# The Pointless Arguing Thread



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Here is a thread to argue incessantly and needlessly with people. 

Yes, I know we have many other threads for that, but they all have the pretense of having an actual topic. This one does not. No, this is not another test thread. 

You may not post unless you intend to argue and/or disagree, or at the very least point out spelling and grammatical errors in people's posts. 

Insults are welcome, but only if they are in compliance with the Mayor's policies. i.e., insult the argument, not the argument-er, unless of course that is your pointless argument to make. (But play nice.)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

are you insinuating I make pointless arguments?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Argument Clinic


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Here is a thread to argue incessantly and needlessly with people.
> 
> Yes, I know we have many other threads for that, but they all have the pretense of having an actual topic. This one does not. No, this is not another test thread.
> 
> ...



Who are you to tell us what we may or may not post?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This is a ludicrous, hideously wasteful waste of a thread. An abominable use of pixels, a hopeless effort mired in a needless welter of scummery.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Is not! Show me proof!


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

I find that I must take a contrary position to the one you are espousing.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I come here for abuse, not for an argument!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I'm right!
No, I'm Left...
You're Right!
No, you're wrong...
You're Right so you are wrong!
You're left so you are wrong!

I know better! Just because!

This rant has not been peer reviewed.


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> This rant has not been peer reviewed.


Yes it has!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Chris said:


> Yes it has!


No it hasn't!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A disgusting and cheap ploy, all of you. Only I am right on this. I write with authority and so it must be true. This is the only meaningful part of the thread!!!!


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Max said:


> A disgusting and cheap ploy, all of you. Only I am right on this. *I write with authority* and so it must be true. This is the only meaningful part of the thread!!!!


This is right where you went wrong. It's not writing, it's typing. Gawd this place is falling apart.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> A disgusting and cheap ploy, all of you. Only I am right on this. I write with authority and so it must be true. This is the only meaningful part of the thread!!!!


Wrong!


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

You're so not right, you aren't wrong anymore.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Writing, typing - hey, it's a figure of speech. Must I clarify even the VERY SIMPLEST OF THINGS????? MY TIME IS VALUABLE HERE YOU KNOW!!!!tptptptp


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Here is a thread to argue incessantly and needlessly with people.
> 
> Yes, I know we have many other threads for that, but they all have the pretense of having an actual topic. This one does not. No, this is not another test thread.
> 
> ...


How could one insult you, Sonal??? 

I am not really the arguementative type ............... what about kvetching?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

You spelled argumentative wrong. And this thread has nothing to do with ketchup - stop trying to derail it!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Doug said:


> You spelled argumentative wrong. And this thread has nothing to do with ketchup - stop trying to derail it!


Oops...............  I shall now write "argumentative" one hundred times on the blackboard .......... which, in my opinion, is a stupid task.

Kvetching is the age old Yiddish custom of being argumentative in a non-threatening sort of manner.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Kvetching is the age old Yiddish custom of being argumentative in a non-threatening sort of manner.


Are you threatening me with being non-threatening?


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Kvetching is the age old Yiddish custom of being argumentative in a non-threatening sort of manner.


Bollocks.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macified said:


> Bollocks.




Watch your Anglo-Saxon expressions .............. this is a family-oriented web site.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's not for you to denounce it as stupid. I went to a lot of schools and know some very important people and that gives me far more cred than you or anyone else, Doc!


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

kvetching, by definition is complaining, not arguing. This is the pointless _arguing_ thread. If you want a pointless complaining thread, I suggest you stop derailing this one and start your own.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Who are you to tell us what we may or may not post?


It's my damn thread, and you will do as I please!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

You *will* not!


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2011)

Finally, something on topic in here! :clap:


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

mguertin said:


> Finally, something on topic in here! :clap:


Not that old chestnut....


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> You *will* not!


No, *I* will do as I please.

And on my thread, *you* will also do as I please.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> This rant has not been peer reviewed.


So, no linky? Hmmph. Figures.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> This rant has not been peer reviewed.


I just reviewed it. What, are you saying I'm not your peer? You trying to say you're better than me? You're so peer-less that I'm not good enough to review your rants?

Hmph.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

KC4 said:


> Hmmph.





Sonal said:


> Hmph.


In at least 500 words, argue that women can't spell.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Kazak said:


> In at least 500 words, argue that women can't spell.


KC4 and I have different accents.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

That's not very argumentative of you.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Yeah, well double dumb-ass on you!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Kazak said:


> That's not very argumentative of you.


You missed my passive-aggressive decision to use decidedly less than 500 words.

Is subtlety just lost on all men? Honestly.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

This can't be an argument thread. No one's been called a Nazi of any kind. Therefore no one has been chastised for their political incorrectness over using the term Nazi.

Where are the trolls??

Steve Jobs is unfashionable! Windows 7 makes you younger! The conservatives logo is too blue!

It's like your hearts aren't in it...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I just reviewed it. What, are you saying I'm not your peer? You trying to say you're better than me? You're so peer-less that I'm not good enough to review your rants?
> 
> Hmph.


I am sooo much better than you but I will never directly say it, I'll just create a nickname for you. Something like Moanal for instance. Take that!


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

cap10subtext said:


> This can't be an argument thread. No one's been called a Nazi of any kind. Therefore no one has been chastised for their political incorrectness over using the term Nazi.
> 
> Where are the trolls??
> 
> ...


It's supposed to be pointless. Sheesh. 

Just like a issue-Nazi like you to bring issues into the discussion.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Sonal said:


> You missed my passive-aggressive decision to use decidedly less than 500 words.
> 
> Is subtlety just lost on all men? Honestly.


I missed your passive-aggressive decision to use decidedly FEWER than 500 words, you COTU Nazi! How's that for subtle? Hmmmmmmmmph!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

COTU Nazi is redundant by the way. All 6,000,000 of you can stick that in your pipes . . .


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I am sooo much better than you but I will never directly say it, I'll just create a nickname for you. Something like Moanal for instance. Take that!


Come up with something original and we'll talk.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Ask him why it's "mrjimmy" and not "Mr. James." That might get a rise out of him. Maybe not.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Kazak said:


> COTU Nazi is redundant by the way. All 6,000,000 of you can stick that in your pipes . . .





Kazak said:


> I missed your passive-aggressive decision to use decidedly FEWER than 500 words, you COTU Nazi! How's that for subtle? Hmmmmmmmmph!


Are you arguing with yourself now? Correcting your own word choice errors? Sad.



MLeh said:


> It's supposed to be pointless. Sheesh.
> 
> Just like a issue-Nazi like you to bring issues into the discussion.





cap10subtext said:


> This can't be an argument thread. No one's been called a Nazi of any kind. Therefore no one has been chastised for their political incorrectness over using the term Nazi.


I hereby invoke Godwin's Law and declare myself the winner.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Kazak said:


> Ask him why it's "mrjimmy" and not "Mr. James." That might get a rise out of him. Maybe not.


Yawn.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Kazak said:


> In at least 500 words, argue that women can't spell.


Your request has been received and will be granted at our earliest convenience, possibly never. Please wait for it. 

Any further requests or concerns can be made either in writing or in person at:

P.F.O. Box 666
Beelzeburg, Hades
B8T 0M3


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Come up with something original and we'll talk.


I have no interest in talking. I am only interested in one sided debate!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I have no interest in talking. I am only interested in one sided debate!


Then why do you reply to me? Sheesh. 

If you were truly interesting in one-sided debate, you could rapid-post in a Tourette's-like fashion with no regard to what anyone else has said already.

Has the internet taught you nothing?


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Sorry, sorry, sorry. I've got this all wrong. I've been insulting, not argumentative. I will try to make amends. I have family in Mississauga; they are nice people, and (literally) the furthest things from Nazis one can imagine. There are probably no gender differences in spelling ability. Mrs. Jimmy is probably the happiest woman on Earth.

Let me try again:

Because I said so.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

So? 
So what?


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

I know you are, but what am I?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

This thread is tragically flawed. There is no such thing as a pointless argument it is just that some people don't get the point... Thread Fail. beejacon


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

This thread has a fundamental flaw. I entirely disagree with the notion of a pointless argument. 

The reasons for the argument maybe obscure and have nothing to do with the topic. The reasons for the argument maybe based upon a emotional reaction rather than a logical progression of thought. The reasons maybe as inane as I don't want sleep right now or how can I have someone "spin" for one's inexplainable entertainment value.

Some folks come to the internet for a debate they should be wary for others bring baggage and anonymity.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Too many words. Get out!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The Doug said:


> Too many words. Get out!


That's not an argument. It is a command... *You* get out!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Sonal is always right.

All arguments to the contrary are therefore pointless and wrong.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

BigDL said:


> This thread has a fundamental flaw. I entirely disagree with the notion of a pointless argument.
> 
> The reasons for the argument maybe obscure and have nothing to do with the topic. The reasons for the argument maybe based upon a emotional reaction rather than a logical progression of thought. The reasons maybe as inane as I don't want sleep right now or how can I have someone "spin" for one's inexplainable entertainment value.
> 
> Some folks come to the internet for a debate they should be wary for others bring baggage and anonymity.



maybe, maybe? May be! I bore of this tiresome thread. Again I say "Bollocks" to you all.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Everything Harry says is a lie.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Sonal is always right.
> 
> All arguments to the contrary are therefore pointless and wrong.


Sonal is always right based on the premise that she is never wrong, but one should never say never and thus Sonal is wrong and thus is not always right.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

screature said:


> Sonal is always right based on the premise that she is never wrong, but one should never say never and thus Sonal is wrong and thus is not always right.


Saying "always" is no better than saying "never." One should generally avoid absolutes.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kazak said:


> Everything Harry says is a lie.


This is a declarative statement with no supporting argument at all... you broke the rules... Get Out!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kazak said:


> Saying "always" is no better than saying "never." One should generally avoid absolutes.


I absolutely agree, no exceptions, unless there is an exception which would be exceptional.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Sonal is always right based on the premise that she is never wrong, but one should never say never and thus Sonal is wrong and thus is not always right.


No.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

screature said:


> I absolutely agree, no exceptions, unless there is an exception which would be exceptional.


I find your oleaginous agreement most disagreeable. Ack.Ack.Ack.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

KC4 said:


> oleaginous


You've already got a thread for this.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

KC4 said:


> I find your oleaginous agreement most disagreeable. Ack.Ack.Ack.


I find you use too many multi-syllabic words.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

The tilt is not impressed with any of these arguments!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

tilt said:


> The tilt is not impressed with any of these arguments!


That's not fair! How can one be expected to argue with His tiltness?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The Doug said:


> Too many words. Get out!


NOW! You have made your point in a pointless thread ergo the thread fails as "The Pointless Arguing Thread."

Now shall you get out?


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I find you use too many multi-syllabic words.


Polysyllabic. [grunting noise]


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Kazak said:


> Polysyllabic. [grunting noise]


Whatev'


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

tilt said:


> The tilt is not impressed with any of these arguments!


We'd best improve, lest we face the Wrath of Tilt, which is probably something like 40 days and 40 nights of GHG drivel, or a plague of mindless, right-wing locusts.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sonal said:


> I find you use too many multi-syllabic words.


Oh, sorry. Ack. Ack. Ack. 

Good?


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Kazak said:


> We'd best improve, lest we face the Wrath of Tilt, which is probably something like 40 days and 40 nights of GHG drivel, or a plague of mindless, right-wing locusts.


No No No! Right-winged locusts would fly to the left. You must mean mindless left-winged locusts. 

Right?


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

No, because mindlessness is the exclusive domain of right-wing locusts.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I find you use too many multi-syllabic words.





KC4 said:


> Oh, sorry. Ack. Ack. Ack. Good?


Cat-fight.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

MLeh said:


> It's supposed to be pointless. Sheesh.
> 
> Just like a issue-Nazi like you to bring issues into the discussion.


That's just disrespectful of all of the people throughout history who have actually been persecuted by issue-Nazi's and forced to stay on-topic (thinking mainly here of politicians).

How dare you force me not to make sense!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Stop Making Sense.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Same as it ever was...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Or is it?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)




----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Clearly cats can't spell, either.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

What do you expect they're cats?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Well I have three cats with impeccable language and punctuation skills. I blame dogs and dog owners for that cartoon.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The Doug said:


> Well I have three cats with impeccable language and punctuation skills. I blame dogs and dog owners for that cartoon.


Hey dogs can talk...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

Steve: HI Bill...
Bill: Ugh... You know its my last day.... Can you leave me alone??? Can I not cuddle with my Zune and WP7 phone for my last day at Microsoft?
Steve: Sure, I will leave you alone... As an old friend, I'll give you a free Macbook with Mac OS X.... I also tweaked it so you can't access Boot Camp or any Virtual Machine....
Bill: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! I HATE YOU JOBS!!!

[They Fight.....]
[5 Minutes Later]

A Youtube Video pops up on the Macbook... And they finally stop and watch....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82PsD2Z5ZvI


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Hey dogs can talk...


And cats are bilingual.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Two dogs get into a heated, subtitled, argument. [VIDEO]

Not a fight, only a discussion!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

KC4 said:


> Not a fight, only a discussion!


Spoken like a married person.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*This sucks*



Sonal said:


> Here is a thread to argue incessantly and needlessly with people.
> 
> Yes, I know we have many other threads for that, but they all have the pretense of having an actual topic. This one does not. No, this is not another test thread.
> 
> ...


This thread is uninformative, largely superfluous, and often vacuous, not that this distinguishes it from any of the others. The topic may be irrelevant to anything that matters, but like all others, it sucks.

I have no spelling or grammatical point to hammer home, just an etymological one - I am amused all the time by expressions such as "your opinion sucks", or "you suck" or "Bill Gates sucks". This epithet is common, especially here, where gratuitous, simplistic insults abound. The etymology is obvious to anyone of a certain age, such as myself - the sucking bit refers to an essentially normal sexual act performed by a (homosexual) male with another (homosexual) male, but the original intent of the remark was both defamatory towards gays and intended as a strong insult towards its (presumably non-gay) target. In my youth, a remark like that usually led to a fist fight. So all this history of the English language, and its reflection here, is the source of my amusement.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Dr T said:


> This thread is uninformative, largely superfluous, and often vacuous, not that this distinguishes it from any of the others. The topic may be irrelevant to anything that matters, but like all others, it sucks.
> 
> I have no spelling or grammatical point to hammer home, just an etymological one - I am amused all the time by expressions such as "your opinion sucks", or "you suck" or "Bill Gates sucks". This epithet is common, especially here, where gratuitous, simplistic insults abound. The etymology is obvious to anyone of a certain age, such as myself - the sucking bit refers to an essentially normal sexual act performed by a (homosexual) male with another (homosexual) male, but the original intent of the remark was both defamatory towards gays and intended as a strong insult towards its (presumably non-gay) target. In my youth, a remark like that usually led to a fist fight. So all this history of the English language, and its reflection here, is the source of my amusement.


This ^ blows.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kazak said:


> This ^ blows.


:lmao: I was going to say that earlier except that I thought it would just give Dr.T. a bigger platform to stand on re: his homophobia rant... pointed or pointless... I'm really confused now.  This thread is starting to make *my** brain hurt.*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Dr T said:


> This thread is uninformative, largely superfluous, and often vacuous, not that this distinguishes it from any of the others. The topic may be irrelevant to anything that matters, but like all others, it sucks.
> 
> I have no spelling or grammatical point to hammer home, just an etymological one - I am amused all the time by expressions such as "your opinion sucks", or "you suck" or "Bill Gates sucks". This epithet is common, especially here, where gratuitous, simplistic insults abound. The etymology is obvious to anyone of a certain age, such as myself - the sucking bit refers to an essentially normal sexual act performed by a (homosexual) male with another (homosexual) male, but the original intent of the remark was both defamatory towards gays and intended as a strong insult towards its (presumably non-gay) target. In my youth, a remark like that usually led to a fist fight. So all this history of the English language, and its reflection here, is the source of my amusement.





Kazak said:


> This ^ blows.


I'd say it bites....and when I say that, I mean the big one.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

So it sucks, blows, and bites. I could add one more to the list, but I don't want to rum into trouble again.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Kazak said:


> So it sucks, blows, and bites. I could add one more to the list, but I don't want to *rum into trouble* again.


I've 'rum'd' into trouble before. It's never been good.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I'm looking around this morning and I think there are many threads out there that we could easily merge into this one.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Indeed


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Is this agreement I see in the pointless arguing thread?

There's no agreeing in the pointless arguing thread!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Inevitable.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I've 'rum'd' into trouble before. It's never been good.





Kazak said:


> So it sucks, blows, and bites. I could add one more to the list, but I don't want to rum into trouble again.


Old Merrytime expression "if there is rum enough and room enough we can all get along.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Old Merrytime expression "if there is rum enough and room enough we can all get along.


What do you know?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Is this agreement I see in the pointless arguing thread?
> 
> There's no agreeing in the pointless arguing thread!


Bossy.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Old Merrytime expression "if there is rum enough and room enough we can all get along.





mrjimmy said:


> What do you know?


It would not be pointless to let you know what I've known.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

Well, I don't want to argue and I don't want any argument about that!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Sheesh. Deify a guy, and it goes straight to his head.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

Kazak said:


> Sheesh. Deify a guy, and it goes straight to his head.


Uh uh, this thread is supposed to be pointless, so stop making a point!


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Stop telling people what to do!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

You're all wrong. As usual.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Well there's the pot calling the kettle black...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

b-b-b-b-but the kettle!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

cap10subtext said:


> Well there's the pot calling the kettle black...


I prefer "pot calling hash dope..." no chance for the race card... into the fifth it's Well On His Way, then it's Full Sails set, followed by A Little Bear behind bring up the rear it's Beetle Bomb...


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)




----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Warning: Cats are a gateway drug. You sniff a cat, and in a few weeks, you're up to llamas and emus.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

I'll stop when I'm not feline well.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

I can stop [hairball] anytime I [hairball] want to.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Stop coughing up hairballs! I just cleaned that floor!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Crankypants.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

This is not a test.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Yes, it is.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

You know, I specifically stated in the first post that this was not the test thread. That includes links to the test thread. Reading challenged much?

I also note that I have become the lone devout follower of the Tilt. His Tiltness does not look kindly about fairweather followers. Guess that makes me super-special. tptptptp


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I also note that I have become the lone devout follower of the Tilt. His Tiltness does not look kindly about fairweather followers. Guess that makes me super-special. tptptptp


It may be that His Tiltness does not look kindly *ON* fairweather followers; however, I believe he rewards humility. Your loss.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Kazak said:


> It may be that His Tiltness does not look kindly *UPON* fairweather followers; however, I believe he rewards humility. Your loss.


There, fixed that for you.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

The Great Tilt needs not your petty corrections, for his all-knowing Tiltedness knows what I meant!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> The Great Tilt needs not your petty corrections, for his all-knowing Tiltedness knows what I meant!


Yes, Long Live Big Tilt ............ or is that Big Brother??


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

And the all-knowing Tiltedness, knows that his true disciples need not openly display Tilt-icons to be fully Tilted. Why tilt the lily?


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

KC4 said:


> There, fixed that for you.


At the risk of having a point, I offer this: "Most sources tend to agree that you should use “upon” sparingly and usually just for literary effect." While I can understand that a humble goldfish might have compelling motives to puff herself up, she should not rely *on* verbosity to achieve that end.

Anyone else notice that the mighty Tilt remains moot on our attempts to understand him?


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Kazak said:


> At the risk of having a point, I offer this: "Most sources tend to agree that you should use “upon” sparingly and usually just for literary effect." While I can understand that a humble goldfish might have compelling motives to puff herself up, she should not rely *on* verbosity to achieve that end.
> 
> Anyone else notice that the mighty Tilt remains *moot *on our attempts to understand him?


Hmmph. 

What sayeth you? That his Tiltness has no practical meaning? 
Moot | Define Moot at Dictionary.com

You shall be straightened out. (un-Tilted)


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Kazak said:


> At the risk of having a point, I offer this: "Most sources tend to agree that you should use “upon” sparingly and usually just for literary effect." While I can understand that a humble goldfish might have compelling motives to puff herself up, she should not rely *on* verbosity to achieve that end.
> 
> Anyone else notice that the mighty Tilt remains moot on our attempts to understand him?


Are you saying his Tiltness is unworthy of literary effect? 

Heretic! Fie on the disbeliever! Shame on one who so disparages the Great and Mighty Tilt.

Throw thyself on the mercy of his slanted benevolence!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

KC4 said:


> Hmmph.
> 
> What sayeth you? That his Tiltness has no practical meaning?
> Moot | Define Moot at Dictionary.com
> ...


I stand (legs good, fins bad) corrected.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Kazak said:


> I stand (legs good, fins bad) corrected.


Agreement? AGREEMENT?

There is no agreeing in the pointless arguing thread!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Are you saying his Tiltness is unworthy of literary effect?
> 
> Heretic! Fie on the disbeliever! Shame on one who so disparages the Great and Mighty Tilt.
> 
> Throw thyself on the mercy of his slanted benevolence!


Remember, ye professed believers, that were it not for me, you would not know of tilt's "slanted benevolence" (catchy phrase, I like it).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

KC4 said:


> And the all-knowing Tiltedness, knows that his true disciples need not openly display Tilt-icons to be fully Tilted. Why tilt the lily?


I have seen his light, and stood on the Hill of Knowledge with him (actually, it was Signal Hill here in St.John's), and actually touched his hand (actually, we shook hands when we parted company). So, I have seen Tilt and he exists.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Are you saying his Tiltness is unworthy of literary effect?
> 
> Heretic! Fie on the disbeliever! Shame on one who so disparages the Great and Mighty Tilt.
> 
> Throw thyself on the mercy of his slanted benevolence!


Amen, Sister Sonal.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Kazak said:


> ...(legs good, fins bad)


You're out on a limb there poochy, with that rather prejudicial statement.

Perhaps the cold clammy fin of fate will clamp you on the shoulder one day.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I'm right.. and if you don't like it, I'll delete the thread. beejacon


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

I don't like it. (I double-dog-dare you.)

-- DON'T TEMPT ME! -- Love, Vex! tptptptp


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Kazak said:


> I don't like it. (I double-dog-dare you.)
> 
> -- DON'T TEMPT ME! -- Love, Vex! tptptptp


.................................. BAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahhahahahahahahahahaahahah!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Forget tilt, it's obviously Vexel with the godlike powers.

BTW, does that count as a post for you? I'm mildly curious.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Kazak said:


> I'm mildly curious.


snort.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Kazak said:


> Forget tilt, it's obviously Vexel with the godlike powers.
> 
> BTW, does that count as a post for you? I'm mildly curious.



"I am Tilt, your god, who brought you into the land of ehMacLand, out of the house of Windows slavery;

You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, or anything that looks like Bill Gates."

It's all there in "The World According to Tilt".


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

> BTW, does that count as a post for you? I'm mildly curious.


hehe.. nope, it doesn't. =)


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

I take exception to your portrayal of tilt, Dr. G. My tilt is more of a blue-collar deity: a being who will eschew lofty pronouncements for revealing his wisdom over a beer in a pub.


----------

