can be no valid debate or argument if there is only clearly one side with any valid points. Plus I had never considered for a moment that perhaps I was dealing with someone with a mental disability. You of all people should be insulted by the word but clearly you don't have the capacity to grasp the concept. Further proof that 1st cousins should not mate.
I apologize as I didn't know that you had issues although it should have been clear to me. I was clearly wrong to try and engage in an intelligent debate with a person of limited capacity. It became more obvious with each post. My sympathies to your family and friends as it must have been a hard road to travel.
I thought you were just a regular troll. Didn't know that there were special needs trolls. Learn something new every day.
Now I understand your limited vocabulary and how I used too many words for you. Poor guy. I am an insensitive beast and clearly bullied someone without the ability to defend themselves.
Sorry.
Although worth noting that the dictionary definition that you encourage us to look up says it is offensive.
Yes, the dictionaries have been updated to reflect the notion that referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" is indeed offensive an no longer acceptable. I think that's great.
Did you also happen to notice that the dictionary definition says that not only is referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" offensive and no longer acceptable, but also that referring to an idea (not a person, an idea..."vapor" as you put it) as "retarded" is also offensive and no longer acceptable? You left that part so just want to make sure you saw it.
Merriam Webster online says "sometimes offensive". But in either case the dictionary is clearly not the end-all decider as both sources are clearly incomplete because we know there are several acceptable usages of the word, especially of the ones I listed earlier with respect to specific industry, that are not even cited.
I get the feeling that actual paper dictionaries are better resources than these online ones, but I wouldn't know as I haven't seen a real dictionary in 40 years or more.
Bawaaa haa ha haaa! Maybe you should have checked yourself before you chided us to "Check dictionary report back." #backpeddling #selfinflictedwound
By the way, you may not realize this but in 2010 Rosa’s Law, which takes its name and inspiration for 9-year-old Rosa Marcellino, removed the terms "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded" from federal health, education and labor policy and replaces them with people first language "individual with an intellectual disability" and "intellectual disability." So you see, even what you refer to as the "acceptable usages" are no longer universally acceptable. Hope that helps.
Although worth noting that the dictionary definition that you encourage us to look up says it is offensive.
Yes, the dictionaries have been updated to reflect the notion that referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" is indeed offensive an no longer acceptable. I think that's great.
Did you also happen to notice that the dictionary definition says that not only is referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" offensive and no longer acceptable, but also that referring to an idea (not a person, an idea..."vapor" as you put it) as "retarded" is also offensive and no longer acceptable? You left that part so just want to make sure you saw it.
Merriam Webster online says "sometimes offensive". But in either case the dictionary is clearly not the end-all decider as both sources are clearly incomplete because we know there are several acceptable usages of the word, especially of the ones I listed earlier with respect to specific industry, that are not even cited.
I get the feeling that actual paper dictionaries are better resources than these online ones, but I wouldn't know as I haven't seen a real dictionary in 40 years or more.
Bawaaa haa ha haaa! Maybe you should have checked yourself before you chided us to "Check dictionary report back." #selfinflictedwound
Typical WP-style nonsense here. Latch onto single source that confirms your bias, argument turns into pointless bickering about sources. You'd think an issue so important to you would make some effort to keep the conversation productive instead of dumbing it down.
What? The dictionary was YOUR source that you were trying to latch on to...until you realized what it actually said I guess. Typical WP-style nonsense is right, you are the king of it!!
I have never seen anyone so determined to display their ignorance.
And he's STILL going at it!! Unreal!!
Although worth noting that the dictionary definition that you encourage us to look up says it is offensive.
Yes, the dictionaries have been updated to reflect the notion that referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" is indeed offensive an no longer acceptable. I think that's great.
Did you also happen to notice that the dictionary definition says that not only is referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" offensive and no longer acceptable, but also that referring to an idea (not a person, an idea..."vapor" as you put it) as "retarded" is also offensive and no longer acceptable? You left that part so just want to make sure you saw it.
Merriam Webster online says "sometimes offensive". But in either case the dictionary is clearly not the end-all decider as both sources are clearly incomplete because we know there are several acceptable usages of the word, especially of the ones I listed earlier with respect to specific industry, that are not even cited.
I get the feeling that actual paper dictionaries are better resources than these online ones, but I wouldn't know as I haven't seen a real dictionary in 40 years or more.
Bawaaa haa ha haaa! Maybe you should have checked yourself before you chided us to "Check dictionary report back." #backpeddling #selfinflictedwound
By the way, you may not realize this but in 2010 Rosa’s Law, which takes its name and inspiration for 9-year-old Rosa Marcellino, removed the terms "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded" from federal health, education and labor policy and replaces them with people first language "individual with an intellectual disability" and "intellectual disability." So you see, even what you refer to as the "acceptable usages" are no longer universally acceptable. Hope that helps.
They replaced the outdated medical terms "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded".
Exactly what does this have to do with any other usage of the word?
Is this a real question? If so you lost me and will need to be more specific if you want an answer.
I feel like I am in the twilight zone...either that or you have this trolling thing down better than anyone else around.
[Edited on 6/2/2016 by gondicar]
Although worth noting that the dictionary definition that you encourage us to look up says it is offensive.
Yes, the dictionaries have been updated to reflect the notion that referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" is indeed offensive an no longer acceptable. I think that's great.
Did you also happen to notice that the dictionary definition says that not only is referring to intellectually limited individuals as "retarded" offensive and no longer acceptable, but also that referring to an idea (not a person, an idea..."vapor" as you put it) as "retarded" is also offensive and no longer acceptable? You left that part so just want to make sure you saw it.
Merriam Webster online says "sometimes offensive". But in either case the dictionary is clearly not the end-all decider as both sources are clearly incomplete because we know there are several acceptable usages of the word, especially of the ones I listed earlier with respect to specific industry, that are not even cited.
I get the feeling that actual paper dictionaries are better resources than these online ones, but I wouldn't know as I haven't seen a real dictionary in 40 years or more.
Bawaaa haa ha haaa! Maybe you should have checked yourself before you chided us to "Check dictionary report back." #backpeddling #selfinflictedwound
By the way, you may not realize this but in 2010 Rosa’s Law, which takes its name and inspiration for 9-year-old Rosa Marcellino, removed the terms "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded" from federal health, education and labor policy and replaces them with people first language "individual with an intellectual disability" and "intellectual disability." So you see, even what you refer to as the "acceptable usages" are no longer universally acceptable. Hope that helps.
They replaced the outdated medical terms "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded".
Exactly what does this have to do with any other usage of the word?
Is this a real question? If so you lost me and will need to be more specific if you want an answer.
I feel like I am in the twilight zone...either that or you have this trolling thing down better than anyone else around.
[Edited on 6/2/2016 by gondicar]
I think the "twilight zone" you refer to might be in the inside of your own ass.
Of course you do. Stay classy, PerryBoynton.
This guy gets it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103896.html
Interesting article. A little dated now (it was 6 years ago), and I would say he does, and he doesn't "get it." He is mostly making a broader point about word usage and the evolution of certain words from benign to offensive (and sometimes back to something close to benign again, i.e. "reclaimed"), and he even titled 2 books with the F-word to make a broader point. I do understand what he is talking about and I don't totally disagree. Where I think he doesn't get it is when he talks about the fight against the r-word as being about the word itself. My takeaway is that he is not taking the pledge as part of his bigger message about how words become stigmatized over time, not because he doesn't think it is offensive or hurtful. From the article...
Mental disorders also carry cultural taboos. For centuries, mental illness and disability were poorly understood; as recently as the 1800s, they were thought to be the work of devils and demons. Because the origins of mental illness were a mystery, fears that such conditions could be contagious led to isolation through institutionalization. Shame was often attached to individuals and their families, and the result was stigma.
Fortunately, we've come a long way from those days. It's precisely the new enlightenment and openness about mental disabilities that allow Palin to launch the controversy over "retard." But at a subconscious level, the underlying taboo may explain why we constantly seek new terms for this type of disability, new ways to avoid the old stigmas. Invariably, negative connotations materialize around whatever new word is used; "idiot" becomes an insult and gives way to "retardation," which in turn suffers the same fate, leading to "intellectual disability." This illustrates one of the recurring follies of speech restriction: While there may be another word to use, a negative connotation eventually is found. Offense -- both given and taken -- is inevitable.
I think he's mostly right here, but what he is missing is that the fight to remove the r-word from everyday use is not just about the r-word itself, it is about the "underlying taboo" which is really what the campaign seeks to remove, because everyday use of the r-word reinforces the underlying taboo. I see progress in this space as incremental, and based on my own experiences and things I have read, progress over the last 30 years has been huge. There is still a long way to go, but when the queen of anti-PC Sarah Palin and I are on the same side in this, then that tells me there is hope that maybe even you may someday take the pledge.
Anyway, good article so thanks for posting. It doesn't change the crux of the issue for me, but it makes some good points and adds to the discussion in a positive way.
I had never considered for a moment that perhaps I was dealing with someone with a mental disability. You of all people should be insulted by the word but clearly you don't have the capacity to grasp the concept. Further proof that 1st cousins should not mate.
Are all mental handicaps a result of inbreeding? Or just mine.
(wow, still reacting to this)
That slow reaction is normal for a person with your capacities. Calm down. You will understand eventually.
Don't know the rest of the family so can't comment. But clearly you have issues and as you have zero compassion for people with health issues, it leaves brain damage from a tragic accident or a flaw in the gene pool.
Maybe both apply. Either way - you are a troll and not a very good one.
You mentioned that if you were to meet people here, you would behave and speak differently. Honest comment and speaks volumes about your integrity and convictions.
It is also admitted troll behavior and cowardly.
For a guy that didn't like this thread, you sure do love it. But anymore time spent with you and we will have to charge for babysitting.
People like you change in person as the outcome would be an a** kicking which I am sure you have experienced plenty of. Good reason to hide your cowardly beliefs and pretend to the world. So what are your real beliefs? The hate that you spew here or the lies that you feed the world when not online?
Can this site create a troll with at least a fraction of intelligence? No. Shame as it would at least make it more interesting. Thank God that I only scan the replies after spotting a troll.
You seem insulted but you can't be as I only used words and many have multiple meanings. Imagine that. But I can almost hear the gears ticking in your head. Maybe the monkey is learning after all.
I had never considered for a moment that perhaps I was dealing with someone with a mental disability. You of all people should be insulted by the word but clearly you don't have the capacity to grasp the concept. Further proof that 1st cousins should not mate.
Are all mental handicaps a result of inbreeding? Or just mine.
(wow, still reacting to this)
That slow reaction is normal for a person with your capacities. Calm down. You will understand eventually.
Don't know the rest of the family so can't comment. But clearly you have issues and as you have zero compassion for people with health issues, it leaves brain damage from a tragic accident or a flaw in the gene pool.
Maybe both apply. Either way - you are a troll and not a very good one.
You mentioned that if you were to meet people here, you would behave and speak differently. Honest comment and speaks volumes about your integrity and convictions.
It is also admitted troll behavior and cowardly.
For a guy that didn't like this thread, you sure do love it. But anymore time spent with you and we will have to charge for babysitting.
People like you change in person as the outcome would be an a** kicking which I am sure you have experienced plenty of. Good reason to hide your cowardly beliefs and pretend to the world. So what are your real beliefs? The hate that you spew here or the lies that you feed the world when not online?
Can this site create a troll with at least a fraction of intelligence? No. Shame as it would at least make it more interesting. Thank God that I only scan the replies after spotting a troll.
Angry Canadian is angry. 🙁
Angry? Not in the least. Just enjoying you making a fool of yourself and your crusade to keep the r-word in your vocabulary.
Takes a far more intelligent troll than you to even irritate me. If you need help with the big words, let us know.