You’re a bafoon it’s link to a quote of you that completes the thought before the link.

Could you just fuck off now?

You do realize that’s still harassment.

Go away Merc.

So I can tell you to leave me the fuck alone.

Remind me again who made contact with whom? I’m pretty sure it was you making contact with me to make a pedantic point you’d subsequently get too worked up about. So conventionally when someone makes contact with someone else and made it very clear that your repeated unwanted contact is becoming problematic we generally call that harassment.

Leave me alone, I can’t reply if you don’t go out of your way to contact me again knowing full fucking well I’d rather you shoot yourself to the moon then speak at me.

Similarly you’re really gonna go with that “then why you dress like that” rapist mentality bullshit?

Common isn’t always correct, the proper punctuation is a semi colon because it’s not just a quote it’s your quote linking two sentences to make one more complete thought.

If you’re going to be a pedant to me twice at least try to be correct once.

And again I can’t make it more clear, stop contacting me.

Let me be absolutely clear since apparently it’s hard to comprehend.

Leave me alone, I don’t need nor want any communication with you.

No means no, go away means go away. Take the absolutely glaring goddamn hint and go the fuck away from me specifically.

You were joining two related thoughts. If you’re going to be a Grammer Nazi you better be correct every time or people will throw it in your face.

And again, leave me alone professor disingenuous.

Can’t reason your way out of the hole you dug so you’re just going to harass me now? Let’s see how that works out boss.

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/19657728

Really working that tedious twat gig huh?

The linked comment you used the wrong punctuation on you absolute bafoon, the hypocrisy is cute though.

You’re still wrong boss your correction is shit and you’re just an annoying pedant.

The point of the comment you are attempting to “correct” while ignoring the writers intent.

Not at all, a correction that changes intent isn’t a correction it’s a modification and an incorrect one at that.

If you had kept the intent and not argued that I don’t know my own intent you may have had a point.

And again, the high horsing while you’re actively kicking your own ass is priceless.

Try again bud, hypocrisy is fun though.

Two complete but tangentially connected sentences that you’re trying to link are joined with a semi colon. If it were only a quote and not intending to connect two separate but related sentences or thoughts a colon would have been appropriate.

Notice how I didn’t change the intent of your comment, I merely offered advice rather then insisting you don’t know what the intent of the sentence you wrote is.

Should be a ; not :

Does it change the point? No?

Then you’re solely being a tedious pedant looking for a win. Go away or at the very least don’t bother me Mrs. Foster.

Ed: ps.

My modification makes it grammatically correct English.

It might in your eyes but it also changes the point of the sentence, you’re removing context not adding any.

That makes it easier for people to read.

What does?

It’s basic English.

That is not in fact a complete sentence, I do so enjoy the hypocrisy though.

My point is you’re a tedious pedant. What does your modification actually change in my point? Nothing either way? Neat, thanks professor.

If you refer to them as property which is the implication yes it works.

Though thank you professor weird guy. Now tell me how it changes anything at all or what exactly your point is?

Yes, it’s basic English. 's after a pronoun generally doesn’t denote plural but rather possession in this case implying the Clintons have been purchased.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to be fuckin weird about it but yes, I am in fact sure.

Loyalty is 100% not a vital part of fascism I know of no definition that includes loyalty at all and in fact your argument and the historic argument that fascists aren’t serious only goes against your loyalty argument.

No you insulted me because you wanted to, don’t victim blame boss. You did it because it felt good.

You literally made no argument, only provided insult and then ran away for a day.

And again to aggression and insults because you know you’re in fact the “uhm acktually that’s reactionary ideology not fascism” got, not me. We get it you read three body, no need to try to shoehorn that bullshit into conversations.

It’s not a pithy response, how does a program stand by anything in an ideological sense? They can’t and your previous definition of fascism is an ideological one that requires morality and freedom of choice. You may as well say that ink well over yonder is a fascist, it’s the same level of sentience and intent which is lemme see… None.

That’s a personal insult with no actual argument, that’s ad hominem by definition. For reference:

marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

It’s not overly literal you’re entire argument is predicted on some level of intent and sentience which is not currently possible in any machine.

Ed: you’d have a point about that of you actually made an argument but you didn’t, you did a drive by insult and ran away for the night. Grow up.