Skip to main content

39 replies

Sounds familiar...

marksw59marksw59Post Master
Oh Lord, Please Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood

Whenever a liberal says she’s been “taken out of context” you had better look out. It means she intends to inflict an intentional harm and claim it was accidental. But the trick seldom works with conservatives because we are generally brighter than liberals assume we are – although I shouldn’t brag too much. After all, it’s been said that even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked.

The rest is here... Oh Lord, Please Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
Oh Lord, Please Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood

Whenever a liberal says she’s been “taken out of context” you had better look out. It means she intends to inflict an intentional harm and claim it was accidental. But the trick seldom works with conservatives because we are generally brighter than liberals assume we are – although I shouldn’t brag too much. After all, it’s been said that even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked.

The rest is here... Oh Lord, Please Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood


Click on the link and you will get a picture of a twit.
J JOY4567Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:

Click on the link and you will get a picture of a twit.
Now at which church were you a Deacon and adult Sunday School teacher? The church of the "I'm better than everybody else?" Not really Christ's message was/is it?

You are a sour, miserable soul. No need to attempt to try to convince ANYONE otherwise.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by JOY4567:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:

Click on the link and you will get a picture of a twit.
Now at which church were you a Deacon and adult Sunday School teacher? The church of the "I'm better than everybody else?" Not really Christ's message was/is it?

You are a sour, miserable soul. No need to attempt to try to convince ANYONE otherwise.


That's typical for him, the old curmudgeon.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by JOY4567:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:

Click on the link and you will get a picture of a twit.
Now at which church were you a Deacon and adult Sunday School teacher? The church of the "I'm better than everybody else?" Not really Christ's message was/is it?

You are a sour, miserable soul. No need to attempt to try to convince ANYONE otherwise.


No point in trying to convince you of ANYTHING, since from your performance on these forums, it appears that you have made up your limited mind about EVERYTHING. You might have concluded, based on your own criteria, that I am sour and miserable, but you do not know much at all about me and thus your characterization of me rests on a whole lot if assumptions. Need I remind you that when you ASSume something on the basis of something incomplete or unsubststantial, you make of yourself the first three letters of that word.

Beware of sweeping, all-subsuming conclusions! They are the special domain of careless and dogmatic simpletons.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
We have to base our assumptions on the limited knowledge we have of you from your postings. Using that information I must logically assume that Joy is correct. You appear to be a sour, miserable soul.


You have the choice of basing broad conclusions on very limited information or of refraining from such careless analyses. You have obviously chosen the former course, which explains not only your conclusions about me, but many of the other insupportable positions you take on these forums.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
What other insupportable positions have I taken? I, like our government, have to make choices based on the available intel. All I have on you is what you post. Therefore, my position is not insupportable.


Then you apparently ASSume that if you have ANY information on a subject, you are qualified to make bold and broad ASSertions about that subject. That is ASININE.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
What other insupportable positions have I taken? I, like our government, have to make choices based on the available intel. All I have on you is what you post. Therefore, my position is not insupportable.


Then you apparently ASSume that if you have ANY information on a subject, you are qualified to make bold and broad ASSertions about that subject. That is ASININE.


Jury's have to make life and death decisions everyday with only the information available to them. We, most of the people on this forum, have to base our decisions about your character based on only the information we can glean from your posts. There is cause without reasonable doubt to believe you are a sour miserable soul. I rest my case.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
What other insupportable positions have I taken? I, like our government, have to make choices based on the available intel. All I have on you is what you post. Therefore, my position is not insupportable.



Then you apparently ASSume that if you have ANY information on a subject, you are qualified to make bold and broad ASSertions about that subject. That is ASININE.


Jury's have to make life and death decisions everyday with only the information available to them. We, most of the people on this forum, have to base our decisions about your character based on only the information we can glean from your posts. There is cause without reasonable doubt to believe you are a sour miserable soul. I rest my case.


And I, as Judge of this Honorable Court, and as one far more intimately acquainted with the person and character of Defendant beternU, do hereby grant summary judgment, with prejudice, in favor of said Defendant. Court costs are to be assessed against the Plaintiff.

This Court will schedule a preliminary hearing to consider evidence that Plaintiff ferrellj's filing in this matter is frivolous, unethical, libelous and in contempt of this Honorable Court.

Plaintiff is ordered to immediately amend all motions, pleadings, briefs and all other submissions to this Court wherein the plural form of the word "Jury" is misspelled and to submit the revised materials to the Clerk of Court no later than 5 business days from the date of this order. Plaintiff's failure to do so will be considered contempt of this Honorable Court.

This Court insists on accuracy and professionalism, and Plaintiff's conduct evidences a paucity of both.

This Court is adjourned.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
You are one sick individual. When has a defendant been the judge in his own trial? I demand a jury trial. Let's see what your peers have to say.


I am gasted in the flabber region by your profound knowledge of our judicial system, but I am not "sick." I am quite well, thank you , both mentally and physically, although lately I am beginning to think that I should cut down a bit on food consumption, since all these multiple lunches I have been eating lately on this forum have made me a bit drowsy in the afternoons.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Suits me just fine not to be further insulted by a dandiprat such as you!


You misused the word "not". The sentence should read, "It suits me just fine to not be further insulted by a dandiprat such as you."

beternwho?


And would you be so kind as to cite some kind of authoritative source for your criticism?
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
quote:
And would you be so kind as to cite some kind of authoritative source for your criticism?


Sure, me.

Look at the sentence, your first few words are saying something suits you just fine. The next part of the sentence is describing what that is. The thing that suits you just fine is "to not be bothered". The way you wrote it fragments the sentence and makes it confusing.

I don't rip people for their grammar, just you because you pretend to be the grammar police. You're not better than anyone else, my goal is simply to remind you of that.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Big Grin Better than being a hoary misanthrope.

Since (1)you have announced that you will "not be wasting any more of time on [me]. I will not be conversing with anyone who is acrimonious, irascible, mordant, austere, vitriolic, orchurlish" and (2) subsequent to that announcement, you have posted the above-quoted response to me, I must conclude that(3) you do not include me in your lengthy list of those reprehensible types that you enumerated earlier, but that (4) you have moved me into a new classification, namely "hoary misanthrope" and that (5)you have no reservations about wasting your time on hoary misanthropes.

It is immaterial to me how you waste your time, since just about everything you put up on these forums amounts to vain, time-wasting twaddle.

Have I missed anything?
Tenn on my mindTenn on my mindHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Big Grin Better than being a hoary misanthrope.

Since (1)you have announced that you will "not be wasting any more of time on [me]. I will not be conversing with anyone who is acrimonious, irascible, mordant, austere, vitriolic, orchurlish" and (2) subsequent to that announcement, you have posted the above-quoted response to me, I must conclude that(3) you do not include me in your lengthy list of those reprehensible types that you enumerated earlier, but that (4) you have moved me into a new classification, namely "hoary misanthrope" and that (5)you have no reservations about wasting your time on hoary misanthropes.

It is immaterial to me how you waste your time, since just about everything you put up on these forums amounts to vain, time-wasting twaddle.

Have I missed anything?


Yes, the fact that your opinion, on most things, is as worthless as a bucket of warm spit. Other that that, you are a doll. Razzer
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Tenn on my mind:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Big Grin Better than being a hoary misanthrope.

Since (1)you have announced that you will "not be wasting any more of time on [me]. I will not be conversing with anyone who is acrimonious, irascible, mordant, austere, vitriolic, or churlish" and (2) subsequent to that announcement, you have posted the above-quoted response to me, I must conclude that(3) you do not include me in your lengthy list of those reprehensible types that you enumerated earlier, but that (4) you have moved me into a new classification, namely "hoary misanthrope" and that (5)you have no reservations about wasting your time on hoary misanthropes.

It is immaterial to me how you waste your time, since just about everything you put up on these forums amounts to vain, time-wasting twaddle.

Have I missed anything?


Yes, the fact that your opinion, on most things, is as worthless as a bucket of warm spit. Other that that, you are a doll. Razzer


And just what valuation should I place on the unmitigated twaddle you just posted? I will now add you to the growing list of deluded and deranged dingbats who consider insult and invective to be integral components of informed debate.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
And would you be so kind as to cite some kind of authoritative source for your criticism?


Sure, me.

Look at the sentence, your first few words are saying something suits you just fine. The next part of the sentence is describing what that is. The thing that suits you just fine is "to not be bothered". The way you wrote it fragments the sentence and makes it confusing.

I don't rip people for their grammar, just you because you pretend to be the grammar police. You're not better than anyone else, my goal is simply to remind you of that.


Just as I suspected, you offer no authoritative source at all to back up your ASSertion, choosing rather to put yourself forward as allegedly authoritative.

Stating your opinion is no substitute for citing an authoritative source. What I posted was entirely clear and unambiguous. Your "improvement" produced no real improvement at all and added a split infinitive, "to not be."

If you, instead of Shakespeare, had written Hamlet, I suppose that famous line would have been, "To be or to not be, that is the question...."

All you have done is to state an alternative that you prefer and a flawed one at that. Be advised that your preference does not constitute a principle.

You have indeed reminded me of one thing, but not the thing you intended. You have reminded me that arrogant, self-appointed grammar sharps like you are ill-advised to get pedantic with me unless they know their stuff and can back it up. You strike out on both counts.
Last edited by beternU
Tenn on my mindTenn on my mindHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
And would you be so kind as to cite some kind of authoritative source for your criticism?


Sure, me.

Look at the sentence, your first few words are saying something suits you just fine. The next part of the sentence is describing what that is. The thing that suits you just fine is "to not be bothered". The way you wrote it fragments the sentence and makes it confusing.

I don't rip people for their grammar, just you because you pretend to be the grammar police. You're not better than anyone else, my goal is simply to remind you of that.


Just as I suspected, you offer no authoritative source at all to back up your ASSertion, choosing rather to put yourself forward as allegedly authoritative.

Stating your opinion is no substitute for citing an authoritative source. What I posted was entirely clear and unambiguous. Your "improvement" produced no real improvement at all and added a split infinitive, "to not be."

If you, instead of Shakespeare, had written Hamlet, I suppose that famous line would have been, "To be or to not be, that is the question...."

All you have done is to state an alternative that you prefer and a flawed one at that. Be advised that your preference does not constitute a principle.

You have indeed reminded me of one thing, but not the thing you intended. You have reminded me that arrogant, self-appointed grammar sharps like you are ill-advised to get pedantic with me unless they know their stuff and can back it up. You strike out on both counts.


BTU, you are that snotty, brat of a kid we all went to school with. You know more, have more, been more places, done more things than anyone. What you don't understand is, we don't like you. You have wore-out your welcome. You can't teach us anything. Why? Because of your obnoxiousness, not that we are stupid. Too bad, if you had a better sense of other people, you could be quite intertaining. Confused

p.s. I said "we" don't like you. I should speak for myself. I don't like you.
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
And would you be so kind as to cite some kind of authoritative source for your criticism?


Sure, me.

Look at the sentence, your first few words are saying something suits you just fine. The next part of the sentence is describing what that is. The thing that suits you just fine is "to not be bothered". The way you wrote it fragments the sentence and makes it confusing.

I don't rip people for their grammar, just you because you pretend to be the grammar police. You're not better than anyone else, my goal is simply to remind you of that.


Just as I suspected, you offer no authoritative source at all to back up your ASSertion, choosing rather to put yourself forward as allegedly authoritative.

Stating your opinion is no substitute for citing an authoritative source. What I posted was entirely clear and unambiguous. Your "improvement" produced no real improvement at all and added a split infinitive, "to not be."

If you, instead of Shakespeare, had written Hamlet, I suppose that famous line would have been, "To be or to not be, that is the question...."

All you have done is to state an alternative that you prefer and a flawed one at that. Be advised that your preference does not constitute a principle.

You have indeed reminded me of one thing, but not the thing you intended. You have reminded me that arrogant, self-appointed grammar sharps like you are ill-advised to get pedantic with me unless they know their stuff and can back it up. You strike out on both counts.


So provide your authoritative source that proves me wrong.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
And would you be so kind as to cite some kind of authoritative source for your criticism?


Sure, me.

Look at the sentence, your first few words are saying something suits you just fine. The next part of the sentence is describing what that is. The thing that suits you just fine is "to not be bothered". The way you wrote it fragments the sentence and makes it confusing.

I don't rip people for their grammar, just you because you pretend to be the grammar police. You're not better than anyone else, my goal is simply to remind you of that.


Just as I suspected, you offer no authoritative source at all to back up your ASSertion, choosing rather to put yourself forward as allegedly authoritative.

Stating your opinion is no substitute for citing an authoritative source. What I posted was entirely clear and unambiguous. Your "improvement" produced no real improvement at all and added a split infinitive, "to not be."

If you, instead of Shakespeare, had written Hamlet, I suppose that famous line would have been, "To be or to not be, that is the question...."

All you have done is to state an alternative that you prefer and a flawed one at that. Be advised that your preference does not constitute a principle.

You have indeed reminded me of one thing, but not the thing you intended. You have reminded me that arrogant, self-appointed grammar sharps like you are ill-advised to get pedantic with me unless they know their stuff and can back it up. You strike out on both counts.


So provide your authoritative source that proves me wrong.


It does not work that way, and you will not get away with that cheap and transparent attempt to wiggle away from this one. YOU made the assertion that what I posted was incorrect and you made that assertion without anything to back it up but your opinion. That is not enough, and neither is it enough to demand that I prove anything. You made the call; you BACK IT UP or BACK OFF.
J JOY4567Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Tenn on my mind:

BTU, you are that snotty, brat of a kid we all went to school with. You know more, have more, been more places, done more things than anyone. What you don't understand is, we don't like you. You have wore-out your welcome. You can't teach us anything. Why? Because of your obnoxiousness, not that we are stupid. Too bad, if you had a better sense of other people, you could be quite intertaining. Confused

p.s. I said "we" don't like you. I should speak for myself. I don't like you.
But, but, but don't you realize that he's "better than you"? Big Grin
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
quote:
It does not work that way, and you will not get away with that cheap and transparent attempt to wiggle away from this one. YOU made the assertion that what I posted was incorrect and you made that assertion without anything to back it up but your opinion. That is not enough, and neither is it enough to demand that I prove anything. You made the call; you BACK IT UP or BACK OFF.


Yes, it does work that way. You made an assertion that I am wrong by pointing out your mistake. So if I'm wrong, provide your authoritative source. I showed that your sentence structure is flawed. I explained why it is flawed and provided an example of how it should have been written. Therefore, I backed it up.

If you are unable to hold yourself to the same standards that you expect everyone else to meet, then you really aren't as superior as you think you are.

beternwho?
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
It does not work that way, and you will not get away with that cheap and transparent attempt to wiggle away from this one. YOU made the assertion that what I posted was incorrect and you made that assertion without anything to back it up but your opinion. That is not enough, and neither is it enough to demand that I prove anything. You made the call; you BACK IT UP or BACK OFF.


Yes, it does work that way. You made an assertion that I am wrong by pointing out your mistake. So if I'm wrong, provide your authoritative source. I showed that your sentence structure is flawed. I explained why it is flawed and provided an example of how it should have been written. Therefore, I backed it up.

If you are unable to hold yourself to the same standards that you expect everyone else to meet, then you really aren't as superior as you think you are.

beternwho?


My standards insist on being backed up by something authoritative. Your standard is no more than your own personal assertion, backed up by no more than what you prefer. You said, "You made an assertion that I am wrong by pointing out your mistake." That is incorrect. What I have said and continue to say is that you pointed out an alleged error, but offered nothing to support your claim except your OPINION. If what I wrote was erroneous, then you should be able to easily find some reputable source of guidance on English usage to validate your claim. You have not done so, but instead have pitiably weasleled and waffled, offering nothing but an assertion seemingly based on a very flawed premise, namely that if you say it is so, then it must be so. Persons who operate in that mode, it would seem, think that they are better than others who rely on published standards from authoritative sources.
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
quote:
My standards insist on being backed up by something authoritative.[/quo[quote]My standards insist on being backed up by something authoritative. Your standard is no more than your own personal assertion, backed up by no more than what you prefer. You said, "You made an assertion that I am wrong by pointing out your mistake." That is incorrect. What I have said and continue to say is that you pointed out an alleged error, but offered nothing to support your claim except your OPINION. If what I wrote was erroneous, then you should be able to easily find some reputable source of guidance on English usage to validate your claim. You have not done so, but instead have pitiably weasleled and waffled, offering nothing but an assertion seemingly based on a very flawed premise, namely that if you say it is so, then it must be so. Persons who operate in that mode, it would seem, think that they are better than others who rely on published standards from authoritative sources.


So provide an authoritative source that proves you used correct grammar and I'm wrong. If you rely on "published standards from authoritative sources", then provide one that proves you're correct and I'll retract my correction and apologize.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
My standards insist on being backed up by something authoritative.[/quo[quote]My standards insist on being backed up by something authoritative. Your standard is no more than your own personal assertion, backed up by no more than what you prefer. You said, "You made an assertion that I am wrong by pointing out your mistake." That is incorrect. What I have said and continue to say is that you pointed out an alleged error, but offered nothing to support your claim except your OPINION. If what I wrote was erroneous, then you should be able to easily find some reputable source of guidance on English usage to validate your claim. You have not done so, but instead have pitiably weasleled and waffled, offering nothing but an assertion seemingly based on a very flawed premise, namely that if you say it is so, then it must be so. Persons who operate in that mode, it would seem, think that they are better than others who rely on published standards from authoritative sources.


So provide an authoritative source that proves you used correct grammar and I'm wrong. If you rely on "published standards from authoritative sources", then provide one that proves you're correct and I'll retract my correction and apologize.



Do you hear that persistent echo of yourself-- still insisting that I am obligated to prove that your undocumented, un-annotated, un-authoritative ASSertion is wrong? That is what I hear and it is becoming BORING. You have now proven your irrelevance and unresponsiveness over and over. It is time for you to PUT UP or SHUT UP. You need to stop mistaking your own borborygmus for the rumblings of the universe.
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
quote:
Do you hear that persistent echo of yourself-- still insisting that I am obligated to prove that your undocumented, un-annotated, un-authoritative ASSertion is wrong? That is what I hear and it is becoming BORING. You have now proven your irrelevance and unresponsiveness over and over. It is time for you to PUT UP or SHUT UP. You need to stop mistaking your own borborygmus for the rumblings of the universe.


Nothing. You can't provide any "authoritative source" to prove that your grammar is correct. Therefore, you can't disprove my claim that it is incorrect.

The whole point of this is to prove that you're not as superior as you imagine yourself to be. You're not a skilled linguist, you simply like tossing around uncommon words in an effort to sound superior to everyone else. Evidence of this is in your own screen name, "beternu".

The truth is that many of your sentences are fragmented, thrown together, and usually run on. In an effort to sound better than everyone else and correcting everyone as if you have some authority, you end up sounding silly and lose credibility. My goal was to simply expose that.

Have a great day!
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Do you hear that persistent echo of yourself-- still insisting that I am obligated to prove that your undocumented, un-annotated, un-authoritative ASSertion is wrong? That is what I hear and it is becoming BORING. You have now proven your irrelevance and unresponsiveness over and over. It is time for you to PUT UP or SHUT UP. You need to stop mistaking your own borborygmus for the rumblings of the universe.


Nothing. You can't provide any "authoritative source" to prove that your grammar is correct. Therefore, you can't disprove my claim that it is incorrect.

The whole point of this is to prove that you're not as superior as you imagine yourself to be. You're not a skilled linguist, you simply like tossing around uncommon words in an effort to sound superior to everyone else. Evidence of this is in your own screen name, "beternu".

The truth is that many of your sentences are fragmented, thrown together, and usually run on. In an effort to sound better than everyone else and correcting everyone as if you have some authority, you end up sounding silly and lose credibility. My goal was to simply expose that.

Have a great day!


In all of that, all you have proven is that you can not back up your challenge of my grammar with anything other than your own opinion. In nothing you have posted thus far on this topic have you put forward anything but your opinion. That just doesn't cut the mustard. And, by the way, your chronic and ignorant contention that I write "run on" sentences evidences your own ignorance on that subject. You evidently are not familiar with the definition of that term, or you would not make such assertions.

So much for your alleged ability to "prove" anything about the quality of my writing!
Last edited by beternU

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×