Teen shoots tranny for tricking him

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="Renevent42"]

Here's another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual activity between members of the same sex or gender.

Renevent42

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I like how you're butthurt enough to pull out that card.

GreySeal9

Based on this thread? Definitely not. :lol:

I know I'm the one that started the insults (because you're dumb enough to deserve them), but the way that you responded is hilarious. "I'm probably more successful!" lol.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]The definition illustrates my position almost verbatim. You guys literally had to exclude parts of the definition in order to pretend to have a valid argument. Not only are you both wrong, you are dishonest.Renevent42

Parts of the definition?

Keep making it even clearer that you dont know how a dictionary works.

There are words and then there are definitions for them. One word can have more than one (either completely different from each other or very closely related). Bringing up one definition doesnt mean excluding parts of the definition. There's no accumulative definition of a word based on all of its possible definitions. Get that? Each definition has its proper context.

Examples:

1. play: a) v. to play, b) n. theatrical play, a play on words

Semantically related, yet very specific uses, and even completely different category of words (grammatically speaking)

2. fine: a) v. to fine (to impose a monetary punishment) b) adv. I'm fine

Not semantically related, different category of words

The word homosexual is like example number one. Perhaps of course, it makes it difficult for the simple minded that both definitions derive from the word as an adjective. Yet they are still slightly different semantically.

Toast_burner presented the definition of the word that describes human sexuality, as in the sexual attraction a person feels regardless of whether or not they've had sex or if they had, whom they've had sex with. For instance I was a homosexual man long before I had sex with guys. Same goes for you. I assume you were heterosexual long before you had sex with women. Do you deny that? If yes do as instructed previously. If not then you admit that sexuality doesnt have to do ONLY with whom you have sex with.

Therefore... someone who has had homosexual sex isnt necessarily homosexual.

For starters a lot of things can be included in homosexual sex or heterosexual sex. Earlier we were discussing strictly about blowjobs. If I, as a homosexual man, allow a woman to suck me off because she's a renowned cock-sucker, while I shut my eyes and think of gay porn, is not the same as getting it on with a woman through vaginal penetration, while kissing her, her t*ts, and whatever else. Yeah if the second happened I might start doubting that I am a homosexual and maybe I'm somewhere between homosexual and bisexual (again those labels used loosely).

I dont know if this right use of logic is too advanced for you but try to keep up.

So you have a definition of the word homosexual which describes the acts themselves ("homosexual sex" for instance) and one that describes the sexual attraction of persons ("a homosexual man" for instance). Notice the difference? Same word, different meaning. One meaning refers to acts, the other refers to persons.

Since the one we're struggling to pin down is the one defining sexual attraction and not sexual intercourse, that is the one that sets the parametres.

What does it say? It says that homosexual man, is someone that is sexually (and emotionally I suppose) attracted to other males. It mentions no acts. And its understandable and perfectly logical considering its easily agreed on that I, for instance, was a homosexual man long before I had sex with men. See? My sexual identity is separate from what sexual acts I could have participated in.

Therefore the definition you bolded doesnt necessarily say anything about the sexual identity of a person.

Are we ok?

Not surprised.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]By your reasoning, a gay man having consensual sex with a lesbian is straight or at least bisexual.Renevent42

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]The definition illustrates my position almost verbatim. You guys literally had to exclude parts of the definition in order to pretend to have a valid argument. Not only are you both wrong, you are dishonest.Renevent42

Parts of the definition?

Keep making it even clearer that you dont know how a dictionary works.

There are words and then there are definitions for them. One word can have more than one (either completely different from each other or very closely related). Bringing up one definition doesnt mean excluding parts of the definition. There's no accumulative definition of a word based on all of its possible definitions. Get that? Each definition has its proper context.

Examples:

1. play: a) v. to play, b) n. theatrical play, a play on words

Semantically related, yet very specific uses, and even completely different category of words (grammatically speaking)

2. fine: a) v. to fine (to impose a monetary punishment) b) adv. I'm fine

Not semantically related, different category of words

The word homosexual is like example number one. Perhaps of course, it makes it difficult for the simple minded that both definitions derive from the word as an adjective. Yet they are still slightly different semantically.

Toast_burner presented the definition of the word that describes human sexuality, as in the sexual attraction a person feels regardless of whether or not they've had sex or if they had, whom they've had sex with. For instance I was a homosexual man long before I had sex with guys. Same goes for you. I assume you were heterosexual long before you had sex with women. Do you deny that? If yes do as instructed previously. If not then you admit that sexuality doesnt have to do ONLY with whom you have sex with.

Therefore... someone who has had homosexual sex isnt necessarily homosexual.

For starters a lot of things can be included in homosexual sex or heterosexual sex. Earlier we were discussing strictly about blowjobs. If I, as a homosexual man, allow a woman to suck me off because she's a renowned cock-sucker, while I shut my eyes and think of gay porn, is not the same as getting it on with a woman through vaginal penetration, while kissing her, her t*ts, and whatever else. Yeah if the second happened I might start doubting that I am a homosexual and maybe I'm somewhere between homosexual and bisexual (again those labels used loosely).

I dont know if this right use of logic is too advanced for you but try to keep up.

So you have a definition of the word homosexual which describes the acts themselves ("homosexual sex" for instance) and one that describes the sexual attraction of persons ("a homosexual man" for instance). Notice the difference? Same word, different meaning. One meaning refers to acts, the other refers to persons.

Since the one we're struggling to pin down is the one defining sexual attraction and not sexual intercourse, that is the one that sets the parametres.

What does it say? It says that homosexual man, is someone that is sexually (and emotionally I suppose) attracted to other males. It mentions no acts. And its understandable and perfectly logical considering its easily agreed on that I, for instance, was a homosexual man long before I had sex with men. See? My sexual identity is separate from what sexual acts I could have participated in.

Therefore the definition you bolded doesnt necessarily say anything about the sexual identity of a person.

Are we ok?

You wanna know why you're stupid? Because your mind is incapable of thinking in any shade other than black and white.

The act of having homosexual sex usually says something about their orientation, but not always. There are exceptions and if there are exceptions, the two can't be treated as synonymous.

So yes, a dude having gay sex is most likely gay, but that does not mean that orientation=sexual acts.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Parts of the definition?

Keep making it even clearer that you dont know how a dictionary works.

There are words and then there are definitions for them. One word can have more than one (either completely different from each other or very closely related). Bringing up one definition doesnt mean excluding parts of the definition. There's no accumulative definition of a word based on all of its possible definitions. Get that? Each definition has its proper context.

Examples:

1. play: a) v. to play, b) n. theatrical play, a play on words

Semantically related, yet very specific uses, and even completely different category of words (grammatically speaking)

2. fine: a) v. to fine (to impose a monetary punishment) b) adv. I'm fine

Not semantically related, different category of words

The word homosexual is like example number one. Perhaps of course, it makes it difficult for the simple minded that both definitions derive from the word as an adjective. Yet they are still slightly different semantically.

Toast_burner presented the definition of the word that describes human sexuality, as in the sexual attraction a person feels regardless of whether or not they've had sex or if they had, whom they've had sex with. For instance I was a homosexual man long before I had sex with guys. Same goes for you. I assume you were heterosexual long before you had sex with women. Do you deny that? If yes do as instructed previously. If not then you admit that sexuality doesnt have to do ONLY with whom you have sex with.

Therefore... someone who has had homosexual sex isnt necessarily homosexual.

For starters a lot of things can be included in homosexual sex or heterosexual sex. Earlier we were discussing strictly about blowjobs. If I, as a homosexual man, allow a woman to suck me off because she's a renowned cock-sucker, while I shut my eyes and think of gay porn, is not the same as getting it on with a woman through vaginal penetration, while kissing her, her t*ts, and whatever else. Yeah if the second happened I might start doubting that I am a homosexual and maybe I'm somewhere between homosexual and bisexual (again those labels used loosely).

I dont know if this right use of logic is too advanced for you but try to keep up.

So you have a definition of the word homosexual which describes the acts themselves ("homosexual sex" for instance) and one that describes the sexual attraction of persons ("a homosexual man" for instance). Notice the difference? Same word, different meaning. One meaning refers to acts, the other refers to persons.

Since the one we're struggling to pin down is the one defining sexual attraction and not sexual intercourse, that is the one that sets the parametres.

What does it say? It says that homosexual man, is someone that is sexually (and emotionally I suppose) attracted to other males. It mentions no acts. And its understandable and perfectly logical considering its easily agreed on that I, for instance, was a homosexual man long before I had sex with men. See? My sexual identity is separate from what sexual acts I could have participated in.

Therefore the definition you bolded doesnt necessarily say anything about the sexual identity of a person.

Are we ok?

Teenaged

Not surprised.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="Renevent42"] That doesn't contradict anything I said. I never once said attraction isn't part of the definition, however, sexual action is ALSO part of the definition.Renevent42

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Aww cute, playing the butthurt card now. You came into a conversation and threw down insults, what do you expect? Also, my assertion is probably correct.Renevent42

Based on this thread? Definitely not. :lol:

I know I'm the one that started the insults (because you're dumb enough to deserve them), but the way that you responded is hilarious. "I'm probably more successful!" lol.

Well, of course you would think that, but you're a dumb ass, so....

You are not correct. You are treating two things as synonymous that are not synonymous.

You wanna know why you're stupid? Because your mind is incapable of thinking in any shade other than black and white.

The act of having homosexual sex usually says something about their orientation, but not always. There are exceptions and if there are exceptions, the two can't be treated as synonymous.

So yes, a dude having gay sex is most likely gay, but that does not mean that orientation=sexual acts.

GreySeal9

Its just irritating and slightly amusing that he doesnt know how to properly use a dictionary.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Parts of the definition?

Keep making it even clearer that you dont know how a dictionary works.

There are words and then there are definitions for them. One word can have more than one (either completely different from each other or very closely related). Bringing up one definition doesnt mean excluding parts of the definition. There's no accumulative definition of a word based on all of its possible definitions. Get that? Each definition has its proper context.

Examples:

1. play: a) v. to play, b) n. theatrical play, a play on words

Semantically related, yet very specific uses, and even completely different category of words (grammatically speaking)

2. fine: a) v. to fine (to impose a monetary punishment) b) adv. I'm fine

Not semantically related, different category of words

The word homosexual is like example number one. Perhaps of course, it makes it difficult for the simple minded that both definitions derive from the word as an adjective. Yet they are still slightly different semantically.

Toast_burner presented the definition of the word that describes human sexuality, as in the sexual attraction a person feels regardless of whether or not they've had sex or if they had, whom they've had sex with. For instance I was a homosexual man long before I had sex with guys. Same goes for you. I assume you were heterosexual long before you had sex with women. Do you deny that? If yes do as instructed previously. If not then you admit that sexuality doesnt have to do ONLY with whom you have sex with.

Therefore... someone who has had homosexual sex isnt necessarily homosexual.

For starters a lot of things can be included in homosexual sex or heterosexual sex. Earlier we were discussing strictly about blowjobs. If I, as a homosexual man, allow a woman to suck me off because she's a renowned cock-sucker, while I shut my eyes and think of gay porn, is not the same as getting it on with a woman through vaginal penetration, while kissing her, her t*ts, and whatever else. Yeah if the second happened I might start doubting that I am a homosexual and maybe I'm somewhere between homosexual and bisexual (again those labels used loosely).

I dont know if this right use of logic is too advanced for you but try to keep up.

So you have a definition of the word homosexual which describes the acts themselves ("homosexual sex" for instance) and one that describes the sexual attraction of persons ("a homosexual man" for instance). Notice the difference? Same word, different meaning. One meaning refers to acts, the other refers to persons.

Since the one we're struggling to pin down is the one defining sexual attraction and not sexual intercourse, that is the one that sets the parametres.

What does it say? It says that homosexual man, is someone that is sexually (and emotionally I suppose) attracted to other males. It mentions no acts. And its understandable and perfectly logical considering its easily agreed on that I, for instance, was a homosexual man long before I had sex with men. See? My sexual identity is separate from what sexual acts I could have participated in.

Therefore the definition you bolded doesnt necessarily say anything about the sexual identity of a person.

Are we ok?

GreySeal9

You wanna know why you're stupid? Because your mind is incapable of thinking in any shade other than black and white.

The act of having homosexual sex usually says something about their orientation, but not always. There are exceptions and if there are exceptions, the two can't be treated as synonymous.

So yes, a dude having gay sex is most likely gay, but that does not mean that orientation=sexual acts.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You wanna know why you're stupid? Because your mind is incapable of thinking in any shade other than black and white.

The act of having homosexual sex usually says something about their orientation, but not always. There are exceptions and if there are exceptions, the two can't be treated as synonymous.

So yes, a dude having gay sex is most likely gay, but that does not mean that orientation=sexual acts.

Teenaged

Its just irritating and slightly amusing that he doesnt know how to properly use a dictionary.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] The act of having homosexual sex doesn't say anything about the sexual orientation (which is what homosexual indicates) of the person? Laugh.Renevent42

Not surprised.

But you have to read it all first.

But then again, you might actually have read it all, understood only 10% of it and then responded to that; which you cant even quote properly... how dumb can you be?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You wanna know why you're stupid? Because your mind is incapable of thinking in any shade other than black and white.

The act of having homosexual sex usually says something about their orientation, but not always. There are exceptions and if there are exceptions, the two can't be treated as synonymous.

So yes, a dude having gay sex is most likely gay, but that does not mean that orientation=sexual acts.

Renevent42

Its just irritating and slightly amusing that he doesnt know how to properly use a dictionary.

Are you capable of reading?

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Based on this thread? Definitely not. :lol:

I know I'm the one that started the insults (because you're dumb enough to deserve them), but the way that you responded is hilarious. "I'm probably more successful!" lol.

GreySeal9

Well, of course you would think that, but you're a dumb ass, so....

You are not correct. You are treating two things as synonymous that are not synonymous.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Selective reading?

Not surprised.

Teenaged

But you have to read it all first.

But then again, you might actually have read it all, understood only 10% of it and then responded to that; which you cant even quote properly... how dumb can you be?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] The act of having homosexual sex doesn't say anything about the sexual orientation (which is what homosexual indicates) of the person? Laugh.Renevent42

You wanna know why you're stupid? Because your mind is incapable of thinking in any shade other than black and white.

The act of having homosexual sex usually says something about their orientation, but not always. There are exceptions and if there are exceptions, the two can't be treated as synonymous.

So yes, a dude having gay sex is most likely gay, but that does not mean that orientation=sexual acts.

It was covered and yet you still don't understand why your conflation of orientation and sexual acts is fallicious? Hood lord.

Also, if you think "Good lord Renevent is dense" is foaming at the mouth, you're even dumber than I thought.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] I didn't need a 1000 words to refute your long winded bullshit.Renevent42

But you have to read it all first.

But then again, you might actually have read it all, understood only 10% of it and then responded to that; which you cant even quote properly... how dumb can you be?

I mean, I could help you out and tell you you're smart every day but I dont think I'd achieve much.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] The act of having homosexual sex doesn't say anything about the sexual orientation (which is what homosexual indicates) of the person? Laugh.Renevent42

Not surprised.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]See right now I'm not even pissed that he makes the false equivocation.

Its just irritating and slightly amusing that he doesnt know how to properly use a dictionary.

Teenaged

Are you capable of reading?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] This thread absolutely shows me mentally superior than you. Not only am I correct, but I've actually been arguing a position, you simply waddled and in started insulting like a buffoon. You lost the war of intellects before you even started by acting like a child and just spouting insults.Renevent42

Well, of course you would think that, but you're a dumb ass, so....

You are not correct. You are treating two things as synonymous that are not synonymous.

You can say you are correct until you are blue in the face, but that does make it so.

Also, you take this internet bussiness pretty seriously. "War of the intellects." lol. Weirdo.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Selective reading?

Not surprised.

ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] I've now shown two separate cases where sexual activity is part of the definition. Sorry, you are wrong.Renevent42

Are you capable of reading?

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Well, of course you would think that, but you're a dumb ass, so....

You are not correct. You are treating two things as synonymous that are not synonymous.

GreySeal9

You can say you are correct until you are blue in the face, but that does make it so.

Also, you take this internet bussiness pretty seriously. "War of the intellects." lol. Weirdo.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Of course.

But you have to read it all first.

But then again, you might actually have read it all, understood only 10% of it and then responded to that; which you cant even quote properly... how dumb can you be?

Teenaged

I mean, I could help you out and tell you you're smart every day but I dont think I'd achieve much.

And you'd be lying.

But based on how insecure he seems about his "intellect" (after all, this is a war of the intellects :lol: ), a little encouragement might help him.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Sweetie, no one refuted you that sexual activity is what one of the definitions of the word refers to.

Are you capable of reading?

toast_burner

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] I've now shown two separate cases where sexual activity is part of the definition. Sorry, you are wrong.Renevent42

Are you capable of reading?

Besides that, it would depend on a lot of things. Is the guy getting sucked off aware that it is a guy sucking him off? Is he aware but at the same times closes his eyes and thinks of straight porn? Is the guy giving him the blowjob dressed and prepped just like a woman to the point that he doesnt remind the other guy of a man? Is he aware that it is a guy but that guy isnt visible to him (ex, in a gloryhole situation)?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Basically I pegged you. Also, I am correct.Renevent42

You can say you are correct until you are blue in the face, but that does make it so.

Also, you take this internet bussiness pretty seriously. "War of the intellects." lol. Weirdo.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] I didn't need a 1000 words to refute your long winded bullshit.Renevent42

At this point you should start doubting yourself. Its the healthy thing to do.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] So you agree a man consensually sucking another man's dick is homosexual activity then? And by definition then, that person engaging consensual homosexual activity is therefore a homosexual (or bi, bi-curious, hetero-flexible if they also like the opposite sex)?Renevent42

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Basically I pegged you. Also, I am correct.Renevent42

You can say you are correct until you are blue in the face, but that does make it so.

Also, you take this internet bussiness pretty seriously. "War of the intellects." lol. Weirdo.

Of course I'm talking sh!t. Why? Because you are not only a dumb ass, but you are a dumb ass with delusions about your own intelligence.

It's really funny how serious you're getting about this tho. The only thing I said was "Good lord Renevent is dense" and you got sooooo bent out of the shape that you started talking about who is more successful and a "war of the inellects". :lol:

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]Not necessarily. He would only be gay or bi if he finds the idea attractive. 

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You can say you are correct until you are blue in the face, but that does make it so.

Also, you take this internet bussiness pretty seriously. "War of the intellects." lol. Weirdo.

GreySeal9

Of course I'm talking sh!t. Why? Because you are not only a dumb ass, but you are a dumb ass with delusions about your own intelligence.

It's really funny how serious you're getting about this tho. The only thing I said was "Good lord Renevent is dense" and you got sooooo bent out of the shape that you started talking about who is more successful and a "war of the inellects". :lol:

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You can say you are correct until you are blue in the face, but that does make it so.

Also, you take this internet bussiness pretty seriously. "War of the intellects." lol. Weirdo.

ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Here you are continuing to talk shit though? You are full of crap...you have nothing of value to say and simply acting like a child spouting insults.Renevent42

Of course I'm talking sh!t. Why? Because you are not only a dumb ass, but you are a dumb ass with delusions about your own intelligence.

It's really funny how serious you're getting about this tho. The only thing I said was "Good lord Renevent is dense" and you got sooooo bent out of the shape that you started talking about who is more successful and a "war of the inellects". :lol:

You are mad that I called you dense, which is fine because nobody likes to be insulted. But to start talking about a "war of the intellects" and to compare "success" with an anonymous person on the internet is pretty weird, dude. :? You should probably stop being so insecure.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Of course I'm talking sh!t. Why? Because you are not only a dumb ass, but you are a dumb ass with delusions about your own intelligence.

It's really funny how serious you're getting about this tho. The only thing I said was "Good lord Renevent is dense" and you got sooooo bent out of the shape that you started talking about who is more successful and a "war of the inellects". :lol:

GreySeal9

You are mad that I called you dense, which is fine because nobody likes to be insulted. But to start talking about a "war of the intellects" and to compare "success" with an anonymous person on the internet is pretty weird, dude. :? You should probably stop being so insecure.

Btw its funny that we're describing all sorts of sexual stuff, yet the word t*ts and sh*t are still censored.

Gotta watch out for the kids. Those asterisks sure make the whole thing more proper. >__>

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] I'm riled up? Here you are for like the 5th page back and fourth with me in a conversation you had absolutely nothing to do with. It's you who needs to take a breath.Renevent42

You are mad that I called you dense, which is fine because nobody likes to be insulted. But to start talking about a "war of the intellects" and to compare "success" with an anonymous person on the internet is pretty weird, dude. :? You should probably stop being so insecure.

He was just making observations dude.

Stop injecting meaning into simple words.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] I'm riled up? Here you are for like the 5th page back and fourth with me in a conversation you had absolutely nothing to do with. It's you who needs to take a breath.Renevent42

You are mad that I called you dense, which is fine because nobody likes to be insulted. But to start talking about a "war of the intellects" and to compare "success" with an anonymous person on the internet is pretty weird, dude. :? You should probably stop being so insecure.

Simple: if somebody is being a habitual dumb ass, I point it out. 

In any case, regardless of my insults, why do you think this is a "war of the intellects"? Why do you feel the need to compare your success in life with anonymous people on the internet? Taking the internet so seriously and being that insecure is very very weird and is something that you should probably sort out. For your own sake.

if you are getting head from a trans person that is extremely convincing and you are attracted to her because of the female features, you are having homosexual sex, but that doesn't necessarily make you homosexual. if the fact that the trans person is actually a man is what your attracted to then you are having homosexual sex and are homosexual.

if a person specifically and continually seeks out trans then they are probably homosexual. but if a person finds themselves attracted to a trans because of the feminine aspects and find out and decides to let it happen and not continue to seek out the same situation in the future, that does not make them homosexual. sexuality is not as black and white as people seem to think it is.

there is experimentation, exploring, confused feeling, many situations one could be part of non forced homosexual activities without out actually being homosexual.

MuD3

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You are mad that I called you dense, which is fine because nobody likes to be insulted. But to start talking about a "war of the intellects" and to compare "success" with an anonymous person on the internet is pretty weird, dude. :? You should probably stop being so insecure.

Teenaged

He was just making observations dude.

Stop injecting meaning into simple words.

Yep. I did the research and the hypothesis that Renevent is a dumb ass proved to be correct.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You are mad that I called you dense, which is fine because nobody likes to be insulted. But to start talking about a "war of the intellects" and to compare "success" with an anonymous person on the internet is pretty weird, dude. :? You should probably stop being so insecure.

GreySeal9

Simple: if somebody is being a habitual dumb ass, I point it out. 

In any case, regardless of my insults, why do you think this is a "war of the intellects"? Why do you feel the need to compare your success in life with anonymous people on the internet? Taking the internet so seriously and being that insecure is very very weird and is something that you should probably sort out. For your own sake.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You are mad that I called you dense, which is fine because nobody likes to be insulted. But to start talking about a "war of the intellects" and to compare "success" with an anonymous person on the internet is pretty weird, dude. :? You should probably stop being so insecure.

Teenaged

He was just making observations dude.

Stop injecting meaning into simple words.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Dude, you made your own insults and you started the whole thing. If anyone is guilty of being riled up, it's you. Why else interject your insults in a conversation that had nothing to do with you? Renevent42

Simple: if somebody is being a habitual dumb ass, I point it out. 

In any case, regardless of my insults, why do you think this is a "war of the intellects"? Why do you feel the need to compare your success in life with anonymous people on the internet? Taking the internet so seriously and being that insecure is very very weird and is something that you should probably sort out. For your own sake.

I mean, I'm not gonna pretend I didnt insult and sticked strictly to the argument, but I'd expect you to refrain from it too...

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Dude, you made your own insults and you started the whole thing. If anyone is guilty of being riled up, it's you. Why else interject your insults in a conversation that had nothing to do with you? Renevent42

He was just making observations dude.

Stop injecting meaning into simple words.

He's definitely itt for fewer pages than you are.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Dude, you made your own insults and you started the whole thing. If anyone is guilty of being riled up, it's you. Why else interject your insults in a conversation that had nothing to do with you? Renevent42

Simple: if somebody is being a habitual dumb ass, I point it out. 

In any case, regardless of my insults, why do you think this is a "war of the intellects"? Why do you feel the need to compare your success in life with anonymous people on the internet? Taking the internet so seriously and being that insecure is very very weird and is something that you should probably sort out. For your own sake.

I think it's about time that you stop being angry about my insult. It's the internet. It happens.

What's funny is that you couldn't actually refute my argument.

My argument:

"Orientation and sexual acts usually go hand in hand, but not always."

Is this not true?

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Simple: if somebody is being a habitual dumb ass, I point it out. 

In any case, regardless of my insults, why do you think this is a "war of the intellects"? Why do you feel the need to compare your success in life with anonymous people on the internet? Taking the internet so seriously and being that insecure is very very weird and is something that you should probably sort out. For your own sake.

Teenaged

I mean, I'm not gonna pretend I didnt insult and sticked strictly to the argument, but I'd expect you to refrain from it too...

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Dude, you made your own insults and you started the whole thing. If anyone is guilty of being riled up, it's you. Why else interject your insults in a conversation that had nothing to do with you? Renevent42

He was just making observations dude.

Stop injecting meaning into simple words.

Just because you take the internet too seriously (to the point that you'd compare "success" with an anonymous forum poster) doesn't mean you have to drag me into your weirdness.