BSmack wrote:
Talk about moving the fucking goalposts.
I'm not moving the goalposts. You assumed I meant swarthy to mean his skin color when I was using the pejorative that has nothing to do with skin color. Which I then explained the subsequent posts. It's not my fault you can't read.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:06 pm
by Moving Sale
Goober McTuber wrote:
BSmack is about 5'7". Those who met him in person back in the day described him as a "fat little fuck". But you can still look up to him.
What does any of that have to do with Ofailurecal being a self loathing racist? And why are YOU licking his balls?
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:24 pm
by mvscal
Moving Sale wrote:You assumed I meant swarthy to mean his skin color when I was using the pejorative that has nothing to do with skin color.
Felix wrote:I'm not particularly fond of people in the midwestern states.....well intentioned types generally speaking but alarmingly ignorant.....I'm not sure how you can stand being out there.....
What the hell are you talking about? Don't you live in Idaho?
yes, but to say Idahoans are alarmingly ignorant is like saying the Titanic had a leak.....the people here aren't alarmingly ignorant, they're willfully ignorant which to my way of thinking is much worse......but we have a relatively small population and the real ignorance is for the most part confined to the smaller population areas.....I live in the largest metro area (Boise area) and most of the people (notice I didn't say legislature) are intellectually competent......
[/quote]
A) Go ahead and post a usable pic or STFU you swarthy racist fuck.
B) There is no AB dictionary online you vapid asshat.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:44 pm
by BSmack
Moving Sale wrote:I'm not moving the goalposts. You assumed I meant swarthy to mean his skin color.
Because that's what the fucking word means, someone with dark skin.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:52 pm
by Moving Sale
Don't listen to me I couldn't care less. I bet you think mvscal means someone with black skin eh? Good god you are stupid.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 3:18 pm
by Smackie Chan
Moving Sale wrote:I bet you think mvscal means someone with black skin eh?
Yes, but only because that's what it doesprimarily mean.
dictionary.com wrote:nig-gernoun
1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.
a. a black person.
b. a member of any dark-skinned people.
So, at least according to this source (and others you may consider more authoritative, I'm sure), mvscal DOES mean someone with black skin. Of course, that's not its ONLY definition:
dictionary.com also wrote:2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
3. a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.
The word can be correctly used to describe a black person, but it's not limited to that definition.
Now let's look at a different word:
dictionary.com wrote: swarth-yadj dark-hued or dark-complexioned
That is the ONLY definition given for the word. There's nothing there that says it also refers to peoples who often have dark skin but are sometimes fair-skinned. If you are dark-complected, you're swarthy. If you're not dark-complected but others of your ethnicity often are, you're still not swarthy. Pretty simple stuff.
You wrote:There is no AB dictionary online
There probably isn't one at Barnes & Noble, either. In fact, the only place it likely exists is in your imagination. And forgive me if this comes across as insensitive, but your imagination isn't considered authoritative by anyone other than you.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 3:20 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Moving Sale wrote:
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 4:38 pm
by Moving Sale
Smackie Chan wrote:
The word can be correctly used to describe a black person, but it's not limited to that definition.
It is also not limited to the definitions you provided. In fact it is many times used to describe people with light colored skin like our President. This is the whole point. It doesn't matter if he is a mvscal or swarthy or Irish or from Omaha. His is an individual and should be treated as such, not mocked for the color of his skin or anything else about him that he can't change.
That being said, he clearly doesn't have blond hair or 'white' skin. That makes him dark-hued. If he would like to stop being a pussy and post a decent pic and he has blue eyes like Tom Watson then maybe I will rethink, but for now he is swarthy.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 4:40 pm
by Moving Sale
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:dig pic
Nice white flag asshat. How do Ofailurecal's balls taste?
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 4:48 pm
by mvscal
Papa Willie wrote:Jesus. This is almost uncomfortable to watch...
It isn't easy being a fearless crusader for social justice and all that is right in the world.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 4:51 pm
by Moving Sale
Damn straight.
How is the dark side treating you?
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 5:25 pm
by mvscal
I wouldn't know. I don't associate with violent lowlifes.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 7:21 pm
by Smackie Chan
Moving Sale wrote:
I wrote:
The word can be correctly used to describe a black person, but it's not limited to that definition.
It is also not limited to the definitions you provided.
Which is fine - there can be many more definitions. But as long as "a black person" or "a person with black skin" are among them, it is appropriate to use it in that way.
In fact it is many times used to describe people with light colored skin like our President. This is the whole point.
The whole point of what? It's been acknowledged that the word has secondary & tertiary definitions.
You, to BSmack wrote:I bet you think mvscal means someone with black skin eh? Good god you are stupid.
You tried to run smack on Bri for not knowing the definition of a word, when, in fact, he does appear to know its primary definition. Your moral crusade against racism has nothing to do with word meanings. Words still mean the same thing irrespective of your moral stance on an issue.
It doesn't matter if he is a mvscal or swarthy or Irish or from Omaha. His is an individual and should be treated as such, not mocked for the color of his skin or anything else about him that he can't change.
That may be, but it doesn't give you or anyone else license to arbitrarily assign new definitions to existing words.
That being said, he clearly doesn't have blond hair or 'white' skin. That makes him dark-hued. If he would like to stop being a pussy and post a decent pic and he has blue eyes like Tom Watson then maybe I will rethink, but for now he is swarthy.
In your imagination, since you have no evidence to the contrary that meets your standard of proof. Essentially, you've "convicted" him of being guilty of having dark skin when the assumption, legally anyway (which I realize isn't at issue here), is that he must be presumed "innocent" until proven otherwise. You've taken a decidedly un-American approach here, counselor.
Why do you hate America?
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 11:12 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
I actually know what Moving Sale is saying.
The term "swarthy" is occassionally used as a perjorative directed at people of Mediterranian descent. But it's context that way should be acceted as a racial slur...for example "Italians and Greeks are untrustworthy...those sneaky, swarthy villains".
Here's where Moving Sale tells us "he knows that" and is aware of the reversal of definition...turning "swarthy" into a power word against someone he percieves as being worthy of disdain.
Go on, Moving Sale...that's what you meant, right?
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 11:23 pm
by Moving Sale
Smackie Chan wrote: But as long as "a black person" or "a person with black skin" are among them, it is appropriate to use it in that way.
And when someone uses it, as they often do, to describe a mixed race person like the POTUS? He is not a “member of any dark skinned people” nor is his skin “black.” The POTUS is not a “member” of any race unless you want to argue that he is “member” of more than one race at a time. Is that your argument?
The whole point of what? It's been acknowledged that the word has secondary & tertiary definitions.
As does “swarthy.” Unless your argument is that all meanings of words must be in a dictionary. The LAPD gang squad would love it if that were true.
You tried to run smack on Bri for not knowing the definition of a word, when, in fact, he does appear to know its primary definition.
I never said he didn’t. What I had said earlier in the thread, to you, was:
The smarter of the two of us wrote:A) The Aryans he has been sucking up to for so many years care about his Spanish DNA not his skin color.
So he was on notice that I was referring to the secondary meaning. Now you can bitch about the existence of a secondary meaning if you want…. Oh wait it's the next part of your post you say?
Your moral crusade against racism has nothing to do with word meanings. Words still mean the same thing irrespective of your moral stance on an issue.
I’m just reporting the news. You can choose to believe it or not. And just for the record how many police reports, prison rules violation reports and the like do you think I have read in the last decade? How many clients who were ‘at war’ with, in bed with or a member of the AB (and their ‘white’ counterparts) do you think I have interviewed? Do you really think I’m making this up?
That may be, but it doesn't give you or anyone else license to arbitrarily assign new definitions to existing words.
How do you think words get new meanings? Shit how do you think new words come into being? You think they START in a dictionary?
In your imagination, since you have no evidence to the contrary that meets your standard of proof.
I have a pic of his black hair and not white skin. WTF are you talking about?
Essentially, you've "convicted" him of being guilty of having dark skin when the assumption, legally anyway (which I realize isn't at issue here), is that he must be presumed "innocent" until proven otherwise.
You can check the record, but I don’t think I ever said he was swarthy before he posted his (grainy shitty pussylike) pic.
Why do you hate America?
Racists. Too many fucking Racists.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 11:29 pm
by Moving Sale
Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:I actually know what Moving Sale is saying.
The term "swarthy" is occassionally used as a perjorative directed at people of Mediterranian descent.
A) Shhhhhhhh. They are on a roll, shut your bacon trap.
B) [dins]Spelling much?[/dins]
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 12:37 am
by Smackie Chan
Moving Sale wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote: But as long as "a black person" or "a person with black skin" are among them, it is appropriate to use it in that way.
And when someone uses it, as they often do, to describe a mixed race person like the POTUS? He is not a “member of any dark skinned people” nor is his skin “black.” The POTUS is not a “member” of any race unless you want to argue that he is “member” of more than one race at a time. Is that your argument?
No. My argument is that when it's used to describe a black person, it's being used according to its primary definition. But, as I already stated, it can also be used to describe "a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc."
You wrote:
I wrote:The whole point of what? It's been acknowledged that the word has secondary & tertiary definitions.
As does “swarthy.” Unless your argument is that all meanings of words must be in a dictionary.
Can you produce a reference that would be moderately to widely accepted providing a definition of swarthy that is anything other than dark-skinned? It may be true that over time, certain words can take on meanings they previously didn't have. Typically, when this happens, dictionaries will catch up with modern usage and start including the new definitions, since that's the function of dictionaries as reference documents - to provide word definitions. I'm not aware of this happening with swarthy, which doesn't mean it hasn't, but you're the only person I know using it to mean something else. This typically is not indicative of the word taking on a new accepted meaning. It usually means the person using it is misinformed and is using it incorrectly, which is my contention here. If your contention is that anyone can start using words in ways other than they are commonly used, language ceases to have meaning because any word can have any meaning the user wants it to have.
The shorter of the two of us wrote:A) The Aryans he has been sucking up to for so many years care about his Spanish DNA not his skin color.
So he was on notice that I was referring to the secondary meaning.
The secondary meaning that only you seem to be aware of. Because you're so much smarter than everyone else here, I know.
I’m just reporting the news. You can choose to believe it or not.
What news have you reported? That swarthy has a new definition that you've made up?
And just for the record how many police reports, prison rules violation reports and the like do you think I have read in the last decade? How many clients who were ‘at war’ with, in bed with or a member of the AB (and their ‘white’ counterparts) do you think I have interviewed?
And this is relevant...how? If you're trying to say that you've heard people use a word in a way that is not considered proper usage, that doesn't mean the word has taken on a new meaning. It means there are a lot of people using it incorrectly.
Do you really think I’m making this up?
Yep.
You wrote:
I wrote:That may be, but it doesn't give you or anyone else license to arbitrarily assign new definitions to existing words.
How do you think words get new meanings?
There are several ways.
Shit how do you think new words come into being?
That's for a different discussion since we're not talking about new words here. But, in a word, it's coining.
I have a pic of his black hair and not white skin. WTF are you talking about?
Swarthy has nothing to do with hair color, and "not white" skin does not translate to dark skin. Plenty of fair-skinned folks have dark hair.
I don’t think I ever said he was swarthy before he posted his (grainy shitty pussylike) pic.
But you said you were using the word because of his DNA, not his color, and that its use was proper for that reason. You can't have it both ways.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 4:42 pm
by Moving Sale
Smackie Chan wrote:
The secondary meaning that only you seem to be aware of. Because you're so much smarter than everyone else here, I know.
I'm apparently not getting through to you. Let's try a different tack.
dwarf
noun, often attributive \ˈdwȯrf\
plural dwarfs also dwarves
Definition of DWARF
1a : a person of unusually small stature; especially : one whose bodily proportions are abnormal
How many times have you had a long drawn out conversation about the merits of this word being used to describe any poster on this board?
I can answer that question for you it's none. "Swarthy" accurately describes Ofailurecal when used on this board. Does that help? If not reread Marty’s last post.
"not white" skin does not translate to dark skin.
Are you color blind? He clearly doesn't have white skin. He is a swarthy mongrel who most white racists would laugh at if he ever had the balls to pull this shtick in public. Why are you so adamant about licking his balls?
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 4:52 pm
by Smackie Chan
Moving Sale wrote:
"not white" skin does not translate to dark skin.
Are you color blind? He clearly doesn't have white skin.
I haven't seen the pic, and don't really care if I do. Not sure why you have such a hard-on for dude to post a pic of himself.
He is a swarthy mongrel who most white racists would laugh at if he ever had the balls to pull this shtick in public.
If you say so.
Why are you so adamant about licking his balls?
I don't recall mentioning him by name, citing anything he's posted, or defending anything he's said during our exchanges in this thread or in any others. Must be I just don't know what licking his balls means. What's the definition? If you're not sure, just make one up. You seem pretty adept at that.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 4:58 pm
by Moving Sale
So white flag on the swarthy issue. Good show.
You can say I'm making up the definition or you can read Marty's post. I don't care which.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 5:03 pm
by BSmack
Moving Dwarf should be commended on overcoming his obvious learning disabilities and becoming a lawyer. OK, so he's the worst lawyer in CA, but he is a lawyer.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 5:10 pm
by Smackie Chan
Moving Sale wrote:So white flag on the swarthy issue. Good show.
You can say I'm making up the definition or you can read Marty's post. I don't care which.
I read his post, but I don't consider Canadian definitions to have any validity here in the nation you hate, especially as it relates to swarthiness. They're so pasty they make Swedes look swarthy.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 5:19 pm
by Smackie Chan
Papa Willie wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:So white flag on the swarthy issue. Good show.
You can say I'm making up the definition or you can read Marty's post. I don't care which.
Perhaps it was a black flag?
Perhaps it was...
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 5:27 pm
by Moving Sale
BSmack wrote:Moving Dwarf should be commended on overcoming his obvious learning disabilities and becoming a lawyer. OK, so he's the worst lawyer in CA, but he is a lawyer.
And yet I beat your sorry ass to a pulp.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 5:29 pm
by Moving Sale
Smackie Chan wrote:
I read his post, but I don't consider Canadian definitions to have any validity here in the nation you hate, especially as it relates to swarthiness. They're so pasty they make Swedes look swarthy.
So any evidence that you are wrong you dismiss. Way to have an open mind. You can now go back to licking Ofailurecal's balls.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 5:39 pm
by Smackie Chan
Moving Sale wrote:So any evidence that you are wrong you dismiss.
Not any evidence. Just Canadian evidence.
And Mexican, too, of course. Can't trust them swarthy spics.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 5:41 pm
by BSmack
Moving Sale wrote:
BSmack wrote:Moving Dwarf should be commended on overcoming his obvious learning disabilities and becoming a lawyer. OK, so he's the worst lawyer in CA, but he is a lawyer.
And yet I beat your sorry ass to a pulp.
Sure you did Tiny. Sure you did.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 5:43 pm
by Moving Sale
BSmack wrote:
Sure you did Tiny. Sure you did.
You have no idea how stupid that post is in this context do you?
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 6:04 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Moving Sale wrote:So white flag on the swarthy issue. Good show.
You can say I'm making up the definition or you can read Marty's post. I don't care which.
Marty's post is your ace in the hole? The one where he called you a fucking idiot?
And what's this "white flag" nonsense you keep throwing around? What I see in this thread is people who have addressed your ridiculous arguments eloquently and effectively. Because people don't want to chase your tail around all day doesn't mean anything's been conceded. If you had your way, you'd move the goal posts all day long about the color of the sky, if that's what you needed to do to be "right" on the internet. You're tedious because you're obsessed...or obsessed because you're tedious. Not sure which.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 6:04 pm
by Moving Sale
Smackie Chan wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:So any evidence that you are wrong you dismiss.
Not any evidence. Just Canadian evidence.
And Mexican, too, of course. Can't trust them swarthy spics.
Nice Dodge Mr. Bundy.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 6:15 pm
by Moving Sale
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Marty's post is your ace in the hole?
I never said that. I said SC is lying if he says there is no other evidence that swarthy is used the way I said.
And what's this "white flag" nonsense you keep throwing around?
I get you are kinda stupid but when someone does not address the substance of a post but merely writes something like "bode" or "your an idiot" then that is dodging the issue. This is known as a white flag you dense fuck.
What I see in this thread is people who have addressed your ridiculous arguments eloquently and effectively.
You are too dumb to read. I get that.
Because people don't want to chase your tail around all day doesn't mean anything's been conceded.
Then they shouldn’t post if they don’t want to, but once they do, if it doesn’t address the substance of the issue at hand then it’s a white flag.
If you had your way, you'd move the goal posts all day long about the color of the sky, if that were what you needed to do to be "right" on the internet.
Go any evidence to back up this wild accusation?
You're tedious because you're obsessed...or obsessed because you're tedious.
And you are an idiot because you lack the mental capacity to think of anything more complicated than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Not sure which.
Of course you are not sure. You are a nothing but a puddle of flop sweat with a bad haircut.
Re: Open challenge to mvscal
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 6:32 pm
by mvscal
Moving Sale wrote:I have a pic of his black hair and not white skin.
No, you don't.
My hair is red, my eyes are blue and my skin is quite pale. Those are the facts. Sorry they don't fit your "self-loathing" angle. Of course that bit never made any sense either since I don't hate brown people except for Arabs.
