# Who's Nastier?



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 22, 2011)

In response to



> That is a game I play while I go through the forums, which liberal poster insults a conservative poster first. Play it yourself and you will see the more liberal side of the posts tend to fire off the insults first, as well as the ones I consider the "intellectual" conservatives. Play the game and win big prizes, the hearty handshake, the pat on the back and the warm glow of victory.



Little old data geek me just had to find out. So I looked at 20 (I know it's not a huge sample) threads in the Study where somebody resorted to a personal attack. I gave a "point" to the _first_ person to do so in any given thread.

Personal attacks included outright name-calling, accusing another forum member of lying and what I'd term "weaselling" -- making a statement to the board as a whole meant very clearly as a slap in the face to one particular member. 

Turns out it's pretty even. Liberals came in at 11, Conservatives 9. It's also worth noting that, of the 20, 16 were from the same three people. On the qualitative side, Libs seemed to be more about calling names, while Cons seemed to trend toward attacking a person's morals or intelligence. 

Seems like a pretty good microcosm of US politics as a whole. A few strident people get worked up and make it feel hostile for a lot. 

As side thing I found was that, while the Libs were a little ahead on the first personal attack front, the Cons were overwhelmingly more likely to start a thread attacking Liberals in general (which isn't a personal attack, exactly). Of the 20 threads, 11 opened with a "dig" at the other side, and 7 of those were started by a self-professed conservative.

But you know what? In 2006, when Bush was in power, the exact opposite was true. It's the privilege -- and the responsibility -- of the minority position to keep the majority power honest. 

Anyway, I found it interesting.


----------



## granfire (Apr 22, 2011)

LOL

you pretty much proved my suspicions. 

can I say I Loff You without getting beaten down?


----------



## billc (Apr 22, 2011)

A good start, I'd like to see more and more detail, I know that isn't your job but it info. like that might go a ways to cleaning up the insults on the study.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> A good start, I'd like to see more and more detail, I know that isn't your job but it info. like that might go a ways to cleaning up the insults on the study.


 
_How about just not* doing* it?_


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 22, 2011)

Best way to clean things up?

People act like mature adults.


----------



## granfire (Apr 22, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Best way to clean things up?
> 
> People act like mature adults.



:lfao:


That'll be the day!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> :lfao:
> 
> 
> That'll be the day!


I gave up hope of that in 2004.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 22, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I gave up hope of that in 2004.


 

Just wait, Bob.I think it's only going to get worse......


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Just wait, Bob.I think it's only going to get worse......


Naw, we're considering going to a 3 warning, lose study access for 30 days policy.  1st time is 30 days, 2nd is 60, 3rd is permanent.  This is a 3-warning, not 3-infraction, like the current policy.  2012 is going to be a hotbed, and we really don't feel like repeating 2008. I might ban myself early just to be safe.


----------



## granfire (Apr 22, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Naw, we're considering going to a 3 warning, lose study access for 30 days policy.  1st time is 30 days, 2nd is 60, 3rd is permanent.  This is a 3-warning, not 3-infraction, like the current policy.  2012 is going to be a hotbed, and we really don't feel like repeating 2008. *I might ban myself early just to be safe.*





ROFLMAO!!!

you crack me up!!
:lfao:


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 22, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Naw, we're considering going to a 3 warning, lose study access for 30 days policy. 1st time is 30 days, 2nd is 60, 3rd is permanent. This is a 3-warning, not 3-infraction, like the current policy. 2012 is going to be a hotbed, and we really don't feel like repeating 2008. I might ban myself early just to be safe.


 
Oh, the threat!!


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Best way to clean things up?
> 
> People act like mature adults.



Since I have no doubt that I figure prominently in the OP's sample, I would like to offer my defense.

I refuse to be Charlie Brown winding up to kick that football, hoping that _this _time the person I'm responding to will discuss something in good faith.  If someone has shown themselves to be disingenuous or impervious to reason and evidence, I'm going to treat them as such.

Similarly, I refuse to accord the same respect and consideration I would show to our more honorable members to someone who has shown themselves to be a shameless liar or otherwise not deserving of that respect.  It's an insult to our posters who work hard to present themselves well.

If someone is lying, I'm going to call them a liar.  It's not an insult, it's an accurate characterization.  If you act without integrity, I will treat you as such.  If that makes me a child, so be it, but I just won't pretend that everyone here acts the same in a decent manner and deserves endless chances as if I can't remember how they acted in another thread 10 minutes ago.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 23, 2011)

Fair enough, Empty Hands. Although I'd like to offer a contrary position forwarded by one of my original senseis.

"It's not about how they act. It's about how you act." Why would you let poor research and questionable behavior on the part of others control the way you behave? Are they really worth giving them so much control over your head space?

I don't mean to come down like I'm all high and mighty -- I've been guilty of it too. But it's worth thinking about, yes?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 23, 2011)

I am, without a doubt, the move villainous git ever to appear in the hallowed halls of MT.  And anyone who says different is a very bad person indeed.  Not worse than me, of course.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am, without a doubt, the move villainous git ever to appear in the hallowed halls of MT. And anyone who says different is a very bad person indeed. Not worse than me, of course.


 
.


> You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature which lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow, the defeat of creation; this is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life. Everywhere in the universe."
>  Philip K. Dick (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 23, 2011)

There is a perceived difference between these 2 statements:
"I think you're wrong"
and
"You're a ****ing liar."

Also, one of these two statements will express disbelief, the other generate a report and a warning:
"I disagree with your position and find it hard to believe your data"
vs
"You're ****ing crazy, you know that?"


Mind you, I'm as guilty as anyone else at times, but I recognize it and try not to provoke people often.  Some folks give the impression that's what they live for.  Not going to fly  in the future here.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 23, 2011)

Oh man, I'm ****ed.  Haha.


----------



## Carol (Apr 23, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Oh man, I'm ****ed.  Haha.



But you are the Heart of Darkness (great name for a ninja...)  You'll figure something out.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 23, 2011)

It's real simple, folks.

Despite what some people, here and elsewhere, seem to think, it is absolutely possible to disagree vehemently with someone, argue with them -- and not be an *** about it.

Wanna call someone a liar without being the *******?  Show the truth, and leave it at that.

Think someone is small-minded or bigoted?  Let 'em open their mouths and prove it without you saying word.

And... for a novel idea... remember that Martial Talk is just a friggin' message board.  The way some folks act, you'd think that we need to keep them on opposite sides of the fracking planet because if they get together, it's gonna be a duel like matter & anti-matter meeting.  If someone really pisses you off that much -- use the ignore button.  It's free, y'know?  And it'll keep your blood pressure down.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There is a perceived difference between these 2 statements:
> "I think you're wrong"
> and
> "You're a ****ing liar."
> ...


 
I'm asking this rhetorically, but is there no way to call someone out about lying, or being some form of disingenuous, without risking the irk of the Ban-Hammer? I realize that "You shameless, lying little ****", while amusing to hear, is inflamatory. But it seems to me that there would be acceptable means of addressing deceiptful conduct aside from just the "Ignore" button.

Edit: Yeah, teaches me to post before reading the whole thread. My apologies, jks, didn't mean to ignore your post.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 25, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I realize that "You shameless, lying little ****", while amusing to hear, is inflamatory.



What I felt was inflammatory was falsely trying to convince one poster that another poster was calling him a racist.  If someone did that to me in real life, I wouldn't calmly and politely explain their misunderstanding, especially if they had done similar multiple times before.

It's interesting that intemperate language seems to draw all the ire, while repeated lying, disingenuosness, and shameless double standards and the ignoring of evidence passes mostly without comment.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 25, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Fair enough, Empty Hands. Although I'd like to offer a contrary position forwarded by one of my original senseis.
> 
> "It's not about how they act. It's about how you act." Why would you let poor research and questionable behavior on the part of others control the way you behave? Are they really worth giving them so much control over your head space?
> 
> I don't mean to come down like I'm all high and mighty -- I've been guilty of it too. But it's worth thinking about, yes?



While this is a nice ideal, as a former registered Democrat (that doesn't mean I registered Republican), I feel compelled to point out that listening to the cacophony of rightist banter (let's face it, conservative radio beat out liberal radio both in inception AND in ratings) it is difficult to witness the withering testicles of the left.  For years, they rolled their eyes at the ridiculousness of rightist shock-talk and tried to "be the bigger person."  To watch them continually getting whipped by the right with no response whatsoever is just ... disappointing.  




Bob Hubbard said:


> There is a perceived difference between these 2 statements:
> "I think you're wrong"
> and
> "You're a ****ing liar."
> ...



WORD!!!!!


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 25, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> ...the Cons were overwhelmingly more likely to start a thread attacking Liberals in general* (which isn't a personal attack, exactly).* Of the 20 threads, 11 opened with a "dig" at the other side, and 7 of those were started by a self-professed conservative.


 
The problem is that we DO all tend to take it as a "personal attack". Thats the real reason people just HAVE TO jump in to threads they declare as "mud slinging" and decry the Study as such a BAD BAD place IMHO. They think that an attack on cons or libs IS the equivalent of a personal attack.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 25, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The problem is that we DO all tend to take it as a "personal attack". Thats the real reason people just HAVE TO jump in to threads they declare as "mud slinging" and decry the Study as such a BAD BAD place IMHO. They think that an attack on cons or libs IS the equivalent of a personal attack.



Actually, I really don't.  When someone calls me a liar? Or hysterical? Because they don't agree with me?  Yeah, THAT'S a personal attack.  And it's my personal opinion that people like that don't belong in the study. Period.  

But that is ... My Opinion.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 25, 2011)

Yet look at all the people who will take the time to read and respond (with the "tsk" "tsk" style responses) to threads that they already know are going to be partisan before they open them. WTF? Am I the only person who thinks its a case of "the lady doth protest too much"? When people always seem to get involved in threads just to complain about _those types_ of threads it smacks of a passive aggressive method of trying to shut down opinions they dont politically like. I respect the people who participate passionately about their beliefs (even if I don't like them) more than I do the wishy washy "this is why I dont like the study" responses.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Naw, we're considering going to a 3 warning, lose study access for 30 days policy.  1st time is 30 days, 2nd is 60, 3rd is permanent.  This is a 3-warning, not 3-infraction, like the current policy.  2012 is going to be a hotbed, and we really don't feel like repeating 2008. I might ban myself early just to be safe.



So, do we get to sign up for this, or do I have to go ahead and insult three people first?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Naw, we're considering going to a 3 warning, lose study access for 30 days policy. 1st time is 30 days, 2nd is 60, 3rd is permanent. This is a 3-warning, not 3-infraction, like the current policy. 2012 is going to be a hotbed, and we really don't feel like repeating 2008. I might ban myself early just to be safe.


 
OK Here's the plan, we start an arguement and report each other to you... and...wait... that won't work...ummmm... oh the heck with it just ban me to


----------



## granfire (Apr 25, 2011)

if we get ourselves banned, all together....then what?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 25, 2011)

granfire said:


> if we get ourselves banned, all together....then what?


 
I'd spend 30 days trolling the WoW forums.  :lol:


----------



## granfire (Apr 25, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I'd spend 30 days trolling the WoW forums.  :lol:


Troll and WoW goes together well...unless you are in Stormwind...

(why troll the forums... trade chat! much better)


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 25, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I'm asking this rhetorically, but is there no way to call someone out about lying, or being some form of disingenuous, without risking the irk of the Ban-Hammer?



How about, Me thinks you telling some lies there?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 25, 2011)

or "i am not sure that jives with reality"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2011)

All still much better than:
"What the **** are you smoking? That's some pretty good **** you gotta be doing to believe corn **** **** like that!"


----------



## granfire (Apr 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> All still much better than:
> "What the **** are you smoking? That's some pretty good **** you gotta be doing to believe corn **** **** like that!"



How bout....
"good Sir, that grass seems to be mighty potent!"

^_^


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> or "i am not sure that jives with reality"



Much better would be. That's interesting, since X study by Y group in 20XX seems to say just the opposite. What's the basis for your conclusion.

Flatly contradicting a statement without evidence to back you up isn't reasoned debate. It's just argument for its own sake. 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM


----------



## Nomad (Apr 25, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Flatly contradicting a statement without evidence to back you up isn't reasoned debate. It's just argument for its own sake.



No it isn't.


----------



## Steve (Apr 25, 2011)

[yt]teMlv3ripSM[/yt]


----------



## Steve (Apr 25, 2011)

haha.  I didn't see that you'd posted the link before.  I was on my phone.    Classic skit.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> \Classic skit.


 
No its not


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 26, 2011)

Look. I didn't come here for an argument.


----------



## granfire (Apr 26, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Look. I didn't come here for an argument.




:lfao:


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 26, 2011)

granfire said:


> :lfao:



The proper anser, Gran, is..

"No. You came here for an argument."


----------



## granfire (Apr 26, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> The proper anser, Gran, is..
> 
> "No. You came here for an argument."


Was getting around to type it out....had to catch my breath first...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

granfire said:


> Was getting around to type it out....had to catch my breath first...


 
No you didn't


----------



## granfire (Apr 26, 2011)

Yes I was


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

No you didn't


----------



## granfire (Apr 26, 2011)

Did, too!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

No, no you didn't


----------



## granfire (Apr 26, 2011)

yes, yes I DID!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

no, no you didn't

If we keep this up we mnay get reported and banned soon


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 26, 2011)

:fart:


----------



## Steve (Apr 26, 2011)

DING.  Time's up.  I'm sorry, but I can't continue arguing unless you pay for another 5 minutes.


----------



## granfire (Apr 26, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> no, no you didn't
> 
> If we keep this up we mnay get reported and banned soon



(been expecting the notice from our friendly neighborhood moderator....)

And no...

OKAY, so I wasn't gonna flesh my response out 

I was too busy :lfao:


and that's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
:moon:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> DING. Time's up. I'm sorry, but I can't continue arguing unless you pay for another 5 minutes.


 
That wasn't 5 minutes


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

granfire said:


> (been expecting the notice from our friendly neighborhood moderator....)
> 
> I was too busy :lfao:


 
No you were not



granfire said:


> and that's my story, and I'm sticking to it!


 
No it isn't


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> :fart:


:hmm: Who's Nastier?:btg::whip:


----------



## Nomad (Apr 26, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> That wasn't 5 minutes



Yes, it was.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 26, 2011)

opcorn:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> opcorn:


 
I bet it's stale


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 26, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Yes, it was.


 
then why are you still arguing


----------



## Flea (Apr 26, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> then why are you still arguing



They're not arguing.


----------



## granfire (Apr 26, 2011)

Yes they are!


----------



## Flea (Apr 26, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Naw, we're considering going to a 3 warning, lose study access for 30 days policy.  1st time is 30 days, 2nd is 60, 3rd is permanent.  This is a 3-warning, not 3-infraction, like the current policy.  2012 is going to be a hotbed, and we really don't feel like repeating 2008. I might ban myself early just to be safe.



Well if you put it that way, I may as well just cut to the chase.  Anyone who disagrees with me is a goat-raping smurf who deserves to be tethered to a gaggle of 12 year old girls at a Justin Bieber concert.  On tour.  On a long, _long_ tour.


----------



## granfire (Apr 26, 2011)

Flea said:


> Well if you put it that way, I may as well just cut to the chase.  Anyone who disagrees with me is a goat-raping smurf who deserves to be tethered to a gaggle of 12 year old girls at a Justin Bieber concert.  On tour.  On a long, _long_ tour.



I call cruel and unusual punishment on you, Missy!
(your forgot 'without ear plugs'!)


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 26, 2011)

Flea said:


> Well if you put it that way, I may as well just cut to the chase.  Anyone who disagrees with me is a goat-raping smurf who deserves to be tethered to a gaggle of 12 year old girls at a Justin Bieber concert.  On tour.  On a long, _long_ tour.


Maybe, say, a certain infamous 3 hour cruise of Hawaiian waters about the good ship Minnow?

[YT]cfR7qxtgCgY[/yt]


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 27, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> DING.  Time's up.  I'm sorry, but I can't continue arguing unless you pay for another 5 minutes.



deposits a quarter


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 27, 2011)

Of course you all realize that you're all.....

*WRONG!!!!!!!*


----------



## Nomad (Apr 27, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> then why are you still arguing



I could be arguing in my spare time.


----------



## granfire (Apr 27, 2011)

Nomad said:


> I could be arguing in my spare time.



No you can't


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 27, 2011)

Nomad said:


> I could be arguing in my spare time.


 
Oh I've had enough of this.


----------



## granfire (Apr 27, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Oh I've had enough of this.



no you don't


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 27, 2011)

This isn't an argument


----------



## granfire (Apr 27, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> This isn't an argument



yes it is


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 27, 2011)

No it isn't. It's just contradiction.


----------



## granfire (Apr 27, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> No it isn't. It's just contradiction.



Yes, Argument, no contradiction


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 27, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Of course you all realize that you're all.....
> 
> *WRONG!!!!!!!*



Or they're all right?


----------



## Nomad (Apr 27, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> No it isn't. It's just contradiction.



But surely you realize that in order to have an argument, I must take up a contradictory position...


----------



## girlbug2 (Apr 27, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Best way to clean things up?
> 
> People act like mature adults.


 
Maturity: the hallmark of the internet.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 27, 2011)

girlbug2 said:


> Maturity: the hallmark of the internet.



No it isn't


----------



## granfire (Apr 27, 2011)

Is too!


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 27, 2011)

I think its cool how you turned this 'nasty' thread into a light hearted fun cute one.

You guys make me chuckle when i look at this thread now.


----------



## granfire (Apr 27, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> I think its cool how you turned this 'nasty' thread into a light hearted fun cute one.
> 
> You guys make me chuckle when i look at this thread now.



Nuh-uh


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 27, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> I think its cool how you turned this 'nasty' thread into a light hearted fun cute one.
> 
> You guys make me chuckle when i look at this thread now.


 
Oh REALLY!!!!

What do you mean I'm funny?


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 27, 2011)

I'm a naughty boy. So very naughty. No I'm not! Yes I am! Where am I and why are you in that dress Jerry?  What a party!


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 27, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Oh REALLY!!!!
> 
> What do you mean I'm funny?



Yer all funny


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 27, 2011)

Funny looking. With hairy toes.


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 27, 2011)

The Last Legionary said:


> Funny looking. .



knew someone was gonna write that. 




			
				LL said:
			
		

> With hairy toes



you sounds like a funny little mod i know on martial arts planet who wrote about how he needed to wax his toes because they is hairy


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 27, 2011)

Waxs on, Wax toes. Yo Yo Yoooda!


----------



## granfire (Apr 27, 2011)

The Last Legionary said:


> Waxs on, Wax toes. Yo Yo Yoooda!



lol


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 27, 2011)

heheh


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 28, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Or they're all right?


 
No they are not and now you're wrong too



Nomad said:


> But surely you realize that in order to have an argument, I must take up a contradictory position...


 
Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' 



Blade96 said:


> Yer all funny


 
Funny how? What's funny about it?


----------



## granfire (Apr 28, 2011)

I am just happy nobody came here yesterday to proclaim what a good week the US is having, with Obama's birth certificate and Rumsy peddling his book and all....while we are morning 180 or so lives in the south...


----------



## Nomad (Apr 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'



Yes it is.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 28, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Yes it is.


 
No it isn't! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> No they are not and now you're wrong too



Am not.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 29, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Am not.


 
Yes, yes you are...you're *WRONG!!!!!*


----------



## granfire (Apr 29, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes, yes you are...you're *WRONG!!!!!*



you put the wrong leaves in your tea, Mister....

She is absolutely RIGHT!!!


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 29, 2011)

Y'all are liars. Just admit it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> you put the wrong leaves in your tea, Mister....
> 
> She is absolutely RIGHT!!!


 
Don't get me started about tea or I WILL give you a long boring tirade about the proper way to drink the various types of tea and what is good tea and what is bad tea...I WILL BORE YOU SILLY!!!!!!

And she is wrong and you are wrong too....but you were wrong before so...... as for me I am NEVER wrong.... ok...there was that one time back in 1991 but that is it and it doesnt count.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 29, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> Y'all are liars. Just admit it.


 
If I admit it then I WILL be a liar...but I am not so I cannot admit it...so you see...again, as always, I am right and you are WRONG!!!!


----------



## granfire (Apr 29, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Don't get me started about tea or I WILL give you a long boring tirade about the proper way to drink the various types of tea and what is good tea and what is bad tea...I WILL BORE YOU SILLY!!!!!!
> 
> And she is wrong and you are wrong too....but you were wrong before so...... as for me I am NEVER wrong.... ok...there was that one time back in 1991 but that is it and it doesnt count.




HAH!

I am _already _silly!

Take that!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> HAH!
> 
> I am _already _silly!
> 
> Take that!


 
No you're not


----------



## granfire (Apr 29, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> No you're not



:lool:


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 29, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes, yes you are...you're *WRONG!!!!!*





shesulsa said:


> Y'all are liars. Just admit it.



Am not.


----------

