Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:You prove you're a do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" (Score 1) 111

Wait, what's that sound? Is it the sound of the exact same BS being trotted out for a seventh time in a row? APK, the only sound I want to hear from you is soft slurping as you gently caress my balls.

Get a new argument. Haha, sorry, I know you can't. I just like to dream.

He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing

Comment Re:You came here talking shit about me (Score 1) 111

Haha, right on schedule, again I appreciate you continuing to prove me right.

As for me "talking shit" about you, in the first 2 posts in this thread I called you a spammer (which is a demonstrably true fact, not a statement of opinion), and then I predicted exactly what you were going to do over, and over, and over again. That's not talking shit, that's telling it exactly like it is. I give you a rope, and you hang yourself with it. So that's my "shit talking", a couple statements of fact, which were quickly followed by you doing exactly what I said you were going to do.

He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing

I realize that your limited and stunted emotional development also makes it very difficult for you to come up with any new arguments, but every single one of your posts in this thread does nothing except prove my prediction correct. It's time to quit while you're behind, save up your wits for the next ad blocking story on Slashdot and maybe spend the time to come up with a new argument. When your entire argument is you repeating the exact same crap 6 times in one thread, each time proving me right, then it becomes too easy to predict and you really need to re-evaluate your so-called accomplishments.

I'll now leave to allow you to get back to sucking my balls. Thank you.

Comment Re:You came here talking shit about me (Score 1) 111

APK, how many times are you going to keep trying to prove me right? You've already done it buddy, take a rest. Take a little break. You've proven me right, what, four times in this thread alone? Five? How many more times are you going to prove me right?

Well, shit, might as well make it one more time, right? So, go ahead, respond to this post by saying how your work is so much more impressive than mine, even though you know fuck-all about my work, and make sure to add something about the fact that I want to remain anonymous on this site. Also, please list the same so-called "accomplishments" that you always list. I'd like one more victory before this thread ends, so please, just humor me.

Now, King Me, you fucking shitheel.

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 1) 739

Then they should have voted for him.

Almost as many people voted for Sanders as voted for Trump. Millions of people did vote for him, a relatively unknown outsider. If he had received the same level of party support that Clinton had (which all candidates should have, if they are going to follow their own rules), and if the party had decided to do things like hold more debates like he was asking for, and if the media had covered him as anything but a fringe candidate, then maybe more people would have decided that he represents their interests more than Clinton does. But we'll never know what would have happened, because the DNC was pushing the Clinton narrative the entire time and had their friends in the media doing the same.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 739

The problem with the emails is their source.

That's what Clinton and the DNC would like you to believe anyway. The problem isn't the source, the problem is the content. That and the fact that their systems were exposed at all.

But yeah, that's going to be the line, shoot the messenger. Blame Wikileaks, blame Russians, whatever it takes to distract from the actual content, the messages which show that the DNC was undermining the Sanders campaign as soon as they saw it as a potential threat to them pushing through the nominee they wanted. They show that the DNC engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the democratic process by not remaining neutral, by making sure that the person that they personally wanted to get nominated actually did get nominated, regardless of what other people wanted. They purposefully slanted the field in favor of their candidate. They violated their charter and are possibly liable for damages (join the lawsuit if you donated to Sanders). Past DNC chairs have also come out to say that this was completely unacceptable and should have been dealt with immediately, which of course was out of the question here since Wasserman-Schultz doesn't even try to pretend that she is anything but a Clinton surrogate.

That's great, but we must ask: what editing has been done here?

Well, apparently so much editing has taken place that no one at the DNC is alleging that there was any editing, and that the Clinton campaign and Obama both put pressure on Wasserman-Schultz to resign, which she finally did. Sounds like a bunch of fake emails, right?

This is a bunch of a bullshit spin, more of the same from the DNC and their loyalists. All of the attempts to deflect the story towards Russia, or Wikileaks, or whatever, basically amounts to "We would like to issue an apology: we apologize for getting caught." The DNC does not want to address the content of the emails, like you said, they would rather try to deflect the discussion and attack the messenger and go one acting like Hillary is the future of this country.

The line that we're going to hear repeated over and over during the convention in Philadelphia is that everyone needs to band together in order to defeat Trump. The problem with that narrative is that the DNC pushed through a nomination for a candidate who has serious problems with her ability to beat Trump, and they pushed out the candidate who consistently beat Trump in polls. If it was true that what they really want is to beat Trump then they should have nominated the better-performing candidate, not start themselves out with a handicap. Their goal is not and never has been to just beat Trump, their goal is to elect Clinton. They don't want the best candidate, they want Clinton.

Comment Re:Knew it, I was right... apk (Score 1) 111

The 1 program I put out here is more than you can show

Keep proving my point, buddy. You are the only one playing this game. Just because I choose to not show you anything I've done, and thereby reveal who I am, does not mean I have nothing to show for my work. Again, keep proving me right. Keep playing that 1-player game and shouting "victory!" Maybe one day someone will believe that you've won something.

You're sitting there playing a game of checkers, except you're moving the pieces for both sides, and halfway through the game you take a shit on the board, flip it over, and yell "victory!", and run around celebrating and talking about how great of a checkers player you are to anyone who will listen (which is only you, because no one else is even in the room). And you do it over, and over, and over, almost like it's the only way you know how to act. That sums up your history of Slashdot posts.

Comment Re:AmicusNYCL you wish you were me... apk (Score 1) 111

How about me?

He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing

Seriously APK, just keep on fucking that chicken, man. All I do is say that you keep claiming victory in a game that you're the only one playing, and you respond by barfing out a bunch of your "achievements", as if anyone gives a flying fuck about what you're doing. In other words, you do exactly what I said you were going to do.

Here, let me try to illustrate. Recently I spent a few weeks traveling around Brazil, and I got engaged to my girlfriend. Do you fucking care about any of that? No? Then why do you assume that anyone gives a shit about you?

Here, let me drop this here again, so that again you can respond like an idiot and prove my point again. Maybe we can make it 4 times in one thread APK, what do you think?

He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing

OK, little Pavlov, it's your turn. Speak, boy!

I'm about to marry my girlfriend and you think I would rather be an old unloved has-been with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old. You're a funny guy, APK. As much as I've always wanted to be a hated spammer like yourself slowly wasting away, I think I'm fine just being me.

Comment Re:Blowhard bullshitter, lol... apk (Score 1) 111

He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing

Over, and over, and over again. Go ahead, post again and prove me right yet again. Maybe you should link to a past argument we had as "evidence", even though it only shows me making fun of you. That should help your case.

Comment Re:Really? A paedophile with a history of violence (Score 1) 393

Did you see the latest case of cops who found a thug out living the thug life, just thugging away and needed to get shot like a thug? I'm glad that guy's off the streets, who knows what thug stuff he gets up to in his thug time. I need to send those cops some flowers and congratulate them on the fact that police in this country have no problems with their training or behavior.

Comment Re:Really? A paedophile with a history of violence (Score 1) 393

There will be no "rise up from the ashes" after global warming in a couple of decades.

We'll see.

Anyway, hope your generation enjoyed the last few decades of the 20th century, I'm sure all that consumption was a blast.

Ever hear of "good fences make good neighbors"?

Therefore, vote Trump? No thanks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson