The Wicked Witch is dead.

[lookout123]

subway sandwiches aren't all that fun to taste a second time. how about a little warning next time?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Does that count as an insult, or does it fall only in the fact category?

One who still supports George Jr and who, as a professional investor, could only recommend underperforming mutual funds. Yes, lookout123 need only understand what he is told to think and how to scam his clients for maximum profit. Just facts - no insults intended.

This is the new Cellar where the topic is perverted to attack another poster. Not that lookout123 knows the difference. Attacking others is the best way to win an argument that defends wacko extremist rhetoric.

lookout123's friend even distributed voter registration cards, destroyed cards of those who registered Democratic, and then sent in only the Republican cards. Just a friend that lookout123 admitted to - then later tried to deny.

UT – how many more should post like TheMercenary, UG, and lookout123 before you decide their attitude and personal insults are acidic to The Cellar? Is open insulting tolerated until others respond in kind?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

lookout123's friend even distributed voter registration cards, destroyed cards of those who registered Democratic, and then sent in only the Republican cards. Just a friend that lookout123 admitted to - then later tried to deny.

And you know this because...????

[classicman]

Tom, Insults can come in many forms - there are those that are blatant "Your a cock" for example, and those that are loosely veiled. Either way an intelligent reader can see that they are both insults just in different forms. Just because they are buried under a mountain of BS, conjecture and text does not make them any less insulting.

Just my

[lookout123]

now classicman, just for the sake of clarity - when you say "you're a cock" are you referring to tw? i only ask because i don't want the little twat's feelings to get hurt.

ah, fuck it, what do i care?

tw, get over it. in my 7,000+ posts i think i've only insulted two other dwellars. one was a hardcore troll and one was rkzenrage. figure it out, i'll insult you until one of only a few options happens:

1) UT bans me (which I don't want, but I would accept if he deems necessary)
2) You stop lying constantly and ONCE, just ONCE actually engage in an honest, meaningful dialogue about the issues that we have locked horns on.

I have many times given you the opportunity to support your anti- financial advisor stance. I've presented information that casts light on your assertions. Not one time have you ever been man enough to step up and respond. Instead you wait until the next thread to come back with the same old tired mantra of "lookout licks gwb's jockstrap..." whatever dude - anyone who reads should know my stance on bush and most other politicians as well.

you're a pathetic, lying, worn out cunt without enough self awareness to grow as a person. prove me wrong.

[classicman]

lol @ lookout - no that was just a general insult not intended for any particular dwellar, but if the shoe fits....

[deadbeater]

A supporter of Bush shorted every stock, except Google and Mastercard.

[lookout123]

what exactly does that mean?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

That deadbeater is having satiric fun with this thread.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by classicman

. . . not intended for any particular dwellar, but if the shoe fits....

"If I build a shoe and somebody wants to put it on and loudly announce that it fits..." -- Bill Mauldin, Up Front, circa 1944

[DanaC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
Good God, man, you just can't help yourself can you? Pompous, self-satisfied, arrogant and absurd.

Let's see, Dana, how this logically follows: I know more about accurate fifteenth-century grammar, without Google, than you do -- and you call me names on that account.

Can't say as that one shows you in your best light.

If you wanted to say "Methinks thou dost protest too much," why then did you write something else?

Well....I didn't. You quoted from a post by Sundae Girl. I was attempting to suggest that your attack on her use of grammar was an unnecessary and ungracious way to answer her point. I stand by that. Now are you really going to attempt to tell me that you are better with language than Sundae Girl?

This grammar nazi bullshit really aggravates me. If I write a piece for university it is submitted with flawless spelling and flawless grammar. I don't require a spellchecker to ensure that. I submit first draft material and it has not one spelling error, nor a single grammatical mistake. I post here, however and that is not the case. I can only assume this must also follow through for other people, Sundae included. This is because this is an informal setting, not a formal one. If I deliver a speech, I ensure I am very careful wth my language. If I am sitting in a pub chatting with my mates and putting the world to rights, I am less careful.

[eta] pointing out other peoples' grammatical, or spelling, errors isn't necessarily a bad thing: sometimes it is funny, or draws attention to a freudian slip; sometimes it is relevant, as would be the case if someone posted about another dwellar's errors only to litter ther own post with the same. Sometimes, though, and this is why I took umbrage to UG's snipe, it is simply ungracious, or is an attempt to demean and belittle another dwellar.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

.... it is simply ungracious, or is an attempt to demean and belittle another dwellar.

You've got UG's number.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Yes, that is exactly what I'll tell you. She blew it, and in the blowing committed an absurdity. Solecisms are the kind of error someone has some grounds to know better than.

I do apologize, of course, for any mistaking of her for you. That's one on me. But wait! -- see post #27 this thread, and see if you're not in error yourself. You know: the post just above your own post #28, which you quote, and misleadingly, in #56.

[DanaC]

see post #27 this thread, and see if you're not in error yourself. You know: the post just above your own post #28, which you quote, and misleadingly, in #56.

Go. Enlighten me. Point out to me which unforgivable and absurd error I have committed. I really, really care.

Yes, that is exactly what I'll tell you. She blew it, and in the blowing committed an absurdity. Solecisms are the kind of error someone has some grounds to know better than.

*shakes head* ok. You win. It must be so lonely be the cleverest man on teh interwebz.

For the record, Urbane Guerilla considers himself a better writer than Sundae Girl. Personally I find this absurd and delusional. But hey, what do I know?

[eta] in the wikipaedia article on solecisms it ends with this note:

Rejecting convention in favor of consensus, modern descriptive linguistics generally dismisses the notion of solecisms, concentrating on how language is used, rather than how it ought to be used.

Now this doesn't apply in this case because 'thou' is not much in common usage (except for a few places in the north of england, where Thee and Thou have been corrupted into 'tha') but it does point to a general direction within the field of linguistics: a direction which is the opposite of the one you are heading in, UG. Your approach to grammar, as evidenced by your obsessive need to point out mistakes to those with whom you are arguing, is already outmoded. The world is leaving you behind my friend:P

[Sundae]

I was paraphrasing Shakespeare.
He uses doth rather than dost, although I accept it is said about another person as opposed to being addressed to them.
Can't say I'm all that fussed about getting the finer points of archaic and obsolete grammar wrong on one occasion. Just my bad luck to address it to one of the few people who still uses it.

Still, nice to know I can still blow it with the best of them.