Nothing to say until they thought they won

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Pointing out how you're a liar and stupid to boot has been a real pleasure, masterdickmuncher.

Is manassmuncher an " alter ego " of LUBE ? IJA......

[Munchmasterman]

Let know if you ever do it..

You're stupid. And wrong. Two conditions you are real familiar with. You saying something is correct doesn't mean shit.
He says something and then attacks a person talking to him 2 seconds later? His statement left nothing implied?

It was fun proving you wrong. Keep up the good work

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Pointing out how you're a liar and stupid to boot has been a real pleasure, masterdickmuncher.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Let know if you ever do it..

You're stupid. And wrong. Two conditions you are real familiar with. You saying something is correct doesn't mean shit.
He says something and then attacks a person talking to him 2 seconds later? His statement left nothing implied?

It was fun proving you wrong. Keep up the good work

Once again you have demonstrated your stupidity, masterdickmuncher. You were caught in a lie, and you've again demonstrated that you're too stupid to understand, masterdickmuncher.

[Ex-CEO]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Anything? You're a funny guy. Stupid, but funny.

This is easy. You claim I'm illiterate.
I'm not illiterate. Yes, you are!
Your douche-bag challenge collapsed pretty quick, didn't it? "Quick" is an adjective. "Quickly" is an adverb. Got it? A good first step for you would be to learn how to use the English language properly. Then you'll appear to be (at least somewhat) less illiterate! And by the way, my challenge didn't "collapse," you obtuse, harebrained asshole. See below.

I'll get back to you with a challenge for you.

And if you're not too busy, maybe you could tell me a time you refuted me on a factual issue. It should be easy to find for a pompous ass. Finding one from you was easy. [See below.]



How ironic. I couldn't have defined you better myself except you're not a troll.
You're just a douche-bag. How original! You've never called anyone else that name, have you?

OK, you asked for it. Easiest thing I've done all week!

Recall this train wreck of a thread:

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2026569&highlight=

You demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you were incapable of understanding even the simplest statements and concepts, even when the obvious fallacies inherent in your "arguments" were explained to you, in simple and clear terms, by several people.

If that's not a glaringly obvious hallmark of illiteracy, it would be amusing to see you try to explain what it is!

[Munchmasterman]

An opinion piece. That was never ruled on by the mods. Just because yo7 didn't like my argument. Besides, you have yet to point out why you are so convinced it is incorrect.
Refuting you in one post was easy. On an objective item. You come back with a subjective post. Try again.

Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

OK, you asked for it. Easiest thing I've done all week!

Recall this train wreck of a thread:

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2026569&highlight=

You demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you were incapable of understanding even the simplest statements and concepts, even when the obvious fallacies inherent in your "arguments" were explained to you, in simple and clear terms, by several people.

If that's not a glaringly obvious hallmark of illiteracy, it would be amusing to see you try to explain what it is!

[Munchmasterman]

A few things. I'm not going to debate the issue again. I explained my position. You explained yours. The person who actually had a say never said their position. Did you get that?
Probably not. Because you keep saying something and have yet to show what proof you have. Moot point.
So you didn't like my position. Who cares? This is a hooker board. Should I run my opinions by you before I express them?
Fuck off.

You must have missed the part where I asked for a factual refute.
I don't know where you got your definition of illiterate. It's not the same as the ones I've seen. It's obviously something you whipped up.

And now you're mad I've already beat your challenge. You think you had it easy, the dumb shit included one in his challenge for me.
You come back with a difference of opinion as your centerpiece.
It probably was easy to do...since it was nothing.

You asked me to refute you. I did.
I'm still waiting on one from you.

Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

OK, you asked for it. Easiest thing I've done all week!

Recall this train wreck of a thread:

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2026569&highlight=

You demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you were incapable of understanding even the simplest statements and concepts, even when the obvious fallacies inherent in your "arguments" were explained to you, in simple and clear terms, by several people.

If that's not a glaringly obvious hallmark of illiteracy, it would be amusing to see you try to explain what it is!

[gnadfly]

Just climb into the bottle, never come out and stop embarrassing yourself Munch.

[Ex-CEO]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

An opinion piece. No, it was nothing more than a flatly erroneous statement. You are entitled to your opinions as always, of course. But not to your own facts! That was never ruled on by the mods. There was nothing to "rule" on. The ECCIE policy statement is clear enough, and everyone else understood it. Why couldn't you? Just because yo7 didn't like my argument. Besides, you have yet to point out why you are so convinced it is incorrect. Good Lord! That was explained by MULTIPLE people. Go back and read the thread again, and try paying attention this time.
Refuting you in one post was easy. On an objective item. You come back with a subjective post. Try again. No, YOU try again! (On second thought, there's no point in that. You'll just fail again.)

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

A few things. I'm not going to debate the issue again. Good idea, since you suck at debating just about everything. Big time! I explained my position. You explained yours. The person who actually had a say never said their position. Did you get that? Did you get that there was no need for St. Chris to respond, since the policy statement speaks for itself and is clear to everyone but you?
Probably not. Because you keep saying something and have yet to show what proof you have. Moot point.
So you didn't like my position. Who cares? Apparently, you do! This is a hooker board. Should I run my opinions by you before I express them? That probably would be one of the best ideas you've had in years, but I can't promise you that I'd waste my time helping you out.
Fuck off. You have a fine evening too, sir. I hope you get to enjoy plenty of the adult beverage of your choice!

You must have missed the part where I asked for a factual refute. And I gave one.
I don't know where you got your definition of illiterate. It's not the same as the ones I've seen. It's obviously something you whipped up.

And now you're mad I've already beat your challenge. Mad? LOL! Not a chance. I'm amused and enjoy laughing at your stupid ass! You think you had it easy, the dumb shit included one in his challenge for me.
You come back with a difference of opinion as your centerpiece. Wrong, as explained above.
It probably was easy to do...since it was nothing.

You asked me to refute you. I did. No, you didn't.
I'm still waiting on one from you. Really?

ECCIE's policy statements clearly do not prohibit discussion of alcohol; only illicit substances. Further, no reasonably well-educated (read: literate!) individual would infer from said policy statements that the site owners intended, explicitly or implicitly, to prohibit references to alcohol use. Everyone who posted in your silly thread understood that perfectly well. Why couldn't you?

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

ECCIE's policy statements clearly do not prohibit discussion of alcohol; only illicit substances. Further, no reasonably well-educated (read: literate!) individual would infer from said policy statements that the site owners intended, explicitly or implicitly, to prohibit references to alcohol use. Everyone who posted in your silly thread understood that perfectly well. Why couldn't you?

There you go with "intent" again. Your opinion.
This has only been about intent in your mind. And appearently everyone else according to you. I've been posting about what is actually written. Again, no point in arguing about intent since I would agree that the intent probably isn't to ban speech about alcohol. Probably.
But the words used are different. After finding the errors in tranny fucker's proclamation, the house of cards falls down.
Sorry. "Illicit drug" and "drug use" are 2 types of the noun "mention". "Illicit drug mention" and "drug use mentions" are both noun phrases. "And"
is the coordinating conjunction that links the 2 noun phrases.
The adjective "illicit" only describes the type of drug the mention is referring to in the first noun phrase. It is an illicit drug mention. In the second noun phrase, "drug" only describes the type of use the mention is referring to in the second noun phrase. It is a drug use mention.
The noun phrases are separate until joined by "and". "Illicit" plays no part in the second noun phrase.

http://www.studypro.eu/v2/english-gr...positions.html

http://www.grammar-monster.com/gloss...un_phrases.htm

mention
[men-shuhn]

verb (used with object)
1.
to refer briefly to; name, specify, or speak of:
Don't forget to mention her contribution to the project.
2.
to cite formally for a meritorious act or achievement:
He was mentioned in dispatches from the war zone.

noun
3.
a direct or incidental reference; a mentioning:
to make mention of a place.

The statement is what it is.
I posted a grammatical explanation with links to back up my claim. A claim that was never about intent, only what the statement says.
If you were paying attention you would notice the mods don't enforce keeping people from posting personal information (to a certain extent) or medical (mental state) speculation (again to a certain extent). Just like they don't say anything about drinking. It's their site. They can do what they want. I found a small grammatical error in their statement. Get over it.
I've refuted the post you've been hanging on the whole time. The person I refuted has only come back with a claim and no proof to back him up.
Do you have a rule we missed?