RRC Archives

Depends on the question. If we're talking about sincere inquiries and not matters of opinion then I generally wait to post. Someone usually will provide an adequate response in the first page or so so I won't have to. There are some smart fuckers around here so usually someone hits it pretty quick. I mostly jump in when someone is obviously incorrect and their opinion can be mistaken for knowledgable or if it's something I'm familiar with but most posters aren't.

Essentially 99% of the questions asked here have been asked before so I usually let someone else do the grunt work.

Honestly, when someone asks a question that's been asked a million times before, I just get annoyed and assume that they're too lazy to use the simple search function. So I voted for choice A.

The length of my response is directly proportional to the amount of alcohol that I consumed prior to reading the question. If it was a big, long, rambling answer then I was probably drunk. If it was short and concise then I was sober.

what the hell?! what are you trying to say by all this? you always do this crap.. jesus. could you be anymore ignorant and cruel?! why not just pour salt on an open wound.. i hate you.. hate you all!

First, one must define the word question. In the pursest form, the word question, from the Latin quaestus, quaestio, or quaestion, meaning to ask or seek, implies a desire for an answer to an interrogative. Now, when one desires an answer to the aforementioned interrogatory, what type of answer does one truly seek? Since truth is an arbitrary viewpoint stemming from one's own collection of schemas, the type of answer one receives must be filtered through one's own view of the world in order to determine if the answer is truly sought or just a worthless collection of words concocted by a non-cognitive pseudo-intellectual. Furthermore, if one .....

Try to be thoughtful but my vanity does get into it, sometimes.

Im still looking up Omniscient so i'll have to get back to you on this one.

omniscient




om·nis·cient [ om níshənt ]


adjective

all-knowing: knowing or seeming to know everything


[Early 17th century. < medieval Latin omniscient- < Latin omni- "omni-" + scire "know" (see science)]

Ha! I found the encarta dictionary in here! Now I dont have to wander in the dark no mo!
Sorry Va, I still don't know. What was the question?

m. try to diplomatically correct the spelling on this "board"
as in, "If Christian doesn't stop acting so fucking smart I am going to hit him with a "bored".
n. I grab myself and pawnder lafe and shit.

blast you and your editing christian! don't you know that i never learned to read?!

that's just mean.