said by SLD:Oh GOD, now you too?!? I already blocked your buddy.
His words might not bother you so much, if there wasn't something in them that found a home in your head.
Like this for example:
said by Bit00:Wow, I'm surprised you aren't posting in Crayon, still unable to support any portion of your argument closing in to 4 pages of evasion, "I know you are but what am I" logic. Everyone here recognizes that as the clear sign you have no point. You lost with your first post and just embarrassed yourself with the rest.
said by SLD:Once you address my point instead of bringing in your valueless links,
This is a WEB ENVIRONMENT. If you don't want links to the mounting pile of supporting evidence, what form do you want your proof in? Fax by carrier pigeon? The Evidence God delivering the conclusive proof in Broadway Lights? Stars in heaven rearranged to form pleasing yet non-confrontational pictorials?
said by Bit00:you'll have my attention. Come to think of it, you've proven that you can't follow a conversation, or a point, since you are soo focused on your links that have nothing to do with my point, that I can't see respponding any further. Buzzz.... you lose again!
This is where I begin to believe you are mentally ill. I have given you clear and unambiguous responses and you blew them off.
At which point then accuse me of giving you no responses at all.
Bachman's been creating these Discretionary Budget Graphics since 2004. I've been following him most of that time.
I've read dozens of columns about his work in reputable web publishers. And past that I've seen hundreds of casual mentions of his work, by people with suggestions, constructive criticisms, accolades and raw praise to offer.
In 4 years of my following Bachman's graph work, you are the first person, I've known, to suggest he is fraudulent. And what evidence of his fraud do you offer? Documented discrepancies between his numbers and the GAO? The DOE highlighting how he misled them?
Not even.
In fact, you haven't even provided a substantial reason for charging Bachman with bald face lying to thousands and thousand of people. You threw out a directed, yet weak innuendo. And you only did it because Bachman's data threatened your position.
You'd trash the character of someone you know nothing about, and for what? Because you're obsessed with winning an argument and don't have what you need to pull it off.
With all candor and honesty, if you continue in this vein; you are a jerk.
said by SLD:That isn't the same as disproving.
I have precisely disproven your baseless innuendo,
I provided reputable names. I provided links to their testimonials.
YOU GAVE NO RESPONSE TO THEM. A response would have included NAMING MY SOURCE and giving CLEAR, SUBSTANTIAL and UNAMBIGIOUS information that WAS CONCLUSIVE and RELEVANT in showing how the source wasn't authoritative.
You did none of that or you would be able to repost your statements to that effect.
This kind of winning-at-all-cost mentality is everything that's wrong with my country.
If you carry on this crap for one more post, you're not just a jerk.
NV
edit:fixed my decade.