Word

[Robert A Whit]

It would be nice to see what posters think ending a post with WORD means?

Google has not helped me. It is up to the poster to explain but what do you all have to say about it.

Example:

Word.

[Kathianne]

LOL! So not what you are likely thinking. Granted, I was being sarcastic, but still. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Word up, dog.

[aboutime]

http://youtu.be/7WDFLJ1Xvq0

[Robert A Whit]

LOL! So not what you are likely thinking. Granted, I was being sarcastic, but still. :laugh2:

i am not thinking if means anything other than how it is defined in the dictionary. It is weird to read it as a response.

Why not simply define what you used if for?

[Robert A Whit]

Word up, dog.


Still no definition as used as a final statement.

[jimnyc]

Still no definition as used as a final statement.

Not all words need an acceptable definition. I say "Sup" to people all the time, short for "wassup" which is short for "what's up" which is short for "what is up". I think sup is sufficient.

[Robert A Whit]

Not all words need an acceptable definition. I say "Sup" to people all the time, short for "wassup" which is short for "what's up" which is short for "what is up". I think sup is sufficient.

To have meaning it has to have some definition to be used. You use slang. If the term used was What's up, that at least is a tiny sentence and presumes some more normal sentence is being cut down.

You must remember jim that I grew up with slang and this is not what i think of as being slang.

Suppose I told you a negro word used in the the 1950s and expected you to know the meaning?

I will try you out.

Short.

What does that mean when said by Negroes Jim.?

[jimnyc]

To have meaning it has to have some definition to be used. You use slang. If the term used was What's up, that at least is a tiny sentence and presumes some more normal sentence is being cut down.

You must remember jim that I grew up with slang and this is not what i think of as being slang.

Suppose I told you a negro word used in the the 1950s and expected you to know the meaning?

I will try you out.

Short.

What does that mean when said by Negroes Jim.?

Word?

[Kathianne]

To have meaning it has to have some definition to be used. You use slang. If the term used was What's up, that at least is a tiny sentence and presumes some more normal sentence is being cut down.

You must remember jim that I grew up with slang and this is not what i think of as being slang.

Suppose I told you a negro word used in the the 1950s and expected you to know the meaning?

I will try you out.

Short.

What does that mean when said by Negroes Jim.?


Off topic?

[jimnyc]

What we say, isn't always what we hear, or what we mean. Or sometimes they have 2 meanings. Here:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g0j2dVuhr6s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Marcus Aurelius]

Word up, dog.


true dat.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=word
It would be nice to see what posters think ending a post with WORD means?

Google has not helped me. It is up to the poster to explain but what do you all have to say about it.

Example:

Word.

you are beyond help. It took me all of 4 seconds to find this for you...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=word


<tbody>



WORD:
1) well said
2)said in a agreement
3) can be used as a greeting, hey whats up

1..and 2...Yo u goin to that rocks tanite....word
3) word up
[/QUOTE]



</tbody>

[tailfins]

It would be nice to see what posters think ending a post with WORD means?

Google has not helped me. It is up to the poster to explain but what do you all have to say about it.

Example:

Word.

The closest I can come to explain it is this: That's the last word. Or you cannot improve on that. Listen to this song:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjAantupsA

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=640081#post640081)
To have meaning it has to have some definition to be used. You use slang. If the term used was What's up, that at least is a tiny sentence and presumes some more normal sentence is being cut down.

You must remember jim that I grew up with slang and this is not what i think of as being slang.

Suppose I told you a negro word used in the the 1950s and expected you to know the meaning?

I will try you out.

Short.

What does that mean when said by Negroes Jim.?


Word?

It is pronounced as SHOTE.

It means car.

"I went downtown in my shote"

I learned that word from a Negro that explained it to me in 1956.

[Thunderknuckles]

What this thread boils down to is generational and cultural differences in slang. Marcus summed up "Word" nicely. I think it was primarily used in the 80's by blacks but seems to have stuck around to some extent.
Never used it myself in the given slang context. I always preferred "Right on", "Cool", and "Hell yes".

Off topic a bit:
One of my favorite slang words for something that was awesome or of high quality: Clutch! as in "That thing is clutch!"

[Robert A Whit]

What this thread boils down to is generational and cultural differences in slang. Marcus summed up "Word" nicely. I think it was primarily used in the 80's by blacks but seems to have stuck around to some extent.
Never used it myself in the given slang context. I always preferred "Right on", "Cool", and "Hell yes".

Off topic a bit:
One of my favorite slang words for something that was awesome or of high quality: Clutch! as in "That thing is clutch!"

My problem is with Marcus so I don't read what he says unless others quote him by name.

So, do you mean that Kathianne used a well known negro word as her reply to me? I have to read all posts again to see who else besides Marcus defined what it means to end a commentary by the one word .... word.

Went back to check it out but i have not read any poster define the word.

I defined Short. While it is spelled that way by me, to try to say it, you need to say a blend of short and shote. A hint of the r can be detected but not too much.

[logroller]

I'm think it has something to do with finality; as in nothing else to say or add, "the last word" being shortened to just "word".

[Robert A Whit]

I'm think it has something to do with finality; as in nothing else to say or add, "the last word" being shortened to just "word".

Thank you. I wish the poster that likes to say that one word would explain her meaning. Your explanation makes sense.

[Thunderknuckles]

My problem is with Marcus so I don't read what he says unless others quote him by name.

So, do you mean that Kathianne used a well known negro word as her reply to me? I have to read all posts again to see who else besides Marcus defined what it means to end a commentary by the one word .... word.

Went back to check it out but i have not read any poster define the word.

I defined Short. While it is spelled that way by me, to try to say it, you need to say a blend of short and shote. A hint of the r can be detected but not too much.
Here's what Marcus posted for the definition:

<tbody>



WORD:
1) well said
2)said in a agreement
3) can be used as a greeting, hey whats up

1..and 2...Yo u goin to that rocks tanite....word
3) word up



</tbody>

Why the hell does something as simple as asking for a definition of a slang word turn into a pissing between some?!

[Little-Acorn]

Le mot juste.

[jimnyc]

Boogity, boogity, boogity, lets go racing, boys!

[Thunderknuckles]

Le mot juste.
Ooooooohhhh, breaking the rules again are ya?
Threadban!
Now that's the right word.

Word.

[Robert A Whit]

Here's what Marcus posted for the definition:

<tbody>



WORD:
1) well said
2)said in a agreement
3) can be used as a greeting, hey whats up

1..and 2...Yo u goin to that rocks tanite....word
3) word up


</tbody>

Why the hell does something as simple as asking for a definition of a slang word turn into a pissing between some?!

I wonder if Kathianne told me, "Well said"? Or was it "in agreement"? A greeting does not fit.

It seems that a "teacher" would gladly have explained.

[Thunderknuckles]

I wonder if Kathianne told me, "Well said"? Or was it "in agreement"? A greeting does not fit.

It seems that a "teacher" would gladly have explained.
You and Kathianne are worse than my 6 and 8 year old kids :laugh:
It's weird watching you guys go back and forth at each other.

[jimnyc]

I wonder if Kathianne told me, "Well said"? Or was it "in agreement"? A greeting does not fit.

It seems that a "teacher" would gladly have explained.

Maybe she doesn't need to explain things to you. If others want to discuss "word" and have fun, that's cool, but stop pushing her buttons if she doesn't want to answer your inquiry. Maybe she simply doesn't want to have to explain anything to you?

[Robert A Whit]

You and Kathianne are worse than my 6 and 8 year old kids :laugh:
It's weird watching you guys go back and forth at each other.

I suppose it is due to her derailing topics and refusing to define terms she uses. Are you suggesting i include her on ignore?

[jimnyc]

I suppose it is due to her derailing topics and refusing to define terms she uses. Are you suggesting i include her on ignore?

Kath is one of the LAST people who habitually derails topics. She need not define things for you if she doesn't want to. But yes, maybe ignore is a decent option if you think she is derailing things and not explaining enough for you, to the point that you need to start threads on it.

[Robert A Whit]

Kath is one of the LAST people who habitually derails topics. She need not define things for you if she doesn't want to. But yes, maybe ignore is a decent option if you think she is derailing things and not explaining enough for you, to the point that you need to start threads on it.

Whatever. Will you please stop trying to antagonize?

[jimnyc]

Kath is one of the LAST people who habitually derails topics. She need not define things for you if she doesn't want to. But yes, maybe ignore is a decent option if you think she is derailing things and not explaining enough for you, to the point that you need to start threads on it.


Why the hell can't you STFU?

You know very well you said that purely to piss me off.

I'm sorry your comprehension is off today, but I spoke solely factual. Kath IS one of the last to go off topic. She posts more good articles and followups than anyone here. She doesn't need to define things to you if she doesn't want to, and asking 2x was enough. This is true for anyone, no one here HAS to define things for another. And I think rather than starting threads which lead to animosity, the ignore option may be better.

Why would that stuff piss you off? Does the truth hurt? Are you angry that she won't define for you? Is it because I said she doesn't habitually derail threads?

But no, I won't shut up if you can't stop finding your way into feuds.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I suppose it is due to her derailing topics and refusing to define terms she uses. Are you suggesting i include her on ignore?

I'm suggesting you stick with the thread topic and stop turning yet another thread into a 'gee, why isn't this about Robert-Whitless' thread.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Whatever. Will you please stop trying to antagonize?

stick with the thread topic... it's not always about YOU, dumb ass.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm sorry your comprehension is off today, but I spoke solely factual. Kath IS one of the last to go off topic. She posts more good articles and followups than anyone here. She doesn't need to define things to you if she doesn't want to, and asking 2x was enough. This is true for anyone, no one here HAS to define things for another. And I think rather than starting threads which lead to animosity, the ignore option may be better.

Why would that stuff piss you off? Does the truth hurt? Are you angry that she won't define for you? Is it because I said she doesn't habitually derail threads?

But no, I won't shut up if you can't stop finding your way into feuds.

There was no feud till you poked into the thread. You talk down to people. Examine your own windows.

I know what she has to do or not. I made no demands.

Will you please end your habit of antagonizing?

[Little-Acorn]

I suppose it is due to her derailing topics and refusing to define terms she uses. Are you suggesting i include her on ignore?

Let me get this straight.

You are hijacking this thread for the purpose of complaining that SOMEONE ELSE derails topics??? :no:

[Marcus Aurelius]

There was no feud till you poked into the thread. You talk down to people. Examine your own windows.

I know what she has to do or not. I made no demands.

Will you please end your habit of antagonizing?

someone please thread ban this troll? It is NOT another ROBERT thread.

[jimnyc]

There was no feud till you poked into the thread. You talk down to people. Examine your own windows.

I know what she has to do or not. I made no demands.

Will you please end your habit of antagonizing?

The feud has been going on for as long as I can remember. I simply, and politely I might add, explained how I saw it, and AGREED with you that ignore might be a better option than starting threads. That's what moderators do, we intervene to try and prevent things from getting worse. I antagonized you in no way at all. I only talk down to your shenanigans, which don't seem to stop very often. You simply don't like being told what to do at times. That's not my problem.

[jimnyc]

I originally banned the dolt. Instead I moved the thread where it should have went to begin with. Sometimes my little pet piggy gets lost on the way to the mud pile. :)

[Marcus Aurelius]

I originally banned the dolt. Instead I moved the thread where it should have went to begin with. Sometimes my little pet piggy gets lost on the way to the mud pile. :)

now that it's here and he'll get no more attention, he'll just start up again somewhere on the main board.

[Little-Acorn]

It's a standard liberal tactic when they are irrevocably losing a debate, to introduce so much acrimony and fighting to the thread that it gets quarantined or closed. Thus any practical opposition gets shut off.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=640251#post640251)
There was no feud till you poked into the thread. You talk down to people. Examine your own windows.

I know what she has to do or not. I made no demands.

Will you please end your habit of antagonizing?


The feud has been going on for as long as I can remember. I simply, and politely I might add, explained how I saw it, and AGREED with you that ignore might be a better option than starting threads. That's what moderators do, we intervene to try and prevent things from getting worse. I antagonized you in no way at all. I only talk down to your shenanigans, which don't seem to stop very often. You simply don't like being told what to do at times. That's not my problem.

You are so fucking wrong.

Is that why you got rid of me from my own post?

You leaped to your own conclusion. A smart mod would ask if there is a problem.

I had only started the word thread to try to find out what Kathianne meant by the word.

That was no feud.

I thought any feud with her was over. I am a forgive and forget type person to begin with.

I sure wanted on fight with the woman.

So far,other than her derailing a thread by saying WORD, I have no beef with her. Even though she has failed to define her own word I have no beef.

I never at any time said she has to reply. But you tried to make that the issue. It never was.

You got snotty to me right off. I cut off the snotty part so you could see what i was speaking of and suddenly i was thread banned. That really is a low blow.

Look, i have the right to explain what I did and why, just as you do.

There were no shenanigans only but for your paranoid way of seeing things.

You speak of a long standing feud.

I tried right away last year to stop that in it's traces and even spoke to you about it but you let her go on and on and on.

She started that.

I am an easy going person so I forget by forgiving fast. But you put in your nose and now you tried to make my comments in the Word thread out to be some fight.

It never was. I got a good definition from some others but she used the word so I wanted to find out her definition.

Telling me she does not have to tell me is a terrible thing to say. I realized that all along. i was asking around even so and not bugging her.

[jimnyc]

^^ Fuck off. I will question what I want and how, and moderate when and how - and you have no say at all in how I, or other staff members, run the board. Next time instead of moving threads an allowing you to continue a tirade, I just remove you from said thread and go forward like I was just bit by a dying mosquito.

[jimnyc]

Btw, when you come back to this thread, Robert, and your head turns a funny shade of purple because you are angry with me...


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


:fu:

[Marcus Aurelius]

jim,

You know I try not to tell you how to run your board, and always take any punishments you give me for behavior like a man without whining.

I am now breaking my rule...

Just ban Robert and be done with it. It's YOUR board, not his. When you go back and forth like this, it gives him the attention he desires. Deprive him of it.

/end rant... We now return you to your regularly scheduled 'tell Robert to go fuck himself' thread ;)

[Robert A Whit]

^^ Fuck off. I will question what I want and how, and moderate when and how - and you have no say at all in how I, or other staff members, run the board. Next time instead of moving threads an allowing you to continue a tirade, I just remove you from said thread and go forward like I was just bit by a dying mosquito.

You fuck off.

You and only you destroyed that thread.

You lied by claiming it was going bad.

[jimnyc]

You fuck off.

You and only you destroyed that thread.

You lied by claiming it was going bad.

Do you not wonder why half the board, if not more, thinks you start trouble, derail threads and continually fighting with people? Are they ALL wrong? I destroyed nothing. The problem started with POST NUMBER ONE AND THE IDIOT MAKING THE POST. You were looking for trouble as usual, and you have been starting shit with Kathianne here since the beginning, since you "placed her on ignore" and since you lied about that and then took her off of ignore. And also when you claim you have others on ignore only to talk about it in every other post.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You fuck off.

You and only you destroyed that thread.

You lied by claiming it was going bad.

you should soooo be banned.

[Jeff]

off topic?


word!!!

[jimnyc]

word!!!

Sup

[jimnyc]

Whatever. Will you please stop trying to antagonize?

That is from this post - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40913-Word&p=640245#post640245

Look at the post just beneath it, where I had already quoted Robert stating:


Why the hell can't you STFU?

You know very well you said that purely to piss me off.

And then runs around claiming the thread didn't have an issue and he didn't start anything when I told him that I didn't think Kath derailed topics and that I didn't feel a thread like this was necessary. Claiming that I am unfair to him and picking on him. Boo Hoo. Editing a post and then acting like you never made the original post is rather pathetic. Too bad you couldn't edit others posts, then maybe you wouldn't look like a trouble making liar. :coffee: