GreatWhiteNorth

I came to post backing Yianni. Turns out he doesn't need it.

Clever... but there are men and women... so God already kind of did that quite a long time ago (mostly.) It's a done deal.

Nothing here to calm down about... just basic logic. A lot of people posting here. A good opportunity to share some good will. No wrong answers. Maybe start with you. I've posted the (4) logical choices. Which were the ones you were referring to in your post?

This is a good one. There are (4) types of people in this conversation: Those who watch X videos and don't lie about it Those who watch X videos and lie about it Those who don't watch X videos and don't lie about it Those who don't watch X videos and lie about it I know, I know, it's a wrestling thread, but expand your mind and reply to a post made on this thread. Question here is "who are the (2) kinds of people" that bnwtwg is referring to in that last post?

Why? So, the terrorists can continue freely taking 'pot shots' and planning 'smash and grabs' on Israel? Nope. That ended on 10/7. That behavior became no longer acceptable. Then it got ugly and continues to be ugly. But no uglier than terrorism. I suspect that is the root of any and all disagreement here. Some think terrorism is justifiable - others of us do not.

You don't know what "stammering" is? Then maybe stop using the word in your posts to describe someone with a speech impediment. That's super f'd up. Not everyone is born perfect, and nobody needs turds like you to point out our imperfections.

I read it again. 'The other guy' didn't say anything about the US being crappy and terrible - just flawed. (Which is 100% true.) Brog was the 1st to bring up the "crappy and terrible" line. And without attributing it to 'the other guy.' Thus the mixup. Words matter when communicating with only words. I'll take half an "L" on that one.

Don't... and I mean don't. You think it's funny to call the US, and US history "crappy"? Whoever the f' you are. Stop that shit right now.

Your description sparked a reminder of what Japan did at Pearl Harbor. Then all the gloves came off.

C'mon. You choose to make fun of a man with a speech impediment? How is that a good idea for you? Don't act like a turd if you don't want to be thought of as one.

This gathering was organized by a far-right group, not the Israeli government. The Israeli government has made it clear that this is not their intention at all. Doesn't seem quite right that you left that (very important) part out. In today's climate of misinformation and protesters being paid by competing governments, it's impossible to say. That far-right group may be supported by external forces. Maybe some Arab countries, maybe Israeli citizens. Nobody knows just yet. We shall see.

Result - MN 20, Rutgers 12 Gage with the 19-3 prediction was incredibly close... nice job, Gage. 141: #20 Mitch Moore (RU) dec. #21 Vance VomBaur, 4-1 | MINN 0, RU 3 149: #13 Drew Roberts dec. Michael Cetta, 3-0 (RU) | MINN 3, RU 3 157: #6 Michael Blockhus TF Al DeSantis (RU), 18-3 7:00 | MINN 8, RU 3 165: #29 Blaine Brenner dec. Luke Gayer (RU), 2-0 | MINN 11, RU 3 174: #13 Jackson Turley (RU) dec. Andrew Sparks, 7-4 | MINN 11, RU 6 184:Max McEnelly dec. #22 Brian Soldano (RU), 3-2 | MINN 14, RU 6 197: #24 Garrett Joles dec. #9 John Poznanski (RU), 4-1 SV1 | MINN 17, RU 6 285: #7 Yaraslau Slavikouski (RU) dec. #29 Bennett Tabor, 8-2 | MINN 17, RU 9 125: #16 Dean Peterson (RU) dec. #11 Patrick McKee, 6-4 | MINN 17, RU 12 133: #26 Tyler Wells dec. #8 Dylan Shawver (RU), 5-2 SV1 | MINN 20, RU 12

Hmmm... got it.

Whatever happens, Glazier can't get hurt. Do not want to see who might replace him in the lineup.

From what I've seen, a lot of people are low on Riggins too. But he he's performed well. This match will be interesting.

Your reply is welcome. Open and honest discourse is always welcome. Yes, I'm sure about the very specific definition of "peacetime" I'm 100% sure of that - it isn't arguable. Glad you agree. That definition may not be "a useful way for understanding" in terms of what you think might be useful. But, nonetheless, the definition won't change based on your perspective. The definition is etched in stone. Let's get to what's useful: The "attack" on 10/7 was exactly that. Agreed that the ongoing conflict didn't include 'peace' prior to the attack for many years. But the 10/7 attack was so awful, horrible, horrific, and terrible that I couldn't possibly run out of negative adjectives. The 10/7 attack was the spark that lit the current fire. The fire that led Israel to declare war. Does Hamas consider it peacetime? Doesn't matter a single bit. War has been declared on them for their actions. I'm not sure why you want to quibble with the definition of 'peacetime' when it is already in Webster's big book.

No name calling by me. Reading comprehension is always a problem here - even among good posters like yourself. READ IT AGAIN. I did not call you an idiot. I provided an alternative definition (as you've been doing for a few pages.) Per the alternative definition, you'd be the one calling yourself an idiot. Go ahead, read it again. I'm just playing Defense here. You seem to be fixated on trying to win some silly internet argument against the dictionary that you are completely wrong on. Get over it. Or just keep playing Offense.

... paging "Webster"... "Webster"... we have an otherwise respectable poster who is stubbornly opposing your definition of a word. "Webster"... "Please come to the front and address this scoundrel."

No issues. "Sweet dreams" = means you're saying you lost the argument and that you're an idiot. You may think it means something else - but that's just "semantics", right? Semantics, look it up. You may need a refresher before you try to use that word again. [Yes - sarcasm]

No. I'd like to be done here. (I've argued against Trump supporters with their 'alternative facts'... never against 'alternative definitions'. Both suck.)

I didn't need to look up "semantics", because I'm quite familiar with the word. And then I talked to you about your mistakes. Just as you suggested. Your "was the underlining for you...or me?" comment? That is a strange comment. It was obviously for you. If you're trying to be snarky, you're doing it poorly. We all make mistakes. Just let it go. Following it up with snark is a terrible look. Don't be that guy. (Seriously.)

As I've posted at least (3) times now. It isn't semantics, because the definition of the word is 100% clear. peace-time (noun) a period when a country is not at war It's not a gray area, it's not fuzzy, it's not subject to interpretation. It is clear. Don't let your emotions get the better of you and lower you to the level of some other knot heads here. You know better. If you desperately need to not let it go... then keep arguing against the dictionary.

FFS, I already covered this in a previous post AND posted that fact again for you to reference. Read the damn thread. Peace time is all of the time when not at war. Nobody has to declare peace time. (Think pregnancy, you can declare that you are pregnant but there's no need to declare you aren't pregnant.) Worst part of your post: "Your term" in reference to a dictionary word that is clearly defined. It's not my term, dummy. It's an actual word in the dictionary with an actual clear definition. Look it up. Perhaps the term you are searching for is "Conflict", that's a better fit (which I also already posted earlier.) All we have to communicate here is words. The least you can try to do is use them properly and not try to force your own personal definition on words that are already clearly defined. I'll assist with the definition if you don't want to look it up yourself (which I also already posted earlier): peace-time (noun) a period when a country is not at war

Everything else aside, I would hope you don't think it's OK to "warp" clearly written words into something other than they are. You made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Obviously not a big deal. No need to take a dig at me - that was rude... you don't have to admit it, just let it go.