Indoctrinate U is one of the most important documentaries of the year.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Was the OP post initiated with the goal of actually having a discussion*? It doesn't really seem like it - just another attempt at stirring the pot with a dash of anger and vitriol.

*Moreover, when does Lucky ever do that? Give it time we might see a post from him that goes beyond a single sentence.

Looks like your doing the very thing your critisizing. Its different though when you do it,right?

that's not a single sentence lol

When pwnage occurs, revert to the critique of sentence struture. Bam!

[SteveLaura 0]

When pwnage occurs, revert to the critique of sentence struture. Bam!

My secret decoder ring is broken. Can someone help me out? Cheers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Was the OP post initiated with the goal of actually having a discussion*? It doesn't really seem like it - just another attempt at stirring the pot with a dash of anger and vitriol.

*Moreover, when does Lucky ever do that? Give it time we might see a post from him that goes beyond a single sentence.

Looks like your doing the very thing your critisizing. Its different though when you do it,right?

that's not a single sentence lol

When pwnage occurs, revert to the critique of sentence struture. Bam!

Did you pwn me? Lets take a poll...

I'm quite happy to discuss the topic at hand - but when its started out of anger with nothing more than a vague trailer to a documentary that noone has seen - including the OP (as if a trailer should somehow stand up on its own), then it seems rather fishy to me. In other words - it wasn't started for the purposes of discussion, but simply for making people angry.

Others with an intimate connection to the university system have commented on this - in some detail - but Lucky saw fit to completely ignore those comments merely for a vague jibe at a vague ideological grouping (which IMO - is why he started the thread). Rather cheap IMO - but that's just my take.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

When pwnage occurs, revert to the critique of sentence struture. Bam!

My secret decoder ring is broken. Can someone help me out? Cheers.

I had you pegged for being past the age of still playing with decoder rings.

[almaty 19]

i knew what brother marc meant..as most of you did too.

Edited October 11, 2007 by almaty

[Fandango 1,439]

When pwnage occurs, revert to the critique of sentence struture. Bam!

My secret decoder ring is broken. Can someone help me out? Cheers.

Well to be fair....it wasn't all that hard to understand.....he said that when he made a good point that's irrefutable, then the best reply is to make grammar and spelling attacks.

Which has been said by many here many times.

[Caladan 19]

For that to work, however, Lisa, there needs to be a point.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When pwnage occurs, revert to the critique of sentence struture. Bam!

My secret decoder ring is broken. Can someone help me out? Cheers.

Well to be fair....it wasn't all that hard to understand.....he said that when he made a good point that's irrefutable, then the best reply is to make grammar and spelling attacks.

Which has been said by many here many times.

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not to nitpick - but the sentence structure comment actually related to my post...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Not to nitpick - but the sentence structure comment actually related to my post...

You want to keep it on the topic and then finish with your little jabs or visa versa.

"Not to nitpick, but" Bud, that is an obvious nitpick!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's sad to see such close-mindedness from our more liberal members. I don't see an ounce of honesty.

Perhaps you should go to university, and get a perspective of your own?

But then again - that would require you to lose your love of self-righteously indignant rubbish.

Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's attitude towards education...he calls is screwl.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Not to nitpick - but the sentence structure comment actually related to my post...

You want to keep it on the topic and then finish with your little jabs or visa versa.

"Not to nitpick, but" Bud, that is an obvious nitpick!

So what. Where's your opinion on the subject of higher education then?

Have you been to university? On second thoughts that's probably a silly question isn't it....

[Fandango 1,439]

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Not to nitpick - but the sentence structure comment actually related to my post...

You want to keep it on the topic and then finish with your little jabs or visa versa.

"Not to nitpick, but" Bud, that is an obvious nitpick!

So what. Where's your opinion on the subject of higher education then?

Have you been to university? On second thoughts that's probably a silly question isn't it....

Don't you think that's a little below the belt?

Everyone here's gonna love this...when I was in Uni, I was the President of the College Dems, and also held a chair for the State College Dems..

shocking, I know, lolz

When pwnage occurs, revert to the critique of sentence struture. Bam!

My secret decoder ring is broken. Can someone help me out? Cheers.

Well to be fair....it wasn't all that hard to understand.....he said that when he made a good point that's irrefutable, then the best reply is to make grammar and spelling attacks.

Which has been said by many here many times.

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Well whether his point was actually irrefutable or not is not what I was commenting on though...I'm stayin out of it. lawlz

But I do think your reply would have been a better one than one pointing out sentence structure.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Not to nitpick - but the sentence structure comment actually related to my post...

You want to keep it on the topic and then finish with your little jabs or visa versa.

"Not to nitpick, but" Bud, that is an obvious nitpick!

So what. Where's your opinion on the subject of higher education then?

Have you been to university? On second thoughts that's probably a silly question isn't it....

Stick and jab,stick and jab! The subject I beleive is not on higher education but the liberal majority within it. I think the effect of being pwnd is getting to you. As far as the topic goes? I agree with lucky.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Not to nitpick - but the sentence structure comment actually related to my post...

You want to keep it on the topic and then finish with your little jabs or visa versa.

"Not to nitpick, but" Bud, that is an obvious nitpick!

So what. Where's your opinion on the subject of higher education then?

Have you been to university? On second thoughts that's probably a silly question isn't it....

Don't you think that's a little below the belt?

Everyone here's gonna love this...when I was in Uni, I was the President of the College Dems, and also held a chair for the State College Dems..

shocking, I know, lolz

When pwnage occurs, revert to the critique of sentence struture. Bam!

My secret decoder ring is broken. Can someone help me out? Cheers.

Well to be fair....it wasn't all that hard to understand.....he said that when he made a good point that's irrefutable, then the best reply is to make grammar and spelling attacks.

Which has been said by many here many times.

I don't think his point was irrefutable - as I said I'd sooner discuss the topic but IMO the thread wasn't started for that purpose, and calling people dishonest who have taken the time to elaborate on the subject when the OP has offered next to nothing himself is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.

As to Marc's spelling - well it tends to go hand in hand with his general belligerent attitude.

Well whether his point was actually irrefutable or not is not what I was commenting on though...I'm stayin out of it. lawlz

But I do think your reply would have been a better one than one pointing out sentence structure.

Well I didn't really do that did I....?

I suggested that Lucky's comments in this thread being limited to insulting one-liners demonstrates his unwillingness to discuss the topic that he started. Others took the time to respond in detail based on their experience - he chose to ignore them completely. I think that's quite rude. IMHO.