Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ALL the posters that are wasting my time with all the annoying nit-picky grammar BS including this very thread! STOP IS ALREADY, who cares. So tired of sifting through pages of this bickering BS in order to get to any interesting/entertaining stuff in this thread. Yeah, had to post this after a few pages, didn't get to the end of this thread. Thanks, grammar police

I think you mean, STOP HAS ALREADY.

No, she means "STOP'S ALREADY."

No, I meant to say that anyone who is unable to understand the meaning of a simple sentence with a typo is a moron or high on drugs. congrats, grammar police, your brains are devolving. It's either that, or you are all just OCD bitches.

Anonymous wrote:Humor-impaired PP hasn't noticed that responses to her post *are* "the interesting/entertaining stuff in this thread."

Anonymous wrote:

No, I meant to say that anyone who is unable to understand the meaning of a simple sentence with a typo is a moron or high on drugs. congrats, grammar police, your brains are devolving. It's either that, or you are all just OCD bitches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That was my quote originally. My point is, if you're trying to build an argument, don't make us do all the work. I read and write scholarly articles for a living, so yeah I could do this, but my free time is valuable. I'm not going to spend 3 hours trying to figure out this new field of study, read all the articles, and then try to figure out if they're biased or not, all in aid of helping you make your point. Do some of the work yourself, and summarize your endless links.

See....the argument has already been built in the pages leading up. They are there to prove my point is based on actual research. I don't see why anyone would have to read through and summarize articles when the summary is included in the first paragraph of all of them and the whole thread is about the topic being discussed.. Also, posts get too long if you paste information that could easily be accessed by link. You wouldn't read it anyways I'm sure.

Anonymous wrote:If you could just post, for example, a descriptor such as "American Petroleum Institute study of the fallacy of global warming," then we'd know not to bother opening it.

Similarly, if you post several links and label them accordingly:
1. Heritage analysis of fed vs. private sector pay
2. CBO analysis of fed vs. private sector pay
We'd have enough info to ignore the first (because Heritage can't do rigorous, unbiased research to save its collective life) and skip right to the second.

Anonymous wrote:I'm newly sick of the "oh, I cold have written this post myself" poster. I think there are a lot of them though. Either way, sick of hearing it....who cares if you could have written it as well, it's NOT YOUR THREAD TO HIJACK.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Scholarly articles start with a summary. What I hate is posters who still won't budge from an ignorant point of view even when presented with 10 sources of scholarly research.

Well, it is called 'faith'.

RAWPGG - Ranting Atheist Who Plays Gotcha Games. If you respond, she'll call you over-sensitive. She'll feel so pleased with herself, because this is probably the only thing going on in her sad little life that actually produces the result she wants.

So don't play her game by responding to this.

Anonymous wrote:Posters who totally twist and distort a previous post, just so they can stir the pot. RA provided a timely example of this. Stupid, attention-seeking and pathetic.

No, I meant STOP IT ALREADY. If you cannot guess the meaning of the sentence containing a typo, then something is seriously misfiring in your brain, OR, you are a robot. Oh wait, the spell check technology has been around for a while, definitely not a cutting age AI. So, here you go, if you cannot beat an old software technology in recognizing a typo, get off whatever you are smoking these days.