XPost: soc.support.fat-acceptance, rec.travel.air, rec.aviation.piloting   
   From: @   
      
   "The Master"  wrote in message   
   news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0812030040120.21835@sdf.lonestar.org...   
   > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Mike wrote:   
   >   
   > >>  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.   
   >   
   > While I agree that the Usenet does not normally host "formal debates", it   
   > is still considered good form to provide support to your statements when   
   > asked to do so.  Put up or shut up, if you will.  However, it seems   
   > obvious that you are refusing to do either one.   
      
   No problem.  99.9% of the time, usenet me2 geeks like you are full of $hit,   
   and the fact that you simply repeat the failed arguments of a troll clearly   
   show what side of the percentage you're on.   
      
   On another note, you have absolutely no idea what your'e talking about.  I   
   did support my statement very concisely had you taken the time to read all   
   of the thread rather than just making a half-baked response.   
      
   > > I'm the one who used the figure of speech, proof-boy.  It NEVER was an   
   > > "assertion of absolute truth".   
   >   
   > Ah, ok.  Then that settles it, you were just talking out of your ass.   
   > Thank you for clearing that question up for us.   
   >   
   > Skinny people are all asshole communists trying to take over the world by   
   > murdering capitalists.  Not true?  Oh, well I didn't really mean it as an   
   > absolute truth...  ;)   
      
   While I'm sure you're quite skilled at debating 'serious' issues, like what   
   corner of the universe Dr. Who's latest sidekick is from, you're seriously   
   out of your league if you want to tangle with me, sonny.  I will give you a   
   piece of advice.  If you want to pass yourself off as an expert on   
   "debates", it might not be a good idea to include a fallacious analogy in   
   the same message.  It only makes you look that much more like an idiot,   
   which in your case is truly saying something.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)