3001
Contrary to popular belief, that doesn't mean you can bend the definition to fit every situation.I don't know what you mean by bending it, but anyone can't say that it's invalid because it's the actual definition.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
3002
Kinda like how you didn't know what irony was.Irony has more than one definition.
Hmm?
3003
Drama / Re: Billy Mays: DEAD/JD furry topic
« on: June 30, 2009, 05:41:58 PM »Man, seeing you socialise in real life would be painful.Having a personality in the internet doesn't mean that it can be the same in real life.
3004
Drama / Re: Re: Billy Mays: DEAD/JD furry topic
« on: June 30, 2009, 05:33:48 PM »...what?I was actually agreeing with you...
3005
He did not say one thing to mean something totally different, and I don't think you are him so you have no idea if he meant something else.Popular and arrogant have slightly different definitions, people used to make that mistake in a different forum.
3006
Drama / Re: Re: Billy Mays: DEAD/JD furry topic
« on: June 30, 2009, 05:28:33 PM »I'm going to keep throwing this quote at you until you comprehend.My post wasn't actually sarcasm.
3007
Drama / Re: Re: Billy Mays: DEAD/JD furry topic
« on: June 30, 2009, 05:06:06 PM »-snip-Yeah, that obviously doesn't mean nonsensical.
3009
Drama / Re: Re: Billy Mays: DEAD/JD furry topic
« on: June 30, 2009, 04:58:41 PM »-snip-Please, don't even bother to bring "English" in this argument. Now, just because I made a slight flaw, doesn't mean that you have to point it out. Besides, perfect English is not necessary to make a good argument, it's your thought about it. No offense, but you bring this into an argument every single time.
I asked you to list your OWN example of irony(sorry if I wasn't too specific).
At first, I was actually surprised when I read this sentence, "Show me where I called people 'nonsensical'", because I found part of your quote from this page:
Quote
2) If you want me to understand you, you have to speak valid English. I seriously have no idea what the forget you just said.
And how am I making it about me? My intention was just the opposite. If I didn't do a good job of it, then you're right. Maybe I shouldn't argue, I probably shouldn't make it a big deal about it and act nonsensical. But my other point is, that if you hate a certain group and if you know that if you are going to attack them for it, then ignore them.
3010
Off Topic / Re: PSP question
« on: June 30, 2009, 04:25:17 PM »
Did you attempt "digging" in your PSP? Try deleting some files that are in there.
3011
Drama / Re: Re: Billy Mays: DEAD/JD furry topic
« on: June 30, 2009, 04:13:33 PM »Two things.If you couldn't understand what I just said, then maybe you need to be understanding, not us.
1) Learn what ironic means
2) If you want me to understand you, you have to speak valid English. I seriously have no idea what the forget you just said.
Show me an example of irony, please.
3012
By popular, he meant that Beekay seemed too arrogant.
3. He never stated that he was popular.
3013
Drama / Re: Re: Billy Mays: DEAD/JD furry topic
« on: June 30, 2009, 11:33:11 AM »Either that or you just don't know what ironic means.It's ironic because rkynick doesn't understand everything we say. Yet, the other people he called "nonsensical" can understand "the-person-who-supposedly-doesn't-make-any-sense-at-all".
3014
Off Topic / Re: Complaint Letter Generator
« on: June 29, 2009, 10:24:55 PM »
Before I can focus on the ignorance that abounds in RoadRunner's rooster-and-bull stories, I must qualify RoadRunner's character, his sources, and even his personal frame of mind towards me. There are a number of reasons RoadRunner isn't telling us as to why he wants to rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of his pranks so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of RoadRunner's attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that I've never bothered RoadRunner. Yet RoadRunner wants to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his loud ideas. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: animalism.
Given the amount of misinformation that RoadRunner is circulating, I must point out that I find that some of his choices of words in his precepts would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "power-drunk" for "anarchoindividualist" and "manipulative" for "barothermohygrograph." I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke him for trying to step on other people's toes. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, RoadRunner deeply believes that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Some people apparently believe that if we don't bother RoadRunner, RoadRunner won't bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. RoadRunner wants to dispense bread and circuses to frowzy bludgers to entice them to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. We, in contrast, want to alert people that he spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue RoadRunner's excited about this week is pharisaism, which says to me that no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how I think that we should refer to him using the sobriquet "Primitive RoadRunner" because he's so thoroughly primitive, not to mention pudibund. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also make a cause célèbre out of exposing his rantings for what they really are.
To say otherwise would be uninformed. I do not wish to endorse obstructionism but rather to illustrate that RoadRunner has a knack for convincing impolitic flakes that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "theologicohistorical" and "scleroticochorioiditis" to keep his sales pitch from sounding contemptible. That's why you really have to look hard to see that there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If RoadRunner finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that if we don't make some changes here then RoadRunner will engage in the trafficking of human beings. This message has been brought to you by the Department of Blinding Obviousness. What might not be so obvious, however, is that RoadRunner says that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his oleaginous, repulsive prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. But then he turns around and says that his contrivances won't be used for political retribution. You know, you can't have it both ways, RoadRunner.
RoadRunner should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to. I want to keep this brief: If denominationalism were an Olympic sport, he would clinch the gold medal. Ostensibly, RoadRunner does not intend to add insult to injury but, in fact, he has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will replace discourse and open dialogue with stubborn equivocations and blatant ugliness some day.
RoadRunner wants to twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children's textbooks. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. His recommendations are entirely otiose. How does he deal with this fascinating piece of information? He absolutely ignores it. Even if coprophagous, birdbrained fence-sitters join his band with the best of intentions, they will still treat anyone who doesn't agree with him to a torrent of vitriol and vilification in the near future. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions.
When I was a child, my clergyman told me, "I'm unequivocally tired of what I call noisome racketeers." If you think about it you'll see his point. RoadRunner takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. He makes it sound like there's no difference between normal people like you and me and cankered, daft fanatics of one sort or another. That's the rankest sort of pretense I've ever heard. The reality is that I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that RoadRunner wants me to stop trying to rage, rage against the dying of the light. Instead, he'd rather I recant all of the claims I've made in this letter. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.
Must it be explained to RoadRunner that unilateralism is not confined to any specific era, culture, or country? Because he obviously doesn't realize that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which myopic, distasteful buggers like RoadRunner are totally absent. The other road leads into the darkness of colonialism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? Apparently, even know-it-all RoadRunner doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't matter if he did, given that a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of pestiferous slanderers and others in RoadRunner's amen corner are about to bring widespread death and degradation to millions of human beings across the face of the Earth. I have no reason to doubt that story because even when the facts don't fit, RoadRunner sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that if he kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick.
RoadRunner's goons have coordinated their propaganda efforts into a superbly-wrought symphony of hatred and destruction. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why we must get beyond name-calling. I'll go further: My goal is to find the common ground that enables others to respond to RoadRunner's doctrines. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness RoadRunner is mongering. We need to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two cheeky tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern racialism. If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I examine the social and cultural conditions that lead RoadRunner to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of loveism.
With this in mind, I must transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. Wanting to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison is one thing but why would anybody possibly want to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror? The answer is almost thoroughly obvious—this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony—and you know who I'm referring to—can process my point.
The hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to establish clear, justifiable definitions of radicalism and extremism so that you can defend a decision to take action when RoadRunner's companions reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with RoadRunner's scare tactics while punishing those who oppose them. Was RoadRunner just trying to be cute when he said that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not? I sure hope so because he accuses me of being a liar. The only proven liar around here, however, is RoadRunner. Only a die-hard liar like RoadRunner could claim that he is as innocent as a newborn lamb. The truth, in case you haven't already figured it out, is that my position is that so far, the response from his camp has been tardy and equivocal. RoadRunner, in contrast, argues that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and RoadRunner. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, cold-blooded world run by the worst kinds of superficial, mealymouthed scalawags I've ever seen. Summa summarum, RoadRunner chivvies tasteless gutter-dwellers to his side by convincing them that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains.
Given the amount of misinformation that RoadRunner is circulating, I must point out that I find that some of his choices of words in his precepts would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "power-drunk" for "anarchoindividualist" and "manipulative" for "barothermohygrograph." I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke him for trying to step on other people's toes. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, RoadRunner deeply believes that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Some people apparently believe that if we don't bother RoadRunner, RoadRunner won't bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. RoadRunner wants to dispense bread and circuses to frowzy bludgers to entice them to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. We, in contrast, want to alert people that he spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue RoadRunner's excited about this week is pharisaism, which says to me that no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how I think that we should refer to him using the sobriquet "Primitive RoadRunner" because he's so thoroughly primitive, not to mention pudibund. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also make a cause célèbre out of exposing his rantings for what they really are.
To say otherwise would be uninformed. I do not wish to endorse obstructionism but rather to illustrate that RoadRunner has a knack for convincing impolitic flakes that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "theologicohistorical" and "scleroticochorioiditis" to keep his sales pitch from sounding contemptible. That's why you really have to look hard to see that there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If RoadRunner finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that if we don't make some changes here then RoadRunner will engage in the trafficking of human beings. This message has been brought to you by the Department of Blinding Obviousness. What might not be so obvious, however, is that RoadRunner says that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his oleaginous, repulsive prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. But then he turns around and says that his contrivances won't be used for political retribution. You know, you can't have it both ways, RoadRunner.
RoadRunner should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to. I want to keep this brief: If denominationalism were an Olympic sport, he would clinch the gold medal. Ostensibly, RoadRunner does not intend to add insult to injury but, in fact, he has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will replace discourse and open dialogue with stubborn equivocations and blatant ugliness some day.
RoadRunner wants to twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children's textbooks. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. His recommendations are entirely otiose. How does he deal with this fascinating piece of information? He absolutely ignores it. Even if coprophagous, birdbrained fence-sitters join his band with the best of intentions, they will still treat anyone who doesn't agree with him to a torrent of vitriol and vilification in the near future. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions.
When I was a child, my clergyman told me, "I'm unequivocally tired of what I call noisome racketeers." If you think about it you'll see his point. RoadRunner takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. He makes it sound like there's no difference between normal people like you and me and cankered, daft fanatics of one sort or another. That's the rankest sort of pretense I've ever heard. The reality is that I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that RoadRunner wants me to stop trying to rage, rage against the dying of the light. Instead, he'd rather I recant all of the claims I've made in this letter. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.
Must it be explained to RoadRunner that unilateralism is not confined to any specific era, culture, or country? Because he obviously doesn't realize that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which myopic, distasteful buggers like RoadRunner are totally absent. The other road leads into the darkness of colonialism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? Apparently, even know-it-all RoadRunner doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't matter if he did, given that a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of pestiferous slanderers and others in RoadRunner's amen corner are about to bring widespread death and degradation to millions of human beings across the face of the Earth. I have no reason to doubt that story because even when the facts don't fit, RoadRunner sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that if he kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick.
RoadRunner's goons have coordinated their propaganda efforts into a superbly-wrought symphony of hatred and destruction. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why we must get beyond name-calling. I'll go further: My goal is to find the common ground that enables others to respond to RoadRunner's doctrines. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness RoadRunner is mongering. We need to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two cheeky tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern racialism. If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I examine the social and cultural conditions that lead RoadRunner to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of loveism.
With this in mind, I must transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. Wanting to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison is one thing but why would anybody possibly want to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror? The answer is almost thoroughly obvious—this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony—and you know who I'm referring to—can process my point.
The hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to establish clear, justifiable definitions of radicalism and extremism so that you can defend a decision to take action when RoadRunner's companions reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with RoadRunner's scare tactics while punishing those who oppose them. Was RoadRunner just trying to be cute when he said that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not? I sure hope so because he accuses me of being a liar. The only proven liar around here, however, is RoadRunner. Only a die-hard liar like RoadRunner could claim that he is as innocent as a newborn lamb. The truth, in case you haven't already figured it out, is that my position is that so far, the response from his camp has been tardy and equivocal. RoadRunner, in contrast, argues that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and RoadRunner. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, cold-blooded world run by the worst kinds of superficial, mealymouthed scalawags I've ever seen. Summa summarum, RoadRunner chivvies tasteless gutter-dwellers to his side by convincing them that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains.
3015
He's a furry, what more do you want.Does a person being a furry gives you the right to be a douche to them?
Also, you're trying too hard.