/lit/ - Literature

>>7494092
>"any of my posts had my trip on"
...Yeah, in that thread in the picture. Not non-stop, I would never think that would have ever needed to be clarified. Congrats on that I guess.
>"if I see a buk thread that im going to say something and I think the trip should be on, I trip."
I said that just now, not in another thread. Once again, I would think this wouldn't need clarification: I trip when I think the trip is needed, aka I don't trip all the time (hint hint: I don't trip all the time) P.S. I don't trip all the time. I really hope I never have to clarify that statement to anyone.

I'll assume English isn't your first language. Well, rather, I hope that's the reason because I shouldn't of had to clarify that to a native speaker

>basically, fuck off with your shitposting...
No one cares about your whining, I care even less. I'll let you in on a secret: This is 4chan, don't get mad over fucking tripfags.

>then feel free to enlighten me
Go through the archive. You're not worth the time.

>since I never heard of you
That's clearly bullshit. Nice try though.

I only bothered to start responding just to clarify. If you're just going to cry, don't reply to me, don't bump this thread, and go cry into your pillow. I'm not going to respond any further to you, you only want attention from a tripfag on /lit/.

>>7493989
>"all my posts have my trip"
When did I say this? Honestly, if I said it I'd like to keep my word so please actually provide it.
>trip standards
This is 4chan, you know this, right?
>if you were samefagging in that thread
In which, there is two. I'll assume you know the "a good anon", I didn't and I personally don't care if you believe me or not.
>the amount of effort you put into hating one writer is bordering on mania
Not at all. I browse /lit/ at random times. If I see a buk thread that I'm going to say something and I think the trip should be on, I trip. If you'd like to fantasize on my posting habits, I suggest you spend your time more wisely. (But do whatever you want I guess).

I normally don't trip on the other threads, hence why the trip is sometimes not there. I take it off so people like you don't bleed into innocent people's threads.
>do you have a personal vendetta against Bukowski?
No. This has been covered by me before.
>Do you think it's your civic duty to inform everyone of his unworthiness?
No. This is the internet. If you don't like it, close it.

If you've only got stupid shit to ask from now on, don't bother asking. You're bumping shit that shouldn't be bumped for reasons that I've covered. If you have a reasonable legit question/argument then feel free.

>>7488761
>>7490004
That's hilarious, I guess a janitor/mod deleted my on-topic post.

Janitor/mods can be confirmed as Buttkowskis I guess.

Let's see if I get banned for pointing this out now.

By the way, janitor/mod/whatever- >>7489875 is me also if you want to be consistent in your rage.

>>7484444
People want to say I'm female, and I think everyone knows my position on Bukowski.

Bukowski being a good writer and/or poet.

>>6117420
No problem.
I've got to get off. Let me just say, for those of you who literally get mad, flip out, or whatever about me or any other tripfag or person on the internet: Chill out. It's some guy over the internet. Honestly for the people who attempt to get me into some sort of "gotcha" or attempt to tarnish my trip, it's a trip. I don't care about it really at all. I know I'm ruining some of my own fun, but it's become obvious to me to have to say this. I use to think the "fucked your mom" and "your a girl" guys and I were having fun and you aren't actually letting a tripfag get you smash the keyboard mad. I still hope for most of you that's true.

If you're legit getting angry at me, or any other trip, for fucks sakes filter the trip or learn to chill the fuck out and relax. You're on fucking 4chan.

>>6117230
>If your definition of fun is posting those shite web comics in response to people who like an artist that you don't, you're pretty deranged.
What do you think, this is my job? If I wasn't getting some laughs making these things, I wouldn't do it.

>And if you did that like a normal person, I wouldn't have called you a pathetic faggot. You entered this thread with le epic meme comics and that's it. If you weren't so vain, you would articulate an actual comment, copy that into a text document, save it, and repost it for discussion. Instead you screencap yourself and make shitty posts.
I'm here. I don't make it a secret that I'm willing to discuss Bukowski. I'm not stopping anyone from coming up to me with a strong counterpoint to me. I also don't pretend to be a goodie two shoes. I love seeing people lose their shit, like you, over trivial shit like a tripfag posting a free webcomic.

>Hahahaha
Hey, you're the one complaining yet you refuse to filter me. Your problem, not mine.

>>6117142
No he didn't.

>>6117088
That's a big post, you could at least have the decency to green text me some direction or context so I know what you want.

>>6117056
Haha.

>>6117040
>what if ICP is good
I wouldn't even entertain that idea.

>>6117062
I don't hate them. I know enough to be able to argue my point.

>>6116992
>If you don't think its pathetic to spend a substantial amount of your time talking about how much you dislike a piece of work instead of allocating your efforts elsewhere, towards something constructive, then you've got far too much time on your hands.
I'm not putting anything of my life on pause. I come here when I'm free and feel like it. Probably just like you. Looking back, it's been almost two days between the thread's inception and me posting in it.

>The alternative is that you're a troll who thinks you're more clever than you really are and you've got a chalkboard with a running tally of how many anonymous strangers have taken your totally epic bait.
It could be the same person over and over. They regurgitate the same shit so often that the comics literally mimic their arguments to me. I'm simply having fun.

>Either way, you're just shitposting.
Fine if you feel that way. I'm just somebody who is willing to have a discussion (or argument) on Bukowski's writing. If you don't like me, don't read me. I make it easier by wearing a trip.

>>6117009
>Incredible how even your webcomics are shittier than most webcomics.
It's a free webcomic maker, calm down.
>Bukowki must really have fucked your mom
Ok, I'll just move on then, I can guess the rest of your post.

>>6116938
>ICP is minimalist?
The lyrics. I'm talking about the fact that Buk's fans call his bad, flat, shallow writing "minimalist". The same way ICP's lyrics are bad, flat, and shallow.

>ICP held blue-collar jobs?
I said manual labor. They backyard wrestled for money, one of them worked in fast food.

> I suppose they're probably of the underclass, though.
They were dirt poor, both of them.

>Still, that comic seems flawed to me.
It's "seems" flawed to you because of your weak kneed argument of personal ignorant indecisiveness. "Not that I've heard", "Blue collar jobs? Maybe." "I suppose they're underclass". I'd be unsure of flaws if I was you as well.

>>6116835
>>6116876
>>6116909
This shit is GOLD.

>>6116769
You give Howlin' Wolf a bad name by saying that.

>>6107903
>Why does /lit/ hate him so much?
Because he's not a good writer.
>in a straight forward manner.
Oh boy, this smells like a worm.

>>6111884
>El retrato de Dorian Gray
>Clásicos niños

>>6104254
Just to validate that this was actually me.

>>6102490
This is like saying there will never be another Jackson Pollock. (Most of his famous pieces) It's just simple paint lines on a canvas, with no artistic merit.

Bukowski is simple words on a page, with no literary merit.

Honestly:

The Stinky Cheese Man

It's a children's book, pero I remember a story about patents somewhere in there. Also obviously cheese.

>>6070141
I made the list, and the 451 movie was garbage.

>>6048859
>>6048953
>>6049051
>>6049273
>>6049286
>>6049293
>I've fucked chicks just for the hell of it
>turns out to be fat chicks
>>6049298

What the fuck is wrong with people on this board...

>>6046987
Eh, I'm not a fan.
>>6047282
>Has anyone read or have thoughts on his poetry?
Eh, I'm not a fan.

>>6038083

I'll put the trip on because this is something I'll greatly defend.

If you ALWAYS put cream/sugar/etc into your tea or coffee (with certain "required" exceptions; you require steamed milk for latte, cappuccino requires milk, etc.), then you don't actually like the taste of coffee/tea. You may like the "flavor essence" diluted coffee/tea, but you don't actually like the coffee/tea.

If you don't enjoy whisky/whiskey/rum/tequila/and others that fall into that realm, (mostly; with the exception of a few drops to a small amount of water to "open") neat and up, then you don't actually like the taste of that alcohol. (Note, this doesn't have to include vodka. It also doesn't include mixer shit like Kaluha and such)

There, of course, is nothing really "wrong" with liking your coffee, tea, or alcohol diluted. Just don't claim you like Colombian coffee or black tea and then ask where the cream and sugar is. Also, don't claim you love whiskey when you actually like whiskey sours and mint juleps.

Also, the case can be made that if you always dilute your coffee/tea/alcohol, you shouldn't bother buying high-end or expensive stuff. Though this case is swiss cheese; though it has a lot of substance, it's got many holes. It's your money you can do what you want, it brings my sugary mixed drink to new heights, etc. That being said, it's still serious food for thought.