Features

HickMan · #1

what IS that? It's been bugging me for months now.

Anonymous · #2

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbutsu

And I demand that Japanese handles be used only by people who understand the language. Self-aggrandizing handles are double negative points.

Let me enter a quandary here, colloquialism. Barbituates exemplar the leviathanic liasions lest - ergo - forsooth - cosmonauts engage in vivid celebratory masturbation.

Oh and 'chojin' isn't Japanese, it's Chinese. Shows what you know.

jimbutsu · #3

If you say so.

Anonymous · #4

I'm glad we're all on the same intellectual level now.

jimbutsu · #5

超人

Anonymous · #6

now that we're best friends, would it be awkward for me to request a hand job at this juncture?

MetalMilitia · #7

thats not even a real word.

jimbutsu · #8

That gets complicated.. left hand, right hand, do we draw on the eyes, lipstick or no lipstick... that's too tough a topic to tackle.

Anonymous · #9

You have two periods in your first ellipses; There should be three. Just thought I'd help you out in recognition of those you've helped in your time here.

jimbutsu · #10

Reciprocity is a beautiful thing.

Anonymous · #11

is that like sim city

BlueOatmeal · #12

I like jimbutsu. I'm being serious here. I really like jimbutsu.

Helm · #13

What's funny is that I didn't misuse these words, especially onomatopoeia since it holds a secondary meaning of the practice of creating words of all kinds, not just those that immitate sounds and the like. What's more, onomatopoeia is a greek word, from onoma, that means name, and the verb poio, which means to do, create or practise. I know this because I happen to be greek. To drive the point a bit excessively, philosophy can and has been said to have it's very own jargon, which the recent wave of post-modernist analysis has extensively focused it's dissassembling prowess on, trying to, essentially, paint the process of analytical philosophy as hollow and vacant as it's jargon, based on various recursive linguistic tricks and scemes. Now, I'd appreciate it if you'd take this paper back, and change my grade from this C to at least a respectable A - thank you very much. Fag.

jimbutsu · #14

Nope. Sorry.

I can't find any other definition for onomatopoeia in any online or print source than "words for sounds." This isn't necessarily true on other languages that use those roots, mind you, but just because you say it doesn't make it true.

As for jargon, I might give you that one because of the subdefinition of the word that involves "convoluted phrasing," but there's nothing philosophical about that context, nor did I use any "jargon" in the context you referred to(words specific to a discipline), so you still missed the mark.

B minus, at best.

Also, I'm thinking of "crapsack" or "fuckstain" as my consonant-heavy signature phrase. They might not be Pulitzer material, but at least it's more imaginative than "fag."

Helm · #15

I could explain how linguistic experts have come to a general agreement on how the vast majority of words in every language are products of the onomatopoeic process, besides a very few basic signifiers that seem to be reoccuring mainly in languages of indo-european origin, and how thusly my broader usage of the term is on the whole much more valid than your narrow dictionary.com definition might initially allow. Also, I might stress that the combinatorial terms in question "fucktard" and the like, are indeed inherently onomatopoeic since 'fuck', 'crap' and most other four letter cuss words are as related to their sounds as the anglosaxons that remodelled-coined them where unimaginative in going about it.

As to jargon. The '!=' you used is in fact, a symbol native to both number theory (and algebra and whatever mathematical field to which I am not accustomed in the least) and philosophy, and seeing as your usage was not mathematical, it very well qualified as misplaced philosophical jargon.

You might wonder why I'd choose to drag this scemantic debate out. It's mainly because I think you're a fag and you need to shut up very desperately.

jimbutsu · #16

"my broader usage of the term is on the whole much more valid than your narrow dictionary.com definition might initially allow."

So your willing something into existence validates it? Blow it out your ass.

"As to jargon. The '!=' you used is in fact, a symbol native to both number theory (and algebra and whatever mathematical field to which I am not accustomed in the least) and philosophy, and seeing as your usage was not mathematical, it very well qualified as misplaced philosophical jargon."

It was a reference to code and you know it. Trying to make something more than that out of it is kind of pathetic, and I'm thinking that you're incapable of having a well-formed argument. I was raised in a Greek Orthodox household, so I'm well accustomed to that particular inability.

I think you're clutching at straws and trying to use obfuscation to further your point. I understand where you're going with it, and there's a kernel of validity, but not enough to build an argument around. Also, you must know that the behavior you're demonstrating would have the exact opposite effect you claim to want (shutting me up).

Actually, that's not true. I don't have time for this. I have shit to do before Magnum starts.

Thank you, drive through.

Dole · #17

Helm wordy so good, and not even first on an English! Me aren't English second words, but not ever so good Helm like.
Jimbutsu wordy big clever, almost huge with the talking on brain words...it like a knowledge bag, but for face!

jimbutsu · #18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

Helm wordy so good, and not even first on an English! Me aren't English second words, but not ever so good Helm like.
Jimbutsu wordy big clever, almost huge with the talking on brain words...it like a knowledge bag, but for face!

It's sad, but this has been far and away the most lucid post in this thread, my own included, since this whole thing started.

Dole · #19

Helm · #20

Quote:

So your willing something into existence validates it? Blow it out your ass.

Incoherent reply, conviniently avoiding my argument.

Quote:

I think you're clutching at straws and trying to use obfuscation to further your point. I understand where you're going with it, and there's a kernel of validity, but not enough to build an argument around.

I'm not clutching at straws as much as you'd like to think. I have two very sturdy foundations, based on which I can bend this any way I like. First, linguistics is really the sophist's playfield. Second, you're a fag.

As a second example, the term 'emphirical' which you used, is directly associated with philosophy, as in means of supplying evidence. Is that in code too? Your secret fag code? [/code]

Quote:

Also, you must know that the behavior you're demonstrating would have the exact opposite effect you claim to want (shutting me up).

Maybe I don't want you to shut up at all. Maybe I don't think you're really a fag, either. Maybe this is behaviour I'm demonstrating is what we do to pass the time around here.

Plus also, I was not raised in an Orthodox household, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Fag.

pjalne · #21

When was the last time someone worthwhile signed up here? Seriously, I'm pretty sure it's been more than a couple of months with nothing but cunts and retards.

Helm · #22

He's ok.

jimbutsu · #23

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjalne

When was the last time someone worthwhile signed up here? Seriously, I'm pretty sure it's been more than a couple of months with nothing but cunts and retards.

I hope Varg stabs you in the head the next time you idiots let him out for a weekend vacation.

Loved your article on Halloween, by the way.