The problem is that we have stupid guns in the United States

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Disagree all you like, though you might be hard pushed to explain how bringing up simple bail conditions and conditions of release doesn't counter Augusts moan about some individual alledged criminals having their right to guns temporarily removed.
Then again recently you did have difficulty in understanding how all I had to do to show that one set of numbers didn't display the manipulation of another set of numbers was point out that they were in fact two different sets of numbers.
See how easy it is to present data that is contrary to the arguement.

What data? Am I to take your word for it? Would you like me to get into what exactly your word is worth around here?

Would you like the USC on bail conditions or would you like a state level breakdown?
How about some backround on further amendments because US citizens moaning to their government to impose tighter bail conditions because alledged criminals were re offending while on bail?

Or Perhaps would you like to see again that 2012 is not 2011?

Right now, anything would be better than what you are giving us, which is nothing. Well, not nothing, I'm getting a lot of rude remarks and emoticons, which may impress yubba but you have been around long enough to know that it won't fly with me. So, again, where are your facts?

Right, you have none.

I rail against yubba for his conspiracy theories and extreme yet naive political partisanship.

I think you rail against yubba because level water always finds itself. Don't like the comparison? You are in charge of you. It's what I always had to tell kids when I was teaching elementary school. It is also what I frequently have to tell you. Interesting, that.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

What data? Am I to take your word for it? Would you like me to get into what exactly your word is worth around here?

You are expected to read and to digest what is written, if you fail to do do so then it is you who is at fault and you should not be complaining because you have not understood.

Right now, anything would be better than what you are giving us, which is nothing. Well, not nothing, I'm getting a lot of rude remarks and emoticons, which may impress yubba but you have been around long enough to know that it won't fly with me. So, again, where are your facts?

Facts?
Lets see. Take a post you complained about.
1 It is totally misleading.
2 Not outlawed then.
3 Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.
4 Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
5 Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it. He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.

Show one line that is not factual.
Or considering the claim you made about it show one line which does not counter the line it was responding to.
3 of course is slightly different as that is a question for someone to provide the legislation of "whim" they say covers firearms.
5 is a rather good example, as that was someone else providing the data but not reading it and also not managing to notice the difference in what he was claiming and what I and his data was saying.
It also provides an example of August again parroting something which has already been shown as false.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Facts?
Lets see. Take a post you complained about.
1 It is totally misleading.
2 Not outlawed then.
3 Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.
4 Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
5 Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it. He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.

Show one line that is not factual.

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?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You are expected to read and to digest what is written, if you fail to do do so then it is you who is at fault and you should not be complaining because you have not understood.

Plastic fruit is not digestible.

Facts?
Lets see. Take a post you complained about.
1 It is totally misleading.
2 Not outlawed then.
3 Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.
4 Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
5 Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it. He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.

Show one line that is not factual.
Or considering the claim you made about it show one line which does not counter the line it was responding to.
3 of course is slightly different as that is a question for someone to provide the legislation of "whim" they say covers firearms.
5 is a rather good example, as that was someone else providing the data but not reading it and also not managing to notice the difference in what he was claiming and what I and his data was saying.
It also provides an example of August again parroting something which has already been shown as false.

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

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

Plastic fruit is not digestible.

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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

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.

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