One swipe of a paw could fix that whoopee cushion but good. Of course the resulting blast of air would probably also put kitty through a wall.

The sites a joke for reasons other than this user has chimed-in without understanding the jyst of 'reading anything before purchasing:' Here's a short list:

Hypocrisy/Double standards: Popularity fuels status through brown-nosing and robotic insincerity garners votes rather than content quality prompting the same.

Most people are afraid to cast a down-vote for content rather, they do it when they don't 'like' someone. Petty, pussified, and worthlessly dishonest.

Others, users with nothing better to do than to single out another for divisive abuse when his/her opinion or message doesn't jibe with their cloistered or developmentally-disabled world view, push the envelope with sophomoric rambling or graffiti in the form of retarded commentary on profiles or blatant rule-breaking while admins turn a lazy blind,or otherwise complicate eye....Seek professional help or leave the house every once in a while....Works wonders, kids.

Cocksuckers-by-choice, continue to bring the overall quality of the site down with inane ink-well-dipping and hair-pulling or other wise goading for example, Christians, those with conservative-leaning sensibilities, or constructive-critics, enough so that they stop contributing altogether, lurk, or disappear.

From time-to-time, it has been the job of the strongest-willed and long-suffering,to gently guide these users up the pathway upwards and into their own asses rather than enjoy the place and make whoopee with great content....

Yeah mygamesarefun, don't care if you joined by mistake or were simply dull, there is indeed an air of douche here that's entrenched which continually befouls the collective spirit of community.


Won't name names on my list, cocksuckers-by-choice have mirrors on walls in their funk-caves, down the hall from their game-controllers and pizza-stained and blistered microwaves, as well as the lavatories at their shit jobs or in their fucking mother's basement....Any doubts? Just look at the banter above and save your fucking money.

Oh and.....Have a NICE day.

(cue comment down-votes, and fuck-off.)


Some of the most egregious of violators are sure to chime-in on this thread, stay tuned for more guano, coming-up next.

But my European country is better! All my internet activity is monitored by the NSA, GCHQ and our own national intelligence service.

Three for the price of one. Whoopee!

Essentially you are saying you support a blood-thirsty murderer over two property-coveting thieves. Whoopee.

>> ^rottenseed:

I don't feel bad about the two men that were shot, however, nobody's life was at risk so I can't really backup the guy that shot them. There is a chance, however, that he might be unaware of the well-being of his neighbors (ie, they might have been inside, injured, or incapacitated). Both parties took risks, if I had to measure which one's risk was for the right reasons, I'd lean toward the side of the shooter. It's not a pretty situation. Not all situations have a pretty solution.

>> ^criticalthud:

yes, we can debate laws and other agreements of questionable merit. but
i kind of think the US is acting like an asshole. our image worldwide is fucked.
does anyone not get that we militarily occupy their holy land? we got our fingers so deep in their pants. we declare war when it suits us, and we blast them with drones and gunships from afar - and, quite naturally, they see it as acts of cowardice.
and then we have headlines about killing the guy who made an underwear bomb that didn't work. whoopee, we killed the crotch-bomber. the world is safe. billions of dollars and a ruined world image, while we create 10 enemies for every one we kill. what a sick stupid joke.


My 21yo cousin is hiking through Afghanistan with his M4. You call that cowardice?

Every day he's sending pictures of the kids' school he's protecting, or the land mines he's removing. Those Taliban types, they've sure got honor on their side.

yes, we can debate laws and other agreements of questionable merit. but
i kind of think the US is acting like an asshole. our image worldwide is fucked.

does anyone not get that we militarily occupy their holy land? we got our fingers so deep in their pants. we declare war when it suits us, and we blast them with drones and gunships from afar - and, quite naturally, they see it as acts of cowardice.
and then we have headlines about killing the guy who made an underwear bomb that didn't work. whoopee, we killed the crotch-bomber. the world is safe. billions of dollars and a ruined world image, while we create 10 enemies for every one we kill. what a sick stupid joke.

I'm sorry I corrected your spelling. I should have been nice, but I didn't like your insinuatioin that I'm a liar. You have to forgive me when it comes to grammar and stuff. I'm studying English, and while mine is not perfect, I am slightly annoyed by people who completely disregard grammar and capitalization like you do. But that really isn't your problem, because it doesn't matter. Just a pet peeve of mine.

How long can you go without watching porn?

In reply to this comment by deputydog:
>> ^thepinky:
DeputyDog, I'm not a counseller or even a counselor...


are we pouncing on spelling now ms pinky? ok then. 'heroin' is a drug, whereas 'heroine' is the word used to describe a female character much admired for her heroic actions.

you should clean your own stinking kitchen before reporting my cockroaches to the authoritays.


>> ^thepinky:
...but why is it so hard to believe that I know three guys who have talked to me about their porn dependency? I talk about serious topics with lots of people, not just you guys. One of my good friends told me this after I knew him for about 2 weeks. I'm very open with other people about my own experiences, and they often confide in me.


it's not impossible for you to know that many porn addicts by chance, that much i admit, but it's extremely unlikely. either a) you're incredibly 'lucky', especially at your age, to have randomly met these guys, b) you haven't met these guys, or c) they're feeding you a lot of bullshit (maybe through fear after realising you want to end porn's life).

if you have somehow met all these tragic porn addicts, please realise that this is not the norm. it's very much the opposite. i also talk to people about serious topics (it's not whoopee cushions all the time) but don't know a single man, or woman, who has a problem with porn, and that includes friends of friends of friends (and so on).

i'm actually surprised you haven't boycotted the sift anyway. i take it you've seen pornbumper?

>> ^thepinky:
DeputyDog, I'm not a counseller or even a counselor...


are we pouncing on spelling now ms pinky? ok then. 'heroin' is a drug, whereas 'heroine' is the word used to describe a female character much admired for her heroic actions.

you should clean your own stinking kitchen before reporting my cockroaches to the authoritays.


>> ^thepinky:
...but why is it so hard to believe that I know three guys who have talked to me about their porn dependency? I talk about serious topics with lots of people, not just you guys. One of my good friends told me this after I knew him for about 2 weeks. I'm very open with other people about my own experiences, and they often confide in me.


it's not impossible for you to know that many porn addicts by chance, that much i admit, but it's extremely unlikely. either a) you're incredibly 'lucky', especially at your age, to have randomly met these guys, b) you haven't met these guys, or c) they're feeding you a lot of bullshit (maybe through fear after realising you want to end porn's life).

if you have somehow met all these tragic porn addicts, please realise that this is not the norm. it's very much the opposite. i also talk to people about serious topics (it's not whoopee cushions all the time) but don't know a single man, or woman, who has a problem with porn, and that includes friends of friends of friends (and so on).

i'm actually surprised you haven't boycotted the sift anyway. i take it you've seen pornbumper?

What's funny is that the "I could care less" thing is very low on my list of grammar pet peeves (that guy was just bugging me). Conversational language is far looser than the written word, and a lot of things get a pass from me. It is also ever evolving. However, while it may be about what is implied or inferred, if you're not careful with what you say, those two can be in direct opposition. That can definitely be the case with "I could care less" (though folks seem to have accepted it). The lazier we get with our language, the less* we will understand each other in the future. The world has enough trouble communicating as it is, we shouldn't help it along.


*Less vs Fewer IS one of my pet peeves, on the other hand.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
"Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred)."


Yes, and "language" is about what is implied and what is inferred. Grammar is not the only factor involved in communication.

Language is the systematic creation and usage of systems of symbols —each referring to linguistic concepts with semantic or logical or otherwise expressive meanings.

Communication is the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs. Communication sometimes has nothing to do with grammar.



That being said, it bugs the CRAP outta me when somebody says, "I could care less."






In reply to this comment by Bullwinkle:
"Yep, mixed up imply/infer and didn't reread my post. Whoopee, what a tame and insanely common mistake. Notice how I can admit where I'm wrong instead of kicking the air like a mule."

A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.

"What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken."

I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.

Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant. As another example, people may know what you mean when you use a double negative, that doesn't make it correct.

"Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred)."


Yes, and "language" is about what is implied and what is inferred. Grammar is not the only factor involved in communication.

Language is the systematic creation and usage of systems of symbols —each referring to linguistic concepts with semantic or logical or otherwise expressive meanings.

Communication is the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs. Communication sometimes has nothing to do with grammar.



That being said, it bugs the CRAP outta me when somebody says, "I could care less."






In reply to this comment by Bullwinkle:
"Yep, mixed up imply/infer and didn't reread my post. Whoopee, what a tame and insanely common mistake. Notice how I can admit where I'm wrong instead of kicking the air like a mule."

A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.

"What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken."

I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.

Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant. As another example, people may know what you mean when you use a double negative, that doesn't make it correct.

"Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred)."


Yes, and "language" is about what is implied and what is inferred. Grammar is not the only factor involved in communication.

Language is the systematic creation and usage of systems of symbols —each referring to linguistic concepts with semantic or logical or otherwise expressive meanings.

Communication is the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs. Communication sometimes has nothing to do with grammar.



That being said, it bugs the CRAP outta me when somebody says, "I could care less."






In reply to this comment by Bullwinkle:
"Yep, mixed up imply/infer and didn't reread my post. Whoopee, what a tame and insanely common mistake. Notice how I can admit where I'm wrong instead of kicking the air like a mule."

A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.

"What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken."

I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.

Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant. As another example, people may know what you mean when you use a double negative, that doesn't make it correct.

"Yep, mixed up imply/infer and didn't reread my post. Whoopee, what a tame and insanely common mistake. Notice how I can admit where I'm wrong instead of kicking the air like a mule."

A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.

"What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken."

I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.

Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant. As another example, people may know what you mean when you use a double negative, that doesn't make it correct.

>> ^Bullwinkle:
Banshee, stop tossing around the "English grad" thing like it's some kind of major accomplishment. A) English is one of the most common majors and B) Just because you studied literature does not mean you comprehend language.


Right, because writing about 100 formal papers on literature at a major university gives you roughly same exposure to language and its rules as a high school diploma or an Engineering degree. My bad, shouldn't have mentioned it.


As an example, I might point you to the definition of the word "infer."


Yep, mixed up imply/infer and didn't reread my post. Whoopee, what a tame and insanely common mistake. Notice how I can admit where I'm wrong instead of kicking the air like a mule.


No matter how much inflection or nuance or meaning you want to throw at the phrase, "I could care less" structurally does not imply what is intended when it's typically used.


What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken.

Vidal sets up a straw man (Christianity = do good and go to heaven) and then knocks it down. In the words of the Dalai Lama: Whoopee.

The god Vidal rejects he rightly rejects. That god does not exist.