#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
So under Democrat logic, the Nazi's were compassionate because they helped poor Germans.
| Add New Argument |
|
Anyone else notice that the first sentence had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of his rant? The reason people think the Democrats are more compassionate toward poor people is because when they talk about helping poor people they actually mention poor people. Helping fetuses does not mean you help poor people. Here we go. I will try and take this comparison seriously: In Nazi Germany there was incredible compassion to those Germans that fit the party philosophy. They were very cruel to the jews and other minority groups. The democrats are compassionate to every born human being. They are cruel to feotuses. I care more about the Jews than about feotuses so I would support the Democrats over the Nazis. 1
point
Here we go. I will try and take this comparison seriously: In Nazi Germany there was incredible compassion to those Germans that fit the party philosophy. They were very cruel to the jews and other minority groups. The democrats are compassionate to every born human being. They are cruel to feotuses. I care more about the Jews than about feotuses so I would support the Democrats over the Nazis. In Nazi Germany there was incredible compassion to those natural born Germans that paid the price for the party philosophy. They were very cruel to the Jews and other minority groups. 1
point
1
point
Because you made us play spot the difference on a slightly reworded post It's not spot the difference, it's more about noticing the difference. People who are wise enough to understand my posts will notice the differences automatically, those who can't have to really on spotting the difference. and you hate it when people just twist your words. Which people twist round my words? No one is that cruel. Who'd do that? Apparently it's unlike you to speak badly of the CreateDebate population. I think it means you are an attention whore. You are focusing on my motive for the post. You ought to focus on the meaning of the post itself. How can I be an attention whore? There is no reason to think that I would admire attention, unless I enjoy the attention I get from debating. I do not admire the attention of glory, that comes with debating. You assume that being an attention whore implies that I ought not to breath. You are attacking my right to debate, which is an attack on my character. You ought to debate the debates I put forward regarding the topic that the title gives. Filthy liar! Further evidence you can't answer questions. Assclown! I can't answer a question that I didn't want to answer. I didn't want to answer because you didn't want to debate. You can't claim that you want to debate with me if you merely attack my character. Right now I have a right to dispute your character, because I don't want to debate with somebody who won't debate with me! I have spoken! Which people twist round my words? No one is that cruel. Who'd do that? We are in agreement. No one on CreateDebate has ever twisted your words. How can I be an attention whore? You added nothing to the conversation so that people could see you participating. You assume that being an attention whore implies that I ought not to breath. No, it implies that you should make an interesting point instead of just posting for the attention. Stop playing the victim card. Filthy liar! Are you accusing me of not thinking you are an attention whore? You can't claim that you want to debate with me if you merely attack my character. You have only ever presented your character instead of arguments. Right now I have a right to dispute your character, because I don't want to debate with somebody who won't debate with me! Same here, asshole. Only difference is that you decided to not debate with me before I decided not to debate with you. 1
point
We are in agreement. No one on CreateDebate has ever twisted your words. When I had asked who twisted my words round, doesn't mean no one has done it at all. But it doesn't happen often. Until Cartman finds a way. You added nothing to the conversation so that people could see you participating. Why would be not adding anything to a conversation cause people to see me participating? I don't bring myself down so low. I post for experimentation, I need to assess the psychology of the users on this debate before I debate with them. No, it implies that you should make an interesting point instead of just posting for the attention. Stop playing the victim card. I don't post for attention, I post to experiment and debate. Are you accusing me of not thinking you are an attention whore? No. Quite the opposite. Are you accusing me of not thinking you are an attention whore? I have presented my character, which shows my intentions to debate. It's not really easy to have a proper debate on this site, though. Same here, asshole. Only difference is that you decided to not debate with me before I decided not to debate with you. Are you implying now that you do want to debate with me? When I had asked who twisted my words round, doesn't mean no one has done it at all. I know. It's when you said no one would be that cruel. on't post for attention, I post to experiment and debate. What's the experiment? How much negative attention can you get? t's not really easy to have a proper debate on this site, though. False. Everyone but you can manage to do it. Are you implying now that you do want to debate with me? I am implying that. I do want to debate with you. 1
point
I know. It's when you said no one would be that cruel. When we use words like "someone" or "no one" we are talking about other people that are outside the attention of the discussion. Other people that are outside the primary attention of the discussion are represented by words like "no one would" or "someone would". You are at the centre of the discussion, so "no one" doesn't include you. What's the experiment? How much negative attention can you get? How much negative and positive attention can one get? My results are not yet complete! False. Everyone but you can manage to do it Everyone in the real world can do it, but not the people on this website. You really are ignorant. I've never seen anyone have a proper debate on this site in ages. POINT TO ONE. I am implying that. I do want to debate with you. Phew. At least you have changed your mind and now you want to debate with me! Finally. When we use words Woah woah woah. Don't include me in your group of people who use words incorrectly. How much negative and positive attention can one get? My results are not yet complete! Excellent. You admit that you were simply doing am experiment on getting attention and not actually debating. Thank you. 've never seen anyone have a proper debate on this site in ages. POINT TO ONE. There are here. You don't like facts, so no reason top point anything out to you. You have even admitted that you are too much of s dumb wall to listen to facts. least you have changed your mind No, fuck head. I have always wanted to debate you. Instead of answering any of my questions you decide to avoid the subject of the debate. I had nothing to do with us not debating. 1
point
Woah woah woah. Don't include me in your group of people who use words incorrectly. I guess the people who wrote the dictionary don't use words correctly then! Excellent. You admit that you were simply doing am experiment on getting attention and not actually debating. Thank you. My experiment wasn't just an experiment to do with attention. It was more complex than that. I also was conducting other experiments as well. Not just to do with attention spans. Tests for idiocy for example was one of my experiments. Results prove most people on CreateDebate are idiots. I need my results before I am able to debate. Doesn't rule out the fact that I still want to debate. I never said I didn't want to debate. There are here. You don't like facts, so no reason top point anything out to you. You have even admitted that you are too much of s dumb wall to listen to facts. I never admitted to being dumb. Never admitted to not liking facts. You are relying on deflection right now. No, fuck head. I have always wanted to debate you. Instead of answering any of my questions you decide to avoid the subject of the debate. I had nothing to do with us not debating Do you believe debating takes one or two people? I guess the people who wrote the dictionary don't use words corre You have consistently used words in a completely different way than the people who wrote dictionaries. never said I didn't want to debate Context. Given the context you have made it very clear you don't want to debate. o you believe debating takes one or two people? Two. That's why I needed you to join me. What answer were you expecting to get for that question? 1
point
You have consistently used words in a completely different way than the people who wrote dictionaries. I would suggest that is patently false. Based on your logic the dictionary definitions of words would be inaccurate. My logic states that the definitions of the dictionary regarding words are accurate. You have consistently used words in a completely different way than the people who wrote dictionaries. I have consistently Elaborated and explained more detail about words than the dictionary gives. The dictionary might not give all the details about the words that are described in the dictionary, but the dictionaries descriptions of still 0 true and accurate. I am merely elaborating on the dictionary, I am not contradicting it. Context. Given the context you have made it very clear you don't want to debate. The context suggested that I wasn't able to. The context didn't suggest my desire to debate. Yes, I know that I'm starting to sound like a robot. Always reliable and true in what he says oh he never changes! Two. That's why I needed you to join me. What answer were you expecting to get for that question? I see. It's you who I desire to Join me! What answer was I expecting? Either one or two and you have reliably answered my question by stating the number one! That's a start to debating! I know you care really! And so do I! I would suggest that is patently false. Except, you also agree: "I have consistently Elaborated and explained more detail about words than the dictionary gives." and "I am merely elaborating on the dictionary, I am not contradicting it." How can you claim to not use the words in a different way than the dictionary and also claim that you elaborate on the words in a way that the dictionary doesn't give? The context suggested that I wasn't able to. No, the context suggest that you are able to. In context, people were trying to engage you in a debate. The context didn't suggest my desire to debate. Right. It wasn't the context that suggested it, it was the fact that the context suggested debating was possible and you still didn't debate. That still means it clearly shows you don't want to debate. Yes, I know that I'm starting to sound like a robot. You don't sound like a robot at all. Robots are programmed with knowledge. It's you who I desire to Join me! And, when I do you complain about me derailing the debate or not debating. All you ever do is derail the debate. And so do I! So much for you always being honest. 1
point
How can you claim to not use the words in a different way than the dictionary and also claim that you elaborate on the words in a way that the dictionary doesn't give? The dictionary doesn't provide information about everything, does it? The dictionary is an over-view of each word, it doesn't tell us everything about each word. No, the context suggest that you are able to. In context, people were trying to engage you in a debate. You are so stupid. The context before suggested that you had at one point refused to debate. Right. It wasn't the context that suggested it, it was the fact that the context suggested debating was possible and you still didn't debate. That still means it clearly shows you don't want to debate. The debate was not possible for me since you rejected the possibility of us debating. So, no, for the me the possibility of a debate was not possible. The possibility of a debate was possible for you though. You don't sound like a robot at all. Robots are programmed with knowledge. Robots are not programmed with knowledge. Robots are programmed to obey orders. Why would I disobey if I had no thoughts? And, when I do you complain about me derailing the debate or not debating. All you ever do is derail the debate. No, when you do debate I compliment you, but that is rare. You were just about debating before, why have you stopped now? So much for you always being honest. So much, so much so true. The dictionary is an over-view of each word, it doesn't tell us everything about each word. No, it tells you everything. The context before suggested that you had at one point refused to debate. No, quite the contrary. The context clearly shows I have always tried debating. I answered your questions, and engaged in the discussion. You didn't reciprocate. The debate was not possible for me since you rejected the possibility of us debating. I gave you ever chance. You are the one who never took it. Always needed to find out what the debate was about first. Why would I disobey if I had no thoughts? I just told you you don't sound like a robot. No, when you do debate I compliment you, but that is rare. You have never once complimented anyone on this website. You were just about debating before, why have you stopped now? You stopped, and I kept talking to you. 1
point
No, it tells you everything. No book on earth tells you everything. If the dictionary told us everything we could possibly know about words, then their would be no such thing as the study of linguistic.. Look at all the books that feature all sorts of interesting facts regarding linguistics. Stuff that the dictionary doesn't feature. You have trouble seeing the bigger picture. No, quite the contrary. The context clearly shows I have always tried debating. I answered your questions, and engaged in the discussion. You didn't reciprocate. You had answered my questions, but always out of context. So therefore the context doesn't show that you have tried to debate. Too much knowledge! I gave you ever chance. You are the one who never took it. Always needed to find out what the debate was about first. I already knew what the debate was about in general. I just needed to know what the debate was about in depth. You didn't know what the debates meant in depth did you? I just told you you don't sound like a robot. Are you implying that I haven't disobeyed you, now? Or that I have disobeyed you and that I have thoughts? I'm sick. Clearly not a robot. You have never once complimented anyone on this website. That's a lie. You stopped, and I kept talking to you. I hadn't stopped. You had by not replying to my idea of how multiplication works. No book on earth tells you everything. Uh oh. Word twisting alert. See context for how you are wrong. If the dictionary told us everything we could possibly know about words, then their would be no such thing as the study of linguistic.. Uh oh. False statement alert. You can still study language and have dictionaries fully describe words. Look at all the books that feature all sorts of interesting facts regarding linguistics. Uh oh. Completely irrelevant thought. Stuff that the dictionary doesn't feature. Uh oh. More word twisting. You are still missing the context. You have trouble seeing the bigger picture. Uh oh. Misplaced insult. You had answered my questions, but always out of context. Wrong sir. You have your head so far up your ass you don't know what context is. I already knew what the debate was about in general. I just needed to know what the debate was about in depth. Translation: You were absolutely correct Cartman. Good job. Are you implying that I haven't disobeyed you, now? You aren't a robot, and if you were, you wouldn't be my robot, so this question is fucking stupid since you wouldn't be programmed to obey me. It is also stupid because I would have been implying that you had disobeyed me. You aren't even smart enough to understand your own analogies. Or that I have disobeyed you and that I have thoughts? You can disobey without having thoughts. Clearly not a robot. No shit Sherlock. What gave it away. That's a lie. Should be easy to prove it is a lie then. I hadn't stopped. Fine, sorry. You never started, and I talked to you anyway. Happy now? You had by not replying to my idea of how multiplication works. There was no reason to discuss magic related mathematics. 1
point
Uh oh. Word twisting alert. See context for how you are wrong. No book on earth tells you everything about any given subject. Uh oh. False statement alert. You can still study language and have dictionaries fully describe words. If dictionaries fully described words, linguistics wouldn't need to study languages. Everything would already have been known in a simple little book. So you're saying that one simple book disproves the need for an entire science? Uh oh. Completely irrelevant thought. Hardcore stupidity is your fortitude. Uh oh. More word twisting. You are still missing the context. Still skimming round the bushes? So in other words, the dictionary features everything there is to know about linguistics according to you. Nut. Wrong sir. You have your head so far up your ass you don't know what context is. No, what you are saying is that there is no need to linguistic scientists. You're a special kind of dumb, aren't you? You aren't a robot, and if you were, you wouldn't be my robot, so this question is fucking stupid since you wouldn't be programmed to obey me. It is also stupid because I would have been implying that you had disobeyed me. You aren't even smart enough to understand your own analogies. If I was a robot, that would imply that I simply acted out of robotic repetition without any heart. Is that what you are implying? It doesn't matter whether or not I would be your robot. No one cares, cause I'm not yours, bitch. Yet again, how can you disobey somebody yet have no thoughts. You can disobey without having thoughts. Disobeying is a conscious decision. You can't have the awareness required to disagree without having the thought processes* that require you to realise what is being asked of you. You're really stupid, aren't you? How can you disobey without having the ability to reason through what is being required of you? Dumbass. No shit Sherlock. What gave it away. So you're contradicting yourself? You implied that I was repetitive and had no spirit, therefore I was just a robot. No you are saying that I am not? Should be easy to prove it is a lie then. It is easy. You just still deny it. Fine, sorry. You never started, and I talked to you anyway. Happy now? I'm not happy or sad about facts. Facts are not facts. You don't need to apologise for anything. Just try to see the facts. I had started to discuss the bit about multiplication and you didn't respond to that particular bit. There was no reason to discuss magic related mathematics. Maths can be fascinating! You need to start debating maths! At least it's a change over debating over words! That gets boring! Let's try something new! Are you just going to repeat the same wrong statements? No book on earth tells you everything about any given subject. Never said there was, word twister. Everything would already have been known in a simple little book. Linguistics is not simply the study of the meanings of words. You are wrong. So you're saying that one simple book disproves the need for an entire science? No, you fucking idiot, you fucking said that. I specifically said the exact opposite. So in other words, the dictionary features everything there is to know about linguistics according to you. No, you asshole. It doesn't cover linguistics. It covers the meanings of words. No, what you are saying is that there is no need to linguistic scientists. I literally said the exact opposite of that, you dumb fuck. You're a special kind of dumb, aren't you? It is very unwise to call someone dumb after saying they said the exact opposite of what they said. Disobeying is a conscious decision. Not for someone as dumb as you. You have been told the correct answer to everything and you have disobeyed simply from pure unintelligence. How can you disobey without having the ability to reason through what is being required of you? Because you are so dumb you just do stuff regardless of it being the right thing to do. No reasoning involved. Just try to see the facts. I have. I even wrote them down for you so you could see them too. I had started to discuss the bit about multiplication and you didn't respond to that particular bit. It was wrong and stupid. I did tell you that already. You need to start debating maths! Why would we debate maths? It is a rigid system with definite answers. 1
point
Are you just going to repeat the same wrong statements? Fucking loser. Never said there was, word twister. You did. You claimed that the dictionary fully covers the subject about the meaning of words. Liar. Linguistics is not simply the study of the meanings of words. You are wrong. No, linguists is about the meaning of words. How people use words is to do with the meaning of words. Dolt. I literally said the exact opposite of that, you dumb fuck. No, you contradicted yourself, you fucking moron. It is very unwise to call someone dumb after saying they said the exact opposite of what they said. What a moron. You are the one who has said the exact opposite of what he previously said. So? You're saying you get it now? MORON. Not for someone as dumb as you. You have been told the correct answer to everything and you have disobeyed simply from pure unintelligence. Disobedience is a conscious decision. So now you are saying that it isn't? Get lost scrawlbag. I have. I even wrote them down for you so you could see them too. Rubbish. Why would we debate maths? It is a rigid system with definite answers. Because its a rigid system with definitive answers, same as with English. I'm bored, tired and I don't want no shit. You claimed that the dictionary fully covers the subject about the meaning of words. And you claimed I said it covered absolutely everything. Containing only the meaning of words does not cover everything. It only covers the meanings of words. No, linguists is about the meaning of words. No, it is: The scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. It goes well beyond simply just the meanings of words. You are the one who has said the exact opposite of what he previously said. I said the exact opposite of what you said I said. Which means that you are the only one who believes the statement you called dumb. If you really think I changed what I said, why don't you quote the 2 exact phrases that mean the opposite that I said? Disobedience is a conscious decision. Disobedience is the refusal OR FAILURE to obey rules. Dumb fucks like you who are too stupid to understand the rules can fail to obey the rules without conscious thought. So now you are saying that it isn't? I never said it was. Because its a rigid system with definitive answers, same as with English. I'm bored, tired and I don't want no shit. We should be debating opinions, not facts. 1
point
And you claimed I said it covered absolutely everything. Containing only the meaning of words does not cover everything. It only covers the meanings of words. You are an idiot. The subject regarding the meaning of words is to do with what words mean. The history, phonetics and background of words determines what a word means. Just like with science. No book completely explains how electricity works. Nor does any book completely explain the subject of how electricity works. How electricity works is down to all the factors that go into the way electricity works, including its' effects, etc. Try to learn to read. The subject behind the meaning of words is about the meaning of words. No, it is: The scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. It gets well beyond simply just the meanings of words. Language and the structure of words including grammar, syntax and phonetics are all behind the meaning of words. That fully covers the meaning of words, you dolt. That's linguistics as well as the meaning of words. Try to figure out what it is you are saying, before you post moron. Bet you can't. I said the exact opposite of what you said I said. Which means that you are the only one who believes the statement you called dumb. If you really think I changed what I said, why don't you quote the 2 exact phrases that mean the opposite that I said? I just did quote them in previous posts, you moron. When I HIGHLIGHT comments in BOLD, IT MEANS THAT I AM quoting them. Disobedience is the refusal OR FAILURE to obey rules. Dumb fucks like you who are too stupid to understand the rules can fail to obey the rules without conscious thought. Now this is another stupid comment. Failure to obey means that you have failed to make the conscious decision to obey. This made you HAVE made the conscious decision to either not REMEMBER to obey, or that you have refused to obey altogether. Refusal is a conscious decision, refusing to remember to obey is the same as not obeying. Got it? I never said it was. Contradiction. Comment in Bold. We should be debating opinions, not facts. No such things as any certain facts. All facts become opinions within a debate. Nothing is to be left unscrutinised. Now let's debate opinion, including math. The history, phonetics and background of words determines what a word means. So, what. The study of how the history, phonetics, and background of words is not complete by just having the answer to what the words mean. You have the book with all of the meanings to words, and you have the study that involves figuring out how we got all those meanings. No book completely explains how electricity works. Electricity is a part of physics. What you are saying is that we don't need a book about physics if we have a book that fully explains electricity. Try to learn to read. You first, fucker. The subject behind the meaning of words is about the meaning of words. The subject behind the meaning or words is not eliminated if you know all the meanings of words. Language and the structure of words including grammar, syntax and phonetics are all behind the meaning of words. No. That's just plain wrong. Grammar is not about the meanings of words. That fully covers the meaning of words, you dolt. It includes way more than the meanings of words you stupid forgetful fucko. That's linguistics as well as the meaning of words. That's what I have been saying you stupid idiot. It is more than just the meanings of words. Try to figure out what it is you are saying, before you post moron. You dumb shit. You just proved yourself wrong. You just proved yourself wrong without knowing it then called someone a moron for not figuring out what they say before posting. It doesn't get much dumber than that. I just did quote them in previous posts, you moron. You didn't post any contradictory statements you stupid forgetful fucko. When I HIGHLIGHT comments in BOLD, IT MEANS THAT I AM quoting them. None of the bold statements meant the opposite of another bold statement. Now this is another stupid comment. No, arguing with the dictionary is the stupid comment. Failure to obey means that you have failed to make the conscious decision to obey. No, asshole. Refusal to obey is the conscious decision not to obey. Failure just means you didn't do it. It has nothing to do with whether or not you tried to obey. This made you HAVE made the conscious decision to either not REMEMBER to obey, or that you have refused to obey altogether. Or, you never found out what the rules were. Oh my goodness, talk about thinking outside of the box. The conscious decision to not remember? Are you shitting me? Got it? Yes, I am fully aware that you are completely incapable of admitting the truth. Got it. Contradiction. Comment in Bold. Where is the other comment in bold that contradicts the statement. Contradictions involve 2 things being different, not just one statement. No such things as any certain facts. False. Fact: you are an asshole. That's certain. All facts become opinions within a debate. 2+2=4 is an opinion only to an asshole (thanks for proving previous fact) Nothing is to be left unscrutinised. Calling facts opinions does nothing to scrutinize them. Now let's debate opinion, including math. You can't even explain a simple word substitution, how are you going to debate anything tougher than basic algebra? 1
point
So, what. The study of how the history, phonetics, and background of words is not complete by just having the answer to what the words mean. You have the book with all of the meanings to words, and you have the study that involves figuring out how we got all those meanings. No, idiot. We can't know what something means if we don't know where those meanings come from. You don't fully know what another person means if you don't know where they are coming from. Where words came from determines the meaning of words. If the phonetics and background of a word was different, it would mean something else. Electricity is a part of physics. What you are saying is that we don't need a book about physics if we have a book that fully explains electricity. In order to know about physics how works, electricity is just one of those subjects that needs to be covered. In order to know about the linguistics the meaning of words is just one of those subjects that needs to be covered. But it isn't. No, idiot. You are so stupid. You just called me an idiot, then repeated exactly what I said. We can't know what something means if we don't know where those meanings come from. Unless it is written in a book by the people who figured it out, you moron. You don't fully know what another person means if you don't know where they are coming from. Where words came from determines the meaning of words. If the phonetics and background of a word was different, it would mean something else. This proves me right, not you. The dictionary records what linguistics figures out. The dictionary existing doesn't mean linguistics doesn't. But it isn't. Oh great, you fucked up with pronouns again. What exactly isn't? What part of the statements that you wrote that perfectly describe how I am right "isn't"? What the hell does "But it isn't" mean here? 1
point
You are so stupid. You just called me an idiot, then repeated exactly what I said. I said exactly the opposite. You are talking about me repeating what you had said, right? What you say is one thing. The nonsense you try to imply is another. Unless it is written in a book by the people who figured it out, you moron. So I guess those people who written it in the book know where the meaning of those words come from? Get back on track. This proves me right, not you. The dictionary records what linguistics figures out. The dictionary existing doesn't mean linguistics doesn't. The dictionary only manages to exist because it records a TINY bit of the information that can be known about linguistics/word-meanings. Oh great, you fucked up with pronouns again. What exactly isn't? What part of the statements that you wrote that perfectly describe how I am right "isn't"? What the hell does "But it isn't" mean here? "But it isn't" means "but no, electricity isn't something that is separate but related to physics". Nothing is separate but related to something else. Not even your brain from reality, although there is an inverse correlation there. I said exactly the opposite. Nope. You can't read apparently. What you say is one thing. The nonsense you try to imply is another. It is "nonsense" that we are both trying to imply since you are saying what I am saying. So I guess those people who written it in the book know where the meaning of those words come from? Get back on track. Yes, they do. People like you don't and shouldn't be expanding on the dictionary. The dictionary only manages to exist because it records a TINY bit of the information that can be known about linguistics/word-meanings. What's your point? It covers every bit of that tiny portion. It doesn't leave anything out about the meanings of words. It only leaves out how we know those are the meanings. "But it isn't" means "but no, electricity isn't something that is separate but related to physics". No one suggested that at all. Nothing is separate but related to something else. I didn't say that. Not even your brain from reality, although there is an inverse correlation there. Aww, you tried a really stupid insult that doesn't work. 1
point
Nope. You can't read apparently. You lack any creativity. Boring. It is "nonsense" that we are both trying to imply since you are saying what I am saying. No, I am saying something different to you. You misunderstood "A" context. Yes, they do. People like you don't and shouldn't be expanding on the dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary is constantly being revised and put forward for new suggestions and new dictionaries and thesaurus's are being constantly written. You've got to be joking. Trained Linguistics are in fact expanding upon the dictionary. What's your point? It covers every bit of that tiny portion. It doesn't leave anything out about the meanings of words. It only leaves out how we know those are the meanings. How we know what a word means is related to how words work. We are talking about people and history and where labels/words came from. Learn to think We don't know what something means without knowing who used those words and where they came from. No one suggested that at all. You implied that. I'm calling you a liar. I didn't say that. This time you may not have implied this time, instead I'll use the word "suggested". Aww, you tried a really stupid insult that doesn't work.* Got no sense of humour? Have a bullet. The Oxford Dictionary is constantly being revised and put forward for new suggestions and new dictionaries and thesaurus's are being constantly written. You are responsible for those changes? You implied that. No I didn't you stupid fuck. Saying the exact opposite of what you think I implied proves that. Got no sense of humour? I do have a sense of humor, that's how I was able to tell your insult failed tremendously. You have never once been funny. You should eat a bullet. 1
point
You are responsible for those changes? Just because I am given the option by the people who write the dictionary doesn't mean I have the responsibility. Just the option. No I didn't you stupid fuck. Saying the exact opposite of what you think I implied proves that. The opposite of what? I do have a sense of humor, that's how I was able to tell your insult failed tremendously. You have never once been funny. You should eat a bullet. You called me hilarious once. I see you're lying. Just the option. So, you at least study linguistics? The opposite of what? What you think I implied. Why did you stop reading the sentence? You called me hilarious once. You are so delusional you make people laugh. That is not you actually being funny. I meant that you can't get anyone to laugh with you instead of laugh at you. Make sense? 1
point
So, you at least study linguistics? Informally, yes. Not in a formal sense, though. I'm not some paid linguistic. Nor am I on par with a professional linguistic. Still, I have been able to come up with some genius ideas about the use of words, though. What you think I implied. Why did you stop reading the sentence? When I said the opposite of what, it meant, "the opposite of what implications I assumed you had made". Contextualise, please. You are so delusional you make people laugh. That is not you actually being funny. I meant that you can't get anyone to laugh with you instead of laugh at you. Make sense? I tell jokes on purpose, but I am not laughing with my audience when I do, so they don't laugh with me. But that doesn't mean that my audience laughs at me, either. Read between the lines. Still, I have been able to come up with some genius ideas about the use of words, though. Bullshit. When I said the opposite of what, it meant, "the opposite of what implications I assumed you had made". Contextualise, please. The part you quoted when you said I implied it. Go contextualize yourself, dipshit. I tell jokes on purpose Bullshit. Every single one of your jokes has been you lying about your intentions with your original statements. but I am not laughing with my audience when I do, so they don't laugh with me. Because you aren't funny, and they know it as well. You aren't even funny enough to make yourself laugh. How sad is that. But that doesn't mean that my audience laughs at me, either. Agreed. They laugh at you for completely different reasons. Read between the lines. This is why they laugh at you. You failed to read between the lines, then you tell someone else to do it. 1
point
Bullshit. False. The part you quoted when you said I implied it. Go contextualize yourself, dipshit. What a moron. I said "implicationS", not "implication". Plural. I want to know how all those implications fit into each other and how they all apparently connect according to your silly explanations. Bullshit. Every single one of your jokes has been you lying about your intentions with your original statements. No, my jokes are not your jokes. Because you aren't funny, and they know it as well. You aren't even funny enough to make yourself laugh. How sad is that. I don't laugh at my own statements because I don't care about what others laugh at? I don't care whether others believe that you are a moron, but they still do. Agreed. They laugh at you for completely different reasons. Had you asked any of them? Has the audience told you this? This is why they laugh at you. You failed to read between the lines, then you tell someone else to do it. I instruct others to do what I do. So no, my jokes are not your jokes. I want to know how all those implications fit into each other and how they all apparently connect according to your silly explanations. There are way too many for me to list here. You have no idea how to figure out what is implied. No, my jokes are not your jokes. Classic "I know you are, but what am I" I don't laugh at my own statements because I don't care about what others laugh at? No, you don't laugh at you own statements because you aren't funny. I don't care whether others believe that you are a moron, but they still do. This is about you not even liking you. Had you asked any of them? Has the audience told you this? They have told you this as well. You aren't listening. I instruct others to do what I do. You also instruct people to do the exact opposite of what you do. So no, my jokes are not your jokes. And, that's why you aren't funny. 1
point
There are way too many for me to list here. You have no idea how to figure out what is implied. Lost. Classic "I know you are, but what am I" No, "I know what you say about me, but what have I said myself?". No, you don't laugh at you own statements because you aren't funny. Funny is subjective. You mean I don't find myself funny but others do? This is about you not even liking you. I don't love or like anyone including myself. I don't dislike or hate myself, either. Instead, I admire myself. They have told you this as well. You aren't listening. You're friends are not the audience. And you fellow mates haven't turned up to this showcasing, so they happen not the be the audience. You also instruct people to do the exact opposite of what you do. Nope. I know you like to pretend that I had implied it. Go away. And, that's why you aren't funny. You aren't funny. Even you had admitted this once. You mean I don't find myself funny but others do? No. You don't find yourself funny, and no one else does either. I don't love or like anyone including myself. You should probably work on that. I don't dislike or hate myself, either. Instead, I admire myself. Those are both lies. You're friends are not the audience. Ah, the old everyone else is the problem not yourself bit. Keep it up. You aren't funny. I am. Even you had admitted this once. I didn't. You misunderstood what I was saying as always. -1
points
No. You don't find yourself funny, and no one else does either. That would mean no one was laughing at me, in that case. You should probably work on that. You're intent is malicious, in that case. Those are both lies. No, they're both truthful. Ah, the old everyone else is the problem not yourself bit. Keep it up. There is no problem with anybody else, if nobody else is around. You're friends aren't around as the audience, so they can't be a problem, can they? I am. No, you're not. I didn't. You misunderstood what I was saying as always. Deceitfullllll likkke an evvilll snakkiscartmannss That would mean no one was laughing at me, in that case. No, that would mean no one is laughing with you. You're intent is malicious, in that case My intent has nothing to do with you not liking anyone. You're friends aren't around as the audience, so they can't be a problem, can they? Apparently. You blame them when they aren't around. No, you're not. I know it is hard for you to figure out what is actually funny. Just take my word for it. Deceitfullllll likkke an evvilll snakkiscartmannss Nope. 1
point
No, that would mean no one is laughing with you. You don't grasp things, do you? You think clearly, but only within the confines of your narrow though processes that says A = B. You think like a computer, programmed to assume that a premise must be true. Where is your reasoning? You just use logic. My intent has nothing to do with you not liking anyone. You said that I should work on the fact that I don't like myself. You're desires are malicious. Malice. Apparently. You blame them when they aren't around. I don't blame my audience. I blame those who aren't around. If the audience wasn't around, they would no longer be an audience. No one had said that I had blamed any of my audience for disbanding. I know it is hard for you to figure out what is actually funny. Just take my word for it. You're stick on the same line. Nope. Is Nope just some name you use to affectionately refer to your Dope? 1
point
So, what. The study of how the history, phonetics, and background of words is not complete by just having the answer to what the words mean. You have the book with all of the meanings to words, and you have the study that involves figuring out how we got all those meanings. No, idiot. We can't know what something means if we don't know where those meanings come from. You don't fully know what another person means if you don't know where they are coming from. Where words came from determines the meaning of words. If the phonetics and background of a word was different, it would mean something else. Electricity is a part of physics. What you are saying is that we don't need a book about physics if we have a book that fully explains electricity. In order to know how the rest of physics works you do need to know how electricity works fully. When electricity is explained all of physics goes along with it. So yes, if you fully understood electricity you would fully understand physics. You either understand both of them or you don't. You first, fucker Cunt. The subject behind the meaning or words is not eliminated if you know all the meanings of words. The subject behind the meaning of words is eliminated, because you know all about what the words mean based on who uses them and when they have been used. Just like understanding how electricity is effected by physics, if you fully understood electricity you would fully understand physics. So you are saying that it is possible to know everything yet have incomplete knowledge? No. That's just plain wrong. Grammar is not about the meanings of words. Yes, it is. Ever heard of Etymology and expression of syllables and about writing words in the correct order to express what one means? It's all obvious. That's what I have been saying you stupid idiot. It is more than just the meanings of words. Linguistics doesn't just cover the meaning of words. It covers phonetics too. But phonetics doesn't just cover the meaning of words, it covers linguistics too. See the word pattern here, gloobbrain? You dumb shit. You just proved yourself wrong. You just proved yourself wrong without knowing it then called someone a moron for not figuring out what they say before posting. It doesn't get much dumber than that. You have been living a make believe world, haven't you? Get out of cyber space. You didn't post any contradictory statements you stupid forgetful fucko. You say I'm good a Being wrong. Well, you're good at Becoming wrong. None of the bold statements meant the opposite of another bold statement. Too bad. They're the building blocks for learning. Or, you never found out what the rules were. Oh my goodness, talk about thinking outside of the box. The conscious decision to not remember? Are you shitting me? You can't fail to obey without doing it deliberately. If you never found out what the rules were, then it doesn't mean you have failed to obey, because you haven't been given the chance to obey. If you fail, you would have pass a certain standard. You can't pass a standard of failing to make a decision if you haven't been given the chance to make a decision. You can't lose if you haven't even been told to fight. Yes, I am fully aware that you are completely incapable of admitting the truth. Got it. Rubbish. Where is the other comment in bold that contradicts the statement. Contradictions involve 2 things being different, not just one statement. It was stated previously. Get a life. False. Fact: you are an asshole. That's certain. An asshole is someone who causes pain knowing they have caused pain. You can't pass the test of being an asshole if you haven't been given the chance to know that somebody else could feel pain. 2+2=4 is an opinion only to an asshole (thanks for proving previous fact) 2+2=5-1 actually. 4 is not 5-1. Calling facts opinions does nothing to scrutinize them. No, you must regard them as opinions instead of merely calling them opinions. You can't even explain a simple word substitution, how are you going to debate anything tougher than basic algebra? For example? Yes, it is. Ever heard of Etymology and expression of syllables and about writing words in the correct order to express what one means? It's all obvious. Grammar: the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics. Stop being an asshole already. See the word pattern here, gloobbrain? Yeah I see the word pattern there since it is what I said you dumb shit. You have been living a make believe world, haven't you? I am not the one who thinks Islam was created before the person who invented Islam. You say I'm good a Being wrong. Well, you're good at Becoming wrong. Do you know what contradiction even means? Too bad. They're the building blocks for learning. God, you are so dumb. You just said that the stuff you have been quoting from me are the building blocks of learning. Thanks buddy. It is nice that you finally recognize that you can learn from me. You can't fail to obey without doing it deliberately. Wrong. I already proved you can. You are wrong. Just move on man. If you never found out what the rules were, then it doesn't mean you have failed to obey, because you haven't been given the chance to obey. It means both asshole. If you fail, you would have pass a certain standard. Failing doesn't mean passing. You can't pass a standard of failing to make a decision if you haven't been given the chance to make a decision. You are begging the question. You are assuming it is a decision in order to prove it is a decision. It doesn't work that way. You can't lose if you haven't even been told to fight. In life, that is certainly not true. 2+2=5-1 actually. 4 is not 5-1. I guess assuming you could make it to basic algebra was a stretch. No, you must regard them as opinions instead of merely calling them opinions. No, asshole, you have to actually scrutinize them. For example? Your first post in this thread was you simply correcting the wording of the person you responded to. I asked what you meant and you couldn't explain it. 1
point
Grammar: the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics. Stop being an asshole already. Morphology and syntax indicates what the meanings of words are, so does phonology and semantics. Yet again, all those things indicates what the meanings of words are. Why did you act like syntax was something different to grammar previously, now you are saying that it is the same thing? Proves my point. Yeah I see the word pattern there since it is what I said you dumb shit. You clearly don't see how interweaved syntax is with the meaning of words, do you? I am not the one who thinks Islam was created before the person who invented Islam. Islam was created as a set of beliefs within a small family before Mohammads birth by his father and within Hinduism. Islam only became more of a religion when Mohammed turned those beliefs from his father and Hinduism into a separate cult. That is why Mohammed was wrong. Thinking the teachings of Islam was not interweaved with the likes of Hinduism, etc. Foolish man. That's why we get radicals today. Do you know what contradiction even means? I do, you don't.God, you are so dumb. You just said that the stuff you have been quoting from me are the building blocks of learning. Thanks buddy. It is nice that you finally recognize that you can learn from me. I don't think you see sarcasm do you? I was intending it as a joke. You took that joke literally and failed. Wrong. I already proved you can. You are wrong. Just move on man. No, you can't. Failing means you don't fall within a standard that has been set depending on particular circumstances. It means both asshole. It can't mean both if a standard doesn't apply to you. Failing doesn't mean passing. You would have to have undergone a certain standard. You can't obey something if you weren't informed about what you were supposed to do. Nor can you disobey, because you weren't told what to do. You can't fail at something if the standard didn't exist for you. You are begging the question. You are assuming it is a decision in order to prove it is a decision. It doesn't work that way. Everything you do is a decision. You can't fail at something if you haven't been given the chance to succeed within the confines of a test. Got it? In life, that is certainly not true. You can't lose in life if you haven't been told to fight it. Even bottom feeders don't truly believe they have lost. No, asshole, you have to actually scrutinize them. You can't scrutinise something you consider a fact. Your first post in this thread was you simply correcting the wording of the person you responded to. I asked what you meant and you couldn't explain it.* You didn't ask what I had meant. You had simply told me that I was stupid. Liar, yet again. Why did you act like syntax was something different to grammar previously, now you are saying that it is the same thing? I didn't talk about syntax previously. Proves my point. No, you proved my point over and over. I was intending it as a joke. You took that joke literally and failed. Sarcasm doesn't work when written down and jokes don't work when the writer is completely unfunny. You can't obey something if you weren't informed about what you were supposed to do. Nor can you disobey, because you weren't told what to do. False. As long as the standard exists you can obey it or disobey regardless of your personal knowledge. You didn't ask what I had meant. You had simply told me that I was stupid. Liar, yet again. I didn't lie at all. I asked what you were trying to point out without putting any judgement as to how stupid it was. "What exactly were you trying to point out here?" See? Nothing about you being stupid, and everything about asking you what you meant. How do you plan on twisting this one around? 1
point
I didn't talk about syntax previously. I had clearly seen you list the word syntax within a list of things that linguistics covers. No, you proved my point over and over You don't see it, do you? Sarcasm doesn't work when written down and jokes don't work when the writer is completely unfunny. Sarcasm does work when written down. Ever read satire? And for a joke to be funny, that depends on the one hearing it, not where it comes from. Attack the message, not the messenger, fool. False. As long as the standard exists you can obey it or disobey regardless of your personal knowledge. You can't disobey. Obey means to follow through a statement. You can't fail to follow through a statement if you haven't been given a chance to pass through it. Failing means to not meet the requirements for a test when that test is held. No one expects you to carry out a statement if that person hasn't heard of that statement, no one has that standard. "What exactly were you trying to point out here?" You only made this statement just now. I had used the "find on page" feature and I don't recall you ever saying this. You don't see it, do you? I see you being wrong all the time. Sarcasm does work when written down. Ever read satire? Please use a fucking dictionary. And for a joke to be funny, that depends on the one hearing it, not where it comes from. There is no one who reads what you write and thinks it is funny. You can't disobey. False. Obey means to follow through a statement. A statement that exists regardless of your knowledge that it exists. You can't fail to follow through a statement if you haven't been given a chance to pass through it. False. Since the statement exists it is your fault for not knowing. Failing means to not meet the requirements for a test when that test is held. Even without a conscious decision you can very easily not meet a requirement. No one expects you to carry out a statement if that person hasn't heard of that statement, no one has that standard. Expectations do not make any difference in determining if you disobeyed. You only made this statement just now. False. I copied that from up above. It is pretty easy to verify. I had used the "find on page" feature and I don't recall you ever saying this. You must have done something wrong. Did you search with the quotes? There were no quotes initially. Go back to the top of this conversation and after your very first post you will see those exact words in the response to you. 1
point
I see you being wrong all the time. Inaccurate. Please use a fucking dictionary. I do. There is no one who reads what you write and thinks it is funny. Before you said that people laugh at me. So nobody finds what I say to funny? False. You can't disobey if you haven't even undergone a trial or standard. A statement that exists regardless of your knowledge that it exists. A statement is not a statement if nobody hears it. A statement is only a statement based on perception. Otherwise it becomes a load of vowel sounds or shapes in the form of letters. False. Since the statement exists it is your fault for not knowing. You can only know a statement exists if a statement actually exists. You can only be ignorant of a statement if it has not yet become a statement for that one person. Even without a conscious decision you can very easily not meet a requirement. Except the requirement is that you make a conscious decision when given the chance. Expectations do not make any difference in determining if you disobeyed. They do based on whether the person receiving it thinks it is a statement. You can't fail if you've never tried to act one a statement. You can't fail to obey if you've never tried to act on a statement. How can you act on a statement if they don't exist for you, yet? False. I copied that from up above. It is pretty easy to verify. Still isn't there. Did you edit your post? You must have done something wrong. Did you search with the quotes? There were no quotes initially. Go back to the top of this conversation and after your very first post you will see those exact words in the response to you. Do you mean quote marks? You assume that I had the idiocy to write a statement with the quote marks? This is failing you yet again. What quotes? Why would I include quotes? Only the words "what exactly are you saying here" came up once. Words that are highlighted in yellow are the exact words written in the find feature. No quotes were highlighted in yellow, so I must have did it right. Yet again, your assumption that I'm dumb as seriously backfired. Talk about the context within a persons character. False. I copied that from up above. It is pretty easy to verify. So nobody finds what I say to funny? No, if they found what you say funny, they would be laughing with you. You can't disobey if you haven't even undergone a trial or standard. Except you can. You are talking about being punished for disobeying. A statement is not a statement if nobody hears it. A statement is only a statement based on perception. Otherwise it becomes a load of vowel sounds or shapes in the form of letters. Use context asshole. Just because one person doesn't hear the staement doesn't mean that nobody does. You can only know a statement exists if a statement actually exists. There is no question that it exists. You lose. Except the requirement is that you make a conscious decision when given the chance. Begging the question. The requirement is to obey, not to make a conscious decision. They do based on whether the person receiving it thinks it is a statement. Not on Earth. Maybe from your planet. You can't fail if you've never tried to act one a statement. Yes, you can. You can't succeed if you've never tried to act. Still isn't there. Did you edit your post? Still is there. You aren't even smart enough to use the find feature. Did you try to go back and look at your first post? You assume that I had the idiocy to write a statement with the quote marks? I wrote the statement with the quote marks you dumb shit. If you copied my statement with the quote marks it won't find it because the first time I wrote it there were no quote marks. This is failing you yet again. No, you idiot. It is a failure for the dumb shit who can't use the simple find feature, not for the guy who can easily search for things. Why would I include quotes? Because you are a stupid forgetful fucko. Only the words "what exactly are you saying here" came up once. Interesting. If you tried it again you would have found that it now shows up at least twice since on the second attempt you would have seen where you quoted my text. Here: What exactly were you trying to point out here? shows up 4 times and "What exactly were you trying to point out here?" shows up 2 times. That's what I am trying to tell you. No quotes were highlighted in yellow, so I must have did it right. If it didn't show up for you when I first posted it, then you didn't do it right. Yet again, your assumption that I'm dumb as seriously backfired. It isn't an assumption. Someone who can't use a find feature has demonstrated that they are dumb. 1
point
No, if they found what you say funny, they would be laughing with you. So laughing at me is an impossibility, or does laughing at me mean people don't find me funny, according to you? Wow, really thick. Except you can. You are talking about being punished for disobeying. You can't undergo a trial or standard if the statement was not stated to you. Use context asshole. Just because one person doesn't hear the staement doesn't mean that nobody does. What an idiot. If somebody else, then it is a statement for those that do hear. Not for those that don't hear it. So the trial doesn't apply to them. There is no question that it exists. You lose. Except the statement didn't exist at the person who didn't hear it. A statement only becomes a statement for someone if it was heard by them. You can't disobey something that from your perspective is not a statement. Get it, now? Begging the question. The requirement is to obey, not to make a conscious decision. Making a conscious decision that requires you carry out the action is the requirement. You aren't given the chance to make any conscious decision, so you can't fail if you never try to make a conscious decision to either follow through or not follow through. Not on Earth. Maybe from your planet. If somebody misheard me when I told them to do something, would be somehow disobeying me? So If I asked somebody to pinch playdough, but they thought they heard me say "pinch ladle" and in response they pinched the ladle, would they be disobeying, apparently? What a moron! Yes, you can. You can't succeed if you've never tried to act. Fail is the opposite of succeed. You don't have to do the opposite in order to not do something. If you don't do any of the two opposing actions of succeeding or failing, you aren't doing any at all. Still is there. You aren't even smart enough to use the find feature. Did you try to go back and look at your first post? Yes, I did. My post is not your post. We were talking about what you had said. I wrote the statement with the quote marks you dumb shit. If you copied my statement with the quote marks it won't find it because the first time I wrote it there were no quote marks. I never said I inserted quote marks, you pathetic moron. Dumb bastard. Interesting. If you tried it again you would have found that it now shows up at least twice since on the second attempt you would have seen where you quoted my text. Here: What exactly were you trying to point out here? shows up 4 times and "What exactly were you trying to point out here?" shows up 2 times. That's what I am trying to tell you. Still doesn't show up. If it didn't show up for you when I first posted it, then you didn't do it right. Liar. It isn't an assumption. Someone who can't use a find feature has demonstrated that they are dumb. You just pretend. I had inserted no quote marks and you have still failed. What a stupid little liar. So laughing at me is an impossibility, or does laughing at me mean people don't find me funny, according to you? No, laughing at you is the only possibility because you are stupid and not funny. Laughing with you would be impossible. You can't undergo a trial or standard if the statement was not stated to you. This isn't true on planet Earth. Not for those that don't hear it. So the trial doesn't apply to them. This isn't true for planet Earth. You can't disobey something that from your perspective is not a statement. This isn't true on planet Earth. Making a conscious decision that requires you carry out the action is the requirement. You aren't given the chance to make any conscious decision, so you can't fail if you never try to make a conscious decision to either follow through or not follow through. So, your response to being told that you are begging the question is to beg the question even harder? If somebody misheard me when I told them to do something, would be somehow disobeying me? Yes, you fucktard. So If I asked somebody to pinch playdough, but they thought they heard me say "pinch ladle" and in response they pinched the ladle, would they be disobeying, apparently? They didn't obey the command to pinch the playdough. That is cut and dry failure to obey. Fail is the opposite of succeed. You just proved me right you stupid fuck. You don't have to do the opposite in order to not do something. Yes you do. You can't fail and succeed. If you don't do any of the two opposing actions of succeeding or failing, you aren't doing any at all. No. If you aren't doing the action required to succeed, you are failing. Yes, I did. My post is not your post. We were talking about what you had said. Wow. You can't use the find feature or follow simple directions. What was my response to your first post? I never said I inserted quote marks, you pathetic moron. You accused me of saying that you inserted quote marks when I didn't. Now you are accusing me of saying that you said you put in quote marks which I didn't do either. Still doesn't show up. You are still too dumb to use the find feature. Congratulations. I had inserted no quote marks and you have still failed. No, asshole. You failed. You don't know how to use the find feature. You are the one who is not able to do something. 1
point
No, laughing at you is the only possibility because you are stupid and not funny. Laughing with you would be impossible. People wouldn't laugh at me if I wasn't funny. What a moron. This isn't true on planet Earth. Oh, God. I think I have a serious problem on my hands. Talking to the most illogical, the Cartman. So, your response to being told that you are begging the question is to beg the question even harder? I am begging the answer, not the question. Hint: I've answered the question for you, so I'm begging the answer, not the question. Yes, you fucktard. I certainly wouldn't employ you in a position of too much authority, then. Since you would accuse employees of disobeying you if they simply misheard you. "Disobey" is a negative word. They didn't obey the command to pinch the playdough. That is cut and dry failure to obey. They can't obey something that for them was not a command. I am yet again begging the answer, directly. You just proved me right you stupid fuck. No, you just don't know about the grey bits in between. Yes you do. You can't fail and succeed. You can't do two opposites. You can do neither, but you can't do both. No. If you aren't doing the action required to succeed, you are failing. I have constantly told you this. You can't fail something if there are no requirements. You can't fail something if you aren't put on trial for the requirements. Wow. You can't use the find feature or follow simple directions. What was my response to your first post? "What exactly were you trying to point out here?". You're first post when responding to me is not your first you had made when you made an enquiry into the actual contents of my post. You criticised my post by calling me thick, not by asking through scrutiny. You accused me of saying that you inserted quote marks when I didn't. Now you are accusing me of saying that you said you put in quote marks which I didn't do either. You just did both, denial has it's roots. No, asshole. You failed. You don't know how to use the find feature. You are the one who is not able to do something. Get a life. People wouldn't laugh at me if I wasn't funny. They laugh at you because you are an idiot. They don't laugh with you because you never say anything funny. What a moron. It is moronic to call someone a moron when you don't understand what they said. I am begging the answer, not the question. Hint: I've answered the question for you, so I'm begging the answer, not the question. It's a logical fallacy. Look it up. I certainly wouldn't employ you in a position of too much authority, then. Of course not. You are too fucking stupid to ever be in a position to hire anyone. Since you would accuse employees of disobeying you if they simply misheard you. "Disobey" is a negative word. How is it not negative to have someone do something wrong because they misheard you? If you didn't do the right thing it is negative. It doesn't matter why. If it was willful it just becomes more negative. They can't obey something that for them was not a command. Yes you can. If there is a rule that you aren't supposed to walk in a certain area, and you don't, you obeyed the rules even if you didn't know about it. I am yet again begging the answer, directly. Really? I give you the answer and you still don't get it. No, you just don't know about the grey bits in between. There aren't grey bits here. You can do neither, but you can't do both. In this case you either fail or you succeed. If you aren't succeeding, you are failing. There is no in between. I have constantly told you this. No, you haven't. You have been saying that if you don't do something you can't fail. You can't fail something if there are no requirements. There are requirements. They don't magically disappear just because you are uninformed. You can't fail something if you aren't put on trial for the requirements. There is no trial you stupid shit. You make no sense. "What exactly were you trying to point out here?". So, you admit that my first response was exactly what I claimed. Finally. Geez. You're first post when responding to me is not your first you had made when you made an enquiry into the actual contents of my post. You just fucking said it was. You criticised my post by calling me thick, not by asking through scrutiny. I didn't call you thick. What part of "What exactly were you trying to point out here?" is me calling you thick? You were insulted because you wanted to be insulted. You just did both, denial has it's roots. The biggest denier is going to criticize someone else. That's rich. That's even more hilarious than when you call people liars. Get a life. Get a clue. You should probably start with a computer class for old people where they show you which way to hold the mouse. 1
point
They laugh at you because you are an idiot. They don't laugh with you because you never say anything funny. You're sentence doesn't match up. If they are laughing at the fact that I am an idiot, they are laughing at me and therefore they find my idiocy funny. It is moronic to call someone a moron when you don't understand what they said. True. Irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy. Look it up. You assume I was begging the question. Look it up, I wasn't. Of course not. You are too fucking stupid to ever be in a position to hire anyone. You don't know what authority means. How is it not negative to have someone do something wrong because they misheard you? If you didn't do the right thing it is negative. It doesn't matter why. If it was willful it just becomes more negative. Disobeying is a negative word. It has negative connotations. In other words, when the word "disobey" is applied, a negative connotation is placed on the person that it is assigned to. Learn to think properly. Yes you can. If there is a rule that you aren't supposed to walk in a certain area, and you don't, you obeyed the rules even if you didn't know about it. YOU are begging the question. You are assuming that you are following the rules. What if the rules don't exist from your perspective? Really? I give you the answer and you still don't get it. You didn't give the correct answer. A specific answer was being begged, yet you didn't give me the right one. There aren't grey bits here. There are. Perspective determines what is grey, white and black. In this case you either fail or you succeed. If you aren't succeeding, you are failing. There is no in between. Yet again you can't succeed or fail if something doesn't exist. Whether something exists or not depends on your perspective. No, you haven't. You have been saying that if you don't do something you can't fail. If you never try, you never fail. Ever heard of that phrase? It's logical. Apply it. It'll save you. There are requirements. They don't magically disappear just because you are uninformed. There are no rules in my head, so there are no requirements. Rules exist only according to the imagination. There is no trial you stupid shit. You make no sense. If we judge someone, we put them on trial, dimwit. You can't judge someone who can't follow your non-existent rules. So, you admit that my first response was exactly what I claimed. Finally. Geez.* No, I don't. You're statement in response to the actual contents of my post was not that. Learn to understand the context behind first and second. You just fucking said it was. No, the first comment you made in general was not the first post you made in response to the actual contents of my post. I see you're trying to be shifty here. I didn't call you thick. What part of "What exactly were you trying to point out here?" is me calling you thick? You were insulted because you wanted to be insulted. You did call me thick. The first comment you made in response to the content of my posts are after you made your first vague sweeping remark. Read between the lines. The biggest denier is going to criticize someone else. That's rich. That's even more hilarious than when you call people liars. You're projecting. Get a clue. You should probably start with a computer class for old people where they show you which way to hold the mouse. You're implying that I am incapable of loading up the internet in that case? -3
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
