why the fuck does socks

[Boyager]

feel the need to fucking post a fucking essay about shit that probably n oone here gives a shit about?

[Thyme]

Probably the same thing that goes through David's head when he posts a youtube video about European politics.

We should ask him.

[Sillbury]

this is a hilariously coward post bro

[spoiler]

there's a complaint board you know[/spoiler]

[Boyager]

this is a hilariously coward post bro

[spoiler]

there's a complaint board you know[/spoiler]

you're gay bro

[Sillbury]

you're gay bro

the only dick i would ever suck is bruce willis'

and that's because he's earned it

[Boyager]

Eh, I sometimes post about death or some random incoherent babble just for the heck of it. So it could be the same for him too.

[Andria]

Probably the same thing that goes through David's head when he posts a youtube video about European politics.

We should ask him.

i enjoy those

[burzumfan420]

i like his posts  ass MuNCh

[Boyager]

i like his posts  ass MuNCh

[Boyager]

Why does anyone post anything?
But why single out socks? If you dont like what he says, dont fucking read it.
I think there's merit in posts that are actually interesting, and beneath everything else, socks posts are interesting.

[Boyager]

yeah his posts are interesting

it's just that the way he uses the english language makes it hard to take him seriously...honestly i have no clue why he suddenly got this idea like a year ago that he should speak as pompously as possible. i know he's a literary guy - hasn't he noticed that most of the best modern books are written in a concise manner of speaking?

[Boyager]

I wish he would realize less is more.

[Boyager]

yeah his posts are interesting

it's just that the way he uses the english language makes it hard to take him seriously...honestly i have no clue why he suddenly got this idea like a year ago that he should speak as pompously as possible. i know he's a literary guy - hasn't he noticed that most of the best modern books are written in a concise manner of speaking?

I post only the most relevant material for all. Anything less and I deserve no audience. Yet the opposite seems favored here. Very telling. It affirms that the issue is not the author or his work, but the readers who interpret the content. After death comes glory, for only time can judge a man's worth.

It's curious how the above poster can claim such a thing, when they have no knowledge of who I have been and who I am, outside of two and a half years worth of posts. This is seeing through a straw with a bend. My expressive style is neither sudden or pompous, it's an inherent extension of my soul and gradual development of my perception.

Something is seriously wrong with any population which defines personal articulation along a spectrum of domains. One realm for each of their arbitrary groups. It shows terrible decline in a common standard. I seek to learn, starting with the past and progressing forward. This is the essence of my character.

How that is conveyed is simply a natural reflection of who I've become. There's no extraordinary effort to project some illusion. I'm always compelled to wonder how can one live in world where passionate and full explanation is equated to something false, especially when it is true. This is a crucial point, as it is not I who lives a lie. My mind isn't limited to 160 character.

That's to say nothing of the topics of my digression, which even that is such a small sample of what I contemplate. Truly I wonder how one can string along 'most', 'best' and 'modern', keep a straight face, and think they have any creditability left? As if I value literature in the same way, or alter my being to conforms a specific era. In fact I prefer romantic and pre-modern prose for it's deep well of insight, masterful command and breathtaking spirit. Read Keats and tell him to be less pompous and lengthy. Chances are you have not. I would take a hard minute to question why.

I strive for universality, where less is never more. There can only be a difference in artistic execution, not any absolute value of merit. I suppose aesthetic simplicity is  simply favored for cosmetic impression. Those same people who champion Hemingway can no more realize his intent than they can easily  understand Shakespeare.  They only think they can, as the former more mirrors their own shortcoming.

Within equally aware and learned circles only, can one dismiss personal opinion for discussion of principle, as both author and reader are of the same plane of existence, and will need no further revelation to achieve common understanding. I give merit to each person as though they hold a great truth, when in realty, they often spew only puerile mess.

To each their own. I am comfortable with my understanding of this world. And can afford to be critical as I accept nothing less than perfection and enlightment. Boognish and Snorkel should be the norm, not objects of obsession to fawn over for your own lack of knowledge and imagination.

[Socks]

Ooops, I forgot to be an idiot.

[Boyager]

I post only the most relevant material for all. Anything less and I deserve no audience. Yet the opposite seems favored here. Very telling. It affirms that the issue is not the author or his work, but the readers who interpret the content. After death comes glory, for only time can judge a man's worth.

It's curious how the above poster can claim such a thing, when they have no knowledge of who I have been and who I am, outside of two and a half years worth of posts. This is seeing through a straw with a bend. My expressive style is neither sudden or pompous, it's an inherent extension of my soul and gradual development of my perception.

Something is seriously wrong with any population which defines personal articulation along a spectrum of domains. One realm for each of their arbitrary groups. It shows terrible decline in a common standard. I seek to learn, starting with the past and progressing forward. This is the essence of my character.

How that is conveyed is simply a natural reflection of who I've become. There's no extraordinary effort to project some illusion. I'm always compelled to wonder how can one live in world where passionate and full explanation is equated to something false, especially when it is true. This is a crucial point, as it is not I who lives a lie. My mind isn't limited to 160 character.

That's to say nothing of the topics of my digression, which even that is such a small sample of what I contemplate. Truly I wonder how one can string along 'most', 'best' and 'modern', keep a straight face, and think they have any creditability left? As if I value literature in the same way, or alter my being to conforms a specific era. In fact I prefer romantic and pre-modern prose for it's deep well of insight, masterful command and breathtaking spirit. Read Keats and tell him to be less pompous and lengthy. Chances are you have not. I would take a hard minute to question why.

I strive for universality, where less is never more. There can only be a difference in artistic execution, not any absolute value of merit. I suppose aesthetic simplicity is  simply favored for cosmetic impression. Those same people who champion Hemingway can no more realize his intent than they can easily  understand Shakespeare.  They only think they can, as the former more mirrors their own shortcoming.

Within equally aware and learned circles only, can one dismiss personal opinion for discussion of principle, as both author and reader are of the same plane of existence, and will need no further revelation to achieve common understanding. I give merit to each person as though they hold a great truth, when in realty, they often spew only puerile mess.

To each their own. I am comfortable with my understanding of this world. And can afford to be critical as I accept nothing less than perfection and enlightment. Boognish and Snorkel should be the norm, not objects of obsession to fawn over for your own lack of knowledge and imagination.

if you just read the first and last paragraphs it's a pretty good post