Mike wrote:
> "Ragnar" wrote in message
> news:bf4cf60e-1a58-4c76-9ead-c7bc1b602ce7@20g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 2, 7:29 pm, "Mike" wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> >
>> >
>> news:e876e7ab-23f5-43d6-8949-9682b331a205@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Dec 1, 9:43 pm, "Mike" wrote:
>> > > > "Ragnar" wrote in message
>> >
>> > >
>> >news:837dc6f5-57b8-4d49-a37d-0a92eb507d16@t11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >
>> > > > > On Dec 1, 12:51 pm, "Mike" wrote:
>> > > > > > You can't answer the question other than to simply repeat your
>> > > > > > previous
>> > > > > > nonsense.
>> >
>> > > > > > Diversion noted.
>> >
>> > > > > How is asking for proof of your generalization a diversion. >
>> > > > Diversion
>> > > > > is doing everything to avoid providing the asked for data,
>> which > > > > by
>> > > > > the way, YOU are guilty of.
>> >
>> > > > > Inability to follow the thread logically noted.
>> >
>> > > > I asked you what the "original claim" had to do with any of your
>> > > > arguments.
>> > > > You have yet to answer the question. Instead all you have to
>> offer > > > is
>> > > > diversion.
>> >
>> > > > Why do you need the simplest concepts explained to you?
>> >
>> > > > It's a rhetorical question, BTW. Obviously it's because you are
>> full > > > of
>> > > > $hit.
>> >
>> > > You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing with you when
>> > > all I’m doing is asking for the supporting info to back your
>> bullshit.
>> > > I guess you can’t figure out how to accommodate a simple common
>> > > request. Since you are someone that claims to be intelligent (a
>> matter
>> > > of debate) you should be aware that factual informational sources are
>> > > normally required when making statements or assertions of absolute
>> > > truth. Rhetorical or colloquial statements are for casual
>> conversation
>> > > and not for logical discussions concerning hard numbers and facts.
>> >
>> > Oh, this is TOO much, proof-boy. Now you want to claim usenet is
>> some > form
>> > of highly formalized document which can NEVER venture into the >
>> non-literal.
>> > Good luck on your campaign of convincing ANYONE of that nonsense, >
>> proof-boy.
>> > It was good for a chuckle though, and I would never want to discourage
>> > someone from making a complete idiot out of themselves so by all means
>> > expand on that 'thought' as the entertainment value alone is not
>> going > to
>> > leave a dry eye in the house.
>> >
>> > I'm the one who used the figure of speech, proof-boy. It NEVER was an
>> > "assertion of absolute truth". I'm sure you think you can simply keep
>> > throwing that BS against the wall and maybe it will stick someday,
>> but > it
>> > ain't proof-boy. Repeating the same BS over and over does not grant
>> it > any
>> > validity. In fact, the reverse is true. The more you whine and cry
>> about
>> > it, the more you become a BS artist.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > > > It doesn't matter if there are hundreds or thousands of causes,
>> > > > > > pinhead.
>> >
>> > > > > > The PRIMARY cause is too many calories and/or not enough > >
>> > > > activity.
>> > > > > > You
>> > > > > > don't have to be a physicist to know the sky is blue and
>> water > > > > > is
>> > > > > > wet,
>> > > > > > either BTW.
>> >
>> > > > > Again, provide the proof for your generalizations and we can
>> call > > > > it
>> > > > > a day. Until then your opinion is noted but not considered > >
>> > > absolute
>> > > > > fact. Obesity is still a multi-faceted issue no matter how > >
>> > > childlike
>> > > > > and simplistic you want it to be. Maybe complex issues like >
>> > > > obesity
>> > > > > are too hard for you to understand and you need to dumb it
>> down so
>> > > > > your head doesn’t explode?
>> >
>> > > > Actually you're the one that needs everything dumbed down. I'll
>> dumb > > > it
>> > > > down even more for you since you've decided to sink to even
>> lower > > > levels
>> > > > of
>> > > > stupidity.
>> >
>> > > More Bullshit noted.
>> >
>> > Hardly. You prove it more with each post, proof-boy.
>> >
>> > > > 99.9% is actually a very common figure of speech (if you need a
>> > > > definition
>> > > > for "figure of speech" let me know and I'll try to dumb it down
>> to > > > even
>> > > > further levels for you). This means that 99.9% of the time when
>> > > > someone
>> > > > uses the term "99.9%" they really aren't quoting any exact,
>> > > > scientifically
>> > > > proven fact, but are instead exaggerating for rhetorical
>> purposes > > > (if
>> > > > I'm
>> > > > using words with too many syllables, let me know and I'll try to
>> > > > dumb it
>> > > > down to even further levels for you). It would be rather like >
>> > > someone
>> > > > saying, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
>> >
>> > > More diversionary bullshit noted.
>> >
>> > Just TRY explaining exactly how, proof-boy.
>> >
>> > I dare you.
>> >
>> > In fact, I double-dog dare you.
>> >
>> > Did I not say, verbatim, "99.9%"?
>> >
>> > Yes or no?
>> >
>> > Is 99.9%, in fact, a very commonly used auxesis?
>> >
>> > Yes or no?
>> >
>> > Just answer no to either one of those questions, proof-boy.
>> >
>> > Do you dare sink to THAT level of stupidity?
>> >
>> > TOO LATE!!!!
>> >
>> > I've already fully explained why you aren't getting the "proof" you
>> keep
>> > whimpering about, so either you can accept it, or you can keep
>> squealing
>> > "diversion" instead of answering questions that reveal just how
>> silly > and
>> > childish you really are. I'll also give you a big hint here. If you
>> > don't
>> > answer, it speaks volumes more than if you had, but have it your way.
>> >
>> > > > You see, proof-boy, sometimes intelligent people depart from the
>> > > > literal
>> > > > for
>> > > > rhetorical effect. It's assumed that the receiver or such
>> rhetoric > > > is
>> > > > intelligent enough to understand the phrase was never intended
>> to be
>> > > > taken
>> > > > literally, but in your case that was obviously a poor
>> assumption. > > > Now if
>> > > > you are interested in improving your literacy (probably a poor
>> > > > assumption
>> > > > again), I suggest you research something called an auxesis which
>> is > > > the
>> > > > particular rhetoric I employed.
>> >
>> > > Right, next you will be saying that you only post to educate all us
>> > > dumbasses, lol
>> > > Good try, but you fail.
>> >
>> > Proof-boy builds himself another strawman to burn down. Is that
>> REALLY > the
>> > best you can do, proof-boy? Do you really think you are clever for
>> > employing your BS tactics? I'm sure it must really torque you off,
>> > proof-boy, but some of us outgrew those debate tactics in primary >
>> school.
>> > Now perhaps you think your silly games work against others,
>> proof-boy, > but I
>> > can read you like a book and play you like a tune. Don't forget that.
>> >
>> > I post for various reasons, and educating cretins like you is not
>> one of
>> > them, I can assure you. The ONLY reason I reply to trolls like you is
>> > simply for the entertainment value a CS like you can offer, and in that
>> > regard you certainly haven't disappointed me, proof-boy, but keep >
>> employing
>> > simpleton tactics like these and you will. The result will be I will no
>> > longer pull your chain.
>> >
>> > > BTW, intelligent people do research and have supporting data before
>> > > they shoot their mouths off and make blanket statements or sweeping
>> > > generalizations. Your excuse for being a knee jerk dumbass doesn’t
>> fly
>> > > dipshit.
>> >
>> > Proof....
>> >
>> > PROOF...
>> >
>> > SQUAWWWWKKKKK!!!!!!!
>> >
>> > PROOF....
>> >
>> > SQUAWWWWKKKKK!!!!!!!
>> >
>> > Repetition does not add any value to your nonsense, proof-boy. It only
>> > makes you look that much more like a pathetic child who keeps
>> repeating > the
>> > same whine in desperate hope of getting what he wants.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > Is it all starting to become clear to you, or do you need it
>> dumbed > > > down
>> > > > a
>> > > > few more levels, proof-boy?
>> >
>> > > > Now perhaps there's a "logical" explanation for your obvious > >
>> > ignorance.
>> > > > Perhaps you're too large for your door openings and you don't
>> get > > > out.
>> > > > Perhaps your mother was addicted to crack while you were in the
>> womb > > > and
>> > > > simple concepts are difficult for you to grasp. Perhaps English
>> is > > > not
>> > > > your
>> > > > first language and colloquial terms are lost in translation.
>> Perhaps > > > you
>> > > > just prefer acting stupid to actually admitting you screwed up.
>> > > > Perhaps
>> > > > it's not an act at all. If any of these apply or you have some
>> other
>> > > > excuse
>> > > > for your obvious stupidity, let me know and I'll take that into
>> > > > consideration.
>> >
>> > > It’s been very clear for some time now, you’re a lazy inbred toad
>> that
>> > > cannot and will not provide a simple cite or shred of proof regarding
>> > > your assertions. All your blustering and ranting will not change that
>> > > fact. But be my guest and keep it up, the more crap you post them
>> > > dumber you look.
>> >
>> > Oh my! It's a clever repackaging of the old "I'm rubber, you're glue
>> > line".
>> > I never saw that one coming.
>> >
>> > Pot/Kettle.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > > > > As far as not finding anything on a map goes. Don’t think
>> that > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > proves anything other than you are stupid. It has been
>> claimed
>> > > > > > > that a
>> > > > > > > high percentage of people in the US can’t even locate North
>> > > > > > > America on
>> > > > > > > a map, lol.
>> >
>> > > > > > Got any PROOF of that, proof-boy?
>> >
>> > > > > > No?
>> >
>> > > > > > Ooops, you must be full if $hit, then.
>> >
>> > > > > > But that was already quite apparent.
>> >
>> > > > > Apparently this is common knowledge. So much so that a question
>> > > > > concerning this was asked during a Miss Teen USA Pageant. (See
>> > > > > link)
>> > > > >http://pageantcenter.com/trivia_quotable_quotes.html
>> >
>> > > > > Besides I didn’t say I claimed it was fact. I merely stated
>> that > > > > “it
>> > > > > has been claimed” Who it has been claimed by, I don’t know but
>> as > > > > you
>> > > > > can see I can at least back my statements.
>> >
>> > > > No you can't, proof-boy. One anecdotal account does not make for
>> a > > > "high
>> > > > percentage of people", and if you can't provide PROOF for who >
>> > > "claimed"
>> > > > it,
>> > > > then it's simply your claim, no?
>> >
>> > > It’s still more proof than you have provided for anything you have
>> > > stated thus far. Pretty sad, huh?
>> > > BTW, it’s not my claim; the claim is in print from an independent
>> > > source, so how can it be mine? I see your ability of deductive
>> > > reasoning is as poor as your research abilities. You fail AGAIN.
>> >
>> > Where is it in print, proof-boy? Who "claimed" a "high percentage"?
>> >
>> > You got a link?
>> >
>> > A reference perhaps?
>> >
>> > A piece of paper wadded up in your pocket maybe?
>> >
>> > Let me let you in on a little secret, proof-boy. Just because you don't
>> > agree with me, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Either you can back up your
>> > statement or you can't. Wasn't that how it went?
>> >
>> > What's wrong, proof-boy? You thought you were so suave when you
>> dished > out
>> > your nonsense, how does it feel when it's served back far more >
>> skillfully?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > Do you see how ridiculous your silly "proof" requests
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice rant nutjob, all that effort and still no supporting data to back
>> your assertions, lol.
>> Wouldn’t it just have been easier and less aggravating to provide a
>> news article or study data supporting your claim? I guess that little
>> snippet of common sense escaped you, lol
>>
>> Can you say K00K!
>
> Proof....
>
> PROOF...
>
> SQUAWWWWKKKKK!!!!!!!
>
> PROOF....
>
> SQUAWWWWKKKKK!!!!!!!
>
> I asked you two very simple questions, proof-boy, and despite the fact
> that I have answer every one of your questions, you refused to answer.
> As I said, your refusal to answer would speak volumes more than if you
> had answered, and you certainly didn't disappoint. Like I said, also, I
> can read you like a book and play you like a tune. From the very
> beginning I painted you as a troll that demands support for everyone
> else's statements and refuses to provide support for any of your own.
> You proved that brilliantly.
>
> Now you've been reduced to a parrot that squawks the same nonsense over
> and over, so my work here is done and I've accomplished exactly what I
> intended. You were entertaining for a while, but now you're simply
> boring. I'm setting this thread to ignore. Feel free to have the last
> word as I know such things are important to trolls like you.
hi |