according to some on here

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.

Maybe he's a visionary in dire need of contact lenses.

you mean like the word becouse

i supported that and still you called me an idiot or something



and as for me thinking people are loons.


i think everyone is a loon including myself.



i have never seen one link from gene for any of his claims. i may have missed them but i have never seen one.

Reply #16 is in response to:

"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!"

I called you an idiot because you used YOUTUBE for your "support". I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked google to define "becouse" and it did not define it. It seems rather odd that Google hasn't picked up on it!

There is no word 'becouse.' Of course, in these days, nobody can spell anymore. So of course you will get hits for it. But it's 'because!' Cause, as in, Col. Gene says Bush is the cause of all things bad in America. Couse? NO! NOT A WORD! GAH!!

Anyway, you're bigger message, as always, was lost completely before you even posted.

Acording to some on here, blah blah blah. Well, Danielost, are you some on here, or are you saying that we shouldn't surrender? And I don't know anyone on here who wants to surrender, but I do know some who want to bring the troops home. We can't surrender to the terrorists for the same reason we can't win the war - there's no telling who is on the other side to defeat or surrender to.

Well, the reason I gave him the benefit of the doubt is because spellcheck hates me, with my consistent use of British spellings (neighbour, behaviour, humour, grey) that were actually accepted in the US up until the turn of the 20th Century. I was willing to consider it may have been an anachronistic spelling.

as i said i have spilt it that way my whole life and never got it wrong on a spelling test in school.

i have gotten lots of words wrong but not that one so lets talk about something other than a word we won't agree on.


by the way gid you misspelled a word once too. and stated the samething.


oh and by the way it was my spellchecker that corrected it not me. so you must have spilt it wrong becouse my spellchecker spelled it the other way

OH, MY GAWD! I spelled a word wrong ONCE! I type upwards of 60 wpm, and a few minor misspellings stand out?

It's not about minor misspellings, danielost, it's about consistent and habitual misspellings, to which you are prone.

Yes, let's talk about something else (cough!secondamendmentcough!)

a spilling tist??



some on here don't feel any need to insult submoronic imbeciles.

no it is about you thinking you are better than me. you idiot. i do not go around thinking i am better than anyone. if i did i wouldn't waste my time on this site of losers. which i am one.


you have misspelled as much as i have. i just make the spell checker ignore them. i usually only correct my own misspells with it. besides i have said i can't spell.

but i guess you were to busy judging me to have read that.

i haven't been able to spell since i was in 2nd grade. but that and you will not shut me up.






i make mistakes gee i am sorry i am not as perfect as you trash are.