/lit/ - Literature

>>1840246

E. Everybody finds you repugnant.
F. Your ego makes it impossible for you to learn or improve - you think the correct response to overwhelming negative criticism is try and defend your position.
G. You are a sophist.
H. You are not a holistic, creative thinker, you are a fact checker.
I. Either you are horrendously lazy or you are horrendously stupid. Consider - you've gone to all the effort required to have a person forum for your *art* [snigger] and yet you have no quality control on what you display there. Either half the shit was written in minutes and then never looked at again, or it is the result of hard work and editing. Former - lazy, latter -stupid.
J. You have a smug sense of entitlement - you think you deserve something for this lazy crap you shit.
K. You think that looking brooding, having an ashtray overflowing with cigarettes, and pouring over heavily edited manuscripts makes you a writer. It doesn't. It makes you a shithead.
L. You are too old for this shit.
M. "Samuel has never apologized for anything he has written, and he never will." LOL

>First and foremost, I do owe you an apology.

What was that then, fagballs?

I have nothing more to say to you, you repulse me and deserve to be ridiculed rather than seen as an opponent. Feel free to leave this board and never return, and you know, the same thing goes for the planet.

>>1540606

You give me too much credit, I appropriated that from Friends. It's true anyway, bubba.

>>1532694

Being a man of some erudition I often lurk/post here anonymously, in this instance I happened to forget to take the trip off.

>>1532690
>>1532691

>mfw you silly monkeys proved my superiority by getting upset.