anyone wanna to explain this to me?

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
bourgeois

I'm afraid you've lost this battle.

try again.

so i couldnt spell the damn word. he mispelled it too, i just hesitated to say it without knowing proper spelling.

EDIT: so are you gonna explain this or not?

 

[deerslayer]

What in the hell are you rambling about now?

 

[ZOXXO]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
WHAT WORD?

Too late. (deleted)

 

[apoppin]

whatever . . . see my edit

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
it seems that you have no idea what he was talking about, yet he's the dumbass. interesting.

i asked him to explain, and yet he refused.

if i said some bullsh1t that made absolutely no sense, wouldnt you ask me to explain, too?

you really should.

I've read the original post 5 times now and I still can't string together what the actual argument is, or why you think he's a dumbass (other than for using a word you're not familiar with).

i'm trying to figure out if there was a reason WHY he used that word, other than that he doesnt know what he's talking about, and is now trying to cover himself up by stonewalling.

We are thinking you're pretty clueless by now and I will drop out of this ridiculous thread.

Take it up with him (again - maybe you should ask him for a date) and . . . perhaps consider posting less unintelligable crap here.

I'm out of here.

bourgeois

bour·geois ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-zhwä, brzhw&auml
n. pl. bourgeois
A person belonging to the middle class.
A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

adj.
Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.
Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

aloha

EDIT: You're welcome

Now I mispelled bourgeois . . . corrected . . .

 

[Kadarin]

It is possible to present arguments to support the presumption that homosexuals as a group are financially better off than heterosexuals: That they don't have families to support (generally speaking). Without a family, you don't need to purchase a large house, etc.. Disposable income should be higher.

Also no "high maintenance" g/fs who require jewelry and/or expensive clothes.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
bourgeois

I'm afraid you've lost this battle.

try again.

so i couldnt spell the damn word. he mispelled it too, i just hesitated to say it without knowing proper spelling.

EDIT: so are you gonna explain this or not?

2 : marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity

that's merriam, #2.

I'm not really sure what your interlocutor was trying to argue. typically arguing that homosexuals make more money than hetrosexuals would but the former closer to bourgeois and the latter closer to the proletariat, no?

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: apoppin
whatever . . . see my edit

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
it seems that you have no idea what he was talking about, yet he's the dumbass. interesting.

i asked him to explain, and yet he refused.

if i said some bullsh1t that made absolutely no sense, wouldnt you ask me to explain, too?

you really should.

I've read the original post 5 times now and I still can't string together what the actual argument is, or why you think he's a dumbass (other than for using a word you're not familiar with).

i'm trying to figure out if there was a reason WHY he used that word, other than that he doesnt know what he's talking about, and is now trying to cover himself up by stonewalling.

We are thinking you're pretty clueless by now and I will drop out of this ridiculous thread.

Take it up with him (again - maybe you should ask him for a date) and . . . perhaps consider posting less unintelligable crap here.

I'm out of here.

bourgeois

bour·geois ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-zhwä, brzhw&auml
n. pl. bourgeois
A person belonging to the middle class.
A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

adj.
Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.
Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

aloha

EDIT: You're welcome

Now I mispelled bourgeois . . . corrected . . .

i know what the definition IS, but he will not explain WHY he used it. the sentence deserves explanation, but obviously noone knows what it was... and i still dont know what the fvck he was talking about, and am still guessing that HE didnt know what the fvck he was talking about.

 

[oLLie]

Necromancer pwnz all.

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
bourgeois

I'm afraid you've lost this battle.

try again.

so i couldnt spell the damn word. he mispelled it too, i just hesitated to say it without knowing proper spelling.

EDIT: so are you gonna explain this or not?

2 : marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity

that's merriam, #2.

I'm not really sure what your interlocutor was trying to argue. typically arguing that homosexuals make more money than hetrosexuals would but the former closer to bourgeois and the latter closer to the proletariat, no?

i was guessing that he meant phillistine, uncultured, but he didnt reference that. in terms of strict economic sense, his statement made no sense, and he made no move to further clarify it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: apoppin
whatever . . . see my edit

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
it seems that you have no idea what he was talking about, yet he's the dumbass. interesting.

i asked him to explain, and yet he refused.

if i said some bullsh1t that made absolutely no sense, wouldnt you ask me to explain, too?

you really should.

I've read the original post 5 times now and I still can't string together what the actual argument is, or why you think he's a dumbass (other than for using a word you're not familiar with).

i'm trying to figure out if there was a reason WHY he used that word, other than that he doesnt know what he's talking about, and is now trying to cover himself up by stonewalling.

We are thinking you're pretty clueless by now and I will drop out of this ridiculous thread.

Take it up with him (again - maybe you should ask him for a date) and . . . perhaps consider posting less unintelligable crap here.

I'm out of here.

bourgeois

bour·geois ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-zhwä, brzhw&auml
n. pl. bourgeois
A person belonging to the middle class.
A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

adj.
Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.
Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

aloha

EDIT: You're welcome

Now I mispelled bourgeois . . . corrected . . .

i know what the definition IS, but he will not explain WHY he used it. the sentence deserves explanation, but obviously noone knows what it was... and i still dont know what the fvck he was talking about, and am still guessing that HE didnt know what the fvck he was talking about.

So what the hell do you want to know? What HE meant? And you are asking US? You (also) didn't know "bourgeois" until it was posted here . . . you (also) DID get an answer (see #30) but ignored it.

I DO (think I) know what he was talking about but don't feel it is even worth discussing either way.

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: apoppin
whatever . . . see my edit

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
it seems that you have no idea what he was talking about, yet he's the dumbass. interesting.

i asked him to explain, and yet he refused.

if i said some bullsh1t that made absolutely no sense, wouldnt you ask me to explain, too?

you really should.

I've read the original post 5 times now and I still can't string together what the actual argument is, or why you think he's a dumbass (other than for using a word you're not familiar with).

i'm trying to figure out if there was a reason WHY he used that word, other than that he doesnt know what he's talking about, and is now trying to cover himself up by stonewalling.

We are thinking you're pretty clueless by now and I will drop out of this ridiculous thread.

Take it up with him (again - maybe you should ask him for a date) and . . . perhaps consider posting less unintelligable crap here.

I'm out of here.

bourgeois

bour·geois ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-zhwä, brzhw&auml
n. pl. bourgeois
A person belonging to the middle class.
A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

adj.
Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.
Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

aloha

EDIT: You're welcome

Now I mispelled bourgeois . . . corrected . . .

i know what the definition IS, but he will not explain WHY he used it. the sentence deserves explanation, but obviously noone knows what it was... and i still dont know what the fvck he was talking about, and am still guessing that HE didnt know what the fvck he was talking about.

So what the hell do you want to know? What HE meant? And you are asking US? You (also) didn't know "bourgeois" until it was posted here . . . you (also) DID get an answer (see #30) but ignored it.

I DO (think I) know what he was talking about but don't feel it is even worth discussing either way.

the way i see the forums doesnt show post number... perhaps you'd do me the favor of pointing out which one is 30?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: apoppin
whatever . . . see my edit

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
it seems that you have no idea what he was talking about, yet he's the dumbass. interesting.

i asked him to explain, and yet he refused.

if i said some bullsh1t that made absolutely no sense, wouldnt you ask me to explain, too?

you really should.

I've read the original post 5 times now and I still can't string together what the actual argument is, or why you think he's a dumbass (other than for using a word you're not familiar with).

i'm trying to figure out if there was a reason WHY he used that word, other than that he doesnt know what he's talking about, and is now trying to cover himself up by stonewalling.

We are thinking you're pretty clueless by now and I will drop out of this ridiculous thread.

Take it up with him (again - maybe you should ask him for a date) and . . . perhaps consider posting less unintelligable crap here.

I'm out of here.

bourgeois

bour·geois ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-zhwä, brzhw&auml
n. pl. bourgeois
A person belonging to the middle class.
A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

adj.
Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.
Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

aloha

EDIT: You're welcome

Now I mispelled bourgeois . . . corrected . . .

i know what the definition IS, but he will not explain WHY he used it. the sentence deserves explanation, but obviously noone knows what it was... and i still dont know what the fvck he was talking about, and am still guessing that HE didnt know what the fvck he was talking about.

So what the hell do you want to know? What HE meant? And you are asking US? You (also) didn't know "bourgeois" until it was posted here . . . you (also) DID get an answer (see #30) but ignored it.

I DO (think I) know what he was talking about but don't feel it is even worth discussing either way.

the way i see the forums doesnt show post number... perhaps you'd do me the favor of pointing out which one is 30?

Instant replay . . .

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
It is possible to present arguments to support the presumption that homosexuals as a group are financially better off than heterosexuals: That they don't have families to support (generally speaking). Without a family, you don't need to purchase a large house, etc.. Disposable income should be higher.

Also no "high maintenance" g/fs who require jewelry and/or expensive clothes.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
yes

no

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

double post

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: apoppin
whatever . . . see my edit

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
it seems that you have no idea what he was talking about, yet he's the dumbass. interesting.

i asked him to explain, and yet he refused.

if i said some bullsh1t that made absolutely no sense, wouldnt you ask me to explain, too?

you really should.

I've read the original post 5 times now and I still can't string together what the actual argument is, or why you think he's a dumbass (other than for using a word you're not familiar with).

i'm trying to figure out if there was a reason WHY he used that word, other than that he doesnt know what he's talking about, and is now trying to cover himself up by stonewalling.

We are thinking you're pretty clueless by now and I will drop out of this ridiculous thread.

Take it up with him (again - maybe you should ask him for a date) and . . . perhaps consider posting less unintelligable crap here.

I'm out of here.

bourgeois

bour·geois ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-zhwä, brzhw&auml
n. pl. bourgeois
A person belonging to the middle class.
A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

adj.
Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.
Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

aloha

EDIT: You're welcome

Now I mispelled bourgeois . . . corrected . . .

i know what the definition IS, but he will not explain WHY he used it. the sentence deserves explanation, but obviously noone knows what it was... and i still dont know what the fvck he was talking about, and am still guessing that HE didnt know what the fvck he was talking about.

So what the hell do you want to know? What HE meant? And you are asking US? You (also) didn't know "bourgeois" until it was posted here . . . you (also) DID get an answer (see #30) but ignored it.

I DO (think I) know what he was talking about but don't feel it is even worth discussing either way.

the way i see the forums doesnt show post number... perhaps you'd do me the favor of pointing out which one is 30?

Instant replay . . .

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
It is possible to present arguments to support the presumption that homosexuals as a group are financially better off than heterosexuals: That they don't have families to support (generally speaking). Without a family, you don't need to purchase a large house, etc.. Disposable income should be higher.

Also no "high maintenance" g/fs who require jewelry and/or expensive clothes.

i saw that. i said that. i aggree with that.

but the discussion at the time wasnt about economic position, so i fail to see what that would have to do with anything.

besides, i dont think they aggreed with me in saying that gays are better off in terms of finances than straits.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: apoppin
whatever . . . see my edit

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
it seems that you have no idea what he was talking about, yet he's the dumbass. interesting.

i asked him to explain, and yet he refused.

if i said some bullsh1t that made absolutely no sense, wouldnt you ask me to explain, too?

you really should.

I've read the original post 5 times now and I still can't string together what the actual argument is, or why you think he's a dumbass (other than for using a word you're not familiar with).

i'm trying to figure out if there was a reason WHY he used that word, other than that he doesnt know what he's talking about, and is now trying to cover himself up by stonewalling.

We are thinking you're pretty clueless by now and I will drop out of this ridiculous thread.

Take it up with him (again - maybe you should ask him for a date) and . . . perhaps consider posting less unintelligable crap here.

I'm out of here.

bourgeois

bour·geois ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-zhwä, brzhw&auml
n. pl. bourgeois
A person belonging to the middle class.
A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

adj.
Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.
Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

aloha

EDIT: You're welcome

Now I mispelled bourgeois . . . corrected . . .

i know what the definition IS, but he will not explain WHY he used it. the sentence deserves explanation, but obviously noone knows what it was... and i still dont know what the fvck he was talking about, and am still guessing that HE didnt know what the fvck he was talking about.

So what the hell do you want to know? What HE meant? And you are asking US? You (also) didn't know "bourgeois" until it was posted here . . . you (also) DID get an answer (see #30) but ignored it.

I DO (think I) know what he was talking about but don't feel it is even worth discussing either way.

the way i see the forums doesnt show post number... perhaps you'd do me the favor of pointing out which one is 30?

Instant replay . . .

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
It is possible to present arguments to support the presumption that homosexuals as a group are financially better off than heterosexuals: That they don't have families to support (generally speaking). Without a family, you don't need to purchase a large house, etc.. Disposable income should be higher.

Also no "high maintenance" g/fs who require jewelry and/or expensive clothes.

i saw that. i said that. i aggree with that.

but the discussion at the time wasnt about economic position, so i fail to see what that would have to do with anything.

besides, i dont think they aggreed with me in saying that gays are better off in terms of finances than straits.

Ok, I lied and I will try once more . . . You posted:

"most strait guys are [bourgeois] anyway"

True 'dat; but 'so what' - MOST PEOPLE are [middle class] (period)

i asked him to explain, he said cause i'm strait, i wouldnt understand.

you got him there . . . he IS clueless . . .

feel better?