So We Just Gon Act Like You Pan-Africanists Ain't About To Get Your Wish?

Swiffness! wrote: »

#3, ? are you actually stanning for the Lord's Resistance Army? dem ? is like the worst christian fanatics in the world, cuttin the lips off women? smfh ? outta hurr w/ dat ? , you cannot be serious. one of the things holdin Africa back is these ? "rebels" w/ child soldier hordes that don't do ? but steal and maim and slaughter. ? dem ? . you ? get so touchy soon as the U.S do ANYTHING. Let Obeezy send 100 spec-ops Rambo ? to help Uganda ? its version of The Joker and all of the sudden ? is acting like its the invasion of Iraq LOL FOH. Do you seriously ? ' think the U.S is devoting any kind of serious military commitment to UGANDA? 100 spec-ops ain't ? to the U.S bruh. You know what that is? That's Marlo givin' out $100 bills to the young bouls on the corner....

#4, did you say World War 3? omfg lmfao u ? need to chill wit dat Call o' Duty f'real. World War 3 starting because some drugged up child soldier of Kony gets off a hella lucky head shot on a SEAL? ? . Please.

The Lord's Resistance Army are ruthless as ? but thats the way you supposed to be in war, fact is them ? is straight up gangsta and just don't give a ? so they cool wit me. But I do hope they join forces wit the rest of the East African Federation and take the fight to the West, direct all that murder and mutilation towards the countries that been ransackin Africa for centuries.

You trippin if you think the US is just gon let it slide if the LRA murks several of its elite soldiers, they done went to war for much less in the past and if they decided to go at these ? in Africa they'd get ? up by all the different factions there.

janklow wrote: »

so here's the funny part: i have always said TECHNICALLY they were one continent. you have now gone from saying technically you were correct to me being OVERLY technical. so which is it?

the point here may be that the definition the "entire world goes by" might not be so cut and dry, but when talking about land masses, it seems to make more sense to treat them that way. also, consider this: the original point was that Norwegians and Koreans were on the same LAND MASS. you said this was false. so are you now agreeing that you were actually wrong when you disputed this earlier? or is the ultimate issue that you didn't remember where Norway and Korea are?

I ain't realize back then you were playin semantics, thats why I been sayin "official" these last few posts. Its you bein overly technical, that "not so cut and dry" ? is the perfect example. You tryna convince me your way is the proper definition like its gonna change somethin when I'm sayin no one uses that ? anyway so who cares.

Don't make a difference what makes more sense to YOU everyone else is goin by the "official" definition that the world uses, it makes more sense to anyone wit a brain to use that definition instead of gettin overly technical and constantly bein confused when talkin to people.

And the original point was claimin Norway and Korea were on the same continent which is how this whole debate started, smh @ you forgettin what made you jump in.

janklow wrote: »

note that if they're technically correct, "no one goes by that ? " is a stupid retort. damn those factual arguments for their correctness!

That retort is real talk that no it alls like you hate to hear cause they more concerned wit tryna look smart, those "factual arguments" ain't the "official" usage of the word. Whats stupid is wantin to be technically correct even if it means you gon get into these kinda convos each time.

janklow wrote: »

and i'm telling you that neither of those claims is correct. so there we are.

Who the ? are you? Yes they are correct and everyone seems to realize that but your stubborn ass, takes a arrogant ass ? to think he know more than errbody on the planet from his teachers to world leaders.

janklow wrote: »

no, the Pluto comparison is based on the fact that i was taught Pluto was a planet in grade school. it's been redefined since. if you're arguing "the OFFICIAL definition that people use which is taught to you in grade school" is some kind of standard that can never be altered, i'd like to know what the difference is.

Yo you dumb as ? . I never said what you learn in school can't be altered I said this HAS NOT been altered so that analogy is on some straight hypothetical ? . Basically holla at me wit that analogy when errbody starts usin your definition.

janklow wrote: »

when i was in grade school, i was taught they were one land mass but would be referred to as Europe and Asia for the purposes of discussing the regions.

Those "regions" are known as continents. So...yeah.

janklow wrote: »

sigh. let's review this:

Madagascar is part of Africa, right? despite the fact that it's separated from Africa? so if Europe and Asia are CONNECTED, what's the logic in saying "well, if Madagascar is considered part of Africa, Europe and Asia HAVE to be called different continents!" because that's what you're telling me.

The logic is Madagascar shows that land masses don't mean ? , obviously bein connected ain't a prerequisite for bein part of a continent so logic would tell you the definition isn't based solely on location meanin Europe and Asia *gasp* might not be considered the same continent.

janklow wrote: »

please don't point out to him that he could have addressed the inconsistency in terms properly instead of arguing semantics with me

You the main one arguin semantics ? , you came into this thread just to use semantics gettin overly technical. Moderator in here trollin and ? .

janklow wrote: »

i think the point you continue to miss - and which Swiffness pointed out - is that the term "continent" is a pretty fluid one. hence my use of the term "technical."

You can think whatever you want, when you ask someone the continents they gon name those 7. Hence my use of the term "official".

janklow wrote: »

Norway and Korea are on the same continent, and as this had to do with cultures that were located on the same land mass and whether or not they should be lumped together, this still seems relevant.

Not accordin to the definition most people use which was my point and you know it.

janklow wrote: »

no, what's stupid is repeatedly saying "no one goes by that ? " when people DO in fact "go by that ? ." is your claim that no one defines the continent as Eurasia? because this is false. so, again, it's stupid to claim "no one goes by that ? " when what you REALLY mean is "i don't go by that ? ." trying to claim some fictional degree of support doesn't impress the internet.

Whats really stupid is playin these ? ass semantics the way you do, you know when I tell yo ignant ass no one goes by that ? I'm really sayin errbody wit a brain (which obviously don't include you) realizes the 7 continent definition is what's widely used on a day to day basis. And once again who the ? are you that anyone would try to "impress" one of the ICs glorified trolls posin as a moderator?

janklow wrote: »

counterpoint: who the ? are YOU? let's review the claims:

"I'm tellin you they are accordin to your education-"
i think i touched on how this was covered according to my education, which i suspect you have no direct knowledge of.

"-and everyone in the world."
since people call the continent Eurasia, this is false. or do we need to define what the word "everyone" means for you?

@ bolded Really ? ? This corny smartass white boy persona you runnin wit just makes you look ? . Givin how ? you soundin yeah I got no knowledge that you actually received an education, but yes they teach it that way in school.

"People" primarily call the continents Europe and Asia, Eurasia isn't used in the "official" sense so get over it.

janklow wrote: »

i would point out that you MIGHT want to refrain from calling anyone dumb until you learn to spell some of the terms you're throwing around. say, know-it-all, for example?

You might wanna refrain from actin like an obnoxious arrogant white boy on here, pointin out grammatical errors on a hip hop message board only makes it look like you have no legit argument or that you caught feelins. Quit typin like a ? ? , ? gross b.

janklow wrote: »

unless, like i said, i wasn't taught it that way, making your claim ? . or if my former schools DID change the way they teach it, which would also make it false. and again, when you argue that "yours ain't correct cause its not the OFFICIAL definition that people use which is taught to you in grade school," i'm going to point out that not everything i was taught in grade school has stood the test of time, which is why i don't go by "whatever i was taught in grade school" to settle a current debate.

If you weren't taught that way your school failed you. And stop bringin in other ? that has nothin to do wit this in a pathetic attempt to help your argument, THIS has stood the test of time so you can't go by "Doh they changed Pluto's definition so maybe they'll change the definition of a continent too" just cause you don't wanna accept that the definition I'm usin is what most ? is goin by.

janklow wrote: »

unless, like i said, i was taught the continent was Eurasia. so there's that.

I don't give a ? what you "claim" you were taught cause you remedial, I know how errbody define continent and Eurasia ain't what people generally use plain and simple.

janklow wrote: »

Madagascar is considered part of Africa based on its location, so for that NOT to be the determining factor, it'd have to be considered part of another continent. and again, you're citing an island not considered "connected" to the mainland of a continent as proof that Europe and Asia are different continents because they're connected? what's the point?

I know this is your shtick to be a smartass and play like you can't comprehend ? but you know what I'm sayin and this the last time Ima break it down for your ? , I'm sayin that by Madagascar bein part of Africa witout bein connected common sense would tell you other countries not connected to the mainland could also be part of a continent and vise versa (countries connected to each other but ain't considered part of the same continent).

janklow wrote: »

...says the guy who's continuing to argue about what terms everyone uses. i'm at least man enough to admit that i'm arguing semantics. i guess you're not?

FOH wit that ? ? , you came outta nowhere gettin your panties scrunched up about what terms I used when I pointed out officially they wasn't the same continent accordin to how people define it. I'm just speakin that real talk about what anyone who's alive can see every day but you wanna play like you oblivious to how people talk about the globe, by admittin you arguin semantics you provin my point about you just trollin.

janklow wrote: »

as always, i don't think people know what the word "trolling" means.

Any ? comin into another ? 's thread to simply argue semantics when there was no confusion on what I meant in the first place is trollin.

Swiffness! wrote: »

Wake up. They don't want to "join forces" w/ the East African Federation. They want to loot it and burn it. Kony ain't no John Garang. Those fools have no goals past "Let's turn Uganda into a Christian Theocracy led by Our Prophet Joseph Kony". Join forces....you got jokes ? . Yeah, they all gonna get on ships, cross the Suez Canal, and sack Rome like the Visigoths.

I mean if they able to grab power of the country they might join forces wit the Federation, wouldn't be the first time terrorists worked together wit the opposition for stability in a country they control.

Swiffness! wrote: »

War? What kind of War? Because you said WORLD WAR 3. You must be wetted up if you think 4 U.S elite soldiers dying will start WW3. Or any other war past "OK, here's some guns and drone planes Uganda, courtesy of Uncle Sam". C'mon man, real life is not RISK or Command & Conquer. You can't just merge a couple countries together, instantly create a superpower, and start trashing continents. Its not that easy. Ask Germany. It took them over a century to unite 300+ German speaking territories into a single state capable of attacking the Great Powers of Europe. Last I checked, everybody in Sub-Saharan Africa is still killing each other with weapons the Soviets designed during WORLD WAR 2.

I understand why you like this fantasy - ? , lawd knows anybody who's ever read about The Congo Free State has thought about it - but its just a fantasy in 2011. Africa still has a long way to go before they can start gooning the world and by the time they're ready, they'll probably be beefing with China....

World War I was started by one ? gettin murked so it ain't crazy to think if a buncha elite soldiers get sliced up they gon go in, like I said they done went to war for much less before. I ain't expectin the Federation to be a superpower but they should definitely hold their own if someone tried to punk em, at the very least they would be a regional power.

janklow wrote: »

you know, i get that you want to play some combination of "internet tough guy" and "non-intellectual intellectual" or whatever, so before you get to the phase where you're threatening to punch me through the internet, ? it, let's just go back to more topical matters:

Lame attempt at tryna one up my assessment of you, if you gon go that route at least make it real talk ? . Yeah I stay on some ignant ? ? but I ain't on that dumb ? ? so don't get it ? up, and ain't nobody gon threaten yo punk ass but there's no question I could beat down a ? ? like you.

janklow wrote: »

if you really don't get that the situation was a little more complicated than that, i don't know what to tell you beyond "i guess they didn't cover World War I in your grade school."

There you go gettin overly technical again, I can't tell if you playin dumb just to troll or you really this slow. Obviously WWI was caused by a chain reaction that started wit his murder so elite troops gettin killed by Joseph Kony's boys could cause a similar situation.