Cultcow Mikemikev / Michael Coombs / Twinkle Toes / Velcro Pants - Pedo Teacher and Neo-Nazi, Advocate of Child Murder, Secret JewMuslim ANTIFA, A-Logs Null Constantly

[AnOminous]

Actually, it's not "clear" to me at all that the phrase "interacting with girls" needs to be sexual, especially in the context of someone who went to an event for the express purpose of selling something. Curt had to recover the expense of the table, merchandise, and probably room and board-- in that situation, earning money to cover his investment would be paramount in his mind, not sex.

What this is saying to me is that you have a very flawed understanding of what was going on, which explains to me why you can't really express your disagreement in any way that makes sense.

Low-functioning autists have extreme difficulty understanding social situations that normal people manage with ease.

 

[YankeeTrader]

@Mikemikev

Why do you bother checking out other threads anyway? Also, congrats on being close to 13k negs

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

Low-functioning autists have extreme difficulty understanding social situations that normal people manage with ease.

Indeed. That's why I'm trying to be specific in indicating the parts he doesn't understand, and using concrete examples.

 

[Mikemikev]

Low-functioning autists have extreme difficulty understanding social situations that normal people manage with ease.

Except I understand just fine, you filthy lying kike.

Indeed. That's why I'm trying to be specific in indicating the parts he doesn't understand, and using concrete examples.

You're simply asserting "do you interact with girls like this" isn't sexual oneupmanship, which is prima facie false. You're just repeating a lie.

 

[YankeeTrader]

Except I understand just fine, you filthy lying kike.

Why don't you run off to Stormfront for a while to lick your wounds with your other kameraden... oh wait.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

Except I understand just fine, you filthy lying kike.

I'm sorry, @Mikemikev, but your posting history just doesn't show that. You're really struggling with communicating your point. It's still not clear to me if this is intellectual laziness on your part, or merely troubled comprehension.

 

[Mikemikev]

I'm sorry, @Mikemikev, but your posting history just doesn't show that. You're really struggling with communicating your point. It's still not clear to me if this is intellectual laziness on your part, or merely troubled comprehension.

But I don't believe anything you say.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Come now, this is the same Mike who considers not being to hold a single job for a full year in South Korea as a major accomplishment in life, right up there with being an admin.
http://archive.is/EbEkw

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

You're simply asserting "do you interact with girls like this" isn't sexual oneupmanship, which is prima facie false. You're just repeating a lie.

If you're using "prima facie" as "accepted on its premise until proven false", then I would note that I provided substantial evidence to counter your claim. Evidence that you were unable to refute and, honestly, didn't even really acknowledge. If I made them too difficult for you to understand, then I do apologize. However, it's incorrect to claim I am lying when I am, in fact, refuting your claim.

Damn, you're bad at this.

 

[YankeeTrader]

But I don't believe anything you say.

And for someone who's posted about 200 times since Monday morning, you don't say anything worth believing.

Come now, this is the same Mike who considers not being to hold a single job for a full year in South Korea as a major accomplishment in life, right up there with being an admin.
http://archive.is/EbEkw

He probably liked South Korea since it made him feel tall.

 

[Mikemikev]

If you're using "prima facie" as "accepted on its premise until proven false", then I would note that I provided substantial evidence to counter your claim. Evidence that you were unable to refute and, honestly, didn't even really acknowledge. If I made them too difficult for you to understand, then I do apologize. However, it's incorrect to claim I am lying when I am, in fact, refuting your claim.

Damn, you're bad at this.

I'm using prima facie meaning on the face of it, or obviously, and you did nothing but flatly assert the contrary of something obvious. You simply lied.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

But I don't believe anything you say.

I am uninterested in what you believe. If you choose to ignore counter-points because it's inconvenient for you to argue them, then you're exactly the laughingstock this forum thinks you are.

Hey, I wanted to give you the chance to prove yourself to be more. Sorry it's not working out.

 

[FataBataRang]

And for someone who's posted about 200 times since Monday morning, you don't say anything worth believing.

To be fair, the truth does sometimes come out, but only if you read between the lines.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

I'm using prima facie meaning on the face of it, or obviously, and you did nothing but flatly assert the contrary of something obvious. You simply lied.

"Accepted on its premise" and "on the face of it" mean the same thing.

Really, is this your first time doing this?

 

[Curt Sibling]

Apparently, Mike taught kids aged 3-10 years old.
I suspect they laughed a great deal.

 

[YankeeTrader]

"Accepted on its premise" and "on the face of it" mean the same thing.

Really, is this your first time doing this?

He fails with the skill and grace of a Shaolin Monk

 

[Mikemikev]

I am uninterested in what you believe. If you choose to ignore counter-points because it's inconvenient for you to argue them, then you're exactly the laughingstock this forum thinks you are.

Hey, I wanted to give you the chance to prove yourself to be more. Sorry it's not working out.

You weren't making counterpoints. Your post was the intellectual equivalent of "u r stupid".

 

[FataBataRang]

Apparently, Mike taught kids aged 3-10 years old.
I suspect they laughed a great deal.

And he was an English teacher of all things. Good Lord. I don't know what they were paying him, but whatever it was, it was too much.

 

[YankeeTrader]

You weren't making counterpoints. Your post was the intellectual equivalent of "u r stupid".

Isn't 'u r stupid' your schtick?

 

[Mikemikev]

"Accepted on its premise" and "on the face of it" mean the same thing.

Really, is this your first time doing this?

Nitpicking and trying to bury plain lies in verbal diarrhea?