FUCK you, Albert, you pretentious fucking fraud.

I'm calling you out, you chrome dome goatee-wearing empty-headed art-house fuck.

The last 2 weeks, I've watched you push shit designed to force individuals, either overtly or through subterfuge, to accept new institutions and redefinitions of existing institutions, that the majority of those individuals don't want.

You approve of that kind of forced change -- because you care about some minority group or another. You're clearly not a misanthrope, based on that.

And yet, whenever traditions are defended -- fucking invariably -- your strongest response, sooner or later, is "fuck tradition!"

Yet I've seen you claim to champion the individual over the state. You know what? You're a fucking hypocrite. Because every single fucking time you've declared, "Fuck your traditions!" it's been in defense of statist fucking interference in society.

You have no sense of honesty. Furthermore, you have no fucking integrity.

EXPLAIN yourself, you worthless, brainless, spineless, gutless fuck.

I AM THE HORNS.

And you generally lack any and all tact, we all have our faults.

John Castle, you rock.

I betcha Albert will pull a jenee here.

I don't give a shit whether you appreciate my style or not.

Your mother walks like a cattle rancher. And I'm the reason why.

Why? You put your head up other peoples asses instead of your own?!?

Yeah, I guess I ought to confess -- that thing you crawled into and slept in last night? Yeah, that actually wasn't a sleeping bag. But now you know Dan's mom, at least. Real well.

.

I give this thread 5 stars

Now children laynice:

Think it's good now, you just wait 'til that Janus-faced bald fuck shows up and tries to put up some feeble defense of his bald-faced double standard. Grab a plate and a bun, because I'm gonna serve up that hypocrite piece of shit barbecued the second he tries it.

Here's some appetizers.

The populace is resisting, and that's what you're against.

With time. Not by government edict. But...

Individuals, comprising factions gathered through the right to free assembly, have the right to define their own religions, traditions and conventions. Governments do not have the right to define conventions against the will of those factions of individuals which such governments are created to represent. The government is not assembled to defy the will of the people in order to force them to "progress." That objective is not one vested in government by the people.

Government edicts do not take place over time. Language and definitions undergo evolution. Government edict is revolution, which is not the same thing and not how language changes naturally. No one's freedom is curtailed by not granting them applicability to a word. Freedom is curtailed by a government seizing a term and defining it against the will of the majority of the individuals that government is tasked to represent.

But failing to satisfy your imaginary entitlement to expand a definition to include something outside its intended scope does?

Thoughtcrime? What's the solution to that, Albert?

Presumably you've never heard of the incident at Tiananmen Square.

Apparently, you think it's the government's place, at least when it comes to telling the majority of the people the goverment is supposed to represent which words to use.

Nobody? Now are you sure you meant that? Because you sure do seem to think that some groups are entitled to expect just exactly that.

I'm expecting a "Wordforge Quotes" worthy rant from Albert when he sees this.

I'll see that rant and raise you a dozen negreps and two droll captioned pics.

I doubt it. Most likely he will ignore it. He hates teenage emo drama.

Stifle yourself, half-pint, this isn't about you.

Yep. Teenage emo. Trying to be all bad and failing miserably.

This isn't your best troll. But then ..., I can't think which one would be.

You just demonstrated your inability to differentiate between etymology and entomology. Your opinion? Yeah, it means less than .

If this were about rep, it'd be considered repwhine, what do we call this, quote whine?

[yt=Would you care to step outside?]cg1yUMqJMcw[/yt]

He's a whiner cuz he really wants Uncle Albert to like him.

Same as apostle and same as ... that other guy who kept telling UA he was a Libertarian but everyone else thought he was a socialist - remember that guy? What was his name?

I didn't realize so many gay men were attracted to UA - I can understand it, just didn't realize it.

Y'know, these "I'm calling you out!! Hurrr!!" threads usually backfire.

John Castle the closet case? Never considered the possibility.
If true, it shoots this theory all to hell....

Nope, this would be considered [yt=this.]9jUjA5eJdpU[/yt]