I think now you must have some medical condition. No-one can be that stupid as to not understand what's going on.
So we'll go through this again... you quoted both me and Plus5 but your "rule" only applied to me because you were responding to me? Is that your story? It's not very good you know. It's only a yes or no answer but you'll find some way not to give it, won't you? You'll still look like a dick though.
What, me? Notice a new thread? And reply with inane rambling on and on about nothing special in particular ... Just call me The Rumblin' Rambler ... just don't compare me to Beanzie, Milesy, Boozie or Frobush ... It just might make my head too big and I might fall forward from the weight ... how am I going to see what I type then ... huh, tell me that Zweistein!
What, me? Notice a new thread? And reply with inane rambling on and on about nothing special in particular ... Just call me The Rumblin' Rambler ... just don't compare me to Beanzie, Milesy, Boozie or Frobush ... It just might make my head too big and I might fall forward from the weight ... how am I going to see what I type then ... huh, tell me that Zweistein!
So we'll go through this again... you quoted both me and Plus5 but your "rule" only applied to me because you were responding to me? Is that your story? It's not very good you know. It's only a yes or no answer but you'll find some way not to give it, won't you? You'll still look like a dick though.
Let's make this simple. It's a yes, I was replying to you. Not Plus5. Got it? You were the last person quoted, so I was replying to YOU. Not Plus5.
Now read this thread again. You will see I have said this already, but in a more descriptive (and yet still easy to follow for anyone with more brain cells than you) way. Since you can't understand that, it only proves that you are a stupid boy. A very stupid boy. In fact, I have never met anyone as stupid as you.
There is no fancy "rule" here. It's common forum posting.
And me looking like a dick? No, but you are looking like a cunt - a stupid one too.
So we'll go through this again... you quoted both me and Plus5 but your "rule" only applied to me because you were responding to me? Is that your story? It's not very good you know. It's only a yes or no answer but you'll find some way not to give it, won't you? You'll still look like a dick though.
Here's a completely fictitious example that shouldn't be hard to understand:
Let's make this simple. It's a yes, I was replying to you. Not Plus5. Got it? You were the last person quoted, so I was replying to YOU. Not Plus5.
Dumbfuck, I know you were replying to me. That's not what I asked.
I asked if your "People who resort to name-calling is usually the one who is losing the argument" only applies to whoever you're responding to? Not to anyone else, even if you're quoting them?
If so, why does it not apply to anyone else?
EDIT: Here's a clue. Plus5 was "name-calling", the naughty boy. Loser or not?
With 2am fast approaching, we here at the Humpy Hawthorns are concerned that some of the participants may be giving in to the lack of sleep. Our best researchers have come up with solutions for those of you whose eyelids are getting heavily, yawns getting deeper, and other halves getting the hump.
And not in the good way.
First of all, there's caffeine. Coffee is rubbish, as is tea, unless you fancy urinating whilst taking part in this occasion. Chocolate is the way to go. Chocolate-coated coffee beans are even better, and they'll see you through a couple more hours.
For longer periods, there's the old standby: Pro Plus. These wonderpills are an expresso in tablet form, only without the sniffy waiter and wanky cafe decor. One will give you an hour's spurt, two will keep you awake all night, and four will see you until the following weekend.
Failing that, sugar is the next option. Sure, you'll get hyper, but it's the fun type of hyper where you're so tired you're not entirely in control of what you're doing. You'll end up wondering what the stars in the sky look like if you happen to lay down on your lawn naked wondering what the dew-covered grass will do to your arse.
Dumbfuck, I know you were replying to me. That's not what I asked.
I asked if your "People who resort to name-calling is usually the one who is losing the argument" only applies to whoever you're responding to? Not to anyone else, even if you're quoting them?
If so, why does it not apply to anyone else?
Because you were the only one name-calling. Did you see my example?
Dumbfuck, I know you were replying to me. That's not what I asked.
I asked if your "People who resort to name-calling is usually the one who is losing the argument" only applies to whoever you're responding to? Not to anyone else, even if you're quoting them?
If so, why does it not apply to anyone else?
I'm namecalling you because you're an idiot. The post I made originally was to you because you lost the argument and resorted to namecalling. There's a huge difference.
It's only 19:45 over here thankyeverymuch Mr. NickH! And like a bunny I can go on and on and on and on and on ... almost, though not quite, ad infinitum.
Comments
What, me? Notice a new thread? And reply with inane rambling on and on about nothing special in particular ... Just call me The Rumblin' Rambler ... just don't compare me to Beanzie, Milesy, Boozie or Frobush ... It just might make my head too big and I might fall forward from the weight ... how am I going to see what I type then ... huh, tell me that Zweistein!
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Let's make this simple. It's a yes, I was replying to you. Not Plus5. Got it? You were the last person quoted, so I was replying to YOU. Not Plus5.
Now read this thread again. You will see I have said this already, but in a more descriptive (and yet still easy to follow for anyone with more brain cells than you) way. Since you can't understand that, it only proves that you are a stupid boy. A very stupid boy. In fact, I have never met anyone as stupid as you.
There is no fancy "rule" here. It's common forum posting.
And me looking like a dick? No, but you are looking like a cunt - a stupid one too.
Here's a completely fictitious example that shouldn't be hard to understand:
Now, at whom is the last statement directed? A cookie if you can guess!
And, lo ... The Starglider entered the Blonde DanSolo!
Erm, Buxter... No no, Nubbly... Errrr, all of them!!
I'm still wondering what hip pies are :-?
Trendy pies, y'know, all-the-rage pies.
I asked if your "People who resort to name-calling is usually the one who is losing the argument" only applies to whoever you're responding to? Not to anyone else, even if you're quoting them?
If so, why does it not apply to anyone else?
EDIT: Here's a clue. Plus5 was "name-calling", the naughty boy. Loser or not?
And not in the good way.
First of all, there's caffeine. Coffee is rubbish, as is tea, unless you fancy urinating whilst taking part in this occasion. Chocolate is the way to go. Chocolate-coated coffee beans are even better, and they'll see you through a couple more hours.
For longer periods, there's the old standby: Pro Plus. These wonderpills are an expresso in tablet form, only without the sniffy waiter and wanky cafe decor. One will give you an hour's spurt, two will keep you awake all night, and four will see you until the following weekend.
Failing that, sugar is the next option. Sure, you'll get hyper, but it's the fun type of hyper where you're so tired you're not entirely in control of what you're doing. You'll end up wondering what the stars in the sky look like if you happen to lay down on your lawn naked wondering what the dew-covered grass will do to your arse.
I hope that's of some help to you. Carry on.
Because you were the only one name-calling. Did you see my example?
I'm namecalling you because you're an idiot. The post I made originally was to you because you lost the argument and resorted to namecalling. There's a huge difference.
Let me guess, it depends on who says it and what you think at the time.
Who cares? Why argue with Starglider over something someone else said to you?!
No. "you're a dipsh1t" is. Anyway, if he was replying to Plus5, why would he bother to quote you at all?
Errrrr ... what gender is that person? (Yeah, I've seen this before but I'm still wondering ...)
I am at a loss for words.
The voice, hair, and makeup should be reasonable clues.
Now I'm thoroughly confused.
It says man in some of the YouTube descs - scary...
What's he doing under the covers? Looking for his masculinity?