Go back
RHP Personality Deficiencies: A Case Study

RHP Personality Deficiencies: A Case Study

Debates

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

I await the 'question' and hope that you can restrain the entity known as Nordlys from interfering with this debate.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by arrakis
I await the 'question' and hope that you can restrain the entity known as Nordlys from interfering with this debate.
Hear! Hear!

Vote Up
Vote Down

With the silence of the entity I suggest we now start the official debate.

Will the parties involved please submit the evidence to support their premises.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by arrakis
I await the 'question' and hope that you can restrain the entity known as Nordlys from interfering with this debate.
Noodles is not an entity that can be restrained by us mere mortals.

Vote Up
Vote Down
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Noodles is not an entity that can be restrained by us mere mortals.
You are a wise man, no1. You know, as all wise men know, that no woman can be restrained if she doesn't wish to be...

I made the message in the hopes that she would have enough respect for the forum poster to stop her gibberish and let the proceedings begin.

Cheers

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I thought for sure, given the parties involved and the thread title, that I'd be brought in somewhere here, even if it was only as a Guest Celebrity Dickhead.
Maybe you could be elected as 5th judge.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by royalchicken
Ok, I choose Palynka and slimjim for my judges. I'd like to see Freddie and Xanthos as contest[b]ents.

Noodles is a brave and bold pedant.[/b]
Still surrowed from our last wrinkle, I see. Alrighty then, I'll have the dishonour of judging this debete.

Edit - Deux bêtes, for those that didn't get it. Which I suspect would be all.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Noodles is not an entity that can be restrained by us mere mortals.
😀

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by arrakis
You are a wise man, no1. You know, as all wise men know, that no woman can be restrained if she doesn't wish to be...

I made the message in the hopes that she would have enough respect for the forum poster to stop her gibberish and let the proceedings begin.

Cheers
Brother Whalechicken asked for a pedant in this discussion, and I have taken on the job. So let me do my job, and I'll let you do yours.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Judgment.
LOL! Another classic example of your arrogance: correcting words that are
perfectly correct.

Main Entry: judg·ment
Variant: also judge·ment
Function: noun

Get a freakin' life, Freaky.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
LOL! Another classic example of your arrogance: correcting words that are
perfectly correct.

Main Entry: judg·ment
Variant: also judge·ment
Function: noun

Get a freakin' life, Freaky.
Traditionally, they mean different things.

Judgment = as in I made an error in judgment.

Judgement = as in a judicial decision.

In this circumstance either usage would have fit.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Hmm, four pages and this debate has gone exactly nowhere. You people don't work for the government do you?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by royalchicken
The Official Guttersnipe-Forum Endorsed subject is:

"Resolved that royalchicken is more of a tw@t than Starrman."
Perhaps we should define the topic here. The web definitions of a tw@t are:

fathead: a man who is a stupid incompetent fool
c#nt: obscene terms for female genitals

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I must assume that we are referring to the first definition. So, the theme is 'which man is more of a stupid incompetent fool'?

Is that correct? In order for the debate to continue we will need evidence posted against the accused to support these conclusions.

Please continue....

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Red Night
Traditionally, they mean different things.

Judgment = as in I made an error in judgment.

Judgement = as in a judicial decision.

In this circumstance either usage would have fit.
Ridiculous, they mean do not mean different thing at all. They are merely from different sides of the Atlantic. Where on earth did you come up with such a theory?