RE: SHADES OF THE PAST.

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 9:12:42 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

How many people am I today, Sharpie?

"I see MM people!"

Without straw, you have no thoughts.

Without attacks, you have nothing to say.

Despite your obsession, I'm not the topic.

(in reply to BoscoX)

Profile

Post #: 141

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 9:15:50 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Thank you for posting this for it clearly shows just how far up your ass you have stuffed you head.
Please note the following from the document:

"Aircraft operated by the military are by statute public-use aircraft and are not subject
to the civil regulatory requirements for certification, maintenance, and operation".

The faa is the organization that sanctions international airports/aoe.
Thecabal stated, and you agreed that the faa will, when asked and paid, supply customs and immigratrion facilities on a tempory bassis to airports that are not permanently designated as international airports/aoe.
For you to seek to take ordinary usage of two words (airport and international) and conflate them to mean a specific concept (international airport/aoe) is the hallmark of whistle punks everwhere.

The following words where spelled incorrectly.
Further proof you suck at English.

How does this address your ignorance of the issue?

So the only way for an airport to be called 'International' it has to be defined by the FAA?

The faa has jurisdiction in amerika. How is it that you were unaware of that?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 142

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 9:21:19 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

It has been pointed out to you that that was regarding legal aliens. How do we know this? It really is pretty simple. there is no mention of illegal aliens in the document....duuuhhh
Still waiting ing dumbass

You're still wrong and have been proven wrong several times over still... just because you want to shut your eyes and stamp your feet at that fact is not competent or cogent counter points i'm afraid.

Denial does not equal refutation.
Jesus youare phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 143

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 9:23:13 AM

BoscoX

Posts: 10663
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

See at the bottom where it says "in reply to MusicMystery"?

Go back to school. Learn something this time. Idiot.

Makes about as much sense as your calling your mnottertroll twin "sharp"

He certainly cant apply it to you retard, or your circlefelch coven of nutsuckers.

SO sharp!!!

_____________________________

Hunter is the smartest guy I know

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 144

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 10:13:51 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Now you're confused about the "in reply to" at the bottom of every post, makes no sense to you. FFS. Ridiculous clown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

How many people am I today, Sharpie?

"I see MM people!"

Without straw, you have no thoughts.

Without attacks, you have nothing to say.

Despite your obsession, I'm not the topic.

Nothing but a boring troll.

(in reply to BoscoX)

Profile

Post #: 145

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 10:55:00 AM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

How does this address your ignorance of the issue?

It goes to prove that you cannot manage the English Language, there for your arguments on how words in the English language should be interpreted and defined are tenuous at best. After all - if you use a word like 'Convection Fire' why should we in any way trust that you have a firm grasp on the definition of 'Illegal Immigrant' or 'International Airport'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
The faa has jurisdiction in amerika. How is it that you were unaware of that?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid

The FAA doesn't have jurisdiction over Military Airfields...
So the point still remains.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 146

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 10:56:52 AM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Denial does not equal refutation.
Jesus youare phoquing stupid.

Exactly - you've denied the proof to the point of adopting pure ignorance.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 147

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 6:50:30 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

It goes to prove that you cannot manage the English Language, there for your arguments on how words in the English language should be interpreted and defined are tenuous at best.

The word you are looking for is therefore not therefor, not there for.
Therefore is one word not two.
Therefore, by your own definition, you are the one whose grasp of the english language is tenuous at best, dumbass.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

The words are therefore with an E at the end, and therefor without an E at the end.

So what’s the difference between these two words?

Well, therefore means ‘for that reason’ or ‘consequently’ or ‘thus’, whereas therefor without the E just means ‘for that’ or ‘for it’.

So some examples of therefore – a good sentence of therefore with an E would be:

“Therefore the Court found the evidence unconvincing”

Whereas for therefor without the E, a good sentence would be:

“The applicant must submit the application form and any supporting documentation therefor in two weeks’ time”.

https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/therefore-vs-therefor

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 148

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 7:07:08 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: InfoMan

It has been pointed out to you that that was regarding legal aliens. How do we know this? It really is pretty simple. there is no mention of illegal aliens in the document....duuuhhh
Still waiting ing dumbass

You're still wrong and have been proven wrong several times over still... just because you want to shut your eyes and stamp your feet at that fact is not competent or cogent counter points

Counterpoint is one word not two. A counter point is a folding lockback knife made by cold steel.

i'm afraid.

Well of course you are because the competent and cogent counterpoints were that the faa says what is and is not an international airport/aoe in amerika as per my cite listing the faa list of designated international airports/aoe in amerika.
The cogent and competent counterpoints were that ac 20-169 validates that the faa has no jurisdiction over military airports.
The faa does have some jurisdiction if invited to and paid for such on a case by case bassis.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 149

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 7:13:53 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

It has been pointed out to you that that was regarding legal aliens. How do we know this? It really is pretty simple. there is no mention of illegal aliens in the document....duuuhhh
Still waiting, dumbass

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 150

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/14/2017 8:01:29 PM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
beside believing that generating wealth is criminal,

Now this is interesting . . .

So as we are to have it, then; draining the US Treasury trillions upon trillions and increasing the national debt in kind by way of false-pretense wars, and more trillions upon trillions siphoned from the US Treasury for bank bail-outs and other fallout on false-pretense of 'benefits' of financial deregulation, and destruction of 11.5 million full-time equivalent jobs and loss of 5+ million homes and more trillions of personal wealth destroyed in that fiasco, and all other predatory lending, and corporate raiders draining trillions of cash (wealth) from companies which the raiders had no part in generating themselves is . . .

what you consider to be "generating wealth."

You see things 'differently,' it's safe to say.

quote:

Beside believing that political opposition is criminal

Oh yes, and by aforementioned false pretense, killing of 700,000+ civilians and increasing global terrorism and making the world more unsafe and generally more unpleasant all around is . . .

"political dissent," as you previously referred to it. Yes, you've covered that one already.

I thought that toxic liqueur in the US was gone with the end of prohibition, but apparently you've come across quite a stash, there. First thing in the morning is not good for that stuff, you know.

< Message edited by Edwird -- 3/14/2017 8:18:17 PM >

(in reply to BoscoX)

Profile

Post #: 151

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/15/2017 5:12:23 AM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

It goes to prove that you cannot manage the English Language, there for your arguments on how words in the English language should be interpreted and defined are tenuous at best.

The word you are looking for is therefore not therefor, not there for.
incorrect syntax, confusing, misused punctuation.
The word you are looking for is 'therefore'; not 'therefor' or 'there for'.
The sentence is a basic comparison function, by not identifying the objects compared, nor properly seperating each leads to a very confusing and convoluted statement.

Therefore is one word not two.
incorrect definition - there for is a 'compound word' in which 2 words are combined to make a new word. Regardless of however you wish to look at it, it is actually 2 words.

Therefore, by your own definition, you are the one whose grasp of the english language is tenuous at best, dumbass.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.
English is a proper noun and should be capitalized
dumb ass is not a compound word because when compounded it is pronounced 'dum-base'
phoquing is incorrect. when pronounced it is 'Foe-kwing'.

Therefore and Therefor are both formal uses which are commonly used in legal documents or professional papers. 'There for' is not incorrect, it is just an informal usage... but what ever - try and correct my English all you want - all you're left to do is nitpick a few 'probably could of used a better word here' moments and capitalization errors because i do not feel the need to prune over every post and figure out if the grammar fits perfectly. It is hardly comparative to the literal ocean of typographical errors, syntax errors, and grammatical issues in your average post.

I mean, look at your counter post... i took the liberty to point out a few errors in red text...
And by comparison all you can do is nit pick a single word in mine.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 152

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/15/2017 5:35:54 AM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Counterpoint is one word not two. A counter point is a folding lockback knife made by cold steel.

i'm afraid.

Well of course you are

Counterpoint is a musical note, and that is ALL it means.

However - in recent years because idiots like yourself constantly misuse the word to mean something that it doesn't the Dictionary has modified the term so that 'counterpoint' can also mean 'point in opposition to' under the context that the word has 'entered common vernacular'... meaning enough people think it is correct that way, there for it is modified to be correct that way.

the proper usage of the term is 'counter point' as it is a point counter to what you said.

Nothing you've said in any way is fear inducing. If anything, you're incompetence and constant reaching to try and disprove some one vastly smarter then you is amusing to me.

quote:

because the competent and cogent counterpoints were that the faa says what is and is not an international airport/aoe in amerika as per my cite listing the faa list of designated international airports/aoe in amerika.
The cogent and competent counterpoints were that ac 20-169 validates that the faa has no jurisdiction over military airports.
The faa does have some jurisdiction if invited to and paid for such on a case by case bassis.

Wow, this is just absolute proof that you are actually incompetent

First and foremost - you're talking about one point, so using the plural 'counterpoints' is incorrect, what's more aside from your barrage of typical typographical errors, where you refuse to properly capitalize abbreviations, such as FAA and AoE, or properly spell a host of words, from America to basis, you retread old points which have Long since been disproved.

the AC 20-169 talks about Aircraft, not Airports.

Having posted the document in full (see post: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=5007805) and done a word scan - it contains zero references to any airstrip, airfield, airbase, or any derivative word which can be used to denote an Airport. Skimming over the document shows that it is how the Military certifies Commercial Derived Aircraft for Military use.

What's more - the FAA does not have an absolute say in if something is an International Airport or not - again US Military Bases are International Airports under the definition of what makes an 'International Airport' in the similar way that British, French, and German International Airports are, because all of them are outside the jurisdiction of the FAA.

Norfolk Naval Station handles international flights, cargo, and transport - thus making it an International Airport under the common definition that defines all other International Airports outside the United States.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 153

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/15/2017 5:37:45 AM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

It has been pointed out to you that that was regarding legal aliens. How do we know this? It really is pretty simple. there is no mention of illegal aliens in the document....duuuhhh
Still waiting, dumbass

keep waiting then.
you've been proven wrong already, the world has moved on.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 154

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/15/2017 7:13:30 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

It goes to prove that you cannot manage the English Language, there for your arguments on how words in the English language should be interpreted and defined are tenuous at best.

The word you are looking for is therefore not therefor, not there for.
incorrect syntax, confusing, misused punctuation.
The word you are looking for is 'therefore'; not 'therefor' or 'there for'.
The sentence is a basic comparison function, by not identifying the objects compared, nor properly seperating each leads to a very confusing and convoluted statement.

Therefore is one word not two.
incorrect definition - there for is a 'compound word' in which 2 words are combined to make a new word. Regardless of however you wish to look at it, it is actually 2 words.

Therefore, by your own definition, you are the one whose grasp of the english language is tenuous at best, dumbass.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.
English is a proper noun and should be capitalized
dumb ass is not a compound word because when compounded it is pronounced 'dum-base'
phoquing is incorrect. when pronounced it is 'Foe-kwing'.
[/quote]

Therefore and Therefor are both formal uses which are commonly used in legal documents or professional papers. 'There for' is not incorrect, it is just an informal usage... but what ever - try and correct my English all you want - all you're left to do is nitpick a few 'probably could of used a better word here' moments and capitalization errors because i do not feel the need to prune over every post and figure out if the grammar fits perfectly. It is hardly comparative to the literal ocean of typographical errors, syntax errors, and grammatical issues in your average post.

I mean, look at your counter post... i took the liberty to point out a few errors in red text...
And by comparison all you can do is nit pick a single word in mine.

Miss infoman has spoken out of her ass again...
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 155

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/15/2017 7:50:30 AM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Miss infoman has spoken out of her ass again...
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

exactly how?
Simply stating something is not proof of anything.

also - InfoMan.

Seriously - what is your mother tongue?
English as a second language is the only way you can be this ignorant of the words spoken here.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 156

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/15/2017 7:53:18 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Counterpoint is one word not two. A counter point is a folding lockback knife made by cold steel.

i'm afraid.

Well of course you are

Counterpoint is a musical note, and that is ALL it means.

That would be your puerile ignorant unsubstantiated opinion worth a little less than used shit paper.

counterpoint is the relationship between voices that are harmonically interdependent (polyphony) yet independent in rhythm and contour.[1] It has been most commonly identified in the European classical tradition, strongly developing during the Renaissance and in much of the common practice period, especially in the Baroque. The term originates from the Latin punctus contra punctum meaning "point against point"

Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint

because the competent and cogent counterpoints were that the faa says what is and is not an international airport/aoe in amerika as per my cite listing the faa list of designated international airports/aoe in amerika.
The cogent and competent counterpoints were that ac 20-169 validates that the faa has no jurisdiction over military airports.
The faa does have some jurisdiction if invited to and paid for such on a case by case bassis.

Wow, this is just absolute proof that you are actually incompetent

the AC 20-169 talks about Aircraft, not Airports.

Here is a hint miss infoman. From where and to where are aircraft operated.

Having posted the document in full (see post: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=5007805) and done a word scan - it contains zero references to any airstrip, airfield, airbase, or any derivative word which can be used to denote an Airport. Skimming over the document shows that it is how the Military certifies Commercial Derived Aircraft for Military use.

Had you actually read ac 20-169 you would have read the part I quoted which disproves your opinion.

What's more - the FAA does not have an absolute say in if something is an International Airport or not

The cite I posted says you are, as usual miss infoman, full of shit.

- again US Military Bases are International Airports under the definition of what makes an 'International Airport'

Not according to the cite I posted from the faa.
Jesus you are phoquing stuipid.

Norfolk Naval Station handles international flights, cargo, and transport - thus making it an International Airport under the common definition that defines all other International Airports outside the United States.

Once again miss infoman is talking out of her ass. The only international flights that nas norfolk handles are the ones that the faa is requested and paid to perform customs inspections. All other flights into and out of nas norfolk go to or come from amerikan military bases which are technically amerikan soil. and thus not international in the sense you claim. Ace mccain was born on a military base in panama. That makes him a natural born amerikan citizen and elligible to run for president. That military base and all other amerikan millitary bases around the world are considered amerikan soil .
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 157

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/15/2017 8:00:53 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

It has been pointed out to you that that was regarding legal aliens. How do we know this? It really is pretty simple. there is no mention of illegal aliens in the document....duuuhhh
Still waiting, dumbass

keep waiting then.
you've been proven wrong already, the world has moved on.

Not until you can provide some documentation that the policies of the articulate, big eared, lying phoque's policy differed in any substantial manner from his predecessor. Thus far you have provided two documents from the articulate,big eared, lying phopques administration and an "ancient" document dealing with deporting resident aliens who were proved to be criminals.
Still waiting dumbass.

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 158

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/15/2017 8:18:13 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

If anything, you're incompetence

You're means you are...the word you mean is your which shows possession.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid

and constant reaching to try and disprove some one vastly smarter then you is amusing to me.

The word you were looking for is someone not some one.
What is amusing to me is your seeking to correct someone else's grammar.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:

Someone refers to an unspecified member of a group of people. Some one refers to an unspecified member of a group of items or people that is being selected for individual attention. "Someone arrived at the meeting late." "We know that some one of the new robots has a defect, but we're not sure which."

https://www.vappingo.com/word-blog/someone-or-some-one-what%E2%80%99s-the-difference/

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 159

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. - 3/15/2017 8:47:46 AM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

That would be your puerile ignorant unsubstantiated opinion worth a little less than used shit paper.

counterpoint is the relationship between voices that are harmonically interdependent (polyphony) yet independent in rhythm and contour.[1] It has been most commonly identified in the European classical tradition, strongly developing during the Renaissance and in much of the common practice period, especially in the Baroque. The term originates from the Latin punctus contra punctum meaning "point against point"

Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint

punctus does not mean 'point' it means 'prick'
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punctus

Literally it translates from 'Prick against prick'
This is indicative of string instruments which you prick or pluck the strings to create notes.

quote:

Here is a hint miss infoman. From where and to where are aircraft operated.

the document in question does not outline this at any part nor even imply it at any part.
What's more - even if it did... Aircraft can land on non-airfields....

Drop Zones, Aircraft Carriers, and Assault Craft can all land a myriad of aircraft that have been properly modified to land at those points.

quote:

Had you actually read ac 20-169 you would have read the part I quoted which disproves your opinion.

What's more - the FAA does not have an absolute say in if something is an International Airport or not

The cite I posted says you are, as usual miss infoman, full of shit.

- again US Military Bases are International Airports under the definition of what makes an 'International Airport'

Not according to the cite I posted from the faa.
Jesus you are phoquing stuipid.

Find the specific Quote.

Paragraph, Page, Line.
Quote it Directly.

You have literally cited NOTHING, and until you can provide proof that your citation says specifically what you think it says, your citation will count for nothing in this argument.

quote:

Once again miss infoman is talking out of her ass. The only international flights that nas norfolk handles are the ones that the faa is requested and paid to perform customs inspections. All other flights into and out of nas norfolk go to or come from amerikan military bases which are technically amerikan soil. and thus not international in the sense you claim. Ace mccain was born on a military base in panama. That makes him a natural born amerikan citizen and elligible to run for president. That military base and all other amerikan millitary bases around the world are considered amerikan soil .
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

2013 G8 in Belfast - Air Force One lands at Belfast International Airport.
Set off point: Andrews Air Force Base.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHplMuvkOFs

So this little theory that US Military Aircraft only take off and land on other Military bases... yeah it is wrong.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 160