-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.23 Mar 2005

People would take you more seriously if you didn't write like a mouldy walnut. I'm going to rewrite some of your post so it reads less like you've been felching Ayn Rand. Pay attention, you fucking dimwit.

"To respond to zodiac, though I shouldn't:
1) I said -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. was proving my point, which you're also doing; therefore I don't need to.

For me to be self-righteous, I'd have to think my behavior was a model, and that it was my duty to change you. I don't believe either. In fact, I'd rather you continue in the same way, so we can see who the righteous one really is.

2) If the reader gets lost, well, I'm partly responsible. But it probably means they should pay closer attention.

God may not call things "bollocks" in that particular context. But I meant that, according to the faithful, God alone has the authority to pass judgment. In that God represents truth and knowledge, only he can judge a thing true or false. Humans fall short, because we don't know everything."

I shall stop here, because point 3 is an impenetrable fuck-tangle of unbelievable guff.

IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Contains line breaks. The original is an enormous, unbroken cud-sausage of words.
2. Uses less than half as many words as the original.
3. Operates at a cognitive level above that of a pea.
4. Spelled and punctuated properly. Devoid of ellipses.
5. Avoids tortuous noun chains.
6. Sounds less like a prime bollock.
7. Your a tool.

Until you learn to write without sounding like a first-year philosophy essay, shut up.

P.S. My name is spelled with two hyphens, two equals signs, an underscore, a comma, and two full stops. I went to the trouble of legally changing it, so you might as well get it right.