Reply With Quote
What stands is you don't have a ing clue what you're talking about. A javelina is a game animal, a feral hog is not. You don't cull out hogs, you eliminate them.
You don't need a car either. A bicycle or walking will get you from point A to point B.
What stands is you don't have a ing clue what you're talking about. A javelina is a game animal, a feral hog is not. You don't cull out hogs, you eliminate them.
You don't need a tank either...... oh wait.
You guys really are good at making ty arguments.
Lol, more semantic arguments from, less. It's one thing I have noticed is that other than your tired ass boring style of argument, you consistently resort to semantics when you are shown to have no penis.
You mean like how you incessantly with WC because he gets the semantics wrong? This isn't your subject, not your field of expertise, so you're WC in a discussion about quantum physics. I am waiting for you to say "from what I can recall".
Semantics are the proper usage of the terms, the lack of which strongly indicates a lack of knowledge of the subject. You're just responding now like a dead body twitching.
/yawn.
Post examples of me using semantic arguments such as you claim.
When I say that he doesn't know what he is talking about it is with things like what is a linear system. IE he is talking about linearity and it's obvious he has no idea what it means. Not that he calle dit the wrong thing but he does not understand the mathematics.
The same is with systems analysis, PDE's etc.
I will certainly correct incorrect usage but I never make it the central argument which is what you do all the time.
Oh he called a pig a javelina so just discount everything he said and I will only bring that up and try to make the argument only about this because that is my typical boring lameass argument technique.
/ less
Oh and given the subject of 'you did so and so to WC.'
I recall you taking dip to task for using google for selective confirmation bias. So I was wondering could you tell me more about how there is no evidence in a reduction of crime in Australia and then post from the Melbourne police commissioner stating that the city has had a reduction in homicide rate as has the rest of the province.
I loved that self ownage, Dr. Google.
That's pure adrenaline. Necessary though. Anyone who's seen the feral hog version of the Ho Chi Minh trail knows what I am talking about. They are incredibly destructive creatures and not nearly as easy to hunt down as one would think given their size. They are smart creatures.
I don't need to. I know you do so do you.
Right.When I say that he doesn't know what he is talking about it is with things like what is a linear system. IE he is talking about linearity and it's obvious he has no idea what it means. Not that he calle dit the wrong thing but he does not understand the mathematics.
Sure, some javelinas are more equal than others.The same is with systems analysis, PDE's etc.
Ok.I will certainly correct incorrect usage but I never make it the central argument which is what you do all the time.
Or you could just refrain from making stupid ass remarks that unveil your ignorance on the subject but that would require thought before acting and that doesn't seem to be your style. You have to have the answer to everything.Oh he called a pig a javelina so just discount everything he said and I will only bring that up and try to make the argument only about this because that is my typical boring lameass argument technique.
Here's your basic approach here:
"I don't know about hogs, don't know the difference between game animals and varmints or pests, don't know the damage they cause, never hunted one, never cared, but you need to listen to me when I say this is what you need and don't need"
Then when pointed in the right direction:
"well you know what I mean"
If we know, why do you need to tell us? Stick to correcting people about stupid cubicle and leave the man stuff to the men.
No need to sign off./ less
Damn right and I own it (and him). I didn't at you for using the semantic argument, just pointed out you do the same. I am very guilty of it, because I think it's a strong indicator of understanding of the subject vs some "i just read" response where people don't know what they're talking about any deeper than a passing memory.
Still waiting for the link to me making a semantic argument the basis of my position, less. I am more than willing to admit the mistake about the type of pig. I am still waiting for an explanation as to how your semantic distinction makes a semiauto a requirement. That was the point and your bait and switch is obvious.
Your being boring again. I have an idea: how about you address the discussion about the second amendment in the other thread rather than grandstanding on this tangent.
Link it or admit you cannot and shut the up. , even tell us what the semantics I was arguing over was. You obviously know nothing about me or what I value. What you are doing here amounts to intellectual cowardice.
Most likely an overreaction. You could have just scared him off by shouting.
Everyone likes to play the hero. I am not buying it.
LOL
You have no idea. I was young and bulletproof. It was not a situation where cops could be called and there was a lot of money/product involved. Bad guys wanted both. I don't give a what you do or don't buy. I prevented a homicide and negotiated an honorable solution for both parties involved.
You didn't admit . You said the following:
"whatever hog it is, the point still stands." -FuzzyLumpkins
That doesn't sound like any admission of a mistake I've ever heard, and you call me dishonest.
When you admit there has been a mass shooting since 1996 in Australia, we can put that red herring to rest.Your being boring again. I have an idea: how about you address the discussion about the second amendment in the other thread rather than grandstanding on this tangent.
You bolt when you're shown to be wrong, or you post some pompous ass response like " whatever hog it is, the point still stands.". Well, whether or not there was a mass shooting in Australia since 1996, your point still stands I guess that there were no mass shootings in Australia since 1996.Link it or admit you cannot and shut the up. , even tell us what the semantics I was arguing over was. You obviously know nothing about me or what I value. What you are doing here amounts to intellectual cowardice.
You're such a blow hard but you peel like an onion exposing the bull beneath.
I hope you've found a better crowd of people to hang with since then.
I'm still here and I still do not see you linking anything with me making semantics my central argument. I see no examples. I see you being a again.
You have no honor.
And your words about me running away are pretty hollow. Especially when you refuse to talk about anything other than your ty red herring.
Scalia and the 2nd amendment? it lets talk about semantics.
Efficacy of Aussie gun laws. it lets talk about semantics and google spam contradictory .
Lack of any verifiable proof of deterrence? it lets talk about semantics and claim that you proved it anyway.
Ammo capacity, rates of fire and reload times? it lets accuse him of wanting to ban guns.
I cannot speak for others but as someone who has judged 100s of CX debates, when you see someone trying this bait and switch redherring bull that you pull, you might s well raise the white flag. It's weak as .
I hope you've found a better crowd of people to hang with since then.
Why? it´s not like they are dangerous with good people. Guns in the hands of a good person are like a Care Bears stare.
It makes everyone happy.
You and Dumpster have the same M.O.; You generalize the issues and dare people to go on long fact finding missions (though neither of you have) and then when you're shown to be the mental midgets you are, when facts slap you across the face like the of a scorned lover, you claim victory with the "you mad" facade. Just because you have a fat tube in your mouth doesn't mean it's a victory cigar.
I'm still here and I still do not see you linking anything with me making semantics my central argument. I see no examples. I see you being a again.
You have no honor.
You thinking you're the first person I ever educated on firearms (and now game animals and mass shootings) is amusing, self centered but amusing.
Stick to talking PM technicians, cubicle Jedi.
And LOL at you posting back 2 back telling me I'm butthurt. You're seething.
LOL absolutely. That was my come to jesus moment. If the vato hadn't backed down I would have pulled the trigger. Thought about that one a lot.I hope you've found a better crowd of people to hang with since then.
So what you are saying is that you still cannot come up with one example of a semantics argument I have made.
That's nice.
And less, that is hardly the total of either of our arguments but its pretty apparent that you are upset. Hmm, we came to the same conclusion.... and you twist that into a good thing for you...
Honorless and less.
Japan has no land borders for guns to be smuggled in easily, tbh.
And you try and call me out for running away....
See this is the thing, less. I can live with making mistakes. I made two factual errors and am okay with that. After all, you have yet to be able to make a compelling case as to how those inaccuracies invalidate any contention of mine. But I am human and will make mistakes. C'est la vie.
OTOH, you try and take me to task for using semantics arguments. That btw is a tacit admission that this favorite tactic of yours is bull , but I digress. When asked for a link showing this we get nothing. When asked for just an example we get nothing.
It's only that I hate semantic arguments. I can go on about Aristotelian categorization and how semantics boils down to that bull . I know I don't argue like that because it really speaks towards how I view epistemology.
But see, this is the thing: you are emotionally incapable of admitting you are wrong. That is the sign of a weak mind. It's the sign of an insecure intellect. So go ahead and use more smilies but we both know there is merit in you being called less and honorless.
So you agree with me then.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
