Printable View
First for Charles on Johnny, YES you did delete several threads out right I remember distinctly not being able to find links started a new thread with that were out right gone and were also not in that merged thread. Now I dont know if it was a mistake or not but threads (and the links that went with them) were out right gone after the merger to the one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
The only strawman arguements are yours anyone that looks at that PM and then sees you defend that with, I never told you you could not start thread after thread, knows whos arguements are brick solid and which ones are made of straw.
Any normal person after seeing that PM would have said, Opps I was wrong I did not mean that PM. But no not you, you not only tried to defend the PM but also that you STILL NEVER said that we could not start as many threads as we wanted. This could have all been avoided if I was dealing with a reasonable person who could just admit he made a mistake. You could have even said then, that things have changed from that PM to now but you did not even have the common sense to do that.
I mean me on the other hand if I would have been reminded of that PM where I said just the opposite of what I was saying NOW, I would have said as I always do, Opps I made a mistake, I am sorry.
What does this mean? What did you think you were logged in under a different username? Why would you refer to yourself as Johnny am I missing something?Quote:
Originally Posted by john
That is fine, you have present your case we can let "anyone" decide. You should look up the definition of a strawman arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
I never said you could start as many threads as you want to because that makes no sense. You need not tell someone that they can eat as much as they want unless you have told them that they can not... otherwise its senseless. You don't notify people of what they can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
I am reasonable, I have told you that you can post as much on topic information as you like and I have done my best to explain to you in the most explicit way what I meant. I thought I was crystal clear at the time but that is moot since I have told you numerous times that you can post as much as you want (something that I am sure does not need to be said to any other members because they just understand that). Never since the inception of this website (or any forum that I know of) has their ever been a limit to how often a person can post.
You are reading what I wrote an comprehending it in a way that enables you to have a conflict because as you admit, you enjoy that. If you take a step back and and read everything from pm's to post in the context in which I spoke to you about it you can see that my message is pretty clear. I have taken the time to step back and try and figure out why you are perceiving it in the way that you are now and I have spent a great deal of time not only addressing that but more importantly also doing my best to make sure you understand it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
With all do respect to Havakasha and candelman, really they remind me of the other posters in that first arguement we had. If you recall all that were against me not only were been beaten badly in debates with me but also remember were PROVEN to be wrong latter. I dont think I have to remind you of all the things that came out after those debates that happen almost exactly as I said they would.
Candleman, if you dont want to be called a name then dont argue something proven to be wrong. I usually dont start out by calling people names. That generally happens only after I prove to them I am right and they still dont get it and then continue that same dumbass arguement (remember Barbra in Oregon or the multidude of free clinics in SC) did I call you a twit after you said ok I guess you were right. I will tell you this I dont get involved in a arguement unless I am (first of all) almost dam sure I am going to win. Second if I am almost dam sure I am going to win I have to have alot of information on that subject. So in general if I say something it is 95% that it is going to be correct. If I am wrong on something I am harder on myself then anyone else can be. I dont like it coming from me MORE then I dont like it coming from others. I expect more out of myself then others.
So in conclusion I dont just say, Ho that areguement is dumb and you are a jackass for making it. It is usually only after I have shown that it is a dumb arguement that I call you what you must be to still believe what you do after I have shown it to be false.
Do I call Havakasha (lloyd) a dumbass, YES I do because anyone that says that the earth has been warming for the last 10 and 11 years after he has been shown the RECORDED facts is a dumbass.
Do I call Havakasha (lloyd) a dumbass, YES I do when he has been clearly shown that the Pryis cost more then 6,000 dollars then a Focus and that the gas it takes to drive both means it takes at least 12 years to even get the 6,000 dollars back not to mention the cost of not having the 6,000 dollars and the intrest it earns puts that amount of years even higher and he still does not get the fact hybrids are not economical then he is a dumbass.
Do I call Havakasha (lloyd) a dumbass, YES after he has been shown what the subsidies are on wind, hydro, coal, and nuke (thanks "just sirius") and sees that wind gets 29 dollars and the rest are between .16 and .37? cents and he still thinks they are economical and still does not understand the only thing keeping wind going is all the money the government is giving it. Then he is a dumbass and that is what he gets called.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
I dont have to it is a weak arguement it has something to do with deviating an arguement something you think you are good at but are not. You should look up what brick solid means.
No you just told me what I cant do, which was start a bunch of threads. Charles anyone sane that reads that PM says that is exactly what you said. Not to deviate but you also dont think that email you sent me was threating yet everyone that read it does. So what can I say I cant help you Charles. I will just say this have you ever wondered why when we got into these arguements Tyler and Newman never came to your defence. (and dont tell me they did not want to get involved because they have got involved before with others and you. I have also gotten into arguements with Tyler by himself so he will do it.)
Charles there is one fact and that is you have had said you have no problem with what we are doing now and that is what we were doing before we are starting threads in answer to other threads. There is little difference and you did delete threads that had links to them, that is exactly what is happening now. The fact that there were two or three threads in the mass of threads that you combined and deleted does not change the fact that besides the two or three threads that were as you said they were, THERE WERE MANY other threads that were not like that and are exactly like the ones you are seeing now but back then they were combined and deleted. Now ether you forgot what you did or dont realize what you did, I dont care. I pointed it out to you and you have yet to admit that you made that mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
No it is in response to what you said to JohnnyIrish about not deleting threads something I know you did when you combined all the others.
No I did not. I merged about 3-5 threads into one and then the posts are sorted by timestamp. Just so you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
I do remember deleting one of Havashkas posts but that is because he posted the same thread twice... it looked like an accident. They were completely identical.
It is not about deviating from something you think you are good at, it is about argueing something other then the actual point of the argument. Which is what you continue to do. For example, you say things like "you never said I could post as much as I want"... well no kidding... why would I? It goes without saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
No I did not, I said you couldn't start a million threads in an attempt to hijack the website. In context of all else that was said, it seemed clear to me that this meant that you could not create a bunch of personal attack threads at Havashka. It told him the same thing... he seems to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
Again, if I was not clear. I have since said it a dozen times... you should feel free to start as many on topic threads as you like.
Who is everyone? How else can I explain what the issue was and what would be done to rectify it? Again, that is not a threat but, I have already explained that so, here we are back to the circular conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
Because I am a big boy and they have better things to do with their time. If this whole back and forth was not related directly to me... I wouldnt be involved in it either. In the end, as we have seemingly accomplished nothing, it was a total waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
I think there is a big difference but the fact that you admit there is a difference is enough for me. You guys now know the rules, no one was banned, and we can all move along happily which was my goal from minute one.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
I have always posted as many threads as i have wanted. I have always known i could. I only have so much time in the day to post so i post what i think is most important for the day. Obviously its counterproductive to post endless threads but i didnt need Charles to tell me that. I have never had a problem understanding Charles directions. When i violate them i know i will have a time out. i know that i shouldn't put someones name in the thread heading. I know i shouldn't engage in personal attacks. I know i shouldn't write many new posts under my own thread. I hope i got that all about right? Now back to the political thread for the important issues and discussions of the day.:)