I know this is an Adult Webmaster board, but...

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Jace

not sure where you get your facts from,

Psssst.. Jace...um, he usually makes them up

[Jace]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Psssst.. Jace...um, he usually makes them up

hey man, hit me up on icq real quick. got another script idea for you....could make you quite a bit of money actually

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Jace

hey man, hit me up on icq real quick. got another script idea for you....could make you quite a bit of money actually

I'm only on icq when I'm it says I'm not.........

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Psssst.. Jace...um, he usually makes them up

Psst....Sarettah, you if you possess a dictionary (if not there is dictionary.com but it is just American) you might want to look up "facts". These, my literate friend, cannot be made up.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Psst....Sarettah, you if you possess a dictionary (if not there is dictionary.com but it is just American) you might want to look up "facts". These, my literate friend, cannot be made up.

Once again you make an issue of sematics rather than substance.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Toby

Once again you make an issue of sematics rather than substance.

That was not a matter of semantics my pedantic friend. But if it was, why is that a problem? You are also entitled to argue thuis. It is the English language we use to communicate and sell our products, no? So WTF is wrong with using it when confronted by moronic posts?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

That was not a matter of semantics my pedantic friend. But if it was, why is that a problem? You are also entitled to argue thuis. It is the English language we use to communicate and sell our products, no? So WTF is wrong with using it when confronted by moronic posts?

T'is no different than attacking the messenger rather than the message. It's something you do consistantly. I'm not sure if you do it to delierately side track the discussion, or if you're just that bloody obsessive.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Toby

T'is no different than attacking the messenger rather than the message. It's something you do consistantly. I'm not sure if you do it to delierately side track the discussion, or if you're just that bloody obsessive.

Nope. It is neither. I actually don't do "it". That is your opinion. The sentence can hardly be construed as the messenger. The messenger delivers the message. I was responding to what I consider verbage. No more no less. Do you consider that semantics? I don't.

[Hammer]

I like pie.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

..Do you consider that semantics? I don't.

Yes, I certainly do consider that to be sematics. It most certainly has little or nothing to do with the topic du jour, and criticizing the grammar/verbage is indeed attacking the messenger.

The only reason to nitpick the message is to attempt to discredit the messenger, because the argument against the message is weak.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Psst....Sarettah, you if you possess a dictionary (if not there is dictionary.com but it is just American) you might want to look up "facts". These, my literate friend, cannot be made up.

Is that a fact?

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Is that a fact?

Classic Sarettah....wibble. Say nothing, post a smiley.