Now accepting submissions for Intermittens #4... I am thinking this will be the "Lollercaust issue" and you know what that means!
For this issue can we all just knock the fuck off with the "but not all" qualifier? I think that people here are literate enough to TOTALLY GET that if you MEANT "ALL", you would have SAID "ALL".
Adding more words does not always convey more meaning.
Am I way off base here? I think it just trains people to think they DO mean "all" unless specified otherwise. If anyone misunderstands "some" to mean "all" they need to STOP BEING SO FUCKING LITERATELY LAZY.
"Some" "Most", and "Many" DON'T MEAN ALL. We get it.
post edited for legal reasons
I agree with most of what you said, but not all. ;)
If I say that I always masturbate, does that mean I am masturbating right now.... :fap:
Removed pending charges under the Obscene Publications Act 1964,
But what if that is just someone's style?
I have nothing to add to this thread.
all posts should be in the second person or passive voice and in full formal Scientific english
Which conversations prompted this, Nigel?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 05:39:22 PM
But what if that is just someone's style?
Okay, now I do.
Style is just as open to criticism and mocking as anything else, maybe more so.
Quote from: Faust on December 11, 2008, 05:40:21 PM
all posts should be in the second person or passive voice and in full formal Scientific english
I hope to god not. Do you know how boring that is to read? Thats what I write like in my papers but its not enjoyable by any means.
Quote from: Kai on December 11, 2008, 05:43:56 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 11, 2008, 05:40:21 PM
all posts should be in the second person or passive voice and in full formal Scientific english
I hope to god not. Do you know how boring that is to read? Thats what I write like in my papers but its not enjoyable by any means.
This poster's assessment of the situation is correct.
*edited due to legal stuff*
Well, that's what I get for not using mosbunal in that rant... I didn't mean it was true of all of them :(
Quote from: Kai on December 11, 2008, 05:43:56 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 11, 2008, 05:40:21 PM
all posts should be in the second person or passive voice and in full formal Scientific english
I hope to god not. Do you know how boring that is to read? Thats what I write like in my papers but its not enjoyable by any means.
it was sarcasm
its because of six years of that shit that i feel the same applies to most any constraint on what people say, self imposed or because of any 'guidelines' on what people say i think its probably the reason i started trolling sites
Quote from: Faust on December 11, 2008, 05:51:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 11, 2008, 05:43:56 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 11, 2008, 05:40:21 PM
all posts should be in the second person or passive voice and in full formal Scientific english
I hope to god not. Do you know how boring that is to read? Thats what I write like in my papers but its not enjoyable by any means.
it was sarcasm
its because of six years of that shit that i feel the same applies to most any constraint on what people say, self imposed or because of any 'guidelines' on what people say i think its probably the reason i started trolling sites
THIS!
Quote from: Kai on December 11, 2008, 05:40:49 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 05:39:22 PM
But what if that is just someone's style?
Okay, now I do.
Style is just as open to criticism and mocking as anything else, maybe more so.
I wouldn't suggest it should not be open to criticism, etc. I was just kinda playing devil's advocate.
Sombunall of us will use it from now on even though we didn't before just to piss you off.
Quote from: Malachite on December 11, 2008, 05:56:05 PM
Sombunall of us will use it from now on even though we didn't before just to piss you off.
some people :roll:
Quote from: Faust on December 11, 2008, 05:57:24 PM
Quote from: Malachite on December 11, 2008, 05:56:05 PM
Sombunall of us will use it from now on even though we didn't before just to piss you off.
Sombunall people :roll:
fixxt for accuratude
Joke's been made, but still :mittens:
Quote from: Faust on December 11, 2008, 05:57:24 PM
Quote from: Malachite on December 11, 2008, 05:56:05 PM
Sombunall of us will use it from now on even though we didn't before just to piss you off.
some people, in my opinion :roll:, I think
fixed, to add gratuitous e-prime.
Quote from: Nigel on December 11, 2008, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 11, 2008, 05:48:33 PM
Hrmmm, a reasonable request.
How about this, I'll start pulling mosbunall and sombunall from my future posts (I may occasionally miss one, but I'll try). That will remain in effect until the next debate where someone decides I'm wrong because "Not all X is Y" after I used the term most. At that point it goes back in.
OK?
:lulz:
What if instead of putting it back in, you just say "I DIDN'T SAY ALL, DIPSHIT, I SAID MOST, LEARN TO READ!"
Because I think that's fair.
Much more entertaining to read too
I actually just had this conversation with ... on another board, where girl said she wants someone to share her bed, and boy says "You're a girl so it should be easy for you" and I said "girls tend to get lots of offers because most guys are more aggressive than most girls, but the offers are often not ones the girl wants to take up" and my ... immediately counters with "Nuh, I went after (boyx) and I'm sure I wouldn't have landed him if I hadn't because he's not aggressive at all" and I wanted to slap ...
post edited for legal reasons
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 06:02:43 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 11, 2008, 05:57:24 PM
Quote from: Malachite on December 11, 2008, 05:56:05 PM
*edited*
*edited*
*edited*
*edited*
Quote from: Nigel on December 11, 2008, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 11, 2008, 05:48:33 PM
*edited*
:lulz:
*edited*
*edited*
Doctrine of Preemptive Semantics.
I am keeping that line in because I like it.
Content removed as requested via Home Office DA-notice.
Trying not to mispronounce the big words on the teleprompter is a "Linguistic Doctrine" now??? :eek:
nukleer linguisticsisms, to sound presidential
edit for - "Redaction of Confidential Information"
review pending under freedom of information act (FIOA) 5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended By
Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048.
Removed due to being investigated under sections 29B(3), 29H(2), 29I(2)(b) and 29I(4) of the the Public Order Act 1986.
Quote from: F.M.E on December 11, 2008, 06:38:24 PM
nukleer linguisticsisms, to sound presidential
"Nookyoolur linguistifications," I think you mean.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 11, 2008, 06:43:24 PM
Quote from: F.M.E on December 11, 2008, 06:38:24 PM
nukleer linguisticsisms, to sound presidential
"Nookyoolur linguistifications," I think you mean.
yes those
edit for - "Redaction of Confidential Information"
review pending under freedom of information act (FIOA) 5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended By
Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048.
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2008, 06:42:07 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 11, 2008, 06:31:32 PM
*edited*
*edited*
"We must fight the anally retentive abroad, so that we do not have to fight them here!"
*edited*
Dear Nigel,
Fuck you. I'll write how I want, and I'll post what I want.
Love and cunnilingus,
LMNO
Faust has a hawt avatar.
i have no clue what the purpose of this thread is.
i are too dumb to understand your fancy englishes.
uh-hyuk.
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 07:22:06 PM
Dear Nigel,
Fuck you. I'll write how I want, and I'll post what I want.
Love and cunnilingus,
LMNO
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on December 11, 2008, 05:33:18 PM
Can we all just knock the fuck off with the "but not all" qualifier? I think that people here are literate enough to TOTALLY GET that if you MEANT "ALL", you would have SAID "ALL".
Adding more words does not always convey more meaning.
Am I way off base here? I think it just trains people to think they DO mean "all" unless specified otherwise. If anyone misunderstands "some" to mean "all" they need to STOP BEING SO FUCKING LITERATELY LAZY.
"Some" "Most", and "Many" DON'T MEAN ALL. We get it.
The usage might be justified in rare instances. Most-if-not-all times, most stands alone.
How about "most-if-not-all"?
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 13, 2008, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 11, 2008, 05:33:18 PM
Can we all just knock the fuck off with the "but not all" qualifier? I think that people here are literate enough to TOTALLY GET that if you MEANT "ALL", you would have SAID "ALL".
Adding more words does not always convey more meaning.
Am I way off base here? I think it just trains people to think they DO mean "all" unless specified otherwise. If anyone misunderstands "some" to mean "all" they need to STOP BEING SO FUCKING LITERATELY LAZY.
"Some" "Most", and "Many" DON'T MEAN ALL. We get it.
The usage might be justified in rare instances. Most-if-not-all times, most stands alone.
How about "most-if-not-all"?
That has a fairly specific meaning (although the hyphens are unnecessary IMO).
It suggests that the speaker believes that most X are Y, and considers it a decent possibility that
all X are Y.
I have no idea if anything I'm saying is relevant to anything at all.
Quote from: Cainad on December 13, 2008, 12:46:20 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 13, 2008, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 11, 2008, 05:33:18 PM
Can we all just knock the fuck off with the "but not all" qualifier? I think that people here are literate enough to TOTALLY GET that if you MEANT "ALL", you would have SAID "ALL".
Adding more words does not always convey more meaning.
Am I way off base here? I think it just trains people to think they DO mean "all" unless specified otherwise. If anyone misunderstands "some" to mean "all" they need to STOP BEING SO FUCKING LITERATELY LAZY.
"Some" "Most", and "Many" DON'T MEAN ALL. We get it.
The usage might be justified in rare instances. Most-if-not-all times, most stands alone.
How about "most-if-not-all"?
That has a fairly specific meaning (although the hyphens are unnecessary IMO).
It suggests that the speaker believes that most X are Y, and considers it a decent possibility that all X are Y.
I have no idea if anything I'm saying is relevant to anything at all.
What he said.
Quote from: Cainad on December 13, 2008, 12:46:20 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 13, 2008, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 11, 2008, 05:33:18 PM
*edited*
*edited*
*edited*
PRecisely Cainad.
*edited*
Also, and perhaps just as importantly, it appears like a good thing to stick in *edited* if you want to rile Nigel up ;-)
content removed
I have nothing to add.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 13, 2008, 01:08:15 AM
Quote from: Cainad on December 13, 2008, 12:46:20 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 13, 2008, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 11, 2008, 05:33:18 PM
Can we all just knock the fuck off with the "but not all" qualifier? I think that people here are literate enough to TOTALLY GET that if you MEANT "ALL", you would have SAID "ALL".
Adding more words does not always convey more meaning.
Am I way off base here? I think it just trains people to think they DO mean "all" unless specified otherwise. If anyone misunderstands "some" to mean "all" they need to STOP BEING SO FUCKING LITERATELY LAZY.
"Some" "Most", and "Many" DON'T MEAN ALL. We get it.
The usage might be justified in rare instances. Most-if-not-all times, most stands alone.
How about "most-if-not-all"?
That has a fairly specific meaning (although the hyphens are unnecessary IMO).
It suggests that the speaker believes that most X are Y, and considers it a decent possibility that all X are Y.
I have no idea if anything I'm saying is relevant to anything at all.
PRecisely Cainad.
Sombunal is aimed to indicate that the speaker is talking from a subjective position "Some of X" (perhaps "Some" could even mean "Every X I Observed, but I haven't observed ALL X in the world, so I can't say for sure about those). In most cases, its to specify that you aren't making a braod statement of fact, but rather a statement from a position of "partial knowledge".
Also, and perhaps just as importantly, it appears like a good thing to stick in posts if you want to rile Nigel up ;-)
A: you are replying as if you'd agreed with what he said, but the content of your post makes it clear that you entirely missed his point.
B: It seems like surely you've seen me riled up before? Because this is not it. I should find instances of "riled", to jog your memory.
Also, the thing is, "some" ALREADY MEANS THAT, I mean FUCK, we are not a community of retards!
That wasn't riled either, FYI. I'd be grateful to anyone who could get me riled right now, take my mind off things for a minute.
I agree with you Nigel. Sombunal is as stupid and spineless as "ze" and "J".
am i the only one who thinks "sombunal" sounds like some kind of sleeping pill?
PEOPLE ARE EMPHASIZING THEIR STATEMENTS WITH REDUNDANCY!
\
:omg:
/
HOLY MOTHERFUCKING TWATFLAPPERY!
Quote from: rong on December 13, 2008, 08:10:44 AM
am i the only one who thinks "sombunal" sounds like some kind of sleeping pill?
No.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on December 13, 2008, 07:45:17 AM
I agree with you Nigel. Sombunal is as stupid and spineless as "ze" and "J".
And all the cultures with genderless pronouns are stupid and spineless too then?
Is this code for "intersex and androgynous people are stupid and spineless?"
If so, I have a hearty fuck you, douchebag, reserved just for you.
I think sombunall is silly and more an obstacle to understanding than a clarifier, while genderless pronouns have a biological basis as well as a cultural history.
Quote from: rong on December 13, 2008, 08:10:44 AM
am i the only one who thinks "sombunal" sounds like somebunal kind of sleeping pill?
fixt, for wrong.
ok guys, wtf are we on about here?
these words are like,
atleabunonearly seventy years old or something. ("at least, but not nearly")
time to coin something new!!! we
are the
newbunol' discordia, after all ("new but not old")
albunoso - "all but not some", for if you want to say "all", and really mean it.
albunomost - "all but not most", for if you want to sound clever.
I wouldn't call genderless pronouns stupid, but I would call them pedantic and dull, and generally used in unnecessary situations.
Especially so on the internet, where the little pictures with words beside them could be any species let alone gender.
serioufnokiddingly.
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 12:39:46 PM
I wouldn't call genderless pronouns stupid, but I would call them pedantic and dull, and generally used in unnecessary situations.
Especially so on the internet, where the little pictures with words beside them could be any species let alone gender.
I'd agree that they're generally used in unnecessary situations but properly contextualized they're perfectly appropriate.
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 12:39:46 PM
I wouldn't call genderless pronouns stupid, but I would call them pedantic and dull, and generally used in unnecessary situations.
Especially so on the internet, where the little pictures with words beside them could be any species let alone gender.
I'd agree that they're generally used in unnecessary situations but properly contextualized they're perfectly appropriate.
Perhaps, the only people I have ever encountered who use gender neutral terminology are people online As I mentioned before. I find gender identity or vocalisation of an absence of it on the internet laughable so I can admit I am predisposed to associate negative things with them. I'm unsure how I would react to it if I was talking to a person in real life that uses them.
So far my experience of it still seems like a crutch of a bland personality trying to sound more interesting.
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 12:39:46 PM
I wouldn't call genderless pronouns stupid, but I would call them pedantic and dull, and generally used in unnecessary situations.
Especially so on the internet, where the little pictures with words beside them could be any species let alone gender.
I'd agree that they're generally used in unnecessary situations but properly contextualized they're perfectly appropriate.
Perhaps, the only people I have ever encountered who use gender neutral terminology are people online As I mentioned before. I find gender identity or vocalisation of an absence of it on the internet laughable so I can admit I am predisposed to associate negative things with them. I'm unsure how I would react to it if I was talking to a person in real life that uses them.
So far my experience of it still seems like a crutch of a bland personality trying to sound more interesting.
Is a gender identity that isn't neatly masculine or feminine laughable IRL?
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 02:33:47 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 12:39:46 PM
I wouldn't call genderless pronouns stupid, but I would call them pedantic and dull, and generally used in unnecessary situations.
Especially so on the internet, where the little pictures with words beside them could be any species let alone gender.
I'd agree that they're generally used in unnecessary situations but properly contextualized they're perfectly appropriate.
Perhaps, the only people I have ever encountered who use gender neutral terminology are people online As I mentioned before. I find gender identity or vocalisation of an absence of it on the internet laughable so I can admit I am predisposed to associate negative things with them. I'm unsure how I would react to it if I was talking to a person in real life that uses them.
So far my experience of it still seems like a crutch of a bland personality trying to sound more interesting.
Is a gender identity that isn't neatly masculine or feminine laughable IRL?
Yes. Just as laughable as a gender identity that is neatly masculine or feminine but not quite as laughable as someone who thinks gender identities are srs bidness :lulz:
I get my yucks where I can find them.
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 02:33:47 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 12:39:46 PM
I wouldn't call genderless pronouns stupid, but I would call them pedantic and dull, and generally used in unnecessary situations.
Especially so on the internet, where the little pictures with words beside them could be any species let alone gender.
I'd agree that they're generally used in unnecessary situations but properly contextualized they're perfectly appropriate.
Perhaps, the only people I have ever encountered who use gender neutral terminology are people online As I mentioned before. I find gender identity or vocalisation of an absence of it on the internet laughable so I can admit I am predisposed to associate negative things with them. I'm unsure how I would react to it if I was talking to a person in real life that uses them.
So far my experience of it still seems like a crutch of a bland personality trying to sound more interesting.
Is a gender identity that isn't neatly masculine or feminine laughable IRL?
IRL is where the person origionates, its something tangible as opposed to the internet.
All gender identity is laughable, neatly or not, but i would be more likely to listen in real life when I can be more sure the person even exists.
EDIT: beaten
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 02:33:47 PMIs a gender identity that isn't neatly masculine or feminine laughable IRL?
IRLbunline i feel kinda indiffnolarious at them, IMH(bunop)O.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 13, 2008, 02:39:07 PM
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 02:33:47 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 12:39:46 PM
I wouldn't call genderless pronouns stupid, but I would call them pedantic and dull, and generally used in unnecessary situations.
Especially so on the internet, where the little pictures with words beside them could be any species let alone gender.
I'd agree that they're generally used in unnecessary situations but properly contextualized they're perfectly appropriate.
Perhaps, the only people I have ever encountered who use gender neutral terminology are people online As I mentioned before. I find gender identity or vocalisation of an absence of it on the internet laughable so I can admit I am predisposed to associate negative things with them. I'm unsure how I would react to it if I was talking to a person in real life that uses them.
So far my experience of it still seems like a crutch of a bland personality trying to sound more interesting.
Is a gender identity that isn't neatly masculine or feminine laughable IRL?
Yes. Just as laughable as a gender identity that is neatly masculine or feminine but not quite as laughable as someone who thinks gender identities are srs bidness :lulz:
I get my yucks where I can find them.
Fair enough. I can dig it.
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 02:40:42 PM
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 02:33:47 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 12:39:46 PM
I wouldn't call genderless pronouns stupid, but I would call them pedantic and dull, and generally used in unnecessary situations.
Especially so on the internet, where the little pictures with words beside them could be any species let alone gender.
I'd agree that they're generally used in unnecessary situations but properly contextualized they're perfectly appropriate.
Perhaps, the only people I have ever encountered who use gender neutral terminology are people online As I mentioned before. I find gender identity or vocalisation of an absence of it on the internet laughable so I can admit I am predisposed to associate negative things with them. I'm unsure how I would react to it if I was talking to a person in real life that uses them.
So far my experience of it still seems like a crutch of a bland personality trying to sound more interesting.
Is a gender identity that isn't neatly masculine or feminine laughable IRL?
IRL is where the person origionates, its something tangible as opposed to the internet.
All gender identity is laughable, neatly or not, but i would be more likely to listen in real life when I can be more sure the person even exists.
EDIT: beaten
:awesome:
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 13, 2008, 02:45:35 PM
Quote from: Net on December 13, 2008, 02:33:47 PMIs a gender identity that isn't neatly masculine or feminine laughable IRL?
IRLbunline i feel kinda indiffnolarious at them, IMH(bunop)O.
LMAO
:lulz: @ Triple Zero
"BREAKING: Dutchman Re-Invents English, News at 10"
*content edited for legal purposes*
:lulz: Trip0 wins thread.
Also, I find for me personally that giving a shit what kind of junk other people think I probably have between my legs is a complete waste of giving a shit. Who the fuck cares? In what reality does it MATTER what a bunch of dicks on the internet think I screw with?
Using wishy-washy terms that encourage sloppy thinking, though, THAT is an irritation I can get my teeth into.
Listen, this thread has really gotten off track from Intermittens #4, can we get it back in gear please?
Quote from: Nigel on December 13, 2008, 07:50:32 PM
Also, I find for me personally that giving a shit what kind of junk other people think I probably have between my legs is a complete waste of giving a shit. Who the fuck cares? In what reality does it MATTER what a bunch of dicks on the internet think I screw with?
Gender and sex organs have been separate for the last few years.
I've said it before, and will say it again, if you need gender neutral terms to describe yourself with, there are already several in the english language. There is no need to make some up.
Quote from: Kai on December 13, 2008, 07:57:37 PM
I've said it before, and will say it again, if you need gender neutral terms to describe yourself with, there are already several in the english language. There is no need to make some up.
Tee hee, it all comes back to using the passive voice.
Imagine if every androgynous person spoke in that....
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 07:54:10 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 13, 2008, 07:50:32 PM
Also, I find for me personally that giving a shit what kind of junk other people think I probably have between my legs is a complete waste of giving a shit. Who the fuck cares? In what reality does it MATTER what a bunch of dicks on the internet think I screw with?
Gender and sex organs have been separate for the last few years.
Yeah, that's a whole separate issue. "Junk" may be literal or metaphoric, and it STILL DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHAT A BUNCH OF DICKS ON THE INTERNET THINK.
This shit again?
:popcorn:
Quote from: Vene on December 13, 2008, 08:00:59 PM
This shit again?
:popcorn:
Hey, drama you can poke and laugh at is good for the soul.
That's why it's popcorn and not a facepalm.
Quote from: Nigel on December 13, 2008, 08:00:22 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 07:54:10 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 13, 2008, 07:50:32 PM
Also, I find for me personally that giving a shit what kind of junk other people think I probably have between my legs is a complete waste of giving a shit. Who the fuck cares? In what reality does it MATTER what a bunch of dicks on the internet think I screw with?
Gender and sex organs have been separate for the last few years.
Yeah, that's a whole separate issue. "Junk" may be literal or metaphoric, and it STILL DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHAT A BUNCH OF DICKS ON THE INTERNET THINK.
BUT YOU MUST SPECIFY IF YOU MEANT SOME OR ALL JUNK
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 08:06:01 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 13, 2008, 08:00:22 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2008, 07:54:10 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 13, 2008, 07:50:32 PM
Also, I find for me personally that giving a shit what kind of junk other people think I probably have between my legs is a complete waste of giving a shit. Who the fuck cares? In what reality does it MATTER what a bunch of dicks on the internet think I screw with?
Gender and sex organs have been separate for the last few years.
Yeah, that's a whole separate issue. "Junk" may be literal or metaphoric, and it STILL DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHAT A BUNCH OF DICKS ON THE INTERNET THINK.
BUT YOU MUST SPECIFY IF YOU MEANT SOME OR ALL JUNK
sombunal?
Faust has now changed his avatar which makes this post kinda really gross now.
Quote from: Squid-diddle on December 12, 2008, 02:38:45 AM
Faust has a hawt avatar.
i have no clue what the purpose of this thread is.
i are too dumb to understand your fancy englishes.
uh-hyuk.
So i retract.
hahaha.
sorry squid.
Just for you
www.principiadiscordia.com/putin
all worksafe <3
:lulz:
Don't touch me you fat hamfizted American trash bukkit.
\
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/putin/putin_graimace.JPG)
i think i like this guy.
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/putin/putinaxe.jpg)
Do it Putin, show them how badass you are. You know you want to.
Quote from: Vene on December 13, 2008, 11:05:58 PM
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/putin/putinaxe.jpg)
Do it Putin, show them how badass you are. You know you want to.
That's fucking priceless!
What would Tigra and Bunny think?!
Quote from: Vene on December 13, 2008, 11:05:58 PM
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/putin/putinaxe.jpg)
Do it Putin, show them how badass you are. You know you want to.
My first thought was "penny for your thoughts, dude"
ATTN: INTERMITTENS CONTRIBUTORS
Please edit your posts in this thread to remove all references to the "disputed" materials in issue #4.
Thank you!
I checked with our defence team and it looks like we got rid of most of the truly objectionable material.
Thanks to whomever deleted my post.
My lawyer has advised me not to say anything else.
Thanks for the heads up.
Just to cover my ass, I've hired legal counsel. Can Faust or the ISP for the servers here provide any "official" data showing I wasn't invovled?
Quote from: Richter on April 15, 2009, 07:35:56 PM
Thanks for the heads up.
Just to cover my ass, I've hired legal counsel. Can Faust or the ISP for the servers here provide any "official" data showing I wasn't invovled?
edit: whoops
(//http://"My%20lawyers%20have%20informed%20me%20that%20showing%20any%20prior%20knowledge%20of%20this%20could%20get%20me%20in%20serious%20trouble%20if%20any%20attention%20ever%20gets%20drawn%20to%20it.%20And%20someone%20will%20eventually%20find%20out%20:(,%20If%20someone%20finds%20the%20location%20of%20that%20building%20from%20those%20pictures%20then%20the%20whole%20things%20blown%20wide%20open.%20")
...
okay we're going on too long about this. If we were really trying to cover up something serious, we would be Keeping Our Fucking Mouths Shut better than this. It's not getting funnier or more convincing with additional OMGs tacked on at the end.
Right now this thread looks fake to me. It's a small number of edited posts, and then a long train of people winking and elbowing each other.
just sayin'
good thinking, that should get people off our trail :wink:
*nudge nudge*
(http://"thank%20you%20for%20quoting%20my%20post")
I'm still calling a lawyer. I've got copies of relevant threads saved already.
I respect and enjoy most of you, but when a project I'm not even invovled with has the potential to threaten my job and reputation, personally or professionally, then I have little choice. I hope you'll all do the same, or at least understand where I'm coming from.
I'll also no longer be posting here, regardless of how this turns out.
( I had to. :wink: )