Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums: Heated Discussions and Debates

Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Oooops

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Oooops [message #108008]

Sat, 14 August 2004 20:34

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

And I can't believe it's not butter. But guess what? I'm still right.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108012]

Sat, 14 August 2004 20:40

Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003

Karma: 0

Colonel

SEAL

And I can't believe it's not butter. But guess what? I'm still right.

actually no, you are a dumb ass.

http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1129285834

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108015]

Sat, 14 August 2004 20:47

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

Maybe you'd like to counter my posts with actual things to say? Ya know, like: "This statement is wrong because of the following reasons.", or "I disagree with the point you make because of XYZ.".

As soon as you're ready to grow up and stop playing a childish game of name-calling, I'll take your replies seriously.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108016]

Sat, 14 August 2004 20:48

Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003

Karma: 0

Colonel

SEAL

Nope, you are still a dumb ass.

You knew what he said and it does not matter how grammatically incorrect he was.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108017]

Sat, 14 August 2004 20:52

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

Congratulations.

You missed the point. Again.

I know what he meant, but that does not excuse his statement. Maybe if you bothered to look at my previous posts in this thread you would have noticed that I have mentioned that. In fact, I've had to mention it several times because people like you have skulls that are a little to thick.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108019]

Sat, 14 August 2004 20:54

Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003

Karma: 0

Colonel

SEAL

This is your meager attempt to flame Bush for some unmeaningful reason.

He said something and everyone knew what he meant.

You sit here taking the quote of of context arguing something that has no point at all.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108021]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:01

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

How did I take the quote out of context? I explained EVERY alteration I made to the resulting sentence at the end of my post.

There is plenty of point. Many people don't feel Bush is fit to run because they don't like the idea of having a president who can't even speak correct English. If he can't handle basic grammar, how can he handle a country? If you disagree, fine. Just don't be a 12 year old and go around calling names.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108022]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:03

Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003

Karma: 0

Colonel

SEAL

You took the quote out of context because you did not provide the entire speech with it.

And he did not mess up grammatically. He said exactly what he said. Both sides are thinking of ways to harm the country. One side thinks of them so they can stop them the other side thinks of them so they can do them.

In no way did he screw up!

BTW, you are still a dumb ass.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108024]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:11

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

Nodbugger, grow the fuck up.

Adding the rest of the speech would not have added nor taken away any meaning. The two sentences I included were a complete, self-contained, and independant thought.

Nodbugger

Both sides are thinking of ways to harm the country.

You're the one skewing meanings here. He said "our country". Both sides (the enemy and us) are thinking of ways to harm our country.

Nodbugger

In no way did he screw up!

Interesting. I can find at least 10 media sources that think he did.

Google Search: "+and neither +do +we", bush

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108025]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:13

Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003

Karma: 0

Colonel

SEAL

Nodbugger, grow the fuck up.

Adding the rest of the speech would not have added nor taken away any meaning. The two sentences I included were a complete, self-contained, and independant thought.

Nodbugger

Both sides are thinking of ways to harm the country.

You're the one skewing meanings here. He said "our country". Both sides (the enemy and us) are thinking of ways to harm our country.

Nodbugger

In no way did he screw up!

Interesting. I can find at least 10 media sources that think he did.

Google Search: "+and neither +do +we", bush

He did not miss speak.

He said both sides are thinking of new ways to harm our country.

Which is 100% true. they are just thinking about these ways for different reasons.
Or is that really hard for you to understand?

When you add the rest of the speech in there, which talks about the ways they want to hurt us, it makes perfect sense.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108026]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:19

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

He wasn't mistaken in what he said, he just didn't use the best means possible to convey the message. As I mentioned before, if he stoped treating America like children with ADD, and stop using words and phrases simply to draw attention and sound "cool", "mistakes" like this wouldn't occur. He used the same phrase structure twice. Why? Because it sounds better. "blah blah blah, and so are we." Had he phrased the meaning in a different way, the same thing could have been stated, without the screw up.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108028]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:23

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

Nodbugger

He said both sides are thinking of new ways to harm our country. Which is 100% true.

I certainly hope it's not true. I think it's safe to say that you're the dumbass now.

Step aside, Bush! We have a new village idiot!

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108029]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:25

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

I can't believe I have to say this.. I feel so dirty now.

I have to agree with Nodbugger on this one SEAL (ewww, did I actually say that?)

Thinking of ways to harm America is something that should be done. Trying to figure out all the possible ways America can be attacked is one of the better ways to prepare an adequate defence.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108032]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:34

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

You see, Nodbugger? That's how civilized people debate. You should take notes. Warranto said "I disagree with you, Seal. And here is why."

Warranto: I see your point, but grammatically, I see the sentence as meaning: "The Bush Administration is seeking new ways to harm our country". I see how it can be argued your way, but somehow I seriously doubt Bush said all of that on purpose.

For those fuckwits out there *cough* Nodbugger *cough*, let me reiterate that that is what I see as the grammatical meaning and I am well aware that he did not mean it he wants to harm America.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108036]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:38

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

heh.. like I said; what was spoken was correct, it just wasn't the best way to do so. And this is speaking from years of effective speaking training and instruction.

edit: it's not so much of a grammar thing as a structure thing. grammarically is WAS correct, however teh sentance structure was what caused the confusion)

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108039]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:46

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

Then maybe you'd like to explain why White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush's statement "just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak." instead of "Bush meant that we must never stop thinking of ways to harm our nation in order to best defend it, but it was worded oddly."?

Razz

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108040]

Sat, 14 August 2004 21:51

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

misspeak

\Mis*speak"\, v. t. To utter wrongly.

Nothing wrong with it grammarically, just not spoken (done) in the best way.

Razz

but remember, even double negatives can sometimes be grammarically correct. "Nobody doesn't like something", believe it or not is grammarically correct.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108041]

Sat, 14 August 2004 22:01

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

I would say that's quite an incomplete definition, first off. And more importantly, the man is implying that what was said was not intentional.

And I never said anything was wrong with the grammar of the sentence, I said "the grammatical meaning...", etc.

You say "not spoken in the best way" even though your own definition says "wrongly". "Not the best" and "wrong" aren't exactly the same.

I'm going to go to bed. I'll pick this up in the morning. Good night! Smile

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108042]

Sat, 14 August 2004 22:13

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

pff. semantics. Though I think we have ended up arguing for the same point, but because of the circumstances are agruing against each other.

Regardless, thats the complete definition, you can look it up if you want.

Anyways this is a case of we're both right. The meaning of it can be interpretted in the way you state, though there is nothing inately wrong with the structure of it. And it's the incorrect grammatical meaning of it that you state is the cause of my "not the best way of saying it."

So I can confidantly say your right, because well, I'm right as well! Smile

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108072]

Sun, 15 August 2004 02:20

Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR

He was grammatically correct. There is nothing wrong or incorrect in saying that they are thinking of ways to harm the country. What you infer is that he means to act on these ways and actually harm the country... when it's obvious that he actually means that he will act to defend against these ways.

I'm the bawss.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108086]

Sun, 15 August 2004 05:18

Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA

Karma: 0

Colonel

I guess we will just have to call up Bush and ask.

Is this the first thread in the Hot Issues forum to end so peacefully? Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108098]

Sun, 15 August 2004 07:34

Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003

Karma: 0

Colonel

SEAL

I guess we will just have to call up Bush and ask.

Is this the first thread in the Hot Issues forum to end so peacefully? Laughing

Nope...fuck you Smile

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108104]

Sun, 15 August 2004 08:04

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

LOL...

Well, if you EVER needed proof of nodbuggers maturity, and therefore reasons not to interpret his arguments as acutally including something intelligent, that post right there would be it.

"I lost, so I'm going to resort to namecalling!"

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108105]

Sun, 15 August 2004 08:12

Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003

Karma: 0

Colonel

warranto

I tried intelligent posts, but they didn't seem to get through to him, but it only took a few posts after the name calling to end this thread in my favor.

Report message to a moderator

Oooops [message #108112]

Sun, 15 August 2004 08:31

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

Endin your favor? lol, nice logic there.

"I called him a name so I won!"

Lets see what you actually won one, shall we?

arguement 1: "What Bush said was correct, he did not screw up!"

- only partially correct, as I've stated he didn't use the best way to convey the message, so because of the way a large number of people interpreted the speech, he did indeed screw up.

arguement 2: "He did not misspeak."

- Even the White House spokesman stated that Bush has misspoken.

arguement 3 "He did not messa up grammatically!"

- on this one your correct.

wow, 1 1/2 of the arguements out of 3. That is 50%, true. However it hardly constitiues ending in your favor. Especially because you've done enough damage to yourself in the process.

Report message to a moderator

Pages (4): [ « ‹ 1 2 3 4 › »]

Previous Topic:	For SuperFlyingLiberal...
Next Topic:	more stupid flaming

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sat Jul 20 05:52:26 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01287 seconds