Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads
bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20641

Post by bhoytony »

Mykeru wrote:
bhoytony wrote:

Are you sure about not being 8 years old?
If I pinkie swear that you are the bestest person evah, will you pound gravel up your asshole?
Yes 8 seems about right

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20642

Post by Tony Parsehole »

Mykeru wrote:Cyd Charisse

[youtube]CZQ-6cum9Ig[/youtube]

/that is all.
Nah. This is the real sexy shit:
[youtube]yWqOYeWdzg4[/youtube]

Just look at that mouth! made for lovin'

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Where is your god now?

#20643

Post by rayshul »

real horrorshow wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:Pilgrims evacuated as French floods hit Lourdes shrine.

I like the way they say "French" flood, not "God's" flood...
I've always wanted to visit Lourdes and maybe pick up some souvenirs. No-one does kitch like the catlicks. I've been told that once upon a time (and maybe still) you could pick up a virgin mary cigarette lighter. I love that. Got a bit of lung cancer have we? Go to Lourdes and pray for a miracle, and while you're waiting, spark one spoke one up with the mother of god!
My uncle was massively disabled (ultimately disabled I guess you'd say) and was brought to Lourdes in the 50s/60s. Did not cure him.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20644

Post by Lsuoma »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Mines would be :

Snip pics


Who is that vision in the first picture?????
Sabrina. Look on YT for "boys boys boys"
From The Goon Show:

Seagoon: Unexploded German skulls? I hadn't thought of that.
Bloodnok: Elephant soup with squodge spuds.
Seagoon: I hadn't thought of that either.
Bloodnok: Sabrina in the bath.
Seagoon: Ha, ha, ha, ha! I do have some spare time.
Minnie: I don't think she has!

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20645

Post by rayshul »

I'm whoring about William Shetterly's blog at the moment because fuck, he's brilliant.

And incredibly right.

The only "privilege" that I think anyone should give a flying fuck about is class.

Anyway here's some links that are from his blog. Some are on racism but the same shit really applies when it comes to feminism.

http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/wal ... m-and.html

http://shetterly.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09 ... heory.html

http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/wal ... m-and.html

http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/pse ... ymity.html (on outing a pseudonym that's not that secret)

Also interesting to read another CALLING OUT incident which has some similarities to what's happened to others:

http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/soc ... lazip.html

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20646

Post by rayshul »

Race and Gender with Class differences included

http://shetterly.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05 ... e-now.html

oolon, slimy turd
.
.
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:48 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20647

Post by oolon, slimy turd »

Dilurk wrote:At the risk of annoying folks I present you

http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=1897

Look at comment 10. The poor boy does not know what an argumentum ad populum is.

Here, I'll help you. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Just remember, the black death must be right because so many people bought into it.

idiot.

As a further aside.
2. Disengagement – No sanction is to be used against someone for not accepting the principles of this charter, except to disengage from discussion with them, and direct them to this charter as an explanation why.

3. Good Faith – Assume good faith until shown otherwise. Failure to follow the principles of this charter in a debate does not indicate a lack of good faith, so long as a participant at least tries.
Number 3 is precisely why I stopped engaging with Oolon, not for any other reason.

P.S. Fuck you troll.
Excellent! Dilurk tries to say I don't know what an argument from popularity is while demonstrating it has no fucking clue :clap:
So the ‘evidence’ for a general statement of not well received is a bit lacking in terms of raw numbers. Not well received by a small number of people, some of which then engaged in an unpleasant campaign to ridicule her for having an idea, would be a more accurate statement.
I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy. Especially given this place has been going for years promoting itself as the 'alternative' to the horrible hegemony of FtBs and has managed no where near the number on the A+ forum. So I know which side of the argument has been 'well received'... Please tell me how I should frame that argument to miss your logical fallacy Dilurk! Derp!

Massive failure from Derpity Dilurk, especially given I'm sure I've littered the internet with bad arguments and you choose one which is clearly not what you paint it as... Try harder :doh:

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20648

Post by ReneeHendricks »

At the risk of sounding really snarky, I have to admit that I like seeing "Oolon's" posts showing as not viewable unless I want to :D

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20649

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

oolon, slimy turd wrote: Especially given this place has been going for years promoting itself as the 'alternative' to the horrible hegemony of FtBs and has managed no where near the number on the A+ forum.
You will need to correct these false premices before making an argumentation. I suppose you are pretty knew to this debate after all...

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20650

Post by Lsuoma »

ReneeHendricks wrote:At the risk of sounding really snarky, I have to admit that I like seeing "Oolon's" posts showing as not viewable unless I want to :D
Watch out - the little turdbox has claimed that ignoring his whines are tantamount to banning. You'll be accused of censorship next!

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20651

Post by bhoytony »

Here we go again. And the usual suspects will keep giving the attention whore all the attention he so desperately needs

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20652

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

bhoytony wrote:Here we go again. And the usual suspects will keep giving the attention whore all the attention he so desperately needs
This is a free forum. I don't care about bicycles and other peoples' sexual lives. I will damn well engage Oolon if I want to. Just ignore the discussion, like I do for subjects that don't interest me.

Moreover, even if he is trolling, it's always good to have the opposite side engaging on a playing field where there's no censorship or editing, for one side or the other. I just want to see where this goes. "Nowhere", you will say, well, I'd like to see for myself.

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20653

Post by bhoytony »

and yet again Mission Accomplished.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20654

Post by Tigzy »

AndrewV69 wrote: Speaking as someone who has/had more than a few relatives who are/were Masons I suggest that a lack of belief in God may hamper your admisssion to that order.

Plus admission to the ranks is strictly by invitation. If you try to apply, like the case of my ex-Father-in-Law, you probably are not going to get in, even if you already have relatives within that order.

I am quite frankly, completely satisfied with the remaining privileges I do enjoy. In fact I also gave up a substantial number of them because I could not stand many of the activities associated with them.

YMMV
Ah, sod the believing in a god bit - I'd just pretend I did. But yeah, I'm aware it's by invitation only. That said, a good number of years back, and old boss of mine was a mason, and he said there was such a crisis of membership, they were getting pretty relaxed about people who made noises about wanting to join. Dunno if that's changed in the meantime, though.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20655

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
bhoytony wrote:Here we go again. And the usual suspects will keep giving the attention whore all the attention he so desperately needs
This is a free forum. I don't care about bicycles and other peoples' sexual lives. I will damn well engage Oolon if I want to. Just ignore the discussion, like I do for subjects that don't interest me.

Moreover, even if he is trolling, it's always good to have the opposite side engaging on a playing field where there's no censorship or editing, for one side or the other. I just want to see where this goes. "Nowhere", you will say, well, I'd like to see for myself.
Quite right.

Seems to be a few here that got out of bed on the wrong side this morning – maybe burrs under their saddles or sand in their Schlitzes …

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20656

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Lsuoma wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:At the risk of sounding really snarky, I have to admit that I like seeing "Oolon's" posts showing as not viewable unless I want to :D
Watch out - the little turdbox has claimed that ignoring his whines are tantamount to banning. You'll be accused of censorship next!
LOL So, walking away from the asshat is censorship? Love it ;)

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20657

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
bhoytony wrote:Here we go again. And the usual suspects will keep giving the attention whore all the attention he so desperately needs
This is a free forum. I don't care about bicycles and other peoples' sexual lives. I will damn well engage Oolon if I want to. Just ignore the discussion, like I do for subjects that don't interest me.

Moreover, even if he is trolling, it's always good to have the opposite side engaging on a playing field where there's no censorship or editing, for one side or the other. I just want to see where this goes. "Nowhere", you will say, well, I'd like to see for myself.
Which is why things like "foe" and not reading pure crap is awesome :)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20658

Post by Steersman »

Rystefn wrote:
Steersman wrote:Thanks, although I only see one case of “they” referring to, supposedly, a “one”, but it’s late ….
....
Shakespeare wrote:Now leaden slumber with life's strength doth fight;
And every one to rest themselves betake,
Save thieves, and cares, and troubled minds, that wake.
Shakespeare wrote:'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech
Does that help?
Yes, it does; thanks.

Although, as a quibble I think that in the last example “them” is clearly referring to all mothers and not a single one. Maybe a case of ellipsis? ….

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20659

Post by cunt »

rayshul wrote: Also interesting to read another CALLING OUT incident which has some similarities to what's happened to others:

http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/soc ... lazip.html
Zathlazip... Actually her boss didn't give two shits about what a bunch of mouth-breathing feminists thought. She just panicked, understandably, and deleted the thread after it was gold-mined. It was a very very funny thread.

Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20660

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Steersman wrote: Yes, it does; thanks.

Although, as a quibble I think that in the last example “them” is clearly referring to all mothers and not a single one. Maybe a case of ellipsis? ….
I think you are right on that one, but I'm not a Shakespeare scholar. I don't see what the problem with "they" would be. In French we have the third singular "on", which is used when no gender is defined and would be quite a correct equivalent.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20661

Post by rayshul »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:You will need to correct these false premices before making an argumentation. I suppose you are pretty knew to this debate after all...
We're the alternative? How can we be an alternative?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20662

Post by Steersman »

ReneeHendricks wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
bhoytony wrote:Here we go again. And the usual suspects will keep giving the attention whore all the attention he so desperately needs
This is a free forum. I don't care about bicycles and other peoples' sexual lives. I will damn well engage Oolon if I want to. Just ignore the discussion, like I do for subjects that don't interest me.

Moreover, even if he is trolling, it's always good to have the opposite side engaging on a playing field where there's no censorship or editing, for one side or the other. I just want to see where this goes. "Nowhere", you will say, well, I'd like to see for myself.
Which is why things like "foe" and not reading pure crap is awesome :)
How do you know it’s crap if you don’t read it?

For one thing, his argument that Dilurk’s claim that he was engaging in “argumentum ad populum” seems quite credible to me. He wasn’t saying that the A+ arguments were true because there were more people subscribing to them than to the SylmePit ones, only that the former are more “well received” than the latter.

But you probably wouldn’t know that because you apparently couldn’t be bothered to read his attempt at a rebuttal. However, if you want to keep your head in the sand and have someone else do your thinking for you, who am I to gainsay you? ….

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20663

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

rayshul wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:You will need to correct these false premices before making an argumentation. I suppose you are pretty knew to this debate after all...
We're the alternative? How can we be an alternative?
The bigger question is: since when have we promoted ourselves? At least to the disgusting level of FC5/6/7 and A+? And really, for years? This place was created in July 2012.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20664

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Steersman wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
bhoytony wrote:Here we go again. And the usual suspects will keep giving the attention whore all the attention he so desperately needs
This is a free forum. I don't care about bicycles and other peoples' sexual lives. I will damn well engage Oolon if I want to. Just ignore the discussion, like I do for subjects that don't interest me.

Moreover, even if he is trolling, it's always good to have the opposite side engaging on a playing field where there's no censorship or editing, for one side or the other. I just want to see where this goes. "Nowhere", you will say, well, I'd like to see for myself.
Which is why things like "foe" and not reading pure crap is awesome :)
How do you know it’s crap if you don’t read it?

For one thing, his argument that Dilurk’s claim that he was engaging in “argumentum ad populum” seems quite credible to me. He wasn’t saying that the A+ arguments were true because there were more people subscribing to them than to the SylmePit ones, only that the former are more “well received” than the latter.

But you probably wouldn’t know that because you apparently couldn’t be bothered to read his attempt at a rebuttal. However, if you want to keep your head in the sand and have someone else do your thinking for you, who am I to gainsay you? ….
That would be due to reading his previous stuff here and in other places. I can then make the determination that, unless something drastically changes to his personality and writing style, I really have no desire to read the pure crap he puts out. Easy peezy :)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20665

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote: Yes, it does; thanks.

Although, as a quibble I think that in the last example “them” is clearly referring to all mothers and not a single one. Maybe a case of ellipsis? ….
I think you are right on that one, but I'm not a Shakespeare scholar. I don't see what the problem with "they" would be. In French we have the third singular "on", which is used when no gender is defined and would be quite a correct equivalent.
Not sure what all of the problems with “they” are likely to be, but one of them seems to be a question of the corresponding verb forms. Do we say “they has” where it is known that the “they” is referring to a single individual, gender unknown? Or should it be “they have”, particularly when the individuals in question seem to have multiple personalities or genders?

But, I’m curious about the French “on”: is there a separate verb/ending for that pronoun?

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20666

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Steersman wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote: Yes, it does; thanks.

Although, as a quibble I think that in the last example “them” is clearly referring to all mothers and not a single one. Maybe a case of ellipsis? ….
I think you are right on that one, but I'm not a Shakespeare scholar. I don't see what the problem with "they" would be. In French we have the third singular "on", which is used when no gender is defined and would be quite a correct equivalent.
Not sure what all of the problems with “they” are likely to be, but one of them seems to be a question of the corresponding verb forms. Do we say “they has” where it is known that the “they” is referring to a single individual, gender unknown? Or should it be “they have”, particularly when the individuals in question seem to have multiple personalities or genders?

But, I’m curious about the French “on”: is there a separate verb/ending for that pronoun?
"On" takes the same verb form as "il" and "elle". But in English, as far as my reading goes, it would take the plural form. Hence "they have" is more comfortable, at least, to my eyes. Would this be correct:

"Granny's friend is very noisy. They have a tendency to stomp around the house."

It doesn't shock me as grammatically incorrect. But again, I'm French and have learned English through talking and reading, mostly.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20667

Post by rayshul »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
rayshul wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:You will need to correct these false premices before making an argumentation. I suppose you are pretty knew to this debate after all...
We're the alternative? How can we be an alternative?
The bigger question is: since when have we promoted ourselves? At least to the disgusting level of FC5/6/7 and A+? And really, for years? This place was created in July 2012.
Well in fairness FTB and A+ promote the fuck out of us. HAHAHAHAHA.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20668

Post by rayshul »

Quick question - did WB crunch the numbers on the A+ forums?

John Greg
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20669

Post by John Greg »

Phil wrote:
Granny's friend is very noisy. They have a tendency to stomp around the house.
Yes, technically, that is grammatically incorrect because of the disagreement in quantity. The word they is, technically, always assumed to be plural. That is why this argument about pronouns has been going on for such a long time, several decades now, because there simply does not exist any agreed upon neutral pronoun singular.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20670

Post by Steersman »

ReneeHendricks wrote:
Steersman wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote: ....
Which is why things like "foe" and not reading pure crap is awesome :)
How do you know it’s crap if you don’t read it?
….
That would be due to reading his previous stuff here and in other places. I can then make the determination that, unless something drastically changes to his personality and writing style, I really have no desire to read the pure crap he puts out. Easy peezy :)
But you still haven’t addressed the fact that, at least from my perspective, Dilurk’s accusation against him – “argumentum ad populum” is apparently wrong. Maybe you’ll take my word for it and maybe you’ll take Dilurk’s. But if I’m right and in the latter case then you’re going to be wrong but thinking you’re right – somewhat problematic to say the least and not really consistent with being a skeptic ….

But I think someone posted a Justicar YouTube video here not too long ago on precisely that point: you're certainly entitled to not read his or anybody's comments, but not really cricket - or particularly wise or credible - to be making any judgements about ones you haven't read.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20671

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

John Greg wrote:Phil wrote:
Granny's friend is very noisy. They have a tendency to stomp around the house.
Yes, technically, that is grammatically incorrect because of the disagreement in quantity. The word they is, technically, always assumed to be plural. That is why this argument about pronouns has been going on for such a long time, several decades now, because there simply does not exist any agreed upon neutral pronoun singular.
Ok, following your comment I went to the cesspit of lies and found this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

I've only read the header so far, but it seems to meet my perception of "they" singular. Interesting topic, though.

John Greg
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20672

Post by John Greg »

That's in interesting article Phil. Thanks for linking to it. As we can see, the singular they is not without debate.

I'm in my mid-late 50s, and tended to an overly intellectual and pedantic background and education, so I do indeed tend to be more formal on this issue, even though I myself often use singular they, informally, but never in my work.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20673

Post by Tigzy »

cunt wrote:
rayshul wrote: Also interesting to read another CALLING OUT incident which has some similarities to what's happened to others:

http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/soc ... lazip.html
Zathlazip... Actually her boss didn't give two shits about what a bunch of mouth-breathing feminists thought. She just panicked, understandably, and deleted the thread after it was gold-mined. It was a very very funny thread.

Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate
Holy. Fuckin. Shit. Pardon the net cliche, but: what is this, I don't...
Moondancer starts going on about how your womb space has power, and that men are threatened by your womb power. Women exude energy during their moontime.
"My magi-shapeshifter race is council-governed by all women!"
I also learned that even in Madison there are meetup groups where really fat ladies come together to go buy lots of desserts without guilt. And that fat lesbians often jump up into the air and hit their bellies together as a form of foreplay.
But what really takes the organic tofu cookie is this:
The transgendered she-he says that she-he brightens her day by walking through the park, sticking her-his fingers into flowers to use to pollinate other flowers that she-he likes.

"I appreciate what they [the flowers] do for me, so I do something for them...sexually."
Unbelievable. And it would be bloody hilarious, were it not for the sheer amount of shit Zathlazip got aftrwards. Oh yeah, sounds more than a little familiar.

This, to me, is a microcosm of a world ruled by the SJW crowd. A realm of absurdities maintained by vindictiveness, (real) harassment and bullying - where the goal is to terrify people into not calling out the fact that the Emperor is naked. I expect there would be lots of mung beans in such a world, too. Shitloads of em.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20674

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

John Greg wrote:That's in interesting article Phil. Thanks for linking to it. As we can see, the singular they is not without debate.

I'm in my mid-late 50s, and tended to an overly intellectual and pedantic background and education, so I do indeed tend to be more formal on this issue, even though I myself often use singular they, informally, but never in my work.
Well, never mind, John, I found the relevant passage in the article:
Despite such use of they by admired writers for many centuries, many Americans avoid use of they to refer to a singular antecedent out of respect for a purported grammatical rule
:whistle:

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20675

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
John Greg wrote:Phil wrote:
Granny's friend is very noisy. They have a tendency to stomp around the house.
Yes, technically, that is grammatically incorrect because of the disagreement in quantity. The word they is, technically, always assumed to be plural. That is why this argument about pronouns has been going on for such a long time, several decades now, because there simply does not exist any agreed upon neutral pronoun singular.
Ok, following your comment I went to the cesspit of lies and found this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

I've only read the header so far, but it seems to meet my perception of "they" singular. Interesting topic, though.
Interesting article – and topic, but on a quick skim I didn’t see any support or recommendations for creating new pronouns and possessives as Xanthe and company were arguing for ….

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20676

Post by Reap »

oolon, slimy turd wrote:
Dilurk wrote:At the risk of annoying folks I present you

http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=1897

Look at comment 10. The poor boy does not know what an argumentum ad populum is.

Here, I'll help you. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Just remember, the black death must be right because so many people bought into it.

idiot.

As a further aside.
2. Disengagement – No sanction is to be used against someone for not accepting the principles of this charter, except to disengage from discussion with them, and direct them to this charter as an explanation why.

3. Good Faith – Assume good faith until shown otherwise. Failure to follow the principles of this charter in a debate does not indicate a lack of good faith, so long as a participant at least tries.
Number 3 is precisely why I stopped engaging with Oolon, not for any other reason.

P.S. Fuck you troll.
Excellent! Dilurk tries to say I don't know what an argument from popularity is while demonstrating it has no fucking clue :clap:
So the ‘evidence’ for a general statement of not well received is a bit lacking in terms of raw numbers. Not well received by a small number of people, some of which then engaged in an unpleasant campaign to ridicule her for having an idea, would be a more accurate statement.
I was not saying A+ are in any sense 'correct' about anything because they have more numbers than the slymepit or anywhere else, just that the numbers show that the statement that it 'was not well received' is to be considered pretty dodgy. Especially given this place has been going for years promoting itself as the 'alternative' to the horrible hegemony of FtBs and has managed no where near the number on the A+ forum. So I know which side of the argument has been 'well received'... Please tell me how I should frame that argument to miss your logical fallacy Dilurk! Derp!

Massive failure from Derpity Dilurk, especially given I'm sure I've littered the internet with bad arguments and you choose one which is clearly not what you paint it as... Try harder :doh:
Hey stupid the number of people in a forum or the number of posts in a forum doesn't mean shit either. Math frightens you doesn't it? You know that strange sensation you get just as you make a post? That is what it feels like to annoy yourself

Dilurk
.
.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20677

Post by Dilurk »

Mykeru http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... it+for+tat
tit for tat
1550s, possibly an alteration of tip for tap "blow for blow," from tip (v.3) "tap" + tap "touch lightly." Perhaps infl. by tit (n.2).
Rebecca thinks a titmouse is a boob mouse? wot?

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20678

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Steersman wrote: Interesting article – and topic, but on a quick skim I didn’t see any support or recommendations for creating new pronouns and possessives as Xanthe and company were arguing for ….
It's all made up bullshit, IMO. Although to be fair, in Romance language we have a tendency to refer to a group of different gendered people as "ils" ("they", masculine, plural). Even if there are 99 women and 1 man (Smurff Town in reverse). It's been the norm for centuries (seems to have been in English as well). Of note, the "on" I was refering to before is sometimes (incorrectly) used as a clumsy substitute for "we". It has other uses that my limited grammar knowledge will limit me from explaining further (like the sentence "nous on fait la guerre" compared to "nous faisons la guerre". The former grinds my teeth, the latter sounds more amiable to me)....

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20679

Post by Tony Parsehole »

cunt wrote:
Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate
Hilarious yet utterly sinister.

Hilinister

Notung
.
.
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20680

Post by Notung »

All quiet on the Western Front it seems. Is there no WotW at the moment?

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20681

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Is Oolon still butthurt? What's up? Missing PZ's cock?

:lol:

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20682

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Notung wrote:All quiet on the Western Front it seems. Is there no WotW at the moment?
Yeah, it's been a bit quiet lately. Maybe we could ask one of our "big" sympathizers (you know, the ones that the insignificant sycophants like to pile on to have a feeling of importance) to say something not conforming to FC5/6/7 or A+.

Nah, never mind. By the end of the year, even saying "goodmorning" will be construed as an attack by the circus clowns.

papillon
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:26 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20683

Post by papillon »

For anyone who hasn't seen this yet:
To the 'Merkins; Y U NO STOP EXPORT THIS SHIT

Conspiracy road trip:
[youtube]Oju_lpqa6Ug[/youtube]

The presenter's day job is stand-up comedian.
See if you can spot the missed opportunity for a great one line putdown during the Grand Canyon segment.
There's some hilarious moments during the rest of it.
There are also a couple of other episodes in this series; 9/11 toofers and UFO's

papillon
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:26 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20684

Post by papillon »

Add to above: the UFO show features a cameo by PZ

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20685

Post by Za-zen »

Whilst the social justice warriors focus on their pedantic political correctness, driven by their western privilege, they fail to see the irrelevancy their debate, never mind argument. Blinded by their privilege to the recentering of influence to the east. The mystical east. India and china, who will supercede the US and Europe on the international stage within forty years, and euros and yanks will dance to their cultural tune.

Secularism faces a completely different monster in that battle.

SteveW68
.
.
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20686

Post by SteveW68 »

Notung wrote:All quiet on the Western Front it seems. Is there no WotW at the moment?
I would hazard a guess at WoolyBumbleBee, given the reaction to the 'boons at her comments on Feelya's recent dirge...

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20687

Post by CommanderTuvok »

papillon wrote:Add to above: the UFO show features a cameo by PZ
He was only in it for about a minute, even though he stuck around for the recording for about 3 hours. Awwww...my heart bleeds.

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20688

Post by Tony Parsehole »

I just realised. If any of you changed your avatars I wouldn't know who you are anymore. I don't know peoples names only their pictures. And with that random thought I'm off to bed. Night all.

papillon
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:26 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20689

Post by papillon »

CommanderTuvok wrote:
papillon wrote:Add to above: the UFO show features a cameo by PZ
He was only in it for about a minute, even though he stuck around for the recording for about 3 hours. Awwww...my heart bleeds.
Media whore..

AKAHorace
.
.
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:34 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20690

Post by AKAHorace »

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglan ... mHbkTmjdQA

Pretty basic, I know.[/quote]

Who is that vision in the first picture?????[/quote]


Check out rayshul's avatar picture.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20691

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

AKAHorace wrote:

Check out rayshul's avatar picture.
Looks like Josephine Baker to me.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20692

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Steersman wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:
Steersman wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote: ....
Which is why things like "foe" and not reading pure crap is awesome :)
How do you know it’s crap if you don’t read it?
….
That would be due to reading his previous stuff here and in other places. I can then make the determination that, unless something drastically changes to his personality and writing style, I really have no desire to read the pure crap he puts out. Easy peezy :)
But you still haven’t addressed the fact that, at least from my perspective, Dilurk’s accusation against him – “argumentum ad populum” is apparently wrong. Maybe you’ll take my word for it and maybe you’ll take Dilurk’s. But if I’m right and in the latter case then you’re going to be wrong but thinking you’re right – somewhat problematic to say the least and not really consistent with being a skeptic ….

But I think someone posted a Justicar YouTube video here not too long ago on precisely that point: you're certainly entitled to not read his or anybody's comments, but not really cricket - or particularly wise or credible - to be making any judgements about ones you haven't read.
My point - you can read a shit ton of stuff I've put out over the years as Renee Hendricks and as Susanne Bullo. If you find it to be a giant heap of crap, you can opt not to read future stuff by me. If, in the future, my particular "bent" changes to something you'd be more inclined to engage, then you can opt to read my crap once again. That is my point. Simple. Straight to the point. I won't read absolute shit by the Westboro Baptist Church because I know the particular "bent" they have. Does that clarify things?

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20693

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Seriously. Why the fuck would I want to burn my eyes and perform fellatio on my brain by reading something from Oolong if I *know* it's going to be double dipped in shit? It seems to me that the most reasonable option is to place them in the "foe" list and not read their constant stream of diarrhea. Fairly simple, right?

Dilurk
.
.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20694

Post by Dilurk »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote: Interesting article – and topic, but on a quick skim I didn’t see any support or recommendations for creating new pronouns and possessives as Xanthe and company were arguing for ….
It's all made up bullshit, IMO. Although to be fair, in Romance language we have a tendency to refer to a group of different gendered people as "ils" ("they", masculine, plural). Even if there are 99 women and 1 man (Smurff Town in reverse). It's been the norm for centuries (seems to have been in English as well). Of note, the "on" I was refering to before is sometimes (incorrectly) used as a clumsy substitute for "we". It has other uses that my limited grammar knowledge will limit me from explaining further (like the sentence "nous on fait la guerre" compared to "nous faisons la guerre". The former grinds my teeth, the latter sounds more amiable to me)....
Of course singular they has been legal in English for hundreds of years.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=26
Tyndale bible reference 1526
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 02748.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 03485.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 04285.html
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

This http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1x will be of interest to you Phil.

As far as what pronoun to use with someone, the simplest is to use what their preference is and not be rude about it. Personally I think the hir shit xe wotever pronouns are silly, but hey if that's what you like to use, go for it. It's no skin off my back.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20695

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Dilurk wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote: Interesting article – and topic, but on a quick skim I didn’t see any support or recommendations for creating new pronouns and possessives as Xanthe and company were arguing for ….
It's all made up bullshit, IMO. Although to be fair, in Romance language we have a tendency to refer to a group of different gendered people as "ils" ("they", masculine, plural). Even if there are 99 women and 1 man (Smurff Town in reverse). It's been the norm for centuries (seems to have been in English as well). Of note, the "on" I was refering to before is sometimes (incorrectly) used as a clumsy substitute for "we". It has other uses that my limited grammar knowledge will limit me from explaining further (like the sentence "nous on fait la guerre" compared to "nous faisons la guerre". The former grinds my teeth, the latter sounds more amiable to me)....
Of course singular they has been legal in English for hundreds of years.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=26
Tyndale bible reference 1526
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 02748.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 03485.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 04285.html
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

This http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1x will be of interest to you Phil.

As far as what pronoun to use with someone, the simplest is to use what their preference is and not be rude about it. Personally I think the hir shit xe wotever pronouns are silly, but hey if that's what you like to use, go for it. It's no skin off my back.
Well, sure, you (general "you") can use them all you want. I won't. It will be she he it* they. Personal choice.



* "it" is the most dehumanizing one for me. Reminds me of that Buffalo Bill character in Silence of the Lambs.

TheMan
.
.
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20696

Post by TheMan »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
cunt wrote:
Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate
Hilarious yet utterly sinister.

Hilinister

Hillarious....is this an "only in America" type thing? I ask because if any aussies here know of meetings like this. I want to go!

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20697

Post by rayshul »

TheMan wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
cunt wrote:
Looks like the OP got saved. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon,_the_Femin ... _self-hate
Hilarious yet utterly sinister.

Hilinister
Hillarious....is this an "only in America" type thing? I ask because if any aussies here know of meetings like this. I want to go!
I kind of feel like all science fiction and fantasy conventions are turning into this kind of shit, given the fucknuts who attend them.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20698

Post by rayshul »

Smart, sexy, brave as fuck. Big Baker fan, me. :)

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20699

Post by rayshul »

Also, the Onion on Trigger words (via Shetterly) link etc here http://sjwar.blogspot.co.nz/2010/03/for ... words.html
Dear The Onion,
Coping with my husband's death has been very difficult for me; it would really help if you stopped printing articles with the word 'John' in them.
— Mary Tomlinson, Newark, NJ
03.09.10

AKAHorace
.
.
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:34 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#20700

Post by AKAHorace »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Seriously. Why the fuck would I want to burn my eyes and perform fellatio on my brain by reading something from Oolong if I *know* it's going to be double dipped in shit? It seems to me that the most reasonable option is to place them in the "foe" list and not read their constant stream of diarrhea. Fairly simple, right?
This is a bit like the mentality of the Pharyngulites. You sound like Sally Strange when you write like this.

Oolong may have been wrong about some things but meant well, tried to defend us on PZ's site and got banned because of it.

Locked