Tangent Thread - December 2015 Edition

[GBRedneck]

 

 

I just looked up the definition of "blowout" in the urban dictionary, and the Huskers loss to Purdue clearly qualifies:

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blowout&defid=1937022

Well there ya go. That's the bible right there. LOL

Did you just hear a "whooshing" sound?

 

I've been hearing it a lot lately.

[Enhance]

 

 

So the largest comeback in school history was actually a blowout "loss" to tOSU. Because that would be putting lipstick on a pig.

Obviously you didn't actually read what I posted, because if you had, you would realize how silly this reply is.

 

It really isn't any sillier than calling the Purdue loss a blowout.

 

How about we just all settle on this - it was a blowout in the third quarter but the Huskers made it a close game at the end.

 

It's still a loss to a bad team the Huskers had no business losing, too.

 

There are far more important things to talk about then petty squabbling over what is and isn't a blowout.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

So the largest comeback in school history was actually a blowout "loss" to tOSU. Because that would be putting lipstick on a pig.

Obviously you didn't actually read what I posted, because if you had, you would realize how silly this reply is.

 

It really isn't any sillier than calling the Purdue loss a blowout.

 

How about we just all settle on this - it was a blowout in the third quarter but the Huskers made it a close game at the end.

 

It's still a loss to a bad team the Huskers had no business losing, too.

 

There are far more important things to talk about then petty squabbling over what is and isn't a blowout.

 

Like your horrible grammar?

 

"losing, too" WTF?

[Redux]

Wtf is going on in here?

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

So the largest comeback in school history was actually a blowout "loss" to tOSU. Because that would be putting lipstick on a pig.

Obviously you didn't actually read what I posted, because if you had, you would realize how silly this reply is.

 

It really isn't any sillier than calling the Purdue loss a blowout.

 

How about we just all settle on this - it was a blowout in the third quarter but the Huskers made it a close game at the end.

 

It's still a loss to a bad team the Huskers had no business losing, too.

 

There are far more important things to talk about then petty squabbling over what is and isn't a blowout.

 

Like your horrible grammar?

 

"losing, too" WTF?

 

Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it depending on what my intent is.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

 

So the largest comeback in school history was actually a blowout "loss" to tOSU. Because that would be putting lipstick on a pig.

Obviously you didn't actually read what I posted, because if you had, you would realize how silly this reply is.

 

It really isn't any sillier than calling the Purdue loss a blowout.

 

How about we just all settle on this - it was a blowout in the third quarter but the Huskers made it a close game at the end.

 

It's still a loss to a bad team the Huskers had no business losing, too.

 

There are far more important things to talk about then petty squabbling over what is and isn't a blowout.

 

Like your horrible grammar?

 

"losing, too" WTF?

 

Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it depending on what my intent is.

 

 

Okay. I'm not a full-blown grammar nazi yet, I'm still just a grammar jugendbund.

[GBRedneck]

Does Athlon actually pay money for these articles???

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

 

 

So the largest comeback in school history was actually a blowout "loss" to tOSU. Because that would be putting lipstick on a pig.

Obviously you didn't actually read what I posted, because if you had, you would realize how silly this reply is.

 

It really isn't any sillier than calling the Purdue loss a blowout.

 

How about we just all settle on this - it was a blowout in the third quarter but the Huskers made it a close game at the end.

 

It's still a loss to a bad team the Huskers had no business losing, too.

 

There are far more important things to talk about then petty squabbling over what is and isn't a blowout.

 

Like your horrible grammar?

 

"losing, too" WTF?

 

Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it depending on what my intent is.

 

I love these grammar puzzles and this one stumped me. How can it possibly be grammatically correct?

[Redux]

Does Athlon actually pay money for these articles???

Don't read it if you don't like it.

[Pedro Guerrero]

 

Does Athlon actually pay money for these articles???

Don't read it if you don't like it.

 

 

But its cool for some on here to piss all of this dudes articles every time he posts one.

[Redux]

 

 

Does Athlon actually pay money for these articles???

 

Don't read it if you don't like it.

But its a lame ass troll move for some on here to piss all of this dudes articles every time he posts one.

FIFY

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the largest comeback in school history was actually a blowout "loss" to tOSU. Because that would be putting lipstick on a pig.

Obviously you didn't actually read what I posted, because if you had, you would realize how silly this reply is.

 

It really isn't any sillier than calling the Purdue loss a blowout.

 

How about we just all settle on this - it was a blowout in the third quarter but the Huskers made it a close game at the end.

 

It's still a loss to a bad team the Huskers had no business losing, too.

 

There are far more important things to talk about then petty squabbling over what is and isn't a blowout.

 

Like your horrible grammar?

 

"losing, too" WTF?

 

Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it depending on what my intent is.

 

I love these grammar puzzles and this one stumped me. How can it possibly be grammatically correct?

 

Well, it depends on what I'm trying to say. I'm either trying to say they had no busing "losing to" this team, or, my second sentence is a continuation or extension of my first thought. In that case, my intent would be, on top of everything else, they had no business "losing, too."

 

My intent was the latter though I can see how someone may think it was a grammar error.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the largest comeback in school history was actually a blowout "loss" to tOSU. Because that would be putting lipstick on a pig.

Obviously you didn't actually read what I posted, because if you had, you would realize how silly this reply is.

 

It really isn't any sillier than calling the Purdue loss a blowout.

 

How about we just all settle on this - it was a blowout in the third quarter but the Huskers made it a close game at the end.

 

It's still a loss to a bad team the Huskers had no business losing, too.

 

There are far more important things to talk about then petty squabbling over what is and isn't a blowout.

 

Like your horrible grammar?

 

"losing, too" WTF?

 

Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it depending on what my intent is.

 

I love these grammar puzzles and this one stumped me. How can it possibly be grammatically correct?

 

Well, it depends on what I'm trying to say. I'm either trying to say they had no busing "losing to" this team, or, my second sentence is a continuation or extension of my first thought. In that case, my intent would be, on top of everything else, they had no business "losing, too."

 

My intent was the latter though I can see how someone may think it was a grammar error.

 

Sorry, that still isn't grammatically correct.

[NUance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the largest comeback in school history was actually a blowout "loss" to tOSU. Because that would be putting lipstick on a pig.

Obviously you didn't actually read what I posted, because if you had, you would realize how silly this reply is.

 

It really isn't any sillier than calling the Purdue loss a blowout.

 

How about we just all settle on this - it was a blowout in the third quarter but the Huskers made it a close game at the end.

 

It's still a loss to a bad team the Huskers had no business losing, too.

 

There are far more important things to talk about then petty squabbling over what is and isn't a blowout.

 

Like your horrible grammar?

 

"losing, too" WTF?

 

Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it depending on what my intent is.

 

 

Okay. I'm not a full-blown grammar nazi yet, I'm still just a grammar jugendbund.

 

 

Hey, shouldn't Nazi be capitalized? Since we're devolving into the minutia of tangential arguments here?

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the largest comeback in school history was actually a blowout "loss" to tOSU. Because that would be putting lipstick on a pig.

 

Obviously you didn't actually read what I posted, because if you had, you would realize how silly this reply is.

It really isn't any sillier than calling the Purdue loss a blowout.

How about we just all settle on this - it was a blowout in the third quarter but the Huskers made it a close game at the end.

 

It's still a loss to a bad team the Huskers had no business losing, too.

There are far more important things to talk about then petty squabbling over what is and isn't a blowout.

Like your horrible grammar?

 

"losing, too" WTF?

Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it depending on what my intent is.

I love these grammar puzzles and this one stumped me. How can it possibly be grammatically correct?

Well, it depends on what I'm trying to say. I'm either trying to say they had no busing "losing to" this team, or, my second sentence is a continuation or extension of my first thought. In that case, my intent would be, on top of everything else, they had no business "losing, too."

 

My intent was the latter though I can see how someone may think it was a grammar error.

Sorry, that still isn't grammatically correct.

If either the "still" at the beginning or the "too" at the end were removed, it would sound okay.

 

The "It's still" suggests a reassertion of a previous claim will follow, but "too" suggests something new was just added.

 

With both of them in there it sounds hinky