>>16
The Last Man's Version Of The Truth (AKA Wikipedia) calls them «Guillemets». I may use that if I ever go and namefag here.
Oddly enough, I had went to that article to copy+paste the characters through a search for "French quotes" since I often see them used as quotation marks in written French. I've been told that they've also been used in other languages like Dutch from francophone influence, but that was prior to regional nationalism flaring up. Also, I would encourage you to, you'll help bring some much needed sanity to these parts.
I remember I just had to get the theory out in the air, cos Comrade Shlomo kept looking like one.
He has yet to prove me wrong.
Yeah, at first I had sort of dismissed it, but now after all this time has passed and how dedicated and persistent he's been, I'm starting to consider that this may be the fact. There's been some anti-Zionist or critical posts about Israel on these boards that I've found to be well-grounded, non-antisemitic and generally in good faith. The fact that Comrade Shlomo is a perfect caricature of someone who hates Jews with every fiber of his being and would love nothing more than to kill them all (seriously, he way outdoes the common anti-Jewish troll to the point of almost comedy), a bystander reading such posts would then automatically think that
all anti-Zionists = rabid antisemites. If there is such a plan, either he's part of it, or he's a useful idiot playing a part unbeknownst to him, neither would surprise me.
>>17
Great strawman but you know that isn't at all what I'm talking about.
That's what the term means.
Humanism, and due to formal reason and logic it is obvious that humanity will not survie so long as the false jews exist.
First, this sentence is incoherent as fuck. Could you re-write it in a way where one can parse it properly? Or you could just continue to write incoherently, whatever works for you. Second, "Humanism" isn't a religion as far as religions go, and if "Humanism" was your religion, you wouldn't be acting like this at all, which leads me to third, you haven't answered my question.
I have but you have not (rather you claim this)
I very much doubt this. The level of work you've cited is enormous and would take at least a decade to trot through and understand on a hermeneutic and theological level. Even Christianity and non-Abrahamic religions to understand on a high theological level takes years. It's not really worth all the effort expect maybe being able to form good arguments against proselytizers.
so thus you know the least about the truth of the matter yet are trying to impart some sort of authority, what kind I don't know, but you have literally none here whatsoever until you realize what they represent and who follows them to the letter. Hint: it's who you go out of your way day in and out to defend.
Reading this is like watching a mouse that designed and constructed its own maze and completely forgot how to get out of it.
Oh really when what does it mean?
Like I said, online dictionaries are widely available at your fingertips if you're not aware of what a word means. Here's four of them and each have an entry:
•
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
•
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page
•
http://dictionary.reference.com/
•
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/
>>19
>>>/r/atheism
Reddit? *Gag*, no thanks. Apart from a few populated subreddits, I haven't been there regularly since 2008 or so.