Looks or Game? - Page 37

On March 08 2008 15:20 Floofy wrote: can someone explain me how having a relationship with her would abuse her? i think she would have a lot to gain from me. you are right 4 years ago i was a lot less mature but i don't see why she would prefer an immature guy i was kinda looking for younger chick cuz: #1 chikcs like older guys #2 im unexperienced, if my chick had mad experience it would be akward the only way it would be abuse is if, im actually not really serious about the whole thing

ok stop arguing forever about what i said, this is what i said

i believe most chicks prefer having an older guy, for several reasons:
#1 well hmm they got cars n money n alcool etc. im not saying theyre hoes but its cool to have someone like that over a broke looser high school kid.
#2 they are more mature. chicks like mature guy more than immature people their age. theres a reason u rarely see a younger guy with an older chick

i also prefer having younger chick because:
#1 well i think its better if i get with a chick inexpereinced sexually for obvious reasons. experienced chicks are turned off by virgins big time.
#2 i dont want a chick more mature than myself cuz that will turn em off and i will have trouble being alpha lol.

i never said i wanted someone not ready for a relationship. find a post where i said that. the chick posted an add on a dating site where she obv wants one. i chatted with her, and she seems mature and we have good convos going on. i remmeber when i was 16 i def wanted a relationship, and chicks are more mature faster than guys.

the only way i would be taking advantage of her would be if i get her emotionnaly involved while not being serious about the relationship, like fayth said. and i never said i was going to do this. anyways this have nothing to do with her age, doing that would be wrong with any1

On March 09 2008 09:38 kimseongchan wrote: to me it just looks like floofy is table-selecting, nothing wrong with that

what's the point in table selecting $400NL when you only have fifty bucks?

On March 09 2008 09:45 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:41 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: And by the way, from your beloved wikipedia: "In many cultures and time periods, women did and do marry and bear children at such a young age. But in Shakespeare's England, most women were at least 21 before they did so." Yep, really a product of societal norms. You really know your stuff when you're talking about things. Clearly a well read individual. when/where was the play set? lol

The 1300s, when the marital customs weren't that different from Shakespeare's time. But I guess that doesn't matter.

On March 09 2008 09:45 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:42 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:38 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:30 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong. Again, you're just using google. And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all. Lol, i got it from wiki, and obv I am repeating things I read/ was told by people who should know this stuff. Just like you. Are we only to talk about what we invent? Did you find out that info on their age by being a live a few hundred years ago or talking to Shakespeare himself? Hmm, i guess even asking Shakespeare himself would mean you're regurgitating.... which i guess is a no-no lol I know because I read the book. I've read a few versions of it, both literary and play. I've studied this stuff. You clearly haven't. I don't know why you think wiki is the end all be all of information, it's not. And had Shakespeare himself told you, that wouldn't be regurgitating. That would be able the best source you could have. You clearly have absolutely no idea what I mean when I say regurgitating information. ur the one focusing on semantics, regurgitating is regurgitating. Certainly with well established things like famous plays, wiki is a good authority for information. If something questionable was posted there, critics would have changed it years ago. MIT college professors are generally good authorities too. re·gur·gi·tate /rɪˈgɜrdʒɪˌteɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-gur-ji-teyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -tat·ed, -tat·ing. –verb (used without object) 3. to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated: I'm arguing by definition of the word. You just don't understand what they mean.

ok great, but u could not have been using the connotation that I don't understand when you said I was regurgitating that Juliet was 13 years old? Or are you now implying that I don't know what the number 13 is??

I'm saying that saying something you didn't invent or discover yourself is regurgitating without the connotation that it isn't fully understood. Ppl regurgitate ideas all day. Everything you'd tell me now about well established criticisms or theories on the play would be regurgitations. I'm not saying though, that you don't fully understand them.

On March 09 2008 09:48 Feiticeira wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:38 kimseongchan wrote: to me it just looks like floofy is table-selecting, nothing wrong with that what's the point in table selecting $400NL when you only have fifty bucks?

easy double up against the fish?

On March 09 2008 09:47 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:43 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:39 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:36 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:31 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't. because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive. So if it serves a utilitarian purpose, taking advantage of people is okay? I never tried to say playing poker helped society, I said I wasn't taking advantage of people by playing poker. And for the record: 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. When did you get to decide what definition I meant? This is what I meant. if you say something you should understand the connotations or lack of connotations. Also if you are saying Floofy is wrong to take advantage then it can be assumed that he is taking advantage in an abusive way. simple as that So it's my fault you misunderstood? Lol? And for the record: a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. These don't relate to my definition. It's your fault you don't udnerstand the words being used and that you are using, not mine. Is it so hard for you to admit fault when you misunderstood and misrepresented ideas? ? what did i misunderstand? you said he was taking advantage in a way that is wrong? No?

ad·van·tage /ædˈvæntɪdʒ, -ˈvɑn-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad-van-tij, -vahn-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -taged, -taging.
–noun
—Idioms
10. take advantage of,
b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone.

a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4. to commit sexual assault upon.
5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead.
–noun
6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges.
7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men.
8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
10. rape or sexual assault.

Read them both very carefully. They are unrelated words.

thank you Floofy for clearing this out.

Yes I never felt that you said or implied that you wanted a chick that wasn't ready for a relationship.

I could copy 10 of your posts and Freak could just say, "it was in another post" so I asked him to find the post he feels so strongly about.

He refuses to do so.

On March 09 2008 09:51 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:45 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:42 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:38 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:30 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong. Again, you're just using google. And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all. Lol, i got it from wiki, and obv I am repeating things I read/ was told by people who should know this stuff. Just like you. Are we only to talk about what we invent? Did you find out that info on their age by being a live a few hundred years ago or talking to Shakespeare himself? Hmm, i guess even asking Shakespeare himself would mean you're regurgitating.... which i guess is a no-no lol I know because I read the book. I've read a few versions of it, both literary and play. I've studied this stuff. You clearly haven't. I don't know why you think wiki is the end all be all of information, it's not. And had Shakespeare himself told you, that wouldn't be regurgitating. That would be able the best source you could have. You clearly have absolutely no idea what I mean when I say regurgitating information. ur the one focusing on semantics, regurgitating is regurgitating. Certainly with well established things like famous plays, wiki is a good authority for information. If something questionable was posted there, critics would have changed it years ago. MIT college professors are generally good authorities too. re·gur·gi·tate /rɪˈgɜrdʒɪˌteɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-gur-ji-teyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -tat·ed, -tat·ing. –verb (used without object) 3. to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated: I'm arguing by definition of the word. You just don't understand what they mean. ok great, but u could not have been using the connotation that I don't understand when you said I was regurgitating that Juliet was 13 years old? Or are you now implying that I don't know what the number 13 is?? I'm saying that saying something you didn't invent or discover yourself is regurgitating without the connotation that it isn't fully understood. Ppl regurgitate ideas all day. Everything you'd tell me now about well established criticisms or theories on the play would be regurgitations. I'm not saying though, that you don't fully understand them.

I'm saying you were forwarding information that you weren't actually informed about to begin with because you didn't know Juliet's age but acted as if you were based on 3rd hand information.

Face it, you had no idea what I meant when I said you were regurgitating information and now you're trying to cover. Just stop it. Admit you were wrong. You still clearly don't know what it means based on your last sentence. You're so focused on being right it's ridiculous.

On March 09 2008 09:53 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:47 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:43 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:39 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:36 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:31 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't. because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive. So if it serves a utilitarian purpose, taking advantage of people is okay? I never tried to say playing poker helped society, I said I wasn't taking advantage of people by playing poker. And for the record: 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. When did you get to decide what definition I meant? This is what I meant. if you say something you should understand the connotations or lack of connotations. Also if you are saying Floofy is wrong to take advantage then it can be assumed that he is taking advantage in an abusive way. simple as that So it's my fault you misunderstood? Lol? And for the record: a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. These don't relate to my definition. It's your fault you don't udnerstand the words being used and that you are using, not mine. Is it so hard for you to admit fault when you misunderstood and misrepresented ideas? ? what did i misunderstand? you said he was taking advantage in a way that is wrong? No? ad·van·tage /ædˈvæntɪdʒ, -ˈvɑn-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad-van-tij, -vahn-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -taged, -taging. –noun —Idioms 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. Read them both very carefully. They are unrelated words.

LOOOOOOOOOOL
i never said they were related. I said that taking advantage of something is not wrong, unless it's abusive. I also said that many forms of abuse are done through taking advantage.

TO CITE EXAMPLES IN THOSE EXACT DEFITIONS
A rapist takes advantage of his greater strength to rape his victim.
A person takes advantage of their authority to abuse power.

On March 09 2008 09:57 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:53 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:47 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:43 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:39 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:36 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:31 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't. because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive. So if it serves a utilitarian purpose, taking advantage of people is okay? I never tried to say playing poker helped society, I said I wasn't taking advantage of people by playing poker. And for the record: 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. When did you get to decide what definition I meant? This is what I meant. if you say something you should understand the connotations or lack of connotations. Also if you are saying Floofy is wrong to take advantage then it can be assumed that he is taking advantage in an abusive way. simple as that So it's my fault you misunderstood? Lol? And for the record: a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. These don't relate to my definition. It's your fault you don't udnerstand the words being used and that you are using, not mine. Is it so hard for you to admit fault when you misunderstood and misrepresented ideas? ? what did i misunderstand? you said he was taking advantage in a way that is wrong? No? ad·van·tage /ædˈvæntɪdʒ, -ˈvɑn-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad-van-tij, -vahn-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -taged, -taging. –noun —Idioms 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. Read them both very carefully. They are unrelated words. LOOOOOOOOOOL i never said they were related. I said that taking advantage of something is not wrong, unless it's abusive. I also said that many forms of abuse are done through taking advantage. TO CITE EXAMPLES IN THOSE EXACT DEFITIONS A rapist takes advantage of his greater strength to rape his victim. A person takes advantage of their authority to abuse power.

"10. take advantage of,
b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone."

Is not wrong? You're saying it has to be abusive for it to be wrong, I know that. I'm saying that's not the case and if you think so you clearly don't udnerstand the definition of take advantage of.

On March 09 2008 09:56 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:51 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:45 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:42 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:38 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:30 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong. Again, you're just using google. And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all. Lol, i got it from wiki, and obv I am repeating things I read/ was told by people who should know this stuff. Just like you. Are we only to talk about what we invent? Did you find out that info on their age by being a live a few hundred years ago or talking to Shakespeare himself? Hmm, i guess even asking Shakespeare himself would mean you're regurgitating.... which i guess is a no-no lol I know because I read the book. I've read a few versions of it, both literary and play. I've studied this stuff. You clearly haven't. I don't know why you think wiki is the end all be all of information, it's not. And had Shakespeare himself told you, that wouldn't be regurgitating. That would be able the best source you could have. You clearly have absolutely no idea what I mean when I say regurgitating information. ur the one focusing on semantics, regurgitating is regurgitating. Certainly with well established things like famous plays, wiki is a good authority for information. If something questionable was posted there, critics would have changed it years ago. MIT college professors are generally good authorities too. re·gur·gi·tate /rɪˈgɜrdʒɪˌteɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-gur-ji-teyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -tat·ed, -tat·ing. –verb (used without object) 3. to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated: I'm arguing by definition of the word. You just don't understand what they mean. ok great, but u could not have been using the connotation that I don't understand when you said I was regurgitating that Juliet was 13 years old? Or are you now implying that I don't know what the number 13 is?? I'm saying that saying something you didn't invent or discover yourself is regurgitating without the connotation that it isn't fully understood. Ppl regurgitate ideas all day. Everything you'd tell me now about well established criticisms or theories on the play would be regurgitations. I'm not saying though, that you don't fully understand them. I'm saying you were forwarding information that you weren't actually informed about to begin with because you didn't know Juliet's age but acted as if you were based on 3rd hand information. Face it, you had no idea what I meant when I said you were regurgitating information and now you're trying to cover. Just stop it. Admit you were wrong. You still clearly don't know what it means based on your last sentence. You're so focused on being right it's ridiculous.

plz reread the the quote. And Juliet age was the one I got right. You provided two numbers 14 and 16 as if they were definite while i said I think their ages were.... X and X

I understand what regurgitate means and that it does sometimes but NOT ALWAYS carry that connotation. Certainly it couldn't carry that connotation with me talking about how old the two are. Unless, you think I don't know 2 digit numbers. lol

FrEaK[S.sIR] plz write another article instead if you have time to post all this bullshit

lol this argument is like a HU match

On March 09 2008 10:00 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:56 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:51 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:45 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:42 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:38 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:30 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong. Again, you're just using google. And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all. Lol, i got it from wiki, and obv I am repeating things I read/ was told by people who should know this stuff. Just like you. Are we only to talk about what we invent? Did you find out that info on their age by being a live a few hundred years ago or talking to Shakespeare himself? Hmm, i guess even asking Shakespeare himself would mean you're regurgitating.... which i guess is a no-no lol I know because I read the book. I've read a few versions of it, both literary and play. I've studied this stuff. You clearly haven't. I don't know why you think wiki is the end all be all of information, it's not. And had Shakespeare himself told you, that wouldn't be regurgitating. That would be able the best source you could have. You clearly have absolutely no idea what I mean when I say regurgitating information. ur the one focusing on semantics, regurgitating is regurgitating. Certainly with well established things like famous plays, wiki is a good authority for information. If something questionable was posted there, critics would have changed it years ago. MIT college professors are generally good authorities too. re·gur·gi·tate /rɪˈgɜrdʒɪˌteɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-gur-ji-teyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -tat·ed, -tat·ing. –verb (used without object) 3. to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated: I'm arguing by definition of the word. You just don't understand what they mean. ok great, but u could not have been using the connotation that I don't understand when you said I was regurgitating that Juliet was 13 years old? Or are you now implying that I don't know what the number 13 is?? I'm saying that saying something you didn't invent or discover yourself is regurgitating without the connotation that it isn't fully understood. Ppl regurgitate ideas all day. Everything you'd tell me now about well established criticisms or theories on the play would be regurgitations. I'm not saying though, that you don't fully understand them. I'm saying you were forwarding information that you weren't actually informed about to begin with because you didn't know Juliet's age but acted as if you were based on 3rd hand information. Face it, you had no idea what I meant when I said you were regurgitating information and now you're trying to cover. Just stop it. Admit you were wrong. You still clearly don't know what it means based on your last sentence. You're so focused on being right it's ridiculous. plz reread the the quote. And Juliet age was the one I got right. You provided two numbers 14 and 16 as if they were definite while i said I think their ages were.... X and X I understand what regurgitate means and that it does sometimes but NOT ALWAYS carry that connotation. Certainly it couldn't carry that connotation with me talking about how old the two are. Unless, you think I don't know 2 digit numbers. lol

It's the only connotation it carries. It can't be used any other way in referring to language. Stop thinking it can be used any other way, it can't.

You said she was 12 or 13, then 13, then 12, then they were both 12. You keep changing.

On March 09 2008 09:59 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:57 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:53 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:47 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:43 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:39 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:36 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:31 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't. because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive. So if it serves a utilitarian purpose, taking advantage of people is okay? I never tried to say playing poker helped society, I said I wasn't taking advantage of people by playing poker. And for the record: 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. When did you get to decide what definition I meant? This is what I meant. if you say something you should understand the connotations or lack of connotations. Also if you are saying Floofy is wrong to take advantage then it can be assumed that he is taking advantage in an abusive way. simple as that So it's my fault you misunderstood? Lol? And for the record: a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. These don't relate to my definition. It's your fault you don't udnerstand the words being used and that you are using, not mine. Is it so hard for you to admit fault when you misunderstood and misrepresented ideas? ? what did i misunderstand? you said he was taking advantage in a way that is wrong? No? ad·van·tage /ædˈvæntɪdʒ, -ˈvɑn-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad-van-tij, -vahn-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -taged, -taging. –noun —Idioms 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. Read them both very carefully. They are unrelated words. LOOOOOOOOOOL i never said they were related. I said that taking advantage of something is not wrong, unless it's abusive. I also said that many forms of abuse are done through taking advantage. TO CITE EXAMPLES IN THOSE EXACT DEFITIONS A rapist takes advantage of his greater strength to rape his victim. A person takes advantage of their authority to abuse power. "10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone." Is not wrong? You're saying it has to be abusive for it to be wrong, I know that. I'm saying that's not the case and if you think so you clearly don't udnerstand the definition of take advantage of.

yes but realize, this is one of many definitions? Is this the 10th one? EVEN THIS ONE SAYS especially unfairly, IE not definitively unfairly. You are the one that doesn't understand the multiple definitions... and how, if you want to express a connotation that isn't always given (as with this example) you need to be more explicit.

anyways can you guys stop arguing on this retarded stuff and just tell me what to do?

shes ready for a relationship, shes seems decently mature(similar maturity level, im a bit more mature but thats what i want), and she seems to like me? whats wrong?

On March 09 2008 10:03 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 10:00 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:56 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:51 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:45 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:42 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:38 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:30 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong. Again, you're just using google. And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all. Lol, i got it from wiki, and obv I am repeating things I read/ was told by people who should know this stuff. Just like you. Are we only to talk about what we invent? Did you find out that info on their age by being a live a few hundred years ago or talking to Shakespeare himself? Hmm, i guess even asking Shakespeare himself would mean you're regurgitating.... which i guess is a no-no lol I know because I read the book. I've read a few versions of it, both literary and play. I've studied this stuff. You clearly haven't. I don't know why you think wiki is the end all be all of information, it's not. And had Shakespeare himself told you, that wouldn't be regurgitating. That would be able the best source you could have. You clearly have absolutely no idea what I mean when I say regurgitating information. ur the one focusing on semantics, regurgitating is regurgitating. Certainly with well established things like famous plays, wiki is a good authority for information. If something questionable was posted there, critics would have changed it years ago. MIT college professors are generally good authorities too. re·gur·gi·tate /rɪˈgɜrdʒɪˌteɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-gur-ji-teyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -tat·ed, -tat·ing. –verb (used without object) 3. to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated: I'm arguing by definition of the word. You just don't understand what they mean. ok great, but u could not have been using the connotation that I don't understand when you said I was regurgitating that Juliet was 13 years old? Or are you now implying that I don't know what the number 13 is?? I'm saying that saying something you didn't invent or discover yourself is regurgitating without the connotation that it isn't fully understood. Ppl regurgitate ideas all day. Everything you'd tell me now about well established criticisms or theories on the play would be regurgitations. I'm not saying though, that you don't fully understand them. I'm saying you were forwarding information that you weren't actually informed about to begin with because you didn't know Juliet's age but acted as if you were based on 3rd hand information. Face it, you had no idea what I meant when I said you were regurgitating information and now you're trying to cover. Just stop it. Admit you were wrong. You still clearly don't know what it means based on your last sentence. You're so focused on being right it's ridiculous. plz reread the the quote. And Juliet age was the one I got right. You provided two numbers 14 and 16 as if they were definite while i said I think their ages were.... X and X I understand what regurgitate means and that it does sometimes but NOT ALWAYS carry that connotation. Certainly it couldn't carry that connotation with me talking about how old the two are. Unless, you think I don't know 2 digit numbers. lol It's the only connotation it carries. It can't be used any other way in referring to language. Stop thinking it can be used any other way, it can't. You said she was 12 or 13, then 13, then 12, then they were both 12. You keep changing.

I always said she was 13. It's Romeo who I thought was 12 but since you refuted, I can't find any good reference to what his age was.

On March 09 2008 09:48 Floofy wrote: Show nested quote + On March 08 2008 15:20 Floofy wrote: can someone explain me how having a relationship with her would abuse her? i think she would have a lot to gain from me. you are right 4 years ago i was a lot less mature but i don't see why she would prefer an immature guy i was kinda looking for younger chick cuz: #1 chikcs like older guys #2 im unexperienced, if my chick had mad experience it would be akward the only way it would be abuse is if, im actually not really serious about the whole thing ok stop arguing forever about what i said, this is what i said i believe most chicks prefer having an older guy, for several reasons: #1 well hmm they got cars n money n alcool etc. im not saying theyre hoes but its cool to have someone like that over a broke looser high school kid. #2 they are more mature. chicks like mature guy more than immature people their age. theres a reason u rarely see a younger guy with an older chick i also prefer having younger chick because: #1 well i think its better if i get with a chick inexpereinced sexually for obvious reasons. experienced chicks are turned off by virgins big time. #2 i dont want a chick more mature than myself cuz that will turn em off and i will have trouble being alpha lol. i never said i wanted someone not ready for a relationship. find a post where i said that. the chick posted an add on a dating site where she obv wants one. i chatted with her, and she seems mature and we have good convos going on. i remmeber when i was 16 i def wanted a relationship, and chicks are more mature faster than guys. the only way i would be taking advantage of her would be if i get her emotionnaly involved while not being serious about the relationship, like fayth said. and i never said i was going to do this. anyways this have nothing to do with her age, doing that would be wrong with any1

Yes, you're going after somebody who is immature and inexperienced because you don't think people who are mature, grown up, experienced people are going to like you.

This is the exact thing I'm condemning. You need to grow up yourself before you start looking for anything. Any you shouldn't be using a young girl to help you grow up.

On March 09 2008 10:04 Floofy wrote: anyways can you guys stop arguing on this retarded stuff and just tell me what to do? shes ready for a relationship, shes seems decently mature(similar maturity level, im a bit more mature but thats what i want), and she seems to like me? whats wrong?

what do u mean what to do? Invite her along to something fun and have fun. Get to know her and if they're is a lull in the convo wait till she initiates.

On March 09 2008 10:04 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:59 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:57 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:53 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:47 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:43 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:39 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:36 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:31 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't. because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive. So if it serves a utilitarian purpose, taking advantage of people is okay? I never tried to say playing poker helped society, I said I wasn't taking advantage of people by playing poker. And for the record: 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. When did you get to decide what definition I meant? This is what I meant. if you say something you should understand the connotations or lack of connotations. Also if you are saying Floofy is wrong to take advantage then it can be assumed that he is taking advantage in an abusive way. simple as that So it's my fault you misunderstood? Lol? And for the record: a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. These don't relate to my definition. It's your fault you don't udnerstand the words being used and that you are using, not mine. Is it so hard for you to admit fault when you misunderstood and misrepresented ideas? ? what did i misunderstand? you said he was taking advantage in a way that is wrong? No? ad·van·tage /ædˈvæntɪdʒ, -ˈvɑn-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad-van-tij, -vahn-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -taged, -taging. –noun —Idioms 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. Read them both very carefully. They are unrelated words. LOOOOOOOOOOL i never said they were related. I said that taking advantage of something is not wrong, unless it's abusive. I also said that many forms of abuse are done through taking advantage. TO CITE EXAMPLES IN THOSE EXACT DEFITIONS A rapist takes advantage of his greater strength to rape his victim. A person takes advantage of their authority to abuse power. "10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone." Is not wrong? You're saying it has to be abusive for it to be wrong, I know that. I'm saying that's not the case and if you think so you clearly don't udnerstand the definition of take advantage of. yes but realize, this is one of many definitions? Is this the 10th one? EVEN THIS ONE SAYS especially unfairly, IE not definitively unfairly. You are the one that doesn't understand the multiple definitions... and how, if you want to express a connotation that isn't always given (as with this example) you need to be more explicit.

Does it matter how many definitions there are? I'm using one. It doesn't matter how many others there are.

And for the record, there are only 2 definitions for take advantage of, hence the b. There are 11 definitions of advantage.

You're trying to argue that it's my fault you didn't understand because the words I used have multiple definitions and it's my fault that it wasn't clear which one I was using. So now for every word I use in every one of my sentences I need to refer you to which dictionary definition I'm using or else it's my fault you didn't understand despite how the word is being used.

Sure, if you do the same thing. After every word you use in a sentence I want you to number which definition you are using in brackets next to it. Otherwise I can't possibly understand what you're saying and it's your fault for me not knowing how to comprehend sentences.