Education on English prt 1

[Kevin]

This is turning into a paper I am writing on the egnlish language. ^_^ Here is my progress thus far. I am too tired or I would've covered the grammatical structure. Grammatical structure will be the next section.



Let’s begin with two words:

Dogma
Main Entry: dog·ma
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'do g-m&, 'däg-
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at
DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Examples of Dogma:
• The idea that nobody but Christopher Columbus believed the earth was round.
• Queen Isabella hocked her royal jewels to fund the “trip of exploration”.
• Chris called the natives Indians because he thought he was in the East Indies.
• Creationism/Intelligent Design
• The Earth Revolving around the Sun
• The idea that Andrew Jackson was a Great American President

Ridiculous ideas such as:
• The Moon Landing was Faked
• The notion that Canada suffered more from the GREAT AMERICAN DEPRESSION and the GREAT AMERICAN DUSTBOWL than the United States.
• That Genghis Khan had an Empire (he did not have standardized currency or form of law across the entire which are both requirements for the classification of EMPIRE).

Aren’t quite examples of Dogma because they are only believed by a handful of people and not entire institutions. The Genghis Khan empire bit borders on the edge, but people still have yet to prove the whole pesky standardized imperial currency and judicial system bit.


Misnomer
Main Entry: mis·no·mer
Function: noun
Pronunciation: "mis-'nO-m&r
Etymology: Middle English misnoumer, from Middle French mesnommer to misname, from mes- mis- + nommer to name, from Latin nominare -- more at NOMINATE
1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument
2 a : a use of a wrong name b : a wrong name or designation
- mis·no·mered /-m&rd/ adjective

Basically a misnomer happens when somebody in power (who shouldn’t be in power) likes to state that something else (of which he/she has no knowledge) is something specific (which it really isn’t).

Examples of Misnomers -

• Lots of people like to refer to Military Intelligence as an “oxymoron”. However, I believe it’s closer to a misnomer (this one’s up for debate).

• The International Astronomer’s Union (those pesky anti-American European scientists) declassification of Pluto:
The document and the Anti-American sentiment involved in declassifying Pluto makes it, at the very least, suspect of being a misnomer. By using a document that’s incredibly ambiguous and by rights declassifies Jupiter and Saturn as well (since nobody has yet proven either planet has a core and Jupiter is believed to be a failed gas giant which precludes it from being a planet by their own definition), the validity of the science behind such a claim is questionable. The actions of the IAU clearly gives a signal that it was driven by political attack against the United States of America (Pluto was discovered by an America (U.S.) and this event happened shortly after other Anti-American (U.S.) statements from various European science agencies began to surface). Jealously perhaps that the United States of America continually kicks butt in the Nobel Prize awards?

• Another Misnomer: American.
Referring to a United States citizen as an American, when both North America and South America are well.. America! And technically anyone living on these two land masses is an American!
(I was lectured on this by my friend in Peru).

• Native American
This word has me pimp slapping a lot of people lately. In no way shape or form are any Indian tribes ‘Native’. As for the word Indian, it is from a phrase C.Col. wrote down in his little book: “Una gente in Dios”- a people in god. Indian is more appropriate, but to make the distinction it might be alright to write American Indian (though the real tribal name would probably be better).


Combine both of these magical words together in an algebraic equation, and you wind up with a phrase so magically powerful it’ll turn your whole world upside down:

“Dogmatic-misnomer”

Something so ingrained in political divisions, that the result is a misnamed entity which has little truth to the facts. You know what the amazing thing is? Dogmatic-misnomers are actually very common! In fact, they are so common, I’ve got TWO ENTIRE EXAMPLES!

• English is primarily a German language.
• Romance Languages.


Romance Language

A few things you should realize about this Dogmatic-misnomer:

1. It was invented in the 1770s.
2. If you actually look up the definition, it clearly says it’s only referring to Indo European languages directly derivative of Latin. Anything outside of Europe doesn’t count. Oh... that’s a bit of a hitch, especially when you view the variances of Spanish between the American continent and Spain. It also starts to hurt French... “What? You’re nuts!” Well, all this is explained later on.
3. If you actually look at the word itself, it’s a load of crock. “What? How can this be! People have been using this term for centuries!” It can be, because that’s the way it is. The actual term is Romanice Loqui -which means to ‘SPEAK in the Fashion of Romans’. There’s another term as well which you’ll see floating about: ‘Lingua ex Romanice’ and ‘Lingua ex Romana’. Both essentially mean the same thing: ‘Language of the Romans/Rome’
Funny, it’s not confused with the word Romance. In fact, the word ROMANCE itself in Latin is either:
• Amor for Love
• Fabula for story (such as romantic drama).

How then are “Latin languages” also described as Romantic (and yes, I’ve heard this bull plop more than once)? Even the ROMANS didn’t call Latin Romantic. Romans called Latin a language of the people of ROME!
There is absolutely no, none, a 100% ABSENCE of ANY connection between Latin and Romance prior to 1770.
I’ll tell you how: Political Propaganda. Spain is at war with Britain; Italians don’t care for Britain; French signed a temporary “official” peace, while simultaneously funding and inciting Indian riots against British colonial troops, and then supporting the Colonial Rebellion, all the while trying to circumvent British trading routes to India; To top that all off, the French were causing problems in the northern portion of the American Gulf which stifled trade from one of the most prosperous areas of the 13 colonies.
So this new term is invented during a “time of peace” (yeah right. This period should be described as a time of “Lacking Open War”, cause it sure as spit wasn’t peaceful). This term is associated ENTIRELY and ONLY within the confines of the Indo-European Latin Based Languages. It was a form of propaganda (“Us” and “Them”).
This term also comes from the Latin phrase which means “Language of the Romans.” If these romance languages were indeed the language of the Romans, then how come spoken French (a language from a people that were conquered by the Goths multiple times) has so many silent N’s, E’s T’s R’s G’s not to mention the Diphthonged Vowels that vary depending on your region of birth and which consonant follows or precedes the vowel itself!— the entire spoken portion of FRENCH is a completely different language!
It’s like somebody came and decided they didn’t want to be illiterate anymore. Some King, from, oh, I dunno – a GOTHIC TRIBE. He grabbed the Latin Alphabet (which was stolen from the Phoenicians btw) and said: “I say this word and I’m gonna use this letter to make this sound and I’m sticking this letter in here because it looks cooool.”
Anyone who has a Spanish friend. Especially one from America will tell you this:
The French language is impossible to understand when it is spoken. They can read it pretty easily, but listening to the spoken butchering of Latin is pretty hard for a native Spanish (or for that matter, Italian) speaker.
And yet, every single one of my native Spanish speaking friends said they could BS their way through spoken English because they could at least understand the Latin roots and Pronunciation of many English words.
The fact of the matter is, a language is primarily spoken, not written.
Now days we have the luxury of 99% literacy rates. Back 200 years, maybe half of a village could write (but only if it had a schooling system). Back 400 years, you’d be lucky to find someone in a village who could make simple sentences.
The spoken language of French is a literal butchering of basic, fundamental Latin constructs (and if anyone else has been on the western border of France, it gets even worse there because they literally and freely mix German words and structure with the French words - it really is a joke).

French is still a Latin Language
(I’m not saying it isn’t)

However, it is remains a fact that French not the language of Rome. As for it being a “romantic language” - that’s depending on whether or not a person thinks guttural, almost throat scraping, pronunciations is a romantic way of speaking.
So we’ve learned three things:
1. Romance Language is a dogmatic-misnomer (Romance not even being the correct word to begin with)
2. French routinely disobeys Latin structure and pronunciation of Latin words. I’m sorry but Latin doesn’t have diphthong vowels like French does, and neither does it toss in dyslexic R’s or silent G’s.
3. Romanice (roh-mah-ni-che) Lingua or whichever phrase you want to use (there are a number of them all mean the same), means that the language is the language of Romans.

That brings me to the conclusion about this Dogmatic-Misnomer of “Romance Language” - THE LANGUAGE OF THE ROMANS!

There’s only one language 100% justifiable and deserving of this term. ONLY ONE:

Italian

So, because of my Italian family honor (I’m 1/4th Italian on my mom’s side), it is my duty to pimp slap anyone who calls any language other than Italian a “Romance Language”. Because the people in Rome do speak well– ITALIAN! And that’s the only language being spoken by NATIVE ROMANS!
If you go to Rome, and you try to speak French to a Roman Citizen who does not know French, and you try to tell them that French is the “Language of ROME”, you’ll either sleep with the fishes or be laughed out of town!
Spanish speakers – eh.. They can kinda get away with it.

Conclusion:
I don’t listen to idiotic Dogma which has no basis in reality. The term “Romance Language” has no basis in reality. It’s a load of bullplop.
The definition for “The Language of ROME” Begins and ends in ROME. And that language is Italian. Live with it.



English
What to call it?

The first thing to understand about the lingual class system is that it was written by a bunch of pompous politically motivated morons back in the 18th century and further solidified in the 19th century, during the fall of the Spanish Armada, the Rise and Fall of Napoleon, and the progeny and marriages concerning England, Germany and Austira which directly and unavoidably lead to World War I (and the peace treaty of that in turn lead directly to World War II).
Is it no wonder with two of England’s enemies of the 18th and 19th centuries being visibly related to Latin in spelling (French pronunciation is another matter), that England wanted to separate itself from both France and Spain (and vice versa)?
What better way than to construct a fantastical myth that English isn’t a Bastard Language, and is instead of direct German Heritage!
A curious note: the reason why the Kaiser started WWI was that he wanted to lay claim to not only descent from the Roman Empire, but as rightful heir the British Throne. You do realize that Hitler’s whole Third Reich nonsense is broken down like this:
1. The Holy Roman Empire
2. The crowning of Wilhelm I through to the abdication of Wilhelm II’s reign in 1919.
3. Himself

It was all a continuation of Queen Victoria’s God gave us Germany, Germany gave us civilization propaganda bullplop that was made during the political marriages.
It was the Age of Enlightenment, the 18th-19th centuries. The age where everyone and their buddy knew what was what, and would make square pegs fit in round holes because they had a divine institution at their back! While many people were right, many others were wrong. In either case it was the beginning of modern science (even Napoleon played a strong part in science, as he defined some pretty strong boundaries for the study of Archaeology).
In this age of Emperors, Kings and Would be Emperors, nobody wants to admit that the language they speak is the language of their enemies, or a bastard language.

Unfortunately that’s just what English is.

The Arguments

“English is German because Old English was a lot like German because it was brought over by the Germanic tribes!”

Problem #1
The name German comes from the Latin word Germanus. There are various usages of Germanus/Germanicus, such as meaning sibling, or meaning colony outside of the Empire, or as a formal/nick name (cognomen for certain people) such as Nero’s family. It does not mean people from Germany. The entire term Germanic Tribes is an awful, misleading term that will get you in serious trouble if you try to use it to trace “German Genealogy”.
The people you want to be discussing which shared various words with the Celts and Picts of the Angli(s) Isles (NOT English, but Angli or Anglis), is Gothic.
And there were several Gothic Tribes.

Problem #2
Gothic Tribes were illiterate. They knew it. The Visigoths didn’t like being illiterate, and in fact, they went to work for Rome as Rome’s legionaries. You see after a few hundred years, Rome got fed up with killing its own citizens for imperial expansion so they started privatizing the army. When they privatized they did two things:
1. They convinced their employees that they would become full fledged Roman citizens (this is a big thing, remember it).
2. They taught them how to read. Yep, you heard me. The entire concept of imperialistic control was held together by the written word, from an Alphabet Rome stole from the Phonecians,

What happened next was the Visigoths fought for Rome and did all the brutal killing. They forged a path through other Gothic Tribes who refused to follow Rome. All under the promise that they’d be part of the Roman Empire and enjoy the same luxuries of the Roman citizen. Hell! These people, these Visigoths even worshiped the god MARS! A ROMAN DEITY!
This fulfillment of their contract never happened. Treaties were broken so many times with the Visigoths that King Alaric got fed up, took all of the Goths who were Roman Legionaries and sacked Rome. Alaric assumed that by insuring the lives of regular Roman citizens and by not stealing that much out of the treasury, that Rome would then see that its entire army was made of the people it was treating so poorly.
Well, things didn’t quite work out the way Alaric planned, especially since he died shortly after.
The point is, the language that so many people attribute to being completely Germanic in origin, really isn’t. Much of it was Latin! The Goths wanted to learn LATIN! In fact, the Goths went around spreading their misunderstanding of Latin under the assumption that they were teaching Latin! Good news for the Goths, a lot of the words they had were only 1-2 alphas off from being Latin.
This happened again with what some people call Franco Goths (who were really just a bunch of Visigoths who settled in France and then became the Normans).
The Visigothic tribes were so incensed with Rome that after Rome Fell they conquered Europe in an attempt to emulate the Roman Empire (invading France, Spain, and trying to reform their relations with the Ostrogoths), they even came up into Britain. Unfortunately due to the tribal system being a load of crock, none of the Tribal Leaders wanted to admit anyone else was the Emperor/King. So their empire didn’t stand a chance.
The term Germanic Tribes is a complete and total construct of the imagination. No such thing. There were Goths who wanted to be Romans, but they weren’t an autonomous society called Germans that created their own language. If anything, the Gothic assimilation and cross association across all of Europe proves that they took whatever civilization they saw in others and tried to make it their own! They took Latin and tried to insert it into their language, giving form of speech and alphabet, they took military tactics and tried to create an empire, they took religion and tried to make it their own.


Add yet another name to our list of Dogmatic-misnomers:
Romance Language
Germanic Tribes


Problem #3
Old English is Germanic <= ok let’s cut this out right here, because you and I both now know this term is wrong. So, let me begin: Old English is Frisian/Pre-Latin Gothic in origin. That’s better. A little more exact, but not quite. For you see, there is one problem with this sentence about Old English – English wasn’t a word when Old English was being spoken. It was written as Anglis and depending on which illiterate Celtic or Pictish tribe you were a member of, you might’ve pronounced it Anglif (which could’ve been with a Hard A or a Soft A or with an O sound). The Celts and Picts weren’t called illiterate because they knew how to spell or how to pronounce words.
In fact the whole Angli/Anglis/Anglif/Angle/Anglo came from the LATIN descriptions of the people! Celts and Picts relied on someone else to spell their names properly because they couldn’t do it!
So why the hell is Old English called Old English?
Also according to various books (such as Wordcraft and the Old English Grammar and Reader, [as a term] “many people now tend to prefer [calling this language] “Old English,” because it indicates the continuity of the history of the language, especially when placed alongside the terms “Middle English” and “Modern English.””
(I inserted those brackets [] to cover what I snipped.)

So, what we have here, is a language that isn’t really called English, which isn’t really from Germanic Tribes being used to justify the language we now speak. Hrm. Something smells fishy here.
This alone is enough to prove the term: “Old English” is really a Dogmatic (an unquestioned decision handed down from someone in authority) misnomer (a name that is completely contrary to the actual word).


Add yet another name to our list of Dogmatic-misnomers:
Romance Language
Germanic Tribes
Old English


But we’re not through yet. No, you see, a language is primarily spoken, with grammar attached. So let’s take a look at this Anglo-Saxon language (all of this information can be found in either of the two books I mentioned earlier):

1. The spelling system of this language was not fixed or regular. Well... this is a polite way of saying the Celts and Picts were illiterate morons.

2. Vowels and diphthongs are either long or short. This feature, vowel length, is difficult for students to grasp, because Modern English no longer has it.” <= direct quote, page 9 of the Old English Grammar and Reader book.
Why were vowels like this? Well, they were like this because Old English didn’t have specific grammatical structure. It relied entirely on metrics - it was a language spoken like poetry. Ever listen to someone from Ireland speak? How they have a sort of “sing song” to their voice? A lot of that is left over from the Picts and thus, the Anglo-Saxon language.

3. Misspellings and mispronunciations. Even after the Latin Introduction, vowels and consonants tended to change depending on where you were, and who you were, a simple letter (such as the letter g) would come out as a myriad of sounds. G, for example, was vocalized as either Gh in gun, Y in yet, the voiced backstop of Guh as the ng sound in Finger/Singer (it’s as if you’re hitting your throat before you even get to the vowel), finally the fourth sound of G was a weird guttural drop present between two vowels - almost like the g in the German word of sagen. Modern English doesn’t treat the G quite the same way as the harsher, more primitive pronunciation in the Anglo-Saxon language.
There are other comments about various letters not making it the same way as they did in the Anglo-Saxon language, however, I’m trying to keep this short.

4. Inflection and Word Order. Old English is an inflected language, much like Latin and Russian. The essential system of the language is that grammatical relationships are indicated by inflections.” <= Grammar and Reader book again, this time page 14.
Hrm. This is interesting. “Old English” which is supposed to be our direct PURE link to German, has an inflected structure kinda like Latin and Russian.
However, the Anglo-Saxon language is a bit less stable than Latin. While Latin has a pretty solid grammatical foundation, the description of the “Old English” inflection does not. This book does state that Nouns, Pronouns, Adjectives, and Verbs have set endings (good, great! You kinda need that to have a language), however, their placement is not on a solid grammatical foundation!
Instead, Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives and Pronouns, all vary considerably based on the cantor of your speech.
If you give a heavy inflection of the first portion of a Noun, then the Verb with an “ending stress” would come after to bring a “singing” or “poetic” closure to the sentence. Likewise, if you have a Noun with the same stresses of the Verb, the very same Verb may instead be given a “beginning stress” and tossed back into the front of the sentence!
It all depended on WHO YOU WERE, WHERE YOU LIVED, AND YOUR ACCENT!
Now, Alfred tried his best to standardize the Anglo-Saxon language (and that’s why many of the very few works he commissioned seemed to have a standard -most of the time), unfortunately he was speaking to a bunch of illiterates who couldn’t even spell a word the same way twice. Let alone pronounce the word the same way twice.
Stating that this language had a Grammatical Foundation is really stretching the definition of the word Foundation.

5. “Words of Old English are used in English so that must mean they’re connected!” Yeah. People like to use this argument when they don’t have anything left to argue. They’ll take words such as“We,” and try to justify that as the foundation for the Modern English language. And it’s true, some of those words are from the old tongue! (By the way, WE is really Gothic in origin “weis”, not Anglo-Saxon).
Unfortunately these people fall into the category of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
For you see, while there are SOME words of Anglo-Saxon language in Modern English, we have just as many, if not more words from Greek in our language as well. Most of the words in the Anglo-Saxon tongue either aren’t even close to Modern English counterparts, their meanings don’t begin to resemble a similar spelled modern word (which in turn, brings that connection into question), or haven’t been used for centuries.

Examples:
word - definition
• ac - but, on the contrary
• amber - a measure <= not even close to the word we use today
• aeht - property, possessions
• aeld - fire
• benn - wound
• bill - sword

Here’s a toss up word, which doesn’t mean the same thing but in fact, does seem to have a very weak connection to a Modern English contraction:

• cunnan - know (an interesting note about this word as I read it, cannst is used for a term “know how to” as in you CAN do it. What’s amusing is that cannst when pronounced sounds like can’t which means the exact opposite).
• clifian - adhere
• clipian - call, call out
• cludiz - rocky
• cluppan - embrace

The list goes on but this page has to be short. If you are interested in seeing a full list, I will be creating a page consisting of a database of words. You are also welcome to look up such words, just remember whatever word looks similar, make sure you check the etymology in other corresponding dictionaries (English, French, Latin, German), because the Picts/Celts might’ve actually stolen the word from somebody else!
Other words such as “And” aren’t even Anglo-Saxon or for that matter, Gothic in origin. They actually came from other language such as SANSKRIT and traveled through the Gothic Lands INTO the Anglo-Saxon isles! (“And” came from “Anti”, the letters ti were pronounced the same as a hard “D” sound with only a slight variation of the tongue against the pallet. This realm goes into phonetic studies, such as mutations of consonants found in all languages : involuntary n’s m’s prior to d’s and p’s. And the mutation of d’s from t’s or b’s and v’s).

6. “Well then what the hell is going on here? I was told Old English is really the beginning of the English Language. And when the HELL did we change our language if it all came from the British Isles!?”
Well, yeah and no. You see, this is the problem with people who think they are smarter than they really are, and this is also what you get when you have edicts of establishments (such as the British crown) using the educational system as a propaganda ploy.
The Anglo-Saxon language does have a mild influence on the Modern English tongue, but so did Gothic languages, and so did the Roman influence on the barbarous Celts/Picts (barbarian actually means a group of people without a standardized communication, society, government. Anything consisting of Tribal system of government with clear lack of standardized language from one tribe to the next does mean Barbarism. It’s become “politically incorrect” because a lot of people don’t like ever imagining their Forefathers were barbarians. I’ve got no problem with it.).
Now, the Anglo-Saxon language did manage to “survive” the Roman occupation of the British isles, however, trade and commerce with the remnants of the Roman people continued. It was only then in the following centuries that the real written foundations begin to pop up (enter Alfred, who did his best to educate his illiterate people), but whatever chance the Anglo-Saxon language had at establishing a secure footing was dashed aside after the Norman invasion of 1066.
It goes something like this: The *Normans, who were the precursor to the French, brought forth the Norman Language (precursor to the French language), as well as some Roman ORDAINED priests (who spoke LATIN!!!!!). According to the Oxford English dictionary online, “Old English” was all but exterminated by the invasion.
Now let’s get to that little * I marked by the Normans. It’s become a convention to refer to the Normans as North-men, and to give the credit of the word Man/Men to the Goths. Unfortunately this is wholly and entirely wrong.
The word Man is actually from Latin. Humanus. Humans meaning Human, and that meaning - a colloquial term for our species but also specifically “humane, kind, courteous; cultured, refined, well-educated” and if you attach a -o maior to the end, you wind up with “super human”. The word “man” is also seen in Roman (haven’t you ever noticed that it’s a tendency for Latin languages to add an -an, -ian or -man after a location to denote a person’s place of origin? It is a universal concept as other languages have a similar grammar construct).


Add yet another name to our list of Dogmatic-misnomers:
Romance Language
Germanic Tribes
Old English
Norman <= the name itself fits, but the “official” etymology for man forgot to actually search for the root suffix. So, the etymology is really Dogmatic, and definitely gives the wrong people credit. The word NORTH however is Norse/Gothic in origin.

Conclusion:
The argument of: “English is German because Old English was a lot like German because it was brought over by the Germanic tribes!” is wholly and completely an uneducated argument. There is absolutely no basis in reality for this statement to even exist, outside of political propaganda used by Britain to connect the British (English speakers) with their “brother/sisters/extended family” (Latin word for that being Germanus) located in Deutschland.

“English is German because I looked it up on the Information Super-Highway and I saw a pie chart!”


Believe it or not, I’ve read and heard this argument quite often. Why should the Internet be right or wrong? It’s only ever given us Wiki-Pedia, Google, Direct to your Home Politics, Porn and Spyware! Well, the internet is a marvelous thing, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a double edged sword. Whatever, and whenever you look up information, make sure you can double check the facts. Too often it is the skills of a graphic artist using photoshop who is convincing uneducated minds, rather than the research of a college educated man or woman. Also, beware of .edu sites. Many educational institutions freely give web access to first year students, and the information itself is unsubstantiated because it’s awaiting a grade or has been posted as part of a school project.


“If that’s true then how the hell do I know what or who to trust!?”


In cases such as this paper, and the English language, you should trust history. Look up words, look up the topics, that are being discussed from a neutral source. A neutral source is a piece of information which has no stake politically, personally, or professionally in the end result. In the case of the English language neutral sources would include but not be limited to: Latin - English / English - Latin Dictionaries; German - English / English - German Dictionaries; Unabridged English Dictionary (these dictionaries usually contain detailed etymologies); Old English Readers and Word Tanks (there are many, and few are 100% complete); Historical Papers or Novels written at specific periods of time usually contain the standard method of speech for that specific language (be careful of examining prose); Grammatical readers containing rules appropriate to the language in question provide a great comparative base.
Check and cross reference multiple sources. In this information age, people somehow think everybody has checked their sources. As a result, many of these people only obtain 1-2 sources. There needs to be an examination of at least 5-10 neutral sources to truly gain an idea of what is correct, and what is a steaming load of bullshit. When sources all agree on one thing, such as etymologies of words not changing even though you check 5-10 different dictionaries, then it’s safe to come to the conclusion that “Hey, this information is right on the button.”

[Potato]

[Ash]

[Kevin]

It's a paper I'm going to use by rolling it up, and hitting people over the head while saying:

[Potato]

[Kevin]

[Potato]

[Jeffbert]

[Potato]

Jeffbert be careful how you word your posts.

[Kevin]

Jeffbert -- show me where in my post I said that it was anything close to being complete.

kthxbb

and seriously, if you can't follow the logical progression of what I've written so far, then you haven't even remotely tried to read it. And when people don't remotely even try to read what I post before coming off with incredibly inflamatory and uneducated posts, I tend to take a big piece of rolled up paper and:

[Potato]

K.

Kevin, before you poke Jeffbert in the brain, read the part of his post where he said he did not want to read what you had written.

Jeffbert be careful how you word your posts.
Kevin, no backstabbing.

[Kevin]

yes I saw potato ^_^

I'm just telling jeffbert to be careful with his inflamatory comments around me, because I'm no stranger to taking out my big can of whooparse out of the cupboard.

[Potato]

Remember Kevin you must understand that Jeffbert is much older and wiser than most likely all of us put together, so be careful how you speak to him. He might take offence.

And Jeffbert try not to provoke Kevin into saying something that would make you yell at him.

[Jeffbert]

[Kevin]