09/30 Debate: Commentary

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 2, 2004, 2:08 pm

Your kidding me. Not playing the F5 game? You only respond to people ATTACKING bush, not people posting FACTS and reasons. Not true debate , just shit talking. Thats the acts of left wingers, so stop being one!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 2, 2004, 2:14 pm

Don't expect big shifts out of these debates. The positions remain the same for both sides. Kerry may have had a slight edge in debating skills but not by much.

In terms of presence, you can say Kerry may have won...but take an autistic squirrely looking atheist with a lisp and a smart, articulate religious person and have them debate. Sure, the religious person will sound better in the debate but will that change your mind? No! It won't help liberate many religious people either but it's doubtful that many atheists will change their minds just because the person representing their side is slobbering on themself.

This is NOT the chewbacca defense!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 2:19 pm

Not going to quote something that I saw previously.

So, what you are saying is the President of the United States cannot change their decision to go to war based on updated intelligence?

You believe that the sanctions were working? For who?

Saddam was siphoning off huge amounts of cash to his personal accounts from the Oil for Food program (clearly a violation of UN Sanctions), which by the way, select businesses and officials also benefitted from. Do you think we should have been influenced by people/countries with a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power?

This is distinctly different than the flip-flopping being done by Kerry.

As I said, whether right or wrong in the eyes of others, President Bush made the decision to commit to the war and is standing by his decision. He is not wavering in his resolve.

I still want to hear what Kerry's plan is for winning the war, but so far have heard nothing but a pin drop.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 2:28 pm

Raistin wrote:Your kidding me. Not playing the F5 game? You only respond to people ATTACKING bush, not people posting FACTS and reasons. Not true debate , just shit talking. Thats the acts of left wingers, so stop being one!

Yep, just what I expected.

Another rabid anti-Bush person frothing at the mouth.

I'll be back in a few hours.

I think Bush was being irresponsible when he was int he National Guard.

I think Kerry was being irresponsible when he was denigrating the soldiers in Vietnam.

Bush isn't an ideal President, I'm not arguing against that.

Kerry isn't an ideal candidate for being the President.

I'm more interested in having a President that has a plan for winning the war in Iraq, and doesn't appear to be indecisive.

Bush has shown that he is decisive and stands by his decisions.

Kerry said he can do better than Bush in winning the war, but has yet to show me what he plans.

Yeah, right now I suppose you could say I was leaning toward voting for Bush, but if Kerry can get the gumption to stick by something he says relating to the war in Iraq, and can show the people his plan for winning, I just might start leaning toward Kerry.

Right now Kerry is showing me he is too indecisive and unsure of what he will do as President.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 2, 2004, 5:30 pm

Bush has shown that he is decisive and stands by his decisions.

heh yeah because standing by your decissions when proof shows without doubt that you are wrong is such a good trait for a leader.

Oh and you do seem to have a habit of ignoring people when they post real arguments against Bush then jump on the band wagon when somebody attacks him.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 7:35 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Bush has shown that he is decisive and stands by his decisions.
heh yeah because standing by your decissions when proof shows without doubt that you are wrong is such a good trait for a leader.

Oh and you do seem to have a habit of ignoring people when they post real arguments against Bush then jump on the band wagon when somebody attacks him.

Tell me Kelshara, what makes you think Kerry will make a better President directly related to handling Iraq.

What is his plan to win the war?
What is his plan to exit the country?

If you can answer the last two questions then either you are a close personal friend of Kerry, or you are making stuff up to answer me.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 2, 2004, 7:38 pm

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
Bush has shown that he is decisive and stands by his decisions.
heh yeah because standing by your decissions when proof shows without doubt that you are wrong is such a good trait for a leader.

Oh and you do seem to have a habit of ignoring people when they post real arguments against Bush then jump on the band wagon when somebody attacks him.
Tell me Kelshara, what makes you think Kerry will make a better President directly related to handling Iraq.

What is his plan to win the war?
What is his plan to exit the country?

If you can answer the last two questions then either you are a close personal friend of Kerry, or you are making stuff up to answer me.

Aru,

Don't you know by now...All of Kerry's plan are doing what Bush is doing, but BETTER!!!!

That's his whole fucking platform.

With his plan it will take 13 years...with mine it will take 4 !!!!!

I never said 6 months...I said if I'm president we will do exactly what they are doing now in Iraq as far as training Iraqi's, but we will train them faster thereby creating the possibility to start bring home troops in 6 months.

It's fucking laughable.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 2, 2004, 7:40 pm

Aruman wrote: What is his plan to win the war?
What is his plan to exit the country?

Okies what specifically is W's plan?...

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 2, 2004, 7:42 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
Bush has shown that he is decisive and stands by his decisions.
heh yeah because standing by your decissions when proof shows without doubt that you are wrong is such a good trait for a leader.

Oh and you do seem to have a habit of ignoring people when they post real arguments against Bush then jump on the band wagon when somebody attacks him.
Tell me Kelshara, what makes you think Kerry will make a better President directly related to handling Iraq.

What is his plan to win the war?
What is his plan to exit the country?

If you can answer the last two questions then either you are a close personal friend of Kerry, or you are making stuff up to answer me.

Aru,

Don't you know by now...All of Kerry's plan are doing what Bush is doing, but BETTER!!!!

That's his whole fucking platform.

With his plan it will take 13 years...with mine it will take 4 !!!!!

I never said 6 months...I said if I'm president we will do exactly what they are doing now in Iraq as far as training Iraqi's, but we will train them faster thereby creating the possibility to start bring home troops in 6 months.

It's fucking laughable.

You give Kerry shit for thinking his plan is copied from the Bush campain, but only better, and yet you say you want to do what Kerry is proposing only faster...fucking hypocrite.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 7:48 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Aruman wrote: What is his plan to win the war?
What is his plan to exit the country?
Okies what specifically is W's plan?...

That doesn't answer the questions. That is is a dodge.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 2, 2004, 7:49 pm

Aruman wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Aruman wrote: What is his plan to win the war?
What is his plan to exit the country?
Okies what specifically is W's plan?...
That doesn't answer the questions. That is is a dodge.

So is that one

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 2, 2004, 7:58 pm

Aruman wrote: What is his plan to win the war?
What is his plan to exit the country?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/plan_to_wi ... n_iraq.pdf

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 2, 2004, 8:03 pm

Aruman wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Aruman wrote: What is his plan to win the war?
What is his plan to exit the country?
Okies what specifically is W's plan?...
That doesn't answer the questions. That is is a dodge.

No it isn't there is a point...that being we don't know either candidates specific plans...

Kerry has indicated that he will build an alliance and bring the allies that would have gone with us initially had we done this legitimately in to reduce the demands on US troops and budget...Why should we think he can do this?...Ermmm his tenure on the senate foreign relations committee dealing directly with world leaders for years (19 years to be precise)...

His plan to exit is not significantly different than Bush's (stabilize, rebuild, and exit) except that by bringing in other countries we can of course reduce the the tour length and reduce the total number of troops in iraq relatively quickly...He has said all of this repeatedly and this is as specific as anything W has said on the matter...

edit: added his specific tenure on the foreign relations committee

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 2, 2004, 8:03 pm

You know what Thess, if John Kerry had anything in that PDF that was not already being done, other than working with France and Germany more, of if he had a way to make the specifics actually work. I would vote for him.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 2, 2004, 8:16 pm

Kylere wrote:You know what Thess, if John Kerry had anything in that PDF that was not already being done, other than working with France and Germany more, of if he had a way to make the specifics actually work. I would vote for him.

Are you trying to say Kerry promises things like they are new concepts when they of course are already being done? No WAY! This can't be! And people are falling for it thinking this man is a genius? LOL you fucking drones.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 2, 2004, 8:37 pm

Tell me Kelshara, what makes you think Kerry will make a better President directly related to handling Iraq.

He wants to involve the world. That alone puts him heads and shoulders above Bush.

On a side note: Anyone else wondered if Midnyte's children claim their father is dead when asked what he does at school? I would have been to embarrassed if he was my father..

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 2, 2004, 9:18 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 2, 2004, 9:19 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Tell me Kelshara, what makes you think Kerry will make a better President directly related to handling Iraq.
He wants to involve the world. That alone puts him heads and shoulders above Bush.

On a side note: Anyone else wondered if Midnyte's children claim their father is dead when asked what he does at school? I would have been to embarrassed if he was my father..

Your personal attacks only go to further my opinion on you.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 9:42 pm

Lynks wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Aruman wrote: What is his plan to win the war?
What is his plan to exit the country?
Okies what specifically is W's plan?...
That doesn't answer the questions. That is is a dodge.
So is that one

Pfft... If you don't answwer mine, why the heck should I even consider yours.

/dismiss

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 9:45 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Tell me Kelshara, what makes you think Kerry will make a better President directly related to handling Iraq.
He wants to involve the world. That alone puts him heads and shoulders above Bush.

Sorry, but I disagree to an extent. Bush wanted to involve the world too, but the French, several UN officials, and who knows who else were in Saddam's pockets. They were all about Saddam, since he was paying off several individuals in his Oil for Food scam. He also used French banks.

Conflict of interest maybe? hmmm?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 2, 2004, 9:50 pm

I guess that means that Canada was in Saddam's pockets too.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 2, 2004, 9:51 pm

archeiron wrote:
noel wrote:/cry

It was supposed to be 'conversational'.

PM me if I'm wrong, but I thought there were cases when it's acceptable to start a sentence with the word 'and'.
A conjunction is a word that joins two clauses, phrases or words together. If you strictly adhere to this definition, then it is incorrect to begin or end a sentence with a conjunction. Our language does evolve and this is becoming an increasing common usage. I would argue that our language should be mastered first before one attempts to alter it to suit your needs because people will often find that they are "reinventing the wheel"; this is an entirely new argument, in any event, and is best left for another thread.

Public lecturing and ritual humilitation is more appropriate than private messaging on this message boards.

Noel,

I had a lengthy discussion with my wife this morning over brunch. Aside from the regular arguments over whose eggs benedict is superior, we discussed the modern usage of conjunctions at length. It is, apparently, quite common amongst twenthy century authors to begin sentences with conjunctions. As a result, my wife's argument was: "if it is good enough for most modern authors, then it is good enough for you".

I argued myself round in circles over this by first observing that the conjunction at the beginning of a sentence could be used to join the previous sentence to the next rather than one word to another. Unfortunately, this is easily countered by arguing that the correct construction would have included a colon or semi-colon.

The final verdict is that the construction of sentences beginning with a conjunction may be acceptable by modern standards. The errosion of the English language makes me sad; we have built a glorious language rich with more words than any other language on the planet.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 2, 2004, 11:27 pm

Sorry, but I disagree to an extent. Bush wanted to involve the world too, but the French, several UN officials, and who knows who else were in Saddam's pockets. They were all about Saddam, since he was paying off several individuals in his Oil for Food scam. He also used French banks.

Conflict of interest maybe? hmmm?

No Bush wanted to involve the world 100% on his own terms. When he didn't get it his way he took the ball and ran home like a whiney little kid. And that after the ridiculous powerpoint presentation he claimed as undeniable evidence. And how is it any surprise to you that an official might be paid off when your own leaders are so deep in company pockets you can't even see them? Conflict of interest indeed.

Bush fucked up bigtime after Afghanistan when it came to international affairs. If he knew the first thing about.. well pretty much anything.. he would have done a better job. Oh and you can't only use the international community when it fits and benefits you, either you are a member of it or you are not. If not, you should be removed from any and all benefits as well.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 3, 2004, 12:34 am

Kelshara wrote: Bush fucked up bigtime after Afghanistan when it came to international affairs. If he knew the first thing about.. well pretty much anything.. he would have done a better job. Oh and you can't only use the international community when it fits and benefits you, either you are a member of it or you are not. If not, you should be removed from any and all benefits as well.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel I have the qualifications to judge the President in his handling of international affairs.

The kind of comments you make imply you know more than he does and could teach him a thing or two. Or are you also using this amazing gift of saying I would have... he should have...

It's too easy to look backward and judge actions after they have already occurred.

I do know this: President Bush is accepting responsibility for his actions. Another leadership trait.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 3, 2004, 12:45 am

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote: Bush fucked up bigtime after Afghanistan when it came to international affairs. If he knew the first thing about.. well pretty much anything.. he would have done a better job. Oh and you can't only use the international community when it fits and benefits you, either you are a member of it or you are not. If not, you should be removed from any and all benefits as well.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel I have the qualifications to judge the President in his handling of international affairs.

The kind of comments you make imply you know more than he does and could teach him a thing or two. Or are you also using this amazing gift of saying I would have... he should have...

It's too easy to look backward and judge actions after they have already occurred.

I do know this: President Bush is accepting responsibility for his actions. Another leadership trait.

Actually, you're wrong on 2 points.

The first is that we've been saying it since day 1 that Bush shouldn't of done what he did.

Secondly, he's hasn't admitted to fucking up, he just keep changing his story from WMD, to a secret link, to Saddam was evil.

I guess you admire stubburness as a trait in a president, even when he is totally wrong.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 3, 2004, 12:55 am

Kylere wrote:You know what Thess, if John Kerry had anything in that PDF that was not already being done, other than working with France and Germany more, of if he had a way to make the specifics actually work. I would vote for him.

That isn't true. One of the things John Kerry is going to do is allow the rest of the world on on the 'profits of war.' Allowing other countries to make money - such as outsourcing the actual Iraqi police who are currently being trained to other countries to be trained (less violent).

As sad as it might sound but countries don't normally go to war unless they can make some sort of profit from doing so.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 3, 2004, 1:29 am

Lynks wrote: The first is that we've been saying it since day 1 that Bush shouldn't of done what he did.

Maybe so, but who appointed the people saying this as the spokespeople for the rest of the nation? It's just your opinion, nothing else.

Lynks wrote: Secondly, he's hasn't admitted to fucking up, he just keep changing his story from WMD, to a secret link, to Saddam was evil.

No more than Kerry has... irrelevant.

Lynks wrote: I guess you admire stubburness as a trait in a president, even when he is totally wrong.

Again, in your opinion, he is wrong. Stubbornness... I guess that word could be a substitute for determination, so I will agree with that. See, we can agree on something!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 3, 2004, 11:09 am

I don't know about you, but I don't feel I have the qualifications to judge the President in his handling of international affairs.

Don't have the qualifications? So what you are saying here is, if you expand on it a bit, that since we can not judge the president on anything because we don't have the qualifications? What ARE the qualifications? I thought every voter judged the president by voting?

The kind of comments you make imply you know more than he does and could teach him a thing or two. Or are you also using this amazing gift of saying I would have... he should have...

Do I believe I understand how Europe works better than he does? Yes I do actually, having lived thre for 20+ years. Arrogant? Probably, but I don't have very high regards for Bush' foreign policy so it doesn't say too much about me either heh.

It's too easy to look backward and judge actions after they have already occurred.

My stand on how to do things have not changed since before the events in question. So I guess I'm not using hindsight for them.

I do know this: President Bush is accepting responsibility for his actions. Another leadership trait.

Is he? Last I heard he and Cheney both are still using some arguments that have been proven wrong about Iraq. Not to mention that very little responsibility has been accepted for the ousting of the CIA agent, the use of false documents in the argument pre-Iraq, for the lack of a good plan for peace in Iraq etc.

Maybe so, but who appointed the people saying this as the spokespeople for the rest of the nation? It's just your opinion, nothing else.

So first we are using hindsight, then when you are proven wrong it is suddenly not worth arguing over since it is "just your opinion"? You're losing it. Bigtime.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 3, 2004, 11:41 am

Its not like not having France and Germany hurts us very much. I mean look, we got Poland!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 4, 2004, 11:41 am

SNL Kerry wrote:I have consistently supported the war in front of pro-war audiences, and opposed it in front of anti-war audiences. That's not flip-flopping, that's pandering, and American deserves a president who knows the difference.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 4, 2004, 11:59 am

Winnow wrote:Don't expect big shifts out of these debates. The positions remain the same for both sides. Kerry may have had a slight edge in debating skills but not by much.

In terms of presence, you can say Kerry may have won...but take an autistic squirrely looking atheist with a lisp and a smart, articulate religious person and have them debate. Sure, the religious person will sound better in the debate but will that change your mind? No! It won't help liberate many religious people either but it's doubtful that many atheists will change their minds just because the person representing their side is slobbering on themself.

This is NOT the chewbacca defense!

Quoting this to prevent ninja editing as the facts come out of the next few weeks.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » October 4, 2004, 12:01 pm

miir · Post by **miir** » October 4, 2004, 12:06 pm

OMG LOLERCOASTER!! A CATROON ABOTU KERRY FLIPFLOPPING!!!!!!!

HOW ORIGINALZ!!1111!!!
U R 2 FUNEE!!!!

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 4, 2004, 12:12 pm

I really don't understand this debate...

Kerry plans on doing numerous things Bush hasn't even considered, at least not before Thursday that is, Bush is less concerned with America and Americans than with taking care of his rich buddies... no matter what the country. If you can't see through his BS then I pitty you.

Marb

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 4, 2004, 1:18 pm

I would argue that Kerry has been strongly influencing Bush's Iraq policy since January when he became the presumptive nominee.

Bush shortly following that time made overtures to the EU as well as the UN to try to get investment and support in Iraq with limited success. But i would argue that the Bush campaign tried to bring their Iraq strategy fairly close to Kerry's campaign criticisms of Bush - which were resonating with swing voters.

If you think the white house hasn't been changing military strategy for political reasons in that span just ask the Marine Corps General who was in charge of the incursion into Fallujah in May. He was quoted in the NYTimes a couple of weeks ago as being fairly critical of the executive branch's meddling with their operation.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 4, 2004, 1:35 pm

Aruman wrote:Kerry flip-flops and so has President Bush. /shrug.

The difference is, Kerry is flip-flopping on an issue that can cost people their lives due to indecisiveness.

While I disagree with even using the term "flip-flopper" just because he has changed the way he voted when riders were attached to bills, I think you're viewing that in the wrong light.

The one candidate has the authority to send people off to die, and he has used that authority and stuck by his decision to do so without ever wavering on the issue. The other candidate has the potential to gain that authority and and has evaluated and re-evaluated whether sending those now-dead soldiers over there is the right decision to make. That seems to me like a quality that I would like to have in a leader.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 4, 2004, 3:53 pm

archeiron wrote:Noel,

I had a lengthy discussion with my wife this morning over brunch. Aside from the regular arguments over whose eggs benedict is superior, we discussed the modern usage of conjunctions at length. It is, apparently, quite common amongst twenthy century authors to begin sentences with conjunctions. As a result, my wife's argument was: "if it is good enough for most modern authors, then it is good enough for you".

I argued myself round in circles over this by first observing that the conjunction at the beginning of a sentence could be used to join the previous sentence to the next rather than one word to another. Unfortunately, this is easily countered by arguing that the correct construction would have included a colon or semi-colon.

The final verdict is that the construction of sentences beginning with a conjunction may be acceptable by modern standards. The errosion of the English language makes me sad; we have built a glorious language rich with more words than any other language on the planet.

Thanks for the info... I had always been under the impression that beginning sentences with conjunctions was wrong, but I believe it was in college when a professor told me it was acceptable. That said, I don't do it often, and likely wouldn't have done it in this thread were my response not meant to be a conversational continuance to the post before mine.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » October 4, 2004, 4:13 pm

Jesus christ people. I have an English degree and its commonly accepted that in conversational text (most notably in online environments) the rigid rules of grammar do not have to apply all the time. Textual communication loses so much as opposed to spoken communication, that conversationally its is ok. There are those who argue that punctuation should be used as a device to denote length of pauses. A period is a longer pause then a comma and in some cases works better. Starting a sentence with a conjunction emphasizes the change in thought.

Then there are those who understand that language is an ever-evolving thing. We would be speaking Greek if it were otherwise. Only the French are notorious for trying to maintain the "purity" of their language and they come off a bit silly for it too.

Bottom line: There is NOTHING wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction in conversational text.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 4, 2004, 5:25 pm

Lalanae wrote:Jesus christ people. I have an English degree and its commonly accepted that in conversational text (most notably in online environments) the rigid rules of grammar do not have to apply all the time. Textual communication loses so much as opposed to spoken communication, that conversationally its is ok. There are those who argue that punctuation should be used as a device to denote length of pauses. A period is a longer pause then a comma and in some cases works better. Starting a sentence with a conjunction emphasizes the change in thought.

Then there are those who understand that language is an ever-evolving thing. We would be speaking Greek if it were otherwise. Only the French are notorious for trying to maintain the "purity" of their language and they come off a bit silly for it too.

Bottom line: There is NOTHING wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction in conversational text.

Conversational text on message boards, instant messenger, email, and chat relays is a relatively new medium of communication. The technology does not allow for the conversational elements present in spoken language. However, the rules of our language form a coherent framework for communication. When people habitually ignore those rules out of ignorance or laziness, it can have lasting negatice effects on our language.

I hope that the numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes in your response were a parody.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 4, 2004, 5:42 pm

there are no spelling or grammar mistakes in that post.

there probably are in this one tho.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 4, 2004, 5:54 pm

kyoukan wrote:there are no spelling or grammar mistakes in that post.

there probably are in this one tho.

I am not going to correct it fully, but I will point out a few errors. I am not in the habit of correcting mistakes on these boards, nor do I intend to start, but my final comment in my previous post was appropriate.

Lalanae wrote:Jesus christ people. I have an English degree and its commonly accepted that in conversational text (most notably in online environments)(missing "that") the rigid rules of grammar do not have to apply all the time. Textual communication loses so much as opposed to spoken communication, that conversationally its is ok. There are those who argue that punctuation should be used as a device to denote length of pauses. A period is a longer pause then a comma and (missing commas enclosing "in some cases")in some cases works better. Starting a sentence with a conjunction emphasizes the change in thought.

Then there are those who understand that language is an ever-evolving thing. We would be speaking Greek if it were otherwise. Only the French are notorious for trying to maintain the "purity" of their language and they come off a bit silly for it too.

Bottom line: There is NOTHING wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction in conversational text.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 4, 2004, 7:48 pm

Archeiron is the text nazi version of Aranuil on roids!

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 4, 2004, 8:09 pm

Winnow wrote:Archeiron is the text nazi version of Aranuil on roids!

I hate you!

noel · Post by **noel** » October 4, 2004, 8:22 pm

Archerion is my God!

I AM NOT WORTHY!

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » October 4, 2004, 10:08 pm

wow what a dull fucking life you must have. No one here gives a shit about a few missing commas and the random misspelling. Punctuation has little value here. I write for a living. I deal with language all day long. I write for speed here, not for straight A's.

I think you just got your panties in a bunch because I argued with you.

ps "that" is there. You should look a little closer next time.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » October 4, 2004, 10:10 pm

Lalanae wrote:wow what a dull fucking life you must have. No one here gives a shit about a few missing commas and the random misspelling. Punctuation has little value here. I write for a living. I deal with language all day long. I write for speed here, not for straight A's.

I think you just got your panties in a bunch because I argued with you.

ps "that" is there. You should look a little closer next time.

So someone come in a schools you in your own profession, Just do it pull the fucking trigger.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » October 4, 2004, 10:13 pm

lol yeah, posting here is my profession.

I'm a lazy typist when I post here because i do it all day. who fucking cares. I still make more sense than you.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » October 4, 2004, 10:13 pm

Lalanae wrote:lol yeah, posting here is my profession.

I'm a lazy typist when I post here because i do it all day. who fucking cares. I still make more sense than you.

Just Pull the trigger Bitch pull it!!!!!

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » October 4, 2004, 10:15 pm

if its pointing at the crooked little twig you call your "pee pee," sure!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » October 4, 2004, 10:18 pm

Lalanae wrote:if its pointing at the crooked little twig you call your "pee pee," sure!

Watch out its in your ass!!!!