Another terrorist attack

[Pogo]

All bettah.

What's Lud "lying" about then, since it's not in the title?

Is the story itself not true?
And no, pointing out how English works is not "dishonest". If it is, it makes you dishonest too, since you just agreed that I am correct.

Hiya.

Was there another terrorist attack?

Did someone say there was?

Again I ask, since I didn't get an answer -- is the story not true? Yes or no?

One can only infer from reading the title that there was. Hence the lie. The story is true. Do you have a point?

Then that's on you. The title says no such thing. So if there's a "lie", it belongs to you.

Title: "Another terrorist attack".
That's it. No verb.
"Another terrorist attack" could be followed by "thwarted by FBI". It could be followed by "likely". It could be followed by anything.

But it wasn't. You plugged it in from your own imagination.
Whose fault is that? Yours, that's who.
You're right back where you started. When I pointed this out the first time you called it "dishonest" and even "creepy".
But there it is. You own the whole thing. Man up. The only "dishonesty" here is your own.

You want to argue semantics. Too bad. The author does not get off on a technicality. In spirt he was lying....Yes or no?

Once again, the answer is NO. How many times do you have to be told? Do you not understand what a sentence structure is?

Try this: if there's a lie, what is it? State it or paraprhase it.
Can't do it. Doesn't exist. No verb.

While it's not my title I'd bet there's no verb for a reason, and that that reason is to be deliberately vague, so that the curious reader clicks in to check it out. It's what we call a "teaser".

Worked on you, worked on me. So here we are. Big fuckin' deal. Put on your big boy pants if you can find 'em, move on, and make your point that the story is not true, or whatever it is your point is besides whining like a three-year-old.

 

[Rocko]

Was there another terrorist attack?

Did someone say there was?

Again I ask, since I didn't get an answer -- is the story not true? Yes or no?

One can only infer from reading the title that there was. Hence the lie. The story is true. Do you have a point?

Then that's on you. The title says no such thing. So if there's a "lie", it belongs to you.

Title: "Another terrorist attack".
That's it. No verb.
"Another terrorist attack" could be followed by "thwarted by FBI". It could be followed by "likely". It could be followed by anything.

But it wasn't. You plugged it in from your own imagination.
Whose fault is that? Yours, that's who.
You're right back where you started. When I pointed this out the first time you called it "dishonest" and even "creepy".
But there it is. You own the whole thing. Man up. The only "dishonesty" here is your own.

You want to argue semantics. Too bad. The author does not get off on a technicality. In spirt he was lying....Yes or no?

Once again, the answer is NO. How many times do you have to be told? Do you not understand what a sentence structure is?

Try this: if there's a lie, what is it? State it or paraprhase it.
Can't do it. Doesn't exist. No verb.

While it's not my title I'd bet there's no verb for a reason, and that that reason is to be deliberately vague, so that the curious reader clicks in to check it out. It's what we call a "teaser".

Worked on you, worked on me. So here we are. Big fuckin' deal. Put on your big boy pants if you can find 'em, move on, and make your point that the story is not true, or whatever it is your point is besides whining like a three-year-old.

How many times do you have to be told I'm not arguing grammar with you? Technicaly you're correct but in actuality you'e not.

 

[Pogo]

Did someone say there was?

Again I ask, since I didn't get an answer -- is the story not true? Yes or no?

One can only infer from reading the title that there was. Hence the lie. The story is true. Do you have a point?

Then that's on you. The title says no such thing. So if there's a "lie", it belongs to you.

Title: "Another terrorist attack".
That's it. No verb.
"Another terrorist attack" could be followed by "thwarted by FBI". It could be followed by "likely". It could be followed by anything.

But it wasn't. You plugged it in from your own imagination.
Whose fault is that? Yours, that's who.
You're right back where you started. When I pointed this out the first time you called it "dishonest" and even "creepy".
But there it is. You own the whole thing. Man up. The only "dishonesty" here is your own.

You want to argue semantics. Too bad. The author does not get off on a technicality. In spirt he was lying....Yes or no?

Once again, the answer is NO. How many times do you have to be told? Do you not understand what a sentence structure is?

Try this: if there's a lie, what is it? State it or paraprhase it.
Can't do it. Doesn't exist. No verb.

While it's not my title I'd bet there's no verb for a reason, and that that reason is to be deliberately vague, so that the curious reader clicks in to check it out. It's what we call a "teaser".

Worked on you, worked on me. So here we are. Big fuckin' deal. Put on your big boy pants if you can find 'em, move on, and make your point that the story is not true, or whatever it is your point is besides whining like a three-year-old.

How many times do you have to be told I'm not arguing grammar with you? Technicaly you're correct but in actuality you'e not.

That's a contradiction. You're just gonna have to admit you're wrong.

 

[Esmeralda]

At USMB, each member can quote whomever they like, it's not against the rules. Just to be clear.


Now, back to the OP:

Another terrorist attack

How about those Peach State turrurists!?!=?!?

Yes I'm well aware each member is free to quote whomever they like. I told that poster not to qoute me because I have no interest in being part of any discussion with him/her. I beleive that poster to be dishonest in debating and frankly creepy.

It's "dishonest" and "creepy" to point out how English works?

Squire, there is nothing "creepy" about the great English language.
A pox on you and your ilk forthwith heretofore withal and shit.

Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh boy, that tickled my funny bone!

Dat's why I love Anglish. You can do so much wid it. It's like goulash.

Meanwhile -- back at the topic.... terrorism cell in Georgia...

Georgia... Georgia... isn't that right next to that Muslim state? What's it called?
"Al-Abama". That's it. Scary place.

Yep, I hear they sleep with their sisters in Alabummer.

Don't these 3 look intelligent! And they discussed their shenanigans online! How stupid can you get?

There are a couple of RWers around here that I worry about. I just wonder if they're as crazy as the 3 above?

Possibly as crazy, definitely as stupid.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When some Christian wack job goes on a rampage, he isn't part of an organized group of people with funding,

Obviously you have never heard of organizations like Operation Rescue.

If i havent heard of them, then obviously they arent as big of a problem as AQ or ISIS are, which is why you dont hear people complaining about them.

Probably because they were forced to rename themselves "Operation Save America" after the RICO lawsuits from We the People.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Was there another terrorist attack?

Did someone say there was?

Again I ask, since I didn't get an answer -- is the story not true? Yes or no?

One can only infer from reading the title that there was. Hence the lie. The story is true. Do you have a point?

Then that's on you. The title says no such thing. So if there's a "lie", it belongs to you.

Title: "Another terrorist attack".
That's it. No verb.
"Another terrorist attack" could be followed by "thwarted by FBI". It could be followed by "likely". It could be followed by anything.

But it wasn't. You plugged it in from your own imagination.
Whose fault is that? Yours, that's who.
You're right back where you started. When I pointed this out the first time you called it "dishonest" and even "creepy".
But there it is. You own the whole thing. Man up. The only "dishonesty" here is your own.

You want to argue semantics. Too bad. The author does not get off on a technicality. In spirt he was lying....Yes or no?

Once again, the answer is NO. How many times do you have to be told? Do you not understand what a sentence structure is?

Try this: if there's a lie, what is it? State it or paraprhase it.
Can't do it. Doesn't exist. No verb.

While it's not my title I'd bet there's no verb for a reason, and that that reason is to be deliberately vague, so that the curious reader clicks in to check it out. It's what we call a "teaser".

Worked on you, worked on me. So here we are. Big fuckin' deal. Put on your big boy pants if you can find 'em, move on, and make your point that the story is not true, or whatever it is your point is besides whining like a three-year-old.

Q: What do you say to a "Rocko" that has two black eyes?

A: Nothing. You already told him twice! (giggle)

 

[Harry Dresden]

There's no verb in it. In English a lie needs a verb in order to exist.

Duh.

Don't quote me again. I think you're an idiot. Thanks.

At USMB, each member can quote whomever they like, it's not against the rules. Just to be clear.


Now, back to the OP:

Another terrorist attack

How about those Peach State turrurists!?!=?!?

Yes I'm well aware each member is free to quote whomever they like. I told that poster not to qoute me because I have no interest in being part of any discussion with him/her. I beleive that poster to be dishonest in debating and frankly creepy.

who Pogo?.....Pogo is a good guy...

I dunno. Maybe I have him confused with another poster. If I do I apologize.

maybe guno?......pogo...guno?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

was foiled before it could happen, thanks to the damned good work of the FBI.

oh...because the title of the story said there was one.....so luddy is now doing dean type of threads.....

Harry Dresden

You're correct. My title is wrong.

Now, how often have you pointed out the errors lies in RW thread titles?

Never.

You want me to police the posts made by libs but you don't do the same for RWs.

all i said was your title was very misleading.....nothing else.....so where did the rest of the shit come in?.....you have told me more than once you dont read everything,especially what i say.....so how the fuck would you know if i dont get on "rw's" about their threads?....we have already done this dance luddy not more than a week ago....and after i said the same thing to you i just said here.....you never came back and gave me an answer....care to do it now?...if you dont read everything posted.....how the fuck do you know?.....

once again luddy does something he is good at.....run from a thread when he gets asked a tough question....

Whuuuuuuu?????

read the exchange.....did he answer the question?.....

 

[Pogo]

oh...because the title of the story said there was one.....so luddy is now doing dean type of threads.....

Harry Dresden

You're correct. My title is wrong.

Now, how often have you pointed out the errors lies in RW thread titles?

Never.

You want me to police the posts made by libs but you don't do the same for RWs.

all i said was your title was very misleading.....nothing else.....so where did the rest of the shit come in?.....you have told me more than once you dont read everything,especially what i say.....so how the fuck would you know if i dont get on "rw's" about their threads?....we have already done this dance luddy not more than a week ago....and after i said the same thing to you i just said here.....you never came back and gave me an answer....care to do it now?...if you dont read everything posted.....how the fuck do you know?.....

once again luddy does something he is good at.....run from a thread when he gets asked a tough question....

Whuuuuuuu?????

read the exchange.....did he answer the question?.....

How is it a 'question' anyway?
The title cannot be "misleading" since it has no verb to "lead". It may be suggestive but that's as far as it goes.
Is it such a mountain to climb to get past a thread title and into a topic? Seems a bit ADHD.

Actually it seems like a tactic to avoid the topic...

The title is neutral, intentionally vague and as already noted could be inferred different ways. As such, it's actually linguistically brilliant in its economy.

For instance it can also be read as...
"[there exists] one (kind of) terrorist attack.... (the kind we get drowned in constantly)
[here is] Another terrorist attack (another kind that we don't)

Get past it already. It's a news article, not a headline-writing class.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Harry Dresden

You're correct. My title is wrong.

Now, how often have you pointed out the errors lies in RW thread titles?

Never.

You want me to police the posts made by libs but you don't do the same for RWs.

all i said was your title was very misleading.....nothing else.....so where did the rest of the shit come in?.....you have told me more than once you dont read everything,especially what i say.....so how the fuck would you know if i dont get on "rw's" about their threads?....we have already done this dance luddy not more than a week ago....and after i said the same thing to you i just said here.....you never came back and gave me an answer....care to do it now?...if you dont read everything posted.....how the fuck do you know?.....

once again luddy does something he is good at.....run from a thread when he gets asked a tough question....

Whuuuuuuu?????

read the exchange.....did he answer the question?.....

How is it a 'question' anyway?
The title cannot be "misleading" since it has no verb to "lead". It may be suggestive but that's as far as it goes.
Is it such a mountain to climb to get past a thread title and into a topic? Seems a bit ADHD.

Actually it seems like a tactic to avoid the topic...

The title is neutral, intentionally vague and as already noted could be inferred different ways. As such, it's actually linguistically brilliant in its economy.

For instance it can also be read as...
"[there exists] one (kind of) terrorist attack.... (the kind we get drowned in constantly)
[here is] Another terrorist attack (another kind that we don't)

Get past it already. It's a news article, not a headline-writing class.

did i say it was a question?.....it said ...another terrorist attack.....which there wasnt.....so i asked where was the attack?....even ludd admitted the title was wrong...so quit defending the fucker....words have meaning......and besides i asked him about something else that has nothing to do with this thread .....its up there read it.....thats the question he is not answering, for the second time......

 

[Pogo]

all i said was your title was very misleading.....nothing else.....so where did the rest of the shit come in?.....you have told me more than once you dont read everything,especially what i say.....so how the fuck would you know if i dont get on "rw's" about their threads?....we have already done this dance luddy not more than a week ago....and after i said the same thing to you i just said here.....you never came back and gave me an answer....care to do it now?...if you dont read everything posted.....how the fuck do you know?.....

once again luddy does something he is good at.....run from a thread when he gets asked a tough question....

Whuuuuuuu?????

read the exchange.....did he answer the question?.....

How is it a 'question' anyway?
The title cannot be "misleading" since it has no verb to "lead". It may be suggestive but that's as far as it goes.
Is it such a mountain to climb to get past a thread title and into a topic? Seems a bit ADHD.

Actually it seems like a tactic to avoid the topic...

The title is neutral, intentionally vague and as already noted could be inferred different ways. As such, it's actually linguistically brilliant in its economy.

For instance it can also be read as...
"[there exists] one (kind of) terrorist attack.... (the kind we get drowned in constantly)
[here is] Another terrorist attack (another kind that we don't)

Get past it already. It's a news article, not a headline-writing class.

did i say it was a question?.....it said ...another terrorist attack.....which there wasnt.....

Nor does the title claim there "was". There's no verb in it.

Again, get PAST it already. This is Page Nine. Much deflection I sense.

 

[Steinlight]

 

[Pogo]

Completely off topic; hard to read, though even squinting up close I can't seem to find the Inquisition on there (wonder why); and obviously riddled with errors ("9/11 - 5000 dead") and btw there were over 200 lynchings in the year 1884 alone just to link one, and by the other way Boko Haram is one side of a civil war, as is ISIS... trying to make points with unlinked Google Images puts you in the same crapper with Pissyante.

Get a bigger shovel next time. Cartoons are for children.

/offtopic

 

[Steinlight]

Completely off topic; hard to read, though even squinting up close I can't seem to find the Inquisition on there (wonder why); and obviously riddled with errors ("9/11 - 5000 dead") and btw there were over 200 lynchings in the year 1884 alone just to link one, and by the other way Boko Haram is one side of a civil war, as is ISIS... trying to make points with unlinked Google Images puts you in the same crapper with Pissyante.

Get a bigger shovel next time. Cartoons are for children.

/offtopic

6000 injured, 3,000 dead on 9/11. But remember the Inquisition you bigoted shitlord!

See, Christianity and Islam are exactly the same, lol.

You lefties are jokes. The fact you have to go back half a millennium to find example shows how different the two faiths are, particularly in the modern day, and how a large faction of Islam is still engaged in the imperialist and violent barbarism they practiced in the Middle Ages.

ISIS and boko haram started wars, yes. What's your point? This doesn't make them not Muslim.

 

[Steinlight]

Also, lol at that trash PDF you linked. That is proof in your mind?

You are even dumber than you post.

 

[Harry Dresden]

once again luddy does something he is good at.....run from a thread when he gets asked a tough question....

Whuuuuuuu?????

read the exchange.....did he answer the question?.....

How is it a 'question' anyway?
The title cannot be "misleading" since it has no verb to "lead". It may be suggestive but that's as far as it goes.
Is it such a mountain to climb to get past a thread title and into a topic? Seems a bit ADHD.

Actually it seems like a tactic to avoid the topic...

The title is neutral, intentionally vague and as already noted could be inferred different ways. As such, it's actually linguistically brilliant in its economy.

For instance it can also be read as...
"[there exists] one (kind of) terrorist attack.... (the kind we get drowned in constantly)
[here is] Another terrorist attack (another kind that we don't)

Get past it already. It's a news article, not a headline-writing class.

did i say it was a question?.....it said ...another terrorist attack.....which there wasnt.....

Nor does the title claim there "was". There's no verb in it.

Again, get PAST it already. This is Page Nine. Much deflection I sense.

and i havent mentioned it no where near as much as you have...have i?...my question was something else....so stick that in your fucking pipe and smoke that....

 

[Pogo]

Completely off topic; hard to read, though even squinting up close I can't seem to find the Inquisition on there (wonder why); and obviously riddled with errors ("9/11 - 5000 dead") and btw there were over 200 lynchings in the year 1884 alone just to link one, and by the other way Boko Haram is one side of a civil war, as is ISIS... trying to make points with unlinked Google Images puts you in the same crapper with Pissyante.

Get a bigger shovel next time. Cartoons are for children.

/offtopic

6000 injured, 3,000 dead on 9/11. But remember the Inquisition you bigoted shitlord!

See, Christianity and Islam are exactly the same, lol.

You lefties are jokes. The fact you have to go back half a millennium to find example shows how different the two faiths are, particularly in the modern day, and how a large faction of Islam is still engaged in the imperialist and violent barbarism they practiced in the Middle Ages.

ISIS and boko haram started wars, yes. What's your point? This doesn't make them not Muslim.

I think you might want this thread. Again for the slow, you're completely off topic here. This one isn't even about religion. Isn't even mentioned. At all.

 

[Pogo]

Whuuuuuuu?????

read the exchange.....did he answer the question?.....

How is it a 'question' anyway?
The title cannot be "misleading" since it has no verb to "lead". It may be suggestive but that's as far as it goes.
Is it such a mountain to climb to get past a thread title and into a topic? Seems a bit ADHD.

Actually it seems like a tactic to avoid the topic...

The title is neutral, intentionally vague and as already noted could be inferred different ways. As such, it's actually linguistically brilliant in its economy.

For instance it can also be read as...
"[there exists] one (kind of) terrorist attack.... (the kind we get drowned in constantly)
[here is] Another terrorist attack (another kind that we don't)

Get past it already. It's a news article, not a headline-writing class.

did i say it was a question?.....it said ...another terrorist attack.....which there wasnt.....

Nor does the title claim there "was". There's no verb in it.

Again, get PAST it already. This is Page Nine. Much deflection I sense.

and i havent mentioned it no where near as much as you have...have i?...my question was something else....so stick that in your fucking pipe and smoke that....

It's right above in your post, Harry.

 

[Steinlight]

Completely off topic; hard to read, though even squinting up close I can't seem to find the Inquisition on there (wonder why); and obviously riddled with errors ("9/11 - 5000 dead") and btw there were over 200 lynchings in the year 1884 alone just to link one, and by the other way Boko Haram is one side of a civil war, as is ISIS... trying to make points with unlinked Google Images puts you in the same crapper with Pissyante.

Get a bigger shovel next time. Cartoons are for children.

/offtopic

6000 injured, 3,000 dead on 9/11. But remember the Inquisition you bigoted shitlord!

See, Christianity and Islam are exactly the same, lol.

You lefties are jokes. The fact you have to go back half a millennium to find example shows how different the two faiths are, particularly in the modern day, and how a large faction of Islam is still engaged in the imperialist and violent barbarism they practiced in the Middle Ages.

ISIS and boko haram started wars, yes. What's your point? This doesn't make them not Muslim.

I think you might want this thread. Again for the slow, you're completely off topic here. This one isn't even about religion. Isn't even mentioned. At all.

What are you whining about now? If you don't like your anti-christian garbage being debunked than stop posting.

 

[Pogo]

Also, lol at that trash PDF you linked. That is proof in your mind?

You are even dumber than you post.

It's clearly more credible than a Google Image.