He's alright, he just needs to stop tilting at windmills and go back to when he first got here. Back then even though every post was god awful walls of text they were in interesting to read and often quite funny.
Do you think you can let go of all that anger and ignore those sniveling cowards™, Alex?
Can you be the bigger man?

I vote no douche.

>>2

This

I like reading Alex's posts for the satirical wit and trenchant critique of sacred Cracky Cows.

>>5

>I like reading Alex's posts for the satirical wit

Oh brother...

>and trenchant critique of sacred Cracky Cows.

congratulations, you're an idiot!

Four to one to keep ARey

Wouldn't be the same without him, he's part of all of this whether you like it or not.

Alex for board mod 1212
This time he is the lesser of two evils.

He's unstable have you all forgotten his cam antics? I wouldn't trust this man with a dog.

>>10
I think for the most part(baring that ravrav and mero weirdness) his reaction are justifiable. How would you like to jumped on, pretty much since the day you found your way in to Crackydom. A lot of his anger is satire, and in keeping with his character.

>>11
"I think ... his reactions are justifiable."

You are stupid and your thoughts are stupid. Now please go away before you infect the board with your stupid, stupid.

>>11
But they aren't satire, this man is THAT sad and deluded. He has no life except for building conspiracy theories around 19 year old girls on the internet.

>>12 no u.

I'll take one Alex over a billion like you.

>>14
You'd take one Alex over anyone or anything I'd venture to guess.

You are now admiring a man that even paid online "entertainment girls" find beyond contempt.
"This is your brain on Alex", and what a sorry sight it is. Enjoy your mental syphilis.

>>15

Nope, I believe he'd take a flaming pile of shit over a billion like you. You're just that despicable. Enjoy your... whatever, faggot.

>>16
"Nope, I believe he'd take a flaming pile of shit over a billion like you."

That doesn't even make sense.

"You're just that despicable. Enjoy your... whatever, faggot."

STOP
MAKING
STUPID
POSTS
,
PLEASE

>>You are now admiring a man that even paid online "entertainment girls" find beyond contempt.

??

ESL guy! Are you that German Chink again? Wasn't it you who was dogging Alex last month?

I'll put it simply for you. Alex can Engrish.

You no Engrish. Y U no accept you shramefu dishpray?

>>18
You are now admiring a man that even paid-online-"entertainment girls" find beyond contempt.

I adjusted it for you, with easy-to-follow hyphens. Now maybe you can manage it.

"Alex can Engrish."
And maybe one day, you can too!

"Y U no accept you shramefu dishpray?"
Hilarious.

Alex isn't a douche. What usually happens is that when he posts something, no matter what it is, people start yelling at him without even addressing the content of what he said.

>>20
You are both a scholar and a gentleman good sir.

NOT
http://195.242.99.71/cracky/kareha.pl/1313002679/

A
http://195.242.99.71/cracky/kareha.pl/1313317128/

DOUCHE
http://195.242.99.71/cracky/kareha.pl/1313409525/

AT
http://195.242.99.71/cracky/kareha.pl/1313677188/

ALL
http://195.242.99.71/cracky/kareha.pl/1313322302/

>>20
It quite obvious you're trolling with this "Oh, but I like him", "He is not a douche", "He's just misunderstood".
But for those new here and too lazy to read the archive (although his douchery is all over it and easily found), ALEX has beyond reasonable doubt been proven to be the largest douche in the entire known universe. And with a high likelyhood the reason why species from the unknown universe have been avoiding Earth as to not have to deal with his towering inferno of military grade douchery.

And shame on the lazy trolls who latch onto his schtick; GET YOUR OWN GIMMICK YOU LAZY FAT INTELLECTUAL HOBOS!

>>22
Your point is moot because you suck dick. Go back to CH and choke on a bouquet of faggot flowers you limber-dicked cock sucker.

>>22

Whereas your douchiness is right here, go be a whiney faggot someplace else.

>>22 Ok, but even your list of previous threads doesn't prove your point. There's always a mutual escalation and maybe if we go into auto-hissy fit every time he shows up things would be better around here.

In addition, with reference to your sock trolling implication, Alex isn't in the habit of posting fake "atta boys" for himself. In fact, as some of the stuff you linked suggests, he's just as likely to bite off someone's nuts if they dare to take his side.

I'm not a troll and I'm not Alex and I come here every single day.

The last time I saw Alex freaking out and coming in with all guns ablaze was his hysteria over the Crackification of a Botticelli painting, that had to be a year ago.

It's a fact that his posts always have content. He has something to say. Ignore it if you don't like it, but don't shit all over him. Then you're just being what you accuse him of being.

I've had the pleasure of interesting and civil discussion with him here, it was me who was talking with him about the relationship between the Cracky phenomenon and German Romanticism. Some of us here are interested in those things and would like to talk more about them, not just Alex.

I like the Monk because he loves Cracky, but there should be room for more than a one-note take on the religio-philosophical aspects of why we are all here so often for so long.

There should be room for critique in here. If Crackyfags are afraid of their world view being challenged, that's not good.

I'll finish with a protip= you can almost always tell when Alex is posting, even when he's pretending to be someone else. He proofreads his posts. There's almost never a spelling, punctuation or grammar error. And he cannot help but use CAP LOCKS at some point. And he cannot help but show his erudition in some way.

I can tell you that more than one person has supported Alex in this thread. I can tell you that for a fact.

*maybe if we go into auto-hissy fit every time he shows up things would be better around here.

I meant maybe if we DIDN'T go into auto hissy fit... etc.

One last point:

>>He has no life except for building conspiracy theories around 19 year old girls on the internet.

Er... that's precisely the reason we are all here, have been here, and will remain here. Isn't that the whole point of this place?

>>27
No his theories are that Lia has a gang and that;s what every post of his is about, it's different.

>>28 Ok, but that's still relevant information for those interested in the Crackyverse. Bounceme shouldn't be an island. Also, Alex's theories on this matter, which I find very plausible, were in fact posted to answer a question I raised about a shitpost here emanating from Crackyhouse. He answered my post with his theory, and then as usual 300 people jumped all over him accusing him of "irrelevant" posting.

Not irrelevant to me, and I have as much right as anyone else here to ask about the Crackyverse, and learn more about it.

Insular oldfag hoarding of information is anathema to the perpetuation of the Crackyverse. new people come here because they are drawn to the mystery of Cracky, and without them all this will die with the oldfags.

>>28
I didn't want to intervene in this thread myself - not so much because I wanted to avoid being "inflammatory" ("flaming" is always going to occur anyway where my name comes up) as because I have a great deal of work to do at the moment - but I'll make an exception just for the sake of what I think should be a rather decisive point of information:

The claim that "every post of mine is about the Lia Gang" gives us at least one important piece of information about this otherwise Anonymous denouncer of Alex: he's been involved with these boards for less than a year.

Before the departure of Camel, Dolly, RavRav, and, for all but some rare exceptions, Jeff himself as regular posters and presences on Crackyhouse, the "Lia Gang" wasn't an issue. Or at least they hadn't been since another, very similar period about two and a half years ago when the first /Lia/ board was closed and they swarmed over the main board, turning the place into their clique-y little, "I-love-you-do-you-love-me-back?" playground much as they are doing right now.

I devoted a large number of posts to criticizing them then, as I have done again recently, because they completely altered - for the worse - the nature of the board.

But if you had been around between 2008 and the start of 2010, or again between the middle of 2010 and the end of 2011 - or if you had cared to check the archives from this period - you would have seen that I have posted on a wide variety of other topics besides the Lia Gang, albeit with a certain disproportion among my various non-Lia themes (Jonathan Richman - 2; Stephan Poliakoff and Urban Exploration - 2; RavRav - 17,238 and counting).

I am aware, however, that my posting has been hugely preponderantly polemical during almost the whole of this year and will be taking time out from my work later today to make a lengthy (i.e. extremely tldr) POSITIVE contribution to Cracky-related matters centred - yes, inevitably... - not on Cracky but on her friend Kimi.

I am a strong proponent of the view that these things not only can, but MUST be approached obliquely - and I was deeply unfair to Kimi on Crackyhouse the other day and want to give her a gift of something more personal than money.

I'll post it here if Crackyhouse is not up again by then.

>>29
I look forward to reading it.

>>30

>I'll post it here if Crackyhouse is not up again by then.

Just wait until it's back and take it there regardless.

>"Camel, Dolly, RavRav, Jeff"

I had never heard of these persons, and would never have if it wasn't for you constantly dragging stuff that happens elsewhere here.

I have no idea what "Lia" is other than the name Cracky asked us to address her with when she posted here. That's all I know and all I need to know.

Take your drama elsewhere.

NOT your board.
Not Alex's board.
BAD Alex!

Kimi gives me a boner.

Camel gives me a boner.

>>32
I really don't know now whether we're dealing, on this thread, with someone whose particular favoured style of "poseur"-ship is affecting some insane monomaniac state of mind in which the whole of the perceptible and experienceable world has faded into invisibility and nothingness for him, much as the whole realm of sansara fades into invisibility and nothingness for the cross-legged Buddhist concentrated on his mantra, or with someone who really did only turn up last week.

I'm sorry, but I find it impossible to believe that anyone who would seriously feel justified in making claims about what should and shouldn't appear on a Cracky board would also at the same want - or even just be honestly able - to say that they have never even heard the names - except through me - of several people who (RavRav, I'll admit, is the exception here) form one of the deepest surviving strata of the very community that has brought "Cracky" as we know her into existence.

This (I'm sure fictive) person that you claim to be might, to the very elementary mind of a simpleton, appear to be some sort of "purist". But browse for a minute or two through the first chapter of Hegel's "Logic" on what must befall any attempt to think pure "Being" without any admixture of "Non-Being" and then consider the question: "What would such a 'purist' actually have to SAY about Cracky?"

I'm sure I don't need to elucidate further, as there are examples of it all around you on this board:

"Cracky = Cracky = Cracky = Cracky = Cracky = I LOVE CRACKY" on and on ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

You cannot speak of ANYTHING, meaningfully and productively, without speaking also of what is OTHER than that thing. That is an elementary truth of philosophy.

And the ironic thing that I have noticed about the people who affect to "have no egos" and just repeat "I love Cracky, I love Cracky" over and over again is that the only thing that ends up having meaning in their enunciations is the "I". Their mantra becomes not a means to "selflessness" but an endless drone of self-assertion.

I don't know whether Fate is issuing an oracle to you or to me in decreeing that the vericode for this post is: "cessare", Italian for "(for God's sake) STOP!

>>33
That's Kimi?

Looks like she's getting back to her well-heeled Oxford roots in that photo.

Last time I saw her was on MFC with RavRav reeling and thrashng about among a mass of dildoes and empty Pepsi-Cola cans like something out of the 120 Days of bleedin' Salo.

I've been here as long as Mero, and probably stiI'll be here long after you have gone.
Before you all shit all over him and put him on the defensive he wrote some hilarious tl;dr
You made him this way. You took someone who wasn't net savvy and harried him untill he was spitting venom at friend and foe.
You made him that way, and I am just as responsible as you. It could all have been different. If the other crackyfags and myself had spoken up for him while he was getting trampled both on the boards or in TC he wouldn't have become so untrusting and on guard. For my own part I am sorry

>>35
I care nothing about what you believe or do not believe.

>without speaking also of what is OTHER than that thing

There is no need to speak of it when it walks amongst us. You are what is wrong with the Crackyverse personified. Ego, gossip, strife, drama and self righteousness; victimhood and viciousness in though and actions.

Cracky is everything that you are not. That's why you can't and won't leave. You define "the religion" by being not it. Whatever you do, drag your CH antics in here; pay girls half your age to perform prurient services; rile against what you feel is "entartete Kunst"; cry out against a hive mind that ironically only exists in your own mind, it's all the exact opposite of what it actually is.

And all because you are unable to know beauty and Cracky is beauty personified.

It's not your fault. I know that. But I can't bring myself to love you.

>>36 Yep that's Kimi alright, but it's only a thumb. Here's a better rez picture of her from her dead girl romp in the woods with Cracky.

This picture is giving me a boner right now.

>>39
Lovely photo. I mean even aside from Kimi's personal loveliness.

The bare, tangled trees and the troubled skies that somehow witness uniquely and unmistakably to what can only be an English winter... and two girls testifying helplessly to the strength and pain of being young under skies that reflect, without comfort, the tangle and trouble of their souls.

Those who have no ears to hear will never hear, but this is what I mean by the "being of Cracky" transcending nothingness only in and through what is "other" to it: the beauty of the created world and all its creatures, including those who, like Kimi, are indeed NOT HER.

>>38

> I care nothing about what you believe or do not believe.

And who the fuck are °YOU° that anyone should give a e rat's ass what you care.

> You are what is wrong with the Crackyverse personified. Ego, gossip, strife, drama and self righteousness; victimhood and viciousness in though and actions.

You've hung yourself from your own petard once again.

It seems you can't help it.

> It's not your fault. I know that. But I can't bring myself to love you.

Nobody wants YOUR kind of love faggot, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LURK MOAR, BITCH.

>>41

^Fucking this.

How five words can spark so much animosity and bitterness.
I can't bring myself to hate, but I can hope that you all can find something that makes you happy. At least I still have my Crackles

>>41
Please, noone is addressing you. Why are you even here ?

For what it's worth. It's not your fault either, although it's not because of destiny but simply because you were born an idiot. That's why I can still love you.

Cracky is all things, and thus the evil is also required. But it is always the way, that the evil do not know they are only aiding in cosmic unity, because they are driven by selfishness and hate. While the good, know that the evil is also a part of the all. Which is what allows them to be full of love for all things

>>45
I don't know if it's required, but since the Skyqueen encompasses all, that which we consider evil paradoxically must be a part of it too.

It's one of the main questions in all abrahamic religions, including our own.

>>45 Do you understand how retarded you sound.

>>43

Demonstrate your love, do the world and us a favor by ridding us of your presence. Words without conviction mean nothing.

>>48
your attempts at posting are indeed very touching to the heart. you even attached a nice picture and everything. but maybe it's time to stop posting now.

>>46
I would guess that the guy who has chosen to show off his self-perceived knowledge of the word "Abrahamic" in this post is the same guy who is blethering on about "Enochic daemons" and so on in the thread above.

I'm not in a position to critique the "charlatanisme hautement coloré d'Aleister Crowley et de ses compagnons" (sorry, I only have a French edition of Gershom Scholem here and I don't want to misquote him), but this kind of vain, pretentious jiggery-pokery with religio-philosophical terms that DO actually mean something is the major thing that annoys me about the "Cracky religionist" types.

The term "Abrahamic religion" only comprises Judaism, Christianity and Islam insofar as, and by sole reason of the fact that, all three of these religions explicitly state that the God that they worship is one and the same with the God whom the Jewish Pentateuch suggests was first explicitly recognized as the One God by Abraham, the first of the Patriarchs of Judaism.

To talk about "Cracky worship" as an "Abrahamic religion" is an absolute nonsense because Abraham plays exactly NO role in the set of beliefs - insofar as these beliefs have any substance or consistency at all - that have grown up amongst you people about Cracky.

The random claim - which I'm sure one of you will now feel inclined to come back with - that the "Cracky religion" is "Abrahamic" because the God that Abraham worshipped was actually a Goddess, and the Sky Queen, is just another additional piece of nonsense because it robs the term "Abrahamic" of all specific sense and meaning.

If you are claiming that you can substitute the particular "divine Cracky principle" that you claim to believe in for the specific understandng of the Divine Principle we find in the story of Abraham, then you have as much right to claim that this "divine Cracky principle" is "really" behind the beliefs expressed and defended by ANY religious or purportedly religious tradition.

"Your own religion", then, would be quite as much a "Hindu-istic", "voodoo-istic", "theosophistic", or "Scientologistic" religion as it is an "Abrahamic" one.

Or, in other words, your use of the term "Abrahamic" would be revealed for what it is - a vain, sad, puffed-up attempt to put yourself across as the "serious thinkng man" you quite evidently are not and never will be.

>>50
Oh, be quiet little green man.

"Abrahamic" exactly as it is meant.

I suggest posting more stuff like >>40 which is, for once, actually useful, instead of trying to level up again in your litle game of Douchecraft.

Focus people keep on track. This thread was created to answer a simple question, and as such has a simple answer. Alex is not a douche, although most of you are acting like douche bags.

>>52

get your own shtick, faggot

>>53
Hark a wild faggot, while it is to see them in the real world it is quite common to see them in their natural habitat.

>>54
And that is your comeback ? I make a delightful joke about your uninspired and dreary attempt to troll along riding on someone else's effort (shtick, faggot, with a faggot being a bundle of sticks of course. Teehee ^_^), and you just crank out a generic "hark snark faggot is teh gay" reply ?

What did I tell you about not posting stupid things ?

Your post is bad and you should feel bad. Don't do it again, please.

>>55
Well fuck you right in the mouth don't tell me what to do you double nigger

hey Alex, stay out of other people's religion and you wont be the douche that keeps trying to convince others he is the serious thinking man none of them are

just be serious, and think

you'll find yourself constantly anmnoyed at someone who has an education but uses it only for beefing up the uneducated bullshit he spews about whatever his ridiculously twisted imagination conjures up about "these people" he found on the internet

you know, "les autres", "l'enfer personnifié"

what you came here looking for

you are acting like the imaginated asses you describe, as you always do

that is why you are most definitely a douche, taking dumps on a pile of shit bla bla bla

not on account of some prejudice against your age, education or "life choices", but quite simply on account of your constant douche behavior and wildly off mark rants having much more to do with what bugs you in your own life than anything that is actually here

so fuck you too, douchebag

cause there is nothing more efficient to get you hated by a person than constantly pissing on what that person holds sacred, whether it is actually sacred or not

>>55

> What did I tell you about not posting stupid things ?

The implied message is "Do as I say, not as I do".

To which our reply is an elegantly simple, "Fuck you".

Go be a whiney bitch someplace else.

>>57
Didn't get much out of that except the Sartre reference.
I just came back from the Café Flore!!!
Well, actually no. They charge 15 Euro for a cup of coffee in there these days, so it all goes on behind "Huis Clos" as far as I'm concerned.
But yeah, sorry, I suppose I was coming down on the "Alex is a douche" side myself there for a moment.
I suppose the thing to do is to show how "I would do it differently" - and I'll be doing that in a day or two, with the promised Shelob the Hipster post - just as soon as I've got this pile of work off my desk.

>>58

>The implied message is "Do as I say, not as I do".

Nope, there isn't an "implied message". It's actually just "stop posting stupid things".
You and your silly conspiracies.

>To which our reply is an elegantly simple, "Fuck you".

How is that elegant in any way ? If anything it's stupid, and what did I write to you about posting stupid things ? Exactly! Don't do it.

But I have the feeling you're going around in circles. I'd say stupid circles, but somehow the meaning of the word "stupid" seems to be lost on you.
So I'll just ask you to stop posting entirely, and you'll see that your stupid posts will stop happening automatically, as if by magic.

Are the two people arguing in this thread actually only one person?

>>60
No. You're stupid. Stop posting.

>>61
Maybe

>>62
Are you, by any chance, a girl ?

I don't know; your attempt to display your anger just sort of strikes me as particularly cute&sweet for some reason. It's endearing, in a strange and unsettling kind of way.

>>64
ty (._.)

Now this is exactly what I've been talking about, for weeks now.

One gentleman used a clearly incorrect term- "Abrahamic"- to describe the ad hoc Cracky religion, which is indeed cobbled from a variety of existing traditions, but has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham.

So Alex sets him straight with a few facts. That's called critique.

The response was a few posts by apparently nasty five year olds who completely ignored the content of Alex's post (valuable and useful) and posted a few witless, and childish insults (worthless and useless).

If the Crackyverse is imagined to be immune from critique, then it will be exactly as close minded, retarded, and divorced from reality as is, say- Christianity.

Protip: Christians are deluded retards. If they are not, it means they are not really Christians.

>>66
I still think acid is a sacrement. Drop some windowpane and layout in the grass watching the invisible strings that connect lives together all around all the time

>>66
Not incorrect. Alex' usual strawman (i.e. you are all the same and against me) was incorrect.

Some seem to like the magick/occult angle of the Skyqueen, some see clear indications of an Abrahamic foundation underlying it all, and some see both or something else completely different.

Alex typically and conveniently picks the wrong one, groups everything together, and riles on about how different things aren't the same even though they were never presented in that manner.

The way you lap up his logical fallacies without second thought is ironic, to say the least.

>>66

In fact, you seem nice enough, I'll try to explain why he's such a douche.

1- "I would guess that the guy who has chosen to show off his self-perceived knowledge of the word "Abrahamic" in this post is the same guy who is blethering on about "Enochic daemons" and so on in the thread above."

That's a wrong assumption; part of his "everyone here but me, sparkling flower of illumination, is homogenous" idea.

2- "I'm not in a position to critique the "charlatanisme hautement coloré d'Aleister Crowley et de ses compagnons" (sorry, I only have a French edition of Gershom Scholem here and I don't want to misquote him), but this kind of vain, pretentious jiggery-pokery with religio-philosophical terms that DO actually mean something is the major thing that annoys me about the "Cracky religionist" types."

The usual "story of his life": intellectual sounding trivia about his own person with no bearing on the discussion. Also, more one-single-group-against-me talk.

3- "The term "Abrahamic religion" only comprises Judaism, Christianity and Islam insofar as, and by sole reason of the fact that, all three of these religions explicitly state that the God that they worship is one and the same with the God whom the Jewish Pentateuch suggests was first explicitly recognized as the One God by Abraham, the first of the Patriarchs of Judaism."

Good stuff. Actual information.

4- "To talk about "Cracky worship" as an "Abrahamic religion" is an absolute nonsense because Abraham plays exactly NO role in the set of beliefs - insofar as these beliefs have any substance or consistency at all - that have grown up amongst you people about Cracky."

Acceptable; arguable. Stuff for a discussion.

5- "The random claim - which I'm sure one of you will now feel inclined to come back with - that the "Cracky religion" is "Abrahamic" because the God that Abraham worshipped was actually a Goddess, and the Sky Queen, is just another additional piece of nonsense because it robs the term "Abrahamic" of all specific sense and meaning."

Wrong speculation, but just a misunderstanding so far.

6- "If you are claiming that you can substitute the particular "divine Cracky principle" that you claim to believe in for the specific understandng of the Divine Principle we find in the story of Abraham, then you have as much right to claim that this "divine Cracky principle" is "really" behind the beliefs expressed and defended by ANY religious or purportedly religious tradition."

Saved by the "if", but really a little too sharp for a line of thought that might be based on speculation.

7- ""Your own religion", then, would be quite as much a "Hindu-istic", "voodoo-istic", "theosophistic", or "Scientologistic" religion as it is an "Abrahamic" one."

False conclusion off a false premise.

8- "Or, in other words, your use of the term "Abrahamic" would be revealed for what it is - a vain, sad, puffed-up attempt to put yourself across as the "serious thinkng man" you quite evidently are not and never will be."

Chest beating and a sacrifice to the god of irony.

Now 3,4 and 5 would have made for an excellent post. Throw in 6 or 7 for a bit of trolling to spice everything up a little.
But 1, 2 and 8 are just plain douchery; no critique, nothing valuable or useful, just purely Alex' selfindulgence and delusions.

>>69
A succinct and laudable effort. You put all the elements on this thread and tore them down. Sifting through the rubble you managed to find the treasures that were buried.

>>45

>>Cracky is all things, and thus the evil is also required. But it is always the way, that the evil do not know they are only aiding in cosmic unity, because they are driven by selfishness and hate. While the good, know that the evil is also a part of the all. Which is what allows them to be full of love for all things

Its in this way, that Cracky can favor only one, because where love is given it is got, and hatred breeds death. The duality extends to all depths, even into the heart of Cracky herself. So that she needs not give equal favor to each side, even though each is equal in the universe

>>70
This kind of thing is even worse than the Crowleyisms and the original misuse of the term "Abrahamic".
There is nothing in the least "succinct and laudable" about the post you praise.
It dismantles a clearly structured argument and makes various undemonstrated assertions about the dismantled parts of it, as if they had no relation to one another, concluding that the whole thing is a "false conclusion off a false premiss" without making any attempt to explain HOW the premiss is wrong or just what the RIGHT premiss may be.

Leaving aside all the "magick" and so on - which I mentioned only because the "Crowleyist" and the guy who used the term "Abrahamic" adopted, it seems to me, a very similar tone of pseudo-cultured authority - the central question I raised was:

Is Crackyism an "Abrahamic" religion in ANY sense that a competent historian of religion would accept as meaningful?

Or is it only "Abrahamic" in some crackpot sense that a Theosophist or a Scientologist might seize on to endow their eclectic jumble of mystical verbiage with the (false) dignity of a real and profound religious tradition (i.e. the sense that the "faith" demanded of Abraham by his God was "really" faith in Abraham's true being as an extraterrestrial "Thetan" maroooned in a terrestrial body or some such asinine shite).

The question of whether I am "drawing false conclusions from false premisses" in my post can only be decided if you explain JUST WHAT THE PREMISSES OF CRACKYISM are in this respect - and, yes, if you wish, you may confine your answer to the beliefs of those Crackyists who "emphasize the Abrahamic aspect"

>>72
Morning Alex. Did the upstairs neighbors keep you up all night?

>>72
These are the arguments I miss.

Anyways my limited view of what others have made of Cracky isn't really shared. There is a trinity of sorts but it is definitely rooted in my family's Catholic faith. That is about the extent of influence on her. There is Olivia the vessel for Cracky to be able to manifest her will on earth, and then there is the Sky Queen who is above all guiding the world ever so slightly through the use of her avatars. Note the plural. There was a period where I would shut myself away in my room for days at a time reading. I kept seeing these parallels between all these historical figures. And hop skip and a hikikomori life style my sanity started peeling away. I don't know if there is a way to manifest like these guys are talking about, but if there is a way, I would do it no matter the cost. I have a feeling that she would enjoy my suffering.

>>74
Also the girl in that pic isn't as pretty and Beckii Cruel. I bet she can't dance either

>>75
She's a cunt irl. Typical meme spouting tumblr bitch.

>>72
So, instead of simply saying "Oops, my bad" and taking it from there, you rattle on in exactly the same vein without as much of a hint that you were somehow wrong in your assumptions and petulant in your behaviour ?

>the central question I raised was:

No, "the central strawman you posed was:"

>if you explain JUST WHAT THE PREMISSES OF CRACKYISM are in this respect

You could have, you know, just asked, instead of behaving like a sycophant.

> and, yes, if you wish, you may confine your answer to the beliefs of those Crackyists who "emphasize the Abrahamic aspect"

And yet still you genuinely wonder why people don't want to engage in conversation with someone whose unwarranted verbal abuse borders on the sociopathic ?

>>76
Who gives a shit, she is absolutely adorable.

>>76
I have a tumblr, and it is kittens and death. What is wrong with tumblr?

>>78 Nope, in FACT, she's an ugly cunt camwhore.
lrn2 evaluate poontang.

Pic directly related.

>>80
You are quite certainly of the homosexual persuasion, and there for your perception of the beauty of females is fundemently flawed.

It's okay nothing wrong with not getting it. I am sure if someone asked me to chose who was most atractive in a photograph of some dudes I would get it wrong.

So don't beat yourself up over it. Just remembered the next time a thread like this pops up, pull your hands away from the keyboard and just watch.

was I really arguing with myself in this thread?

>>82 I doubt it. I've been around long enough to count at least five distinct people in this epic faggot thread, not including myself. So six if anyone believes me. I suspect it's been more than six people posting in here. At any rate, despite the inevitable faggotry, it seems to me that while a few ferociously object to Alex, it's also true that several people are glad to have him around bounceme.

TIE.