Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS. There HAVE BEEN tons of threads....(although that's a dubious grammatical construct at best)

not "there's been". ugh.

I'm 18:04; we you correcting me? I said 'there's been a ton of threads,' and I think that's grammatically correct.

'There has been tons' is incorrect. 'There have been tons' is correct.

But i said, "there's been a ton" -- isn't that correct?

NO, it's not, because if you "uncontract" the contraction "there's" it is "there is." And "there is been a ton" is not correct, as you, me, and everyone else can recognize.

Jesus Christ on a Broken Stick, you are WRONG lady.

Your comment is so beyond offensive, I can't believe there's any educated "tolerant" person on DCUM who would write such a thing.

HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

No, I'm not feeling oppressed. As I stated, I think the post was beyond offensive. Are you so free with words when referring to other faiths? I wouldn't write such a crude, disrespectful comment about anyone's religious beliefs.

Your "religious beliefs" deserve no more respect than my beliefs about who the "Best Band of the 90s" is. Seriously. I don't fucking care. You don't get to believe nonsense with zero justification, and then award yourself "special sensitivity points" on top of that. Grow a thicker skin.

Anyone who uses ad hominem....

Anonymous wrote:
national merit scholarship semifinalist

1st prize ...a car
2nd prize...a set of steak knives
3rd prize...your fired.

Semifinal? Really...


It's "you're", not "your".

Signed,

A member of grammar police.

Oh, I forgot to mention... I've got popcorn!

Your trapped in a box.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who cite wikipedia as authority.

Is DCUM really the place to break out scholarly journal articles, though?

It is if you are spouting your opinion as fact.

Nothing wrong with using wikipedia as a starting point. If you have an issue with a cite, refute it. Simply saying, "Ah! That's wikipedia!" is beyond pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:OK, it was just a little friendly advice. I figured you'd totally mischaracterize my points and call me names, and that's exactly what you did.

So no surprises there. And for the record, you can call me all the names you want, but at the end of the day I'm still a (democratic) national merit scholarship semifinalist, and you're still an arrogant loser whose main debating strategies seem to consist of twisting my words and ad hominem attacks.

Bye, loser.

This is fucking hilarious. I bet you keep the swim medals you won when you were 8 framed and hanging on the wall.

Good job, national merit scholarship semifinalist! Good job!

Thanks for the advice, I'll have to try that. I am having fun here in my own way, the downside is I'm also procrastinating from doing something else I really should be doing. I figure I won when she started with the one-line insults, the rest (like calling her impotent) is just gravy.

I've found you can't stop the nut cases with logic. Usually I stoop to their level and say something utterly ridiculous. It really confuses them and they try to respond. Then it's just entertaining rather than irritating. Try it once just for fun.

Yeah, that was me. In response to the nutcase who called me illiterate because she couldn't think of anything else to say. A mistake? Maybe, but something in the distant past works well in this case. I'd tell you all about my great job that she'd probably salivate for, but I don't want to out myself for such a pathetic loser as that poster.

I've lost track of the thread but is someone here actually boasting that s/he was a national merit scholarship semifinalist? That's hilarious. I was president of the class. And in 3rd grade, I received the highest score possible on a standardized test. Are you impressed? Maybe not, but definitely insane.

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.

I'm the PP you're quoting, and no, I'm not the person you were talking with originally. RAWPGG, or whatever acronym you came up with.

But I have to say, I've been watching your debate with great amusement. Keep at it.

Anonymous wrote:national merit scholarship semifinalist

1st prize ...a car
2nd prize...a set of steak knives
3rd prize...your fired.

Semifinal? Really...

You don't know what that test is about? Now THAT's sad!

Anonymous wrote:national merit scholarship semifinalist

1st prize ...a car
2nd prize...a set of steak knives
3rd prize...your fired.

Semifinal? Really...

Serious question: are you ten years old?

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:national merit scholarship semifinalist

1st prize ...a car
2nd prize...a set of steak knives
3rd prize...your fired.

Semifinal? Really...

It's "you're", not "your".

Signed,

A member of grammar police.

Oh, I forgot to mention... I've got popcorn!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is DCUM really the place to break out scholarly journal articles, though?

The poster (I think it's only one) who gives 10 links to support an argument and expects us to read them all. Because, hey, providing a summary together with the link would be too much work.

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.

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.