Text 29915, 96 rader
Skriven 2006-05-17 17:42:11 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 29742 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
16 May 06 13:50, Philip Lozier wrote to Stewart Arnett:


Man, dig yourself in deeper...what a moron.


 FS>>> I think his best bet is to re-define "barrel" as, for example, "a
 FS>>> container with something loose inside -- something which can
 FS>>> easily rattle" ...

 SA>> The words ... loose ... rattle ... think upon them, you are
 SA>> actually starting to get an incling of why an empty (for the
 SA>> womble) wooden barrel can rattle. No need to re-define "barrel"
 SA>> just think upon the ideas wrought from the main word "loose" you
 SA>> have mentioned above. Consider a barrel is made from wood and iron,
 SA>> you may just get the reason.

 PL> Really... there is no need for the parts of the wooden barrel to be
 PL> all that loose at all... nor is there a need to confine it wo wooden
 PL> barrels.

 PL> There is no need to redefine a barrel, but maybe for those two great
 PL> educated blunders it,s time to actually define rattle.  For this
 PL> application the

 PL> "a. to make or emit a quick succession of short percussive sounds ...
 PL> b. To move with such sounds"

 PL> or

 PL> "A series of short sharp sounds made in quick succession that gives
 PL> the effect of a continuous sound."

 PL> definitions commonly found will do just fine.


 PL> Roll -any- empty barrel accross the floor/ground whatever, and it
 PL> WILL rattle according to exactly what the definition of rattle is.
 PL> Drop it, and it WILL rattle.

 PL> Add to it with wooden barrels, your point that after dried out, and
 PL> parts of it possibly loosened, and not only will it rattle, it will
 PL> rattle excessively.

 PL> It's just too frigging simple for them to grasp and they will say
 PL> "I'm running away" or some other nonesense when it actually the sheer
 PL> stupidy of so called educated minds that just prompts to me to shake
 PL> my head and move on for awhile until I can actually BELIEVE that they
 PL> are that stubborn and ignorant to figure out something so simple that
 PL> even a "lozer" like me can do do it.

 SA>> You cannot prove an empty barrel cannot rattle,

 PL> Of course not... but they WILL still hold their grounds though, as
 PL> they're slaughtered in their own stubborness.  It's just the way of
 PL> old folks.

 SA>> There now go and shut up and prove to yourself how big an idiot
 SA>> your mate the Womble is for misleading you.

 PL> That's what he gets for not wanting to give up that tit.

 FS>>> The poor guy would really *have* us then ... heh heh heh ...

 SA>> No need, you have *got* yourself.

 PL> Absolutely he has.  He set himself right up for it.

 SA>>  ... end of subject ... I have won ....

 PL> They won't give in though... Roy lost it for them with the admission
 PL> on the WAR deal for "lack of a better term, as he put it. The lack of
 PL> a better term being caused by the fact that it is what it is, and it
 PL> can;t be called anything EXCEPT what it is... but Roy has now tried
 PL> to wriggle out of that one and resort to more BS SPIN crap.  The same
 PL> will ahppen with these two on THIS issue.  Their theory?  If they can
 PL> go on long enough after even being PROVEN to be wrong, they can
 PL> declare victory because the opponents stop responding to them
 PL> (running away as they call it) on that particualr issue just out of
 PL> being sick to death of their ignorance.

 PL> Mark my words.  Even being proven they were wrong on this, they will
 PL> STILL rag on you and I about it... there's no doubt in my mind.  It's
 PL> just their way.  Maybe congress hasn't approved the definiton of
 PL> "rattle", so it isn't
 so? ;>>

 PL> Phil

 PL> --- FMail/Win32 1.60
 PL>  * Origin: ==<<FLaSHBaCK-BBS>>== part of the NYCap/Adirondack Netwo
 PL> (1:267/169)

Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)