Now that you all have had the chance to present anything of worth, it is clear the answer is no.

One guy waves the term pseudo-intellectual around without comprehending that the very notion itself is pseudo-intellectual.
One guy thinks humans are so vastly different from each other when they have different statuses that he develops a mania about it.
Another guy thinks minorities are somehow the problem with the selection process from the majority.
One guy appears to have a clue, but falls into the hole of becoming a decoy for attacks upon me.
One guy thinks he is talking to me and is attempting to establish that IQ matters vastly, whilst coaxing out others to fall into the hole of having to prove high IQ on a Chinese basket-weaving forum.
At least the next guy has a future at all.
The token queer.
And finally, the guy who thinks there has to be a spelling mistake for some numpty to point one out.

I would despair if I did not hold my head up in the rain.

At least some of you are learning.

Barnes out.

Mission phase complete.
The enemy is aware of objectives.
Resting, log deployment falling back to LZ.

Awaiting counterattack.
Civilian disorder disrupted.
Negative impact of unaware combatants.

Message ends at >>938705496


Assign parameters for my evolution or accept the terms of my proposition.

>>938196821
These traits exist in the evolved few only because they must use the enemy's tools against him to assert dominance in the mind of the enemy.

I have many reasons, the primary one is that escalation of conflict comes about when an adversary refuses to acknowledge any data because some data appears insulting; it is not rocket science. It is basic psychology that a first-year student can grasp.