Should I point out people's errors in people's grammatical and punctuational form? Really, such a thing comes as second nature to me and I feel sad that so many people are struggling, so I ought to at least provide some assistance. You know, genetics and all.
you? wait a minute, where's cameron?
can you hep me auot a bit my sentences durt make to much sinc, or at lest thae want me think, so can i get hep from you and i could use hep on speling please"
Oh no! Avert your eyes forum-posters lest ye be corrupted by his ability to convert something that could be said in three words into something that is about as concise as the unabridged version of James Joyce's Ulysses....
Apparently you are disrespecting this charitable movement of mine -- you faired quite well in the sentence you made for your signature (despite forgetting the semi-colon after negative and making the "a" after "again" "and" [on top of forgetting that your reference of "web" and "site" is properly said "website" {but don't forget your lack of a period at the end and your slip-up of not capitalizing the pronoun I's}]).bigp66 wrote:
can you hep me auot a bit my sentences durt make to much sinc, or at lest thae want me think, so can i get hep from you and i could use hep on speling please"
Find for me a multitude of posts where this is feasible when I have spoken, discluding the one post of mine where I had made such a comment in sarcasm.CameronPoe wrote:
Oh no! Avert your eyes forum-posters lest ye be corrupted by his ability to convert something that could be said in three words into something that is about as concise as the unabridged version of James Joyce's Ulysses....
He's a failure wannabe. Positively uncomparable in contexts surrounding articulation of the complex.kr@cker wrote:
you? wait a minute, where's cameron?
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 08:04:49)
I think you'll find Xietsu that it's 'fared' and not 'faired'. The length of your sentence is extremely excessive as well.Xietsu wrote:
Apparently you are disrespecting this charitable movement of mine -- you faired quite well in the sentence you made for your signature (despite forgetting the semi-colon after negative and making the "a" after "again" "and" [on top of forgetting that your reference of "web" and "site" is properly said "website" {but don't forget your lack of a period at the end and your slip-up of not capitalizing the pronoun I's}]).bigp66 wrote:
can you hep me auot a bit my sentences durt make to much sinc, or at lest thae want me think, so can i get hep from you and i could use hep on speling please"
do you write speeches for Jesse Jackson?
Oh, snap!CameronPoe wrote:
I think you'll find Xietsu that it's 'fared' and not 'faired'. The length of your sentence is extremely excessive as well.
H'okay, one error. I knew I should've checked when I was writing it. Yet again though, you are without an ability to identify comments made in jest. How sociable of a friend you would be I am not sure.CameronPoe wrote:
I think you'll find Xietsu that it's 'fared' and not 'faired'. The length of your sentence is extremely excessive as well.Xietsu wrote:
Apparently you are disrespecting this charitable movement of mine -- you faired quite well in the sentence you made for your signature (despite forgetting the semi-colon after negative and making the "a" after "again" "and" [on top of forgetting that your reference of "web" and "site" is properly said "website" {but don't forget your lack of a period at the end and your slip-up of not capitalizing the pronoun I's}]).bigp66 wrote:
can you hep me auot a bit my sentences durt make to much sinc, or at lest thae want me think, so can i get hep from you and i could use hep on speling please"
Anyways, what is that? One error out of a billion instances without such? And you, making conjecture after conjecture, consistently showing some great ability to misconstrue. YOU NEVER STOP AMAZING THE XIETSU!
It's a joke? Right?Xietsu wrote:
, such a thing comes as second nature to me
Of course not.The Last Black Winegum wrote:
It's a joke? Right?Xietsu wrote:
, such a thing comes as second nature to me
*OMFG AMBIGUITY FTW.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 08:25:26)
I'm a 'wannabe' what? Precision, absence of ambiguity and brevity are my strengths.Xietsu wrote:
He's a failure wannabe. Positively uncomparable in contexts surrounding articulation of the complex.kr@cker wrote:
you? wait a minute, where's cameron?
I'd like to point out that people don't have grammatical and punctuational form. Their writing does but they themselves don't. Poor sentence structure, Xietsu.Xietsu wrote:
Should I point out people's errors in people's grammatical and punctuational form? Really, such a thing comes as second nature to me and I feel sad that so many people are struggling, so I ought to at least provide some assistance. You know, genetics and all.
In response to a karma neg:
Ginger and proud!!!!! Bagging me latina chicks since 1979!!!
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-03 08:42:53)
LOL. Honestly you are so inable to grasp another's humor. As I said earlier...(oh wait, God forbid you leave it up to CameronPoe to handle...an inference).CameronPoe wrote:
I'm a 'wannabe' what? Precision, absence of ambiguity and brevity are my strengths.Xietsu wrote:
He's a failure wannabe. Positively uncomparable in contexts surrounding articulation of the complex.kr@cker wrote:
you? wait a minute, where's cameron?
You can be formal and still cover proper linguistic mechanics, young chap. It is of common practice to, by extension, label one with their attributes. Is it formal? No. Is it casual? Yes. Let me give an example for you, for I see a trouble arising with tackling such a behemoth of a concept. You seem to be struggling. Say for example, you call someone a gay. Is that formal? No. Is it casual? Yes. Is it attributing an extension of a more precise reference that one is assumed capable to infer? Yes. Does CameronPoe write for toddlers? Yes.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd like to point out that people don't have grammatical and punctuational form. Their writing does but they themselves don't. Poor sentence structure, Xietsu.Xietsu wrote:
Should I point out people's errors in people's grammatical and punctuational form? Really, such a thing comes as second nature to me and I feel sad that so many people are struggling, so I ought to at least provide some assistance. You know, genetics and all.
In response to a karma neg:
Ginger and proud!!!!! Bagging me latina chicks since 1979!!!
(P.S. CameronPoe is still a wannabe when it comes to ^. [in other words, my arrow is directing you to peek back up for my earlier denotation.)
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 08:47:52)
The term I think you meant to use was 'unable', not 'inable'. Does CameronPoe write in such a way that everyone can understand the point he is trying to make? Yes. Does CameronPoe believe there is any special function served by saying something in a more complex manner than is strictly necessary? No.Xietsu wrote:
LOL. Honestly you are so inable to grasp another's humor. As I said earlier...(oh wait, God forbid you leave it up to CameronPoe to handle...an inference).CameronPoe wrote:
I'm a 'wannabe' what? Precision, absence of ambiguity and brevity are my strengths.Xietsu wrote:
He's a failure wannabe. Positively uncomparable in contexts surrounding articulation of the complex.You can be formal and still cover proper linguistic mechanics, young chap. It is of common practice to, by extension, label one with their attributes. Is it formal? No. Is it casual? Yes. Let me give an example for you, for I see a trouble arising with tackling such a behemoth of a concept. You seem to be struggling. Say for example, you call someone a gay. Is that formal? No. Is it casual? Yes. Is it attributing an extension of a more precise reference that one is assumed capable to infer? Yes. Does CameronPoe write for toddlers? Yes.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd like to point out that people don't have grammatical and punctuational form. Their writing does but they themselves don't. Poor sentence structure, Xietsu.Xietsu wrote:
Should I point out people's errors in people's grammatical and punctuational form? Really, such a thing comes as second nature to me and I feel sad that so many people are struggling, so I ought to at least provide some assistance. You know, genetics and all.
In response to a karma neg:
Ginger and proud!!!!! Bagging me latina chicks since 1979!!!
(P.S. CameronPoe is still a wannabe when it comes to ^. [in other words, my arrow is directing you to peek back up for my earlier denotation.)
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-03 08:50:55)
How long were you banned, Xietsu? You havn't changed a bit. Hmm.
How have I written in a manner expressing excessive complexity? Articulation behind perspective is a must. The fact is that, in truth, my writing are more succinct than yours. Go die Mr. Wannabe.CameronPoe wrote:
The term I think you meant to use was 'unable', not 'inable'. Does CameronPoe write in such a way that everyone can understand the point he is trying to make? Yes. Does CameronPoe believe there is any special function served by saying something in a more complex manner than is strictly necessary? No.Xietsu wrote:
LOL. Honestly you are so inable to grasp another's humor. As I said earlier...(oh wait, God forbid you leave it up to CameronPoe to handle...an inference).CameronPoe wrote:
I'm a 'wannabe' what? Precision, absence of ambiguity and brevity are my strengths.You can be formal and still cover proper linguistic mechanics, young chap. It is of common practice to, by extension, label one with their attributes. Is it formal? No. Is it casual? Yes. Let me give an example for you, for I see a trouble arising with tackling such a behemoth of a concept. You seem to be struggling. Say for example, you call someone a gay. Is that formal? No. Is it casual? Yes. Is it attributing an extension of a more precise reference that one is assumed capable to infer? Yes. Does CameronPoe write for toddlers? Yes.CameronPoe wrote:
I'd like to point out that people don't have grammatical and punctuational form. Their writing does but they themselves don't. Poor sentence structure, Xietsu.
In response to a karma neg:
Ginger and proud!!!!! Bagging me latina chicks since 1979!!!
(P.S. CameronPoe is still a wannabe when it comes to ^. [in other words, my arrow is directing you to peek back up for my earlier denotation.)
(P.S. BTW, everyone always trys to peg me on using "inable", but in fact, both can be transitioned as seen fit -- damn the nubs, no?)
LOL. As if you "knew" me before any point in time, even now.PspRpg-7 wrote:
How long were you banned, Xietsu? You havn't changed a bit. Hmm.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 08:54:29)
Yes, but before you were banned, you acted the same way, typing excessive posts about 'articulation' or some crap like that. You still do. You did a few weeks ago. You always will I assume.
Oh and I guess since no one has answered your question. No.
Oh and I guess since no one has answered your question. No.
Last edited by PspRpg-7 (2006-07-03 09:00:11)
Kracker thinks he likes talking in third person, Kracker thinks it are good idea
I'm saying it's unnecessary complexity. The complexity generally adds absolutely nothing to your arguments or the way in which people interpret them. Usually complex language would be called upon to expound upon a difficult nuance or subtlety - you use it all the time to try and give people the false impression that you are intelligent. The fact is you have been found out. You can't hide behind words, Xietsu.Xietsu wrote:
How have I written in a manner expressing excessive complexity? Articulation behind perspective is a must. The fact is that, in truth, my writing are more succinct than yours. Go die Mr. Wannabe.CameronPoe wrote:
The term I think you meant to use was 'unable', not 'inable'. Does CameronPoe write in such a way that everyone can understand the point he is trying to make? Yes. Does CameronPoe believe there is any special function served by saying something in a more complex manner than is strictly necessary? No.Xietsu wrote:
LOL. Honestly you are so inable to grasp another's humor. As I said earlier...(oh wait, God forbid you leave it up to CameronPoe to handle...an inference).CameronPoe wrote:
I'm a 'wannabe' what? Precision, absence of ambiguity and brevity are my strengths.
You can be formal and still cover proper linguistic mechanics, young chap. It is of common practice to, by extension, label one with their attributes. Is it formal? No. Is it casual? Yes. Let me give an example for you, for I see a trouble arising with tackling such a behemoth of a concept. You seem to be struggling. Say for example, you call someone a gay. Is that formal? No. Is it casual? Yes. Is it attributing an extension of a more precise reference that one is assumed capable to infer? Yes. Does CameronPoe write for toddlers? Yes.
(P.S. CameronPoe is still a wannabe when it comes to ^. [in other words, my arrow is directing you to peek back up for my earlier denotation.)
(P.S. BTW, everyone always trys to peg me on using "inable", but in fact, both can be transitioned as seen fit -- damn the nubs, no?)LOL. As if you "knew" me before any point in time, even now.PspRpg-7 wrote:
How long were you banned, Xietsu? You havn't changed a bit. Hmm.
Xietsu wrote:
He's a failure wannabe. Positively uncomparable in contexts surrounding articulation of the complex.
kr@cker think alex say it all
Nods as good as a wink to a blind horse.
Or.. A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equinine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary capacity.
Or.. A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equinine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary capacity.
What the fuck? You just fessed up to not ever knowing me before and then claim that I acted the "the same way". Holy chits, you are one stupid mother fuck. Get the fuck out of here and go back to "Not BF2, Not BF2s". In contrasts to the beliefs some of you may hold, it is not the job of those discussing to educate an onlooker.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Yes, but before you were banned, you acted the same way, typing excessive posts about 'articulation' or some crap like that. You still do. You did a few weeks ago. You always will I assume.
Oh and I guess since no one has answered your question. No.
*BTW, CameronPoe, your little thought about "writing in a method of that which all can understand" tells me I was right in my assertion that you cede to toddlers. LoLs. Come on, if you come back at me and can't see the humor, I'm just going to have to laugh at you again. Anyways, of course, the reference of toddlers here is actually that of the mainstream, simple-minded folk. Is it not an insult to hold that your audience is incapable of making such necessary distinguishments? Hmm. It depends upon the subject matter. Do you honestly think I need to be catering to those without the desire for a cognitive growth? No. Go cry.
Yet again you misconceive a judgment. The referenced complexity is as it relates to the concept being discussed, not the form of discourse. That would be...a superfluous use -- that of which I can't lay claim to.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm saying it's unnecessary complexity. The complexity generally adds absolutely nothing to your arguments or the way in which people interpret them. Usually complex language would be called upon to expound upon a difficult nuance or subtlety - you use it all the time to try and give people the false impression that you are intelligent. The fact is you have been found out. You can't hide behind words, Xietsu.Xietsu wrote:
How have I written in a manner expressing excessive complexity? Articulation behind perspective is a must. The fact is that, in truth, my writing are more succinct than yours. Go die Mr. Wannabe.CameronPoe wrote:
The term I think you meant to use was 'unable', not 'inable'. Does CameronPoe write in such a way that everyone can understand the point he is trying to make? Yes. Does CameronPoe believe there is any special function served by saying something in a more complex manner than is strictly necessary? No.
(P.S. BTW, everyone always trys to peg me on using "inable", but in fact, both can be transitioned as seen fit -- damn the nubs, no?)LOL. As if you "knew" me before any point in time, even now.PspRpg-7 wrote:
How long were you banned, Xietsu? You havn't changed a bit. Hmm.
Cite for me the abundance of third-person commentary that you think I've been making.kr@cker wrote:
Kracker thinks he likes talking in third person, Kracker thinks it are good idea
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 09:16:58)
You must be smart as I have no idea what the fuck you just said.The Last Black Winegum wrote:
Nods as good as a wink to a blind horse.
Or.. A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equinine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary capacity.
Something about beating a blind horse?