Marshall

Post by **Pedsdude** » February 20th, 2007, 12:55 am

Soviet wrote:technically you cannot 'waste' a post simply because of the fact that there is no maximum number of posts. Therefore, you are not drawing from an overall max quantity and because of this, not limiting your future capabilities in any way by posting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/waste
17. anything unused, unproductive, or not properly utilized.

Does it say anything about a limit?

Post by **Soviet** » February 20th, 2007, 1:01 am

dumbass.

you used it as a verb not a noun =)

CoDJumper.com Movies · Post by **Nightmare** » February 20th, 2007, 2:26 am

heh, this is fun to watch

aicaramba · Post by **aicaramba** » February 20th, 2007, 11:07 am

Another peds plural discussion on its way.

Marshall · Post by **Marshall** » February 20th, 2007, 8:34 pm

no... i was mearly showing my opinion...

just because u think it, doesnt mean that i cant..

therefor it wasnt a waste.. added to that soviets post

Post by **Pedsdude** » February 21st, 2007, 12:37 am

Soviet wrote:dumbass.

you used it as a verb not a noun =)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wasting

1. to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.

Wasting does not necessarily mean there is a limit to the certain item/s you are wasting. Even though I used it as a verb, the same applies. There was no 'adequate return' in Marshall's post, nor was it 'employ[ed] uselessly'.

Marshall wrote:no... i was mearly showing my opinion...

You already showed your opinion with your original "god doesnt exist." post, hence the "Hence: God doesnt exist" post was pointless as well as being a waste.

Post by **Soviet** » February 21st, 2007, 12:48 am

wrong again. Once again, to waste something you must be drawing from some type of bank or overall pool of some type. In this instance he is not doing so. Its a simple matter of adding versus subtraction, to waste you must subtract. While marshall did not add much, he did add something, no matter how meaningless or stupid

Post by **Pedsdude** » February 21st, 2007, 12:54 am

Soviet wrote:wrong again. Once again, to waste something you must be drawing from some type of bank or overall pool of some type. In this instance he is not doing so. Its a simple matter of adding versus subtraction, to waste you must subtract. While marshall did not add much, he did add something, no matter how meaningless or stupid

I refer back to the afforementioned definition in my previous post.

Heck, even 'squander' doesn't include a 'limit' part to its meaning:

1. to spend or use (money, time, etc.) extravagantly or wastefully (often fol. by away).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/squander

Post by **Soviet** » February 21st, 2007, 3:04 am

dammit peds, you idiot. KS's argument is the only valid thing I've heard so far. I understand your dumbass definition, thats not the point. The fact that it is being brought from a previous quantity does not even need to be mentioned. It is a simple matter of common logic. No one has unlimited money, in fact, to use something you must be drawing it from a whole. HOWEVER, you ARE NOT drawing it from a whole thing, therefore it simply exists. To say something is wasted, you must first acknowledge what it is, in fact, wasting. In this case, nothing. (with a slight exception towards bandwidth)

As for the bandwidth thing, that kind of makes sense, however since it technically is not his bandwidth its not fully valid. However i take that to be logical enough to accept peds's previous terminology.

Marshall · Post by **Marshall** » February 21st, 2007, 8:41 am

well clearly ure wasting more bandwidth....

aicaramba · Post by **aicaramba** » February 21st, 2007, 1:16 pm

haha, was thinking the same thing.

Post by **Pedsdude** » February 21st, 2007, 5:03 pm

Marshall wrote:well clearly ure wasting more bandwidth....

Well clearly this whole thing originated from your pointless, waste of a post in the first place, so it's all your fault.

Marshall · Post by **Marshall** » February 21st, 2007, 5:04 pm

i dont see u complaining at other people wen they agree with an opinion that someelse has made..

Post by **Pedsdude** » February 21st, 2007, 5:19 pm

They agree once. (the full stop was for emphasis, by the way).

Marshall

Who is online