Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:00 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:40 am
Posts: 3493
Location: The Blue Light
Raoul Duke wrote:
aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
You carry on splitting hairs if ya wanna. I'm done with talking to you now. :lol:

:lol:


unless by "splitting hairs" you mean pointing out all the flaws in your argument, then im not splitting hairs but i can understand why you wouldnt want to admit you are a cunt. its people like you that have made the world (the human world) into the piece of shit that it is.


Ain't no cunt here except you Rauuuuuuuuuuul. :mrgreen: This is what makes the Zappa forum so great, cunts like you. I think I've met you before under many other guises and different names. Same old shit though. Agent provocateaur, hah! Just looking for a fight anyway you can.

_________________
Country music + Black music = Rock and Roll


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5433
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Raoul Duke wrote:
aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
Petit Wazette wrote:

I agree with you on that. This isn't really the same thing, but you know how in India the women all have to walk behind the men? In America, I see a lot of Indian couples who still follow that tradition. I have no idea why they do this in India, or if it's part of their religion. My mother says it's all about male attitude.


Yeah I know what you mean. I think, (and Im going on what I personally have read on the subject, and experienced first hand) in the main, Indian men do tend to view women as second class citizens, almost like they're less important than the men.
I just think if an Indian, Muslim, whoever, come to live in England, they should adhere to the culture they are living in, or dont bloody live there. The very last thing they should be doing is complaining if they're asked not to wear the hijab. I read recently about a teacher who wanted to teach her pupils wearing a full hijab, covering her face and all. I am not racist by any means but I wouldn't want my daughter taught by a teacher with their face covered. Apparently it went to a tribual, but I cant remember what the result of it was. Thing is though, you automatically get accused of being a racist bastard, and Im really not. I just think fair is fair, in India, I'd be frowned upon if I lived there as I do here. If I wore a revealing top, or so much as shook a mans hand, I'd be treated differently. I wouldn't disrespect their culture, in their country.
Sorry for the rant, but this is one subject that really pisses me off.


why exactly dont you want your daughter to be taught by a teacher wearing a hijab? what difference would it make? what if the teacher wore a scarf or a hat? what if the teacher wore a cross around her neck? what if she was a rastafarian and had dread locks?


In a perfect world, people would teach peace and equality regardless of their religious/political/cultural/enthnic differences but it's not a perfect world. Theres always alterior motives when people outright use their religious beliefs to influence other peoples children. Whether the kids being programmed to strap a bomb on themselves to take out as many people as possible or they are being programmed to blow up a Planned Parenthood clinic. Perhaps if it's a rastafarian, their teaching kids to use drugs. In all of these scenarios the children only hear one side and never get a fair and balanced perception of the world to make independent decisions for the rest of their lives.

@ Roaul Duke...... I think your criticisms and attacks against Aspy are completely uncalled for. She is one of the nicest people on this forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:54 am
Posts: 4295
Location: En-Ger-Land
Raoul Duke wrote:
unless by "splitting hairs" you mean pointing out all the flaws in your argument, then im not splitting hairs but i can understand why you wouldnt want to admit you are a cunt. its people like you that have made the world (the human world) into the piece of shit that it is.



aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
You carry on splitting hairs if ya wanna. I'm done with talking to you now. :lol:


:lol:

_________________
"Listen to that noise! It's like Barry White eating wasps."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Hey Raoul, go get on Dr, Laura's blog this is for MUSIC !!!!!!!


is this discussion about music is it?

who's dr laura?

sabrinaIII wrote:
Ain't no cunt here except you Rauuuuuuuuuuul.


sabrinaIII wrote:
I think I've met you before under many other guises and different names.
.


dont think so... where exactly? i dont change my name

sabrinaIII wrote:
Same old shit though. Agent provocateaur, hah! Just looking for a fight anyway you can.


no, not really. i was replying to someone and asking them questions. how provocative!


SPACEBROTHER wrote:
In a perfect world, people would teach peace and equality regardless of their religious/political/cultural/enthnic differences but it's not a perfect world. Theres always alterior motives when people outright use their religious beliefs to influence other peoples children. Whether the kids being programmed to strap a bomb on themselves to take out as many people as possible or they are being programmed to blow up a Planned Parenthood clinic. Perhaps if it's a rastafarian, their teaching kids to use drugs. In all of these scenarios the children only hear one side and never get a fair and balanced perception of the world to make independent decisions for the rest of their lives.


and how does this relate to aspy not wanting a woman to teach at a school wearing a hijab? she'd be teaching the school curriculum, not religious beliefs...

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
@ Roaul Duke...... I think your criticisms and attacks against Aspy are completely uncalled for. She is one of the nicest people on this forum.


what has she being one of the nicest people on this forum got to do with anything? i was directly replying to what she was saying and calling her up on things she was saying. whether or not someones nice doesnt apply if what theyre saying is stupid.

aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
You carry on splitting hairs if ya wanna. I'm done with talking to you now. :lol:


its much easier to say "im done talking to you now lol" than to actually defend your argument when ive obviously expunged it, isnt it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 3134
R Duke,
you haven't expunged anything but your own credibility extended as a 'benefit of the doubt' kinda fig-leaf generally, that folks give to noobies, in a simple cultural norm kinda construct. Folks'll generally give newcomers the benefit of the doubt until a pattern develops showing them acting in an increasingly reprehensible way. The C-word in english is usually recognised as a no-no in hardly any context and yer use of it here is really unnecessary anyway and understandably also gonna trigger strong reactions in itself. Power to Aspy (and Sabby too) fer bein cool and not ripping yer ear off and makin you eat it.
It seems maybe yer more use to the use of the word (hear it more often) but maybe haven't grasped some of its broader ramifications. It seems too, that you would want to equate the word with a meaning like 'stupid'. Which rather limits the use of the word. On the other hand, if that was what you were going for, I for one can testify that Aspy is NOT stupid, nor have I ever seen her be a cunt, or a bitch for that matter. What would be the point?
But you don't have to just go on my and others' testimony.
In fact, since the point in question is of a teacher wearing the hijab and whether or not this should be allowed on the merits of either
religious expression or of
it being instead unacceptably influential on students

I'd have to go with the latter.

In fact, R Duke I see you denied at all the possibility of influence by the teacher as a person, on the student. You alluded to professionalism as the rule which would keep the 'good teacher' from propounding their personal beliefs, when actually, if the teacher is any good at all, what every teacher should want to be, as a teacher, is a good example, as a person. This is whateverybody wants as well. How can you be a good teacher if you set a poor example for your students? And how do people become good examples? They uphold and live their lives by maintaining the qualities of goodness, and for many, these are bound up in their religious beliefs.
So the teacher, in being a good example, according to your model of professional detachment [my synopsis, your idea] can't show the very thing that animates her goodness, her faith. So wearing the hijab at all would be hypocritical :lol: , i.e. merely symbolic, a token without the substance: in other words she would maintain a professional 'teacher-ness' and not allow any awareness of her faith to dawn in her student's minds, with the hijab ON. A real impossibility.
Refusing to accept this REALITY, that people can and do see themselves as symbols, as part of a larger group and can wear this 'uniform' to project a set of beliefs and effect their environment, their world, shows aspy to be a lot sharper than you.
In the states, if you want a religious education, you go to those places to get it. If you want the nuns and the preachers to teach you, you go to the schools that do that. But you know ahead of time that's what you're getting. In the case in point, if a devout muslim woman or a Catholic nun were to teach in the states, she couldn't wear the habit or the hijab in class, unless it were a private school. The issue hinges on the public school so therefore GOV funds it problem. That's where the real issue lies and still doesn't give you the right to call people names.

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5433
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
In a perfect world, people would teach peace and equality regardless of their religious/political/cultural/enthnic differences but it's not a perfect world. Theres always alterior motives when people outright use their religious beliefs to influence other peoples children. Whether the kids being programmed to strap a bomb on themselves to take out as many people as possible or they are being programmed to blow up a Planned Parenthood clinic. Perhaps if it's a rastafarian, their teaching kids to use drugs. In all of these scenarios the children only hear one side and never get a fair and balanced perception of the world to make independent decisions for the rest of their lives.


Raoul Duke wrote:
and how does this relate to aspy not wanting a woman to teach at a school wearing a hijab? she'd be teaching the school curriculum, not religious beliefs...


Wearing religious garments in a way is teaching religious beliefs. It's fine if the school a persons child is attending is a religious institution but history has proven itself for millennia that the mixing of ideologies has always led to disaster. Whether it's Paganism & Judaism and Christianity, Islam & Judaism and Christianity, Buddism & Islam ect ect ect ect, sooner or later some form of religious intolerence causes one group who disagrees with another group to fuel hatred towards each other.

I would'nt want to raise my child under those circumstances either and public education should be kept independent from religious organizations and the cerimonial garb someone wears.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
@ Roaul Duke...... I think your criticisms and attacks against Aspy are completely uncalled for. She is one of the nicest people on this forum.


Raoul Duke wrote:
what has she being one of the nicest people on this forum got to do with anything? i was directly replying to what she was saying and calling her up on things she was saying. whether or not someones nice doesnt apply if what theyre saying is stupid.


She was expressing an opinion. People can disagree on opinions but you crossed the line by insulting her because you disagree with the point-of-view she expressed.


....also read "punknaynowned's" post above this one. He has made a logical, poignent and eloquent summerization.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
punknaynowned wrote:
R Duke,
you haven't expunged anything but your own credibility extended as a 'benefit of the doubt' kinda fig-leaf generally, that folks give to noobies, in a simple cultural norm kinda construct. Folks'll generally give newcomers the benefit of the doubt until a pattern develops showing them acting in an increasingly reprehensible way. The C-word in english is usually recognised as a no-no in hardly any context and yer use of it here is really unnecessary anyway and understandably also gonna trigger strong reactions in itself. Power to Aspy (and Sabby too) fer bein cool and not ripping yer ear off and makin you eat it.
It seems maybe yer more use to the use of the word (hear it more often) but maybe haven't grasped some of its broader ramifications. It seems too, that you would want to equate the word with a meaning like 'stupid'. Which rather limits the use of the word. On the other hand, if that was what you were going for, I for one can testify that Aspy is NOT stupid, nor have I ever seen her be a cunt, or a bitch for that matter. What would be the point?
But you don't have to just go on my and others' testimony.
In fact, since the point in question is of a teacher wearing the hijab and whether or not this should be allowed on the merits of either
religious expression or of
it being instead unacceptably influential on students

I'd have to go with the latter.

In fact, R Duke I see you denied at all the possibility of influence by the teacher as a person, on the student. You alluded to professionalism as the rule which would keep the 'good teacher' from propounding their personal beliefs, when actually, if the teacher is any good at all, what every teacher should want to be, as a teacher, is a good example, as a person. This is whateverybody wants as well. How can you be a good teacher if you set a poor example for your students? And how do people become good examples? They uphold and live their lives by maintaining the qualities of goodness, and for many, these are bound up in their religious beliefs.
So the teacher, in being a good example, according to your model of professional detachment [my synopsis, your idea] can't show the very thing that animates her goodness, her faith. So wearing the hijab at all would be hypocritical :lol: , i.e. merely symbolic, a token without the substance: in other words she would maintain a professional 'teacher-ness' and not allow any awareness of her faith to dawn in her student's minds, with the hijab ON. A real impossibility.
Refusing to accept this REALITY, that people can and do see themselves as symbols, as part of a larger group and can wear this 'uniform' to project a set of beliefs and effect their environment, their world, shows aspy to be a lot sharper than you.
In the states, if you want a religious education, you go to those places to get it. If you want the nuns and the preachers to teach you, you go to the schools that do that. But you know ahead of time that's what you're getting. In the case in point, if a devout muslim woman or a Catholic nun were to teach in the states, she couldn't wear the habit or the hijab in class, unless it were a private school. The issue hinges on the public school so therefore GOV funds it problem. That's where the real issue lies and still doesn't give you the right to call people names.


ok, i just wrote a big thing replying to you and got a "time out error". i cannot be fucked writing it all again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Wearing religious garments in a way is teaching religious beliefs. It's fine if the school a persons child is attending is a religious institution but history has proven itself for millennia that the mixing of ideologies has always led to disaster. Whether it's Paganism & Judaism and Christianity, Islam & Judaism and Christianity, Buddism & Islam ect ect ect ect, sooner or later some form of religious intolerence causes one group who disagrees with another group to fuel hatred towards each other.

I would'nt want to raise my child under those circumstances either and public education should be kept independent from religious organizations and the cerimonial garb someone wears.
.


maybe you could try, hmm i dunno, talking to your child like a person and not a moron? maybe explain different peoples views? tell them to be tolerant of idiots because thats what the world is basically made up of?

what, are you saying that your child who has no clue about any religious beliefs would fall prey to some teacher who wears some item of clothing that to the teacher symbolises something? i think thats more a sing of bad parenting than anything

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
She was expressing an opinion. People can disagree on opinions but you crossed the line by insulting her because you disagree with the point-of-view she expressed.


actualyl she was expressing an opinion, i responded to that opinion and then she decided to be dismissive of my question so i expressed the opinon that i found her to be a cunt for doing so. are you saying that im not aloud to express my opinion that someone is a cunt? you have crossed the line and this is far worse than just insulting me, just because you disagree with my point of view.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
....also read "punknaynowned's" post above this one. He has made a logical, poignent and eloquent summerization.


i did and i had alot to say in response but when i went to post it i got a "timed out" message and i really dont want to go back and do it all again... maybe some other time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:05 pm
Posts: 2661
Location: where the dogs roll by
Raoul Duke wrote:
actualyl she was expressing an opinion, i responded to that opinion and then she decided to be dismissive of my question so i expressed the opinon that i found her to be a cunt for doing so. are you saying that im not aloud to express my opinion that someone is a cunt? you have crossed the line and this is far worse than just insulting me, just because you disagree with my point of view.



Well for whatever opinions are worth around here, mine is that you were out of line and owe her an apology. Grow up.

_________________
I can't tell when you're telling the truth.
>I'm not.
How do I know anything you've said to me is...
>You don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
sleeping in a jar wrote:
Well for whatever opinions are worth around here, mine is that you were out of line and owe her an apology. Grow up.


you grow up, its just a word. watch this;

cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:01 am
Posts: 1227
Location: Bordeaux, France
Yes, Raoul, You should apologize now or face the wrath of our GOD in the coming weeks!

_________________
"You can fly like a Penguin when you're dealing with Turkeys."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:54 am
Posts: 4295
Location: En-Ger-Land
Raoul Duke wrote:

its much easier to say "im done talking to you now lol" than to actually defend your argument when ive obviously expunged it, isnt it


It was very clear to me, that as soon as I said I was done talking with you, that you would tell me my reason for not responding was because you had exposed the so called flaws in my viewpoint.
It really isn't about what's easier, and no, you haven't "expunged" my "argument" (I actually thought it was a debate, as I'm not really one for arguing).
I could respond, and back up my viewpoint, and indeed answer your questions, but you want the honest truth..? I think you're really tiresome, and I have much better things to do with my time.
Have a good day won't you.
:lol:

_________________
"Listen to that noise! It's like Barry White eating wasps."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 2:04 pm
Posts: 1
Location: Milford NJ
never mind


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
Raoul Duke wrote:

its much easier to say "im done talking to you now lol" than to actually defend your argument when ive obviously expunged it, isnt it


It was very clear to me, that as soon as I said I was done talking with you, that you would tell me my reason for not responding was because you had exposed the so called flaws in my viewpoint.
It really isn't about what's easier, and no, you haven't "expunged" my "argument" (I actually thought it was a debate, as I'm not really one for arguing).
I could respond, and back up my viewpoint, and indeed answer your questions, but you want the honest truth..? I think you're really tiresome, and I have much better things to do with my time.
Have a good day won't you.
:lol:


really? so you can take the time to write that but not actually respond to what i was calling you up on? interesting...

and i meant "argument" in the sense that you were conveying a certain point of view. an argument can be a discussion involving differing points of view (like a debate) or simply a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point, so i really don't see why you would say something like
aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
my "argument" (I actually thought it was a debate, as I'm not really one for arguing)


so you could respond and back up your view points but because im "really tiresome" you decided to not do that and write a response that completely avoids the discussion and instead focuses on why you dont want to respond. makes sense :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:54 am
Posts: 4295
Location: En-Ger-Land
Quote:
really? so you can take the time to write that but not actually respond to what i was calling you up on? interesting...

and i meant "argument" in the sense that you were conveying a certain point of view. an argument can be a discussion involving differing points of view (like a debate) or simply a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point, so i really don't see why you would say something like
aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
my "argument" (I actually thought it was a debate, as I'm not really one for arguing)


so you could respond and back up your view points but because im "really tiresome" you decided to not do that and write a response that completely avoids the discussion and instead focuses on why you dont want to respond. makes sense :lol:


Seems to me that everyone else understands what Im getting at with my point of view, except you. You're clearly incapable of understanding what I mean, insistent upon reducing the discussion to name calling, insulting me as a parent, and also accusing me of being some sort of ignorant idiot so no, I don't see the point in responding with replies to your questions. Your attitude towards me doesn't even merit what I'm typing now, let alone a response to what you asked me.
As I said before...Im done with this now.
aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
Have a good day won't you.
:lol:

_________________
"Listen to that noise! It's like Barry White eating wasps."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
Seems to me that everyone else understands what Im getting at with my point of view, except you. You're clearly incapable of understanding what I mean, insistent upon reducing the discussion to name calling, insulting me as a parent, and also accusing me of being some sort of ignorant idiot so no, I don't see the point in responding with replies to your questions. Your attitude towards me doesn't even merit what I'm typing now, let alone a response to what you asked me.
As I said before...Im done with this now.


i understand what youre saying alright, i just think its stupid. im happy to insult you as a parent, you deserve it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5433
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
I see that whenever people like Raoul Duke have to resort to name calling rather than backing up his side of a debate shows that he really has no side to take.

To insult someone who does'nt want a religious fanatic filling their childs head full of propaganda, instead of teaching science, math, reading and actual life skills that may actually benefit a child, limits their intellectuality other than increase it, seems rather crass.

People are always welcome to practice their faith in society but to force it on somebody who is'nt interested is just another form of fascism, whether it's in the work place, school or any public place.


Punknaynowned really nailed it in his post.

*one way to save a post that takes a while to write is to preview it before posting*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
I see that whenever people like Raoul Duke have to resort to name calling rather than backing up his side of a debate shows that he really has no side to take.


but i didnt just resort to name calling, i backed up my side of the debate AND called someone a cunt, you fucking idiot. (see i called you a name but i also gave a reason for calling you a name. wowie zowie!)

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
To insult someone who does'nt want a religious fanatic filling their childs head full of propaganda, instead of teaching science, math, reading and actual life skills that may actually benefit a child, limits their intellectuality other than increase it, seems rather crass.


i would never insult someone on those grounds. the person aspy had a gripe with wasnt filling anyone's head with religious properganda or forcing their beliefs on anyone. maybe you should read the actual discussion before you comment on it.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
People are always welcome to practice their faith in society


no their not. you must be pretty out of touch with the current world we are living in and also must have no knowledge of history.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
but to force it on somebody who is'nt interested is just another form of fascism, whether it's in the work place, school or any public place.


excuse me but when did i ever condone forcing certain beliefs on anyone?
i was pointing out the irony of aspy, in fear of someone else's beliefs being enforced on her or her own, in defence of that subsequently enforced her beliefs on someone else.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Punknaynowned really nailed it in his post.


ill have to disagree but you can dismiss this comment regarding his post because i never got a chance to respond to his post

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
*one way to save a post that takes a while to write is to preview it before posting*


thanks for the tip


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:05 pm
Posts: 2661
Location: where the dogs roll by
Raoul Duke wrote:
maybe you should read the actual discussion before you comment on it.


Great idea Raoul Duke, that's exactly what I did yesterday! I went back and read each post of the actual discussion between you and aspy. What I took from it was aspy clearly, concisely, politely and repeatedly stating her position and reasoning, while you on the other hand degenerated into an obnoxious name-calling troll, cleverly baiting and accusing aspy of all that you yourself were guilty of, as far as the "debate". Just my opinion of course.

I would invite anyone else following this exchange to go and do the same. Read only the exchange between aspy and Raoul Duke and draw your own conclusions.

_________________
I can't tell when you're telling the truth.
>I'm not.
How do I know anything you've said to me is...
>You don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 2543
I was involved in this earlier, but then I realised that when you argue with a troll, you are giving them attention, and 'dem trolls likes de attenshunz.' Therefore when a troll speaks up, ignore it and continue, they're all stubborn jackasses anyway so what's the point?

_________________
Download my music here.

Stream my music here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
um, what the fuck is a troll?

i mean, apart from one of these
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
Raoul Duke wrote:
aspy_2nd_bunch wrote:
You carry on splitting hairs if ya wanna. I'm done with talking to you now. :lol:

:lol:


unless by "splitting hairs" you mean pointing out all the flaws in your argument, then im not splitting hairs but i can understand why you wouldnt want to admit you are a cunt. its people like you that have made the world (the human world) into the piece of shit that it is.


its kind of obvious that i didnt just call someone a bad word (i can hear you weeping from here) because i was completely void of any argument... look at the context


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5433
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
I highly doubt that she is weeping over a web forum post. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 2543
Raoul's probably weeping because nobody loves him... :P

_________________
Download my music here.

Stream my music here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:45 pm
Posts: 754
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
I highly doubt that she is weeping over a web forum post. :mrgreen:


i was joking...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group