Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

#1002 Oct 28 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
21 now

No, now.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#1003 Oct 28 2011 at 11:58 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I did, in post 983.

Obviously not or else I wouldn't have read your post and needed to ask.

I've ignored the rest of your post because until you can accomplish this, there's no reason to humor you shotgunning arguments all over the place and praying one hits.

Edited, Oct 28th 2011 11:26am by Jophiel


Well, I guess that's the end of that chapter. It's explained, not only in the very next sentence, but throughout the entire post and I even summed up the reason for you in the post that you ignored.

I like how you avoided answering the question on racial quotas/minority scholarships numerous times now.

It's ok. You not answering is all the response I needed.
#1004 Oct 28 2011 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I like how you avoided answering the question on racial quotas/minority scholarships numerous times now.

I like how you avoided answering mine Smiley: smile

Quote:
It's ok. You not answering is all the response I needed.

Yup.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1005 Oct 28 2011 at 12:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I like how you avoided answering mine Smiley: smile


You not accepting an answer isn't the same thing as me avoiding your question. Nice try though.
#1006 Oct 28 2011 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I like how you avoided answering the question on racial quotas/minority scholarships numerous times now.

I like how you avoided answering mine Smiley: smile

Quote:
It's ok. You not answering is all the response I needed.

Yup.

Polish Stand-off.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#1007 Oct 28 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
The best part is where Alma blames everyone else for not being able to understand his lack of grammar and communication.
#1008 Oct 28 2011 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Me not avoiding your question isn't the same thing as me not giving an answer. Nice try though.

Yup. Smiley: smile

Going to answer yet or do you plan to keep avoiding?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1009 Oct 28 2011 at 12:34 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Me not avoiding your question isn't the same thing as me not giving an answer. Nice try though.

Yup. Smiley: smile

Going to answer yet or do you plan to keep avoiding?


Well given that I answered your question numerous of times, you would have to tell me how posts 983 and 997 did NOT answer your question, else you'll just get the same answers. Mainly because that's the answer. How is that not valid? What part do you disagree with?

Given that you completely ignored post 983 the first time around, you're not giving me much to work off of other than the assumption of you resorting to trolling after being proven wrong.
#1010 Oct 28 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nadenu wrote:
The best part is where Alma blames everyone else for not being able to understand his lack of grammar and communication.


I'm not blaming everyone, just the ones who obviously replied without reading. When others grasp it, you can no longer put that blame on me.

Edit:

Also, by "sucking at grammar", I'm referencing to stupid rules such as "who's" vs "whose". I know when to use each one, I'm just using them as an example. Using "who's" instead of "whose" is incorrect grammar, but in no way makes it impossible or even difficult to understand a concept.



Edited, Oct 28th 2011 8:39pm by Almalieque
#1011 Oct 28 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
The best part is where Alma blames everyone else for not being able to understand his lack of grammar and communication.


I'm not blaming everyone, just the ones who obviously replied without reading. When others grasp it, you can no longer put that blame on me.

Edit:

Also, by "sucking at grammar", I'm referencing to stupid rules such as "who's" vs "whose". I know when to use each one, I'm just using them as an example. Using "who's" instead of "whose" is incorrect grammar, but in no way makes it impossible or even difficult to understand a concept.



Edited, Oct 28th 2011 8:39pm by Almalieque

If only the mistakes you make were that simple.
#1012 Oct 28 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
The best part is where Alma blames everyone else for not being able to understand his lack of grammar and communication.


I'm not blaming everyone, just the ones who obviously replied without reading. When others grasp it, you can no longer put that blame on me.

Edit:

Also, by "sucking at grammar", I'm referencing to stupid rules such as "who's" vs "whose". I know when to use each one, I'm just using them as an example. Using "who's" instead of "whose" is incorrect grammar, but in no way makes it impossible or even difficult to understand a concept.



Edited, Oct 28th 2011 8:39pm by Almalieque

If only the mistakes you make were that simple.


Sounds like a bunch of excuses.. who's blaming who now?

I took a language proficiency test right before I deployed. I didn't understand all of the words or even entire sentences, but I was still able to grasp the main concept of the article.

sutdies sohw taht yuo cna sitll raed wrods wtih mxied letetrs..

And you don't seem to have a problem understanding my last post either... funny how that works.
#1013 Oct 28 2011 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Right, we're all able to grasp your basic concept. You don't like homosexuals.

The rest is Smiley: looney
#1014 Oct 28 2011 at 1:22 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Right, we're all able to grasp your basic concept. You don't like homosexuals.

The rest is Smiley: looney


Way to prove my point in such a few words... Thanks!
#1015 Oct 28 2011 at 1:31 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Didn't we already go through this see page ****. Its like a terrible rerun.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#1016 Oct 28 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
See post 1016.
#1017 Oct 28 2011 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Well given that I answered your question numerous of times, you would have to tell me how posts 983 and 997 did NOT answer your question, else you'll just get the same answers. Mainly because that's the answer. How is that not valid? What part do you disagree with?

You failed to give a compelling reason for it to be meaningful. Absent that, there's no reason to humor the rest of your "argument". As I said, you're just randomly shotgunning stuff ("Actors! No, wait! Hooters! Wait, umm... I mean the Hooters lawsuit that failed! SSM? How about college enrollment?") so if you can't get that far, I'm not going to humor you just desperately throwing stuff at the wall.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1018 Oct 28 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Smiley: oyveySmiley: rolleyesSmiley: disappointedSmiley: confusedSmiley: looneySmiley: facepalm
#1019 Oct 28 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Well given that I answered your question numerous of times, you would have to tell me how posts 983 and 997 did NOT answer your question, else you'll just get the same answers. Mainly because that's the answer. How is that not valid? What part do you disagree with?

You failed to give a compelling reason for it to be meaningful. Absent that, there's no reason to humor the rest of your "argument". As I said, you're just randomly shotgunning stuff ("Actors! No, wait! Hooters! Wait, umm... I mean the Hooters lawsuit that failed! SSM? How about college enrollment?") so if you can't get that far, I'm not going to humor you just desperately throwing stuff at the wall.


That's a nice try, but I haven't retracted anything, so there is no "oh, wait" or "I mean".. Everything still stands as is. There is no random shot gunning of anything.

You claim that there is no legitimate racial discrimination.

I gave you an example of denying someone of a job because the color of their skin.

You countered that acting is protected, so "it's ok".

I countered with two law suits, Hooters and A&E. One lost and the other one won. They both stemmed from the same "image" argument used in casting actors/actresses.

As another example, I asked your opinion on racial quotas and or minority scholarships. You have yet answered that because I can only assume that you believe that they are racial discrimination and admitting so proves you wrong.

You claim that my argument fails, but you didn't say how. That doesn't help. Specifically tell me which part isn't right and why. OR, you can repeat my argument from posts 997 and 983. From there, I can see if you understood my argument.

Since Eske claims that I'm impossible to understand, maybe there's a 99% chance that my "poor" grammar confused you. So, restate my argument in your own words so I can better explain the areas where my poor grammar mislead you.
#1020 Oct 28 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
That's a nice try

I'm not really using you as the arbiter for how poor your arguments are.

When you want to try again, let me know Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1021 Oct 28 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't understand all of the words or even entire sentences,

You make it so easy...
#1022 Oct 28 2011 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
That's a nice try, but I haven't retracted anything, so there is no "oh, wait" or "I mean".. Everything still stands as is. There is no random shot gunning of anything.

You claim that there is no legitimate racial discrimination.

I gave you an example of denying someone of a job because the color of their skin.

You countered that acting is protected, so "it's ok".

I countered with two law suits, Hooters and A&E. One lost and the other one won. They both stemmed from the same "image" argument used in casting actors/actresses.

As another example, I asked your opinion on racial quotas and or minority scholarships. You have yet answered that because I can only assume that you believe that they are racial discrimination and admitting so proves you wrong.

You claim that my argument fails, but you didn't say how. That doesn't help. Specifically tell me which part isn't right and why. OR, you can repeat my argument from posts 997 and 983. From there, I can see if you understood my argument.

Since Eske claims that I'm impossible to understand, maybe there's a 99% chance that my "poor" grammar confused you. So, restate my argument in your own words so I can better explain the areas where my poor grammar mislead you.


So, because skin color is a determining factor in some casting decisions it's ok to discriminate in the military due to one's sexual orientation?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#1023 Oct 28 2011 at 11:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Your opinion of race in film casting has to rest on the same foundation as DADT and scholarships and race-segregated drinking fountains or something.

Sounded asinine to me too, which is why I asked what in the fuck "logical discrimination" is supposed to mean and why it's supposedly a meaningful term. I'm thinking Alma just has an incredibly shallow thought process.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1024 Oct 29 2011 at 5:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm thinking Alma just has an incredibly shallow thought process.
I cry foul! You're not thinking at all, not if you're carrying on a 21 page conversation with Alma.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1025 Oct 29 2011 at 6:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm thinking Alma just has an incredibly shallow thought process.
I cry foul! You're not thinking at all, not if you're carrying on a 21 page conversation with Alma.

Also, there is no process to what goes on in Alma's head.
#1026 Oct 29 2011 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I cry foul! You're not thinking at all, not if you're carrying on a 21 page conversation with Alma.

Says the guy posting in the 21 page thread!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 124 All times are in CDT
Timelordwho, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (122)