Can we get a basic fucking English test as part of the GFY sign up process? - GoFuckYourself.com

jimthefiend · 01-10-2007, 09:26 AM

Thanks, appreciate it.

munki · 01-10-2007, 09:29 AM

jimthefiend · 01-10-2007, 09:30 AM

Ban anyone who can't pass this:

http://www.splashesfromtheriver.com/grammar_test.htm

WarChild · 01-10-2007, 09:30 AM

NO fucking doubt. Sig whores who can't even speak fucking English should just be killed.

I mean honestly, I don't mind reading the bullshit + postcount nonsense, but I shouldn't need a fucking Babble fish to dechiper it.

mikeyddddd · 01-10-2007, 09:37 AM

GFY would die without the illiterate.

alrem · 01-10-2007, 02:00 PM

that's rude,

not everybody were using english as a first language. Besides, nobody forces anybody to give attention on a specific post. If you can't understand it, ignore it

daisyswank · 01-10-2007, 02:12 PM

That can be really annoying

Vader · 01-10-2007, 02:27 PM

Go Jimmy Go ...

jayeff · 01-10-2007, 03:03 PM

How about a test to see who can complete a sentence without using at least one totally irrelevant and utterly unimaginative profanity?

OzMan · 01-10-2007, 03:12 PM

yes I really is hoping to going there one days.. looking a really good

itto · 01-10-2007, 03:48 PM

please not take test of english.

_Richard_ · 01-10-2007, 03:54 PM

language over money?

R

Theo · 01-10-2007, 04:05 PM

It appears that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits the strong generative capacity of the theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that a descriptively adequate grammar is rather different from a parasitic gap construction. Clearly, the systematic use of complex symbols raises serious doubts about the levels of acceptability from fairly high to virtual gibberish. On our assumptions, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not to be considered in determining a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.

01-10-2007, 09:26 AM	#1
jimthefiend So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: icq: 121189 Posts: 18,889	Can we get a basic fucking English test as part of the GFY sign up process? Thanks, appreciate it.

01-10-2007, 09:29 AM	#2
munki Do Fun Shit. Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OC Posts: 13,393	__________________ “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.” -Oscar Wilde

01-10-2007, 09:30 AM	#4
WarChild Let slip the dogs of war. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bermuda Posts: 17,263	NO fucking doubt. Sig whores who can't even speak fucking English should just be killed. I mean honestly, I don't mind reading the bullshit + postcount nonsense, but I shouldn't need a fucking Babble fish to dechiper it. __________________ .

01-10-2007, 09:37 AM	#5
mikeyddddd Viva la vulva! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself Posts: 16,557	GFY would die without the illiterate. __________________ AdultStarProfits AmbyaCash AnilosCash AzianiGold ColdHardCash FlashTheMoney IdolBucks MediumPimpin NSCash Nubiles PussyCash ScoreCash Sextronix SpunkyCash TubeTitans Twistys

01-10-2007, 02:12 PM	#7
daisyswank Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New York Posts: 102	That can be really annoying __________________ Daisy The Swank Girl ICQ: 320783023

01-10-2007, 02:00 PM	#6
alrem Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6	that's rude, not everybody were using english as a first language. Besides, nobody forces anybody to give attention on a specific post. If you can't understand it, ignore it

01-10-2007, 02:27 PM	#8
Vader Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 100	Go Jimmy Go ... __________________ MY #1 SPONSOR!!

01-10-2007, 03:03 PM	#9
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	How about a test to see who can complete a sentence without using at least one totally irrelevant and utterly unimaginative profanity?

01-10-2007, 03:12 PM	#10
OzMan Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Los Begas Posts: 9,162	yes I really is hoping to going there one days.. looking a really good

01-10-2007, 03:48 PM	#11
itto Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: world wide Posts: 1,363	please not take test of english. __________________

01-10-2007, 03:54 PM	#12
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	language over money? R

01-10-2007, 04:05 PM	#13
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	It appears that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits the strong generative capacity of the theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that a descriptively adequate grammar is rather different from a parasitic gap construction. Clearly, the systematic use of complex symbols raises serious doubts about the levels of acceptability from fairly high to virtual gibberish. On our assumptions, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not to be considered in determining a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.