Violent crime up again in USA, more murders, robberies

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Not quite, tw.

Well then UT, that is a complete piece of shit your have just splayed all over the Cellar. Fuck the facts as posted. I colorfully and vehemently disagree with that crap posted with the rancid integrity of a twat. Mortifying is posting such material; for reaching into a cesspool of wanker logic with pissant credibility. The post is clearly based in scum rationalization that can only be achieved using fuck faced inchoherence. Reasoning so putrid as to question why anyone would want to post that masterbation. Conclusions so groudless as to drive even drive off the homeless.

Damnation to any post that would pontificate excrement only found in swine pens. A decent person could never accept such reasoning even if using a asshole for sexual gratification.

Of course none of this reflects in any way on the character of UT - obviously. It simply addresses the merits of his post.

[Undertoad]

Well now you have both statements that address me and statements that address my argument.

Perhaps we go over what you wrote, you'll start to have an inkling of comprehension. Each statement, in turn, either
A) addresses my argument,
B) addresses me,
C) addresses both me and my argument, or
D) addresses neither me, nor my argument.

Ready?

Well then UT, that is a complete piece of shit your have just splayed all over the Cellar.
A) addresses my argument

Fuck the facts as posted.
D) addresses neither me nor my argument

I colorfully and vehemently disagree with that crap posted with the rancid integrity of a twat.
C) addresses both me and my argument

Mortifying is posting such material; for reaching into a cesspool of wanker logic with pissant credibility.
B) addresses me

The post is clearly based in scum rationalization that can only be achieved using fuck faced inchoherence.
A) addresses my argument

Reasoning so putrid as to question why anyone would want to post that masterbation.
B) addresses me

Conclusions so groudless as to drive even drive off the homeless.
A) addresses my argument

Damnation to any post that would pontificate excrement only found in swine pens.
D) addresses neither me, nor my argument

A decent person could never accept such reasoning even if using a asshole for sexual gratification.
B) addresses me

Now that you have some practice, let's go over the original:

What a load of crap.

A) addresses the argument.

Do you see how this works? If not, post another set, and we'll go over it again.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by tw

reaching into a cesspool of wanker logic with pissant credibility

i loooove this line!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well now you have both statements that address me and statements that address my argument.

UT - nothing addresses you. Everything only addresses you posts - as you have defined it. In every example, if you find it address you, then "What a load of crap" are clearly intended as addressing the poster - not the post. Even using an objective reference to person is an intentional insult of the person. "What" is the replaceement for "you are" - another part of the insult.

If you find anything I posted that address you, then you are reading into it what is not posted. After all, "What a load of crap" insults no one - because the poster proclaimed he was not insulting. At no time in that post do I address any person. You have only jumped to interpretation based upon your own bias. According to your standards, those posts must be taken as intended - not as perceived. "What a load of crap" is not an acceptable way to respond to anyone's post - according to your reasoning.

Meanwhile, I don't see anything posted by Duck_Duck that even comes close to being as insulting as "What a load of crap". “What a load of crap because …", although containing insulting and unnecessary profanity, once was considered differently. Reasoning behind that conclusion (after the word 'because') expressed logically would not be so insulting. That is my original standard for civility - before you changed the rules to endorse open use of profanity at any time.

Yes I am questioning what is acceptable civil posting because in my book, use of profanity without specific fundamental reasoning behind it is insulting to everyone in the Cellar past and present - including Duck_Duck and Onyxcougar. The way I saw it, this open use of intentionally hurtful profanity is the reason why so many left the Cellar. It had nothing to do with 16 year old posters such as Duck_Duck.

"What a load of shit" was only posted to insult.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

i loooove this line!

Appreciate how deep I had to dig for that one. I don't even have acquaintances who use such language - and that includes working construction.

[TheMercenary]

tw:What a shitload of biologically toxic waste reasoning complete with speculation based in wacko right wing 'screw all women' reasoning.

Experience without fundamental knowledge makes one his own worst enemy. Urbane Guerrilla's experience? He was an expert on Vietnam and yet he never even read nor understood facts in The Pentagon Papers.

Experience found in his posts is about as credible as TheMercenary's posts on military matters. Fully based in a political agenda while devoid even of basic knowledge of a high school education.

UG's posts based in insufficient knowledge and his biased political agenda are demonstrated by another stunning example:
Quote:
So far, I'm fascinated. I'll probably be talking about this book's ideas from time to time.

Then he discovered either how complex Thomas Barnett's book was or discovered that Barnett completely invalidated UG's political agenda. Either way, he could not read it until challenged.
Quote:
Tw, shut your yap. I checked Barnett back out of the library

Well its been 9 month now since he so politely responded to a request for that discussion - and still no discussion.

Where is his credibility? At minimum, his posts only lied to us with contempt. However, I suspect his post's credibility lie in a political agenda where routinely rewriting history justifies his beliefs. I have suggested this often in response to inaccuracies in UG posts complete with pontiff tone. UG's posts continue to demonstrate the validity of my premise.

Serving as a soldier never justified support for the troops. Credibility in those posts so tarnished as to repeatedly advocate contempt for the troops - especially by advocating and defending "Mission Accomplished"- a war that even violates numerous and fundamentally simple military science 101 principles.

At no time does this discredit the integrity of UG. According to UT, anything that demonstrates his conclusions as excrement is neither an attack on UG nor insulting. The fact that his posts are often exposed as lies says nothing about UG; just exposes the credibility of everything in his posts. UG's posts simply expose a repeated lack of intelligent grasp complete with outright contempt for the American soldier by advocating their massacre. Meanwhile UG is a nice guy. Nothing here insults his intelligence - only the pompous, naive arrogance found in his pathetically 'poorly worded' posts. Some of those posts even beg for anal intercourse. But again, that says nothing about UG the person. It simply replies to the questionable validity of everything he posts - implies nothing about a penile nature in his character - which clearly does not exist.

UT - this is perfectly acceptable posting based upon your standards for civil and acceptable behavior defined in Violent crime up again in USA, more murders, robberies . Only UG's posts and the integrity of TheMercenary's clearly discredited, biased, unreasonable, and insulting posts are discussed. This new tone for the Cellar is refreshing? Screw the motherfucking posts from TheMercenary. Those diarrhea profusion posts represent simplistic 'pedophile like' agendas based in conclusions of mental infortitude. But TheMercenary is a nice guy.

?

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by tw

Appreciate how deep I had to dig for that one. I don't even have acquaintances who use such language - and that includes working construction.

yes, that was the source of the charm, tom.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

?

New standards. A foreigner cannot post criticism of America from a 16 year old's perspective. But criticisms of posts chock full of profanity is acceptable as long as it does not directly insult the poster – only insults his posts. All posters are now encouraged to start their posts with "What a load of shit" since it only insults the other poster's post and clearly does not insult any person. What a load of shit" is the acceptable way of saying "I simply don't agree".

A standard now exercised in another discussion never once insults anyone:
Sorry About Our President.Com

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

New standards. A foreigner cannot post criticism of America from a 16 year old's perspective. But criticisms of posts chock full of profanity is acceptable as long as it does not directly insult the poster – only insults his posts. All posters are now encouraged to start their posts with "What a load of shit" since it only insults the other poster's post and clearly does not insult any person. What a load of shit" is the acceptable way of saying "I simply don't agree".

A standard now exercised in another discussion never once insults anyone:
Sorry About Our President.Com

What a load of shit... that argument is.

[xoxoxoBruce]

This is America. We've got so many waiting to get in, we don't have to kill the same one twice.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And who is it that seems to believe splayed is a spelling variant of sprayed?

Tw's oft-demonstrated inability to copyedit does nothing for his arguments -- and this is but fact.