Hi Res Hilary Duff

This is where all the posts that appeared on the old front page (June '04 - January '05) are stored (back when the site was run using IPB Portal).
sheepdog
Posts: 125
Joined: 11 Sep 2004 07:01

Post by sheepdog » 01 Dec 2004 21:54

a2k wrote: Also I'm not trying to have a war of words with you because I don't attack unarmed opponents.
Is whoever you're talking about mute, or for some reason unable to communicate by conventional means, such as typing.

Instead of 'words', you'd have been right to use any of the following terms:

wits
brains
minds
intelligence
(etc)




For saying something so dumb, you deserved to have it pointed out to you.

a2k
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Jun 2004 14:17

Post by a2k » 01 Dec 2004 23:17

sheepdog wrote: Instead of 'words', you'd have been right to use any of the following terms:

wits
brains
minds
intelligence
(etc)

For saying something so dumb, you deserved to have it pointed out to you.
war of words works just fine. ie: verbal fencing. and an unarmed opponent is lacking in their vocabulary. I'm sorry if this is too hard a concept for you to understand. I'll write it in crayon next time so you can follow along.

sheepdog
Posts: 125
Joined: 11 Sep 2004 07:01

Post by sheepdog » 01 Dec 2004 23:25

These are words. You can see that they are words. Whoever you were attacking on this message board was likely using words. Therefore he was in possession of words. If he possesses words, he is then not unarmed. This is as simple as it can be put. You can just admit that you fucked up.

kthxbyefucktard

a2k
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Jun 2004 14:17

Post by a2k » 01 Dec 2004 23:34

sheepdog wrote: These are words.  You can see that they are words.  Whoever you were attacking on this message board was likely using words.  Therefore he was in possession of words.  If he possesses words, he is then not unarmed.  This is as simple as it can be put.  You can just admit that you fucked up.
Um is there anyone out here besides this guy who understands the concept of a higher vocabulary?

I'll try again with an example(let me know if this is too fast for you)

"These are words. You can see these are words."

It sounds like something out of a children's book
("See Spot run. Look at Jane dance. Run Spot Run.")

The point being that I have a larger vocabulary than he, also the point of the insult is in the exaggeration of him being unarmed. Obviously even someone using child-like sentences like yourself isn't totally unarmed but you might as well be.

It would be like fighting a guy with an assault rifle when all you have is a toothpick.

Shall I call a cease fire to my carpet-bombing or do you want to continue throwing rocks at my planes?
Last edited by a2k on 01 Dec 2004 23:35, edited 1 time in total.

sheepdog
Posts: 125
Joined: 11 Sep 2004 07:01

Post by sheepdog » 01 Dec 2004 23:54

Because 'words' is obviously equated by its connotation to meaning a 'higher vocabulary.' Oh, except that it's not.

I constructed simple sentences composed of very basic terms and straight logic in hopes that you could follow along. Your imperviousness to logic, however, must make you infallible.

Your initial example doesn't even work. 'Verbal fencing' would be testing the wit of the contestant. The words themselves cannot combat each other. Are you saying he who uses the larger vocabulary, and not the better logic and reasoning, wins? Well to that, I reply:

Epistemology
Assiduous
Reconnaissance
Hypnopaedia
Electrophotomicrographically
Intrinsically
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Antediluvian
Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Etcetera

a2k
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Jun 2004 14:17

Post by a2k » 02 Dec 2004 00:14

sheepdog wrote: Because 'words' is obviously equated by its connotation to meaning a 'higher vocabulary.'  Oh, except that it's not.


Your initial example doesn't even work.  'Verbal fencing' would be testing the wit of the contestant.  The words themselves cannot combat each other.  Are you saying he who uses the larger vocabulary, and not the better logic and reasoning, wins?  Well to that, I reply:

Epistemology
Assiduous
Reconnaissance
Hypnopaedia
Electrophotomicrographically
Intrinsically
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Antediluvian
Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Etcetera
fenc·ing (n)
-The art or sport of using a foil, épée, or saber in attack and defense.
-Skillful repartee, especially as a defense against having to give direct answers.

ver·bal (adj)
-Of, relating to, or associated with words: a detailed verbal description

See, I can use a dictionary too. Except my words prove my point. Yours just prove you can copy and paste.

I will extrapolate on these definitions to possibly broaden your understanding of just what exactly verbal fencing means. It is using words skillfully in either attack or defense of your point, concept, or idea.

I never said logic and wit were unimportant in the dueling of words because I was only referring to his and now your inability to confer rational thoughts eloquently. I commend you on your effort to be logical but in some cases not all sentences are to be taken literally. We have these ideas called abstractions which we use in the forms of metaphors and similes. So even though you are correct and words cannot actually combat each other we are able to use them as arguements, which is a form of combat in my opinion.

Whs728
Posts: 11
Joined: 20 Jul 2004 05:34

Post by Whs728 » 02 Dec 2004 01:19

good to see a thread about Hilary Duff's hot woodiness has dissolved into an infantile argument over who can say the biggest words.....

eediots

a2k
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Jun 2004 14:17

Post by a2k » 02 Dec 2004 01:23

Whs728 wrote: good to see a thread about Hilary Duff's hot woodiness has dissolved into an infantile argument over who can say the biggest words.....  

eediots
sorry. I was just thinking the same thing. Let's bring back the wood!!! She's a little young for my tastes. But anyone care to debate which is greater?

hilary duff is wood > or < hilary duff causing wood in others

BizzLe
Posts: 90
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 11:29
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Post by BizzLe » 02 Dec 2004 04:41

a2k wrote:Shall I call a cease fire to my carpet-bombing or do you want to continue throwing rocks at my planes?
:lol:
You lose, cuntswab.

MarsGwar
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 12:00

Post by MarsGwar » 02 Dec 2004 07:31

a2k wrote: She's a little young for my tastes.
she'll be 18 soon enough and then she'll be old enough for every man

divrekku
Posts: 29
Joined: 06 Oct 2004 09:36
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by divrekku » 02 Dec 2004 09:18

a2k wrote:
divrekku wrote: I know its a Monty Python quote. Monty Python sucks ass, admit it. The British are humorless (or humourless as it were). Don't give me that bullshit. The only good British humor is Mr. Bean, and it wasn't even that funny.


Jimmy Fallon>Monty Python
anyone not british>Monty Python

The only way we can get Monty Python out of our society is to QUIT QUOTING it.
Mr Bean's show is the best. The movie was ok. But Johnny English sucked ballz. Kinda went down hill. I did like his role in Rat Race. the narcoleptic foreigner. Priceless.

Um... Jimmy Fallon is very untalented. Some of his skits may be funny but its because they have good writers. Farrell, Farley, hell even Sandler are better than fallon. I've lost a lot of interest in SNL since those guys moved on and the new ones aren't nearly as good. But I think its just cuz they're from my generation. The same thing happened when the old school guys moved on(Chevy Chase, Martin Short, etc) Everyone who loved them didnt' think the new ones were as good.
Jimmy Fallon is horribly unfunny, hence thats why
Fallon>Monty Python

...and that monkey IS NOT shitting....thats the other monkey's tail.
Sheesh what kind of sick fuck do you think I am?

vectra39
Posts: 4
Joined: 12 Oct 2004 08:42

Post by vectra39 » 02 Dec 2004 15:33

She is a bit chubby. A girl her height and age should weigh NO MORE than 80 lbs, according to the American Pediatrics Council on Young Wet Bitches.

BizzLe
Posts: 90
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 11:29
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Post by BizzLe » 02 Dec 2004 15:35

<!--QuoteBegin-divrekku+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(divrekku)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why did Ron Artest leave the game early?

He wanted to beat the crowd.
[/quote]

lmao! Thats fucking gold!

sheepdog
Posts: 125
Joined: 11 Sep 2004 07:01

Post by sheepdog » 02 Dec 2004 23:21

BizzLe wrote: <!--QuoteBegin-divrekku+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(divrekku)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Why did Ron Artest leave the game early?

He wanted to beat the crowd.
lmao! Thats fucking gold! [/quote]
It was also on collegehumor.com just a few days ago in the text section.

No originality points!

Whs728
Posts: 11
Joined: 20 Jul 2004 05:34

Post by Whs728 » 03 Dec 2004 00:55

I saw it on collegehumor.com too..... its not even that great of a joke!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests