What's to understand? His post says the opposite of what you represented. All of your examples keep blowing up in your face and you are talking in circles, giving non-answers, and childishly repeating our lines back to us without adding an actual retort, presumably to avoid the fact that you don't have one.
This is fun.
LOL @ agent fail troll being exposed for everyone to see and laugh at.
Fail troll is fail.
Dear the readers, watch how he will quote my post and reply with his usual oh so weak sauce. Tst..tst..tst...
Why do you assume the teens in the train attack are non-white? Why so racist?
Again...Perfect illustration of the point by a dunning kruger posterchild of how proud they are to never understand sarcasm. At least momeNt finally found someone he can outsmart.
You've got your work cut or for you if you intend to point out the sarcasm in it while simultaneously using it as an example of a gun fan who wants to murder them considering that it says exactly the opposite (sarcastic or not). Funny how your top examples are are useless garbage for supporting your point and yet you dig your heels in deeper....Even if he's trolling and the post doesn't reflect his true belief, it still says the exact opposite of what you seem to think it says.
Good job using it to make your point! You really are going to convince people with quality non-sensical posts like yours!
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe anyone claimed to know the attackers race or even guessed their race.
No, it really is obvious your affiliation and obligation to 1prophet and moment types who aren't exactly speaking of selfdefense.
Again...
You've got your work cut or for you if you intend to point out the sarcasm in it while simultaneously using it as an example of a gun fan who wants to murder them considering that it says exactly the opposite (sarcastic or not). Funny how your top examples are are useless garbage for supporting your point and yet you dig your heels in deeper.
Keep it up. I'm rooting for you!
Oh but agentf00l most certainly did:
This is his way of saying people he believes to be racist are not talking of self defense, but just wanting to kill minorities.
It's clear that I have considered his sarcasm and concluded that it runs completely counter to your "example" regardless. Do I need to quote my "even if" line a third time for you to notice the acknowledgement?Perhaps you're looking to break SNC's record of how long it takes to figure out the simplest thing. To bad your peers won't be of much help.
Oh but agentf00l most certainly did:
This is his way of saying people he believes to be racist are not talking of self defense, but just wanting to kill minorities.
Pretty easy to tell degenerates apart by the way they always double down on lying. Though not that I would contest AnonymouseUser's love of killing minorities in general.
It's clear that I have considered his sarcasm and concluded that it runs completely counter to your "example" regardless. Do I need to quote my "even if" line a third time for you to notice the acknowledgement?
Which was supported by his very next post:
You quoted him to support your idiotic "gun fans who fantasize about shooting people" assertion. It doesn't reflect that regardless of it was trolling/sarcastic or not. Therefore, only the literal statement applies, which is exactly the opposite of what you say.LOL @ "considering that it says exactly the opposite (sarcastic or not)." Surely even your peers can see how retarded that is (well, except svnla) even if they'll never admit to it.
You quoted him to support your idiotic "gun fans who fantasize about shooting people" assertion. It doesn't reflect that regardless of it was trolling/sarcastic or not.
You're stuck on "if it doesn't mean one thing it must mean the other!" when NEITHER mean what you claimed, which is freakin' hilarious.
"it says exactly the opposite" + sarcastic = too complicated for degenerate brains
Eventually he'll work his way to "deplorable".
I edited it to clarify. It seems the clarification was necessary too, because you're STILL missing it (and making a fool of yourself while you're at it):
"It doesn't reflect that regardless of it was trolling/sarcastic or not. Therefore, only the literal statement applies, which is exactly the opposite of what you say."
Sarcastic or not, it literally says exactly the opposite and even if sarcastic it does not say what you insinuate (murderous gun fan).
What's to understand? His post says the opposite of what you represented.
Disagreed. He's 100% incapable of learning anything new.
Oh, man! How could I have been so wrong?!Great job assisting Anonymouse demonstrate just how dishonest degenerates are. From another post:
Not a great time to join that flock.
Oh, man! How could I have been so wrong?!
By CZroe's own definition of sarcasm this can't mean the opposite so it must be literal.
No. By my own definition of sarcasm (which is the same as the rest of the world, by the way), you cannot possibly draw such specific examples from interpreting it as sarcasm, which you tried to do and even based your retort on. You used it as a SPECIFIC example of a "gun fan" fantasizing about shooting people in self defense just like you wrongly used me as an example before that.
Talk about reading between the lines! You're writing your own novel series in there even after you got a much simpler statement completely wrong (I am not interested in Guns). Because it cannot support such specifics when interpreted as sarcasm, the only point you could possibly support based on it would be based on what it literally says, which is exactly the opposite of example you intended it to be.
I'll have what he's having.
Robberies have been on the rise on BART trains, but now teens are organizing and growing brazen as it appears they face little to no resistance from passengers or lax law enforcement more concerned with political correctness than catching criminals. Contrary to the written story, security logs indicate this is third recent takeover robbery, that only now BART cares to publicize.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...rain-rob-weekend-riders/ar-BBAh7u1?li=BBnb7Kz
FTFYSadly, there are lots of people who dont even have $500 in total assets. Imagine losing your life savings to these thieving hooligans and all you get is apathy from public officials [mostly FOR the hooligans] for your troubles. Thats what you call bullshit!
I read that as him being sarcastic, channeling a sterotypical soft-brained liberal. But I don't know the poster, maybe his is.I'm not for shooting anyone, but that is a load of tripe.
I read that as him being sarcastic, channeling a sterotypical soft-brained liberal. But I don't know the poster, maybe his is.
FTFY
Something is seriously wrong with you.It's worth providing a brief retrospective of CZroe situation above, for the benefit of the forum. Degenerates are disposed to a mental version of the ostrich head in sand tactic, whereby they suppose that no statement can be valid as long as they don't understand (ie "see") it. Therefore they will go to any length to play any amount of dumb to never understand anything no matter how basic or obvious.
Liberals tend to play into this by providing reasoned explanations ad infinitum, assuming that this condition stems from lack of key information which upon its arrival will alter the stalemate, as it would with other students of the enlightenment. However, with a better understand of the situation it becomes clear that such is not the case against degeneracy, and rational people would be wise to identify these types. Conservative viewpoints/ideals while not a dead giveaway is arguably accurate enough.