View Single Post
  #6  
Old January 17th 05, 03:06 AM
Zaphod Beeblebrox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Waco Paco wrote:
Matthew Hennig wrote:


el snippo

HA, listen to yourselves! If my university has taught me anything, it is
to critically analyze people's arguments. Calling people names are
immature, but so is generalizing a group of people with the acts of
some! Yes, most of the snowboarders out there are teenagers, but I have
to disagree with your other generalization of snowboarders from your
limited experience and maybe tinted glasses. Your crude generalization
of snowboarders disgust me.


Ohmigod! Sweet Jeebus - where do I begin????
There is so much to respond to and so little time!


OK - let's just focus on 1.0 below...

1. You tend to assume that all snowboarders revel in cutting across
skiers paths.


He did NOT assume that - please go back and re-read the passage.

I have seen many skiers cut across other skiers and
snowboarders and an equal amount of snowboarders doing the same. What
does that mean? It means that type of equipment has no saying in that
behaviour.


No it doesn't - it just means that you need to start taking some more
English classes. I mean, take that very first sentence - what the
sweet **** does it mean?1! "Amount of snowboarders" you say??????
Snowboarders are not salt or sugar - you say "NUMBER of snowboarders!"
And it's "has no say" not "has no saying in that beaviour." And it's
spelt "behaviour" not "behavior."

However, if you look at the age group you'll see that most of
the inconsiderate are teenagers. I have been the victim of young skiers
cutting across a merger zone because they were reckless.


As a teenager I deeply resent your insinuations.


Therefore it
can be established that the equipment has little saying on behaviour but
rather it is directly proportionate to demographic.


As a famous rightwinger once said "There you go again!"
"Directly proportionate to edmolgraphic?"
Please translate....
Ads