Posted by Hunter [12.211.202.152 - 12-211-202-152.client.attbi.com] on 01 June 2003 at 11.00.57 ZuluTime:

In Reply to: Checkmate posted by Seraphina22 on 01 June 2003 at 03.39.41 ZuluTime:

This seems to be a trend for you --this whole picking- out-grammatical-errors-and-apparent-word-misusages- thing.

Actually, it's the only thing one can do when the other person hasn't got anything but generally nonsensical bullshit. Not that you'd know. You alternately have enough experience to know what 'all' we do is, and haven't spend any time in the room at all. Now which is it?

When you can't come up with a valid argument,

And in what instance was there a situation in which a 'valid argument', or even a counterargument, required from Gremlin? I saw no such instance, because I saw no valid argument from you to begin with. I saw self-confessed trolling. What are you, Candice?

(and I mean, let's face it, you can't really argue that this won't happen considering it's speaking of things to come) then you either:

Actually, one can argue that it will/won't happen, not only based on biological terms, but based on the surrounding text. Is the surrounding text fully factual? No? Have the other 'prophetic' bullshit statements come true? Not particularly. Then what are the odds....

A. Call it a "Strawman" (or one of various other terms that you or somebody like you has coined);

I'll just take it this way: you have no fucking clue what a strawman is. In which case, thumping you is against the Geneva Convention, because you're an unarmed opponent in this realm where words and knowledge are weapons. So let me arm you....

Description of Straw Man, quoted from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Got that? Do you understand what a strawman is now? Will you perhaps eliminate it from your little bag-o-trollish-goodness, or will you be using it more now that you know what it is?

B. Refer to its author or speaker as a Fraud, which clearly discredits anything that person will ever say again; or

Why not? You've shown yourself to be one. Truth in advertising....

C. Point out grammatical errors and/or word misusage as mentioned above.

And what's wrong with pointing out grammatical errors and general improper use of words? Are you ascairt of larnin?

Now, I gotta be completely honest, (even though I have been deemed a known liar and fraud by the powers that be in your realm) when I realized what you meant by your comment, I thought to myself: "He's got a point there."

Try being honest more often.

But the fact is, most people of average intelligence are going to comprehend what the translation of this passage means.

So the people within your IQ range can't actually concieve of the literal meanings of words as it applies to the biological function of a hinge joint, or a muscle? I pity your kind....

I mean, I've never heard of anybody having visions of bodiless knees leaning over, or mouthless tongues speaking out truths they've just realized, upon reading that passage.

Then you've never known anyone even remotely smart, have you?

But then again, I guess I haven't spent enough time with folks like you, huh?

Of course not. You weren't allowed to sit at that table in lunch.

At any rate, I thought you might be interested in knowing that most dictionaries (you can check dictionary.com if you have any doubts) list "To incline the body or head or bend THE KNEE in greeting, consent, courtesy, acknowledgment, submission, or veneration" as one of many definitions for the word "bow."

Let's list ALL the definitions, not just the little one that supports your delusion....

bow n.
     A bent, curved, or arched object.
     A weapon consisting of a curved, flexible strip of material, especially wood, strung taut from end to end and used to launch arrows.
     An archer.
     Archers considered as a group.
     Music. A rod having horsehair drawn tightly between its two raised ends, used in playing instruments of the violin and viol families.
     A stroke made by this rod.
     A knot usually having two loops and two ends; a bowknot.
     A frame for the lenses of a pair of eyeglasses.
     The part of such a frame passing over the ear.
     A rainbow.
     An oxbow.
     v. bowed, bow·ing, bows
     v. tr.
     To bend (something) into the shape of a bow.
     Music. To play (a stringed instrument) with a bow.
     v. intr.
     To bend into a curve or bow.
     Music. To play a stringed instrument with a bow.

bow
     n. Nautical
     The front section of a ship or boat.
     The oar or the person wielding the oar closest to the bow.

bow
     v. bowed, bow·ing, bows
     v. intr.
     To bend or curve downward; stoop.
     To incline the body or head or bend the knee in greeting, consent, courtesy, acknowledgment, submission, or veneration.
     To yield in defeat or out of courtesy; submit. See Synonyms at yield.
     v. tr.
     To bend (the head, knee, or body) to express greeting, consent, courtesy, acknowledgment, submission, or veneration.
     To convey (greeting, for example) by bending the body.
     To escort deferentially: bowed us into the restaurant.
     To cause to acquiesce; submit.
     To overburden: Grief bowed them down.
     n.
     An inclination of the head or body, as in greeting, consent, courtesy, acknowledgment, submission, or veneration.

Wow. That's a LOT of definitions. Let's see...and only the last few cover what you're talking about. In fact, you had to use the very last one to back up your statement.

In fact, if you go down even more, you find out that bow, when in reference to obsequiousness, is typically followed with 'down'. And there's a lot of 'obsoletes' after those references.

And now, let's get into basic anatomy....

Look, here's a site even YOU can understand! http://grassroots.mediacentre.com/OCDEmead9/kindjoin.htm

Knee. A hinge joint. And looking at the definition of hinge, one sees no mention of anything resembling the common, accepted definition for 'bow'.

Of course, the real problem here is that you infer bow [bou], while anyone with more than a 1000 word vocabulary who doesn't see 'down' after it is going to generally see 'bo' first. Perhaps if your lord had thought to include a pronunciation guide with his bible, his followers wouldn't come across as FUCKING RETARDS.

Checkmate.

That's my queen, stoopid.