Hillbillies for shame. They are mountain Williams.
Even more so when you envision what he really means by “his sewer” and what “cleaning the shit out of it” entails.
Don’t take this a as an attack, friend, but you know, you can link directly to post 130, rather than linking to post #1 and expecting us to page through to it.
Sailboat
I’m not about to “fuck off.” And I always vote.
Damn, you could have concluded that without having to connect those dots, his OP is his cite.
Well, I didn’t link to it because it wasn’t his only post, and it seemed like a waste of time to post to everything he said there. And I felt that taking his post out of context only made things more confusing. I also figured since I told you exactly what post to start with, I wasn’t wasting your time if you didn’t want to read the background to his post. Furthermore, I don’t expect you to do anything. And if you don’t want to make things sound like an attack, don’t use “friend” like that. It’s condecending as hell.
You had me at “unimaginative”.
Sure, we know that, but Mister Hateful here doesn’t. The brush he paints with is several hundred miles wide.
You have already deliberately misrepresented what I said in that thread. Why not take it a step further and take it out of context?
By the way, in that single, two sentence post I called Scientology “strange”, “radical”, and “goofy”, and stated that its members were selling themselves out.
I guess you’re a lucky motherfucker that at least one person doesn’t actually click your bullshit links, and just takes your word for it that I’m “defending” Scientology just because I’m not ready to jump on the witch burning bandwagon you and your stupid buddies are on.
edit: Oh, goody! The dipshit that didn’t click your link also happens to be a Southern lawyer! I wish I had noticed that sooner.
Actually, that often works.
I beg your pardon. Lawyers, if they are committed to ethics of the profession (and most are, in my experience), are interested in weaseling through loopholes for the client’s personal gain (or other forms of personal interests, such as staying out of jail) – an interest you will appreciate and share if you ever have a legal problem.
Nitpick: Not all Southerners and not all red-staters are “hillbillies.” Hillbillies come from the Appalachians and the Ozarks.
BG, you’re killing my buzz, you big square.
From this response, I doubt that I’d have gotten a nicer response by simply omitting the word “friend”. How would you suggest I phrase something to avoid getting a peevish response? I’m open to ideas.
So you started us off reading 129 posts to get background to his post? And then there’s more than one of his posts?
Sailboat
Okay, that was funny.
That’s not a nitpick. That’s a correction of an egregious error.
I am a hillbilly. I come from Appalachia.
I don’t, however, come from the south.
Just for the record.
So the problem isn’t lawyers defending innocent clients, the problem is lawyers defending guilty clients. So perhaps the solution would be to have some sort of impartial tribunal to determine whether or not the person accused actually committed the crime or not.
Perhaps there should be some special name for this tribunal. And we could have an impartial person deciding what evidence should be presented at the tribunal. And the accused person should have someone to help him figure out the law.
Then when we have the trial, the innocent people would be allowed to have a lawyer defend them, while the guilty people would be on their own.
I’m going to assume that you’re being serious, because even I realized that it wasn’t just the “friend” that made your post sound like, well, an attack. First off, starting with Don’t take this as an attack leads me to believe (and I may be “too sensitive” or whatever) that what follows will be an attack of some sort, at least easily construed as such. It puts me on my guard. Following that with *friend *when I am not in fact your friend sounds condescending. The following you know sounds similarly condescending, as if I may not be bright enough to follow you. The next bit is fine, and in fact on its own would not have bothered me. It sounds like maybe you’re informing me that it is possible to link to a single post, which not everyone knows how to do. The use of the phrase expecting us to page through to it sounds like you’re pinning some sort of ulterior motive on me, which I don’t appreciate it. Now, I may be overly sensitive or weird or whatever, but tone is very hard to portray in the written word, and the tone of your post was condescending and rude. I know I can be bad at tone, too, so I won’t belabor the point further.
Now, this:
boggles my mind a bit. First off, did I say you had to read the first 129 posts? Would I have told you to start at post 130 if I was insinuating that you must read the whole thing? Did you even read my response to you? Seriously, I figured anyone would be able to find post 130 without reading the whole thing. See, assuming that you have the 50 posts-a-page set up, you just go to the third page, scroll about halfway down, and, bingo, you have post 130 without reading anything else. As far as there being more than one post by him, that’s why I used the word “starts” in my original post. Sorry if this was opaque.
Secondly, this makes you sound as if you cannot possibly believe that there is a thread with more than one post with posters in it that have more than one post. Seriously, this is not a hard concept.
So, I’m not going to hijack this hilarious thread further. Let’s get back to the task at hand, basking in Mosier’s whacked-out glory.