What’s worse is that he appears to have been posting while decomposing…
Yawn. What else is on? My remote’s around here somewhere…
True.
I’ve got better things to do than guess random search terms in an effort to figure out what you’re talking about. And I understand all the words in your post, but the meaning you are trying to convey escapes me. In what way can you not see the difference between “gay” and “ostensible motive”? My knee-jerk reaction to this is that this is a reference to the recent gays in the boyscouts threads, but you’ve provided (once again) no context in which we can understand what the fuck you’re talking about.
Look, it speaks Italian, too.
What pun?
BuddhaDog,
You’re incoherent.
You’re post is incoherent. You have the brains of a salami sandwich.
I’m sure your parents meant well when they gave you internet access to “help you with your homework”.
What possesed you to start this thread, you moron? Is it your mission to instruct your betters on how to behave on a a message board?
Stop annoying the grown-ups and go skateboarding like the other kids.
That’s not the way we do things around here, BuddhaDog. You make the claim or accusation, you provide the back-up. Don’t expect us to do your work for you.
And I admit, I’m with Miller. I know the definition of all the words involved, but when you say:
I still don’t see what you’re getting at. Are you going to explain or link to the definition of the word “motive” next time?
BuddhaDog, normally I type out long explanatory letters trying to get people like you to see the light of day and post in a manner which makes it easier on all of us. You guys never listen and I’ve stopped giving a shit.
Summing up all the crap in one sentence: this is a large message board and we’re all very busy so if you don’t provide a link, no one will ever find it and I for one won’t care.
ok… that was some seriously funny shit…
I laughed so hard spilled my beer… you dirty christian
BuddhaDog said:
I’m prefectly happy to fight ignorance, piss-stain, but I insist you extract your head from your ass first.
You post a reasonable question instead of trolling to see how many people you can piss off, and I’ll give you a reasonable answer. Though in your case I’m afraid anyresponse to you would constitute a waste of bandwidth.
I used to like Blink 182, but now they’re totally fuckin’ liturgical.
Back to the OP:
by BuddhaDog
You can use any word to express yourself, but the problem with using ‘gay’ is:
First, the word itself has so many meanings that you may be misunderstood. Does it mean happy? Does it mean lame? Does it mean having sex with other men?
See? It’s not that you’re stupid or prejudice, it just that you seem to have a limited vocabulary. Pick a better word. One with more bite, more satire, or more irony.
I used to think lots of things were ‘gay’. But, and I mean this in sincerity, I just found better ways to express myself.
So to start you on your way try this: next time you think something is ‘lame’ try ‘old-fashioned’ or ‘worthless’ or ‘weak’.
Whereas if you want to refer to homosexuals try: ‘faggot’ or ‘queen’ or ‘rump-riding butt pirates’.
Its not that the word is in anyway forbidden, we just wanna know what you really think.
James, did you really say “rump-riding butt pirates”?
Hmph. The correct term is “ass-blasting rectum riders”. Please make a note of it.
And Buddha Dog, you might want to make a note of a particularly interesting aspect of this board. Here, you’re judged not by what you are, but by what you post. I have no issue with Christians, as long as they post well, argue coherently, or post entertainingly. I hold all posters to the same standards, no matter what their religions, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or racial heritage. Here, you are what you post.
And you, sir, are the incoherent blatherings of an impertinent nincompoop, bent on annoying others by being childishly contentious.
Or, to be more succinct:
Pissant.
Can’t say I’ve noticed it.
And you’ve no idea how many sarcastic responses I composed before replying as I did. It was a real struggle I tell ya.
[Simpsons]
Conover: As I’m sure you remember, in the late 1980s the US experienced a short-lived infatuation with Australian culture. For some bizarre reason, the Aussies thought this would be a permanent thing. Of course, it wasn’t.
* [a slide shows “Yahoo Serious Festival”]*
Lisa: I know those words, but that sign makes no sense.
[/Simpsons]
I suppose the best course of action that would have better fit the needs of the board would have been to compose a thinly veiled editorial in IMHO regarding how wrong it is to use words like black-hearted, because that would equate all African-Americans as being all evil-minded, and words like yellow-bellied since that would mean that all of people of Japanese descent are cowards, right?
Then after watching that Post linger and die a slow, painful, demise, I could jump the bandwagon and start ridiculing the French and Tigermen. After all, it is okay to make discriminative affections to people who are not prolific members of this community, right?
Then, to highlight my successful voyage into Fighting Ignorance, I will post something witty and humorous and it will inevitably end up in someones’ sig line. Then, and only then, will I feel complete.
:rolleyes:
Now, yer gettin’ it, Kid! Now as my mom used to say to me: go play in traffic.
Ya know, there was a germ of truth in the OP that would have been interesting to hash over. People here do have their pet prejudices, and are very quick to attack anyone who manages to kick a sacred cow. Unfortunately, BuddhaDog very quickly proved himself to be fairly hostile and apparently incapable of defending his original position in a way that goes beyond name-calling. Too bad.
Uh, no. If you read the threads you linked to you’ll see that there is a great deal of discussion in both as to whether those kinds of attacks are warranted.
So much for your bandwagon. Nice try, though.
::zzzzt . . .crackle::
Aghent X-Q-36 calling BuddhaDog.
Come in, BuddhaDog.
The eagle flies at midnight.
I repeat, the eagle flies at midnight.
The cheese is in the frog.
I repeat, the cheese is in the frog.
Agent X-Q-36 over and out.
::crackle . . .zzzzt::
[Lurch voice]You rang?[/Lurch voice]
In the referenced thread, my comment was not to slam all Christians, but to say that, to paraphrase St. Paul, if you make a religious pilgrimage but have not charity, then the difference between being a Christian and being a Satanist is just a matter of team loyalty. Don’t use my words out of context! <giving Buddhadog a stern Look>
FTR, when I have gone overboard in my anti-religion rantings, the Teeming Millions have rapped my knuckles with the metaphorical ruler in short order. Categorical slams against a whole group gets short shrift at the SDMB, so your complaint has no merit. You can bitch about some gays, but not “the gays,” just as you can bitch about some Christians, but not “the Christians.” It’s that simple.
Using the phrase “that’s so gay” to mean something contemptible is as bad as using the phrase “I jewed his price down” to mean I haggled with him. What you’re saying is that being gay is so contemptible that it makes a baseline to compare other equally contemptible things to.