I can predict the future

I think it would be easier if everyone would stop acting like the Grammar Police and focus on cubing, or whatever this topic is about...

This is the off-topic thread of the off-topic forum. There is no topic.

Not necessarily. Off-topic refers to a topic that doesn't belong anywhere else. It doesn't mean the posts should be unrelated to the topic at all. I don't see how correcting someone's grammar has anything to do with the original post, but I don't think that's really relevant at this point, since this topic makes no sense to begin with :p

WTF! I took the Your vs. You're quiz and I got a
Congratulations!
You scored a 50%
You answered 5 of the 10 questions correctly.

You're is a condensed version of the phrase, "You are."
Your is a possessive form of the pronoun you.

Use "you're" if replacing it with "you are" makes sense. If not, it's the other one, to make it easier.

EDIT: Oops. I did it, too. :o
 
Last edited:
I think it would be easier if everyone would stop acting like the Grammar Police and focus on cubing, or whatever this topic is about...

Whoa, how did someone manage to get almost 200 posts and I've never seen them before.

Haven't been on in a while, so that's probably why. At least a month since my last post, unless you want to prove me wrong.

I've been here for more than a month and I still haven't seen you.
 
I think it would be easier if everyone would stop acting like the Grammar Police and focus on cubing, or whatever this topic is about...

Whoa, how did someone manage to get almost 200 posts and I've never seen them before.

Haven't been on in a while, so that's probably why. At least a month since my last post, unless you want to prove me wrong.

I've been here for more than a month and I still haven't seen you.

Well, I'm posting on a forum and have never been to a competition. What do you expect :D
 
One Time, your dad is kill your friend. It was fun!

Yea... still needs some work, but at least you understand you're/your.

I just edited my post. You respond so quick.

I saw that, "One Time, your dad will kill your friend." still doesn't make very much sense. "One time" suggests that something happened in the past, and then "will" suggests something that is going to happen in the future.
 
such sentences are difficult to read, and result in misunderstandings galore.

It's your own fault if you can't figure out what a simple sentence means. No need to be rude because of your own shortcomings.

You're wrong. Language is a method of communication and thus the onus is on the person making a statement to make it easy to understand. It is not the reader's responsibility to be able to read the writer's mind, but it IS the writer's responsibility to make the sentence clear enough that the reader won't have to. Thus, if the reader has trouble understanding a poorly constructed sentence, it is the fault of the person who wrote the bad sentence, not the reader.

I work sooooooooo hard on English and I'm in 7th grade, and now you rate my grammar poor! How Ridiculous.:mad:

But it is still pretty bad. It's great that you are working hard but just because you are putting in effort doesn't mean you are automatically going to be good at grammar. And when people correct you, you should try to figure out why you were wrong, and apply that rule in the future...
 
This thread is still epic, except for holypasta's and shoot's posts. I really do enjoy Ellis' posts xD

Yea, too bad though that Michael had to shoot me down while defending the guy that just called him an idiot.

Too bad indeed, I don't really take sides, I just point out things that are wrong or that need responding to.
 
This thread is still epic, except for holypasta's and shoot's posts. I really do enjoy Ellis' posts xD

Yea, too bad though that Michael had to shoot me down while defending the guy that just called him an idiot.

Too bad indeed, I don't really take sides, I just point out things that are wrong or that need responding to.

Well, I don't think it was a particularly poorly constructed sentence. He did say "matter of hand" and added an unnecessary comma, but other than that it seemed fine. So if I make a sentence that makes sense grammatically, but there's someone that doesn't understand it, it's my fault that they don't understand because I wasn't clear enough?
 
sigh...


Writing this letter stems from a desperation to be heard, if not by a court of law, then by a court of public opinion. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. The biggest difference between me and Dene Beardsley is that Dene wants to make bargains with the devil. I, on the other hand, want to expose his sophistries for what they really are.

In spite of all Dene has done, I must admit I really like the guy. No, just kidding. It's a well-known fact that he goes ga-ga for any type of careerism you can think of. It's an equally well-known fact that he is the most blatant enemy of peace, stability, and human progress the world has ever seen. When logic puts these two facts together, the necessary result is an understanding that any rational argument must acknowledge this. His unrealistic commentaries, naturally, do not. You've never heard him announce that he plans to trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation? Well, Dene has repeatedly enunciated such a plan but in his typically convoluted way.

Fortunately, if you ever get into an argument with some of Dene's legatees about whether or not it remains to be seen if he will turn converts to animalism loose against us good citizens faster than you can say "anthrohopobiological", I have an excellent sockdolager for you. Simply inform the other party that Dene has been known to say that the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions. That notion is so counter-productive, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. Once we have absorbed and understood his dotty platitudes, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to put an end to his evildoing.

I repeat: By giving rise to disrespectful lowlifes, Dene has erected a monument to radicalism. Only it does not seem proper to say that such a thing has been "created". "Excreted", "belched", "spewed", and "spat out" are expressions more appropriate to the object here described. You see, Dene's op-ed pieces are addlepated. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that Dene fervently believes that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. This shows that he is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that I once managed to get Dene to agree that an increasing number of people abhor his wily, lackadaisical writings and are looking for alternatives, like the truth. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that.

I must ask that Dene's drones punish Dene for his incompetent philippics. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to destroy the sovereignty of all nations and every feeling or expression of patriotism. Somebody has to deal with him appropriately. That somebody can be you. In any case, I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. Nevertheless, I do have the will to deal with the relevant facts. That's why I warrant that you should be sure to let me know your ideas about how to deal with Dene. I am eager to listen to your ideas and I hope that I can grasp their essentials, evaluate their potential, look for flaws, provide suggestions, absorb feedback, suggest improvements, and then put the ideas into effect. Only then can we rouse people's indignation at Dene.

Dene and I disagree about our civic duties. I insist that we must do our utmost to win the culture war and save this country. Dene, on the other hand, believes that hanging out with pudibund scalawags (especially the morbid type) is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. I, for one, can't possibly believe his claim that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because Dene can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Dene is a bit teched. But there is a further-reaching implication: It's easy for us to shake our heads at his foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should initiate meaningful change. It's easy for us to say, "By overusing such obscure words as 'microcinematographic' and 'pathologicohistological' Dene consistently manages to alienate his audience." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Dene that he focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, Dene attempts to twist and distort facts to justify his feelings but that just goes to show that it is both frustrating and frightening to observe the extreme ignorance—no, idiocy—present in his actions. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me go placidly amid the noise and haste. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because I frequently wish to tell Dene that we are materially and adversely affected by his schemes to yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.

It's incredible to me that anybody could be so pestilential. That conclusion is not based on some sort of self-absorbed philosophy or on Dene-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that no matter how bad you think Dene's lamentations are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. From a public-policy perspective, every time he gets caught trying to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his gofers always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does because, as they contend, fascism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society.

Dene is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, he frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold. We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Dene's termagant, drugged-out memoirs and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to extirpate cannibalism root, trunk, and branch.)

Unless Dene's mistakes are always someone else's fault, it is simply wrong to conclude that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. Here's a specific example of the way in which I am rather disturbed by Dene's somewhat internecine attitude that we should love things and use people instead of the other way around: He wants to transform fear and its inculcation into the preeminent force ruling human existence. Lubricious is as lubricious does. Which brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: Dene doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. I note in passing that his allegations are a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it indisputably expresses how if you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, he operates on the basis of an unremitting hatred of civility and decency. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, if the people generally are relying on false information sown by the worst classes of stroppy pamphleteers I've ever seen, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. There is one final irony to my story. At no point in Dene Beardsley's response to my last volley of criticisms was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
 
I am writing this letter because I recently heard some troubling news. Apparently, a large number of people actually believe Pres. James Kobel's claim that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. But before I continue, allow me to explain that he says that he has a "special" perspective on cynicism that carries with it a "special" right to muddy the word "transubstantiatively". I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. We must establish clear, justifiable definitions of nonrepresentationalism and clericalism so that you can defend a decision to take action when Pres. Kobel's loyalists unleash an unparalleled wave of wowserism. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to free people from the spell of Fabianism that he has cast over them. You must be the one to send Pres. Kobel's commentaries into the dustbin where they belong. And you must inform your fellow man that I am more than merely surprised by Pres. Kobel's willingness to besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures. I'm shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren't enough, in a rather infamous speech, Pres. Kobel exclaimed that he has the trappings of deity. (I edited out the rest of what he said because, well, it didn't really say anything.)

Pres. Kobel needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that a person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Pres. Kobel has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. Some people have indicated that he makes so many laughably chauvinistic statements, it boggles the mind to think about them. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that Pres. Kobel's clear-cut demonstrations of gross moral turpitude have led me to believe that we will need to use diverse skills and tactics if we are to look into the future and consider what will happen if we let Pres. Kobel consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of neocolonialism. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that it will not be easy to provide some balance to Pres. Kobel's one-sided fulminations. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that for the overriding reason that in his precepts, misoneism is witting and unremitting, dastardly and pretentious. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to push the State towards greater influence, self-preservation, and totalitarianism and away from civic engagement, constituent choice, and independent thought.

To restate the obvious: I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Pres. Kobel's subterfuge. I'm entirely stunned. It is disgraceful that, with a wink and a smile, Pres. Kobel has signified his approval of prolix good-for-nothings who draw unsuspecting party animals into the orbit of brazen, debauched lumpenproletariats. Which brings me to my point. Despite the obvious fact that we have a right and an obligation to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas, my general thesis is that I despise everything about Pres. Kobel. I despise Pres. Kobel's attempts to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity. I despise how he insists that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. Most of all, I despise his complete obliviousness to the fact that his bootlickers argue that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. These are the same childish fast-buck artists who lay waste to the environment. This is no coincidence; some people think it's a bit extreme of me to reach out to the poor, the marginalized, and those unfortunate enough to have been labeled as unbridled by Pres. Kobel's propaganda machine—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Pres. Kobel has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, you should never forget the three most important facets of Pres. Kobel's screeds, namely their chthonic origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: Pres. Kobel knows how to lie. It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.

The thought that someone, somewhere, might find the inner strength to fight for what is right is anathema to him. In this case, one cannot help but recall that Pres. Kobel's ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained in large part by the following. If it were up to Pres. Kobel, schoolchildren would be taught reading, 'riting, and racism. Without a doubt, however, the public is like a giant that Pres. Kobel has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Pres. Kobel leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that Pres. Kobel is inherently recalcitrant, cankered, and Bonapartism-oriented. Oh, and he also has a filthy mode of existence.

If I may be permitted to make an observation, perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of ostentatious imbeciles. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that Pres. Kobel really shouldn't con us into believing that he is beyond reproach. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his theatrics are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. What I want to document now is that if he truly wanted to be helpful, Pres. Kobel wouldn't censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype. Pres. Kobel, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that he reminds me of the thief who cries "Stop, thief!" to distract attention from his thievery. What I mean is that Pres. Kobel says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, Pres. Kobel always ends up leading to the destruction of the human race.

While Pres. Kobel has a right to his opinion, I once managed to get him to agree that the only winners in his games are ambulance services and funeral homes. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that. He is an interesting character. On the one hand, Pres. Kobel likes to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive. But on the other hand, there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Pres. Kobel finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that you may have noticed that things are apt to get worse before they get better. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, Pres. Kobel is begging the question when he says that two wrongs make a right. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to.

I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that Pres. Kobel keeps missing my point. More specifically, he keeps getting hung up on my words without seeing the underlying meaning. For example, when I say that my empirically validated theory is that Pres. Kobel simply regurgitates the empty arguments that have been fed to him over the years, Pres. Kobel seems incapable of realizing that what I'm really getting at is that his artifices are a public admission of his immaturity and insensitivity. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but his legates are too lazy to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that in Pres. Kobel's quest to alter, amend, abridge, and censor the record to point the finger of responsibility at others he has left no destructive scheme unutilized.

Pres. Kobel's mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. Were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be Pres. Kobel's most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Pres. Kobel to help him rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity. He has called people like me incorrigible nobodies, inaniloquent rotters, and viperine mafia dons so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Pres. Kobel unmistakably continues to employ such insults because he's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that Pres. Kobel has no conception of our moral and ethical standards. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that I've tried explaining to his cultists that his view that closed-minded yahoos are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive is sheer make-believe. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Pres. Kobel plans to play fast and loose with the truth. What can you do about that? Start by reading about how the issues surrounding solecism are more complex and embedded than Pres. Kobel will admit. Become informed about the deceit, lies, and propanganda surrounding his promotion of diabolism. Tell everyone you know that it has been said that Pres. Kobel serves as a conduit that carries the élan vital of classism. I, in turn, believe that I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to serve on the side of Truth. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that we must think outside the box. Our children depend on that.

Pres. Kobel whines about stroppy fussbudgets, yet he enthusiastically supports the worst kinds of mephitic annoying-types there are. A record of his acts of hypocrisy would fill volumes. But let's not lose perspective. If he can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If he can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it.

I should add parenthetically that I don't know if Pres. Kobel is consciously and purposely evil or merely insensitive. I do know, however, that he sometimes puts himself in charge of bombarding me with insults. At other times, one of his confidants is deputed for the job. In either case, it may seem difficult at first to brush away the cobwebs of particularism. It is. But Pres. Kobel has no discernible talents. The only things he has unquestionably mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose Pres. Kobel's also good at convincing people that principles don't matter, but my point is that if it were true, as Pres. Kobel claims, that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs—or maybe even chocolate—then I wouldn't be saying that Pres. Kobel plans to foment a radical realignment of industrialized economies. He has instructed his hirelings not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Pres. Kobel knows he has something to hide. That's all I'm going to say in this letter because if I were to write everything I want to write, I'd be here all night.




Aparently, I am a very bad president...
 
Back
Top