Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'THE AIGBURTH ARMS' started by Abe, May 9, 2018.
I dont even remember the original Mumfie thread now. I just get a cold dread from its mention.
The Mumfie thread has gone since it was on the old board. The Serbian Film thread is the one with the disturbing imagery.
any mumfie thread is awesome, just by association. I am also deeply disappointed that such a thing could ever be forgotten
Oh God yeah, that was nasty. @neilold is still yet to explain what he enjoys so much about that film. So I've started to draw my own conclusions and they ain't pretty.
Let's try 123 testing 123
Lady's and gentlemen this
Is Eddie Badass Davis
Yo yo yo look who is in da house
I am also going to play with fonts
@neilold molested a duck. I seen it. He did it in Aldi and got banned.
That duck didn't get banned
No, no, no, no - I'm sorry but I cannot allow this.
A comedic riposte based around deliberately mistaking which original subject of the statement the eventual concluding remark is in reference to, is something that only works if the statement had been phrased in a way that presents you with some layer of unintended ambiguity that you can use to your humour-based advantage. Cloud's statement did not.
This was a very poor, desperate and ultimately nonsensical comeback Neil and you should remove it immediately.
I disclaim that theorem Undies. It is clearly stated by cloud that 'he' did it, in Aldi, and got banned. This is a clear indicator that the offender was a he, yet does not categorically state whether the he was neilold, or the duck itself, as the duck is related to as a thing at that point, and is clearly not defined by its sex either way.
Therefore you should detract your previous statement, and said statement should be removed, not the previous post.
The subject of the statement, Neilold, is clearly defined in the third person singular during the first sentence. We know this as a grammatical fact because he is the agent of the subsequent verb prior to the introduction of the secondary subject, the duck. With this fact established we move onto the second sentence whereupon Cloud references neither the agent nor the recipient, but rather through his use of 'it' the action that took place as already identified by the verb 'molested' in the opening sentence. The only sliver of ambiguity you could attempt to cling to at this mid-point of the statement is that Cloud's use of 'it' is now being used as a noun, rather than a verb and he is infact referring to the duck and choosing to refer to the said creature as an 'it' rather than a 'he' or 'she' - with some restructuring of the statement you may then vaguely be in a position to make your hilarious retort... regrettably though the statement continues with a third sentence that invalidates this potential comedic entry point for you, because Cloud goes on to state that 'he' did it in Aldis - had the subject of the statement switched to the duck in the second sentence then by the already established rules Cloud would have continued to refer to the duck by 'it' and not 'he' - and indeed the word 'it' does make its second reappearance here and solidifies the fact its a verb by once again referring to an action taking place, to-wit the molestation. In the final few words of the sentence, ambiguity could have been introduced had Cloud entered the words 'he' or 'it' between the final words of 'and got banned' - as in "and HE got banned" or "and IT got banned" - that would allow you to leap on the fact that the agent of the statement could have changed at the last moment and thus you would be primed for the come-back of all come-backs... "That duck didn't get banned." ...unfortunately for you though, neither of these words were entered by Cloud - thus leaving us in no doubt that the subject of the statement was Neilold from the start... remained Neilold throughout... and finished off still being Neilold.
Please don't attempt this type of humour again and please don't attempt to argue with me again. It's embarrassing.
You mentioned a sliver of ambiguity. Well clinging to it is exactly what I'm gonna do. Plus the fact that I am neilold and I claim this incident didn't happen, gives me law on my side, i.e innocent till proven guilty, and until otherwise proved definitively I maintain that right
Yours increasingly irritated
Take your sliver of ambiguity, stick it next to the fact that a male duck is called a drake - then shove the whole lot of it up your bum and live out the rest of your life in miserable denial. Sir.
Well thank you very much
He is returning
i'm already here
Do ducks like chairs?
@neilold did a duck like a chair once. It wasn't a pretty sight. He's banned from SCS now.
Yes THE DUCK IS!!!11!!1
I did a terrible @neilold comeback. what do you think?