dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

1 edit
reply to Bit00

Re: Gov't and clear goals don't belong in the same sentence

I really wish I could give you a high-five for a good argument and agree to disagree, but your repetitive argument is too weak to even pass gas over.


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

3 edits
We are still waiting for some facts from you backing up your conjecture, but I guess we will all be waiting until hell freezes over since you have none.

How about another emoticon, those are always compelling arguments.

It wouldn't be repetitive if you backed up your conjecture when I first asked about it. Your repetitive evasion results in the request for your facts being reptitive.

--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
Should I repeat that my argument is based on simple logic? Do you understand English?


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit
You can present your evidence as to why the poster isn't accurate at any time.

The fact that you endlessly evade it implies that you are simply full of shit.

Now either you have proof that the poster is inaccurate or you don't. Which is it? I don't know how I can ask this question any simpler.
--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
All he did was link a website to a graph. He made no argument against my logical point. Why do you keep nipping at my heels with someone elses mistaken points? Go get your own ideas and argue them, but make sure you undestand the argument before you keep wasting time.


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
reply to SLD
Both here

»Re: Gov't and clear goals don't belong in the same sentence

»Re: Gov't and clear goals don't belong in the same sentence

You question the validity of the data presented by the poster.

Back it up with your data. If you can't, that is fine, just admit that you can't.
--
POKE 65495,1


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
reply to SLD
So does that mean you can't support your assertion about the poster? Yes? No?

Certainly it would have been easier to present your evidence that the poster was inaccurate instead of 2 pages of evasion.
--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
reply to Bit00
Who cares!?! So, I laughed at his source. That is my prerogative. It is still funny.
Now, go get your own argument, but make it with someone else please.


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

4 edits
So you are full of shit and can't refute the validity of the poster as a source. Now that wasn't so hard was it? You could have admitted this 2 pages ago.

--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
Jesus, dude! I'm going to place you on my ignore list if you keep with this ridiculous banter.


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
Go right ahead. It will save you the trouble of actually having to back up your bullshit with facts.

You tried to discredit his argument by discrediting his source. That is certainly logically sound if you can do it. That is why you should support your assertion that the source is inaccurate...again, if you can do it. I don't think you can which is why you are now engaging in all this evasion.
--
POKE 65495,1