(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As for your question about 'retard' *ever* being proper in context/setting etc.... this will be fun. This is even easier than the 'short bus' preen you went off on.

Title of a scientific/medical article: Fasting Cycles Retard Growth of Tumors

Economics: Does financialization retard growth? Time series and cross-sectional evidence

Does too much government investment retard economic development of a country?

High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals

There are only about 200 million search results to go. Get the point?

Care to backtrack from your hysterical and nonsensical level question of "Perhaps you could first explain to me how "retard" ... [is] OK depending on the context/speaker/listener. You seemed to suggest earlier that it was OK to use those terms if there weren't any people with special needs around to hear them?"

I can go on for 200 million more if you wish.

This is actually fun. Care to toss any more 'there cant be *any* good uses of word or phrase ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever' issues we can help you out with with that preen you got going there? I can think of one 'for sure' example. Well, a 'maybe' example come to think of it......

I guess in your rush to get those moralistic preening points you utterly lost sight of the very common and standard use of the word, notwithstanding your abjectly shrill question that implies there could *never* be a time/place/context in which the word was proper. That is the fun thing when dealing with moralistic preeners, they forget the obvious **** in their rush to race out in the front of the preener mob.

LOL, talk about preening!

I thought it was implied that I meant the use of those terms as they relate to people with disabilities. Pretty sure you knew that.

It was fun to watch you preen though. Smug and condescending too. But keep reserving those terms for leftists.

Answering a question literally is 'preening'; got it.

Perhaps next time ask a correct question. Ranks up there with providing a proper quote in my book. Maybe even chastise yourself for not forming the proper question with all your built in biases, perhaps.

The lad goes off on OO elsewhere about a similar answer to 'gay'. So its perfectly okay to toss Trump supporters as an side with the implication that they are knuckle draggers, yet when a question is answered truthfully in a literal manner, *your first* response is to attack the person answering, with no fing introspection on *your* question. Bravo 93, bravo. Stupendous display.

If I got a literal answer to an as badly formed question at that, I would simply say, 'let me rephrase'. I take it you do not. Bummer.

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.