BS: Non posting of judgements week.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:18 PM

If those who do not say what they mean and do not mean what they say are to be compared unfavorably against those who do say what they do not mean but do not necessarily not say what they don't mean then it could have an unsettling effect on those among us who are well-intentioned enough to not not say what we do mean, notwithstanding some cases of those who do not mean what they do not say whether or not they don't say it. If I am right, the community that is represented on this forum, a community which one feels should provide the membership with a feeling of comradely equality as one would expect and as one would think would be normal among what are termed friends would preclude the censoring or alteration of things said or not said by persons unnamed who seem to feel that they have the right to interject their rude comments upon others and yet to act in such a way that those others are, in effect, quashed and find themselves being forced to say what they do not mean or to mean what they do not say.

This should be entirely clear to any unprejudiced person, should it not? Perhaps it is time these issues were discussed honestly and in a spirit of goodwill on this forum?

(la..la..la..) (walking away, whistling) ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 08:42 PM

Do you need to play golf with the boss and lose?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:03 AM

LMAO @ Hawkster...........An outstanding job my Man. You only forgot the "Shamble's Crowning Touch" where Sham runs his first draft of mutilated syntax through Babelfish to achieve the "Complete Jibberish Effect." I have taken that liberty for you and we have the result below:

If those who does not say that what means and does not mean that what says must be confronts unfavorable against those who says to you that what does not mean but necessarily does not say that that what then does not mean could have a disturbing effect on those between we that they are well-intentioned in order not to say enough that what we mean, in spite of some cases of those who does not mean that what does not say if or they do not say it. If they are of right, the Community that is represented on this tribune, a Community that one thinks would have to supply with of the members a sensibility comradely of the equality poichè would preview itself and poichè it would be believed would be normal between that what is calls the precluderebbe friends to you the censorship or the alteration of the things has said or said from the specified persons who they do not seem to think that their observations have the right interject rude on others but to behave im such way that those others, in effects, quashed and to find that they are forced to say that what does not mean or they do not mean that what does not say. That would have to be entire clear is of unprejudiced the person, would have it not? Perhaps it is time that these editions have been discussed honestly and in one spirit of the good will on this tribune?

And btw..........................

Do you need to eat shit and die?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:33 AM

Thanks for making my point so well....

And for refreshing this thread too.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:34 AM

Losing to the boss at golf

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:09 AM

"Behave im such a way" Spaw? Tut tut!