2. You refuse to engage in meaningful discussion.
3. You utilize ad hominems to deflect criticism.

Why do you expect him to do what you never do? I have yet to see you present any facts of your own. Ever.

Yoo hoo, you're on his ignore list. :88)

The only point that either of us have been making is that he does the four things that I listed. Now he uses a combination of points 2 and 3 to attempt to worm out of the way and reframe the discussion. It's an elementary school trick.

He made a definate claim about the post of mine.
He should be able to back that up.
The post in question backs itself up as it was so simple.
The fact that my post is so simple to back up by itself shows how bad the initial claims it countered were.

BTW Steve are you repeating his mistake with words.

"never" "ever"
Strong words and very innapropriate.

See? He's nothing, if not predictable. I've been ignoring his attempts at this for about a page now, instead holding his feet to the fire. You can tell from the increased vitriol that it is a very uncomfortable thing for him.

No reframing of the discussion. You made a claim about a specific post and are completely unable to back it up.

1. You substitute polemics for facts.

He made a claim about your general posting habits, and his points were obvious to everyone but you.

Again, why? You never do.

Again, neither one of us are talking about any single post. It's the fact that you habitually play games without ever posting any facts of your own.

And again you try to divert the conversation away from yourself. You do like to play these games. You need to stop trolling and start contributing.

Increasing vitriol:har::har::har::har::har::har:

Do you understand that third word or the fifth one?
It certainly doesn't seem like it.

He knows that. But acknowledging it ruins his narrative. Here's the posts I made.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...0&postcount=92

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...6&postcount=97

He has attempted to reframe my replies in the second link to make them about specific data, rather than his lengthy and extensive posting history. At best it is dishonest. Again, grade school tricks.

Read it again.
You can read what it quoted too if you want and what that quoted.

Nope, that is in fact returning to the core of the discussion.
Remember the problem you had with the word ALL?

Notice a problem with absolutes?

He said you present no evidence or data. That is true. He said you rely on vague quoting and poor grammar to obsure the content. I might argue a couple of points, but for the most part that is also true.

And again you dance away from our real complaint, which is that consistently rely on ridicule, and only rarely provide anything positive, and that you attack other peoples facts, but never provide any of your own.

Yet again you try to turn attention away from your trolling habits. You need to start adding something to these forums, rather than constantly subtracting.

Notice a problem with absolutes?
A single example proves it to be false.

In the matter of data and evidence, in this topic I did offer to list US laws covering bail conditions just in case anyone didn't realise that Bail comes with conditions and wished to challenge that fact.:03:

Interesting
Notice what is missing?
Absolutes.

That depends on which of the complaints is the real complaint.

That contradicts his claims plus at the end you slip in to the error of absolutes again.

No, it is dealing with what is written.

What year is the owl from?
You may be using an owl from the wrong year and as such it cannot prove your point:O: