This topic is locked, no replies allowed. Inaccurate or out-of-date info may be present.

  • Print

  • Do you believe in the afterlife? 4 4
Rating:  
Topic: Do you believe in the afterlife?  (Read 44750 times)

jenniferhoder

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2691 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 49x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #405 on: September 27, 2011, 02:58:45 pm »
Yes I do. It helps when you have loved ones who have passed on.... knowing that there is a better place for them.

SurveyMack10

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1268 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #406 on: September 27, 2011, 03:33:51 pm »
Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses


No, they're all there, upthread.  Your lack of reading & comprehension skills isn't my problem, nor am I "confused" by them.  That lack is merely disappointing.

Since you will not provide them it is clear there are no challenges I have not answered.


(not diversions) and clear up your confusion.


As demonstrated, they were & are attempts at diversions which failed.  Your bland denial, sans evidence, is accepted as your tacitly conceding this point.

I have stated that if you repeat the challenges I will show where I answered them and clear up your obvious confusion. Your inability to do so cannot be described as my "tacitly conceding" as you are the one who will not produce any challenges to be responded to and show that I am not attempting a diversion as you falsely claim.


Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).


Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further.  Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.

This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults. The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses." If there was anything else in the initial comment that you would like responded to and was not meant merely as an insult please repost it and I will respond as I must have mistook it as the obvious insult it appeared to be.


Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before. 


A grievious typo, no doubt.  Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads.  I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy.  Again.

I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. If there are any of my typos that you need cleared as to what they are supposed to be please let me know and I will provide that information. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #407 on: September 27, 2011, 03:54:47 pm »
Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses


No, they're all there, upthread.  Your lack of reading & comprehension skills isn't my problem, nor am I "confused" by them.  That lack is merely disappointing.


Since you will not provide them it is clear there are no challenges I have not answered.


Your assumption is based upon a false premise; I will not provide them because they had been previously quoted and inanely glossed-over by your responses.  I'm not your secretary; go look yourself.  Once again, your bland and unsupported denials are meaningless.


(not diversions) and clear up your confusion.


As demonstrated, they were & are attempts at diversions which failed.  Your bland denial, sans evidence, is accepted as your tacitly conceding this point.


I have stated that if you repeat the challenges ...

And I have replied that your assumption is based upon a false premise; I will not provide them because they had been previously quoted and inanely glossed-over by your responses.  I'm not your secretary; go look yourself.  Once again, your bland and unsupported denials are meaningless.

Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).


Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further.  Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.


This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults.


It isn't false because that's not the only part of my reply you declined to respond to.  In fact, that part which you omitted response did contain at least one of the unanswered challenges made to you.  It is said that you can lead a horse to water but, if you hold its head under, that horse will drown.  So get your own drink, the trough is still upthread.

The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges ..."


No, that wasn't the omitted part that was debate-related, despite your attempts to redirect it in that direction.

Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before. 


A grievious typo, no doubt.  Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads.  I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy.  Again.


I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way ...


I'm not riled or insulted by that particular ploy of yours, (and your request is regarded dubiously, given your previous hostility).


but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.


So, given the context, (and the first six letters of the word as major hints), you are contending now that you could not translate that typo as "demonstrable"?  No doubt you are at least peripherally-aware that reading comprehension involves such things as context and not only spelling, grammar and and undestanding of the standard meanings of words?  (even if the last half of the word in question was mispelled)
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SurveyMack10

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1268 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #408 on: September 27, 2011, 04:20:02 pm »
Please repeat any challenges you feel I have not answered and I will repost my responses


No, they're all there, upthread.  Your lack of reading & comprehension skills isn't my problem, nor am I "confused" by them.  That lack is merely disappointing.


Since you will not provide them it is clear there are no challenges I have not answered.


Your assumption is based upon a false premise; I will not provide them because they had been previously quoted and inanely glossed-over by your responses.  I'm not your secretary; go look yourself.  Once again, your bland and unsupported denials are meaningless.


(not diversions) and clear up your confusion.


As demonstrated, they were & are attempts at diversions which failed.  Your bland denial, sans evidence, is accepted as your tacitly conceding this point.


I have stated that if you repeat the challenges ...

And I have replied that your assumption is based upon a false premise; I will not provide them because they had been previously quoted and inanely glossed-over by your responses.  I'm not your secretary; go look yourself.  Once again, your bland and unsupported denials are meaningless.

Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).


Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further.  Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.


This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults.


It isn't false because that's not the only part of my reply you declined to respond to.  In fact, that part which you omitted response did contain at least one of the unanswered challenges made to you.  It is said that you can lead a horse to water but, if you hold its head under, that horse will drown.  So get your own drink, the trough is still upthread.

How can I possibly know which challenges you are referring to in a 30 page thread? Feel free to post them if you would like me to respond to them, otherwise you are proving that I have already responded and that you can produce no challenges that have not been answered.

Also, if there was anything in the rest of your initial post that needed response it must have been covered by insults instead of directly stated. Feel free to state it directly and I will be glad to respond. If not, I will assume there was no such challenge which is why you refuse to reproduce it.


The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges ..."


No, that wasn't the omitted part that was debate-related, despite your attempts to redirect it in that direction.

I did not claim this was the omitted part. That would not be possible as I did not "omit" that section as the response is clearly shown above. In fact, my meaning was that I responded to the debate-related material. If there was more that I failed to respond to please reproduce it and I will surely answer.

Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before. 


A grievious typo, no doubt.  Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads.  I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy.  Again.


I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way ...


I'm not riled or insulted by that particular ploy of yours, (and your request is regarded dubiously, given your previous hostility).

Please show this hostility instead of just accusing.


but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.


So, given the context, (and the first six letters of the word as major hints), you are contending now that you could not translate that typo as "demonstrable"?  No doubt you are at least peripherally-aware that reading comprehension involves such things as context and not only spelling, grammar and and undestanding of the standard meanings of words?  (even if the last half of the word in question was mispelled)

No, I did not realize it was supposed to be demonstrable as that word and demonsarablt only favor one another significantly in the first 5 letters...Clearly if I  knew that was the word you meant to say I would not have asked for a definition. Also, you are the one who took it as an insult as all I said was please define the word which is not at all a hostile thing to say.  If I could read your mind I would do so, but since I cannot I asked for clarification. This was not a "ploy" or attack though you wish it was.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #409 on: September 27, 2011, 04:39:26 pm »
Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).


Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further.  Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.


This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults.


It isn't false because that's not the only part of my reply you declined to respond to.  In fact, that part which you omitted response did contain at least one of the unanswered challenges made to you.  It is said that you can lead a horse to water but, if you hold its head under, that horse will drown.  So get your own drink, the trough is still upthread.


How can I possibly know which challenges you are referring to ... ?


If you haven't been paying attention and following the discussion, how is that my concern?

The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges ..."


No, that wasn't the omitted part that was debate-related, despite your attempts to redirect it in that direction.


I did not claim this was the omitted part. 

The part you omitted is still quoted in a recent post.  Again, if you can't find what you omitted, how is this my concern?


Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before. 


A grievious typo, no doubt.  Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads.  I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy.  Again.


I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way ...


I'm not riled or insulted by that particular ploy of yours, (and your request is regarded dubiously, given your previous hostility).


Please show this hostility instead of just accusing.


What, you consider this merely an accusation when there are message IDs where these can be quoted?  (before you waste your time asking, you wrote and posted in a clearly hostile manner and though you have a penchant for denying your own words, I tire of your pointless hand-waving).



but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.


So, given the context, (and the first six letters of the word as major hints), you are contending now that you could not translate that typo as "demonstrable"?  No doubt you are at least peripherally-aware that reading comprehension involves such things as context and not only spelling, grammar and and undestanding of the standard meanings of words?  (even if the last half of the word in question was mispelled)


No, I did not realize it was supposed to be demonstrable as that word and demonsarablt only favor one another significantly in the first 5 letters...


That would be the first six letters, not five; "d" (1), "e" (2), "m" (3), "o" (4), "n" (5) and "s" (6) ... "demons", (though I could infer that "demons" might cause your eye to shear away from the partial word, 'demonstrable').  That leaves the mispelled last 6 letters; "arablt", (which means 5 of those 6 remaining letters were there in the second half of the word, while an "e" was transposed by an extra "a").  Still in all, it didn't seem that difficult to discern that "demons arablt" could be "demon strable" in context.  It's really a moot point, however.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SurveyMack10

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1268 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #410 on: September 27, 2011, 09:06:08 pm »
Also, I am going to abstain from answering any of the rest of your post as it was just an attempt at making yourself look better by insulting me (did not work).


Your own replies, in your own words, support my contention that you possess deficient debating skills to proceed with this discussion much further.  Be a woman and own your own words or, be a weasel and keep trying to weasel out of them - your choice.


This is false as the only part of your comment I did not answer was insults.


It isn't false because that's not the only part of my reply you declined to respond to.  In fact, that part which you omitted response did contain at least one of the unanswered challenges made to you.  It is said that you can lead a horse to water but, if you hold its head under, that horse will drown.  So get your own drink, the trough is still upthread.


How can I possibly know which challenges you are referring to ... ?


If you haven't been paying attention and following the discussion, how is that my concern?

The part that was actually debate related was responded to as follows "Please repeat any challenges ..."


No, that wasn't the omitted part that was debate-related, despite your attempts to redirect it in that direction.


I did not claim this was the omitted part. 

The part you omitted is still quoted in a recent post.  Again, if you can't find what you omitted, how is this my concern?


Also please define "demonsarablt" as I guess I have never encountered that word before. 


A grievious typo, no doubt.  Perhaps I should use your same lame diversion and list your myriad typos too ... nah, that would be a cheap trick like yours and besides, they're all available as intact quotes in these threads.  I could be in error in that you are implicitly requesting that your nose be rubbed in your own hypocrisy.  Again.


I am not sure why you are getting so riled up. I was not meaning to insult you in any way ...


I'm not riled or insulted by that particular ploy of yours, (and your request is regarded dubiously, given your previous hostility).


Please show this hostility instead of just accusing.


What, you consider this merely an accusation when there are message IDs where these can be quoted?  (before you waste your time asking, you wrote and posted in a clearly hostile manner and though you have a penchant for denying your own words, I tire of your pointless hand-waving).



but merely did not know what word you were referring to. Usually typos resemble a known word and since I could not discern what this word was supposed to be and since you have repeatedly challenged my reading skills I assumed it was simply a term I had not encountered. Also, within being so upset you forgot to define "demonsarablt" or produce the word it was meant to be. Much appreciated, thanks.


So, given the context, (and the first six letters of the word as major hints), you are contending now that you could not translate that typo as "demonstrable"?  No doubt you are at least peripherally-aware that reading comprehension involves such things as context and not only spelling, grammar and and undestanding of the standard meanings of words?  (even if the last half of the word in question was mispelled)


No, I did not realize it was supposed to be demonstrable as that word and demonsarablt only favor one another significantly in the first 5 letters...


That would be the first six letters, not five; "d" (1), "e" (2), "m" (3), "o" (4), "n" (5) and "s" (6) ... "demons", (though I could infer that "demons" might cause your eye to shear away from the partial word, 'demonstrable').  That leaves the mispelled last 6 letters; "arablt", (which means 5 of those 6 remaining letters were there in the second half of the word, while an "e" was transposed by an extra "a").  Still in all, it didn't seem that difficult to discern that "demons arablt" could be "demon strable" in context.  It's really a moot point, however.


-You say I omitted part of your challenge, yet you refuse to repeat that challenge. Since you hid it under insults it is hard to discern what is was you were asking. If you ask the question directly in your reply to this message I will be glad to answer. If you continue to avoid repeating the challenge it will be clear the challenge never existed or that you no longer feel that it is adequate.
-Since you refuse to show where I was hostile I will assume I was not, or that you do not feel you can adequately prove that point. Not that it really matters as you have been continuously hostile throughout most of this debate- as is proven in the initial post we are discussing right now. I will be glad to quote it if need be.
-I have stated already that if I knew what you were trying to say when you typed “demonsarablt” I would not have asked. If I mean it as an insult I would have said something more rude than simply asking “Please define demonsarablt.” You have spent many posts insulting my intelligence so I simply assumed it was a word I had not heard of or some slang debate term. You are correct that I miss estimated how many of the 1st letters were the same, not that I am unable to count to 6, but that I was merely using an approximation to make a point that only about half of the word was right so insinuating that I am unintelligent for not reading your mind in unnecessary. It is really quite odd that you got so upset over me asking you to define a word when I obviously did not mean it in a rude way.
-To summarize-
1.) Please restate any challenges you would like me to answer. If not, then stop bringing them up since you do not want to produce them.
2.)Please show what I omitted from the initial post. Please restate it directly without the insults surrounding it so it will be more clear.
3.) Please show where I have been hostile so that I can explain what I meant by those statements. I am not doubting that I have likely come off hostile at some point in this argument, but it would be nice for some clear evidence to be shown rather than loose accusations.
4.) Please make whatever point you are trying to make by dragging on conversations of a typo that could have been answered with a simple- “That word was supposed to be demonstrable”- rather than with all of this anger and confrontation.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #411 on: September 28, 2011, 02:11:32 am »
-You say I omitted part of your challenge, yet you refuse to repeat that challenge.


Exactly.  Why should I repeat what we've been discussing when you supposedly were there at the time, just as I was?  To reiterate this point; if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself?  This is especially significant in that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore.  There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process.  Since you are conceding that you've 'forgetten' what the prior unanswered challenges were, you've effectively substantiated my contention concerning deficient reading comprehension skills, (given that, if one cannot remember what was said, one cannot comprehend what was said).  Ironically, what was said remains in documented form upthread so, being unable to recall it seems strange.


-To summarize-
1.) Please restate any challenges you would like me to answer.


No.  If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations.  More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges).  While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.


2.)Please show what I omitted from the initial post. Please restate it directly without the insults surrounding it so it will be more clear.


No.  If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations.  More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges).  While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.


3.) Please show where I have been hostile so that I can explain what I meant by those statements. I am not doubting that I have likely come off hostile at some point in this argument, but it would be nice for some clear evidence to be shown rather than loose accusations.


No.  If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations.  More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges).  While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.


4.) Please make whatever point you are trying to make 


By now, the point _has_ been made however, you've demonstrated a propensity for missing the point so often that it seems habitual.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SurveyMack10

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1268 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #412 on: September 28, 2011, 06:37:42 am »
-You say I omitted part of your challenge, yet you refuse to repeat that challenge.


Exactly.  Why should I repeat what we've been discussing when you supposedly were there at the time, just as I was?  To reiterate this point; if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself?  This is especially significant in that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore.  There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process.  Since you are conceding that you've 'forgetten' what the prior unanswered challenges were, you've effectively substantiated my contention concerning deficient reading comprehension skills, (given that, if one cannot remember what was said, one cannot comprehend what was said).  Ironically, what was said remains in documented form upthread so, being unable to recall it seems strange.


-To summarize-
1.) Please restate any challenges you would like me to answer.


No.  If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations.  More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges).  While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.


2.)Please show what I omitted from the initial post. Please restate it directly without the insults surrounding it so it will be more clear.


No.  If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations.  More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges).  While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.


3.) Please show where I have been hostile so that I can explain what I meant by those statements. I am not doubting that I have likely come off hostile at some point in this argument, but it would be nice for some clear evidence to be shown rather than loose accusations.


No.  If you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations.  More specifically, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges).  While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.


4.) Please make whatever point you are trying to make 


By now, the point _has_ been made however, you've demonstrated a propensity for missing the point so often that it seems habitual.

1)Well I am participating in other daily activities outside of fusioncash. Also, this is not the only thread I am posting in. Also, you simply claimed that I unanswered challenges without reproducing such challenges. Lastly, I have answered all challenges which is obvious in your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges.
2)Although you have instructed me not to participate in any further conversations, I will decline from following that advice and also let you know that your superior attitude is not becoming and not at all effective in getting your point across. I can clearly keep track of the conversation and see that I have answered all challenges. You inability to show even one unanswered challenge proves that they do not exist.
3)Although you have instructed me not to participate in any further conversations, I will decline from following that advice and also let you know that your superior attitude is not becoming and not at all effective in getting your point across. I can clearly keep track of the conversation and see that I have answered all challenges. You inability to show even one unanswered challenge proves that they do not exist.
4)Thank you for proving that you are unable to recall what your point was regarding the type and were simply dwelling on the subject out of anger.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #413 on: September 28, 2011, 12:05:48 pm »
1)Well I am participating in other daily activities outside of fusioncash.


As am I.  If your non sequitur was intended as some sort of excuse for your losing track of the context of this, (or any other), discussion it is rejected because a written record of that discussion is available in the form of previous posts in this thread.


Also, this is not the only thread I am posting in.


Neither is this the only thread which I am posting in.  Again, if you are unable to keep track of the context of a discussion in which you are participating, the entire thread is documented and available for review.


Also, you simply claimed that I unanswered challenges without reproducing such challenges.


There are three reasons for that; the first being that you were nominally present at the time I challenged your unsupported claims and you failed to substantiate them, (answer the challenges to do so).  Secondly, if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself?  This is especially significant in that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore.  There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process. Thirdly, you have demonstrated a pattern of attempting an endless loop of circular 'non-reasoning' within this discussion wherein you simply 'insist' that your unsupported assertions are accurate, (despite the lack of supporting evidence).

Lastly, I have answered all challenges which is obvious in your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges.


Thank you for repeating the evidence supporting the contention that you're doing that endless loop of circular 'non-reasoning' within this discussion wherein you simply 'insist' that your unsupported assertions are accurate, (despite the lack of supporting evidence).


2)Although you have instructed me not to participate in any further conversations ...


I've given no such "instructions".  My _suggestion_, (not instruction), was that if you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations.  The decision to reconsider remains yours therefore, this does not constitute an "instruction".  Your reply, on the other hand, _does_ constitute further supporting evidence, (provided by your quoted text), which casts doubt upon your reading comprehension abilities.



I will decline from following that advice ...


Moments later, "instruction" becomes "advice", eh?  Since you are conceding that you've 'forgetten' what the prior unanswered challenges were, you've effectively substantiated my contention concerning deficient reading comprehension skills, (given that, if one cannot remember what was said, one cannot comprehend what was said).  Ironically, what was said remains in documented form upthread so, being unable to recall it seems strange.


I can clearly keep track of the conversation and see that I have answered all challenges.


On the contrary, your repeated insistance that I repeat the previous challenges, (which are still available in written form upthead and which you failed to answer), clearly shows that you are unable to keep track of contextual points in the conversation.  Instead, you merely repeat your insistance that you have done so, even after your contention has been proven false. 


4)Thank you for proving that you are unable to recall what your point was regarding the type and were simply dwelling on the subject out of anger.

Au contraire, not only do I recall each and every facet of this conversation but, should I need my memory jogged a look back through this _documented_ thread shows all of the posted replies and responses made.  That documentation provides sufficient evidence that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore.  There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process.

As an aside, your assumption of "anger" on my part is unfounded, (then again, you seem to prefer making unfounded claims).  I'm merely replying to the nonsense you've been posting.  Why should I repeat what we've been discussing when you supposedly were there at the time, just as I was?  To reiterate this point; if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself?
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

bschumacher

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1068 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 3x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #414 on: September 28, 2011, 12:15:56 pm »
It is something we won't know till we get there. The best thing is to concentrate on living a useful, honorable life on this earth.

SurveyMack10

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1268 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #415 on: September 28, 2011, 01:28:47 pm »
1)Well I am participating in other daily activities outside of fusioncash.


As am I.  If your non sequitur was intended as some sort of excuse for your losing track of the context of this, (or any other), discussion it is rejected because a written record of that discussion is available in the form of previous posts in this thread.


Also, this is not the only thread I am posting in.


Neither is this the only thread which I am posting in.  Again, if you are unable to keep track of the context of a discussion in which you are participating, the entire thread is documented and available for review.


Also, you simply claimed that I unanswered challenges without reproducing such challenges.


There are three reasons for that; the first being that you were nominally present at the time I challenged your unsupported claims and you failed to substantiate them, (answer the challenges to do so).  Secondly, if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself?  This is especially significant in that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore.  There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process. Thirdly, you have demonstrated a pattern of attempting an endless loop of circular 'non-reasoning' within this discussion wherein you simply 'insist' that your unsupported assertions are accurate, (despite the lack of supporting evidence).

Lastly, I have answered all challenges which is obvious in your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges.


Thank you for repeating the evidence supporting the contention that you're doing that endless loop of circular 'non-reasoning' within this discussion wherein you simply 'insist' that your unsupported assertions are accurate, (despite the lack of supporting evidence).


2)Although you have instructed me not to participate in any further conversations ...


I've given no such "instructions".  My _suggestion_, (not instruction), was that if you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, you may wish to reconsider participating in such conversations.  The decision to reconsider remains yours therefore, this does not constitute an "instruction".  Your reply, on the other hand, _does_ constitute further supporting evidence, (provided by your quoted text), which casts doubt upon your reading comprehension abilities.



I will decline from following that advice ...


Moments later, "instruction" becomes "advice", eh?  Since you are conceding that you've 'forgetten' what the prior unanswered challenges were, you've effectively substantiated my contention concerning deficient reading comprehension skills, (given that, if one cannot remember what was said, one cannot comprehend what was said).  Ironically, what was said remains in documented form upthread so, being unable to recall it seems strange.


I can clearly keep track of the conversation and see that I have answered all challenges.


On the contrary, your repeated insistance that I repeat the previous challenges, (which are still available in written form upthead and which you failed to answer), clearly shows that you are unable to keep track of contextual points in the conversation.  Instead, you merely repeat your insistance that you have done so, even after your contention has been proven false. 


4)Thank you for proving that you are unable to recall what your point was regarding the type and were simply dwelling on the subject out of anger.

Au contraire, not only do I recall each and every facet of this conversation but, should I need my memory jogged a look back through this _documented_ thread shows all of the posted replies and responses made.  That documentation provides sufficient evidence that I have previously repeated challenges which you then proceded to ignore.  There is little incentive in a repetition of such an unproductive process.

As an aside, your assumption of "anger" on my part is unfounded, (then again, you seem to prefer making unfounded claims).  I'm merely replying to the nonsense you've been posting.  Why should I repeat what we've been discussing when you supposedly were there at the time, just as I was?  To reiterate this point; if you can't be bothered to pay attention to a conversation you're participating in, why should I be bothered to keep repeating myself?



1.)   Your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges proves that they do not exist. If they do exist, reproduce them as proof. If not, stop using diversions and telling me to read through 30 pages of posts to find unanswered challenges that do not exist. Much appreciated.
2.)   I am not unable to keep track of the discussion, rather am unable to read your mind as to what nonexistent unanswered challenges they are referring to. If they do exist, reproduce them in your response and they will be answered. If you continue to refuse to reproduce them and evade the request with your petty “find them yourself” response it will be taken as proof that these unanswered challenges are nonexistent.
3.)   You are still trying to evade the request of reproducing the challenge. Therefore, I see that we both agree that these challenges do not exist which is why they are impossible for you to reproduce. Any response otherwise will prove false since your actions show they are nonexistent. If not, prove it by showing them now.
4.)   Your claim of an endless loop of circular non-reasoning has been dismissed as the attempt to evade reproducing nonexistent unanswered challenges that it is.
5.)   Your petty attempt at a play on words (instruction vs. suggestion) has been dismissed. This effort to throw me off point is a simple waste of time. Back to the issue at hand, you claim I have left challenges unanswered- if this is true, reproduce them in your response. I have requested this upward of 4 times, soon the conversation will end as your inability to produce them shows that this is a waste of my time. If you continue to deny the request to prove that unanswered challenges exist this debate will end as it is not wise to waste valuable time on fabrications.
6.)   Your claim that you remember every single aspect of this conversation is likely false as it has been going on for days. However, if you are than engrossed in it I pity your lack of interests outside fusioncash. I am not claiming not to know what we are discussing, merely that I have not memorized 30 pages of thread as this is not THAT important to my life. Also, since you remember so clearly what the unanswered challenges are you will have no problem repeating them in the answer to this post.

To summarize-
Since you claim to “recall each and every facet of this conversation” it will take you no time to reproduce any unanswered challenges. I am politely asking that you list these challenges in a numbered list. If you do so then I will answer these challenges. If you continue to deny this request it will show that these challenges do not exist. Also, there will be no further need of discussion between the two of us as there will be nothing to debate.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #416 on: September 28, 2011, 02:05:40 pm »
1.)   Your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges proves that they do not exist.


It isn't an "inability", it's a lack of desire to comply with your inane 'request'.  Further, that information remains available in previous and documented post threads therefore, it does exist.  Conclusively, you've lied about this, (regardless of your bland denials which contradict fact).


If they do exist, reproduce them as proof. If not, stop using diversions and telling me to read through 30 pages of posts to find unanswered challenges that do not exist. Much appreciated.

There is no need to reproduce what exists as documented records of this thread.  Again, if you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges).  While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.


2.)   I am not unable to keep track of the discussion, rather am unable to read your mind as to what nonexistent unanswered challenges they are referring to. 


There is no mind-reading requirement in relation to keeping track of a discussion which you are participating in.  Since the contents of this discussion are available as a textual record of this thread, it can only be concluded that you are indeed unable to keep track of this discussion, (despite your repetitiously baseless denials to the contrary).


If you continue to refuse to reproduce them and evade the request with your petty “find them yourself” response it will be taken as proof that these unanswered challenges are nonexistent.


Your concluded "proof" is an invalid and unsupported opinion, (i.e., it lacks substantive evidence ... actually, no evidence at all).  The conclusion is inaccurate since the information which you keep insisting you cannot find is available to anyone reading the previous posts in this thread.  Again, you inability to locate or, recall what _you_ wrote is hardly a major concern of mine.


3.)   You are still trying to evade the request of reproducing the challenge.


Incorrect; the request hasn't been evaded since I've repeatedly refused to grant it, (thus rebuking it head-on).


Therefore, I see that we both agree that these challenges do not exist which is why they are impossible for you to reproduce. Any response otherwise will prove false since your actions show they are nonexistent. If not, prove it by showing them now.


Your display of sophistry in lieu of logical reasoning is unimpressive.  Previous posts in this thread are not "impossible ... to reproduce" since they are available to anyone who isn't too lazy to find them herself.  Your premise is therefore invalid and conclusions drawn from that invalid premise are invalid.


4.)   Your claim of an endless loop of circular non-reasoning has been dismissed as the attempt to evade reproducing nonexistent unanswered challenges that it is.


You can try dismissing anything you wish however, the evidence of your endless loop exists in the form of the 3-4 most recently posted endless loops of yours repetitiously 'requesting' information which has already been posted and is still available to you.  Unless you're denying your repetitious insistance that someone else do your research for you, (which wouldn't surprise anyone, given your documented record of blandly denying your own posted words).


5.)   Your petty attempt at a play on words (instruction vs. suggestion) has been dismissed.


That isn't any sort of "play on words"; it illuminated the difference in meanings between what I actually wrote and what you tried to interpret.  As stated, these words are in English and your dubious 'interpreter skills' are not required.


6.)   Your claim that you remember every single aspect of this conversation is likely false as it has been going on for days.


No, it's been going on for weeks however, what you believe to be "likely false" is merely your opinion without evidence.  As it happens, there aren't that many separate aspects of this discussion to recall since most of them consist of your repetitions, (I remember what I wrote and it isn't clear why you don't remember what you wrote).


I am not claiming not to know what we are discussing, merely that I have not memorized 30 pages of thread as this is not THAT important to my life.


There's no need to "memorize" when a written record documenting what was posted is readily available to anyone reading this thread.


To summarize-
I am politely asking that you list these challenges in a numbered list. If you do so then I will answer these challenges.



In turn, I am refusing your request, (not for the 'reasons' you've falsely stipulated), because the information you are repeatedly 'requesting' is already available to you.


Also, there will be no further need of discussion between the two of us as there will be nothing to debate.


Only one of us has been debating; the other has been dodging challenges to substantiate their unsupported claims and repeating 'demands' that those challenges be reposted because she can't remember the context and contents of a discussion she's been in for weeks.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

crizleris

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #417 on: September 28, 2011, 02:33:53 pm »
afterlife? you mean next life? well then of course... have you visited pastlives before?  :angel11:

SurveyMack10

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1268 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #418 on: September 28, 2011, 02:34:36 pm »
1.)   Your inability to reproduce any unanswered challenges proves that they do not exist.


It isn't an "inability", it's a lack of desire to comply with your inane 'request'.  Further, that information remains available in previous and documented post threads therefore, it does exist.  Conclusively, you've lied about this, (regardless of your bland denials which contradict fact).


If they do exist, reproduce them as proof. If not, stop using diversions and telling me to read through 30 pages of posts to find unanswered challenges that do not exist. Much appreciated.

There is no need to reproduce what exists as documented records of this thread.  Again, if you are either too inattentive or too lazy to recall what was said during a conversation, this indicates that you are either unable to keep track of the conversation, (despite a readily available record of it in print), or that you are attempting to initiate another repetitious loop wherein you blithely make unsupported assertions, (and when challenged to substantiate them, keep asking me to repeat those challenges).  While I've no way of knowing if this has ever worked for you before, it isn't going to work for you now.


2.)   I am not unable to keep track of the discussion, rather am unable to read your mind as to what nonexistent unanswered challenges they are referring to. 


There is no mind-reading requirement in relation to keeping track of a discussion which you are participating in.  Since the contents of this discussion are available as a textual record of this thread, it can only be concluded that you are indeed unable to keep track of this discussion, (despite your repetitiously baseless denials to the contrary).


If you continue to refuse to reproduce them and evade the request with your petty “find them yourself” response it will be taken as proof that these unanswered challenges are nonexistent.


Your concluded "proof" is an invalid and unsupported opinion, (i.e., it lacks substantive evidence ... actually, no evidence at all).  The conclusion is inaccurate since the information which you keep insisting you cannot find is available to anyone reading the previous posts in this thread.  Again, you inability to locate or, recall what _you_ wrote is hardly a major concern of mine.


3.)   You are still trying to evade the request of reproducing the challenge.


Incorrect; the request hasn't been evaded since I've repeatedly refused to grant it, (thus rebuking it head-on).


Therefore, I see that we both agree that these challenges do not exist which is why they are impossible for you to reproduce. Any response otherwise will prove false since your actions show they are nonexistent. If not, prove it by showing them now.


Your display of sophistry in lieu of logical reasoning is unimpressive.  Previous posts in this thread are not "impossible ... to reproduce" since they are available to anyone who isn't too lazy to find them herself.  Your premise is therefore invalid and conclusions drawn from that invalid premise are invalid.


4.)   Your claim of an endless loop of circular non-reasoning has been dismissed as the attempt to evade reproducing nonexistent unanswered challenges that it is.


You can try dismissing anything you wish however, the evidence of your endless loop exists in the form of the 3-4 most recently posted endless loops of yours repetitiously 'requesting' information which has already been posted and is still available to you.  Unless you're denying your repetitious insistance that someone else do your research for you, (which wouldn't surprise anyone, given your documented record of blandly denying your own posted words).


5.)   Your petty attempt at a play on words (instruction vs. suggestion) has been dismissed.


That isn't any sort of "play on words"; it illuminated the difference in meanings between what I actually wrote and what you tried to interpret.  As stated, these words are in English and your dubious 'interpreter skills' are not required.


6.)   Your claim that you remember every single aspect of this conversation is likely false as it has been going on for days.


No, it's been going on for weeks however, what you believe to be "likely false" is merely your opinion without evidence.  As it happens, there aren't that many separate aspects of this discussion to recall since most of them consist of your repetitions, (I remember what I wrote and it isn't clear why you don't remember what you wrote).


I am not claiming not to know what we are discussing, merely that I have not memorized 30 pages of thread as this is not THAT important to my life.


There's no need to "memorize" when a written record documenting what was posted is readily available to anyone reading this thread.


To summarize-
I am politely asking that you list these challenges in a numbered list. If you do so then I will answer these challenges.



In turn, I am refusing your request, (not for the 'reasons' you've falsely stipulated), because the information you are repeatedly 'requesting' is already available to you.


Also, there will be no further need of discussion between the two of us as there will be nothing to debate.


Only one of us has been debating; the other has been dodging challenges to substantiate their unsupported claims and repeating 'demands' that those challenges be reposted because she can't remember the context and contents of a discussion she's been in for weeks.



Your statement that I am lying about the information being present or not present in the post is false. My point is that it is absolutely impossible for me to read your mind and know what “challenges” you are referring to. The assumption that they are nonexistent is made by your obvious inability to reproduce these challenges. Your continuing evasion of this request shows lack of evidence and is further proving that the challenges HAVE in fact been answered, or simply that you do not WANT them to be answered. Please stop wasting my time and dwelling on this subject.
If you want them answered- POST THEM
If you do not want them answered- STOP BRINGIN G THEM UP
These two logical options will likely be ignored by you, and will only further prove that your claims are false.

Your attempt at sounding superior by defining an “unsupported opinion” has been duly noted. It actually shows that you are NOT superior and that you are trying desperately to appear as though to are to make up for it. This is not helping your argument.

Your petty word play (evade vs. refused) has been disregarded. Upon the use of either word the result is still the same, you refuse to reproduce the supposed “challenges”. This refusal shows lack of existence or a lack of wanting them answered. Either way, your dwelling on the subject is an annoying waste of time as it could easily be solved by your reproduction of such challenges. If they are actually in this thread- reproduce them. Since you claimed to know every ‘facet” of this whole conversation, you can likely do so from memory.

I did not claim that previous posts were impossible to reproduce, rather that UNANSWERED CHALLENGES were impossible to reproduce. Your attempt at twisting my words has been denied. If these unanswered challenges do exist you will reproduce in your response (since you will not it is proven that they do not exist or that you do not want them answered).

It is true that I have repeated myself in this debate. That is not anything I am denying. The reasoning for the repetition is your lack of acknowledging what I say, leading me to belief you did not read it or did not comprehend it and that I needed to be restated. Sorry for that confusion.

I am not “trying” to dismiss, instead I AM dismissing- however your attempt at changing the actual dismissal to a mere attempt is amusing. You are the actual one who is operating in an endless loop. I will explain why so you can understand. You continuously bring up “unanswered challenges.” Since you are the one claiming their existence, you should provide evidence by quoting them directly. Your indirect references to them are useless as this is a 30 page thread and you made no specific examples as to where they can be found and instead have just repeatedly said “in above posts” and similar phrases.
Be mature, show the proof or drop the subject. It isn’t hard. If it exists, show it.


Your accusation of me denying my own words is absolutely false. Please provide evidence for this empty accusation.

Your insult to my intelligence has been ignored as an immature insult that does not deserve a response.
Weeks are made up of days, so if a conversation has been going on for weeks it has also been going on for days. This attempt to sound superior by correcting me is ignorant.
You claim that “likely false” is an opinion is absolutely true. I never claimed it as fact so I am not sure why you felt the need to state it was an opinion, but good job observing the difference between opinion and fact.

Your claim that I do not remember what I wrote is false. I DO remember what I wrote, I simply cannot read your mind as to which part of it you are claiming is an “unanswered challenge.” Hope that clears up your confusion.

It is obvious that the 30 pages are available- however your only reference to the part which you are talking about is that they are “unanswered challenges.” It is impossible for me to know which part you are referring to as you refuse to point out such nonexistent challenges.

It is true that only one of us is debating, and that the other (you) is dodging challenges to prove what you are saying.

You REPEATEDLY claim that the challenges exist on this thread, yet cannot pinpoint when or where they were posted. Tsk tsk tsk…show the evidence you claim exists or lose all credibility.

Since it is clear you will not reproduce any challenges I would like to say that I do not wish to discuss further any of the petty insults and superior accusations you continuously have been making. From now on please do not bring up these insults or word plays. This is not a “terroristic demand”, merely a request. It is likely that I will not respond to much more of the content you post until you reproduce the challenges you claim. This is not an “or else” challenge, merely  a decision not to waste my time answering empty accusations that will not be supported by the quotes that supposedly exist. If you do post content that I do not reply to- I would like to let you know beforehand that this is not a dodge, an evasion, or any other defense tactic. It is simply a decision not to waste my time whenever you have chosen to leave out a significant portion of the debate due to lack of evidence that you claim is so readily available but will not reproduce.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Do you believe in the afterlife?
« Reply #419 on: September 28, 2011, 03:33:19 pm »
Your statement that I am lying about the information being present or not present in the post is false.

Your "lie" was in stating that, if I did not reproduce the challenges, they didn't exist.

My point is that it is absolutely impossible for me to read your mind and know what “challenges” you are referring to.


There is no need for any mind-reading since the challenges made to your unsubstantiated claims were explicit, not implicit.  I even used the words like 'unsubstantiated' to indicate which unsupported claims of yours were being challenged.


The assumption that they are nonexistent is made by your obvious inability to reproduce these challenges.


On the contrary, I do have the ability to do so however, not the inclination to do your reseaarch for you.  Your assumption that these challenges are "nonexistent" because you won't go look for them is illogical.


Your continuing evasion of this request shows lack of evidence ...


No, it shows that I won't do your research for you - not that the evidence is lacking.  The docomented evidence exists in the two threads we've been participating in recently.  Your repeated evasions in answering challenges to your unsupported claims strongly suggest that reproducing those evasions would be unproductive, (not that the evidence is lacking; merely that you have shown a propensity for denying such evidence, even in the form of your own quoted words).

Your attempt at sounding superior by defining an “unsupported opinion” has been duly noted. It actually shows that you are NOT superior ...


You've brought this notion of 'superiority' up several times now and it must be pointed out that your faulty perceptions, (or, incipient sense of 'inferiorty'), constitute more unsupported opinion.  Defining an unsupported opinion does not confer superiority.


I did not claim that previous posts were impossible to reproduce, rather that UNANSWERED CHALLENGES were impossible to reproduce. ]/quote]

No, they are not.  If evasions immediately followed the challenges, then that can be shown in an unaltered post.


If these unanswered challenges do exist you will reproduce in your response


I refuse to procreate during an oline discussion.  That would be rude and disrespectful of my partner, (not you).  Thanks for reposting your 'demand' in a demanding manner as this supports my previous contention.

It is true that I have repeated myself in this debate. That is not anything I am denying.

That's the endless loop mentioned previously and you did deny engaging in endless loops.


You are the actual one who is operating in an endless loop.


The irony and your hypocrisy there are sublime.

Your accusation of me denying my own words is absolutely false. Please provide evidence for this empty accusation.


Your denials are in your own words, not mine.  If you cannot recall what you wrote, go find it yourself and stop trying to get me to be your unpaid secretary.


Your insult to my intelligence has been ignored as an immature insult that does not deserve a response.


No conclusive evidence of your intellience has yet been presented.  If you have some to present now, please do so.

Weeks are made up of days, so if a conversation has been going on for weeks it has also been going on for days.


Yes, and years are made up of days too however, it isn't common usage to refer to 3 years as 1095 days instead.



You claim that “likely false” is an opinion is absolutely true. I never claimed it as fact so I am not sure why you felt the need to state it was an opinion, but good job observing the difference between opinion and fact.

You stated your opinion as if to imply it's truthful accuracy, (unless you were instead intentionally stating a false opinion in order to deceive).  My observations of the difference between an unsupported opinion and "fact" contrast with your general lack of being able to discern such differences.


Your claim that I do not remember what I wrote is false. I DO remember what I wrote ...


If you remember what you wrote then you are implicitly claiming that your replies answered the challenges made to your previous unsupported claims or, that you do remember not answering those challenges and are now engaged in this endless request loop of yours.

 
This is not a “terroristic demand”, merely a request.
It is likely that I will not respond to much more of the content you post until you reproduce the challenges you claim. 

Now, that emphasizes the difference, (even in analogy), between making a terrorist demand and making a 'threat'.  Mackenzie does make the demand, (it's right there, above my reply, in her own words), but doesn't view it as a demand.  The 'threat', (which isn't much of one), is that she'll "not respond to much" unless her demands, ("until you reproduce the challenges"), are met.  This does not form a very enticing incentive.

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

  • Print
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
767 Views
Last post September 09, 2014, 04:57:57 am
by gaylasue