JonBoy16 Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Firstly, you're*.Secondly, of course to we look like that. I love when people correct someone's grammar then use poor grammar right afterwards...thanks for the laughs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayzie Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 The only thing I have to say in defense of those threads is that they're funny. This one isn't.. I'll refer you to Clash's post, but get rid of his roundly dig at me. It completely depends on the POV of the user. To me, it seems like Trouble are trying to get a rise out of TPF & Co and what happens? TPF & friends come rushing in to defend them and well, I'm not in Trouble but I think most people will agree that this is just hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrilobyteMan Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) I love when people correct someone's grammar then use poor grammar right afterwards...thanks for the laughs! It wasn't a grammatical error, it was a typo. I was in a tired state of mind and forgot to add "to you" at the end of the sentence. Is that seriously the only retort you have to my post? I wasn't making it hard... Edited January 8, 2010 by TrilobyteMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning Glory Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 I liked the use of "heteroglossia" the most. LOL, AS did I! Well that plus centripetal and centrifugal being used in the same paragraph To me, it seems like Trouble are trying to get a rise out of TPF & Co and what happens? TPF & friends come rushing in to defend them and well, I'm not in Trouble but I think most people will agree that this is just hilarious. You are correct...While it has stir'd the "RISE" in some TPF, others are laughing as well. Take me for instance Fact is Trouble was asked early this round (as I was told) about any conflict or grudges being carried over from last round, to which the reply was NO. For that reason I gave the OK for many TPF members to open trades with trouble as they were offered to the members of TPF and its allies. Just like last round TPF does not wish for conflict from a fellow white team alliance, but as always WE will defend any acts of aggression. With that said, we are not opposed to any propaganda, factious statements, or other post to satirize TPF. Especially when the Aurthur is stultified, using superficial comments that are lacking facts just to be pretentious and embrace his arrogance, when he is clearly pseudo-intellectual and lacking tact. See WE like to give RISE as well BG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonBoy16 Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Now BG brings out the big words. At least I can understand these ones!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonBoy16 Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 It wasn't a grammatical error, it was a typo. I was in a tired state of mind and forgot to add "to you" at the end of the sentence. Is that seriously the only retort you have to my post? I wasn't making it hard... Oh no- it is far from being my only retort to your post. I just don't really take anything seriously that Trouble has said thus far in this thread. Therefore I choose to only comment on the fun things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elric Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 LOL, AS did I! Well that plus centripetal and centrifugal being used in the same paragraph You are correct...While it has stir'd the "RISE" in some TPF, others are laughing as well. Take me for instance Fact is Trouble was asked early this round (as I was told) about any conflict or grudges being carried over from last round, to which the reply was NO. For that reason I gave the OK for many TPF members to open trades with trouble as they were offered to the members of TPF and its allies. Just like last round TPF does not wish for conflict from a fellow white team alliance, but as always WE will defend any acts of aggression. With that said, we are not opposed to any propaganda, factious statements, or other post to satirize TPF. Especially when the Aurthur is stultified, using superficial comments that are lacking facts just to be pretentious and embrace his arrogance, when he is clearly pseudo-intellectual and lacking tact. See WE like to give RISE as well BG. Here I like the use of stultified. But I'll be jiggered if I know what it means. It sounds like some archaic insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacapo Saladin Posted January 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Burning Glory's contumelious litanies—including the maledicent, the insolent, the prolix, and especially the haughty—I'll use what little space I have to send Burning Glory's contrivances into the dustbin where they belong. For starters, Burning Glory may unwittingly create a factitious demand for his prissy, annoying roorbacks. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why Burning Glory is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Burning Glory has lost contact with reality. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune, then there is indisputably no hope for you. He is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. I myself sincerely maintain that my crusades regarding selfish, gruesome pseudo-intellectuals of one sort or another, while far from complete, will wage war on gangsterism. Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement, but for all of you reading this who are not feckless, flagitious hatemongers, you can understand where the motivation for that statement comes from. It has been said that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack by Burning Glory's wretched adherents. I, in turn, claim that I welcome Burning Glory's comments. However, Burning Glory needs to realize that his bedfellows like to say, "It's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the backwards hands of drugged-out tightwads." Such frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. If someone wants me to believe something soulless like that, that person will have to show me some concrete evidence. Meanwhile, I intend to show you that over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that Burning Glory's agitprop machine is running at full throttle. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that Burning Glory's claim that fetishism is a noble goal requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Burning Glory throws at us. Sorry for babbling so much, but pragmatic adherence to concision necessitates that I delete a plethora of thoroughly unflattering adjectives regarding Burning Glory's taradiddles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wizard of Oz Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 Sorry for babbling so much, It's quite alright Jacapo, most of us are becoming use to it and just read for the most relevant parts. Your admission of babbling was quite "relevant". Certainly refreshing and honest. So in short, I SUPPORT THIS MESSAGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bibliophile Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Burning Glory's contumelious litanies—including the maledicent, the insolent, the prolix, and especially the haughty—I'll use what little space I have to send Burning Glory's contrivances into the dustbin where they belong. For starters, Burning Glory may unwittingly create a factitious demand for his prissy, annoying roorbacks. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why Burning Glory is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Burning Glory has lost contact with reality. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune, then there is indisputably no hope for you. He is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. I myself sincerely maintain that my crusades regarding selfish, gruesome pseudo-intellectuals of one sort or another, while far from complete, will wage war on gangsterism. Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement, but for all of you reading this who are not feckless, flagitious hatemongers, you can understand where the motivation for that statement comes from. It has been said that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack by Burning Glory's wretched adherents. I, in turn, claim that I welcome Burning Glory's comments. However, Burning Glory needs to realize that his bedfellows like to say, "It's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the backwards hands of drugged-out tightwads." Such frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. If someone wants me to believe something soulless like that, that person will have to show me some concrete evidence. Meanwhile, I intend to show you that over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that Burning Glory's agitprop machine is running at full throttle. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that Burning Glory's claim that fetishism is a noble goal requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Burning Glory throws at us. Sorry for babbling so much, but pragmatic adherence to concision necessitates that I delete a plethora of thoroughly unflattering adjectives regarding Burning Glory's taradiddles Since you have read but declined to respond to my ingame request for the "facts" mentioned in your OP, I can only conclude that you really are not interested in communicating facts but rather just spreading confusion. In light of the OP and what is above you might benefit from the advice that I was given on a 1st year university paper: "You have a facility for a pompous turn of phrase that might best be curbed." I took that advice years ago, and the clarity of my communication improved immensely as a result. Maybe you could do us all the favour of doing the same. Edited January 9, 2010 by bibliophile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic redhead Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Burning Glory's contumelious litanies—including the maledicent, the insolent, the prolix, and especially the haughty—I'll use what little space I have to send Burning Glory's contrivances into the dustbin where they belong. For starters, Burning Glory may unwittingly create a factitious demand for his prissy, annoying roorbacks. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why Burning Glory is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Burning Glory has lost contact with reality. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune, then there is indisputably no hope for you. He is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. I myself sincerely maintain that my crusades regarding selfish, gruesome pseudo-intellectuals of one sort or another, while far from complete, will wage war on gangsterism. Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement, but for all of you reading this who are not feckless, flagitious hatemongers, you can understand where the motivation for that statement comes from. It has been said that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack by Burning Glory's wretched adherents. I, in turn, claim that I welcome Burning Glory's comments. However, Burning Glory needs to realize that his bedfellows like to say, "It's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the backwards hands of drugged-out tightwads." Such frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. If someone wants me to believe something soulless like that, that person will have to show me some concrete evidence. Meanwhile, I intend to show you that over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that Burning Glory's agitprop machine is running at full throttle. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that Burning Glory's claim that fetishism is a noble goal requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Burning Glory throws at us. Sorry for babbling so much, but pragmatic adherence to concision necessitates that I delete a plethora of thoroughly unflattering adjectives regarding Burning Glory's taradiddles tl;dr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elric Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Burning Glory's contumelious litanies—including the maledicent, the insolent, the prolix, and especially the haughty—I'll use what little space I have to send Burning Glory's contrivances into the dustbin where they belong. For starters, Burning Glory may unwittingly create a factitious demand for his prissy, annoying roorbacks. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why Burning Glory is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Burning Glory has lost contact with reality. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune, then there is indisputably no hope for you. He is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. I myself sincerely maintain that my crusades regarding selfish, gruesome pseudo-intellectuals of one sort or another, while far from complete, will wage war on gangsterism. Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement, but for all of you reading this who are not feckless, flagitious hatemongers, you can understand where the motivation for that statement comes from. It has been said that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack by Burning Glory's wretched adherents. I, in turn, claim that I welcome Burning Glory's comments. However, Burning Glory needs to realize that his bedfellows like to say, "It's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the backwards hands of drugged-out tightwads." Such frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. If someone wants me to believe something soulless like that, that person will have to show me some concrete evidence. Meanwhile, I intend to show you that over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that Burning Glory's agitprop machine is running at full throttle. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that Burning Glory's claim that fetishism is a noble goal requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Burning Glory throws at us. Sorry for babbling so much, but pragmatic adherence to concision necessitates that I delete a plethora of thoroughly unflattering adjectives regarding Burning Glory's taradiddles I see one major flaw in your above-referenced statement. Dope smokers are not lawless. They have rules, and are apparently adverse to anarchy, according to the following "rules of dope smoking" that I found on Urban Dictionary.com: The unwritten rules of smoking weed in groups or circles, usually broken by rookie smokers. Without these, it would be anarchy. Does not apply if you are smoking something to your face. These rules are not in any specific order. - Rollers Rights are always in effect - The person who purchased or chips in the most money for the weed always gets to roll - You cannot complain about the weed being bush if you did not chip any money in to buy it - Calling out deuce before the joint is rolled up results in getting b@tch [edited] place (last in line) - If smoking a blunt, no one is allowed to back down - If smoking a blunt, no one is allowed to take baby-tokes - Rookies acting paranoid will result in a punch in the arm from the rest of the group - Dropping the the blunt or spliff results in a punch in the arm from the rest of the group - Not "ringing" a canoeing blunt with saliva to fix it results in a punch in the arm from the rest of the group - Always smoke it down to the last toke - What happens in the smoking circle stays in the smoking circle (unless it was way too funny) *Rookie drops the blunt, gets punched by everybody* Rookie: Why?!?!?!?! Me: Don't you know The Rules of Smoking Weed? Don't ever drop the blunt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wizard of Oz Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I see one major flaw in your above-referenced statement. Dope smokers are not lawless. They have rules, and are apparently adverse to anarchy, according to the following "rules of dope smoking" that I found on Urban Dictionary.com:The unwritten rules of smoking weed in groups or circles, usually broken by rookie smokers. Without these, it would be anarchy. Does not apply if you are smoking something to your face. These rules are not in any specific order. - Rollers Rights are always in effect - The person who purchased or chips in the most money for the weed always gets to roll - You cannot complain about the weed being bush if you did not chip any money in to buy it - Calling out deuce before the joint is rolled up results in getting b@tch [edited] place (last in line) - If smoking a blunt, no one is allowed to back down - If smoking a blunt, no one is allowed to take baby-tokes - Rookies acting paranoid will result in a punch in the arm from the rest of the group - Dropping the the blunt or spliff results in a punch in the arm from the rest of the group - Not "ringing" a canoeing blunt with saliva to fix it results in a punch in the arm from the rest of the group - Always smoke it down to the last toke - What happens in the smoking circle stays in the smoking circle (unless it was way too funny) *Rookie drops the blunt, gets punched by everybody* Rookie: Why?!?!?!?! Me: Don't you know The Rules of Smoking Weed? Don't ever drop the blunt! Now this is funny... I don't care who you are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts