[Jordan]

Jejef, you must literally buy into "you're nobody till somebody loves you". Because that's what "someone for everyone" is, it's a stupid saying for lonely people looking for inspiration to go out and find a meaningful relationship.

[Tek]

Yes, there IS someone for every singular person provided that everyone when expressed as a number is even.

If they like one another/ever meet/are in the same time period, is not relavant. There can be someone for everyone in one form or another.

Again, if you mean romanticly, yes. Provided that they lower their standards to except anyone and that everyone when expressed as a number is even.

[Slade]

Jejef: I think it's cute how you say "I humbled myself..." when your ego is so large that you can't even see other people's ideas as correct but your own, and your every point is aggressive and condescending toward everyone else. Please do stop lashing out. Ex: Calling us lemmings because we see that you're wrong and you don't. Naturally, if we don't all believe what you do, we must be following some uniform other ideal, eh? But I don't want to get into that, I'm just citing an example. My point is to ask that you please refrain from insulting others when debating. And everybody else should behave themselves too. Flaming begets flaming, and I'm going to get out the modstick if it gets nasty here.

Civ2: Your eloquence and thoroughness, as ever, puts me to shame. But I take offense to your 19 years old comment. I'm 19.

Master Mixer: How did you manage to spell pwned wrong?

Regarding monkeys: If an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters could write for an infinite time (assuming they hit keys one at a time), they would at some point create this thread.

[Sailor Abbey]

I know I’m coming in really late, but I just figured I’d throw in my 2 cents.

*clears throat*

Here goes…



I do not believe there is someone for everyone. The idea is absolutely ludicrous.



That’s all I have for now.

[jariten]

I know I’m coming in really late, but I just figured I’d throw in my 2 cents.

*clears throat*

Here goes…
I do not believe there is someone for everyone. The idea is absolutely ludicrous.
That’s all I have for now.

That's all that needed to be said on the subject too. Did this really go on for 9 pages?

[Jejef Thgaron]

fair enough.

it is usless to stop death...? i don't about that. If you can stop death i'd say that's pretty bloody usefull actually, immortality has some rather spiffy perks.

The fact is that you can't stop death, so it is pointless to even try to stop the inevitable. Ecclesiastes wasn't talking of immortality. It's like saying, "Shit happens" - but you can't stop it, so don't bother... it's gonna happen.

and wasn't this covered by FOL#1?

Glad you caught it! Barend, I must say, you do have a knack for excelling where others fail.

Getting back to the Bible... it says, "Spare not the rod". It speaks of disciplinary actions to use on your children. What it says is this: Don't be afraid to spank your children. If your child does something wrong, they need to know it was wrong. Now, in the society we live in, it is considered 'abuse' to spank children. I don't agree with abuse. I do agree with discipline. I don't think "time-out", or "grounding" a child is good enough discipline. It's much like a GED. As Chris Rock said, it stands for "Good Enough Diploma". So, you can make up four years of high school in a few weeks?

Everyone look at the silly monkey.

Slade, my replies are aggressive. I admit that. I must say, though, and don't take this the wrong way:

I broke the sentence down to show 'IMPLIED' SUBJECT, ACTION, 'REAL' SUBJECT usage.

I was told, and I quote: "FALSE". I am wrong for having a knowledgable grasp on proper English grammar. I was given a ridiculous sentence to prove that the SUBJECT doesn't have to be REAL, when in actuality... IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POST!!! When I read civ's reply, I had to slap my forehead in disbelief. That whole point was tossed aside because:

Everyone LOVES civ.

I was told, and I quote: "Dada". My point, whether it was logical, illogical, right, or wrong, was nonsense. And you are basing this on...? Your interpretation of the syntax used? Or your opinionated guesses? Prove me wrong. Calling bull shit is not proving anything. Again... my point was tossed aside because:

Everyone LOVES civ.

Now... let's put it in context for everyone to understand:

Let's pretend that Slade is really good at math (I don't know if you are, or not, it's irrelevant). Slade posts a mathematical equation that he found out of an Algebra textbook. I reply to Slade's post, telling him that the equation is incorrect... or rather, FALSE... in capital letters to really get my point across. I proceed to tell Slade his understanding of mathematics is bull shit. If I were Slade, I would reply with this: You do realize I got this equation out of a college Algebra book, don't you? If my reply to him was: Straw Man. Dada. Nonsense. You don't know what you're even talking about. - Slade would probably get a little irritated, don't you think? Especially if I just used a poem by a WWI-era poet to "prove" his mathematical equation wrong. What exactly does that prove? I'll tell you what you have proved to me, civ:

Everyone looks up to civ, so, since Jejef is arguing against civ's point, he is full of shit.

All eyes on the monkey.

You think it's funny that I humbled myself before this forum. I think it's ridiculous that I should have to argue against a point that has no proof to back it up.

Sailor Abbey says, "The idea is absolutely ludicrous".

Ok. I understand. I see that you think it's ludicrous.

So here's my question to you: "Why is the idea ludicrous?" Explain your opinion to me. I'm not going to twist your words around. I promise. I just want to know why the idea I believe in is ludicrous. If you can't give me a logical reason to make me change my mind, don't bother saying anything. It is one thing to explain to someone why they are wrong, and actually have facts to back it up. It's an entirely different thing to tell someone everything they believe in is "Dada". Here's why:

Let's pretend civ is a Buddhist monk. I tell civ Buddha is illogical. He asks why. I reply with a passage from "The Walrus, and the Carpenter". He tells me that is just a story. I respond, saying that he is believing in a false religion. Everyone else jumps in, and says: Civ is embarassing himself. He is a retard for being a Buddhist monk.

Do you see where this is going?

"Oh, shit, I got 'powned'?"

In no way, shape, or form, does this sentence: "There is a Wizard in EarthSea" - prove that I am wrong, or that I have a horrible grasp on the grammatical ramifications of a sentence. If we are trying to change this into a grammar-correction contest, I can't win because civ says the rules on PRONOUN/VERB/NOUN are FALSE. So, in conclusion, here's my two cents:

Wisdom, like an inheritance, is a good thing and benefits those who see the sun.

Without wisdom, we are in the dark.

[Spoon Poetic]

You have twisted my words around every time I post, Jejef. So you probably would twist Abbey's, too.

And the Bible doesn't only say, Spare not the rod. It also specifically outlines what punishments should be used in certain situations, including stoning your children. Read Leviticus sometime, dude.

I'm not even going to bother arguing anymore. You'll twist my words around and convince yourself you're right no matter what anyone says.

[Jordan]

Every one that followed this debate agreed with Civ, not because he's an allstar, but because his argument made more sense.

You're all over the place man. I'm not one to point fingers, I can't argue at all. However, your argument is so bad that even I can see the problems with your logic.

1) You think there is someone for everyone
2) You believe that not every one finds that someone
3) You believe 'someone' could be a one night stand
4) You think Newton's law applies

You're clearly missing the common place understanding of the phrase. It's refering to a serious partner. A lover-husband-wife. It's just a sweet nothing, something you'd hear in a Sinatara or Martin song. You'd see it on a hallmark card. You'd hear it at drunk gatherings when people ramble about relationships.

You think the statement is this univeral truth that applies to all forms of physical contact between people. One night stand, blow job, 5 month fling, long time lover.

You also said that you're a total loser who found a long lasting relationship. And therefore any one can do it. This is like when millionare hot shots give the same advice "you can be like me, all you need is the drive"

The harsh reality of this world is that not every one will be rich, not every one will find that someone, and not all people will live happy lives.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 30 April 2006 - 12:27 AM

[Slade]

Jejef: In regards to the Buddha thing, it looks to me like you're trying to explain that neither of you are making sense. I'm sure this wasn't your intent, since the rest of the posts are about how you're supposed to be making more sense than him.

And I'm not complimenting Civ for any reason than he articulates the points I would have made in a manner far more coherent than I could have made.

[Sailor Abbey]

Sailor Abbey says, "The idea is absolutely ludicrous".

Ok. I understand. I see that you think it's ludicrous.

So here's my question to you: "Why is the idea ludicrous?" Explain your opinion to me.

Why would there be someone for everyone? There’s absolutely no reason why there would be. What more do you need?

And I would like to point out that civilian number two freaks me out really bad, but I still agree with what he's said on this particular subject.

[Jejef Thgaron]

Every one that followed this debate agreed with Civ, not because he's an allstar, but because his argument made more sense.

Made more sense? He misinterpreted EVERYTHING I've pointed out to use in his own argument. Don't blow smoke up my ass, by telling me it isn't because he's an "allstar". To quote civ, "Dada".

You're all over the place man. I'm not one to point fingers, I can't argue at all. However, your argument is so bad that even I can see the problems with your logic.

1) You think there is someone for everyone
2) You believe that not every one finds that someone
3) You believe 'someone' could be a one night stand
4) You think Newton's law applies

All over the place? Why, whatever do you mean, Jordan? Am I trying to prove more than one point at the same time? For some 'particular unknown' reason, I feel I am being forced to. You're not one to point fingers, and you can't argue at all... however, my argument is so bad that even YOU can see the problems with my logic? What are you really saying here? To me, this is what it sounds like:

I don't like blaming people, and I can't make my own decisions, but your argument is so misinterpreted, even a simpleton like me can see the logic used in your debate as stupid.

To answer your questions:
1) Yes, I do.
2) Yes, I do. Is this not a proven fact? Some people die alone. Right? Ergo, they never find 'someone'.
3) Yes. It could. 'Someone' is a generic word.
4) To meeting someone, yes. To romantic love, no. Once again, my point is misinterpreted.

You're clearly missing the common place understanding of the phrase. It's refering to a serious partner. A lover-husband-wife. It's just a sweet nothing, something you'd hear in a Sinatara or Martin song. You'd see it on a hallmark card. You'd hear it at drunk gatherings when people ramble about relationships.

You think the statement is this univeral truth that applies to all forms of physical contact between people. One night stand, blow job, 5 month fling, long time lover.

You also said that you're a total loser who found a long lasting relationship. And therefore any one can do it. This is like when millionare hot shots give the same advice "you can be like me, all you need is the drive"

The harsh reality of this world is that not every one will be rich, not every one will find that someone, and not all people will live happy lives.

No, I didn't miss the 'common' place understanding of the phrase. The problem 'is' the 'common' place understanding. I've already said someone is a generic word. If the phrase read: There is a 'soul mate' for everyone. - Then I would drop the whole argument. You take 'someone' to mean long-time partner/spouse/soul mate. I take 'someone' to mean a particular unknown person, or an important person - which is what someone means. If my 'soul mate' existed on the other side of the world, I wouldn't know it. I am content with the 'someone' I am with now, so I have no need for my 'soul mate' on another continent. I have found 'someone', or to me; an important person.

Millionaire 'hot shots' who give the advice, "you can be like me", usually got that way by selling their advice on how to become rich, in order to become rich, themselves. I can get rich by duping people into buying my advice, too. It's called a "scam". ANYONE can do it. People become rich off of other peoples' gullibility. That is the harsh reality. I'm not wealthy, and I have no intentions of feeding off of society's stupidity because I'm not an arrogant prick, therefore, I don't have the 'drive'.

To make an honest living, you have to work for it. Bill Gates' son asked him for money. Bill Gates told him to get a job. He's absolutely correct. You make as much money as you want to make. You can argue all you want about a McDonald's employee not making very much money. While it is the truth (they don't make much money), the McDonald's employee is the only one who can change that fact. We can relate that to finding a lover. If you don't have a girlfriend, you wouldn't ask your father's permission to wine, dine, and 69 his new girlfriend, would you? Stop pointing fingers, and take care of your own damn problems. You've all got brains. Use them. Stop hanging on every last word somebody says, simply because they are well known. As George 'Dubya' would say: "That's not a very good stategory". How did he get a second term in office? Micheal Jackson is a child molester... but it doesn't matter. Why? Because he's got a MONKEY! We all love MONKEYS!!! How is this logical?!? Please don't answer the questions about 'Dubya', or Jacko. They are rhetorical questions.

Nobody commented on the PRONOUN/VERB/NOUN argument. I don't understand why. It leads me to believe that it didn't matter because civ is an "allstar". It didn't matter that he misinterpreted the syntax of "There is someone..." because he's so much smarter, and more insightful, than anyone else. He probably closed his eyes when he typed his reply. It leads me to believe that it is alright to disregard the proper syntax of the English language if you intend to prove a point. Syntax, for those who still want to argue, is a word that applies to the rules of constructing a sentence.

THERE = Pronoun/FAKE SUBJECT; IS = Verb/ACTION; SOMEONE = Noun/REAL SUBJECT

Civ replied with a misinterpretation of the syntax rules. It went something like this:

FALSE. It doesn't matter if the subject is real or not. For example:

There is a Wizard in EarthSea.

The subject in this sentence is based in fantasy, and therefore, you have no idea what you're talking about. Blah, blah, blah. I'm smarter than you. Blah, blah, blah. The subject doesn't have to be real to make it part of a sentence. Yadda, yadda, yadda. You don't know jack shit. Ramalamading-dong. Your understanding of syntax is nonsensical, therefore, since I say so, it must be true. You have no grasp of the English language. Dada.

Then, there are replies to civ, that go a little something like this:

Oh, civ, if only I could have been insightful enough to post what you posted, I would have. Nobody is as intelligent as civ_2! We should all thank the heavens that civ_2 has blessed us with his intellectual enlightenment. We can only strive to be as great as civ is! Civ_2, you are my favorite person!

Then, I got replies:

Stop embarassing yourself, Jejef. I can't believe this has gone on for 9 pages. You need to have that ego deflated. You got "powned"!

Yes. I got "powned". It is responses like this that allow me to understand why everyone plays "follow the leader". Thank you for my "powning". Intellect is abound in this thread, and my response: Wow!



Everyone look at the monkey!

[Jejef Thgaron]

Jejef: In regards to the Buddha thing, it looks to me like you're trying to explain that neither of you are making sense. I'm sure this wasn't your intent, since the rest of the posts are about how you're supposed to be making more sense than him.

And I'm not complimenting Civ for any reason than he articulates the points I would have made in a manner far more coherent than I could have made.

No. In regards to the Buddha thing, I am explaining that I believe there is someone for everyone, and that civ has not proved my belief wrong. All he has done is attempted to show that he is smarter than me. Civ could take a crap in a box, label it 'insight', and people would eat it up. I'm here to tell you that civ's excrement stinks just as bad as everyone elses'.

Sailor Abbey, it is fine to agree with someone, for whatever reason. I respect your opinion. If I were to crap on your beliefs, however, you'd start a war with me. You know this, and I know this. Using this logic... why is it ok for civ to keep crapping on someone else's beliefs? It would be like civ coming over to a Muslim terrorist's house, taking a dump on the Qoran, and asking, "Whatta ya think about that?". I think he'd be a dead man. I'm not saying civ would do that, but he has no qualms about trying to prove someone to be an idiot, simply because of their beliefs. What's to stop him from taking a crap on someone's religious book? Not a damn thing.

[Spoon Poetic]

Again, I say: It's a DEBATE THREAD. Quit whining that someone's out to prove you wrong. That's the effing point. No one is "following the leader" just because they all happen to agree. If I say, "the sky is blue," and someone argues with me and says, "no, it's orange!" I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with me, back me up, and it would not be considered "following the leader." I thanked Civ for saying what he did, because I was thinking the exact same things (on my own, might I add) but didn't want to put the effort into actually stating them, because I knew you'd just twist what I said and there was really no point in wasting the time and effort. Not because he's an "all star" or whatever. If you'd read old threads, you'd see several places where I have argued with Civ.

[Deepsycher]

Interesting points, I thought that "following the leader" was about the intention of following what someone else said or the majority of what everyone does, without self thought or self reasoning. This could be one good reason to compare information to use at the right time for decision making if the information is true.

In situations where there is nobody for some people, other than plenty of objects, can it then be called, "Is there something for everybody?"

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 30 April 2006 - 06:04 PM

[Jejef Thgaron]

Again, I say: It's a DEBATE THREAD. Quit whining that someone's out to prove you wrong. That's the effing point. No one is "following the leader" just because they all happen to agree. If I say, "the sky is blue," and someone argues with me and says, "no, it's orange!" I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with me, back me up, and it would not be considered "following the leader." I thanked Civ for saying what he did, because I was thinking the exact same things (on my own, might I add) but didn't want to put the effort into actually stating them, because I knew you'd just twist what I said and there was really no point in wasting the time and effort. Not because he's an "all star" or whatever. If you'd read old threads, you'd see several places where I have argued with Civ.

Funny... I don't remember whining. I remember being told I was wrong... or rather, FALSE. I was then given a ridiculous rant containing civ's ridiculous misunderstanding of English syntax. I challenge everyone to prove I am wrong. I could say "the sky looks like it is blue", and go on by telling everyone here on this thread that the sky looks blue because of the way light is refracted through water droplets in the atmosphere. Somebody here will tell me I'm wrong; that the sky is blue because the clouds are sad. If I get a reply like this, I'm going to commit everyone on this thread to a mental institute.

When I ask why I'm wrong, I expect factual proof, not poetry being utilized as rhetoric. I have not been PROVED wrong; I have been TOLD I am wrong. I would like to know why I'm wrong. There is nothing in civ's posts that suggests that I am wrong. I have been offered recitations of poetry, and misinterpretations of English syntax rules. You kissed civ's ass as if he was above everyone, and the ultimate authority on all of life's questions.

You didn't want to put in the effort? No, you'd rather just use someone else's effort. It's much more... what's the word? - 'Convenient'? Is that the word? I've always viewed it as 'laziness'. If you don't want me to accuse you of "following the leader", please stop agreeing with everything civ says in this thread, ok? You all act like I'm making no sense, but AGAIN, the whole SYNTAX argument was overlooked because it must have been too intellectual for some to follow along with.

You are absolutely correct: THIS IS A DEBATE THREAD. It is not a popularity contest. So far, you've told me I've twisted your words (which I didn't), you've kissed civ's ass (not to mention, went with the full booty approach), and commented on how I was whining (which I am not). Deepsycher is right on with his definition of what "following the leader" means. YOU (Spoon) had the intention of following what someone else said, without self thought, or self reasoning. In other words, YOU let civ do all your 'heavy' lifting, so you can simply trot in behind him with an inverted plastic baggie to dispose of the shit he's left behind, before anyone else can catch him crapping on the 'concrete' (pun most definitely intended) of logical thought. YOU, then proceeded to throw the SAME crap at the human, who was laughing at you from the other side of the cage.



Silly monkey! Just because it's wrapped up in a plastic baggie, it doesn't mean it still isn't crap!

I am not whining. I personally think your reply was one of the most hilarious posts ever. If you were trying to make me laugh, you did a real bang-up job! Or, were you being serial?

In situations where there is nobody for some people, other than plenty of objects, can it then be called, "Is there something for everybody?"

Are you being serial?