"Great" Britain is Over

[DC Tom]

Just now, Albwan said:

    Best part of this slavery conversation...it's been over for 160 years...no one alive today 

had anything to do with with slavery

 

Well...the US is still paying Civil War pensions to one child of a Confederate soldier.

 

So there's one person still benefiting from slavery.

[Deranged Rhino]

8 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

Are you high?

Your'e alternating between total nonsense, and stuff I never said

 

...Uh, I literally quoted you. You said stupid nonsense - I called it out as such. This is an area I've studied extensively. You're not only incorrect, but massively ignorant of the history you're claiming to be an expert in. 

 

That's not a surprise though, you have yet to say anything that isn't blisteringly stupid since you showed up down here. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 hours ago, #34fan said:

Completely face - f**king the enlightenment wasn't good enough for you, I see... You needed a new continent to gloss-over, generalize, and altogether misunderstand. -You've got to be the most inept, half-assed storyteller I've ever seen in my life.

 

I see you've decided to revert to being a classes and insufferable prick, but still seem to enjoy placing your incredible ignorance on display.  It doesn't surprise me that you, as a world be maker of modern serfs, subject to the whims of the state, would attempt to tear down the Enlightenment.

 

World history is not a blunt object or a weapon to be used to bludgeon one group or individual at the expense of another.  History is history, nothing more.

We can look to history, and it’s various resulting outcomes, as a study in trial and error in so far as it is applicable; but nothing more, as those of us living today had nothing to do with creating that history, and the motivations of those who created that history are largely lost to time, or are glossed over by those seeking to weaponized the past in order to dictate the future through the demonization of certain ethic groups or races.

This is how you are proceeding.

I am not willing to do that, as it’s monumentally stupid to attempt to view the world hundreds of years ago through the moral prism of life in 2018 America.

Slavery was the absolute normal course of the world for all of human history.  Nearly everyone alive today descends directly from serfs.  Everyone.  All of us.

The realities are that history is a brutal place to visit.  Technological advances are slow, and human beings are tribal, and as such are inclined to war and expansion when they encounter other tribes.  Interactions with these other tribes necessitated either their extinction or their subjugation.  Once we managed to pull ourselves out of a nomadic agrarian existence, subjugation became preferable because of labor scarcity.  In other words, economic necessities in the time before automation required the taking of slaves in order to create any degree of prosperity.  This is not my opinion.  It is a fact.

The world proceeded along this timeline, gradually pulling individuals up out of the mud as relative increases in prosperity allowed for capital formation, which continued the long arch of expanding economic empowerment. 

This gradual expansion of empowerment eventually led to places on the timeline where individuals could sustain themselves by thinking rather than toiling towards an early grave, which gave way to philosophy, which eventually gave us the Enlightenment, which set the whole western world free.

No, it did not set the world free immediately, or all at once.  Again, like everything else, the expansion of freedom  was held captive to economic and technological realities, as well as the historical norms of captivity.

Black Americans suffered deeply, and for longer than their white European counterparts, but make no mistake, it was the slow expansion of the ideals of the Enlightenment which freed them, and it was their white European counterparts who broke those chains.

Make no mistake, this is not to laud white Americans in the mid 19^th century.  It simply to say that they, like slavery, are part of our shared world history, and that both, in their time, were considered just; just as what is considered just today has continued to evolve as freedom has expanded.

Quote

Nonsense.

 

 

This one has  been widely debunked as bullsh_t by many sources. The first LEGAL recorded slave in the Americas was John Punch, condemned in court to lifelong servitude for running away from the Virginia plantation of Hugh Gwyn, a white landowner. in 1641

On the positive side, Punch's 11th great-grandson is likely Barack Obama on his mom's side...-Payback's a b*tch ain't it!

 

 

Punch was sentenced for committing a crime.  It was a criminal proceeding which obligated him for breaking his contract of servitude.  It was not the civil taking of a slave, he was simply given a life sentence for his transgressions.  One can argue that his sentence was unduly harsh, and that the reason his sentence was life while his European counterparts received four years was racially motivated, but this was not the beginning of institutionalized slavery as a civil practice.

 

John Castor was the first man declared a slave in civil proceedings under English common law, and he was made slave to Anthony Johnson, a black man.  This was the beginning of the legal institution of slavery in America.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

LONDON STREETS OF RAGE: Terrifying 'zombie-killer' knife attack in broad daylight...

 

 

Machine gun shooting, stabbings as city reels from night of bloodshed...

[DC Tom]

36 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Punch was sentenced for committing a crime.  It was a criminal proceeding which obligated him for breaking his contract of servitude.  It was not the civil taking of a slave, he was simply given a life sentence for his transgressions.  One can argue that his sentence was unduly harsh, and that the reason his sentence was life while his European counterparts received four years was racially motivated, but this was not the beginning of institutionalized slavery as a civil practice.

 

John Castor was the first man declared a slave in civil proceedings under English common law, and he was made slave to Anthony Johnson, a black man.  This was the beginning of the legal institution of slavery in America.

 

 

Let's remember, though, "slave" in the American context includes a lot of ideas.  Punch was instrumental to the institution by firmly establishing the racial disparity that became inherent in American slavery.  Casor was likewise instrumental in establishing the principle that a person could be treated as property and owned.  Neither on their own establishes "slavery," though, since each lacks the particular facet of the other (Punch wasn't a case of establishing private ownership, Casor didn't involve any principles of racial inequality, neither established a hereditary basis for slavery).  They're stepping stones on the path to the institution of American slavery, not complete instances of slavery themselves.

 

Like I said...it's a complex issue.  Simpletons like 34 aren't fit to discuss it.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Let's remember, though, "slave" in the American context includes a lot of ideas.  Punch was instrumental to the institution by firmly establishing the racial disparity that became inherent in American slavery.  Casor was likewise instrumental in establishing the principle that a person could be treated as property and owned.  Neither on their own establishes "slavery," though, since each lacks the particular facet of the other (Punch wasn't a case of establishing private ownership, Casor didn't involve any principles of racial inequality, neither established a hereditary basis for slavery).  They're stepping stones on the path to the institution of American slavery, not complete instances of slavery themselves.

 

Like I said...it's a complex issue.  Simpletons like 34 aren't fit to discuss it.

 

Both fair and valid.

[3rdnlng]

In reading over this thread I got to thinking about present day slavery and the millions of people in North Korea who are enslaved. If Trump is successful in negotiating the right deal with NK then he could quite possibly free those people and be The Great Emancipator ll.

[Tiberius]

3 hours ago, Albwan said:

    Best part of this slavery conversation...it's been over for 160 years...no one alive today 

had anything to do with with slavery, 130,000 Americans died in the conflict that slavery

was part of, a great deal of American's were legal immigrants so they and their families

had virtually nothing to do with American slavery...

I'm really beginning to think the left are moving into the take peoples thought area now.

Taking their guns and speech isn't enough?

     They assume and scream everyone is racist, because... why? Because they feel people

don't like them? I see blacks and hispanics in every job all the way up the feeding trough,

and are at every level of American society, politics, they pretty much dominate sports, 

making millions of dollars, entertainment..on and on and on.

     These people either want people's thoughts or they are systematically trying to

 to snuff out white people. This sounds like the real racism to me.

Slavery was replaced by a racial system that seriously oppressed black people and was around while I was still alive. Many black Americans are still suffering from the long shadow of the oppression of slavery, Jim Crow and racial oppression. 

[#34fan]

6 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, it hasn't been debunked, and many historians also disagree that John Punch was the first slave, as he was sentenced to a lifetime of indentured servitude in the context of a criminal case.  It's only widely considered to be the first instance of racial disparity in justice (his two white co-defendants getting less than lifetime sentences).  But he definitely wasn't the first person committed to a sentence of "lifetime servitude" - and interestingly, there are records of white laborers sentenced to lifetime servitude before Punch.  

 

On the other hand, two years later there was a civil case where a black employer of indentured servants successfully argued that he still owned the rights to a black indentured servant that he freed, who was then indentured by another farmer.  Many historians consider that the first instance of slavery, as it established the civil principle that a person could own another person.

 

And then there's the 1662 law in Virginia that effectively made slavery a hereditary condition - the children of indentured servants, even for life, were still considered free.  The perpetuation of the designation of "property" across generations is a unique feature to American slavery...so one may reasonably argue that the first person born a slave was in fact the first real slave.

 

Again, this tale has been thoroughly THRASHED  and debunked many times over... It pops-up from time to time so homebound, racist, trolls like Tom can back theirbigotry..The case involving Anthony Johnson, (The slave owner in question) and indentured servant John Casor may have been the first civil case involvingslavery in the colonies.Perhaps even the first known case of a Black man owning slaves in what would eventually become a state.... There is ZERO chance,however, that Anthony Johnson was the firstslave owner in America. Not only because it was preceded by Punch-Gwyn, ( and indentured servant sentenced tolifetime ownership) but because the actual firstslaves in the colonies arrived in Jamestown Va. in August, 1619. -A portion  of 20+ Africans pilfered and sold by a British privateers from a Portuguese slave ship they attacked at sea.

 

6 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

The bottom line is: slavery was complex, and you once again demonstrate your massive ignorance trying to simplify the "start" to a single point in time.

 

My Ignorance? -You're the shmuck who kicked it off with:

 

22 hours ago, DC Tom said:

I always like the "White Europeans enslaved Africans" narrative.  Who the hell do people think sold the slaved to the Europeans?

 

Then your PPP side-chick chimed in with:

 

22 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Exactly.  No one ever talks about how capturing slaves from rival tribes to sell to Europeans was the major industry in Africa during that time period.

 

22 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 Hell, the first slave owner in what is now considered America was black.  Until he won a court case in which he refused to free an indentured servant after his period of servitude had expired, slavery didn't exist here.

All of which, we now know to be uninformed, generalized, largely inaccurate, crazy-talk.

 

Tom, my best advice would be to stop farting dumb ideas into the mouths of your bored personal concubines. -And if you cant, at least have the decency to confiscate their f__ing

 

laptops... 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by #34fan

[Deranged Rhino]

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

Again, this tale has been thoroughly THRASHED  and debunked many times over... It pops-up from time to so homebound, racist, trolls like Tom can back their bigotry..

 

The case involving Anthony Johnson, (The slave owner in question) and indentured servant John Casor may have been the first civil case involving slavery in the colonies.

 

Perhaps even the first known case of a Black man owning slaves in what would eventually become a state.... There is ZERO chance, however, that Anthony Johnson was the first

 

slave owner in America. Not only because it was preceded by Punch-Gwyn, ( and indentured servant sentenced to lifetime ownership) but because the actual first

 

slaves in the colonies arrived in Jamestown Va. in August, 1619. -A portion  of 20+ Africans pilfered and sold by a British privateers from a Portuguese slave ship they attacked at

 

sea.

 

 

My Ignorance? -You're the shmuck who kicked it off with:

 

 

Then your PPP side-chick chimed in with:

 

 

All of which, we now know to be uninformed, generalized, largely inaccurate, crazy-talk.

 

Tom, my best advice would be to stop farting dumb ideas into the mouths of your bored personal concubines. -And if you cant, at least have the decency to confiscate their f__ing

 

laptops... 

 

 

Look everyone!  I found him!  The dumbest person on the whole internet!

 

Look, it's not my fault that you have the laziest, most half-assed, "understanding" (I literally cringed using that word to describe your world view) of history I've ever seen.

 

Basically none of what you've had to say on the topic is accurate.  It's highly revisionist at best, and it works only to drive a false narrative of hate.

 

That's what you are:  a purveyor of hate. 

 

And stupidity.

 

Abject stupidity.

 

Someone trashing accurate historical accounts isn't debunking anything.  They're either doing shoddy work, or they're being dishonest to drive their desired narrative towards people who won't actually do their own research and vet what they're being told.

 

Like you.  You !@#$ing muppet.

Edited June 1, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

18 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

Again, this tale has been thoroughly THRASHED  and debunked many times over... It pops-up from time to time so homebound, racist, trolls like Tom can back theirbigotry..The case involving Anthony Johnson, (The slave owner in question) and indentured servant John Casor may have been the first civil case involvingslavery in the colonies.Perhaps even the first known case of a Black man owning slaves in what would eventually become a state.... There is ZERO chance,however, that Anthony Johnson was the firstslave owner in America. Not only because it was preceded by Punch-Gwyn, ( and indentured servant sentenced tolifetime ownership) but because the actual firstslaves in the colonies arrived in Jamestown Va. in August, 1619. -A portion  of 20+ Africans pilfered and sold by a British privateers from a Portuguese slave ship they attacked at sea.

 

 

But YOU'RE THE ONE THAT SAID PUNCH WAS THE FIRST RECORDED SLAVE, DUMBASS!!!!

 

Why don't you just go full retard and say the first recorded slaves in the United States were in Puerto Rico in 1513?  If you're going to keep moving the goalposts, just move 'em back as far as possible.

 

As I said...simpletons like you aren't fit to discuss this.  Or anything else for that matter, you turnip-headed freak.

[#34fan]

 

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Someone trashing accurate historical accounts isn't debunking anything.

 

NO.

 

THEY'RE NOT ACTUAL ACCOUNTS IF THEY'VE BEEN DE-BUNKED BY FACTS. 

 

-You sure you're not a kid someone had with their sister?

 

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

But YOU'RE THE ONE THAT SAID PUNCH WAS THE FIRST RECORDED SLAVE, DUMBASS!!!!

 

 

False... There are literally CHIMPS with better reading comprehension.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dante]

5 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

In reading over this thread I got to thinking about present day slavery and the millions of people in North Korea who are enslaved. If Trump is successful in negotiating the right deal with NK then he could quite possibly free those people and be The Great Emancipator ll.

It's kind of ironic that the societies the left wing adores (China, North Korea, Cuba) are the ones that enslave their citizens the most. But slap "The Peoples Republic" in front of anything and they are all in. 

[DC Tom]

 

43 minutes ago, #34fan said:

False... There are literally CHIMPS with better reading comprehension.

 

 

17 hours ago, #34fan said:

The first LEGAL recorded slave in the Americas was John Punch, condemned in court to lifelong servitude for running away from the Virginia plantation of Hugh Gwyn, a white landowner. in 1641

 

 

Please...tell me, when I wrote that "YOU'RE THE ONE THAT SAID PUNCH WAS THE FIRST RECORDED SLAVE," which part of "The first LEGAL record slave" did I not understand?  

 

I understand you probably have to run the question by Bonzo and Cheeta.  I'll wait.

[4merper4mer]

7 hours ago, B-Man said:

LONDON STREETS OF RAGE: Terrifying 'zombie-killer' knife attack in broad daylight...

 

 

Machine gun shooting, stabbings as city reels from night of bloodshed...

Well, at least non-white cycling seems to be on the rise.

Edited June 2, 2018 by 4merper4mer

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Look everyone!  I found him!  The dumbest person on the whole internet!

 

Look, it's not my fault that you have the laziest, most half-assed, "understanding" (I literally cringed using that word to describe your world view) of history I've ever seen.

 

Basically none of what you've had to say on the topic is accurate.  It's highly revisionist at best, and it works only to drive a false narrative of hate.

 

That's what you are:  a purveyor of hate. 

 

And stupidity.

 

Abject stupidity.

 

Someone trashing accurate historical accounts isn't debunking anything.  They're either doing shoddy work, or they're being dishonest to drive their desired narrative towards people who won't actually do their own research and vet what they're being told.

 

Like you.  You !@#$ing muppet.

This doesn't seem like the best time to take on DC Tom.

Edited June 2, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[#34fan]

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Look everyone!  I found him!  The dumbest person on the whole internet!

 

Look, it's not my fault that you have the laziest, most half-assed, "understanding" (I literally cringed using that word to describe your world view) of history I've ever seen.

 

Basically none of what you've had to say on the topic is accurate.  It's highly revisionist at best, and it works only to drive a false narrative of hate.

 

That's what you are:  a purveyor of hate. 

 

And stupidity.

 

Abject stupidity.

 

Someone trashing accurate historical accounts isn't debunking anything.  They're either doing shoddy work, or they're being dishonest to drive their desired narrative towards people who won't actually do their own research and vet what they're being told.

 

Like you.  You !@#$ing muppet.

 

Relax, you got exposed.

 

You were totally clueless and had zero idea what you were talking about.

 

By way of review, that's zero about European culture

 

zero about the enlightenment

 

and zero about slavery.

 

And If I'm the Muppet, what's Tom''s hand doing up your a____?

[Deranged Rhino]

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, #34fan said:

 

Relax, you got exposed.

 

You were totally clueless and had zero idea what you were talking about.

 

By way of review, that's zero about European culture

 

zero about the enlightenment

 

and zero about slavery.

 

And If I'm the Muppet, what's Tom''s hand doing up your a____?

 

You haven't even made a coherent point, and yet you think you're actually having an argument, and somehow winning it.  

 

You're bizarre.  And not just a harmless little "Talking to the wall" bizarre.  Like a serious, schizo-affective "the walls are talking back" sort of bizarre.

[/dev/null]

13 hours ago, #34fan said:

False... There are literally CHIMPS with better reading comprehension.

 

You should be fired from ABC for that statement and forced to submit a series of contrition Tweets

[#34fan]

22 hours ago, DC Tom said:

Please...tell me, when I wrote that "YOU'RE THE ONE THAT SAID PUNCH WAS THE FIRST RECORDED SLAVE," which part of "The first LEGAL record slave" did I not understand?  

I understand you probably have to run the question by Bonzo and Cheeta.  I'll wait.

 

Are you really such a moron that you can't see the difference? I even made it big and underlined it for you, dumass.

 

It makes all the difference in the world because the lifetime slavery imposed on Punch was the result of criminal, legal proceedings in 1640.

 

Johnson wasn't awarded  Casor in civil court until 1655.

 

In 1641 The first laws giving legality to slavery were written in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties. -Loosely coinciding with the arrival of the Boston's first

 

slave Ship, Desire in 1638. -And even without those facts there's still the documented account of the Jamestown colony. African prisoners, sold as customary

 

slaves upon arrival in 1619. ALL of which make TYTT's original statement:

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 3:49 PM, TakeYouToTasker said:

 Hell, the first slave owner in what is now considered America was black.  

 

ABSOLUTE BULLSH_T.

 

20 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

You haven't even made a coherent point, and yet you think you're actually having an argument, and somehow winning it.  

 

Covering  your ears and screaming over anyone who sees through your alt-right, Nazi-sympathizing, slavery-justifying, horsesh_t, isn't arguing.

 

You hurl names like a special-needs five year old, because you can't argue.

 

I win every time I get PPP's Highbrow tough-guy,-intellectual, to throw poo like a common chimp when he has nothing left.

9 hours ago, /dev/null said:

You should be fired from ABC for that statement and forced to submit a series of contrition Tweets

 

Do you really think I would go out apologizing like poor Roseanne did?

 

She should have vigorously defended her duty as a comedian to tell jokes... In that line of work, the occasional off-color one is inevitable.

 

people shouldn't automatically lose their jobs over that sh_t.   

Edited June 2, 2018 by #34fan

[DC Tom]

52 minutes ago, #34fan said:

Covering  your ears and screaming over anyone who sees through your alt-right, Nazi-sympathizing, slavery-justifying, horsesh_t, isn't arguing.

 

You hurl names like a special-needs five year old, because you can't argue.

 

I win every time I get PPP's Highbrow tough-guy,-intellectual, to throw poo like a common chimp when he has nothing left.

 

The !@#$?  You're hilarious. 

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

Are you really such a moron that you can't see the difference? I even made it big and underlined it for you, dumass.

 

It makes all the difference in the world because the lifetime slavery imposed on Punch was the result of criminal, legal proceedings in 1640.

 

Johnson wasn't awarded  Casor in civil court until 1655.

 

In 1641 The first laws giving legality to slavery were written in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties. -Loosely coinciding with the arrival of the Boston's first

 

slave Ship, Desire in 1638. -And even without those facts there's still the documented account of the Jamestown colony. African prisoners, sold as customary

 

slaves upon arrival in 1619. ALL of which make TYTT's original statement:

 

ABSOLUTE BULLSH_T.

 

 

Covering  your ears and screaming over anyone who sees through your alt-right, Nazi-sympathizing, slavery-justifying, horsesh_t, isn't arguing.

 

You hurl names like a special-needs five year old, because you can't argue.

 

I win every time I get PPP's Highbrow tough-guy,-intellectual, to throw poo like a common chimp when he has nothing left.

 

Do you really think I would go out apologizing like poor Roseanne did?

 

She should have vigorously defended her duty as a comedian to tell jokes... In that line of work, the occasional off-color one is inevitable.

 

people shouldn't automatically lose their jobs over that sh_t.   

I don't claim to have a lot of knowledge regarding the start of slavery in America, but I do claim to be pretty good at judging people (except for my last wife). You called me a dumass a couple of days ago and I corrected you on it. It's dumbass you dumbass. I corrected you. You acknowledged that. So now you call DC Tom a dumass. Do you not learn from your mistakes dumbass? So, I stated that I'm a pretty good judge of people. I judge you as a person adverse to learning new things and afraid of self evaluation. Your take on slavery is most likely what you first learned and you haven't changed it since you learned it. Now, since I'm no expert on the specifics I can't say one way or the other if you are right, partly right  or some degree of wrong. I can only project that you are fullofshit because of your proven intransience and prior posts.

[4merper4mer]

8 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I don't claim to have a lot of knowledge regarding the start of slavery in America, but I do claim to be pretty good at judging people (except for my last wife). You called me a dumass a couple of days ago and I corrected you on it. It's dumbass you dumbass. I corrected you. You acknowledged that. So now you call DC Tom a dumass. Do you not learn from your mistakes dumbass? So, I stated that I'm a pretty good judge of people. I judge you as a person adverse to learning new things and afraid of self evaluation. Your take on slavery is most likely what you first learned and you haven't changed it since you learned it. Now, since I'm no expert on the specifics I can't say one way or the other if you are right, partly right  or some degree of wrong. I can only project that you are fullofshit because of your proven intransience and prior posts.

 

He leaves the b out of dumbass, you add a d to averse.  Can't we all just get along?

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

He leaves the b out of dumbass, you add a d to averse.  Can't we all just get along?

Don't be a dumbass, adverse is a word and it fits within the sentiments I was conveying. A verse would also work, but probably only in the 2nd stanza.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

37 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Don't be a dumbass, adverse is a word and it fits within the sentiments I was conveying. A verse would also work, but probably only in the 2nd stanza.

 

You could always be averse to using the correct spelling of words too. It's possible.

 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

You could always be averse to using the correct spelling of words too. It's possible.

 

You're just begging for an adverse reaction.

[/dev/null]

35 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

You could always be averse to using the correct spelling of words too. It's possible.

 

33 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You're just begging for an adverse reaction.

 

 

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Don't be a dumbass, adverse is a word and it fits within the sentiments I was conveying. A verse would also work, but probably only in the 2nd stanza.

Adverse fits your post in the same way "dunno" and "sorta" are words.  They aren't really correct but tons of people use them anyway.  Look up the definitions of averse and adverse.  They are different words with different meanings.

[3rdnlng]

33 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Adverse fits your post in the same way "dunno" and "sorta" are words.  They aren't really correct but tons of people use them anyway.  Look up the definitions of averse and adverse.  They are different words with different meanings.

I know they are different and I get to choose my own words. You can call yourself a Hoosier or a Hoser, it's your choice or preference, they're both about the same.

[#34fan]

15 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I don't claim to have a lot of knowledge regarding the start of slavery in America, but I do claim to be pretty good at judging people (except for my last wife). You called me a dumass a couple of days ago and I corrected you on it. It's dumbass you dumbass. I corrected you. You acknowledged that. So now you call DC Tom a dumass. Do you not learn from your mistakes dumbass?

 

[4merper4mer]

6 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I know they are different and I get to choose my own words. You can call yourself a Hoosier or a Hoser, it's your choice or preference, they're both about the same.

I don't really care about you using incorrect words.  I only brought it up because you were harping on the same thing.   Averse and adverse have different meaning much like dumbass has a spelling.

[The_Dude]

I love that country. Aside from Roman history, English history is a hobby of mine. Sadly, the country is going to enter a downward spin. Great Britain will be a caliphate by 2050. Good thing they don’t got guns. 

Churchill would weep if he knew who the mayor of London was. 

[3rdnlng]

49 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I don't really care about you using incorrect words.  I only brought it up because you were harping on the same thing.   Averse and adverse have different meaning much like dumbass has a spelling.

Yes, adverse and averse have slightly different meanings but they both can mean "in opposition" or "against". I could have just as easily told #34head that he was against learning new things as adverse to learning new things. #34head is the same as ****head. He's come on here and acted an ass in every way. When he messed up I called him on it. He acknowledged that he messed up and then continued to do so. I called him on it again and you went all Canadian on me. Is it true that when Canada deports people they all go to Indiana to become Hosers?

[4merper4mer]

34 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, adverse and averse have slightly different meanings but they both can mean "in opposition" or "against". I could have just as easily told #34head that he was against learning new things as adverse to learning new things. #34head is the same as ****head. He's come on here and acted an ass in every way. When he messed up I called him on it. He acknowledged that he messed up and then continued to do so. I called him on it again and you went all Canadian on me. Is it true that when Canada deports people they all go to Indiana to become Hosers?

Your assessment of 34 is accurate but loses credibility when you use words improperly but continue to insist you haven't.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Your assessment of 34 is accurate but loses credibility when you use words improperly but continue to insist you haven't.

 

 

I simply could have used either word. To quote a member of this board (who happens to be a former Viet Kong mother of 8 or 10 or sometimes 12) dissirregardless of what you say, you are simply trying to draw a distinction where there is little distinction to be had.

[4merper4mer]

53 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I simply could have used either word. To quote a member of this board (who happens to be a former Viet Kong mother of 8 or 10 or sometimes 12) dissirregardless of what you say, you are simply trying to draw a distinction where there is little distinction to be had.

Corn cannot grow on Mars because of the adverse conditions.

 

Bill is averse to planting corn because he is lazy.

 

Bill cannot be adverse to growing corn.

 

There is no such thing as averse conditions.

[#34fan]

48 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

There is no such thing as averse conditions.

 

There is, if you're a dumass.

[Brit]

On 5/30/2018 at 2:34 AM, #34fan said:

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the majority of the population of London now identifies as non-white, so.... Less cars is what I was thinking.

You are mistaken. Last time it was checked London was 60% White.  Likely to be a couple of %age points down from that now, but still majority white.