...Not a thing.
It means there is no point trying to explain something to someone who is incapable of understanding it.The Last Black Winegum wrote:
Nods as good as a wink to a blind horse.
Elaborate?
the first line was a colloquialism as spoken by "normal people", in the second he has written the same exact saying in a format more "Xietsu"The Last Black Winegum wrote:
Nods as good as a wink to a blind horse.
Or.. A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equinine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary capacity.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-03 09:16:09)
I... don't understand. Help me understand.
I think kr@cker could probably come up with several references to you using superfluously wordy language.Xietsu wrote:
What the fuck? You just fessed up to not ever knowing me before and then claim that I acted the "the same way". Holy chits, you are one stupid mother fuck. Get the fuck out of here and go back to "Not BF2, Not BF2s". In contrasts to the beliefs some of you may hold, it is not the job of those discussing to educate an onlooker.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Yes, but before you were banned, you acted the same way, typing excessive posts about 'articulation' or some crap like that. You still do. You did a few weeks ago. You always will I assume.
Oh and I guess since no one has answered your question. No.
*BTW, CameronPoe, your little thought about "writing in a method of that which all can understand" tells me I was right in my assertion that you cede to toddlers. LoLs. Come on, if you come back at me and can't see the humor, I'm just going to have to laugh at you again. Anyways, of course, the reference of toddlers here is actually that of the mainstream, simple-minded folk. Is it not an insult to hold that your audience is incapable of making such necessary distinguishments? Hmm. It depends upon the subject matter. Do you honestly think I need to be catering to those without the desire for a cognitive growth? No. Go cry.Yet again you misconceive a judgment. The referenced complexity is as it relates to the concept being discussed, not the form of discourse. That would be...a superfluous use -- that of which I can't lay claim to.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm saying it's unnecessary complexity. The complexity generally adds absolutely nothing to your arguments or the way in which people interpret them. Usually complex language would be called upon to expound upon a difficult nuance or subtlety - you use it all the time to try and give people the false impression that you are intelligent. The fact is you have been found out. You can't hide behind words, Xietsu.Xietsu wrote:
How have I written in a manner expressing excessive complexity? Articulation behind perspective is a must. The fact is that, in truth, my writing are more succinct than yours. Go die Mr. Wannabe.CameronPoe wrote:
The term I think you meant to use was 'unable', not 'inable'. Does CameronPoe write in such a way that everyone can understand the point he is trying to make? Yes. Does CameronPoe believe there is any special function served by saying something in a more complex manner than is strictly necessary? No.
(P.S. BTW, everyone always trys to peg me on using "inable", but in fact, both can be transitioned as seen fit -- damn the nubs, no?)
LOL. As if you "knew" me before any point in time, even now.
nod=slight inclination of the cranium...
as for the above post how about "again you misconceive a judgement" as opposed to "again you misunderstood"
or "that of which I can't lay claim to" as opposed to "which I can't say I've done" just removing "that of" would be a significant improvement in itself
it is possible to remove an appendix with a chainsaw, but wouldn't you rather they use a scalpel?
as for the above post how about "again you misconceive a judgement" as opposed to "again you misunderstood"
or "that of which I can't lay claim to" as opposed to "which I can't say I've done" just removing "that of" would be a significant improvement in itself
it is possible to remove an appendix with a chainsaw, but wouldn't you rather they use a scalpel?
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-03 09:22:51)
LOL Nice one.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
I... don't understand. Help me understand.
His use of optic is erroneous. He should be speaking of an optic coverlet, it's more figurative and juicy -- although, I honestly don't think I would make such an extravagant extension of a proverb.kr@cker wrote:
the first line was a colloquialism as spoken by "normal people", in the second he has written the same exact saying in a format more "Xietsu"The Last Black Winegum wrote:
Nods as good as a wink to a blind horse.
Or.. A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equinine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary capacity.
Oh, and your colloquialistic phrase goin' on there has also been incorrectly punctuated -- you ought to affix a wee apostrophe before that "s" in "Nods". That was more of dialoguing of the proverb.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 09:22:24)
Xietsu 's pleonastic predilections and penchant for truculency is likely indicative of mental problems associated with his probable overall struggle with social skills.
kr@cker think Xietsu just orgasmeded
edited: for worditude
edited: for worditude
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-03 09:28:22)
What are you trying to prove, Xietsu?
The only thing I have done here is clarified misconception, and you somehow think I'm truculent? Regardless of my pejoratives, such a judgment is speculative supposition at best. The fact is that, in our modern societies, it is somehow deemed acceptable to consistently assume and presuppose.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Xietsu 's pleonastic predilections and penchant for truculency is likely indicative of mental problems associated with his probable overall struggle with social skills.
There is nothing being proven, as everything is merely being wiped of dissuasion. By the eye of logic, that which is has already been handed justification. H'ennehwaez, this was a thread desiring nothing more than an answer of "yes" or "no".PspRpg-7 wrote:
What are you trying to prove, Xietsu?
I totally like correctitude more than worditude, because correctitude is actually a word.kr@cker wrote:
kr@cker think Xietsu just orgasmeded
edited: for worditude
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 09:36:35)
I already answered that a few posts ago, but I'll say it again. No.
Well thank you for following directions! GOLF CLAP DAILY APPORTIONMENT REACHING ALL-TIME HIGH!!!!PspRpg-7 wrote:
I already answered that a few posts ago, but I'll say it again. No.
Xietsu cranium crossview;
Last edited by Alexanderthegrape (2006-07-03 09:42:44)
Dude, how the fuck could you mistake a brain for a cranium? Damn you just suck at life GTFO.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Xietsu cranium crossview;
http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/5779/brain2pm.jpg
A speck of dust on the wing of a fly. Or a piece of lint on the Penis of an Alien?Xietsu wrote:
Oh, and your colloquialistic phrase goin' on there has also been incorrectly punctuated -- you ought to affix a wee apostrophe before that "s" in "Nods". That was more of dialoguing of the proverb.
Concentrate on the minutiae .... miss the bigger picture.
It's a joke, okay?
i THINK YOUR SMART, YOU JUST TRY WAAAAYYYY TOO HARD ALL THE TIME TO PROVE IT [ sorry about caps]
i THINK YOUR SMART, YOU JUST TRY WAAAAYYYY TOO HARD ALL THE TIME TO PROVE IT [ sorry about caps]
kr@cker posting for the wanting of which is the post counting for raising the total of the quantity of times posted
zOMYGH DNT EV£N MEK ME G3ts DA l££TNEEEES OUT ROFL OVVV3r\/\/1SE I7 MITE p\/\/N U SO baDASlee.
What the fuck do you want? A excessive post on the definition of 'no'? You got your fucking 'no' I no longer see the point of this thread, I'm going to play BF2...Xietsu wrote:
this was a thread desiring nothing more than an answer of "yes" or "no"
Go back to the land of gibberish troll, from whence ye came.Zeon. wrote:
zOMYGH DNT EV£N MEK ME G3ts DA l££TNEEEES OUT ROFL OVVV3r\/\/1SE I7 MITE p\/\/N U SO baDASlee.
Hey, considering you didn't respond with the goal of the thread in mind, I thought I'd assume you were pro-proposition. Like, assumption for the win anyone?The Last Black Winegum wrote:
A speck of dust on the wing of a fly. Or a piece of lint on the Penis of an Alien?Xietsu wrote:
Oh, and your colloquialistic phrase goin' on there has also been incorrectly punctuated -- you ought to affix a wee apostrophe before that "s" in "Nods". That was more of dialoguing of the proverb.
Concentrate on the minutiae .... miss the bigger picture.
He said "Oh my God, don't even make me get out the "eliteness" out *rolling on the floor laughing*, otherwise it might own you so "badassly".Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Go back to the land of gibberish troll, from whence ye came.Zeon. wrote:
zOMYGH DNT EV£N MEK ME G3ts DA l££TNEEEES OUT ROFL OVVV3r\/\/1SE I7 MITE p\/\/N U SO baDASlee.
Hey psycho-fuck, I gave you your golf clap so GTFO.PspRpg-7 wrote:
What the fuck do you want? A excessive post on the definition of 'no'? You got your fucking 'no' I no longer see the point of this thread, I'm going to play BF2...Xietsu wrote:
this was a thread desiring nothing more than an answer of "yes" or "no"
Wrong. I formulate constructs most apt in communicating my thought process to those open for cognitive expansion and collaboration.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
It's a joke, okay?
i THINK YOUR SMART, YOU JUST TRY WAAAAYYYY TOO HARD ALL THE TIME TO PROVE IT [ sorry about caps]
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 09:51:15)
Explain why you called me a 'Psycho-fuck' what do you base this 'insult' on?