[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

As long as we've highjacked the thread:

Oh, I think at this point, we're doing it a favour.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I love Snowy too. His Gold Top is a '68, which is next on my wish list. All of my Gold Tops have pick guards and my buddies tell me I'll never be cool like Snowy unless I rip the pick guards off, like Snowy's.

I've had to make do all these years with my old Tokai Japanese Strat copy. I promised myself a Gibson ES-335 for my 40th, but the kids were little and couldn't justify the expense. Still, as far as Strat copies go, it's one of the best. Probably better than most Strats actually.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I've had to make do all these years with my old Tokai Japanese Strat copy. I promised myself a Gibson ES-335 for my 40th, but the kids were little and couldn't justify the expense.

HEY NOW! Just because my kids have had to go without isn't going to guilt me about my guitar collection.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Still, as far as Strat copies go, it's one of the best. Probably better than most Strats actually.

Absolutely. The early 80s Tokais are very collectable and quite valuable.

[Dayseed]

$1:

Finally, a concession speech. Geez, I was wondering how long you were going to
stumble around the ring, spitting your teeth out like broken Chiclets.

I don’t think you understand English at all. I’m not even sure you’re tethered to reality. You’re plainly unfunny yet you keep trying your hand at amusing with metaphors. You can’t do it. Just stop. God help me if I have to read some lame comparison down the road in the post like a washed up 80’s has-been fighting an imaginary character as representative of something real.

$1:

If it's any consolation, you're hardly the first to fall victim to my rapier-like
intellect and scintillating wit. Really, you were out of your weight-class to
start with.

Oh, when you finally get around to unsheathing this rapier-like intellect, please do provide some examples. I would be interested to see what you define as “wit”. Does it have something to do with aping Friends, posting pictures and then adopting aged 4chan b-tard lexicon you admittedly don’t understand? You did that with great aplomb!

Hey, maybe your “wit” is when you argue by abandonment! How many issues have you raised that you’ve quickly dropped when they’ve blown up in your face?

Damn, you style yourself as a thinker of well-groomed thoughts but shit, you’re actually just a greased-pig loosed on the internet.

$1:

Well, granted, the Walt Whitman thing was aimed a little high. With you, I
probably stuck with Mr. T or something.

Damn man, what is it with you and the 80’s? Is it related to your purple-ass fetish? Don’t you have anything fresher? Look, I’m not going to bash the 80’s as a fine source for material. But fuck, come on, trying to have hip references is clearly a struggle for you.

Go set up a twitter account and solicit help from “teh internets”. They may even be able to help you construct a proper sentence rather than allow you to continue with the mess I’ve quoted there.

$1:

Oh great comeback: No it doesn't.

Thanks humiliated grade-school kid using tactics his mom taught him to deal with humiliation! Oh wait, is this your “scintillating wit”? Because I think you’re not recognizing those sparks as the ground-down broken machinery sputtering to a stop they really are.

$1:

I suppose I didn't really leave you much room though. I mean, I should have praised you for pausing, however momentarily, from your screeching and feces-flinging, to try to put forth an actual argument.

Did your tether to reality snap? Should I tweet 911 myself and have them come to your house for your stroke?

What you’ve missed is your complete capitulation on how context would have saved this song at all. That’s the question I asked you, but you continue on as though if you ignore a gaping hole, it’ll just go away.

Jesus Christ, I don’t know what’s more painful, holding you to a competent answer or snagging a testicle on a passing bus.

$1:

Unfortunately, you didn't bother reading the actual decision by the CBSC and simply assumed I hadn't either. Bad assumption. RESULT: Hoisted by your own petard. The panel stated explicitly that they did not consider context. Game, set and match.

God, I’m starting to think the testicle snagging might be preferable. Let’s examine all of your errors above

1. Whether or not the CBSC considered the context of the song is irrelevant to the question I asked you. You argued that had they considered the context, the result would/could/should have been different. The meaty question posed to you is to explain both what the context was and why it would have saved the song from terrestrial radio-play editing vis a vis the zillion other songs edited for content.

To date, you simply have not answered it. You have, however, typed a lot about purple-asses.

2. I didn’t make any assumption whether or not you had read the decision. Once again, your hypocrisy rears its ugly head. You assumed what I was doing but got the assumption all wrong.

Now, before you go trying your hand at aping a quote, perk your slopey little forehead towards the screen and read carefully.

Your hypocrisy does matter because it stems from you chastising others for behaviour from which you yourself cannot abstain. And in the same post! It goes straight to a deficiency in your credibility that can’t be overcome by quote-mining, baboon-ass references or a picture of Gary Coleman asking what Willis was talking ‘bout.

3. Speaking of Glee-like coherency, weren’t you comparing this to a boxing match but you switch to tennis? Is this more evidence of old-man stroke?

$1:

I suppose with your view of art--e.g. that Macbeth would be just fine if a hippopotamus dropped on Lady Macbeth's head halfway through Act II, because
that's not the "enriching" part of the play anyway.

There you are “supposing” right after you chastise assumption making.

Oh, do I mention that you’re wrong again? When it comes to things being enriching, you’re the one who, without interruption or interference, listed what you found enriching about the song. I’m not responsible for your impoverished answers that don’t go the way you think they will because you’re too busy hunting down Mr. Belvedere quotes on imdb.com (ProTip: Mr. Belvedere has an under-appreciated hipness to it that Mr. T doesn’t. Feel free to use it.) (ProTip: ProTip is currently in vogue. It relates back to small tips GamePro magazine used to put in their game reviews. They contain inherent irony because the actual tip was condescending for something painfully self-evident and not really a “tip” at all. Part of their current panache comes from actually using ProTips the way that GamePro originally intended.)

$1:

I have a more holistic appreciation. A picture with a scratch on it can still be enjoyed, but your eye is always drawn back to the scratch. And in this case, the scratch is deliberate. Put there by a bunch of politically correct namby-pambies to pander to those with delicate sensitivities like yourself.

And here’s another problem you have. You consistently refer to the editing as though in Canada, the CBSC has hunted down every last copy of Money for Nothing and altered the lyrics permanently impairing your “holistic” appreciation. Consequently, in your analogy to the picture scratch, you fail because you draw it down as though that scratched picture is the only copy available for viewing.

What your picture scratch analogy actually conflates to is you complaining that in one particular museum, which has many pictures available all which have been deliberately scratched, a picture you like has been scratched and you can only focus on the negative. You’re free to go to another museum that has an untouched copy, you can buy your own picture and take it home or view a copy you already had.

But you’d rather shit your diaper over the one place that’s scratched and make believe it’s the only place left to view it. Ignored is what is actually scratched over and why.

Also, you’re assuming again. Had you any sort of reading comprehension skills, you would have noted I said “I personally don’t care if the song is edited.” Do I get to say you’ve hoisted yourself on your own petard, game, set, match, insert another quarter to continue playing?

You would, you witless retard. You’d even caps RESULT:

$1:

Societal standards? What the heck is that supposed to mean? One person in 30 million complained. Response--as shown by evidence I've posted throughout this topic--has been overwhelmingly against this. What standard? The standard that
politically correct hand-wringers have some kind of inalienable right not to be
offended? Standards should have some reflection of societal attitudes, and
societal attitudes, based on surveys conducted and feedback in the media,
indicate that the vast majority of people had no problem with this song at all.

Yes retard diapershitter, I was priming your pump for the point you ought to have been making. Instead, you did a picture perfect impression of what a Ukrainian tween would use as “comedy” if given the internet and 15 minutes to research. This should have then focused on what role the government has in curtailing offensive material and are there any absolutes that defy what the vox populi is demanding? But no. We get you sullying Walt Whitman. (ProTip: You could use “woot” here. It’s an older code, but it checks out. Many Bothans died to bring you that information. Don’t be a retard with it.)

However, since this has dragged on so long, you should be aware that a Halifax radio station, Q104, held a Money for Nothing marathon in protest of the CBSC decision and now they are facing multiple complaints based on “little faggot” lyrics.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/halifax-radio- ... 4-741.html

Didn’t I previously point out that there were people most likely offended that didn’t complain? Now they’re making themselves heard? Fuck, I must have accidentally eaten a flux-capacitor because now I’m predicting the goddamn future.

While you’re trolling for internet memes to ape, go look up the Streisand Effect.

$1:

Yes I imagine for all the audience watching out there, this is like the main event: Tyson versus Pee-Wee Herman.

Good God, there it is. I predicted this in my opening paragraph. Well, at least you didn’t post some Lolcatz FTW. I’ve managed to cure you of at least one thing.

Besides, the only fight going on here is you losing a deathmatch to dignity.

Now cue the baboon talk from Zipperfish! Purple-ass fetish awaaaaay!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Dayseed Dayseed:

You have all the consistency of Glee here.

I find it amusing that someone who thinks they are intellectually superior would even know if Glee was consistent or not.
You uh..you do know what they say about guys that watch Glee don't ya?

[Zipperfish]

Dayseed Dayseed:

I don’t think you understand English at all. I’m not even sure you’re tethered to reality. You’re plainly unfunny yet you keep trying your hand at amusing with metaphors. You can’t do it. Just stop. God help me if I have to read some lame comparison down the road in the post like a washed up 80’s has-been fighting an imaginary character as representative of something real.

Well, I'm feeling magnanimous so I won't accuse you of being unfunny. Actually you are quite entertaining. Not funny in the Rowan Atkinson / Blackadder "swift repartee" kind of way but funny in a Rowan Atkinson /Mr. Bean kind of way, where we can all laugh at the blithering idiot trying to muddle his way through an argument.

$1:

Oh, when you finally get around to unsheathing this rapier-like intellect, please do provide some examples. I would be interested to see what you define as “wit”. Does it have something to do with aping Friends, posting pictures and then adopting aged 4chan b-tard lexicon you admittedly don’t understand? You did that with great aplomb!

And to continue with the British humour motif, this little gem would be akin to the Black Knight writhing, blood spouting from severed limbs claiming to Monty Python's King Arthur that "it's just a flesh wound." In the immortal words of King Arthur: "What' re you going to do, bleed on me?

$1:

Damn man, what is it with you and the 80’s? Is it related to your purple-ass fetish? Don’t you have anything fresher? Look, I’m not going to bash the 80’s as a fine source for material. But fuck, come on, trying to have hip references is clearly a struggle for you.

Well, the fact that I like Dire Straits should give you some indication of my general level of hipness.

$1:

What you’ve missed is your complete capitulation on how context would have saved this song at all. That’s the question I asked you, but you continue on as though if you ignore a gaping hole, it’ll just go away.

To ham-fisted censors, I don't imagine context does matter at all. The word is the word and that's all there is to it. "All or nothing." "Rocky Mountain High" by that most nefarious of songwriters John Denver was banned. "Is he talking about getting high? Ban it!" The fact that Denver was singing about the natural euphoria the Rockies induced was immaterial. That was just context.

In the specific case of this song, I'm surprised you'd have to ask the question. Just read one of the many of major newspaper editorials, one of the dozens of interviews, one of the hundreds of blogs, written on the subject all commenting on the context of this song. Clearly it matters, and for you to suggest otherwise is just being deliberately.

Calgary Herald: Context badly lacking in Money for Nothing Ruling

National Post: Censors In Dire Need of Context

There's several dozen more. So, now that there's a smoking mushroom cloud where that argument used to be, can we move on?

$1:

1. Whether or not the CBSC considered the context of the song is irrelevant to the question I asked you. You argued that had they considered the context, the result would/could/should have been different. The meaty question posed to you is to explain both what the context was and why it would have saved the song from terrestrial radio-play editing vis a vis the zillion other songs edited for content.

And again, rather than rehash an argument that I've made already, I'll refer to one of the dozens of fine editorials written on the matter discussing this issue precisely. But your assertion that context should not be considered is telling.

$1:

Your hypocrisy does matter because it stems from you chastising others for behaviour from which you yourself cannot abstain. And in the same post! It goes straight to a deficiency in your credibility that can’t be overcome by quote-mining, baboon-ass references or a picture of Gary Coleman asking what Willis was talking ‘bout.

No, my alleged hypocrisy doesn't matter in this case for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's a rather lame attempt to turn a discussion on the issue into a attack on me and my hypocrisy. Secondly, because this is your typical modus operandi: go on and on for pages and then winnow through them rather like a purple-assed baboon grooming its mate for fleas to find some paltry clue of a contradiction somewhere and then pounce on it with a particularly vicious screech.

I wasn't "chastising others for [their] behaviour"; this is a critical matter you fail to understand. I was putting forth my argument on the issue at hand. However, like an territorially threatened baboon you assumed this was some kind of attack on you personally and responded with the aforementioned screeching and feces-flinging.

I said (correctly) that imagining a country with no censorship was an "all or nothing" argument. I said "Unless you produce saccharine lyrics that will offend not one in 30 million people, don't expect your song to be played on the radio in Canada." You said this was my own all or nothing argument. Perhaps you'd have a case, if it weren't for the fact that this is precisely what happened in this instance: one person out of thirty million complained and the original song was banned.

Now apologies for that laborious step-by-step run through for other readers out there, but it's pretty clear that Dayseed couldn't be expected to make these giant mental leaps all by himself.

$1:

3. Speaking of Glee-like coherency, weren’t you comparing this to a boxing match but you switch to tennis? Is this more evidence of old-man stroke?

OK, let me get this straight: you're calling me on my general lack of hipness, and you're referring to Glee?

$1:

Oh, do I mention that you’re wrong again? When it comes to things being enriching, you’re the one who, without interruption or interference, listed what you found enriching about the song. I’m not responsible for your impoverished answers that don’t go the way you think they will because you’re too busy hunting down Mr. Belvedere quotes on imdb.com

Hmm, how to define art to the unapologetic Philistine? Your argument is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. According to your logic, I should just be able to listen to the opening 30 seconds of the song (the "enriching" part) and that would be it. Take the rest away and lose nothing.

$1:

Blah blah blah

Having summarily destroyed all your arguments, it's clear you've resorted to the old filibuster with responses that take an hour to read, never mind respond to. And that is one area where I must admit your superiority. I'd love to destroy the rest of your arguments as I've done all your others, but unfortunately I don't have the luxury of typing up crappy arguments for hours on end from the comfort of my parents' basement. I actually have a real job as a super-performing manager to do as well.

I'll let you screech from your tree and parade around your purple ass to prospective mates to celebrate your victory.

Cheers!

[Dayseed]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Dayseed Dayseed:

You have all the consistency of Glee here.

I find it amusing that someone who thinks they are intellectually superior would even know if Glee was consistent or not.
You uh..you do know what they say about guys that watch Glee don't ya?

Dude. First, know some chicks. Secondly, read gleesucks.com Then you'll understand.

[Dayseed]

While I waited for your response, I spent time reading about fetal alcohol syndrome kids and what they're like as adults to prepare myself to understand the depths of stupidity you're about to unleash.

Don't worry, I'm sure you mom didn't mean to swallow the aftershave; it's not your fault.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, I'm feeling magnanimous so I won't accuse you of being unfunny. Actually you are quite entertaining. Not funny in the Rowan Atkinson / Blackadder "swift repartee" kind of way but funny in a Rowan Atkinson /Mr. Bean kind of way, where we can all laugh at the blithering idiot trying to muddle his way through an argument.

Oh my shit, Mr. Bean and Black Adder? THAT's the standard of funny you judge things by? CBC afternoon comedy? Fuck, do you have tickets to a Ron White comedy special you can't afford to miss?

And Black Adder is more lame 80's stuff. Come on man, I know you're the super manager at a pool supply store, but can't you find the time to accidentally bump into an Entertainment Weekly or something?

Have you tried tweeting the internet yet?

$1:

And to continue with the British humour motif, this little gem would be akin to the Black Knight writhing, blood spouting from severed limbs claiming to Monty Python's King Arthur that "it's just a flesh wound." In the immortal words of King Arthur: "What' re you going to do, bleed on me?

Now Monty Python quote-mining? Look, this screams totally unfunny nerd. If it weren't for the fact that this is evidence of you trying to be funny, it may have held some ironic charm.

But much like respect, a university degree, youth and the touch of a woman that doesn't take cash payments, a funny original joke is something you'll never know.

$1:

Well, the fact that I like Dire Straits should give you some indication of my general level of hipness.

Aaaaaaand that's where you should bow out. Just quit trying. You haven't succeeded once.

$1:

To ham-fisted censors, I don't imagine context does matter at all. The word is the word and that's all there is to it. "All or nothing." "Rocky Mountain High" by that most nefarious of songwriters John Denver was banned. "Is he talking about getting high? Ban it!" The fact that Denver was singing about the natural euphoria the Rockies induced was immaterial. That was just context.

Irrelevant. How does the context of the song Money or Nothing act to save it from editing vis a vis the other zillion songs edited for content?

Do we have an answer? No? No answer? Not even a fart?

$1:

In the specific case of this song, I'm surprised you'd have to ask the question. Just read one of the many of major newspaper editorials, one of the dozens of interviews, one of the hundreds of blogs, written on the subject all commenting on the context of this song. Clearly it matters, and for you to suggest otherwise is just being deliberately.

Thank you for shifting the burden of defending your position to others who may actually do a competent job. The problem is that I asked you to substantiate how context would save this song.

The fact that you haven't yet suggests to me that I've needle a pretty raw nerve in the vein that you don't know a bloody answer. So you obfuscate, dodge and otherwise pretend you haven't been battered worse than a blind toddler crossing a busy freeway.

You don't know why this song, to the exclusion of others, should be saved.

$1:

There's several dozen more. So, now that there's a smoking mushroom cloud where that argument used to be, can we move on?

No. What is YOUR answer?

$1:

And again, rather than rehash an argument that I've made already

Where? Where was this argument hashed in the first place? In this thread? Was it hidden behind one of your pathetic pictures? Are you sure you're thinking that you made an argument instead of going public with your purple-ass fetish?

$1:

I'll refer to one of the dozens of fine editorials written on the matter discussing this issue precisely. But your assertion that context should not be considered is telling.

Oh you witless retard. If you're so goddamn stupid that you honestly believe you can salvage yourself by pointing to what others have written as a stand-in for your own lack of intellectual prowess, you're hopeless.

Also, much like examples of my hypocrisy, can you point out where I said context should not be considered?

I predict you won't. My flux-capacitor is acting up again.

$1:

No, my alleged hypocrisy doesn't matter in this case for a couple of reasons.

It's not alleged. You introduced Walt Whitman to acknowledge that you are indeed hypocritical. Do you see why I have to keep you on a short leash?

$1:

First of all, it's a rather lame attempt to turn a discussion on the issue into a attack on me and my hypocrisy.

No, it's an additional flaw of yours that I can expose. Do you remember the Gary Roberts point? You can grind in the corners AND put the puck in the net. It doesn't have to be one or the other there Pool Supply Store Manager of the Month!

$1:

Secondly, because this is your typical modus operandi: go on and on for pages and then winnow through them rather like a purple-assed baboon grooming its mate for fleas to find some paltry clue of a contradiction somewhere and then pounce on it with a particularly vicious screech.

Oh, with you, it's not winnowing for fleas. You're like the Ratman on Hoarders. Your ratty mistakes are just writhing all over the place, they're impossible to miss and they cause disease.

But, your characterization aside, yes, I do read your posts thoroughly. Is this something you don't want done? Do you type fluff that's supposed to fill volumes only to be ignored?

$1:

I wasn't "chastising others for [their] behaviour"; this is a critical matter you fail to understand. I was putting forth my argument on the issue at hand. However, like an territorially threatened baboon you assumed this was some kind of attack on you personally and responded with the aforementioned screeching and feces-flinging.

Oh you witless diaper shitting retard. You wrote:

Unfortunately, you didn't bother reading the actual decision by the CBSC and simply assumed I hadn't either. Bad assumption. RESULT: Hoisted by your own petard. The panel stated explicitly that they did not consider context. Game, set and match.

You're chastising me when you say "hoisted by your own petard" because of an assumption you assumed I made. And your assumption was groundless and wrong!

Hurry, put up a picture of KITT!

$1:

I said (correctly) that imagining a country with no censorship was an "all or nothing" argument. I said "Unless you produce saccharine lyrics that will offend not one in 30 million people, don't expect your song to be played on the radio in Canada." You said this was my own all or nothing argument. Perhaps you'd have a case, if it weren't for the fact that this is precisely what happened in this instance: one person out of thirty million complained and the original song was banned.

Let's look at the bolded portions of your latest mushfest.

The first is you acknowledging merit in what I was saying. That must have been hard for you and you must have furrowed your slopey brow a whole bunch before conceding at least that much.

Secondly. The song hasn't been banned! What part of that don't you get? It's a fundamental fucking fact of this whole discussion yet you repeatedly misconstrue it to amplify a crumbling point you only wish you could make!

Tattoo this on your big anvil-like forehead. MONEY FOR NOTHING IS NOT BANNED.

$1:

Now apologies for that laborious step-by-step run through for other readers out there, but it's pretty clear that Dayseed couldn't be expected to make these giant mental leaps all by himself.

Oh fetal alcohol child, that wasn't labourious at all. If it was for you, well that's because where you should have deep brain fissures, you've got a brain as smooth as boiled eggs because your momma couldn't say no to Jack Daniels morning, noon and night.

$1:

OK, let me get this straight: you're calling me on my general lack of hipness, and you're referring to Glee?

Yup. Glee is a hot show with high ratings, big sales, rising stars and loads of accolades. My personal dislike of the show doesn't change that. Remember I gave you instructions to read Entertainment Weekly? Now is why you should have done that.

$1:

Hmm, how to define art to the unapologetic Philistine? Your argument is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. According to your logic, I should just be able to listen to the opening 30 seconds of the song (the "enriching" part) and that would be it. Take the rest away and lose nothing.

I can't help what you wrote. Because you keep trying to parse the idiocy of it down to something not embarrassing doesn't change what you wrote. I agree that listening to 30 seconds of a song wouldn't suffice for enjoyment. However, the salient point is that when I asked you what was enriching, you didn't identify the lyrics at all.

Make your peace with that.

$1:

Blah blah blah

Well folks, would anybody like to see what Zipperfish tried to handwave away? I sure do! Let's recap just how wide a yellow streak he has running up his little bitch back!

And here’s another problem you have. You consistently refer to the editing as though in Canada, the CBSC has hunted down every last copy of Money for Nothing and altered the lyrics permanently impairing your “holistic” appreciation. Consequently, in your analogy to the picture scratch, you fail because you draw it down as though that scratched picture is the only copy available for viewing.

What your picture scratch analogy actually conflates to is you complaining that in one particular museum, which has many pictures available all which have been deliberately scratched, a picture you like has been scratched and you can only focus on the negative. You’re free to go to another museum that has an untouched copy, you can buy your own picture and take it home or view a copy you already had.

But you’d rather shit your diaper over the one place that’s scratched and make believe it’s the only place left to view it. Ignored is what is actually scratched over and why.

Also, you’re assuming again. Had you any sort of reading comprehension skills, you would have noted I said “I personally don’t care if the song is edited.” Do I get to say you’ve hoisted yourself on your own petard, game, set, match, insert another quarter to continue playing?

You would, you witless retard. You’d even caps RESULT:

Yup, when his analogy gets dragged through the mud worse than he did when his mom gave birth drunk at a campsite, he just says "blah blah blah".

Does it save the destruction of his poorly thought out argument? No! Not even a fucking little bit!

Well, what else did the witless retard miss?

Yes retard diapershitter, I was priming your pump for the point you ought to have been making. Instead, you did a picture perfect impression of what a Ukrainian tween would use as “comedy” if given the internet and 15 minutes to research. This should have then focused on what role the government has in curtailing offensive material and are there any absolutes that defy what the vox populi is demanding? But no. We get you sullying Walt Whitman. (ProTip: You could use “woot” here. It’s an older code, but it checks out. Many Bothans died to bring you that information. Don’t be a retard with it.)

However, since this has dragged on so long, you should be aware that a Halifax radio station, Q104, held a Money for Nothing marathon in protest of the CBSC decision and now they are facing multiple complaints based on “little faggot” lyrics.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/halifax-radio- ... 4-741.html

Didn’t I previously point out that there were people most likely offended that didn’t complain? Now they’re making themselves heard? Fuck, I must have accidentally eaten a flux-capacitor because now I’m predicting the goddamn future.

While you’re trolling for internet memes to ape, go look up the Streisand Effect.

$1:

Having summarily destroyed

You misspelled "ignored"

$1:

all your arguments, it's clear you've resorted to the old filibuster with responses that take an hour to read, never mind respond to. And that is one area where I must admit your superiority.

Holy shit cueball brain, if that took you an hour to read you should probably quit your job as pool supply store manager and let an ashtray have a go at it.

$1:

I'd love to destroy the rest of your arguments as I've done all your others,

I'm sure you would. You'd probably also like to know who keeps shitting in your diaper too.

$1:

but unfortunately I don't have the luxury of typing up crappy arguments for hours on end from the comfort of my parents' basement.

You seem to have a ton of time to type up crappy arguments.

Oh no, a parent's basement insult! Did you read that over a few times just to savour the moment before dropping it into your post? Well shit, move over Monty Python, there's a new comic genius in town. Sure he shits himself an awful lot, but that's funny too.

$1:

I actually have a real job as a super-performing manager to do as well.

Relax, it's not pool season.

$1:

I'll let you screech from your tree and parade around your purple ass to prospective mates to celebrate your victory.

Cheers!

And there we have yet more purple-ass fetish talk from him. And celebrate my victory? Don't mind if I do!

[raydan]

You know you 2 are getting pretty ridiculous, right.

I stopped reading a few posts ago.

[Dayseed]

raydan raydan:

You know you 2 are getting pretty ridiculous, right.

I stopped reading a few posts ago.

Yeah I know, but as a north-going Zax I can't budge for one of those damn south-going Zax.

[raydan]

So this is the "Irresistible force/Immovable object paradox".

You do know that the generally accepted answer to this problem is that both objects will cease to exist, as each object would essentially cancel the other one out.

Cool, can't wait to see that.

[Brenda]

raydan raydan:

So this is the "Irresistible force/Immovable object paradox".

You do know that the generally accepted answer to this problem is that both objects will cease to exist, as each object would essentially cancel the other one out.

Cool, can't wait to see that.

This would do...

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Dayseed Dayseed:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Dayseed Dayseed:

You have all the consistency of Glee here.

I find it amusing that someone who thinks they are intellectually superior would even know if Glee was consistent or not.
You uh..you do know what they say about guys that watch Glee don't ya?

Dude. First, know some chicks.

Why? Does watching it with prepubescent fowl make it a better show? Please keep your barnyard fetishes to yourself thank you very much.

....Seriously dude, chicks? If yer gonna rag on someone for being stuck in the 80s, you need to get yourself the fuck out of the 70s.

Dayseed Dayseed:

Secondly, read gleesucks.com Then you'll understand.

Couldn't get enough of the show so you had to read all about it online too eh?

[Dayseed]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Why? Does watching it with prepubescent fowl make it a better show? Please keep your barnyard fetishes to yourself thank you very much.

Is this honestly your best shot at saving Zipperfish from his own idiocy? Trying your hand at fetish jokes? Dude, read all through here for fetish jokes done way better.

I'll spot you a mulligan and let you try again.

$1:

....Seriously dude, chicks? If yer gonna rag on someone for being stuck in the 80s, you need to get yourself the fuck out of the 70s.

Yup, because nobody today says "chicks". Not one, not anymore. It was a solemn day on December 31st, 1979 when Jimmy Carter officially laid a wreath at the tomb of slang honouring "chick". However, everyone agreed that its time had come...and gone and so everybody on Earth agreed to never use "chick" as slang again.

$1:

Couldn't get enough of the show so you had to read all about it online too eh?

I see you read through gleesucks.com then? I'm glad I could introduce you to your new favourite show! I'm nothing if not a matchmaker.

Gotta love me!

[ShepherdsDog]

Dayseed Dayseed:

raydan raydan:

You know you 2 are getting pretty ridiculous, right.

I stopped reading a few posts ago.

Yeah I know, but as a north-going Zax I can't budge for one of those damn south-going Zax.

Is the Prairie of Prax nearer to Regina or Winnipeg?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Dayseed Dayseed:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Why? Does watching it with prepubescent fowl make it a better show? Please keep your barnyard fetishes to yourself thank you very much.

Is this honestly your best shot at saving Zipperfish from his own idiocy? Trying your hand at fetish jokes? Dude, read all through here for fetish jokes done way better.

Ohhhh, you thought I was joking? Sorry, my mistake. I'll try to leave any levity out of the rest of my response so as not to cause you anymore confusion.

Dayseed Dayseed:

I'll spot you a mulligan and let you try again.

Aww gee thanks chief, your magnanimity knows no bounds. And I'm sorry, I should have been more sensitive to the fact that you enjoy watching Glee with your mom and your blowup doll.

$1:

....Seriously dude, chicks? If yer gonna rag on someone for being stuck in the 80s, you need to get yourself the fuck out of the 70s.

Datseed Datseed:

Yup, because nobody today says "chicks". Not one, not anymore. It was a solemn day on December 31st, 1979 when Jimmy Carter officially laid a wreath at the tomb of slang honouring "chick". However, everyone agreed that its time had come...and gone and so everybody on Earth agreed to never use "chick" as slang again.

Yeah yer right. It's generally inbred mouthbreathers that use that term these days. That, and greasy little nerds use it cuz they think it's "cool". They're wrong.

$1:

Couldn't get enough of the show so you had to read all about it online too eh?

Dayseed Dayseed:

I see you read through gleesucks.com then?

Better get yer vision checked cuz it's obvious it sucks too.

Dayseed Dayseed:

Gotta love me!

I'm sure you love yourself quite frequently. Probably why you need your vision checked.

Oh and I wasn't trying to save Zip, he's doing a good enough job on you all by himself. I just plain don't like you. You're an arrogant, obnoxious little cur.
The vast majority of your posts I've run across, you've just jumped right into the middle of someone's shit because you didn't agree with them. You then make a pathetic show of trying to trash them with your supposed intellectual superiority, all so you can boost your apparently fragile ego and self-esteem. All classic signs of a person whose maturity is still a LONG way off.
Now bugger off, and let the grown ups continue their conversations.