The Way International is a destructive cult run by enormous bags of douche.
That is all.
good to see you again..
what I'm trying to figure out..
your use of the genitive. "of douche". Is this the genitive of character, a noun in regimen.. "bags of douche".. a noun (douche) being used as an adjective (with emphasis)? Or is it the genitive of origon and efficient cause, the source of which these "bags" have their origin.. or is it the genitive of possession.. the bags in leadership *positions* which contain douche..
or is it.. genitive of apposition.. "bags" that is to say, or which are, "douche"..
your use of the genitive. "of douche". Is this the genitive of character, a noun in regimen.. "bags of douche".. a noun (douche) being used as an adjective (with emphasis)? Or is it the genitive of origon and efficient cause, the source of which these "bags" have their origin.. or is it the genitive of possession.. the bags in leadership *positions* which contain douche..
or is it.. genitive of apposition.. "bags" that is to say, or which are, "douche"..
or is it the genitive of contents.
Have you checked the collaterals? They might shed some light on what this word means in this context . . . Maybe a literal according to usage or something . . . . :P
Natural man, as well as Mr. Natural, is completely devoid of the ability to recognize the "enormity" of the implied idiomatic analogy of the original transfiguration of the genuine figure of speech, baggie-syndoton.
What we need to do is plant a garden, live as one in a giant pup tent and meditate without ceasing on the meaning of wheat-berry pop tarts.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the kitchen......
If I never even THINK of wheat berries again, it will be too soon. What the hell were they, anyway? They weren't wheat; I've seen wheat. They weren't wheat. Petrified poop of some kind is my guess.
Thank God no one tells me what I can or cannot eat!
Wheat berries are what the devil likes for breakfast!
Hammy, you're severely disturbed. Yet joining you in this analysis is oddly compelling. Which speaks to me being severely disturbed as well.
your use of the genitive. "of douche". Is this the genitive of character, a noun in regimen.. "bags of douche".. a noun (douche) being used as an adjective (with emphasis)?
This interpretation is among the most compelling, as replacing the initial phrase with "DOUCHEBAGS!!!!!" would seem to preserve the intent. You have captured the correct genitive. However, equally as important standing out is the figure of speech hypocatastasis. This is the strongest of the comparison figures of speech. You could say "like a douchebag" for minimal comparison, "is a douchebag" for medium comparison, or "bags of douche" as the strongest comparison.
The figure of speech involved implies the genitive of character.
Or is it the genitive of origon and efficient cause, the source of which these "bags" have their origin.. or is it the genitive of possession.. the bags in leadership *positions* which contain douche..
While the genitive of origin and analysis from TWI having a female president could have certain implications that could accurately be considered, overall the intent is not preserved through genitive of origen.
Of the genitive of possession, you could say the *positions* contain douche, although more accurately you would need the plural there - the *positions* contain *douches*, which the plural agreement there brings it right back to the genetive of character again.
or is it.. genitive of apposition.. "bags" that is to say, or which are, "douche"..
This is possible. The question is, if you replaced these people in *positions* literally with Summer's Eve, would it actually change anything? Hmmmm, thoughts to ponder.
or is it the genitive of contents.
No, this can't be it. The contents of a bag would be far more cleansing than your typical STS tape, class, or rag article.
Overall Hammy, a very thorough and insightful commentary.
Natural man, as well as Mr. Natural, is completely devoid of the ability to recognize the "enormity" of the implied idiomatic analogy of the original transfiguration of the genuine figure of speech, baggie-syndoton.
I won't argue the fact. The Problem, isn't being serious disturbed. The real *problem* is not knowing one is seriously disturbed. Without this kind of insight, one can not take advantage of one's state of disturboudnouss, or lack thereof, for one's advantage, if one is aware of it..
I won't argue the fact. The Problem, isn't being serious disturbed. The real *problem* is not knowing one is seriously disturbed. Without this kind of insight, one can not take advantage of one's state of disturboudnouss, or lack thereof, for one's advantage, if one is aware of it..
Recommended Posts
Bishop
Feel better?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
good to see you again..
what I'm trying to figure out..
your use of the genitive. "of douche". Is this the genitive of character, a noun in regimen.. "bags of douche".. a noun (douche) being used as an adjective (with emphasis)? Or is it the genitive of origon and efficient cause, the source of which these "bags" have their origin.. or is it the genitive of possession.. the bags in leadership *positions* which contain douche..
or is it.. genitive of apposition.. "bags" that is to say, or which are, "douche"..
or is it the genitive of contents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bishop
Have you checked the collaterals? They might shed some light on what this word means in this context . . . Maybe a literal according to usage or something . . . . :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
No no no. I went directly to Bullinger..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Great translator in the Bullsh**ta text. I wish you could misunderstand it in the original.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You guys are off the mark.
Ya see-----It's spiritual.
Natural man, as well as Mr. Natural, is completely devoid of the ability to recognize the "enormity" of the implied idiomatic analogy of the original transfiguration of the genuine figure of speech, baggie-syndoton.
What we need to do is plant a garden, live as one in a giant pup tent and meditate without ceasing on the meaning of wheat-berry pop tarts.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
This proves it! Waysider is a genius.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
It all just fits like a foot fits in a mouth.
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Roll a jay, roll a jay, roll a jay...
Ev'ry burden on my heart,
Roll a jay!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmm. If you went directly to Bullinger, shouldn't there (also) be an "Also" in there, somewhere?? :blink:
:blink:
(The cartoon taken from) - - - - - > > > THIS SITE.
(edited to add second cartoon)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Wheat berry pop tarts!???? :o
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the kitchen......
If I never even THINK of wheat berries again, it will be too soon. What the hell were they, anyway? They weren't wheat; I've seen wheat. They weren't wheat. Petrified poop of some kind is my guess.
Thank God no one tells me what I can or cannot eat!
Wheat berries are what the devil likes for breakfast!
WG
Edited by Watered GardenLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hammy, you're severely disturbed. Yet joining you in this analysis is oddly compelling. Which speaks to me being severely disturbed as well.
This interpretation is among the most compelling, as replacing the initial phrase with "DOUCHEBAGS!!!!!" would seem to preserve the intent. You have captured the correct genitive. However, equally as important standing out is the figure of speech hypocatastasis. This is the strongest of the comparison figures of speech. You could say "like a douchebag" for minimal comparison, "is a douchebag" for medium comparison, or "bags of douche" as the strongest comparison.
The figure of speech involved implies the genitive of character.
While the genitive of origin and analysis from TWI having a female president could have certain implications that could accurately be considered, overall the intent is not preserved through genitive of origen.
Of the genitive of possession, you could say the *positions* contain douche, although more accurately you would need the plural there - the *positions* contain *douches*, which the plural agreement there brings it right back to the genetive of character again.
This is possible. The question is, if you replaced these people in *positions* literally with Summer's Eve, would it actually change anything? Hmmmm, thoughts to ponder.
No, this can't be it. The contents of a bag would be far more cleansing than your typical STS tape, class, or rag article.
Overall Hammy, a very thorough and insightful commentary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
never mind.
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
hey.. at least he had a few good drugs..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I won't argue the fact. The Problem, isn't being serious disturbed. The real *problem* is not knowing one is seriously disturbed. Without this kind of insight, one can not take advantage of one's state of disturboudnouss, or lack thereof, for one's advantage, if one is aware of it..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
"Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them."
-Albert Einstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.