b19f7f1e
XPost: soc.support.fat-acceptance, rec.travel.air, rec.aviation.piloting
From: @
"Ragnar" wrote in message
news:bf4cf60e-1a58-4c76-9ead-c7bc1b602ce7@20g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 2, 7:29 pm, "Mike" wrote:
> > 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.goo
legroups.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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
