Page 111 of 134 FirstFirst ... 1161101107108109110111112113114115121 ... LastLast
Results 3,301 to 3,330 of 4001
  1. #3301
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,387
    I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern ice follows that increase pretty good.
    I'll bet if WC takes a Stanford Intelligence Test that he would score very low. Supposition inserted for fact an argument doesn't make.

    Really all we need now is for him to post some more brochures for natural gas boiler generators and the cycle will be complete.
    _____________________________
    "The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men." -George Ingersoll

    "Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken

    Officially Noted By Agloco

    Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas, vy65, DarrinS, Skull-1
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  2. #3302
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,748
    Holy shit! Northern ice is decreasing and southern ice is gaining since you posted the images?!?!?!?!??!!

    Its like the Southern Hemisphere is headed to Winter and we're headed to Summer or something. Fucking crazy.

    Really do need that facepalm icon. Badly.
    _____________________________

    MannyIsGod is offline

  3. #3303
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    39,422
    Holy shit! Northern ice is decreasing and southern ice is gaining since you posted the images?!?!?!?!??!!

    Its like the Southern Hemisphere is headed to Winter and we're headed to Summer or something. Fucking crazy.

    Really do need that facepalm icon. Badly.
    I see you are jumping to conclusions again.

    Do you want to examine my last post to you and two attached links again so you can correct your mistake, or do I need to tell you what you're wrong about?
    _____________________________
    I carry a gun, because a police officer is too heavy.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  4. #3304
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    39,422
    well, more than enough time that you were logged on. I see you decided to disappear before answering.

    Though yes, the north is retreating and south increasing because of seasonal variations...

    The graphs are in relative to daily average. Not absolute. You provided a response that would be proper for a chart in absolute values.

    What I was pointing out is that the North sea ice went from a minis 380 thousand square kilometer from average to a minus 173 thousand square kilometer for their days average. In relative terms, it gained 207 thousand square kilometer. The southern sea ice went from 379 thousand square kilometer more than the days average, to 774 thousand square kilometer. In relative terms, it gained 395 thousand square kilometer.

    The chart titled clearly included the word "anomaly." One has to wonder by your response if you are ignorant, or being a smart ass. Neither bodes well for a civil debate.

    Maybe this will help:

    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-01-2012 at 03:30 AM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  5. #3305
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,748
    MannyIsGod is offline

  6. #3306
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,748
    One has to wonder by your response if you are ignorant, or being a smart ass. Neither bodes well for a civil debate.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  7. #3307
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    Quit using strawmen arguments to misrepresent my opinions.

    Is the truth relevant? Yes or No?

    Can only I know the true intent of why I created the list? Yes or No?
    Testy testy. Bold type and everything.

    Remember, it is my contention that people who are skeptical of AGW are, generally speaking, little better intellectually than 9-11 truthers.

    When you accuse me of logical fallacies, but can't allow me the chance to show why they are not logical fallacies by answering fair questions directly, that simply supplies me with more evidence. When you yourself commit strawman logical fallacies, you supply me with more evidence.

    For referenence: intellectual honesty:
    http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/20...ual-honesty-2/

    You have accused me of a specific logical fallacy, without being able to prove such, that I have seen so far. I will, eventually, get to why I have not committed an appeal to popularity. I will show, that your charactorization of what I think is a strawman logical fallacy.

    To reduce your cognitive dissonance, you will convince yourself that I am dishonest, as you seem to have already done. I will withdraw any statement that I feel is not factually supported.

    To answer your questions:
    Yes, truth is relevant.

    Yes, you are the only person who can know for certain what the intent of your list is/was.

    Now answer this question:

    Did the statement:


    No. It makes it my opinion.

    You might think my opinion is incorrect.

    I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
    ..imply that the truth is irrelevant? Yes or no.

    If so, please demonstrate how it implies truth is irrelevant.

    If that is not something I believe, or have directly contradicted, you have committed a strawman logical fallacy.
    _____________________________
    Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
    "it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."

    post6568713

    q: So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and someone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?
    vy65: "no, we cannot"

    QUOTE=vy65;6952966] I don't think harming other people is immoral. [/QUOTE

    QUOTE=robdiaz2191;7536012]I think hacking babies to death is ok sometimes.[/QUOTE
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #3308
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    Anything is possible.

    [1]Is it possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that does not harm any of the species within that ecosystem, while having some or all of the species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage? Yes or No?

    [2]Is it possible to believe an impact will be catastrophic on any given ecosystem and also believe it will harm or kill some of the species within that ecosystem and later learn this belief to be wrong? Yes or No?


    This is unknown as no such information is available for all species.

    [3] Is it possible that a species can adapt regardless of the rate of change to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out? Yes or No?

    [4]Is it possible that all species can adapt to the current rate of change? Yes or No?

    [5]Is it possible that the current rate of change is not unusual in the historic record? Yes or No?
    Weee. I like this game.

    "Anything is possible". The barest of admissions, but it is a pretty clear "yes" answer that can be built on.

    It could also supply me, were the truth of reasonable probabilities not relevant, with yes answers to all of your questions on a similar basis.

    I could be equally weasely and use that same blanket statement.

    But that would be intelletually dishonest.

    So without further ado:

    [1]No.
    My understanding of evolution and ecology is that species are generally best adapted for the conditions they exist in for any length of time. Based on this, "catastrophically impacting" that ecosystem would change the conditions of that ecosystem drastically enough that it is beyond a reasonable expectation that no species in any given ecosystem would be deliterously affected. As you yourself state, there is "no such information is available for all species".

    [2]Yes.
    It is possible to believe anything, no matter how foolish and silly. There are people who believe that there exists, essentially, magic men in the sky who watch them masturbate and care about that, and that libertarian ideals would make for good government. It is always possible to believe things and later to be proven wrong.

    [3]Yes, it is quite possible that species can adapt to rapid changes. This is especially true of fast living organisms, and the odds go down with longer lifespans and reproductive cycles, to my understanding, as well as for immobile things like trees.

    [4]No.
    Given the large number of species globally, the chances of "all species" adapting to fast changes in environment is not possible, in any reasonable scenario. As you yourself point out, some will die. That is evolution.

    [5]Yes,
    Given the difficulties involved in measuring past rates of change, it is possible that it is entirely usual.
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #3309
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    Does the rate of change matter to whether or not a species can adapt to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out?
    This is unknown as no such information is available for all species.
    My question was not:
    It is known for all species...?

    I consider that evasive, so I will simply rephrase that to narrow the focus to one that you can't prevaricate about.

    pre·var·i·cate/priˈvariˌkāt/Verb: Speak or act in an evasive way

    In general, is it more or less likely that rapid rates of change that produce deleterious effects on an organism, for any given species, will cause extinction rather than adaptation when compared to slower rates of change?
    RandomGuy is offline

  10. #3310
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    17,968
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0PPPxmQF3

    Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters


    The computer uses 1.2 megawatts to run - enough to power 1,000 homes

    The machine was hailed as the 'future of weather prediction' with the ability to produce more accurate forecasts and produce climate change modelling.

    However the Met Office's HQ has now been named as one of the worst buildings in Britain for pollution - responsible for more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.




    Maybe they need to beef up this computer a little more.


    Prediction:
    Drought impacts in the coming months are virtually inevitable

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pd...precip-AMJ.pdf


    Met Office 3-month Outlook
    Period: April – June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12

    SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:
    The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months. With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period. The probability that UK precipitation for April-May-June will fall into the driest of our five categories is 20-25% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is 10-15% (the 197-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).

    CONTEXT:
    As a legacy of dry weather over many months water resources in much
    of southern, eastern and central England remain at very low levels.
    Winter rainfall in these areas has typically been about 70% of average,
    whilst observations and current forecasts suggest that the final totals for
    March will be below average here too. The Environment Agency advises
    that, given the current state of soils and groundwater levels in these
    areas, drought impacts in the coming months are virtually inevitable
    .



    Reality:
    April is the wettest month for 100 years

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17897982


    April is the wettest month for 100 years

    It has been the wettest April in the UK for over 100 years, with some areas seeing three times their usual average, figures from the Met Office show.



    DarrinS is online now

  11. #3311
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    17,968
    In general, is it more or less likely that rapid rates of change that produce deleterious effects on an organism, for any given species, will cause extinction rather than adaptation when compared to slower rates of change?


    What do you consider a rapid rate of change? 1 deg. F/century?
    DarrinS is online now

  12. #3312
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    31,968
    Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters

    For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.

    Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.

    Yet in recent years, the climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.

    They acknowledge that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm. But they assert that clouds — which can either warm or cool the earth, depending on the type and location — will shift in such a way as to counter much of the expected temperature rise and preserve the equable climate on which civilization depends.

    Their theory exploits the greatest remaining mystery in climate science, the difficulty that researchers have had in predicting how clouds will change. The scientific majority believes that clouds will most likely have a neutral effect or will even amplify the warming, perhaps strongly, but the lack of unambiguous proof has left room for dissent.

    “Clouds really are the biggest uncertainty,” said Andrew E. Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M. “If you listen to the credible climate skeptics, they’ve really pushed all their chips onto clouds.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/sc...er=rss&emc=rss

    Sounds like the Kock Bros, API, UCA, et al need to pay these and other "science whore" deniers more $Ms for "need more research".
    boutons_deux is offline

  13. #3313
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    What do you consider a rapid rate of change? 1 deg. F/century?
    I don't think I know enough to really answer that question effectively. The answer is "I don't know." It seems that any such overall global rate of change would have a lot of local effects that cannot be encapsulated in such a broad question. I therefore think that the question itself is not very well put together.

    If you are talking about local changes, then no, that does not seem drastic. But again, it depends on the local conditions, and I do not feel I know enough about every place to give a general comment.

    Darrin, I am sorry but my time is limited. I will priortize my available time to PT, and may not be able to address everything you put forth. I will try to get to your stuff in time, so you will have to be patient.
    RandomGuy is offline

  14. #3314
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Sure it was RG. Now address the hypocrisy in doing so. Is it okay for him to look at random samples of your list or is it not okay for you to pull things out of context from papers and articles?

    Of course you do not address the discussion of the Village Voice quote context. I mean they only said that they were not radicals, did not resort to rhetoric and were reasonable in their approach. That is another of a foundation of calling you a sophist. You ignore good points and instead dissemble. It is not ad hominem either because it speaks to any judge of a debate as to how you debate ie you will argue a point at all cost ie your credibility.
    Nothing was pulled out of context as they are simply arguing that while these guys are extreme-left wing it does not take away from the message in their book. The Village Voice is not arguing that they are not extreme-left wing. What you quoted in addition to my sentence is discussing the context of their book.

    I will address your question directly and ask for you to qualify the truth of the premise.

    First where is the verifiable source that says they are anti-capitalist? Specifically no you cannot
    Rampton explicity supports Socialized Medicine and has a category at his PRWatch website for "Social Justice".

    Very left is not by definition anti-capitalist. Very left wing can mean progressives, civil libertarians, feminists, pacifists, civil rights leaders or any other of a myriad of possibility. Even those that are against laissez faire capitalism such as those that believe in anti-trust laws and specific market regulations are not 'socialists' or 'communists.'
    This is a strawman argument as I made no such claim. My usage of the Village Voice quote was in support of accurately calling them "extreme-left wing". Civil libertarians are politically neither left nor right so they cannot be very left wing. The author was not refering to Rampton as a feminist, pacifist or civil rights leader. That leaves progressives who are socialists. Anti-trust laws and market regulations are socialist ideals.

    All of that has nothing to do with their credibility anyway. That Village Voice article spoke to their credibility but you ignore that, claim that they called them anti-capitalist --which they didn't,-- and call it a day.
    This is a lie as I made no such claim.

    Your article is unfounded shit.
    My article is accurate, fully cited and sourced.

    Prevaricate is the term RG used. It makes sense that he would do that with you.
    He did use this term but it was incorrect.

    And I don't have to try very hard. As i said you are very transparent. When I state that you are a sophist we point to your dissembling and prevaricating nature with specific examples. If you want to claim that I am dumb on the basis of a mixup of names or recollection of numbers then feel free. It bothers me not at all.
    I am very transparent in that I only mean what I say, not what you imagine. Your continued lies about calling me a sophist demonstrates you are desperate and must resort to ad hominem. As I have repeatedly detailed here, you are careless with your statements and it undersmines the credibility in your arguments.
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-01-2012 at 12:13 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  15. #3315
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Cherry picking data from papers that concluded that warming was a reality. You know that, either that or youre stupid. i am going to go along with the rest of your behavior of dissembling.
    This is a lie. No paper on the list through it's research concluded that AGW was a reality and alarming. Many skeptics believe global warming is a reality as they support the existence of a mild warming of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. What I do know is you are incredibly dishonest.

    Its obvious at this point you know you are not winning the argument. Your takes are becoming weaker and weaker.
    Really? You have a fantastic imagination.

    I don't care about your assertions as to why you were deleted. It should be noted that this position is in direct contradiction of your assertion about your 'intentions.' Nevertheless, if this debate is any indication, they deleted it because you start ignoring points, resorting to hypocrisy and all other behavior of a sophist.
    Obviously you do not care why I was censored because you support such behavior. Explain how having a problem with being censored changes my intentions? Why do you keep lying about me ignoring points and resorting to hypocrisy. I have addressed every point here. I have just not always participated in the demand you answer any irrelevant question game. If you like I can play this game too, I just do not think you will like the outcome. Again you continue to lie about me being a sophist.

    You can laugh all you want. At the end of the day, their list does include papers from skeptics as well as proponents;
    Does their list include all the papers on my list? Yes or No?

    whereas, your list only includes skeptics. You at no point address this. You posting other portions of their site are irrelevant to that truth. Nice attempt at a red herring though.
    It is a strawman argument that my list only includes "skeptics" as the list is not a list of skeptical scientists but peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm. It is also a strawman argument that my claims to include anything but these papers. Why do you keep repeating strawman arguments?
    Poptech is offline

  16. #3316
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Give me some logic as to why their list needs to include the totality of your list. Now you are being an egomaniac. The point is that their list includes arguments from both sides where yours only shows one.
    Now you support cherry picked lists? A handful of token papers is not including both sides. Why do you keep repeating the same strawman argument about my list only including one side of the argument?

    I imagine if you were to talk to MiG he would say how there proponent list is missing some compelling work as well. That they are not exhaustive is besides the point.
    Is this some sort of joke? Are you a comedian?
    Poptech is offline

  17. #3317
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0PPPxmQF3

    Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters

    [pictures omitted for brevity]

    It would seem that you are implying there is no AGW, because the people studying it, and believe it to be the case, use a computer that is powered by electricity that ultimately emits greenhouse gases in its generation.

    Is this what you are trying to say?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-01-2012 at 11:58 AM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  18. #3318
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Remember, it is my contention that people who are skeptical of AGW are, generally speaking, little better intellectually than 9-11 truthers.
    I am well aware you use ad hominem instead of logical arguments. You are also predictable with your smears.

    When you accuse me of logical fallacies, but can't allow me the chance to show why they are not logical fallacies by answering fair questions directly, that simply supplies me with more evidence. When you yourself commit strawman logical fallacies, you supply me with more evidence.
    You have committed multiple logical fallacies in this discussion thus you have forfeited any imagined qualifications you thought you had to make these decisions.

    I do not reference blogs for definitions of phrases.

    You have accused me of a specific logical fallacy, without being able to prove such, that I have seen so far. I will, eventually, get to why I have not committed an appeal to popularity. I will show, that your charactorization of what I think is a strawman logical fallacy.
    You will eventually get to nothing but a self declaration of these things. Your denial of using an argumentum ad populum and strawman arguments continues to be entertaining.

    To reduce your cognitive dissonance, you will convince yourself that I am dishonest, as you seem to have already done. I will withdraw any statement that I feel is not factually supported.
    You have already demonstrated that you are dishonest by lying about my intentions. Now you are lying again by falsely claiming I have cognitive dissonance.

    To answer your questions:
    Yes, truth is relevant.

    Yes, you are the only person who can know for certain what the intent of your list is/was.
    Is the only intent of my list to provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs? Yes or No?

    Am I lying about this intent? Yes or No?

    Lets see if you can answer without making excuses.

    Now answer this question:

    Did the statement:

    No. It makes it my opinion.

    You might think my opinion is incorrect.

    I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
    ..imply that the truth is irrelevant? Yes or no.

    If so, please demonstrate how it implies truth is irrelevant.

    If that is not something I believe, or have directly contradicted, you have committed a strawman logical fallacy.
    Quote where I stated it was implied.
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-01-2012 at 12:09 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  19. #3319
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    [fuzzy lumpkins, are] you a comedian?
    This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that no comedy was implied with his post.





    RandomGuy is offline

  20. #3320
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    Not going to go back and find any. I will remind you however, you are now on record of saying you don't. Please remember that the next time I call you on something on it.
    So basically you are accusing me of something, then being a punk ass bitch and not backing it up.

    I will say again:

    Fuck you.

    I try very hard to be civil, and although I am not always successful, in this case, don't think your comment merits such.
    RandomGuy is offline

  21. #3321
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    So, with 900 papers all supporting the skepticism of a catastrophic outcome from AGW, it is still possible that we could see catastrophic outcomes from AGW?
    Just like it is possible we will not. The list is simply a resource that skeptics can use to support the argument that it will not be catastrophic but the list is not making this determination as that is not it's purpose.
    "just like it is possible"

    Are all theories equally valid?

    Your statement seems to imply this.

    For example:

    It is possible that pink unicorns use their magic to make my socks.
    It is possible that humans, made, or caused my socks to be made.

    Can it be said that the second is possible, "just like it is possible" that the first is the actual truth?

    If all theories aren't equally valid, how do we distinguish between what is more probable?

    Do we ask people who are more likely to be correct about those theories?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-01-2012 at 12:03 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  22. #3322
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313

    Quote where I stated it was implied.
    No. It makes it my opinion.

    You might think my opinion is incorrect.

    I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.
    I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

    Did I miss something?

    Or am I lying about my opinion again?
    RandomGuy is offline

  23. #3323
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

    Did I miss something?

    Or am I lying about my opinion again?
    That is not a quote of me using the word implied.

    You are lying about the intent of my list, this has been established. You are free to retract this lie at anytime.
    Poptech is offline

  24. #3324
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    You will eventually get to nothing but a self declaration of these things. Your denial of using an argumentum ad populum and strawman argument continues to be entertaining.
    I'm glad I can entertain you. Hopefully I can keep you around long enough for you to provide more evidence for the thesis of the OP.

    Are you going to allow me to tell you why they are not either of those things, or are you just going to repeat them as fact, without allowing your claims to be challenged?

    That hardly seems fair. Is it your intent not to be fair?
    RandomGuy is offline

  25. #3325
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that no comedy was implied with his post.
    Quote where I used the word implied.
    Poptech is offline

  26. #3326
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    That is not a quote of me using the word implied.

    You are lying about the intent of my list, this has been established. You are free to retract this lie at anytime.
    So you are going to use semantics as a defense.

    You stated that my statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.

    I have asked twice how you get to there from what I said.

    Can you do so?
    RandomGuy is offline

  27. #3327
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    Quote where I used the word implied.
    This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that no comedy was implied with his post.
    RandomGuy is offline

  28. #3328
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313
    That is not a quote of me using the word implied.
    No it is not.

    Even complete morons know that something can be implied without being explicit.

    You are not a moron.

    I assume you know that things can be implied without being explicit.

    Are you saying you are a moron? I'm confused.
    RandomGuy is offline

  29. #3329
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,313

    Quote where I stated it was implied.
    No. It makes it my opinion.

    You might think my opinion is incorrect.

    I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.
    I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

    Did I miss something?

    Once again, I want to know how you got to

    "using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

    From what I said.

    Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.
    RandomGuy is offline

  30. #3330
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    So you are going to use semantics as a defense.

    You stated that my statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.
    Quote where I stated this.
    Poptech is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •