https://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4145630&mc=68&forum_id=2#37324456

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636706&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486",#48355595)

it's just ironic you're talking about inscrutable feuds when you're one of the weirdest feuders with a reputation for cataloging poasters shit and launching one-sided feuds against them for no discernable reason.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636706&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486",#48355629)

anyway, i'm just calling you out for your hypocrisy criticizing feuders when you're one of the more notable weird, doobsian feudlords here. thank.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636706&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486",#48355752)

on balance: how do you think things cook, genius? when you bake loaf of bread in a square pan, does the top remain square? no, it's a circle. heat transfers from one surface to another. a circle is the shape where there is an equal distance to the middle from the edges. a square is inherently unbalanced. if you want to talk about how an unbalanced dish can be interesting and enjoyable, fine, but blathering to me about "balance" demonstrates you are really out of you depth here, champ.

on beauty: how many squares are there in nature? what do you find beautiful? a woman's square face? her square breasts and ass? square flowers? square celestial objects? square droplets of water falling upon placid water and the square ripples emanating from them? suck my dick, mondrian. you know nothing of beauty. go to dc and enjoy some faggot square pizza in a "beautiful" square brutalist office building and stare out of the beautiful square windows upon a world where almost no natural square forms exist.

go fuck yourself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636706&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486",#48355706)

The square is less divine, as is any shape that partakes in the dyad as well as the monad, but it is still beautiful. Square numbers are sacred too in their own way, but they are more fitting to the world of matter, which is, again, material and multiple. It is much more fitting, and humble, for humans to approximate it. This is why circular churches mostly died out in the 5th and 6th centuries to give way to the cruciform gothic cathedral. In its form, composed of well-proportioned squares, man recognized his distance from God but sought to honor Him as best as man could in this life.

Your triangle slice is blasphemous desecration of the divine mixed with the hubris of an Icarus. A square piece of a square pizza is a fittingly human approximation of the divine. Your drivel about temperature distribution reveals the true depravity of your mad worldview and your oafish pizzas. Rot in hell, slicecuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636706&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486",#48355824)

i assume by not addressing the fact that circles are scientifically superior for even cooking (i.e. balanced) you're conceding you were blathering incoherently before about balance. good move for a liberal artist to retreat here, and unsurprisingly a squarenigger retreats to new grounds without ever acknowledging he's bean beaten. trying to have a good faith debate with a squarenigger is like trying to grab molten mozzarella, only to have to escape through your fingers.

"uneven bubbles"? what shape is a "bubble", squarenigger? it's a circle. and who creates the "even bubble" when a pizza (either square or circle, mind you) is heated? nature and god.

your argument that nothing can mimic the "perfection" of a divine circle demonstrates how you've been led away from truth and beauty through square idolatry. nature does not create exclusively perfect circles. if a woman had a perfectly circular face, she would look unnatural. the moon is not a perfect circle, it is dotted with deep craters and mountains, just as the earth.

it's your insistence on "perfection" that leads you to worship something as unnatural and brutal as the circle. yes, man can easily create four square edges to form a square. but weren't you the one that criticized me for convenience at the outset? dividing a circle is hard. dividing a square is easy. it's a brutal, unnatural shape that sacrifices beauty and balance for ease. do you care whether your pizza is balanced? no, give lex a hard corner a crustless center slice, and he'll say there is no difference.

allow me to summarize, squarenigger, as i'm sure you've found this difficult to parse:

your belief that only a "perfect" circle is beautiful and divine is backwards. god creates near-exclusively creates "imperfect" circles, like the uneven bubbles on a pizza. your definition of "perfection" supplants the natural world in exchange for convenience. the hubris of man to insist that nature be apportioned exactly and for everything to align. where do you find that in nature? nowhere. you have replaced your squarecult's idea of the divine with something unnatural and invented by man. and now you worship it as divine. a square golden cow.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636706&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486",#48355994)

Love xo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636706&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486",#48355681)

i'm glad you brought up pep, another example of the natural superiority of the circle. when you toss dough, it becomes a circle. pep is circular. union of circular pizza and pep is divine.

lex is an endless war against nature and god. he wants to shape the world around *his* will. unnatural and brutal. an affront to everything sacred and good. square pizza a testament to man's hubris.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636706&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486",#48355767)