well...no..there will be different dynamics in place depending on which threat to democracy uses democracy as it's initial foothold into governmental power..to conduct an adaquate war game...these details are important for projecting the actions..the Marxist will act differently than the Fascist....both could represent a threat to the Contitution...again..we've seen this before....to NOT consider it's possiblity would be derelect on the part of the military..who as Metternich has stated...have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution....that is of a higher priority than following any CiC into Constitutionally dubious ground........
well...no..there will be different dynamics in place depending on which threat to democracy uses democracy as it's initial foothold into governmental power.. ["which threat to democracy uses democracy"? What in the hell is he talking about?] to conduct an adaquate war game. [Notice the incomplete sentence begun with the lower case. Is this guy obscuring his thoughts on purpose? Do you wonder what "to conduct an adaquate (sic) war game refers to? So do I.]
..these details are important for projecting the actions.. [Notice the use of the double periods. Did he end it twice to make sure we knew he was through with that thought? And in what way does he suggest "projecting the actions"? What actions is he talking about? How does one go about "projecting" an action? Does anyone understand this gibberish? My head is beginning to hurt.]
the Marxist will act differently than the Fascist.... [Perhaps. And that thought would be easier to understand if this sentence had begun with the capital letter we conventionally use to indicate the beginning of a sentence. And again, the trailing multiple periods obscures the logic. What is this guy trying to say? No one really knows. We can only guess.]
both could represent a threat to the Contitution...again.. [Again what? The Constitution is threatened again? Or is he repeating himself for emphasis. Without proper punctuation to divide the run-on sentences into some sort of coherent progression of thoughts, it's impossible to tell.] we've seen [Will someone PLEASE tell this guy to put a period at the end of one sentence and to capitalize the beginning of the next one? How tedious can one guy be?] this before....to NOT consider it's [ Is this the possessive pronoun or a contraction for "it is"? Who knows?]
possiblity would be derelect on the part of the military..who as Metternich has stated...have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution....that is of a higher priority than following any CiC into Constitutionally dubious ground........ [Is he saying the Constitution is a higher priority? Or is swearing to defend the Constitution a higher priority? Impossible! I defy ANYONE to figure out this stuff! ]
This is typical Palerider gibberish. Because he strings together thoughts in this "stream of consciousness" style without the normally accepted "roadsigns" of punctuation and other conventions of grammar, the reader is left to guess at his meaning. Then, when questioned as to what this nonsense means, Palerider acts indignant and suggests that the reader lacks intelligence. I, for one, feel that his assault on the English language is an affront to the sensibilities of thinking people who wish to engage in the free market place of ideas.
Here are a few other comments about his tortured syntax:
1878 PM: Elpincheviejo -- Fri, Jan 7 3:00pm PST -----
El Pinche Viejo
Pale...in any event, I really found myself unable to unravel your post there. There IS a REASON for the rules of grammar, my friend! *G*
2457 PM: Elpincheviejo -- Thu, Mar 30 9:50am pst
El Pinche Viejo
PaleRider
Sorry Pale...I can't even GUESS at what you were trying to say here!
2601 PM: Grrllawyer [Quote] -- 3:09pm -- Sun, Mar 4, 18 pst
Grrllawyer
Pale that last post made no sense
4867 PM: Natchez -- 1:37pm -- Wed, Sep 5, 07 pst
''Al Qaeda, both in Iraq and globally, thrives on the American occupation.'' Button
Palerina, sorry, you're not making sense.
PaleRider 13 : . . . . msg#7038
If people are going to represent something as the truth then they should provide proof that they are telling the truth.
Pale should have added, ''Except when it's ME making the claim; in which case, I'll refuse to offer proof.''
