🍒 Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 5 - Wikipedia

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days 🤑

Filter:
Sort:
CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Madame Regle is the twenty-ninth episode of Back in Action: Alien Universe. [We open in the You scared the crap out of me. Dreadsense.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

river casino band schedule roulette vinna pengar ondar au casino de paris streaming regle craps wikipedia internet gambling meaning zynga poker for nokia.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

"Il est acceptable de ne pas connaître ou suivre chaque règle, mais les ignorer to their nonsense about how their crap is within the bounds of Wiki's policies.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Pokemon rot casino trick | Regle du jeu roulette anglaise, Jocuri casino online Craps, Roulette, Baccarat as well as a table World Series of Poker Room. In a typical wiki, text is written using a simplified markup language roulette often.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Crap! Crap! I've got to get dressed before they eat all the Pop Tarts. Damn Mike and his early morning raids. Where's my beard! “STOP YOU FOUL SMELLING.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

💰

Software - MORE
CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Quick craps tutorial. Queen casino aransas pass. Genetic roulette wiki. Ameristar casino kansas city Regle du jeu poker wikipedia. Charity poker farmington.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

💰

Software - MORE
CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

It really is a superlative piece of crap. D'une part, selon la tradition occidentale qui règle non seulement en théorie mais en pratique (au principe de sa.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

💰

Software - MORE
CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Crap! Crap! I've got to get dressed before they eat all the Pop Tarts. Damn Mike and his early morning raids. Where's my beard! “STOP YOU FOUL SMELLING.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

💰

Software - MORE
CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Quick craps tutorial. Queen casino aransas pass. Genetic roulette wiki. Ameristar casino kansas city Regle du jeu poker wikipedia. Charity poker farmington.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

💰

Software - MORE
CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

"Il est acceptable de ne pas connaître ou suivre chaque règle, mais les ignorer to their nonsense about how their crap is within the bounds of Wiki's policies.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
regle craps wikipedia

I'm about to faint in the face of such profundity. If you want to preserve the paragraph that you posted, repost it withou the personal attacks. Derrida could, this is why I like the man and his theories So long Of course, if you consider fascism as a philosophy, it is normal that you dislike Derrida and want to delete this article. So in brief you can call a thought the first imagery coming to your mind. Give me a good reason and I will continue this conversation. Answering to your Fifth point: So what is your point there? So much shitness packed into one tranche of text. You may have a certain knowledge of philosophy, but you lack the basics All philosophies teach the respect of others. Derrida identified certain pairs of concepts in metaphysics which he argued stood in opposition to each other, which he called binary oppositions. You cannot use the casual meaning of the term at this stage. Currently this article does not help me to do that! I can confirm that - that little gnawing sense you feel, that 'nobody loves the way I am' - is TRUE in your current mode of being. Christophe - thanks for your effort on the page. I hope that the community can come together to make some major changes to this article so that it can become a worthwhile resource. It really is a superlative piece of crap. Again, each of those articles should at least introduce its sub topic with an accessible account of at least the 'basic form' of that topic e. Do you think that Derrida and everyone else should disregard Heidegger's work because of his affiliation to Nazism? Is that too hard to understand? Answering to your Seventh point: Once again, you are out of the subject here Talk about this matter on Derrida' s talk page article{/INSERTKEYS}{/PARAGRAPH} If that is the case, we should revert to 'any' earlier version that appears to have been written in a generous spirit as in generous to the topic and its comprehension. It read as if it had been written in a possible world where Derrida and his disciples constitute the entirety of the philosophy and literary theory community in the 20th century. I start to respect the stench and its progenitor. Deconstruction is a method for eliminating these oppositions by I deleted the to-do list because it was essentially a How-To guide on how to write a Dogma emanating from the Magisterium of Derrida and his bishops on the basis of Derrida's apparent infallibility; and it was written in a pompous and pretentious manner. This article should be deleted and all of its copies destroyed so that it can't be reverted. I have had very little influence on the article, my only intervention consisted in the inclusion of the footnote number one and in trying to clarify the introduction. Maybe you can give me more details in relation to your query about Heidegger's metaphysics of presence. It proposed no criticism section and it didn't even hint at describing the impact of deconstruction predominately in aesthetic fields. The main problem with this article as it currently stands is that it jumps straight into an inaccessible account even in the introduction! If all you can do is hate this world this little corner or, as I suspect, the whole - either change yourself or check-out. That notwithstanding, those that penned this monstrosity have no place writing Wikipedia articles, they have no writing ability, no capacity to communicate in writing. All that is being said is:. But sometimes I encounter a stench with such intensity or a composite, emergent stench with such foulness that I am not just disgusted I am impressed. I meant that in Chinese, European, Arabic and other advanced civilizations, the respect of each others is the key to develop great societies and this is rooted in all philosophies. That's how I feel when I read this article. This article's shitness is astounding. The hosts' fetidness varies: pungent perspiration, aged urine, freshly produced vomit, faeces that made an explosive exit, fishy genitalia. Change yourself and people will start to love you. I do't know why you cannot post without attacking everyone, but this is not permitted on a Wikipedia talk page. It is a shame that projects such as Wikipedia are taken hostage by people like you I don't want to waste my time anymore with another pseudo, I am from the real world I can only discuss with people who are genuinely willing to exchange ideas in a productive peaceful way Obviously you cannot do that. The article explains that the term is also used casually: " In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group" ". Your arrogance makes it difficult for anyone engaging you. You have the bad habit of insulting people's knowledge while cowardly hiding behind a pseudo What is the point for me or anyone to discuss with you? I concede the possibility that it may have been written this way deliberately - to purposefully 'make a nonsense' of the topic, and to deliberately deter interested readers from taking any further interest in it. I hope that my analysis can cast some light on why the rest of the article is also hard to read. The to-do list is simple: a explain what deconstruction is; b provide a history of its rise, peak and decline; c document the major philosophical and literary-theoretic criticisms levelled against deconstruction which goes some way towards explaining its decline and not presenting it as Holy Writ ; d document its enduring influence in the aesthetic fields albeit as a caricature. For anyone seriously talking about philosophy, fascism is a doctrine not a philosophy. You must understand that the purpose of this article is to give an understanding of deconstruction to the wider public. Which is rather sad. I am not an expert in Derrida, although I will gladly help with basic editing tasks , but I would sincerely like to learn a bit more about some of these topics. How profound! Answering to your Sixth point: This is an interesting subject, but as many others that you brought on this page, they are too far out of what we are trying to achieve here. This article is so awful it impresses. I have deleted your attacks. Answering to your first point: Just check the wiki article for philosophy , and you will understand that there is philosophy as " Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. To those that wrote this shit I have pity but also a species of respect. Of course philosophy is not only about "the respect of others". Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. Comprehending an article on wikipedia shouldn't require a PhD in the subject matter - it completely defeats the inherent goal of the encyclopaedia. All potent and not to be trifled with. Why are you interpreting my words so naively? OK AnotherPseudonym you make your point As you are cowardly hiding behind a pseudo, and as I am not, you can attack and discredit the real person that I am, when you are safely in the dark. A part of his life that he called "the biggest stupidity of his life". The purpose of an encyclopedic article is to explain bullshit like deconstruction not to reproduce Derrida's turgid, tortured and tortuous prose. People putting time in here are at least trying - however flawed - to shed some light on concepts that at least 'some' people think are of 'some' importance in contemporary philosophy broadly defined. If the article has reached its current state 'without deliberately negative presentation of the topic' - then I would have to judge that it can have only reached its this state via some kind of personalised edit-warring. So I am asking you, what is the point for me to continue talking with you here? This article will discuss both perspectives. AnotherPseudonym You do not know who wrote what in this article, so please stop blaming me for the poor content. {PARAGRAPH}{INSERTKEYS}To give other editors some feedback, I've made some detailed notes about why the second sentence is hard to read. The problem here, is that you are using the casual definition of the term philosophy, when in fact we have deeply entered a specialized philosophical subject. Otherwise the result is conflict, chaos and war. If there is disagreement over even 'basic form' - no problem - that can be incorporated. Kudos for pushing that human envelope". So can you explain how your insults and your lack of respect can reflect this love of wisdom? If you think that fascism is a philosophy, so Hitler was a philosopher. I think that your participation is welcome, but please read the Wikipedia talk page guidelines prior to continue this discussion, thanks. If that can be done in clear language with good quality citations then it will be a historical first for this article. Sometimes in my travels and use of public transport I encounter a fellow traveller that carries a foul odour. That's really displaying the topic 'Deconstruction' in a negative light. If you you know who you are don't think it is a worthwhile project, you don't have to contribute. The same sort of respect that I have for someone that smells so bad they can clear a railway carriage in peak hour. You can also call a thought the result of a long and deep reflection on a particular project. Trolling around wikipedia and expressing your hate here is obviously pathetic - and I feel sorry that your life has come to this. You appear unable to dissociate the 2 of them. Personally I agree with some of the other comments that it needs a substantial re-write - in its current form it is really inaccessible to anyone who is coming to the topic with only a basic knowledge of 20th century philosophy. Okay, enough with that. I am especially impressed that the excremental writing starts at the earliest opportunity, in the lead:. To the extent that this has been the case - again - if there is 'any' previous version that - whatever its inadequacy - was 'prior to' this possible edit warring, I suggest the article gets reverted to that, and extra generous spirited edits get added back in - with consensus - bit by bit and expanded on in separate articles if necessary. Meretricious, like an old and haggard prostitute in the night or an ugly drag queen at a distance.