Alaska Darin Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Just don't you want to think you're a special snowflake with some kind of powerfully Truthful insight. Cause you're not. You mean because I give a crap about your opinion on anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Just don't you want to think you're a special snowflake with some kind of powerfully Truthful insight. Cause you're not. That might be the worst sentence I've seen in PPP since dog was banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 That might be the worst sentence I've seen in PPP since dog was banned. Those were actually two sentences and I've definitely seen worse here. The period after the first is the giveaway. I'll try to be clearer in the future. You mean because I give a crap about your opinion on anything? *Yawn* How typical...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Oh goodie. Fresh meat. So do you have a substantive gripe with libertarian philosophy, and if so what do you prefer? Edit: nevermind. I was curious whether you were an idiot or a statist kneeler. After seeing the O'Reilly thread I see you are both. He's not fresh. Just a new name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Those were actually two sentences and I've definitely seen worse here. The period after the first is the giveaway. I'll try to be clearer in the future. IT STILL WAS'NT GOOD BUT I"VE DEFINATELY SEEN WORSE LIKE THIS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!11! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) Those were actually two sentences and I've definitely seen worse here. The period after the first is the giveaway. I'll try to be clearer in the future. *Yawn* How typical...lol I'm aware there were two sentences, and I was referring to the first. I see you comprehend about as well as you post. Nice "gotcha" moment though, dolt. Edited July 24, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Those were actually two sentences and I've definitely seen worse here. The period after the first is the giveaway. I'll try to be clearer in the future. *Yawn* How typical...lol No, there was only once sentence, the poorly written one. The group of words after that giveaway period does not constitute a sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Quick. Argue about grammar so you forget about the real issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Quick. Argue about grammar so you forget about the real issues. What "real" issue ? A staff member of a U.S. Senator resigned............................................................................... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Quick. Argue about grammar so you forget about the real issues. "Quick" isn't a sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 When I want to express the magnitude of my lack of caring I say " Alaska Darin times Alaska Darin" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 I'm aware there were two sentences, and I was referring to the first. I see you comprehend about as well as you post. Nice "gotcha" moment though, dolt. I was just trying for a content-appropriate response. Would you care to dissect that first sentence and analyze what you find so appalling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 What's stopping you from putting a shirt on? The government!?! Lol They might stop me from putting on the kind of shirt I want. We they start taking 40% or more of the fruits of MY labor they are stopping me from doing a lot of things. Kind of financial oppression don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) No, there was only once sentence, the poorly written one. The group of words after that giveaway period does not constitute a sentence. Ah, I just re-read it. The first should have read: Just don't want you to think you're a special snowflake with some kind of powerfully Truthful insight. (Leading 'I' omitted as a stylistic choice, 'don't you want' instead of 'don't want you' because of temporary dyslexia) As far as I can tell, the phrase following the period is a legitimate sentence, whatever you may think about its quality: Cause you're not. (Leading ''' or 'Be' omitted as a stylistic choice) When I want to express the magnitude of my lack of caring I say " Alaska Darin times Alaska Darin" "Alaska Darin times Alaska Darin" is a sentence lacking only in punctuation. They might stop me from putting on the kind of shirt I want. We they start taking 40% or more of the fruits of MY labor they are stopping me from doing a lot of things. Kind of financial oppression don't you think? You should move to China. I hear they have implemented the best free market currently in existence! Edited July 24, 2013 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 They might stop me from putting on the kind of shirt I want. We they start taking 40% or more of the fruits of MY labor they are stopping me from doing a lot of things. Kind of financial oppression don't you think? I wouldn't bother if I were you. I was talking about 'covering your backside' and he immediately thought 'shirt', missing the metaphor completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) I was just trying for a content-appropriate response. Would you care to dissect that first sentence and analyze what you find so appalling? Sure, I'll give it a shot. I'm going to ignore grammar and punctuation, as we are all guilty of occasional slip ups, and focus more on style. Just don't you want to think you're a special snowflake with some kind of powerfully Truthful insight. You were hot out of the gates and off to a strong start until you stumbled on the always tricky third word of the sentence, where you placed "you" before "want", effectively confusing the reader right off the bat. Next we see the phrase "special snowflake" where you use two words which essentially convey the same idea. A tad redundant, but the alliterative effect was nice. The real issue is your next phrase "powerfully Truthful insight". Its a terribly clumsy string of words. "Powerfully truthful" is bad enough on its own as those two words just sound bad in conjunction and communicate little. When stringed together with "truthful insight", which is also pure dog sh$t, it sounds even worse. Insight implies truth. Totally redundant and again it just sounds terrible. How about keen insight? Cut down the words, improve the flow, actually communicate something. Like this: Just don't want you to think you're a special snowflake possessing some kind of uniquely keen insight. its still a weird sentence which could benefit from losing the whole snowflake part, but it flows much better. Edited July 24, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Sure, I'll give it a shot. I'm going to ignore grammar and punctuation, as we are all guilty of occasional slip ups, and focus more on style. You were hot out of the gates and off to a strong start until you stumbled on the always tricky third word of the sentence, where you placed "you" before "want", effectively confusing the reader right off the bat. Next we see the phrase "special snowflake" where you use two words which essentially convey the same idea. A tad redundant, but the alliterative effect was nice. The real issue is your next phrase "powerfully Truthful insight". Its a terribly clumsy string of words. "Powerfully truthful" is bad enough on its own as those two words just sound bad in conjunction and communicate little. When stringed together with "truthful insight", which is also pure dog sh$t, it sounds even worse. Insight implies truth. Totally redundant and again it just sounds terrible. How about keen insight? Cut down the words, improve the flow, actually communicate something. Like this: its still a weird sentence which could benefit from losing the whole snowflake part, but it flows much better. I already corrected myself. The snowflake part is a reference to Fight Club. Truthfully, with an emphasis on the capital 'T', conveys additional meaning that your re-write does not, in my grammatically-incorrect opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Ah, I just re-read it. The first should have read: Just don't want you to think you're a special snowflake with some kind of powerfully Truthful insight. (Leading 'I' omitted as a stylistic choice, 'don't you want' instead of 'don't want you' because of temporary dyslexia) As far as I can tell, the phrase following the period is a legitimate sentence, whatever you may think about its quality: Cause you're not. (Leading ''' or 'Be' omitted as a stylistic choice) "Alaska Darin times Alaska Darin" is a sentence lacking only in punctuation. You should move to China. I hear they have implemented the best free market currently in existence! It is not a complete sentence. (hint---sentences need more than a capital letter and a period) Here's a little primer for you: http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/completesentence.htm Avoid an accidental fragment. Sometimes you might begin a group of words with a capital letter, then conclude with an end mark, but forget to insert a main clause anywhere in the mix. When this happens, you have written a fragment, a major error in writing. Read the examples that follow: Because hungry sharks flashed on the surface of the waves. No main clause = a fragment. Spilling the hot spaghetti sauce all over his new suede shoes. No main clause = a fragment. To buy nice jewelry for his greedy girlfriend Gloria. No main clause = a fragment. For example, a mailbox stuffed with bills, two dozen messages on the answering machine, an uppity cat, and a dead lawn. No main clause = a fragment. And peeked into the room, risking the wrath of Mrs. Mauzy, who has no patience for students walking into class late. No main clause = a fragment. Read the revisions below. You will see that adding a main clause completes the thought: Because hungry sharks flashed on the surface of the waves, Mike and Sarah decided to return their surfboards to the car. Leonardo grabbed the pot handle with his bare hands, spilling the hot spaghetti sauce all over his new suede shoes. Danny sold half of his comic book collection to buy nice jewelry for his greedy girlfriend Gloria. For example, April found a mailbox stuffed with bills, two dozen messages on the answering machine, an uppity cat, and a dead lawn. Sherry turned the doorknob and peeked into the room, risking the wrath of Mrs. Mauzy, who has no patience for students walking into class late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) Normally I don't reply to your bloviating, rambling idiocy, but are you actually suggesting that the Chinese government does not control China's "free" market??? No. Reading comprehension is important, especially for someone with your limited abilities. I specifically asked: which way has China been moving, towards socialist ideals, or towards libertarian ideals? Because you are a moron: I will answer for you, it is the latter. That is the best example of libertarian ideals being PARTIALLY implemented, and, the OUTCOME demonstrates their superiority over socialist ideals. So, no, your premise, that both are = in that both cannot be implemented in the real world: is false. EDIT: I posted the above before reading the rest of the thread. Gotta love it when you literally prove "your limited abilites" in your very next post, Frenkle. This is why I like Frenkle: I never have to work that hard. He even demonstrated his lack of reading ability, as if on cue. Edited July 24, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 It is not a complete sentence. (hint---sentences need more than a capital letter and a period) Here's a little primer for you: http://www.chompchom...etesentence.htm Avoid an accidental fragment. Sometimes you might begin a group of words with a capital letter, then conclude with an end mark, but forget to insert a main clause anywhere in the mix. When this happens, you have written a fragment, a major error in writing. Read the examples that follow: Because hungry sharks flashed on the surface of the waves. No main clause = a fragment. Spilling the hot spaghetti sauce all over his new suede shoes. No main clause = a fragment. To buy nice jewelry for his greedy girlfriend Gloria. No main clause = a fragment. For example, a mailbox stuffed with bills, two dozen messages on the answering machine, an uppity cat, and a dead lawn. No main clause = a fragment. And peeked into the room, risking the wrath of Mrs. Mauzy, who has no patience for students walking into class late. No main clause = a fragment. Read the revisions below. You will see that adding a main clause completes the thought: Because hungry sharks flashed on the surface of the waves, Mike and Sarah decided to return their surfboards to the car. Leonardo grabbed the pot handle with his bare hands, spilling the hot spaghetti sauce all over his new suede shoes. Danny sold half of his comic book collection to buy nice jewelry for his greedy girlfriend Gloria. For example, April found a mailbox stuffed with bills, two dozen messages on the answering machine, an uppity cat, and a dead lawn. Sherry turned the doorknob and peeked into the room, risking the wrath of Mrs. Mauzy, who has no patience for students walking into class late. Good job, I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts