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

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.
You cannot deflect it.


Yoo hoo, look in the mirror

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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, look in the mirror

Yoo hoo, you're on his ignore list.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

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.

Why do you expect him to do what you never do?

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

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.

Now he uses a combination of points 2 and 3 to attempt to worm out of the way and reframe the discussion.

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

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

He made a definate claim about the post of mine.

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

He should be able to back that up.

Again, why? You never do.

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.

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.

BTW Steve are you repeating his mistake with words.

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.

You can tell from the increased vitriol that it is a very uncomfortable thing for him.

Increasing vitriol

1. You substitute polemics for facts.

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

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

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.

He made a claim about your general posting habits

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

And again you try to divert the conversation away from yourself

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

Again, neither one of us are talking about any single post.

Notice a problem with absolutes?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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.

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

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.

Notice a problem with absolutes?

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.

He said you present no evidence or data.

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.

I might argue a couple of points, but for the most part that is also true.

Interesting
Notice what is missing?
Absolutes.

And again you dance away from our real complaint

That depends on which of the complaints is the 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.

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

Yet again you try to turn attention away from your trolling habits.

No, it is dealing with what is written.

[Takeda Shingen]

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