nope dumbass. started with voltaire's Candide, or in Etruscan (that's Roman for intellectually lazy) days trimalchio's banquet. but you wouldn't know much about origins just assuming shits always been like that. I mean for practical purposes that's a good hueristic, but to explain it that way to persuade others is… well as Obama once used the term…. VJ team
quick post coordinates for a phonefag
oh good question
if so, apologies for friendly fire then fren. we got a shill con situation at the momo, and I'm one to hold down the foxhole for rest to get to rally.
fukin keked
on it
it looks like you came here with your questions already answered.. why the fuck are you bothering to ask us? don't ask questions to which you don't want to know the answers (because the truth of our inner workings would dissonate with your preconcieved notions)
again with preconcieved notions… do you want to ask me if I am angry? or does it suit your worldview better to fill in the blanks yourself? I reckon it is likely the latter but I could be wrong. speech and dialogue are the only ways for humans to understand each other as individuals with all the uniqueness that entails… I realize it's possible no one explicitly covered this with you, but shit man somethings are not said because they are thought to be common knowledge. but anyway you can ask me whatever you like if you really want the answer.
how can a phenomena start and simultaneously be discredited? must it have arisen and be observed before attributions and characteristics can be discussed for matters of determining credibility? Do you have some technology that allows you to bypass this? I'm just fucking around I seriously doubt you have such tech if it exists. So, how can it start off discredited?
just checking..sorry fren if I offended. gonna.contemplate if it's ever within possibility to develop better I.F.F. for the shill-con days