NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I blame capitalism and commercialism, in a society when people care about the community they wouldn't be so arrogant and rude.

Personally I blame capitalism and commercialism, in a society when people care about the community they wouldn't be so arrogant and rude.

Jesus Christ, man, can you even go 2 seconds without trolling? :rolleyes:

Personally I blame capitalism and commercialism, in a society when people care about the community they wouldn't be so arrogant and rude.
One of these days you'll have to tell me whose puppet you are...

=====================

Undelia is right though. Maybe we should ask very nicely in the mod forum whether they can allow a bit more wriggling room when it comes to these things. The spamming, the blogs (and the feeling of knowing the other poster that you get from it) and the various party threads are all part of it...even though I rarely participate in them, I think it might just get a bit dry and boring without them.

So if any of the mods read this...how about it?

Jesus Christ, man, can you even go 2 seconds without trolling? :rolleyes:

Trolling? Your definitions need work.

Personally I blame capitalism and commercialism, in a society when people care about the community they wouldn't be so arrogant and rude.
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2824/thatfuckingcatpyramidehlf1.jpg
IF ONCE MORE YON ACCVRSED COMMIE FINDS ITSELF AMDIST MY GAZE

One of these days you'll have to tell me whose puppet you are...


If I were a puppet somehow I think my IP would have given me away by now. Or is it unthinkable that someone on this forum disagrees with your reactionary racist BS.

Trolling? Your definitions need work.

Trolling = Deliberately posting stupid and/or nonsensical posts just to stir people up

Trolling = Deliberately posting stupid and/or nonsensical posts just to stir people up

No, you chose to take it that way, not my fault you get upset when someone states the truth and you find it upsetting.

No, you chose to take it that way, not my fault you get upset when someone states the truth and you find it upsetting.

Blaming "plastic surgery," "rudeness," etc. on an economic system is, quite frankly, trolling, and hardly "the truth."

Personally I blame capitalism and commercialism, in a society when people care about the community they wouldn't be so arrogant and rude.Yep... those ads really did this forum in. :p

If I were a puppet somehow I think my IP would have given me away by now. Or is it unthinkable that someone on this forum disagrees with your reactionary racist BS.... only the mods can check IP's. ;)

Nope. Part of taking a one or more level dip into the Geek prestige class is that your first level power is "Understand Game". IMO, it's not quite as good as the third level powers "Imbue Chair" and "Favored Enemy: Dungeon Master", but it has it's uses.don't forget "Imube Caffene," "Survival: Snacks" and the all powerful "Dice stack" :p

Blaming "plastic surgery," "rudeness," etc. on an economic system is, quite frankly, trolling, and hardly "the truth."

It's an economic system which encourages excess capital production, which in turn creates decadence, waste and over concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite. If people were to actually care about their fellow man then they wouldn't act in such a manner.

If people were to actually care about their fellow man then they wouldn't act in such a manner.

Whether people care about their fellow man or not hardly depends on an economic system.

If I were a puppet somehow I think my IP would have given me away by now.
It's just that your post then was probably the most unmotivated thing I've seen in six months, which leads me to believe you did it for comedic value.

Or is it unthinkable that someone on this forum disagrees with your reactionary racist BS.
Obviously not. But then, life would be boring if no one did.

You obviously know very little and need to read more

Pot. Kettle. Black.

our economic reality decides the way our society runs, an economic system geared for profit and not for equitable consumption will be mirrored in that society.

Prove it.

Prove it.
See: Modern World.
Read: Das Kapital.

See: Modern World.

Okay.

Read: Das Kapital.

I did. And utter shit, it is.

I did. And utter shit, it is.

Now I know your full of crap, that or you couldn't understand it.

Now I know your full of crap, that or you couldn't understand it.

You know it is possible to disagree with something while still understanding it...

Now I know your full of crap, that or you couldn't understand it.

I could understand it. Which is why I regard it as crap.

I could understand it. Which is why I regard it as crap.

No, your lying, because someone who had read it and properly understood it in an economic context would never have said that, even most economists today understand the theories and implications of consumption labor in aforementioned economic context. Saying it's 'crap' only proves your haven't read it and are just a child regurgitating some reactionary garbage you heard.

No, your lying, because someone who had read it and properly understood it in an economic context would never have said that, even most economists today understand the theories and implications of consumption labor in aforementioned economic context. Saying it's 'crap' only proves your haven't read it and are just a child regurgitating some reactionary garbage you heard.

It is crap. Most if not all of Marx's ideas - especially the labor theory of value - have been refuted to death so many times, it's not even funny.

No, your lying, because someone who had read it and properly understood it in an economic context would never have said that, even most economists today understand the theories and implications of consumption labor in aforementioned economic context. Saying it's 'crap' only proves your haven't read it and are just a child regurgitating some reactionary garbage you heard.

Ahh, so if he doesn't agree with what he's read, he's either lying or "regurgitating reactionary garbage."

AP, face it. Communism is dead. The Cold War's over. You lost. Get over it.

Now I know your full of crap, that or you couldn't understand it.
So someone can't disagree with the bleak picture painted by those two? One can't think that people are more than just cogs in some giant wheel?

I don't know whether you're aware, but Marx is just one of plenty of (mostly German) philosophers who for a while were obsessed with making human beings as inconsequential as they could. They all tried to present history (and perhaps ultimately forecast it) as a struggle between opposing forces. For Herder it was "peoples" (or rather their spirits), which lead straight down the path to Hitler and company*, and Marx' fetish just happened to be the material, economic situation.

Some of us don't like that way of looking at things. In my view, any philosophy that doesn't focus on the human being is misguided. Marx' message is that humans have no choice, that we're a product of our economic situation. There's no ethics in Marxism (funnily enough, that's what his dialectic teaches though he probably would have contradicted himself defending the notion that capitalism is unjust), no good people. It adds nothing to us as people.

So yeah, one can read Das Kapital and find it crap without being a bad person, misinformed or even prejudiced.

*and that's how you do a Godwin.

AP, face it. Communism is dead. The Cold War's over. You lost. Get over it.

A) No, it's not. China is still Communist.
B) The idea of communism is dead; the idea of Marxism isn't.

And the last still proves the OP right.

A) No, it's not. China is still Communist.

Ruled by a Communist Party, but not communist.

B) The idea of communism is dead; the idea of Marxism isn't.

Neither are dead (unfortunately).

Ruled by a Communist Party, but not communist.



Neither are dead (unfortunately).

Wait... why is (unfortunately).

Sure, it's unfortunate that Communism is dead. But not Marxism!

It is crap. Most if not all of Marx's ideas - especially the labor theory of value - have been refuted to death so many times, it's not even funny.

The only problem is the correct implementation, which I think democratic socialism is the answer to, that is devolved socialism using subsidies and welfare on a local scale, such as has been maintained in Scandinavia (especially Finland) for seventy years without economic downturn or significant change. The 'collapse' of the USSR was a political crisis and had nothing to do with economics, those who phrase it that way are simply opportunistically wishing to perpetuate their own reactionary interests.

A theory of political and economic equality is indisputable as a worthy goal, and in the context of democratic socialism their is no valid refutation of it save that those refuting it are themselves with upper class elite interests that they wish to protect.

A) No, it's not. China is still Communist.

Hahahah. Nah, really, it's not. Nike have factories all over the place.

B) The idea of communism is dead; the idea of Marxism isn't.

Marxism IS communism. Marxism is just a different way to get to communism, as opposed to Leninism.

Hahahah. Nah, really, it's not. Nike have factories all over the place.



Marxism IS communism. Marxism is just a different way to get to communism, as opposed to Leninism.

No, your obviously extremely uneducated if you think this. Communism existed far far before Marx was a twinkle in his mothers eye.

Hahahah. Nah, really, it's not. Nike have factories all over the place.



Marxism IS communism. Marxism is just a different way to get to communism, as opposed to Leninism.

Wow, that's funny.

Marxism is the idea that people should be equal. Marxist-Leninism is communism. It's a hybrid of the two.

The only problem is the correct implementation, which I think democratic socialism is the answer to, that is devolved socialism using subsidies and welfare on a local scale, such as has been maintained in Scandinavia (especially Finland) for seventy years without economic downturn or significant change.

The Scandinavian countries aren't socialist. They're capitalist with extensive social safety nets.

The 'collapse' of the USSR was a political crisis and had nothing to do with economics

But it did.

those who phrase it that way are simply opportunistically wishing to perpetuate their own reactionary interests.

No, they're simply right.

lulz, commie threadjack

The Scandinavian countries aren't socialist. They're capitalist with extensive social safety nets.


Now your have proved you know nothing, because if you did you'd know that socialism is not communism or capitalism, but a mixed economy of both in a transition to communism. If your going to say Scandinavia is a bad example of socialism because it has capitalist aspect then you have just proved my point and your lack of knowledge.

Sure, it's unfortunate that Communism is dead. But not Marxism!
Well, what does Marxism have to offer?

Material dialecticism? I covered that, I find it a horrible idea with horrible implications for our lives. It's also been rather shaky as a forecasting tool.

Labour Theory of Value? Well, that's been largely shot to pieces.

Alienation? I suppose that's one area that hasn't been disproven completely, though it hardly seems to be as all-pervasive as he suggested.

Class? The whole idea of class has become irrelevant in developed economies. AP is gonna have a heart attack when he reads this, but fact of the matter is that seperate classes like the ones in Marx' time are no longer around. There's still social rigidities and a lack of social mobility, but the boundaries have blurred quite a lot already. As a predicting tool it's pretty worthless.

Revolution? The problem with that is that really a Marxist revolution only makes sense once scarcity is pretty much solved and capitalism is collapsing. So any popular movement towards a revolution is misguided. A revolution isn't caused by people but by the economic and historical conditions. And even then it doesn't appeal to me personally even though I'm in the low income brackets which might gain.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat? That's probably the most thoroughly refuted part of it. All the "communist" dictatorships were in fact modelled on this, and they were all fervent Marxists trying to bridge the shortcomings in Marxist theory, thereby killing millions of inconsequential cogs in the wheel of history.

So no, there's not a whole lot left that Marxism has got going for it. I'd say that Marxism is dead, though maybe various forms of left anarchism aren't.

Now your have proved you know nothing...

Easy there. Debate, don't flame.

Now your have proved you know nothing, because if you did you'd know that socialism is not communism or capitalism, but a mixed economy of both in a transition to communism. If your going to say Scandinavia is a bad example of socialism because it has capitalist aspect then you have just proved my point and your lack of knowledge.

Really now, I think quite a few Scandinavians would be surprised to find out that they are on there way to communism. In any case, please go start your own thread about communism and capitalism and whatnot.:)

This thread is for forum nostalgia/regret and apparently D&D talk.

Wow, that's funny.

Marxism is the idea that people should be equal. Marxist-Leninism is communism. It's a hybrid of the two.

Not how I learned it. I was taught that Marxist theory was that each system had to be run through, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, to reach communism. Leninism dictated that the revolution must be brought around as quickly as possible, skipping right over capitalism and turning most agricultural, semi-feudal Russia into a communist society as soon as possible.

That was the major divide between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Bolshies wanted to adapt/twist Marx's theories to the Russian situation, while the Mensheviks wanted to stick to his theory.

Neu Leonstein, your just going to have to accept that it's inevitable that capital will collapse when the eventual crisis of overproduction comes.

Really now, I think quite a few Scandinavians would be surprised to find out that they are on there way to communism.

Just wanna clear this up, but all those countries that are called "socialist" these days, like Sweden and shit, really aren't.

Well, what does Marxism have to offer?

Material dialecticism? I covered that, I find it a horrible idea with horrible implications for our lives. It's also been rather shaky as a forecasting tool.

Labour Theory of Value? Well, that's been largely shot to pieces.

Alienation? I suppose that's one area that hasn't been disproven completely, though it hardly seems to be as all-pervasive as he suggested.

Class? The whole idea of class has become irrelevant in developed economies. AP is gonna have a heart attack when he reads this, but fact of the matter is that seperate classes like the ones in Marx' time are no longer around. There's still social rigidities and a lack of social mobility, but the boundaries have blurred quite a lot already. As a predicting tool it's pretty worthless.

Revolution? The problem with that is that really a Marxist revolution only makes sense once scarcity is pretty much solved and capitalism is collapsing. So any popular movement towards a revolution is misguided. A revolution isn't caused by people but by the economic and historical conditions. And even then it doesn't appeal to me personally even though I'm in the low income brackets which might gain.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat? That's probably the most thoroughly refuted part of it. All the "communist" dictatorships were in fact modelled on this, and they were all fervent Marxists trying to bridge the shortcomings in Marxist theory, thereby killing millions of inconsequential cogs in the wheel of history.

So no, there's not a whole lot left that Marxism has got going for it. I'd say that Marxism is dead, though maybe various forms of left anarchism aren't.

"AP is gonna have a heart attack when he reads this." :D

I've not much to offer to debate you, since I know (nor care) little about political theory.

I just find the idea of a system driven by something other than money a bit better... even if it is labour.

And thank you for replying so I could learn a bit more about Marxism.

Now your have proved you know nothing, because if you did you'd know that socialism is not communism or capitalism, but a mixed economy of both in a transition to communism. If your going to say Scandinavia is a bad example of socialism because it has capitalist aspect then you have just proved my point and your lack of knowledge.

Except that Scandinavia is not socialist. AT ALL. They are capitalist through and through, they just have a massive welfare system.

Neu Leonstein, your just going to have to accept that it's inevitable that capital will collapse when the eventual crisis of overproduction comes.

Which? The crisis of material or human overproduction?

Explain.

Neu Leonstein, your just going to have to accept that it's inevitable that capital will collapse when the eventual crisis of overproduction comes.

And YOU'LL just have to accept that communism is GONE. The Soviet Union is GONE. China is virtually CAPITALIST. And Cuba is too small and insignificant to matter.

Neu Leonstein, your just going to have to accept that it's inevitable that capital will collapse when the eventual crisis of overproduction comes.
Who knows, maybe you're right. But so far it hasn't happened...there's still a good 4 billion or more people out there who aren't partaking much in the capitalist world economy and who'd be more than happy to have stuff produced for them.

So if a marxism-like end to capitalism will occur, it won't do so for many, many more years. And hey, once scarcity is eliminated whether you're rich or poor doesn't matter anyways since virtually everything will be free or almost free. And whether anyone will bother with a revolution then is written in the stars.

Just wanna clear this up, but all those countries that are called "socialist" these days, like Sweden and shit, really aren't.

Your debating over semantics when the truth of the matter is - the state in those countries quite literally provides most living essentials to it's citizens, eduction, welfare, etc etc, and it has done so effectively for over 70 years.

And YOU'LL just have to accept that communism is GONE. The Soviet Union is GONE. China is virtually CAPITALIST. And Cuba is too small and insignificant to matter.

And you referring to national geographical areas and populations in the context of class divisions proves your nationalist mindset and general lack of knowledge.

Your debating over semantics when the truth of the matter is - the state in those countries quite literally provides most living essentials to it's citizens, eduction, welfare, etc etc, and it has done so effectively for over 70 years.

And yet, Ikea is still privately owned. How is that?

No, your lying, because someone who had read it and properly understood it in an economic context would never have said that, even most economists today understand the theories and implications of consumption labor in aforementioned economic context. Saying it's 'crap' only proves your haven't read it and are just a child regurgitating some reactionary garbage you heard.

In other words: "Because you disagree with me, you either haven't listened to what I've been saying, or you're stupid."

Yeah. Socrates would've been proud of your debating skills, AP.

In other words: "Because you disagree with me, you either haven't listened to what I've been saying, or you're stupid."

Yeah. Socrates would've been proud of your debating skills, AP.

Once again, dogma - making the world of nutty ideas safe again.

:rolleyes:

And yet, Ikea is still privately owned. How is that?

Again, your idea of what consists of socialism (a mixture of communism/capitalism - leaning to the left) is clearly flawed. As long as the company or organization helps people in social consumption equally at a local level, it is fine.

Again, your idea of what consists of socialism (a mixture of communism/capitalism - leaning to the left) is clearly flawed. As long as the company or organization helps people in social consumption equally at a local level, it is fine.

Dude, you just threw the entire IDEA of socialism out the windows. Without the control of the means of production by the people, socialism is redundant.

Guys, Guys... Can't we all just... Get Along... :cool:

Me thinks they need some of these,


http://thesportinglife.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/chill.jpg

Dude, you just threw the entire IDEA of socialism out the windows. Without the control of the means of production by the people, socialism is redundant.

No, socialism is a transition, while the end game is clearly public ownership of resources - socialism is a mixed economy leaning strongly to the left. This also shows that people like to put black and white definitions on socialism, and also Marxism does not seclude the institution of property in general, but just a wish for a consensus labor partnership. My ideology is democratic socialism and welfare statism, which is highly influenced by the Green Book and the ideals of such people as Hjalmar Branting and Ben Chiffley.

No, socialism is a transition, while the end game is clearly public ownership of resources - socialism is a mixed economy leaning strongly to the left. This also shows that people like to put black and white definitions on socialism, and also Marxism does not seclude the institution of property in general, but just a wish for a consensus labor partnership. My ideology is democratic socialism and welfare statism, which is highly influenced by the Green Book and the ideals of such people as Hjalmar Branting and Ben Chiffley.

Socialism may be a transitional system, but it nevertheless misses the point completely without state ownership.

Socialism may be a transitional system, but it nevertheless misses the point completely without state ownership.

No, your wrong, and I have already explained why so I will not do so again.

My ideology is democratic socialism and welfare statism, which is highly influenced by the Green Book and the ideals of such people as Hjalmar Branting and Ben Chiffley.
There you go then: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/index.htm

Does that mean you will calm down in future and find "the courage to emancipate itself from a phraseology which is actually outworn"?

Me thinks they need some of these,


http://thesportinglife.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/chill.jpg

some might have to take it as a suppository... :p [jking!]

No, your obviously extremely uneducated if you think this. Communism existed far far before Marx was a twinkle in his mothers eye.
*you're

"Hurhur I bettr go lern me sum knowledges, than forgits them before going online hur."

Also those 1st world countries? Yanno, those real ones? They're all first world because of the benefits of capitalism. The whole, everybody makes money based on a mixture of luck, skill, and worth, thing.

And if you have to ever say "I already explained my argument, I won't do it again" It means you made either a very poor argument, or the recipient wasn't listening. Either way it's a bright red flag that everyone should stfu. :P

No, your wrong, and I have already explained why so I will not do so again.

All right, enough is enough. Once is a typo, two-three times is coincidence, but now this is a pattern.

Unless you're trying to say that both:

1. "Wrong" is a person place or thing and

2. That the subject is in a state of ownership of said noun

Then you're using the wrong word. I'm pretty sure you're looking for...well, "you're".

*you're

"Hurhur I bettr go lern me sum knowledges, than forgits them before going online hur."

Also those 1st world countries? Yanno, those real ones? They're all first world because of the benefits of capitalism. The whole, everybody makes money based on a mixture of luck, skill, and worth, thing.

And if you have to ever say "I already explained my argument, I won't do it again" It means you made either a very poor argument, or the recipient wasn't listening. Either way it's a bright red flag that everyone should stfu. :P

Go watch "Cool Hunters," a special aired on ABC a while back.

Then tell me capitalism is so glamorous.

All right, enough is enough. Once is a typo, two-three times is coincidence, but now this is a pattern.

Unless you're trying to say that both:

1. "Wrong" is a person place or thing and

2. That the subject is in a state of ownership of said noun

Then you're using the wrong word. I'm pretty sure you're looking for...well, "you're".

We get the point.

Don't be a grammar Nazi. I do believe that the idea of a post has infinitely more debate value than grammatical value.

*you're

"Hurhur I bettr go lern me sum knowledges, than forgits them before going online hur."

Also those 1st world countries? Yanno, those real ones? They're all first world because of the benefits of capitalism. The whole, everybody makes money based on a mixture of luck, skill, and worth, thing.

And if you have to ever say "I already explained my argument, I won't do it again" It means you made either a very poor argument, or the recipient wasn't listening. Either way it's a bright red flag that everyone should stfu. :P
Again, you fail to understand what mixed economy socialism is, you think that any state that isn't 100% communist isn't a good example. On your flawed logic, any 'capitalist' state that had any remnant of social policy (free child care etc) should never be called 'capitalist'.

We get the point.

Considering that I was the second one to bring it up, and started my reply before the first one was done...

Don't be a grammar Nazi. I do believe that the idea of a post has infinitely more debate value than grammatical value.

I don't really see much of a debate here. Just AP telling people they don't have any idea what they're talking about. He hijacked the thread anyway, so meh.

Considering that I was the second one to bring it up, and started my reply before the first one was done...

Eh. But still, it's a little bit childish to point out spelling problems.

I don't really see much of a debate here. Just AP telling people they don't have any idea what they're talking about. He hijacked the thread anyway, so meh.

And I HELPED! :D

I just meant any post has more value for a debate than spelling value. You could have a terrible speller come here and give out brilliant ideas and debate flawlessly.

On the flipside, that doesn't often happen, does it? :P

Eh. But still, it's a little bit childish to point out spelling problems.

Right, and I wouldn't have had a problem with it if it had simply been a typo, and I wouldn't have mentioned it at all had it not been for his earlier argument of "You weren't smart enough to understand it".


And I HELPED! :D

I just meant any post has more value for a debate than spelling value. You could have a terrible speller come here and give out brilliant ideas and debate flawlessly.

On the flipside, that doesn't often happen, does it? :P

Right. But none of that is happening here. :P

No, your lying, because someone who had read it and properly understood it in an economic context would never have said that, even most economists today understand the theories and implications of consumption labor in aforementioned economic context. Saying it's 'crap' only proves your haven't read it and are just a child regurgitating some reactionary garbage you heard.

Oh lord.

I appreciate some of Marx's social analysis, but is economic analysis was bunk.

All of his mathematics and his terms, such as surplus value and socially necessary labor are ad hoc attempts to make labor value and exploitation make sense. Unfortunately labor value cannot be made sensical and because of that his whole economic scheme falls apart.

In the end, the Marx's idea that capitalists will eventually compete themselves out of profits does not work because he does not understand the true source of profit: time preference and risk assumption.

Personally I blame capitalism and commercialism, in a society when people care about the community they wouldn't be so arrogant and rude.

lol, soviet union much? Fail.

Personally I blame capitalism and commercialism, in a society when people care about the community they wouldn't be so arrogant and rude.

Oh boy, you cannot be serious...

No, socialism is a transition, while the end game is clearly public ownership of resources - socialism is a mixed economy leaning strongly to the left. No, that's social democracy. Social democracy isn't democratic socialism.

Socialism may be a transitional system, but it nevertheless misses the point completely without state ownership.Well, Marx's idea was that the state would transfer property, and that this transfer would be called socialism. However, socialism itself doesn't need to be state-run, but there isn't private ownership of the means of production in socialism, so on that you are correct.

Personally I blame capitalism and commercialism, in a society when people care about the community they wouldn't be so arrogant and rude.

Cool, so you think that Capitalism is the cause of rudeness and arrogance.

You also consider the Scandinavian countries to be Socialist, rather than Capitalist.

Congratulations! You've now got a testable hypothesis! Go find some data which shows that people in the Scandinavia are significantly less rude and arrogant than anyone else in the world, then we'll talk. If you're right, you should also find that there's a positive correlation between economic freedom and rudeness, so tax havens should be the rudest, neo-liberal countries like the US and UK should be pretty rude, and the French should be nearly as polite as the Scandinavians...

Cool, so you think that Capitalism is the cause of rudeness and arrogance.

You also consider the Scandinavian countries to be Socialist, rather than Capitalist.

Congratulations! You've now got a testable hypothesis! Go find some data which shows that people in the Scandinavia are significantly less rude and arrogant than anyone else in the world, then we'll talk. If you're right, you should also find that there's a positive correlation between economic freedom and rudeness, so tax havens should be the rudest, neo-liberal countries like the US and UK should be pretty rude, and the French should be nearly as polite as the Scandinavians...*Peers at Fassigen*

*Dies laughing*

Us capitalists arn't fucking rude you fucker.





;)

If I were a puppet somehow I think my IP would have given me away by now. Or is it unthinkable that someone on this forum disagrees with your reactionary racist BS.

Now I know your full of crap, that or you couldn't understand it.

No, your lying, because someone who had read it and properly understood it in an economic context would never have said that, even most economists today understand the theories and implications of consumption labor in aforementioned economic context. Saying it's 'crap' only proves your haven't read it and are just a child regurgitating some reactionary garbage you heard.

Bolded by me.

Personally I blame capitalism and commercialism, in a society when people care about the community they wouldn't be so arrogant and rude.

So...

Which megacorp are you the CEO of?

Bolded by me.



So...

Which megacorp are you the CEO of?

You win the thread.

You win the thread.

Seconded.

Bolded by me.



So...

Which megacorp are you the CEO of?

zing!