If typos are a ‘symptom’ of intellectual laziness, Ivan's got that symptom something chronic.

Which is exactly the point being made about your posting. The content of your posts can hardly have a wide focus if you’ve only posted on this thread. Your posts are narrowly focused, often laboured, sometimes overly earnest, and very repetitive. You have a handful of rhetorical tactics you use over & over, whether arguing with Sondersted or anyone else. (One of which is to call “out of context” any time you get caught in a contradiction.)

Ivy, as hard as it is for you to grasp the overall context of my comments, that your typos are just another symptom of your sanctimonious intellectual pretense, and just the most hilariously hypocritical one at that. You probably missed this when you get distracted by your anger at getting caught making yet another obvious mistake. It could just be yet another case of you believing what you want to believe instead of all those pesky facts and quotes. I've noticed that you do cry and whine when you've been shown to be a fool and you don't want to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

If you either knew how to read, or were signifigantly more honest, you'd recognize that the focus is wider than you'd like to pretend. Since you aren't reading very well, and seeing as how you aren't honest, I don't expect anything other than the usual boiler plate from you.

...or when some less than honest poster tries to create a contradiction that isn't there in order to try and smear me out of context.

Like, f'rinstance, you.

It's part of that dishonest thing you got going.

I'll paraphrase SlowJoe's words for him;

"It's not me, it's you"

(..and this is one of the clowns that accuses me of being repetitive?)

<…as Joe’s pastiche sails over Ivan’s head…>

Ouch. Ivan's pulling out the cutting retorts now.

As I said, Ivan calls “out of context!” to try to weasel out of an obvious contradiction. The original context is there on page 1 for anyone who wants to go back and check, but it makes no difference. Your words to Sondersted “A look at your last fifty postings would argue for a mono-focus which is appropriately described as an obsession” mean exactly what it looks like they mean, and it is perfectly reasonable to look at them in light of your last 50 posts. As for trying to “smear” you?… How wonderfully melodramatic; poor Ivan’s “reputation” takes a dive because I dare to put his own words next to facts which don’t sit well with them. Quelle Horreur!

So are yours. And no less frequently than Joe or anyone else here that you corrected. So I guess you're not smarter than anyone else here.

Actually, Squeeky, the fact is that you cut out a lot of what I said in order to take what I said out of context. I've explained this before but you continue to ignore the truth because it proves you to be a liar.

That's no problem for me. You'll keep lying and I'll keep pointing it out.

I suppose that a paraphrase is needed again. Here goes;

Geedis: "What you said, but about you. I don't care what you say I'm not stupid GODDAMMIT!!!! IT'S YOU!!!!--sniffle--sniffle--whine--whine--"

If you would perhaps be less repetitive in your posts, say, not using the same set tired tactics and clichés over and over, then the responses wouldn't be so repetitive as well.

And no need to paraphrase, I'll do it for you, "You started it."

Inaccurate as always about what my reaction will be (Although you are aware of how best to sum up what you've written in this one post. Why'd you bother to add the extra words? Don't bother to answer, it's a rhetorical question and I already know it's because you have an incredibly hard time with clarity). I don't care who started it, and have never claimed to use this as a reason for posting.

I enjoy pointing out your inaccuracies, your faults and your banalities, but there is a difference between how I do it and what you try to do.

You flail about trying to describe what I'm doing and why, usually falling far short of the mark, but I get it right when I describe what you do and of what you're made.

I'll repeat that as often as I feel, and you'll continue to bleat about how I'm wrong and mean.

I don't have a problem with this cycle that you're caught in, and that seems to disturb you so much.

Time for you to add a bleat.