I'm simply pointing out criticisms of his data and conclusions. When no one else gets the same data from the same statistics (including Doug Weil, and Stanford Prof. John Donohue), I simply feel it's neccessary to point that out. Hell, his own protoge -- David Mustard -- disagrees with many of Lott's conclusions (including allowing teachers to carry guns: in an Ohio gun case, Mustard admitted he had "concerns" about that idea).
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
posted
they could carry guns loaded with tranquiliser darts instead of bullets.
*L*
And where, praytell, would they get these? And why don't people carry them already? Perhape because there's no tranquelizer publicly available that'll knock a human out quickly enough to do that much good. Again, try to deal in reality, not hypotheticals.
All in all it is quite stupid for people to use lethal weaponry against eachother, it makes us a little too much like animals.
Logic triumphs over emotional sentiment any day, 11. Say a criminal is holding a gun to your head. Are you HONESTLY going to be trying to convince him that he's making himself look like an animal? Or are you going to be wishing that you'd had a gun handy?
There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process. If you don't want to own a gun, fine, that's your call. But don't you DARE try to force that same decision on me.
I'm simply pointing out criticisms of his data and conclusions.
Ah, so you have no LEGITIMATE objection? OK, then.
Please, Jeff: stop with the appeals to authority. It's the oldest trick in the book. If you know some REAL reason that the conclusion would be false, please, tell us. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and ours.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
posted
Infinity11: You're posting on a Star Trek message board, and you're not using punctuation because people at school won't think that's cool? Huh?
Don't you ever have to write essays or reports? Surely you use punctuation then?
English is a wonderful language, with many wonderful rules, and if you follow them, then all our base will belong to you. If not, then I'm afraid I'll have to set you up the bomb.
For great punctuation!
------------------ You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston." -Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
posted
For the record, most drugs don't enter the country up someone's butt. They enter the country in crates, smuggled like anything else. Sometimes by truck, but often by boat or by plane. And when you're packing the crates for delivery, it ain't that hard to throw in a couple of illegal weapons to help your compadres defend all that valuable powder.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
Appeal to authority? What? Isn't that what you did when you mentioned Lott's book in the first place? Appealing to authority? And now that someone says, "hey, maybe he's not correct..." you cry foul? Hush, homeslice! Do you have evidence as to how Lott's numbers and/or conclusions are correct? No, you admitted as much. So stop bitching.
And of course, people saying that Lott's concerns aren't incorrect isn't legitimate? What the fuck? Please explain yourself. Let's see: Lott's colleagues (even those who agree with his research methods) say "the conclusions he draws from the data are dangerously misguided" isn't legitimate? You're smoking crack, aren't you?
While you can treat Lott's book as the Holy Bible (and you certainly seem too), understand that the conclusions it draws are not accepted (hell -- even Lott's protoge, David Mustard, disagrees with a lot of Lott's conclusions) and if you can't understand that ... well, this is you we're talking about, so why bother?
quote:Say a criminal is holding a gun to your head. Are you HONESTLY going to be trying to convince him that he's making himself look like an animal? Or are you going to be wishing that you'd had a gun handy?
If someone's got a gun to your head, having a gun yourself won't do a whole lot of good. If someone's pointing a gun at you already, having a gun won't do you any good. Really, Omega, you talk about how others shouldn't deal in hypotheticals, but you sure do dwell into it a lot yourself.
quote:There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process. If you don't want to own a gun, fine, that's your call. But don't you DARE try to force that same decision on me.
Really? Evil, where? You mean the guy on the corner whose about to rob the supermarket to get money so he can feed his family? Or maybe the homeless guy thinking about breaking your window so he can take your TV to the pawn shop and get some cash so he can buy dinner for himself. Maybe evil is a special interest group with so much money, and so much political power that it can make the wishes of a very few into a scary rhetoric to cause the rest of the population to become scared for no reason.
Evil doesn't exist in the average Joe-Schmore criminal. He's misguided, sure, but evil? No, Hitler was evil. That Tate boy isn't evil. The KKK is evil. Be careful of the line you draw (not that you ever are, of course).
quote:You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away.
Ah-hah! So much for believer and defender of the Constitution! How do you eliminate it, Omega? You wouldn't be advocating viligante justice, would you? Not surprising -- for all your bitching about complaining how liberals defile the Constitution, what you're talking about here completely disregards one basic concept of our system of justice: innocent until proven guilty. You should read it sometime. Fascinating document.
Omega -- sometimes I'm really surprised by how much ignorance you can show. You make the distinction that gun owners fight crime, while non-gun owners cower in fear. Do you really believe that? If so, I feel very sorry for you. You're going to be in for a hell of a shock when you grow up and see that things aren't as simple as black and white anymore.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 14, 2001).]
posted
I am not purposely ommiting punctuation to look cool, it's just that I've been doing it so often, that it is a nasty habit that I can't get rid of. If you use ICQ a lot, you will have noticed that it has developed it's own little language in a way, which is a mix letters numbers and other symbols. for ex. - u gotta d/l this song - cya,l8r - wtf is that 4?
------------------ Go to my site ST Infinity or you'll cause the release of another Olsen Twins movie. Do you want that on your conscience?
posted
Appeal to authority? What? Isn't that what you did when you mentioned Lott's book in the first place?
Well, actually, Rob mentioned it in the first place, but besides that, no, it's not. He pointed out a very good, very thorough statistical study that you should read, because it proves the point he was trying to make. That's not an appeal to authority. It IS an appeal to authority, however, to say that just because a certain person disagrees with a statement makes that statement suspect or wrong. The difference is, we're showing our work. You're just refusing to read it.
If someone's got a gun to your head, having a gun yourself won't do a whole lot of good.
If you'd had a gun, you wouldn't have ended up in the situation to begin with! Obviously! Use your brain for once, Jeff. It atrophies with time.
You mean the guy on the corner whose about to rob the supermarket to get money so he can feed his family? Or maybe the homeless guy thinking about breaking your window so he can take your TV to the pawn shop and get some cash so he can buy dinner for himself.
Oh, yes, the poor, innocent victim criminal. Typical.
THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN! It'd be far more likely that they'd be stealing so as to support their drug habit. Anyway, I don't CARE what your rationalization is. Stealing is WRONG. PERIOD. Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "DONE".
You wouldn't be advocating viligante justice, would you?
No, I'm advocating DEFENDING YOUR OWN FRIKIN' SELF, 'cause ain't no one else gonna do it for you. Do you even know the definitions of the terms you use?
what you're talking about here completely disregards one basic concept of our system of justice: innocent until proven guilty.
Are you honestly suggesting that if someone's pointing a gun at me, I can't defend myself, and simply have to wait until he's arrested, put on trial, convicted, etc? 'Cause by then, I will be DEAD! My right to defend my status as a living being superceeds the right to a fair trial of one who is breaking the law and threatening my life. You disagree? Well, then, go back to whatever planet you came from, 'cause that's how things work on Earth.
You make the distinction that gun owners fight crime, while non-gun owners cower in fear. Do you really believe that?
No. Exactly what are you reading when you get these things, anyway? 'Cause it ain't my posts.
You're going to be in for a hell of a shock when you grow up and see that things aren't as simple as black and white anymore.
There is such incredible irony contained in this statement, it's hard to know where to begin. YOU'RE the one that denies that there is evil in the world. YOU'RE the one that denies that I have any need to be able to defend myself. YOU'RE the one that thinks that the right to a fair trial for a murderer is more important than my frikin' LIFE! You, sir, are the naive one, not I.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
quote:Well, actually, Rob mentioned it in the first place, but besides that, no, it's not. He pointed out a very good, very thorough statistical study that you should read, because it proves the point he was trying to make. That's not an appeal to authority. It IS an appeal to authority, however, to say that just because a certain person disagrees with a statement makes that statement suspect or wrong. The difference is, we're showing our work. You're just refusing to read it.
Just as you're refusing to read the criticisms of his conclusions. And it's quite a few people disagreeing with Lott's conclusions -- including his own frickin' protoge! And these are people who agree with his research data, too! These aren't just members of Handgun Control. These are people who like Lott, who like the data he gathered, but still say -- hey, you got the wrong conclusions. That tells me something.
quote:THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN! It'd be far more likely that they'd be stealing so as to support their drug habit. Anyway, I don't CARE what your rationalization is. Stealing is WRONG. PERIOD. Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "DONE".
My only contention was that it was not evil.
quote:If you'd had a gun, you wouldn't have ended up in the situation to begin with! Obviously! Use your brain for once, Jeff. It atrophies with time.
I suppose you carry your gun to the bathroom with you? Oh, wait -- you don't own a gun. So, how come you're not being mugged and robbed every night? And what about people who leave the gun in their nightstand? You make a lot of assumptions (not surprising, really), but in this case, that assumption is: people carry their guns everywhere.
Another assumption is that even if you have your gun on you, and you're surprised by someone already carrying a gun, that you can draw your gun before the someone else shoots you. That's dangerous thinking. Have you, by chance, watched Die Hard a few times too many, mayhaps?
quote:No, I'm advocating DEFENDING YOUR OWN FRIKIN' SELF, 'cause ain't no one else gonna do it for you. Do you even know the definitions of the terms you use?
And ...
quote:Are you honestly suggesting that if someone's pointing a gun at me, I can't defend myself, and simply have to wait until he's arrested, put on trial, convicted, etc? 'Cause by then, I will be DEAD! My right to defend my status as a living being superceeds the right to a fair trial of one who is breaking the law and threatening my life. You disagree? Well, then, go back to whatever planet you came from, 'cause that's how things work on Earth.
That's not what you said. You said "eliminate" ... how exactly do you plan to eliminate it? And unless you're ignorant of the laws on self defense, you should be aware that YES ... that's the way things work in the US. Now, if you do shoot someone and it falls under Self Defense, hey, you're free and clear. But if you just start blasting away 'cuz someone rings your doorbell or is walking out your back door with your stereo, you're in a world of trouble little-one. You're ignorance of laws is absolute. You're aware this country prides itself on that criminals recieve equal protection under the law? Not by your way of thinking, apparently.
quote:No. Exactly what are you reading when you get these things, anyway? 'Cause it ain't my posts.
So you deny saying this next quote?
quote:You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process. If you don't want to own a gun, fine, that's your call. But don't you DARE try to force that same decision on me.
What did you mean by "bury your head in the sand" if not that people who don't own guns cower in fear? Read your own posts please.
quote:There is such incredible irony contained in this statement, it's hard to know where to begin. YOU'RE the one that denies that there is evil in the world.
I don't deny that there is evil in the world. I gave examples as to what "evil" is compared to people that are just criminal. There is a difference, even if you can't see that. I'm not about to lump, for example, that Tate boy in with Adolf Hitler. A difference between the KKK and the punk who ripped the stereo out of my car.
quote:YOU'RE the one that denies that I have any need to be able to defend myself.
Do you have need to defend yourself? Well, hell, I don't know. When have you ever been the victim of a crime, Omega? And speaking of which, you're too young to OWN a gun, so yeah -- you have no legal right to a gun for a few more years. How is it you stay safe without a gun, if I might ask? If you're safe now, why would you be less safe once you turn 21?
On the other hand, if you want to live somewhere with inadequate police protection, feel free to buy yourself a handgun. Just don't make any illusions about whats doing the damage when a 16-year walks into a school and starts shooting.
quote:YOU'RE the one that thinks that the right to a fair trial for a murderer is more important than my frikin' LIFE! You, sir, are the naive one, not I.
Omega, I simply respect everyone's right to equal protection under the law. Hey -- if you kill someone under the law of Self Protection, that's one thing.
But there's a big difference between doing that and shooting some guy in the back whose ripping your TV off, and I hope you understand the difference -- or you could someday find yourself being prosecuted for murder. If you believe that those two are the same thing, then it's you who are naive kid.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 14, 2001).]
posted
Actually, there are a number of states in which the use of deadly force to defend property rights IS permissible.
And quite frankly, it should be that way in all of them. People who don't respect the property rights of others will steal anything that isn't nailed down. And it's a VERY small step from that to killing someone in order to steal his property. In fact, most of the killing in homes is done by people who were there to steal in the first place, and some luckless person happened to be home or come home, and get in the way.
"Equal Protection under the Law" is a nice belief to have, but an impractical one. YOU are NOT protected from the criminal by the law.
You are not obliged to respect the 'rights' of someone who does not respect yours. Rights are part of the contract with society that every law-abiding person lives by. When you choose to go against the society, by committing criminal acts, you abrogate your ability to claim those rights.
After all, "FREEDOM" is generally considered to be a 'right' in this country.. but we certainly restrict THAT right of criminals. You know, jail?
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
posted
My only contention was that it was not evil.
Did you even read what I said originally when you responded to it? I was simply giving your post the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it was actually in response to mine, instead of a complete non sequitor, as it now seems to have been. Oh, well...
re: next topic
Again, look at what you originally responded to. Your statements are of little or no relation to mine.
But if you just start blasting away 'cuz someone rings your doorbell or is walking out your back door with your stereo, you're in a world of trouble little-one.
And yet again, this has no relation to any of my beliefs, stated or otherwise. Who exactly are you responding to, when you post these things?
What did you mean by "bury your head in the sand" if not that people who don't own guns cower in fear? Read your own posts please.
Again, you do not know the definitions of the terms you use. To bury one's head in the sand is not to cower in fear. It is to simply pretend that a problem doesn't exist, instead of dealing with it.
And speaking of which, you're too young to OWN a gun, so yeah -- you have no legal right to a gun for a few more years.
You have brought this up several times. How is my age and legal status relevant to broad points? You are attempting to confuse the subject.
If you're safe now, why would you be less safe once you turn 21?
Because by then, I won't spend 90% of my time at home, nor will I live in such a location that a burgaler would have to be a moron not to go for the easier target across the street. (Hills are nice.)
On the other hand, if you want to live somewhere with inadequate police protection, feel free to buy yourself a handgun.
Look, oh thou of minimal cranial capacity, not everyone lives two blocks from a police station. You've got to learn that you're little corner isn't all there is to the world. There is not, nor will there ever be, such a thing as police protection so good as to be able to defend you from something so simple as a mugger at night. Exactly what percentage of the populace do you think works for the police, anyhow?
But there's a big difference between doing that and shooting some guy in the back whose ripping your TV off, and I hope you understand the difference
Why do I even bother typing all this stuff if you don't even read it? Go back and look at previous threads. You've made this statement multiple times, and multiple times have I pointed out that it has no relation to my beliefs. Do you even have a cerebellum in that melon of yours?
Rob:
YOU are NOT protected from the criminal by the law.
Bingo. You're simply protected from prosecution if you happen to shoot him.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
posted
You're not protected from posecution if you shoot him, which is the point I'm trying to make here. You'd better understand what the laws regarding self defense means where you live, Omega, or you could find yourself one of the criminals you so vigerously detest.
quote:Did you even read what I said originally when you responded to it? I was simply giving your post the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it was actually in response to mine, instead of a complete non sequitor, as it now seems to have been. Oh, well...
THIS is what you wrote, Omega:
quote:There is EVIL in this world, in case you didn't notice. You don't eliminate it by wishing it would go away. You can either deal with it and prepare for it, or you can bury your head in the sand and hope someone doesn't shoot you in the butt in the process. If you don't want to own a gun, fine, that's your call. But don't you DARE try to force that same decision on me.
So what you mean here is that it's only okay to shoot "evil" people and not merely "criminals"? There's a big difference between being evil and being a criminal, and I don't think you see it.
quote:Again, you do not know the definitions of the terms you use. To bury one's head in the sand is not to cower in fear. It is to simply pretend that a problem doesn't exist, instead of dealing with it.
As well all know, Omega is taking a page from the Ostrich, which buries it's head in the sand. Omega claims it does so to ignore a problem, when in fact, Ostriches do so to try and "hide" from danger. Now, Omega may be using it in a different form, of course, and making up his own definitions, but the closest comparison I can find to what he said is the ostrich example:
quote:Perhaps the most enduring myth about the ostrich is that it hides it head in the sand when in danger. Both Pliny and Oppian believed this to be true. Pliny also said that it would hide its head in a bush in threatening circumstances. The Eclectic Ostrich
Now, perhaps Omega is using a more vague obscure reference I'm not aware of. However, his contention that I don't know of what he alludes to is ridiculous. Ostriches hide from danger: clearly, Omega was drawing a similarity between Ostriches hiding from danger and people who don't own guns.
One word: ignorant.
quote:Why do I even bother typing all this stuff if you don't even read it? Go back and look at previous threads. You've made this statement multiple times, and multiple times have I pointed out that it has no relation to my beliefs.
I'm simply looking to clarify your beliefs. You say you want the right to protect your property by taking a human life, thus, wouldn't that include shooting someone running out of your house carrying a TV? Very relevent.
quote:Do you even have a cerebellum in that melon of yours?
Although beautifully worded, I must admit, is this not anything more than a thinly veiled insult? Don't personal attacks fall outside the range of your prized "Valid Debating Tactics?" Honestly, kiddo, maybe you should read your own rules sometimes. This is about as valid a debating tactic as me saying I'd like to put you naked into a gay Klingon sauna with a big sign that says "come and get it!" and let the big Klingons have their way with you (In all seriousness, only Wesley Crusher deserves that kind of fate)(okay, okay, the Voyager writing staff too).
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 14, 2001).]
posted
So what you mean here is that it's only okay to shoot "evil" people and not merely "criminals"?
This has what, exactly, to do with what I said? Do you even speak English?
Omega claims it does so to ignore a problem, when in fact, Ostriches do so to try and "hide" from danger.
I claim no such thing. I stated what the phrase means in contemporary language. If it's not related to the reason the bird in question literally does so (assuming it does), well, that's not my problem. It IS, however, yours, because you don't seem to understand that a term means what people use it to mean. It IS an existing idiom, you know. It's not something I just made up on the spur of the moment.
I'm simply looking to clarify your beliefs.
Which I have done several times. You simply didn't pay attention.
You say you want the right to protect your property by taking a human life
Did I, now?
is this not anything more than a thinly veiled insult?
Veiled? Who's trying to conceal it? It's not like I'm pretending I made a point by insulting you. I simply felt like you deserved it.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
quote:This has what, exactly, to do with what I said? Do you even speak English?
No, I'm speaking Klingon. What the fuck do you think? Sheesh!
Do you not agree that there is a distinction between evil and criminal? Apparently not. That's very sad, because there's a big difference between someone who mugs you on the street and Adolf Hitler.
quote:I claim no such thing. I stated what the phrase means in contemporary language. If it's not related to the reason the bird in question literally does so (assuming it does), well, that's not my problem. It IS, however, yours, because you don't seem to understand that a term means what people use it to mean. It IS an existing idiom, you know. It's not something I just made up on the spur of the moment.
The bird does literaly hide it's head. References in contemporary English refer back to that. It's your problem if you don't understand the origins of the idiom you use. Yes, I'm aware it's existing -- it goes back to the ostrich doing it. Why does the ostrich do it? Because it's afraid! Wow. How hard was that? Honestly.
quote:Which I have done several times. You simply didn't pay attention.
Best as I can tell, someone looks at you funny, and you want to blow them away. Please -- where have you clarified your beliefs?
quote:Did I, now?
Yes, you did, as the next quote will show.
quote:There is not, nor will there ever be, such a thing as police protection so good as to be able to defend you from something so simple as a mugger at night.
How exactly do you plan to protect yourself? And don't try to argue that the threat of a gun is enough. While it may be, there's always the possibility that you'll have to take a human life. So, yes, right here you're arguing that it is very permissible to shoot a mugger.
quote:Veiled? Who's trying to conceal it? It's not like I'm pretending I made a point by insulting you. I simply felt like you deserved it.
As long as we're clear that you apparently don't give a shit about your precious "valid debating tactics." Not that this surprises me, mind you. Since you've obviously lost this debate to me, you must resort to mud slinging.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 14, 2001).]
posted
I'm going to be making the most important point of this thread now, so pay attention.
"If you use ICQ a lot, you will have noticed that it has developed it's own little language in a way, which is a mix letters numbers and other symbols. for ex. - u gotta d/l this song - cya,l8r - wtf is that 4?"
That's not language. That's H@x0r L33t talk. And I shall now give you an example of one of mine and Simon's fun chats:
SIMON: "You did invent the [railway]".
LIAM: "Me? I'm sure I didn't. I did invent the electric hat, and the giant fork, but the railway?"
SIMON: "What about the automatic trousers?"
LIAM: "That's crazy talk. They were invented by Wallace. Of ...and Gromit fame."
SIMON: "Ah. Well, apparently my mother wants to call her friend, and my father wants to call his relatives and see if they escaped being swallowed by the Earth. So I should probably go for a bit."
LIAM: "And I should go to bed. I'm on strike tomorrow, so I need to be rested for by day of doing sod all.
It's about paying student fees apparently. We don't think we should have to. Obviously."
You see? You can't pay for that type of scintilating talk. And the punctuation was perfect all the way though. Simon said "I should probably go for a bit", and not "cya l8r". And I love him for it.
------------------ You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston." -Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic