The author who isn't important's name is Fiedler. Not fiddler. The FDLR as shared letters shows association in specific principles, but the vowels designate that hell no.....he isn't a fiddler....any more or less than he's a fielder. But you'd know that if you'd read and understood. So you play in your food and have food fights.

You didn't read it. I didn't ask you to quickly peruse something so you can pretend to critique it with more spittle.

You're a divisive wordy imitation of the information you attempt to co-opt. That information is deeper than any 'words' can describe, as it describes how/why words were created. The part can't contain the whole and you work backwards as I mentioned.

Raise it up. You're lowering the conversation into a circular dualism. De-fine-ing the point, not sharpening it.

Read the thing and understand instead.

Word.

You didn't read it. I didn't ask you to quickly peruse something so you can pretend to critique it with more spittle.

You're a divisive wordy imitation of the information you attempt to co-opt. That information is deeper than any 'words' can describe, as it describes how/why words were created. The part can't contain the whole and you work backwards as I mentioned.

Raise it up. You're lowering the conversation into a circular dualism. De-fine-ing the point, not sharpening it.

Read the thing and understand instead.

Word.

You didn't read it. I didn't ask you to quickly peruse something so you can pretend to critique it with more spittle.

You're a divisive wordy imitation of the information you attempt to co-opt. That information is deeper than any 'words' can describe, as it describes how/why words were created. The part can't contain the whole and you work backwards as I mentioned.

Raise it up. Read the thing and understand instead.

Word.

You didn't read it. I didn't ask you to quickly peruse something so you can pretend to critique it with more spittle.

You're a cheap, rambling, divisive wordy imitation of the information you attempt to co-opt. That information is deeper than any 'words' can describe, as it describes how/why words were created. The part can't contain the whole and you work backwards as I mentioned.

Raise it up. Read the thing and understand instead.

Word.

You didn't read it. I didn't ask you to quickly peruse something so you can pretend to critique it with more spittle.

You're a cheap, rambling, divisive wordy imitation of the information you attempt to co-opt.

Word.

You didn't read it. You're a fraud to me. Try harder.