So hey, anyone object to unbanning me?

spike said:
Yes Cerise, as I said before I'll just report them.

Turning the other cheek would be doing nothing about it. Are we clear now?
Click to expand...


Turning the other cheek would be doing as you claimed you would do back in January. Or did somebody else named spike post:

"I promise not to insult anyone personally.... even when insulted by other members."
 
2minkey said:
but, if you ain't british, it comes off as one of the following...

1) ig'nance
2) a mistake
3) faggy affect
Click to expand...

If you know the history behind it, then you would see it is more logical to place the period after the quote in some cases. The only reason why the period is usually placed inside the quote was fear of the delicate piece would break in the printing press, so it was placed after the more robust quotation marks.

According to William F. Phillips ([email protected]), in the days
when printing used raised bits of metal, "." and "," were the most
delicate, and were in danger of damage (the face of the piece of
type might break off from the body, or be bent or dented from above)
if they had a '"' on one side and a blank space on the other. Hence
the convention arose of always using '."' and ',"' rather than '".'
and '",', regardless of logic.

Fowler was a strong advocate of logical placement of punctuation
marks, i.e. only placing them inside the quotation marks if they
were part of the quoted matter. This scheme has gained ground,
and is especially popular among computer users, and others who
wish to make clear exactly what is and what is not being quoted.
Logical placement is accepted by many more publishers outside than
inside the U.S.

Some people insist that '."' and ',"' LOOK better, but Fowler
calls them "really mere conservatives, masquerading only as
aesthetes".
Click to expand...

Source
 
Cerise said:
Turning the other cheek would be doing as you claimed you would do back in January.
Click to expand...

Turning the other cheek would be doing nothing or saying "Go ahead, attack me again".


Or did somebody else named spike post:

"I promise not to insult anyone personally.... even when insulted by other members."
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've been doing. However I am not turning the other cheek, I am reporting them. "Reporting" does not equal "insulting".

Are we clear now?
 
ResearchMonkey said:
I guess labeling me as Nazi'sque and KKK is not really insulting for a lefty, right?
Click to expand...

I looked through the thread where you were saying that Northern European genes are superior to whatever racial background your wife comes from and that people without European genes aren't normal. I thought maybe that was what you were talking about but couldn't find anyone calling you Nazi'sque or KKK.

Closest I could find was this quote from you:

ResearchMonkey said:
Like Roy Ashburn, you seems to believe he was betraying "his people" becuase he didn't vote "the gay agenda" like a good little nazi faggot.
Click to expand...

and of course you specifically calling me a Nazi here:

ResearchMonkey said:
I assure you all those years as a brown shirt will be of benefit for you in this endeavor.
Click to expand...

And then there's all those other threads were you call me a commie.

So anyway, we're going to need a link to someone calling you Nazi'esque or KKK because all I can find so far is you calling people Nazis and commies.
 
Cerise said:
:rolleyes:

You will never get back in.
Click to expand...



icon14.gif
 
Your fondness for duplicity hasn't changed. At the rate you're going, you will never see the inside of the RW again.
 
Go on, point out the duplicity here. Otherwise your words are empty. So far all you've done is confuse "returning insults" with "reporting them".

Don't put your mistake on me.
 
I'm not going to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth with you.

I have already indicated your duplicity. You are in denial if you can't see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top