Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > EverQuest > Rants and Flames


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2002, 07:35 AM   #26
Ice Weasel X
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>Ice: Really? Isnt that what your doing? If you get to do that why cant I?
If that is what I am doing.[/quote]I'm going to take a wild stab at this and guess that you're referring to this part of my reply:<blockquote>I wrote:<hr>If you're such a "crusader for truth and justice," then you should be doing your best to prove to people that what you say is true, not just claiming it is. &nbsp;It seems to me that you don't in fact care as much about the truth as you'd like people to believe. &nbsp;You'd rather annoy people.[/quote]See, the thing is, I'm not a self-proclaimed crusader for truth and justice. &nbsp;You are, yet you balk when asked for evidence. &nbsp;You derive more pleasure from saying, "I don't need to explain myself," which you know is going to annoy people. &nbsp;When I make a claim, I provide actual evidence. &nbsp;I don't come up with some imaginary loophole that "frees me from such constraints" so I don't have to prove that I'm not making up whatever it is I'm saying.

I don't like lying - I prefer using the truth to get things done, and if you don't believe me, I have people who can vouch for me (yes, even monks). &nbsp;When someone shows me evidence that I'm wrong about something, I accept it. &nbsp;I don't call the person a sheep, a bottom-feeder, or a wannabe. &nbsp;I won't say I don't stoop to namecalling, because honestly, it's fun at times. &nbsp;I just won't make an unsubstantiated claim about someone (I'll call you delusional, but I won't say you're a Gopher wannabe).


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>Lets see you find nothing 'I' have written in the thread to flame so you copy
Ice and then flame me for something Ice said.[/quote]Actually, he probably clicked on the links I provided (see, there's that evidence thing) and read what you wrote in previous threads.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 07:49 AM   #27
Chiteng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ice


Well Ice,
You certainly are not a peer and I dont intend to extend YOU the courtesy of
any type of explanation. The thread I am posting in has and had nothing whatever
to do with any links YOU may have brought in and therefore his post was extraneous. You are in my judgement an unprincipled and dishonest punk.
Now you may call THAT name calling, it is ALSO opinion, and need NOT be
substantiated, however much you may demand it. You are no more than Melkor.

You make many claims and I find VERY few of them valid. I am not interested
in YOUR interpetation of my posts, which is actually what you posted. Your interpetation may entertain YOU, but it impresses ME not at all.

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 08:14 AM   #28
Naedayr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ice


Well Chiteng,
You certainly are not a peer and I dont intend to extend YOU the courtesy of listening to any of your explanations. The thread(s) you post in have everything to do with any links ANYONE may have brought in and therefore any post is NOT extraneous. You are in my judgement unable to answer any question and morally undisciplined.
Now I call THAT name calling, but it is ALSO opinion, and sometimes those DO need to be
substantiated, however much you may demand it. You are no more than screaming wind.

You make many claims and I think VERY few find them valid. I am not interested
in YOUR interpetation of any events, which is a jaded and unrealistic view. Your interpetation may entertain YOU, but it impresses NO-ONE not at all.

"It is clear that he who quotes someone calling people a monster for persecuting others, and then persecutes people...deserves the humor everyone finds in that situation" - Nae

See, two people can write a lot and not answer anything. It doesn't get anything resolved. Here is an idea, instead of asking all of 'Them' what they would think about something you posted to show absolute proof... just post it and your evaluation of the subject and let that stand. You know, let the logic of your evaluation win people, not the fact that you want everyone think you are a poor vicitm and the man is trying to keep you d
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 08:30 AM   #29
Ice Weasel X
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>You certainly are not a peer and I dont intend to extend YOU the courtesy of
any type of explanation.[/quote]There's that "I don't have to explain myself" garbage again. &nbsp;You don't have to explain jack shit to me (mainly because I know your explanations are just more delusional prattle), but what about all those people you claim you want to enlighten, yet are only confusing?


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>The thread I am posting in has and had nothing whatever
to do with any links YOU may have brought in and therefore his post was extraneous.[/quote]The threads I posted links to are actually very relevant to the point I was making, which is that you have a bad habit of making sweeping generalizations that make you look like a closed-minded fool (not that those are the only aspects of your posts that do that).


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>You are in my judgement an unprincipled and dishonest punk.[/quote]That's nice. &nbsp;Those threads I linked gave perfect examples of what your judgement is worth.

<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>Now you may call THAT name calling, it is ALSO opinion, and need NOT be
substantiated, however much you may demand it.[/quote]Hmm... I can see where you misunderstood what I said regarding this. &nbsp;What I meant was I won't use unsubstantiated judgemental characterizations. &nbsp;If I just want to call someone names, I'll call someone names (which is why I sometimes refer to you as Chit'lin's or Shitbang).


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>You are no more than Melkor.[/quote]Why would this bother me? &nbsp;It might aggravate Melkore, but it holds no meaning for me.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>You make many claims and I find VERY few of them valid.[/quote]I make claims, but I back them up with proof (again, those cross-referenced messages). &nbsp;I guess that's why you don't like to use evidence, because what you don't see "obviously" isn't there. &nbsp;Ostrichhead-in-the-sand disorder, I see.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 08:36 AM   #30
Chiteng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Naewhatever


You always have the option of not reading them. You certainly wont get me to stop posting. If you think that by 'claiming' your a peer (that is what copying
my post does) means you ARE a peer, your wrong. Your not a peer unless I agree you are. Now go play in the sandbox with Ice.

To be a peer, you must tell the 'whole' truth and not just the parts you want
to make your points. You cannot 'withhold' some element just because it weakens
your argument. You see that is what makes 'Ice' dishonest. He doesnt tell the
'whole' truth. He may console himself with whatever rationale he wants, it makes no difference. 'I' know it and so does 'he' and several of the people 'he' calls
freinds.

I dont know you from Adam. Your just some name that wandered in out of nowhere. You want to be treated seriously, you will have to do better than that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 08:57 AM   #31
Feldynn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Naewhatever


What is this "peer" thing you're talking about Chiteng?? Who's peer, your peer??

Is EVERYTHING you say the 'whole' truth, without any single element missed out??
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 09:06 AM   #32
Reddoak Whispershot
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Naewhatever


Ok, I've stood by long enough watching you twist words and meanings around enough Chiteng...

From www.dictionary.com :
peer

n 1: a person who is of equal standing with another in a group [syn: equal, match, compeer] 2: (British) a nobleman (duke or marquis or earl or viscount or baron) who is a member of the British peerage v : look searchingly; "We peered into the back of the shop to see whether a salesman was around"
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University
Yet according to you...
Your not a peer unless I agree you are. ... To be a peer, you must tell the 'whole' truth and not just the parts you want to make your points.
In going along the lines of the true definition, a peer is someone of equal standing with another in a group. We are all of equal standing here on the message board (we all signed up the same way, we all have the same posting rights), save the admins of course, so don't go pulling this "I don't have to explain this to you because you aren't equal to me" crap.

Frankly, I'm just plain disgusted by your lack of consideration for ANY opinion other than your own. Your self-serving crusade's only beating a dead horse these days, yet you still insist you are right and we are wrong...

By the way, before you go saying that I'm a sheep or some other predictable response to say my post means nothing (cause I know you will), feel free to take a long look at yourself in the mirror and ask: "Am I an admin of this board?", "Do I have some power over the other persons on this message board that automatically makes me right and them wrong?". If you can answer yes to both of these questions, I can only assume you've been doing drugs again, cause the obvious answers are NO!

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 09:22 AM   #33
Ice Weasel X
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>If you think that by 'claiming' your a peer (that is what copying
my post does)[/quote]OK, from where in your ass did you pull that one, and did you have to loosen it with a Q-tip first?


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>You cannot 'withhold' some element just because it weakens
your argument. You see that is what makes 'Ice' dishonest. He doesnt tell the
'whole' truth.[/quote]This actually made me crack a smile. &nbsp;You withhold information all the time with the excuse of "I don't have to explain myself to anyone." &nbsp;What information am I withholding? &nbsp;Prove it. &nbsp;You also keep referring to information I'm privy to that I shouldn't have. &nbsp;What is it? &nbsp;Oh, that's right. &nbsp;It doesn't exist. &nbsp;You're throwing out unsubstantiated claims now, as usual.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>'I' know it and so does 'he' and several of the people 'he' calls
freinds.[/quote]Nope. &nbsp;More unsubstantiated claims. &nbsp;You erroneously said that you had information about me from one of my "very close friends," yet none of them would ever tell you personal information about me unless I let them. &nbsp;About the only thing you "know" is that pink clouds form around the tactile extensions just above the cardiac chambers of my 10/100 switchbox's styrofoam orgasm. &nbsp;You're nuts.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 10:07 AM   #34
Chiteng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ice.and whoever


In common parlance 'peer' means someone whos opinion you respect.
Therefore, you may well choose to argue with them in the hope of 'learning'
or 'exploring' an issue.

That isnt what is happening here. For example in NO post anywhere did I say
'a very close friend of you gave me personal information about you'
YET, that is exactly what 'Ice' would have you believe I have said. That is not true.
You see not even VENDRIX claims everything I say on certain topics is invalid,
he just thinks its amusing that I care. Ice would have you believe that unless
you 'prove' something (that of course means to 'his' satisfaction) that it isnt true.
No 'Ice' it means 'YOU' wont accept it as true. Not the same thing.

I am not interested in you little parsing games. That is why I wont explain things to you. You ARE dishonest and I know you are, and so do you. Anytime you comment on a topic where the 'conclusion' YOU portray is contrary to the observed
facts that anyone else has seen, you just proved you were dishonest to them also.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you have given yourself away to many people,
no they wont come here and support me, likely because they dislike me more than you. But they are still aware of what you are doing. You demand 'proof' of you being dishonest and then turn around and preclude 'any' proof as sufficient.
These little mind games 'may' impress 'you' but they dont 'me' and frankly
I doubt they impress as many people as you think. Yours is the arrogance of intelligent youth. You think you cant get caught. Well you go one and believe that.

Listening to you is like listening to a 'Goodfellow' demanding proof. I am not a cop
or a jurist, I dont need 'your' standard of proof.


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 10:22 AM   #35
Lumpy Hammerfell
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default chiteng


Who is worthy of an argument with you then? You simply take the high road and "dodge" the issues. If you were out to prove a point, wouldnt it make more sense to use facts to actually PROVE the point rather than act like a petulant child and state you are above such argument? I will admit you get baited alot on these boards, but damnit man, admit when you are wrong once in a while and im sure you would gain a hell of alot more respect than you do now. And if you feel you are above debating with people on these boards, then why post at all? Simply to get a rise? That means you are no better than Dwarkarn. Actually you are worse, at least dwarkarn knows he is an @#%$. and why he does what he does.

lumpy
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 10:30 AM   #36
Chiteng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Lumpy


When I am proven wrong I do admit it, and I do apologize.
I have done this in the past several times and in private several times.
I refer you to the DAOC forum of this board and suggest you look under
'Apology to Celdor'

Celdor is hardly one of my fans.

It isnt possible to 'prove' anything to someone who doesnt wish to see the proof.
To 'try' to 'prove' anything to the likes of 'Ice' is simple folly. He just wants to show off. I am not impressed with his stunts. To continue to joust with him
'implies' that his argument has some type of credence' If I dont see it that way,
why bother doing that? As I said in my first post on this thread,

Even if I proved to EVERYONES standards that everything I have ever said
on the board was gospel, it would have NO impact whatever. None.

So why validate 'Ice'? That means I am willing to play 'his' game. I am not.
And I am also doing him the 'courtesy' of telling him I wont.
As I have said before, if you want my participation, we do it 'my' way.
I dont need Ice's participation. His absence wont even be noticed.

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 10:43 AM   #37
Maximus Faticus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Lumpy


Calling someone a liar is easy, but proving someone is a liar is harder, and has much more creditability. It's easier to believe your statements if you have something to back it up. I'm sure you can see the logic in that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 10:44 AM   #38
Raedwulf
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Under Chiteng Logic your conclusion is essentially:
"Blue."

You've learned from the master dodger well. Good job at ignoring most of my post, and just responding to a single line. Way to go on Out-Of-Context 101! I give you an A-.

There's nothing within my post that could possibly demonstrate anything like your "semantic logic" conclusion. [Did you read the college course catalog again?] In any event, of course I think my opinions are right, and those of yours that disagree with mine, wrong. That's pretty much a given regarding anyone. You have asserted the same position, Mushroom Boy, so you clearly do agree with it (just with the subject of the pronouns changed). Validity isn't the question.

I could try and explain the difference between facts and opinions to you, but you clearly aren't going to try and comprehend these things. Suffice it to say that I don't think you can prove my opinions wrong, and I can't prove yours wrong either. You have your opinions and I have mine. I can demonstrate that some of your facts might be in error or that you are ignoring certain facts in an effort to get you to change your opinions/conclusions, but I can't prove an opinion wrong. I can hold the opinion that your conclusion is wrong, but I can't prove it. Neither can you.

Over the last 9 months :lol: , trying to get you to realize the errors of some your "facts" has been most of what I've tried to do. Aside from the entertaining sideline of teasing you.

Thank you for validating my self worth by making me the subject of yet another of your threads. You make me so proud. 8o
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 10:45 AM   #39
Maximus Faticus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Lumpy


Oh! Thats a bad ass sig Zhaolin!
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 10:52 AM   #40
Chiteng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Raedwulf


Raedwulf, you have become no more than tiresome. Any computer programmer
can tell you what 'abstract algerbra' is. "Ice' claims he is such a student so perhaps he can comment. 'Symbolic Logic' is an inter-related discipline. A person
who does well in one class can take the other as well and pad their transcript.
However, you cant avoid learning something when you do it.

Your belief isnt needed.

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 11:11 AM   #41
Gloriana Frostglitter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Raedwulf


I think I've finally figured out why Chiteng is so difficult. He doesn't speak the same language we do!

Even simple terms, he gets wrong (like in an earlier thread where he didn't understand the term "fanatic"). In this case, he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "peer."

In common parlance 'peer' means someone whos opinion you respect.

BZZZZZT!

Peer has nothing to do with respect. The dictionary definition is:

A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in ran
1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
As individuals who play the same computer game, we are all peers. I don't have to respect you, but in this game, you are my peer.

So, I think this point illustrates a typical frustration experienced when attempting to converse with Chiteng (and I'm sure his frustrations when he attempts to talk to us!) he has a poor vocabulary and has no idea that he frequently uses words incorrectly or assigns them an invalid meaning.

What we really need is a Chiteng to English dictionary in order to get our point across using words incorrectly so he can understand us.

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 11:13 AM   #42
Chiteng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Max


Really? Heh I did what 'Ice' demands when I linked two Melkor posts together
'proving' by 'Ice' standards that Melkor was dishonest. Dd you read an further
comment on that issue? Has Melkor dissappeared from all posts? Not at all.

The issue was dropped like a hot potatoe.

Dont fool yourself into thinking that 'if' some conformity is made it will assuage
the detractors, no I am afraid not. The people are entrenched and have their
'status' on the line. They cant back up. Even the ability to think is subordinated
to the unstated goal.

No Max your words are well intentioned I can see that, but it wont do any good,

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 11:20 AM   #43
Maximus Faticus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Max


I think Chiteng you may be getting peer and acquaintance mixed up. It's an easy mistake.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 11:31 AM   #44
Gloriana Frostglitter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Max


Who says you have to respect an acquaintance?

1a. Knowledge of a person acquired by a relationship less intimate than friendship. b. A relationship based on such knowledge: struck up an acquaintance with our new neighbor. 2. A person whom one knows. 3. Knowledge or information about something or someone: has a passing acquaintance with Chinese history.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 11:34 AM   #45
Raedwulf
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Vendrix: Once again, you Da Man!

Maeri: Well said.

Naedayr: Welcome to the party. Have a beer. Your post was quite well done, too.

Ice and Reddoak: As we all know, you are spitting in the wind trying to use logic, evidence, grammar, actual word definitions, or any other device to indicate to Chit that he is wrong. Although it is patently obvious that he is, he will never admit he is, or even acknowledge the possibility. I wish I was back in college doing my psych thesis. He'd make a phenomenal subject.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 11:45 AM   #46
Maximus Faticus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

If I don't respect someone they aren't acquaintance, thats how I see it anyways.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 11:52 AM   #47
Gloriana Frostglitter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

*eye roll*

Welcome to the Chiteng School of Incorrect Word Usage. If you intend to converse with other people successfully, you just can't give your own connotations to words. They won't understand you because THEY are using the word correctly.

I mean, what if you decide that for you, green means blue and blue means green? It's the same thing.

"Cut the green wire to disarm the bomb, whatever you do, don't cut the blue one or we'll all die!"

*snip*

*BOOM*
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 12:01 PM   #48
Maximus Faticus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

I should have worded it like this. I don't make acquaintances with people I don't respect, or If I don't respect someone they aren't my acquaintance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 01:21 PM   #49
Ice Weasel X
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>In common parlance 'peer' means someone whos opinion you respect.[/quote]Tell that to the judge next time they're putting together a jury of peers.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>That isnt what is happening here. For example in NO post anywhere did I say
'a very close friend of you gave me personal information about you'
YET, that is exactly what 'Ice' would have you believe I have said.<hr>Chiteng previously wrote:<hr>No Ice all I have to say is that you telegraph your every move. Nothing you do
is unexpected. Yes you can perplex me NOT by doing something with HTML,
I knew you were responsible and You KNOW I knew. I just ddnt know HOW you did
it. <font color=#E9D756>You are as a very close freind of yours said very young, a showoff.</font>
Your parents instead of telling you how bright you are should have disciplined you.
But now its too late. Your too busy displaying to everyone how awesome you are
you dont even see when your losing ground.[/quote]None of my very close friends have ever commented here about my age or whether I'm a showoff. &nbsp;Keep up those unsubstantiated claims, they really work for you. &nbsp;Seriously.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>Ice would have you believe that unless
you 'prove' something (that of course means to 'his' satisfaction) that it isnt true.
No 'Ice' it means 'YOU' wont accept it as true. Not the same thing.[/quote]No, I would have people believe that if you're so serious about spreading the truth, then you wouldn't be so reluctant to prove the supposed facts that are clashing with what people believe. &nbsp;Instead, you tell people they are worthless and refuse to prove anything.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>I am not interested in you little parsing games. That is why I wont explain things to you. You ARE dishonest and I know you are, and so do you.[/quote]That's just a bad statement. &nbsp;Try to find someone who has never lied (other than those who can't speak or haven't been able to speak for very long). &nbsp;However, I am hardly known for being dishonest. &nbsp;I'm more honest than most, which is one of the main reasons I don't lose friends easily and why I found your comments about my friends in that other thread so ridiculous.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>Anytime you comment on a topic where the 'conclusion' YOU portray is contrary to the observed
facts that anyone else has seen, you just proved you were dishonest to them also.[/quote]I call 'em as I see 'em, and I avoid arguing through dishonesty. &nbsp;It's much more gratifying knowing I'm right.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>You demand 'proof' of you being dishonest and then turn around and preclude 'any' proof as sufficient.[/quote]No, real proof is acknowledged. &nbsp;You presenting a hypothetical situation and adding a few things here and there is not proof.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>These little mind games 'may' impress 'you' but they dont 'me' and frankly
I doubt they impress as many people as you think.[/quote]These little apostrophes 'may' impress 'you,' but they don't impress 'me.' &nbsp;Frankly, I don't give a damn if I'm impressing people. &nbsp;The sheer feeling of disbelief that someone can be as paranoid and deluded as you is more of a reason to argue with you than impressing random_stranger_78.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>Yours is the arrogance of intelligent youth.[/quote]Mine is the arrogance of reasonable logic. &nbsp;Yours is the delusion of an orc being trained on a newbie today being a result of Vendrix getting Ewle banned.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>You think you cant get caught.[/quote]Get caught doing what? &nbsp;I'm not doing anything.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>Well you go one and believe that.[/quote]I guess I'll have to, seeing as it's the truth.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>Listening to you is like listening to a 'Goodfellow' demanding proof.[/quote]Listening to you is like listening to that FBI agent in "The Frighteners."


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>"Ice' claims he is such a student so perhaps he can comment.[/quote]Actually, I claim no such thing. &nbsp;I'm not in college anymore. &nbsp;I've been out for quite some time now.


<blockquote>Chiteng wrote:<hr>The issue was dropped like a hot potatoe.[/quote]Chiteng = Dan Quayle? &nbsp;No wonder you know so much about conspiracies!
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 04:44 PM   #50
Maeri
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Guildon/Maeri


> you find nothing 'I' have written in the thread to flame

My comment was directed at two conflicting quotes taken directly from your posts in this thread.

As Ice suggested, my other comments were directed at the content of the links he provided, and used his summary rather than quoting your entire text here. Your intial post contained

> If [...] everything I had ever claimed on this board was true

Thus the links to things you have claimed on this board are clearly relevant. Perhaps you disagree with his interpretation. I'll quote you directly then:

I have never delibretly trained anyone. EVER.

However I have observed enough about the other people on this board to know
I am a singular exception.
Please explain how this is not claiming that everyone else who posts to these boards delibretly (sic) trains people. Also, looking closely at that statement. I don't know how you can have "observed enough about the other people on this board" to know that you are a "singular" exception, unless you've seen every single person who's posted to this board train people, and known that it's deliberate. If not you have, as Ice states, made sweeping (and probably baseless) generalisations.

From my point of view, they are merely teasing the males to get ego-boosts. That is sick. But I am sure that MY way of looking at it, isnt the ONLY way.
OK, you're honest enough (occasionally) to admit that there may be other points of view than your own. And I suppose you can argue that that particular statement is technically true. I won't dispute that that may be your point of view, or that the attitude you believe is in place is pretty sick. I won't dispute the fact that your point of view is sick either.


> When I am proven wrong I do admit it

To be really pedantic, this would make it rather tricky to prove that "everything I had ever claimed on this board was true". Either the initial statement, or the admission that it was false cannot be true.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:47 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.