US shooting at Mohahammed Cartoon conference

omnithanos

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure the media would openly lie and be tacit in a conspiracy against us. I'm sure the CIA is behind it all. Them and the Rockefellers. Can't wait for China to rise, lads. 2020, USA Empire is done.

So your contention is that we should trust the media implicitly?

IrishTrajan

omnithanos wrote: »

The loony media are controlled and they are sending out a message to create disorder which is working perfectly well with all the riots etc.

You made the statement "The media is owned by Jews" which I found somewhat derogatory in it's intention.

I absolutely did make that statement. Because that is the go-to argument whenever someone mentions a controlled media. The next step is usually something to do with Controlled Opposition, the CIA mind-programs and something about "durr taken our guns!".

I didn't want you to say "the Jews control the media" (it's about as derogatory as saying white people work in foreign relations, or Asians are good at maths), because I wanted you to have some credibility in this debate, and not to be totally written off as a tin-foil hat.

omnithanos

Custardpi wrote: »

Is it just me or is the thread getting a teensy bit off topic?

So the is a story about a shooting in Dallas at a Mohammed cartoon conference. Where have we gone off topic?

IrishTrajan

Custardpi wrote: »

Is it just me or is the thread getting a teensy bit off topic?

Only because the Jews don't want the truth getting out.

omnithanos wrote: »

So your contention is that we should trust the media implicitly?

No, my contention is that not everything is a god damned conspiracy and that you should put your book on CIA psy-ops away so we can discuss the merits of Islam and its influence on extremism in a rational manner.

wes

IrishTrajan wrote: »

And my primary school football coach was a Parish priest. Christianity supports football above other sports?

Well, if he started calling it a Christian football team.......

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Often, not always. You can not mix Buddhist ideology with violence because the two are entirely incompatible. Buddhism rejects suffering and violence outright.

And yet extremists have done exactly that.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It is like the IRA-Loyalist conflict. It was drawn along largely religious lines, but it was not religiously motivated. There are/were Protestant Republicans, just like there are/were Catholic Unionists.

Again, the Monk leading the extremist movement is doing it to defend the Buddhist identity of the country. So we have a cleric explicitly stating why there doing it.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Much like the majority of the Tamil Tigers are Buddhist, but they are not motivated by scripture.

Tamil Tigers were a communist/marxist movement. The Tamils btw are largely Hindu, but again the Tamil Tigers were secular.

The movements in Sri Lanka and Myanmar are both explicitly extremist Buddhist, as per there leaders, who again are monks.

Joshua J

omnithanos wrote: »

It's a pity we can't voice an opinion on anything without being sent to a forum that nobody takes seriously.

It's incredible that everybody willingly accepts the disinformation spewed out by the media including our own.

Not everybody.

omnithanos

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Only because the Jews don't want the truth getting out.



No, my contention is that not everything is a god damned conspiracy and that you should put your book on CIA psy-ops away so we can discuss the merits of Islam and its influence on extremism in a rational manner.

There is evidence that Charlie Hebdo was faked which leads me to logically conclude that Islam's influence on extremism is being deliberately exaggerated by the opponents of Islam.

omnithanos

Joshua J wrote: »

Not everybody.

Good man Joshua.

Roger Hassenforder

omnithanos wrote: »

There is evidence that Charlie Hebdo was faked which leads me to logically conclude that Islam's influence on extremism is being deliberately exaggerated by the opponents of Islam.

What evidence?

IrishTrajan

wes wrote: »

Well, if he started calling it a Christian football team.......

He did. Used to make us say a prayer before a game.

wes wrote: »

And yet extremists have done exactly that.

wes wrote: »

Again, the Monk leading the extremist movement is doing it to defend the Buddhist identity of the country. So we have a cleric explicitly stating why there doing it.

National identity. They are equating their nation as a Buddhist State and pursuing a nationalist goal. It is not necessarily religious, and Buddhism itself disavows violence as illegitimate.

wes wrote: »

Tamil Tigers were a communist/marxist movement. The Tamils btw are largely Hindu, but again the Tamil Tigers were secular.

The movements in Sri Lanka and Myanmar are both explicitly extremist Buddhist, as per there leaders, who again are monks.

Did the article not say it was the Tamil Tigers doing the fighting? I probably misread, my bad. It seems not sleeping for 45 hours isn't the best of ideas


Regardless, we're getting away from my original point: Islam is not a religion of peace, despite what the Imams and Clerics, the believers and the subscribers to the faith will tell you. It is made out to be "peaceful" in order to appear more "Western-friendly" but it still condones barbaric acts, much like what happened in Texas.

omnithanos

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What evidence?

Well the uncensored video of the fatal shooting of the police officer looks totally fake, the scene looks completely set up and the BBC reporter on the scene lets slip that's this is where they PUT the blood.

Am I allowed to post said video here?

IrishTrajan

omnithanos wrote: »

There is evidence that Charlie Hebdo was faked which leads me to logically conclude that Islam's influence on extremism is being deliberately exaggerated by the opponents of Islam.

omnithanos wrote: »

Islam's influence on extremism is being deliberately exaggerated by the opponents of Islam.

Ah, of course. The Ayatollah-sanctioned death threats against Salman Rushdie, the attempts on the lives (and successful attempts) of people who anger Islam, the Hadith calling for punishment on anyone who draws the Prophet Mohammed were all the work of the CIA.

Those sneaky buggers, they've made it almost look like a fanatical religious cult is to blame....

Christ, if only there was a "head-to-desk" emoticon available, I'd abuse the hell out of it right now.

omnithanos

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Ah, of course. The Ayatollah-sanctioned death threats against Salman Rushdie, the attempts on the lives (and successful attempts) of people who anger Islam, the Hadith calling for punishment on anyone who draws the Prophet Mohammed were all the work of the CIA.

Those sneaky buggers, they've made it almost look like a fanatical religious cult is to blame....

Christ, if only there was a "head-to-desk" emoticon available, I'd abuse the hell out of it right now.

We don't need to tar everyone with the same brush.

IrishTrajan

omnithanos wrote: »

We don't need to tar everyone with the same brush.

What an absolutely empty reply. We are talking about the religion. I have said before that I believe economic circumstances are a more pressing concern as to why the majority are pushed into the arms of religion.

Did I say "all Muslims are terrorists"? No, I did not. But it does have a disproportionately high number of terrorists (likely down to largely economic circumstances, and personal histories), and to argue that it's the media's fault, not the core doctrine of Islam itself, is absolutely farcical.

Roger Hassenforder

wes wrote: »

The movements in Sri Lanka and Myanmar are both explicitly extremist Buddhist, as per there leaders, who again are monks.

I'd be obliged if you could provide any extracts from the tipitaka or agama that explicitly espouses violence....

omnithanos

IrishTrajan wrote: »

What an absolutely empty reply. We are talking about the religion. I have said before that I believe economic circumstances are a more pressing concern as to why the majority are pushed into the arms of religion.

Did I say "all Muslims are terrorists"? No, I did not. But it does have a disproportionately high number of terrorists (likely down to largely economic circumstances, and personal histories), and to argue that it's the media's fault, not the core doctrine of Islam itself, is absolutely farcical.

Well here's that video of the police officer being killed in Paris, viewer discretion advised

Roger Hassenforder

omnithanos wrote: »

Well the uncensored video of the fatal shooting of the police officer looks totally fake, the scene looks completely set up and the BBC reporter on the scene lets slip that's this is where they PUT the blood.

Am I allowed to post said video here?

That's it?
Are you for f**kin real?

What's "fake" about the uncensored version?

wes

IrishTrajan wrote: »

National identity. They are equating their nation as a Buddhist State and pursuing a nationalist goal. It is not necessarily religious, and Buddhism itself disavows violence as illegitimate.

Yes, and this extremist version does not disavow violence...... There is no one true version of Buddhism, anymore than there is one true version of Islam.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Did the article not say it was the Tamil Tigers doing the fighting? I probably misread, my bad. It seems not sleeping for 45 hours isn't the best of ideas

The tigers were wiped out years ago.

wes

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I'd be obliged if you could provide any extracts from the tipitaka or agama that explicitly espouses violence....

I never said that they did, yet we still have extremists of that faith murdering people in the name of Buddhism, so you should take it up with them.

omnithanos

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That's it?
Are you for f**kin real?

What's "fake" about the uncensored version?

Well there's no blood.
Here's the sky news report where the reporter shows where they PUT the blood

bjork

If he was there with his camera, why didn't he film the placing of the blood, or rolling out the drums of it even from a black van with tinted windows?

IrishTrajan

omnithanos wrote: »

Well here's that video of the police officer being killed in Paris, viewer discretion advised

Number of things wrong with that video.

1. He tells you there is something wrong with the official story ("punch a hole right through it") and then says "draw your own conclusions". That is entirely misleading and suggests that he's right, and you're about to see why.

2. He questions why an officer being shot in the head isn't shown live on tv. Gee, I wonder why people watching the news wouldn't want to see a cop shot in the head, with his hands in the air. I guess the murder of the American journalists by ISIS, the Kurdish pilot being burned alive, and the dozens of people being beheaded aren't real either since they weren't shown on tv.

3. "He isn't hit by a bullet". He quite clearly fúcking is. An Ak-47 fires a round at around 2300 feet per second. They were firing at point blank. That's enough to punch a hole right through the bone of the skull and ricochet off of the concrete underneath his skull. The "impact" can be gas (the AK-47 is a gas-powered rifle), powder (from the round) or debris (from where the bullet hit the concrete after his skull). (I've included a video down the end as a demonstration)

4. "His head doesn't rock" The bullet didn't have time to slow down, you see it all the time in combat footage in Iraq/Afghanistan if the enemy is hit by a sniper rifle in relatively close quarters. The bullet is moving so quick it punches straight through whatever is in its path.

5. "This is a hit from an AK-47" and then shows you a video of a watermelon. Yes, the skin of a watermelon is absolutely the same density as bone.

He clearly has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, and his opinion can be safely discarded as ramblings of someone who probably uses the word "clips" when talking about how many rounds a magazine can hold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWAc9enWF2Q

See the way the gas comes out of the end of the muzzle as the bullets come out? It's almost like that's how the gun operates. Freaky, right?

Roger Hassenforder

wes wrote: »

I never said that they did, yet we still have extremists of that faith murdering people in the name of Buddhism, so you should take it up with them.

wes wrote: »

In regards to Jainism, you do appear to be correct, but non-violence is central to that faith from my understanding, so its actually unique in regards to most religions.

Buddhism on the other hand, well......

Both are inherently religions of peace.
Some of its practitioners are not engaged in what could be regarded as peaceful activities.
Islam, some of its practitioners are engaged in activities that would not be regarded as peaceful, but point to their sacred texts for justification.

Mechanical Clocktail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That's it?
Are you for f**kin real?

What's "fake" about the uncensored version?

It doesn't look like he was shot in that video just posted. Not a drop of blood or movement from the head when the shot was fired, nothing at all. He looks untouched by it. Finding the ID's in the getaway car is ludicrous altogether. It's not hard to imagine there was some kind of staging or set-up here. And now France has its own patriot act directly thanks to this. It's foolishness not to question things. Not believing official reports hardly makes a person a loony. I think the video there does look suspicious.

darkpagandeath

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So if you want some kind of movie guy flying backwards being shot. Guess what's going to happen with the guy holding the AK ?

IrishTrajan

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

It doesn't look like he was shot in that video just posted. Not a drop of blood or movement from the head when the shot was fired, nothing at all. He looks untouched by it. Finding the ID's in the getaway car is ludicrous altogether. It's not hard to imagine there was some kind of staging or set-up here. And now France has its own patriot act directly thanks to this. It's foolishness not to question things. Not believing official reports hardly makes a person a loony. I think the video there does look suspicious.

If you understood basic physics or gun mechanics, you'd know there's nothing "suspicious" about it.

omnithanos

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If you understood basic physics or gun mechanics, you'd know there's nothing "suspicious" about it.

In de movies dey do use de fake blood fer dis kind of ting.

darkpagandeath

omnithanos wrote: »

In de movies dey do use de fake blood fer dis kind of ting.

But But, In Call of Duty they go flying.... :pac:

Mechanical Clocktail

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If you understood basic physics or gun mechanics, you'd know there's nothing "suspicious" about it.

I'm not a gun expert so tell me. No blood splatter or anything else, is that normal? If I shot someone in the head with an AK point blank the bullet would come out the other side of their head with no mess of any kind? Genuine question.

omnithanos

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So if you want some kind of movie guy flying backwards being shot. Guess what's going to happen with the guy holding the AK ?

Recoil?

Roger Hassenforder

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

It doesn't look like he was shot in that video just posted. Not a drop of blood or movement from the head when the shot was fired, nothing at all. He looks untouched by it. Finding the ID's in the getaway car is ludicrous altogether. It's not hard to imagine there was some kind of staging or set-up here. And now France has its own patriot act directly thanks to this. It's foolishness not to question things. Not believing official reports hardly makes a person a loony. I think the video there does look suspicious.

Have a look at some of the stuff coming out of Syria: blood doesn't explode from heads instantly even at point blank range, heads don't snap back at impact.

Re the exploding melon, a highly controlled experiment obviously...calibre and bullet type used?

omnithanos

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

I'm not a gun expert so tell me. No blood splatter or anything else, is that normal? If I shot someone in the head with an AK point blank the bullet would come out the other side of their head with no mess of any kind? Genuine question.

We can google it
http://www.quora.com/If-someone-was-shot-in-the-head-with-an-AK-47-at-point-blank-range-would-his-her-head-explode

darkpagandeath

omnithanos wrote: »

Recoil?

And ? Can you just try and think of the energy transfer needed to make a human body fly like in the movies ? And all this done on a point the size of a bullet ? The only people that fly are in games and on TV.

IrishTrajan

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

I'm not a gun expert so tell me. No blood splatter or anything else, is that normal? If I shot someone in the head with an AK point blank the bullet would come out the other side of their head with no mess of any kind? Genuine question.

The kinetic force of a 7.62x39mm is not enough to "splatter" a human skull like it does a watermelon. At point blank it would bunch a hole right through, probably sending some bone with it but the exit wound would be relatively small (it wouldn't have slowed down enough to ricochet internally, or cause a massive exit wound). The bullet would've gone through his head, hit the ground and ricocheted into the air (likely what the dust you see in the video was, was pieces of concrete hit by the bullet). You'd bleed from the wound and it would definitely kill you, but it wouldn't be a torrent of blood. There's not a whole lot of blood in the brain either (well, the blood-brain barrier I think it's called). There would be some, of course, but nothing on the level of "pools of blood". It'd probably take a few minutes to be enough to pool (I know a very limited bit about anatomy, so maybe someone else can clarify this point or correct me).

That's why, in Iraq, the US hated when the insurgents would get close to their sniper positions. The bullets would pass through them (eventually kill them through blood loss or organ damage) but it wouldn't slow down enough to "bounce" off of the bone and cause more internal damage, resulting in an "instant take out".

Mechanical Clocktail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Have a look at some of the stuff coming out of Syria: blood doesn't explode from heads instantly even at point blank range, heads don't snap back at impact.

Re the exploding melon, a highly controlled experiment obviously...calibre and bullet type used?

It doesn't need to explode for blood and particulate matter to scatter out the back of someone's head when they have been shot. I do have knowledge of basic physics fyi and a bullet would impart kinetic energy, although the effect may be more or less noticeable.

IrishTrajan

omnithanos wrote: »

We can google it
http://www.quora.com/If-someone-was-shot-in-the-head-with-an-AK-47-at-point-blank-range-would-his-her-head-explode

A .50 (or 12.7mm for the Russian equivalent) round, on the other hand, can and will do that. Heavier round, much larger, much more force behind it.

A .50 calibre round can burn your skin from 18 inches away, that's how much force one of those have.

What we're dealing with is most likely a 7.62x39mm (the most common round in use for an AK47). There simply isn't enough force to make their head explode.

In fact, I know a guy who was shot in the mouth from less than 10 feet away by an AKM, and the round freakishly deflected off of his tooth and went out the side of his cheek, leaving (relatively) superficial wounds. Sometime bullets do weird things.

10 feet is close, but this shot was more like 2-3 feet away.

Like I said, there is nothing suspicious about this video.

IrishTrajan

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

It doesn't need to explode for blood and particulate matter to scatter out the back of someone's head when they have been shot. I do have knowledge of basic physics fyi and a bullet would impart kinetic energy, although the effect may be more or less noticeable.

Not enough to "splatter" a human skull like a watermelon, and the bullet would be moving incredibly quickly at such a close proximity, I don't believe it would cause a massive exit wound.

darkpagandeath

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

It doesn't need to explode for blood and particulate matter to scatter out the back of someone's head when they have been shot. I do have knowledge of basic physics fyi and a bullet would impart kinetic energy, although the effect may be more or less noticeable.

The human body is not solid. There is absorption but human tissue puts up very little resistance to bullets.

wes

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Both are inherently religions of peace.

And yet we have people commiting acts of violence, due to there own extremists interpretation.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Islam, some of its practitioners are engaged in activities that would not be regarded as peaceful, but point to their sacred texts for justification.

Again, we are talking about extremist movements being lead by Monks, who clearly have an extremist interpretation.

Roger Hassenforder

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

although the effect may be more or less noticeable.

So there you have it...

IrishTrajan

wes wrote: »

And yet we have people commiting acts of violence, due to there own extremists interpretation.

Again, we are talking about extremist movements being lead by Monks, who clearly have an extremist interpretation.

A nationalist extremism, but they are not quoting (to my knowledge) the scriptures of Buddhism, because there is simply no support for violence.

It would be somewhat like pointing at Wolfe Tone and saying "Protestantism supports Irish Nationalism". Correlation != Causation (is that the term that would be applicable here?)

Roger Hassenforder

wes wrote: »

And yet we have people commiting acts of violence, due to there own extremists interpretation.



Again, we are talking about extremist movements being lead by Monks, who clearly have an extremist interpretation.

We're taking about religions

Mechanical Clocktail

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Not enough to "splatter" a human skull like a watermelon, and the bullet would be moving incredibly quickly at such a close proximity, I don't believe it would cause a massive exit wound.

You're opinion's quite strong on this video, but it comes down to your belief then that the video isn't at all suspicious. That's fair enough. The footage isn't hugely convincing that a man actually got shot. If there was no reporting around the video and it was shown in isolation to someone, would they say for definite that that man was shot or not? From the quality of the footage it remains ambiguous.

Roger Hassenforder

Theres two topics running in parallel with the same posters, completely off thead!!

IrishTrajan

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

You're opinion's quite strong on this video, but it comes down to your belief then that the video isn't at all suspicious. That's fair enough. The footage isn't hugely convincing that a man actually got shot. If there was no reporting around the video and it was shown in isolation to someone, would they say for definite that that man was shot or not? From the quality of the footage it remains ambiguous.

No, my opinion is quite strong on physics and gun mechanics. I'm telling you, there's nothing suspicious about it.

We have reports that a cop was shot in the head. We have videographic proof that he was shot in the head. What more do you want, his severed head on tv with a close up of the bullet wound and a chance to stick your finger in the hole like Starship Troopers?

You're right, the film isn't the highest quality, but that's what we have to go on and from what we can see everything checks out. From the recoil of the gun (a blank has less recoil than a regular round), to the effect of the gun hitting the skull, to the debris in the air after the fact.

omnithanos

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Theres two topics running in parallel with the same posters, completely off thead!!

Indeed we should be focusing on the Garland shooting

wes

IrishTrajan wrote: »

A nationalist extremism, but they are not quoting (to my knowledge) the scriptures of Buddhism, because there is simply no support for violence.

It would be somewhat like pointing at Wolfe Tone and saying "Protestantism supports Irish Nationalism".

Except that again we are talking about Monks leading what they call a Nationalist/Religious extremist movements. You comparison to Wolfe Tone doesn't make any sense, as he wasn't a cleric leading an explicitly Religious and Nationalist movement, nor do I remember him murdering other people based on there Religion either. The only way for your comparison to be in anyway accurate, is if Wolfe Tone preached that only Catholics could be Irish, which he never did, and murdered non Catholics to pretect the Catholic character of Ireland.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Correlation != Causation (is that the term that would be applicable here?)

Well, if we are going to apply this to extremist Buddhists, then we can apply it to everyone else then. Again, there extremist, and have clearly managed to justify murder in defense of Buddhism.

Mechanical Clocktail

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, my opinion is quite strong on physics and gun mechanics. I'm telling you, there's nothing suspicious about it.

We have reports that a cop was shot in the head. We have videographic proof that he was shot in the head. What more do you want, his severed head on tv with a close up of the bullet wound and a chance to stick your finger in the hole like Starship Troopers?

You're right, the film isn't the highest quality, but that's what we have to go on and from what we can see everything checks out. From the recoil of the gun (a blank has less recoil than a regular round), to the effect of the gun hitting the skull, to the debris in the air after the fact.

I don't want anything, I'm only asking questions. You can't speak with authority on whether the man is clearly shot or not, whether your fetish is guns or not. Referencing action movies doesn't make me feel stupid for asking basic questions either, that's just being cheap on your part. I'm going to take it you're more armchair expert than anything. Knowing about guns is one thing, this is another game entirely. You're basing your expertice on having watched likeleak videos from Syria or something? That's poor training to access anything imo.

IrishTrajan

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

I don't want anything, I'm only asking questions.

Which I've answered.

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

You can't speak with authority on whether the man is clearly shot or not, whether your fetish is guns or not.

Yes, don't trust someone with an understanding of physics, a knowledge of guns and how trauma affects the human body. Trust some idiot in a YouTube video who has found "the truth".

I don't have a gun fetish, I don't even own any, but I have been around guns, I have family and friends interested in guns, and I understand how they work because I like learning things.

If anything, my fetish is International Relations and Foreign Policy, with some light sprinkling of nuclear weapons proliferation/usage and COIN to boot.

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

Referencing action movies doesn't make me feel stupid for asking basic questions either, that's just being cheap on your part. I'm going to take it you're more armchair expert than anything. Knowing about guns is one thing, this is another game entirely. You're basing your expertice on having watched likeleak videos from Syria or something? That's poor training to access anything imo.

My understanding of basic physics and weapons isn't something to marvel at. If you picked up a book or two, you'd understand it too.

I'm not the one who recommended liveleak, but I've been around people who have served in the military as combat troops, and I've seen what happens to a human body when it gets hit by a bullet (live firefights are generally not worth watching unless you want to just watch someone lying in the dirt, firing into the air and lying in the dirt some more).

Your lack of knowledge does not negate my knowledge on the subject. I've even stated I know little about anatomy and welcomed someone to correct me, but two posters backed up my statement.

Mechanical Clocktail

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Which I've answered.



Yes, don't trust someone with an understanding of physics, a knowledge of guns and how trauma affects the human body. Trust some idiot in a YouTube video who has found "the truth".

I don't have a gun fetish, I don't even own any, but I have been around guns, I have family and friends interested in guns, and I understand how they work because I like learning things.

If anything, my fetish is International Relations and Foreign Policy, with some light sprinkling of nuclear weapons proliferation/usage and COIN to boot.



My understanding of basic physics and weapons isn't something to marvel at. If you picked up a book or two, you'd understand it too.

I'm not the one who recommended liveleak, but I've been around people who have served in the military as combat troops, and I've seen what happens to a human body when it gets hit by a bullet (live firefights are generally not worth watching unless you want to just watch someone lying in the dirt, firing into the air and lying in the dirt some more).

Your lack of knowledge does not negate my knowledge on the subject. I've even stated I know little about anatomy and welcomed someone to correct me, but two posters backed up my statement.

I know plenty about anatomy, physics etc. and knowing those things doesn't make me an expert on what happens when someone gets shot. You are the definition of an armchair expert and very defensive, as you should be considering your silly claims to knowledge on this subject.

You're trying too hard to sound edgy, you're clueless.