SPANKTIME!!

[Wander]

xD xD xD xD xD xD xD!!

Whahahhaah, just posting here to make sure none of you will miss how Thomas got powned by his own mommy!
http://openlierox.sourceforge.net/smf/index.php?topic=20.msg352#msg352

[Swift]

[Hwoarang]

Hey guys, just came over to say that OutlawZ went Zucky got it's first FB win today. In your face! See you in hell!

[Wander]

They counted it for us!


(guess which one is you)

[Hwoarang]

Seeing as I said in your face, it only makes sense that I'm tha Duke!

[Wander]

Yes. For people for your IQ, i can imagine so.
Remember when you were in OutlawZ? You were sharper back then..

[Hwoarang]

Indeed for people WITH my IQ. Obviously, since you are incapable of constructing sentences with basic grammar in English, you must be at the lower end of the IQ spectrum. Good luck with that Nelson!

[Wander]

You (being a non-Outlaw and thus inferior in every way by default) are not capable of judging my grammar.
Your view on it is so biased by your idea of perfection (Which, by the way, isn't even your own idea but merely your perception of the idea of some individuals you call 'teachers') that you are blind for the brilliance with which my sentences are constructed to perfectly deliver the message they are supposed to deliver, in the context in which they are placed.
The strict rules you have 'learned' concerning the English language may help you practicing simple communication with others that follow the same simple set of rules, yet they do not suffice to understand the deeper nuances in my sentences. I refuse to accept the blame for that.

There is one thing which even i will have to admit though: A non-Outlaw claiming an Outlaw to be 'at the lower end of the IQ-spectrum', in comparison to himself, did make my day. Thank you for that Thomas.

[Hwoarang]

You (being a non-Outlaw and thus inferior in every way by default) are not capable of judging fit to judge my grammar.
Your view on of it is so biased by your idea of perfection (Which, by the way, isn't even your own idea but merely your perception of the idea of from some individuals you call 'teachers'), that you are blind for of the brilliance with which my sentences are constructed to perfectly deliver the message they are supposed to deliver, in the context in of which they are placed.
The strict rules you have 'learned' concerning the English language, may help you practicing simple communication with others that follow the same simple set of rules, yet they do not suffice to understand the deeper nuances in of my sentences. I refuse to accept the blame for that.

There is one thing which even i will have to admit though: A non-Outlaw claiming an Outlaw to be 'at the lower end of the IQ-spectrum', in comparison to himself, did make my day. Thank you for that Thomas.

Linguistical **** for the win! I hope you do not mind that I used those preconcieved rules I for some reason believe to be a sense of perfection, which I according to you, got from my teachers (which is partly untrue, since I've learned most English grammar by practical applicance) to fix some minor mistakes. One thing I'm unsure of though, was your application of "may help you practicing" which I believe should be "may help you to practice". But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt there, since I am not completely sure about that.

I look forward to reading your answer Nelson!

[Sakmongkol]

I think some commas could be useful here:

Linguistical **** for the win! I hope you do not mind that I used those preconcieved rules I, for some reason, believe to be a sense of perfection, which I, according to you, got from my teachers (which is partly untrue, since I've learned most English grammar by practical applicance) to fix some minor mistakes.

Some further comments:

You (being a non-Outlaw and thus inferior in every way by default) are not capable of judging fit to judge my grammar.

I don't see why 'capable of judging' couldn't be applied here. 'Fit to judge' also somewhat changes the original meaning.

Your view on of it is so biased by your idea of perfection (Which, by the way, isn't even your own idea but merely your perception of the idea of from some individuals you call 'teachers'), that you are blind for of the brilliance with which my sentences are constructed to perfectly deliver the message they are supposed to deliver, in the context in of which they are placed.

All of the preposition corrections here are either wrong or unnecessary. 'View on' means a person's outlook and opinions on something and his understanding of it, while 'view of' usually means a physical sight of something. 'Idea of' makes perfect sense also, as in 'the idea of the individuals'; 'the individuals' idea'. 'Blind of' would suggest a person being blind because of something, which could make sense in this case with the word 'brilliance' following it, but I think it is safe to say the meaning Wander was really going after is indeed 'blind for', as in 'incapable of seeing the brilliance'. Lastly, I am fairly certain that Wander's sentences are placed in a context, not of a context.

Sorry for butting in, but this is indeed quite fun.

[Hwoarang]

Commas aren't necessary. At least not for someone inspired by Kafka's lack of punctuation

It should be "fit" because "capable" means that I am not able to judge the grammar. I clearly judge his grammar, so being "fit" for it, is more appropirate.

"View of", refers not necessarily to something that's physical, but to something which is in some sense "objective". The pure view however, is blocked by my "bias". If it were "your biased view", it would be "on". But since my view has not been "biased" so to speak yet, I argue that it is "of".

I'm not blind because of, or to accomodate the "brilliance". I do not see the "brilliance".

"of the idea of" does not flow good, and "from" is more descriptive.

they are placed in the context. notice the "in the context". "of" is here in regards to the objective: "which". Actually, my mistake there. I mis-interpreted what "which" was referring to. Obviously the "correct" formulation would be "in the context they are placed", though "they are placed" seems out of place, but I can't come up with a proper alternative at the moment.

[Wander]

Commas aren't necessary. At least not for someone inspired by Kafka's lack of punctuation

It should be "fit" because "capable" means that I am not able to judge the grammar. I clearly judge his grammar, so being "fit" for it, is more appropirate.

"View of", refers not necessarily to something that's physical, but to something which is in some sense "objective". The pure view however, is blocked by my "bias". If it were "your biased view", it would be "on". But since my view has not been "biased" so to speak yet, I argue that it is "of".

I'm not blind because of, or to accomodate the "brilliance". I do not see the "brilliance".

"of the idea of" does not flow good, and "from" is more descriptive.

they are placed in the context. notice the "in the context". "of" is here in regards to the objective: "which". Actually, my mistake there. I mis-interpreted what "which" was referring to. Obviously the "correct" formulation would be "in the context they are placed", though "they are placed" seems out of place, but I can't come up with a proper alternative at the moment.

I rest my case.


Also:

Sorry for butting in

lol

[Hwoarang]

I rest my case.

So you admit defeat Nelson?

[Wander]

The contrary. I thank you for proving my point.

[Hwoarang]

The contrary. I thank you for proving my point.

That I do not understand the intrical "awesomeness" that lies within your, shall I say, special formulation? Or that me correcting your grammar, is due to my allegded belief that I am promoting some sort of "perfection" which is really just a delusion since it apparantly is inherited from indoctrinations from some teachers of mine?