The First Amendment is Not Enough

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I get that you're impervious to taunts and never break character even on here, except for when you do, but that is the reason I brought up your life partner becoming upset with this person's behavior.

Sorry, but even my "life-partner" has thicker skin than you.

I see, so you're going to play an overly verbose game of 'nah-ah, you are'. Who wins at that? The one that says no backsies first?

Stick with that thing you said your allegedly bad at.

If that's what it takes, yes.

*you're

Your was correct???

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your was correct???

Was that a question or is that the sound of your uptalk?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Maybe a better hypothetical is in order.

No, that's my hypothetical and in my hypotheticals I get to make the rules. If you don't like them tough. I purposely made it absurd to show how absurd your stance is, 'I would removeth my gloves and defeat that interlocuting cad with a barrage of sesquipedalian diarrhea!'.

I do not.

I keep forgetting our quaint American euphemisms are lost on you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Sorry, but even my "life-partner" has thicker skin than you.

Sorry to hear about Lifey's psoriasis if they even exist to begin with. Now, if this is a wholly made up life partner I suppose you could have any fantasy you want about how they just sit there, in their own home while someone becomes verbally abusive with them. I know you are highly principled, almost like a Free Speech Jedi, but no one except you is buying this shtick.

If that's what it takes, yes.

You know what they say about Carnegie Hall, right?

*you're

We gonna plany the grammar game? Okay.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

It's hgih time...

It certainly appears it's 'high' time if people spell that way.

Especially bad game to play when you don't know the rules. You're correct in your use use of 'your'.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your was correct???

Was that a question or is that the sound of your uptalk?

It was denoting my incredulity at your incorrect correction.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, that's my hypothetical and in my hypotheticals I get to make the rules. If you don't like them tough. I purposely made it absurd to show how absurd your stance is, 'I would removeth my gloves and defeat that interlocuting cad with a barrage of sesquipedalian diarrhea!'.

Didn't work out so well.

I keep forgetting our quaint American euphemisms are lost on you.

Euphemisms? I forget the dictionary is lost on you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your was correct???

Was that a question or is that the sound of your uptalk?

It was denoting my incredulity at your incorrect correction.

Except it was correct. Besides, I was just razzing him for the sake of razzing him. He got me back.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your was correct???

Was that a question or is that the sound of your uptalk?

It was denoting my incredulity at your incorrect correction.

Except it was correct. Besides, I was just razzing him for the sake of razzing him. He got me back.

Only it wasn't. 'You are' life partner makes no sense.

If you are going to be grammar police best to actually know the rules.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Didn't work out so well.

Actually it worked just fine, you did what was expected of you. I would have been truly shocked if you did something other than that.

Euphemisms? I forget the dictionary is lost on you.

Who the eff uses a dictionary? I just ask Alexa. But the banana jokes are cutting it close so I best not explain that one to you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your was correct???

Was that a question or is that the sound of your uptalk?

It was denoting my incredulity at your incorrect correction.

Except it was correct. Besides, I was just razzing him for the sake of razzing him. He got me back.

Only it wasn't. 'You are' life partner makes no sense.

If you are going to be grammar police best to actually know the rules.

Yes it does make no sense, so it is doubly weird that you thought that was the sentence I was talking about.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Explain it in detail. When a guy is calling you a c*******r and making suggestive comments at your life partner how do you 'defeat' his language. Let's say you start to use your 'language' and he increases his volume to ever higher levels, how are you 'defeating' this? You really haven't explained this at all.

For one, I wouldn't let it bother me. What he wants is a reaction, which by now someone such as yourself would hand him on a golden platter. Second, I would simply outwit him, yes, using language. So when you're taking your fedora off to show your life-partner how manly, and also how thin-skinned you are, I will be lighting him up without even raising a finger.

In other words, you would also react, except you'd do so with words which is just as likely to be what your hypothetical rude guest wanted. And if you're so thick-skinned and above it all, what's your motivation for "lighting him up?" Why do you even care?

What happens if you can't outwit your guest? What if he's far more clever and quick-witted? Do you continue the back and forth until he grows bored of assailing you with his far superior taunts and insults?

Or how about he doesn't respond to you at all, doesn't even acknowledge your presence and instead, goes on an hours long soliloquy about the merits of pedophilia in front of your hypothetical children and proceeds to explain to your hypothetical wife all the base things he'd do to her for his own sexual gratification?

I'm not buying any of this. It appears to me that you're simply being obstinate because of your reluctance to admit that your ill-conceived and entirely impractical position is untenable.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My weakness is my wife and my mother. And by extension, my mother in law.

I like to think i am a civilized human, but know I am over hearing 1 insult away from being anything but civilized.

Which is why I respect you. We all want to be civilized but fighting words are fighting words.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Actually it worked just fine, you did what was expected of you. I would have been truly shocked if you did something other than that.

Likewise.

Who the eff uses a dictionary? I just ask Alexa. But the banana jokes are cutting it close so I best not explain that one to you.

Yes, I do not get the whole banana thing. Help a brother out.

a reply to: theantediluvian


That's a big word salad and I didn't brings me no dressing!

Or maybe you're* right and some people just like to look principled on the interwebs because stuff.


*this is the correct way to spellz that

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your was correct???

Was that a question or is that the sound of your uptalk?

It was denoting my incredulity at your incorrect correction.

Except it was correct. Besides, I was just razzing him for the sake of razzing him. He got me back.

Only it wasn't. 'You are' life partner makes no sense.

If you are going to be grammar police best to actually know the rules.

Yes it does make no sense, so it is doubly weird that you thought that was the sentence I was talking about.

My apologies, I missed the use in the final sentence. In my defence convention is you place a star beside the word you are referencing.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Yes, I do not get the whole banana thing. Help a brother out.

No, I like my account, where else could I view this menagerie on a daily basis with no entrance fee.

a reply to: theantediluvian

If you want to make an argument do it, but your many question fallacy is virtually impossible to respond to, not to mention read.

I'm not buying any of this. It appears to me that you're simply being obstinate because of you reluctance to admit that your ill-conceived and entirely impractical position is untenable.

You're being unreasonable for the sake of defending an untenable position.

I wouldn't expect anything more from would-be censors. Hey, even the abolition of slavery was at one time untenable.

a reply to: ScepticScot

My apologies, I missed the use in the final sentence. In my defence convention is you place a star beside the word you are referencing.

No prob

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Yes, I do not get the whole banana thing. Help a brother out.

No, I like my account, where else could I view this menagerie on a daily basis with no entrance fee.

Well, I will have more for your viewing fancy.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Well, I will have more for your viewing fancy.

I wasn't really referring to you, you're more like landscaping surrounding the exhibits. Nice and flowery but lacking in substance.