Wait, is this supposed to be some sort of test?
In fact, I did before I posted. Here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary says:
- to embellish; adorn
- to decorate (food or drink) with small items such as parsley or lemon slices
- LAW. to garnishee
yes, but first you have demonstrate to learn what “to garnish” means in the context I used it before you are eligible for the test.
Once you are ready, you can start with finding the posts that are qualitatively the same (big word, I know, but you have your dictionary handy already, right?) in the Free Speech thread, from all of the other threads Giraffe said it was the same as.
Use the actual words from Cesario in each of the 6 threads if you want credit for making the case.
Quoted for more comedy.
[sub]Note to not_alice: the word you’re looking for is “garner”. Not “garnish”.[/sub]
Why yes, you are.
That is a pretty brief set of definitions, but yeah, that covers it. If that is not clear, perhaps you can find other, more advanced dictionaries, with more usage examples until something clicks.
If it still doesn’t click, you could then google for similar usages to mine.
Otherwise you will have to either take my word for it, or accept that you are missing a vocabulary word you should probably know. Run it by a High School English teacher or something.
No, that would fit too, but in this case, I mean “garnish” to imply that you are a) taking and b) adorning
But we already know even straightforward rhetoric is past you right now, and yet this pitting is about you, and all you have in response is a crowd of “garnish” following you with ad hominem attacks, never addressing the actual substance.
I know. I’m deeply ashamed of how I’ve come across in this Pitting – to any impartial third party, it’s obvious you’ve schooled me quite handily. 
Stop. Just stop. Or continue. People making posts like you “back in the day” on usenet would have wound up in auk long ago.
Whatever turns you on.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, but no. This isn’t about people from Giraffe’s board coming here to defend him.
It’s ok, though. I know you need to save face and salvage what little is left of your dignity.
Which is precisely what you should have done with the original proposed AT Pedophile thread - use the tools that are available to you to not see it or not participate, while allowing others to choose to do as they wish.
That is the point I have been trying to make - it seems it is only now just outside your grasp, and getting much closer at that! You are almost there!
How else can you explain the fact that no one agrees with not_alice when his posts have been so factually indisputable? Some sort of voodoo curse? That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Oh I understand perfectly Alice.
Lets see. You were in a thread once. Then a horse referenced that thread without listing you in the bibliography, which caused your thing to rise.
Smiting mightily, you called out the horse so that you could smote him. Mightily.
The horse responded, by pointing out that you are a numpty.
Hearing the bad news, you starting smashing at keys in furious indignation, until your argument moved from an unfounded accusation of misrepresenting kiddyfuckers, to an unfounded accusation of suppressing free speech and (soon) the rape of the natural world.
Everybody else laughed at you and made witty jokes at your expense (even Taco gave it a go, god loves a tryer)
As we moved into page 16 of the thread, Alice moved deeper and deeper into an internet panic attack, her wild eyes and gooey drool represented by ever more incoherent ramblings about google and parsley and pain and the void.
The horse laughed. We all laughed. Cecil cried, it wasn’t meant to be like this.
auk-alt.usenet.kooks
You don’t know shit except to sit on a perch and toss shit over. Don;'t worry about my dignity, worry about yours. You don’t understand the pleas of a(n apparently) mentally ill man, and you don’t understand the constructs of Free Speech in the US.
If you are not in the US, then OK about the last one, but either way, you and the others are letting your outrage turn to power over the most powerless people in society, and are proud of it. You seem to do it simply because you can, and you seem to relish (not “garnish” 
) that you can simply because you can.
That doesn’t bode well for society I am afraid, that you would toss the weak and ill overboard so that you can all thump your chests like cavemen.
Sick, sick, sick.
Maybe you should start a AT thread: “AT someone who would rather beat up the unpopular ones in order to stay in good with the popular crowd”
Anyone here want to take a swag at it?
What other unpopular groups, people, or ideas would you rage against rather than allow a discussion? Give us your Top 5.
Irrelevant, and it does not meant you weren’t wrong with your OP.
Setting the tone for truth doesn’t mean it is required that we track down every subject and put it under the microscope. I get that you are intentionally being slippery, but again it still doesn’t make you right. And I’m sure you know I don’t believe in God.
Members here are capable of deciding what other members may or may not discuss by expressing those wishes known to the Reader, the Reader can then in turn choose what to do with that information (they have a long history of doing just that). Also, the owners of this board are under no obligations to bow to what you believe are Free Speech requirements. Basing your argument on this is ridiculous and wrong - see below:
And now we’re down the rabbit hole. I couldn’t care less about a person talking about any particular subject in public or on their own message board. Nor does your carrying on about it bother me in the slightest. But this thread isn’t about any of that is it?
From the OP:
Yes, they did.
Actually, it doesn’t fit at all. Garnish is a transitive verb, thereby requiring a direct object in order to make sense. Your construction is doubly idiotic, because:
-
Without a direct object, the phrase “your board has garnished” makes no sense.
-
As inferred from your follow-up, your intended subject was (an implied) “you”, not “your board”.
Besides being the author of one of the most worthless, tempest-in-a-teapot Pit OPs I’ve seen in quite some while, you suck as a pedant, as well.
Which would have accomplished what precisely? Allowed you a small measure of satisfaction, while allowing the original discussion to go on, right?
Giraffe, you need to just stop. You have no idea what kind of garnishing some of the posters get up to in the DTP threads because you’re too much of a coward to come around and see for yourself.
Okay. Actual substance: It was never about your thread. I may be wrong, but it seems you’re invested in the idea that it was about your thread and your thread specifically. It wasn’t. It was about several posts made by someone who also posted to your thread. Your thread and its subject were tangential at the most. While freedom of speech may have a very broad appeal, it was not that poster’s main concern. His post from your thread was used as an example. That’s it. Even in context, it was relevant to the OP of Giraffe’s Pit thread.
It is completely understood that you disagree with the decision about opening a thread discussing the pathology of paedophilia by the poster who has requested permission to do so. Giraffe has no sway over that decision, nor do the posters here, really. It is entirely at the discretion of the administration. The reason people continue to remind you that this is a private board is because it seems to have slipped your memory that the first amendment’s guarantee of free speech only applies to government entities. The SDMB/Chicago Reader/CL/Whoever owns this place this week is not a government entity and is in no way obligated to allow content it finds unsuitable. There are several options for those who disagree with their decisions.
I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was intended. I think you may have taken offense where none was directed toward you or your thread topic. It was not about your thread.
- Wenz