justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/04/16 at 19:21:35:


Why?

PS: This can be extended to your last post too  

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/04/16 at 22:15:05:


You should play the lotto if you think you are that good bro.....  

No, that is not it.

You, and/or many of us, don't want to HEAR anything that goes against what you/we believe, WHICH, was the thrust of my observation on the other reply.

I am not talking fact, as a nut needs to be torqued to a certain spec, or so many ounces make a gallon, no, but a BELIEF we hold.
Like, IF global warming is real, or IF God is real, or.....

Your understanding is based upon IF

You quote the thoughts, and beliefs, that you have gathered elsewhere, and challenge us, to understand it.
I challenge you back, to challenge yourself!

Your whole conception is predicated on IF the readings you acquire are real, accurate, truthful, and not a essay of other "if's" gathered through summations, assumptions, and perceptions.
I will give you this example, tho extremely simple, it bears testimony to the theory of comparison.....

A man tethers his horse to take his wares to town to sell.
He chooses one of his horses from his stall of many.
Along the way, he is overcome by thieves. they rob him of his belongings.
That is a fact.
Now, the same scenario, EXCEPT, he chooses a different horse.
Such a minor detail, but is it?
This horse travels at a different gait.
Which has the possibility of putting the man at a different spot on that journey IF the robbers kept to their previous schedule, and therefor MIGHT have missed the opportunity to rob him.

I don't think you will grasp this, for I don't believe you want too, for if you accepted the nature of your challenges ( to us ) you would see your motivation is vested in your needs, more that entertaining other POV's.

Pay close attention to #3 in the definition of If, I listed below.
If only we would understand what Jog is trying to share with us.....
All would be right in the next election outcome.

I'm done bro.
I don't like getting this heavy, through a very weak portal, too hard to dialogue, sorry.

If | Definition:


1.
a :  in the event that
b :  allowing that
c :  on the assumption that
d :  on condition that

2
:  whether <asked if the mail had come> <I doubt if I'll pass the course>

3
—used as a function word to introduce an exclamation expressing a wish <if it would only rain>

4
:  even though :  although perhaps <an interesting if untenable argument>

5
:  and perhaps not even <few if any changes are expected> —often used with not <difficult if not impossible>
if anything
:  on the contrary even :  perhaps even <if anything, you ought to apologize>

But being reborn is worth it

Truth  

HovisPresley wrote on 09/04/16 at 07:07:49:

Reply in a normal sentence, then you'll get a reply.

If you can only understand, 'Proper', English, and only the, 'Kings Version'.

It is rather clear you have not read, Chaucer.

I can understand, JOG, Raydawg, and many others, As Well as, Chaucer.

Heck, I even understand, Bot's, 'one liners'.

MnSpring wrote on 09/05/16 at 17:26:45:

....................................................

I can honestly say that I've never heard the phrase 'Kings version' or indeed the phrase "Kings English" before, in any conversation I have ever had, to do with language.
I was born after February 1952.
MnS, considering your multiple references to the Queen and UK sovereignty, I'm surprised you refer to the King!.

MnS, I think you are lying when you say that you can understand Chaucer.
Chaucer wrote in 'Middle English'.
The very first line of the Canterbury Tales includes "shoures soote", meaning "sweet showers", for example, which I don't believe (on it's own) that you would understand by reading it.

In fact, your command of Modern English (whether British English, American, Irish or Australian English) is measurable by your sentence, and I quote:

" It is rather clear you have not read, Chaucer."

I believe that Chaucer had read, but as he isn't a member of the forum (and died 600 years ago) he isn't likely to respond to the statement that you directed at him.

Here's an idea;

*To prove that your claim isn't utter BS, why don't we set up a pre-arranged Skype session.

*Here, you can demonstrate your ability to read Middle English.
The session can be recorded by us both, and we can both post it to this forum, for others to enjoy.

*If it appears that you can understand Chaucer/Middle English, then I will make a donation to a local charity, such as a kids or cancer charity, of $50, and post the receipt on the forum as proof.

*If it appears that you can't understand this antiquated language from the 1300's, then you get to donate $50 to a similar charity, etc.

*This is not "apeiren" you, but to identify BS.

So, in a nutshell, if you believe your own claim, then I'll be both humiliated and I'll be $50 worse off.
You have nothing to lose, plus a charity gains funds.
You'll own Hovis' "ers", and I'll promise never to post here again (with the exception of the Marketplace).
Plus, these "many, many women" that you claimed exist (end of last year, before your disappearance) won't actually need you to 'protect them' from me.

Everybody wins!

MnS, PM me with details so we can get the ball rolling.

Until then, I'll maintain 'radio silence'.

HovisPresley wrote on 09/07/16 at 12:01:05:

"  ...  Hovis' "ers", ..."

A question,   'Who are, "Hovis' "ers", ?