[QUOTE]I wasn't talking about the posts in the topic, I was talking about our pms, so unless you can read our private mail, you don't know what I mean.[/QUOTE] I was talking about the pms, seeing as how the topics posts were 100% going to end. I'm pretty sure you just said he blocked you, therefore meaning the conversation was over, by any means. This is my last way-off-topic post in this thread.

Quote

I wasn't talking about the posts in the topic, I was talking about our pms, so unless you can read our private mail, you don't know what I mean.

I was talking about the pms, seeing as how the topics posts were 100% going to end. I'm pretty sure you just said he blocked you, therefore meaning the conversation was over, by any means. This is my last way-off-topic post in this thread.

[QUOTE] -Centreri consoled someone for the loss of their mother -You told Centreri not to fall for emotional appeal. -I respond saying his argument wasn't changed by emotional appeal anyways - This post was useless, I win [/QUOTE]

The worst part about losing someone, is that everyone walks on eggshells around you, sometimes people want to be left alone. It is far more appropriate to celebrate one's life, than to mourn one's death, but this is kinda off-topic.

The worst part about losing someone, is that everyone walks on eggshells around you, sometimes people want to be left alone. It is far more appropriate to celebrate one's life, than to mourn one's death, but this is kinda off-topic.

Well after this topic gets out of hand I'll start a what do you think about Canada topic.

Well after this topic gets out of hand I'll start a what do you think about Canada topic.

[QUOTE]Well after this topic gets out of hand I'll start a what do you think about Canada topic.[/QUOTE] This isn't out of hand? The closest we come to talk about America in the last [I]several [/I]pages is abortion. The other 10 or so posts were about the uselessness of other's posts. Then anti made a statement that was true but pretty off-topic as well. Then I made this post which was off-topic!!! :O

Quote

Well after this topic gets out of hand I'll start a what do you think about Canada topic.

This isn't out of hand? The closest we come to talk about America in the last several pages is abortion. The other 10 or so posts were about the uselessness of other's posts. Then anti made a statement that was true but pretty off-topic as well. Then I made this post which was off-topic!!!

[QUOTE] -Centreri consoled someone for the loss of their mother -You told Centreri not to fall for emotional appeal. -I respond saying his argument wasn't changed by emotional appeal anyways - This post was useless, I win[/QUOTE] Nope, because I was commenting on how your post was useless in the first place. Your post is the very first in the chain to be useless, I win.

Quote

-Centreri consoled someone for the loss of their mother
-You told Centreri not to fall for emotional appeal.
-I respond saying his argument wasn't changed by emotional appeal anyways - This post was useless, I win

Nope, because I was commenting on how your post was useless in the first place. Your post is the very first in the chain to be useless, I win.

[QUOTE]Nope, because I was commenting on how your post was useless in the first place. Your post is the very first in the chain to be useless, I win.[/QUOTE] Upon further review, your first post wasn't telling him his was useless, it was just a part of a post where you said something totally irrelevant, sort of... kind of... here is my intrepretation of the arguement: -Devilesk gives his opinion/advice -PwnPirate says his offer of advice was wrong -Devilesk makes a reply to PwnPirate which is correct -PwnPirate didn't know who devilesk was talking about, which made all his previous arguements null, he then says: [QUOTE]Sure, except: I'm talking about the one who replied, not the one who posted.[/QUOTE] The first useless post in the chain. PwnPirate then continues to argue as if he was not wrong initially for not knowing who devilesk was talking about. Devilesk=The Winner PwnPirate=The Loser So much for no way off-topic posts, I couldn't resist. This topic is a goner anyways, and this issue might as well be attempted to be resolved by a third person. They'll never do it on their own.....

Quote

Nope, because I was commenting on how your post was useless in the first place. Your post is the very first in the chain to be useless, I win.

Upon further review, your first post wasn't telling him his was useless, it was just a part of a post where you said something totally irrelevant, sort of... kind of... here is my intrepretation of the arguement:

-Devilesk gives his opinion/advice
-PwnPirate says his offer of advice was wrong
-Devilesk makes a reply to PwnPirate which is correct
-PwnPirate didn't know who devilesk was talking about, which made all his previous arguements null, he then says:

Quote

Sure, except:
I'm talking about the one who replied, not the one who posted.

The first useless post in the chain. PwnPirate then continues to argue as if he was not wrong initially for not knowing who devilesk was talking about.

Devilesk=The Winner PwnPirate=The Loser

So much for no way off-topic posts, I couldn't resist. This topic is a goner anyways, and this issue might as well be attempted to be resolved by a third person. They'll never do it on their own.....

[QUOTE]Upon further review, your first post wasn't telling him his was useless, it was just a part of a post where you said something totally irrelevant, sort of... kind of... here is my intrepretation of the arguement: -Devilesk gives his opinion/advice -PwnPirate says his offer of advice was wrong -Devilesk makes a reply to PwnPirate which is correct -PwnPirate didn't know who devilesk was talking about, which made all his previous arguements null, he then says:[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter because his first post is useless and since there is no reasonable resistance from devilesk on that comment, his post is decided as the first useless post in the chain. It doesn't matter if I misinterpreted him after his first useless post, he misinterpreted me directly afterwards so therefore he can't use the argument that my post was useless after his post. [QUOTE]Don't fall for his appeals to emotions. Just don't bother replying to them.[/QUOTE] That has nothing to do with anything, it is irrefutably the first useless post in the chain. It truly goes this way: -Devilesk makes useless post -I make an incorrect assumption (which was reasonable because if devilesk wasn't talking about Centreri's argument, his post is useless. If you argue that the assumption isn't reasonable, you are arguing that devilesk has a history of being unreasonable.) -Devilesk makes an incorrect assumption which you can't even argue is right because he himself acknowledged the error ([I]he[/I] was the one who didn't know who [I]I [/I]was talking about, which makes [I]his[/I] post null). -I correct my assumption, explain why I made it, and then explain why his post is useless either way. -Rest of stuff

Quote

Upon further review, your first post wasn't telling him his was useless, it was just a part of a post where you said something totally irrelevant, sort of... kind of... here is my intrepretation of the arguement:

-Devilesk gives his opinion/advice
-PwnPirate says his offer of advice was wrong
-Devilesk makes a reply to PwnPirate which is correct
-PwnPirate didn't know who devilesk was talking about, which made all his previous arguements null, he then says:

It doesn't matter because his first post is useless and since there is no reasonable resistance from devilesk on that comment, his post is decided as the first useless post in the chain. It doesn't matter if I misinterpreted him after his first useless post, he misinterpreted me directly afterwards so therefore he can't use the argument that my post was useless after his post.

Quote

Don't fall for his appeals to emotions. Just don't bother replying to them.

That has nothing to do with anything, it is irrefutably the first useless post in the chain.

It truly goes this way:
-Devilesk makes useless post
-I make an incorrect assumption (which was reasonable because if devilesk wasn't talking about Centreri's argument, his post is useless. If you argue that the assumption isn't reasonable, you are arguing that devilesk has a history of being unreasonable.)
-Devilesk makes an incorrect assumption which you can't even argue is right because he himself acknowledged the error (he was the one who didn't know who I was talking about, which makes his post null).
-I correct my assumption, explain why I made it, and then explain why his post is useless either way.
-Rest of stuff

[QUOTE]-Devilesk makes useless post -I make an incorrect assumption[/QUOTE] The post is only useless in your [I]opinion[/I]. No one else ever said anything. You're the only person who thought the post was useless. Devilesk was on-topic with the issues at hand. Sense a trend? [QUOTE]-Devilesk gives his opinion/advice -PwnPirate says his offer of advice was wrong -Devilesk makes a reply to PwnPirate which is correct -PwnPirate didn't know who devilesk was talking about, which made all his previous arguements null, he then says: I'm talking about the one who replied, not the one who posted. The first useless post in the chain. PwnPirate then continues to argue as if he was not wrong initially for not knowing who devilesk was talking about.[/QUOTE] This is still all correct. [QUOTE]It doesn't matter because his first post is useless and since there is no reasonable resistance from devilesk on that comment[/QUOTE] By the way, this is a flat out lie.

Quote

-Devilesk makes useless post
-I make an incorrect assumption

The post is only useless in your opinion. No one else ever said anything. You're the only person who thought the post was useless. Devilesk was on-topic with the issues at hand. Sense a trend?

Quote

-Devilesk gives his opinion/advice
-PwnPirate says his offer of advice was wrong
-Devilesk makes a reply to PwnPirate which is correct
-PwnPirate didn't know who devilesk was talking about, which made all his previous arguements null, he then says:

I'm talking about the one who replied, not the one who posted.

The first useless post in the chain. PwnPirate then continues to argue as if he was not wrong initially for not knowing who devilesk was talking about.

This is still all correct.

Quote

It doesn't matter because his first post is useless and since there is no reasonable resistance from devilesk on that comment

By the way, this is a flat out lie.

[QUOTE] The post is only useless in your opinion. No one else ever said anything. You're the only person who thought the post was useless. Devilesk was on-topic with the issues at hand. Sense a trend?[/QUOTE] I've explained why it was useless. Personal opinions have nothing to do with the argument. That isn't even an opinion on my behalf, that's a fact. I've stated it and I know it to be true, why don't you tell me why it's not? Why don't you tell me how he is contributing anything to the argument if he isn't referring to Centreri's argument? In fact, I've already prompted Devilesk [B]three[/B] times for this explanation, but he dodges the subject. He apparently has no explanation, and neither do you. Yet you and him continue to argue against me, which I believe is just for the sake of arguing against me due to your own past opinions of me. To strictly answer your question, yes I do sense a trend, no it is not the one you have in mind. The trend is: that you commonly contradict the things you say in the same post, that you make flat statements and never support them with evidence, and that you unreasonably value the power of number in arguments. 1. It doesn't matter if I am the only one who challenged the post 2. It doesn't matter if you agree with devilesk without giving me some evidence 3. It doesn't matter if you comment on who you think has won in an argument. [B]Personal opinion doesn't matter, evidence does.[/B] [QUOTE]This is still all correct. [/QUOTE] Why? [QUOTE]By the way, this is a flat out lie.[/QUOTE] Really? Where's anything to back up your claim? Where are the statements Devilesk made that say "my original post is not useless," followed by solid evidence? Where is anything that even alludes to that? I would say you are the one lying here.

Quote

The post is only useless in your opinion. No one else ever said anything. You're the only person who thought the post was useless. Devilesk was on-topic with the issues at hand. Sense a trend?

I've explained why it was useless. Personal opinions have nothing to do with the argument. That isn't even an opinion on my behalf, that's a fact. I've stated it and I know it to be true, why don't you tell me why it's not? Why don't you tell me how he is contributing anything to the argument if he isn't referring to Centreri's argument? In fact, I've already prompted Devilesk three times for this explanation, but he dodges the subject. He apparently has no explanation, and neither do you. Yet you and him continue to argue against me, which I believe is just for the sake of arguing against me due to your own past opinions of me. To strictly answer your question, yes I do sense a trend, no it is not the one you have in mind.
The trend is: that you commonly contradict the things you say in the same post, that you make flat statements and never support them with evidence, and that you unreasonably value the power of number in arguments.

1. It doesn't matter if I am the only one who challenged the post
2. It doesn't matter if you agree with devilesk without giving me some evidence
3. It doesn't matter if you comment on who you think has won in an argument.
Personal opinion doesn't matter, evidence does.

Quote

This is still all correct.

Why?

Quote

By the way, this is a flat out lie.

Really? Where's anything to back up your claim? Where are the statements Devilesk made that say "my original post is not useless," followed by solid evidence? Where is anything that even alludes to that? I would say you are the one lying here.

[QUOTE]Why?[/QUOTE] Because it is what happened, and is fact. [QUOTE]Really? Where's anything to back up your claim? Where are the statements Devilesk made that say "my original post is not useless," followed by solid evidence? Where is anything that even alludes to that? I would say you are the one lying here.[/QUOTE] You can read his posts yourself if you haven't yet. [QUOTE]I've explained why it was useless. Personal opinions have nothing to do with the argument. That isn't even an opinion on my behalf, that's a fact. I've stated it and I know it to be true, why don't you tell me why it's not? Why don't you tell me how he is contributing anything to the argument if he isn't referring to Centreri's argument? In fact, I've already prompted Devilesk three times for this explanation, but he dodges the subject. He apparently has no explanation, and neither do you. Yet you and him continue to argue against me, which I believe is just for the sake of arguing against me due to your own past opinions of me. To strictly answer your question, yes I do sense a trend, no it is not the one you have in mind.[/QUOTE] LoL at the most fail arguing ever. If you can't realize that this is all opinions (other than the questions), with no evidence, then why am I bothering. (seeing as how you claim opinion has nothing to do with it, and I give no evidence) [QUOTE]Yet you and him continue to argue against me, which I believe is just for the sake of arguing against me due to your own past opinions of me[/QUOTE] I don't hold grudges, especially on the internet. I truly believe you are wrong. It's awful feeble-minded of you to assume I base my arguements in current discussions on past opinions of people. [QUOTE]The trend is: that you commonly contradict the things you say in the same post, that you make flat statements and never support them with evidence[/quote] I see you're still refering to yourself in the second person. I'm done with this shit, if this post isn't clear enough for you, then whatever. It was fun owning you in the arguement while it was still intelligible, thank you. And: [QUOTE]Why don't you tell me how he is contributing anything to the argument if he isn't referring to Centreri's argument?[/QUOTE] He was talking to RedHead, a key member of the conversation. He was giving aforementioned person advice from his point of view on something extremely relevant to the current discussion. That is in no way useless, happy?

Quote

Why?

Because it is what happened, and is fact.

Quote

Really? Where's anything to back up your claim? Where are the statements Devilesk made that say "my original post is not useless," followed by solid evidence? Where is anything that even alludes to that? I would say you are the one lying here.

You can read his posts yourself if you haven't yet.

Quote

I've explained why it was useless. Personal opinions have nothing to do with the argument. That isn't even an opinion on my behalf, that's a fact. I've stated it and I know it to be true, why don't you tell me why it's not? Why don't you tell me how he is contributing anything to the argument if he isn't referring to Centreri's argument? In fact, I've already prompted Devilesk three times for this explanation, but he dodges the subject. He apparently has no explanation, and neither do you. Yet you and him continue to argue against me, which I believe is just for the sake of arguing against me due to your own past opinions of me. To strictly answer your question, yes I do sense a trend, no it is not the one you have in mind.

LoL at the most fail arguing ever. If you can't realize that this is all opinions (other than the questions), with no evidence, then why am I bothering. (seeing as how you claim opinion has nothing to do with it, and I give no evidence)

Quote

Yet you and him continue to argue against me, which I believe is just for the sake of arguing against me due to your own past opinions of me

I don't hold grudges, especially on the internet. I truly believe you are wrong. It's awful feeble-minded of you to assume I base my arguements in current discussions on past opinions of people.

Quote

The trend is: that you commonly contradict the things you say in the same post, that you make flat statements and never support them with evidence

I see you're still refering to yourself in the second person.

I'm done with this shit, if this post isn't clear enough for you, then whatever. It was fun owning you in the arguement while it was still intelligible, thank you.

And:

Quote

Why don't you tell me how he is contributing anything to the argument if he isn't referring to Centreri's argument?

He was talking to RedHead, a key member of the conversation. He was giving aforementioned person advice from his point of view on something extremely relevant to the current discussion. That is in no way useless, happy?

Maybe you guys need a 4th person to point out that you'll never convince each other of anything. It's quite flattering to see my name in every post, though :P.

Maybe you guys need a 4th person to point out that you'll never convince each other of anything.

It's quite flattering to see my name in every post, though .

[QUOTE]Maybe you guys need a 4th person to point out that you'll never convince each other of anything. It's quite flattering to see my name in every post, though :P .[/QUOTE] Normally it would have been a slight comment, maybe some criticism, and then we would have moved on, had it not been the tone of Devilesk's posts. [QUOTE] Because it is what happened, and is fact.[/QUOTE] Nope, I say my version is what happened, because it is actually what happened:[QUOTE]-Devilesk gives his opinion/advice -PwnPirate says his offer of advice was wrong -Devilesk makes a reply to PwnPirate which is correct -PwnPirate didn't know who devilesk was talking about, which made all his previous arguements null, he then says:[/QUOTE] Devilesk literally did not make a post that was right because he assumed the wrong thing, so therefore your post is rock solid wrong. [QUOTE]LoL at the most fail arguing ever. If you can't realize that this is all opinions (other than the questions), with no evidence, then why am I bothering. (seeing as how you claim opinion has nothing to do with it, and I give no evidence) [/QUOTE] Nope, [I]there are opinions with evidence[/I], such as Devilesk's and mine. Your posts on the other hand frequently have no evidence. If they have no evidence, they are to be assumed wrong until shown otherwise (devilesk's favorite Occam's razor). Note how I put that in my other post also? You're just flat out wrong. [QUOTE]I don't hold grudges, especially on the internet. I truly believe you are wrong. It's awful feeble-minded of you to assume I base my arguements in current discussions on past opinions of people.[/QUOTE] Another contradiction in the same post, I can see I can't reason with you, but I might as well tell you anyways. If you don't hold grudges, if you never base your arguments on other topics and you only use reasoning, you wouldn't have made a flame comment about how I am so "feeble-minded" and you wouldn't have blatantly made the same one-sided post you made in two other topics. If you honestly aren't letting past opinions affect your post, then you and devilesk should retract all your statements about my poor usage of assumptions. You both have a terrible problem with posting clearly and you attempt to argue things in useless inaccurate metaphors that have shown in the past not to get the message across. Not only that but both of you also make illogical assumptions about many things also, so what right do you have to complain about my assumptions, which at least have base? [QUOTE]I see you're still refering to yourself in the second person. I'm done with this shit, if this post isn't clear enough for you, then whatever. It was fun owning you in the arguement while it was still intelligible, thank you. [/QUOTE] Another contradiction, you still are providing no evidence for this statement in itself, so you are wrong and again flaming. [QUOTE]He was talking to RedHead, a key member of the conversation. He was giving aforementioned person advice from his point of view on something extremely relevant to the current discussion. That is in no way useless, happy?[/QUOTE] Not that you would know what he was referring to because he never stated it (and he blatantly posted that he was referring to Centreri), but it would still in every respect be useless, because: 1. It is still personal opinion with no evidence 2. This makes it ridiculously vague and ineffective, to which devilesk has himself to blame. 3. It would mean that devilesk could have [B]clearly[/B] stated his intentions and reasoning in the very start of his argument, which would put him at fault for creating this entire argument.

Quote

Maybe you guys need a 4th person to point out that you'll never convince each other of anything.

It's quite flattering to see my name in every post, though .

Normally it would have been a slight comment, maybe some criticism, and then we would have moved on, had it not been the tone of Devilesk's posts.

Quote

Because it is what happened, and is fact.

Nope, I say my version is what happened, because it is actually what happened:

Quote

-Devilesk gives his opinion/advice
-PwnPirate says his offer of advice was wrong
-Devilesk makes a reply to PwnPirate which is correct
-PwnPirate didn't know who devilesk was talking about, which made all his previous arguements null, he then says:

Devilesk literally did not make a post that was right because he assumed the wrong thing, so therefore your post is rock solid wrong.

Quote

LoL at the most fail arguing ever. If you can't realize that this is all opinions (other than the questions), with no evidence, then why am I bothering. (seeing as how you claim opinion has nothing to do with it, and I give no evidence)

Nope, there are opinions with evidence, such as Devilesk's and mine. Your posts on the other hand frequently have no evidence. If they have no evidence, they are to be assumed wrong until shown otherwise (devilesk's favorite Occam's razor). Note how I put that in my other post also? You're just flat out wrong.

Quote

I don't hold grudges, especially on the internet. I truly believe you are wrong. It's awful feeble-minded of you to assume I base my arguements in current discussions on past opinions of people.

Another contradiction in the same post, I can see I can't reason with you, but I might as well tell you anyways. If you don't hold grudges, if you never base your arguments on other topics and you only use reasoning, you wouldn't have made a flame comment about how I am so "feeble-minded" and you wouldn't have blatantly made the same one-sided post you made in two other topics.

If you honestly aren't letting past opinions affect your post, then you and devilesk should retract all your statements about my poor usage of assumptions. You both have a terrible problem with posting clearly and you attempt to argue things in useless inaccurate metaphors that have shown in the past not to get the message across. Not only that but both of you also make illogical assumptions about many things also, so what right do you have to complain about my assumptions, which at least have base?

Quote

I see you're still refering to yourself in the second person.

I'm done with this shit, if this post isn't clear enough for you, then whatever. It was fun owning you in the arguement while it was still intelligible, thank you.

Another contradiction, you still are providing no evidence for this statement in itself, so you are wrong and again flaming.

Quote

He was talking to RedHead, a key member of the conversation. He was giving aforementioned person advice from his point of view on something extremely relevant to the current discussion. That is in no way useless, happy?

Not that you would know what he was referring to because he never stated it (and he blatantly posted that he was referring to Centreri), but it would still in every respect be useless, because:
1. It is still personal opinion with no evidence
2. This makes it ridiculously vague and ineffective, to which devilesk has himself to blame.
3. It would mean that devilesk could have clearly stated his intentions and reasoning in the very start of his argument, which would put him at fault for creating this entire argument.

So, are you going to keep whining over semantics, or is there something substantive left in this thread? The first thing you need to learn about debate is that you should never argue against the other person, but instead at the case he or she presents The easiest way to do this is to ask questions about the position, until a contradiction is forced. Being wrong is something the opponent must accept, it cannot be forced upon them, this is simply a result of human emotion, perhaps a defense mechanism.

So, are you going to keep whining over semantics, or is there something substantive left in this thread?

The first thing you need to learn about debate is that you should never argue against the other person, but instead at the case he or she presents The easiest way to do this is to ask questions about the position, until a contradiction is forced. Being wrong is something the opponent must accept, it cannot be forced upon them, this is simply a result of human emotion, perhaps a defense mechanism.

[QUOTE] The first thing you need to learn about debate is that you should never argue against the other person, but instead at the case he or she presents The easiest way to do this is to ask questions about the position, until a contradiction is forced. Being wrong is something the opponent must accept, it cannot be forced upon them, this is simply a result of human emotion, perhaps a defense mechanism.[/QUOTE] I'm not forcing it upon them, I'm just stating it. They can choose to accept it or not.

Quote

The first thing you need to learn about debate is that you should never argue against the other person, but instead at the case he or she presents The easiest way to do this is to ask questions about the position, until a contradiction is forced. Being wrong is something the opponent must accept, it cannot be forced upon them, this is simply a result of human emotion, perhaps a defense mechanism.

I'm not forcing it upon them, I'm just stating it. They can choose to accept it or not.

Do not tell them they are wrong, show them how.

Do not tell them they are wrong, show them how.

[QUOTE]You are an idiot, do not tell them they are wrong, show them how.[/QUOTE] See that's the answer I wanted from you. It's easy to say, not to do. Edit: Also, don't try to lie and say you didn't post that. It wouldn't prove anything and I know that the posts edited count doesn't show until five minutes after your post.

Quote

You are an idiot, do not tell them they are wrong, show them how.

See that's the answer I wanted from you. It's easy to say, not to do.

Edit: Also, don't try to lie and say you didn't post that. It wouldn't prove anything and I know that the posts edited count doesn't show until five minutes after your post.

[QUOTE=devilesk]Sure, except: I[B] never said Centreri was letting emotion change his argument, I never even referred to his arguments.[/B] You assumed that, and therefore your post is even more useless than it was before.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=PwnPirate]Not that you would know what he was referring to because he never stated it (and [B]he (devilesk) blatantly posted that he was referring to Centreri[/B])[/QUOTE] I could also supply you with the quotes of him saying his post wasn't useless too, but that might be a bit too much for you to handle. I'll try to stay away from all the other fluff that was being flung back and forth, that hole has been dug to deep for you to believe anything anyone says about it, apparently. Maybe this [B]clear[/B] showing of your ignorance in the arguement is enough for you.

Quote from devilesk

Sure, except:
I never said Centreri was letting emotion change his argument, I never even referred to his arguments. You assumed that, and therefore your post is even more useless than it was before.

Quote from PwnPirate

Not that you would know what he was referring to because he never stated it (and he (devilesk) blatantly posted that he was referring to Centreri)

I could also supply you with the quotes of him saying his post wasn't useless too, but that might be a bit too much for you to handle. I'll try to stay away from all the other fluff that was being flung back and forth, that hole has been dug to deep for you to believe anything anyone says about it, apparently. Maybe this clear showing of your ignorance in the arguement is enough for you.

[QUOTE] I could also supply you with the quotes of him saying his post wasn't useless too, but that might be a bit too much for you to handle. I'll try to stay away from all the other fluff that was being flung back and forth, that hole has been dug to deep for you to believe anything anyone says about it, apparently. Maybe this clear showing of your ignorance in the arguement is enough for you.[/QUOTE] I say exactly the same for you. You have shown me nothing to convince me at all and I've given you plenty of statements (which you ignored for the most part) that show how you didn't provide evidence for your statements. But guess what, he never said he wasn't referring to Centreri's post, he said he wasn't referring to his [B]argument[/B]. Want the icing of the cake? [QUOTE]My post was directed towards Centreri[/QUOTE] If you are going to chop up quotes to show that he wasn't referring to Centreri, I can do the same the other way (except validly because it was more recent than the quote you dug up). I was debating whether to show this to you or not, because I was afraid it might be a bit too much for you to handle. Wrong is the only word that applies here. By the way: You still have no answer for everything else I have mentioned that are obviously flaws in your reasoning.

Quote

I could also supply you with the quotes of him saying his post wasn't useless too, but that might be a bit too much for you to handle. I'll try to stay away from all the other fluff that was being flung back and forth, that hole has been dug to deep for you to believe anything anyone says about it, apparently. Maybe this clear showing of your ignorance in the arguement is enough for you.

I say exactly the same for you. You have shown me nothing to convince me at all and I've given you plenty of statements (which you ignored for the most part) that show how you didn't provide evidence for your statements.
But guess what, he never said he wasn't referring to Centreri's post, he said he wasn't referring to his argument.

Want the icing of the cake?

Quote

My post was directed towards Centreri

If you are going to chop up quotes to show that he wasn't referring to Centreri, I can do the same the other way (except validly because it was more recent than the quote you dug up).
I was debating whether to show this to you or not, because I was afraid it might be a bit too much for you to handle. Wrong is the only word that applies here.

By the way: You still have no answer for everything else I have mentioned that are obviously flaws in your reasoning.

I don't like america because they're still using the imperial system.

I don't like america because they're still using the imperial system.