quoting

No. Thats "quoting". I'm indicating qhqt im responding to, ideas, not full text, and on the assumption that anyone reading what i said has at least least skimmed upthread of here. Bad assumption, i guess

i fucked your mom

Oof, but no accounting for taste. Get checked, k?

edited

Before you saw, so not 'going back'. I assume the down vote was you.

trusting reuters

You still can't actually address my criticism and tell me why i should. Like, youve said literally nothing to actually engage with it. You're just appealing to authority and reminding me how (i told you!) i suck as if i wasn't aware. As if that produces some inherent trudtworthiness either generally elsewhere or specifically reuters. Which is just convincing me that im right and you have a boot in your mouth.

do you understand

Discourse and how human brains and perception and communication actually work literally at all? It doesn't seem so.