I know I'm going to regret this later but, what the hell. First, there was this totally meaningless, throwaway line:
Sure, if that makes you happy, Twats. I'll try to cope with the emotional devastation of your disapproval. I'll just use my regular links from places like CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post to console me. I figure I'll do just fine.
Say hi to your reader for me.
To which the response was utterly predictable:
Darn -- busted! I am sooooo embarrassed. Oh, wait ... no, I'm not. From the Times in 2009 alone, there was this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
And those are only the ones I bothered to remember. And the nad-crushing irony? I wasn't even aware of those early 2005 links here and here until Twatsy pointed them out. Is that awesome or what?
Thanks, Twats. If you run across any more links, let me know. It's always nice to have someone else pimping our legacy here at CC HQ.
You're doing a heckuva job, Twatsy.
18 comments:
I don't know how he does it. He was over at Rational Reasons giving Mike the full-metal lunatic earlier today (or yesterday...I just skimmed it).
Nervous energy? Too many Red Bulls? Meth? (that last one is what I've been tending to believe).
(shameless self-promotion warning)
So, in other words, you hate puppies? ;)
So, to recap:
Me: "Yeah, I get links."
Twatdick: "HAHAHAHA! OMFG LOL ROTFL Fucking Jesus Christ Liar!!!!!"
Me: "Um ... oh, look, here are some of them."
Now we predict how Twatsy will respond. I'm guessing it'll be something along the lines of, "Those aren't links the way I define links!"
When arguing with the Twatster, one is reminded of the punishing bitchslap Chris Matthews once laid on Ann Coulter: "Facts mean nothing to you, Ann!"
Welcome to Twatsy's planet. Facts optional.
"as it stands now, there is no deficit, and there won't be"
credibility?
Still never met me @ Rutherford, eh Twats?
OW!!! That face plant by Patrick is going to leaqve a mark, damn it must have hurt as well.
Oh, dear God! Please, no! Not more automatically-generated links! Oh, lord, have mercy!
Cynic, Cynic, Cynic, you lying speck of human filth. It isn't as if anyone at the New York Times actually reads your garbage.
You and I both know that if they did you'd have a hard time getting them to agree to sell you a subscription, let alone would they post to your garbage.
Fortunately for you, they have a computer that does it for them. Poor sods.
Fucking retard.
CC Predicks
Now we predict how Twatsy will respond. I'm guessing it'll be something along the lines of, "Those aren't links the way I define links!"
Patrick Druels
Oh, dear God! Please, no! Not more automatically-generated links! Oh, lord, have mercy!
Jesus Patrick, you have to stop punching yourself in your own nutsack, it is very pathetic
Pathetic, but comedic fodder nonetheless. ;)
Ho, please.
You retards have chosen to miss the point.
Cynic would like everyone to believe that those links were deliberate. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
No New York Times editor has read this cretin's garbage and gasped "genius!" and decided the only thing to do was link to it.
Rather, a computer program did it for them, while they paid no attention whatsoever.
Like I said before, if they paid attention to the garbage this piece of shit passes off as intellectual discourse, they'd probably decline to so much as sell him a subscription.
After all, any retard can post "shitcock! BWAHAHA!" seven times a day, day in and day out.
Apparently, even this one.
i guess that's an exclusive then.
Would you like a dawgie bisket Patrick, ya pathetic wittle drueller
a computer program did it for them
The Rosshole Automatic Content Identifier, 2.0. Beta of content generator version here.
One of the finest examples of twatware anywhere.
Wait a second, I need to make sure I've got this straight:
Twatsy didn't think there were links.
CC provides evidence of said links, effectively bitch slapping Twatsy.
Twatsy cries again because... because... the evidence was in the wrong font? Wrong colour? Not centered on the page?
Wait a sec... why *is* that little disingenuous sack of shit pissing and moaning now?
Never mind... I see it now... CC tried to make him face reality.
Twatsy, I'm sorry to say that your Mom lied to you when she said you were special.... Well, not "lied" as much as used a different meaning for "special" than the one you were hoping for.
Yes, Dharma, you pretty much nailed it. So, to recap, your humble correspondent (that would be me) originally claimed that he had "regular links" from some of the biggest names in the MSM, "regular" meaning not just once or twice but with some regularity; ie., on an ongoing or continual or periodic basis.
The perpetually-frothy and CC-obsessed Twatster took exception to that and called me on it, at which point I carefully, methodically and, accompanied by pile-driving boots to Twatsy's nads, provided irrefutable evidence not only of said links but their obvious regularity over the last several months from the New York Times alone.
I made no claims regarding the value or rationale for those links or how they were generated -- only their origin and their regularity. In short:
Me: I get linked to regularly from the MSM.
Stupid fucking Twatsy: "HAHAHAHAHA, oh dear Lord, sweet Jesus, holy fucking shit God, no, you don't, you LIAR!!!"
Me: "Actually, yes, I do and here are the undeniable screenshots, which corroborate exactly the precise claim I was making."
Stupid fucking Twatsy: "Those don't count!"
That's pretty much it, wouldn't you say?
Its pretty funny to watch. he doesn't seem to know what to do these days.
Rather, a computer program did it for them, while they paid no attention whatsoever.
He is fun to watch when he's wriggling. The Times didn't mean to post those links; they accidentally installed a software routine to link to relevant material, unintentionally gave it the wrong criteria to work with, and then never went back and checked the output.
He might as well have gone with "The New York Times isn't really a media outlet, morons".
You know, I'm beginning to think Ti-Guy might be right. It *could* be meth.
Meth would certainly explain the brain-damage.
Post a Comment