This is all I have to say about it. :rotfl2:


And that's final!:stare:

Troll? Pot-kettle. From where I sit he got it pretty much right.

Not an answer at all.

No. Why don't you tell me rather than dance around?

Yes, but that was you reacting again. What is your stance on the question of gun control? You've never said.

Not one of those lines actually says what you think about the subject. Every single one is a negative reaction to something someone else has said. This is your modus operandi: Always react, but never actually say anything concrete, and make sure that what you do say is an insult.

So...What is your stance on gun control?

Actually, he's expressing a feeling that more than a few people here have about you. You are the most intelligent troll this forum has ever seen, and you manage to get away with dancing right on the line over and over again, yet you are still a troll. Once in a blue moon you actually say something worth reading, but mostly it's these hit-and-run attacks, without actually stating a real opinion of your own.

So, what is your stance on gun control?

Plastic fruit is not digestible.

So your answer is "but...but....August!".

No the answer is plain.
Your claim was false.
It is demonstrated as being false.
Simple isn't it.:yeah:

That explains why you have problems, you are supposed to read the words.
I did wonder how you couldn't identify facts that were plainly presented to you.

No, all you demonstrated was that you tried to deflect the criticism by pointing at someone else. This is a textbook example of a tu quoque ad hominem used to obscure the point. Some light reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque


You did not pick up on the metaphor. I am not surprised.

Really Steve? You only have to look at the front page to positively and unquestionably confirm that Augusts claim is a lie.

Which comes to....
He agreed with a post that is demonstably false:yep:
Would you like me to point out the most obvious lie it contained?

It does actually, it says that all those lines of arguement which were countered must be rejected as an answer as they are not true.

Removing the answers that are not true is the method of reason you are objecting to.

Can you remember what was the reason I gave for objecting to that proposal?
It did go on for quite a while and I had to repeat the points often so it should have "registered", though on that occasion it was someone else who missed out the key details of legislation that I put in not you.

Strange, that objection was concrete and the reasoning behind and around it was presented and solid.

It is still evolving.
Is your view no longer evolving?

No, it demonstrates that your claim is false.
Would you like to be reminded of your words as yopu seem to be having problems with words?
Follow the sequence.

Tribesman has shown himself to be a master at countering people
For the first part, I disagree. Tribesman presents no evidence or data to the contrary of any argument

The reply to that shows your thoughts on the post in question are clearly incorrect.
Unless of course you can show how my reply was not factual and didn't counter Augusts attempted defence of that silly slogan:smug:
Very simple isn't it, if you want to object to what was written about a particular post you have to use both posts.
You manage to take it a step further by including Steves post yet fail to gather your information on the other two posts.
You are like the NRA mental database proposal, missing the key ingredients.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, kiddo. You're beaten. Move on and learn from it.

Here endeth the lesson.

Yeah right young man, you said that when you didn't understand that different years are different years.:har:
Saying it again doesn't make it true, being true makes it true
Unless you can show that the post didn't counter the false statements then all you are showing is that you are very wrong and seem to have a real problem understanding the word true.

Actually, you have demonstrated that what everyone has been saying about you has been completely true. Steve and I have been talking about four points regarding your behavior.

1. You substitute polemics for facts.
2. You refuse to engage in meaningful discussion.
3. You utilize ad hominems to deflect criticism.
4. You evade lines of direct questioning.

You have demonstrated for several pages now that these things are completely true, which is the only reason that I have been content to allow you to run your mouth for so long. I didn't defeat you; you defeated yourself.

Come along Takeda dear, you made a claim that the post didn't counter the points.
Don't try and run away from it. Stand by your words.
Either show that your claim was true or accept that it was false and has been shown as false.:smug:
You cannot deflect it.

Yoo hoo, look in the mirror:har:

BTW as it is words you are having problems with , do you know what this word means "everyone" ?
Or are you just demonstrating that you have a hard time when it comes to simple facts.

I was referring to the things he said about you.
Not quite true. You have from time to time actually contributed something. I'd say 20% contribution and 80% attack mode.

That pretty much nails it.


The things he said about you are demostrably false? I think he has you pegged.


You counter lines of argument. True, but you do it in the most objectionable way possible, using it as a reason to mock people.

No, what I'm objecting to is the fact that you attack other people's arguments, but you don't make any of your own.

The point now is that you didn't make any proposals of your own.

It was all in your head. You may think you have an answer, but you never come across that way. You come across as insulting and arrogant, and you seem to live to belittle people. We're not talking about an argument you may or may not have made. We're talking about the way you go about it.

Always, but on any given day I'm more than willing to say what it is. You never say what it is, you only say why others are wrong.

So, what is your stance on gun control?