1
   

Multiple Shootings at Seattle House

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2006 07:04 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Wouldn't worry too much about him doing any damage with his arsenal, at least here on A2K, D'art; Peace Through Superior Firepower, and all that, ya know Twisted Evil Mr. Green Twisted Evil

Thank u.
Statistically, citizens with licensure for gun possession
have much better records for being law abiding citizens
than do the police.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2006 07:08 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Not only is OSD's choice of font unpleasant on the eyes,
his choice of opponent and rejoinder indicates a signal lack of situational awareness Laughing

OK;
fill me in ??
David
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2006 07:33 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Not only is OSD's choice of font unpleasant on the eyes,
his choice of opponent and rejoinder indicates a signal lack of situational awareness Laughing

OK;
fill me in ??
David

Try a search on this site for any of the words "gun", "weapon", "firearm", "rifle", "shotgun", "pistol", or "ammunition", coupled to my username.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Apr, 2006 07:43 pm
timberlandko wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Not only is OSD's choice of font unpleasant on the eyes,
his choice of opponent and rejoinder indicates a signal lack of situational awareness Laughing

OK;
fill me in ??
David

Try a search on this site for any of the words "gun", "weapon", "firearm", "rifle", "shotgun", "pistol", or "ammunition", coupled to my username.

I tried it; probably did it rong;
came back empty.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 12:41 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Not only is OSD's choice of font unpleasant on the eyes,
his choice of opponent and rejoinder indicates a signal lack of situational awareness Laughing

OK;
fill me in ??
David

Try a search on this site for any of the words "gun", "weapon", "firearm", "rifle", "shotgun", "pistol", or "ammunition", coupled to my username.

I tried it; probably did it rong;
came back empty.


Make sure your spelling is conventional when you search. Spell the words "rong" and it won't work...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 03:51 pm
How varee witee u r
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 06:28 pm
I'll make it easy for you, OSD; I'm not an opponent of The Second Amendment; my idea of gun control is consistent 3" groups at 25 yards, standing offhand rapid fire.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 06:57 pm
OmSigDavid -
I'll preface to say I don't mean this in a nasty way. But I always flare, here in the privacy of my home, at your posts, not for the message, which I happen to not concur with - but I don't concur with Timber's on this issue either and don't flare on my chair about that.

The issue for me is not the guns but the distracting fonts and the attempt at letters matching sounds towards the idea of advancing communication. It shuts out folks who may or may not presently agree with you on issues, but can't stand to read your text.

I know or think I know that you see your way of communication as pure, or purer. But you'll spend a long time on an island of non communication if you won't engage the rest of the world on its literate, or not so literate, text.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2006 12:58 pm
ossobuco wrote:
OmSigDavid -
I'll preface to say I don't mean this in a nasty way. But I always flare, here in the privacy of my home, at your posts, not for the message, which I happen to not concur with - but I don't concur with Timber's on this issue either and don't flare on my chair about that.

The issue for me is not the guns but the distracting fonts and the attempt at letters matching sounds towards the idea of advancing communication. It shuts out folks who may or may not presently agree with you on issues, but can't stand to read your text.

I know or think I know that you see your way of communication as pure, or purer. But you'll spend a long time on an island of non communication if you won't engage the rest of the world on its literate, or not so literate, text.

OK
I accept your criticism;
u are the best judge of what u like.

I thought that the use of contrasting fonts,
and of large fonts, and color, emphasizing what I meant to stress,
wud make it easier to see and thus to read,
the way a man raises, lowers and intones his voice,
to make himself understood;
however, because of the unpopularity thereof,
I will tone it down.

As to fonetic spelling,
I sought to demonstrate that there is an easier way
to communicate, so that the wasteful, inefficient old way
( like spelling tho " thoUGH " )
will the sooner be abandoned, in favor of the easier n faster way.

It appears that my efforts to make it easier,
were counterproductive.

I remember a few decades ago in the Army, during close order drill,
I had men under my command
grumbling that I was too easy on them.
That blows my mind; to me, that is incomprehensible.
I thought they had a tuff life, so I shud try to make it easier
and that they 'd like it; I was rong.
I projected my own values onto them; it did not work.
O, well.
David
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 11:05 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

U 'd prefer
that he used a bomb.

Thay are faster n easier to make than guns,
tho those are ez too.


Not sure how you drew that conclusion. By the way, your spelling is as bad as your logic...



That form of spelling is used by all high IQ individuals. Nothing wrong with it at all.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2006 06:02 am
If one contends (as such spelling losers often do) that it is a more efficient means of writing, why is "they" spelled "thay," and why is "too" not abridged as is a word so simple as "you?"

It's a puerile affectation, just as is teenage argot.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2006 07:29 am
I fully expected this thread - and all of you blaming guns for the actions of an individual - it is just so predictable.

"If guns kill people, where are mine hiding all the bodies?"
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2006 07:48 am
I thot this thred wuz about spelling.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2006 12:29 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
I thot this thred wuz about spelling.


U thot rite. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2006 06:09 pm
cjhsa wrote:
I fully expected this thread - and all of you blaming guns for the actions of an individual - it is just so predictable.

"If guns kill people, where are mine hiding all the bodies?"


cjhsa, where have you been? OmSigDavid has had to make the NRA argument all by himself 'til now.

By the way, what the heck does "If guns kill people, where are mine hiding all the bodies?" mean?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 06:49 am
Wow.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 01:03 pm
Setanta wrote:
If one contends (as such spelling losers often do) that it is a more efficient means of writing,

why is "they" spelled "thay,"

I was trying for accuracy; there is a long " a " sound after the " th ".

The concept of fonetic spelling is not limited only to efficiency.
Such words as tho being spelled " thoUGH " r atavistic throwbacks
to Chaucerian times, when Middle English was much closer
to its Germanic origins, in both spelling and pronunciation;
i.e., the pronunciation changed, but the spelling did not catch up.
People were just too busy to notice,
and taught their children the rong way,
the old way,
the obsolete way, and it takes a while for someone to notice,
because we r all busy.
The concept is that words shud be spelled as thay r pronounced.
When I was being taught ( taut ) to read,
the teacher used to say: " sound it out. "

Its like carrying 10 pounds of useless iron around with u
all the time, just because it is a tradition;
its the OPPOSITE of being smart.

Quote:

and why is "too" not abridged as is a word so simple as "you?"

We need to distinguish the concept of too = also
from two = 2 or from to as part of a verb;
e.g.: I type " wright " instead of " rite " because that means a CEREMONY,
as distinguished from what u do with a pen.
I don 't write " turn rite at the lite " for the same reason.
It is not the purpose of fonetic spelling
to cause conceptual confusion.
Please note:
For well over half a century, I mindlessly used traditional spelling,
with few paradigmatic imperfections. I knew how to do it.
Long before computers with spell checking,
for years I sat in my office,
with a red pen correcting my secretaries' spelling, before signing things.

My use of fonetic spelling
is to show that there is a fast n ez way to write,
better than the mindlessly traditional way,
NOT to claim that I am PERFECT in my use of fonetic spelling
and that there shud be no improvements upon my fonetic spelling.
There remain some problems of fonetic spelling
that future lexicografers will perfect.
For now, I merely show that u r carrying useless wate in exchange for no money,
in the hope that some of u will spread the word,
thusly popularizing ez, accurate n efficient spelling
( like the SPANISH ).



Quote:

It's a puerile affectation, just as is teenage argot.

I suspect that u r mudslinging,
just because u don 't like it,
because u r an old conservative stick-in-the-mud.
Teddy Roosevelt was America 's youngest President.
Do u accuse HIM of being childish ? few do,
but during his Presidency,
he tried to introduce fonetic spelling into Federal use,
but the burocrats resisted on an emotional basis,
as u do now, and Congress stopped him.
( U can yell " hooray " for Chaucerian spelling of the 1300s. )
David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 01:12 pm
You demonstrate the extent to which a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Roosevelt never attempted to make phonetic spelling the law, and Congress was not involved in what was basically a case of the employees of the Federal government ignoring something they considered silly. It is hilarious to see you call me a conservative, though--quite entertaining, especially coming from someone with an unhealthy obsessional fixation on fire arms who usually rants at me for being in the grip of liberal delusions.

Your nonsense about spelling the word "they" as "thay" is bootless because it assumes that people who use the Roman alphabet see the letter "a" and automatically ascribe to it the "long a" sound. That is not only not true of all people who use the Roman alphabet, it is not even true of all native speakers of English. You claim "2" can't be used for the word "too" because it could be confused for "to" or "two"--and yet you use "u" for the word "you," even though it could be confused for "yew" or simply the indication of the letter "u." Your allegedly more efficiently and logical spelling is no such thing, it is simply a conceit, and a simple-minded conceit, at that.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 01:25 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I fully expected this thread - and all of you blaming guns for the actions of an individual - it is just so predictable.

"If guns kill people, where are mine hiding all the bodies?"


cjhsa, where have you been?
OmSigDavid has had to make the NRA argument all by himself 'til now.

By the way, what the heck does "If guns kill people, where are mine hiding all the bodies?" mean?

It MEANS that if someone picks up a pencil
and fatally jams it thru thru someone else 's throat,
clipping his carotid artery, u shud not blame THE PENCIL for the death.

It MEANS that if someone fatally smacks someone in the head with a rock,
u shud not blame the ROCK for the death.

It MEANS that if someone forges a check,
u shud not blame the PEN that he used.

It MEANS that umbrellas shud not be blamed for RAIN.

It MEANS that PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY SHUD BE TAKEN FOR WHAT IT IS.

It MEANS that guns don 't kill people;
PEOPLE kill people.

David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 01:27 pm
More examples of the idiocy of your alleged "more logical" spelling system. You use "wud" and "cud" for "would" and "could." But how is someone with this new, ostensibly simplified spelling to know that "cud" means "could," and not the word "cud," which exists in its own right? How is one to know, with such an allegedly intuitive system, if "wud" means "would" or "wood?" The only way to answer those problems is to establish convention, which is precisely what is in use now, so that one knows the words "through" and "threw" have different meanings.

Once again, you spelling silliness is not intuitively more logical or efficient--it is just a puerile conceit.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 11:39:40