lagrimas85
AKA Carnac
Eduardo, your bite is like a wild cobaya. Speaking of cobaya lets fry one up and eat him together. In Mexico we call it Cuy Frito, ricismo con tortilla de maiz y una salsita.
Last edited:
I love those little peasky bites at the ankles, "cuys" do taste good and I have the original INKA recipe of "Cuy Chactado" we will be missing the "chicha de Jora" (fermented corn beer) but easily replaceble by any good Mexican beer!!!!Eduardo, your bite is like a wild cobaya. Speaking of cobaya lets fry one up and eat him together.
Rocky Point Rides, you're an uneducated donkey. Please proof your work before you submit so you dont look like an idiot, it's better for your image so people dont auto disregard everything you say. "Mexjoe, ...if you WHERE around..." , I believe you meant WERE. Furthermore, yes I was here when that post was posted. In addition, you cite a past post as the factual information that backs up your point of view. Except the fact that a post starting with your DONKEY BROTHER CABO isn't factual information. YOUR BRO CABO takes a line out of context and puts it in all caps at the bottom of his post. That is hardly credible factual information DONKEY, you're repeating someones bullshit solomente. I read the original article or warning or whatever you want to call it. Those steps listed were for US citizens traveling abroad in Mexico, as to what they should do if they encounter an unofficial checkpoint in Mexico. The first part of the warning was directly related to people traveling on Highway 8 in Mexico. If you want to provide the EXACT piece of literature that says someone got killed on highway 8 in Mexico at an unofficial checkpoint then I will say Im wrong. You cant provide that information because you're a DONKEY and you missed the class WHERE you learned to back up argument with cited information from credible sources, not a forum member. I cant ASSUME that you have solid stool because I dont know you and I dont know what you eat. I can ASSUME and I can make OPINION on Spring Break numbers because I have secondary information and past knowledge of previous years to make an educated guess or HYPOTHESIS as to why there isn't more people, rather more VAN RIDES BUSINESS. Thats it BRUH, a hypothesis, an educated guess, an educated opinion based on knowledge Ive retained or gathered about the subject. I dont ASSUME a person like you knows about the Scientific Method because I ASSUME you missed that class as well. " Again, here go, you need to understand your own thought and set them straight, me saying that I have triple the business that I had last year's Spring Break does not mean there are more people in Rocky Point, you are "a$$ U ming" I am saying what you are thinking, as you said before I think is time for you to go to bed and yank yourself ", Im not sure Im exactly following you here. Pry because I cant understand your DONKEY grammar but are you agreeing with me? I wasnt saying thats what you were thinking when you said that you had more business this year. I was saying thats what I think is the reason why you have more business this year. My memory isn't as good as it used to be because Im getting older now but I dont recall telling anyone to go to bed and masterbate, "...as you said before I think is time for you to go to bed and yank yourself ". When you respond please proof your work because your grammar and spelling are truely DIARRHEAmexjoe, I don't know if you where around here when this thread came up but here is a link, you can read it and find the specific place where it is mention:
http://www.rockypointtalk.net/showthread.php?2011-Unauthorized-Checkpoints-on-8-to-Rocky-Point/page2
Now, as you can "ASSUME" I have my feces straight and pretty much firm unlike the diarrhea that is spilling out of your pie whole!!
Again, here go, you need to understand your own thought and set them straight, me saying that I have triple the business that I had last year's Spring Break does not mean there are more people in Rocky Point, you are "a$$ U ming" I am saying what you are thinking, as you said before I think is time for you to go to bed and yank yourself
If you want to provide the EXACT piece of literature that says someone got killed on highway 8 in Mexico at an unofficial checkpoint then I will say Im wrong. You cant provide that information because you're a DONKEY and you missed the class WHERE you learned to back up argument with cited information from credible sources
I never said spell check, and no this doesnt discourage my current bitch fight because once again this says nothing SPECIFICALLY about shootings on highway 8. "U.S. citizens traveling through NORTHERN MEXICO should exercise...". It obviously warns us of the unofficial checkpoints, then gives us three things we can do in the event of an unofficial stop, followed by what has happened to people that didnt stop at unofficial checkpoints, ELSEWHERE not on Highway 8 specifically. That sentence is followed by, " U.S. citizens traveling through northern Mexico...". NORTHERN MEXICO IN GENERAL HAS SEEN PEOPLE SHOT AT OR KILLED FOR NOT STOPPING AT CHECKPOINTS, not specifically highway 8. The US consulate is reiterating what could or has happened elsewhere at unofficial checkpoints. Once again, please produce a statement that IN ONE SENTENCE SAYS, bla bla bla someone was shot and killed on highway 8 at an unofficial checkpoint. I was already referred to this and I dont believe anywhere it says ON HIGHWAY 8 people that havent stopped at unofficial checkpoints have been shot at and killed. Using your brain doesnt mean it's supreme.mexjoe, first of all I have to apologize to the members of this forum for going off after your stupid comments under my business name and actually I risked my customer service reputation fighting with a boy (28? yrs old) that actually thinks that "more busy" is CORRECTER than a simple mistake of adding a "H" in "were", a mistake often made by natiuralized citizens of the USA that had to learn english to be able to adapt and forge a live in a completely different environment, that is something that a little silver spoon diarrhea filled brain boy that have to have daddio pay for the cell phone he uses and worries more about appearances than what really matters in life as in getting a life in your own rights.
This was actually meant for dry heat but I think it applies to you as well. I will respond later in full because I have things to do. Thank you.
Look Joe, this is the second time you do not know or are 100% sure of what you are talking about and again seems like you would like to put words in my mouth and still think you are right, when I posted the link of the thread and specify for you to look for the particular place where it is mention, I was not telling you to look at the first page of eleven on that thread and jump into conclussions, my mistake I was "ASS U MING" that you would do the correct thing and also read the links in that thread, OBVIUOSLY you did not, so let me see not only are you a little mommys boy that daddy pays the bills for but you are a LAZY IDIOT that rather sound and look like an imbecil in front of many than spent a few minutes and do some searching, I think some soul searching will be better, in your case, because all of us in this world are "BEAUTIFULL PEOPLE" not only the well dress or well manner, education as in school is just knowledge crumpped in your brain in a 4 year college, if you think that makes you a more beatiful person, notice the correct use of the word "more", then all of those with a college degree are beautiful no matter what, I am "ASS U MING" here that is what you ment.
Now, it seems that you are making a reference of your lack of memory due to your getting older, but you say you are about 28 yrs old, if that is the case then you better stay home with mommy and daddio, you do not even remember your own words:
"HEY INK, I hope you are talking about me because Im ready to do this like the shootout at the OK Corral. Here we go, lets review the quote.............. I suddenly had this new found energy to put my hand on my D#$% and grab it hard..........
Sorry, my bad, I "assumed" you said YANK HARD, then again I am loosing my memory since I am getting old!!
OK!! I am done with your stupid stance on life and you in general and by the way I did not used the spell check I did it all in my own!! :-o
.
TA-TA (shoot!! let me educate you joe TA-TA is a british expression that means the same as bye-bye)
Thats for Dry Heat, Ink Ill get to you later.I never said spell check, and no this doesnt discourage my current bitch fight because once again this says nothing SPECIFICALLY about shootings on highway 8. "U.S. citizens traveling through NORTHERN MEXICO should exercise...". It obviously warns us of the unofficial checkpoints, then gives us three things we can do in the event of an unofficial stop, followed by what has happened to people that didnt stop at unofficial checkpoints, ELSEWHERE not on Highway 8 specifically. That sentence is followed by, " U.S. citizens traveling through northern Mexico...". NORTHERN MEXICO IN GENERAL HAS SEEN PEOPLE SHOT AT OR KILLED FOR NOT STOPPING AT CHECKPOINTS, not specifically highway 8. The US consulate is reiterating what could or has happened elsewhere at unofficial checkpoints. Once again, please produce a statement that IN ONE SENTENCE SAYS, bla bla bla someone was shot and killed on highway 8 at an unofficial checkpoint. I was already referred to this and I dont believe anywhere it says ON HIGHWAY 8 people that havent stopped at unofficial checkpoints have been shot at and killed. Using your brain doesnt mean it's supreme.
It seems you are having a hard time understanding the intent of the warden's message (that was eventually retracted), so I removed most of the message so that you could focus on two key sentences. When people read the warden's message, most (I would say say 99% - other than you of course) would assume the warning involves travel on highway 8 and what has been reported if someone does not stop at a checkpoint. The message starts off by saying where the warning is (highway 8), followed by reports of checkpoints on the highway, followed by 3 things one can do if they encounter a checkpoint, followed by what has been reported if you don't stop (shot and killed). Then (yes after all that) the message continues about using caution if you are traveling in northern mexico. I suggest you read the message over and over again and you will notice that the intent of the warning was to inform the reader that some have been shot and killed on that highway if you did not stop. Pay more attention to the sentence structure in the paragraph and how it flows. I am truly trying to help you so that you stop embarrasing yourself when it comes to understand the intention of the state department at the time when it came to travel on highway 8 and how the warning was written to direct the reader's reasoning ability that people had been shot and killed on this highway (I am sorry other than children's books, you don't need to specifically state who, what, where, why and how something happens in one sentence). As you progress in your reading, you will notice that a message is often shared to allow the reader to fill in the gaps just by the way it is written and how it flows without outlining all the details in a single sentence.I never said spell check, and no this doesnt discourage my current bitch fight because once again this says nothing SPECIFICALLY about shootings on highway 8. "U.S. citizens traveling through NORTHERN MEXICO should exercise...". It obviously warns us of the unofficial checkpoints, then gives us three things we can do in the event of an unofficial stop, followed by what has happened to people that didnt stop at unofficial checkpoints, ELSEWHERE not on Highway 8 specifically. That sentence is followed by, " U.S. citizens traveling through northern Mexico...". NORTHERN MEXICO IN GENERAL HAS SEEN PEOPLE SHOT AT OR KILLED FOR NOT STOPPING AT CHECKPOINTS, not specifically highway 8. The US consulate is reiterating what could or has happened elsewhere at unofficial checkpoints. Once again, please produce a statement that IN ONE SENTENCE SAYS, bla bla bla someone was shot and killed on highway 8 at an unofficial checkpoint. I was already referred to this and I dont believe anywhere it says ON HIGHWAY 8 people that havent stopped at unofficial checkpoints have been shot at and killed. Using your brain doesnt mean it's supreme.
"It seems you are having a hard time understanding the intent of the warden's message", how do you establish what someone else's intent is? THE ANSWER IS, YOU CANT!!!!!!! You cant tell me what I intend to say right now, you cant tell me what someone intends to do when they buy a gun or toilet paper or ANYTHING!!! Only the person acting can tell you their intention. You made me dumber by telling me that you removed MOST of the message so that I could focus on two key sentences, OBVIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol, thats called taking something out of context, people do it all the time, politicians do it, your mom does it, I do it. Thats why when I quote something, and this is MLA, you are allowed to leave out key information to make a quote sound better, or fit your argument better. " If I were to read your chopped up, out of context quote ABOVE then yes I would say GOD DAMN, they are shooting people at unofficial checkpoints on highway 8, that sucks! Fortunately thats not how the Warden's message came out. The problem I have with you is that you use general terms like MOST. MOST, I WOULD SAY 99%! Who's MOST? How many people is 99% MOST PEOPLE THAT BUY GUNS COMMIT MURDER because I KNOW THATS WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO! Please, when you want to debate with me, please please please dont use MOST or MAJORITY or A LOT or 99% of AN UNKNOWN #, it doesnt make you sound any better to throw out meaningless generalizations. I do a lot of assuming so I guess when 99% of the people agree, does that mean that 99 people agree and 1 doesnt? Does that mean that 1000 people agree and 10 dont? How many people are we talking here? A million? Not quite sure cause I dont make irrational claims like that. Furthermore, after you tell me that 99% of people agree you go on to tell me that they agree based off an assumption. So let me understand you, 99% of the people that read the wardens message assume, not know they are correct? Would you agree that assuming and knowing are different? How is me assuming something different than others basing their opinion off assumption and not fact? Once again, I dont know because I CANT DETERMINE INTENT of SOMEONE ELSE, but I can DEVELOP OPINION OF SOMEONE'S INTENT and IN MY OPINION based on SENTENCE STRUCTURE and CHILDREN'S BOOKS that I READ day to day would allow me to believe that the warden INCLUDED THE LINE about unofficial checkpoints to show the seriousness of the claims. THE INTENT IMO was to show the seriousness of the claim. Why would they reiterate NORTHERN MEXICO TWO SENTENCES AFTER? Honestly, Ive read to many children's books tonight and Im extremely tired and I have to go masterbate. "...the warning was written to direct the reader's reasoning ability...", OBVIOUSLY!!!!!! You can structure writing like that to say something without actually saying it. They never said people that didnt come to a stop at unofficial checkpoints on highway 8 in Mexico have been shot at and killed. Honestly at this point, isn't this SEMANTICS? I just dont understand how you can tell me that you are right based off an assumption, and I quote, "(I would say say 99% - other than you of course) would assume....", so 99% of an UNKNOWN # are right based off of their assumption and Im (1%) wrong because I made an opposite assumption? SOUNDS LIKE SEMANTICS, also, " stop embarrasing yourself when it comes to understand the intention of the state department", CAN I ASSUME ENGLISH IS YOUR SECOND LANGUAGE TAMBIEN?! It's only embarrassing if the subject is embarrassed. #WINNING #PROOFYOWORK #IMOUTIt seems you are having a hard time understanding the intent of the warden's message (that was eventually retracted), so I removed most of the message so that you could focus on two key sentences. When people read the warden's message, most (I would say say 99% - other than you of course) would assume the warning involves travel on highway 8 and what has been reported if someone does not stop at a checkpoint. The message starts off by saying where the warning is (highway 8), followed by reports of checkpoints on the highway, followed by 3 things one can do if they encounter a checkpoint, followed by what has been reported if you don't stop (shot and killed). Then (yes after all that) the message continues about using caution if you are traveling in northern mexico. I suggest you read the message over and over again and you will notice that the intent of the warning was to inform the reader that some have been shot and killed on that highway if you did not stop. Pay more attention to the sentence structure in the paragraph and how it flows. I am truly trying to help you so that you stop embarrasing yourself when it comes to understand the intention of the state department at the time when it came to travel on highway 8 and how the warning was written to direct the reader's reasoning ability that people had been shot and killed on this highway (I am sorry other than children's books, you don't need to specifically state who, what, where, why and how something happens in one sentence). As you progress in your reading, you will notice that a message is often shared to allow the reader to fill in the gaps just by the way it is written and how it flows without outlining all the details in a single sentence.
Warden Message – Security Issues
May 19, 2010
This Warden Message is to inform U.S. citizens traveling to and residing in Mexico of security concerns for travelers driving on Highway 8 between the U.S./Mexico border and Puerto Peñasco (Rocky Point). At some checkpoints, motorists who have not stopped at unofficial checkpoints have been shot at and killed.
furthermore, is it possible that you are so focused on those two sentences that it is affecting your judgement of the paragraph as a whole??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would say yes, its possible"it seems you are having a hard time understanding the intent of the warden's message", how do you establish what someone else's intent is? The answer is, you cant!!!!!!! You cant tell me what i intend to say right now, you cant tell me what someone intends to do when they buy a gun or toilet paper or anything!!! Only the person acting can tell you their intention. You made me dumber by telling me that you removed most of the message so that i could focus on two key sentences, obviously!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol, thats called taking something out of context, people do it all the time, politicians do it, your mom does it, i do it. Thats why when i quote something, and this is mla, you are allowed to leave out key information to make a quote sound better, or fit your argument better. " if i were to read your chopped up, out of context quote above then yes i would say god damn, they are shooting people at unofficial checkpoints on highway 8, that sucks! Fortunately thats not how the warden's message came out. The problem i have with you is that you use general terms like most. Most, i would say 99%! Who's most? How many people is 99% most people that buy guns commit murder because i know thats what they intend to do! Please, when you want to debate with me, please please please dont use most or majority or a lot or 99% of an unknown #, it doesnt make you sound any better to throw out meaningless generalizations. I do a lot of assuming so i guess when 99% of the people agree, does that mean that 99 people agree and 1 doesnt? Does that mean that 1000 people agree and 10 dont? How many people are we talking here? A million? Not quite sure cause i dont make irrational claims like that. Furthermore, after you tell me that 99% of people agree you go on to tell me that they agree based off an assumption. So let me understand you, 99% of the people that read the wardens message assume, not know they are correct? Would you agree that assuming and knowing are different? How is me assuming something different than others basing their opinion off assumption and not fact? Once again, i dont know because i cant determine intent of someone else, but i can develop opinion of someone's intent and in my opinion based on sentence structure and children's books that i read day to day would allow me to believe that the warden included the line about unofficial checkpoints to show the seriousness of the claims. The intent imo was to show the seriousness of the claim. Why would they reiterate northern mexico two sentences after? Honestly, ive read to many children's books tonight and im extremely tired and i have to go masterbate. "...the warning was written to direct the reader's reasoning ability...", obviously!!!!!! You can structure writing like that to say something without actually saying it. They never said people that didnt come to a stop at unofficial checkpoints on highway 8 in mexico have been shot at and killed. Honestly at this point, isn't this semantics? I just dont understand how you can tell me that you are right based off an assumption, and i quote, "(i would say say 99% - other than you of course) would assume....", so 99% of an unknown # are right based off of their assumption and im (1%) wrong because i made an opposite assumption? Sounds like semantics, also, " stop embarrasing yourself when it comes to understand the intention of the state department", can i assume english is your second language tambien?! It's only embarrassing if the subject is embarrassed. #winning #proofyowork #imout
Ive read to many children's books tonight and Im extremely tired and I have to go masterbate. "
It's an online forum, not a thing should be taken seriously (I thought I had included some imagination and humor, oh well something to work on). Oh, if being a right wing conservative includes religion and fairy tales, the answer is no.What impresses me about you two is the total lack of of imagination and humor in your arguments. Hell, you'd think you were both right wing conservatives.:mrgreen:
Kenny....Sounds more like left-wing. rat-fink, commie liberals!!!!:jerry::aagh::deadhorse::rofl::rofl:What impresses me about you two is the total lack of of imagination and humor in your arguments. Hell, you'd think you were both right wing conservatives.:mrgreen:
Not a problem as long as their replaced with greed and intolerance.Oh, if being a right wing conservative includes religion and fairy tales, the answer is no.