/lit/ - Literature

>>2241357
>>2241357
>Calls others pretentious but flaunts woefully misguided opinions on literature, i.e. ironically pretentious himself because he pretends to know something about literature

Anyone else think this Deist kid's not worth our time?

>>2074546
>Bro, I'm not going to read Moore for you.
I've read it, I just wondered if you could turn a goose turd into a golden egg but that's for the alchemists and the fairy tale writers, and yes, you are really stupid enough to give Moore the support you do.

>You're at the forefront of analytic philosophy and shit, you should be able to handle it.
2/10

>Far as I can tell you come here to type a lot to defend your e-reputation.
My 'e-reputation'? I'm probably the least well known regular poster. Pretty much deep and onion know who I am and what I'm about. So no, that won't wash. I'm here to demean because it's great fun, that's final.

>It's the difference between the past and the present, bro. I wasn't hating before, but I was then.
This is piss poor. I'm crying for the intellectual state of wherever you're at, unless you travel to it in the short bus in which case, I might have to be a bit more compassionate. If you are indeed, the anon who said here >>2074439, that 'the position you sketched out is pants on head retarded,' and I'm pretty sure that you are, you came into this thing with contempt to boot and really brought this whole thing on your head. It won't stop as I say until your intellect is dragged ragged through the mud and left to fester in stagnant water; in other words, you'll be feeling worse afterwards and, as if i've outlined, won't have any moral justification for it. This whole moral politicking you did well to introduce into this discourse but politicking that ended up being of little use.

>>2056557
coming from the man who's OP'd millions of recommendation threads but reduced none to the absurdity of that designation