If you're going to repeat a word 10 times, you should look up the spelling. Because. As in, that be the cause. Please fix and resubmit for grading by the end of the class period.

actually i was taught both are correct

Then you were taught a pile of bullshit, danielost. According to Dictionary.com, based on the Random House Dictionary (2006 edition), "No results found for the word becouse". Nice pretend excuse for your horrible spelling, though. Get a spellcheck plugin already.

they are both correct the other spelling is preferred

dictionaries only use the preferred spelling

i never got it wrong on spelling tests

Becouse I Said So


WWW Link


~becouse-i-said-so


WWW Link

Which is your preferred movie?Becouse...?


WWW Link


ok there i am not the only one using this spelling and this is the last i will say about it

For such a popular alternate spelling, danielost, it seems odd Google hasn't picked up on it:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+becouse

Just because THOSE morons can't spell doesn't mean you should follow suit. Like the Second Amendment, you've gone up in flames on this one, you're just too stupid to admit it!

[quote]it is time to surrender

because we can't win this war of ideas.

because we are not any safer than if we weren't fighting

because bush is in charge.

because of this

because of that

because Clinton would surrender

because gore would surrender

because we back Israel

because i have run out of becauses


there you pieces of filth have it your way

instead of worrying about a word that can be spell more than one way why don't you take a look at the message.

and as far as the 2nd amendment i still stand by what i said.

because no lawyer has ever written anything in one sentence.

And you are WRONG!

You stand by what you said because you're too flipping STUPID to study it for yourself! You want to prove me wrong, DO IT! Show me up!

You can't and you know it! And you wonder why people consider you a submoronic imbecile!

no not stupid lazy

and i have a right to be lazy

there is a chance you may be right but i still stand by what i say

and since it was over 20 years ago i wouldn't know the book if it was in my desk.

No, you are WRONG! Provably and decidedly wrong!

You DO have the right to be lazy, but NOT to assert facts that you cannot support. Especially when those facts fly in the face of EVERYTHING that we have been taught.

You are alleging a grand conspiracy to hide the text of the Constitution. A conspiracy that does not allow it to be taught in law schools (I provided support from LAW SCHOOL WEB SITES), a conspiracy that FORGED the original copy of the Constitution so that the MILLIONS who have viewed it have been duped, and yet sloppily hides it in a public library in San Francisco!

THAT is the meat of my issue with you, THAT is why I conclude you are an idiot, and THAT is why you will never be taken seriously on this site! You demand that Col. Gene is a loon, you attack Sean Conners as a loon, and yet, despite the differences I have had with these two men, NEITHER has demanded that they have exclusive access to information that the rest of America has never seen!

no i am simple saying the only reason the police/government wants to get rid of weapons is so that they can come into YOUR HOUSE anytime they want to. without being worried about you shooting them.

you mean dictator gene who states that a massive amount of americans support everything he says.

and i don't think i have called sean a loon. i may have come close. but why would i call him a loon when sometimes i support what he says. not a lot but sometimes

No, you asserted that there was text in the second amendment that ISN'T THERE, danielost. Don't try to deny what you actually said!

I have printed the text and provided support ad nauseum. You are not wholly incorrect in your ANALYSIS and INTERPRETATION of the second amendment (although there are scholars who would debate that, it is just that, debatable), but you ARE incorrect in stating that there is more than the whole and complete text I have repeatedly provide it (an argument that is factually PROVABLE and NOT debatable!)

I supported my position, danielost, you did not support yours because it is not supportable! Plain and simple!

And Gene often points to polls to support his claims. Biased polls, yes, but polls nonetheless. While his arguments are often spurious, he does at least provide SOME support for them.