Robert Adamant - go to this post

apology doesn't mean an admission of guilt, it means a defense, most people are just pussies that never have a defense and immediately admit guilt for wrongdoing.
It's perfectly valid for an apology to be a claim that one is not guilty. It happens constantly.

apology
noun
apol·​o·​gy ə-ˈpä-lə-jē
plural apologies
: an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apology

Sorry cockbert, but you're not about to win an argument on semantics on these here boards. As seen here, apology does in fact imply fault or guilt on the part of the one apologizing. And no, a defense and an apology are two different things, retard. You don't apologize for something of which you aren't guilty. Your behavior is a sign of a guilty conscience. Not surprising that you are unable to suppress your subconscious impulses, you being a mere beast.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Evidence doesn't indicate a crime, I have no reason to dispute the objective history. What I take issue with is how people interpret that history.
My apology is that you ought to interpret that history in such a way that compels you to treat me as a divine being worthy of all gifts and admiration.

What you might be having trouble with is assuming that I would submit to the convention of apologies universally being that of admitting guilt and remorse.
I see no cause for doing something like that in this circumstance.

So, you don't in fact deny the evidence presented thus far. Good. We're finally getting somewhere. It's not a matter of how the evidence is interpreted, that's up to the forum's users and administration team, not me, not you. I've merely presented the evidence showing your debauchery and flagrant disregard for the rules, and you've admitted guilt via apology and confirmed the authenticity of the evidence. Now we simply sit back, relax, and await your ass beating at the behest of grapemin.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

It's not my fault Merriam Webster never read Plato.
If you had it wouldn't be such an absurd use of the word.

Hey bonehead, what is more relevant to the definition of a word in modern English? A Greek who has been dead for millennia or a modern dictionary which is regularly updated and maintained? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

You're just trying to veil yourself behind a flimsy shroud of esoterism. Sorry, everyone else can see right through your little facade. You are the laughingstock of the forum. Grow up.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

My understanding of the english language because you are talking to me.
I don't care if it's rhetorical that's the truth.

Your understanding of the English language is utterly irrelevant. If you don't understand the English language, that is your problem. It's not my responsibility to cater to a moron who refuses to speak proper English. You're not special just because you refuse to acknowledge the actual definition of a word which everyone else agrees on. It just makes you look like an idiot.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Then you are simply unable to have any discussion. You lack the functional fluency of actually talking to someone.
You effectively know a collection of individual words but have no ability to connect them with broader concepts and contexts.

No? You are unable to have any discussion because you refuse to use the English language in the way it is commonly agreed upon to be used. This is off-topic and you're detracting from the point. You are guilty of everything I have accused you of. You've broken the forum's very reasonable and rather forgiving global files and thus need to be suspended.

@admin are you going to ice this fool or what?

Robert Adamant - go to this post

It makes perfect sense that someone afflicted with impairment isn't aware of their impairment.
When it's something as grave as deficient communication there literally isn't any way to communicate it to them.
I give you my condolences, that is while I know you likely could not accurately interpret the sentiment.

This is, in fact, meaningless blabber and doesn't merit a response, you are correct in that. Perhaps you are the one who is incapable of communicating with anyone else. Nobody else on these boards cares to read your plaintext posts let alone your Shavian nonsense.

Schizoid Man - go to this post

I don't necessarily believe he should be suspended anymore because everyone knows that he is a pedophile at this point. Maybe we could make a badge that says "#1 child porn watcher" and affix it to his profile.

honestly would be more proud of that than be humiliated by the albatross most men wear these days marrying subfertile women.

Schizoid Man - go to this post

I don't necessarily believe he should be suspended anymore because everyone knows that he is a pedophile at this point. Maybe we could make a badge that says "#1 child porn watcher" and affix it to his profile.

It seems from the evidence presented in this conversation that he has broken the global rules, however. Evidently he has been harassing users for their personal information. This is creepy and off-putting. In my work as a clinical psychiatrist, I must be cautious when "prying" into someone's psyche. This is a very delicate and personal matter; if it is to be done ethically then one must do so with the consent of the examinee. What Robert is doing is destructive and psychologically damaging. Not to mention against the forum guidelines. I agree that this user ought to be suspended.