Robert Wendell and Jerry Reiss: A study in liberal destructiveness

My Recent Posts

Rarely do I bring up people's names for an article.  But Robert and Jerry so perfectly epitomize so many of America's problems, that I could not resist using them.  As both of them are quite dull and cannot understand in the least how their beliefs are at all in error, I am sure they don't mind.  I've been carefully observing them both for six months now, and it's high time their nonsense is addressed.  They've been sitting on Robert's Trump post sniping about all of us who are wise enough to vote for Trump like a bunch of gossipy housewives for the past few months.  Robert won't be caught dead on anyone else's post.  I guess he is too good for that.  His posts are among the longest in WB history, with some comments reaching 1,924!!  Now brevity is the soul of wit, so sitting and talking to no point is not to be commended.  His posts, unfortunately, for his age are like the orator who has a flood of words, and a drop of reason.  I will begin with a short analysis of my interactions with both of them and then proceed with the errors that they have in common with millions of other Americans.  Once these errors are addressed in a few, the wise will learn, the fools will ignore it, as they usually do.

 

When I first got on WB, on May 23rd of this year, it took 6 days for Jerry to post his post on The First Amendment and Free Speech.  When I read the title, I was intrigued and hopeful about what it could be about.  I imagined this would be someone who understood America's history and realized how important the First Amendment was.  Imagine my surprise when I learned that Jerry believed Free Speech meant the right to get rid of speech you don't like.  I am 100% convinced none of our Founders had that in mind when they created the First Amendment.  Jerry and I went back and forth, and he began freely deleting my comments.  So on a post on the First Amendment he began interfering with my free speech.  And he saw no irony in this at all.  Thought it was perfectly normal, and swore Ben Franklin and the rest had this in mind when they put together our Bill of Rights.  Ari Silverstein brilliantly told Jerry, " The suggestion that in the spirit of the First Amendment some speech should be silenced because it drowns out speech by others is laughable.  Equally laughable is choosing the title “First Amendment & Free Speech” as if there was a difference between the two.  The more appropriate title for your article should be something like “The right to free speech needs more limits” or “The first amendment needs limits.” 
 
As it relates to bullying, I’m sick of all the whining.  You’re a grown man conversing with other grown men over cyberspace.  Stop behaving like a nine year old girl who was told she has cuties. ", and Mike Haluska observed, "Guys - I think we really need to clear up what we mean by "bullying" somebody on a Frakkin' internet blog!  If you're that sensitive about what somebody 1000 miles away writes about you you're probably never going to meet, you're oversensitive.  Man Up out there, guys!  Sticks and stones, remember????".  Of course, our resident Stalinist, James Convey chimed in to say how speech should be limited as well.  We all know how James Convey feels about free speech:)  If you don't know yet, go on his posts and disagree with him strongly and you'll soon find out:)  But that did not stop Jerry.  He has not posted since this post on May 29th, not sure of the reason.  He now runs off to Robert's post to have gossip sessions on everyone else on WB and Trump supporters and why supporting Hillary is so superior.  Jerry is a very proud man and swears by his "education". He has the insight to say that I am "not educated".  He does not understand that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can learn as much as his college taught him, and a whole lot more with discipline and determination for free at the local library.  That thought has apparently never crossed his mind.  He then imitated Marilyn French and took his many years of lawyers experience out to the internet to see what he could dredge up about me.  He found out what political candidates I contribute to, and he found my dozens of letters to the local newspaper.  Nothing that will add to anything I have said on WB.  Anyone who reads what I say has known all this for months, but it's news to Jerry, and he gets into a tremendous fit of excitement and posts this on Robert's post, and his fellow communist, James Convey's.  There are a number of societal lessons, which will be discussed later.

 

Robert Wendell,  has some of the longest posts on WB with comments, and some of the most viewed, and most liked.  One of the first indications that something is not right is he is following James Convey.  James Convey is one of the most unstable people on WB, who is constantly dashing off to tattle to the FBI and Canadian authorities on people who disagree with him.  He takes it to a whole different level and claims they are a threat to his grandchildren, though no one on WB knows who his grandchildren are, where they live, or has ever thought about interacting with them period.  But this does not bother Robert, he is an admirer of James.  Robert has four of the top ten most liked, and most commented on articles on WB since it's inception.  His article on Trump has over triple the comments of the next person in the top ten, with Roberts having 1,925 and Mike Haluska having 620.  His writing is unwieldy and ponderous.  He claims to be a Christian, but supports the Democrat party, apparently unaware that the Democrat party stands for principles what will take any practitioner straight to hell.  I at first viewed Robert as an expert of sorts, due to his methodical, dry writing and his advanced age.  But I soon learned that years do not always indicate wisdom.  As Elihu said to Job, so I say to Robert, "I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion.  I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.  But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.  Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment."  When I began conversing with him, it was a credit that he did not imitate his friend James Convey's example and delete what he does not like.  However, he did begin to suspect, as nearly every liberal does, whether I was homosexual or not.  I am extremely tired of having to defend my sexuality against stupid charges that are only malicious attempts of a person who has no arguments left and so must resort to illogical ad hominems.  As the reader knows, I have never thought of or done anything homosexual in my life, and I am offended at the idea that I am guilty until proven innocent of something I have never done.  Robert suspected that because I was a Christian, and because Catholic priests molested children, that there was a likelihood I was homosexual.  He is totally wrong, and the logic behind that is illogical. Robert claims he is a Christian but his belief system is nothing close to what the New Testament advocates.  He believes in man  made global warming and believes Trump's platform is bad for the United States.  Both premises are false.  

 

So what can we learn from Robert and Jerry?  First; that age does not always mean wisdom.  Second; that college educations are often quite useless, as Jerry seems to be in such a rush to inform us of, yet is unaware of himself.   Third; pride is quite destructive, and often those who think they see are the blindest.  Fourth; groupthink is alive and well in the United States.  Fifth;  It is wise to examine why we believe what we believe so the whole world does not see our views as false, and yet we believe they are the truth.  Sixth; gossiping about others in private is not wise.  Seventh; liberal elites are snobs  Eighth; notice the staunchest liberals on here are all white elites.  James Convey, Marilyn French, Robert Wendell, and Jerry Reiss.  With the exception of Robert, they are all the most likely to delete comments from their posts for arbitrary reasons.  Ninth; Let this be a lesson to the young, to learn history outside of your colleges and schools, and to not watch television, so you don't end up like Robert and Jerry.  Tenth; It's never too late to be what you might have been.  

Comments

Robert Wendell Added Nov 5, 2016 - 12:46am
Speaking of long, these are some of the longest paragraphs ever, Ryan. Now witness, folks. This is just a small peek into the irrational mind of Messano:
 
He believes the world was created about six thousand years ago in accord with 5,000+ year-old biblical chronology despite:
 
1) ice core samples that show annual deposits of snow and ice in layers, year by year, like tree rings, to over 800,000 years.
 
2) dinosaurs that went extinct about 65 million years ago, knowable because we can see the event that extinguished them in the geological record (layers of earth that have multiple cross checks for confirmation of when they were deposited.
 
3) mountains that take millions of years to form and wear down to their present state, since they are the result of the plate tectonics that have moved continents and crashed them into each other. (e.g., the Himalayas began to form when what is now the Indian subcontinent broke off from the east coast of Africa and rammed into the Asian continent). The Himalayas are still gaining altitude at about 2.6 inches per year. All this took slightly longer than 6,000 years. (Mark that "gross understatement".)
 
4) the splitting of a single supercontinent via plate tectonics into what are now the major continents of the earth, with the west coast of Africa's nice fit with the east coast of South America bearing strong testimony, further confirmed by knowledge of how the plate tectonics flow.
 
Also, witness this mess:
In comments under my article Trump starting at date and time stamp Nov 3, 2016 - 9:51pm, Ryan accurately quoted excerpts from my comments as saying, "Ryan, there is nothing about those religious folks who claim that homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord that makes them all straight. We all know about those who were closet gays, including Catholic priests. Yet a local Catholic church fired its openly gay music director after many years of service because he married his partner."
 
and
 
"Are you gay, Ryan? Is that OK in your evangelistic, fundamentalist mind? I don't care, but wonder whether you do. You look gay. Most biographers think Tchaikovsky was gay, but nobody knows for sure."
[Note: In an aside, Ryan had stated a preference for composer Tchaikovsky over Rachmaninoff. I just had a hunch and innocently asked, meaning no slight.]
 
Ryan accuses me (a totally straight man who holds nothing against homosexuals) of insisting he is homosexual when I all did was ask, since I know that homosexuality is against most evangelicals' principles.
 
Ryan also asked, "What has evangelistic, fundamentalist and homosexual have to do with one another?"
 
I answered in total disgust: 
Nothing, you idiot! I never said it did. Your quotes of me don't even come close to saying that. Your mind is made of mush. I merely said that there is nothing about any religion or its beliefs that implies there are no homosexuals among its believers. In fact, we know that quite a few religious folks have been exposed as gay even after they indulged in all kinds of gay bashing. So could you please run the "logic" by which you think my words imply what you say they do?
[Note: Ryan never responds to such challenges to his "reasoning".]
 
Then Ryan ironically makes an assessment of my reasoning ability, saying "...the wacky reasoning allowing you to deduce fundamental Christian => likely homosexual. A more ridiculous conclusion is hard to find."
My answer: 
Where did I ever remotely imply such a thing? Show me. It's all here. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about whenever I mention the fundamentally flawed, twisted "reasoning" of this man. The man who accuses me of wacky reasoning then illustrates in the same sentence his incredibly wacky reasoning?!
 
I also asked: 
And where does this come from (quoting Ryan): "... he (I, Robert) said my Christianity was what prompted him to suspect me of homosexuality"...?
 
My response to Ryan:
I never said any such thing. I was raised a Christian. go to church every Sunday, and pray every day. You just said you think Tchaikovsky was a superior composer to Rachmaninoff. Maybe...it's a matter of opinion. It was your photograph coupled with Tchaikovsky's possible homosexuality (the consensus among his biographers says with more confidence he was) that prompted me to ASK (NOT declare). 
 
In case your answer was to be yes, I wondered whether that would create a conflict with your religious belief
Robert Wendell Added Nov 5, 2016 - 12:50am
Continued:
religious beliefs, since most evangelicals believe homosexuality is a moral abomination. I did not accuse. I asked. I wanted to know, in case your answer was yes, how that squared with your religious beliefs. Anyone who reads my words without your predisposition to radically revise their meaning will see this clearly. So what's going on in your brain? Your whacked out interpretation of my words, couple with your continued misinterpretation even after my explanations (which should be completely unnecessary for any rational being) explains why all your ideas are so messed up.
----
End quotes
 
So there you have it. Rationality personified going by the name of Ryan Messano. What a blessing! (This is sarcasm in case those challenged by the use of irony fail to notice.) :  )
Robert Wendell Added Nov 5, 2016 - 12:58am
Oh, by they way, I don't nor did I ever follow James Convey. James Convey doesn't even follow me, so I have no idea where this came from. I never have even read one of his articles. So much for Messano getting his facts straight, not to mention his stellar reasoning abilities. (Oops! More irony.)
Robert Wendell Added Nov 5, 2016 - 1:03am
Hmmm...I'm starting to get it. The same man (Messano) who accuses me falsely of concluding he is gay merely because he's an evangelical, accuses me of following a Stalinist. Why? Because Messano's brilliant logic has concluded that anyone other than a Trump supporting evangelical fundamentalist must be a Marxist thinker. Anything left of the KKK must be a Marxist. So brilliant! My reasoning powers are nil by comparison, right folks?
Richard Domikis Added Nov 5, 2016 - 7:38am
Ryan,
They are old and scared...
Pure and simple.
 
The Dems on the whole want to ignore the truth and the violations.  Today we now see Hillary sending classified data to Chelsea - no she doesn't have a clearance...
 
These guys have drank the Kool-Aid - they are being told "that's old news and already been covered".  It the classic Clinton trick delay, delay, delay and then say "old news". 
 
That's not working and now they are scared...
 
What you are experiencing are the stupid huddled in the corner crying...
 
Robert - I do not con-scribe to the short age of the world but will say there are NO tree rings or ice that proves the word's age - at best carbon dating suggests the age based on typical isotope decay - it does assume typical decay...
 
Note this is really the age of the material of earth - it is possible that material was around for a long time prior to earth... as you say dinosaurs suggest an age far longer than others support - I do agree the dinosaurs walked the earth as long ago as 245M years...  if Ryan and I disagree on this it is only proof that those that support Trump and NOT Hillary are not drones - we are smart people tired of lies.
Robert Wendell Added Nov 5, 2016 - 10:56pm
Are you James Convey? I didn't know that. Messano is a truly and deeply deluded nut. He can't even get facts straight when they are sitting right under his nose for a review. I correct his gross misconceptions about what I've said and he quotes me again as proof that his pipe dreams are real...truly pathetic. People like that have extremely distorted world views and remain completely clueless about everything, material and spiritual.
Robert Wendell Added Nov 5, 2016 - 11:25pm
Richard, you said, "I do not con-scribe to the short age of the world but will say there are NO tree rings or ice that proves the word's age - at best carbon dating suggests the age based on typical isotope decay - it does assume typical decay..."
 
I never said either proves the world's age. I used them as solid, irrefutable examples that vastly violate the 6,000-year-old fable. My phrase "like tree rings" was clearly and explicitly stated as a comparison for those unfamiliar with ice core layers, a simple analogy. That was quite clear from its context in the sentence.
 
The age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. Given that I stated 800,000 years of ice core rings, why not ask yourself what your motive is in bothering to indulge in such pure and useless polemics? Carbon dating is not nearly adequate to calculate anything like 4.5 billion years. For short time frames it's useless and for long time frames it gets less and less accurate as we go back in time until we pass about 60,000 years, at which point it also becomes essentially useless.
Robert Wendell Added Nov 5, 2016 - 11:53pm
Richard, please allow me to do a little editing:
 
"I do not subscribe to the belief in a short age of the world, but will say there are NO tree rings or ice that prove the word's age. [Note: A dependent phrase requires a comma and a period at the end of a complete sentence to avoid the otherwise run-on sentence error.] [Note: Two complete sentences ahead] At best carbon dating suggests the age based on typical isotope decay. It does assume typical decay..." {No reason for ending with an ellipse}
 
Ignoring the illiteracy, here is my response:
 
There is no such thing as typical decay unless your take one atom at a time. The number of atoms in the smallest usable sample for carbon 14 dating is so enormous that "typical decay" is meaningless. They reliably average out to extreme accuracy to a half life of 5,730 years.
 
To illustrate the statistical principle, if you flip a coin with a 50/50 chance of heads or tails only once, that probability statement says nothing about what will happen. However, if you flip it a million times, the percentages will match a perfectly even split to within quite a few decimal places. In other words, when the sample rate of carbon 14 is as high as the number of atoms in even the smallest usable sample, the typical decay time becomes the decay time for the entire population with extremely high accuracy.
 
The use of language like "typical decay" is designed to dupe the scientific laity into doubting the reliability of carbon dating. This is highly typical of creationist rhetoric in their anti-science propaganda. I am a theist, but do not deny clearly established scientific fact and principle. I don't believe in a totally literal interpretation of every jot and tittle of Christian scripture, especially superficial details that have no bearing on its spiritual significance.
Ryan Messano Added Nov 7, 2016 - 4:10am
Robert, yes, I do believe in a young earth, though that is not central to my belief system.  A few quick points on that.  First, we don't know if pressure and temperature have been constant for the past 6,000 years, and there is a good chance they were not.  If that is so, then dating methods are going to be wildly inaccurate, because they suppose pressure and temperature have remained constant.  Since there are records of lifespans reaching 900 years + in the Bible with Methuselah, it suggests pressure and temperature could very well have been different.  For instance, if the ozone layer were a lot thicker, that affects pressure and temperature, and would also reduce the harmful radiation from the sun that so ages humans.  This would enable longer human lives and throw off all methods that you hold sacred. Also, there are certain mathematical constants that we know, and if you calculate the constants out, they show a young earth. Among those are the constant of sedimentation from rivers running to the ocean, and the constant of the moon moving away from the earth.  
 
As for your question about my sexuality, it was totally bogus, and completely illogical.  That is what started tipping me off to you being a humbug, because only liberals who have been properly indoctrinated, like the vanished Marilyn French, Jeff Mischka, and most other college graduates think a person's opposition to homosexuality or evangelical outlook makes them a likely person to be homosexual.  You even stated in your comment that Christianity makes one less likely to practice this, so for you to even suspect what is wildly untrue is in itself a display of your failing powers of rationalization.  You then become indignant when the message you subliminally included in your comments was revealed.  Tying my Christianity together with your false allegation of my being homosexual is an insult to common sense. You are completely aware of what Christianity teaches, and I have stated numerous times on my WB, and even on your thread in discussions with Jerry, that I never dreamed of being homosexual, much less doing anything of that vile nature.  But apparently you weren't paying attention, so I have to answer to your ridiculous questioning which is a total waste of my time.  Before you ask someone a question, how about you think and evaluate first?!  When someone acts as a Christian and speaks according to scripture, it is the height of nonsense to chirp up about "are you homosexual"?  What do you think?  Actually, never mind, your thinking has some serious holes in it.
 
Then you go onto to your latest blunder.  All of WB knows James Convey is Speaker of Truth, but you come along and assure me that I am off my rocker for saying you follow James Convey, when you clearly do follow Speaker of Truth.  How can you be on here and not know James Convey is Speaker of Truth when he has been erupting indignantly about how we found out another poster revealed him some time ago.  He feels this is private information, and that his precious grandchildren will be attacked if any of us know his identity.  LOL, James is so full of nonsense. No one on WB knows who your grandchildren are, has ever thought about your grandchildren, and has never thought about interacting with them at all, James.  You get a gold medal in jumping to conclusions.  Thank you Richard, they are definitely scared. They don't know what to do when you shatter of the bubble of their groupthink.  Their media and liberal talking heads can't help them.  Too bad they don't know most of us conservatives who have studied can take out their liberal "experts" easily.  I would have no problem sitting down with Obama and destroying his ideas about how the world works.  I would have no problem doing that with Hillary either.  God's ways are far superior to mans, and the lowliest man with God's words can easily demolish the arguments of those who are popular but immoral and ignorant.  
Ryan Messano Added Nov 7, 2016 - 4:11am
James, you certainly are a Stalinist.  Have you read one book about Communist Russia?  Have you read Tolstoy, or Solzhenitsyn, or accounts of Stalin in World War 2 and what he did to the Russian people.  Head to the library if you have not, that way you can know what you are talking about before you start squawking.  
Ryan Messano Added Nov 7, 2016 - 4:13am
And the wise on here avoid your articles like the plague James.  We value open free discourse, not the regimented, stale, static, stagnant nonsense you enforce on your thread.  Your opinions or bust. LOL.  Too bad.  If you can't defend your ideas against all attacks, which you definitely can't, then maybe it's time to get new ideas.  Just a thought.  
 
Ha Ha, Robert calling me ignorant, when everyone but him on WB knew James Convey was Speaker of Truth.
Ryan Messano Added Nov 7, 2016 - 4:16am
I definitely don't have a birdbrain, James, since Pterodactyls long ago left the earth, and that would be the only bird head large enough to hold my brain, LOL, just kidding, couldn't resist.  That sounds like something Mr. Toad would say from Wind in the Willows, but wasn't he funny?:).
 
However, on the subject of bird heads, you are like an ostrich, sticking your head deep in the sand and keeping it there, ignoring all the historical facts showing liberalism DOES NOT WORK.  Yet you swear by it.  You are a menace to society with your ideas.
Robert Wendell Added Nov 7, 2016 - 11:05pm
Ryan, what kind of birdbrain would fail to notice your nutty "science" and your incoherent prose full of logical chaos? I rest my case. You've done a stellar job of making it for me. I simply suggest that anyone coming here read Ryan's last few posts if you don't already know his mind is full of incoherent mush. 
Ryan Messano Added Nov 7, 2016 - 11:29pm
Ha, the man who accuses another of homosexuality based on the fact that he fervently espouses Christian beliefs calls me full of logical chaos.  That is rich, Robert.  
 
My words are not supposed to make sense to a mind such as yours which is not rooted in reality or history in the least, and which is firmly entrenched in the nonsense of climate change and Chicken Little squawks about Trump being dangerous.  
 
You call yourself a Christian, but you are a poor excuse for one, as you don't fervently stand for any beliefs except your own apathy.  
 
It's a sad thing to see a man who is unable to grasp his own ignorance when you are as far advanced in years such as yourself.  
 
Your view of historical principles is dim at best, and you simply cannot understand that truth is not contained in the contemporary nonsense you seemingly imbibe in prodigious quantities, judging by the sheer quantity of absurd ridiculosities you utter on a regular basis.  
Ryan Messano Added Nov 7, 2016 - 11:31pm
You were wise to retreat from the post onto your own thread.  You were afraid of being exposed for the fraudulent charlatan you are.  Well, you should have left completely, because ridiculous views like yours which have deceived far too many far too long are going to be savagely attacked.
Robert Wendell Added Nov 8, 2016 - 12:46am
Ryan, I've already debunked your statement in which you said, "Ha, the man who accuses another of homosexuality based on the fact that he fervently espouses Christian beliefs calls me full of logical chaos."
 
I never said you were a homosexual, much less for such a ridiculous reason. Now quit repeating lies even after you've been shown that your lie is exactly that. I am a Christian. I go to church regularly and pray every day. I am as straight as they come. Yet you say I assume on that same basis that you are homosexual. That would make me a homosexual, which I most assuredly am not. You're starting to make me wonder, though, since you keep repeating the same garbage about what I said. Why are you so obsessed that you irrationally repeat what is obviously false for anyone who reads what I've actually said?
 
I never assumed that. I only asked you, for the reason already given. So your repetition of the same lies again and again make you a Trump-like voter, just as I've said. Trump attracts those who have Trump-like thought processes, which are completely, disgustingly incoherent and self-contradictory. 
Ryan Messano Added Nov 8, 2016 - 3:44pm
No Robert.
 
Apparently you don't do well when shown who you are.  You are IN DENIAL!!
 
You don't pay attention to what you say, and then you try and claim you did not say it when caught.  The words are there for everyone to see.  You can go throw a temper tantrum, but you need to be accountable for what you say,and I'm sorry you are finding out about this quite late in life.  You should have been taught it when you were a child.  Your parents failed you.
 
Behind liberals mindsets are broken childhoods most of the time, and the same goes for James.  
 
Lets be clear, you brought up my Christianity, and then quite implicitly asked me about my sexual orientation without a shred of proof, and after you were given plenty of proof that was not the case.  I have addressed the issue on at least 20 occasions on this site, so you are quite dense to be asking what the liberal left has trained it's legions of parrots to regularly ask.  
 
Are you gay, Ryan? Is that OK in your evangelistic, fundamentalist mind?
 
These are your words, Robert.  You are quite deceptive, and deceitful.   You don't realize why you say what you say, or what you say.  Your views on liberalism are off, but it turns out you don't even know yourself, which is even worse.  I guess it is to be expected.  Those who don't know themselves are the easiest for the Democrat party to fool.
 
Asking someone if they are gay when they have made it clear they are Christian and detest the behavior is absolutely ridiculous.  But you thought that would be a bright idea.  Now you are in full throated denial that you ever connected my Christianity to you alleging that I am homosexual. 
 
It's ridiculous a young person my age has to even waste time addressing such stupid questions from a person your age who I should be learning from, but instead have to learn how not to repeat your foolish mistakes.
 
James, if Hillary is elected, she is getting impeached.
 
Robert Wendell Added Nov 11, 2016 - 10:20pm
Show me the specific words, RĂ½an, you nitwit, that say what you say I said. Where did I do more than ask you? Your brain doesn't work right;. You quote me and pretend it says something it doesn't and just keep on affirming that it does. What kind of insanity is that?
Robert Wendell Added Nov 11, 2016 - 10:22pm
By the way, Trump's "university" scam is still an open case. The judge just (rightly) refused to exclude campaign statements from evidence.
Robert Wendell Added Nov 11, 2016 - 10:47pm
You quote me: 
 
"Are you gay, Ryan? Is that OK in your evangelistic, fundamentalist mind?"
 
Two questions. No assertions. I asked YOU whether you were gay. Is that an accusation in your twisted imagination or a question to you that I made no attempt to answer? Then, since many fundamentalists object to homosexuality as an abomination, I was curious about how you perceive homosexuality. Where is there anything at all in this that even remotely implies evangelicals are gay?
 
In context (which you conveniently leave out) it implies exactly the opposite: that it's not OK with evangelicals. Given that universally recognized fact, I then simply asked what your attitude toward homosexuality is. I was asking, given your fundamentalist position on everything else, what your attitude was on that issue.
 
After all, if you happened to answer that being gay was OK with you, that would NOT fit into the context of your fundamentalism, since that generally takes a position against it. You know that, everyone half awake knows that, and I know that. So, once again, how do you manage to get your whacked out interpretation out of that?
 
Do you just react emotionally to individual words and phrases, in step with your other "word salad" style of wildly off-base, context-free interpretations? Do you have no discernment at all when it comes to context and how that matters greatly for the meaning of otherwise isolated words and phrases?
 
No wonder you don't address anything I say with any coherent responses that actually have anything to do with what I really said. And how do you think any of your opinions could possibly have any value at all given how woefully broken your ability is to process information in any remotely valid way?

Recent Articles by Writers Ryan Messano follows.