Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

They are not working, or maybe 16 hours per week to claim WTC, they are claiming all other possible benefits, living in a private rent (couldn't get a council house, hence the hostility toward me for being lucky enough to get one), they are probably a single person in their late 40s, early 50s, with no family, struggling to pay off their own debts on credit cards and loans (they have racked up buying plasma tvs, laptops etc.)

To elaborate further,

with their anarchist views, as demonstrated by their signature, they were probably in a minority group at school punk, goth, anarchist, they were probably bullied too. Which further explains the argumentative nature they now have.

I might add, Anarchist views which they uphold:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society"

Until they realise that is the state that pays their benefits, so their anarchist views are all a bit confused, like all of the posts they have made on this thread.

Also, what makes you say I hold anarchist views?
Are you now going around applying the beliefs of author of quotes to everyone that posts a quote on their profile? :rotfl::rotfl:

Is there no end to your random idiocy?:rotfl:

Deepmistrust

If you genuinely want to learn something about his work, you could do worse than start on a few easier books, especially as you have shown a keen interest in spell-checks:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HMtLMhwCXDoC&dq=noam+chomsky+theory+of+language+development&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=qBISTK_EBJOt4Qa9wOysCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CEMQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Maybe progress onto something even more thought provoking (heaven forbid!)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CLJiAAAAMAAJ&q=chomsky+books&dq=chomsky+books&lr=&cd=2

liam8282

Deepmistrust:

They are not working, or maybe 16 hours per week to claim WTC, they are claiming all other possible benefits, living in a private rent (couldn't get a council house, hence the hostility toward me for being lucky enough to get one), they are probably a single person in their late 40s, early 50s, with no family, struggling to pay off their own debts on credit cards and loans (they have racked up buying plasma tvs, laptops etc.)

To elaborate further,

with their anarchist views, as demonstrated by their signature, they were probably in a minority group at school punk, goth, anarchist, they were probably bullied too. Which further explains the argumentative nature they now have.

I might add, Anarchist views which they uphold:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society"

Until they realise that is the state that pays their benefits, so their anarchist views are all a bit confused, like all of the posts they have made on this thread.

To elaborate even further,

There anarchist perspective gives them an outlet to vent their frustrations at the corporations, such as the credit card companies and banks he owes money too.

Using anarchist ideology, they can vent their fury at companies daring to want their money back with interest. But they freely ignored their own anarchist values when going to the companies in the first place, cap in hand, because they wanted the cash for the new 50" plasma. They freely signed up accepting the terms that those companies offered, regardless of their own values on anarchism.

They use their anarchist theories to support their arguments against the state and society that has treated them so badly, with their bullying at school, failure to get a council property, what they view as not getting enough cash for doing next to nothing.

Yet they brush them under the carpet every time their benefits are received.

Due to their erratic posting nature, I suspect they may also be currently suffering from stress or anxiety problems.

Probably because their only outlet are their argumentative posts on faceless internet forums. Maybe due to the fact they have no family or friends, probably because of their bitterness towards anyone who dare to have an opinion different to that of their own.

I also suspect that they may have a current or past, drink and / or drug problem. This again would explain a lot.

Another suspicion of my own, is that they are a short person, who wears glasses.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Also, what makes you say I hold anarchist views?
Are you now going around applying the beliefs of author of quotes to everyone that posts a quote on their profile? :rotfl::rotfl:

Is there no end to your random idiocy?:rotfl:

I am merely using your own logic as you have demonstrated on several threads, and have applied this logic to you.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Deepmistrust:

They are not working, or maybe 16 hours per week to claim WTC, they are claiming all other possible benefits, living in a private rent (couldn't get a council house, hence the hostility toward me for being lucky enough to get one), they are probably a single person in their late 40s, early 50s, with no family, struggling to pay off their own debts on credit cards and loans (they have racked up buying plasma tvs, laptops etc.)

To elaborate further,

with their anarchist views, as demonstrated by their signature, they were probably in a minority group at school punk, goth, anarchist, they were probably bullied too. Which further explains the argumentative nature they now have.

I might add, Anarchist views which they uphold:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society"

Until they realise that is the state that pays their benefits, so their anarchist views are all a bit confused, like all of the posts they have made on this thread.

To elaborate even further,

There anarchist perspective gives them an outlet to vent their frustrations at the corporations, such as the credit card companies and banks he owes money too.

Using anarchist ideology, they can vent their fury at companies daring to want their money back with interest. But they freely ignored their own anarchist values when going to the companies in the first place, cap in hand, because they wanted the cash for the new 50" plasma. They freely signed up accepting the terms that those companies offered, regardless of their own values on anarchism.

They use their anarchist theories to support their arguments against the state and society that has treated them so badly, with their bullying at school, failure to get a council property, what they view as not getting enough cash for doing next to nothing.

Yet they brush them under the carpet every time their benefits are received.

Due to their erratic posting nature, I suspect they may also be currently suffering from stress or anxiety problems.

Probably because their only outlet are their argumentative posts on faceless internet forums. Maybe due to the fact they have no family or friends, probably because of their bitterness towards anyone who dare to have an opinion different to that of their own.

I also suspect that they may have a current or past, drink and / or drug problem. This again would explain a lot.

Another suspicion of my own, is that they are a short person, who wears glasses.

I guess irony is not a strong trait either ^ :rotfl:

You have a wicked imagination. What do you have against people who wear glasses btw? Surely not going to do the "four eyes" routine too?

It always amuses me when a poster spends hours on here ranting about another posters "erratic" (Hahaha wft) posting nature :rotfl:
whislt simultanously accusing THEM of being unemployed

I'm also assuming the Chomsky links were a little...dare I say it...beyond you perhaps?

POPPYOSCAR

liam8282 wrote: »

Deepmistrust:

They are not working, or maybe 16 hours per week to claim WTC, they are claiming all other possible benefits, living in a private rent (couldn't get a council house, hence the hostility toward me for being lucky enough to get one), they are probably a single person in their late 40s, early 50s, with no family, struggling to pay off their own debts on credit cards and loans (they have racked up buying plasma tvs, laptops etc.)

To elaborate further,

with their anarchist views, as demonstrated by their signature, they were probably in a minority group at school punk, goth, anarchist, they were probably bullied too. Which further explains the argumentative nature they now have.

I might add, Anarchist views which they uphold:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society"

Until they realise that is the state that pays their benefits, so their anarchist views are all a bit confused, like all of the posts they have made on this thread.

To elaborate even further,

There anarchist perspective gives them an outlet to vent their frustrations at the corporations, such as the credit card companies and banks he owes money too.

Using anarchist ideology, they can vent their fury at companies daring to want their money back with interest. But they freely ignored their own anarchist values when going to the companies in the first place, cap in hand, because they wanted the cash for the new 50" plasma. They freely signed up accepting the terms that those companies offered, regardless of their own values on anarchism.

They use their anarchist theories to support their arguments against the state and society that has treated them so badly, with their bullying at school, failure to get a council property, what they view as not getting enough cash for doing next to nothing.

Yet they brush them under the carpet every time their benefits are received.

Due to their erratic posting nature, I suspect they may also be currently suffering from stress or anxiety problems.

Probably because their only outlet are their argumentative posts on faceless internet forums. Maybe due to the fact they have no family or friends, probably because of their bitterness towards anyone who dare to have an opinion different to that of their own.

I also suspect that they may have a current or past, drink and / or drug problem. This again would explain a lot.

Another suspicion of my own, is that they are a short person, who wears glasses.

I have a different vision. A Spotty teenager holed up in his bedroom on his laptop 24/7.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

I am merely using your own logic as you have demonstrated on several threads, and have applied this logic to you.

Ah, so I have regularly applied the beliefs of the author of quotes that people display on their profiles to them?

Hahaha. Oh deary deary me. :rotfl: I'm so glad I found you Liam. Hours of endless entertainment.

Deepmistrust

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I have a different vision. A Spotty teenager holed up in his bedroom on his laptop 24/7.

Now you have something against kids with spots? I imagine you're a grown man, who hangs around outside secondary schools to call kids spotty?

Scary stuff.:eek:

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I'm also assuming the Chomsky links were a little...dare I say it...beyond you perhaps?

Has this site turned into Mastermind now, Deepmistrust you have 60 seconds to answer questions on your chosen subject.....

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I have no interest in the person.

You do and you seem to hold his opinions with the highest regard, thus implying that you hold the same values and opinions.

Yet you dismiss these as and when it suits your current argument.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Has this site turned into Mastermind now, Deepmistrust you have 60 seconds to answer questions on your chosen subject.....

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I have no interest in the person.

You do and you seem to hold his opinions with the highest regard, thus implying that you hold the same values and opinions.

Yet you dismiss these as and when it suits your current argument.

You have no interest in the person, yet you are the one that brought him into the subject and (poorly) attemted to not only attribute his views to me, but (even more poorly) attempted to deride his views, now finally you admit you haven't an inkling about the man, or his work. Hahaha. The stupidity continues.:rotfl:

Which brings me to my question. What do you have against people with glasses, and why do you attempt (poorly - again) to use the use of glasses as some kind of "insult"? And why do you think anyone would be insulted by your child-like banality?