The Dog Thread

[Vrede too]

... The only context I saw that wasn't negative related to someone new to a forum might lurk to get a feel for the characters before posting.

Lurk is a negative term. Observe might work better. Especially when you know that the person you are attempting to communicate with used a different definition than you.

No need to lie, you supplied the definitions.

Not that I have much hope given the hole you've dug for yourself, but let's look at an example of a definition that you are falsely calling "negative". This is the first one I posted, the one that should have ended the debate if you were rational and responsible:

lurk

... Chiefly Computers. to read or observe an ongoing discussion without participating in it, as on a message board.

We have both read or observed threads in this forum today without participating in them. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

There are posters like O Really (mostly) and probably others that have read or observed our debate today and have chosen not to join in, which is fine. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

We all have days or times of day when we read or observed this entire forum without participating in it by posting. Is that "negative"? Of course not, and you're lying to claim otherwise.

Prove me wrong instead of endlessly relying on your feelings. Where are those "many dictionaries" you claimed?

Context, your sense of context is sorely lacking.

Moronic projection, as usual. I have nothing but fondness for k9nanny. Thus, your incessant whining about my 5! times PROVEN accurate use of the word is YOUR contextual failure, not mine.

[billy.pilgrim]

... The only context I saw that wasn't negative related to someone new to a forum might lurk to get a feel for the characters before posting.

Lurk is a negative term. Observe might work better. Especially when you know that the person you are attempting to communicate with used a different definition than you.

No need to lie, you supplied the definitions.

Not that I have much hope given the hole you've dug for yourself, but let's look at an example of a definition that you are falsely calling "negative". This is the first one I posted, the one that should have ended the debate if you were rational and responsible:

lurk

... Chiefly Computers. to read or observe an ongoing discussion without participating in it, as on a message board.

We have both read or observed threads in this forum today without participating in them. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

There are posters like O Really (mostly) and probably others that have read or observed our debate today and have chosen not to join in, which is fine. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

We all have days or times of day when we read or observed this entire forum without participating in it by posting. Is that "negative"? Of course not, and you're lying to claim otherwise.

Prove me wrong instead of endlessly relying on your feelings. Where are those "many dictionaries" you claimed?

Context, your sense of context is sorely lacking.

Moronic projection, as usual. I have nothing but fondness for k9nanny. Thus, your incessant whining about my 5! times PROVEN accurate use of the word is YOUR contextual failure, not mine.

Context is everything, but you don't see it in anything. You judge everything and everyone as if they should see the world through your eyes.

So take your big capacity letters and your misunderstanding of communication and name calling and stick them up your ass

[neoplacebo]

... The only context I saw that wasn't negative related to someone new to a forum might lurk to get a feel for the characters before posting.

Lurk is a negative term. Observe might work better. Especially when you know that the person you are attempting to communicate with used a different definition than you.

No need to lie, you supplied the definitions.

Not that I have much hope given the hole you've dug for yourself, but let's look at an example of a definition that you are falsely calling "negative". This is the first one I posted, the one that should have ended the debate if you were rational and responsible:

lurk

... Chiefly Computers. to read or observe an ongoing discussion without participating in it, as on a message board.

We have both read or observed threads in this forum today without participating in them. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

There are posters like O Really (mostly) and probably others that have read or observed our debate today and have chosen not to join in, which is fine. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

We all have days or times of day when we read or observed this entire forum without participating in it by posting. Is that "negative"? Of course not, and you're lying to claim otherwise.

Prove me wrong instead of endlessly relying on your feelings. Where are those "many dictionaries" you claimed?

Context, your sense of context is sorely lacking.

Moronic projection, as usual. I have nothing but fondness for k9nanny. Thus, your incessant whining about my 5! times PROVEN accurate use of the word is YOUR contextual failure, not mine.

Context is everything, but you don't see it in anything. You judge everything and everyone as if they should see the world through your eyes.

So take your big capacity letters and your misunderstanding of communication and name calling and stick them up your ass

I've noticed you changed your quote line at the bottom of your posts. I have the same one in my list of favorite quotes but it's not of the same attribution. "The law is like a spider web where the little flies get caught and the big flies fall through." -Aristarchus, ca. 150BC
Another of my favorites is this; "Corporations are many lesser commonwealths in the bowels of a greater, like worms in the entrails of a natural man." Thomas Hobbes, "Leviathan" 1651

[billy.pilgrim]

Not that I have much hope given the hole you've dug for yourself, but let's look at an example of a definition that you are falsely calling "negative". This is the first one I posted, the one that should have ended the debate if you were rational and responsible:

We have both read or observed threads in this forum today without participating in them. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

There are posters like O Really (mostly) and probably others that have read or observed our debate today and have chosen not to join in, which is fine. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

We all have days or times of day when we read or observed this entire forum without participating in it by posting. Is that "negative"? Of course not, and you're lying to claim otherwise.

Prove me wrong instead of endlessly relying on your feelings. Where are those "many dictionaries" you claimed?

Context, your sense of context is sorely lacking.

Moronic projection, as usual. I have nothing but fondness for k9nanny. Thus, your incessant whining about my 5! times PROVEN accurate use of the word is YOUR contextual failure, not mine.

Context is everything, but you don't see it in anything. You judge everything and everyone as if they should see the world through your eyes.

So take your big capacity letters and your misunderstanding of communication and name calling and stick them up your ass

I've noticed you changed your quote line at the bottom of your posts. I have the same one in my list of favorite quotes but it's not of the same attribution. "The law is like a spider web where the little flies get caught and the big flies fall through." -Aristarchus, ca. 150BC
Another of my favorites is this; "Corporations are many lesser commonwealths in the bowels of a greater, like worms in the entrails of a natural man." Thomas Hobbes, "Leviathan" 1651

ut oh, Swift may be a trump

[Vrede too]

Context is everything, but you don't see it in anything.

Wussy projection, as usual. The only "Context" is that I would never dis k9nanny. The 5! sources that you cower from are unambiguous about "lurking" being a neutral online activity. There is no context that changes that.

You judge everything and everyone as if they should see the world through your eyes.

Wussy projection, as usual. My "eyes" are irrelevant. We have 5! credible sources vs your "eyes" and feelings.

So take your big capacity [sic, font] letters

Awww, I feel terrible that my efforts to get "PROVEN" to sink in trigger you so. Suck it up.

and your misunderstanding of communication

Wussy projection, as usual. You are the one failing definitions here, not me.

and name calling

Lie, as usual when you're floundering. I have not called you any names in this tangent resurrected after several days of dormancy. Cute samoyed, don't you think? Have you noticed how often these disputes boil down to your English incompetence?

and stick them up your ass

You throw the most adorable widdle tantwums when you're proven wrong and can't find a shred of evidence to back up your feelings. Where are those "many" dictionaries that you claimed?

[billy.pilgrim]

Context is everything, but you don't see it in anything.

Wussy projection, as usual. The only "Context" is that I would never dis k9nanny. The 5! sources that you cower from are unambiguous about "lurking" being a neutral online activity. There is no context that changes that.

You judge everything and everyone as if they should see the world through your eyes.

Wussy projection, as usual. My "eyes" are irrelevant. We have 5! credible sources vs your "eyes" and feelings.

So take your big capacity [sic, font] letters

Awww, I feel terrible that my efforts to get "PROVEN" to sink in trigger you so. Suck it up.

and your misunderstanding of communication

Wussy projection, as usual. You are the one failing definitions here, not me.

and name calling

Lie, as usual when you're floundering. I have not called you any names in this tangent resurrected after several days of dormancy. Cute samoyed, don't you think? Have you noticed how often these disputes boil down to your English incompetence?

and stick them up your ass

You throw the most adorable widdle tantwums when you're proven wrong and can't find a shred of evidence to back up your feelings. Where are those "many" dictionaries that you claimed?

All you do is call names and strut around waving the participation trophy you gave yourself.
Yes, calling me a moronic incessant whiner is name calling - granted it's not as bad as your fuck you and other attacks you use when you don't know what you are talking about, but it's still childish vrede name calling.

[Vrede too]

All you do is call names and strut around waving the participation trophy you gave yourself.

Wussy projection, as usual. You are the one that claims your feelings are as valid as expert sourcing.

Yes, calling me a moronic incessant whiner is name calling

Lie, as usual when you're floundering. I have not called you that in this tangent resurrected after several days of dormancy.

- granted it's not as bad as your fuck you and other attacks you use when you don't know what you are talking about,

Wussy projection, as usual. You are the one failing definitions here, not me.

but it's still childish vrede name calling.

Repeated lie, as usual when you've been proven wrong but can't face it.

Where are those "many" dictionaries that you claimed?

[billy.pilgrim]

... The only context I saw that wasn't negative related to someone new to a forum might lurk to get a feel for the characters before posting.

Lurk is a negative term. Observe might work better. Especially when you know that the person you are attempting to communicate with used a different definition than you.

No need to lie, you supplied the definitions.

Not that I have much hope given the hole you've dug for yourself, but let's look at an example of a definition that you are falsely calling "negative". This is the first one I posted, the one that should have ended the debate if you were rational and responsible:

lurk

... Chiefly Computers. to read or observe an ongoing discussion without participating in it, as on a message board.

We have both read or observed threads in this forum today without participating in them. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

There are posters like O Really (mostly) and probably others that have read or observed our debate today and have chosen not to join in, which is fine. Is that "negative"? Of course not.

We all have days or times of day when we read or observed this entire forum without participating in it by posting. Is that "negative"? Of course not, and you're lying to claim otherwise.

Prove me wrong instead of endlessly relying on your feelings. Where are those "many dictionaries" you claimed?

Context, your sense of context is sorely lacking.

Moronic projection, as usual. I have nothing but fondness for k9nanny. Thus, your incessant whining about my 5! times PROVEN accurate use of the word is YOUR contextual failure, not mine.

Figured I had better lock it in before you went back and changed it

[billy.pilgrim]

All you do is call names and strut around waving the participation trophy you gave yourself.

Wussy projection, as usual. You are the one that claims your feelings are as valid as expert sourcing.

Yes, calling me a moronic incessant whiner is name calling

Lie, as usual when you're floundering. I have not called you that in this tangent resurrected after several days of dormancy.

- granted it's not as bad as your fuck you and other attacks you use when you don't know what you are talking about,

Wussy projection, as usual. You are the one failing definitions here, not me.

but it's still childish vrede name calling.

Repeated lie, as usual when you've been proven wrong but can't face it.

Where are those "many" dictionaries that you claimed?

Yesterday at 6:43 pm could be claimed as several days of dormancy

If you are a trump

[Vrede too]

Figured I had better lock it in before you went back and changed it

You fail English, again. Is it tragic ignorance or desperate lying this time? Describing behavior, accurately btw, is not name calling.

Kudos for reminding us of your earlier, in fact proven impossible, earlier self-humiliation:

and its recent non sequitur regurgitation when you were otherwise floundering:


Thank you.

Yesterday at 6:43 pm could be claimed as several days of dormancy

If you are a trump

No, dummy, March 1 to March 5 is "several days of dormancy."

Yet another Trumpish fail from you.

[billy.pilgrim]

Figured I had better lock it in before you went back and changed it

You fail English, again. Is it tragic ignorance or desperate lying this time? Describing behavior, accurately btw, is not name calling.

Kudos for reminding us of your earlier, in fact proven impossible, earlier self-humiliation:

and its recent regurgitation


Thank you.

Yesterday at 6:43 pm could be claimed as several days of dormancy

If you are a trump

No, dummy, March 1 to March 5 is "several days of dormancy."

Yet another Trumpish fail from you.

Try reading your own post from yesterday evening

Then get back to me

[Vrede too]

Figured I had better lock it in before you went back and changed it

You fail English, again. Is it tragic ignorance or desperate lying this time? Describing behavior, accurately btw, is not name calling.

Kudos for reminding us of your earlier, in fact proven impossible, earlier self-humiliation:
and its recent regurgitation


Thank you.

Yesterday at 6:43 pm could be claimed as several days of dormancy

If you are a trump

No, dummy,

That is a name, get it? If I'm gonna do the time I might as well do the crime. You are soooo sensitive!

March 1 to March 5 is "several days of dormancy."

Asking about the muddy samoyed was a huge clue, but it went sailing right over your head and you then posted uber-foolish.

Yet another Trumpish fail from you.

Try reading your own post from yesterday evening

Then get back to me

Try getting someone literate to explain to you that "Describing behavior, accurately btw, is not name calling," then get back to me. Just because your widdle feewings have been hurt does not mean that you've been called a name.

Anyhow, thank you for providing that particular post that you're now lying about. My my, just look at all of those examples and questions about them that you cower from. Shoot yourself in the foot much?

[billy.pilgrim]

Figured I had better lock it in before you went back and changed it

You fail English, again. Is it tragic ignorance or desperate lying this time? Describing behavior, accurately btw, is not name calling.

Kudos for reminding us of your earlier, in fact proven impossible, earlier self-humiliation:

and its recent regurgitation


Thank you.

Yesterday at 6:43 pm could be claimed as several days of dormancy

If you are a trump

No, dummy,

That is a name, get it? If I'm gonna do the time I might as well do the crime. You are soooo sensitive!

March 1 to March 5 is "several days of dormancy."

Asking about the muddy samoyed was a huge clue, but it went sailing right over your head and you then posted uber-foolish.

Yet another Trumpish fail from you.

Try reading your own post from yesterday evening

Then get back to me

Try getting someone literate to explain to you that "Describing behavior, accurately btw, is not name calling," then get back to me. Just because your widdle feewings have been hurt does not mean that you've been called a name.

Anyhow, thank you for providing that particular post that you're now lying about. My my, just look at all of those examples and questions about them that you cower from. Shoot yourself in the foot much?

I knew that you would disagree with yourself.
Thanks

[Vrede too]

Yesterday at 6:43 pm could be claimed as several days of dormancy

If you are a trump

No, dummy,

That is a name, get it? If I'm gonna do the time I might as well do the crime. You are soooo sensitive!

March 1 to March 5 is "several days of dormancy."

Asking about the muddy samoyed was a huge clue, but it went sailing right over your head and you then posted uber-foolish.

Yet another Trumpish fail from you.

Still cowering.

Try reading your own post from yesterday evening

Then get back to me

Try getting someone literate to explain to you that "Describing behavior, accurately btw, is not name calling," then get back to me. Just because your widdle feewings have been hurt does not mean that you've been called a name.

Or not, either way is just as entertaining to me .

Anyhow, thank you for providing that particular post that you're now lying about. My my, just look at all of those examples and questions about them that you cower from. Shoot yourself in the foot much?

Still cowering.

I knew that you would disagree with yourself.

Lie, as usual when busted. Alternatively, you could find an elem school reader that covers the difference between nouns and adjectives, but I fear that, too, would be above your comprehension level.

Thanks

No no, the appreciation should be all mine. It's rare for me to run into someone that:

Cleaves to his feelings in the face of 5! sources;
Cowers for days and days from all requests to provide the contrary sources that he claimed exist;
Lies about what the 5! sources say;
Cowers from proof, with examples, that the 5! sources are unambiguous;
Desperately invents "context" that the unambiguous sources leave no room for;
Finds that the noun 'names' has too many syllables for him to handle;
Repeatedly lies about the presence of nonexistent names;
Whines like a toddler about names even if they weren't nonexistent.

None of this describes a normal, responsible, honest adult. You are a "special" child.

[bannination]

Hey everyone - I edited a few posts in this thread that had links to forum posts that were broken. Just noting for transparency.

Thanks

[Vrede too]

Hey everyone - I edited a few posts in this thread that had links to forum posts that were broken. Just noting for transparency.

Thanks

In the spirit of transparency, the broken links were mine. Opps. No text has been altered.

[O Really]

Hey everyone - I edited a few posts in this thread that had links to forum posts that were broken. Just noting for transparency.

Thanks

Nevertheless, the thread persists.

[bannination]

Hey everyone - I edited a few posts in this thread that had links to forum posts that were broken. Just noting for transparency.

Thanks

Nevertheless, the thread persists.

Truth.

[billy.pilgrim]

Hey everyone - I edited a few posts in this thread that had links to forum posts that were broken. Just noting for transparency.

Thanks

Thank you for your service.

Damn, my post disappeared during Preview. Later.

[billy.pilgrim]

Hey everyone - I edited a few posts in this thread that had links to forum posts that were broken. Just noting for transparency.

Thanks

Thank you for your service.

Damn, my post disappeared during Preview. Later.

So sorry guys. I've only just now received a message informing me that I am responsible for Vrede's posts and that my entire lack of integrity is making his super duper great sense of integrity to do things.
I had not realized that my lack of importance was so instrumentally important to his postings. I will make an effort to understand this.

The message offered additional advice that should be instructive to any further discussions. It instructed that the opinions of others should never be considered in a discussion unless you are already in full agreement with the facts and opinions being discussed.

What a fool I was to have let discussions and links on this forum cause me to reach out through research and additional personal contacts and completely change my long held belief about Confederate monuments. Which begs the question, how far back should I go to eliminate life changes I've made because I listened to different views.

Yep, better to go around with bananas in your ears because we all already know it all before we got here. Experts we are, each and only one.

again, I am so so sorry to have made him post something regrettable and I will make an effort to refrain from making him dance.