Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Gul's Psychotic Break/WF Implosion Banpool...

*sigh*

Word Forge thread that needs help

1) English has no genders for nouns (other than in colloquial use such as sailors calling a ship "she"). There are no exceptions to this. It simply isn't part of the language structure.​

Blondes wear panties (or possibly thongs). Blonds wear underpants.
The masculine word for "brunette" is "guy" because we decided not to talk about bruns.
The masculine word for "blouse" is "shirt".
Clothing and style have many gender specific nouns.

4) Modern English does not require learning different verbal forms for singular and plural "you". That has disappeared from the language, in every English-speaking country in the world.​

I hope y'all don't believe that.

5) Plurals of nouns in English are made by adding "s" or, in the case of a noun that already ends with "s", by adding "es". Though there are exceptions to this, they are by no means "mostly" the case.​

Actually we add a "z", which is the default plural ending in Germanic languages. English pronunciation rules do the rest. That's why two saws aren't called "sauce", they're "sawz". Under earlier rules you could not pile up unvoiced fricatives, so we didn't have knifes, wifes, and staffs, we have knives, wives, and staves. And as even childs know, sometimes we don't use the "z" rule, as do any silly gooses who insist on strong vowels.

The pluralization debate sometimes comes up in discussions between college alumnuses. English incorporates the rules of many languages, including French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, and possibly some Hindi and Lord knows what else. And these oddities recur in modern times. If you had one DEC VAX and bought another, you have two Vaxen, from ox - oxen.
 
Nono responded to the above mistakes with:

Consider the difference between "Fred ate nachos" and "Fred has eaten nachos" and "Fred was eating nachos". These are effing hard to master.
​
No, those are not hard to master. What is hard to master is the socially appropriate (or at least legally defensible) beat down of Fred for eating all the goddamn nachos.
 
And Asyncritus replied with "All that typing, and not one word to defend your statement that English has "mostly exceptions". All you did was move the goalposts so many times they must be getting dizzy by now..."

Nono didn't move any goalposts. He explained what every non-native speaker knows about English.

Sadly, Gul banned several actual English speakers who understand their native language, along with all its quirks.
 
'Gear said:
Obviously, Fred hates Mexicans.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect.

Consider the difference between "Fred ate nachos" and "Fred has eaten nachos" and "Fred was eating nachos". These are effing hard to master.​

"Fred ate nachos" is not so simple. It could be past tense or an observation from third person ceiling cat making a note on the death of Fred.

"Fred has eaten nachos" could be a declarative statement to indicate to assembled crowd that Fred must die for eating the sacred nachos ("Fred has eaten nachos!"), at which point they swarm him and fuck him in the butt with a spear until he bleeds out through his ass, or it could be a simple statement by the coroner who has sliced dead Fred open to examine his stomach contents after the crowd that killed Fred wandered home.

"Fred was eating nachos" could be a third person reference to the state that the arm of God's vengeance found Fred before they killed him, or it could be a simple past tense statement explaining how they found them before they killed him. "Fred was eating nachos" as the priests and managers of all-you-can-eat cantinas walked in" vs. "Fred was eating nachos. He looked up as a 9mm wadcutter blew out the back of his skull."

There's really no English construct under which Fred doesn't die a horrible death. Learn the nuances of the English language, and for God sakes don't name you son Fred.
 
That reminds me of an old European fable:

Little Phoebe once fell off a tall building and died.

Moral #1: Don't fall off tall buildings.

Moral #2: Don't die.

Moral #3: Don't be Little Phoebe.
 
gturner said:
You are incorrect.

Consider the difference between "Fred ate nachos" and "Fred has eaten nachos" and "Fred was eating nachos". These are effing hard to master.​

"Fred ate nachos" is not so simple. It could be past tense or an observation from third person ceiling cat making a note on the death of Fred.

"Fred has eaten nachos" could be a declarative statement to indicate to assembled crowd that Fred must die for eating the sacred nachos ("Fred has eaten nachos!"), at which point they swarm him and fuck him in the butt with a spear until he bleeds out through his ass, or it could be a simple statement by the coroner who has sliced dead Fred open to examine his stomach contents after the crowd that killed Fred wandered home.

"Fred was eating nachos" could be a third person reference to the state that the arm of God's vengeance found Fred before they killed him, or it could be a simple past tense statement explaining how they found them before they killed him. "Fred was eating nachos" as the priests and managers of all-you-can-eat cantinas walked in" vs. "Fred was eating nachos. He looked up as a 9mm wadcutter blew out the back of his skull."

There's really no English construct under which Fred doesn't die a horrible death. Learn the nuances of the English language, and for God sakes don't name you son Fred.
Click to expand...

Fine.

Fred is uncomfortable with some aspects of Latino culture but finds foods that pay homage to the same to be an acceptable bridge to a people he doesn't truly understand.

Hate was a little strong.
 
WF serious problem thread

John said:
gturner had a ban caused by a thousand cuts. There wasn't any one sole reason, and banning him had been on the table for some time. He was made aware of how close he was to a ban, but he ignored admonishments by the Administrative staff, and continued his behavior. That is as straightforward as it gets.​

And that's an out and out lie. I never even received a warning about anything. My PM box had absolutely nothing from the mods until after I was stripped of all access, and then the only thing the two messages said was that I was stripped of all posting privileges and that I wasn't allowed to send PM"s to anyone.

Throughout it all, John has done nothing but lie.

ETA:

Hell, by the time we started seeing the notices come in, he had let at least 5 people into his account at that point. It may have been more.​

Another lie.
 
In the above thread, Ancalagon said:

Right. While he was initially banned by Anna for the reason she gave, he's stayed banned for violating the don't come here to be an asshole rule. He was only here to troll by spamming up every single thread with crazy conspiracy BS. You only need a couple people to take the bait and then the thread is done.

Seeing how much he can fuck up discussion and how long he can last at a board is his game. At TK he's bragged about his ability to do it from the left as well as the right.​

Bwuahahahaha!!!!

Since I've left the few remaining political threads have said little except "Hillary was sabotaged by Comey! The voters were tricked by fake news! The election was hacked by the Russians! Hillary can still win in the electoral college because she won the popular vote!"

Conspiracy theories indeed.

The people "taking the bait" were the ones interested in discussing reality, which the left tried to shut out or shout down during the entire election cycle. It didn't work out well for them because from top to bottom they believed their own delusions. Hillary thus spent her time at elite fundraisers in Hollywood and Martha's Vineyard instead of actually, you know, campaigning, especially in places like the Rust Belt. She had the entire media establishment lying their ass off for her. She had every celebrity endorsement this side of Jupiter. She spent $1.2 billion dollars on her campaign. She had almost every poll showing her winning in a landslide. The LA Times projected that she'd win with 350 electoral votes.

She got 232.

None of their ridiculous bans or rules can change that.
 
same thread:

John said:

Yeah, yeah, poor gturner, totally ignored by the Admins, I get it. While we're at it, I have a really nice bridge to sell you.​

This is from the guy who built a violet room as a special prison for gturner, stupidly locked him out of it, and forbade him from contacting any other members via PM. That's also the same guy who has continually lied about sending me any warnings. He was personally insulted in response to throwing a hissy fit, and so he went off on a sick quest for vengeance and control - and lied his ass off to the mods, making them look more like fools than they otherwise would have.

When they're finished, Word Forge will be a safe space for My Little Pony, and the only commenters still active will be John, Gul, Tererun, and Nova.
 
gturner said:
WF serious problem thread

John said:
gturner had a ban caused by a thousand cuts. There wasn't any one sole reason, and banning him had been on the table for some time. He was made aware of how close he was to a ban, but he ignored admonishments by the Administrative staff, and continued his behavior. That is as straightforward as it gets.​

And that's an out and out lie. I never even received a warning about anything. My PM box had absolutely nothing from the mods until after I was stripped of all access, and then the only thing the two messages said was that I was stripped of all posting privileges and that I wasn't allowed to send PM"s to anyone.

Throughout it all, John has done nothing but lie.

ETA:

Hell, by the time we started seeing the notices come in, he had let at least 5 people into his account at that point. It may have been more.​

Another lie.
Click to expand...

We all know John is full of shit and every other word out of his mouth is a lie. You can pretty much assume the exact opposite of anything he says and be correct.
 
You really do have what a visionary George Orwell was. Coming up on 70 years since he wrote "1984" and it's all there. Doublespeak, Memory Holes, Disappearing inconvenient people, Room 101, 2 Minutes Hate, Thought Crimes. nuWF in a nutshell. This is what happens when you let totalitarian statists get into power.

But remember: They're doing it for your own good. :)
 
Well, Dayton has left. How many regular posters must be driven off before the current egotistical fuck ups realize their totalitarian tactics are killing the board? It will be a sad little place with just the same four posters agreeing with each over and over. over
 
Oerdin said:
What do people think of Packard's proposed compromise on Gul's rules changes? It seems better than Gul's proposal though I do have a concern about it being so broad and open to interpretation as Gul has shown he is ready and willing to use the rules unequally against people he dislikes. John may have stepped down but he still has access to the mods forum and no doubt is trying to spread his poison behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
John hasn't set foot in the Shelter since stepping down.

Not everything is a conspiracy, you paranoid giblet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top