PDA

View Full Version : Hi


RawR
03-09-2010, 07:21 AM
Hi
RawR
03-10-2010, 10:01 PM
Hi 03-09-2010 12:29 PM Get bent, idiot
Hi 03-09-2010 11:09 AM Hello. ~Nachos
Hi 03-09-2010 10:57 AM Fail thread.
Hi 03-09-2010 10:12 AM asswipe is more like it

Aww I missed you to lovers.
Bobmuhthol
03-10-2010, 10:02 PM
This was both a nuisance and an annoyance.
Gan
03-10-2010, 10:19 PM
Aww I missed you to lovers.

Its too!

TOO!

Get it straight!


Fuck!
Mogonis
03-10-2010, 10:21 PM
Should really be

Aww, I missed you, too, lovers.
Cephalopod
03-10-2010, 10:21 PM
Its too!

TOO!

Get it straight!


Fuck!

It's.
Deathravin
03-10-2010, 10:26 PM
Should really be

Aww, I missed you, too, lovers.

no... no it shouldn't...
Cephalopod
03-10-2010, 10:27 PM
Hi 03-09-2010 12:29 PM Get bent, idiot
Hi 03-09-2010 11:09 AM Hello. ~Nachos
Hi 03-09-2010 10:57 AM Fail thread.
Hi 03-09-2010 10:12 AM asswipe is more like it

Aww I missed you to lovers.

You didn't mention that mine was positive rep.

We need more positive rep for RawR. Back to the obscurity he deserves.
Mogonis
03-10-2010, 10:27 PM
Yes. Yes it should. Comma before too, and a comma before lovers because he's addressing them.
BriarFox
03-10-2010, 10:31 PM
Yes. Yes it should. Comma before too, and a comma before lovers because he's addressing them.

:yeahthat:

Interjections, the adverb too, and apostrophes (addresses to a person) all should be off-set with commas.

However, I think Deathravin meant that using commas is contrary to message board aesthetics - or something.
Mogonis
03-10-2010, 10:31 PM
Grammar > aesthetics


Actually, grammar adds to aesthetics!
4a6c1
03-10-2010, 10:31 PM
I'm confused. Should I misspell something?
BriarFox
03-10-2010, 10:37 PM
I'm confused. Should I misspell something?

No, your avatar is distracting enough.
BriarFox
03-10-2010, 10:38 PM
Grammar > aesthetics


Actually, grammar adds to aesthetics!

Grammar argues against homosexuality, if you listen to medieval grammarians with a philosophical bent, like Alanus de Insulis.
4a6c1
03-10-2010, 10:42 PM
No, your avatar is distracting enough.

I know. Disgusting perversion of impressionist art? Revolutionary rebellion of god knows what? Feminist statement about the nature of stereotypes.

I CANT DECIDE WHAT MAKES IT AWESOME

It's like Renoir, got married, and starting paiting substandard nudes again.

SEE MARRIAGE RUINS EVERYTHING.

Of course I have no point. I should be writing a paper and I'm stalling.
BriarFox
03-10-2010, 10:49 PM
I know. Disgusting perversion of impressionist art? Revolutionary rebellion of god knows what? Feminist statement about the nature of stereotypes.

I CANT DECIDE WHAT MAKES IT AWESOME

It's like Renoir, got married, and starting paiting substandard nudes again.

SEE MARRIAGE RUINS EVERYTHING.

Of course I have no point. I should be writing a paper and I'm stalling.

I read it as a post-modern argument against structuralism, arguing that signs (the dress, Vader's armor) are stacked one atop another to enhance meaning, but ultimately signify an illusion (what's inside Vader's armor?). There IS no signified, Star Warsians!

Okay, who can decipher my lit crit drivel?
AestheticLife
03-10-2010, 11:01 PM
Grammar > aesthetics


Actually, grammar adds to aesthetics!

No.

Aesthetics > All.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
4a6c1
03-10-2010, 11:01 PM
I read it as a post-modern argument against structuralism, arguing that signs (the dress, Vader's armor) are stacked one atop another to enhance meaning, but ultimately signify an illusion (what's inside Vader's armor?). There IS no signified, Star Warsians!

Okay, who can decipher my lit crit drivel?

LOL

Raincheck! I would enjoy it! Gotta write some crap for some crap.
RawR
03-11-2010, 02:03 AM
Hi 03-11-2010 12:02 AM clown town
Hi 03-10-2010 11:20 PM TOO! MOTHERFUCKER! -Gan
Hi 03-10-2010 11:03 PM *too
Hi 03-10-2010 11:02 PM Hi!
Hi 03-09-2010 12:29 PM Get bent, idiot
RawR
03-11-2010, 02:04 AM
Oh and thanks Nachos but even you can't offset these elitist forum peeps, cause they hold the powa!
RawR
03-11-2010, 02:05 AM
The best part is all your neg repping does absolutely nothing, oh I got a neg rep but you probably still read everything I say.. hilarious
RawR
03-11-2010, 02:06 AM
http://feilz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/kid-throwingup.jpg
4a6c1
03-11-2010, 06:11 PM
I read it as a post-modern argument against structuralism, arguing that signs (the dress, Vader's armor) are stacked one atop another to enhance meaning, but ultimately signify an illusion (what's inside Vader's armor?). There IS no signified, Star Warsians!

Okay, who can decipher my lit crit drivel?

Ok see I agree with you except the format is all wrong. The Monet could not represent structuralism because at it's best it is a bleary and distorted image of preferencial norms. Of course I am too literal! You mean to suggest that the subject is a figurative representation of structuralism? Well then on that front I agree it might be possible and further so when you analyze her elements metaphorically. As you did. Dress. Vader armor. Combined symbols smeared in an undefined insurgency against the details of the subjects socio-economic repression and status?!

Did I just put meaning where it is not? Maybe?! I WIN?
RawR
03-12-2010, 05:57 AM
Would you please stop pos repping me. You are ruining my red rocket!

PS. And I mean you you cracker girl.
RawR
03-12-2010, 08:21 PM
Omg stop please.