Claude Drunk?...Never!...
Kitty likes the liqueur...
| funny animal pics
|
- Videos
- Pictures
- Games
- Flash
- Mature 18+
- Free Porn
- MuchoWear
-
subscribe to mucho |
Got MySpace? Add us! |
Submit Content
|
|
Popular Searches
- japanese
- rape
- vivica fox sex tape
- sex
- hentai
- anal
- blowjob
- asian
- orgasm
- porn
- lesbian
- caught masterbaiting
- cum
- paris hilton
- incest
Recent Searches
- anal accudent
- unusual penetration
- young teen cream pies
- natasha hendstridge
- girl past out get fucked
- bath step father
- HORSES-FUCKING-
- sleeve
- breast-fetsih
- Rachel Steele
- anal dildo
- asians suck black dick
- pink nipple pierce
- black teens xxx
- had to
The legend of drunken monkey
Hanky Panky
Tears
ATTENTION!! HIDE AND SEEK WORLD CHAMPS!!!
Wage slave
Poser-mobile
Casa D' Ice
Russian Gold Medal Winner
Sleighed
For Balls Malone..
Ramen X
at the end of a rainbow
ass licking
Titty Lick
mucho pwned
Swallow|
|
Comments to Claude Drunk?...Never!...
Opposable thumbs, FTW!!!
Claude, you fuckin degenerate.
burp!!!
SCAT YOU UNWANTED ABOMINATION!
What are you drinking, Claude? Vodka?
That's not Claude..... It's that fucking mental midget, rking....
Isn't it illegal for cats to drink under the age of four?
Oh, fuck beans...
who will be the first to PS a penis in this pic
I could... I'm just too lazy.
Me too.
I WILL! I WILL! (wait... >=/ )
lol
If he really wanted it he'd use the edge of the table and deal with the glass
Claude, you'll waste about 4 lives downing that entire thing.
Can we stop posting cutesy cat pics just to appease Claude?
The word appeasing doesn't really apply here, but yeah, let's knock off the stupid cat pictures.
(Who will be the first to say pew pew?)
pew pew.
Appeasing doesn't apply because it's the wrong tense, but appease fits pretty well. Especially since claude seems to be worshiped by n00bs like some form of demigod.
Appease doesn't fit either.
apâ peaseâ â
âverb (used with object), -peased, -peasâ ing.
1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
Is Claude angry or belligerent in some way? No. Even if you choose to use the word demigod in order to support your original word choice, which isn't applicable either in my opinion, he could only be regarded as a benign, indifferent god, which certainly requires no appeasing, placating, or pacifying.
Hank, on the other hand, is an angry, venegeful god and requires noobs to be regularly cast from the cliffs high above into the valley of the broken and the pwnd.
DIK, BRING ME A NOOB!
Does it have to be a virgin noob?
Wait... What am I saying? Like there's any other kind of noob.
Please to note that there is no Claude Quality Control check within the Mucho submit/post process. Personally, I would at least like the cats to be orange.
k hank..just try. i will shove u the cliff up ur ass. technically u then will be sitting in the valley of the broken ond the pwnd.
Orange cats are the best!
yeah. and u r yellow like piss.
Ummm... nope.
Fail, try again.
well..u r a cat. so u aint the best to speak about colours. most of ur world is grey. and the colours u see arent exactly the same humans see.
so u fail. dont try again.
Wrong again.
wow..wonderfull argumentation. just at the iq of a cat. ur next post will be "meow"?
(sorry claude - ur the worlds genius cat. hail thee claude! =D)
The IQ of a cat? Let me help you here, Garfield, over there <, is my avatar. It's not me, I am a person, I'm not really a cat. I'll even loan you Garfield's IQ, it looks like you need it.
Oh yeah...
Fuckin' meeow!
Hank, Your an idiot..
I know you are, but what am I?
Hank think irregardless is a word, he is in no position to criticise.
Irregardless IS a word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
irregardless
an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from 1912, probably a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic.
It is a illogical double negative that makes no sense.
Excerpts from your link:
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing.
&
An erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express.
It is a word, nonetheless.
You are wrong yet again.
You just got proven wrong by your own link, yet you still claim to be right?
Just because it is a word that is used by the mentally limited, like yourself, it doesn't make it correct.
The simple fact that it means the complete opposite of what you're trying to say proves how very little you know.
Regardless = without regard
Irregardless = not without regard
It doesn't make any sense, not without regard to whatever you may choose to believe. <- see, absolutely ridiculous.
Instead of "correct", you should use "standard".
I didn't say it was standard usage. I did say it was a word. The quote you provided yourself says it is a word.
It is a word. Plain and simple.
And of course, I read that link long ago, so I know what is in it. "proves how very little you know." is a completely ridicuous statement. How could something I know prove how little I know?
Did you miss this part in the definition, "Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic." This is the reason for this novel word construction being used. You may whine all you like, and the English are master whiners about the English language, but it is a word.
An erroneous WORD that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express.
The vast majority of language nazis have no fucking idea what language even is. Sweet! Play the expert on something you know nothing about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nonstandard_English_grammar
i was an english major for one semester in 1984, so i have the authority to say...fuck me, I dunno
That last bit should be 'grammar' and not 'gran'.
If you want to say something & mean 'in spite of' say 'in spite of', or 'regardless' (since that specifically is what you actually want to express). If however, you want to make no sense and look foolish in front of anyone with an education, keep using 'irregardless'.
I have never once tried to make an emphatic statement by contradicting myself. Again, that simply makes no sense.
If you were an english major for one semester, what does that make you now?
Fuck you, cock sucker. Whether I use it or not is beside the point.
You said it wasn't a word. I said it was.
You are wrong. I am right.
That's the bottom line.
And, also, you fucking cunt-bag, I'm quite sure you use some non-standard words when you are in informal situations with your friends, or whatever.
^a cleaning lady
I don't use words which make no sense whatsoever. Yes, I use slang, and even miss out the word 'the' from sentences on quite a lot of occasions(being from Yorkshire).
I have no problem with people using informal, non standard words. I just can't understand why people would insist on using a word that doesn't actually mean what they want to say.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/irregardless.aspx
Intersting bit about the controversy. Informative.
I'm of the opinion that irregardless, while being ETYMOLOGICALLY incorrect is still understood to mean the same thing as regardless is basically ok, and will probably cross over into being considered a 'standard' word.
Also, I consider the whole distinction drawn between standard and non-standard words to be silly and pointless.
A Japanese English teacher once told me something I said was wrong and pointed in a book to show me.
But, books can't speak. The rules written down in books always follow the spoken word, not the other way around.
flammable and inflammable mean the same thing
This is a pet peeve of mine specifically because people understand it to mean the opposite of what it actually does.
I don't think that it should be acceptable simply because a lot of people use it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
Sorry Oranje, you lose. And being that Hank has probably completed more years of English teaching that you have taken, he gets the benefit of the doubt.
PS: Nobody gives a shit about Yorkshire.
You're too late James & your input id not required, fuck off.
Blow me.
Congrats anyway for posting the EXACT fucking same like which Hank did.
Oh shit, he did post that eh? Well, now you have it from two sources to affirm your incorrectness.
James, what on earth would you gain from joinig the end of this debate? Then posting a link which I then used myself to fetch these excerpts:
"Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing."
&
"An erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express."
Affirming the words illegitimacy twice now, noob.
Get to the back of the class.
Uhhh is it recognized as part of the English dictionary? Yes. Therefore, by extension, you are wrong. Semantics or not.
oranjebooom say...actually i have no idea...oj are you, like, sober or somethin?
Invaluable is one of those words jackasses often use the wrong way.
Yes, it is recognised by dictionaries as an incorrect word, we have established that.
If you are going to magically prove me wrong, and show that the word makes sense, then OK. If not, you have nothing else to add.
I have plenty to add. However, my point was that it is an actual word, albeit not one that is used often, or correctly. No language is perfect, irregardless of your proper perception, get over it.
It is a word, in the sense that it is made up of letters. It is not a real word, due to it not having any meaning. It negates itself from a sentence completely, kind of like your link as an argument.
It couldn't possibly be used correctly.
If it is recognized by the English dictionary, then it is a word. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not you, or anyone else likes it or not.
Go ahead, keep using it. Ill stick to words with actual meaning.
If you really think I have spent all this time simply disputing the existence of the word you're a moron. Im disputing its legitimacy, of which it has non, & any dictionary will concur.
but both of you are ignoring MY point...
what the fuck WUZ it though?
dammitall
Did you not read what I wrote above? I'm not disputing its legitimacy, rather its existence, and as I said before nobody cares whether or not you think it is legitimate. Moron.
Hank, don't be a jerk. You're playing on semantics to prove a meaningless point. You understood exactly what I was saying, and you know the matter is completely subjective.
Orange, you started off disputing it was a word at all and then when I showed you were wrong, switched over to having a beef about it:s correctness.
Etymologically, it is incorrect. So what? It has meaning. It is a valid word. I would go so far as to say, all words all valid. They are just sounds to convey meaning. If a speaker says irregardless and the listener understands the intended meaning. Communication was successful. To say it is invalid is just ridiculous.
No, Sociopath, I'm not "playing on semantics". Your word choice was poor. Very poor, in fact. As I stated earlier, Claude is a mellow, benign, calm presence here that would require absolutely no appeasement. So, someone reading your comment would have to guess what you meant. Did you mean Praise? Honor? Pay Homage to Claude?
haha fugsmucker! i made u give up on your avatar!
No, you didn't. Oranje asked him to switch over to the same avatar as him. It's a symbol for a holiday they have in England today.
It's clearly semantics, you're picking apart words a day after they were chosen on a whim, and trying to make a point out of it. That's why you looked up a dictionary definition to back yourself up. Appease means to bring peace, to satisfy a need or urge, it's a legitimate choice of word and I stand by it. I have nothing more to say on the matter.
Fuck off Hank, its the correctness I have a problem with, & always have. I typed the word out myself in the very first post on the subject in this thread, so I clearly know of its existence. I made a point of saying you thought irregargless was a word because you and tiredguy attempted to prove some other guy wrong on the MrMen republican vid a few days back, when he said it wasn't a real word too. Check that and youll see my probem has always been its legitimacy.
Don't try and claim I switch just because I didn't put the word legitimate in the threads very first post, thats pathetic.
& you have the audacity to continue proving someone else used the wrong word because it means something slightly different to what he was trying to express.
That is the same fucking thing youre doing by using the word irregardless, you fucking douche. It doesnt' mean what you want to express when you use it.
You stupid hypocrite
I knew you would say that and fail yet again.
Irregardless means regardless and when it's used to mean that, it's usage is useful and successful in communicating that meaning.
That guy meant something other than appease when he said appease, therefore his attempt at communication attempt was not successful.
You mean something other than 'not in spite of' when you say irregardless, therefor your attempt at communication will not be successful. Unless speaking to someone else who is stupid and uses words they do not know the meaning of.
If I agree with a friend that 'cornfobbale' means 'to call for a taxi' that will not make 'cornfobbale' a legitimate word simply because he knows what it means...& that is just a silly word, it isn't even a contradictory word like irregardless.
You're are wrong, it is an illogical word that makes zero sense.
You still insist on using it as a word, ergo, you are a moronic failure!
hey does anyone remember that pic where it looked like a cat was trying to open a bottle of vodka? it wasn't very funny, but just wondering if anyone remembered it.
irregardless, this is a stupid fucking argument
Jerk, I haven't 'given up on my avatar', I have joined the few who have some respect for our fore-fathers who gave thier lives for freedom. The only thing I'd give up for you is any hope for the future of your offspring.
OMG, yet another fail. Try reading a little bit about language please.
"You mean something other than 'not in spite of' when you say irregardless, therefor your attempt at communication will not be successful. Unless speaking to someone else who is stupid and uses words they do not know the meaning of."
Fuck, you are thick. If people agree that a word means 'despite', it doesn't matter what the word is. It could could be irregardless or it could be regardless or it could be bananasammich. It doesn't matter. The connection of a spoken word to a meaning is purely a matter of agreement. And the connection is purely arbitrary. Any word could mean 'despite', and then the word could change meaning over time to mean anything else.
"If I agree with a friend that 'cornfobbale' means 'to call for a taxi' that will not make 'cornfobbale' a legitimate word simply because he knows what it means..."
Wrong, YET, again. Again, please educate yourself about language. I would think all this discussion would make a person want to read up a bit on the subject.
If you agree with a friend that cornfobble means call a taxi then that is what it means and it is a word. Maybe that word dies out, or maybe it catches on, becomes widespread and enters into the dictionaries. Either way, it's a word from the very beginning. Do you know how words get started? PEOPLE MAKE THEM UP. Has that never dawned on you? Do you know how many words Shakespeare made up? Something like thousands. How many entered into the language? Looooots. How many whiney fuckers told Shakespeare he couldn't make up words, I wonder?
OK, I will concede that etymology proves my point about cornfobble not becoming a word is wrong. Hank, you're right about that, I don't even know why I said it.
However, irrigardless doesn't work like that though since the language already has a structure with which the prefix 'ir' meaning not, & the suffix 'less' making the word a redundant double negative. Etymology will not work in this case, the only thing that will happen is people will learn that it makes no sense and stop using it.
Dammit Hank, even wiki says its a bullshit term!
There is no such thing as a bullshit term.
As I've said before, I think you lack a basic feeling about what a language is and what makes it what is.
Double negatives and other rule violations happen all the time. I'm only considering spoken language here, and spoken language likes to break rules and mess things up for fun. Hell, so do I. Language is a fluid living thing. It does what it wants. No amount of protesting will change that fact.
11th November is a holiday? Fantastic. I hope my firm's heard about this.
Not quite sure what that is supposed to mean.
Anyways, I just wanted to say that Wiki said it was a non-standard word, not a bullshit term.
OK, I see were not going to agree on this, ever.
That's because your views on language are myopic and school-marmish.
I'll help you there Claude.
Thanks, Tool. -ookay, Tool, thanks. Ya, Tool...I'll go ahead and take the bottle now. Tool, really, can I have my bottle? Tool?..