Sorry for the intrusion into your little club.
I suppose I’m not welcome to participate in a free exchange of ideas here because I’m a “troll”, but I’d appreciate the benefit of explanation. What does “troll” mean, in this context? I’m not sure what you’re implying, so I am unable to defend myself if warranted.
While we’re explaining things, how are my remarks “ridiculous”?
Do you contend that SG-1′s punctuation is flawless, or at least above elementary school expectation?
Or do you refer to my aside that his comment is not “pithy” ? I think it’s apparent verbosity makes the possibility negligible, yet it remains.
Perhaps, I think most likely, you take offense at the use of “trite” and/or “blowhard”. We could have a discussion about those terms if you’d like clarification.
I suspect, however, further discussion will be useless given the general tenor of this discussion board. It seems you assume I disagree on the fundamentals of SG-1′s position and are instinctively protecting him/her from “attack” by an “outsider” (please forgive me if I’m wrong, but you have elected for the pejorative and ad-hominem without apparent motivation). Quite the contrary, I think he almost makes salient points, but nothing approaching revelatory (through writing so poor it obfuscates any nascent value, but I repeat myself).
I also couldn’t resist the irony of his use of “on and on” as he drones endlessly with such tedium.
If you meant something else, please explain. I am curious if your defense was actually substantive beyond apparent tribalism.
