ba5e3b79   
   XPost: soc.support.fat-acceptance, rec.travel.air, rec.aviation.piloting   
   From: @   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:e876e7ab-23f5-43d6-8949-9682b331a205@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Dec 1, 9:43 pm, "Mike"  wrote:   
   > > "Ragnar"  wrote in message   
   > >   
   > > news:837dc6f5-57b8-4d49-a37d-0a92eb507d16@t11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...   
   > >   
   > > > On Dec 1, 12:51 pm, "Mike"  wrote:   
   > > > > You can't answer the question other than to simply repeat your   
   > > > > previous   
   > > > > nonsense.   
   > >   
   > > > > Diversion noted.   
   > >   
   > > > How is asking for proof of your generalization a diversion. Diversion   
   > > > is doing everything to avoid providing the asked for data, which by   
   > > > the way, YOU are guilty of.   
   > >   
   > > > Inability to follow the thread logically noted.   
   > >   
   > > I asked you what the "original claim" had to do with any of your   
   > > arguments.   
   > > You have yet to answer the question. Instead all you have to offer is   
   > > diversion.   
   > >   
   > > Why do you need the simplest concepts explained to you?   
   > >   
   > > It's a rhetorical question, BTW. Obviously it's because you are full of   
   > > $hit.   
   > >   
   >  You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing with you when   
   > all I’m doing is asking for the supporting info to back your bullshit.   
   > I guess you can’t figure out how to accommodate a simple common   
   > request. Since you are someone that claims to be intelligent (a matter   
   > of debate) you should be aware that factual informational sources are   
   > normally required when making statements or assertions of absolute   
   > truth. Rhetorical or colloquial statements are for casual conversation   
   > and not for logical discussions concerning hard numbers and facts.   
      
   Oh, this is TOO much, proof-boy.  Now you want to claim usenet is some form   
   of highly formalized document which can NEVER venture into the non-literal.   
   Good luck on your campaign of convincing ANYONE of that nonsense, proof-boy.   
   It was good for a chuckle though, and I would never want to discourage   
   someone from making a complete idiot out of themselves so by all means   
   expand on that 'thought' as the entertainment value alone is not going to   
   leave a dry eye in the house.   
      
   I'm the one who used the figure of speech, proof-boy.  It NEVER was an   
   "assertion of absolute truth".  I'm sure you think you can simply keep   
   throwing that BS against the wall and maybe it will stick someday, but it   
   ain't proof-boy.  Repeating the same BS over and over does not grant it any   
   validity.  In fact, the reverse is true.  The more you whine and cry about   
   it, the more you become a BS artist.   
      
   > > > > It doesn't matter if there are hundreds or thousands of causes,   
   > > > > pinhead.   
   > >   
   > > > > The PRIMARY cause is too many calories and/or not enough activity.   
   > > > > You   
   > > > > don't have to be a physicist to know the sky is blue and water is   
   > > > > wet,   
   > > > > either BTW.   
   > >   
   > > > Again, provide the proof for your generalizations and we can call it   
   > > > a day. Until then your opinion is noted but not considered absolute   
   > > > fact. Obesity is still a multi-faceted issue no matter how childlike   
   > > > and simplistic you want it to be. Maybe complex issues like obesity   
   > > > are too hard for you to understand and you need to dumb it down so   
   > > > your head doesn’t explode?   
   > >   
   > > Actually you're the one that needs everything dumbed down. I'll dumb it   
   > > down even more for you since you've decided to sink to even lower levels   
   > > of   
   > > stupidity.   
   > >   
   > More Bullshit noted.   
      
   Hardly.  You prove it more with each post, proof-boy.   
      
   > > 99.9% is actually a very common figure of speech (if you need a   
   > > definition   
   > > for "figure of speech" let me know and I'll try to dumb it down to even   
   > > further levels for you). This means that 99.9% of the time when someone   
   > > uses the term "99.9%" they really aren't quoting any exact,   
   > > scientifically   
   > > proven fact, but are instead exaggerating for rhetorical purposes (if   
   > > I'm   
   > > using words with too many syllables, let me know and I'll try to dumb it   
   > > down to even further levels for you). It would be rather like someone   
   > > saying, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.   
   > >   
   >  More diversionary bullshit noted.   
      
   Just TRY explaining exactly how, proof-boy.   
      
   I dare you.   
      
   In fact, I double-dog dare you.   
      
   Did I not say, verbatim, "99.9%"?   
      
   Yes or no?   
      
   Is 99.9%, in fact, a very commonly used auxesis?   
      
   Yes or no?   
      
   Just answer no to either one of those questions, proof-boy.   
      
   Do you dare sink to THAT level of stupidity?   
      
   TOO LATE!!!!   
      
   I've already fully explained why you aren't getting the "proof" you keep   
   whimpering about, so either you can accept it, or you can keep squealing   
   "diversion" instead of answering questions that reveal just how silly and   
   childish you really are.  I'll also give you a big hint here. If you don't   
   answer, it speaks volumes more than if you had, but have it your way.   
      
   > > You see, proof-boy, sometimes intelligent people depart from the literal   
   > > for   
   > > rhetorical effect. It's assumed that the receiver or such rhetoric is   
   > > intelligent enough to understand the phrase was never intended to be   
   > > taken   
   > > literally, but in your case that was obviously a poor assumption. Now if   
   > > you are interested in improving your literacy (probably a poor   
   > > assumption   
   > > again), I suggest you research something called an auxesis which is the   
   > > particular rhetoric I employed.   
   > >   
   > Right, next you will be saying that you only post to educate all us   
   > dumbasses, lol   
   > Good try, but you fail.   
      
   Proof-boy builds himself another strawman to burn down.  Is that REALLY the   
   best you can do, proof-boy?  Do you really think you are clever for   
   employing your BS tactics?  I'm sure it must really torque you off,   
   proof-boy, but some of us outgrew those debate tactics in primary school.   
   Now perhaps you think your silly games work against others, proof-boy, but I   
   can read you like a book and play you like a tune.  Don't forget that.   
      
   I post for various reasons, and educating cretins like you is not one of   
   them, I can assure you.  The ONLY reason I reply to trolls like you is   
   simply for the entertainment value a CS like you can offer, and in that   
   regard you certainly haven't disappointed me, proof-boy, but keep employing   
   simpleton tactics like these and you will.  The result will be I will no   
   longer pull your chain.   
      
   > BTW, intelligent people do research and have supporting data before   
   > they shoot their mouths off and make blanket statements or sweeping   
   > generalizations. Your excuse for being a knee jerk dumbass doesn’t fly   
   > dipshit.   
      
   Proof....   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)