Welcome to Gaia! ::

Thankfully, no one was hurt. I will pray for the clinic's employees to continue on living till old age.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Ratttking
Suicidesoldier#1
Ratttking
Suicidesoldier#1
Ratttking

I have no such desire. It was an example of non-terroristic bombing. I hate WV because I have been there. It is the second-worst place I have been after TN, and the people in/from WV are far more disgusting.


Why not explosive demolitions or controlled bomb range testing?

Also, it's obviously to judge an entire people based on arbtitiary quality and be accurate.

Two more examples, then.

Your last sentence makes no sense.


But fish bombing is terrorism!

You destroy the local ecosystem and make anyone afraid to go out and fish in fear of being blown up by shock waves or dynamite carrying rednecks!


Also, obviously wrong*

My computer is skipping a lot.

I'm generally wary of rednecks and assume they are armed and about to go postal at any time.

I base my opinion of West Virginians on every single one that I have seen, spoken to, and/or met.


Well, I'm sure you could go somewhere else and feel the same way.
Ratttking
I'm generally wary of rednecks ...

You're a redneck, if your redneck has a redneck on it!
Ratttking's avatar

Magical Pumpkin

18,550 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
Suicidesoldier#1
Ratttking
Suicidesoldier#1
Ratttking
Suicidesoldier#1
Ratttking

I have no such desire. It was an example of non-terroristic bombing. I hate WV because I have been there. It is the second-worst place I have been after TN, and the people in/from WV are far more disgusting.


Why not explosive demolitions or controlled bomb range testing?

Also, it's obviously to judge an entire people based on arbtitiary quality and be accurate.

Two more examples, then.

Your last sentence makes no sense.


But fish bombing is terrorism!

You destroy the local ecosystem and make anyone afraid to go out and fish in fear of being blown up by shock waves or dynamite carrying rednecks!


Also, obviously wrong*

My computer is skipping a lot.

I'm generally wary of rednecks and assume they are armed and about to go postal at any time.

I base my opinion of West Virginians on every single one that I have seen, spoken to, and/or met.


Well, I'm sure you could go somewhere else and feel the same way.

Possibly, but unlikely. The only products of incest that I've met came from WV, and they were as bad as you would expect (deformed, deaf, and mentally retarded.)
Suicidesoldier#1
Well, I'm sure you could go somewhere else and feel the same way.

There are two places I will never travel to: Africa... and the South. Both places will rape you of your sanity.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Firebird Trans Am GTA_87
Suicidesoldier#1
Well, I'm sure you could go somewhere else and feel the same way.

There are two places I will never travel to: Africa... and the South. Both places will rape you of your sanity.


Uh-huh.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Ratttking
Suicidesoldier#1
Ratttking
Suicidesoldier#1
Ratttking

Two more examples, then.

Your last sentence makes no sense.


But fish bombing is terrorism!

You destroy the local ecosystem and make anyone afraid to go out and fish in fear of being blown up by shock waves or dynamite carrying rednecks!


Also, obviously wrong*

My computer is skipping a lot.

I'm generally wary of rednecks and assume they are armed and about to go postal at any time.

I base my opinion of West Virginians on every single one that I have seen, spoken to, and/or met.


Well, I'm sure you could go somewhere else and feel the same way.

Possibly, but unlikely. The only products of incest that I've met came from WV, and they were as bad as you would expect (deformed, deaf, and mentally retarded.)


Well that may have tainted your views.
The Sky Does Not Bow
Vizal
The Sky Does Not Bow
Thank god nobody was hurt.


When you thank an entity or person, no matter your personal acknowledge of them, you're supposed to capitalize the beginning letter due to it being a proper noun. This isn't for the sake of respect, but merely for the sake of correct grammar.

So, by saying, "Thank god..." you're making a grammatical error. If you intend to generalize to indicate an unspecified entity, you would then say, "Thank a god" or "Thank the god". If you intend to imply any acknowledgement to a specific god, such as the Christian god, you must then capitalize it as exampled: "Thank God nobody was hurt.", as you are then specifying a particular entity by name.

haha you think i care


I know, deep down in the most buried, untapped portion of your heart which still retains the innocence of a child and the love for everything that is of this natural earth, you cannot do anything but help care in the utmost about grammar and punctuation.
Capricious Conundrum
Vizal
The Sky Does Not Bow
Thank god nobody was hurt.


When you thank an entity or person, no matter your personal acknowledge of them, you're supposed to capitalize the beginning letter due to it being a proper noun. This isn't for the sake of respect, but merely for the sake of correct grammar.

So, by saying, "Thank god..." you're making a grammatical error. If you intend to generalize to indicate an unspecified entity, you would then say, "Thank a god" or "Thank the god". If you intend to imply any acknowledgement to a specific god, such as the Christian god, you must then capitalize it as exampled: "Thank God nobody was hurt.", as you are then specifying a particular entity by name.

hypothesis: the point of language is to communicate clearly and we understood what he/she/it meant by his/her/their words clearly.

conclusion: your condescending rant about him/her/it not capitalizing a proper noun was entirely unnecessary.

additionally, as a statement of my personal opinion, you're a douchebag.


The point of verbal language is to communicate clearly, with fewest of words as possible in conjunction with saying as much as possible. Written language is to put emphasis and fluctuation as in imprint in order for the reader to better translate it into a verbal language in their own mind. The more information there is available in the smallest scale, much like how something is verbally expressed, you then make it easier for the reader to interpret more accurately that which is intended to be understood.

It is incredibly difficult to be condescending to an individual who does not perceive others of any authority over him, either imaginative or legitimately. More than anything, I am sure he did not take me all too seriously, which was also at the same time without my intention to begin with.

In my factual understanding, reading my posts or even my profile does not submit my character to your understanding. Meet an individual first before you judge their works.
chromealias
When a minority (religious, racial, etc) commits an act like in the US then and only then are they labeled terrorist. At least this time nobody was hurt.
Capricious Conundrum
But we don't know the ethnicity, nationality, or the political/philosophical/religious views of the individual who committed the crime.

We don't even know the specific motivation for the crime.

So your statement serves no point.


Just to tag on what Capricious Conundrum stated, an example would be the boston tea party. Terrorism is to use an act of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims (thus the word 'terror'). Despite the good their actions resulted in, there was much opposition against the act and many that followed in the retaliation against government and government entities and extremities. You're viewing from a perception of your own morals and ethics that are in opposition of someone else's. To be hypothetical, let's assume this was the works of an individual. Just because they did an act of what is considered violent or intimidating does not indicate them as terrorists against their own country. Terrorist isn't a negative term, despite the media's use along with the government's. It's just a word to describe a tactic. How it is viewed in the future as being either a good or bad thing depends on the victors of future political circumstances. The future has always defined any acts of good or evil being just that.
Steam Punk Adept's avatar

Witty Genius

9,000 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Perfect Attendance 400
Vizal
chromealias
When a minority (religious, racial, etc) commits an act like in the US then and only then are they labeled terrorist. At least this time nobody was hurt.
Capricious Conundrum
But we don't know the ethnicity, nationality, or the political/philosophical/religious views of the individual who committed the crime.

We don't even know the specific motivation for the crime.

So your statement serves no point.


Just to tag on what Capricious Conundrum stated, an example would be the boston tea party. Terrorism is to use an act of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims (thus the word 'terror'). Despite the good their actions resulted in, there was much opposition against the act and many that followed in the retaliation against government and government entities and extremities. You're viewing from a perception of your own morals and ethics that are in opposition of someone else's. To be hypothetical, let's assume this was the works of an individual. Just because they did an act of what is considered violent or intimidating does not indicate them as terrorists against their own country. Terrorist isn't a negative term, despite the media's use along with the government's. It's just a word to describe a tactic. How it is viewed in the future as being either a good or bad thing depends on the victors of future political circumstances. The future has always defined any acts of good or evil being just that.
The Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act
Steam Punk Adept
Vizal
chromealias
When a minority (religious, racial, etc) commits an act like in the US then and only then are they labeled terrorist. At least this time nobody was hurt.
Capricious Conundrum
But we don't know the ethnicity, nationality, or the political/philosophical/religious views of the individual who committed the crime.

We don't even know the specific motivation for the crime.

So your statement serves no point.


Just to tag on what Capricious Conundrum stated, an example would be the boston tea party. Terrorism is to use an act of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims (thus the word 'terror'). Despite the good their actions resulted in, there was much opposition against the act and many that followed in the retaliation against government and government entities and extremities. You're viewing from a perception of your own morals and ethics that are in opposition of someone else's. To be hypothetical, let's assume this was the works of an individual. Just because they did an act of what is considered violent or intimidating does not indicate them as terrorists against their own country. Terrorist isn't a negative term, despite the media's use along with the government's. It's just a word to describe a tactic. How it is viewed in the future as being either a good or bad thing depends on the victors of future political circumstances. The future has always defined any acts of good or evil being just that.
The Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act


That was my point. Something being a terroristic action does not inherently make the goal an evil thing.
We need to publicly execute domestic terrorists that are tried and beyond a reasonable doubt convicted. This s**t is retarded. I don't ever want to respond to a school shooting or bombing or anything like that. These sort of actions are un american and unacceptable. We are not extremist. Falling to that low is just too far.
Steam Punk Adept's avatar

Witty Genius

9,000 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Perfect Attendance 400
chris(666
We need to publicly execute domestic terrorists that are tried and beyond a reasonable doubt convicted. This s**t is retarded. I don't ever want to respond to a school shooting or bombing or anything like that. These sort of actions are un american and unacceptable. We are not extremist. Falling to that low is just too far.
Every culture has it's extremists
Steam Punk Adept
chris(666
We need to publicly execute domestic terrorists that are tried and beyond a reasonable doubt convicted. This s**t is retarded. I don't ever want to respond to a school shooting or bombing or anything like that. These sort of actions are un american and unacceptable. We are not extremist. Falling to that low is just too far.
Every culture has it's extremists


And we should be extra extreme in punishing them scream

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games