Robert Refuses to Talk to Investigators in 2013
-
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 29, 2013 04:12 AM)
Dan, do yourself and everyone else posting here a favor and follow your own advice.
//Intelligence and humility go hand in hand. Possessing neither, you would not know about that.//
Coming from you, Dan, that sentenceI don't know what to say, truly. The irony is so brilliant it gleams.
And no, Danthe otherb68 poster responding to you is not my 'sock'. As soon as I read that, it made it plain that you're the type of loser who latches onto that lame accusation as soon as they realize their 'arguments' (probably too generous a word to characterize your dribblings, but whatever) aren't persuading everyone in the room. Therefore, you're no more than any other willfully stupid troll on this site, that already harbors an oveabundance of same.
I realize now that I've been addressing someone with a genuine handicap, Dan. I'll learn to tailor my responses accordingly from here on in. My apologies for the earlier inadvertent cruelty to you, as it's not my policy to belabor the genuinely incapacitated. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 29, 2013 04:31 AM)
//"attempting to derail a man's life based on conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or reality.&qu1c84ot;
The L.A. County coroner's office is not conspiratorial. The facts are of no interest to you, demonstrably.//
Score one notable fail for a poor attempt at selective quote-mining and/or anti-reading comprehension on your part, Dan. My sentence in full ran:
"(R)eitetating my opinion of mouth-breathing fanbois who are attempting to derail a man's life based on conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or reality."
I don't see the LA coroner's office mentioned in that sentence, Dan. And neither did you, unless you're that much more subliterate than you've thus far displayed. And the simple reason the LA coroner's office wasn't mentioned in that sentence is because the LA coroner's office wasn't the object of that sentence, Dan. Mouth-breathing fanbois (much like your self) were the object of that sentence. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 12:58 AM)
You have your panties in a bunch again, Amy. I was merely entertaining the possibility. It matters not if you are he and he is you, or you are two hopeless fools gyrating to the same crazed tune. My position remains well intact.
"Coming from you, Dan, that sentenceI don't know what to say, truly."
You have not known what to say as yet. Just another example of your "I know you are but what am I?" jive masquerading as wit. Innit cute how you tone your missives as though you have outwitted me somehow? Now spin that one into another hackneyed example of your rubber/glue sandbox argumentation.
"Score one notable fail for a poor attempt at selective quote-mining and/or anti-reading comprehension on your part, Dan. My sentence in full ran:
"(R)eitetating my opinion of mouth-breathing fanbois who are [where I start quoting] attempting to derail a man's life based on conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or reality.""
The full quote makes no difference, you incorrigibly illogical polluter of cyberspace. Your "fanbois" crapola is incidental to your "conspiracy theories" crapola, and in so far as you direct both at me, you are molesting a strawman of your own feeble imagining. I fear you have neither brains nor looks and would ball the strawman while sounding like a walrus humping sand. My position is inextricably linked to the findings of the L.A. County coroner's office. I have said as much multiple times, only to be ignored by you. To try and split the two is to be in err. You can shove your mischaracterizations up your own ass. No sale here.
"I realize now that I've been addressing someone with a genuine handicap, Dan."
And I picture you bibbed when eating and diapered when in a public place, so go figure. You no longer even get my goat beyond the lingering contempt I have for you. My goat nonchalantly pisses into gale force winds headed your way.
Since I am feeling chatty (my talk of terseness notwithstanding), I will put this to you again: "If your dentist opines that your tooth should be pulled, do you interrupt his or her reasoning by saying opinions require no substantiation?"
Are you going to concede the point therein, or dodge again; ergo proving once and for all that you are unutterably lacking in grace? -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 03:50 AM)
Got anything to say yet, Dan?
Do you have even the vaguest concept of what anything you're burbling means, Dan? Or is your Joycean stream-of-conciousness ramble just overflowing its banks again?
//My goat nonchalantly pisses into gale force winds headed your way.//
ROFLinteresting term of self-endearment for your male member, Dan. Freud would likely find something quite inadvertently self-revelatory in that.
Although sometimes a goat is just a goat. -
justajobtodo — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 08:10 AM)
Dan,
A source told me that your comment "A comma splice. Not a good start" tells us who you are. Nice try. Oh yes one more thing, you're still an idiot. Creative writing is great, why don't you try it the right way. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 10:19 PM)
You are weak as piss, Gimp!
&quo5b4t;A source told me that your comment "A comma splice. Not a good start" tells us who you are."
Yes, I am someone who appreciates irony now and then. If your unlettered post was just that and not a laughable attempt at pedanticism, I would not have responded in that way. I do not ordinarily care how people write, so long as I comprehend their meaning.
"Oh yes one more thing, you're still an idiot."
To call someone an "idiot" is one thing; to provide sound reasoning as to why is another. I have been hoping you would prove me wrong. I base my conclusions on the ascertained facts. I would rather embrace more pleasant conclusions if logic allowed it. So, what continues to keep you from proving me wrong, apart from having no leg to stand on? Are you doing overtime as a fluffer on gay porn sets? -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 10:26 PM)
Amy, your every post is a high-powered spotlight on your obtusity. You are a coward as far as it is deliberate and downright slow as far as it is not. Rationality is a superficial veneer on the human condition, and you are exhibit A. Nature did not intend for someone as illogical as you to understand or appreciate someone as logical as I. Naturally, you think yourself right and me wrong. For as much as you bear heavy chains of ignorance, you do not see the error of your ways. To that I sympathize in earnest. The nature/nurture ratio is no affair of mine.
For all your prolixity over these many days, you have not shown me to be wrong on a single thing. Neither have you accurately characterized my position as yet. You strike out every at-bat, but run the bases anyway.
I noticed you dodged again. A daft one-note girl completely without grace. For shame! -
amyghost — 13 years ago(February 01, 2013 04:25 AM)
Ye gods, are you still here nattering on, Dan?
I've kept my recent responses to you brief and 'one-note' for the simple and salient reason that your variety of chronic logorrhea is not shared by me when I'm dealing with an individual whom I find to be actually intellectuallyand otherwisebeneath me. You can't debate intelligently, and so I just get bored and lose interest in the conversation.
BTWnice emoticons, Dan. I've always found those to be a clear and direct signal that the user is generally a mentally and emotionally impoverished troll. You didn't disappoint my thesis at all. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(February 01, 2013 07:11 PM)
"I've kept my recent responses to you brief and 'one-note' for"
One-note describes you from the first, Amy.
"You can't debate intelligently, and so I just get bored and lose interest in the conversation."
Your idea of intelligent discourse:
I am to concede to your grotesque mischaracterizations, whereas when faced with the equivalent of one plus one equals two, you are to concede to nothing. If you are trying to be serious, I have never conversed with anyone more illogical; if you are just playing a role, I have never conversed with anyone more foolish. Either way, I curse the day you were sired.
I knew Robert Wagner was one sorry son of a bitch, but after dealing with his weaker than piss defenders, I know it all the more. If you regard this as debatable, quote yourself refuting me in accordance with a fair characterization of my position. You cannot and will not. And so you shall be etched into the archives of eternity for having bitten off much more than you could chew and for having disgraced yourself by wanton ignorance of the fact. The same goes for your knight in a gimp suit, whose contribution to this thread so far amounts to zilch. Not to credit you with intelligence, but that, too, should tell you something.
I could probably drop my IQ by 50 points and still think logical circles around you, because you are graceless first and witless second. I am grateful to not know you or your like in private life.
By the way, your aspersions on my intelligence are altogether unsubstantiated and therefore meaningless. Just letting you know in case you thought otherwise. Moreover, remarking on my emoticons and not the damning words preceding them is only further evidence of your idiocy and cowardice. Here's an emoticon representing the ease with which I continue to righteously pour derision on your every failure. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(February 02, 2013 05:12 AM)
Another belch of literary methane courtesy of Dan, the by-now-undisputed RW board troll.
//you are graceless first and witless second. I am grateful to not know you or your like in private life//
Keep it classy Dan. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(February 02, 2013 03:13 PM)
Yes, very trollish of me to a) insist on logic and b) basically confine myself to the subject.
Note the sarcasm and try again.
Not one quotably cogent and necessary line out of you, huh Amy?
It is not becoming of you to remark on class. This thread is a testament to that. Forswearing ab68ll decency, you zealously cheat the argument, thereby caring not a rat's ass for the great Natalie Wood. For that matter, your transparent defense of Robert Wagner is hardly respectful of him. Given your demonstrable character, I shudder to imagine what double-dealings and sordid passions you are busying yourself with day-to-day. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(February 07, 2013 08:46 PM)
"Well, the fact that you self-identify as a 'submissive' does explain a lot, Dan."
My sexual predilections are not so telling, actually.
On the other hand, your avoidance of the subject is a tacit concession. Typically graceless of you. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(February 11, 2013 04:10 AM)
yawn<
Sorry, Dan, but that's the reaction that mention of your "sexual predilections" calls forth from me.
My avoidance of what subject, Dan? Your "sexual predilections"? Am I tacitly conceding to you your right to your 'predilections'? If so, how very broadminded of me. Yay me.
Actually, considering2000 the chucklesome ripostes I could make to your rather off-the-wall bringing up of your "sexual predilections", I consider it quite graceful of me in the extreme to refrain nobly from rising to such well-nigh irresitible comic bait. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(February 11, 2013 06:11 PM)
"My avoidance of what subject, Dan? Your "sexual predilections"?"
Amy, I can see you keeping all manor of debauched company where such a cheap tactic is par for the course, but it will not do here. To my knowledge, the IMDb has no board for my sexual predilections. The subject here is Robert Wagner. You have well and truly lost your ass.
By the way, whatever became of your knight in a gimp suit? He only handed in his signed confession of idiocy, while adding an exclamation mark to yours. Are you waiting on a more useful gimp with the intelligence of, say, a moron? -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(February 12, 2013 08:26 PM)
Amy,
Too much reality for you, hmmm?
Your cowardice is your own. No ifs, ands, or buts about that.
For weeks now you have disgraced the memory of Natalie Wood, of all people. You have neither made a cogent and necessary point, nor have you posed a sensible question. All the while maintaining your graceless denial of the flat truth. So, there you have it, my
reasoning
, which
substantiates
my
opinion
: you're a moron in plain English. Do you get how that works?
I have washed my hands of 7ecyou, Amy. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(February 14, 2013 06:26 AM)
The only disgrace to the memory of Natalie Wood are the hordes of mouth-breathing casket-flies like yourself, whose only attraction to the woman was strictly post-mortem, and then only so you could heap calumny on her widower and surviving family members, Dan.
//it bears none of the qualities I so reasonably demand of you.//
Luckily for you Dan, I make no demands, 'reasonable' or otherwise, of "quality" from yourself. I tend not to demand of others those traits which they so conspicuously lack.
// I have washed my hands of you, Amy.//
Be sure to dispose of the paper toweling in the proper place, Dan, when you're done washing up. And do try to have a nice flounce, Dan. I'm sure there are many other IMDb threads out there in dire need of your unique blend of vapidity, rant, and utter lack of content.
Actually, not that unique Dan; you've come across as a pretty strictly garden-variety, rank-and-file internet forum troll thus far.