# Believe it or not, Weirddave, we can see what you've already posted **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 22, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952 "2005-05-22T14:19:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/41 "2005-05-24T02:04:11Z")
After “Wrong, friend,” I should have added something along the lines of “I may have omitted it, but it doesn’t really matter - I rebutted it anyway:” You get the idea. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Highwayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@The\_Highwayman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Highwayman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/42 "2005-05-24T06:32:17Z")
_Oh dear, have you ever seen such rapscallions engaged in such debate over the very quintessence of mediocrity? Hence, here am I, The Scarlet Pimpernel, to give you the lambasting that you deserve._ My God people! I believe that I have never seen such a waste of the English language on something so obviously trivial as this thread. Man by his (or her [no angry lesbians please]) very nature is duplicitous. It is the amount hypocrisy that one lives with that draws the distinction amongst men. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/43 "2005-05-24T08:28:53Z")
> [@The Highwayman](#): > > - … Hence, here am I, The Scarlet Pimpernel, to give you the lambasting that you deserve.\* This going to happen any time soon, because there’s no sign of it yet? > [@](#): > > I believe that I have never seen such a waste of the English language on something so obviously trivial as this thread. You’ve lived a sheltered life, clearly. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/44 "2005-05-24T11:40:31Z")
> [@The Highwayman](#): > > \*My God people! I believe that I have never seen such a waste of the English language on something so obviously trivial as this thread. I’m guessing you don’t have cable oh scarlet pimple. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/45 "2005-05-24T14:11:33Z")
_We seek him here, we seek him there, those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven? Is he in hell? That demmed elusive Pimpernel?_ “He’s behind the couch!” :Cries of disbelief come from the aristocrats: “Look, you can see the tip of his hat!” ::As the gendarmes take him away, Scott yells: “Good-bye, _Percy_.” ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/46 "2005-05-24T15:51:21Z")
> [@The Highwayman](#): > > My God people! I believe that I have never seen such a waste of the English language on something so obviously trivial as this thread. So now there’s a limited quantity? Should I stop saying “your welcome” and “good morning” so as to stop wasting our ever-dwindling word supply? The ironic part is that we’re importing all the English we’re so extravagantly wasting from Islamist countries whose citizens would like to see us dead. If they cut off the English supply, we’re toast. And between English refinery capacity problems and market manipulations by Big English, dictionaries now cost three times what they did five years ago! ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/47 "2005-05-24T16:00:10Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > The ironic part is that we’re importing all the English we’re so extravagantly wasting from Islamist countries whose citizens would like to see us dead. If they cut off the English supply, we’re toast. And between English refinery capacity problems and market manipulations by Big English, dictionaries now cost three times what they did five years ago! Rit imediatly to yor Congrescriter in suport of H.R. 23432, An Act to Rashon Leters in English. This desperatly neded bil wil eliminat duble leters and silent vowels, therbi enabling the languag to last wel into the curent senturi. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/48 "2005-05-24T19:05:31Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > So if I understand, you believe that the Constitution requires that the Senate as a whole has to give its consent, but you don’t believe that the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote. Maybe this will help me: can you give an example of a way in which the Senate “as a whole” could give its consent without an “up-or-down vote”? Clearly, he means the senate has to agree unanimously on a judge. If just one senator does not approve of a judge, then the president does not have the consent of the senate, the whole thing, and can not appoint the judge. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/49 "2005-05-24T20:11:32Z")
> [@Taber](#): > > Clearly, he means the senate has to agree unanimously on a judge. If just one senator does not approve of a judge, then the president does not have the consent of the senate, the whole thing, and can not appoint the judge. You really should include a smiley so we can know you are kidding. Because if you are not… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/50 "2005-05-25T01:27:46Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > You really should include a smiley so we can know you are kidding. Because if you are not… 😉 I’m well aware that WeirdDave doesn’t advocate a needed unanimous vote, I just thought a unanimous vote would be the logical conclusion to > [@weirddave](#): > > Notice, it says THE SENATE as a whole, not certain Senators on a committee, not just Democrats or just Republicans, not even “Senators who agree with This Year’s Model”. The Senate. The whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/51 "2005-05-25T09:43:55Z")
And it’s funny how none of the people (whether political big-shots in the news, or our own **Weirddave** ) who are suddenly demanding enforcement of an extremely rigorous definition of ‘consent’ aren’t nearly as concerned about the ‘advice’ part. After all, the Senate can hardly give ‘advice’ on nominations after they’re made. Seems that if we were applying equally high standards to both words, it would behoove the White House to consult with every Senator over any possible judicial nominee, and solicit their thoughts before officially nominating someone to the bench. But everybody knows that’s not what the Constitution means, anymore than the Senate’s denial of consent Constitutionally requires a majority vote against each nominee. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/52 "2005-05-25T18:11:32Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Republicans tries to get a filibuster going against Richard Paez. They failed. Why you think this should count as an actual filibuster is beyond me. Again, what is your point here?. For some reason, this line made me think of: > [@Sideshow Bob](#): > > Well…you see, Birch, I’m presently incarcerated. Convicted of a crime I didn’t even commit. Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952.md?page=2)