Official "YEAH! ME TOO!" Thread

Ok instead of making fifty thousand different threads to agree or disagree with a post, just post it all here.

All I can say is YEAH! What she said! and NO WAY, He has no idea what he is talking about!!

Oh yea and Yea! (X) Linden did something great, and (X) Linden could have handled that differently.

There, I think I have it all covered.

REDUNDANT adjective :

exceeding what is necessary or normal; SUPERFLUOUS

see also: REDUNDANT

Well maybe. In some cases yes, but also no in some ways.

While I generally agree with your sentiment I don't feel it adequitly covers the necessary elements to really further our understanding of the situation as a whole. The first part was exactly right, however the implications and conclusions you draw could not be further from the truth. I think rather than the finite and fixed conclusion you invision we really need to consider the option that many other factors could effect the outcome. The real problem is really very hard to discuss because of how intertwined it is with the actions of others and the fluctuations in their needs and goals. Not everyone wants the same thing, or wants what you want. To assume so would invalidate the entire argument, so we must account for the possibility not only of your desires, but of those that effect you and those that you effect.

While the person you mentioned may indeed have violated or exemplified the rule, law or creed or the moral, fashion, building or community code you are discussing I do not think it fair to single them out for reward or discipline, unless they like being disciplined I think. The exception being of course if they are really the exception and no other examples of like behavior can be found, in which case they should be hung out to dry if their actions are exemplorary, or placed on the highest pedistal if they are not. Unless they are ugly, in which case independant of their actions we should probably find a hole to hide them in.

Now the great social problem this is all causing could easily be solved in the way you specified, if you did indeed specify a way in which it could be solved, or in a way completely opposite of your, although good hearted, misdirected intentions, or in some variation of one, both or neither of those possibilities. Such an action would almost surely possibly solve the entire or part of the problem. The solution should definatly be considered or not because it is extremely easy or hard, annoying, trivial or impossible for the Linden's to do. All they have to do is make just one to one million small, medium or large changes that will only effect a small portion or all of the user base in some limited or unlimited situations. In any case it definatly should be placed at a priority it deserves, after some more important features but before some less important features. by importance I of course mean the amount of annoyance any lack of a solution causes me personally irregardless of how much annoyance a solution may be to others.

Whew! I'm glad I got that off my chest.

*Giggling*




*OW! My head!*




*Grabs a beer*

hehe


Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.


^_^

Yeah!

What everyone said up 'till now.

--

(the more agreeable Mac Beach)

Yeah! What I'm saying right now! And I thoroughly disagree with what others have not yet said (unless I happen to agree, in which case I completely disagree with what I'm saying)

As that definition shows, if you hadn't already gathered it, I often type as a direct extension of thought. I don't think and translate into type or write in a 'writing' style. I write in a conversational style as if I was having a conversation by typing. Which I think I am so it works. Considering the context and the methods then, a word used primarily in spoken speech and not text is actually probably very suited to a place in a post of mine or anyone else.

And now that you mention it, it almost does have a southern drawl in my mind as I read it. Interesting.

Oh and back on topic, I agree or disagree with some or all of what others have said and will say or may say. Maybe even some or none of what they think.

It has come to the note of my office that many unsolicited onterators are tramming on the permis of the derialator.

Further emications will result in the immediate contority and dereindment of every sarmasent involved.

Buck Weaver
Office of the Drensing Columnate

If you notice this notice, you will notice that this notice is not worth noticing.

Move along.

Heh, I do that too. Which results in a lot of verbal placeholders in my writing, such as 'Hmm,' and 'Oooh,' and so forth. I'm also known for using y'all and variants thereof in email.

I wonder how one'd classify the way I talk, as I consider the way my posts are worded to be closer to the way I think, as opposed to the way I actually talk (using small words to get around the obstacles posed by my deaf accent -- ever tried getting a barista to understand your order when they can't figure out you're saying "I want SOY milk in my drink, not milk milk!" ?)

Every message in this thread is incorrect (including this one).

I never tell the truth.

That's a lie!

"...he always lies"
"I do NOT! i tell the TRUTH!"
"OOOOH what a lie!"

(labyrinth)

My thoughts diverge from this thread's context, and due to the palpable veracity of the ensamble to which I believe in, I must fundamentally express my discountenance with all associates who have heretofore participated in this confabulation.

Wine is not to be played with. It is to be drunk.

I agree wholeheartedly with Chip's statement until Wednesday when I will disagree with him until Friday, then I will agree with him all day.

But....

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

African or European Garod?


EDIT: oh yeah, and i disagree with your statements pit, you can't agree with chip until wensday because his statements are wrong, unless it's the 3rd thursday of the 5th month, but not during leap years because that would just be silly

European of course!

Oh Yeah!

Sorry that last response was terribly vague!
I meant "ME TOO"

and by-the-by I think SL should cut out some of the trivia events for awhile and conjur some type of dictionary games. This crowd has a pretty extensive vocabulary. I had to pull out my dictionary and look up a few words. Although, spelling and grammar should not count because they never count when I type in the same manner as I talk you see I tend to type in some phonetic fashion of the way I talk and although I don't type in the manner I definitely talk in sentences that run on and on and on an on an on an on anon

extensiive vocalabulairy? nah wee're just screwin aroudn

See .sig below.