Wow. It says that Towd is from Texas so I assume he can speak the English language. I can barely make out what he is trying to say in his rambling, misspelled, illegible rant. I hate to be the English teacher here but let me break it down just so I know what's going on:
"i sincerly hope that you wives give you your balls back at some point."
-Ok, this is at least a complete thought. I assume he means "your wife". Or does he imply that cord is a polygamist, "you(r) wives". Or is he speaking to "us wives". I'm not sure. Let's just skip it.
“or maby we can have a no cussin war simulation yall are out to emaciate the whole world.”
-Mmmm. I think I see two sentences here, "Or maybe we can have a no cussing war simulation. Y'all are out to emaciate the whole world." If that is correct than the first sentence makes some sense. The second sentence makes no sense, unfortunately. "Emaciate" is to make feeble or to cause a loss of flesh. Is he accusing "Y'all" (I assume to mean those of us who agree with cord) of trying to enfeeble the world by removing cuss words? Will removing cuss words from various forums make the world thin and weak? That's a strange statement if that is, in fact, what he is saying here. I'm really just guessing, though.
" people have the right to say whatever they want, WHATEVER THEY WANT not till the make your delicate senseabilitys and implyin beccause a server is in usa all speach must be controlled to what you consider apropriate cause the moral majority or some equaly out of touch bunch of sanctimonious wife puppets."
-Ooh, this one's going to take a while. I totally understand "(P)eople have the right to say whatever they want." (It was even clear to me BEFORE the repetition in capital letters) Unfortunately, the rest of the paragraph seems more a random selection of English words than the expression of thought. I'm guessing here, but I think the bunch of words grouped around "delicate sensibilities" implys that people should not tailor their language to cater to those with delicate sensibilities. You could simplify the thought to, "People should not be courteous."
I'm not sure what the server being in the USA has to do with anything. It might have been a multi-word typo.
I think that the rest of the "paragraph" states that people who take offense to foul language are the moral majority and are in danger of robbing us of free speech. Apparently, being married augments this sensitivity to vulgarisms. Married females seem to be the ones that infect or control their husbands with such sensitivity. Ladies take offense to something and then control their husbands into posting protests on message boards. Although maybe this person refers to people who aren't actually married but pretend that they are and humanize their mania by playing with hand puppets. After many years of confusion they begin to think the puppet, in fact, controls them.
" dont want their 12 year old girl to know men cuss givit a break you cant take it go to hell."
-The first part of this grouping of words actually makes some sense. Although the sentence is missing a subject, I think Towd means, "(They) don't want their 12 year old girl to know men cuss(.)" I think Towd misunderstands that the offense was not at the fact that men cuss but that men were, in fact, cussing at that very moment. Although, I wish my son to be aware that there are immature jerks out in the world, I don't want him to think that that behavior is acceptable for him. Therefore, it might not be advisable for me to surround myself with immature jerks when I'm around my son. I think that's why cord is quitting. But, again, I'm merely guessing at Towd's meaning here.
The next thought is, I think, "(Give it) a break(.)" as in, "Stop prattling on." which really doesn't relate to cord's original post so, again, probably a multi-word typo.
The next expression is, I think, "(If) you can(')t take it go to hell." Now this is almost correctly spelled if not punctuated which implies that Towd is more comfortable with these types of sentences. It's fairly self explanatory. It doesn't aid in the meaning of his post although it may shed a little light on the quality of Towd's character.
"a personal opinion supported by the constitution of the united states at least till yall get a hold of it."
-The final word group in this bizarre post suggests that Towd's opinion is supported by the Constitution of the United States. I suppose in as much as you are allowed to pretty much say anything that doesn't physically endanger people it is supported. The Constitution doesn't specifically say you can't be an idiot.
