Page 4 of 37

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:33 am
by mountainmage
We'll agree to disagree then, because this is an inane debate.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:35 am
by LordRetard
I think my study binds me to argue my crazy position, but maybe I should just let it slide anyway.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:37 am
by mountainmage
It's for the best. They'll never agree with us.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:41 am
by Oldrac the Chitinous
All right, I'll let this one go.
But let it not be said that the forum has never rushed to the defense of AHMETxRock.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:42 am
by LordRetard
Yeah, but this is like the first time that we've bothered to back down out of reluctance to argue.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:03 am
by Lethal Interjection
I do think Rainbow's position is largely semantic*, but I'm not sure the Shaw example is very effective. Mostly because man can be used interchangably with human, especially in the era Shaw was writing in. But the article does kind of make it out to be more of a preference thing, which I think I agree with.

*At first I thought she was referring to a donkey, and thought that it was hardly a grammar issue, or it was a poorly worded joke.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:23 pm
by Oldrac the Chitinous
Well, sure, but how many women were going off to war back then?

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:25 pm
by AHMETxRock
There are many women that are whores MM. I think your problem is that you have some sort of standards. Why not settle for statutory rape, or a promiscuous mother of a friend?

Also, I think the use of "their" does sound strange, now that you mention it. I think that basically I was referring to any and all women offering their arses, even though I use the language indicating a single woman. Honestly, it's not like I've only been offered once. I don't go to parties anymore.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:58 pm
by mountainmage
AHMETxRock wrote:There are many women that are whores MM. I think your problem is that you have some sort of standards. Why not settle for statutory rape, or a promiscuous mother of a friend?
Of course! Why didn't I think of that? :roll:

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:18 pm
by AHMETxRock
Some people got it, and some people don't. You don't got it, so you dont get "it".
LOLZ ALL AROUND!

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:51 pm
by Rainbow
Anti-LOLZ

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:54 pm
by Cirtur
Rainbow posts and suddenly there is antilolz.



I'm just kidding, I don't need more of your freaky vendetta.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:56 pm
by AHMETxRock
He wants more of your freaky- What do you mean I can't say that?
Allah give me strength. These word filters are becoming more and more bothersome.
Get your head out of the gutter.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 3:38 am
by mountainmage
I don't think we wordfilter whatever you were planning to type.

Re: What our pets alooklike

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 11:23 am
by Oldrac the Chitinous
He clearly wants more freaky itinerant Romanians*.



Yes I know don't correct me.