I like a sesquipedalian soliloquy, but Matt and Trey were more intelligibly succinct when they wrote “your intolerance will not be tolerated!”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vTPjuT3rTA

Intolerant of newts,
And truth.
And honesty.
And evidence.
And knowledge.
And reason.
And logic.
And tolerance.

Edit: Oh, and intolerant of people who don’t want to be shot at on the freeway.

And sorry to have to tell you, but you are both toxic AND intolerant. As a newt, I know toxic.

Also so sorry to be sesquipedalian, but you have the advantage there, being able to say all you think you know on a subject in under 144 characters. I can’t. Life is details, details you wish to ignore because they invalidate your arguments.

Besides, as you know from experience, it’s much easier to just make unproven claims, “Everyone knows Trump is an incestuous pedophile.” Than it is to disprove them (your turn).

Just think how lonely you would be without me. No one else wants to engage with you at all. I know, with help, you can fly higher than an eagle…..

I am the wind beneath your wings

No, but I like him. A British brother from another mother? Quite the loquacious perspicacity without a hint of my usual pedantic sesquipedalianism. ;-)

Disappointed that, when he brought up the "no true supporter of mine would ever resort to violence." he didn't remind us of Trump promising to pay the legal fees for anyone that would beat up reporters or liberal protesters at his rallies 5 years ago and never stopped supporting and calling for violence from his supporters.

I have 30 Apple trees, 7-10 cherry trees, peach, nectarines, etc. That means I've read through dozens of gardening books trying to learn how to keep them alive and bearing.

My loquacious lexicon, while not always perspicacitious or erudite, is invariably sesquipedalian if not also outright eldritch. Thank my mom, a top notch professional editor, head of Stanford's publishing wing for decades....also, I like to be weird, especially considering what "normal" is today.

Edit:I also enjoy my "lost word of the day" calendars that offer a word or phrase of the day that's been lost to common English.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

No, your point doesn't stand.

I didn't defend Syntax's comment. I pointed out that you had provided no evidence that Trump had committed any crimes, and that Clinton and he are both innocent until proven guilty. If I was defending anyone, it was Clinton.

These aren't red herrings. Unless pointing out an error is a red herring.

I understand your points perfectly well, they're just wrong.

"sesquipedalianly". Nice word, I had to look that up. For that you win word of the week and ironic phrase of the week all in one.

Do you mean insensitive or slow (in regards to obtuse)? Context is always nice. I admit to being insensitive. But if your attempt was to call me slow I'll have a dozen other people laugh at you on the way out.

The only person battling windmills in this context is you. Fighting against simple corrections. Why? Because you hate Trump? I don't hate or like him or Clinton. But I'll correct other people's dogmatic bullshit against him or Clinton every time I get the opportunity to.

My mistake. I conflated Syntax's comment with your defense of it, but the point still stands, just change "you" to "they" in that paragraph.
Beyond that, you simply created red herrings to attack because you don't understand my points but seem too stubborn to admit it and ask for clarification, and you are STILL incredibly naïve, by either definition, and sesquipedalianly obtuse as well.
Enjoy battling those windmills.

Um...try reading again. I see now that the English language is apparently hard for you. Here, I'll go ahead and quote it for you...."I re-read my entire post, and not a single vulgar word IMO. One abbreviation of a vulgar word." I guess when I wrote "one abbreviation of a vulgar word" you read that as "no sign of vulgar language, even abbreviated". You might want to go back to Cambridge and take English 101.

Ahhh, I see...well then a big old F- You right back to you for all your ridiculous vulgar insulting bullshit.

You might want to learn English as it's used...and you might want to look in a mirror. I'm WRITING to someone who not only seemingly doesn't know to read or use the English language, and he's been a smarmy douche about it to boot. "Fuck you" is vulgar, "Hillary is not a convict" is not vulgar. By your definition, your entire post thread is vulgar, as it is certainly lacking sophistication or good taste, is totally unrefined, ignorant, hateful, now vitriolic, sesquipedalian in the extreme, completely devoid of fiscal responsibility or even consideration, and is lacking in all common sense. It is, indeed, the exact mindset of people in a Fox bubble. (Yeah, Fox, you know, that world wide political news giant you claim to have never heard of...talk about ignorance...holy crap, that's not just ignorant, it's ignant. Look that one up.)

So you know what people mean when they say -Vulgar : Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude:

Perhaps you forgot that you clearly wrote that what you specifically meant by 'vulgar' was "cursing", not "Lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined"...obviously you didn't read your own post, or thought I didn't have the capability to remember. So sad for you. Again, just like Fox bubble people, when your argument is torn to shreds, you just change what you claim your argument was and move on to make more unsophisticated argument.

I'm pretty sure you've broken or burnt out your bulb there, buddy. You WERE amusing until you were contradicted and you got angry and decided to move from being just smarmy on to silly, infantile, completely wrong ad hom attacks against someone you don't know rather than discussion. It's totally not above me to aggravate someone of such a '6 year old spoiled little girl' disposition, but it's not something I intend to spend much time on.

I think you better quit the internet, you're totally doing it wrong.

You've just lost a 'friend' here, one that's helped you repeatedly here already. You can go stamp your feet and scream at the walls in your room now. Expect no further help from me in navigating the site...and expect to be banned if you continue the ad hom attacks against me.

It's even worse when one is the type of person who thinks the best compliment they ever got was 'Newtboy doesn't think the way normal people do.' That's certainly not helpful when attempting internet communication, and maddening for all when people invariably expect you to read into their posts and understand some unwritten or miss-written parts...something I am completely incapable of doing properly.
Thanks for not bailing just because I'm a sesquipedalian pain in the ass.

^
ses·qui·pe·da·li·an
ˌseskwəpəˈdālyən/
adjective
formal
adjective: sesquipedalian

1. (of a word) polysyllabic; long.
"sesquipedalian surnames"

I like that word. Thanks @newtboy

BULLSH!T!!! You engage anyone that will respond. You have never been choosy.
And in case you didn't understand...I'm saying YOU ARE A TROLL (and you appear to be racist judging by past posts, don't get it twisted though, so do I and many others).
In fact, you are the most sesquipedalian wannabe erudite troll I've ever had the misfortune to converse with (I have read worse, but not conversed). Once in a blue moon I actually agree with your point, but NEVER do I agree with your insulting, whining, angry, rambling, faux intellectual way of saying it.
PS ...and before you decide I'm the troll because that's been YOUR experience with me (I admit, I probably look trollish to you), I ask that you note that YOU are the only one I respond to in this manner, and I do it based on our past conversations and your past postings. On the other hand, you pick fights with nearly everyone on the sift, then lambast the sift for being homogeneous (which it's not) and insist that we NEED you here and actually want your ranting and anger. I agree we need dissenting ideas, but not that we need the trolling. I wish you could see that they are different things and separate the two. (To be honest, I don't mind the racism if it's in jest, but I do insist on calling it racism if it is.)