|
Bashing of any sort will result in temp bans. |
On October 21 2012 11:58 Jimz1469 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words.
Edit: now I think about it, it could very well be the later case, disappointed man. I don't post much on here and I greatly appreciate the in depth information on these boards but this sort of peanut gallery criticism taking one line totally out of context like a political commercial in the making makes me want to throw up. You should work for Fox News.
Y'know what? I probably should work at a reputable news station because of all the cash I'll receive from it. That's a really good idea.
Throw up all you want man, this context matters greatly. Again see the difference of excluding 'and', and replace it with 'so that we can deliberately...' in connection to the previous clause. Without it, it just seemed to detached from it and worked as a completely separate course of action, unrelated to the PR accusation.
And TB's responds to it isn't much better people. He went automatically into defensive mode and attacked me after the very first post regarding the event instead of addressing the syntax behind the words. Like come on, the least one could have done is not act like a darn hothead.
|
Like come on, the least one could have done is not act like a darn hothead.
Well. At least there you are right. Other than that, to me who learned english in school round about 20 years ago, the sentence in question is understandable as it is, so i don't really get the nitpicking (maybe i missed something again).
Still, complaining about a community and just insulting people left and right with every single comment is actually stupid, im sorry.
|
On October 21 2012 12:07 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:58 Jimz1469 wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words.
Edit: now I think about it, it could very well be the later case, disappointed man. I don't post much on here and I greatly appreciate the in depth information on these boards but this sort of peanut gallery criticism taking one line totally out of context like a political commercial in the making makes me want to throw up. You should work for Fox News. Y'know what? I probably should work at a reputable news station because of all the cash I'll receive from it. That's a really good idea. Throw up all you want man, this context matters greatly. Again see the difference of excluding 'and', and replace it with 'so that we can deliberately...' in connection to the previous clause. Without it, it just seemed to detached from it and worked as a completely separate course of action, unrelated to the PR accusation. And TB's responds to it isn't much better people. He went automatically into defensive mode and attacked me after the very first post regarding the event instead of addressing the syntax behind the words. Like come on, the least one could have done is not act like a darn hothead.
This is just not true. And is a proper conjunction to use in this instance to connect the sentence.
and
[and; unstressed uhnd, uhn, or, especially after a homorganic consonant, n]
conjunction
1.
(used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover
The grammer is completely fine.
|
On October 21 2012 12:04 GolemMadness wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:56 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 21 2012 11:50 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words.
Edit: now I think about it, it could very well be the later case, disappointed man. (We tried to just do the whole "he's going to release a statement") / (and got accused of PR bullshit) /(and deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.) The problem is entirely you. Fixed that fox you. Because "We deliberately timing..." apparently passes your understanding of English grammar. I suggest you stop wasting posts on petty semantics, because no one in their right mind is actually going to agree with you. Say what you like. TB could have easily said "We got accused of PR bullshit in deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it." which would have made much more sense. He fucked it up and just to embarrassed to admit. And people you really stop valuing people higher than you in life just because of their 'fame'. On October 21 2012 11:52 Oktyabr wrote:On October 21 2012 11:46 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:44 Oktyabr wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words. Or your comprehension is terrible. I could easily infer that he's being accused of: 1)PR bullshit AND 2)deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it. You're trying too hard, lol. You just sucks at English. lmao Not really. I recognize that the sentence structure isn't perfect, but I don't spend 4 posts harping on it, while deliberately misinterpreting it in order to put him in bad light even after he has already indicated his frustration in his first reply back to you. And you just "sucks" at English? Really? The irony here... Because I'm a man here (unlike some other particular individual), I'll have to admit that it was down at very quick pace so yes I accidentely slipped in the 's'. There. But you are completely wrong because out of the 4 posts, only 1 was to systematically breaking down the word while the first one was really an intro to my thoughts, and the other two being a debate to a few people that decided to play the 'memory selection' game with themselves. "only 1 was to systematically breaking down the word" That doesn't even mean anything. My god, just admit that you were wrong and stop this "Your grammar wasn't perfect, therefore you're in the wrong here." Everyone understood what he meant.
On October 21 2012 12:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:56 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 21 2012 11:50 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words.
Edit: now I think about it, it could very well be the later case, disappointed man. (We tried to just do the whole "he's going to release a statement") / (and got accused of PR bullshit) /(and deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.) The problem is entirely you. Fixed that fox you. Because "We deliberately timing..." apparently passes your understanding of English grammar. I suggest you stop wasting posts on petty semantics, because no one in their right mind is actually going to agree with you. Say what you like. TB could have easily said "We got accused of PR bullshit in deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it." which would have made much more sense. He fucked it up and just to embarrassed to admit. And people you really stop valuing people higher than you in life just because of their 'fame'. Yes, if absolutely no one else has issues interpreting his sentence properly, it's because you're the only sane man in the crowd. You spent an entire page of discussion harping on grammar and pretending that it meant something scandalous. It didn't. Deal with it.
And all those posts are only understood after TB cleared it out. But wait, you are all going to say "Nah b, I understood it beforehand." but y'know there is absolutely no way to prove that at your expanse either. Which means that you couldn't possibly prove your arguments in any coherency. At least my arguments were presented with tangible substance. For shame.
|
On October 21 2012 12:07 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:58 Jimz1469 wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words.
Edit: now I think about it, it could very well be the later case, disappointed man. I don't post much on here and I greatly appreciate the in depth information on these boards but this sort of peanut gallery criticism taking one line totally out of context like a political commercial in the making makes me want to throw up. You should work for Fox News. Y'know what? I probably should work at a reputable news station because of all the cash I'll receive from it. That's a really good idea. Throw up all you want man, this context matters greatly. Again see the difference of excluding 'and', and replace it with 'so that we can deliberately...' in connection to the previous clause. Without it, it just seemed to detached from it and worked as a completely separate course of action, unrelated to the PR accusation. And TB's responds to it isn't much better people. He went automatically into defensive mode and attacked me after the very first post regarding the event instead of addressing the syntax behind the words. Like come on, the least one could have done is not act like a darn hothead.
What matters is what he meant and I had to read all of that bs just to sort out that it was some disgruntled poster twisting his words. I thought this was actually an issue until I realized it was nothing and you and who ever else was just wasting everyone's time. I've heard of fans jumping the gun and lighting the pitchforks before both sides can be told but I've never ran into anything like this (unless it had a political motive) to snobbishly twist someone's words and make a brazen bold faced lie an issue out of thin air, just because you disagree with his grammar.
|
On October 21 2012 12:11 m4inbrain wrote:Well. At least there you are right. Other than that, to me who learned english in school round about 20 years ago, the sentence in question is understandable as it is, so i don't really get the nitpicking (maybe i missed something again). Still, complaining about a community and just insulting people left and right with every single comment is actually stupid, im sorry.
Well from my previous English Prose Writting class in Uni level, the professor told us that if you are going to use and in anyway but not specifying any relation to the previous words, then it is entirely a separate course action. So essentially, that's how I read it.
But I'm not really trying to insult anyone right here lol, well beside rightfully calling him a hothead. Really, I'm trying to justify my own words to which people got annoyingly pissed off over the freaken internet. And this is a good opportunity for me to not waste any time just idling.
On October 21 2012 12:13 Jimz1469 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:07 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:58 Jimz1469 wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words.
Edit: now I think about it, it could very well be the later case, disappointed man. I don't post much on here and I greatly appreciate the in depth information on these boards but this sort of peanut gallery criticism taking one line totally out of context like a political commercial in the making makes me want to throw up. You should work for Fox News. Y'know what? I probably should work at a reeputable news station because of all the cash I'll receive from it. That's a really good idea. Throw up all you want man, this context matters greatly. Again see the difference of excluding 'and', and replace it with 'so that we can deliberately...' in connection to the previous clause. Without it, it just seemed to detached from it and worked as a completely separate course of action, unrelated to the PR accusation. And TB's responds to it isn't much better people. He went automatically into defensive mode and attacked me after the very first post regarding the event instead of addressing the syntax behind the words. Like come on, the least one could have done is not act like a darn hothead. What matters is what he meant and I had to read all of that bs just to sort out that it was some disgruntled poster twisting his words. I thought this was actually an issue until I realized it was nothing and you and who ever else was just wasting everyone's time. I've heard of fans jumping the gun and lighting the pitchforks before both sides can be told but I've never ran into anything like this (unless it had a political motive) to snobbishly twist someone's words and make a brazen bold faced lie an issue out of thin air, just because you disagree with his grammar.
You do realize that TB haven't responded yet to my arguments so hey who knows what he could have really meant with the words. There really is no way of telling. But here TB plays a large role in this whole conflict. I can't believe that I'm the only concerned with the accuracy of the story's development. I don't want any ambiguities between the arguments of either parties (Jessica and Axiom).
So with that in mind, TB should definitely start to clear some things up about his intentions.
|
On October 21 2012 12:17 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:11 m4inbrain wrote:Like come on, the least one could have done is not act like a darn hothead. Well. At least there you are right. Other than that, to me who learned english in school round about 20 years ago, the sentence in question is understandable as it is, so i don't really get the nitpicking (maybe i missed something again). Still, complaining about a community and just insulting people left and right with every single comment is actually stupid, im sorry. Well from my previous English Prose Writting class in Uni level, the professor told us that if you are going to use and in anyway but not specifying any relation to the previous words, then it is entirely a separate course action. So essentially, that's how I read it. But I'm not really trying to insult anyone right here lol, well beside rightfully calling him a hothead. Really, I'm trying to justify my own words to which people got annoyingly pissed off over the freaken internet. And this is a good opportunity for me to not waste any time just idling.
Can we just drop this and stop derailing the thread?
Grammar aside, the point is that everyone else got the meaning other than you. Thus your response to TB made him get really defensive because in his eyes (and in everyone else's eyes other than your own) you were deliberately misquoting him and saying bullshit.
So this debate isn't going to get anywhere. Let's just drop it.
|
Well, if you call "having an argument on the internet!" not wasting any time, then yep. 
Could we stop arguing about that sentence now? I believe if someone says he understood it even without your explanation, just as i did. I could not even tell if its right or wrong on the grammar-side, to be honest, so maybe that helped.
So with that in mind, TB should definitely start to clear some things up about his intentions.
I dont want to defend TB, but he actually did.
|
Well, this is shitty news. Good luck to the players in finding a new home.
|
Xiphos is pissing people off again re: absolutely random shit? Well, that's nothing new, I must say~ 
|
On October 21 2012 12:20 babylon wrote:Xiphos is pissing people off again re: absolutely random shit? Well, that's nothing new, I must say~
Apparantly, he still thinks he knows better than the people directly involved in the matter. Self denial is a good skill toi have.
|
On October 21 2012 12:17 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:11 m4inbrain wrote:Like come on, the least one could have done is not act like a darn hothead. Well. At least there you are right. Other than that, to me who learned english in school round about 20 years ago, the sentence in question is understandable as it is, so i don't really get the nitpicking (maybe i missed something again). Still, complaining about a community and just insulting people left and right with every single comment is actually stupid, im sorry. Well from my previous English Prose Writting class in Uni level, the professor told us that if you are going to use and in anyway but not specifying any relation to the previous words, then it is entirely a separate course action. So essentially, that's how I read it. But I'm not really trying to insult anyone right here lol, well beside rightfully calling him a hothead. Really, I'm trying to justify my own words to which people got annoyingly pissed off over the freaken internet. And this is a good opportunity for me to not waste any time just idling. Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:13 Jimz1469 wrote:On October 21 2012 12:07 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:58 Jimz1469 wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words.
Edit: now I think about it, it could very well be the later case, disappointed man. I don't post much on here and I greatly appreciate the in depth information on these boards but this sort of peanut gallery criticism taking one line totally out of context like a political commercial in the making makes me want to throw up. You should work for Fox News. Y'know what? I probably should work at a reeputable news station because of all the cash I'll receive from it. That's a really good idea. Throw up all you want man, this context matters greatly. Again see the difference of excluding 'and', and replace it with 'so that we can deliberately...' in connection to the previous clause. Without it, it just seemed to detached from it and worked as a completely separate course of action, unrelated to the PR accusation. And TB's responds to it isn't much better people. He went automatically into defensive mode and attacked me after the very first post regarding the event instead of addressing the syntax behind the words. Like come on, the least one could have done is not act like a darn hothead. What matters is what he meant and I had to read all of that bs just to sort out that it was some disgruntled poster twisting his words. I thought this was actually an issue until I realized it was nothing and you and who ever else was just wasting everyone's time. I've heard of fans jumping the gun and lighting the pitchforks before both sides can be told but I've never ran into anything like this (unless it had a political motive) to snobbishly twist someone's words and make a brazen bold faced lie an issue out of thin air, just because you disagree with his grammar. You do realize that TB haven't responded yet to my arguments so hey who knows what he could have really meant with the words. There really is no way of telling. But here TB plays a large role in this whole conflict. I can't believe that I'm the only concerned with the accuracy of the story's development. I don't want any ambiguities between the arguments of either parties (Jessica and Axiom). So with that in mind, TB should definitely start to clear some things up about his intentions.
What in the sam hell even makes YOU think you are entitled to a damn thing sir.
|
On October 21 2012 12:23 NightOfTheDead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:20 babylon wrote:Xiphos is pissing people off again re: absolutely random shit? Well, that's nothing new, I must say~ Apparantly, he still thinks he knows better than the people directly involved in the matter. Self denial is a good skill toi have.
Cracked me up that you needed to edit the "i" on "toi" in. :D
Guess i'll call it a night, 5:30 in the morning is kinda a good bedtime *sigh* .. Have a nice evening anyway (or whatever time it is for you).
|
Xiphos...just stop it man....keep some peacefulness alive in this thread....
or else...mods will take action...just stop
|
On October 21 2012 12:23 NightOfTheDead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:20 babylon wrote:Xiphos is pissing people off again re: absolutely random shit? Well, that's nothing new, I must say~ Apparantely, he still thinks he knows better than the people directly involved in the matter. Self denial is a good skill toi have.
Lol, I'm literally bursting in laughter at this very instance. Like did you even read carefully about what I've wrote? TB haven't yet to respond man. Sorry man but this grin is making typing pretty difficult....
but okay, alright now that I maintained my composure, yeah I'm in no way trying to undermine TB in any way with the first post on this whole 'sentence situation' but was concerned about his intentions that could 'hurt electronic sport' in any other way. And then he opened up a can of worms. And I later provided with evidence to which oh by the way didn't even respond to it as far as now I'm typing this.
So perhaps, I can't think that I know better than the people directly involved in the matter because I have never even stated that in the first place.
But hey use whatever medical terms in conjunction with internet memes you want man. Its all good.
On October 21 2012 12:29 dynwar7 wrote:
Xiphos...just stop it man....keep some peacefulness alive in this thread....
or else...mods will take action...just stop
Alright, alright. I'll put off posting on this thread. But I'm just really eager to hear what TB have to say, its eating me up alive now.
|
On October 21 2012 12:30 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:23 NightOfTheDead wrote:On October 21 2012 12:20 babylon wrote:Xiphos is pissing people off again re: absolutely random shit? Well, that's nothing new, I must say~ Apparantely, he still thinks he knows better than the people directly involved in the matter. Self denial is a good skill toi have. Lol, I'm literally bursting in laughter at this very instance. Like did you even read carefully about what I've wrote? TB haven't yet to respond man. Sorry man but this grin is making typing pretty difficult.... but okay, alright now that I maintained my composure, yeah I'm in no way trying to undermine TB in any way with the first post on this whole 'sentence situation' but was concerned about his intentions that could 'hurt electronic sport' in any other way. And then he opened up a can of worms. And I later provided with evidence to which oh by the way didn't even respond to it as far as now I'm typing this. So perhaps, I can't think that I know better than the people directly involved in the matter because I have never even stated that in the first place. But hey use whatever medical terms in conjunction with internet memes you want man. Its all good.
You had no evidence whatsoever. Thats what is pissing people off. Your so called evidence is heresay and blustering that is completely meaningless just like that grin on your face. You are trolling yourself now
|
Isn't today TB's wedding anniversary with his wife, holy Jesus, stop expecting him to provide "evidence" or to "clarify himself" right now right at your command. Let the guy get a day of bliss and peace, okay?
|
On October 21 2012 12:12 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:04 GolemMadness wrote:On October 21 2012 11:56 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 21 2012 11:50 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words.
Edit: now I think about it, it could very well be the later case, disappointed man. (We tried to just do the whole "he's going to release a statement") / (and got accused of PR bullshit) /(and deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.) The problem is entirely you. Fixed that fox you. Because "We deliberately timing..." apparently passes your understanding of English grammar. I suggest you stop wasting posts on petty semantics, because no one in their right mind is actually going to agree with you. Say what you like. TB could have easily said "We got accused of PR bullshit in deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it." which would have made much more sense. He fucked it up and just to embarrassed to admit. And people you really stop valuing people higher than you in life just because of their 'fame'. On October 21 2012 11:52 Oktyabr wrote:On October 21 2012 11:46 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:44 Oktyabr wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words. Or your comprehension is terrible. I could easily infer that he's being accused of: 1)PR bullshit AND 2)deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it. You're trying too hard, lol. You just sucks at English. lmao Not really. I recognize that the sentence structure isn't perfect, but I don't spend 4 posts harping on it, while deliberately misinterpreting it in order to put him in bad light even after he has already indicated his frustration in his first reply back to you. And you just "sucks" at English? Really? The irony here... Because I'm a man here (unlike some other particular individual), I'll have to admit that it was down at very quick pace so yes I accidentely slipped in the 's'. There. But you are completely wrong because out of the 4 posts, only 1 was to systematically breaking down the word while the first one was really an intro to my thoughts, and the other two being a debate to a few people that decided to play the 'memory selection' game with themselves. "only 1 was to systematically breaking down the word" That doesn't even mean anything. My god, just admit that you were wrong and stop this "Your grammar wasn't perfect, therefore you're in the wrong here." Everyone understood what he meant. Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 12:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 21 2012 11:56 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 21 2012 11:50 Xiphos wrote:On October 21 2012 11:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 21 2012 11:38 Xiphos wrote:
Subject = We
clause # 1: do the whole "he's going to release a statement."
clause # 2: got accused of PR bullshit
clause # 3: deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Those are the three separate action to the initial subject. By that definition they are deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.
Its either that or TB isn't able to use simple conjunction English words.
Edit: now I think about it, it could very well be the later case, disappointed man. (We tried to just do the whole "he's going to release a statement") / (and got accused of PR bullshit) /(and deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it.) The problem is entirely you. Fixed that fox you. Because "We deliberately timing..." apparently passes your understanding of English grammar. I suggest you stop wasting posts on petty semantics, because no one in their right mind is actually going to agree with you. Say what you like. TB could have easily said "We got accused of PR bullshit in deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it." which would have made much more sense. He fucked it up and just to embarrassed to admit. And people you really stop valuing people higher than you in life just because of their 'fame'. Yes, if absolutely no one else has issues interpreting his sentence properly, it's because you're the only sane man in the crowd. You spent an entire page of discussion harping on grammar and pretending that it meant something scandalous. It didn't. Deal with it. And all those posts are only understood after TB cleared it out. But wait, you are all going to say "Nah b, I understood it beforehand." but y'know there is absolutely no way to prove that at your expanse either. Which means that you couldn't possibly prove your arguments in any coherency. At least my arguments were presented with tangible substance. For shame.
"and got accused of PR bullshit and deliberately timing the statement so Jessica couldn't respond to it."
So, what exactly did you think that this meant? There's no other possible interpretation. It doesn't say WE'RE timing the statement. It doesn't say I'M timing the statement. It says got accused of X and Y. Any misinterpretation is ENTIRELY your fault.
|
United States97274 Posts
Grammar debates on the internet never end well.
|
This thread is the insanity of TL.Net manifested, and everyone who dedicates time to actually post in it gets sucked into the madness if they stay too long. This is why Total Biscuit stopped posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
