Is the term "redneck" politically correct ?

[ForCruxSake]

You asked for 'context'.

Ah. No I didn't. I was reminding you of my assertion that words are contextual.

Are you just pretending to be a moron?

However I come across, that's exactly what I am.

You asked for context.

No he said the word 'context'... No question mark... He could well have said it to bring your attention to (your lacking) context.

Maybe you should ask for clarity instead of telling people what they are saying. (Just a suggestion, before you jump down my throat insisting that I'm telling you what to do... for the sack of clarity.)

He's aquitted himself well and outwitted you again. D'oh!

[Walker]

Lemme get this straight. The way to eliminate inbreeding is to reduce the world population to one family? Tell you what, even if god put this world together, he didn't read the instruction manual.

“Ok, I read it. What is your point? What is your analysis of it? Would it be appropriate to suggest you read Darwin, Dawkins, Gould and all the others who actually know what they are talking about?”

Slight delay, but there’s all the questions. So, Darwin is the instruction manual? He lived back in olden times. Maybe, folks can also use the notes from the Wright Brothers as the manual to repair their aeroplanes?

Any holes in the fundamentalist’s instruction manual boat?
http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics

[uwot]

So, Darwin is the instruction manual? He lived back in olden times. Maybe, folks can also use the notes from the Wright Brothers as the manual to repair their aeroplanes?

If you want to put men on the moon, you use Newton, the first edition of the Principia will do the trick. If age is the issue, how old is the bible? What of Dawkins and Gould?

Any holes in the fundamentalist’s instruction manual...

Yes, it is total bollocks. Which bits of it do you wish to defend?

[Walker]

You don’t like the boat.
Now you want a helicopter to not like.



I’ve heard that the scientists have tracked all humans to one common ancestor.

Doesn’t that make everyone on planet earth, inbred ignorant rednecks?

[uwot]

You don’t like the boat.
Now you want a helicopter to not like.

So it's simply a matter of taste, in your opinion, and there's nothing in it you can actually defend.

I’ve heard that the scientists have tracked all humans to one common ancestor.

So not two, as the bible claims.

Doesn’t that make everyone on planet earth, inbred ignorant rednecks?

Clearly some people are.

[Walker]

Glad to help, I'm not the one asking for an instruction manual.

[Walker]

I am not cantenkerous, I wish to clarify problems in a friendly atmosphere.

Peace.

No diamonds without heat and pressure.

“You know, I don't think I could take a mellow evening because I - I don't respond well to mellow. You know what I mean? I have a tendency to - if I get too mellow, I - I ripen and then rot, you know.”
- Woody Allen

[Walker]

So not two, as the bible claims.

First Adam, then woman from Adam.

In the link, the fundamentalist offers genetic implications of:
- Woman as a genetic clone of Adam.
- Woman as a partial clone of Adam, partial because of the different plumbing and such.
- Woman as another gene pool.

- Are these genetic implications, inferred by the fundamentalist, bollocks?
- If so, why?

[uwot]

- Are these genetic implications, inferred by the fundamentalist, bollocks?
- If so, why?

I have already said that in my opinion the entire article is bollocks. If there is a specific substantive hypothesis you would like to defend, by all means cite it, and I will tell you precisely why it is bollocks.

[Walker]

- Are these genetic implications, inferred by the fundamentalist, bollocks?
- If so, why?

I have already said that in my opinion the entire article is bollocks. If there is a specific substantive hypothesis you would like to defend, by all means cite it, and I will tell you precisely why it is bollocks.

Thank you.

[uwot]

Any time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Simple question. Why don't you care that your friend Uwot uses the word 'twat'? I don't expect an answer btw.You never answer even the simplest question.

Why do you think he's my friend? He's barely spoken to me. Why should I care about what he has said when I don't even know the context in which it was used?

I've come here to clear up your misrepresentations of me, not start a fight with him, which it strikes me you are trying to do: cause more contention amongst PN users, with little cause or reason, but the hatred you carry round like a brat.

He's smart. He knows what he is talking about. I'd be proud to call him friend, if he was a friend... but based on what little connection we've had here, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Besides, I'm not here to police expletives. My 'twat' duty was served when you picked a fight with me, started throwing around expletives, and then when pulled up on falling back to expletives, you denied the word was an expletive and set about proving this irrelevant (to the thread) point...even after someone else pointed out how offensive it can be in the UK.

I hope that answers your question. I'm just embarrassed to have dignified such stupidity with an answer.

If he's 'smart' then he will see through your gushing sycophancy. Why don't you mind 'him' using the word 'twat'? Seems like a simple question.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Context, vegetariantaxidermy.

I'm sure you are fine. You can use the word 'twat' at your leisure. You are no threat to the politically correct. Btw, if you don't follow threads then please don't ask for explanations of them.

What gives you the right to say how I will react? You've already shown you know so little of me, with the incorrect assumptions you've littered about me across other threads.

But as you've clearly brought it up... and I hope I not stepping out of line here by assuming what uwot would think, or do.... but I doubt I would get into a huge argument over this with uwot. He's a Brit. He would know how offensive the term is and probably agree to having used the term offensively, unlike you who tried to claim it wasn't an expletive, simply a derisory term meaning 'stupid', which YOU then decided to fight over, after two people tried to tell you how offensive it is, here in the UK. (A fight usually involves more than one person... and you are usually the one to start a fight or keep one going.)

But what has this to do with anything on this thread? Or are you just determined to continue with the same nonsense to try and humiliate me across more threads? Didn't we have a conversation about you STOPPING? That you just add credence to the complaints I have to make about you being irrelevant, to thread subjects, and using them to be hateful? Oh yes, it was one sided conversation... because you wouldn't actually confirm that you would stop. And now here you are confirming the opposite.

Thanks for providing evidence, to this community, to support my claim to suggest why you don't belong on this forum: you are pugnacious, to the point of hateful, and add little to the conversation of a particular subject, preferring to subvert it, to promote your own agenda.

Another valuable thing I've learnt from this forum... is that if you make a claim, you need to back it up, not tell your opponent off for being ignorant of the proof. Don't go ripping into uwot, for not following a thread, he has not even been aware of, until you have brought it up, with little reason, out of context.

You are so full of crap. You didn't create an argument with Uwot over his use of the word 'twat' because he's useful to you and it was the only thing you could come up with when you couldn't counter my arguments. Simple. So your level of 'offendedness' is dependent on the user. If making a pillock of yourself makes you feel humiliated then perhaps you should stop making a pillock of yourself. (Now we can have an argument about the meaning of 'pillock' if you like).

Twat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Twat (disambiguation).

The word twat is widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English, referring to a person considered obnoxious or stupid.[1][2] It is also used informally as a verb in British English to mean "to hit or punch a person".[2] In British English and Commonwealth English, it is pronounced /twæt/ to rhyme with that, or sometimes /twɒt/, to rhyme with hot.[3] In North American English, it is pronounced /twɑːt/, to rhyme with squat.[1] Twat is also used in the United States as vulgar slang for the vulva.[1]



Btw, why are you using American slang if you are a 'Brit'? (Whatever a 'Brit' is.) Apparently 'bollocks' means 'testicles'. Does it not 'offend' you when Uwot uses that word?
Do you know what 'projection' is? It's a cheap 'debating' tactic used by fools who love to argue and want to be thought of as clever but either have no argument, or can't be bothered finding one.

[ForCruxSake]

I'm sure you are fine. You can use the word 'twat' at your leisure. You are no threat to the politically correct. Btw, if you don't follow threads then please don't ask for explanations of them.

What gives you the right to say how I will react? You've already shown you know so little of me, with the incorrect assumptions you've littered about me across other threads.

But as you've clearly brought it up... and I hope I not stepping out of line here by assuming what uwot would think, or do.... but I doubt I would get into a huge argument over this with uwot. He's a Brit. He would know how offensive the term is and probably agree to having used the term offensively, unlike you who tried to claim it wasn't an expletive, simply a derisory term meaning 'stupid', which YOU then decided to fight over, after two people tried to tell you how offensive it is, here in the UK. (A fight usually involves more than one person... and you are usually the one to start a fight or keep one going.)

But what has this to do with anything on this thread? Or are you just determined to continue with the same nonsense to try and humiliate me across more threads? Didn't we have a conversation about you STOPPING? That you just add credence to the complaints I have to make about you being irrelevant, to thread subjects, and using them to be hateful? Oh yes, it was one sided conversation... because you wouldn't actually confirm that you would stop. And now here you are confirming the opposite.

Thanks for providing evidence, to this community, to support my claim to suggest why you don't belong on this forum: you are pugnacious, to the point of hateful, and add little to the conversation of a particular subject, preferring to subvert it, to promote your own agenda.

Another valuable thing I've learnt from this forum... is that if you make a claim, you need to back it up, not tell your opponent off for being ignorant of the proof. Don't go ripping into uwot, for not following a thread, he has not even been aware of, until you have brought it up, with little reason, out of context.

You are so full of crap. You didn't create an argument with Uwot over his use of the word 'twat' because he's useful to you and it was the only thing you could come up with when you couldn't counter my arguments. Simple. So your level of 'offendedness' is dependent on the user. If making a pillock of yourself makes you feel humiliated then perhaps you should stop making a pillock of yourself. (Now we can have an argument about the meaning of 'pillock' if you like).

Twat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Twat (disambiguation).

The word twat is widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English, referring to a person considered obnoxious or stupid.[1][2] It is also used informally as a verb in British English to mean "to hit or punch a person".[2] In British English and Commonwealth English, it is pronounced /twæt/ to rhyme with that, or sometimes /twɒt/, to rhyme with hot.[3] In North American English, it is pronounced /twɑːt/, to rhyme with squat.[1] Twat is also used in the United States as vulgar slang for the vulva.[1]



Btw, why are you using American slang if you are a 'Brit'? (Whatever a 'Brit' is.) Apparently 'bollocks' means 'testicles'. Does it not 'offend' you when Uwot uses that word?
Do you know what 'projection' is? It's a cheap 'debating' tactic used by fools who love to argue and want to be thought of as clever but either have no argument, or can't be bothered finding one.

You're an idiot if you think I'm going to let you draw me into this again. Really really childish.

[ForCruxSake]

Simple question. Why don't you care that your friend Uwot uses the word 'twat'? I don't expect an answer btw.You never answer even the simplest question.

Why do you think he's my friend? He's barely spoken to me. Why should I care about what he has said when I don't even know the context in which it was used?

I've come here to clear up your misrepresentations of me, not start a fight with him, which it strikes me you are trying to do: cause more contention amongst PN users, with little cause or reason, but the hatred you carry round like a brat.

He's smart. He knows what he is talking about. I'd be proud to call him friend, if he was a friend... but based on what little connection we've had here, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Besides, I'm not here to police expletives. My 'twat' duty was served when you picked a fight with me, started throwing around expletives, and then when pulled up on falling back to expletives, you denied the word was an expletive and set about proving this irrelevant (to the thread) point...even after someone else pointed out how offensive it can be in the UK.

I hope that answers your question. I'm just embarrassed to have dignified such stupidity with an answer.

If he's 'smart' then he will see through your gushing sycophancy. Why don't you mind 'him' using the word 'twat'? Seems like a simple question.

It's been explained. Asking the question again isn't going to make me come up with an answer that either you like or seem to want me to come up with.