FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Spelling and Grammar
Spelling and Grammar
Jump to: Newest in thread
Just putting it out there...
What do you think of people who can't spell or type in text talk? Especially when sentences make no sense at all! I do wonder how these people dress themselves in the morning let alone make contact with others online.
Discuss and enjoy.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just putting it out there...
What do you think of people who can't spell or type in text talk? Especially when sentences make no sense at all! I do wonder how these people dress themselves in the morning let alone make contact with others online.
Discuss and enjoy. "
I think that you are a prat to make the ridiculous assumption that not being able to spell makes a person so stupid it's a wonder the dress themselves.
All your post does is show you as ignorant, condescending and thoughtless.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just putting it out there...
What do you think of people who can't spell or type in text talk? Especially when sentences make no sense at all! I do wonder how these people dress themselves in the morning let alone make contact with others online.
Discuss and enjoy. "
Errm with the lack of punctuation in your first sentence, what you are actually asking is the opposite to what I think you are intending. You need a comma after the word spell how ironic |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If i can't understand someone then i'm intelligent enough to ask them to explain a bit more or in a different way.
My grammar is shit, i'm not stupid and managed to put my own clothes on today. And if you ever fancy a chat about genetics, mollecular biology, neuroscience, evolution, anthropology, or quantum physics then feel free give us a shout. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just putting it out there...
What do you think of people who can't spell or type in text talk? Especially when sentences make no sense at all! I do wonder how these people dress themselves in the morning let alone make contact with others online.
Discuss and enjoy. "
I actually prefer to chat with people who can neither spell nor type in text speak.....it shows to me that they are over 31 and are of the more mature variety of person.....
why on earth would I want to chat to some chavvy kid who can't even string a sentence together? I dread to think how you communicate in the real world!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If i can't understand someone then i'm intelligent enough to ask them to explain a bit more or in a different way.
My grammar is shit, i'm not stupid and managed to put my own clothes on today. And if you ever fancy a chat about genetics, mollecular biology, neuroscience, evolution, anthropology, or quantum physics then feel free give us a shout."
I do, I do!!!
Evolution / anthropology please: does the balance of evidence point to our ancestors being:
A) Polygamous,
B) Monogamous,
C) Other? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I do, I do!!!
Evolution / anthropology please: does the balance of evidence point to our ancestors being:
A) Polygamous,
B) Monogamous,
C) Other?
Can I pick D) Phone a friend?
"
That's kinda what I'm trying to do! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If i can't understand someone then i'm intelligent enough to ask them to explain a bit more or in a different way.
My grammar is shit, i'm not stupid and managed to put my own clothes on today. And if you ever fancy a chat about genetics, mollecular biology, neuroscience, evolution, anthropology, or quantum physics then feel free give us a shout.
I do, I do!!!
Evolution / anthropology please: does the balance of evidence point to our ancestors being:
A) Polygamous,
B) Monogamous,
C) Other?"
I love talking about species.
Evidence of both, dependent on where you look.
Tournament species tend to have males bigger than females, this is because of an increase in androgens in the male. I would say generally we are mostly a tournament species, but this isn't 100% the case. In tournament species the males don't tend to invest much in their children, in fact breeding with them takes it's toll on the female (during pregnancy as well as after). They just use competition to enable their DNA to be passed onto many females rather than invest in the childrens survival. So genetically we can be prone to being polygamous. There is some evidence that backs this up in that many small tribes work this way too right now, where the children are brought up by everyone in the immediate family mainly rather than in couples, and the women breed with many males that have the qualities they want in their children.
Pairing species tend to have males and females that you cannot tell which is which by observing them. They look similar in size and their behaviours are similar too. Both genetic parents invest in their children to ensure their children survive (and many pair up for life with those they breed with).
So we're a bit of both, imo. I haven't looked into the history of marriage or pairing (no interest in that really), but there were couple ceremonies centuries before weddings were turned into legal contracts. I do tend to think that we are the way we are because of societal pressures though, not that people are forced to do stuff but we'd have a better of idea of what is natural if we were allowed to be that and not pressured into hiding things or not behaving as we want to.
Love to hear your opinion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I wasn't meaning to offend anyone.
I was just highlighting the fact that sometimes people talk in slang or text talk. And as I found out the other day this happened because I certain user was d*unk. When I asked for clarification they accused me of not understanding or knowing English!
It was just a moment of frustration when the post was written!
That'll learn me(!) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just putting it out there...
What do you think of people who can't spell or type in text talk? Especially when sentences make no sense at all! I do wonder how these people dress themselves in the morning let alone make contact with others online.
Discuss and enjoy.
Errm with the lack of punctuation in your first sentence, what you are actually asking is the opposite to what I think you are intending. You need a comma after the word spell how ironic "
With the lack of the odd bit of punctuation the sentences still makes sense. You wouldn't have been able to reply otherwise.
I was talking about the messages where comments make absolutely no sense where you are left to say "Huh?!" because you have no idea what they are talking about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If i can't understand someone then i'm intelligent enough to ask them to explain a bit more or in a different way.
My grammar is shit, i'm not stupid and managed to put my own clothes on today. And if you ever fancy a chat about genetics, mollecular biology, neuroscience, evolution, anthropology, or quantum physics then feel free give us a shout.
I do, I do!!!
Evolution / anthropology please: does the balance of evidence point to our ancestors being:
A) Polygamous,
B) Monogamous,
C) Other?
I love talking about species.
Evidence of both, dependent on where you look.
Tournament species tend to have males bigger than females, this is because of an increase in androgens in the male. I would say generally we are mostly a tournament species, but this isn't 100% the case. In tournament species the males don't tend to invest much in their children, in fact breeding with them takes it's toll on the female (during pregnancy as well as after). They just use competition to enable their DNA to be passed onto many females rather than invest in the childrens survival. So genetically we can be prone to being polygamous. There is some evidence that backs this up in that many small tribes work this way too right now, where the children are brought up by everyone in the immediate family mainly rather than in couples, and the women breed with many males that have the qualities they want in their children.
Pairing species tend to have males and females that you cannot tell which is which by observing them. They look similar in size and their behaviours are similar too. Both genetic parents invest in their children to ensure their children survive (and many pair up for life with those they breed with).
So we're a bit of both, imo. I haven't looked into the history of marriage or pairing (no interest in that really), but there were couple ceremonies centuries before weddings were turned into legal contracts. I do tend to think that we are the way we are because of societal pressures though, not that people are forced to do stuff but we'd have a better of idea of what is natural if we were allowed to be that and not pressured into hiding things or not behaving as we want to.
Love to hear your opinion?"
My understanding is that the average male human investment in children is well above average in animal comparisons?
The burden mainly fell on the woman who wanted resources for her children, in return for creating them. I'm aware of evidence on both sides but I favour the polygamy arguments because a rational woman would seek to maximise resources. I don't literally mean they married but in a pre-condom world, strong man ain't gonna want weak man sniffing around his partners.
In a survival driven world it makes more sense to get more resources by being the second or third partner of a man with a lot of resources, than accept less resources from a man just because you can have him all to yourself.
I think that when society moves past survival and becomes more concerned with stability then polygamy becomes a problem. Unless you import wives, there won't be enough to go around. There's nothing less stable than a society of young males, full of spunk, who can't get a partner because someone else is hording them. It's just a recipe for a coup d'etat. So I think monogamy evolved (socially) for that reason. Of course monogamy was for reproduction and it was traditionally accompanied by mistresses to keep things lively. Then mistresses became frowned upon and the divorce rate shot through the roof instead! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just putting it out there...
What do you think of people who can't spell or type in text talk? Especially when sentences make no sense at all! I do wonder how these people dress themselves in the morning let alone make contact with others online.
Discuss and enjoy.
Errm with the lack of punctuation in your first sentence, what you are actually asking is the opposite to what I think you are intending. You need a comma after the word spell how ironic
With the lack of the odd bit of punctuation the sentences still makes sense. You wouldn't have been able to reply otherwise.
I was talking about the messages where comments make absolutely no sense where you are left to say "Huh?!" because you have no idea what they are talking about."
Huh! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My understanding is that the average male human investment in children is well above average in animal comparisons? "
Many do, yes. We did used to be forced to marry (pair) if we wanted children but i still like to think that many fathers enjoy investing in their children despite that. This care for the children with one other person supports we might be a pairing species, even if it's not necessarily for life.
"The burden mainly fell on the woman who wanted resources for her children, in return for creating them. I'm aware of evidence on both sides but I favour the polygamy arguments because a rational woman would seek to maximise resources. I don't literally mean they married but in a pre-condom world, strong man ain't gonna want weak man sniffing around his partners.
In a survival driven world it makes more sense to get more resources by being the second or third partner of a man with a lot of resources, than accept less resources from a man just because you can have him all to yourself.
I think that when society moves past survival and becomes more concerned with stability then polygamy becomes a problem. Unless you import wives, there won't be enough to go around. There's nothing less stable than a society of young males, full of spunk, who can't get a partner because someone else is hording them. It's just a recipe for a coup d'etat. So I think monogamy evolved (socially) for that reason. Of course monogamy was for reproduction and it was traditionally accompanied by mistresses to keep things lively. Then mistresses became frowned upon and the divorce rate shot through the roof instead!"
Hehe that last paragraph made me laugh the way you put it. I like your opinion, i think it's definitely plausible. My opinion is mainly based on genetics because i'm not sure how societal constructs have affected everything exactly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The previous comment was from
Adam. My opinion....
Spelling, grammar and punctuation are very different from dressing oneself. You could have trouble spelling ... Oooh "molecular" for example , and still be functioning among society at an acceptable level.
Meet us at a club? As long as we can understand you then who cares.
But if the author wants us to read it and reply to the written word? Then we need to understand it and our preference would be for at least a basic grasp for the positioning of apostrophes and commas.
Although.... If the author is hot..... Well then we probably could overlook it.
Shallow? Who us?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The previous comment was from
Adam. My opinion....
Spelling, grammar and punctuation are very different from dressing oneself. You could have trouble spelling ... Oooh "molecular" for example , and still be functioning among society at an acceptable level.
Meet us at a club? As long as we can understand you then who cares.
But if the author wants us to read it and reply to the written word? Then we need to understand it and our preference would be for at least a basic grasp for the positioning of apostrophes and commas.
Although.... If the author is hot..... Well then we probably could overlook it.
Shallow? Who us?
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My understanding is that the average male human investment in children is well above average in animal comparisons?
Many do, yes. We did used to be forced to marry (pair) if we wanted children but i still like to think that many fathers enjoy investing in their children despite that. This care for the children with one other person supports we might be a pairing species, even if it's not necessarily for life.
The burden mainly fell on the woman who wanted resources for her children, in return for creating them. I'm aware of evidence on both sides but I favour the polygamy arguments because a rational woman would seek to maximise resources. I don't literally mean they married but in a pre-condom world, strong man ain't gonna want weak man sniffing around his partners.
In a survival driven world it makes more sense to get more resources by being the second or third partner of a man with a lot of resources, than accept less resources from a man just because you can have him all to yourself.
I think that when society moves past survival and becomes more concerned with stability then polygamy becomes a problem. Unless you import wives, there won't be enough to go around. There's nothing less stable than a society of young males, full of spunk, who can't get a partner because someone else is hording them. It's just a recipe for a coup d'etat. So I think monogamy evolved (socially) for that reason. Of course monogamy was for reproduction and it was traditionally accompanied by mistresses to keep things lively. Then mistresses became frowned upon and the divorce rate shot through the roof instead!
Hehe that last paragraph made me laugh the way you put it. I like your opinion, i think it's definitely plausible. My opinion is mainly based on genetics because i'm not sure how societal constructs have affected everything exactly."
I'm a history / psychology buff so can't talk about genetics or biology but found your species analysis interesting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The previous comment was from
Adam. My opinion....
Spelling, grammar and punctuation are very different from dressing oneself. You could have trouble spelling ... Oooh "molecular" for example , and still be functioning among society at an acceptable level.
Meet us at a club? As long as we can understand you then who cares.
But if the author wants us to read it and reply to the written word? Then we need to understand it and our preference would be for at least a basic grasp for the positioning of apostrophes and commas.
Although.... If the author is hot..... Well then we probably could overlook it.
Shallow? Who us?
"
Spellcheck never underlines mollecular though.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My understanding is that the average male human investment in children is well above average in animal comparisons?
Many do, yes. We did used to be forced to marry (pair) if we wanted children but i still like to think that many fathers enjoy investing in their children despite that. This care for the children with one other person supports we might be a pairing species, even if it's not necessarily for life.
The burden mainly fell on the woman who wanted resources for her children, in return for creating them. I'm aware of evidence on both sides but I favour the polygamy arguments because a rational woman would seek to maximise resources. I don't literally mean they married but in a pre-condom world, strong man ain't gonna want weak man sniffing around his partners.
In a survival driven world it makes more sense to get more resources by being the second or third partner of a man with a lot of resources, than accept less resources from a man just because you can have him all to yourself.
I think that when society moves past survival and becomes more concerned with stability then polygamy becomes a problem. Unless you import wives, there won't be enough to go around. There's nothing less stable than a society of young males, full of spunk, who can't get a partner because someone else is hording them. It's just a recipe for a coup d'etat. So I think monogamy evolved (socially) for that reason. Of course monogamy was for reproduction and it was traditionally accompanied by mistresses to keep things lively. Then mistresses became frowned upon and the divorce rate shot through the roof instead!
Hehe that last paragraph made me laugh the way you put it. I like your opinion, i think it's definitely plausible. My opinion is mainly based on genetics because i'm not sure how societal constructs have affected everything exactly.
I'm a history / psychology buff so can't talk about genetics or biology but found your species analysis interesting."
Thanks. We're getting taller as a species too and that's thought to support the tournament species side of us.
Tbh the more we find out, or think we know, the less hard it is to find just one particular theory that supports one thing. We're prone to find other more genetically diverse partners, and we now know people might not just be XX or XY any more so this complicates things even further. But from what we're finding out and able to do i think we will get the answers to everything one day, i hope it's in my time.
What sort of history you into? I got like learning about stuff like how the sewers came about and things like this for history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My understanding is that the average male human investment in children is well above average in animal comparisons?
Many do, yes. We did used to be forced to marry (pair) if we wanted children but i still like to think that many fathers enjoy investing in their children despite that. This care for the children with one other person supports we might be a pairing species, even if it's not necessarily for life.
The burden mainly fell on the woman who wanted resources for her children, in return for creating them. I'm aware of evidence on both sides but I favour the polygamy arguments because a rational woman would seek to maximise resources. I don't literally mean they married but in a pre-condom world, strong man ain't gonna want weak man sniffing around his partners.
In a survival driven world it makes more sense to get more resources by being the second or third partner of a man with a lot of resources, than accept less resources from a man just because you can have him all to yourself.
I think that when society moves past survival and becomes more concerned with stability then polygamy becomes a problem. Unless you import wives, there won't be enough to go around. There's nothing less stable than a society of young males, full of spunk, who can't get a partner because someone else is hording them. It's just a recipe for a coup d'etat. So I think monogamy evolved (socially) for that reason. Of course monogamy was for reproduction and it was traditionally accompanied by mistresses to keep things lively. Then mistresses became frowned upon and the divorce rate shot through the roof instead!
Hehe that last paragraph made me laugh the way you put it. I like your opinion, i think it's definitely plausible. My opinion is mainly based on genetics because i'm not sure how societal constructs have affected everything exactly.
I'm a history / psychology buff so can't talk about genetics or biology but found your species analysis interesting.
Thanks. We're getting taller as a species too and that's thought to support the tournament species side of us.
Tbh the more we find out, or think we know, the less hard it is to find just one particular theory that supports one thing. We're prone to find other more genetically diverse partners, and we now know people might not just be XX or XY any more so this complicates things even further. But from what we're finding out and able to do i think we will get the answers to everything one day, i hope it's in my time.
What sort of history you into? I got like learning about stuff like how the sewers came about and things like this for history. "
Yeah but evolution has a lot of room for variation, especially height 
More the history of warfare, international relations and economic history. Stuff that helps chat up women basically... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My understanding is that the average male human investment in children is well above average in animal comparisons?
Many do, yes. We did used to be forced to marry (pair) if we wanted children but i still like to think that many fathers enjoy investing in their children despite that. This care for the children with one other person supports we might be a pairing species, even if it's not necessarily for life.
The burden mainly fell on the woman who wanted resources for her children, in return for creating them. I'm aware of evidence on both sides but I favour the polygamy arguments because a rational woman would seek to maximise resources. I don't literally mean they married but in a pre-condom world, strong man ain't gonna want weak man sniffing around his partners.
In a survival driven world it makes more sense to get more resources by being the second or third partner of a man with a lot of resources, than accept less resources from a man just because you can have him all to yourself.
I think that when society moves past survival and becomes more concerned with stability then polygamy becomes a problem. Unless you import wives, there won't be enough to go around. There's nothing less stable than a society of young males, full of spunk, who can't get a partner because someone else is hording them. It's just a recipe for a coup d'etat. So I think monogamy evolved (socially) for that reason. Of course monogamy was for reproduction and it was traditionally accompanied by mistresses to keep things lively. Then mistresses became frowned upon and the divorce rate shot through the roof instead!
Hehe that last paragraph made me laugh the way you put it. I like your opinion, i think it's definitely plausible. My opinion is mainly based on genetics because i'm not sure how societal constructs have affected everything exactly.
I'm a history / psychology buff so can't talk about genetics or biology but found your species analysis interesting.
Thanks. We're getting taller as a species too and that's thought to support the tournament species side of us.
Tbh the more we find out, or think we know, the less hard it is to find just one particular theory that supports one thing. We're prone to find other more genetically diverse partners, and we now know people might not just be XX or XY any more so this complicates things even further. But from what we're finding out and able to do i think we will get the answers to everything one day, i hope it's in my time.
What sort of history you into? I got like learning about stuff like how the sewers came about and things like this for history.
Yeah but evolution has a lot of room for variation, especially height
More the history of warfare, international relations and economic history. Stuff that helps chat up women basically... "
Houses used to have smaller door frames, that's why some scientist guessed Jesus would have been 4ft 11 or something tiny like that. But we have gone considerably taller overall since records began.
I kind of like the social stuff to do with WWII, like kids been sent away to strangers, the propaganda, and the sick experiments that happened to prisoners of war. Might have been our worst time in history. But bombs, planes and that i'm not into, nor the economy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My understanding is that the average male human investment in children is well above average in animal comparisons?
Many do, yes. We did used to be forced to marry (pair) if we wanted children but i still like to think that many fathers enjoy investing in their children despite that. This care for the children with one other person supports we might be a pairing species, even if it's not necessarily for life.
The burden mainly fell on the woman who wanted resources for her children, in return for creating them. I'm aware of evidence on both sides but I favour the polygamy arguments because a rational woman would seek to maximise resources. I don't literally mean they married but in a pre-condom world, strong man ain't gonna want weak man sniffing around his partners.
In a survival driven world it makes more sense to get more resources by being the second or third partner of a man with a lot of resources, than accept less resources from a man just because you can have him all to yourself.
I think that when society moves past survival and becomes more concerned with stability then polygamy becomes a problem. Unless you import wives, there won't be enough to go around. There's nothing less stable than a society of young males, full of spunk, who can't get a partner because someone else is hording them. It's just a recipe for a coup d'etat. So I think monogamy evolved (socially) for that reason. Of course monogamy was for reproduction and it was traditionally accompanied by mistresses to keep things lively. Then mistresses became frowned upon and the divorce rate shot through the roof instead!
Hehe that last paragraph made me laugh the way you put it. I like your opinion, i think it's definitely plausible. My opinion is mainly based on genetics because i'm not sure how societal constructs have affected everything exactly.
I'm a history / psychology buff so can't talk about genetics or biology but found your species analysis interesting.
Thanks. We're getting taller as a species too and that's thought to support the tournament species side of us.
Tbh the more we find out, or think we know, the less hard it is to find just one particular theory that supports one thing. We're prone to find other more genetically diverse partners, and we now know people might not just be XX or XY any more so this complicates things even further. But from what we're finding out and able to do i think we will get the answers to everything one day, i hope it's in my time.
What sort of history you into? I got like learning about stuff like how the sewers came about and things like this for history.
Yeah but evolution has a lot of room for variation, especially height
More the history of warfare, international relations and economic history. Stuff that helps chat up women basically...
Houses used to have smaller door frames, that's why some scientist guessed Jesus would have been 4ft 11 or something tiny like that. But we have gone considerably taller overall since records began.
I kind of like the social stuff to do with WWII, like kids been sent away to strangers, the propaganda, and the sick experiments that happened to prisoners of war. Might have been our worst time in history. But bombs, planes and that i'm not into, nor the economy."
I was under the impression that poorer diets often stunted growth but I thought most fossil evidence pointed to Romans being in the 5f5 - 5f8 range. Excellent heights by the way.
I'm more interested in questions of why did x war happen? Could it have been prevented? Why did x country win? Was the leader mad / rational / unlucky? Again stuff that gets the chicks going... the kids getting sent away is interesting though - that appeals to the psychology side of things |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was under the impression that poorer diets often stunted growth but I thought most fossil evidence pointed to Romans being in the 5f5 - 5f8 range. Excellent heights by the way.
I'm more interested in questions of why did x war happen? Could it have been prevented? Why did x country win? Was the leader mad / rational / unlucky? Again stuff that gets the chicks going... the kids getting sent away is interesting though - that appeals to the psychology side of things"
I forgot about nutrition, need to brush up on how that affects DNA actually. I prefer the idea of a teeny, tiny Jesus for some reason, so biased opinion right there from me. People just guess his height i think because there's no proof he existed yet even.
Just gonna make the kids their tea.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was under the impression that poorer diets often stunted growth but I thought most fossil evidence pointed to Romans being in the 5f5 - 5f8 range. Excellent heights by the way.
I'm more interested in questions of why did x war happen? Could it have been prevented? Why did x country win? Was the leader mad / rational / unlucky? Again stuff that gets the chicks going... the kids getting sent away is interesting though - that appeals to the psychology side of things
I forgot about nutrition, need to brush up on how that affects DNA actually. I prefer the idea of a teeny, tiny Jesus for some reason, so biased opinion right there from me. People just guess his height i think because there's no proof he existed yet even.
Just gonna make the kids their tea.
"
The Mediterranean is the easiest sea in the world to navigate, the first Navy battles were there, so people in Israel didn't need particularly advanced technology to get fish as a cheap source of protein.
A feudal peasant in Britain has less options available so I'd imagine anything with protein was more expensive in Britain than Israel. Poor bastard's probably had to settle for sirloin rather than fillet steak. I haven't honestly fact checked that though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just putting it out there...
What do you think of people who can't spell or type in text talk? Especially when sentences make no sense at all! I do wonder how these people dress themselves in the morning let alone make contact with others online.
Discuss and enjoy. "
It does bother me a bit too. It's about first impressions for me, and reading a profile will always give you a good idea of what you're dealing with.
Still though, I'd still take people on how much we match. Spelling and grammar is a small part of the whole attraction to someone, but I do think it makes a difference.
If the first message comes in 'Hi m8 wt u in2' and the use of the infuriating 'lol' without anything funny being said - I get properly turned off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just putting it out there...
What do you think of people who can't spell or type in text talk? Especially when sentences make no sense at all! I do wonder how these people dress themselves in the morning let alone make contact with others online.
Discuss and enjoy.
I actually prefer to chat with people who can neither spell nor type in text speak.....it shows to me that they are over 31 and are of the more mature variety of person.....
why on earth would I want to chat to some chavvy kid who can't even string a sentence together? I dread to think how you communicate in the real world!! "
does it mean you are better than any dyslexic person on here, better still the ones that were not fortunate enough to afford an education shouldnt breathe the same air as you init.
your ability to string words together has no adverse effect on your ability in bed duh. Its a swingers site not final year in uni.
u iz a sexy ass cutie anywayz, init  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was under the impression that poorer diets often stunted growth but I thought most fossil evidence pointed to Romans being in the 5f5 - 5f8 range. Excellent heights by the way.
I'm more interested in questions of why did x war happen? Could it have been prevented? Why did x country win? Was the leader mad / rational / unlucky? Again stuff that gets the chicks going... the kids getting sent away is interesting though - that appeals to the psychology side of things
I forgot about nutrition, need to brush up on how that affects DNA actually. I prefer the idea of a teeny, tiny Jesus for some reason, so biased opinion right there from me. People just guess his height i think because there's no proof he existed yet even.
Just gonna make the kids their tea.
The Mediterranean is the easiest sea in the world to navigate, the first Navy battles were there, so people in Israel didn't need particularly advanced technology to get fish as a cheap source of protein.
A feudal peasant in Britain has less options available so I'd imagine anything with protein was more expensive in Britain than Israel. Poor bastard's probably had to settle for sirloin rather than fillet steak. I haven't honestly fact checked that though. "
I need to learn more geography and history to talk about this stuff. You may be right or not, idk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was under the impression that poorer diets often stunted growth but I thought most fossil evidence pointed to Romans being in the 5f5 - 5f8 range. Excellent heights by the way.
I'm more interested in questions of why did x war happen? Could it have been prevented? Why did x country win? Was the leader mad / rational / unlucky? Again stuff that gets the chicks going... the kids getting sent away is interesting though - that appeals to the psychology side of things
I forgot about nutrition, need to brush up on how that affects DNA actually. I prefer the idea of a teeny, tiny Jesus for some reason, so biased opinion right there from me. People just guess his height i think because there's no proof he existed yet even.
Just gonna make the kids their tea.
The Mediterranean is the easiest sea in the world to navigate, the first Navy battles were there, so people in Israel didn't need particularly advanced technology to get fish as a cheap source of protein.
A feudal peasant in Britain has less options available so I'd imagine anything with protein was more expensive in Britain than Israel. Poor bastard's probably had to settle for sirloin rather than fillet steak. I haven't honestly fact checked that though.
I need to learn more geography and history to talk about this stuff. You may be right or not, idk. "
The Mediterranean bit is definately true and it's an important difference that helped some countries develop quicker than others. The feudal peasant eating sirloin might not be true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was under the impression that poorer diets often stunted growth but I thought most fossil evidence pointed to Romans being in the 5f5 - 5f8 range. Excellent heights by the way.
I'm more interested in questions of why did x war happen? Could it have been prevented? Why did x country win? Was the leader mad / rational / unlucky? Again stuff that gets the chicks going... the kids getting sent away is interesting though - that appeals to the psychology side of things
I forgot about nutrition, need to brush up on how that affects DNA actually. I prefer the idea of a teeny, tiny Jesus for some reason, so biased opinion right there from me. People just guess his height i think because there's no proof he existed yet even.
Just gonna make the kids their tea.
The Mediterranean is the easiest sea in the world to navigate, the first Navy battles were there, so people in Israel didn't need particularly advanced technology to get fish as a cheap source of protein.
A feudal peasant in Britain has less options available so I'd imagine anything with protein was more expensive in Britain than Israel. Poor bastard's probably had to settle for sirloin rather than fillet steak. I haven't honestly fact checked that though.
I need to learn more geography and history to talk about this stuff. You may be right or not, idk.
The Mediterranean bit is definately true and it's an important difference that helped some countries develop quicker than others. The feudal peasant eating sirloin might not be true. "
Oh right. You know i haven't linked everything up in my head either, not really had any proper chats about anything of interest for ages either so got rusty about a lot of things. I don't have much knowledge of farming history either, despite being into horticulture (i'm more into the plant side of things here). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
