Viewing Thread:
"One Random Thread For Things That Are Random But Is This Topic Random Or Does It Have A Meaning?"

One Random Thread For Things That Are Random But Is This Topic Random Or Does It Have A Meaning?

Greetings.

RoJ wrote:
> P4NT$ wrote:
> My case remains if said question is so retarded, then why does said
> question need said answer to prove that said question is retarded,
> this only proves the fact that said question is retarded but it also
> goes on to prove that said answer is equaly retared if not more so
> then said question,
>
> Ah no. You see, my answer was to inform you that you were a retard,
> if you did not already know that (in your set of circumstances you
> should have) and also to inform the other forumites as to your
> retarded status.
>
> as the purpose of said answer is to state the
> obvious that said question is retarded which I think said question
> proves by it self.
>
> If the said question is retarded why did you, who you adamantly
> delcare that you are not retarded, post it? CLearly you thought it
> was clever, something you strive to be but in your state of life is
> next to impossible.
>
> Therefore said author of said answer in response
> to said question is equally as retarded as said answer to said
> question.
>
> So the man that declares a retarded post, thinly veiled by a pathetic
> attempt at intelligence retarded is retarded as well then? I think
> not.
>
> Your case on the event of said question has been lost, and I have
> won.
>
> Your case has been rebutted by myself, and alreasy I weary of this
> tiresome debate. Take a leave of absence and do not return, but if
> you must, come up again with more pathetic arguments and I will
> successfully rebutt each one unless your argument states that you are
> a retard. There is no possible rebuttal I can yet concive for that
> argument.

Hello, Mr. Architect! :P

P4NT$ wrote:
> How can you look anything in virtual space, where the only expression
> is ASCII


We see here that the Retard has no possesion of being able to take words and phrases ambiguously, and therefore will not leave the path of linear thinking.

P4NT$ wrote:
> My case remains if said question is so retarded, then why does said
> question need said answer to prove that said question is retarded,
> this only proves the fact that said question is retarded but it also
> goes on to prove that said answer is equaly retared if not more so
> then said question,

Ah no. You see, my answer was to inform you that you were a retard, if you did not already know that (in your set of circumstances you should have) and also to inform the other forumites as to your retarded status.

> as the purpose of said answer is to state the
> obvious that said question is retarded which I think said question
> proves by it self.

If the said question is retarded why did you, who you adamantly delcare that you are not retarded, post it? CLearly you thought it was clever, something you strive to be but in your state of life is next to impossible.

> Therefore said author of said answer in response
> to said question is equally as retarded as said answer to said
> question.

So the man that declares a retarded post, thinly veiled by a pathetic attempt at intelligence retarded is retarded as well then? I think not.

> Your case on the event of said question has been lost, and I have
> won.

Your case has been rebutted by myself, and alreasy I weary of this tiresome debate. Take a leave of absence and do not return, but if you must, come up again with more pathetic arguments and I will successfully rebutt each one unless your argument states that you are a retard. There is no possible rebuttal I can yet concive for that argument.

Der Nazi wrote:
> I think we can safely establish that this thread is a waste of time,
> and was set up by someone who has no experience of looking
> intelligent on a forum.

How can you look anything in virtual space, where the only expression is ASCII

I think we can safely establish that this thread is a waste of time, and was set up by someone who has no experience of looking intelligent on a forum.

RoJ wrote:
> P4NT$ wrote:
> But if said question is so retarded then why does said question need
> an answer. Doesn't this prove that said answer is as retarded if
> not
> more so retarded then said question. My case has been made.
>
> Said question is so retarded that said question needs a reply that is
> not retarded to tell the author of the said question that the said
> question is retarded, and furthermore the author of the said question
> is also retarded.
> My case has been won.
My case remains if said question is so retarded, then why does said question need said answer to prove that said question is retarded, this only proves the fact that said question is retarded but it also goes on to prove that said answer is equaly retared if not more so then said question, as the purpose of said answer is to state the obvious that said question is retarded which I think said question proves by it self. Therefore said author of said answer in response to said question is equally as retarded as said answer to said question.
Your case on the event of said question has been lost, and I have won.

Exactly, but since I am not an old wife I didn't say it.
I am off for food now.

I think what Roj is trying to say is that old wives saying;

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

P4NT$ wrote:
> But if said question is so retarded then why does said question need
> an answer. Doesn't this prove that said answer is as retarded if not
> more so retarded then said question. My case has been made.

Said question is so retarded that said question needs a reply that is not retarded to tell the author of the said question that the said question is retarded, and furthermore the author of the said question is also retarded.
My case has been won.